I'm not really for or against Lance Armstrong, but it does seem that as the dust settles on that era, the rampant use of PEDs has become obvious. I heard the editor of Velo News cycling publication interviewed today and he said that there is essentially no one that shared a medal stand with Armstrong who has not already been disqualified from being declared the winner for similar violations. I can see one or two witnesses being suspicious as sour grapes, but when there are ten plus and the team doctors and directors also accused, it looks like a lot more than a vendetta.
He's got a $100+ million that were made on a reputation for tenacity and he decides to not fight charges that will strip him of his titles? That's his decision, but I don't see how anyone can argue his decision undermines the presumption of innocence. If you are charged and don't show up to challenge or rebut the evidence, you are going to lose. He can say what he wants about why he didn't show up, but I don't find it convincing.