In this Country you have an inalienable right to a Trial By the Media...

The New “abridged version” of the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution: In all criminal prosecutions involving Tour winners, the accused shall enjoy the right to a long long long drawn out pre-trial circus that may last for years, may not even result in a trial, and will be paid for by taxpayers monies, ...by a partial jury consisting of the Media and convicted dopers accompanied by public relations attorneys, ghost writers, and talk show hosts, ...and to be not be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation...etc...

I know that I shouldn’t be, I should be use to it by now...but once again I am both dismayed and distressed at how easily the simple masses can be manipulated by the mainstream media. The notion that a convicted full-on "tattle-tail" doper with well-documented psychological and substance abuse issues can go onto 60 Minutes, shed a tear or two and subsequently turn public opinion against an iconic cycling champion that has never been charged with any wrong doing during his long cycling career, speaks well to the ever increasing fragile nature of this democratic republic. I hope that I don’t have to point out to you that at this point in the matter, it is irrelevant if Lance did or did not use drugs to win all those Tours of France. For the record I have NOT seen Lance do drugs...

“Four legs good, two legs bhaddddd.”
“Tyler good, Lance bhaddd.”

The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred by the Latin Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty) is a FUNDAMENTAL legal right of the accused in a criminal trial. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to proof that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of remaining doubts, the accused is to be acquitted. This presumption is seen to stem from the Latin legal principle that ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies)...Source: Wikipedia.

Apart from the Trial by biased Media... 60 Minutes' public conviction of Lance is also based on simple faulty logic as exemplified below:

Charlie travels with a group of students to Wabasha, MN for the first time in their lives. They see 10 people, all of them children under the age of 14. Charlie asks a kid,"Any adults live here?" The kid says, "Almost everyone, nearly everyone, just about EVERYBODY that lives here is a kid." Charlie and his students return to Esko and report that there are no adult residents living in Wabasha. or....

The Non-cycling poorly informed, easily swayed public learns about systemic doping in professional cycling for the first time in their lives by watching Tyler Hamilton's heartfelt and tragic confession on 60 minutes last Sunday. Hamilton is portrayed as a victim of drugs and Lance is typed cast as the evil drug pusher. The American people return to their places of work and report that there are no " clean" professional cyclists. Lance Armstrong is a professional cyclist; so he is not clean. Lance is bad. Or...

Premise 1: Hamilton and Landis were professional bicycle racers and they hung out with Lance. Hamilton is nice.

Premise 2: Lance is a professional bike racer. Lance is mean.

Premise 3: Hamilton and Landis used illegal drugs and now they cry a lot because they had to use the drugs ‘cuz almost everybody else was using drugs. Lance even made Tyler use drugs, sorta...

Premise 4: Did I mention that Hamilton and Landis contend that most everybody in the sport used drugs, including Lance and that it makes them very sad to think about it now that they got caught (and Lance did not get caught). Did I mention that Lance is not nice to people that accuse him of being a doper or to Sheryl Crow or to LeMond.

Obvious Conclusion: Lance is guilty...Lance used drugs. Bad Lance. Bad Bad Lance and good, but poor Tyler...