being 'slightly outraged'? Firstly you can't paint yourself as a disinterested, impartial observer in the first sentence and then point out your emotional involvement in the next. Or at least you can't do it intelligently. Secondly - and I really can't stress this enough to ALL OF YOU OUT THERE WHO KEEP REPEATING THIS CLAP-TRAP - he DID test positive. More than once. Period! And he WAS innocent until proven guilty but he has just thrown that away - the case against him is now so strong that he does not feel able to contest it. Are you suggesting that putting your fingers in your ears and repeating "la-la-la-la-la I'm not listening" is a compelling defence?? Seriously one more time - I know there are some people here who REALLY want to believe in the tooth fairy so just to be clear: Lance Armstrong has just publicly admitted his guilt. Granted, he did it in the most vague, nebulous and spineless way imaginable - after spending years harrassing ex-team-mates and witnesses, spouting about witch hunts and mud-slinging from people with an axe to grind, he finally has the chance to face these accusations in the open and put the whole matter to rest once and for all. And he is not taking that chance. No no - the pursuit of him is unfair and hurts his feelings so he's not playing any more. I understand Armstrong's actions - I think they are selfish and pathetic but at least they are