USADA’s real motives

The tone of the editorial about Lance Armstrong is sanctimonious, doesn’t address the facts and smacks of narcissism [“Say it ain’t so, Lance,” Opinion, Aug. 25]. I don’t know if Armstrong did illegal doping, and neither does The Times’ editorial board. I do know he passed hundreds of drug tests and never failed one.

What chance would Armstrong have in proving himself innocent when the very agency that is pursuing the case is prosecutor, judge and jury? Even the federal court judge who refused Armstrong’s countersuit said “USADA’s conduct raises serious questions about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping, or if it is acting according to less noble motives.”

I do understand why Armstrong would decide enough is enough and use his efforts for the far more noble purposes of his foundation and more simply to move on with his life. In evaluating this case, one should balance the behavior of the accuser with that of the accused. The USADA has a history of heavy-handedness and overreaching, which calls into question its validity of the job it does far more than it does Armstrong.

— Steve Rolfe, Bellevue

Scrutinize everyone

I have no doubt that Lance Armstrong is guilty of doping, but I also believe it was, and still is, a required practice to compete in professional bike racing.

If they are going to strip Armstrong of his Tour de France wins without ever testing positive for doping, then they need to scrutinize everyone else in the races just as hard before they award the forfeited victories.

— Derek Reading, Bellevue