Right I get that you see what you want to see, therefore it's irrelevant. The point as to what you are missing is that I don't believe you can completely persecute someone on the media's word. Now if they gave real reference and they rarely do, it would be a different story, but I'm still not seeing it here. Granted I'll go through what donner posted out of curiousity but nothing tangible has been given otherwise. However, I'm used to a different standard when it comes to "fact" than many others.
We're all guilty of seeing what we want at times. I try to be objective and I believe being conscience of potential and personal bias on an issue helps with the objectivity.
Regarding the media... I feel the same way about prosecuting someone based on what the media says... But here we have an organization who released a report with the results of their investigation. We have riders who raced with Lance admitting to doping on their own personal websites. There's mounds of evidence that Lance doped.
I understand completely all of the biology behind all of this, even enough to apply come critical thinking. So how did he not look like a heroin addict? Several transfusions? and nobody noticed?
The UCI is implicated in the USADA's findings. In essence, allowing the poster boy for American cycling who brought American exposure to the sport, a huge fan base which equals to a lot more money flowing into the sport. Look, just last night Greg LeMond publicly called out Pat McQuaid.
So it may be not that anyone did not notice... It's just that they didn't care to make an issue of it.