And if he says, I'm gonna keep'em, what do they do??

They created a website in the 1990s and began emailing and mailing information all over. The woman died, but another woman she had met, an RN, took over and officially founded us in 1999. In a few years, she died, too. (About half the people diagnosed with soft-tissue sarcoma will die in 5 years. I don't have stats on bone sarcomas handy.)

We try to get better care for people who have sarcoma right now. For example, we reimburse expenses up to $500 for people who need a second opinion from an expert. The money usually goes to travel expenses or a co-pay. In Colorado, we'd probably suggest someone get a second opinion at Huntman in Salt Lake City, which has a fabulous sarcoma center.

By the way, the article mentions that Doug Ulman had melanoma and a rare cancer that's not named. That was sarcoma.

I've been heading an effort to get July named as Sarcoma Awareness Month, but I'm shouldering the costs, which are few.

The relentless years-long investigations by cycling officials often led me to think they were channeling the ghost of Inspector Jobert from Les Miserables. Yeah, they finally got their man, mucho ex post facto, but what was the point, really? They mananged to make themselves look petty and vindictive in the process, that's all.

At his age, on dirt, in the mountains, 3:18 is a very respectable time.

The point is he's a damn good athlete, especially at long distance races. And he has the drive to train enough to excel at long distance races.

• USADA, well of course they think he's guilty, it's why they are going after him.  They don't pursue people they think are clean.

• Peers, pretty sure the 10 teammates who were set to testify, and presuming they are telling the truth, think he's guilty because they witnessed it.  There's a motive to lie for some, but not all IMO.  Trainers coaches, the list is too long to believe they are all lying.

• Media, well that's subjective, seems like the media has been pro-Lance for a long time.  And really, what does the media have to do with the arbitration, are you suggesting it would affect the outcome ?

No one knows but a handful of people, but the evidence they have is solid and they have lots of it.  It's seems nearly impossible for someone who has never taken a banned substance to have this kind evidence against them, I would say it's approaching impossible.  A conspiracy on the grandest scale.