If anyone is showing how little they know about the sport then it is you.
Armstrong tested positive for steroids in the 1999 TDF. He was 'cleared' thanks to a backdated prescription. cf Emma O'Reilly.
When his 1999 samples were retested in 2005 they were found to contain EPO. There was no conviction because there was no A sample to re-test. Plus the UCI colluded to ensure a whitewash. cf Michael Ashenden in NY Velocity
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interv...chael-ashenden
The reason why there is no conviction for the 2001 positive is the payoff from Armstrong to the UCI. The UCI have admitted receiving the money.
How do you explain the bio-passport iregularities?
The fact of the matter is that even if a positive sample were produced you would refuse to accept it as hard evidence.
Hincapie breaking Omerta is not suss. He is merely joining a long list of people riders and support staff who have implicated him. Tell me, what does anyone have on the Andreu's, or Emma O'Reilly? What about the Oakley rep who was in there in 97 when Armstrong confessed, what does the USADA have on her?
The reality is that Armstrong was willing to go down the legal route to stop the investigation, he could have taken the case to CAS. At CAS he would have been able to appoint one of the three arbitrators - all the evidence would have been heard. He would have been able - if the 10+ witnesses were lying to rebut them, he would have had the chance to refute the scientific evidence. But he refused. Not because he has no money, not because he is tired of fighting, but because he doesn't want the evidence made public. The legal case was not about evidence but about stopping the evidence against him becoming public.
You might do well to read some of the better cycling blogs and forums.
http://inrng.com/2012/08/lance-armst...ts/#more-10570
Thankfully when the Hog's (who has yet to fold) case (plus others) comes up for arbitration the evidence will be heard then.