Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Lance Armstrong Is Stripped of His 7 Tour de France Titles [View all]DanTex
(20,709 posts)Sandusky did not admit to rape. He admitted to something like "horseplay" -- I don't feel like getting graphic, so I'll assume you understand the key differences between horseplay and rape.
More importantly, of course, he admitted to nothing during the trial, because he didn't even testify. So whatever he said to a reporter makes no difference. He was convicted of rape based on eyewitness testimony. The same kind of testimony that made up (part of) the case against Lance Armsrong.
And, not surprisingly, his attorneys tried to argue the same sorry "conspiracy" defense that you are putting up. That's what all guilty people say when there are dozens of witnesses testifying against them under oath. However, like you, they couldn't present any evidence of a conspiracy. Which is why Sandusky was found guilty, and why Armstrong was banned and had his title stripped.
Here's a serious question. Do you really believe that all convictions that are based on eyewitness testimony should be overturned?
Why is the Lance Armstrong case special?
You haven't explained your issue with the way it was handled. It was handled the same way as any other doping case. Arbitration, with option to appeal to the CAS. The process all cyclists agree to be governed by when they become professionals, and the process that a US Judge found provided for the necessary Due Process requirements of the constitution.