My argument, flip though I admit it is, stands. Again, I acknowledge that the cases are not the same down the line: Beyond seeing enough evidence to doubt the integrity of both men, I make no claim that they equate. The negative space defined by the introductory phrase, however, remains significant. Neither man has been publicly found guilty in court or by his sport. (Last I saw, the amphetamine case remains publicly unacknowledged by baseball; if that's no longer the case, my broader point still stands.) Neither man has been formally, publicly accused of anything. Heck, J.B. hasn't even been investigated, that I know of.

My opinion of J.B. is colored by after-the-fact admissions of doping on the team; positives by ex-riders; some of the team's hiring decisions; evidence that Armstrong took EPO in '99; riders' and the team's association with Ferrari (publicly discontinued after his conviction, which was later overturned); and evidence of pervasive doping in the peloton. That's all I got, but it's enough for me. What do they say? YMMV?

My opinion of B.B. is colored by leaked grand jury testimony; the growth of his body; the growth of his head; admissions and positives by other players of the same era; and, well, that's all I got, but it's enough for me.

Accuse me of backpedaling, will ya?

As for doubting the integrity of people until they prove themselves, I'd rather assume they're on the up-and-up. But I'll withdraw the assumption based on evidence, or gut feeling. My gut reaction to cycling and doping right now is this: I'd fear for either of my children if they were to go into cycling competitively at a high level. (And I'd feel the same about some other sports.) Lucky for the kids, the genes I've passed along almost certainly preclude that.