>Have you noticed about yourself that in any dispute of this nature you seem to side with the establishment? Whichever side is more powerful and more mainstream, that's the side you are on. You seem to take criticisms of them personally. Why would it be any skin off your nose if Armstrong is in fact guilty, and an even bigger liar than Landis?
>
>Mike, where in the blue hell are you getting this????
>
>First, I have been called MANY things....an establishment-person, however, is NOT one of them. I am one of the most iconoclastic individuals on the face of this earth.
>

That's part of the persona you want to project. Kevin Goff, badass. IMO when it gets down to cases you can be pretty establishment. It was just an observation, could be wrong.

>Second...I said I had my doubts that Armstrong is clean...I honestly don't know. There was a smoking gun regarding Landis, and he continued to play the "I'm being framed" card in 2006, even after 2 tests were run. He's a liar. And yes, if Armstrong has similar evidence against him, he'd be a liar.

Yes, he would.