Lance Armstrong was brought down by overwhelming evidence provided in testimony by fellow and ex team mates............to the point where denial was futile and clearly just not sustainable...

In the NOW trial, 3 defendants have pleaded guilty, and I wonder if that included sworn statements about the management knowing what was going on (Coulson and Brookes) .....so how far will this lead to denials being futile ? or can statement evidence be confidently defended and denied? We shall see........

In the Armstrong case, the overwhelming evidence was effectly a civil case based on the balance of likelyhood based on the word anti doping agencies rules and limitations, not beyond reasonable doubt, as he has so far not been tried in a criminal court...........but when evidence independantly mounts from several sworn sources.........??

and I know it all gets legal and complicated, but here's one question....if someone pleads guilty, and swears its the truth....the laws seems to immediatly believe and its game over.....or do they? Can you effectively convict yourself by a plea or does your plea still have to be treated inline with collected evidence (if that makes sense?) What I'm getting at is, can someone plead gulity, be convicted with no questions asked even if the evidence doesn't support a conviction?