Why I Don't Trust Keith Olbermann 

Keith Olbermann is pretty stupid. How have I come to this conclusion? Well, I read his brilliant reasoning why he thinks Lance Armstrong used EPO:

Five years ago, the people who make television commercials - much of the membership of the SAG and AFTRA unions - went out on strike. What Lance Armstrong did then has always made me doubt him.
...
Immediately, three prominent athletes said they would honor the commercial actors' strike. They would not make commercials. They knew they didn't have to go out with the rest of the crowd making $4,768 a year, but they felt honor-bound.

They were Andre Agassi, Lance Armstrong, and Tiger Woods.

Guess which one actually didn't make a commercial?

Agassi.
...
Armstrong's explanation was more direct, but no less shabby. He was a cancer survivor, after all, and had a family to feed. That he had been diagnosed in 1996 and had recovered sufficiently to win his first Tour de France in 1999, and lock in his first multi-million dollar ad campaign earlier than that, and that those striking commercial actors making $7,000 a year probably included a few cancer survivors and a lot of families to feed, didn't seem a factor to him.

Ever since then, I have had my doubts about Lance Armstrong.

There you go. Guilty as charged. Lance Armstrong, not an actor himself, crossed a picket line and made commercials even though SAG was on strike... an organization that Lance Armstrong is not even a member of. Lance Armstrong was a scab once, therefore he must be a cheat. What brilliant reasoning.

Let's look at the facts of what he's actually charged with shall we? Lance Armstrong took EPO. That's right. He once took it. It was prescribed to him by his doctor while he was fighting cancer. It's actually a common drug to use for patients on chemotherapy. He has admitted this several times, and it is not illegal. He then says that he stopped using it when he began training for the Tour.

Now for the rest of the facts. The tests this year were on 6 year old B samples. No sports organization allows sanctions to be taken on the evidence of a B sample alone. Where are the A samples? They were used 6 years ago during the original Tour de France testing. So Lance Armstrong will have this hanging over his head probably for all time, with no opportunity to clear his name, because after all... you can't prove a negative. Keith, you don't think that 6 year old samples could have been tampered with? Don't think someone might have it out for Lance Armstrong? No? You're kidding right? This magazine doesn't have the best reputation you know.

Here's something you probably didn't know. The EPO test that was used is actually not as good as people claim. There have been proven false positives. Recently a triathlete named Rutger Beke successfully showed that a person can test positive for EPO without taking it.

The Flemish government's disciplinary commission has cleared Belgian triathlete Rutger Beke of taking EPO, Het Laatste Nieuws has reported. Beke tested positive for the blood-boosting drug at a triathlon in Knokke in September 2004, and was suspended for 18 months in March this year.

Like many athletes, Beke insisted that he was not guilty, even though he returned positive tests from the anti-doping labs in Ghent, Belgium, and Cologne, Germany. He took his case to the Catholic University in Leuven, Belgium, where researchers tried to determine whether he was an example of a "false positive" - someone who returns a positive result, despite not having taken the drug. That proved to be the case, as Beke was found to naturally excrete proteins that would yield a positive test.

So given that Lance Armstrong had taken EPO during cancer treatment, that he had his body full of chemicals during chemotherapy that messed with his body chemistry like you wouldn't believe prior to that first Tour, and that 6 years have passed since he last knew that urine even existed and he had control over it, you don't think there is good reason for doubt?

Personally I don't think the fact the crossed a commercial picket line means a whole heck of a lot. Maybe that's because I think that if an actor has to work another job because his commercial job doesn't pay well enough... well... that's how the market works. That and I don't put stock in unions anyway, I don't think they serve any good purpose any more. Not only that, but I think Lance has done more for cycling than anyone ever has, and has done so much for the cause of fighting cancer. I give him the benefit of the doubt, and I think there is good reason to.