system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
ELI5: What is the evidence against Lance Armstrong and why did he fight it for so long?

I've heard the evidence against him is overwhelming. Why would he choose to just deny and fight? Wouldn't other strategies be better for his reputation, especially in the long run?
gpt
The evidence: about 20 of his former teammates, who are mostly still in the sport (riders, but also teamleaders and such) have testified, knowing that it could be harmful for their own careers, that Armstrong has doped. Among those are George Hincapie, Armstrong's former master servant (I don't know how 'meester knecht', as the Dutch and Belgians call it, translates best into English) and Jonathan Vaughters, head of Garmin. There are also samples of his urine and blood, which contain drugs that couldn't have been found earlier, because the technology wasn't able to in those days.

Why does he fight it? Money. Reputation. As long as he keeps fighting, there will always be people believing in him. If he gives in, the 10+ years of fighting he did would become fruitless, and the people who had been supporting him through all those years would be proven wrong to do so. And money, because Armstrong sued anyone who claimed he used drugs, often getting large sums of money from these lawsuits. Also, promoters gave him large sums of money if he would win another tour. Al those people will be demanding their money back if they know he didn't win those honourably.

Really, Armstrong can't win this one. He's royally screwed right now, and will probably go bankrupt.