(Hopefully, the mods, think this is the "right level of discourse" -- despite the fact that it goes against some folks' desire to see Ray crucified on no evidence...)

To get to proving Ray "guilty", you would have to establish the following facts:

1. Ray spoke to Ross

Let's stipulate to that and assume that Ray is on a tape talking to Ross and telling him to send him everything he had.

2. Ray received spray from Ross.

There is no proof of this -- only Ross' word that he sent it to Ray.

3. Ray took the spray.

No proof.

4. The spray contained IGF-1.

Expert testimony says that is impossible.

5. There was sufficient IGF-1 to provide Ray a competitive advantage.

Expert testimony says that even if IGF-1 is in the bottle, there isn't enough to make a difference.

BONUS: Ray knew the spray contained IGF-1.

There is simply no proof of this.

So, based on most of these unproven assertions, we are throwing Ray in with Lance Armstrong. This is infuriating in the extreme. If there was a public trial of Ray on these facts, any third year law student worth his or her salt would get you an acquittal. I don't even think a judge would even allow such a "case" to get to the jury.