I think Sparks is taking the view that the whole affair should have gone to arbitration in the first place, "a plague on both your houses, and I wash my hands of this," as it were.
I think Sparks is wondering why the USADA wants to destroy a US and Texan hero, when he's done so much to inspire a generation to take up cycling, and who US Cycling have named a youth series after.
It's a function of the scab-picking nature of the internet, which hasn't yet acheived the maturity to let bygones be bygones.
Judge Sparks is undoubtedly not as conversant as serious racing fans and those in the sport are with the ins and outs of Armstrong's career, doping in the sport, anti-doping arbitration procedures and the conflict between WADA and the UCI, etc etc.
The link in my previous post shows that questions have been hanging over Armstrong ever since he made his comeback after beating cancer. The implications of a number of the reported allegations concerning Armstrong and doping are that, at best, the UCI has been engaged in a major conflict of interest; at worst, there is corruption in the sport that runs right to the top, and that the current and previous presidents of the UCI have serious questions to answer.
Sometimes a scab has to be picked off, because the wound underneath hasn't been cleaned properly.
