Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USADA to strip Lance Armstrong of 7 Tour titles

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by tantalus View Post
    It is an interesting question. People testimony vs physical evidence. In the court of law, witnesses can often bring about a convinction, DNA at the scene isnt an absolute requirement. Are we setting the standard for evidence in banning professional athletes too high if we require a failed test ?
    Attached Files
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

    Comment


    • #17
      Sad state , some good points brought out in this debate , a lot of water under the bridge , why go for him now ? seems strange to me .

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by tantalus View Post
        It is an interesting question. People testimony vs physical evidence. In the court of law, witnesses can often bring about a convinction, DNA at the scene isnt an absolute requirement. Are we setting the standard for evidence in banning professional athletes too high if we require a failed test ?
        Witnesses bring about a conviction when they substantiate the physical evidence.

        There is no physical evidence to back up the charges. On the contrary, there are over 100 examples of test that he passed.

        The French didn't find evidence to charge him, the US Congress didn't either. In fact the international agency was on Armstrongs side during the appeal.

        Its a witch hunt.

        Both the ICA and the USAC have said that USADA doesn't have the authority to strip him of his wins, Nor do they have any authority over international races.

        And to think taxpayers money is paying for this.
        Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by tantalus View Post
          It is an interesting question. People testimony vs physical evidence. In the court of law, witnesses can often bring about a convinction, DNA at the scene isnt an absolute requirement. Are we setting the standard for evidence in banning professional athletes too high if we require a failed test ?
          That's true when, for example, a witness actually sees the bank robber in action. Of all the witnesses against Armstrong, we know of only one who linked his doping to a specific race, but didn't see him do it. Another heard him admit it to doctors while he was in the hospital, but it's weak. The rest no one seems to know much about. For all of them it comes down to their word against a slew of drug tests. Admittedly the tests weren't foolproof back then, but that's not Armstrong's fault.

          I can see what the USADA is doing. They want a blockbuster case to serve as a warning to other athletes. The problem is that they are rejecting their own tests. Tests are more powerful testimony. The proof is in the blood or urine. Unless the athlete can prove tampering, a court is will probably not overrule a test.

          But witness testimony is a lower form of proof. Memory and motive are crucial to its veracity. The issue for Armstrong is, can an arbitration panel challenge the memory of witnesses as rigorously as lawyers would in a court of law where the proceedings are public. Arbitration is good for contract disputes, but not very good in quasi-criminal proceedings. They are arbitrary, hence the name 'arbitration', free of court intervention. When Lance withdrew from arbitration, the USADA won by default. But as he did not submit to it, he can now file suit in court to overturn the ruling. That's his strategy. His chances are much better in court.
          To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

          Comment


          • #20

            Victims of Lance Armstrong's strong-arm tactics feel relief and vindication in the wake of U.S. Anti-Doping Agency report - NY Daily News

            Doping might sometimes be a victimless crime, but not in the case of Lance Armstrong, whose drug abuse and illicit blood transfusions created a phony empire of wealth, adulation and power that had to be protected at all costs.
            That summer, LeMond has said, Armstrong told him during a telephone conversation that he could find 10 people who would vow that LeMond — recognized as the only American to win the Tour de France, now that Armstrong and Floyd Landis have been stripped of their titles because of doping — had used EPO. He received calls from associates who warned him not to further cross Armstrong.

            Even more frightening, LeMond’s wife Kathy has said, was Armstrong’s offer to pay $300,000 to one of her husband’s former teammates to claim that he had seen LeMond use the oxygen-boosting drug. The teammate declined the offer.

            “It shows how desperate Lance was,” Kathy LeMond says. “It is a huge example of what a bully Lance Armstrong is. He crosses lines no others will cross.”

            Pretty good article on the lengths Armstrong and co went to protect his reputation. Most of it is common knowledge to anyone who has followed cycling closely.



            Lance Armstrong Is Stripped of His 7 Tour de France Titles

            In other news, UCI is not going to contest USADA's decision of stripping Armstrong of his titles. This almost seals his fate.
            Last edited by tinymarae; 22 Oct 12,, 12:59.

            Comment

            Working...
            X