Armstrong Robbed

[whybother]

I thought they weren't taking it to court because Armstrong chose not to defend himself.

By that logic, the police would not take murderes to court if they said they refuse to defend themselves.

Amstrong said he would nolonger take part in the USADA subjudicial witch hunt.

The USADA did not go to court because they know they will mot get a conviction - passing 500 independent drug tests = Reasonable Doubt!

Another one has come out today: http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/another-armstrong-teammate-admits-doping-20121023-283xk.html

Do you think with all those admissions that there is reasonable doubt?

[Will27]

I thought they weren't taking it to court because Armstrong chose not to defend himself.

By that logic, the police would not take murderes to court if they said they refuse to defend themselves.

Amstrong said he would nolonger take part in the USADA subjudicial witch hunt.

The USADA did not go to court because they know they will mot get a conviction - passing 500 independent drug tests = Reasonable Doubt!

I think you're drawing a long bow there. Armstrong's is a case for the arbitration court, not a criminal one.

One would think that if Armstrong is innocent he would be doing everything in his power to fight it.

And let's face it, just because he isn't a convicted drug cheat, it doesn't mean he's not a drug cheat.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, it's a duck.

Regards

Will

[GuestHouse]

There you go will.

I trust if ever you are robbed of everything you've ever worked for you'll be happy for that to happen on the basis of accusations that would not stand up un i court of law.

[GuestHouse]

Do you think with all those admissions that there is reasonable doubt?

The USADA clearly think there is or they would have filed criminal charges .... They CHOSE NOT TO DO SO.

[whybother]

Do you think with all those admissions that there is reasonable doubt?

The USADA clearly think there is or they would have filed criminal charges .... They CHOSE NOT TO DO SO.

What did Armstrong do that the USADA think was criminal?

Sent from my HTC phone.

Edited October 24, 2012 by whybother

[Will27]

There you go will.

I trust if ever you are robbed of everything you've ever worked for you'll be happy for that to happen on the basis of accusations that would not stand up un i court of law.

On the contrary, if I was innocent I would fight until I couldn't fight any longer.

I also doubt they're just "accusations" as well. If they were and without any basis,

I think he would be suing the arse off of these so called accusers.

Armstrong has read the play and decided against it. Let's face it, it's not as though

he doesn't have the means. And I'm sure some hot shot US lawyer would even offer

to take the case pro bono.

And "robbed of everything"? I'm sure he won't be eating at the local soup kitchen anytime soon.

Sure he's lost his titles, but what about the millions of dollars in endorsements and sponsorship etc?

I still think there's a lot more to come as well.

GH, I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Regards

Will

[apetley]

I thought they weren't taking it to court because Armstrong chose not to defend himself.

By that logic, the police would not take murderes to court if they said they refuse to defend themselves.

Amstrong said he would nolonger take part in the USADA subjudicial witch hunt.

The USADA did not go to court because they know they will mot get a conviction - passing 500 independent drug tests = Reasonable Doubt!

The reason he refused to take part could be that he is well aware of what happened to Marion Jones. She lied under oath to an investigative hearing, was subsequently found out to have lied and served prison time for it.

I believe she also never failed a drugs test and then went on to admit to their use.

I would love that Armstrong defended himself against these accusations as I want to believe in his story but I guess for a while we will only get to hear one sides evidence which sad to say appears overwhelming and that is part of the tragedy for cycling as a whole.

[GuestHouse]

GH, I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Regards

Will

If you think it is acceptable for a government agency to destroy a man's reputation and life's work on the basis of accusations they cannot prove in a court of law then I am happy to disagree with you.

I would only urge you to examine the direction your argument takes us all.

[GuestHouse]

The reason he refused to take part could be that he is well aware of what happened to Marion Jones. She lied under oath to an investigative hearing, was subsequently found out to have lied and served prison time for it.

I believe she also never failed a drugs test and then went on to admit to their use.u

I would love that Armstrong defended himself against these accusations as I want to believe in his story but I guess for a while we will only get to hear one sides evidence which sad to say appears overwhelming and that is part of the tragedy for cycling as a whole.

The reason for the 5th ammendment to the US Constitution is precisely that it is the responsibility of the prosecutor to prove guilt - it is not the responsibility of the accused to prove innocence.

Silence or a refusal to defend oneself is silence and a refusal to defend oneself, nothing more, nothing less - it is not an admition of guit it is not a hint or suggestion of guilt.

[StreetCowboy]

GH, I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Regards

Will

If you think it is acceptable for a government agency to destroy a man's reputation and life's work on the basis of accusations they cannot prove in a court of law then I am happy to disagree with you.

I would only urge you to examine the direction your argument takes us all.

I would hate to think that I could be convicted of hundreds of charges of speeding based either on my confession, or the testimony of other motorists.

In an environment where everyone exceeds the speed limit from time to time, I feel that would be unjust.

To whom are they going to award the trophies they have stripped from Lance Armstrong? Or are they going to wait until they have completed a seven-year which hunt on each of the potential candidate? To strip the trophies from Lance Armstrong seems unreasonable. To declare the races void due to apparent rampant cheating, and to hold their hands up and say "We had no control of our sport or the enforcement of our regulations" would seem more reasonable, honest, and would focus attention where it might do some good

SC

[Mossfinn]

No-one will ever win 7 Tour de France titles again, drugs or no drugs it was quite a feat.

That is true. Because if it starts to happen again, they'll bust the guy quicker.

I see the UCI are today asking him to pay back 3.8 million.

Because of they're own poor enforcement of rules?

I hope they don't start issuing retrospective speeding fines based on the testimony of other motorists

SC

For enforcement rules, remember USADA had far more reaching powers than the UCI, as for motorists we are all ..............

[isawasnake]

I am starting to think there is a future case on Armstrong's side. Think about it, how in the world can they do that, it is so infantile to even think you can strip his titles away after you were the one telling him the parameters in which he could pass the tests. Clearly before they test there are papers saying "your blood must not have more than X amount of A, B, C............".

Look at it another way, if the testing agents would have made the tests much more stringent, and said "you can't have any of X or Y in your system" or just whatever, i'm sure LA would have complied with that and made sure he was within those limits before he competed, and he would also know his competitors would be under those same parameters. But they didn't.

I really hope these people involved in stripping him go down. Even assuming his guilt, it is obviously a very bad decision. On top of that, they have ruined a man's reputation without any evidence. I truly think it is hideous what has been done to him.

Edited October 26, 2012 by isawasnake

[edwinchester]

The reason he refused to take part could be that he is well aware of what happened to Marion Jones. She lied under oath to an investigative hearing, was subsequently found out to have lied and served prison time for it.

I believe she also never failed a drugs test and then went on to admit to their use.u

I would love that Armstrong defended himself against these accusations as I want to believe in his story but I guess for a while we will only get to hear one sides evidence which sad to say appears overwhelming and that is part of the tragedy for cycling as a whole.

The reason for the 5th ammendment to the US Constitution is precisely that it is the responsibility of the prosecutor to prove guilt - it is not the responsibility of the accused to prove innocence.

Silence or a refusal to defend oneself is silence and a refusal to defend oneself, nothing more, nothing less - it is not an admition of guit it is not a hint or suggestion of guilt.

I agree with you but surely we are talking about judgement handed down by a sporting body aren't we and not a court of law? I stand to be corrected on that if mistaken.

When anyone competes they do so under the laws of the governing body.

I assume Armstrong was happy to compete that way.

He has been judged under the rules of the governing body and if he participated in the process can appeal to CAS, sports arbitration body.

He chose not to which again begs questioning.

[isawasnake]

^Whatever constraints they set forth, he complied with them. He would not have been able to race otherwise. Whatever constraints they potentially could have set forth, he assuredly would have complied with those. To think otherwise would be crazy considering his chances to win.

The other part of all this that really perturbs me are the statements from the USADA. They say things like "the most sophisticated steroid program in the history of sports". What the F? If you know so much, expose him, prove it. Maybe LA thought this whole alleged program up in 8 minutes while he was sitting on the toilet. How can they make that leap, which consequently makes them look not as bad, without the actual hard proof of all the planning documents etc? This is just another one of those cases where the wrong people are coming out on top, at least hitherto. I hope all these guys who stripped him go down myself.

Edited October 26, 2012 by isawasnake

[whybother]

^Whatever constraints they set forth, he complied with them. He would not have been able to race otherwise. Whatever constraints they potentially could have set forth, he assuredly would have complied with those. To think otherwise would be crazy considering his chances to win.

The other part of all this that really perturbs me are the statements from the USADA. They say things like "the most sophisticated steroid program in the history of sports". What the F? If you know so much, expose him, prove it. Maybe LA thought this whole alleged program up in 8 minutes while he was sitting on the toilet. How can they make that leap, which consequently makes them look not as bad, without the actual hard proof of all the planning documents etc? This is just another one of those cases where the wrong people are coming out on top, at least hitherto. I hope all these guys who stripped him go down myself.

"Whatever constraints they set forth, he complied with them"

No he didn't. He just didn't get caught.

[T_Dog]

^Whatever constraints they set forth, he complied with them. He would not have been able to race otherwise. Whatever constraints they potentially could have set forth, he assuredly would have complied with those. To think otherwise would be crazy considering his chances to win.

The other part of all this that really perturbs me are the statements from the USADA. They say things like "the most sophisticated steroid program in the history of sports". What the F? If you know so much, expose him, prove it. Maybe LA thought this whole alleged program up in 8 minutes while he was sitting on the toilet. How can they make that leap, which consequently makes them look not as bad, without the actual hard proof of all the planning documents etc? This is just another one of those cases where the wrong people are coming out on top, at least hitherto. I hope all these guys who stripped him go down myself.

"Whatever constraints they set forth, he complied with them"

No he didn't. He just didn't get caught.

And he didn't get caught because he bought off all the right people. Well... It worked for a while anyway. One thing is for sure: It certainly wasn't about the bike.

[isawasnake]

^Whatever constraints they set forth, he complied with them. He would not have been able to race otherwise. Whatever constraints they potentially could have set forth, he assuredly would have complied with those. To think otherwise would be crazy considering his chances to win.

The other part of all this that really perturbs me are the statements from the USADA. They say things like "the most sophisticated steroid program in the history of sports". What the F? If you know so much, expose him, prove it. Maybe LA thought this whole alleged program up in 8 minutes while he was sitting on the toilet. How can they make that leap, which consequently makes them look not as bad, without the actual hard proof of all the planning documents etc? This is just another one of those cases where the wrong people are coming out on top, at least hitherto. I hope all these guys who stripped him go down myself.

"Whatever constraints they set forth, he complied with them"

No he didn't. He just didn't get caught.

That is the point... not getting caught = allowing him to compete. Once you do that it is end of story.

I don't think there is too much to argue here really. Stripping the titles is one thing (that is 100% wrong without question), accusing him and or convicting him of using illegal substances in the event is another, and i'll leave that discussion to others.

I don't know how many different ways I can say this, but what if you enter a golf tournament and they say you must take a test to compete and your results must be under these certain parameters with respect to certain X, Y, Z drugs/chemicals. You assure that your body does not have X, Y Z, you compete and win, and years later they haul you off and say.... oh, you passed the test, but you could not have Y in your system either. WELL, I WOULD NOT HAVE HAD Y IF YOU TOLD ME THAT AT THE TIME. Does anybody get this? Or, oh, you passed the test, but you had X, Y and Z in your system but we could not detect it at the time. Well, the parameters that were set at the time were passed, that is all that counts. You can't argue, because you'd be countered with "I would have passed if you would have set the parameters that way"... and you really can't take that argument away from him, as you lost your chance to do that when you self-admittedly tested him incompetently. The irony here is that their own argument assumes necessarily their own incompetence, yet people are on their side. Go figure... that means you are incompetent of making a proper judgement too, you realize that, right?

Edited October 26, 2012 by isawasnake

[whybother]

"Whatever constraints they set forth, he complied with them"

No he didn't. He just didn't get caught.

That is the point... not getting caught = allowing him to compete. Once you do that it is end of story.

I don't think there is too much to argue here really. Stripping the titles is one thing (that is 100% wrong without question), accusing him and or convicting him of using illegal substances in the event is another, and i'll leave that discussion to others.

I don't know how many different ways I can say this, but what if you enter a golf tournament and they say you must take a test to compete and your results must be under these certain parameters with respect to certain X, Y, Z drugs/chemicals. You assure that your body does not have X, Y Z, you compete and win, and years later they haul you off and say.... oh, you passed the test, but you could not have Y in your system either. WELL, I WOULD NOT HAVE HAD Y IF YOU TOLD ME THAT AT THE TIME. Does anybody get this? Or, oh, you passed the test, but you had X, Y and Z in your system but we could not detect it at the time. Well, the parameters that were set at the time were passed, that is all that counts. You can't argue, because you'd be countered with "I would have passed if you would have set the parameters that way"... and you really can't take that argument away from him, as you lost your chance to do that when you self-admittedly tested him incompetently. The irony here is that their own argument assumes necessarily their own incompetence, yet people are on their side. Go figure... that means you are incompetent of making a proper judgement too, you realize that, right?

So what you're is, if you don't get caught cheating at the time, then everything is OK?

[isawasnake]

^This argument kinda sells itself, I think I have won before we started, but in essence, no that isn't correct. "Cheating" must be defined for competitors in any sport. Golf say is no different. If you tell the athletes the rules they must abide by, and they do that, it is case closed. You can't go back retroactively 5 years later and say, "oh no, we decided only to allow drivers with .1 mm grooves, yours were beyond that. And even though we allowed those grooves at the time, we are going to take your title retroactively based on our own ineptitude (they would leave that last part out of course)." The man simply would have used proper grooves if they just told him he needed to, correct??? That is what is happening here. They measured the grooves, found them to be ok, and he competed. Done deal. Why people are blind to that i'm not sure. People seem to be blind to everything, as you so eloquently exhibit.

Edited October 26, 2012 by isawasnake

[whybother]

^This argument kinda sells itself, I think I have won before we started, but in essence, no that isn't correct. "Cheating" must be defined for competitors in any sport. Golf say is no different. If you tell the athletes the rules they must abide by, and they do that, it is case closed. You can't go back retroactively 5 years later and say, "oh no, we decided only to allow drivers with .1 mm grooves, yours were beyond that. And even though we allowed those grooves at the time, we are going to take your title retroactively based on our own ineptitude (they would leave that last part out of course)." The man simply would have used proper grooves if they just told him he needed to, correct??? That is what is happening here. They measured the grooves, found them to be ok, and he competed. Done deal. Why people are blind to that i'm not sure. People seem to be blind to everything, as you so eloquently exhibit.

Well I think you've lost this argument then.

The rules were (put simply) "No Drugs". Armstrong wasn't caught with "drugs" at the time, but enough evidence has been gathered to show that he was taking "drugs".

If you go into an exam with the answers written on your hand, but it doesn't get found out until after the exam, your exam results get cancelled. You don't get away with it by saying "but you didn't catch me at the time".

Sent from my HTC phone.

[StreetCowboy]

^This argument kinda sells itself, I think I have won before we started, but in essence, no that isn't correct. "Cheating" must be defined for competitors in any sport. Golf say is no different. If you tell the athletes the rules they must abide by, and they do that, it is case closed. You can't go back retroactively 5 years later and say, "oh no, we decided only to allow drivers with .1 mm grooves, yours were beyond that. And even though we allowed those grooves at the time, we are going to take your title retroactively based on our own ineptitude (they would leave that last part out of course)." The man simply would have used proper grooves if they just told him he needed to, correct??? That is what is happening here. They measured the grooves, found them to be ok, and he competed. Done deal. Why people are blind to that i'm not sure. People seem to be blind to everything, as you so eloquently exhibit.

The problem was that there was a difference between the rule and the enforcement. The rule was that the various drugs were absolutely banned, but they could only test to a certain level of accuracy and sensitivity. So they were putting forth rules that they could not objectively enforce through testing.

SC

[isawasnake]

^This argument kinda sells itself, I think I have won before we started, but in essence, no that isn't correct. "Cheating" must be defined for competitors in any sport. Golf say is no different. If you tell the athletes the rules they must abide by, and they do that, it is case closed. You can't go back retroactively 5 years later and say, "oh no, we decided only to allow drivers with .1 mm grooves, yours were beyond that. And even though we allowed those grooves at the time, we are going to take your title retroactively based on our own ineptitude (they would leave that last part out of course)." The man simply would have used proper grooves if they just told him he needed to, correct??? That is what is happening here. They measured the grooves, found them to be ok, and he competed. Done deal. Why people are blind to that i'm not sure. People seem to be blind to everything, as you so eloquently exhibit.

Well I think you've lost this argument then.

The rules were (put simply) "No Drugs". Armstrong wasn't caught with "drugs" at the time, but enough evidence has been gathered to show that he was taking "drugs".

If you go into an exam with the answers written on your hand, but it doesn't get found out until after the exam, your exam results get cancelled. You don't get away with it by saying "but you didn't catch me at the time".

Sent from my HTC phone.

Go ahead and keep going with your example, explain yourself. What happened after the test? How did they prove he had written on his hand? Video, a bunch of people saying he did? What was it?

I don't think you win even with that because how are you going to prove his guilt? But it isn't even the same anyway, an analogous situation would be that the test company forbid writing on hands, and checked for it before the test and failed to find it until much after the test due to their own incompetence. Major point here is if they would have been competent, perhaps there would be no cheating in the first place. That is key.

As the other guy is saying, there is a difference between their rules and enforcement. Anybody with a real pair and a brain is going to realize they have to eat it after the fact, meaning it was their own screw-up. I mean, how would you like to be able to correct all your mistakes 2 or 3 years after the fact. It would be nice, but it doesn't work like that, not in the world of logic and sound reasoning anyway.

As I said, they let him compete, the argument wins itself. I love the defense, they have to admit their own stupidity and incompetence to argue their point.

Edited October 27, 2012 by isawasnake

[whybother]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. He cheated. He just didn't get caught. There seems to be plenty of evidence that he did cheat.

It's not they were incompetent. It's just that they didn't have the technology to detect the cheating at the time.

If you're happy that it is ok to cheat as long as you don't get caught, then that's fine with me.

Sent from my HTC phone.

[isawasnake]

But the thing is, you argument is only sound assuming you are ok with not living up to your word, which was stipulating if he passed the tests he'd be allowed to compete. Knowing the way they tested, and what the results needed to be "under", i'm sure he would have complied under any set of guidelines they put forth. He took care of his part, and they are not real men of their word for not standing up to the deal. But if you are ok with that philosophy, so be it, I do understand. But if you think it is ok to just change a rubric of any kind after the fact, you are simply wrong. If there is a stipulation in there somewhere that says "if you are caught anytime after the race with future technology for the use of drugs...." then i'd be wrong, and i'd admit that. But it doesn't say that i don't think. Look at it like a contract for a condo, how would you like it if they just started making stuff up that was not in the contract at all.

Edited October 27, 2012 by isawasnake

[carmine]

At the end of the day Armstrong has done massive damage to the credibility of the sport. He will probably never hold his hands up either because he's now in a position whereby he can't afford to do so.

He and his generation are finished and its down the the new generation to salvage what is left of a very damaged sport

[isawasnake]

I think it is actually the sport that has damaged itself. If they would have just simply done the right thing and let the rightful owner of those titles keep them and not make a big fuss about it, and continued on and realized their mistakes and made more stringent drug tests for today and the future, it would not be so bad. But they decided to go this route, and not only are they wrong, but they have severely damaged their sport as well.

[whybother]

But the thing is, you argument is only sound assuming you are ok with not living up to your word, which was stipulating if he passed the tests he'd be allowed to compete. Knowing the way they tested, and what the results needed to be "under", i'm sure he would have complied under any set of guidelines they put forth. He took care of his part, and they are not real men of their word for not standing up to the deal. But if you are ok with that philosophy, so be it, I do understand. But if you think it is ok to just change a rubric of any kind after the fact, you are simply wrong. If there is a stipulation in there somewhere that says "if you are caught anytime after the race with future technology for the use of drugs...." then i'd be wrong, and i'd admit that. But it doesn't say that i don't think. Look at it like a contract for a condo, how would you like it if they just started making stuff up that was not in the contract at all.

So, every Olympic gold medal that has been taken off competitors is wrong? They were allowed to compete.

Should the results of admitted drug cheats be allowed to stand? They were allowed to compete.

Should the results of exams stand when it is discovered that entrant cheated? They were allowed to 'compete'.

If you compete in a marathon and cross the line, but it's found out later that you jumped in a car for 20km, should your result stand? You were allowed to compete and they recognised that you finished.

Just because there are/were ways to get around the detection of drug use doesn't stop it from being cheating.

One of the problems with your argument is that testing is often done after they have competed. Does the fact that they were allowed to compete mean that the positive results of any tests are ignored?

But the main problem is, you are arguing that if you can get away with cheating for a while, then everything is OK.

The rules say that you can't use performance enhancing drugs. The rules don't say that you can use drugs just as long as we don't find out. If it is found out later that at the time you used performance enhancing drugs, then you cheated. It's that simple.

[whybother]

I think it is actually the sport that has damaged itself. If they would have just simply done the right thing and let the rightful owner of those titles keep them and not make a big fuss about it, and continued on and realized their mistakes and made more stringent drug tests for today and the future, it would not be so bad. But they decided to go this route, and not only are they wrong, but they have severely damaged their sport as well.

I think they would do themselves more damage if they said, "He cheated. But let's just ignore that. He was smart enough that we didn't detect it. Good on him."

Cheating is OK if you can get away with it? Where do you draw the line? Committing crimes are OK if they don't find out it was you for a few years?

[StreetCowboy]

I think it is actually the sport that has damaged itself. If they would have just simply done the right thing and let the rightful owner of those titles keep them and not make a big fuss about it, and continued on and realized their mistakes and made more stringent drug tests for today and the future, it would not be so bad. But they decided to go this route, and not only are they wrong, but they have severely damaged their sport as well.

I think they would do themselves more damage if they said, "He cheated. But let's just ignore that. He was smart enough that we didn't detect it. Good on him."

Cheating is OK if you can get away with it? Where do you draw the line? Committing crimes are OK if they don't find out it was you for a few years?

That's what I'm banking on for the drive home last week. I'd certainly not want that bloke that was stuck behind me in the Honda Civic grassing me up. Let's face it; everyone was doing 130 kph...

SC

[whybother]

That's what I'm banking on for the drive home last week. I'd certainly not want that bloke that was stuck behind me in the Honda Civic grassing me up. Let's face it; everyone was doing 130 kph...

SC

Sure, but if you get a speed camera fine a couple of weeks, I don't think an excuse of "But you let me get all the way home" will be much use.