I don't believe Lance Armstrong doped and never will
Comments
-
You know I don't know where, who or what drilled into me that Coe framed Christie. Just that in my societal circles it seems to be an accepted notion as to the downfall of Christie's profile after he retired.bompington wrote:
Just a mild query - how would you rate the strength of the evidence that Coe framed Christie* compared to the strength of the evidence that Armstrong doped?DonDaddyD wrote:Seb Coe, racists that he is, framed Linford as he didn't like him. FACT. http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/christi ... 13720.html
*I have to admit, I was so fascinated by this astonishing statement that I had to google it: and came up with nothing at all, not even on the usual conspiracy theory sites. I would really, genuinely, be interested to see your evidence.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
If you just prefixed all your posts with thisDonDaddyD wrote:You know I don't know where, who or what0 -
-
This is incredible. DDD is neck-and-neck with the pros.
This thread is on five pages, as is the thread on Pro Race.
Come on, DDD, time to go. Put the hammer down in the final minutes of today's stage and bring it home for the Commuting crowd.
DDD: in the pic below, are you Lance, and Pro Race is Jan?
FCN 2-4.
"What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
"It stays down, Daddy."
"Exactly."0 -
-
cjcp wrote:This is incredible. DDD is neck-and-neck with the pros.
This thread is on five pages, as is the thread on Pro Race.
Come on, DDD, time to go. Put the hammer down in the final minutes of today's stage and bring it home for the Commuting crowd.
DDD: in the pic below, are you Lance, and Pro Race is Jan?
I hope the stage never ends!0 -
cjcp wrote:This is incredible. DDD is neck-and-neck with the pros.
This thread is on five pages, as is the thread on Pro Race.
Come on, DDD, time to go. Put the hammer down in the final minutes of today's stage and bring it home for the Commuting crowd.
DDD: in the pic below, are you Lance, and Pro Race is Jan?
Lol - but DonDaddyLanceStrong keeps getting tripped up by spectators
Faster than a tent.......0 -
Look what happens when he makes a new thread0 -
The bit that concerns me in what I've read is the attempt by US authorities to assert jurisdiction over yet more stuff. There's been quite a bit of this recently and it ain't a good thing.FCN 2-4.
"What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
"It stays down, Daddy."
"Exactly."0 -
Don't you know that they took control of the World round about 1990? :twisted:cjcp wrote:The bit that concerns me in what I've read is the attempt by US authorities to assert jurisdiction over yet more stuff. There's been quite a bit of this recently and it ain't a good thing.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
cjcp wrote:The bit that concerns me in what I've read is the attempt by US authorities to assert jurisdiction over yet more stuff. There's been quite a bit of this recently and it ain't a good thing.
My understanding is that the USADA is the offical body tasked by the US Government to ensure that US athletes are competing clean and with the whole testing/investigating regime.
They are in turn come under the umberella of WADA.
The UCI as the governing body of an olympic sport sign up to WADA and must abide by the rulings of USADA.
This is clear.
What makes it murky is that the UCI/Pat McQuaid are alleged to have covered up Lance's wrongdoings“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:cjcp wrote:The bit that concerns me in what I've read is the attempt by US authorities to assert jurisdiction over yet more stuff. There's been quite a bit of this recently and it ain't a good thing.
My understanding is that the USADA is the offical body tasked by the US Government to ensure that US athletes are competing clean and with the whole testing/investigating regime.
They are in turn come under the umberella of WADA.
The UCI as the governing body of an olympic sport sign up to WADA and must abide by the rulings of USADA.
This is clear.
What makes it murky is that the UCI/Pat McQuaid are alleged to have covered up Lance's wrongdoings
So everyone, directly or indirectly, has to listen to a US authority. This is not a good thing.FCN 2-4.
"What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
"It stays down, Daddy."
"Exactly."0 -
cjcp wrote:TailWindHome wrote:cjcp wrote:The bit that concerns me in what I've read is the attempt by US authorities to assert jurisdiction over yet more stuff. There's been quite a bit of this recently and it ain't a good thing.
My understanding is that the USADA is the offical body tasked by the US Government to ensure that US athletes are competing clean and with the whole testing/investigating regime.
They are in turn come under the umberella of WADA.
The UCI as the governing body of an olympic sport sign up to WADA and must abide by the rulings of USADA.
This is clear.
What makes it murky is that the UCI/Pat McQuaid are alleged to have covered up Lance's wrongdoings
So everyone, directly or indirectly, has to listen to a US authority. This is not a good thing.
That's a strange interpretation
ETA
In my explanation 'abide' is a bad choice of word, 'uphold' is what I really mean“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHyome wrote:cjcp wrote:TailWindHome wrote:cjcp wrote:The bit that concerns me in what I've read is the attempt by US authorities to assert jurisdiction over yet more stuff. There's been quite a bit of this recently and it ain't a good thing.
My understanding is that the USADA is the offical body tasked by the US Government to ensure that US athletes are competing clean and with the whole testing/investigating regime.
They are in turn come under the umberella of WADA.
The UCI as the governing body of an olympic sport sign up to WADA and must abide by the rulings of USADA.
This is clear.
What makes it murky is that the UCI/Pat McQuaid are alleged to have covered up Lance's wrongdoings
So everyone, directly or indirectly, has to listen to a US authority. This is not a good thing.
That's a strange interpretation
ETA
In my explanation 'abide' is a bad choice of word, 'uphold' is what I really mean
It's cynical, yes, but it's another example of US decision having an extra-territorial effect.FCN 2-4.
"What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
"It stays down, Daddy."
"Exactly."0 -
cjcp wrote:TailWindHyome wrote:cjcp wrote:TailWindHome wrote:cjcp wrote:The bit that concerns me in what I've read is the attempt by US authorities to assert jurisdiction over yet more stuff. There's been quite a bit of this recently and it ain't a good thing.
My understanding is that the USADA is the offical body tasked by the US Government to ensure that US athletes are competing clean and with the whole testing/investigating regime.
They are in turn come under the umberella of WADA.
The UCI as the governing body of an olympic sport sign up to WADA and must abide by the rulings of USADA.
This is clear.
What makes it murky is that the UCI/Pat McQuaid are alleged to have covered up Lance's wrongdoings
So everyone, directly or indirectly, has to listen to a US authority. This is not a good thing.
That's a strange interpretation
ETA
In my explanation 'abide' is a bad choice of word, 'uphold' is what I really mean
It's cynical, yes, but it's another example of US decision having an extra-territorial effect.
It's the same with any national anti doping authority. The Italians banned Pozzato for 6 months so all the other ADAs follow suit to recognise.0 -
This has a slightly different feel to it though, almost as if there's something more unsavoury driving it. I think the judge expressed concerns about their approach.FCN 2-4.
"What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
"It stays down, Daddy."
"Exactly."0 -
You mean like the Texas court which ruled that Liverpool FC was in fact owned by the whale from Free Willy?cjcp wrote:The bit that concerns me in what I've read is the attempt by US authorities to assert jurisdiction over yet more stuff. There's been quite a bit of this recently and it ain't a good thing.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:I will never believe that Linford Christie cheated by way of doping. I don't think there is a black british person in this life or the next that thinks he did either.
Seb Coe, racists that he is, framed Linford as he didn't like him. FACT. http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/christi ... 13720.html
How's that?0 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_lawPaul E wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:I will never believe that Linford Christie cheated by way of doping. I don't think there is a black british person in this life or the next that thinks he did either.
Seb Coe, racists that he is, framed Linford as he didn't like him. FACT. http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/christi ... 13720.html
How's that?
Not exactly clear cut, I would say. See Rolf's point above.
Its still up, the thread's not even locked. I'm not going to continue with a nonsense debate about a legal point neither of us are qualified to comment on and which is completely irrelevant to the moderation issue we have been discussing. I have a titanium cross bike to assemble.0 -
First Aspect wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_lawPaul E wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:I will never believe that Linford Christie cheated by way of doping. I don't think there is a black british person in this life or the next that thinks he did either.
Seb Coe, racists that he is, framed Linford as he didn't like him. FACT. http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/christi ... 13720.html
How's that?
Not exactly clear cut, I would say. See Rolf's point above.
Its still up, the thread's not even locked. I'm not going to continue with a nonsense debate about a legal point neither of us are qualified to comment on and which is completely irrelevant to the moderation issue we have been discussing. I have a titanium cross bike to assemble.
Huge presumption about my profession0 -
Sigh. What do you do for a living then? Go nuts. Set out the legal test for defamation and demonstrate how each part might be met by sarcastically quoting something from the Evening Standard. Further, explain why it isn't fair comment. Etcetera. Finally, explain why a defamatory comment liable to cause the downfall of the BikeRadar civilization is still on the website.Paul E wrote:First Aspect wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_lawPaul E wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:I will never believe that Linford Christie cheated by way of doping. I don't think there is a black british person in this life or the next that thinks he did either.
Seb Coe, racists that he is, framed Linford as he didn't like him. FACT. http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/christi ... 13720.html
How's that?
Not exactly clear cut, I would say. See Rolf's point above.
Its still up, the thread's not even locked. I'm not going to continue with a nonsense debate about a legal point neither of us are qualified to comment on and which is completely irrelevant to the moderation issue we have been discussing. I have a titanium cross bike to assemble.
Huge presumption about my profession0 -
Sigh, I have better things to do and so do you, go build your bike as that's a lot more constructive than worrying about this website and why a troll has been banned0
-
So, it's all up for Lance. Retests show old samples positive: http://road.cc/content/news/65453-usada-retest-lance-armstrong-blood-samples-proves-positive-says-french-tv-show
McQuaid will ratify USADA decision: http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/534592/mcquaid-uci-will-not-shy-away-from-sanctioning-armstrong.html0 -
cjcp wrote:This has a slightly different feel to it though, almost as if there's something more unsavoury driving it. I think the judge expressed concerns about their approach.
I see that too. Irrespective of the position of LA, you get the sense that someone has decided to make their career out of this. Right place, right time, and off they go...
_______
Here's what I find a bit puzzling about the USADA's position. I've been mulling this over for a few days, and I've yet to discover a satisfactory way to look at it.
It's all about due process.
Having rooted around the USADA's website a bit, and the WADC, it seems like the USADA routinely charges suspected drug cheats with infringements of WADC. Then the charges are brought before a three man independent arbitration panel ("the AAA") and ruled upon. Following the ruling the athlete, if convicted, gets his ban. So far so good, and nothing untoward there.
Here, the USADA charged LA. LA refused to engage in the arbitration process. The USADA cried victory and issued its ban.
It's that shortcut - crying victory at that stage - that I find uneasy. Let me explain.
If someone (usually a defendant) refuses to participate in an arbitration, they can do so. The claimant will usually still want a reasoned decision or judgment (called an award) from the arbitration panel. So they trudge on, have a shortened trial, prove their case without any opposition, and get their award. Happens every day. The award is as bullet proof as a fully contested award.
When LA ducked the arbitration process, he didn't plead guilty. He didn't admit the claims against him. He said "I'm not playing". You may think that's as much as admission of guilt as anything else. You might ultimately be right. But it's not a formal admission, and that's an important difference.
So the USADA could have trudged on as above, proved its case in LA's absence, and waved around a reasoned award. It didn't though. Instead, it dropped the whole process and said "we've won!".
I've been trying to think of a simple analogy. The best I can come up with is this. CPS launches a prosecution. Defendant flees the country. CPS doesn't go to trial in his absence; there is no examination of its evidence. Instead it says "he's convicted!" and "issues" a jail sentence or other punishment.
And this matters why? Well, because I've personally seen quite a few cases that have looked bullet proof. Right up to the point the trial gets going. And then the wheels start to come off them. Big time. If you want more accessible examples, think OJ Simpson. Think My Cousin Vinny.
Again, you might think that someone who skips the country is guilty as hell. You might be right. You might not. But whichever way you look at it, unless there is some independent review of the evidence, and a decision upon it, you're still left with suspicion. You're not left with anything that's been proven.
So the USADA will next compile a report for submission to the UCI and WADA. The report will be (to paraphrase that bloke from Bullseye) the USADA saying "now, let's have a look at what we would've said". There is some (perhaps not much, but some) wriggle room in what the UCI has said most recently: if the USADA has a reasoned decision, the UCI will enforce it. It could, I suspect, take the legitimate view that the evidence the USADA has compiled is not sufficiently compelling; that the USADA's decision is not therefore reasoned; and so dump the whole thing in the CAS's lap to sort out.
My guess is that the UCI's resolve to take this course will depend quite heavily on how much the USADA's evidence dobs in the UCI as complicit in the LA allegations. Dirty laundry is best not washed in public, and so on...0 -
I'm no lawyer but surely because the case involves 5 people, not one, and one of them, the hog, is going for arbitration, surely the process of arbitration will still occur. Only with 1 defendant, the hog, rather than the full 5, since the other 4 aren't going for it?
As an aside, does anti-doping process have to follow the criminal process? I wasn't aware it did.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:I'm no lawyer but surely because the case involves 5 people, not one, and one of them, the hog, is going for arbitration, surely the process of arbitration will still occur. Only with 1 defendant, the hog, rather than the full 5, since the other 4 aren't going for it?
As an aside, does anti-doping process have to follow the criminal process? I wasn't aware it did.
First point: as I understand it, there are five cases against five people. I don't know whether there was ever a plan to hear them all together; perhaps there was if a conspiracy is alleged.
If so, then a lawyer looking at this would say "So, LA and some others has dropped out. JB is still in and fighting though. No problem. We proceed against JB and prove our case against the other four, in their absence, at the hearing against JB". All the odder, therefore, to stop, claim victory and dispense the punishment.
Second point: the anti-doping process doesn't have to follow the criminal process, but I didn't say that it did. The criminal thing was just intended to illustrate the "doing a runner" point. Because it has pretty severe consequences though, it will follow a fairly strict procedure (eg I noticed according to WADC, the burden of proof is higher than the civil standard of balance of probabilities, although lower than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt).
If, as seems to be the case, anti-doping is done by arbitration, it has to follow the procedures that the USADA and its athletes agree should govern arbitrations. Now it is possible that there is a short cut in those procedures that allows the USADA to do what it's done, but I haven't found it. If it's there, then there's nothing wrong with what's been done so far: that was the procedure that LA signed up to. Whether it's there is the question I have though.0 -
Presumably the process as you've described it is there to stop authorities deciding they want to, say, slap a doping charge on someone without any good evidence?0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Presumably the process as you've described it is there to stop authorities deciding they want to, say, slap a doping charge on someone without any good evidence?
Yes. WADC has two "routes" to go against athletes: positive tests and other credible evidence. Hence the "indirect" proof, in the form of oral evidence that runs "I saw LA inject himself with EPO on date X in hotel Y" is all perfectly admissible. Whether it is credible, and whether it is to be or would be accepted by an independent panel as true is a different question, and the whole point of an arbitral hearing.
It's a fact of life that every prosecuting authority brings a prosecution believing that they have good evidence; it's also a fact of life that when push comes to shove at trial, not every prosecution succeeds.0 -
I haven't read them properly at all but, just skimming through USADA docs, it looks like positive lab test results provide for strict liability. The athlete has the right to demand a hearing but, if he fails to do so in the face of positive tests, is it not just a matter of rubber stamping and passing sentence?0
