I don't believe Lance Armstrong and I never will...

DonDaddyD

I never said I didn't believe the other stuff.

Where did I say that exactly in the post above?

waddlie

Cycling teams are lead by Directors, supported by Doctors and other people by and large more versed in the subject of biology, drugs and drug taking than Lance could ever hope to be. I doubt he was the point man. The face, the road dog, the foot soldier, yes, maybe. But the guy at the top? I dunno.

Umm...

DonDaddyD

I repeat my question.

Using either the post you quoted or the post I referred to - that you chose to ignore - where did I say explicitly that I did not believe the other stuff.

Being doubtful is not the same as out right not believing.

Saying it was likely is not the same as not believing.

waddlie

I don't know why I bothered.
I'm out.

Paul E

I thought I smelt a troll, I was right.

waddlie

Oh, and for the avoidance of doubt, there was this, earlier in the thread:

I do not believe he was the master mind or 'lead' the most sophisticated doping operation the sport has seen. Lance was a cyclist, not an evil genius.

PBo

Waddlie wrote:

Oh, and for the avoidance of doubt, there was this, earlier in the thread:

I do not believe he was the master mind or 'lead' the most sophisticated doping operation the sport has seen. Lance was a cyclist, not an evil genius.

Too be fair, DDD, he has got you bang to rights.....

I understand what you are saying about the evidence not having been tested, and USADA presenting their stuff in the best possible light etc., but the sheer numbers of correlating testimonies - particularly Big George and Bottle IMO (who have less of an axe to grind than Tyler or Floyd)- makes it hard for me to even imagine what counter evidence there could be....I don't think that it's intellectually weak in these circumstances to accept this as beyond reasonable doubt.
Particularly if the defendant chooses not to fight......I guess this is what sits most awkwardly with me about your stance, he has forfeited his right to test the evidence, and somehow this gives him some benefit of the doubt?


well, actually, I've just thought of the counter evidence that would convince me otherwise - a series of emails or tapes which demonstrate that all of the witnesses secretly collaborated to say the same thing.....all of them, from different teams, stages in their career, places - not just floyd and tyler getting together to have a catty go at Lance.

Do you think that's likely? Obviously, it COULD have happened, but the chances are so remote that I would still say we have beyond reasonable doubt, even without the evidence having been tested.

DonDaddyD

Right:

Paul E wrote:

I thought I smelt a troll, I was right.

And

PeteMadoc wrote:

I don't believe that DDD is a real person and I never will.....

I'm pretty sure he's a brick wall :roll:

or maybe just a troll, I can't work it out.

Coming into a thread to add nothing to the discussion except insults and accusations at the person is in fact trolling. Putting your point of view across, no matter how unique, is not trolling.

Too be fair, DDD, he has got you bang to rights.....

I understand what you are saying about the evidence not having been tested, and USADA presenting their stuff in the best possible light etc., but the sheer numbers of correlating testimonies - particularly Big George and Bottle IMO (who have less of an axe to grind than Tyler or Floyd)- makes it hard for me to even imagine what counter evidence there could be....I don't think that it's intellectually weak in these circumstances to accept this as beyond reasonable doubt.
Particularly if the defendant chooses not to fight......I guess this is what sits most awkwardly with me about your stance, he has forfeited his right to test the evidence, and somehow this gives him some benefit of the doubt?


well, actually, I've just thought of the counter evidence that would convince me otherwise - a series of emails or tapes which demonstrate that all of the witnesses secretly collaborated to say the same thing.....all of them, from different teams, stages in their career, places - not just floyd and tyler getting together to have a catty go at Lance.

Do you think that's likely? Obviously, it COULD have happened, but the chances are so remote that I would still say we have beyond reasonable doubt, even without the evidence having been tested.

Yes I did write that, and reading it again, I still believe it.



My default position is that you should hear both sides of the story. There are times when someone makes an accusation against someone and the defendant, who could be entirely innocent, is too intimidated to make any kind of defence due to fear of reprisals from the claimant. Happens all the time.

In the case of doping in Sport, should a defendant not wish to challenge the claim then a judgement can be passed. It does not mean that the accusations of the claimant are 100% correct.

We do not know if the claims are 100% correct, I am raising this point. What I am not saying is that they are 100% wrong, I am not trying to deny the validity of them. I am not saying Armstrong is innocent, but equally I am not saying that I know 100% the entirity of what he is guilty of.

To be clear,

I think it is probable or that Arsmstrong probably did dope. (Take your pick on sentence structure).

It is likely that he did bully other cyclists - on what and to the extent I personally cannot be sure.

I doubt to the point of not believing he was the master mind or lead in the most sophisticated doping operation seen in sport. (I should add, that the last bit is how a news report portrayed him, the actual report spreads this across several scenior staff members at US Postal).

Because he refused to challenge the allegations in a court he should be adjudged within the rules - that USDA has the right to pass judgement - lifetime ban and removal of his titles. Without hearing his defence plea we cannot say that the complete truth was ever found. The truth of this doesn't mean that Armstrong was any less guilty.

Sheesh.

EKE_38BPM

So, read the report yet?


Didn't think so.

tailwindhome

Can Armstrong be forced to testify when Bruyneel mounts his defence?

waddlie

So, DDD, is the following a fair summary of your position:

Lance was probably at the very least a Private.

Lance was almost certainly not the General.

Lance was possibly a Major or similar.

Without hearing his side of the story we can't determine where he lies between Lance (arf) Corporal or Lieutenant General. But we can reasonably determine that he was probably somewhere on the scale.

I'm not trying to trap you, just understand what you're on about. Sometimes in your quest to add a level of nuance to your position you inadvertently end up adding confusion.

rick_chasey

TailWindHome wrote:

Can Armstrong be forced to testify when Bruyneel mounts his defence?

No.

tailwindhome

Rick Chasey wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Can Armstrong be forced to testify when Bruyneel mounts his defence?

No.

Awww!

EKE_38BPM

I thought he could be sub peonad (sp?) to testify. Federal case and all that.

tailwindhome

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I thought he could be sub peonad (sp?) to testify. Federal case and all that.

Some sort of right not to incriminate himself (as he is a correspondent to the charge) I expect.

rick_chasey

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I thought he could be sub peonad (sp?) to testify. Federal case and all that.

Fifth amendment and all that.

chadders81

So the drive train on my Trek Team Discovery Channel replica gives up the ghost (bottom bracket is gone and gears have slipped out of index) in the same week that LA finally and irrefutably gets nailed. Coincidence?

tailwindhome

TailWindHome wrote:

Some sort of right not to incriminate himself

Rick Chasey wrote:

Fifth amendment

Yeah, that'll be the one..... :roll: :oops:

chadders81

Some people clearly couldn't care less about what USADA says.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/LANCE-ARMSTRO ... 2c68c3b4b9

rolf_f

Chadders81 wrote:

Some people clearly couldn't care less about what USADA says.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/LANCE-ARMSTRO ... 2c68c3b4b9

Sensitive of the vendor to make it a private auction

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Is American Football tested? Those guys look like serial steroid abusers.

Victor Conte (of BALCO fame) spends a lot of time on twitter berrating the particularly flimsy anti-doping efforts in most US sports including American Football.

PBo

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I thought he could be sub peonad (sp?) to testify. Federal case and all that.

Is it federal though? I would say not, even if "tax payers dollars have been wasted on the witch hunt...". Prob no power to sub poena anyone.

rjsterry

Waddlie wrote:

So, DDD, is the following a fair summary of your position:

Lance was probably at the very least a Private.

Lance was almost certainly not the General.

Lance was possibly a Major or similar.

Without hearing his side of the story we can't determine where he lies between Lance (arf) Corporal or Lieutenant General. But we can reasonably determine that he was probably somewhere on the scale.

I'm not trying to trap you, just understand what you're on about. Sometimes in your quest to add a level of nuance to your position you inadvertently end up adding confusion.

The chances of Lance not being right at the head of this seem remote. There just don't seem to be many other likely candidates, and he has never hidden his desire to be in charge. Personally, the actual doping is less disturbing - it was hardy unusual - than the thuggery that was used to cover up or silence anyone who looked like they might challenge the myth. The Observer's editorial describes it thus, "He comes across less like a cyclist, more like a psychopath." and that doesn't seem too far off to me.

rick_chasey

Made a sh!load of money out of it.

I always get the impression he doesn't like the sport of cycling all that much.

I think he likes winning and he likes training hard and having that hard dedication needed for top sport, but not specifically cycling. When he was retired first time around and when he announced his comeback he barely had watched any racing at all. Instead he banged on about triathlon.

He got what he wanted. Bruyneel keeps posting pictures of very expensive wine he's drinking recently too. (In Chelsea btw, where he lives). Though he obviously likes cycling as a sport.

They're very very filthy rich out of this.

rjsterry

PBo wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I thought he could be sub peonad (sp?) to testify. Federal case and all that.

Is it federal though? I would say not, even if "tax payers dollars have been wasted on the witch hunt...". Prob no power to sub poena anyone.

There are suggestions that he may face perjury charges over statements made in court in Dallas 2005. I understand that SCA Promotions are looking to get their money ($7.5m) back.

Hoopdriver

rjsterry wrote:

PBo wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I thought he could be sub peonad (sp?) to testify. Federal case and all that.

Is it federal though? I would say not, even if "tax payers dollars have been wasted on the witch hunt...". Prob no power to sub poena anyone.

There are suggestions that he may face perjury charges over statements made in court in Dallas 2005. I understand that SCA Promotions are looking to get their money ($7.5m) back.

He could find himself looking at some of the same problems that Jeffrey Archer faced and end up doing time.

roger_merriman

rjsterry wrote:

PBo wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I thought he could be sub peonad (sp?) to testify. Federal case and all that.

Is it federal though? I would say not, even if "tax payers dollars have been wasted on the witch hunt...". Prob no power to sub poena anyone.

There are suggestions that he may face perjury charges over statements made in court in Dallas 2005. I understand that SCA Promotions are looking to get their money ($7.5m) back.

number of parties are circling, the Times being one.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/12/lance-armstrong-sunday-times_n_1962965.html

DonDaddyD

Waddlie wrote:

So, DDD, is the following a fair summary of your position:

Lance was probably at the very least a Private.

Lance was almost certainly not the General.

Lance was possibly a Major or similar.

Without hearing his side of the story we can't determine where he lies between Lance (arf) Corporal or Lieutenant General. But we can reasonably determine that he was probably somewhere on the scale.

I'm not trying to trap you, just understand what you're on about. Sometimes in your quest to add a level of nuance to your position you inadvertently end up adding confusion.

I see the issue as this: There is a cat in a box, is it alive or dead? It is, in fact, both alive and dead, or probably either. It is a known unknown until you open the box and find out.

Most people seem to think Lance is either guilty or he is innocent, there is no probably. I see that as incorrect.

In order for Lance to be found guilty there needs to be a trial where all the evidence (including his) is heard and tested. Lance refused to do this, and in the minds of some, this may make him appear guilty it does not mean that he is. He has not been tried and found guilty of anything. he is, currently, a free man (that may change).

Why was he banned and his titles removed? He received a punishment (lifetime ban and stripped of his titles) because under the current rules for this, should an athlete refuse to contest or defend themselves against claims of doping the national authority (in this case USDA) has the ability to go ahead and proceed with punishment as long as they can provide justification (in the form of the 'reasoned decision').

I.e. had Contador not claimed 'contaminated beef', said nothing and refused to comment or defend himself his punishment could have been more severe. No matter how it looks an athlete is no more or less guilty despite what their actions suggest IMO.

Just because Lance chose to not fight it and (separately and combined) just because the USDA can now go ahead and issue their punishment doesn't mean Lance is guilty (in the legal sense).

There was no trial so no one, at this stage, can say that Lance is guilty. He may look or appear guilty, it doesn't mean he is. Why do you think Brailsford and Wiggins have both said the evidence looks "damning" but stopped short of saying "Yeah he doped and cheated and is guilty"? Because legally they can't, and if Lance was found innocent, they would be liable.

What the 'Reasoned Decision' is the first salvo of accusations when a case is bought against someone. No matter how convincing, that isn't confirmation that the person is guilty of what they've been accused of.

Without a trial and without a proper legal proceedings at best all anyone can legally say is that "In view of the claims made against him it is probably/likely/highly plausible that he did do the things he is accused of". I'm not saying he did not do the things he is accused of, that would deny the validity of the evidence given. What I am doing is stopping short of saying that he absolutely did, because that has yet to be legally proven or confirmed yet. The evidence, however, is pretty damning.

[A case was bought against OJ Simpson, where all the evidence made it seem he was 100% guilty, he walked away innocent. A case was bought against Michael Jackson, where all the evidence appeared he was guilty. He died a free man.]

rick_chasey

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... qs9DYisSsg

DonDaddyD

Our Super-mod being the hypocrite again. (You never accept anything but your own opinion - look at my banning for example).

Yes or no questions (to all):

Has Lance been tried in court and found guilty? Yes or No.

In view of your answer above, is it correct to say that he is guilty (in the legal sense) of what he has been accused of? Yes or No.