Anybody not in frothing rage over LA ?

Pross

Monkeypump wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

Feeling Lance has been hard done-by?

No - he made his bed, he has to lay in it. I do think Tygart's witch-hunt was ridiculous though. TBH, I think it's too early to say whether Lance has been hard done by - the story is far from over.

Sad to see that this thread has, however, inevitably spiralled into pointless squabling.

Really? Why? It finally brought about the drug conviction (and eventually ellicited a confession) and ban that should have occurred a decade ago and Tygart has been the only person in authority within sport to have the guts to go after him. If someone is going to make themselves into the biggest name in the sport through cheating and bullying then surely they have to expect that people will go to greater lengths to bring them down?

Monkeypump

Pross wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

Feeling Lance has been hard done-by?

No - he made his bed, he has to lay in it. I do think Tygart's witch-hunt was ridiculous though. TBH, I think it's too early to say whether Lance has been hard done by - the story is far from over.

Sad to see that this thread has, however, inevitably spiralled into pointless squabling.

Really? Why? It finally brought about the drug conviction (and eventually ellicited a confession) and ban that should have occurred a decade ago and Tygart has been the only person in authority within sport to have the guts to go after him. If someone is going to make themselves into the biggest name in the sport through cheating and bullying then surely they have to expect that people will go to greater lengths to bring them down?

Because a lot of it seemed to be about Tygart's moment in the sun, rather than a warranted and overdue outcome to what had been going on with LA. Not just about cleaning up the sport, but being the man who took down the most famous cyclist in the world. Guts or glory-hunting?

Your comment seems to suggest that rather than "innocent until proven guilty", assumption of guilt (by the masses) is enough to warrant a witch-hunt. A little medieval? In this case, he was/is guilty, but what if he wasn't? Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Just my take on it though, not trying to be inflammatory.

Trev The Rev

You need thief takers. Innocent until proven guilty is fair, but you must have people who hunt down criminals, you can't sit around waiting for evidence, you have to investigate and dig out evidence. Sometimes it takes a thief taker with as big an ego as the criminal to get the job done. Tygart should be given his moment in the sun.

Pross

Monkeypump wrote:

Your comment seems to suggest that rather than "innocent until proven guilty", assumption of guilt (by the masses) is enough to warrant a witch-hunt. A little medieval? In this case, he was/is guilty, but what if he wasn't? Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Just my take on it though, not trying to be inflammatory.

No, just that there was enough evidence out there that someone should have at least carried out a more in depth investigation earlier. The UCI should have investigated the various accusations even if they felt the 'whistle blowers' were dubious but they sat back and did nothing.

Trev The Rev

Pross wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

Your comment seems to suggest that rather than "innocent until proven guilty", assumption of guilt (by the masses) is enough to warrant a witch-hunt. A little medieval? In this case, he was/is guilty, but what if he wasn't? Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Just my take on it though, not trying to be inflammatory.

No, just that there was enough evidence out there that someone should have at least carried out a more in depth investigation earlier. The UCI should have investigated the various accusations even if they felt the 'whistle blowers' were dubious but they sat back and did nothing.

They did not just sit back and do nothing they went after the whistle blowers and started suing people (Kimmage, Landis) and calling the whistle blowers liars and year in year out claiming cycling is clean now the past is the past move on. They were Armstrong's bitches.

slim_boy_fat

Monkeypump wrote:

No - he made his bed, he has to lay in it. I do think Tygart's witch-hunt was ridiculous though. TBH, I think it's too early to say whether Lance has been hard done by - the story is far from over.

Sad to see that this thread has, however, inevitably spiralled into pointless squabling.

Surely a witch-hunt is warranted if the accused does actually turn out to be a witch?

tailwindhome

I wish people would stop saying 'witch hunt'.

It's nonsense.

Richmond Racer

USADA should have used the tried and tested method of a ducking stool

Would have saved SO much bother

Trev The Rev

Richmond Racer wrote:

USADA should have used the tried and tested method of a ducking stool

Would have saved SO much bother

The irony is that in the end it was testimony from squealing drug cheats saving their skin, and a few brave women, that brought Armstrong down, not drug testing.

Pross

Video of USADA investigation now released

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU

Garry H

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

No - he made his bed, he has to lay in it. I do think Tygart's witch-hunt was ridiculous though. TBH, I think it's too early to say whether Lance has been hard done by - the story is far from over.

Sad to see that this thread has, however, inevitably spiralled into pointless squabling.

Surely a witch-hunt is warranted if the accused does actually turn out to be a witch?

+1 Tygart has jurisdiction over US athletes. Who else should he have gone after? He's landed, arguably, the biggest name in world sport over the last 15 or so years.

RichN95.

Garry H wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

No - he made his bed, he has to lay in it. I do think Tygart's witch-hunt was ridiculous though. TBH, I think it's too early to say whether Lance has been hard done by - the story is far from over.

Sad to see that this thread has, however, inevitably spiralled into pointless squabling.

Surely a witch-hunt is warranted if the accused does actually turn out to be a witch?

+1 Tygart has jurisdiction over US athletes. Who else should he have gone after? He's landed, arguably, the biggest name in world sport over the last 15 or so years.

He caught Tiger Woods as well? Blimey. He's certainly making up for a decade of inaction recently.

Garry H

RichN95 wrote:

Garry H wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

No - he made his bed, he has to lay in it. I do think Tygart's witch-hunt was ridiculous though. TBH, I think it's too early to say whether Lance has been hard done by - the story is far from over.

Sad to see that this thread has, however, inevitably spiralled into pointless squabling.

Surely a witch-hunt is warranted if the accused does actually turn out to be a witch?

+1 Tygart has jurisdiction over US athletes. Who else should he have gone after? He's landed, arguably, the biggest name in world sport over the last 15 or so years.

He caught Tiger Woods as well? Blimey. He's certainly making up for a decade of inaction recently.

? No, you'll have to explain that one.

Pross

Garry H wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Garry H wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

No - he made his bed, he has to lay in it. I do think Tygart's witch-hunt was ridiculous though. TBH, I think it's too early to say whether Lance has been hard done by - the story is far from over.

Sad to see that this thread has, however, inevitably spiralled into pointless squabling.

Surely a witch-hunt is warranted if the accused does actually turn out to be a witch?

+1 Tygart has jurisdiction over US athletes. Who else should he have gone after? He's landed, arguably, the biggest name in world sport over the last 15 or so years.

He caught Tiger Woods as well? Blimey. He's certainly making up for a decade of inaction recently.

? No, you'll have to explain that one.

I think he is disputing who the biggest name in world sport has been in the last 15 years.

Garry H

Pross wrote:

Garry H wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Garry H wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

No - he made his bed, he has to lay in it. I do think Tygart's witch-hunt was ridiculous though. TBH, I think it's too early to say whether Lance has been hard done by - the story is far from over.

Sad to see that this thread has, however, inevitably spiralled into pointless squabling.

Surely a witch-hunt is warranted if the accused does actually turn out to be a witch?

+1 Tygart has jurisdiction over US athletes. Who else should he have gone after? He's landed, arguably, the biggest name in world sport over the last 15 or so years.

He caught Tiger Woods as well? Blimey. He's certainly making up for a decade of inaction recently.

? No, you'll have to explain that one.

I think he is disputing who the biggest name in world sport has been in the last 15 years.

I see, thought he was inplying that USADA had jurisdiction over bedroom, as well as pharmaceutical shenanigans I did say arguably, though.

RichN95.

Yeah, Garry, I didn't really phrase that very well.

Anyway, slightly unconnected to that, I predict that Tygart runs for political office in the next couple of years. He's certainly milking his moment.

Garry H

RichN95 wrote:

Yeah, Garry, I didn't really phrase that very well.

Anyway, slightly unconnected to that, I predict that Tygart runs for political office in the next couple of years. He's certainly milking his moment.

I forgive you, neither did I. I should've said "arguably the most well known US athlete in the world, apart from Tiger Woods". ( Is Woods an athlete though? hmmm)

Regarding Tygart, I wouldn't be at all surprised. Going by what I've read of him, he'll be runnuing on the Republican side.

Percy Vera

Monkeypump wrote:

Pross wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

Feeling Lance has been hard done-by?

No - he made his bed, he has to lay in it. I do think Tygart's witch-hunt was ridiculous though. TBH, I think it's too early to say whether Lance has been hard done by - the story is far from over.

Sad to see that this thread has, however, inevitably spiralled into pointless squabling.

Really? Why? It finally brought about the drug conviction (and eventually ellicited a confession) and ban that should have occurred a decade ago and Tygart has been the only person in authority within sport to have the guts to go after him. If someone is going to make themselves into the biggest name in the sport through cheating and bullying then surely they have to expect that people will go to greater lengths to bring them down?

Because a lot of it seemed to be about Tygart's moment in the sun, rather than a warranted and overdue outcome to what had been going on with LA. Not just about cleaning up the sport, but being the man who took down the most famous cyclist in the world. Guts or glory-hunting?

Your comment seems to suggest that rather than "innocent until proven guilty", assumption of guilt (by the masses) is enough to warrant a witch-hunt. A little medieval? In this case, he was/is guilty, but what if he wasn't? Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Just my take on it though, not trying to be inflammatory.

Witch hunt?? You've been listening too long to Armstrong and his cronies!

Matchstick Man

Floyd Landis - taken down by USADA, lost his TdF title
Tyler Hamilton - taken down by USADA, lost his Olympic title

Where were the cries of witch hunt back then?

As for loss of titles, results why do people seem to think those testifying got off Scot free?
Van de Velde, Danielson, Zabriskie all lost two years of results and Leipheimer was stripped of 8 years of results.
All of this is in the USADA affadavits. Also Landis' affadavit details he's now liable for in the region $500,000 due to defrauding people with his Floyd Fairness Fund.
As has already been stated, reduced sentences for testifying against others is a basic tenet of western law.

thomthom

And Lance was offered exactly the same. He chose not to.

That ship has sailed now, Wonderlance.

RichN95.

Matchstick Man wrote:

Floyd Landis - taken down by USADA, lost his TdF title
Tyler Hamilton - taken down by USADA, lost his Olympic title

Where were the cries of witch hunt back then?

It was 'the French' who were the witch hunters back then. (They were 'taken down' by the drug testers, not USADA)

pussander

enough to warrant a witch-hunt. A little medieval?

The point about 'witch hunts' and the reason why the phrase is used to denigrate a (non) judicial process is because innocent people get caught up in it.... Not really the case here is it. There was a witch hunt and guess what they caught? Where's the problem?

Matchstick Man

RichN95 wrote:

Matchstick Man wrote:

Floyd Landis - taken down by USADA, lost his TdF title
Tyler Hamilton - taken down by USADA, lost his Olympic title

Where were the cries of witch hunt back then?

It was 'the French' who were the witch hunters back then. (They were 'taken down' by the drug testers, not USADA)

http://www.usada.org/sanctions/
Landis sanctioned in 2007, Hamilton sanctioned in 2009 which were the result of formal procedures brought about by USADA. Hence my comment about USADA being the ones ultimately responsible. Lance's case also had tests that weren't done by USADA but the case brought against him was the responsibility of his national anti-doping agency

Monty Dog

"witch-hunt' is the term adopted by the doping-apologist, sock-puppets.

In terms of innocence until proven guilty, that doesn't apply to drug testing as it's assumed to be absolute liability - athlete's are responsible for what is in their bodies and any artificial substance is assumed to have been ingested purposefully unless they can demonstrate their innocence otherwise.

BelgianBeerGeek

Monty Dog wrote:

"witch-hunt' is the term adopted by the doping-apologist, sock-puppets.

In terms of innocence until proven guilty, that doesn't apply to drug testing as it's assumed to be absolute liability - athlete's are responsible for what is in their bodies and any artificial substance is assumed to have been ingested purposefully unless they can demonstrate their innocence otherwise.

Quite right MD. There is too much bleating by athletes about "circumstantial evidence" as though that's enough to kill off any accusations. They know what the rules are, what they are doing, and they're f***in' cheats.
Having said that, I'm not in a frothing rage. I can leave that to those who were cheated. It's just sad, really.

dennisn

I like the "frothing rage" part. But no, I'm not frothing. For me frothing rage seems reserved for people close to me(friends, family, co workers) who have abused a trust, done things they shouldn't have AND knew better, need their ego's knocked down a bit, that sort of thing. Actually some of the same things LA has done. However, working up a good froth over him is not in my cards. I'm not that close to him(friends, family, etc.) and I only have so much froth in me. But, had he been a close friend and abused that trust then "frothing rage" might just apply.

As an afterthought though I'm thinking that the Oprah thing was a pretty shameless thing to do. For both of them. Ahhhhhhhhh show biz, what a trashy business to be involved in. Thinking maybe I could work up a good spitting, yelling, rant about it. If not a froth.

deejay

dennisn wrote:

As an afterthought though I'm thinking that the Oprah thing was a pretty shameless thing to do. For both of them. Ahhhhhhhhh show biz, what a trashy business to be involved in. Thinking maybe I could work up a good spitting, yelling, rant about it. If not a froth.

Who is this LA ??
From the sound of it he is some sort of Trashy Tramp who used to race a Bicycle with no palmares to his name. (well very, very few)

dennisn

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Monty Dog wrote:

"witch-hunt' is the term adopted by the doping-apologist, sock-puppets.

In terms of innocence until proven guilty, that doesn't apply to drug testing as it's assumed to be absolute liability - athlete's are responsible for what is in their bodies and any artificial substance is assumed to have been ingested purposefully unless they can demonstrate their innocence otherwise.

Quite right MD. There is too much bleating by athletes about "circumstantial evidence" as though that's enough to kill off any accusations.

How would you feel if you were accused of something by "circumstantial evidence"? Because you have a friend who committed a crime and you hung around with him a lot, are you ready to serve time or pay the price simply by guilt by association? That's like saying "gee, that apple didn't taste very good - therefore all apples are bad".

Circumstantial evidence is what the Times had on LA way back when. It's why LA won big money in his lawsuit against them. They couldn't prove what they claimed and it cost them. Of course history has changed a few of the thoughts since then but The Times couldn't prove what they claimed. Personally I think that his lawsuit against them was a good thing. The idea that someone can claim things and make allegations against another without any proof is the sad part of all that.

rob churchill

dennisn wrote:

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Monty Dog wrote:

"witch-hunt' is the term adopted by the doping-apologist, sock-puppets.

In terms of innocence until proven guilty, that doesn't apply to drug testing as it's assumed to be absolute liability - athlete's are responsible for what is in their bodies and any artificial substance is assumed to have been ingested purposefully unless they can demonstrate their innocence otherwise.

Quite right MD. There is too much bleating by athletes about "circumstantial evidence" as though that's enough to kill off any accusations.

How would you feel if you were accused of something by "circumstantial evidence"? Because you have a friend who committed a crime and you hung around with him a lot, are you ready to serve time or pay the price simply by guilt by association? That's like saying "gee, that apple didn't taste very good - therefore all apples are bad".

Circumstantial evidence is what the Times had on LA way back when. It's why LA won big money in his lawsuit against them. They couldn't prove what they claimed and it cost them. Of course history has changed a few of the thoughts since then but The Times couldn't prove what they claimed. Personally I think that his lawsuit against them was a good thing. The idea that someone can claim things and make allegations against another without any proof is the sad part of all that.

Well, if the circumstantial evidence in question was that my dna or fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime, that anonymous deposits were made to my bank account which exactly matched those paid to my criminal friend, that I had means, motive, and opportunity, and a bunch of other circumstantial evidence which cumulatively added up to proof beyond reasonable doubt, then I'd probably say "it's a fair cop, Guv."

Because Dennis, circumstantial evidence is admissible in criminal cases. If there's enough of it, it's proof. If it links to non-circumstantial evidence then it's called 'corroborating evidence'. And it really isn't a good thing that a man guilty of wrongdoing was able to abuse England's notoriously unbalanced libel law to successfully sue those who published nothing but the truth by perjuring himself. It's just not. Dennis, admit it: you were an LA fanboy. You cheered when he won his case against The Sunday Times. Now you that you realise you were played for a fool, you're looking for some crumbs of vindication. You project your own neurotic cognitions onto other conveniently anonymous people on the internet and then go through a pantomime of analysing them, but what you are doing is so f***ing transparent that your every post is unintentionally hilarious. Please don't ever stop.

dmclite-3.0

rob churchill wrote:

dennisn wrote:

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Monty Dog wrote:

"witch-hunt' is the term adopted by the doping-apologist, sock-puppets.

In terms of innocence until proven guilty, that doesn't apply to drug testing as it's assumed to be absolute liability - athlete's are responsible for what is in their bodies and any artificial substance is assumed to have been ingested purposefully unless they can demonstrate their innocence otherwise.

Quite right MD. There is too much bleating by athletes about "circumstantial evidence" as though that's enough to kill off any accusations.

How would you feel if you were accused of something by "circumstantial evidence"? Because you have a friend who committed a crime and you hung around with him a lot, are you ready to serve time or pay the price simply by guilt by association? That's like saying "gee, that apple didn't taste very good - therefore all apples are bad".

Circumstantial evidence is what the Times had on LA way back when. It's why LA won big money in his lawsuit against them. They couldn't prove what they claimed and it cost them. Of course history has changed a few of the thoughts since then but The Times couldn't prove what they claimed. Personally I think that his lawsuit against them was a good thing. The idea that someone can claim things and make allegations against another without any proof is the sad part of all that.

Well, if the circumstantial evidence in question was that my dna or fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime, that anonymous deposits were made to my bank account which exactly matched those paid to my criminal friend, that I had means, motive, and opportunity, and a bunch of other circumstantial evidence which cumulatively added up to proof beyond reasonable doubt, then I'd probably say "it's a fair cop, Guv."

Because Dennis, circumstantial evidence is admissible in criminal cases. If there's enough of it, it's proof. If it links to non-circumstantial evidence then it's called 'corroborating evidence'. And it really isn't a good thing that a man guilty of wrongdoing was able to abuse England's notoriously unbalanced libel law to successfully sue those who published nothing but the truth by perjuring himself. It's just not. Dennis, admit it: you were an LA fanboy. You cheered when he won his case against The Sunday Times. Now you that you realise you were played for a fool, you're looking for some crumbs of vindication. You project your own neurotic cognitions onto other conveniently anonymous people on the internet and then go through a pantomime of analysing them, but what you are doing is so f***ing transparent that your every post is unintentionally hilarious. Please don't ever stop.

Apart from my own ramblings this has to be up there with "most ironic posts, evah!", wally.