Armstrong charged and banned

[Noodley]

I am sure that there may be analyses of figures which may look "abnormal" but if Wiggins is doping then I am quite prepared to eat any hat thrown in my direction. I am generally confident that things are changing, and am realistic about the lure of doping and the reasons for doping. I don't expect everyone who doped to admit it, but I do think that those who still go on about "never failing tests" or who defend those who supported the system and ruined the careers of others need to be held to account.

I would have much more respect for the likes of Roche who is carving out a career as a cycling politician if he turned round and said "listen, I took drugs; it's something we need to address. I do not want the current riders to have to go thru what we did". It would be so easy.

 

[Red Light]

No, you're mistaken. It's about a balance of probabilities. The evidence against Contador probably wouldn't have been strong enough to get a guilty verdict in a court of law, but in the context of the rules of the sport, the evidence is deemed strong enough to say that he very probably cheated.

He's been stripped of a sporting title, not convicted of a crime.

The evidence against Lance seems to be of a similar nature. But yes, let's see how the investigation pans out before jumping to any conclusions - I'm all for anyone getting a fair hearing, even Lance.

d.

There is a big difference though. Contador had traces of a banned substance in his blood. Armstrong has never tested positive for a banned substance. They do share the dubious honour though of being accused of doping by Greg LeMond.

 

[Noodley]

Armstrong has never tested positive for a banned substance.

Err, he has...

 

[smutchin]

Armstrong has never tested positive for a banned substance.

Even if you leave aside the question of whether or not that's actually true, there are other kinds of evidence that are considered sufficient proof (on the balance of probability) in these cases.

Plenty of other riders have been suspended and had titles overturned without actually testing positive.

d.

 

[Noodley]

Good point smutchin, there does appear to be a strange view of "evidence" in threads related to doping and Armstrong in particular - a lack of understanding of "evidence" perhaps?

 

[smutchin]

you should read the comments on l'Equipe under the articles about Wiggins' victories... 50% at least think SKY are doping.

Never read the bottom half of the internet!

d.

 

[Red Light]

Err, he has...

You mean the 99 urine test that was he was cleared of after it was linked to a substance in an approved cream for saddle sores?

 

[smutchin]

...so the real difference between Lance and Bertie is not that one tested positive and the other didn't, but that one came up with a good cover story and the other didn't.

d.

 

[Red Light]

Good point smutchin, there does appear to be a strange view of "evidence" in threads related to doping and Armstrong in particular - a lack of understanding of "evidence" perhaps?

Probably. If there is any "evidence" it was not considered good enough evidence by the US Grand Jury. And much of the "evidence" has been challenged by LA in Court and he has won with out of Court settlements.

 

[Noodley]

Probably. If there is any "evidence" it was not considered good enough evidence by the US Grand Jury. And much of the "evidence" has been challenged by LA in Court and he has won with out of Court settlements.

confirmation of the lack of knowledge of "evidence"

 

[Noodley]

You mean the 99 urine test that was he was cleared of after it was linked to a substance in an approved cream for saddle sores?

yes, that's the one <looks for disbelieving smiley>

 

[smutchin]

Probably. If there is any "evidence" it was not considered good enough evidence by the US Grand Jury.

Evidence of what? Of doping? But doping isn't a federal charge...

They weren't after him for doping per se, rather for misuse of government money (the US Postal sponsorship). They never revealed why they didn't pursue the case either, so you can't know for sure that it was for lack of evidence.

It now seems that they've handed over what evidence they had to USADA, and USADA consider it strong enough to pursue a case against Lance (on different charges and different standards of evidence to the federal case).

d.

 

[raindog]

Evidence of what? Of doping? But doping isn't a federal charge...

They weren't after him for doping per se, rather for misuse of government money (the US Postal sponsorship). They never revealed why they didn't pursue the case either, so you can't know for sure that it was for lack of evidence.

It now seems that they've handed over what evidence they had to USADA, and USADA consider it strong enough to pursue a case against Lance (on different charges and different standards of evidence to the federal case).

d.

You've put that simply and perfectly smutchin, but in a couple of pages someone else will come along and repeat what Red Light said.

So, to sum up the thread so far.....

LA doped
no he didn't
yes he did
no he didn't
yes he did

he's guilty as hell
no he isn't
yes he is
no he isn't
yes he is

dozens, hundreds, of threads all over the internet are coming up with the same clear cut conclusions we are

 

[Red Light]

You've put that simply and perfectly smutchin, but in a couple of pages someone else will come along and repeat what Red Light said.

So, to sum up the thread so far.....

LA is innocent until proven guilty
no he isn't
yes he is
no he isn't
yes he is

he's guilty as hell
not until its proven
yes he is
no he isn't
yes he is

dozens, hundreds, of threads all over the internet are coming up with the same clear cut conclusions we are

FTFY

 

[Red Light]

confirmation of the lack of knowledge of "evidence"

So do please enlighten us with your wisdom on the true meaning of "evidence".