The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*

[Red Light]

Red Light, what do you actually want?

A proper fair and rational process that gives an unimpeachable result on his guilt or othe. What we have is a file that has glaring omissions in the evidence where it contradicts the case they are making and a judgement and sentence set by the prosecution. And because of that, rather than being a clear cut unimpeachable conclusion we have one that is suspect and will continue to be open to challenge because of it. Maybe not at first in these heady media days but down the line.

On the other hand I could ask what you think the point of a forum like this is if its not to discuss, debate and challenge? Otherwise it just becomes a clique love-in or else we can all stop posting and go home.

 

[DogTired]

The USADA also acted as judge finding him guilty and issuing the penalties. For all we knew at the time their case file could have consisted of a single page saying "He doesn't look right to me". Even with a no-show or nolo contendere in the Courts its the judge that decides whether the prosecution case has merit and the appropriate penalty not the prosecutor and for good reason. If they had put the file (as it was then, not a month later after they had sexed it up) in front of independent arbitrators who had agreed the USADA case made him guilty and decided the penalty to apply I would be happy. But they didn't they took a case that was unknown to the world, declared him guilty on it, issued the punishment and then spent a month sexing up the case to make it releasable to the public. If you think they acted only as prosecutor I would be interested to know who you think the judge was that stripped (or claimed to have stripped) him of his TdeF wins and also offered him a reduced penalty if he pleaded guilty rather than no-contest.

Nope, wrong again. This is confusing how an established system works (which all athletes agree to). The punishments are specified in the WADA code. The rules regarding non-defence are defined in the WADA code and not made up by USADA. USADA did not find him guilty. USADA prosecuted and submitted a case only. Its the established agreed, WADA process that finds him guilty. The judge would be the independent arbitrators. USADA would prosecute on the balance of probabilities, which is the same way as criminal courts.

In the case that a single page was submitted saying "He doesn't look right to me" then the athlete has ample opportunity to go to arbitration. Its not as if they're incarcerated until this happens, thats why there are parallels, but not a duplicate of the criminal process.

Finally, for all those who missed it, USADA only recommend the punishment - UCI ratify it.

 

[DogTired]

So Guantanamo is right - every American knows they were guilty and the end justifies the means? Thank God we have people who don't believe that and hold us all to account on having fair and proper processes.

Aah, the Guantanamo variant of Godwin's Law! Fantastic!

 

[Red Light]

I disagree. The situation is somewhat analogous to someone, in a court of law,. pleading guilty. The evidence doesn't get examined by the court.

Actually it does get examined by the Court in a no-contest plea or a guilty plea. They don't just take the prosecutors word for it, the judge looks at the prosecutors case to see if there is a proper case and if appropriate determine the sentence that should be applied.

 

[DogTired]

A proper fair and rational process that gives an unimpeachable result on his guilt or othe. What we have is a file that has glaring omissions in the evidence where it contradicts the case they are making and a judgement and sentence set by the prosecution. And because of that, rather than being a clear cut unimpeachable conclusion we have one that is suspect and will continue to be open to challenge because of it. Maybe not at first in these heady media days but down the line.

On the other hand I could ask what you think the point of a forum like this is if its not to discuss, debate and challenge? Otherwise it just becomes a clique love-in or else we can all stop posting and go home.

Every case involves doubt and balance of probabilities. There are always a finite of witnesses and the accused rarely confesses. If you want unimpeachable it doesn't exist.

Discussion, debate and challenge are fine, but it relies on participants self-policing the coherence, relevance, background and common-sense of their contributions.

 

[PpPete]

A proper fair and rational process that gives an unimpeachable result on his guilt or othe[erwise].

No argument there

What we have is a file that has glaring omissions in the evidence where it contradicts the case they are making....

Which no doubt would have been brought out in LA's defence had the case gone to arbitration. And their validity [or otherwise - as most on here believe] tested in that arbitration. It's not the prosecution's job (in any process that I can think of) to advance the defence's cause for them.... especially after the defendant has already pleased guilty? Do correct me if I'm wrong on that.

..... and a judgement and sentence set by the prosecution.

In accordance with the WADA code

And because of that, we have a clear cut unimpeachable conclusion that no one in their right minds can surely continue to challenge.
Not now, not at any time in the future.

On the other hand I could ask what you think the point of a forum like this is if its not to discuss, debate and challenge? Otherwise it just becomes a clique love-in or else we can all stop posting and go home.

No argument there either.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Actually it does get examined by the Court in a no-contest plea or a guilty plea. They don't just take the prosecutors word for it, the judge looks at the prosecutors case to see if there is a proper case and if appropriate determine the sentence that should be applied.

RL that's a gross over-simplification. What happens in the USA depends on the charges and on the jurisdiction.

 

[Red Light]

Which no doubt would have been brought out in LA's defence had the case gone to arbitration. And their validity [or otherwise - as most on here believe] tested in that arbitration. It's not the prosecution's job (in any process that I can think of) to advance the defence's cause for them.... especially after the defendant has already pleased guilty? Do correct me if I'm wrong on that.

He didn't plead guilty. He pleaded no contest which is very different. And in most systems its not the prosecutions case to then act as judge and sentencer. That is done by an independent person/body.

In accordance with the WADA code

Article 17 anyone?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

This important piece of critical evidence has just landed in my inbox.....

 

[DogTired]

He didn't plead guilty. He pleaded no contest which is very different. And in most systems its not the prosecutions case to then act as judge and sentencer. That is done by an independent person/body.

Nope, wrong again. There is no option to plead no contest. He chose not to go to arbitration to which he had every right. He, and everyone else, would be aware that if he did not go to arbitration then the case against him stands.

 

[philipbh]

Article 17 anyone?

Page 154/5 of the USADA reasoned argument deals with this and why the SoL does not apply or can be suspended in this case

Concealment of wrong doing and seeing false testimony...

 

[Red Light]

Nope, wrong again. There is no option to plead no contest. He chose not to go to arbitration to which he had every right. He, and everyone else, would be aware that if he did not go to arbitration then the case against him stands.

Ermmm.......WADA Code section 8.3?

 

[Red Light]

Page 154/5 of the USADA reasoned argument deals with this and why the SoL does not apply or can be suspended in this case

Concealment of wrong doing and seeing false testimony...

Article 17 is not qualified as to the circumstances in which it applies. Therefore its not open to argument that its application should be qualified.

 

[DogTired]

Ermmm.......WADA Code section 8.3?

Are we both reading the same code? 8.3 relates to a waiver of hearing by a failure to challenge. There is nothing that says there is an option to plead no contest. This is a meaningless and unspecified term made up by Armstrong in the media to suggest the evidence has no merit.

 

[mickle]

New, New Improved Lance Armstrong Thread anyone?