|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Lance Armstrong – Say it ain't so!
|
Shire Dweller
Shipmate
# 16631
|
Posted
I am the child desperate for a sporting hero to “Say it ain't so!”*
Lance Armstrong has 'walked away' from the doping charges brought against him by the US Anti-doping agency.
There seems to be some Ship people who follow cycling [please move this if its on the wrong board]. Is it just me that's somehow upset by all this?
There is much hullabaloo over whether USADA have (that favourite American term) 'jurisdiction' to punish and even charge Armstrong over his alleged use of doping techniques to win the Tour de France from 1999 – 2005.
As ever with Armstrong there are many questions, claims and counter claims over who said or did anything. But he has walked. He has walked and no matter what legal arguments there are against the USADA, he has walked and ultimatly his guilt is all but proven.
Its the lack of proof that hurts.
Q1: Who gets the Tour wins from 1999 – 2005 now? Ulrich and Beloki were dirty as muck too. What a can of worms that is.
Q2: Do we get to find out what evidence there is? And who the insiders who have evidence are?
Q3: Do USADA get to decree guilt now and we all have to accept their most knowing of verdicts?
Personally, Armstrong was a major part of my growing-up Summers when I marvelled at his feats. Particularly the epic, brilliant and wonderful 2003 tour. Is the 2003 tour now a sham?
...... Praise God for Bradley Wiggins, Chris Froome, Mark Cavendish, Chris Hoy, Jason Kenny, Victoria Pendleton, Laura Trott and any other untainted ones.
*For those who don't know: “Say it ain't so” is the probably apocryphal report of what a Baseball loving child said to his sporting hero Joe Jackson after he had been convicted of corruption in 1920.
--------------------
Right around the Wrekin
Posts: 77 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
Quite frankly, until (and unless) the UCI strips him of his wins, it ain't so. Seeing as the UCI was defending him against the USADA and has said that it won't comment or take action until the USADA spells out its case, the likelihood of that happening is anyone's guess—but my guess is "probably not."
What's more, it's pretty likely this action will backfire, and, once USADA spells out their case, it might not stand up to review or legal challenges. It's almost certainly not going to stand up to scrutiny from the press, cycling or otherwise. From what little we've heard about this particular round of accusations, the evidence is mostly from supposed witnesses, rather than any positive drug or doping tests. What's more, at least two of Armstrong's accusers have themselves been stripped of titles or faced bans for having been caught doping—including a Tour de France win. To put it mildly, there are some very real questions about the credibility of the witnesses USADA has built its case on.
Finally, both the procedure and the punishment are draconian, especially in comparison to previous precedent. USADA has conflated "I'm not going to fight this" with "I'm guilty," while looking at the same evidence that other review bodies have decided cannot incriminate Armstrong. If the Association wanted to be seen as doing something other than hunting witches, it's pretty much failed. What's more, revocations of previous titles and wins are usually done for individual races—that is, you revoke wins based on evidence someone doped in that race, not "we think you might have doped in this time frame, so we're revoking everything." It's what happened to Eddie Mercx, it's what happened to Floyd Landis, it's what happened to Jan Ulrich, it's what happened to Ivan Basso . . . You can't erase a decade of records based on mere suspicions; sentences are given out for individual crimes committed, not for being a no-good dirty criminal.
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Armstrong has admitted nothing, he has said he is fed up with having to face allegations. Armstrong's press statement.
It is up to USADA to prove guilt.
If Armstrong can be banned and have his titles removed, who can the Tour de France titles be given to?
Look at the 2005 results:
2nd Ivan Basso was implicated in the 2006 Operación Puerto blood doping case - received a two year ban in 2007.
3rd Jan Ulrich - Disqualified
4th Francisco Mancebo was also implicated in Operación Puerto, he retired from cycling in 2006 rather than face allegations, but returned to cycling in 2009
5th Alexander Vinokourov - Caught blood doping in 2007 tour.
6th Levi Leipheimer tested positive for ephedrine in 1996, one of four team mates of Armstrong alleged to have admitted doping when giving evidence against Armstrong.
7th Michael Rasmussen - received a two year ban in 2007 for avoiding a drug test.
8th Cadel Evans - No drug allegations.
9th Floyd Landis - stripped of 2006 title for doping and inconsistency in handling urine samples.
10th ÓscarPereiro - Tested positive for salbutamol in 2006 tour. Cleared after being retrospectively diagnosed with asthma. Why he was using an asthma treatment before diagnosis has never been answered.
That's the top ten. Only one has never been alleged to be cheating. If allegations are enough to get someone banned hey'll have to give the yellow jersey to Evans.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
What Ariston said, at the end of his post. It's fair to say that he was competing on a level playing field, so if the UCI doesn't disqualify him of his wins, and that is the only body that can, he's the winner. Moreover, I don't think they can simply move others up the finishing order as the dynamics of the race would have been different without Armstrong tearing the field to shreds on at least two days per Tour. They would just have to declare 'no overall winner' for each year they can show Lance Armstrong to hve cheated.
I hope the drug abuse really has been stamped out, mostly because of the long-term damage it causes.
eta: was Cadel Evans really the only totally legit racer in the top ten of 2005? Sheesh!
[ 24. August 2012, 17:29: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Is cycling particularly given to doping (as a practice)? Or does it just particularly get reported for cycling?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
The former. The tours are essentially a measure of aerobic capacity and ability to recover. Both these things can be greatly enhanced by EPO and blood doping in particular. The temptation to cheat is just too strong.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
[Tangent alert! You have been warned!]
quote:
Originally posted by Shire Dweller:
*For those who don't know: “Say it ain't so” is the probably apocryphal report of what a Baseball loving child said to his sporting hero Joe Jackson after he had been convicted of corruption in 1920.
Just to be accurate, Shoeless Joe Jackson was not "convicted" of taking bribes to "fix" the 1919 World Series. He was indicted along with some of his fellow Chicago White Sox players, but they were all acquitted in 1921. The apocryphal story alleges that the child's remark was made after Jackson came from giving Grand Jury testimony.
Despite them being acquitted in a court of law, the baseball commissioner (a former judge) decided there was enough evidence to ban forever the accused players from playing pro baseball. In fact, the so-called "Black Sox scandal" led almost directly to the creation of the position of baseball commissioner in an attempt to restore integrity to the sport. One might be tempted to speculate that that played a part in the commissioner's--ahem--hardball tactics despite the legal acquittal.
[End of tangent. We now return you to our regularly scheduled thread.]
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Is cycling particularly given to doping (as a practice)? Or does it just particularly get reported for cycling?
Or, really, both. There was an article that I can't find a while back on why cycling gets busted so much; the long and the short of it is that the pressures it puts on your body make (or, I hope, made) doping more common—but, as the sport got dirtier, more people got busted, leading to stricter enforcement, leading to more people getting busted, eventually culminating in the Puerto incident, in which all the major contenders in the 2006 Tour were disqualified before the race could begin.
Which, ironically, was the race Floyd Landis "won."
Cycling, especially on the tour races, destroys your body. Riding that hard and fast for that long day after day, without a chance to recover is absolute murder. As your body decays, it stops producing as many red blood cells to replace to ones you've lost, and the amount of testosterone in your body drops. Not only are you wrecking yourself, you're destroying your ability to repair the damage. Something that returns you back to normal—a bit of extra blood, a little jolt of agressiveness, something to take away the horrible pain you're in, especially after that nasty crash four days ago—is most welcome.
And so, people dope.
The third thing that contributes to cyclists getting busted is better enforcement and outsmarting the cheaters. Back in Fausto Coppi's day, amphetamines were legal. Sure, using them turned him into a hollow shell of a man at an early age (surprise, surprise), but they were just the edge he needed. Of course, one could argue that, even on the road, his use backfired; his opponents were known for sneaking into his hotel rooms after he'd checked out, rifling through the trash to see what he'd used, and figuring out his exact strategy for the upcoming day. Needless to say, you can't use amphetamines any more. Ditto diuretics and other masking agents. In this year's Tour, there was only one big-name rider busted for illegal substances—using a diuretic. It's pretty damn hard to see how a drug that purges water from your system could do anything but hurt your performance, except if you were also using it to purge traces of other banned substances. By figuring out ways cheaters use to get around drug tests, catching scofflaws has become easier.
[ 24. August 2012, 19:02: Message edited by: Ariston ]
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Quite frankly, until (and unless) the UCI strips him of his wins, it ain't so. Seeing as the UCI was defending him against the USADA and has said that it won't comment or take action until the USADA spells out its case, the likelihood of that happening is anyone's guess—but my guess is "probably not."
USADA have the full support of WADA. If the UCI don't play ball, WADA will pull their recognition, and cycling will become a pariah, excluded from the Olympics.
quote:
What's more, it's pretty likely this action will backfire, and, once USADA spells out their case, it might not stand up to review or legal challenges. It's almost certainly not going to stand up to scrutiny from the press, cycling or otherwise. From what little we've heard about this particular round of accusations, the evidence is mostly from supposed witnesses, rather than any positive drug or doping tests. What's more, at least two of Armstrong's accusers have themselves been stripped of titles or faced bans for having been caught doping—including a Tour de France win. To put it mildly, there are some very real questions about the credibility of the witnesses USADA has built its case on.
No. Really, there aren't. Landis, for example, was initially brushed off as a bitter crank, but his stories have consistently been corroborated, including (reportedly) testimony from the 2002 Tour de Suisse testing lab that Armstrong failed a test and it was covered up. You've got an entire team coughing up detailed confessions. Smears aren't going to stick.
quote:
Finally, both the procedure and the punishment are draconian, especially in comparison to previous precedent. USADA has conflated "I'm not going to fight this" with "I'm guilty," while looking at the same evidence that other review bodies have decided cannot incriminate Armstrong. If the Association wanted to be seen as doing something other than hunting witches, it's pretty much failed.
If you're up in court and don't mount a defence, you're taken to be pleading guilty. "I'm not going to fight this" is a desperate PR move for the benefit of True Believers, so they don't hear the masses of evidence that would force even the most extreme fanboi to admit his guilt. And the charges include drug smuggling and a systematic team doping ring. A life ban is very appropriate, as you'll see when the evidence eventually comes out.
quote:
What's more, revocations of previous titles and wins are usually done for individual races—that is, you revoke wins based on evidence someone doped in that race, not "we think you might have doped in this time frame, so we're revoking everything." It's what happened to Eddie Mercx, it's what happened to Floyd Landis, it's what happened to Jan Ulrich, it's what happened to Ivan Basso . . . You can't erase a decade of records based on mere suspicions; sentences are given out for individual crimes committed, not for being a no-good dirty criminal.
True, this is usual. But the charges covered a long period, including all the races that are being stripped. If Armstrong wasn't doping in any of them, he had the opportunity to defend himself. He hasn't, therefore taken to have admitted guilt, therefore they go.
There's plenty of wrangling to go before this one's put to bed, including the delightful sight of Bruyneel's arbitration hearing, but these are very weak arguments.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
A life ban is very appropriate, as you'll see when the evidence eventually comes out.
Therefore we should wait and see how the evidence and charges stack up when it comes up in front of what passes as a court of law in the world of sport before issuing bans and revoking titles.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
A life ban is very appropriate, as you'll see when the evidence eventually comes out.
Therefore we should wait and see how the evidence and charges stack up when it comes up in front of what passes as a court of law in the world of sport before issuing bans and revoking titles.
Armstrong had the right to have the evidence aired and to defend himself in arbitration. That could have been public or private, and he would also have had the right to appeal an adverse finding to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. By opting not to contest he waived those rights.
USADA's statement gives a summary of the evidence.
quote:
USADA statement:
Numerous witnesses provided evidence to USADA based on personal knowledge acquired, either through direct observation of doping activity by Armstrong,or through Armstrong’s admissions of doping to them that Armstrong used EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone and cortisone during the period from before 1998 through 2005, and that he had previously used EPO, testosterone and hGH through 1996. Witnesses also provided evidence that Lance Armstrong gave to them, encouraged them to use and administered doping products or methods, including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone and cortisone during the period from 1999 through 2005. Additionally, scientific data showed Mr. Armstrong’s use of blood manipulation including EPO or blood transfusions during Mr. Armstrong’s comeback to cycling in the 2009 Tour de France.
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
<snip> It's fair to say that he was competing on a level playing field ... </snip>
Not true. Physiological response to EPO/blood doping varies from individual to individual. Armstrong benefited greatly, but not everyone else who was using benefited equally. And of course it's a fallacy to say that everyone was doping. Many, yes. The majority, almost certainly. Christophe Bassons was one rider who rode clean and wrote about the experience. He was drummed out of the sport. Was it a level playing field for him?
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
<snip> ... so if the UCI doesn't disqualify him of his wins, and that is the only body that can, he's the winner. </snip>
The Tour is a private event run by the Amaury Sports Organisation (ASO), so the ASO are the body that can strip him of its wins. It would be courageous (in the Yes Minister sense) of the ASO not to comply with USADA and strip Armstrong of his titles. Road cycling is an Olympic sport and as such has an obligation to comply with the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) code. WADA has approved USADA's case against Armstrong. So to not comply with USADA would be flying in the face of WADA, thereby threatening cycling's place at the Olympics. Armstrong has friends in high places, but it's not going to happen.
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
Is that really true Sioni? If I was to play Devil's Advocate, I'd say that Lance has every opportunity to have his day in court and allow that process to happen. He's choosing not to take advantage of that.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
There seems to be proof, and Armstrong has indicated he is not going to contest that proof in an open forum.
That is an admission of guilt.
Part of the problem in North America is the justified delight in what Armstrong has done for cancer patients is mixed up with Armstrong's persona. One radio reporter this morning suggested Armstrong will be remembered 20 years from now as a great man. I doubt that - cheaters are never remembered well.
Personally, I think the good works he has done for cancer patients will be born out in memories derived from people still living with their family members and friends when they would not have been otherwise- Armstrong will not, and should not be the focus of those successes, even though he is the catalyst.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
The former. The tours are essentially a measure of aerobic capacity and ability to recover. Both these things can be greatly enhanced by EPO and blood doping in particular. The temptation to cheat is just too strong.
I think that was true, but the Tour was in real danger of losing all credibility because of the succession of winners who cheated. So cleaning up the act has assumed great importance.
Aerobic capacity and recovery rates can be improved significantly by training regimes, training at altitude, good medical monitoring etc. Only the top riders and the teams can go down those routes (because they are very expensive). What keeps them legitimate is that they don't represent a short cut.
To quote Mo Farah (from a different sport) "its about hard work and grafting". And I think that's what the sport's governing bodies are trying to restore. The reality of it, not just the appearance.
I think UK cycling is clean in this respect, because I think Brailsford really does want it that way. No way he (or any UK cycling fan) wants to see the major achievements of the last few years muddied by anyone going for a "quick fix".
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Is that really true Sioni? If I was to play Devil's Advocate, I'd say that Lance has every opportunity to have his day in court and allow that process to happen. He's choosing not to take advantage of that.
Quite. In fact, USADA are required to demonstrate that there was a clear case to answer (showing a "reasoned decision") as part of the process of sanctioning him. They'll make that information available to the relevant bodies, and Tygart has already indicated that the evidence can now come out. I'm not sure if the other connected arbitration hearings will have any bearing on this, though.
There's a sense in which we're in no man's land at the moment, with the decision made, but yet to be ratified and rubber-stamped. That's the "due process" that fanbois keep claiming isn't being followed, and if USADA really have nothing (so why didn't Lance defend himself?) it'll be clear very quickly. In fact, the evidence will probably make your head spin, and I suspect there will even be some details that surprise people who've followed this closely for many years.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
In fact, the evidence will probably make your head spin, and I suspect there will even be some details that surprise people who've followed this closely for many years.
Yes, that's how I see it. The cumulative evidence seems very likely be impressive enough to silence most (but not all) of Lance Armstrong's remaining loyal supporters. No point in living in denial.
As both the threads (this one and the one Purgatory) bring out, the problem with this sort of mud is that it sticks on others as well.
Do I have my fingers crossed for Cycling Team GB and Team Sky? Not really, I'm more confident than that, as I've said, and there are good reasons for that. But you can't really prove a negative.
The Armstrong story has re-awakened suspicions. A number of journalists are going to lunch on that, keep spinning stories. And us long term cycle fans probably veer around between hope that this has been largely routed out and fear that "someone" is up to "something".
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The discussion on this on today's Today programme the selection at 8:18am had someone say that they thought this year's Tour de France was noticeably cleaner - he said it was obvious that the riders were trashed on certain sections, where they haven't been in previous years.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
If people want to declare Armstrong guilty on the basis of 'no plea' then I suppose they must know better than me.
Does make me wonder what courts are for if you are expected to put forward evidence supporting innocence rather than contest evidence regarding guilt, which still looks pretty circumstantial.
As you can gather, I'm not convinced, despite lots of words (and abbreviations).
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
The federal judge who dismissed Armstrong's suit against the USADA, said that “the deficiency of USADA’s charging document is of serious constitutional concern.”
Counsel for the USADA said more detailed charges would come at a later time.
If the USADA does come up with more detail - and they might not now - it ought to be from someone other than a co-conspirator; at least as regards criminal law and procedure. And their action against Armstrong amounts to a criminal procedure as it is intended to be punitive.
If the USADA does not come up with more detail, I will consider it to have been witch hunt and the USADA to be a disgrace.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
The kerfuffle is all about Armstrong's reputation.
And the sport will move on, with people getting into camps and then Armstrong arguments over bottles of wine for years.
And the cycling will continue.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Yes, I certainly hope and expect cycling to go on. It would even be better if the peloton* didn't have 2 speeds.
___________________
*French for that bunch of riders who are snuggled up close to each other to save effort and make sure nobody dangerous gets in front.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shire Dweller
Shipmate
# 16631
|
Posted
The cycling will continue. Absolutely.
I've tried to read as much press coverage of the Armstrong affair as I can, in any English language publication. The British and Australian newspapers have a consensus that - he's guilty! The Americans dont want to say he's guilty and I do understand where they're coming from.
A lot of the comments now coming out of the woodwork (or perhaps they were there all along and I didn't want to know...) have me not caring any more about Armstrong.
The Journalist David Walsh, the masseuse Emma O' Reilly or the rider Christophe Bassons are good examples of this.
George Hincape's evidence apparently is the key to making Armstrong give up defending himself.
Whether its all over now bar the shouting is up to the UCI and whether they want to challenge USADA's position.
But speaking as someone who was an Armstrong fan I didn't want to see that Armstrong was king cheat amongst cheats or that his hammer-everyone tactics were possibly just another strategy for covering himself up. I wanted to believe he was clean and his dominating personality was just because he was from Texas.
At least the Tour is clean(er) now.
At least the likes of Evans and Wiggins are clean.
The cycling will continue.
--------------------
Right around the Wrekin
Posts: 77 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Shire Dweller:
At least the Tour is clean(er) now.
At least the likes of Evans and Wiggins are clean.
Out of interest, what gives you confidence Wiggins and Evans are clean?
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by koshatnik:
quote:
Originally posted by Shire Dweller:
At least the Tour is clean(er) now.
At least the likes of Evans and Wiggins are clean.
Out of interest, what gives you confidence Wiggins and Evans are clean?
That they won despite riding slower than the winners in previous years. I've read articles on t'interweb to that effect. Maybe the whole field isn't clean, but taken as a whole the sport is a lot cleaner than it was.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by koshatnik:
quote:
Originally posted by Shire Dweller:
At least the Tour is clean(er) now.
At least the likes of Evans and Wiggins are clean.
Out of interest, what gives you confidence Wiggins and Evans are clean?
That they won despite riding slower than the winners in previous years. I've read articles on t'interweb to that effect. Maybe the whole field isn't clean, but taken as a whole the sport is a lot cleaner than it was.
Agreed, it's cleaner than it was. But I think the sport has a way to go before we can be confident a Tour winner is clean. Especially when, as in Wiggins' case, they are smoking the entire field both in the mountains and the time trials.
Wiggins' team employs a doctor, Gert Leinders, who was Rabobank's team doctor at a time when the team was known to have been doping.
Evans was a client of Dr Michele Ferrari, who was also charged by USADA alongside Armstrong and has also been banned for life.
That's not to say either Evans or Wiggins is/was doping. I hope you're right and they are clean, as there's a lot to like about both of them.
[ 28. August 2012, 12:28: Message edited by: koshatnik ]
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shire Dweller
Shipmate
# 16631
|
Posted
I feel confident Wiggins and Evans are clean because they have a lot more to lose from doping than anything to gain. That was the point of Wiggins sweary rant early in this year's tour at the American journalists who insinuated that simply because he was winning a cycling race automatically equalled he was on drugs.
Wiggins and Evans won the Tour in slower time and average speed than previous winners. Their methods are very focused on team work building towards an overall lead on most stages with a particular aptitude in one discipline (time trial) to mark them out as the best.
Neither appears to be capable of superman antics up any climb to negate the need for relentless hard work from their team.
I do appreciate this is subjective and because I just want to believe cycling is now clean(er) but I see little reason other than cynicism* because of all the past disappointments over doping to doubt their cleanness.
*What I call cynicism others would call realism...
And I'm not anti-American either just because of Armstrong's fall. The young rider American TJ van Garderen (who is as far as we know, clean as a whistle) should be a real contender in years to come
--------------------
Right around the Wrekin
Posts: 77 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
If you're up in court and don't mount a defence, you're taken to be pleading guilty.
This is simply wrong. In criminal procedures the burden of proof is entirely with the prosecution. The defence is not required to make any kind of case and (I believe) will often choose not to. If you are looking for the criminal burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) then one is entitled to enter a plea of Not guilty and say no more and let the jury decide. Even if the sports governing bodies were looking for the civil level of proof (more likely than not) which I think would be extremely dangerous the burden of proof would still lie with the plaintiff.
Of course Armstrong may well be guilty. I for one still suspect he isn't but I fear that my reasoning is somewhat flawed and I'm probably wrong. I think that all cycling fans (of which I'm not really one) are entitled to see and know the evidence and I really hope that the evidence is made public.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
If you're up in court and don't mount a defence, you're taken to be pleading guilty.
This is simply wrong. In criminal procedures the burden of proof is entirely with the prosecution. The defence is not required to make any kind of case and (I believe) will often choose not to. If you are looking for the criminal burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) then one is entitled to enter a plea of Not guilty and say no more and let the jury decide. Even if the sports governing bodies were looking for the civil level of proof (more likely than not) which I think would be extremely dangerous the burden of proof would still lie with the plaintiff.
However USADA v Armstrong is not a criminal case and we are not operating according to a criminal burden of proof. The rules are simple. If charged, athletes are entitled to defend themselves in arbitration. If the finding goes against them, they can appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Armstrong knew this when he signed up. In fact his personal manager, Bill Stapleton, helped draft the rules when he was on the board of the US Olympic Committee.
In this case, Armstrong chose to forego arbitration. Consequently, the charges stick and he is banned.
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Of course Armstrong may well be guilty. I for one still suspect he isn't but I fear that my reasoning is somewhat flawed and I'm probably wrong. I think that all cycling fans (of which I'm not really one) are entitled to see and know the evidence and I really hope that the evidence is made public.
USADA has already released a summary of the evidence. The link and an extract is upthread.
The full details may not be made public until November. This is because other cases are ongoing involving Armstrong associates, including his former team director Johan Bruyneel and his former team trainer Pepe Marti. They were charged along with Armstrong but have opted for arbitration.
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
If you're up in court and don't mount a defence, you're taken to be pleading guilty.
This is simply wrong. In criminal procedures the burden of proof is entirely with the prosecution. The defence is not required to make any kind of case and (I believe) will often choose not to. If you are looking for the criminal burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) then one is entitled to enter a plea of Not guilty and say no more and let the jury decide.
Yes and no. I'm sure I phrased that badly, and there's no entirely adequate analogy between doping agencies and courts, but I'm sick of hearing apologists claiming that he's innocent because he hasn't had a trial. He hasn't had a trial because he chose not to contest the charges.
Of course, you're entitled to plead not guilty and offer no defence, and the burden of proof remains unchanged. But that doesn't mean that you can refuse to appear in court and claim victory, or that you can claim victory even if convicted, and that you weren't playing their game because they're all being mean to you. Because he has now been convicted, on the grounds of the evidence which USADA have collected and which Armstrong didn't contest.
quote:
Of course Armstrong may well be guilty. I for one still suspect he isn't but I fear that my reasoning is somewhat flawed and I'm probably wrong. I think that all cycling fans (of which I'm not really one) are entitled to see and know the evidence and I really hope that the evidence is made public.
Armstrong's dirty secret has been well-known in cycling circles for many years, going right back to the testimonies of Betsy Andreu and Emma O'Reilly, and the publication of David Walsh's LA Confidentiel. A combination of bullying, intimidation and carefully selected libel threats kept the lid on the story, along with a huge PR campaign and selective favouring of an inner circle of journalists combined with total exclusion of anyone who didn't toe the line. Look at his treatment of Paul Kimmage, for example.
The evidence will come out, if you needed any on top of the public testimony of various teammates, staff and ex-friends, his sickening abuse of anyone who broke the Omerta, and the various tests he failed but dodged a ban for. Some little snippets are flying already, with claims of advance warning of tests being given, for example. But this isn't just about one man, whatever some ignorant kneejerk reports might lead you to believe, so USADA are likely to have to hold on until after the arbitration hearings for the other accused conspirators.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
Not at all. I doubt the Circus hosts are quite so happy with all those links.
The trouble is that this is a story that takes a long time to fully comprehend, and there are lots of elements that come together to form the complete picture. Many, many cycling fans (including me) have taken the long journey from admiration to suspicion to outright disbelief on the subject of Armstrong, as more and more information has dribbled out.
Just at the moment, explaining the case against Armstrong feels a bit like debating with Creationists. The same arguments keep coming back like a game of whack-a-mole, even though they've been comprehensively debunked over and over again. And trying to explain why so many people are convinced of his guilt without seeing USADA's evidence is difficult, because there isn't a single smoking gun, but years and years of one drip at a time.
Cycling News recently published an index of all their stories about Armstrong doping allegations. Just printing off the index page would take up 5 pages, each line a new story. That's not saying that weight of numbers proves anything, but trying to show how hard it is to summarise the argument in a short forum post.
If you want to read a bit more, though, I could send you my copy of David Walsh's From Lance to Landis, which is pretty much the British edition of LA Confidentiel, toned down in parts due to our ridiculous libel laws. It's a little out of date now, but it's a good primer on the oldest evidence and testimony.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
