Indurain says he still believes Armstrong is innocent

[SwissVan]

SV

 

No legal system provides for that.

 

The burden of proof in criminal cases is only "beyond reasonable doubt" and on that basis people go to jail or death row. Expecting what is in essence an administrate sanction to have a more onerous burden is simply unrealistic.

 

Eish boet, are you a lawyer or something like?

 

My response kollega... [smile]

Its a forkin serious event this, potential to ruin many lives in many ways, i would hope that retesting samples specificaly held for the purpose of restesting at a later stage when technology catches up would not be considered to be "unrealistic"

[SwissVan]

LUNCH TIME

[williamric]

Ok...so consensus is that the testing abilities vastly improved after 2006. They had access to all his samples from 1999, and even now have access to his 2005 - 2007 samples under the statute of limitations, and with all these improved methods they still cannot find dope?

 

Just asking....

 

Because you cannot re test samples without the riders consent... They have not officially re tested Lance's samples to test whether or not he doped. All they have done is test old sample for two reasons:

1. To assist with the development of an EPO test

2. To test the effectiveness of the EPO test on previous samples and what % of riders would test positive.

 

This was anonymous (although it has been claimed that Lance's samples were almost entirely postive)

[williamric]

i would hope that retesting samples specificaly held for the purpose of restesting at a later stage when technology catches up would not be considered to be "unrealistic"

 

Yeah that would be ideal, but it requires consent (Which I highly doubt is going to come)...

[DaLoCo]

Because you cannot re test samples without the riders consent... They have not officially re tested Lance's samples to test whether or not he doped. All they have done is test old sample for two reasons:

1. To assist with the development of an EPO test

2. To test the effectiveness of the EPO test on previous samples and what % of riders would test positive.

 

This was anonymous (although it has been claimed that Lance's samples were almost entirely postive)

Cool.....I responded before reading pages 7 and 8 of the thread where you did enlighten us. Would be nice to get those tested though.

[williamric]

Yes and no. The charges differed between the two investigations, but they evolved along similar lines. Although the grand jury evidence is sealed, Usada - who sat in on the hearings - were allowed to use the evidence volunteered by witnesses over and above the four-hour (must check this) testimony sessions they gave. They were after the same evidence.

 

Yeah, I think my point was more along the lines that the Feds pulling out didn't really prove anything because their motives were most likely nothing to do with the case (i.e. motives were probably formed by Barry Bonds debacle, and consensus the most juries didn't care about doping in sport). Obviously alot of the evidence would overlap almost completely...

Edited October 24, 2012 by williamric

[williamric]

Cool.....I responded before reading pages 7 and 8 of the thread where you did enlighten us. Would be nice to get those tested though.

 

Yeah that would be such a simple and accurate solution. But I think people would still contest the results either way... someone would claim contamination or something I don't think this can ever be 100% confirmed until Lance just owns up...

 

although I think the USADA report definitely proves it's case beyond a reasonable doubt

[Azonic]

So now, let's take it a bit further. Due to the testimony of others your speed limit imposes a confiscation of your drivers license and a possible jail term. Do you still accept and serve your time?

 

Same applies. Going to suck and you'll be keen to fight it, but most juries won't believe you.

[Vanstone]

You're kidding right? Never heard of David Walsh, Paul Kimmage, Jonathan Vaughters, Betsy Adreu, Michael Ashenden, Floyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton, Levi Leipheimer, George Hincapie, Emma O'Reilly, Christian VandeVelde, Dave Zabriski, Le Equippe etc?

 

It is a moot point whether I have heard of these names or not, what is important is we are yet to see scientific evidence on the matter. All the other dopers were caught out with a positive tests.

[Roneblack46]

We need to cross examine the witnesses.

 

No cross- examination. No credibility.

 

LA come to South Africa. Run for President. You got my vote.

[mazambaan]

Hmm, no "dripping needle" or confession so a very interesting correlation with being done for speeding based on subjective evidence. I know Tumbles says you can get done for drinking and driving without a blood test but I'm surprised.

 

It may that this is why the federal case went away. The USADA may be "balance of probabilities" rather than reasonable doubt. For arbitration I understand that there is no appeal to courts etc unless specifc rules for that arbitration weren't followed.

 

But I'm rather thinking that extending this; anyone who could keep pace with a proven doper, must have been a doper. Ie. the police car that busts you for speeding was following you.

[jcza]

Maybe someone should alert Lance, is he aware of all this? What are his lawyers doing? Why did he surrender? All is not lost!

[Joe Low]

It is a moot point whether I have heard of these names or not, what is important is we are yet to see scientific evidence on the matter. All the other dopers were caught out with a positive tests.

It's not for you to say what constitutes sufficient evidence. The USADA case is not being challenged by LA nor UCI, therefore their findings stand. Everyone who matters are now making their moves in line with this.

[Mellow]

Idiot(s) huh?

Ball, player

If you cannot respond to the question with some sort of intelligent comment rather say nothing.

 

Highly doubt the shoe fits you, but Indurain on the other hand... I was referring to his comments and in particular the "no positive test no dope" mentality. That is idiotic in my view and the ball doesn't come into play.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Mellow

[Servetus]

We need to cross examine the witnesses.

 

No cross- examination. No credibility.

 

LA come to South Africa. Run for President. You got my vote.

 

Lance had the option to defend himself - and cross-examine, and he chose not to.

[linnega]

I can't believe there is still so much debate about this (but maybe because I've be saying what has now been proven conclusively for years). The facts are pretty simple:

• USADA is allowed to sanction a rider based on any form of evidence. Positive tests are most common, but the rules do not restrict judgement to positive tests only and never have.
  
• Witness testimony is corraoborated by other witnesses and by payments made and by tests performed. The tests were not procedurally accurate, but there is no reason to question their scientific validity.
  
• USADA only has to prove on balance of probabilities, but my personal opinion is that the evidence they have accumulated would hold up against a "beyond reasonable doubt" criteria as the circumstantial evidence is substantially corroborated in multiple ways.
  
• The argument about statute of limitations is invalid as it may be set aside in a case where there is evidence that the cyclist attempted to hide doping practices. There is evidence that doping was hidden by avoiding tests, using saline solutions, bullying witnesses, bribing the UCI so statute of limitations does not apply.
  

It is clear to me that Armstrong has resorted to the last chance he has and that is to not contest a battle that he cannot win. That is why we don't have any cross examination. The speeding analogy is also not meaningful. In this case a more realistic analogy is someone that got pinged for reckless driving based on the fact that he overtook a monitored police vehicle that was travelling at 180kph and the GPS readings on the defendant's car showed he travelled the last 3km prior to the incident in under a minute (ie greater than 180kph), and 12 other witnesses and the 3 passengers corroborated that the car was driving excessively fast in the case of the 12 and the 3 passengers confirm the speedometer read 180kph. That would be a similar story to the LA story. A photo of the speeding vehicle would be irrelevant in that case.