Indurain says he still believes Armstrong is innocent

[williamric]

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.

 

That is incorrect Hincapie, Zabriski, Leipheimer, Andreu etc never ever tested positive for drugs. These are just a few of the names of cyclists who have admitted taking drugs but have never been caught. And guess whose team they were all on?

[williamric]

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.

 

Great comment, although the denials will still come...

[Servetus]

Regarding burden of proof, USADA's decision contains the following paragraph (my highlighting):

 

 

1. Standard of Proof

Article 3.1 of the Code provides that: “[t]he standard of proof shall be whether the Anti-

Doping Organization has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction

of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made.” As noted

in the comment to Article 3.1, this standard of proof is comparable to the standard which is

applied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct. Thus, for example, in

proceedings in the United States to take away the license to practice of a doctor or lawyer, the

applicable standard of proof is typically “clear and convincing evidence.” In this case, the

evidence against Mr. Armstrong is overwhelming. In USADA’s view, it establishes his doping

beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Roneblack46]

 

 

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

 

I would also not choose to. The USADA process followed is flawed. It is clear no matter what action taken they are hell bent on proving doping took place.

 

No consistency in applying the rules.

 

Just my opinion.

 

In the end what happens happens and everyone will have their own views.

 

If you are a LA fan you will defend him no matter. No fan you will find all the ammo to persecute.

[williamric]

I would also not choose to. The USADA process followed is flawed. It is clear no matter what action taken they are hell bent on proving doping took place.

 

No consistency in applying the rules.

 

Just my opinion.

 

In the end what happens happens and everyone will have their own views.

 

If you are a LA fan you will defend him no matter. No fan you will find all the ammo to persecute.

 

This line of argument doesn't hold water because his only line of recourse was to oppose the charges. If he had chosen to contest the charges then the case would have gone to an independent adribrator (that is the official process). So the assertion that he was going to be proven guilty no matter what is, at best, a guess / assumption.

 

I am a Lance Armstrong fan (or I was) when he used to race. I have no doubt of his guilt (or rather I am 99.99% sure he is guilty). To me this had nothing to do with being a LA fan. Just about accepting reality.

[Servetus]

I would also not choose to. The USADA process followed is flawed. It is clear no matter what action taken they are hell bent on proving doping took place.

 

No consistency in applying the rules.

 

Just my opinion.

 

In the end what happens happens and everyone will have their own views.

 

If you are a LA fan you will defend him no matter. No fan you will find all the ammo to persecute.

 

Regarding USADA's process, Lance actually did bring a court application in July to stop USADA from acting against him because it would be procuedurally unfair, but the application was dismissed. So unless you can find fault with the judge's reasoning, Lance is not being treated unfairly.

 

As for being "hell-bent" on proving doping - it's their job. They are supposed to prove doping took place. And they did.

 

EDIT: Oh and as for consistency: every single murderer, rapist and thief out there who is convicted would point out to every other criminal that hasn't been caught yet and shout "Unfair!" That doesn't make them any less guilty. If that was a valid defence, no-one could ever be convicted. Same applies here

Edited October 24, 2012 by Servetus

[Garfield2010]

Indurian is `n brood. Klaar.

[Garfield2010]

That is incorrect Hincapie, Zabriski, Leipheimer, Andreu etc never ever tested positive for drugs. These are just a few of the names of cyclists who have admitted taking drugs but have never been caught. And guess whose team they were all on?

 

There is also one question for those who still doubt...........

 

Why would Hincapie and co admit? Seriously what have they to gain except basically ending their own careers and they also had to give up their spots on the olympic teams. They gained nothing from admitting except maybe not going to jail as they were under oath.........

 

Yes sure it is obvious that Jeff and Travis was after the kingpin Lance and thats why they probably offered a deal to all these guys. 6 month bans and no jailtime in return for the truth which they all gladly accepted.

 

I think you realise that family is more important when threatened with jail.

 

As Tyler said (or was told).... its only a bike race..............

[scuzzy]

Just a question, did anybody actually see him use drugs, or did he just "demand" that everybody on his team used drug and gave it to them?

[SwissVan]

 

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.

 

 

Now thats hard to argue against.

Well done Kollega

 

All i can say is....YET

[SwissVan]

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.

 

Ha ok alles klaar

tip: When calling someone an idiot dont omit the name of said idiot because if they are an idiot they probably wont realise that you are refering to them

[Servetus]

Just a question, did anybody actually see him use drugs, or did he just "demand" that everybody on his team used drug and gave it to them?

 

Just a few (very random) quotes from USADA's decision:

 

 

Hamilton saw Armstrong using the “oil”, which was a mixture of olive oil and Andriol

(testosterone) developed by Dr. Ferrari, and on at least one occasion during the 1999 Tour

Armstrong squirted the “oil” in Hamilton’s mouth after a stage of the race (p 34)

 

… Floyd Landis also saw Armstrong receiving small doses of EPO to stimulate reticulocyte

production so as to attempt to mask the blood transfusion’ s impact on his blood values (p 64)

 

At the Puigcerdà training camp Floyd Landis saw Lance Armstrong “lying on a massage

table wearing a transdermal testosterone patch on his shoulder.” (p 69)

 

I haven't read the entire thing but it seems to be pretty detailed.

[SwissVan]

 

1. The tests were not procedurally accurate, but there is no reason to question their scientific validity.

 

2. 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.

 

3. 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.

 

4. 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.

 

 

Good points also hard to argue against.

 

#1 Is a bit iffy and could set a dangerous precedence. Thats why there are regulations and procedures for these type of issues. It can be argued that LA has his fair share of enemies who at the time would do almost anything to prove him guilty.

[nochain]

Have not read this whole tread but as far as Indurain goes and for that matter Valverde and Sanchez has made similar commends on the fairness of LA being stripped from he's title.

 

The way I see it is, to them(Pro bunch now and before 2005) it is not about doping it is about passing the tests. To them LA did what they asked of him during he's career....Race your bike, win races and pass all doping tests.

 

Today it's probably the same just a lot harder to pass the test but the principal is the same.

 

I don't think Indurain is saying LA did not dope, he is saying he complied with the rules of the day and was the best bike racer within those parameters.

 

What amazes me mostly about this whole thing is most People seem to think LA is the big problem. He was only the best at it...maybe... we will never know how good the other teams were at this. Most of these riders that have now started talking have admitted to being part of organised doping within other teams. Team mates of Merck’s has said publicly they had organised doping in the team, we know Indurain was no Angel yet everybody want to take down LA and blame him for the sports problems all the sudden.

 

Edited October 24, 2012 by nochain

[Mellow]

Ha ok alles klaar

tip: When calling someone an idiot dont omit the name of said idiot because if they are an idiot they probably wont realise that you are refering to them

The idea is to make it as vague as possible so that the closet case idiots also get the opportunity too come out. Once you've lured them out the healing process can start.

 

You feeling a bit better after our chat ? hehe

Edited October 24, 2012 by Mellow

[slayer 83]

this thread is brilliant. Its the same as those who wear a powerbalance bracelet. You can see who the ******* idiots are from miles away

 

haha, that's funny! Have you noticed how many pro-golfers STILL wear them? ..idiots