Indurain says he still believes Armstrong is innocent

[andydude]

EXCELLENT ARGUMENT!!!

 

If you can say that, I can say HORRIBLE ARGUMENT. All those points have been dealt with. Please refer to the other longer thread at https://community.bikehub.co.za/topic/117304-lance-armstrong-banned-and-stripped-of-tdf-titles/page__st__3008__gopid__1825596?do=findComment&comment=1825596

 

Mods - can't we actually merge this with that one?

[Wyatt Earp]

If you can say that, I can say HORRIBLE ARGUMENT. All those points have been dealt with. Please refer to the other longer thread at http://www.thehubsa....96#entry1825596

 

Mods - can't we actually merge this with that one?

 

Are you really using The Hub as a reference ?

[surferchickie]

Are you really using The Hub as a reference ?

 

heheheheheheheheeeee

[andydude]

and I have to agree with you on this! some people simply refuse to admit this is the sham that it is. after YEARS of being randomly tested, in addition to the tests administered during the Tour, he never turned up positive, ever. His performance never suddenly peaked or changed. It steadily improved over the years which is exactly the way someone who DOESNT DOPE performs.

 

You still don't get that the tests can be easily beaten? That a lot of other people coming out to say they doped also didn't ever test positive?

[andydude]

Are you really using The Hub as a reference ?

heheheheheheheheeeee

 

Indirectly!

 

I'm actually referring to all the sourced articles, documents and other material from that thread and not the actual hubber posts...

[surferchickie]

You still don't get that the tests can be easily beaten? That a lot of other people coming out to say they doped also didn't ever test positive?

 

I do get it but the question remains, if it can be easily beaten... then why have it done in the first place?

[Christie]

Testing is there so that sponsors kan think the riders don't cheat.

[surferchickie]

Testing is there so that sponsors kan think the riders don't cheat.

 

But if it is such a sham and everybody in the world knows that it is just what it is, surely the sponsors should know better? It just feels like were are going around in circles with this - dont you agree?

[jcza]

Testing is there so that sponsors kan think the riders don't cheat.

 

Testing is a total shambles and we all know what happened to scientists like Ashenden that spoke out. The bottomline is that the UCI is not fit to run cycling at the highest level and testing and administration must be seperated.

[Christie]

I think some sponsors want the exposure, but are not that clued up about racing. They got a rapid education, I expect a bit of a shake-up in pro cycling. The European economy is under pressure, and there are other sports that are less scandal prone. (not less doped, though, imo)

[HappyMartin]

The federal prosecutor did not drop the case because there was a lack of evidence. They never said that. They never gave a reason. The rumor was it was dropped for various political reasons. That is supposition however.

 

Where there is single witness evidence it is frequently backed up with other evidence such as bank transfers, performance changes and so on.

 

A lot of comment being made by people that have obviously not read Hamiltons book or the USADA 200 page summary.

 

Still it makes me uncomfortable all this happiness over someone's misfortune.

[williamric]

Whose subpoena? And to who did they testify?

 

See my post earlier. Their testimony to a Special Grand Jury obviously was not deemed reliable or credible as the Federal Prosecution decided not to prosecute. That normally means that there was insufficient evidence.

 

Well first you have to seperate the different purposes of the USADA and the Federal courts. The charges in the Federal case against Lance Armstrong were criminal charges relating to defrauding the government. This was specifically in relation to whether or not he used US Postal money to purchase the drugs. The Feds dropped the case without pressing charges but this was largely in relation to the embarrassing defeat the Feds took in the Barry Bonds case (Barry Bonds has admitted using steriods, yet the Feds lost there case against him). So to put the Fed case in context it is important to note that most people believe the primary reason for the Feds dropping the case was nothing to do with Lance's guilt but more to do with the juries general lack of concern for doping. (You can check this out if you want)... Either way your reference to the Feds case is pretty empty since Barry Bonds wasn't convicted but later admitted to using drugs.

 

The purpose of the USADA on the other hand was not to prove a criminal charge (i.e. they were not looking at whether or not LA used US Postal money to actually buy the drugs which is a hell of a difficult thing to prove) but just whether or not he doped. Therefore you cannot use the fact that the Fed threw out the case for the following 2 reasons:

1. The charges brought against LA by the two bodies were different and required vastly different types of evidence.

2. The Fed had recently come off an embarrasing case with Barry Bonds (who admitted guilt) which most people believe is the main reason they dropped the case.

[Roneblack46]

 

 

I get what you are saying, and I also have a soft sport for my cycling heroes throughout the years, which happen to include Armstrong, Contador, Valverde, Basso, Vini, Rasmussen and a tonnes of other guys that have tested positive.

 

However, I think your position on the legal system regarding witnesses VS hard evidence would have been different had it been a more "serious" crime. I mean I would have been pissed off beyond any measure if a family member was raped / murdered / assaulted violently with nobody being held accountable despite 26 people who had witnessed and testified in some way or another

 

I get you. My position would not have been different.

 

I have more than 23 years law enforcement experience within the South African Government Agencies ( SAPS and Directorate of Special Operations ( SCORPIONS)) I have investigated high profile cases and have had my cases presented in our courts. Many of them have been murder cases.

 

Rules of evidence remain the same no matter where it is presented and what the charge is.

 

If you read my reply, and I stand to be corrected, it seems these 26 witness accounts are all individual accounts with no incident been witnessed by more than 1 witness at any given time.

 

Your example implies more than 1 witness say the SAME incident. Different story.

 

To further add : these witnesses who have given statements and testified were never cross examined by the Defense. The strength of the witnesses testimony is determined on how well it stands up to cross examination.

 

These are factors the Prosecution weighs up before they decide to prosecute. If their witnesses testimony is not sound they will not waste the courts time.

[Lucky Fish]

What Roneblack said!

[williamric]

and I have to agree with you on this! some people simply refuse to admit this is the sham that it is. after YEARS of being randomly tested, in addition to the tests administered during the Tour, he never turned up positive, ever. His performance never suddenly peaked or changed. It steadily improved over the years which is exactly the way someone who DOESNT DOPE performs.

 

And some people refuse to accept the obvious... How many times do I have to reiterate that LOTS of people never tested positive but have later admitted doping? What about that do you not understand?

 

 

"His performance never suddenly peaked or changed" ??? You joking right?

 

Tour De France Results:

 

1993: Withdrew

1994: Withdrew

1995: 36th

1996: Withdrew

Near death Cancer

1999-2005: First!

 

Yeah, no major improvement...

Edited October 24, 2012 by williamric

[jcza]

On one hand, he has been possibly one of the most tested athletes in the World and passed all of those test, but yet he gives up the fight. I understand wanting to move on, but I also know that if I were innocent, I would fight this to my death. It is hard for me to believe that someone as competitive as him would give up, unless there is something to it. He has access to the best legal team money can buy yet chooses not to go to arbitration. Surely if the legal arguements are so flimsy his legal team will rip them apart? Let's see what happens with Bruyneel.

 

It is sad no matter how you look at it or what you believe.