Armstrong tests positive?

[leftistangel]

I don't think you know what has actually happened in this case from your replies. Presumption of innocence is when you go to a trial. Armstrong has refused the chance to defend himself. Seeing as you keep comparing this to a criminal proceedings, how's about this scenario: Anders Brevik is presumed innocent until found to have broken the law. He takes advantage of the right to silence and refuses to answer any claims made against him. In your world, he should be free??

You dont understand the presumption of innocence if you think its restricted to trials and criminal proceedings. I'm not defending Armstrong (I personally SUSPECT he has taken PES´s, but thats not the point), I am condemning a process which exists outside the law and can strip a person of their livelihood and achievments based on speculation and a presumption of guilt . I don't really care whether Armstrong was guilty or not. What I do care about is justice and given what I think about the US justice system im not sure I could be bothered if I were in his posiition. And the simple fact is: refusing to take part in a process does not determine guilt. This is actually more embarrassing for cycling then when champions have actually test positive and are stripped of titles.

 

[Fez909]

Read this for some solid evidence that he doped, along with the 10+ witnesses who were going to testify against him.

Just flicked through that again and wondering something: one of the previous attempts to get him for doping mentioned in the article was the company that would pay him a bonus for each TdF he won. Now that he looks likely to lose those TdF wins, could they claim the money back? Could be nasty...

 

[Fez909]

You dont understand the presumption of innocence if you think its restricted to trials and criminal proceedings. I'm not defending Armstrong (I personally SUSPECT he has taken PES´s, but thats not the point), I am condemning a process which exists outside the law and can strip a person of their livelihood and achievments based on speculation and a presumption of guilt . I don't really care whether Armstrong was guilty or not. What I do care about is justice and given what I think about the US justice system im not sure I could be bothered if I were in his posiition. And the simple fact is: refusing to take part in a process does not determine guilt. This is actually more embarrassing for cycling then when champions have actually test positive and are stripped of titles.

There are lots of processes which exist outside of the law that can reduce a person's income, status or reputation such as being demoted or sacked at work. I don't think cycling, or indeed this ruling, is a special case here.

edit: Just seen the "based on speculation and a presumption of guilt" bit. He was not presumed guilty. He was charged with doping offenses and asked to defend the charges. Refusal to defend = accepting the charge.

 

[butchersapron]

They're all within the law btw - all lawful.

 

[The Boy]

Not in my book. And not according to the constitution of the United States. I dont care about the his cycling skills or his athletic skills. I care about the rule of law, and objective, physical evidence above heresy.

But it isn't a criminal case. They don't have to establish that he broke the law, but that he broke the governing rules of the sport he chose to compete in. Rules he agreed to be held by when entered the sport.

You're not one his interns are you?

 

[leftistangel]

Like I said, I have no idea or even care that much whether or not Armstrong is innocent or guilty. But the current outcome seems both a travesty of prcoedural fairness and a denial of the presumption of innocence.
It was particularly shocking to me, and I think shameful, for the head of the world anti doping authority, John Fahey, to claim that Armstrongs decision not to contest the charge was such that "he effectively has admitted to the charges" and that "There's no other interpretation" to the question "that Lance Armstrong is essentially pleading guilty by his decision not to contest the charges?"
That is clearly false. There are plenty of other interpretatations of varying degrees of plausibility - but we don't, or ought not, to convict on suspicion, however much you dislike someone.

 

[The Boy]

It starts with the presumption of innocence. USADA present the charges and outline, evidence that they will present and the punishment they will look to apply should he be found guilty by an independent panel - the makeup of which he would have a say in.

He was then given the option to contest or accept the charges. He chose the latter. Because it was a witch hunt, naturally.

 

[Fez909]

Like I said, I have no idea or even care that much whether or not Armstrong is innocent or guilty. But the current outcome seems both a travesty of prcoedural fairness and a denial of the presumption of innocence.
It was particularly shocking to me, and I think shameful, for the head of the world anti doping authority, John Fahey, to claim that Armstrongs decision not to contest the charge was such that "he effectively has admitted to the charges" and that "There's no other interpretation" to the question "that Lance Armstrong is essentially pleading guilty by his decision not to contest the charges?"
That is clearly false. There are plenty of other interpretatations of varying degrees of plausibility - but we don't, or ought not, to convict on suspicion, however much you dislike someone.

But by refusing to take part in the process, he has made it impossible to convict him on anything but suspicion. If he rejected the charges, then he would have been convicted on evidence. This is Armstrong's doing, and it's the best outcome for him as he gets this kind of sympathy vote.

 

[butchersapron]

Like I said, I have no idea or even care that much whether or not Armstrong is innocent or guilty. But the current outcome seems both a travesty of prcoedural fairness and a denial of the presumption of innocence.
It was particularly shocking to me, and I think shameful, for the head of the world anti doping authority, John Fahey, to claim that Armstrongs decision not to contest the charge was such that "he effectively has admitted to the charges" and that "There's no other interpretation" to the question "that Lance Armstrong is essentially pleading guilty by his decision not to contest the charges?"
That is clearly false. There are plenty of other interpretatations of varying degrees of plausibility - but we don't, or ought not, to convict on suspicion, however much you dislike someone.

What's the most plausible? I think the one offered by fahey (RIP) is.

 

[Fez909]

They're all within the law btw - all lawful.

True, I got that mixed up then. Cheers

 

[leftistangel]

[/quote]

But it isn't a criminal case. They don't have to establish that he broke the law, but that he broke the governing rules of the sport he chose to compete in. Rules he agreed to be held by when entered the sport.

You're not one his interns are you?

No, it is alleged he broke the rules. Why assert something as fact when it isnt? From what I have read the evidence (none of which has been properly scrutinised) against Armstrong is both strong (lots of teammates ready to talk) and weak (at the time of relevant tests, he always came out clean).

 

[The Boy]

And he can claim that he has never been found guilty of anything (except he has). In the same way that he claims he hasn't tested positive (he has), despite being The Most Tested Athlete in the World (he isn't).

 

[leftistangel]

What's the most plausible? I think the one offered by fahey (RIP) is.

Id rather not make such decisions on plausibility. Nor should you, if you are wise.

We all face issues of proof and justice in our day to day lives.

 

[The Boy]

No, it is alleged he broke the rules. Why assert something as fact when it isnt? From what I have read the evidence (none of which has been properly scrutinised) against Armstrong is both strong (lots of teammates ready to talk) and weak (at the time of relevant tests, he always came out clean).

It was alleged. And he has chosen not to challenge the allegations. And the evidence is far from weak - much is in the public domain already.

 

[butchersapron]

Id rather not make such decisions on plausibility. Nor should you, if you are wise.

Why not?

 

[Fez909]

Here's the link again which shows how he has failed tests for EPO.

 

[The Boy]

Here's the link again which shows how he has failed tests for EPO.

I've lost count of how many times I've posted that on a middle-class dominated (specialist interest) forum I also post on. Judging by the fact that we have the same argument every time there are developments in this case, I doubt they have read it. I'm still hearing the 'never tested positive' and 'it was everyone else's fault really' lines today.

 

[Frumious B.]

Oh FFS. How come this thread has been hijacked by a redundant debate about the US constitution? There are plenty of better things to talk about - e.g. what this means for all the people whose lives Armstrong tried to wreck - Simeoni, the Andreus, Emma O'Reilly, Greg Lemond, Floyd Landis etc. For anyone who's not up to speed on the vast amount of evidence against Armstrong, how about some reading? You need to set aside a whole week. Here's a good place to start. http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/index-of-lance-armstrong-doping-allegations-over-the-years

Nike has come out with a statement supporting Lance. I wonder how his other sponsors will react. Could/would any of them sue him? It seems that USADA's evidence against him - i.e. the testimonies of the 10 riders who say they saw him doping and/or were encouraged to dope by him - Tygart says all of that will come out despite his refusal to have a tribunal. So today is just the beginning of the public destruction of his reputation. America being the way it is, won't we have a ton of lawsuits flowing from this?

 

[butchersapron]

Lance Armstrong's '99 samples test positive
AS: So out of the 87 usable samples that they gathered, they got 13 positives and 6 of them belonged to Lance Armstrong.
MA: Depending on which criteria you applied. Yes, six of them failed the definitive criteria. There were another two samples in fact where the EPO was visually there in the gel. You could see it was there, but for one reason or another, the percentage isoforms weren't calculated, or had to be re-analyzed, or it was a little bit too faint to get a definitive result. Yes, there were six samples with EPO in it, and there were another two samples where it was pretty plain to a trained observer that there was synthetic EPO in those as well.
AS: You were able to analyze the results, correct?

...MA: There was only two conceivable ways that synthetic EPO could've gotten into those samples. One, is that Lance Armstrong used EPO during the '99 Tour, and we've since found out that there were teammates from US Postal in that '99 Tour that have since admitted using EPO while riding for US Postal in that Tour.
The other way it could've got in the urine was if, as Lance Armstrong seems to believe, the laboratory spiked those samples. Now, that's an extraordinary claim, and there's never ever been any evidence the laboratory has ever spiked an athlete's sample, even during the Cold War, where you would've thought there was a real political motive to frame an athlete from a different country. There's never been any suggestion that it happened.

 

[The Boy]

Plus the insurance case mentioned above. There was about $5M riding on that iirc.

edit: in response to Frumious

 

[leftistangel]

Here's the link again which shows how he has failed tests for EPO.

Swap ´shows´for speculates and youd be about right.

As this comment below explains´As a scientist myself (PhD in a molecular biological discipline, unlike Dr. Ashendon), I took a look at the supposedly confirmatory "articles" and data cited. I've gotta say they were pretty disappointing: a "letter to the editor" with 3 references indluding the author's own, and one figure - certainly not the stuff on which firm scientific conclusions are normally (or validly) based; and an internal WADA SOP that gives no realistic representation of the variability in the kinds of protein gels used for EPO detection. Please just show us Lance's unethically acquired data, if they're so sure it's "unequivocal"! I assure you, there are legions of scientists out here eager to evaluate it objectively.´

 

[butchersapron]

Swap ´shows´for speculates and youd be about right.

As this comment below explains´As a scientist myself (PhD in a molecular biological discipline, unlike Dr. Ashendon), I took a look at the supposedly confirmatory "articles" and data cited. I've gotta say they were pretty disappointing: a "letter to the editor" with 3 references indluding the author's own, and one figure - certainly not the stuff on which firm scientific conclusions are normally (or validly) based; and an internal WADA SOP that gives no realistic representation of the variability in the kinds of protein gels used for EPO detection. Please just show us Lance's unethically acquired data, if they're so sure it's "unequivocal"! I assure you, there are legions of scientists out here eager to evaluate it objectively.´

This person did not look at the data that Michael Ashenden did.

 

[The Boy]

Ah. So you're a swivel-eyed lunatic.

I had such hopes for us.

Edit: ffs, this was in response to LA.

 

[leftistangel]

Oh FFS. How come this thread has been hijacked by a redundant debate about the US constitution? There are plenty of better things to talk about - e.g. what this means for all the people whose lives Armstrong tried to wreck - Simeoni, the Andreus, Emma O'Reilly, Greg Lemond, Floyd Landis etc. For anyone who's not up to speed on the vast amount of evidence against Armstrong, how about some reading? You need to set aside a whole week. Here's a good place to start. http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/index-of-lance-armstrong-doping-allegations-over-the-years

Nike has come out with a statement supporting Lance. I wonder how his other sponsors will react. Could/would any of them sue him? It seems that USADA's evidence against him - i.e. the testimonies of the 10 riders who say they saw him doping and/or were encouraged to dope by him - Tygart says all of that will come out despite his refusal to have a tribunal. So today is just the beginning of the public destruction of his reputation. America being the way it is, won't we have a ton of lawsuits flowing from this?

Speculate and gossip away. Regulations and law have to be transparent and fair, that is my argument... not whether Armstrong is ultimately guilty or not, which we may never KNOW.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

You dont understand the presumption of innocence if you think its restricted to trials and criminal proceedings. I'm not defending Armstrong (I personally SUSPECT he has taken PES´s, but thats not the point), I am condemning a process which exists outside the law and can strip a person of their livelihood and achievments based on speculation and a presumption of guilt . I don't really care whether Armstrong was guilty or not. What I do care about is justice and given what I think about the US justice system im not sure I could be bothered if I were in his posiition. And the simple fact is: refusing to take part in a process does not determine guilt.

You simply don't understand the process in question.

1) If you really want to think about this in terms of a criminal prosecution, what Armstrong has done in this case is the equivalent of entering a "no contest" plea in a US Court. If you do that, regardless of how many pompous statements you issue about how you aren't taking part in the trial because you are so damn sick of it all, the Court will then find you guilty and move on to sentencing.

2) But it isn't actually some form of criminal prosecution in the first place. Armstrong is subject to an arbitration process when it comes to doping issues because he signed up to this particular disputes resolution process when he took out a licence to compete in officially sanctioned events in a WADA-code affiliate sport. This was entirely voluntary on his part. You or I are not subject to any similar process, because we have not signed up to it. Armstrong did sign up to it.

3) Arbitration as a method of disputes resolution has been challenged in the US courts not once or twice, but on hundreds, perhaps even thousands of occasions. Armstrong's challenge was nothing new and the process he was facing was not particularly unusual. The US courts, at every level, have held over and over again that arbitration is a fully acceptable, indeed important to the point of being crucial to the functioning of the legal system, method of dispute resolution. When you talk about the "unconstitutionality" of this process being "beyond dispute", you have it exactly the other way around. There is a mountain of jurisprudence on the issue in the UA and it all points the other way. In fact its so unanimous that Armstrong's court case bordered on being crank behaviour. In Armstrong's case, he is entitled to an arbitration hearing in front of neutral arbitrators and, should he not like the outcome, he's entitled to an appeal to the entirely separate Court of Arbitration for Sports in Switzerland. Armstrong has chosen not to exercise those rights.

4) On the absence of physical/scientific evidence, USADA does in fact have such evidence, most importantly Armstrong's blood values during his comeback. But that in and of itself is a misunderstanding of how legal systems work. USADA has lined up more than ten former team mates, most of whom were never caught themselves and some of whom are themselves beyond the statute of limitations and so have little or nothing to fear, plus former team workers to give evidence against Armstrong. In a criminal trial (to go back to your faulty analogy) that would be absolutely overwhelming evidence, leaving the accused in an extremely difficult situation. Witness evidence is the bread and butter of the court system. Its what most issues are decided on.

 

[butchersapron]

Speculate and gossip away. Regulations and law have to be transparent and fair, that is my argument... not whether Armstrong is ultimately guilty or not, which we may never KNOW.

Which parts of the USADA investigation are unconstitutional?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Speculate and gossip away. Regulations and law have to be transparent and fair, that is my argument... not whether Armstrong is ultimately guilty or not, which we may never KNOW.

The process concerned is transparent. It exists under the publicly available and easily understood WADA and USADA codes. And it only effects people who voluntarily sign up to it.

 

[butchersapron]

You simply don't understand the process in question.

1) If you really want to think about this in terms of a criminal prosecution, what Armstrong has done in this case is the equivalent of entering a "no contest" plea in a US Court. If you do that, regardless of how many pompous statements you issue about how you aren't taking part in the trial because you are so damn sick of it all, the Court will then find you guilty and move on to sentencing.

2) But it isn't actually some form of criminal prosecution in the first place. Armstrong is subject to an arbitration process when it comes to doping issues because he signed up to this particular disputes resolution process when he took out a licence to compete in officially sanctioned events in a WADA-code affiliate sport. This was entirely voluntary on his part. You or I are not subject to any similar process, because we have not signed up to it. Armstrong did sign up to it.

3) Arbitration as a method of disputes resolution has been challenged in the US courts not once or twice, but on hundreds, perhaps even thousands of occasions. Armstrong's challenge was nothing new and the process he was facing was not particularly unusual. The US courts, at every level, have held over and over again that arbitration is a fully acceptable, indeed important to the point of being crucial to the functioning of the legal system, method of dispute resolution. In Armstrong's case, he is entitled to an arbitration hearing in front of neutral arbitrators and, should he not like the outcome, he's entitled to an appeal to the entirely separate Court of Arbitration for Sports in Switzerland. Armstrong has chosen not to exercise those rights.

4) On the absence of physical/scientific evidence, USADA does in fact have such evidence, most importantly Armstrong's blood values during his comeback. But that in and of itself is a misunderstanding of how legal systems work. USADA has lined up more than ten former team mates, most of whom were never caught themselves and some of whom are themselves beyond the statute of limitations and so have little or nothing to fear, plus former team workers to give evidence against Armstrong. In a criminal trial (to go back to your faulty analogy) that would be absolutely overwhelming evidence, leaving the accused in an extremely difficult situation. Witness evidence is the bread and butter of the court system. Its what most issues are decided on.

That should do it.

 

[The Boy]

But Nige, it's a WITCH HUNT!!!!!eleven

 

[Frumious B.]

If the USADA procedures are so unconstitutional Lance could have taken the case to the CAS and then the Swiss supreme court. Maybe they are unconstitutional - but so is Lance's long history of intimidation of witnesses. I reckon he deserves as much protection from the constitution as the imates of Guantanamo Bay have received.

I vote to put leftistangel on ignore and encourage him/her to go and post about some other legal cul de sac. There are so many to choose from that I don't see why he/she needs to bugger up a cycling thread.