View Single Post
Old 08-28-2012, 06:11 AM   #268
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,071

Originally Posted by Bartelby View Post
There is no such thing as physical evidence from a legal point of view.

There is only expert opinion about physical evidence and expert opinion is an exception to the heresay rule.

The gold standard is always a confession and the next best is eyewitness testimony which is neither anecdotal nor heresay.
Um, you seem quite fixated on the legalese of it all. I wasn't speaking as to the legal aspect of the case, but rather giving my own personal opinion, hence the "personal note" qualifier.

I insist on physical evidence because the whole point of PED testing is to gather and assess said evidence (yeah, and to keep the sport clean, or whatever facade they like to put on).

Originally Posted by Bartelby View Post
These agencies were set up because sporting bodies refused by and large to initiate tough doping controls.
That only justifies their existence, not their methods.

The guy is guilty because he didn't mount a defence.
It's become more likely in the minds of many that he's guilty. Nothing more or less.

You should be complaining about Armstrong's cowardice.
He knew he wasn't gonna get a fair hearing, so I think I'll cut the guy some slack. thanks.
NonP is offline   Reply With Quote