Armstrong drops fight against doping charges

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by Benhur

Now Tygart is saying that if Armstrong is a good boy and cooperates, they may still let him keep most of his Tours, as they will respect the statue of limitations. He says they would have done so if he had come in and "been truthful." Interesting how the statue of limitations can be turned on or off at will.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12...ooperates.aspx

[...]
Tygart has said that Armstrong was given the opportunity to meet with USADA, but refused. He says now that had he done so, he could have held onto five of his seven Tour titles.

If Armstrong had “come in and been truthful, then the evidence might have been that the statute (of limitations) should apply, that would have been fine by us,” he said. Normally the statute of limitations is eight years but when an ongoing cover-up is involved, that can be waived under USADA rules. The precedent for this was set earlier this year in the doping case of Eddy Hellebuyuck, a track and field athlete.
[...]
“Of course, this is still possible and we always remain open, because while the truth hurts, ultimately, from what we have seen in these types of cases, acknowledging the truth is the best way forward.”
[...]
Meanwhile the Australian official and UCI arbitration tribunal member Phill Bates has criticised USADA. “If USADA believes Armstrong has a case to answer, the ultimate judge should be the UCI, not a publicity-seeking chief executive hellbent on a witch-hunt to chop down the tallest poppy in our sport.”

I noticed that too. It seems the "crime" is quite flexible. It can be what you want it to be. Apparently, their "evidence" is only good for repealing 2 titles, but it can be stretched to 7 if they want to.

Whole thing smells of corruption.

[NonP]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

Eyewitness testimony is not heresay.

I meant to say anecdotal/hearsay evidence. Anyway my point was that physical evidence should be required before doing something so drastic, though even this isn't so foolproof. (See the Contador case, where even the CAS themselves admitted that his intake of clenbuterol was negligible but proceeded to ban him anyway.)

[Benhur]

To me it sounds almost like a last ditch attempt to lure Armstrong to "come in". The last thiing Tygart wants is for the case to be out of his hands and into the hands of the UCI or the TAS. He wants to keep it inside his court where he can control it. Why else would he be saying now that they would have applied the statue of limitations if Armstrong "had come in and been truthful," and that this is still possible because "we always remain open" and so on. Probably because he fears that the UCI and TAS won't dismiss the statue of limitations, among other things. In any case, it's a remarkable softening of tone.

[fundrazer]

Why would they want the corrupt UCI to handle things? Nobody bothers reading any of the articles I've been posting I guess....

Months ago the UCI said they would leave this all to USADA, but now that things are looking dire for Lance, he has his friends in high places at UCI try to bail him out. Remember, Pat McQuack is on Armstrong's payroll after Lance's $125,0000 "donation" to the UCI.

[Bartelby]

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.

Originally Posted by NonP

I meant to say anecdotal/hearsay evidence. Anyway my point was that physical evidence should be required before doing something so drastic, though even this isn't so foolproof. (See the Contador case, where even the CAS themselves admitted that his intake of clenbuterol was negligible but proceeded to ban him anyway.)

[NonP]

Originally Posted by fundrazer

Why would they want the corrupt UCI to handle things? Nobody bothers reading any of the articles I've been posting I guess....

Months ago the UCI said they would leave this all to USADA, but now that things are looking dire for Lance, he has his friends in high places at UCI try to bail him out. Remember, Pat McQuack is on Armstrong's payroll after Lance's $125,0000 "donation" to the UCI.

The whole adjudication system is corrupt. You seem to think one of these agencies can be trusted to do the right thing.

[Bartelby]

These agencies were set up because sporting bodies refused by and large to initiate tough doping controls.

The guy is guilty because he didn't mount a defence. You should be complaining about Armstrong's cowardice.

[NonP]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

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

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.

[Bartelby]

There were three cases with physical evidence that USADA presented to Armstrong.

Armstrong is a coward for not defending himself in public.

[Sander001]

You can keep saying he's a coward, but it won't make it true.

[Sander001]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

Eyewitness testimony is not heresay.

It is when there's no punishment for perjury.

[Bartelby]

Heresay evidence is usually not admissable.

Perjury is usually untruthful eyewitness testimony.

Originally Posted by Sander001

It is when there's no punishment for perjury.

[Bartelby]

That's because its an opinion based on the true fact that he wouldn't defend himself.

Originally Posted by Sander001

You can keep saying he's a coward, but it won't make it true.

[NonP]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

There were three cases with physical evidence that USADA presented to Armstrong.

Armstrong is a coward for not defending himself in public.

Look, the USADA has yet to release the details to the public. Given the noncommittal language of their June letter, forgive me for thinking they probably don't have the physical evidence to nail Armstrong with.

You're free to characterize him as a coward. Just don't expect everyone else to share your opinion. Seriously, you're almost coaxing me into liking the guy.

[Bartelby]

Come off it, you already love the guy.

My opinion was only formed when he refused to defend himself with a lame excuse about being tired.

He's been judged fairly and he can't complain.

[NonP]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

Come off it, you already love the guy.

Au contraire, the only guy I love is myself.

Maybe that didn't come out right. Anyway trust me, I have no strong feelings about the guy. What I really object to is the USADA's self-serving campaign against him (not to mention countless others) under a veneer of righteousness.

My opinion was only formed when he refused to defend himself with a lame excuse about being tired.

That's fine. I just feel differently.

He's been judged fairly and he can't complain.

I would say that going from most likely guilty to guilty is hardly a fair judgment. But yes, he knew what he was getting into.

[Sander001]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

That's because its an opinion based on the true fact that he wouldn't defend himself.

Thank you for admitting this, it's all I needed because now we know your opinion is clearly biased. I wanted to call you out on it much earlier, but glad to see I didn't have to.

[jonnythan]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

Come off it, you already love the guy.

My opinion was only formed when he refused to defend himself with a lame excuse about being tired.

He's been judged fairly and he can't complain.

Well your opinion is just that. It's an opinion.

You keep presenting it as a fact.

[Benhur]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

There were three cases with physical evidence that USADA presented to Armstrong.

Armstrong is a coward for not defending himself in public.

Armstrong did defend himself in a real court of law. Just in February this year federal prosecutors dropped a two-year investigation, with no charges against him.

From a news report at the time:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/oth...Armstrong.html

The probe [was] anchored in Los Angeles where a grand jury was presented evidence by federal prosecutors and heard testimony from Armstrong's former teammates and associates
[…]
Investigators looked at whether a doping program was established for Armstrong's team while they received government sponsorship from the US Postal Service. They also examined whether Armstrong encouraged or facilitated doping on the team.

USADA is a private agency, not a court of law. They could try to keep to their mission and concentrate on the here and now, keeping an eye on the thousands of athletes now practicing sports in the US. They prefer the then and there where the big flashy fish are. A private agency with these goals, where the CEO, the Judge and the Prosecutor are one and the same person, is no place to defend yourself. It’s worse, in fact, than the worse kangaroo court, and so it is not at all surprising LA refused to submit to their process. No shame in that whatsoever. But he did defend himself succesfully in a real court of law, to the point where the prosecutors had to drop the case, because whatever the USADA was supplying them was useless to them.

It's highly amusing that the Usada is now changing its tune and suggesting they will respect the statue of limitations and let him keep most of his titles if he only comes to their lap and fesses up (see post 256) Why weren't they saying that before? It's pretty pathetic.

[Bartelby]

Opinions are always biased if by that you mean subjective. Do you really think you have objective opinions? You need to go back to school and redo English.

Originally Posted by Sander001

Thank you for admitting this, it's all I needed because now we know your opinion is clearly biased. I wanted to call you out on it much earlier, but glad to see I didn't have to.