Lance comeback
- Neil Compton
- Posts: 256
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
- Real Name:
- Location: Northfield
- Neil Compton
- Posts: 256
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
- Real Name:
- Location: Northfield
Interesting article that someone i work with told me about.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/sports/o ... trong-case
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/sports/o ... trong-case
"Interesting" isn't the first adjective that springs to my mind, Neil, I'm afraid.Neil Compton wrote:Interesting article that someone i work with told me about.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/sports/o ... trong-case
- Neil Compton
- Posts: 256
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
- Real Name:
- Location: Northfield
A few weeks ago i had a knock on my door and it was the police come to take me down to the station for questioning about an incident that took place between me and the owner of the takeaway below me.
At the station i was interviewed and statements were read out to me from parties involved. The statements contained a pack of lies. I could not believe what i was being accused of. Anyway i made my own statement and was told the case would be presented to the crown prosecution service to see if it would go to court.
I've just received a letter saying 'A lengthy investigation has been conducted and all lines of enquiry exhausted, this was presented to the CPS and reviewed by them. Following this the decision was made that there will be no further police action taken against you'.
Why? No evidence. It would have just been their word against mine.
Lets just say it's not nice being accused of something that i didn't do.
At the station i was interviewed and statements were read out to me from parties involved. The statements contained a pack of lies. I could not believe what i was being accused of. Anyway i made my own statement and was told the case would be presented to the crown prosecution service to see if it would go to court.
I've just received a letter saying 'A lengthy investigation has been conducted and all lines of enquiry exhausted, this was presented to the CPS and reviewed by them. Following this the decision was made that there will be no further police action taken against you'.
Why? No evidence. It would have just been their word against mine.
Lets just say it's not nice being accused of something that i didn't do.
- Neil Compton
- Posts: 256
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
- Real Name:
- Location: Northfield
Neil, there's no question that there's some sleazy plea-bargaining been going on. I find it as distasteful as you do. But does it follow that therefore all the witnesses are lying? What reason does the USADA have for offering them inducements to implicate Lance? Surely by far the most plausible reason is that USADA has strong grounds for suspecting him of wrongs at least as great as those for which the others are to be banned, but (without their testimony) lacks sufficient hard proof to nail him.Neil Compton wrote:A six month delayed ban for the four iders who have testified against him which dosn't start until the end of the season. Oh and they have all opted not to be considered for the olympics. Talk about let off lightly.
I'm sure you're right, Neil. But I just can't understand why you find it so much easier to believe that a whole bunch of witnesses are lying to save their necks, than to believe that Lance is lying to save his.Neil Compton wrote:Like i said before some people will say anything to save their own neck.
- Philip Whiteman
- Posts: 2046
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006 16:17
- Real Name:
- Location: Drayton, Worcestershire
-
- Posts: 1119
- Joined: 31 Dec 2011 13:48
- Real Name:
- Location: Harborne
The story about the bans doesn't seem clear yet: http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/vaug ... 53993.html.Ed Moss wrote:Does seem they got off lightly....Wonder if they will be allowed to continue on the tour?
Phil, I've said all along that I merely suspect him of doping. My suspicions have become stronger and stronger over the last 10 years, but I do nevertheless reserve my final judgement.Philip Whiteman wrote:I do not place myself at the top of Lance's fan list, however I think that it is better to reserve judgement until all the evidence has been heard and the verdict has been given. We must remember that he is innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
Vaughters:lc1981 wrote:The story about the bans doesn't seem clear yet.
"Asked if he had testified against the seven-times Tour de France winner Armstrong, the former professional cyclist refused to comment."
Leipheimer:
"I cannot comment, I'm here to ride my bike."
Hincapie:
"I've always tried to do the right thing for my sport but I've got other things on my mind here."
Hardly unequivocal denials.
"No 6 months suspensions have been given to any member of Slipstream Sports. Today or at any future date."
That does not exclude the possibility that it was intimated to lawyers that, if the witnesses cooperated, that is the type of treatment they could expect. I've never been a party to any plea-bargaining agreement, but I doubt whether it's normal procedure to have a signed contract. Time will tell whether the story in De Telegraaf has any basis.
- Neil Compton
- Posts: 256
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
- Real Name:
- Location: Northfield
You have answered your own question George. If they are going on testimony alone without sufficient hard proof then i have to lean on the side of the accused. Even though a number of riders appear to have testified against him it does look like they have come to some kind of deal and don't forget it was proven that they took drugs. So at the moment and because of these things i'd still rather believe that Lance is innocent.George wrote:Neil, there's no question that there's some sleazy plea-bargaining been going on. I find it as distasteful as you do. But does it follow that therefore all the witnesses are lying? What reason does the USADA have for offering them inducements to implicate Lance? Surely by far the most plausible reason is that USADA has strong grounds for suspecting him of wrongs at least as great as those for which the others are to be banned, but (without their testimony) lacks sufficient hard proof to nail him.Neil Compton wrote:A six month delayed ban for the four iders who have testified against him which dosn't start until the end of the season. Oh and they have all opted not to be considered for the olympics. Talk about let off lightly.
I'm sure you're right, Neil. But I just can't understand why you find it so much easier to believe that a whole bunch of witnesses are lying to save their necks, than to believe that Lance is lying to save his.Neil Compton wrote:Like i said before some people will say anything to save their own neck.
And someone else who "Never tested positive"
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ullrich ... in-cycling
Handled with much more dignity than LA.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ullrich ... in-cycling
Handled with much more dignity than LA.
Bless him....A court date gets closer
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstro ... -dismissed
"This Court is not inclined to indulge Armstrong's desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement or vilification of Defendants, by sifting through eighty mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstro ... -dismissed
"This Court is not inclined to indulge Armstrong's desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement or vilification of Defendants, by sifting through eighty mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims."
- Neil Compton
- Posts: 256
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
- Real Name:
- Location: Northfield
-
- Posts: 100
- Joined: 29 Nov 2006 17:52
- Real Name:
Greetings from sunny France.Philip Whiteman wrote:I do not place myself at the top of Lance's fan list, however I think that it is better to reserve judgement until all the evidence has been heard and the verdict has been given. We must remember that he is innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
Well said Philip. What you have said says it all.
Les
I've never been sure how one decides whether a doubt is reasonable. There is always some doubt about anything and 'reasonableness' is a rather subjective concept.
It's obvious that USADA thinks he's guilty. That leaves three options:
a) He's guilty.
b) USADA is incompetent.
c) There's a conspiracy against him.
USADA are presenting a lot of evidence to support a). Until someone presents equally compelling evidence to support b) and/or c) I don't quite see what legal basis there is for regarding any residual doubt as reasonable.
It's obvious that USADA thinks he's guilty. That leaves three options:
a) He's guilty.
b) USADA is incompetent.
c) There's a conspiracy against him.
USADA are presenting a lot of evidence to support a). Until someone presents equally compelling evidence to support b) and/or c) I don't quite see what legal basis there is for regarding any residual doubt as reasonable.
- Neil Compton
- Posts: 256
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
- Real Name:
- Location: Northfield
You may not regard it as such, Neil, but a court of law does (unless the witness is unreliable, or there is reason to think that he/she is mistaken).Neil Compton wrote:I've still yet to see what the evidence is? Someone saying that he doped is not evidence.
If 10 of your club mates say under oath "I saw Neil eat beans on toast at the café" a court will conclude that you ate beans on toast at the café, unless your lawyer can show that we are all lying or can't tell the difference between beans and sausages. The basic principles in this case are the same.
- Neil Compton
- Posts: 256
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
- Real Name:
- Location: Northfield
generally speaking one person's word against another would not normally be enough to mount a case in court if there were no other evidence available. eg - what happened to me.
If i didn't eat beans on toast but ten people in the Beacon said i did and that was sufficient for a court to find me guilty then i'd be screwed. It still dosn't mean i ate beans on toast though. Like i said before one person, two persons, however how many persons word against another is still just that.
If i didn't eat beans on toast but ten people in the Beacon said i did and that was sufficient for a court to find me guilty then i'd be screwed. It still dosn't mean i ate beans on toast though. Like i said before one person, two persons, however how many persons word against another is still just that.
- Neil Compton
- Posts: 256
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
- Real Name:
- Location: Northfield
By 'accusers' I take it you mean witnesses? I'm not sure that they are all admitted/convicted dopers, but most are, certainly (according to the media).
To paraphrase from memory the reports I've read: all the witnesses say that they shared dope, suppliers, doping know-how, medical support, etc with Lance, and some say they saw him use it.
If plea-bargaining has been going on, one can reasonably argue that the offer of leniency potentially compromises the witnesses' credibility. However, the law has always allowed evidence from confessed accomplices; the mere fact that a person is or has been guilty of a crime doesn't automatically invalidate his/her testimony against a fellow accused. The court has to consider the witnesses' credibility in the round, taking everything (including the inducements) into account.
To paraphrase from memory the reports I've read: all the witnesses say that they shared dope, suppliers, doping know-how, medical support, etc with Lance, and some say they saw him use it.
If plea-bargaining has been going on, one can reasonably argue that the offer of leniency potentially compromises the witnesses' credibility. However, the law has always allowed evidence from confessed accomplices; the mere fact that a person is or has been guilty of a crime doesn't automatically invalidate his/her testimony against a fellow accused. The court has to consider the witnesses' credibility in the round, taking everything (including the inducements) into account.
I thought the word "accusers" was appropriate because, before I became bored and switched off, it sounded as though these charges arose directly because of their accusations rather than because of other evidence which has simply been corroborated by the testimony of established dopers.
I don't believe the beans analogy is a good one because eating beans doesn't represent illegal cheating. So when bean eaters accuse someone else of doing the same it's not quite the same as a bunch of criminal cheats accusing someone else of being a fellow cheat. I personally don't care whether he's guilty or not but, regardless what line a US court might take, unless there is other substantive evidence I'd consider this to be testimony of unreliable witnesses rather than reliable evidence.
What I do wish is that the cycling world would find a way of moving on, forgetting the past and putting all it's energy in eliminating current and future doping.
I don't believe the beans analogy is a good one because eating beans doesn't represent illegal cheating. So when bean eaters accuse someone else of doing the same it's not quite the same as a bunch of criminal cheats accusing someone else of being a fellow cheat. I personally don't care whether he's guilty or not but, regardless what line a US court might take, unless there is other substantive evidence I'd consider this to be testimony of unreliable witnesses rather than reliable evidence.
What I do wish is that the cycling world would find a way of moving on, forgetting the past and putting all it's energy in eliminating current and future doping.
Eat cake before you're hungry
-
- Posts: 59
- Joined: 21 Nov 2006 16:56
- Real Name:
- Location: Birmingham
I suppose the label 'accuser' is reasonable for, say, Landis, who made accusations in the context of his own public admission of guilt, outside the context of any action against Lance. However, it's not an appropriate label for several others, e.g. Hincapie, who, the media stories lead us to believe, resisted all requests to give evidence until subpoena'd and obliged to answer questions under oath.CakeStop wrote:I thought the word "accusers" was appropriate because, before I became bored and switched off, it sounded as though these charges arose directly because of their accusations rather than because of other evidence which has simply been corroborated by the testimony of established dopers.
It's a deliberately frivolous analogy, Steve. However, I stand by the validity of the basic principle underpinning it: if 10 witnesses say someone did something, which that person denies doing, a court will normally believe the 10 witnesses, unless it can be shown that their evidence is unreliable.CakeStop wrote:I don't believe the beans analogy is a good one because eating beans doesn't represent illegal cheating.
If my analogy is weak in any respect, it is that it fails to reflect the credibility balance one would have in a legal case. If 10 people say they saw Neil have beans on toast and he says he actually had eggs on toast, you (the judge) will ask yourself "Why would Neil say that if it weren't true?" and "Is this something that those 10 witnesses could be mistaken about?"
There's no reason why Neil would lie about what he ate, and every possibility that the witnesses weren't paying that much attention and/or are muddling this Sunday up with last Sunday. By contrast, there are obvious reasons for the accused in a doping case to lie, and it's hard to see how his team mates could be mistaken about whether they did or did not dope together.
If the evidence of an accomplice is by definition unreliable, simply because he is an accomplice, we need to let a large percentage of the current prison population free. The evidence of accomplices is routinely accepted in law. Obviously, a court doesn't just accept it at face value; it considers how likely it is that the witness may be lying or honestly mistaken. But the evidence isn't dismissed just because the witness is an accomplice.CakeStop wrote:I'd consider this to be testimony of unreliable witnesses rather than reliable evidence.
What's more, evidence has an accumulative weight: one person can make an honest mistake, but 10 people are less likely to make the same honest mistake; one person may have a personal incentive to lie, but 10 people whose circumstances and relationships with the accused all differ are less likely to all have an incentive for lying.
To a large extent, I support that sentiment. However, I think maybe you're forgetting a) that Lance is still influential within the sport as a team co-owner and icon to upcoming generations, and b) that it's not just Lance who has been charged. Bruyneel has also been charged; if he is found not guilty, he will presumably continue running a team, nurturing riders, etc. Various doctors and other back-room team members are also accused and will presumably remain associated with the sport if found not guilty. I assume that the USADA wants this alleged systematic doping ring out of the sport precisely because it is committed to "eliminating current and future doping".CakeStop wrote:What I do wish is that the cycling world would find a way of moving on, forgetting the past and putting all it's energy in eliminating current and future doping.
Anyway, I have once again frittered away 40 minutes of my working day on this, so I am now going to try and refrain from further comment.
"What I do wish is that the cycling world would find a way of moving on, forgetting the past and putting all it's energy in eliminating current and future doping."
This is what it's doing, Armstrong is pretty much the last one of that era to face charges/get a ban. Once it's all over then we can move on, he shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, what message does that send out to the 15 year old future pro?
This is what it's doing, Armstrong is pretty much the last one of that era to face charges/get a ban. Once it's all over then we can move on, he shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, what message does that send out to the 15 year old future pro?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-d ... usada-case
Looks like we will have to wait another week...
Here's a bit more "evidence"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6DmNMGEuI0
Unbelievable.....
Looks like we will have to wait another week...
Here's a bit more "evidence"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6DmNMGEuI0
Unbelievable.....
- Neil Compton
- Posts: 256
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
- Real Name:
- Location: Northfield
I was 100% in the def guilty camp due to simply believing his performances and times are physiologically impossible and all the other top 10 riders of that era have been found guilty/confessed.
However, since watching the olympics and seeing unbelievable performances and complete dominance by the British team I am doubting that line of thinking.
I still think though that as half of Lance's team and many of Bruneeyl's riders have tested positive his achievements are tainted even if he is found innocent. If Froome and any of the other Sky riders tested positive in the next twelve months Wiggins' win would be a lot less impressive as it is such a team sport.
Of course it could transpire in the future that Brailsford is in fact the new Bruneeyl/Ferrari.
However, since watching the olympics and seeing unbelievable performances and complete dominance by the British team I am doubting that line of thinking.
I still think though that as half of Lance's team and many of Bruneeyl's riders have tested positive his achievements are tainted even if he is found innocent. If Froome and any of the other Sky riders tested positive in the next twelve months Wiggins' win would be a lot less impressive as it is such a team sport.
Of course it could transpire in the future that Brailsford is in fact the new Bruneeyl/Ferrari.
- Neil Compton
- Posts: 256
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
- Real Name:
- Location: Northfield
The way Froome rode in some of the mountain stages in this years tour he could have left all the riders for dead including Wiggo. I'd go as far to say that if he had been on another team he would have won. I guess that means he must have been on something.
And Steve, yes you hit the nail on the head.
And Steve, yes you hit the nail on the head.
One small difference, Neil:Neil Compton wrote:The way Froome rode in some of the mountain stages in this years tour he could have left all the riders for dead including Wiggo. I'd go as far to say that if he had been on another team he would have won. I guess that means he must have been on something.
There isn't a list of Froome's team-mates, associates and beaten rivals as long as your arm who say that they doped with him and/or have been proven to have doped.
- Neil Compton
- Posts: 256
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
- Real Name:
- Location: Northfield
Not yet George no but success does breed contempt in some circles.
Last edited by Neil Compton on 13 Aug 2012 21:57, edited 1 time in total.