What constitutes proof that a cyclist/team are doping? - Page 11 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 11-13-12, 18:51
Dr. Maserati Dr. Maserati is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martinvickers View Post
i.e the correct one.




No,I just know where it's limits are - or ought to be.
Great - can you clearly articulate what that limit is (or ought to be ) for an online forum.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 11-13-12, 20:53
The fridge in the blue trees The fridge in the blue trees is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 135
Default

Viewpoints and opinions aren't just based on "proof"
Until the USADA investigation there was no proof Armstrong doped either. When Landis came out I personnally thought it wouldn't lead anywhere either. Not because I thought Armstrong was clean, simply because I thought Landis simply wasn't credible enough. That although he very likely said the truth on many things, even the main things, but not on necessarily on every detail, so it would be possible to prove him wrong on some stuff, and because discrediting Landis wasn't even necessary, he had discredited himself enough already.
So my opinion before Landis, after Landis until USADA report:
Armstrong dopes, but there is no proof.
Just because I think that somebody is doped, I don't regard the things that lead me to that belief as "proof". Proof is what Martinvickers and others mentioned before. At least as I understood it, maybe as a non native I don't get the exact meaning of the word....
But proof for me is not just the things that lead you to an opinion, but things that.. prove something beyond a doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 11-13-12, 21:00
DirtyWorks's Avatar
DirtyWorks DirtyWorks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,665
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martinvickers View Post
i.e the correct one.
This test for truth fails. As Ashenden pointed out in one of his interviews, there is scientific proof of doping, and then there is the legal case where the scientific evidence is used for making and possibly winning the case.

According to your comments, we're supposed to just rely on the IOC and UCI to police their own matters and communicate with some reliability. Do you prefer being treated a fool? Because if you take the UCI and IOC at their word, then YOU ARE A FOOL for doing it.

I get that docile people rely on an authority structure to lead them, but when it comes to IOC sports like cycling and doping, demanding legal proof, (whatever that means) is a particularly dishonest tactic used to delay and deny change.
__________________
While Lance was being taken down a track rider and a guy who used to hang onto motorbikes was making a mockery of the Tour. How did we not come so far?

Last edited by DirtyWorks; 11-13-12 at 21:05.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 11-13-12, 21:13
DirtyWorks's Avatar
DirtyWorks DirtyWorks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,665
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The fridge in the blue trees View Post
Until the USADA investigation there was no proof Armstrong doped either.
It looked like a duck, walked like a duck, had feathers like a duck, sounded like a duck, spent a great deal of time by water like a duck, weighed the same as other ducks, other ducks were calling it a duck for over a decade and it wasn't a duck? Wow. Really?
__________________
While Lance was being taken down a track rider and a guy who used to hang onto motorbikes was making a mockery of the Tour. How did we not come so far?
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 11-13-12, 21:19
The fridge in the blue trees The fridge in the blue trees is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 135
Default

Ah, I forgot the retesting of Armstrongs 99 sample, that for me would count as proof. Just proof that wouldn't stand in court, but for me proof anyway.

On proof and stuff, another example: The UCI and corruption and protection of certain riders.

Here and generally it seems the UCI has been declared guilty. Which means nothing, since it's only a forum, but still.
Where's the proof?
The UCI told Saugy in Lausanne that it was Armstrongs sample, to forget it since he wouldn't dope... .something like that is written in the USADA report.
No affidavit by Saugy.
Saugy though said something different twice in newspapers. Latest one reported by cyclingnews:
Quote:
“The UCI said to me at the end of June 2002: 'we warned the rider for whom you had a suspect result in 2001, he gave another suspect return at another lab and he would like to know by which method it was tested,'” Saugy said. "The rider was Armstrong. It was then that I learned about it."
Reads completely different than what is in the USADA report, which by not mentioning dates is misleading.
With Saugys comment there is absolutely no proof. Despite the donations.

Jaksche who told the UCI what he knew and nobody acted on it? Jaksche talks a lot.. without ever really saying anything. Anybody knows what exactly he told the UCI? I don't. He talks and talks, but after reading one of his interviews you know as little as before.

The UCI did everything to work against the USADA report. NOt really... they certainly came accross as confused, clueless and unfocused, but then it's not as if USADA was a good "partner" either, they kept taking potshots at the UCI as well. Without producing anything against the UCI (which obviously wasn't their job) at the end.

Suing Kimmage? Stupid, idiotic, but hardly proof of protecting riders.

Verbruggen and his "never never never"... an old idiot. Protecting himself more than Armstrong, if he has any brains (And I haven't seen any proof of that either) he must have at least suspected Armstrong doped, or thought it very likely, so protecting himself and the UCI.... we didn't catch him, but that's because he didn't dope..

The 99 positive? That one, yep. That's where any UCI investigation has to start, how was an exemption that came in after the test allowed to stand? That was against the rule then as well if I remember correctly. My guess is more than "protecting Armstrong" (he wasn't worth protecting really at that point) it was oh no, not another Doping case after 98.. .which really isn't better.

And maybe explain how the Contador case wasn't made public.. that it had to be leaked by German TV (or news) to become public... .maybe there is a sensible explanation, but I haven't hear done yet.

So yes, look into the UCI, but right now there is no proof that they are indeed corrupt and protecting dopers. (Ok, that sports organisations are corrupt is common sense, would be more surprised if an independently investigated sports organization came out clean... but probably we need a bit more proof) Protecting some riders, very likely yes I'd say, if I had to bet, I'd say yes, but, I haven't come accross any proof so far. I'm aware that's only my opinion and that there is no proof.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 11-13-12, 21:23
The fridge in the blue trees The fridge in the blue trees is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyWorks View Post
It looked like a duck, walked like a duck, had feathers like a duck, sounded like a duck, spent a great deal of time by water like a duck, weighed the same as other ducks, other ducks were calling it a duck for over a decade and it wasn't a duck? Wow. Really?
Could have been Jacques de Vaucansons "Digesting Duck".
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 11-13-12, 21:32
torkil torkil is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Sport View Post
Another way to look at it is let the pro riders prove they're clean. The sooner we get some independent testing body that starts out with the basic assumption that they are all guilty and therefore put in place a testing regime to prove that the better off and cleaner cycling will be.
This is the way to go forward. The current stance of "Innocent until proven guilty" in the sports world does not work. We've had deaths, extortion attempts etc. because of this stance. Suspending an innocent rider from events isn't half as bad for the sport(or the rider) as what happened when Lance ruled the world. If a rider is under suspicion suspend him until he is cleared. Easy as that.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 11-13-12, 22:31
martinvickers martinvickers is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati View Post
Great - can you clearly articulate what that limit is (or ought to be ) for an online forum.
Exactly the same as it is anywhere else - actual evidence that is probative on the balance of probabilities (the more or less universal civil standard of proof). There is no special dispensation for a forum : Clinic or otherwise. If it was defamatory in the outside world, it'll be defamatory here too.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 11-13-12, 23:10
Dr. Maserati Dr. Maserati is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martinvickers View Post
Exactly the same as it is anywhere else - actual evidence that is probative on the balance of probabilities (the more or less universal civil standard of proof). There is no special dispensation for a forum : Clinic or otherwise. If it was defamatory in the outside world, it'll be defamatory here too.
Again, you are confused of what a forum is.
Its a place to discuss things, and then people can make up their own mind, thats why i said it is individual.

If someone says something defamatory then indeed they could be sued, but since you like proof so much, the burden of proof for defamation is very different from what you suggest which is the the burden to prove a criminal case (or doping case).
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 11-13-12, 23:17
Spencer the Half Wit's Avatar
Spencer the Half Wit Spencer the Half Wit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 184
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati View Post
Again, you are confused of what a forum is.
Its a place to discuss things, and then people can make up their own mind, thats why i said it is individual.

If someone says something defamatory then indeed they could be sued, but since you like proof so much, the burden of proof for defamation is very different from what you suggest which is the the burden to prove a criminal case (or doping case).
Civil cases (including defamation) balance of probabilities. Criminal cases beyond reasonable doubt. Genuine question - what are doping cases classified as? Is it civil for bans and criminal for criminal prosecutions?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 15:25.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.