What constitutes proof that a cyclist/team are doping? - Page 13 - 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
  #121  
Old 11-14-12, 18:38
Grandillusion Grandillusion is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 254
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
I suspect that you cannot have read the 1000 pages or you certainly would not use that definition!

Take "George Hincapie did not dope after 2006 because George Hincapie says so..." - Yep thats proof. Not. But it is good enough for Travis Tygart.

Take "George was asked to check Lances apartment by Bruyneel since lance was not going past verona" Lance did not say "Look for evidence of dope " or use the word Dope a to Bruyneel and Bruyneel did not say "Look for evidence of dope" to Hincapie or use the word dope. Hincapie did not find anything in the apartment relating to dope when he went to check the apartment.

That is evidence of Lance doping apparently - according to Travis Tygart - important enough to feature in his "Unreasoned decision" as part of the list of heinous crimes.

So do not rely to much on a non legal document which does not paylip service to legal process or fairness as proof of anything at all.

It annoys me intensely that career and lifetime doper Hincapie is let of more or less free...where Bassons gets DOUBLE a year for an admin cockup relating to a race retirement - Rasmussen gets life for a single lie. The spaniards try to give contador 3 months despite having blood doping plasticisers in his blood, and even then only gets 2 years. The plasticisers were not "admissible eveidence" for proof of doping according to Ashenden!!! A triathlete just got 4 years for EPO from Tygart, where Hincapie got off scott free..

Tygart has a new vocation he would be well suited to.
Thinking up numbers for the national lottery.

And that is the problem. Until the legal process is cleaned up and handed to a body capable of administering it, not USADA or UCI cycling justice and cycling itself will remain a joke.

BAN HINCPAPIE PROPERLY!!!
Being a nice guy should mean nothing at all...
And don't take his word for post 2006.
Weird post. If it was such a feeble document why didn't Armstrong contest it?

And I've read enough to be overwhelmed by the way. As has been every objective observer as far as I'm aware. I haven't read or understood Einsteins General Theory of Relativity, or Richard Feynmann's esoterica on quantum electrodynamics, but I take it they're considered pretty convincing.

Travis Tygart has exploded an atom bomb in your sport using the tools available to him. Painful, but you'll be grateful in the end.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 11-14-12, 20:10
D-Queued D-Queued is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,243
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
... "Unreasoned decision" ...

BAN HINCPAPIE PROPERLY!!!
Being a nice guy should mean nothing at all...
And don't take his word for post 2006.
Ah, thank you for fully exposing your stripes.

On Big George, given the rumors on the quantity of artificial substance he may have utilized, why don't we just categorize him as a toxic site and move on?

Dave.
__________________

Lance says he will cooperate with Landis Investigation


"I've done too many good things for too many people"
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 11-14-12, 20:41
Hugh Januss's Avatar
Hugh Januss Hugh Januss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: socal
Posts: 5,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
I suspect that you cannot have read the 1000 pages or you certainly would not use that definition!

Take "George Hincapie did not dope after 2006 because George Hincapie says so..." - Yep thats proof. Not. But it is good enough for Travis Tygart.

Take "George was asked to check Lances apartment by Bruyneel since lance was not going past verona" Lance did not say "Look for evidence of dope " or use the word Dope a to Bruyneel and Bruyneel did not say "Look for evidence of dope" to Hincapie or use the word dope. Hincapie did not find anything in the apartment relating to dope when he went to check the apartment.

That is evidence of Lance doping apparently - according to Travis Tygart - important enough to feature in his "Unreasoned decision" as part of the list of heinous crimes.

So do not rely to much on a non legal document which does not paylip service to legal process or fairness as proof of anything at all.

It annoys me intensely that career and lifetime doper Hincapie is let of more or less free...where Bassons gets DOUBLE a year for an admin cockup relating to a race retirement - Rasmussen gets life for a single lie. The spaniards try to give contador 3 months despite having blood doping plasticisers in his blood, and even then only gets 2 years. The plasticisers were not "admissible eveidence" for proof of doping according to Ashenden!!! A triathlete just got 4 years for EPO from Tygart, where Hincapie got off scott free..

Tygart has a new vocation he would be well suited to.
Thinking up numbers for the national lottery.

And that is the problem. Until the legal process is cleaned up and handed to a body capable of administering it, not USADA or UCI cycling justice and cycling itself will remain a joke.

BAN HINCPAPIE PROPERLY!!!
Being a nice guy should mean nothing at all...
And don't take his word for post 2006.
Last edited by mountainrman; Today at 10:09.
I shudder to imagine how rambling, disjointed, and down right dumb this post was before it was edited.
__________________
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings."

Proud member of the Clinic 1200
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 11-14-12, 20:54
Dr. Maserati Dr. Maserati is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Januss View Post
I shudder to imagine how rambling, disjointed, and down right dumb this post was before it was edited.
I believe he went back to add.....
BAN HINCPAPIE PROPERLY!!!

I don't know who this HINCPAPIE guy is but he sounds evil.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 11-14-12, 20:56
Ryo Hazuki's Avatar
Ryo Hazuki Ryo Hazuki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 14,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati View Post
I believe he went back to add.....
BAN HINCPAPIE PROPERLY!!!

I don't know who this HINCPAPIE guy is but he sounds evil.


he certainly isn't from planet earth
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 11-14-12, 21:45
mountainrman mountainrman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebandit View Post
ok you hate big george................do you consider that he shafted
'your lance'? (yes! your lance because so many of your threads revolve
around lance )

but vent your spleen about big george in the appropiate big george thread
Your lance, not mine - since most of the threads you take part in are about Lance and you object to references to other riders implicated. Why?
indeed the clinic is seemingly fixated on lance, at the expense of proper treatment of others

I dislike all dopers unlike the rest of the clinic seemingly, not just Lance.
So the contrast between riders is important in determining whether the judicial process is working. Hincapie proves it is not.

This is a thread about proof and the 1000 pages were wrongly cited as such.
Most of that document is anything but - a couple of examples were used to demonstrate that.

Several of the riders CLAIMED to have stopped doping in 2006 , and I am not the only one who is dismayed about the total lack of critical analysis of those statements which were wrongly taken as fact.

The first requirement of proof is a body willing to take an objective dispassionate and equitable view of evidence. We do not have that anywhere in cycling.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 11-14-12, 22:41
richwagmn richwagmn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryo Hazuki View Post


he certainly isn't from planet earth
Oh dude... I did NOT need to see that picture again.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 11-14-12, 23:22
MarkvW's Avatar
MarkvW MarkvW is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,285
Default

Arguing over the length of Hincapie's ban is a personal question. There is no real disagreement on the facts. It's obvious that Hincapie was a huge liar, a huge doper, and a key omerta enforcer. The disagreement is just over whether snitches should get deals.

Me? I like me some snitches....
__________________
May 20, 2010: Floyd tells truth.
June 10, 2010: Floyd files qui tam.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 11-14-12, 23:26
silverrocket silverrocket is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 286
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
Your lance, not mine - since most of the threads you take part in are about Lance and you object to references to other riders implicated. Why?
indeed the clinic is seemingly fixated on lance, at the expense of proper treatment of others

I dislike all dopers unlike the rest of the clinic seemingly, not just Lance.
So the contrast between riders is important in determining whether the judicial process is working. Hincapie proves it is not.

[...]

The first requirement of proof is a body willing to take an objective dispassionate and equitable view of evidence. We do not have that anywhere in cycling.
1. The clinic is not fixated on Lance. For proof you just need to look at all the many, many threads that are not about Lance. The problem, for you, is that so much of the cycling-doping world is inter-related that there are not many degrees of separation between Lance and so many other dopers, or doping products, or doping doctors, or doping teams. This is not fixation on Lance, but fixation on doping, and Lance being so deeply involved.

2. You call for equal treatment and equal dislike of all dopers, and accuse the "rest of the clinic" as being biased against Lance. Your second problem, then, is your inability to see three things: that not all doping is the same, and that not all dopers are the same or are disliked simply because they are dopers. A thief that quietly steals a loaf of bread is not the same as a thief that steals millions and acts poorly towards everyone around him. The thieves aren't the same, nor is the theft. People will be more interested in the second thief and his crimes.

3. You think we need "objective dispassionate and equitable view of evidence" before we can have proof of doping. You are correct that we don't have that in cycling, but you are incorrect to believe we ever will. We have no such thing in any court cases, since the quality and quantity of evidence is never the same in any two court cases, yet judges can and must still decide guilty or innocent. Your reasoning implies that testimony from a former personal servant/mechanic should not be admissible against Lance because other dopers don't have to defend themselves against such testimony, but this is only because no other dopers have manservants/personal mechanics. We've seen what happens when we have a single threshold of drugs to decide on positive/negative tests, and the result is Lance cheating for a decade and getting away with it. We need to use all available evidence, and so it will necessarily NOT be "equitable".
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 11-14-12, 23:35
blackcat's Avatar
blackcat blackcat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,282
Default

left out the other talking point, extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof.

But since when were we talking Marvel Comics?

Ordinary allegations, require ordinary proof.

Capital punishment trials, require proof according to evidentiary rules/law.

Capital punishment burden of proof/s accept witness testimony.
__________________
or ill cut yur hed off
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 14:42.


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.