Are past dopers credible?

[ludwig]

Really, it's kinda absurd for the Lance machine to attack Hamilton and Landis as lacking credibility.

In fact, the reason their testimony is so damning is because they are so credible..

Previously, when they were lying/omerta etc, the deception was transparent and obvious. And everyone knew why...because they had financial and professional incentive to play by the rules and hold firm to omerta.

But now, given that they would face prison if they were lying, and since they have no financial incentive to lie, what they say carries a high level of credibility. Especially when what they say is now conistent with the evidence and facts on the ground.

 

[VeloCity]

Really any person who changes their story or lies and has been proven to be lying is not credible.

Which is pretty much every human being who has ever lived.

 

[131313]

Yes, I believe they are both very credible.

The poster in this article (his response is about 2/3rd down the page) says it far better than I ever could:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/05/denials-acceptance-and-anti-doping.html

This was posted long ago, but it's a great read and goes right to the heart of your question. I agree completely with the content, and its conclusions.

 

[VeloCity]

I have been reading a lot recently on this forum and social networking such as twitter refering to Hamilton and Landis as being credible. There has also been a lot of 'chamois sniffing' of those people and that annoyed me.

I do believe that Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton are telling the truth but they are not credible. Credible is about being reliable and then to be belivable. They are believable but the fact FL and TH lied so many times does not make them credible. There has been some statements about Floyd and Tyler that they are credible. Can someone tell me how pathalogical liars are credible?


I found this piece of information which refers to credibility



I was just wondering everyone elses thoughts on this topic. Are past dopers credible?

There's also a tendency to use "credible" as a sweeping generalization - "if they lied in the past, how can we believe them now?" - but whether or not one is credible is entirely contextual. Landis and Hamilton weren't credible when they were claiming to be clean because there was evidence that contradicted what they were saying - ie it was pretty clear to most people that they were lying about not doping. And they wouldn't be credible now if their claims about what went on at Postal and about Armstrong were completely different and/or contradicted one another. But given the context - that they were repeating what they testified to in front of a GJ (ie if they're lying then they also lied to the GJ), that their stories about USPS/Armstrong are very similar, that others (eg O'Reilly, Swart, Andreu, etc) have made similar claims, etc - makes them credible in the current context.

 

[Animal]

It's just ridiculous to call Landis and Hamilton "pathological" liars.

It's straight from the Pubic Strategies playbook to try to hook such an intensifier word into their smears.

They lied because that was what was expected of them.

Of course it was. Look at the shistorm sent their way when they finally recant those lies! There was pressure on them to lie.

 

[ludwig]

Yes, I believe they are both very credible.

The poster in this article (his response is about 2/3rd down the page) says it far better than I ever could:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/05/denials-acceptance-and-anti-doping.html

This was posted long ago, but it's a great read and goes right to the heart of your question. I agree completely with the content, and its conclusions.

Excellent link thanks for that.

 

[Animal]

"Other men are getting away with murder, therefore the robber should go free"

We could call that "The Polish defence"

 

[hfer07]

they lied back in the day when they were "active" in the Sport and their silence was required to be "eligible" to come back to the peloton.
on the other hand:
they can't lie when a Grand Jury & and on going investigation "force" them to tell the truth to avoid perjury charges with possible jail time.

the "credibility" argument is just a "resource" to diminish the veracity of a person's statement-regardless the nature of it.

 

[Le breton]

I have been reading a lot recently on this forum and social networking such as twitter refering to Hamilton and Landis as being credible. There has also been a lot of 'chamois sniffing' of those people and that annoyed me.

I do believe that Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton are telling the truth but they are not credible. Credible is about being reliable and then to be belivable. They are believable but the fact FL and TH lied so many times does not make them credible. There has been some statements about Floyd and Tyler that they are credible. Can someone tell me how pathalogical liars are credible?


I found this piece of information which refers to credibility



I was just wondering everyone elses thoughts on this topic. Are past dopers credible?

Most are not completely credible, one exception comes to mind : Philippe Gaumont.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

nobody is credible

To a skeptic like me, no human being is credible.

What matters, every time, is context. Not so much who is saying it, but what are they saying, why, and how consistent is it with anything/everything else we know?

The term credible has much more utility when applied to specific statements, works, etc., not to people.

Let's talk about whether certain statements, articles, claims, books, articles, etc., are credible, not whether the people behind them are credible.

 

[Galic Ho]

Credibility is what you give to the cheddar, the raw data, the info, of whom ever is speaking. Are the words coming out of their mouths credible. Thus an element of truth MUST exist and what is given must be placed in it's proper context.

Given this is ACF94, we can always assume the context will come last, or at a minimum be overlooked. If this were Cadel, it would be different. Dude, leave the bias out. One can be a liar, have lied non stop as a pro cyclist, then reform, tell the truth and be considered credible. Why? Because of what they say. Landis was never credible when he was denying he doped. Not once, nor was Tyler. Their excuses have been the **** of many Clinic jokes.

When challenged, reputation is the easiest thing to tar. It takes zero imagination or creativity to suppress an opponent by waving the 'credibility' wand. Why aren't they credible? Why don't those challenged come address this in detail? Because mostly with Omerta, it is they who are not credible. Is it because the challenged believe their accuser is a liar, always has been and thus they are going to disect their info and testimony with science and common sense? LA won't do the latter, nor will his cronies or any Omerta defenders. For the former, or the polar opposite of this if you will one need only look at what Ashenden said the past few days. His words add credence to what Landis and Hamilton have said.

ACF94, I don't like your application of the word credible one bit. Why? You distort context. LA himself on his return in 2009, lambasted David Walsh and said that Floyd would not placate and bay to those calling him a doper, because as Lance said, Floyd was innocent. Anyone who saw that interview would now laugh at the 180 degree turn LA has made. But nobody asks him to explain his little rant. The press are still pussies. Common sense. One person was lying, not being credible, now they are telling the truth. Logic is never circular, it is linear. Credibility does not have a fixed static state. Use your brain is my advice.

 

[Pantani_lives]

Landis and Hamilton followed the typical pattern of the caught doping user. First they denied everything. Then they decided to make others follow them in their downfall, by telling the truth.

You could blame them for looking up the media instead of just cooperating with the investigators. Hincapie could be a very important witness, because he has a much more "credible" reputation than the others, and he doesn't talk to the media about it.

 

[odelltrclan]

I was lambasted by someone on a thread I started yesterday while talking about this very subject, though that was not the premise of the thread I started.

If someone has lied to the extent they have (i.e. Landis, Hamilton, etc.) or Michael Milken as was brought up, you can NEVER have 100% credibility in my opinion because you have shown a willingness to lie for personal gain or a personal agenda. Even if you are telling the truth (which I believe Landis and Hamilton are) there will always be doubts about part of the story. It goes with the territory.

The buffoon suggested that I had no common sense and would never respond to me again because I mentioned I thought Hamilton could not be 100% credible.

Do you think a spouse who has been cheated on can look at the cheater, who said they were sorry and have 100% confidence in them again? Not initially and possibly never.

 

[Magic Spanner]

TH was offered partial immunity by the GJ in the knowledge that this will evaporate if his testimony is proven to be lies.

IMO this makes his testimony credible.

Armstrong is incredible!

 

[Hugh Januss]

I was lambasted by someone on a thread I started yesterday while talking about this very subject, though that was not the premise of the thread I started.

If someone has lied to the extent they have (i.e. Landis, Hamilton, etc.) or Michael Milken as was brought up, you can NEVER have 100% credibility in my opinion because you have shown a willingness to lie for personal gain or a personal agenda. Even if you are telling the truth (which I believe Landis and Hamilton are) there will always be doubts about part of the story. It goes with the territory.

The buffoon suggested that I had no common sense and would never respond to me again because I mentioned I thought Hamilton could not be 100% credible.

Do you think a spouse who has been cheated on can look at the cheater, who said they were sorry and have 100% confidence in them again? Not initially and possibly never.

So then no pro cyclist has any credibility? Because all of them are telling you the same story that Floyd and Tyler were, it goes with the profession. Do you really think that Basso had blood stored with Fuentes "just in case" he would have decided later he wanted to use it.
The only ones with credibility are the ones who come clean at some point like Floyd and Tyler have.

 

[patricknd]

they're probably at least as credible as present dopers.

but seriously, if their story is consistent and corroborated by events/statements of others, then their evidence has to be given some weight.

 

[odelltrclan]

I did not say that former dopers have no credibility at all. On the contrary, I think they provide some of the best information because they have first hand knowledge of events, the tricks, etc. that are or have been used.

My point is that you cannot say they are 100% credible, which means there is absolutely no chance that anything they are stating is not 100% true. For a person who has a history of deceit, it simply does not correlate. You have to call some of what they say at a minimum because they have known to perpetrate lies in the past.

So a Hamilton, or a Landis by themselves are not enough. Their accusations need corroboration to have the "100%" credibility.

 

[Granville57]

So a Hamilton, or a Landis by themselves are not enough. Their accusations need corroboration to have the "100%" credibility.

Does corroborating each other count?

It does make for an interesting debate.

 

[ustabe]

Does corroborating each other count?

Don't see why not. They're no less credible than any other unreliable witness. It isn't like they get together to get one another's alibis straight.

 

[Granville57]

Don't see why not. They're no less credible than any other unreliable witness. It isn't like they get together to get one another's alibis straight.

Careful though. To play devil's advocate:
Floyd's statements were quite public, so Tyler wouldn't have had to get together with him to confirm many of the stories. Plus, we have no way of knowing if they did get together or not.

For the record, (and my posting history is more than clear on this) I find them both credible at this stage but I think it's important to cover all the talking points. I do believe that corroboration lends credibility, but if they are individually considered to lack credibility (by some), does that change with the sum of their statements?

 

[gillan1969]

Defendant: not guilty your honoour
Defendant: just before trial; Guilty Your honour
Judge: I''m afraid your new plea of guilty cannot be believed due to your previous uttererances and you have zero credibility - case dismissed

funnily enough....not a common occurence at trial

 

[kablebike]

gillan1969...that brought me a nice smile.

Credibility...it's in the eyes, ears, and mind of the beholder. Most prominently, those chosen or elected to define appropriate behaviour for the masses:

The B.C. Court of Appeal said the following about credibility in Faryna v. Chorny, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 at 357):

The credibility of interested witnesses, particularly in cases of conflict of evidence, cannot be gauged solely by the test of whether the personal demeanour of the particular witness carries conviction of the truth. The test must reasonably subject his story to an examination of its consistency with the probabilities that surround the currently existing conditions. In short, the real test of the truth of the story of a witness in such a case must be its harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions. ...

I leave each and every member to add their own contributions from their own respective judicial jurisdiction.

Personally, I suspect that the practical and informed, passionate cyling tifosi has a much different position than the average or "reasonable" person.

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!
Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.
Scottish author & novelist (1771 - 1832).

For me, if Landis and Hamilton wanted their observations to carry any significant weight at any time, they would have told their current version of events from the beginning. If they didn't "ball up" at the get go but changed their story over time, what is to prevent us from believing they will not change their version of events at the next opportunity? An oath before a "grand jury"? The word unreliable and possibility of perjury comes to mind with these deponents.

Thanks for taking little Billy's $20 donation in your "honest" defence Landis. Thanks for taking mentally challenged Martha's $10.00 donation Tyler in your crap defence. You both rock an 11/10 on the Spinal Tap volume chart.

No doubt Armstrong is sketchy but the expense of the investigation seems a waste of funding on a sport that is riddled and defined by many of those whose versions of honesty is impaired from the beginning. I suspect that it is now a toss-up between cross-country skiing and cycling as to what sport is more BS oriented. At least we, Joe and Jane Averages, have the invenerable UCI and USADA and other prominent organizations, that may be possibly inept or corrupt, trying to one up each other on the "credibility scale"

Oh man...I'm done. Bed time. I hope Alberta's plasticizer case (whoops....I meant useless, steak case) is concluded before the next TdF because that would only make common sense to the "reasonable person" (something the sport of cycling lost many, many years ago).

 

[Granville57]

For me, if Landis and Hamilton wanted their observations to carry any significant weight at any time, they would have told their current version of events from the beginning.

They reasons they did NOT do that have been covered quite thoroughly. In Tyler's case especially—Lance was untouchable at that time.

If they didn't "ball up" at the get go but changed their story over time, what is to prevent us from believing they will not change their version of events at the next opportunity? An oath before a "grand jury"?

Um, yes.

 

[sida-mot]

For me, if Landis and Hamilton wanted their observations to carry any significant weight at any time, they would have told their current version of events from the beginning. If they didn't "ball up" at the get go but changed their story over time, what is to prevent us from believing they will not change their version of events at the next opportunity? An oath before a "grand jury"? The word unreliable and possibility of perjury comes to mind with these deponents.

Well if you break it out of context ofcourse you are right. But if you have seen the interviews and been following the sport for some time you must agree that their current statement seems much more plausible than the whiskey drinking and twin story...

It's more than just the statement of these two guys here. Physical evidence? Rumors. Other witnesses etc. Is it really likely that two pathological liars destroyed by their own anger would be able to cook something like this up by themselves?

I also really doubt that for instance Hamilton is that "good" at lying or acting so he could pull off a performance like 60 minutes. I mean we have heard him lie before, we all know how incredible uncredible that story was...

 

[Darryl Webster]

Are Landis, Tyler etc credible?. Try this analogy. Who do internet security firms turn to to find out if there security systems are effective?. Hackers.
Of course X dopers are credible.
Dont for a minute think whats in the public domain is all theyve given to the Grand Jury. Im 100% certain forensic evidence will play a major part in this investigation and we wont know what that evidence is until it reaches trial.