Doping inspector backs Armstrong

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
2
0
Hugh Januss said:
That was rhubroma not me. I wouldn't say all who believe that Lance is clean are stupid, but if you go read all of the info in dozens of links around this forum and after reading it all you still believe Lance is clean, then I would have my doubts about your reading comprehension at least.

I work in the legal field and know that experts have no problem in testifying to almost anything for money. That being said, I am not willing to make a blanket statement of guilt or innocence without personally reading the evidence, or a judicial type finding based upon testimony.
 
Aug 25, 2009
397
0
0
CentralCaliBike said:
I work in the legal field and know that experts have no problem in testifying to almost anything for money. That being said, I am not willing to make a blanket statement of guilt or innocence without personally reading the evidence, or a judicial type finding based upon testimony.

It's much easier around here, you just call everyone who disagrees you stupid or a genius etc and then you don't have to even consider let alone respect their point of view, safe in your own self proclaimed superiority.Awesome huh? :rolleyes:
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
CentralCaliBike said:
I work in the legal field and know that experts have no problem in testifying to almost anything for money. That being said, I am not willing to make a blanket statement of guilt or innocence without personally reading the evidence, or a judicial type finding based upon testimony.
then i would question two things ( provided i buy you work in the legal field)

i) have you been following cycling for long
ii) if the above is affirmative (long) than you're not being intellectually honest.
 
CentralCaliBike said:
I work in the legal field and know that experts have no problem in testifying to almost anything for money. That being said, I am not willing to make a blanket statement of guilt or innocence without personally reading the evidence, or a judicial type finding based upon testimony.

I knew it! O.J. was innocent. He was framed. Why they gotta do a brother like that?
.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
CentralCaliBike said:
The article that is the basis of this thread states that instead of preferential treatment, Astana had more testing (as would be expected) at less convenient times (as indicated by "Lance's PR machine").

Clearly you will believe that Lance has been dirty since he got into the sport and deserves less respect than any other professional rider - others here seem to believe that Lance is clean and any evidence to the contrary is coincidental, false, or manufactured.

My position is that he may have or he may not have but, until he tests positive and is suspended for it, I do not believe that people who think he is clean are "stupid" any more than I believe those who believe the facts suggest he used performance enhancing products are malicious (solely for reaching that conclusion).

The article that is the basis of this thread does not dispute any of the serious allegations made against the UCI.

As for LA - I have no doubt he doped during his career and therefore he deserves the same contempt as any other doper.
I had respect for some of his achievements, in particular his work with Cancer - however that has been diminished once he admitted that he retains "equity" in Demand Media who own and run his dotcom site.

I would never call someone with an opposing view 'stupid', however many reveal their 'ignorance' to many of the facts and allegations against LA, and even their general Pro Cycling knowledge. While this is not a requisite to voicing an opinion it often exposes their impartiality and objectiveness.

Opinions are formed on information - my views on LA have evolved as I read, discovered and verified information from various sources* - both sides- throughout his career. I certainly am not in possession of all the facts - this is why I enjoy engaging in debate and in particular to source the correct and factual information. I have learned much from many excellent, informative and knowledgeable posters on this forum.

As for LA's "PR machine" - he Twitters over 2 million people daily and more significantly he retains the PR services of Public Strategieswho operate from the same building as Capital Sports & Entertainment who are the management company of LA and the owners/managers of the new Radio Shack team.

* - Its not About the Bike, Every Second Counts, Lance Armstrongs War, Chasing Lance (mindnumbing), From Lance to Landis. All 130+ pages of The Vrjiman report. Various news sources and cycling publications in cluding when LA had his own column in the early 90's.
I have seen most of his videos and DVD's. I occasionally view his Twitter - which of course often leads me in to his for profit Livestrong site.
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
CentralCaliBike said:
I work in the legal field and know that experts have no problem in testifying to almost anything for money. That being said, I am not willing to make a blanket statement of guilt or innocence without personally reading the evidence, or a judicial type finding based upon testimony.

Legal types don't often have the scientific background to identify who is a credible expert and who isn't. Non-scientists also struggle to fully understand the significance (or otherwise) of sound scientific information, even if they are presented with it. Just because lawyers don't understand scientific information and can't make a reasonable judgment based on it, doesn't mean nobody can.
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
2
0
Scott SoCal said:
Criminal Defense Attorney?

Actually a prosecutor - but the witnesses I was referring to work for the defense.

As an aside - as a prosecutor I am asked about whether I think someone is guilty in various high profile cases around the country. I generally state, as I did here, I would like to see the actual reports, taped statements, expert examinations prior reaching a conclusion on guilt. Of course, I generally have no problem giving an opinion based on what I have read but usually am willing to say that I could change my mind if the evidence suggested a differing opinion.

As for LA, I readily state that I have not read enough to give an opinion one way or the other - from what I have read, there are still two sides to the argument.
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
2
0
I Watch Cycling In July said:
Legal types don't often have the scientific background to identify who is a credible expert and who isn't. Non-scientists also struggle to fully understand the significance (or otherwise) of sound scientific information, even if they are presented with it. Just because lawyers don't understand scientific information and can't make a reasonable judgment based on it, doesn't mean nobody can.

Actually some legal types often have a lot more information that most others - it comes from reviewing hundreds of reports (plus a lot of course work covering general scientific fields). I do not claim to be an expert in most scientific fields but I have a fairly decent working knowledge of most forensic sciences as well as forensic psychology.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
CentralCaliBike said:
Actually some legal types often have a lot more information that most others - it comes from reviewing hundreds of reports (plus a lot of course work covering general scientific fields). I do not claim to be an expert in most scientific fields but I have a fairly decent working knowledge of most forensic sciences as well as forensic psychology.

Do you generally find circumstantial evidence to be a strong source of guilt?
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
2
0
python said:
then i would question two things ( provided i buy you work in the legal field)

i) have you been following cycling for long
ii) if the above is affirmative (long) than you're not being intellectually honest.

Mostly a TdF follower since the 1970s, started out pretty young watching. I have not spent nearly as much time reading about the dopers as some but enough to recognize there are serious allegations but no judicial findings regarding LA. I recognize that the claims that he is doping could have merit but I personally have not read enough to have a certain opinion on the matter. I think it is possible that he did early on, less likely after 1999 - although still possible.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
CentralCaliBike said:
Actually a prosecutor - but the witnesses I was referring to work for the defense.

As an aside - as a prosecutor I am asked about whether I think someone is guilty in various high profile cases around the country. I generally state, as I did here, I would like to see the actual reports, taped statements, expert examinations prior reaching a conclusion on guilt. Of course, I generally have no problem giving an opinion based on what I have read but usually am willing to say that I could change my mind if the evidence suggested a differing opinion.

As for LA, I readily state that I have not read enough to give an opinion one way or the other - from what I have read, there are still two sides to the argument.

Very true - but only ever one truth.

The LA case has received much (too much) attention on this forum. If you have a search on the links at the top of this thread you will find many threads devoted to the subject.

many threads are long as both sides have given their arguments - you have a lot of reading ahead! Good luck.
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
2
0
scribe said:
Do you generally find circumstantial evidence to be a strong source of guilt?

As long as you cannot reach another reasonable conclusion after reviewing all of the evidence (which happens to the criminal law standard in the United States).
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
2
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Very true - but only ever one truth.

The LA case has received much (too much) attention on this forum. If you have a search on the links at the top of this thread you will find many threads devoted to the subject.

many threads are long as both sides have given their arguments - you have a lot of reading ahead! Good luck.

Contrary to the opinion of some, I have too much work and not enough time (or interest) to fully research the subject. I may look at it more - and will probably read the link someone posted earlier. Right now I need to get out and ride.:D
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
CentralCaliBike said:
Contrary to the opinion of some, I have too much work and not enough time (or interest) to fully research the subject. I may look at it more - and will probably read the link someone posted earlier. Right now I need to get out and ride.:D

It is time consuming - but some of the threads are quite interesting.
Enjoy your ride!
 

Sprocket01

BANNED
Oct 5, 2009
525
0
0
progressor said:
It's much easier around here, you just call everyone who disagrees you stupid or a genius etc and then you don't have to even consider let alone respect their point of view, safe in your own self proclaimed superiority.Awesome huh? :rolleyes:

That sometimes is the case, but the main offender for this type of trolling and insulting behaviour was banned after a conscientious member highlighted one of their grossly offensive posts to the moderators. I predict insults will go down by 90% now.
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
CentralCaliBike said:
Actually some legal types often have a lot more information that most others - it comes from reviewing hundreds of reports (plus a lot of course work covering general scientific fields). I do not claim to be an expert in most scientific fields but I have a fairly decent working knowledge of most forensic sciences as well as forensic psychology.

I'm not disputing that a lawyer working on a case would have far more information than someone not involved in the case. Nor am I disputing that some lawyers, especially those involved in criminal prosecution, would have a reasonable working knowledge of forensic science.

What I am saying is that lawyers don't always have the ability to interpret scientific information correctly. It's kind of my high-handed dismissive way to write off anything a lawyer says about experts. The parallel with this comment "I work in the legal field and know that experts have no problem in testifying to almost anything for money", which effectively dismisses the opinion of experts, was not accidental.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
CentralCaliBike said:
I am not sure why I am responding to this but the summer intern jobs were over 18 years ago.

Bounty Hunter?

7acc2635-8d98-42b2-b26a-1fccb3a4e2f3.widec.jpg
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Sprocket01 said:
That sometimes is the case, but the main
offender for this type of trolling and insulting behaviour was banned after a conscientious member highlighted one of their grossly offensive posts to the moderators. I predict insults will go down by 90% now.

True- but then they changed their username to BanProCyling, then they got banned again with a different username.
Their newest incarnation is Sproket01- theycertainly are a troll, not a good one though, just a sad one.
 

Sprocket01

BANNED
Oct 5, 2009
525
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
True- but then they changed their username to BanProCyling, then they got banned again with a different username.
Their newest incarnation is Sproket01- theycertainly are a troll, not a good one though, just a sad one.

No I was thinking about ThoughtforFood. I think the forum will clean up now.

Btw the mods know I am not a troll. Time to move on from that line...