FKLance said:
Well, you don't understand me and vice versa... I guess my point was lost at some point, might be my poor articulation. I'm gonna go and try harder to keep myself out of these discussions. There are many in this thread whose opinions I share..
No, I think I do understand you.
Regardless of all the 'evidence' taken in its entirety that likely means doping, you still want to give the benefit of doubt to the athlete until more 'proof' is exposed, assuming an AAF. That is a noble position, with basis in adversarial judicial philosophy which I do happen to believe in. The sanctioning of an athlete must be based upon that, and not purely on circumstantial evidence such as the list DW gave. But, the basis of this thread is the attitude of this forum. Different animal. Conclusions made in this forum are different than some, especially I, would use to solely base sanction on.
FYI I once had an argument on this forum about whether LA should have been sanctioned or stripped of his titles when the 99 samples were exposed in Lemonde. My position, regardless of whether I thought they contained EPO or not and regardless of all the other circumstantial evidence of his wins, was that he should not be sanctioned because protocol was not followed; he had no chance to defend himself with a witnessed B sample and chain of command of the samples was not sufficiently documented and clearly understood by all parties. I ended up getting grudging agreement from some of the pitchfork gang, though I can't remember the exact players.
I still believe that, even in hindsight. A governing authority must be held to higher standards than an internet forum, where livelihoods are at stake. I am sure you have heard the saying 'better to let 10 guilty's go than convict one innocent'. I am in that camp.
Where you need to come to terms with yourself IMO, is you do not trust the athlete and that is where your argument is confusing. Even if you don't want to agree (for some reason), your distrust is based upon that mound of evidence DW listed. So, it has an impact on how you view this whole issue, else we could just be talking about whether a random person on the street did some random act the previous 24 hours. You do not randomly distrust people, or distrust everybody by default. Winning GT's in this atmosphere is not a random act, especially when somebody does it out of the blue with all the other evidence listed. You have to admit that.
So, your position of distrust is in fact based upon evidence, though you don't want to admit it. Having an opinion is not the same as saying "rider X should be sanctioned". I am not saying that, though some posters in here with no basis of reality or self awareness may argue differently. Maybe that is where we are losing eachother, but if that is what you are trying to say then we agree.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram