LeMond and Trek Settle

[ChrisE]

Clearly he (Lance) knows full well that the first set of retro tests are accurate and the second set would also show EPO...which I know you're not disputing to be fair.

Exactly. He would be a fool to allow retesting of those samples.

 

[Digger]

Exactly. He would be a fool to allow retesting of those samples.

Which basically boils down to what we're saying here. He is a cheat. And that for me is only a small percentage of the reason why I consider him a doper.

 

[patricknd]

Which basically boils down to what we're saying here. He is a cheat. And that for me is only a small percentage of the reason why I consider him a doper.

but should he be sanctioned?

 

[ChrisE]

Which basically boils down to what we're saying here. He is a cheat. And that for me is only a small percentage of the reason why I consider him a doper.

We are on the same page in terms of whether or not we think he doped; my issue was the proper way to go about catching dopers where all riders and officials know the score. YMMV but maybe not since you agree he should not be sanctioned.

I'm not sure it is cheating when the competition is cheating as well. You're cheating the sport, not cheating your adversaries. If the competition, the majority of the competition, was getting cheated then they would raise hell. They don't.

And, I'm not sure the majority of the fans give a shyt.

 

[ChrisE]

but should he be sanctioned?

He wrote LA "could" not be sanctioned upthread. That's the same thing, I think.

I'm spending way too much time on this computer today, sitting around waiting for the superbowl. I shouldn't have bought this wireless router.

 

[Hugh Januss]

He wrote LA "could" not be sanctioned upthread. That's the same thing, I think.

I'm spending way too much time on this computer today, sitting around waiting for the superbowl. I shouldn't have bought this wireless router.

No, I don't think could and should are the same here. Could not goes back to the rules of testing, by now we all know and agree (I think) that he can not be sanctioned based upon those tests. Whether he should be to me is a value judgement. Should somebody be able to cheat and get away with it or should they be held accountable no matter how the evidence turns up. I can say Lance can not be sanctioned for those EPO tests, but he should be. Whereas Chris can say Lance under the rules can not be and he shouldn't be, because the testing rules take precedent over the sport rules.

 

[patricknd]

No, I don't think could and should are the same here. Could not goes back to the rules of testing, by now we all know and agree (I think) that he can not be sanctioned based upon those tests. Whether he should be to me is a value judgement. Should somebody be able to cheat and get away with it or should they be held accountable no matter how the evidence turns up. I can say Lance can not be sanctioned for those EPO tests, but he should be. Whereas Chris can say Lance under the rules can not be and he shouldn't be, because the testing rules take precedent over the sport rules.

exactly. you win the prize.

 

[ChrisE]

No, I don't think could and should are the same here. Could not goes back to the rules of testing, by now we all know and agree (I think) that he can not be sanctioned based upon those tests. Whether he should be to me is a value judgement. Should somebody be able to cheat and get away with it or should they be held accountable no matter how the evidence turns up. I can say Lance can not be sanctioned for those EPO tests, but he should be. Whereas Chris can say Lance under the rules can not be and he shouldn't be, because the testing rules take precedent over the sport rules.

Agreed. But it is always a value judgement that we base what is right and wrong upon in terms of how society should function. I want him held accountable just as much as anybody does, but not at the expense of protocol that all riders are judged by.

This would be a different argument if a universally accepted "clean" rider's 5 year old pis was the subject here. I tend to think many in here would change their tune. I would not; just because it is LA should not sway whether he should be sanctioned or not over this.

 

[patricknd]

Agreed. But it is always a value judgement that we base what is right and wrong upon in terms of how society should function. I want him held accountable just as much as anybody does, but not at the expense of protocol that all riders are judged by.

This would be a different argument if a universally accepted "clean" rider's 5 year old pis was the subject here. I tend to think many in here would change their tune. I would not; just because it is LA should not sway whether he should be sanctioned or not over this.

now that you've given the answer to the test you'll never get an honest response.

 

[BroDeal]

I have a simple solution: We give Armstrong the opportunity to admit he doped. If he does, keeps his wins. If he does not then we charge him with bringing the sport into disrepute and ban him.

 

[VeloCity]

This would be a different argument if a universally accepted "clean" rider's 5 year old pis was the subject here. I tend to think many in here would change their tune. I would not; just because it is LA should not sway whether he should be sanctioned or not over this.

Don't think too many people had any problem with Rebellin's Olympic samples being retested for CERA a year or so later, and he being sanctioned when those came up positive. And there was little to suggest that Rebellin was a doper prior to that. I think in this day and age, not too many cycling fans would be overly surprised at any rider turning up positive, whether a "universally accepted clean" rider or not. Maybe more disappointed than usual, but surprised? Doubt it.

 

[ChrisE]

I have a simple solution: We give Armstrong the opportunity to admit he doped. If he does, keeps his wins. If he does not then we charge him with bringing the sport into disrepute and ban him.

Yes, if it wasn't for LA there would be no doping and cycling would have the same reputation as competitive basket weaving on the doping front.

 

[BroDeal]

And there was little to suggest that Rebellin was a doper prior to that.

You mean aside from the audio and video tape of him injecting dope?

Yes, if it wasn't for LA there would be no doping and cycling would have the same reputation as competitive basket weaving on the doping front.

Yes, if it was not for Bernie Madoff there would be no fraud and finance would have the reputation as competitive basket weaving on the fraud front.

 

[ChrisE]

Hey, that's your argument. Not mine.

 

[ChrisE]

Don't think too many people had any problem with Rebellin's Olympic samples being retested for CERA a year or so later, and he being sanctioned when those came up positive. And there was little to suggest that Rebellin was a doper prior to that. I think in this day and age, not too many cycling fans would be overly surprised at any rider turning up positive, whether a "universally accepted clean" rider or not. Maybe more disappointed than usual, but surprised? Doubt it.

Little to suggest Rebellin was a doper before the Olymics? That's funny.

 

[frenchfry]

Don't think too many people had any problem with Rebellin's Olympic samples being retested for CERA a year or so later, and he being sanctioned when those came up positive. And there was little to suggest that Rebellin was a doper prior to that. I think in this day and age, not too many cycling fans would be overly surprised at any rider turning up positive, whether a "universally accepted clean" rider or not. Maybe more disappointed than usual, but surprised? Doubt it.

As others have already pointed out Rebellin was a doping posterboy, along with Di Luca, Schumacher and Ricco (just to name a few). At least there is some justice in that these guys all went down and there is no doubt as to their guilt. I for one was happy that he got busted.

Just a comment about the debate going on regarding the 1999 retroactive positives. As has been stated, the anti-doping protocol would not allow any sanctions for these positives. However it would be interesting to see what rules would apply in a criminal court, as the anti-doping protocol would no longer apply. Of course this won't happen as first there would have to be violation of an anti-doping law that existed in 1999.

 

[frenchfry]

Yes Mama. Thats a great point. These ball hating, internet heros can't even grasp the simple facts that there is a french conspiracy out to get Lance, I've seen France on my tv and all the cheese eating surender monkeys were yelling "we hate lance" and "we love hairy armpits" and stuff like that.

Greg clearly doped cos lance didnt and greg thinks lance doped and lance didnt so therefore greg must have doped. I think we can all agree on that.

Of course these phrases are part of the French national anthem, so it is only normal that you hear them often.

 

[ChrisE]

Just a comment about the debate going on regarding the 1999 retroactive positives. As has been stated, the anti-doping protocol would not allow any sanctions for these positives. However it would be interesting to see what rules would apply in a criminal court, as the anti-doping protocol would no longer apply. Of course this won't happen as first there would have to be violation of an anti-doping law that existed in 1999.

I'm not confident, if "anti-sporting" laws existed in the states and this occured here, that he would be found guilty or if it would even go to court. That is not because of faux nationalism; it's who the burden of proof is on in the respective countries. Alot of the disagreement on this subject the last few pages may just be the perspective we are viewing this from.

 

[Cerberus]

I'm not confident, if "anti-sporting" laws existed in the states and this occured here, that he would be found guilty or if it would even go to court. That is not because of faux nationalism; it's who the burden of proof is on in the respective countries.

So I'm curious here, since apparently you're not basing your opinions on Faux nationalism, could you actually name any western country that opperates according to the principle of guilty until proven otherwise?

 

[ChrisE]

So I'm curious here, since apparently you're not basing your opinions on Faux nationalism, could you actually name any western country that opperates according to the principle of guilty until proven otherwise?

I'm sorry. Can you please highlight the judicial differences for the defense, in general, when one is charged with a crime in a European country vs in the US? Thanks.

 

[Cerberus]

I'm sorry. Can you please highlight the judicial differences for the defense, in general, when one is charged with a crime in a European country vs in the US? Thanks.

No I can't partially because the question isn't very specific, partially because I'm not a lawyer and partially because every European country is different. I can tell you what the difference isn't though. The difference isn't who has burden of proof, because all EU countries operates according to the principle of innocent until proven otherwise. In fact all civilized countries (and a couple of uncivilized to probably) operates under this principle.

ETA: Perhaps you didn't mean it like that, but I read you post to mean that EU countries don't use the presumption of innocence, which if that's what you meant is a rather uninformed thing to write.

 

[frenchfry]

I'm not confident, if "anti-sporting" laws existed in the states and this occured here, that he would be found guilty or if it would even go to court. That is not because of faux nationalism; it's who the burden of proof is on in the respective countries. Alot of the disagreement on this subject the last few pages may just be the perspective we are viewing this from.

My point didn't take into account territoriality, I am assuming a rider of nationality X is caught doping in country X and is tried in country X.

I guess what I am saying is that it's my feeling that the court system would have greater means to prove guilt as it wuld be less restricted by the anti-doping protocol which IMO is favorable to the rider.

 

[patricknd]

My point didn't take into account territoriality, I am assuming a rider of nationality X is caught doping in country X and is tried in country X.

I guess what I am saying is that it's my feeling that the court system would have greater means to prove guilt as it wuld be less restricted by the anti-doping protocol which IMO is favorable to the rider.

protocols on handling of evidence and samples don't just protect the accused, they protect the process itself. when the rules of evidence are followed correctly they help to remove avenues of appeal. sloppy handling equals reasonable doubt, but strict adherence to handling and testing protocols make the decision believable to everyone but the foil hat wearers.

 

[frenchfry]

protocols on handling of evidence and samples don't just protect the accused, they protect the process itself. when the rules of evidence are followed correctly they help to remove avenues of appeal. sloppy handling equals reasonable doubt, but strict adherence to handling and testing protocols make the decision believable to everyone but the foil hat wearers.

But would a court / police investigation require a B sample for example. Or in the case of EPO, would they use an 80% cut-off, or could they go lower when it can be proven by experts that the athlete is doping.

To illustrate my point, does DNA testing involve a B sample? If not, why should the analyse of a blood sample for doping?

I assume handling issues are equally important no matter what the system.

 

[patricknd]

But would a court / police investigation require a B sample for example. Or in the case of EPO, would they use an 80% cut-off, or could they go lower when it can be proven by experts that the athlete is doping.

To illustrate my point, does DNA testing involve a B sample? If not, why should the analyse of a blood sample for doping?

I assume handling issues are equally important no matter what the system.

good points. in a criminal trial i could have my expert witnesses refute the evidence and often do independant testing if i can afford it, which would equate to a B sample. as to DNA testing, i don't really know, but that is a good question. on the cut-off, i would think the standards would be pretty stringent. it varies with jurisdiction, but in the case of fingerprint evidence, most standards used are a pretty high number of points of identification.