Well, when I start seeing connections to the world of politics, bland generalized science about what doping can be done, and then 'proof' seen in the denials that obviously follow an accusation.
Lets be clear, unless you plan on moving to Iran or something we have a standard that is called the presumption of innocence. So lets take a look at the actual evidence of doping and realize that there were a lot of people out there who were pouring over everything Lance did to try and find proof of doping in addition to his status as the 'most tested athlete.' In all those years, they never found anything that stood up before the a court of law. At some point, the abscence of proof after an exhaustive search is indeed proof -- just not of guilt.
Lets take a look at the most often quoted Lance accusations:
1. Lance tested positive in 1999!
Actually, he didn't. He allowed his blood to be tested by LNDD, who subsequently violated basic anti-doping standards using a test that was still in the expiramental stage and just happened to find that the samples, which they knew were Lance's, just happened to confirm what the French Press were saying about Lance in 1999. The 'results' were then leaked to the Press. Curious.
As an interesting aside, part of the lopsided victory was due to an incident at the Passage du Gois in which several of the GC contenders were left floundered in the lower tides wake in a massive pile up. That did not require any dope at all.
As crashes do not require dope, it is probably not surprising that when the issue was examined by an independant commission appointed by the UC that it's conclusion was, "[The report] exonerates Lance Armstrong completely with respect to alleged use of doping in the 1999 Tour de FranceTour de France."
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Lance...g--according+to+an+independent...-a0169017227
Perhaps it was because the breach of these basic standards of conduct were known by the authors of this accusation that the 'results' were leaked to the press where they make for an effective smear campaign but do not amount to proof of anything.
2. Mrs. Andreau knows all about Lance's doping.
I am sure she does. However, Lance's doctor directly countered her claims in court. Furthermore, doctors keep records of their decisions, actions, and treatments, and it would be fairly safe to say that a doctor would have to take steps to avoid complications with known drug use to make effective treatments for something like say .... cancer. There appears to be no evidence that the doctor, indeed a team of medical staff, took actions that were consistant with dealing with doping products in Lance Armstrong.
Mrs. Andreau's statements, as convincing and as forceful as they appear, do not appear to meet the requisite evidentary standard. Those statements have the same problem that all the statements made about Armstrong have: they lack any supporting proof.
There is no syringe ala Roger Clemens, indeed no paraphernalia even after seven years of constant searching. There is no Peurto blood like there is apparently for Hamilton and indeed for Ullrich and Basso. There is no positive test like there is for Ricco and other 'targeted' riders, bearing in mind that Lance was targeted for seven straight years without a positive test.
The question at this point to many of those convinced that Armstrong doped, what could he possibly do that would convince you of his innocence? Bring in an independant comission to look at the facts? Take the matter to court and have an impartial judge decide where the preponderance of the truth lies? He has done so.
If that isn't enough, please ask yourself how you would feel if you showed up at work and had your boss call you into your office and fired you because:
1. You tested positive THC in a retroactive research test from eight years ago, even though the test was conducted in such a way as that the 'result' violated basic testing standards and was conducted inside a meth lab.
2. A peer's wife says she saw you smoking dope in front of a doctor while under his care. The doctor denies this and his notes back up his claim.
If you would honestly tell your boss, "Fair enough, I obviously smoked dope so its best that you just fire me," with a cheery smile, then you would be willing to do what you are demanding Lance do because he is clearly guilty by the same standard.
There are standards for guilt and innocence, and all those benchmarks that must be met to prove innocence, which is not a requirement in our system, have been met. However, not a single standard of guilt has been produced against Lance despite years of trying to do so. That in and of itself speaks volumes.
He may of doped, but if it is so obvious, kindly prove it or shut up.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram