Presumption Of Innocence & Floyd's Rights

[Cozy Beehive]

Like any person who is brought charges against, Lance has the right of being presumed innocent in court, or by the judicial system. It is government's job to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he or his backers are guilty of fraud, and if they can't do that, he isn't. You may say that O.J Simpson was guilty of murdering his wife but the after the extremely complex case that lasted for months the judicial system couldn't prove it simply because he had the best lawyers on his side who were able to poke holes on the prosecutions' claims bit by bit until the doubts multiplied.

Question is, do you think as normal people down at ground level, we should afford L.A this right to presumption of innocence and treat circumstantial evidence as just claims for now until the evidence is examined for credibility by qualified people? Would you wait for the judicial system before you make judgments or would you do it now? Personally, I already think he's dirty like most of you but I'm extremely biased in this case and all normal humans are to an extent. But you do have to understand how justice works. Every person has a right.

On a related note, I wonder if Floyd Landis is entitled to some rights as a whistleblower. This man is being severely persecuted in media across the world right now. Before taking on this extremely complex and risky step of whistling (keep in mind he has no money and nothing more to lose), I'm pretty sure he must have consulted qualified experts. So I wonder if Sarbanes-Oxley Section 806 applies to him. What do you all think?

 

[ThaiPanda]

People can have opinions without the pesky little rules the government must follow (or used to follow). How boring would this place be if we acted like that?

Just what "rights" does FL have that you think have been violated? He is not an employee of a certain company that is exposing wrongdoing. The media is free to interview him and spout opinions accordingly, regardless of how shallow those opinions may be.

This is a strange thread topic. Feeling a little guilty?

Yours Truly,
Mongkut (special CN forum troll/unpaid Public Strategy plant/sick puppy/Alphonse/Chris/willfully stupid)

 

[RTMcFadden]

On a related note, I wonder if Floyd Landis is entitled to some rights as a whistleblower. This man is being severely persecuted in media across the world right now. Before taking on this extremely complex and risky step of whistling (keep in mind he has no money and nothing more to lose), I'm pretty sure he must have consulted qualified experts. So I wonder if Sarbanes-Oxley Section 806 applies to him. What do you all think?

Not sure if Sarbanes-Oxley Section 806 itself applies. There is a patchwork of wistle-blower regulations of which SOX 806 is a part. I suspect that any protection would come from one of the other areas, if there is any. Of course, this is just speculation on my part.

 

[python]

rights ? presumption of innocence ? witch hunt ? fair process ?

i say let the investigators of texas do their job and let the chip fall where they may. on flandis head or novitzky’s head or armstong’s head…i really don’t care and will go along with any eventuality.

at this point, ppl are so polarised and opinionated that the perceptions of legal and procedural niceties are also colour-based

i doubt novitzky and miller can operate outside of the us constitution or their ministry of justice guidelines. hence, texas is assured his rights.

at the same time, floyd said he did not ask for immunity. and welcomes any charges of slander.

seems like a no brainer who’s in a stronger legal position.

+ his mega millions to buy the best attorneys.

this is no longer about the individual rights or a presumption of innocence.

it’s about exposing fraud and lies and flandis is as vulnerable as one can be.

never really liked landis, but if you ask me, that vulnerability adds to his credibility.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Vulnerability may add to credibility in an episode of Boston legal but not in real life.

Landis has no credibility as a witness and Armstrong's legal team will wipe the floor with him as a reliable witness.

As I have said, the fact that Armstrong has never OFFICIALLY tested positive for anything is a major strength for the defence. The 99 samples will not be admissable and even if they call expert testimony on the matter all the defence have to do is call Scholten, van der Venn and Vrijman as counter witnesses.

When you get these guys giving evidence that:

"the LNDD, and WADA, to an undefined extent in cooperation with the French Ministry, have behaved in ways that are completely inconsistent with the rules and regulations of international anti-doping control testing and, in certain instances, even in violation of applicable legislation" (para. 1.25).

Where do you think that will leave the prosecution in relation to the 1999 samples? The defence only have to raise a valid doubt, they don't have to disprove anything. Bye bye 99 sample evidence, such as it was.

 

[python]

Vulnerability may add to credibility in an episode of Boston legal but not in real life.

unsubstantiated, baseless speculation

Landis has no credibility as a witness and Armstrong's legal team will wipe the floor with him as a reliable witness.

more unsubstantiated, baseless speculation

As I have said,

few are taking you seriously on this forum

the fact that Armstrong has never OFFICIALLY tested positive for anything is a major strength for the defence.

unsubstantiated, baseless speculation

The 99 samples will not be admissable and even if they call expert testimony on the matter all the defence have to do is call Scholten, van der Venn and Vrijman as counter witnesses.

very stupid amateurish reasoning

"the LNDD, and WADA, <removed fancy useless verbiage>

more unsubstantiated, baseless speculation*

ps.
*
'unsubstantiated, baseless speculation' refers to sr favorite terms when he does not like opinions of those who criticize texas.

 

[saganftw]

Like any person who is brought charges against, Lance has the right of being presumed innocent in court, or by the judicial system. It is government's job to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he or his backers are guilty of fraud, and if they can't do that, he isn't. You may say that O.J Simpson was guilty of murdering his wife but the after the extremely complex case that lasted for months the judicial system couldn't prove it simply because he had the best lawyers on his side who were able to poke holes on the prosecutions' claims bit by bit until the doubts multiplied.

Question is, do you think as normal people down at ground level, we should afford L.A this right to presumption of innocence and treat circumstantial evidence as just claims for now until the evidence is examined for credibility by qualified people? Would you wait for the judicial system before you make judgments or would you do it now? Personally, I already think he's dirty like most of you but I'm extremely biased in this case and all normal humans are to an extent. But you do have to understand how justice works. Every person has a right.

On a related note, I wonder if Floyd Landis is entitled to some rights as a whistleblower. This man is being severely persecuted in media across the world right now. Before taking on this extremely complex and risky step of whistling (keep in mind he has no money and nothing more to lose), I'm pretty sure he must have consulted qualified experts. So I wonder if Sarbanes-Oxley Section 806 applies to him. What do you all think?

1, i dont think any of posters are in any way connected to the investigation so we have the luxury of making our judgements before the state will do it for us...that also mean we have very little idea whats goin on,personaly i wouldnt trust media until some official statement is realeased

2, no matter the result of this whole LAgate people have already made their opinions,even if hes found guilty there will be ppl who believe hes innocent and vice versa

3, i strongly believe in "innocent until proven guilty",w/o this principle every schmuck could just make the hell out of anyones life

4, regarding flandis,his credibility is very low,i think its the lowest point in the case,if he cannot provide some evidence other than "i saw,i heard" i think it will be very easy for armstrong to defend himself

we all may think that LA is genius of crime but what we can prove is a whole different story

 

[badboygolf16v]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[fatandfast]

This thread and it's idea are a good one.. flawed but still great discussion. The answer is absolute yes that Armstrong should be given the benefit of innocent until proven guilty. The UCI has made it clear that the tests that they ran on Armstrong and the grace period for them to be overturned is over in the view of the UCI. Old blood and other samples will always be suspect because of the chain of custody of the material after 10 years. Armstrong has done lots of stupid and crazy sh-it including his save my life candid remarks made to a doctor and in front of his very close friends. The fact that information has been leaked and Landis as a star witness is allowed to discuss the case so freely so soon after it started are disgusting at the very least. Whatever it evolves into after this circus start who knows but witch hunt doesn't appear that far fetched at this point. The fact that the prosecution found the day of the TDF date to announce shows contempt for the system. I think Lance was gassed but to bring it up now is dumb. The public is going to put bike racing back into the dark ages. When Lance his survival story and the millions he brings to the sport leave we will all be back racing in office parking lots. When Livestrong exits there will be a cycling black hole

 

[SpartacusRox]

unsubstantiated, baseless speculation
more unsubstantiated, baseless speculation


few are taking you seriously on this forum

unsubstantiated, baseless speculation
very stupid amateurish reasoning



more unsubstantiated, baseless speculation*

ps.
*
'unsubstantiated, baseless speculation' refers to sr favorite terms when he does not like opinions of those who criticize texas.

Wow, you spent a whole post saying nothing, answering none of my points and adding nothing in response....well done Python you are true to form as always. I see you still have that avatar, a mark of a sick mind

 

[rata de sentina]

Question is, do you think as normal people down at ground level, we should afford L.A this right to presumption of innocence and treat circumstantial evidence as just claims for now until the evidence is examined for credibility by qualified people?

No. There is no such "right" outside a court of law. He has a right to a fair trial, presumption of innocence is just a legal construct used in the process within a court of law. People are entitled to form their own judgement based upon the evidence which is available to them, there is no moral or ethical imperative for them to follow the court procedures of one nation in doing so.

 

[Bob Sanders]

He like everyone else to finish Top 5 or even Top 10 in the tour from Indurain on and probably before that has doped. I don't give a crap, take his tours away and the 2nd place guy who gets the title doped just as much. I want to watch mountain showdowns every July and enjoy the top riders dueling it out. Thats all I want from cycling. If it were up to me they would open up autologous transfusions under doctor's supervision with strict hemocrit monitoring and give us a real show.

I don't understand how there are fans on here that are so self-righteous to believe that a doper (ie all the top riders) have somehow personally wronged them to the point of anger.

 

[scribe]

Wow, you spent a whole post saying nothing, answering none of my points and adding nothing in response....well done Python you are true to form as always. I see you still have that avatar, a mark of a sick mind

More baseless speculation!! lol

 

[python]

Wow, you spent a whole post saying nothing, answering none of my points and adding nothing in response....well done Python you are true to form as always. I see you still have that avatar, a mark of a sick mind

you made no points, you said nothing but garbage and baseless speculation and you sure displayed an unhealthy propensity for profuse verbiage with nothing to merit. you are getting what you asked for, troll.

 

[urban attacker]

The way i see it i would share a beer with Floyd,not with Lance.Stated an other way Floyd might share his beer,Lance i'm not sure he would. 1st post **** off

 

[Willy_Voet]

The way i see it i would share a beer with Floyd,not with Lance.Stated an other way Floyd might share his beer,Lance i'm not sure he would. 1st post **** off

Another refreshingly different 1st time July poster. Welcome

 

[SpartacusRox]

you made no points, you said nothing but garbage and baseless speculation and you sure displayed an unhealthy propensity for profuse verbiage with nothing to merit. you are getting what you asked for, troll.

Actually I made several valid points, which you chose to ignore because they clash with your particular preconceptions. I referred to a report and even pasted a paragraph from it which would raise serious issues regarding the admissibility of evidence of the alleged positive 99 tests. You responded that it was 'baseless speculation'. Once again you attack the writer and not the issue, also a common thread with you and the mark of a true troll.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Another refreshingly different 1st time July poster. Welcome

The only problem is that Floyd would want you to buy the beer and then he would later deny ever having had a beer with you, or that he even drank beer until you showed him the receipt. Then he would admit to having the beer but not asking you to pay for it. Then he would say that he wanted to come clean about the fact that he had drank beer all along and that he was really sorry, but he had never drank the beer on that particular day.

 

[VeloFidelis]

you made no points, you said nothing but garbage and baseless speculation and you sure displayed an unhealthy propensity for profuse verbiage with nothing to merit. you are getting what you asked for, troll.

"Baseless Speculation" is what this Forum exists for. Despite how well informed we all think we are, it really has no other valid function.

 

[fiftyfootorange]

I would hate to be the guy going up against Armstrong's lawyers. This case is going to be over in 5 minutes. People have been trying to nail Lance for years on doping. If they havent yet then they never will.

All Landis has to look forward to from this case is more humiliation.

 

[python]

Actually I made several valid points, which you chose to ignore because they clash with your particular preconceptions.

meaningless baseless speculation intended to validate own points. very primitive.

I referred to a report and even pasted a paragraph from it which would raise serious issues regarding the admissibility of evidence of the alleged positive 99 tests.

more meaningless offtopic verbiage having nothing to do w/op.

Once again you attack the writer and not the issue

bs. that's exactly what you've been doing to a group of posters regardless of a thread. you always accused them in speculation.

you dont seem to like the taste of your own medicine, trollyboy.

 

[SpartacusRox]

meaningless baseless speculation intended to validate own points. very primitive.

more meaningless offtopic verbiage having nothing to do w/op.
bs. that's exactly what you've been doing to a group of posters regardless of a thread. you always accused them in speculation.

you dont seem to like the taste of your own medicine, trollyboy.

See there you go again....maybe you should take a powder and go lie down.

meaningless off-topic verbiage...classic, coming from you, the maestro of baseless speculation. Sorry if I get under your skin, I guess it upsets you that you usual bullyboy tactics don't work on me hence you having to resort your usual level of post.

For the record I am fine with speculation, thats what forums are about. It's just that yours are of the mad hatter variety.

 

[python]

See there you go again....maybe you should take a powder and go lie down.

meaningless off-topic verbiage...classic, coming from you, the maestro of baseless speculation. Sorry if I get under your skin, I guess it upsets you that you usual bullyboy tactics don't work on me hence you having to resort your usual level of post.

For the record I am fine with speculation, thats what forums are about. It's just that yours are of the mad hatter variety.

as i said before, you are getting a little bit upset that your own medicine is being now fed back to you. check out, an IV is coming

you attacked posters for a looong time by the primitive tactic accusing them of confusing facts with their opinion whilst allowing yourself endless speculation and baseless spacious arguments that were nothing but your opinion.

yes, you'll get what you asked for.

 

[Benotti69]

I would hate to be the guy going up against Armstrong's lawyers. This case is going to be over in 5 minutes. People have been trying to nail Lance for years on doping. If they havent yet then they never will.

All Landis has to look forward to from this case is more humiliation.

it is difficult to nail a guy who has the UCI/ASO in his back pocket.

Landis will not suffer any humiliation and has in fact been lauded by a lot of his peers. The Feds think it worthy of investigation and they will not waste their time and Uncles Sams $$$$$$ on a goose chase.

If this case was going to be over in 5 mins why is lance not suing all the media reports that he is a fraud and a doper. He could clean up and put all the money into the fight against cancer or another private jet.

He has not held a press conference to deny all these allegations with his lawyers saying we are going after all these lying papers, magazines etc...

this is the same reason he did not sue L'Equipe when they broke the story about his 6 positives for EPO in the 1999 TdF.

This time it's different.

 

[Barrus]

Vulnerability may add to credibility in an episode of Boston legal but not in real life.

Landis has no credibility as a witness and Armstrong's legal team will wipe the floor with him as a reliable witness.

As I have said, the fact that Armstrong has never OFFICIALLY tested positive for anything is a major strength for the defence. The 99 samples will not be admissable and even if they call expert testimony on the matter all the defence have to do is call Scholten, van der Venn and Vrijman as counter witnesses.

When you get these guys giving evidence that:

"the LNDD, and WADA, to an undefined extent in cooperation with the French Ministry, have behaved in ways that are completely inconsistent with the rules and regulations of international anti-doping control testing and, in certain instances, even in violation of applicable legislation" (para. 1.25).

Where do you think that will leave the prosecution in relation to the 1999 samples? The defence only have to raise a valid doubt, they don't have to disprove anything. Bye bye 99 sample evidence, such as it was.

Even if we are to believe that the evidence was gained in a manner that could be considered as illegal this does not automatically ensure that it is impossible to use in a criminal case