pedaling squares said:
Asbjorn Benkt is the coolest name since D!ck Pound. Respect. Anyway, sure you can take away his wins. It's been done, actually. But you don't have to give them to anyone else if you truly want to make a point about that era in the sport.
You compare USADA's tactics to anti-terrorism legislation and techniques? I'm not sure you have much of a grasp on either situation.
About the ten anonymous witnesses. They're only anonymous because Armstrong chose not to take this to arbitration. He would have had the right to disclosure of the evidence to prepare his defence. USADA had to cache-cache the names to avoid the intimidation tactics that the defendant is so well-known for.
Yes, I do. They are exactly the same. Those cases went to the Supreme Court, and for the same reason. When you charge someone, lawyers - and you - get to see what evidence they have. That allows BOTH sides to look at the evidence and make a case before an impartial jury or judge (something I don't think we can get from with the UCI or USADA at this point).
The failure to do this in tribunals at GITMO was repeatedly challenged and shot down by the SCOTUS. Why is it now 'good' to get LA? Its EXACTLY the same thing, and simply because we want to get LA more than we want to get murdering terrorists doesn't make the process suddenly become fundamentally sound.
And tell me, who is being intimidated here? The anonymous witnesses? Or Lance?
And remember, the judge in question already left open that as more of this process is revealed, that Lance can come back and refile the claims.
In short, the ball is in USADA's court to present the evidence now, as required by the WADA and UCI code. If they do not, the same court that claimed it did not have jurisdiction, will invalidate the process.
Lance has been accused of being overly prideful, but he certainly bit his lip and took the wiser course here. The haters dancing in jubilee right now just may want to see which side it is that has a problem with pride.
And when we are treating cyclists like terrorists? And we are. Then cycling and the anti-doping fight have serious problems that go well beyond LA.
Remember, ANY cyclist in the peloton will be subject to these rules if they are not done away with. Cadel, LeMond, Wiggins, everyone. All it will take is ten anonymous witnessed and a charge sheet without a like of evidence.
BTW - most DA's, when they are looking for an all or nothing deal, generally proceed by actually displaying the overwhleming evidence to facillitate a deal.
As we know however, have often seen here on this forum, the deal is not the goal. The goal was the arbitrartion panel where we could get Lance in a lie and get him for perjury correct? It doesn't matter how minor, any mis-step and he's lied to a panel and stripped.
Now, anyone with a lawyer would avoid such a dung heap of justice and pursue a different ajudicative process.
Lance has a lawyer or two ...