What constitutes proof that a cyclist/team are doping?

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Ah, I forgot the retesting of Armstrongs 99 sample, that for me would count as proof. Just proof that wouldn't stand in court, but for me proof anyway.

On proof and stuff, another example: The UCI and corruption and protection of certain riders.

Here and generally it seems the UCI has been declared guilty. Which means nothing, since it's only a forum, but still.
Where's the proof?
The UCI told Saugy in Lausanne that it was Armstrongs sample, to forget it since he wouldn't dope... .something like that is written in the USADA report.
No affidavit by Saugy.
Saugy though said something different twice in newspapers. Latest one reported by cyclingnews:
“The UCI said to me at the end of June 2002: 'we warned the rider for whom you had a suspect result in 2001, he gave another suspect return at another lab and he would like to know by which method it was tested,'” Saugy said. "The rider was Armstrong. It was then that I learned about it."
Reads completely different than what is in the USADA report, which by not mentioning dates is misleading.
With Saugys comment there is absolutely no proof. Despite the donations.

Jaksche who told the UCI what he knew and nobody acted on it? Jaksche talks a lot.. without ever really saying anything. Anybody knows what exactly he told the UCI? I don't. He talks and talks, but after reading one of his interviews you know as little as before.

The UCI did everything to work against the USADA report. NOt really... they certainly came accross as confused, clueless and unfocused, but then it's not as if USADA was a good "partner" either, they kept taking potshots at the UCI as well. Without producing anything against the UCI (which obviously wasn't their job) at the end.

Suing Kimmage? Stupid, idiotic, but hardly proof of protecting riders.

Verbruggen and his "never never never"... an old idiot. Protecting himself more than Armstrong, if he has any brains (And I haven't seen any proof of that either) he must have at least suspected Armstrong doped, or thought it very likely, so protecting himself and the UCI.... we didn't catch him, but that's because he didn't dope..

The 99 positive? That one, yep. That's where any UCI investigation has to start, how was an exemption that came in after the test allowed to stand? That was against the rule then as well if I remember correctly. My guess is more than "protecting Armstrong" (he wasn't worth protecting really at that point) it was oh no, not another Doping case after 98.. .which really isn't better.

And maybe explain how the Contador case wasn't made public.. that it had to be leaked by German TV (or news) to become public... .maybe there is a sensible explanation, but I haven't hear done yet.

So yes, look into the UCI, but right now there is no proof that they are indeed corrupt and protecting dopers. (Ok, that sports organisations are corrupt is common sense, would be more surprised if an independently investigated sports organization came out clean... but probably we need a bit more proof) Protecting some riders, very likely yes I'd say, if I had to bet, I'd say yes, but, I haven't come accross any proof so far. I'm aware that's only my opinion and that there is no proof.
 
DirtyWorks said:
It looked like a duck, walked like a duck, had feathers like a duck, sounded like a duck, spent a great deal of time by water like a duck, weighed the same as other ducks, other ducks were calling it a duck for over a decade and it wasn't a duck? Wow. Really?
Could have been Jacques de Vaucansons "Digesting Duck".
 
Aug 21, 2012
24
0
0
M Sport said:
Another way to look at it is let the pro riders prove they're clean. The sooner we get some independent testing body that starts out with the basic assumption that they are all guilty and therefore put in place a testing regime to prove that the better off and cleaner cycling will be.
This is the way to go forward. The current stance of "Innocent until proven guilty" in the sports world does not work. We've had deaths, extortion attempts etc. because of this stance. Suspending an innocent rider from events isn't half as bad for the sport(or the rider) as what happened when Lance ruled the world. If a rider is under suspicion suspend him until he is cleared. Easy as that.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Great - can you clearly articulate what that limit is (or ought to be :rolleyes: ) for an online forum.
Exactly the same as it is anywhere else - actual evidence that is probative on the balance of probabilities (the more or less universal civil standard of proof). There is no special dispensation for a forum : Clinic or otherwise. If it was defamatory in the outside world, it'll be defamatory here too.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
martinvickers said:
Exactly the same as it is anywhere else - actual evidence that is probative on the balance of probabilities (the more or less universal civil standard of proof). There is no special dispensation for a forum : Clinic or otherwise. If it was defamatory in the outside world, it'll be defamatory here too.
Again, you are confused of what a forum is.
Its a place to discuss things, and then people can make up their own mind, thats why i said it is individual.

If someone says something defamatory then indeed they could be sued, but since you like proof so much, the burden of proof for defamation is very different from what you suggest which is the the burden to prove a criminal case (or doping case).
 
Oct 17, 2012
331
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Again, you are confused of what a forum is.
Its a place to discuss things, and then people can make up their own mind, thats why i said it is individual.

If someone says something defamatory then indeed they could be sued, but since you like proof so much, the burden of proof for defamation is very different from what you suggest which is the the burden to prove a criminal case (or doping case).
Civil cases (including defamation) balance of probabilities. Criminal cases beyond reasonable doubt. Genuine question - what are doping cases classified as? Is it civil for bans and criminal for criminal prosecutions?
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
This test for truth fails. As Ashenden pointed out in one of his interviews, there is scientific proof of doping, and then there is the legal case where the scientific evidence is used for making and possibly winning the case.
Trust me, please, when i tell you I don't need an education on the legal standrard of proof, or the definition of a scientific or mathematical proof. For the record, a scientific proof is an abstract concept, it has nothing to do with evidence Rumour is neither of these things.

According to your comments, we're supposed to just rely on the IOC and UCI to police their own matters and communicate with some reliability. Do you prefer being treated a fool? Because if you take the UCI and IOC at their word, then YOU ARE A FOOL for doing it.
Straw man.

I'm afraid my comments said no such thing - please point out where anywhere on this thread I have suggested that those two organisations should have the final say, or any say, on what is proof.

I get that docile people rely on an authority structure to lead them, but when it comes to IOC sports like cycling and doping, demanding legal proof, (whatever that means) is a particularly dishonest tactic used to delay and deny change.
I don't demand legal standards of proof - the law does. Without the law, there is no WADA, USADA, dope testing or any of it. That's just the way it is.

Also, be so kind to keep facetious accusations of docility to yourself. You don't know me, and you don't know what you're talking about.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Again, you are confused of what a forum is.
Its a place to discuss things, and then people can make up their own mind, that's why i said it is individual.
No, I think you are confused on what proof is. It's not just a word you can define for yourself willy-nilly.

If what you meant was "what evidence would convince you someone was doping" - then say that - but don't bring the word 'proof' in where it doesn't belong. The thread OP asked, what constitutes proof - and I've set that out, quite clearly.

If someone says something defamatory then indeed they could be sued, but since you like proof so much, the burden of proof for defamation is very different from what you suggest which is the the burden to prove a criminal case (or doping case).
Actually, again we've mixed up meanings. I'm pretty sure you actually mean mean Standard of Proof.

Burden of proof simply means who has to do the proving - plaintiff/prosecutor or defendant.

In Defamation, uniquely, the burden lies on the defendant - i.e. the person who made the statement. But the standard is the normal civil standard, the balance of probabilities.

See Carter Ruck on Libel and Privacy, 38.5

The 'doping' standard is, generally speaking, a matte of private law, as most of the judging bodies, WADA, UCI, IOC, even CAS, are private bodies.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
martinvickers said:
No, I think you are confused on what proof is. It's not just a word you can define for yourself willy-nilly.

If what you meant was "what evidence would convince you someone was doping" - then say that - but don't bring the word 'proof' in where it doesn't belong. The thread OP asked, what constitutes proof - and I've set that out, quite clearly.
The OP asked what was proof for the General Public.

Again, what you give is the legal standard - this is not a Court.

martinvickers said:
Actually, again we've mixed up meanings. I'm pretty sure you actually mean mean Standard of Proof.

Burden of proof simply means who has to do the proving - plaintiff/prosecutor or defendant.

In Defamation, uniquely, the burden lies on the defendant - i.e. the person who made the statement. But the standard is the normal civil standard, the balance of probabilities.

See Carter Ruck on Libel and Privacy, 38.5

The 'doping' standard is, generally speaking, a matte of private law, as most of the judging bodies, WADA, UCI, IOC, even CAS, are private bodies.
Ok, Standard is what i meant - I can say rider x doped, if they pursue me then I have to show that I made the comment with good reason, I do not have to prove they doped.
 
martinvickers said:
Trust me, please, when i tell you I don't need an education on the legal standrard of proof, or the definition of a scientific or mathematical proof.
MartinVickers to DirtyWorks, "LALALALALALALALALALA! I can't hear you because I'm right." I get it. You are going to talk right past the possibility your world view is not perfect and good for all.

martinvickers said:
For the record, a scientific proof is an abstract concept, it has nothing to do with evidence
Breaking news, Science is a method. Ask a question, gather evidence and see if the evidence supports/denies/inconclusive. Difficult to apply in this situation since there is no possibility of a discussion.

martinvickers said:
I don't demand legal standards of proof - the law does. Without the law, there is no WADA, USADA, dope testing or any of it. That's just the way it is.
What law? Swiss law? U.S. law? Australian law?

I did not include the little bit there where you demanded that I post where you claimed the IOC and UCI should be the ultimate arbiters and a little later on, you post a clever redirect quoted above. Without the IOC's funding, there is no WADA. Absent the IOC's funding and another IOC doping scandal, there would have been no WADA. The Golden Rule applies, as always. Implicit in funding WADA the IOC has total control of the agency and the rules reflect that. Please, don't deny it because "I don't know what I'm talking about" or some other personal attack.

So, this Law thing organically produces serpentine rules of evidence that vary wildly based on location to be used to win cases in an adversarial judicial system. Which truth is it? Prosecution's or Defense? To further discredit this ridiculous assumption, in the U.S., there is practically no anti-doping law per-se anyway.

I'm not done laying waste to this world view. Let's examine Marion Jones' case for a moment. Marion Jones was never sanctioned during her athletic career for doping. According to your standard, her athletic record should remain. She competed and never tested positive. And there is the problem with you blind reliance on "the law" and why I say your tactic is used to delay and ultimately deny any progress on legitimate anti-doping efforts.

Okay, okay, I know this part too. I don't know what I'm talking about. Your world view is the Right Way built on hours of study and discipline and implicitly that makes me a crazed w@nker. Personal attack FTW I guess.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
Breaking news, Science is a method. Ask a question, gather evidence and see if the evidence supports/denies/inconclusive. Difficult to apply in this situation since there is no possibility of a discussion.
The Scientific method is a method. A scientific proof is a concept. Science is simply a system for the collection of knowledge, Look it up if you don't believe me.


So, this Law thing organically produces serpentine rules of evidence to be used to win cases in an adversarial judicial system.
In so far as it is common law, yes, it's organic, arising and growing from case to case. Otherwise, it's statutory.

You may view it as serpentine, but I don't see the relevance.



Rules of evidence are not used to win case, that's evidence you're thinking of. Rules of evidence are used to run cases - they are the instruction manual of the courts.

Only common law systems have an adversarial system. civil law systems have an inquistorial system.

happy with that? good, let's continue...


Which truth is it?
Who are you, Pilate?

To further discredit this ridiculous assumption, in the U.S., there is practically no anti-doping law per-se anyway. Marion Jones did not serve time for doping. Conte's case regarding BALCO? Not about the drugs, really.
Who said there was 'doping law'? I said without law there is no WADA are anything else - which is quite correct.

Without law of corporations, the organsations cannot be founded, or it's members protected from liability.

Without private international law, you can't have international recognition of contracts, cross-jurisdictional mediation, or recognition of jurisdiction in private law disputes - and lets be clear, sporting disputes are private law disputes.

That's without going into mail fraud, wire fraud, drug trafficking and a host of other laws that impinge on sport.

 According to your standard, her athletic record should remain. She competed and never tested positive. And there is the problem with you blind reliance on "the law" and why I say your tactic is used to delay and ultimately deny any progress on legitimate anti-doping efforts.
Now we're into the 'just making sh!t up' section of the evening, are we, dirtyworks?

WHERE have I said that only a positive doping analysis deserves banning? I am absolutely clear that other forms of evidence - genuine evidence, eyewitnesses, bank accounts, sting operations, long-form analysis -but not simply rumour - are entirely appropriate bases for a finding of doping.

The US sports and doping authorities protected Jones, not the courts, not the law - when the law got it's hands on her, she went to jail.

As for delaying anti-doping efforts, don't you think it a bit childish to suggest some little forum writer has that sort of power or influence?

Okay, okay, I know this part too. I don't know what I'm talking about. Your world view is the Right Way built on hours of study and discipline and I'm just a lazy w@nker.
Not lazy, just uninformed and resistant to education. It's not a 'World view', it's a simple descriptive reality. or is the existence of the sun and gravity simply a 'world view' too?

Your masterbatory habits are of course your own business, and i have no comment to make.
 
torkil said:
This is the way to go forward. The current stance of "Innocent until proven guilty" in the sports world does not work. We've had deaths, extortion attempts etc. because of this stance. Suspending an innocent rider from events isn't half as bad for the sport(or the rider) as what happened when Lance ruled the world. If a rider is under suspicion suspend him until he is cleared. Easy as that.
Except the problem is at the IOC. It's not about the athlete. The IOC has no problem with federations suppressing doping positives. Since the anti-doping system is designed to *hide* doping, then the professional athlete has an incentive to dope.

Give WADA agencies the authority to open cases on their own. The incentive for athletes to dope is minimized. Fund back-dated testing using them to open current cases and the incentive for athletes to dope is further minimized. Doping is not eliminated, but radically reduced such that the incentives/rewards are very clear. That is entirely unlike how the system works right now.
 
martinvickers said:
The Scientific method is a method. A scientific proof is a concept. Science is simply a system for the collection of knowledge, Look it up if you don't believe me..
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Scientific_method

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

I know they don't teach the scientific method in Law School, so check out that second link.

martinvickers said:
The US sports and doping authorities protected Jones, not the courts, not the law - when the law got it's hands on her, she went to jail.
My point was, she did not go to jail for doping. My other point being a reliance on "the law" in the U.S. does nothing but enable doping. I also claimed that "the law" delayed legitimate anti-doping efforts. All three stand uncontested.

martinvickers said:
As for delaying anti-doping efforts, don't you think it a bit childish...?

.. is the existence of the sun and gravity simply a 'world view' too?

Your masterbatory habits are of course your own business, and i have no comment to make.
When the arguments can't stand on their own, the fallback is always the personal attack. Stay classy!
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
The latter.



My point was, she did not go to jail for doping. So, again, reliance on "the law" in the U.S. does nothing but enable doping.
I'm sorry, the second sentence doesn't follow at all from the first.

She was banned for doping. For life if memory serves, and that ban was based on admissions of perjury, i.e. lying to A COURT OF LAW, in relation to the BALCO case i.e. a case on doping.

Now doping is not a criminal offence per se, more's the pity. But I fail to see how the law ENABLES doping, just because there isn't a criminal law on the subject.

The civil law remains the underpinning of all anti-doping efforts - if it wasn't, anti doping efforsts simply wouldn't happen, or dopers would simply use the law to avoid those efforts - see Armstrong, Lance.



When the arguments can't stand on their own, the fallback is always the personal attack. Stay classy!
I tend to answer sarcasm with sarcasm. you'll get to know this if you keep up for a while. As for attacks, you are ill-informed, certainly on the nature of both law and science, if this thread is anything to go by.

What am i supposed to do, lie about that so as not to hurt your feelings? sorry, you're sh*t out of luck, there.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Grandillusion said:
How about a thousand page report of incontrovertible, staggeringly credible evidence obtained by people who could not stand the bull**** a moment longer?
I suspect that you cannot have read the 1000 pages or you certainly would not use that definition!

Take "George Hincapie did not dope after 2006 because George Hincapie says so..." - Yep thats proof. Not. But it is good enough for Travis Tygart.

Take "George was asked to check Lances apartment by Bruyneel since lance was not going past verona" Lance did not say "Look for evidence of dope " or use the word Dope a to Bruyneel and Bruyneel did not say "Look for evidence of dope" to Hincapie or use the word dope. Hincapie did not find anything in the apartment relating to dope when he went to check the apartment.

That is evidence of Lance doping apparently - according to Travis Tygart - important enough to feature in his "Unreasoned decision" as part of the list of heinous crimes.

So do not rely to much on a non legal document which does not paylip service to legal process or fairness as proof of anything at all.

It annoys me intensely that career and lifetime doper Hincapie is let of more or less free...where Bassons gets DOUBLE a year for an admin cockup relating to a race retirement - Rasmussen gets life for a single lie. The spaniards try to give contador 3 months despite having blood doping plasticisers in his blood, and even then only gets 2 years. The plasticisers were not "admissible eveidence" for proof of doping according to Ashenden!!! A triathlete just got 4 years for EPO from Tygart, where Hincapie got off scott free..

Tygart has a new vocation he would be well suited to.
Thinking up numbers for the national lottery.

And that is the problem. Until the legal process is cleaned up and handed to a body capable of administering it, not USADA or UCI cycling justice and cycling itself will remain a joke.

BAN HINCAPIE PROPERLY!!!
Being a nice guy should mean nothing at all...
And don't take his word for post 2006.
 
big george

mountainrman said:
BAN HINCPAPIE PROPERLY!!! Being a nice guy should mean nothing at all...
ok you hate big george................do you consider that he shafted
'your lance'? (yes! your lance because so many of your threads revolve
around lance )

but vent your spleen about big george in the appropiate big george thread
 
Oct 30, 2012
428
0
0
mountainrman said:
I suspect that you cannot have read the 1000 pages or you certainly would not use that definition!

Take "George Hincapie did not dope after 2006 because George Hincapie says so..." - Yep thats proof. Not. But it is good enough for Travis Tygart.

Take "George was asked to check Lances apartment by Bruyneel since lance was not going past verona" Lance did not say "Look for evidence of dope " or use the word Dope a to Bruyneel and Bruyneel did not say "Look for evidence of dope" to Hincapie or use the word dope. Hincapie did not find anything in the apartment relating to dope when he went to check the apartment.

That is evidence of Lance doping apparently - according to Travis Tygart - important enough to feature in his "Unreasoned decision" as part of the list of heinous crimes.

So do not rely to much on a non legal document which does not paylip service to legal process or fairness as proof of anything at all.

It annoys me intensely that career and lifetime doper Hincapie is let of more or less free...where Bassons gets DOUBLE a year for an admin cockup relating to a race retirement - Rasmussen gets life for a single lie. The spaniards try to give contador 3 months despite having blood doping plasticisers in his blood, and even then only gets 2 years. The plasticisers were not "admissible eveidence" for proof of doping according to Ashenden!!! A triathlete just got 4 years for EPO from Tygart, where Hincapie got off scott free..

Tygart has a new vocation he would be well suited to.
Thinking up numbers for the national lottery.

And that is the problem. Until the legal process is cleaned up and handed to a body capable of administering it, not USADA or UCI cycling justice and cycling itself will remain a joke.

BAN HINCPAPIE PROPERLY!!!
Being a nice guy should mean nothing at all...
And don't take his word for post 2006.
Weird post. If it was such a feeble document why didn't Armstrong contest it?

And I've read enough to be overwhelmed by the way. As has been every objective observer as far as I'm aware. I haven't read or understood Einsteins General Theory of Relativity, or Richard Feynmann's esoterica on quantum electrodynamics, but I take it they're considered pretty convincing.

Travis Tygart has exploded an atom bomb in your sport using the tools available to him. Painful, but you'll be grateful in the end.
 
mountainrman said:
... "Unreasoned decision" ...

BAN HINCPAPIE PROPERLY!!!
Being a nice guy should mean nothing at all...
And don't take his word for post 2006.
Ah, thank you for fully exposing your stripes.

On Big George, given the rumors on the quantity of artificial substance he may have utilized, why don't we just categorize him as a toxic site and move on?

Dave.
 
mountainrman said:
I suspect that you cannot have read the 1000 pages or you certainly would not use that definition!

Take "George Hincapie did not dope after 2006 because George Hincapie says so..." - Yep thats proof. Not. But it is good enough for Travis Tygart.

Take "George was asked to check Lances apartment by Bruyneel since lance was not going past verona" Lance did not say "Look for evidence of dope " or use the word Dope a to Bruyneel and Bruyneel did not say "Look for evidence of dope" to Hincapie or use the word dope. Hincapie did not find anything in the apartment relating to dope when he went to check the apartment.

That is evidence of Lance doping apparently - according to Travis Tygart - important enough to feature in his "Unreasoned decision" as part of the list of heinous crimes.

So do not rely to much on a non legal document which does not paylip service to legal process or fairness as proof of anything at all.

It annoys me intensely that career and lifetime doper Hincapie is let of more or less free...where Bassons gets DOUBLE a year for an admin cockup relating to a race retirement - Rasmussen gets life for a single lie. The spaniards try to give contador 3 months despite having blood doping plasticisers in his blood, and even then only gets 2 years. The plasticisers were not "admissible eveidence" for proof of doping according to Ashenden!!! A triathlete just got 4 years for EPO from Tygart, where Hincapie got off scott free..

Tygart has a new vocation he would be well suited to.
Thinking up numbers for the national lottery.

And that is the problem. Until the legal process is cleaned up and handed to a body capable of administering it, not USADA or UCI cycling justice and cycling itself will remain a joke.

BAN HINCPAPIE PROPERLY!!!
Being a nice guy should mean nothing at all...
And don't take his word for post 2006.
Last edited by mountainrman; Today at 10:09.
I shudder to imagine how rambling, disjointed, and down right dumb this post was before it was edited.:rolleyes:
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Hugh Januss said:
I shudder to imagine how rambling, disjointed, and down right dumb this post was before it was edited.:rolleyes:
I believe he went back to add.....
BAN HINCPAPIE PROPERLY!!!

I don't know who this HINCPAPIE guy is but he sounds evil.
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
2
0
Dr. Maserati said:
I believe he went back to add.....
BAN HINCPAPIE PROPERLY!!!

I don't know who this HINCPAPIE guy is but he sounds evil.


he certainly isn't from planet earth
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
ebandit said:
ok you hate big george................do you consider that he shafted
'your lance'? (yes! your lance because so many of your threads revolve
around lance )

but vent your spleen about big george in the appropiate big george thread
Your lance, not mine - since most of the threads you take part in are about Lance and you object to references to other riders implicated. Why?
indeed the clinic is seemingly fixated on lance, at the expense of proper treatment of others

I dislike all dopers unlike the rest of the clinic seemingly, not just Lance.
So the contrast between riders is important in determining whether the judicial process is working. Hincapie proves it is not.

This is a thread about proof and the 1000 pages were wrongly cited as such.
Most of that document is anything but - a couple of examples were used to demonstrate that.

Several of the riders CLAIMED to have stopped doping in 2006 , and I am not the only one who is dismayed about the total lack of critical analysis of those statements which were wrongly taken as fact.

The first requirement of proof is a body willing to take an objective dispassionate and equitable view of evidence. We do not have that anywhere in cycling.
 
proof

mountainrman said:
Your lance, not mine - since most of the threads you take part in are about Lance and you object to references to other riders implicated. Why?
indeed the clinic is seemingly fixated on lance, at the expense of proper treatment of others
lance was a big story............yes i talk about lance in appropriate threads

good to hear you on track about proof unlike your earlier post which

was a rage against big george.........completely out of place
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS