USADA to strip Lance Armstrong of 7 Tour titles

On Friday, August 24, 2012 8:34:46 PM UTC-4, Magilla Gorilla wrote:
Steve Freides wrote:



Hidden Observer wrote:

"The Observer" wrote in message

...



http://sports.yahoo.com/news/lance-a...5351--spt.html



"after he dropped his fight against drug charges"



What does this actually mean ??

Is he actually owning up to doping, or he is going "yeah whatever,

yada yada" just to end

the circus ??



The latter.



I assume the UCI etc will want to see some serious proof before

removing his TdF wins from the list.



According to a piece on one of the hundreds of ESPN channels we get, the

UCI is on Lance's side and is going to try to _not_ have him stripped of

his titles.



Further, the piece said that the evidentiary standards at whatever sort

of hearing Lance would have gotten are lower than the criminal "beyond a

reasonable doubt" - basically if the adjudicator think he did it, even

if they do have doubts, they'd still find him guilty.





If the UCI refuses to sanction Lance, USADA will file an appeal to CAS and CAS will

undoubtedly side with USADA. The UCI knows this which is why they won't do that...they

know they're in check-mate after their little scam they tried to pull in federal court by

claiming "USADA had no jurisdiction" ....they know they are on thin ice with cycling

getting pulled from the Olympics should they decide to contest this case on fraudulent

grounds (which is what they did in federal court by conspiring with lance's legal team to

get USADA out of the picture). USA Cycling and Steve Johnson were also in on that

conspiracy to save their boy toy.



The UCI doesn't want to compel CAS to repeat what everyone already knows, including Pat

McQuaid � which is that Lance doped for over a decade and the UCI helped cover it up.



Second, the evidentiary standard for EVERY trial is simply: "do you think the guy did

it?" People are simply not intelligent enough to make finer distinctions.. Besides,

everyone has a different standard of proof for the same adjectives and adverbs (i.e.

beyond a reasonable doubt and 'clear and convincing' mean completely different things to

different people).



Just look at what 50% of the posters after every online article on Lance.....at least half

claim that having 12 guys say they saw Lance take drugs is "hearsay" and "doesn't mean

anything" even though people get sentenced to death in the U.S. every week based on 1

eyewitness and NO forensic evidence. Lance has more evidence against him than 99% of

people on death row, yet look at how all the brainwashed fanboys act....they act like

Travis Tygart is somehow pulling a scam on Lance.



Let me know if you need any more help in figuring these things out.



Magilla

So, where are all of the POSITIVE blood tests?

In article ,
Mower Man wrote:

On 24/08/2012 8:54 PM, Frederick the Great wrote:
In article ,
"Hidden Observer" wrote:

"The Observer" wrote in message
...

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/lance-a...5351--spt.html

"after he dropped his fight against drug charges"

What does this actually mean ??
Is he actually owning up to doping, or he is going "yeah whatever, yada
yada" just to end
the circus ??

I assume the UCI etc will want to see some serious proof before removing his
TdF
wins from the list.


"He has consistently pointed to the hundreds of drug tests he passed as
proof of his innocence while piling up Tour titles from 1999 to 2005."

Never a really convincing argument.

It is compelling, convincing, and dispositive.


I agree. Though the dispositive element (disponere/disposit) is not an
argument or defence it's a legal position, surely?

The rules say that Lance won all those races, Mary.

--
Old Fritz

On Friday, August 24, 2012 5:34:46 PM UTC-7, Magilla Gorilla wrote:
Steve Freides wrote: Hidden Observer wrote: "The Observer" wrote in message ... http://sports.yahoo.com/news/lance-a...5351--spt.html "after he dropped his fight against drug charges" What does this actually mean ?? Is he actually owning up to doping, or he is going "yeah whatever, yada yada" just to end the circus ?? The latter. I assume the UCI etc will want to see some serious proof before removing his TdF wins from the list. According to a piece on one of the hundreds of ESPN channels we get, the UCI is on Lance's side and is going to try to _not_ have him stripped of his titles. Further, the piece said that the evidentiary standards at whatever sort of hearing Lance would have gotten are lower than the criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt" - basically if the adjudicator think he did it, even if they do have doubts, they'd still find him guilty. If the UCI refuses to sanction Lance, USADA will file an appeal to CAS and CAS will undoubtedly side with USADA. The UCI knows this which is why they won't do that...they know they're in check-mate after their little scam they tried to pull in federal court by claiming "USADA had no jurisdiction" ....they know they are on thin ice with cycling getting pulled from the Olympics should they decide to contest this case on fraudulent grounds (which is what they did in federal court by conspiring with lance's legal team to get USADA out of the picture). USA Cycling and Steve Johnson were also in on that conspiracy to save their boy toy. The UCI doesn't want to compel CAS to repeat what everyone already knows, including Pat McQuaid � which is that Lance doped for over a decade and the UCI helped cover it up. Second, the evidentiary standard for EVERY trial is simply: "do you think the guy did it?" People are simply not intelligent enough to make finer distinctions. Besides, everyone has a different standard of proof for the same adjectives and adverbs (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt and 'clear and convincing' mean completely different things to different people). Just look at what 50% of the posters after every online article on Lance....at least half claim that having 12 guys say they saw Lance take drugs is "hearsay" and "doesn't mean anything" even though people get sentenced to death in the U.S. every week based on 1 eyewitness and NO forensic evidence. Lance has more evidence against him than 99% of people on death row, yet look at how all the brainwashed fanboys act....they act like Travis Tygart is somehow pulling a scam on Lance. Let me know if you need any more help in figuring these things out. Magilla

I get it, you think a faith based system is more than adequate. It's not a fair cop and there will be a long fall-out period.
Phil H