Basso admits involvement in doping scandal

monsterman wrote:

No need to even ask such a question. In the absence of good reason to
impugn the confession (you know - duress, insanity, [x] years served
at Guantanamo Bay .. ..), the law recognises that no _further_ proof
is required. The confession taken as the ultimate, unimpeachable
proof.

But there is almost always duress, as pressure put on people to confess. One
they have confessed, they are deemed to be guilty as accused. eg. David
Hicks is a terrorist, he confessed after five years of duress. Those British
Special Services people in Iran confessed after three days. Those women who
confessed in Salem really were witches. And one guy in the US who confessed
to murder to get life rather than the chair, who was recently proved
innocent after DNA testing, won't be released because he confessed and is
therefore guilty.

Hmmmm.

Theo