No no, you're the one with preconceived ideas Steve; you have to open up a little more I believe, see things from a different perspective; like the one Davey talked about before, just as one example among many others. :b
US Anti-Doping Agency charges Armstrong
- Thread starter steve williams
- Start date
No no, you're the one with preconceived ideas Steve; you have to open up a little more I believe, see things from a different perspective; like the one Davey talked about before, just as one example among many others. :b
Wow, you guys are tough! :b ...It's like my words are important! ...Like I'm judging Lance without concrete evidences but only based on results from the core decisions.
Hey, it is your right to object, and I'm happy with it; helps to pursue matters into the 'free zone'.
But the fact remains; Lance is out on a limb! ...In limbo.
And the evidence was given by several of his own teammates. Can you guys live with that?
And Steve, we are not in a jury court here; we are simply deliberating. :b
Hey, it is your right to object, and I'm happy with it; helps to pursue matters into the 'free zone'.
But the fact remains; Lance is out on a limb! ...In limbo.
And the evidence was given by several of his own teammates. Can you guys live with that?
And Steve, we are not in a jury court here; we are simply deliberating. :b
Bob, I'm sorry, BUT what Steve is trying to get across to you is completely logical. How can Steve have a preconceived idea by stating that someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty? My prior example, ASSUMES a set of circumstances wherein one was a victim of performance enhanced cheaters. PLEASE NOTE that nowhere did I mention any person or particular instance by name. ( Intentionally so.) I'm sorry IF you cannot see my point here. Please understand that Lance is NO different than any other human being accused of a crime....he HAS to be presumed innocent until proven guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
To try and clarify more, my example was in answer to Mike L's point that he didn't see why the authorities would waste time investigating this accusation. I was attempting to show him why they WOULD and SHOULD do that.
To try and clarify more, my example was in answer to Mike L's point that he didn't see why the authorities would waste time investigating this accusation. I was attempting to show him why they WOULD and SHOULD do that.
Last edited:
---Davey, I believe that some people are just too serious here.
I understand perfectly well about the laws; but I ain't talking about the law meself.
I am just expressing my own personal opinion based on my own (the law playing a minimal role right now).
I have said it several times now, but you guys keep persevering on the LAWS in the USA.
Well, only very few of you. Mind you, it's good for lively discussions. :b
How many times do I have to repeat myself?
That organization (USADA) has its own set of ethics, and all those teammates who sweared on paper that Lance took some illegal substances, plus he encouraged others to do the same, are not good enough for ya people?
What about if you can defeat the system, is that good in your book? What is true justice; the one decided in a court of law or in a more balanced group of people outside any type of corruption? You decide.
...And ain't the first time that we've seen this, and won't be the last one either.
I said that I see what you guys mean, and that's fine by me; I fully respect that.
Why do you have to try imposing it now on me? ...Because that is what you believe in a democratic societey of intelligent citizens? ...Me too, but just on the surface, and not in true reality. Can you not see my point? And can you respect it too?
O.J. Simpson anyone?
Jeez, you make me feel bad. :b
And you were right Davey, and other people too; if Lance is fully comfortable with his conscience, he'll fight, and he'll fight real hard for what's right.
But just don't count on it, because he is conscienciously guilty. I just don't care about the law in this case here. There is just no way that so many of his teammates all corroborated to the exact same thing. ...Just no way that they are all liars.
I understand perfectly well about the laws; but I ain't talking about the law meself.
I am just expressing my own personal opinion based on my own (the law playing a minimal role right now).
I have said it several times now, but you guys keep persevering on the LAWS in the USA.
Well, only very few of you. Mind you, it's good for lively discussions. :b
How many times do I have to repeat myself?
That organization (USADA) has its own set of ethics, and all those teammates who sweared on paper that Lance took some illegal substances, plus he encouraged others to do the same, are not good enough for ya people?
What about if you can defeat the system, is that good in your book? What is true justice; the one decided in a court of law or in a more balanced group of people outside any type of corruption? You decide.
...And ain't the first time that we've seen this, and won't be the last one either.
I said that I see what you guys mean, and that's fine by me; I fully respect that.
Why do you have to try imposing it now on me? ...Because that is what you believe in a democratic societey of intelligent citizens? ...Me too, but just on the surface, and not in true reality. Can you not see my point? And can you respect it too?
O.J. Simpson anyone?
Jeez, you make me feel bad. :b
And you were right Davey, and other people too; if Lance is fully comfortable with his conscience, he'll fight, and he'll fight real hard for what's right.
But just don't count on it, because he is conscienciously guilty. I just don't care about the law in this case here. There is just no way that so many of his teammates all corroborated to the exact same thing. ...Just no way that they are all liars.
Last edited:
Bob, I'm going to give you my last thought on this one:
Let's use another example:
Let's say that you are Lance Armstrong and you happen to be innocent of all the charges and/or accusations that have been foisted upon you. Your teammates have lied to all concerned and the innuendo and hearsay is being believed by the public. Your good name is under question and your feats are stricken. People in other parts of the world are believing that you are guilty of being a cheat and a liar. You have no proof to the contrary.
Wouldn't you appreciate it IF the authorities and your peers presumed that you were telling the truth and were NOT guilty of the accusations against you. Or, would you prefer that you were considered guilty and needed to prove yourself innocent somehow. I know which one I would opt for. Question you might ask yourself is which one would you?
This isn't necessarily just about the law ( although this legal aspect is true in the United States and in the United Kingdom and IF I'm not mistaken in Canada as well as all other civilized countries) BUT about the aspect of simple human decency in general.
Obviously you are entitled to your opinion, BUT you seem to have jumped to a conclusion that doesn't seem to allow for the possibility that my above example could be a possibility.
As to your comment as to being too serious, well i would say that this topic is pretty serious, wouldn't you?
BTW, I'm NOT trying to make you feel bad, simply trying to make a point
People say they believe in the "presumption of innocence " and then proceed to ignore it in reaching there conclusions.
e.g. I know there is no evidence but he is guilty.Iit was the TdF who set the standard of proof as a positive drug test. not Lance Armstrong. Does anyone need me to provide examples of what happens when someone tests positive and tries to provide an excuse? The same people who now claim a positive drug test is unnecessary for Lance refused to consider that there was any other excuse for a positive test. You tested positive, you must have cheated. Case closed.
Cycling is like no other sport .Wind resistance forces competitors to work together to win. Most people think when the say a break away those are the fastest riders. Not true. most teams only have one rider who is actually competing to win. Hos teammates are working for him. Sometimes they are actually slowing the race down.The notion that someone else win if Armstrong was not cheating is completely speculative at best.
Greg Lemond had dropped Bernard Hinault, his teammate in TdF. The team manager called him back and made him wait for Hinault. In essence he "threw" the race for his teammate . That would not be toleraed in any other sport.
Riders have complained TdF is just to dam hard. It gets harder every year with no regard for the riders. Sometimes the peloton goes not bother to race for the first half of a stage.
From a criminal law standard there is a whole process to be followed when co-conspirators testify against each other. At the top of the list is how they avoid prosecutions for thier joint crimes. What deals were made in exchange for testimony.
e.g. I know there is no evidence but he is guilty.Iit was the TdF who set the standard of proof as a positive drug test. not Lance Armstrong. Does anyone need me to provide examples of what happens when someone tests positive and tries to provide an excuse? The same people who now claim a positive drug test is unnecessary for Lance refused to consider that there was any other excuse for a positive test. You tested positive, you must have cheated. Case closed.
Cycling is like no other sport .Wind resistance forces competitors to work together to win. Most people think when the say a break away those are the fastest riders. Not true. most teams only have one rider who is actually competing to win. Hos teammates are working for him. Sometimes they are actually slowing the race down.The notion that someone else win if Armstrong was not cheating is completely speculative at best.
Greg Lemond had dropped Bernard Hinault, his teammate in TdF. The team manager called him back and made him wait for Hinault. In essence he "threw" the race for his teammate . That would not be toleraed in any other sport.
Riders have complained TdF is just to dam hard. It gets harder every year with no regard for the riders. Sometimes the peloton goes not bother to race for the first half of a stage.
From a criminal law standard there is a whole process to be followed when co-conspirators testify against each other. At the top of the list is how they avoid prosecutions for thier joint crimes. What deals were made in exchange for testimony.
I think a democrat vs. republican thread would have more balance than this one, can we vote on WBF? A presidential straw poll and see how close we are to the popular vote? At least we can have a winner!
-----Hey, just start a thread Peter. :b ...I'm very curious myself to see indeed how close the members' average here at WBF represents the USA popular vote. It is the most current affair right now in our continent, and people from all over the world are watching.
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Nope, that's the guy that won Bob. Sorry...the tour de france actually had winners and seven of those times was Lance, much to your chagrin...lol
---- No disregard Christian; but the other day there was a 'special' on Lance Armstrong.
...With comments from his ex and several of his close friends.
Conclusion: Lance manipulated all of them! ...And he went to extremes to hide the truth, and asked them to be his accomplices.
It is very clear now to a lot of people that Lance took illegal substances and that he lied repeatedly to almost everyone.
Yes, you are right; he did win those seven tours de France, but while doped!
* That 'Special reportage' was on a French station; and I didn't bother to write down the link;
as I am certain that by now several specials revealed the truth. ...Lance is history, no matter what you or I think of it.
I have nothing to prove to you, me, or anyone else; because it is there for everyone to see.
There is nothing wrong with having feelings, and disagreeing with the truth (facts),
and I got nothing to do with it; I was not the one (Lance) who deceived everyone.
I will not post here anymore, unless absolutely necessary.
And I trust all my fellow members to do their own research with acuity.
Lance, I don't know him personally, but I truly 'hate' him (though, I already forgave him, and wish him well in his next life) for all he's done to a lot of good people.
...And to the professional sport of cyclism; and no matter if others did it before and after him.
I abide by my own set of essential values on this planet Earth.
...And I answer only to the highest supreme force of the universe.
Cheers
Last edited:
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Lance Armstrong just happens to pose next to his Tour de France jerseys
Now THIS is a finely-honed troll move. Over the weekend, the above photo showed up in Lance Armstrong's Twitter feed, accompanied by the message "Back in Austin and just layin' around ... "
Armstrong is, of course, reclining oh-so-casually in front of the seven Tour de France jerseys he won. Those jerseys represent the seven Tour de France victories that the International Cycling Union stripped from him following the investigation and documentation of what the United States Anti-Doping Agency called "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen." Armstrong was also served with a lifetime ban from cycling events overseen by the USADA, and his 2000 Olympic bronze medal is now under investigation.
Now, obviously the UCI wasn't going to come into Armstrong's house and yank the jerseys off his walls. (The International Olympic Committee could be a different story. They have ordered disgraced medalists to surrender their medals in the past.) But even though Armstrong has removed the Tour de France victories from his Twitter profile, he's clearly not relinquishing the titles in the public eye.
Not exactly the most humble move, but then, not much that Armstrong does could ever be considered "humble." Clearly, there are more jabs yet to be thrown in this fight.
---- => Which Drugs is Lance Armstrong Accused of Taking
* Read the entire article.
____________________
And from that other article; after reading it, go at the bottom, and read all that section too.
=> Reasoned Decision
Last edited:
Similar threads
