why is just armstrong accused of doping?

[grattorney]

The Italian state authorities are taking the case against Ferrari.
Unless they had evidence - they presumably would not have been given
authorisation by a judge to make charges against Ferrari, right ?
So it is reasonable to assume that they have some degree of evidence
to be anbe to direct a charge to be brought against Ferrari ?
As you've got some legal knowledge - this is a reasonable assumption ?

I am not familiar with the Italian criminal court system. I can tell you that where I practice law (in the United States), a prosecutor does not need to get permission from the court to file charges against somebody. Rather, the prosecutor builds her case by gathering evidence. If she thinks she has enough evidence to prove guilty, then she will file charges against the defendant. The court has no role in determining whether or when to bring charges.

And I can tell you that prosecutors are people. They are not infallable and are subject to the same mistakes of judgment everybody else is. They can be swayed by public opinion, especially if they are elected by the public. I can tell you true stories of prosecutors who manufactured evidence in order to convict an innocent person (who was subsequently sentenced to death for murder). The prosecutors did this because of tremendous public pressure to find the person resonsible for a heinous murder. Fortunately, good lawyers got involved and the person's life was spared after the prosecutors admitted under oath that they manufactured the evidence.

For this reason, I do not trust prosecutors. I do not think they are all crooked or bad people either. I just want them to prove their case in court. Simply because they bring charges against somebody means nothing to me.

So, a long answer to your question, but, no, simply because a prosecuting authority brings charges against somebody does not convince me that those charges are true. I need more.

In a legal context as regards LA - the presumption of innocence lies with the defendant.
But we're not in a court of law here.
We are in a forum and people can form an opinion based on what they know.
If their knowledge is vast or miniscule - people will form an opinion and in this case some of us form the opinion that LA is not authentic.
An opinion doesn't necessarily rest on the level of evidence.

I agree with you that the court of public opinion is different than a court of law and admit that I am biased toward the latter. Nonetheless, I believe people owe it to themselves to have good reasons for their opinions. I know you feel you have those reasons. I think your reasons are not well-founded, but I will never disparage you personally for holding those opinions.

 

[wheresullrich?]

basso is guilty???i didnt know that armstrong had studied medicine and was personal bassos doctor, thanks for telling me, i didnt know that
its not about who you know, its about someones personals doctor, thats is famous for prescribing EPO, not for being friends and play pool and have some beers on saturday nights

Can I just ask do you know exactly what your doctor prescribes others?!

I doubt it

Could be giving people anything you don't know

If armstrongs never had him force anything on him he won't see any problem with it will he?

would you? if your doctor gave others stuff, drugs they wanted but neva forced em on u?

 

[Ted B]

Can I just ask do you know exactly what your doctor prescribes others?!?

Please, do not confuse Miguel with the obvious. He already has trouble finding his way out of a paper bag.

 

[limerickman]

In defence of Lance Armstrong (for once) I do agree that some people in Europe do appear to resent the fact that an American is winning the premier
cycling event "in their backyard".

For those American posters, imagine someone from Spain dominating Baseball
or American football or Golf, wouldn't some American fans resent the presence of some for abroad winning "your" national game ?

In defence of the French though, as annoyed as some fans may be - just imagine a person from a neighbouring country coming in a dominating your sport (ie Spain's Indurain or Belgium's Merckx).

For our American posters, imagine a Canadian or a Mexican dominating your national sport.

Just some food for thought.

 

[Ted B]

In defence of Lance Armstrong (for once)...

Let's see now, my research reveals...

User ID: Limerckman

Arguments re: Lance Armstrong

For ----- Against

1 ------ 32,198



Yep, that looks about right.

 

[wheresullrich?]

I just cant help thinkin that if Lance was gonna dope n stuff wud he wana stand out so much.

If you were dopin and had a brain you wouldn't win the tour de france 6 times would you-it would make it obvious, you would be good but not great-not get carried away and always worry about being caught

personally if i was doping in a sport like cycling ide think the most obvious way for people to find out would be to make yourself the best tour de france rider ever- you would have to be thick! and lance doesn't trike me as the dumb type

His books aren't exactly on the same level as David Beckhams or someone he does show intelligence

 

[antoineg]

I just cant help thinkin that if Lance was gonna dope n stuff wud he wana stand out so much.

If you were dopin and had a brain you wouldn't win the tour de france 6 times would you-it would make it obvious, you would be good but not great-not get carried away and always worry about being caught

personally if i was doping in a sport like cycling ide think the most obvious way for people to find out would be to make yourself the best tour de france rider ever- you would have to be thick! and lance doesn't trike me as the dumb type

As I've pointed out elsewhere, this is just a ludicrous misuse of logic. If your "proof" is that he's too good, then here's a counter-example:

JUDGE: I have reason to believe you robbed the bank. We have witnesses who say they saw you, your fingerprints are on the gun, and we found bags of money at your flat.
LANCE: Your honor! If I was really trying to rob a bank, would I be so obvious????? Of course not! So I must be innocent!

 

[grattorney]

As I've pointed out elsewhere, this is just a ludicrous misuse of logic. If your "proof" is that he's too good, then here's a counter-example:

JUDGE: I have reason to believe you robbed the bank. We have witnesses who say they saw you, your fingerprints are on the gun, and we found bags of money at your flat.
LANCE: Your honor! If I was really trying to rob a bank, would I be so obvious????? Of course not! So I must be innocent!

Nice try. I'll give you a better example from real life. An investor has insider information and decides to make illegal stock trades to get rich. In order to conceal these illegal trades (because he does not want to get caught), he "hides" his stock trades by submitting them along with thousands of other trades that come from his company's pension plan. As such, his trades do not stick out. Furthermore, he does not buy too much or sell too much of any particiular stock, so as to not arouse suspicion. He is successful, but not too successful. This goes on for years before anybody catches it. The investor makes millions before he is caught.

That is the way smart people by their nature hide illegal activity. They try to blend in and not draw attention to themselves. They do everything right. What they do not do - unless they are colossally stupid - is act such that even the dumbest person would say "Hey, what's that guy doing?"

Lance Armstrong is not stupid and he has acted very boldly for someone everyone suspects of doping. In this instance, and as long as we are dealing only in circumstantial evidence (which is much different than your bank robbery), then the manner in which LA acts is highly probative

 

[limerickman]

Nice try. I'll give you a better example from real life. An investor has insider information and decides to make illegal stock trades to get rich. In order to conceal these illegal trades (because he does not want to get caught), he "hides" his stock trades by submitting them along with thousands of other trades that come from his company's pension plan. As such, his trades do not stick out. Furthermore, he does not buy too much or sell too much of any particiular stock, so as to not arouse suspicion. He is successful, but not too successful. This goes on for years before anybody catches it. The investor makes millions before he is caught.

That is the way smart people by their nature hide illegal activity. They try to blend in and not draw attention to themselves. They do everything right. What they do not do - unless they are colossally stupid - is act such that even the dumbest person would say "Hey, what's that guy doing?"

Lance Armstrong is not stupid and he has acted very boldly for someone everyone suspects of doping. In this instance, and as long as we are dealing only in circumstantial evidence (which is much different than your bank robbery), then the manner in which LA acts is highly probative

Nice Try.
If you look at Armstrongs training and performance program - he effectively competes for only three weeks per year.
In order to compete and to maximise performance, a doping program is developed around specific times - times which will maximise performance but which will avoid detection.

On the avoiding detection issue - if an athlete is not competing he, naturally,
will not be tested "in competition".
Thus the chances to catch doper who doesn't compete in many events during the year in formal competition, reduces.

 

[antoineg]

Nice try.

You've posted the reverse scenario: the original thesis was:

He can't be doping because he's been too good, and no smart person would intentionally try to stand out if they were cheating.

This thesis is unprovable.

A counter to your example is, um, I don't know....Enron? Biggest goddamn collapse in U.S. corporate history? Founded on....cheating!!!!

It cuts both ways. In either case it's unprovable and is just an example of you transferring the image of who you hope Lance is onto the circumstances.

 

[wheresullrich?]

Nice try. I'll give you a better example from real life. An investor has insider information and decides to make illegal stock trades to get rich. In order to conceal these illegal trades (because he does not want to get caught), he "hides" his stock trades by submitting them along with thousands of other trades that come from his company's pension plan. As such, his trades do not stick out. Furthermore, he does not buy too much or sell too much of any particiular stock, so as to not arouse suspicion. He is successful, but not too successful. This goes on for years before anybody catches it. The investor makes millions before he is caught.

That is the way smart people by their nature hide illegal activity. They try to blend in and not draw attention to themselves. They do everything right. What they do not do - unless they are colossally stupid - is act such that even the dumbest person would say "Hey, what's that guy doing?"

Lance Armstrong is not stupid and he has acted very boldly for someone everyone suspects of doping. In this instance, and as long as we are dealing only in circumstantial evidence (which is much different than your bank robbery), then the manner in which LA acts is highly probative

why thank you! you can obviously understand the logic behind what I said unlike others.

The point is come on open your eyes lance is supposed to be a smart bike rider right? why on earth would he if he was dopin want it to be so god damn obvious.
You would seriously not want to stand out- but he does so

I'm not saying he doesn't dope cos he's too good I'm saying that if he had half a brain (which he does) he wouldn't make it as obvious as it apparently is

 

[grattorney]

You've posted the reverse scenario: the original thesis was:

He can't be doping because he's been too good, and no smart person would intentionally try to stand out if they were cheating.

This thesis is unprovable.

A counter to your example is, um, I don't know....Enron? Biggest goddamn collapse in U.S. corporate history? Founded on....cheating!!!!

It cuts both ways. In either case it's unprovable and is just an example of you transferring the image of who you hope Lance is onto the circumstances.

I really have no idea what you are trying to say here. My point was that people who are trying to hide illegal activity act in certain ways so as to avoid being caught. One of the things they do is they keep their head down and try to blend in while still being successful but not too successful. Lance Armstrong has done neither. He has been incredibly successful and incredibly not quiet. Those are not the actions of someone who has something to hide, as they only make him more of a target (you being a great example).

Personally, the fact that LA has acted this way is not proof in itself that he is not doping. I have other, more important reasons why I believe he is clean. But it is a piece of the puzzle that, when put together, proves to me at this time that he is not doping.

 

[wheresullrich?]

Personally, the fact that LA has acted this way is not proof in itself that he is not doping. I have other, more important reasons why I believe he is clean. But it is a piece of the puzzle that, when put together, proves to me at this time that he is not doping.

Your so right this is just one of the many little things which make me think that the big think (lance doping) is not true.

As said this is no proof but seems logic does it not?

And I know you could say well the fact that his doctor he knows/uses has prescribed EPO to others would seem logic but I think as we've just heard people think Lance is intelligent and strong willed so I think he would be able to resist such a drug.

But no other cyclist found doping has been as successful as Lance Armstrong have they???
So I don't see why he would want to make his career as such a successful cyclist if he was doping.

As said before he would be successful like the others who have been caught but not too successful (like he is now)

 

[gntlmn]

Nice Try.
If you look at Armstrongs training and performance program - he effectively competes for only three weeks per year.
In order to compete and to maximise performance, a doping program is developed around specific times - times which will maximise performance but which will avoid detection.

On the avoiding detection issue - if an athlete is not competing he, naturally,
will not be tested "in competition".
Thus the chances to catch doper who doesn't compete in many events during the year in formal competition, reduces.

You can have an incredible palmares and satisfy the likes of you and earn $250,000 a year or you can win the Tour de France and earn $25 million. This seems an easy choice to me.

I'm not surprised that Armstrong focuses on the Tour. An impressive palmares might satisfy naysayers such as yourself, but it doesn't put much bread on the table. If I had the choice, I wouldn't p##s much with the offseason wins. I'd stay focused on the prize. The very best riders who are in the running would agree.

 

[gntlmn]

You can have an incredible palmares and satisfy the likes of you and earn $250,000 a year or you can win the Tour de France and earn $25 million. This seems an easy choice to me.

I'm not surprised that Armstrong focuses on the Tour. An impressive palmares might satisfy naysayers such as yourself, but it doesn't put much bread on the table. If I had the choice, I wouldn't p##s much with the offseason wins. I'd stay focused on the prize. The very best riders who are in the running would agree.

But you then point to other Tour riders and say that they did it. But that was then, and this is now. The crown jewel of the Tour de France was a diamond in the rough then. Now it is cycling's premier crown jewel.

 

[wheresullrich?]

But you then point to other Tour riders and say that they did it. But that was then, and this is now. The crown jewel of the Tour de France was a diamond in the rough then. Now it is cycling's premier crown jewel.

Exactly I think we understand any cyclist just focusing on the tour it is the main event in their calendar after all

And are you saying lance has chaged the tour for the better or something cos he certainly has no matter what those moaning frenchies think he has made 'their' sport more popular and has brought loads of souvenir purchasing americans to france in July surely thats one good point for them they can cash in on his fans!

 

[gntlmn]

Exactly I think we understand any cyclist just focusing on the tour it is the main event in their calendar after all

And are you saying lance has chaged the tour for the better or something cos he certainly has no matter what those moaning frenchies think he has made 'their' sport more popular and has brought loads of souvenir purchasing americans to france in July surely thats one good point for them they can cash in on his fans!

When the spectators make jokes about how much more money the Americans (not Lance) make for their win records compared to the Europeans, yes indeed, the Americans are bringing money into the sport all right. And when the viewership goes up in the well-moneyed demographics, the other sponsors riding in the Tour are on the bandwagon too. Come one, come all.