antoineg said:
If you want to argue about basic fundamentals, then he is guilty. He is officially suspended from racing. Any post-Vuelta results would have been wiped out.
The burden of proof is now on him, not the UCI, not USADA, not WADA, to try to overturn the verdict -- and he has an official avenue in which to explore that possibility -- but make no mistake, the verdict has already been reached, and he is guilty of an "anti doping rule violation." He can not race.
Not to mention the existential guilt of having cheated to win a bike race. Who judges that I don't know.
This is
exactly what I'm talking about. Some people, (as you've clearly demonstrated), don't understand the difference between having actually committed an offense and having been
accused of committing an offense based on a set of rules. It's about the alleged offense, not about the way the rules are written or the testing methods or the color of one's eyes or the mean winter temperature in Marblehead Massechusettes.
Being guilty means that you have committed the offense - you have performed a prohibited act. It doesn't mean that some governing body has declared you to have committed the offense. It means you actually did.
As was mentioned on another similar thread, a full five percent of those executed for crimes in the United States were later found to be innocent of the crime for which they were executed. They were not guilty. They were punished as if they were guilty, but they did not commit the offense. They were innocent. It's not something laid out in any governing body's book of rules. It's a basic fundamental which seems to have escaped those so muddled down in rule books that the actual commission or failure to commit a wrongful act has been brushed aside and forgotten.
If the testing done on Tyler can be shown to be free of error and he actually has blood cells not produced within his own body in his bloodstream, which is what the tests show, then the rules may
consider him to be guilty until such time that he can show adequate proof as to why he should not be considered guilty. If he can then show medical records outlining documented and medically necessary blood transfusions as in the case of some surgeries, and perhaps provide, through medical experts, further proof that the cells found in his blood are tied directly to such transfusions and mitigate that by showing that his red cell count is within a normal range, then he may well be found to be innocent. I find this all
highly unlikely, but as long as a possibility still exists for reversal, saying he
is guilty is simply inaccurate and premature.
Innocence or guilt are the results of either having commited a particular act or not having commited the act. It's not about being accused or someone's rules, regulations or written guidelines. If you didn't commit a forbidden act, then you're not guilty of commiting said act - period. The problem is in proving the situation one way or another. As long as there are avenues left open for Tyler to pursue to prove his innocence, then he cannot rightfully be proclaimed guilty despite what UCI, WADA, Dr. Suess or anyone else writes on paper. It's all about what he has or hasn't done. It's not about what is or isn't written. Please tell me you haven't forgotten that to be truly guilty, you have to actually commit a wrongful act.
In all likelihood, with what we know so far, Tyler has committed a forbidden act. But until he fails to present a compelling argument as to why that is not the case, the situation is still open. He is currently
suspected of committing a prohibited act based on what is reported to be highly reliable, scientific and medical evidence. When/if he fails to produce proof of testing error or reasons why the presence of foreign blood cells in his bloodstream should not be considered a violation, then he has failed in his opportunity to prove himself not guilty. When all such potential to prove his innocence is exhausted, if he is still considered to be guilty by the rules written, then he may properly be considered guilty.
Consider that Santiago Botero was at one time suspended from racing for having a testosterone level that was above allowable levels. He later proved with substantiated medical evidence, that he has a naturally high testosterone level and the suspension was withdrawn. By your assessment, he was guilty when he was suspended. Yet, he was not guilty and managed to prove that to a degree found reasonable by those governing the sport. He now has to have special paperwork documenting his unusually high natural testosterone level in order to race, but he was not guilty of any violation despite the high testosterone levels, the positive tests and the suspension. Never at any time was he guilty because he never committed a prohibited act. He was
suspected of having committed such an act based on testing but further testing and medical evidence proved that no such act was committed. Hence, he was innocent. Through the whole ordeal, he was innocent. His status changed from suspected to not suspected but at no time was he guilty.
Saying that a suspension is the same as a declaration of guilt is much like claiming that being jailed is a declaration of guilt. Being jailed is often the result of being accused but until the trial and appeals process is concluded, one is still considered to be "suspected", but not yet proven guilty. In a manner of speaking, one's right to move about at will has been
suspended due to a suspicion of committing a prohibited act. But guilt is not properly established until the judicial process has concluded and acceptable argument against one's guilt has not been provided.
antoineg said:
You can try to think it's anything else, Beastt, but you really don't know what the hell you are talking about here.
I have over 21 years of working within the judicial process, antoineg. It may we well recommended for you to consider the strong possibility that your saddle is mounted a little high on the horse.
