Really Bemused by this story....

[Cliff Beer]

Veek, that's a good comparison except for the fact that a breathalizer tests for one thing that is a relatively constant element: alcohol. The difference is that the doping testing is always three steps behind the latest (and ever-changing) performance enhancing dope formulations, which could be one formulation of a million different than the known ones, and hence doesn't show up on the current test. That's why direct 1st person evidence and testimony (not hearsay) is relevant here, and not for a drunk/sober driver.

This is precisely how many of the cyclists have been getting away with doping over the years while not testing positive. My suspicion is that Lance was just doing what everyone else was doing, except that he was the better athlete so he came out on top. Then looks to have gotten busted because he's, well, on top!

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

What ever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"?

 

[Ian K]

What ever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"?

Only in the courts, and really, only in criminal cases.

Which is why the Feds dropped their case after 3 years. They could not prove it. Unfortunately, the USADA is not using the courts - they are, apparently, judge, jury and executioner.

Ian

 

[Keith]

I find this all quite interesting. I have no real world knowledge of the law but surely, if you repeat a story that you have either been told or have read about, then it is hearsay, gossip, innuendo and thus unproven?

That fact that certain allegations have been made by 'team mates' officials, etc in a public arena doesn't make it true does it?

Have any of these 'true allegations' been tested in a court of law?

If the answer is yes, then subsequent allegations are obviously not hearsay.

There seems to be an increasing tendency of trial by media, public opinion and interested parties with agendas, not just in sport but politics and business too.

I am not on one side or the other in this particular affair but stripping the guy of 7 TDF titles and everything else, + being banned for life is a bit extreme isn't it?

Is this action sanctioned by the TDF Organisers or is it just the US association?

I can now see why Bradley Wiggins got his saddle in a twist recently over (unproven) doping allegations - he can possibly see his career eventually ending like Lance's some time in the future..

 

[Jeff Young]

Let's be clear about what hearsay is, and isn't.

Someone says something to you and you repeat it. Hearsay. And even here, there are many exceptions to the "hearsay" rule. Statement against interest. Excited utterance. Etc.

You watch someone do something or otherwise observe it. Not hearsay.

Armstrong is paying the price for the doping era in cycling history. All of them were doing it, and he was the champion during that time. The USADA is coming down hard on him because rightly or wrongly, he's the symbol of that era of cheating.

 

[Keith]

I'll have to watch out here or I will end up confusing myself. Not hard.

Right here goes. From your first sentence it appears we are in agreement re: hearsay. But your second statement refers to the people who presumably going to give evidence against LA and if their allegations were stated in public then, no, I agree that would not be hearsay, but if anyone else repeated it, including the media and GT40's.com then that would be a statement based on hearsay. Have I got that bit right?

I have no idea of the timeline of all of this, but if it hadn't been proven in a court of law, has LA not got a shot at Libel? Possibly American Law works differently from English Law but I'm pretty sure the LA saga could not happen in Britain.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of all of this, to me at least, the allegations against LA are not 'proven' until ratified and examined in a court of Law with evidence supported under oath.

Like I say, if doping was alleged in a like manner in Britain, I believe that it would have to be 'proven' in a legal environment or risk massive punitive libel claims.

However, as in all things, if you throw enough mud - some of it will stick.

Kelvin McKenzie that revolting Murdoch accolyte who now runs Sky, when he was editor of the rabid rag The Sun, famously concluded that if you couldn't prove a story, publish it anyway even if untrue and give the target something 'to deny'' and that would inevitably bring a story.

Not hearsay, it's in his book 'Stick it Up Your Punter'

 

[Ian Anderson]

It would not happen in the UK Keith due tothe HTA (Human Tissue Act)
Go on look it up!
If any sample is taken in any medical way ie blood, surgery etc the person fromwhom it is removed has to give authority for it being kept and if so desired can request return of said tissue and samples.

So you go in and have a biopsy done - you can ask for everything to be returned to you. You then need to dispose of said tissue, cells, samples etc in a legal manner (After all is is human tissue) Incineration is the normal manner.

Just look at all the bad press in the UK where "parts" are found from soldiers that were returned in boxes etc. So often these are slides of tissue that has been stained and looked at through a microscope but uder HTA every sample has to be accounted for. Even the half dozen cells on a blood sample slide.

Ian

 

[Jeff Young]

Keith, correct -- the media reporting what the witnesses would say is hearsay. However, what happened was that the USADA showed Armstrong the witness statements from Hincapie (who was Armstrong's closest friend and viewed as very credible) and others and Armstong folded. Meaning, once Armstrong saw the non hearsay evidence that was going to be used against him at the arbitration, he gave up. To me that is telling and confirmation of what I think most of the cylcing world already knows: EVERYONE was doping in the 90s and 2000s.

US libel laws are very different from the UK's. It is much harder to prove libel here. You have to couple a malicious intent to harm with an untruthful statement. We don't have the libel suits that you guys do which is why US celebs go to the UK to sue the gossip rags for libel.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Let's be clear about what hearsay is, and isn't.

Someone says something to you and you repeat it. Hearsay. And even here, there are many exceptions to the "hearsay" rule. Statement against interest. Excited utterance. Etc.

You watch someone do something or otherwise observe it. Not hearsay.

Armstrong is paying the price for the doping era in cycling history. All of them were doing it, and he was the champion during that time. The USADA is coming down hard on him because rightly or wrongly, he's the symbol of that era of cheating.

"Armstrong is paying the price for the doping era in cycling history." Is it a fact now? Or your supposition that it will become fact. Damn, I wouldn't want you on a jury.

 

[Jeff Young]

I've voted to acquit both times I was on a jury.....

But this isn't a criminal case, and the standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt." It's an arbitration proceeding that Armstrong agreed to participate in when he registered to compete in cylcing events. I think it is a fact that the USADA has marshalled enough evidence that Armstrong knew he was going to lose.

It is my opinion that Armstrong is being made an example of because everyone in that era was doping. Whether I'm right or wrong on that I don't know.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

I've voted to acquit both times I was on a jury.....

But this isn't a criminal case, and the standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt." It's an arbitration proceeding that Armstrong agreed to participate in when he registered to compete in cylcing events. I think it is a fact that the USADA has marshalled enough evidence that Armstrong knew he was going to lose.

It is my opinion that Armstrong is being made an example of because everyone in that era was doping. Whether I'm right or wrong on that I don't know.

But you're forming an opinion before all the information is in! I think it was getting very expensive and LA is leaving it in the hands of the UCI. Why not ALL of the information? It's a life altering decision.

Statement from International Cycling Union on Lance Armstrong – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

 

[Jeff Young]

I'm saying that if 10 of Armstrong's former teammates and colleagues -- including George Hincapie -- are saying that he did it, and Armstrong is folding his defense as a result so that those claims are never heard in public or in a dispute resolution forum, that at that point I have to believe he did it.

The "I've spent millions" already argument is BS. He tried to stop the arbitration proceeding in federal court and have the dispute heard there and only when he failed did he throw in the towel.

 

[Keith]

Yes, I suppose his action at folding at this late stage does suggest a bum hand, as I don't suppose he had any defence against these kind of close in allegations, and it's quite possibly he was bluffing all the way to get the opposition to fold.

I guess he blinked first..

Human Tissue Act! Is this a development of Habeus Corpus taken in a literal sense? :laugh:

 

[Ian K]

I'm saying that if 10 of Armstrong's former teammates and colleagues -- including George Hincapie -- are saying that he did it, and Armstrong is folding his defense as a result so that those claims are never heard in public or in a dispute resolution forum, that at that point I have to believe he did it.

The "I've spent millions" already argument is BS. He tried to stop the arbitration proceeding in federal court and have the dispute heard there and only when he failed did he throw in the towel.

Jeff - did you read the link I posted? From an ex Federal prosecutor? LA cannot mount a defense based upon the way the USADA is set up, and how fast they are moving. The biggest - there is no "discovery". LA's team would not be able to question his former teammates and colleagues because the USADA can use written affidavits and not live testimony. Even the allegations are vaguely worded and would not stand up in court. Not a single witness is named in the docs. The USADA doesn't even have to disclose exactly what the allegations are, and LA's team was given 10 days to rebut.

Ian

 

[Jeff Young]

Did you ignore what I wrote?

This isn't a court. It's an arbitration proceeding that Armstrong agreed to. Does he get to go back on his word to resolve disputes there now that he doesn't like how the cards are stacked against him?

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Are athletes from foreign countries bound by USADA rules?

 

[Ian K]

Did you ignore what I wrote?

This isn't a court. It's an arbitration proceeding that Armstrong agreed to. Does he get to go back on his word to resolve disputes there now that he doesn't like how the cards are stacked against him?

No I didn't. What I am saying is LA cannot mount any kind of defense. So why should he continue? He may not be able to question the witnesses directly. He has no idea exactly what the charges are. There are no specific times, dates, places where it is stated he was doping. There is no discovery allowed. What kind of defense can he mount?

Ian

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

How does the USADA have the ability to control participation in cycling events in foreign countries? From the description of their role it doesn't seem so.
United States Anti-Doping Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jeff Young]

No I didn't. What I am saying is LA cannot mount any kind of defense. So why should he continue? He may not be able to question the witnesses directly. He has no idea exactly what the charges are. There are no specific times, dates, places where it is stated he was doping. There is no discovery allowed. What kind of defense can he mount?

Ian

He should continue because this was the forum he agreed to for dispute resolution when he decided to reap the benefits of cycling professionally -- benefits that have made him very wealthy.

Are you saying it's ok to go back on your word?

 

[Jeff Young]

No I didn't. What I am saying is LA cannot mount any kind of defense. So why should he continue? He may not be able to question the witnesses directly. He has no idea exactly what the charges are. There are no specific times, dates, places where it is stated he was doping. There is no discovery allowed. What kind of defense can he mount?

Ian

Note also that a US federal district court judge disagrees with you, and the prosecutor you cite:

‘‘On balance, the court finds the USADA arbitration rules, which largely follow those of the American Arbitration Association, are sufficiently robust to satisfy the requirements of due process,’’ Sparks wrote. ‘‘This court declines to assume either the pool of potential arbitrators, or the ultimate arbitral panel itself, will be unwilling or unable to render a conscientious decision based on the evidence before it. Further, Armstrong has ample appellate avenues open to him.’’