Armstrong stripped of 7 TdF titles

[Hound of UIster]

It's not if the individual is an American and doesn't "really" admit to it.

[JarodRussell]

Armstrong stripped of 7 TdF titles

I like that they do that a thousand years later.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

MacLeod wrote:

---

Odd I though that you had to be proven to be guilty, not to prove that you are innocent.

That's only if you're an alleged rapist who happens to be a political hero to some people. It's all about the politics, you know.

[Robert Maxwell]

This thread is certainly illuminating as far as identifying people who support cheaters and cheating.

[Deckerd]

I didn't see anyone supporting cheaters and cheating.

[MacLeod]

Agreed Deckard, I see no indication of those who support cheating.

Well the article in question seems to imply that no actual hearing had taken place, team mates prepared to testify etc..

So if they are prepared to testify, that means they haven't as yet.

Which means he is being judged as being guilty. Without due process having been gone through. Armstrong doesn't have to prove his innocence he is automatically presummed to be innoncent until a court has proven him guilty.

The article doesn't say that he has been found guilty of the charge by a court. It mentions a two year federal investigation. No mention of a trial.

As for cheating itself of course that is wrong.

[Pingfah]

Deckerd wrote:

---

I expect the titles won't go to anyone.

I imagine that will cause some consternation amongst the handful of successful cyclists from that era who were not caught for doping.

[RoJoHen]

I don't applaud his cheating, if cheating is what actually occurred, but I do have a problem with these after-the-fact investigations. You want to test somebody for steroids? Do it before he competes. Retroactively taking away an athletes' titles just doesn't sit well with me.

[MacLeod]

Well during the olympics all medal winners were tested for banned substances.

[RoJoHen]

You want to ban somebody after they've failed the drug tests? Fine. Ban them from competing in future events.

Don't test them after they've already won and then try and take away their victory.

[Roger Wilco]

MacLeod wrote:

---

Well the article in question seems to imply that no actual hearing had taken place, team mates prepared to testify etc..

There's no hearing because Armstrong declined to have one! It was his decision.

How is that anything other than an admission of guilt?

[junxon]

their victory should be taken away if someone at the time was covering up the doping. i used to find armstrong inspiring. shame on him and anyone who thinks 'oh lets just forget it, it was ages ago'

[Robert Maxwell]

Deckerd wrote:

---

I didn't see anyone supporting cheaters and cheating.

Don't be naive. Statements like "nobody proved he cheated" and "winning isn't cheating" indicate that some folks are perfectly fine with doping, as long as the athlete doesn't get caught, and even if they do get caught, well, it must've been trumped up somehow. Nobody's going to come out and say "I'm fine with cheating," but those attitudes are a great way to support continuing it.

[RoJoHen]

junxon wrote:

---

their victory should be taken away if someone at the time was covering up the doping.

But what do we mean by "covering up?" Did somebody forge false drug test results?

From where I stand, the whole point of drug testing is to determine if someone is using illegal drugs. If drug tests fail to turn up any signs of illegal drugs, the person passes the test.

Witnesses popping up after the fact saying, "Yeah, but he totally did use illegal drugs" doesn't really count as solid evidence.

If he did somehow manage to outsmart the test and pass while still taking illegal drugs, then there's something wrong with the test. I don't condone cheating, but let's actually prove he did cheat before we crucify the guy.

[MacLeod]

Roger Wilco wrote:

---

There's no hearing because Armstrong declined to have one! It was his decision.

How is that anything other than an admission of guilt?

The article posted seemed to indicate that Armstrong felt he would not get a fair hearing. Perhaps if he felt he would get a fair hearing he might be willing to have one.


If you felt you weren't going to get a fair hearing/trial etc.. would you take part in i?