Lance Armstrong... superman

[Kiwi]

The post may be hearsay, but the evidence against Armstrong is based largely on eye witness accounts. And as for this innocent until proven guilty stuff, he was charged and declined to defend himself. He opted out of his due process.

In any court process the motives and credibility of "eye witnesses" can and should be tested. Case law is full of not guilty verdicts despite "eye witnesses". As far as being "charged", perhaps that is the word used in the media (ack!) but that fails to describe the USADA's role and authority. They have no authority to "charge" anyone, only publish their (biased) report then offer the "accused" the chance to rebut it. While I may have taken a different stand on this, one cannot really blame Lance for chosing not to rebut their "findings". I am sure that after 10+ plus years of the media, losers, cheats, liars, and the USADA targeting him why would he want to enter into a terribly flawed process? To do so would only acknowledge that the process was lawful, and fair, which IMHO it is not. The damage has been done. Even if it went to trial and he were acquitted, there are too many out there, as evidenced by this Forum, that will believe the bad first and disregard the evidence or lack thereof.

[sharkshooter]

...While I may have taken a different stand on this, one cannot really blame Lance for chosing not to rebut their "findings". I am sure that after 10+ plus years of the media, losers, cheats, liars, and the USADA targeting him why would he want to enter into a terribly flawed process? ...

When asked "When did you stop beating your wife?", one should say nothing and walk away. It is called baiting, and that is what has been done here. There is no reason for Lance to try to prove his innocence, or to try to counter the allegations. If there was evidence, that would be different.

[mjf]

If there was evidence, that would be different.

I confess, I don't know all of the details of the report on this matter. My impression though, is that the report is full of first-hand eye witness testimony which, unless I'm mistaken, is completely valid evidence in any court.

[jeffc]

In any court process the motives and credibility of "eye witnesses" can and should be tested. Case law is full of not guilty verdicts despite "eye witnesses". As far as being "charged", perhaps that is the word used in the media (ack!) but that fails to describe the USADA's role and authority. They have no authority to "charge" anyone, only publish their (biased) report then offer the "accused" the chance to rebut it. While I may have taken a different stand on this, one cannot really blame Lance for chosing not to rebut their "findings". I am sure that after 10+ plus years of the media, losers, cheats, liars, and the USADA targeting him why would he want to enter into a terribly flawed process? To do so would only acknowledge that the process was lawful, and fair, which IMHO it is not. The damage has been done. Even if it went to trial and he were acquitted, there are too many out there, as evidenced by this Forum, that will believe the bad first and disregard the evidence or lack thereof.

11 eyewitness accounts from teammates. Nope, no evidence at all. In any court of law, that is called overwhelming evidence. Armstrong essentially pled guilty by not testifying. Levi Leipheimer (former teammate) was sacked by his team recently for testifying and incurred a ban from cycling for 6 months. Do you think he would have admitted to this if he was innocent? Not a chance. Furthermore, do you think a clean Lance could have beat all these doping athletes 7 years in a row?