DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Lance Armstrong drops fight. Will lose 7 titles and take lifetime ban

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

They are asking him to prove the negative, which can't be done and is why our criminal justice system is set up the way it is.

---

Except that this isn't a criminal case.

---

It shouldn't have to be a criminal case ... you're asking him to prove he DIDN'T do something.

Toad ... Prove to us you never ate paint chips as a child. Otherwise, we'll all assume you did, and take that into account when reading your opinions on this board.

See how that works?

Now if I can round up a bunch of other guys that don't like you and they all say you did. Does that now prove you ate paint chips as a child? Shouldn't I have some sort of hard evidence that shows you did it first?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

They are asking him to prove the negative, which can't be done and is why our criminal justice system is set up the way it is.

---

Except that this isn't a criminal case.

---

It shouldn't have to be a criminal case ... you're asking him to prove he DIDN'T do something.

Toad ... Prove to us you never ate paint chips as a child. Otherwise, we'll all assume you did, and take that into account when reading your opinions on this board.

See how that works?

Now if I can round up a bunch of other guys that don't like you and they all say you did. Does that now prove you ate paint chips as a child? Shouldn't I have some sort of hard evidence that shows you did it first?

---

Toad and I used to eat paint chips together. I was big into paint chips as a youngster.

Quote:

---

I guess if enough people say something happened, then it must be true, even without any real evidence.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

They are asking him to prove the negative, which can't be done and is why our criminal justice system is set up the way it is.

---

Except that this isn't a criminal case.

---

It shouldn't have to be a criminal case ... you're asking him to prove he DIDN'T do something.

Toad ... Prove to us you never ate paint chips as a child. Otherwise, we'll all assume you did, and take that into account when reading your opinions on this board.

See how that works?

Now if I can round up a bunch of other guys that don't like you and they all say you did. Does that now prove you ate paint chips as a child? Shouldn't I have some sort of hard evidence that shows you did it first?

---

Toad and I used to eat paint chips together. I was big into paint chips as a youngster.

---

WTH...who eats paint chips these days? They need to be smoked through a hookah to truly enjoy the aroma and bouquet, and none of that non-lead based stuff. That crap is just knock-off junk.

Now seriously, I know where you guys who are trying to lay out examples are going. You want me to see how hearsay isn't evidence. I would be a dope if I didn't understand that point (of course I'm a dope regardless )but my point is that this is so much more than hearsay. The amount of smoke around Armstrong can mean only one thing: Fire. I know many want hard evidence and can't "convict" without anything less. There will most likely never be that. He's done doing anything where he can blow a drug test. But as time goes by and all the stories come out, even the most ardent Lance supports won't be able to say they believe in him with a straight face.

If it were any other two parties I'd say there's a wink-wink deal here that says if Armstrong drops this they'll keep all the stuff to themselves. It's very hard to accept the idea that he and his camp would simply throw up the white flag. That is so out of character for him.

I think justice has been served. There isn't anything more I'd want Armstrong to have to go through.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I guess if enough people say something happened, then it must be true, even without any real evidence.

---

It's a slippery slope, but there was evidence.


Some don't like circumstantial evidence, but if you bake a cherry pie and set it on the counter to cool for a few hours, then come back and a slice is out of it and you find your 9 year old with cherry all around his mouth, you have enough to convict even though you didn't see the slice being taken or the slice being eaten.

---

I get that Peen... but if you have a program in place to keep your 9 year old from eating cherry pice.... where you check his stomach contents many times looking for cherry pie and you never find any, then your circumstantial evidence becomes less impressive.... especially when there are 10 other 9 year olds in the room all with cherry pie on their faces as well.

Quote:

---

It's not about giving it to the next guy. It's about not allowing ill-gotten rewards to be had by a cheater.

So they need to concern themselves with the present and the future...I completely agree. One of the ways to keep the sport from continuing it's dirty ways are to punish those who did it and take away what they've won.

If you wanna stop steroids in a game, punish the one's who did them so the next generation understand the risks aren't worth the gamble. In that way, punishing those in the past help mold the present and the future.

---

Quote:

---

That assumes you have a valid test for cherry pie. Remember, these guys are three steps ahead of the testers. They're taking stuff that the doping board has never heard of. So mix that into your analogy.

---

Obviously you do, you tested all of the other kids for cherry pie. Now if your son actually ate the apple pie, which you can't test for and is not illegal according to your rules and you never told him to not eat the apple pie, then is he still in trouble?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It's not about giving it to the next guy. It's about not allowing ill-gotten rewards to be had by a cheater.

So they need to concern themselves with the present and the future...I completely agree. One of the ways to keep the sport from continuing it's dirty ways are to punish those who did it and take away what they've won.

If you wanna stop steroids in a game, punish the one's who did them so the next generation understand the risks aren't worth the gamble. In that way, punishing those in the past help mold the present and the future.

---

So are we going to say nobody has won the Tour De France in 15 years? Because that's pretty much what you would have to do, and that just seems dumb. Bring out the Men In Black memory erasers.

---

We've managed to include cherry pie and MIB references to Lance Armstrong and doping. I like where this thread is heading.

Ya know what? As dirty and corrupt as "professional" cycling is, yeah, you can essentially say no person has fairly and legitimately won the Tour in fifteen years.

You can't bend the rules even if every single person cheated. Until the rules say you can take PED's, then every single person who has taken them is cheating. There can't be a gray area.

Quote:

---

well, I believe that only the UCI can strip his titles, and they've been going to bat in his favor on this against USADA, so I'd call it even money that he keeps all seven titles.

---

Quote:

---

So the point of stripping the titles away from him and giving it to the next doper would be ..

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So the point of stripping the titles away from him and giving it to the next doper would be ..

---

This was my line of thinking, Toad...certainly not condoning cheating. But how far down the line will they have to go to find a clean rider?

And, really, if when you tested you found no foul play, the record stands. Or should.

---

Yup. 100%. You passed the tests given - you are in the clear for that point in time.
If you develop a better test later down the road, that's great, use it going forward, but don't dig up the past - you may not like what you find there.


Ever wonder why the NFL doesn't re-test old samples, lol?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So the point of stripping the titles away from him and giving it to the next doper would be ..

---

This was my line of thinking, Toad...certainly not condoning cheating. But how far down the line will they have to go to find a clean rider?

And, really, if when you tested you found no foul play, the record stands. Or should.

---

Yup. 100%. You passed the tests given - you are in the clear for that point in time.
If you develop a better test later down the road, that's great, use it going forward, but don't dig up the past - you may not like what you find there.


Ever wonder why the NFL doesn't re-test old samples, lol?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So the point of stripping the titles away from him and giving it to the next doper would be ..

---

This was my line of thinking, Toad...certainly not condoning cheating. But how far down the line will they have to go to find a clean rider?

And, really, if when you tested you found no foul play, the record stands. Or should.

---

Hehehe...How far down the line indeed.

Sorry if I missed the change-of-direction of the topic. I get where you're going now. That topic is one that's even more disturbing if you really think about it, but I gotta confess that I don't really care about professional cycling, and therefore haven't really been concerned or given any thought to how far down they'd have to go to find a clean rider to give the trophy to. Frankly, I think cycling is in the same sad group as professional boxing in terms of perception. One is nothing but dopers, the other nothing but crooks. There's very little credibility left for either one.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So the point of stripping the titles away from him and giving it to the next doper would be ..

---

This was my line of thinking, Toad...certainly not condoning cheating. But how far down the line will they have to go to find a clean rider?

And, really, if when you tested you found no foul play, the record stands. Or should.

---

Yup. 100%. You passed the tests given - you are in the clear for that point in time.
If you develop a better test later down the road, that's great, use it going forward, but don't dig up the past - you may not like what you find there.


Ever wonder why the NFL doesn't re-test old samples, lol?

---

Funny reading the people that don't want things pulled retroactively for Lance, but when it comes to baseball and Bonds, McGwire,etc...

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Funny reading the people that don't want things pulled retroactively for Lance, but when it comes to baseball and Bonds, McGwire,etc...

---

I thought of that as I was writing that... and what always bugged me most about the Bonds & McGuire stuff is that Congress wasted so much time and money on it, not that they were caught doing what we all knew they did. Do I think they need an asterisk beside their Home Run records? Yeah. Go ahead and do the same with Lance's titles.

The thing is this: All of them passed the tests they were given. If your tests aren't up to snuff, then that's your bad, not theirs. Will people abuse that? Absolutely... just as they will abuse any and every advantage they can get. If it isn't illegal when it happens, and you cannot catch them, then it should be left alone and you just need to focus on making things better going forward. Trashing the past accomplishes absolutely NOTHING except to tarnish EVERYTHING.

---