|
Aug 2012
9:47pm, 24 Aug 2012
4,622 posts
|
Bazoaxe
It feels like a witch hunt to me as LA is assumed guilty without, as yet, any proof that he is. If there is proof it should be used and tabled and his guilt established. This is what happens to other dopers where there is evidence - unless they own up like Millar. For now he seems to be told to prove his innocence with insinuations that there is evidence.
Part of me wonders why this evidence hasnt been made public if they have it and its clear proof. Lets face it, anyone else found guilty has the proof outed fairly quickly, often before it should be procedurally so why no proof evidence ?
I am on the fence at present, I really want Lance to be clean, but I am suspicious and would like clarity either way.
|
|
Aug 2012
9:53pm, 24 Aug 2012
13,732 posts
|
JohnnyO
They couldn't make it public before the hearing. They have suggested that they might release it now.
|
|
Aug 2012
9:56pm, 24 Aug 2012
13,733 posts
|
JohnnyO
And a lot of them were never proven guilty, they just didn't fight back when they were accused.
If you are an active pro, then this may be because a sanction would be shorter than the period of appeal and arbitration.
For Lance this isn't the case.
He is relying on it never being proven, many of his sponsors would drop him if he were actually to fail a test. But as far as WADA are concerned, failure to defend yourself is equivalent to guilt.
|
|
Aug 2012
9:57pm, 24 Aug 2012
13,734 posts
|
JohnnyO
But it is probably a witch hunt. Just that it seems more likely than not that he is a witch.
|
|
Aug 2012
9:58pm, 24 Aug 2012
4,623 posts
|
Bazoaxe
When is the hearing ?
I dont recall hearings in many cases before - normally a failed test is announced, or any implication leaked.
If there is evidence, hold a hearing.LA can defend himself if he wishes, but if he doesnt then a trial can still be held surely. either way if the evidence stacks up he should be found guilty
As things stand he seems to be found guilty already which I dont understand.
|
|
Aug 2012
10:01pm, 24 Aug 2012
13,736 posts
|
JohnnyO
There wont be a hearing. He said today that he wont defend himself, therefore the hearing wont be held.
If he wanted to challenge the evidence, this was his chance.
He knew that not defending himself would lead to this.
|
|
Aug 2012
10:03pm, 24 Aug 2012
137 posts
|
Alubiaverde
Never mind a witch hunt, this is an absolute disgrace. So much for the land of the free.
|
|
Aug 2012
10:04pm, 24 Aug 2012
17,438 posts
|
SPR
What JO said. Evidence would be presented at the hearing. Armstrong has said he doesn't want a hearing which is seen as an admission of guilt.
Bruyneel (and two others I believe), have requested a hearing (abitration). I don't believe any evidence will come out until those cases are settled since it is all essential one case involving multiple people.
|
|
Aug 2012
10:06pm, 24 Aug 2012
17,439 posts
|
SPR
It always happens. You test positive/are charged with a violation. Admit your guilt, or fight the charges in a hearing.
|
|
Aug 2012
10:08pm, 24 Aug 2012
17,440 posts
|
SPR
In the most recent case (Contador), there was the initial hearing where Contador was cleared, then the appeal where he was found guilty.
|
Cheating in amateur sports
Apr 2017