Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 76
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    Ah. Back to the welcoming arms of DBR, where a simple answer to the question, "how many people think Landis is guilty" is met with a condescending and belittling post from someone who thinks he's an expert, and wishes the unwashed masses wouldn't mess up his nice little thread. It is nice to have a reminder of one of the reasons that the boards are so much less interesting than they were 5 years ago. Thank you, hughgs.

    I've probably already spent too much time responding to your pot shot, but would you care to share whether you think he's guilty or not? And why? I'm not asking whether you think that the burden of proof has been satisfied. The arbitration panel can decide that.

    I'm asking you whether you think that Landis is telling the truth.

    Call me naive all you want, but in everyday situations, when I'm trying to figure out if someone is telling the truth, I look at their actions. Someone who starts spouting excuses that make no sense immediately after being accused of cheating is, well, acting like they cheated. And someone who sits by idly (at best) while a key member of their team engages in the most despicable type of intimidation is, well, acting like they cheated. How would you characterize those actions, hughgs?
    It makes no difference whether Landis is guilty or not, only he knows that and no amount of debating will change that fact. The real question should be, and I've alluded to this above, is whether the arbitration panel thinks he has shifted the burden of proof.

    The reason I took issue with your post is that you made it seem that you hadn't read any of the posts "I haven't this closely ... ", you obviously weren't interested in reading the material "... and it wouldn't matter if I did ..." and then proceeded to pronounce Landis guilty because he "... sure acted like he was guilty ..." You then quashed further debate by insinuating that you wouldn't even bother to look at the material that was presented "... and absent further evidence ...". So, there innumerable articles on the trial but you make it quite clear that you aren't interested in reading the material but will decide guilt based on your feeling. That to me is naive.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by hughgs View Post
    It makes no difference whether Landis is guilty or not, only he knows that and no amount of debating will change that fact. The real question should be, and I've alluded to this above, is whether the arbitration panel thinks he has shifted the burden of proof.
    It seems like your issue is with Jason, who asked the question, and not Cato who gave a response.

    Quote Originally Posted by hughgs View Post
    ...you obviously weren't interested in reading the material ... You then quashed further debate by insinuating that you wouldn't even bother to look at the material that was presented
    I guess Cato edited out those parts?

    Quote Originally Posted by hughgs View Post
    "... and absent further evidence ...". So, there innumerable articles on the trial but you make it quite clear that you aren't interested in reading the material but will decide guilt based on your feeling. That to me is naive.
    Do you think OJ is guilty?

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by hughgs View Post
    It makes no difference whether Landis is guilty or not, only he knows that and no amount of debating will change that fact.
    So, you don't have any opinion on whether he cheated?


    The reason I took issue with your post is that you made it seem that you hadn't read any of the posts "I haven't this closely ... ",
    To be clear, I read all of the posts, a number of articles, and have listened to chattering on the subject. So this is incorrect:

    you obviously weren't interested in reading the material
    However, while I have followed the topic, I have not followed it closely -- at least, not compared to people like (a) Mullet, who is passionate about cycling, and knowledgeable about the subject at hand, (b) you, also passionate about cycling, (c) Jason Evans, who closely follows something like 100 different subjects at any given time, and (d) Jim3K, who has obviously spent a lot of time on this subject.

    "... and it wouldn't matter if I did ..."
    Hey, I'm just a simple country lawyer. I have no technical background, and do not understand the science involved. I can't judge the value of the various experts' testimony. Besides, most of this information is being filtered through different journalists. I do not implictly trust journalists to get it right, or explain it in a way that I can understand.

    and then proceeded to pronounce Landis guilty because he "... sure acted like he was guilty ..."
    I did not pronounce the guy guilty; I shared by opinion. I'm neither judge nor jury, so am not bound by evidentiary standards or burdens of proof. My opinion will have no effect on whether or not Landis gets to keep his title, or is the first to be stripped of it.

    You then quashed further debate by insinuating that you wouldn't even bother to look at the material that was presented "... and absent further evidence ...". So, there innumerable articles on the trial but you make it quite clear that you aren't interested in reading the material but will decide guilt based on your feeling. That to me is naive.
    I didn't quash further debate. I noted the basis for my opinion, and specifically stated that I could change my opinion if additional information was presented. If anyone tried to quash debate, it was you, telling me to get off your nice little thread.

    By the way, you didn't answer my questions. What do you think about Landis' actions? You keep throwing around the word "naive", but in the real world you have to make decisions based on the information presented. Based on these sets of facts, do you think he's guilty or not? Did Landis act how you would expect an innocent man to act?

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham at heart
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    Hey, I'm just a simple country lawyer. I have no technical background, and do not understand the science involved. I can't judge the value of the various experts' testimony. Besides, most of this information is being filtered through different journalists. I do not implictly trust journalists to get it right, or explain it in a way that I can understand.
    Sorry... this just reminded me of The Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer from SNL.

    So I think that these last few responses are pretty interesting. I really don't think that the arbitration hearing changed anyone's opinion of what hapened. Now I haven't thought Landis' doped from about three days after the story broke... up until that point I wasn't sure... but all the last 10 days have done is shore up my beliefs that the science in the lab was horrendously flawed. Unfortunately, as George mentioned above, there are likely only a few people who know the real truth, and they will probably take it to thier graves. (Of course, I suppose Bjarne Riis thought that as well.)

    What's interesting to me is that the evidence or lack thereof in this case was never going to change anyone's opinion at this late stage (I mean hell, its almost been a year!). All this hearing was going to do was say whether or not USADA/WADA is able to follow procedures correctly in order to figure out if people are doping or not.

    I think Landis had it right though... the damage is done, and he is pretty much going to be through. He will never be able to race again. The only thing he's got left is the inevitable book deal. I hope he makes his money off that because sponsorships, etc. are out the window.
    WWJDD?

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by MulletMan View Post
    So I think that these last few responses are pretty interesting. I really don't think that the arbitration hearing changed anyone's opinion of what hapened.
    Actually, I was begining to think that Landis might have a point, that he was being railroaded . . . and then the LaMond thing came out. After that, you either have to believe that (1) Landis is a dirty bastard who will do anything to save his title, or (2) he deplored what happened, but stayed silent out of hope of saving the reputation of his friend. I find it very difficult to believe the second choice. Am I missing something here, Mullet?

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by gus View Post
    It seems like your issue is with Jason, who asked the question, and not Cato who gave a response.



    I guess Cato edited out those parts?



    Do you think OJ is guilty?
    No, my issue is with Cato's response and I think I have clearly stated what my reactions were to his entire post.

    And, I've thought quite a bit about the question of guilt or innocence lately. I've come to the conclusion that the judicial system isn't about actually finding guilt or innocence. Guilty is demonstrating that it is "very likely" (replace that phrase with your favorite legalese) that the person committed the crime. Innocence is not meeting that standard. And while there are always those circumstances where you have a film of someone robbing a store and he can be identified 100% I don't believe that those types of crimes are prevalent.

    And so, to bring this back on topic, the guilt or innocence of Landis is determined by whether one side has met the necessary burden of proof. Whether Landis is truly guilty or innocent we'll probably never know.

    For the record, at the time of the Simpson case I thought he was guilty. But, that was based on my naive understanding of the facts that were presented to the jury. As far as Landis is concerned I'm withholding judgment until I see what the arbitration committee presents.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by hughgs View Post
    No, my issue is with Cato's response and I think I have clearly stated what my reactions were to his entire post.
    So, you're standing by this: "How about posting something useful to the thread, rather than bogging it down with naive comments"? Classy.

    By the way, how can you reconcile these two statements?

    And, I've thought quite a bit about the question of guilt or innocence lately. I've come to the conclusion that the judicial system isn't about actually finding guilt or innocence.
    and:

    As far as Landis is concerned I'm withholding judgment until I see what the arbitration committee presents.
    If the judicial system isn't about actually finding guilt or innocence, why are you going to wait for their findings? Do you really not have any feelings one way or the other?

    Finally, here's something you might find useful. You are incorrect when you say:

    Guilty is demonstrating that it is "very likely" (replace that phrase with your favorite legalese) that the person committed the crime. Innocence is not meeting that standard.
    Courts are not in the business of pronouncing people innocent -- they merely decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty.* There is a big difference.




    *In a non-criminal context, courts and arbitration panels simply deal in the world of liable and non-liable, and similar findings.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by MulletMan View Post
    I really don't think that the arbitration hearing changed anyone's opinion of what happened.
    However, the near daily confessions from other riders are almost certainly swaying peoples opinions.

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    So, you don't have any opinion on whether he cheated?

    To be clear, I read all of the posts, a number of articles, and have listened to chattering on the subject. So this is incorrect:



    However, while I have followed the topic, I have not followed it closely -- at least, not compared to people like (a) Mullet, who is passionate about cycling, and knowledgeable about the subject at hand, (b) you, also passionate about cycling, (c) Jason Evans, who closely follows something like 100 different subjects at any given time, and (d) Jim3K, who has obviously spent a lot of time on this subject.



    Hey, I'm just a simple country lawyer. I have no technical background, and do not understand the science involved. I can't judge the value of the various experts' testimony. Besides, most of this information is being filtered through different journalists. I do not implictly trust journalists to get it right, or explain it in a way that I can understand.



    I did not pronounce the guy guilty; I shared by opinion. I'm neither judge nor jury, so am not bound by evidentiary standards or burdens of proof. My opinion will have no effect on whether or not Landis gets to keep his title, or is the first to be stripped of it.



    I didn't quash further debate. I noted the basis for my opinion, and specifically stated that I could change my opinion if additional information was presented. If anyone tried to quash debate, it was you, telling me to get off your nice little thread.

    By the way, you didn't answer my questions. What do you think about Landis' actions? You keep throwing around the word "naive", but in the real world you have to make decisions based on the information presented. Based on these sets of facts, do you think he's guilty or not? Did Landis act how you would expect an innocent man to act?
    So, you'll change your opinion "... if additional information was presented ...", but you're going to ignore the information that was presented at the arbitration panel because you don't understand it or you don't trust it. How does that view further the debate? That's my problem with your initial post and I don't see where you've addressed that here. It's fine if that's what you want to do and think, I'm not your wife/SO, but it seems that following that line of reasoning doesn't allow anyone to ask questions about your opinions. And that quashes debate.

    I've given my opinion on Landis' guilt or innocence below. I'd prefer to answer any questions about that there. I'm having a hard enough time trying to keep things straight as it is. If you want to cut and paste the last paragraph there I would be more than happy to answer any questions or contradictions that you see.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    So, you're standing by this: "How about posting something useful to the thread, rather than bogging it down with naive comments"? Classy.

    By the way, how can you reconcile these two statements?



    and:



    If the judicial system isn't about actually finding guilt or innocence, why are you going to wait for their findings? Do you really not have any feelings one way or the other?

    Finally, here's something you might find useful. You are incorrect when you say:



    Courts are not in the business of pronouncing people innocent -- they merely decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty.* There is a big difference.




    *In a non-criminal context, courts and arbitration panels simply deal in the world of liable and non-liable, and similar findings.
    I have no feelings either way about Landis. If he's guilty I'm not going to stop riding my bike, and if he's innocent then I'm not going to buy a ton Phonak stuff. His guilt or innocence has no bearing on my life other than it's in a sport I follow.

    As far as the guilty or not guilty statement. You've taken my words a bit out of context. I stated that it was my conclusion and (hopefully) did not present it as a fact. Besides all you've done is substitute "not guilty" for innocent. Maybe in a strictly legal sense you're correct, but I didn't present my conclusions as a legal argument or myself as a legal expert. Since I don't expect to spend any time in court arguing with a judge about guilt or innocence I suspect that I can freely interchange the words.

    Sorry I couldn't intersperse our comments. I realize that may make things hard to follow, but hopefully you can see which statements I'm answering.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Lexington, KY

    Grant them amnesty

    The Int'l Cycling Union is now considering granting amnesty to admitted dopers:
    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200....ap/index.html

    Cheers,
    Lavabe

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Lavabe View Post
    The Int'l Cycling Union is now considering granting amnesty to admitted dopers:
    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200....ap/index.html

    Cheers,
    Lavabe
    I'm kind of torn with this decision. First, off what does it really buy anyone? It's a given that most people think that doping was pervasive in the past, so this decision would only affect current cyclist. Then, what would admitting that you doped in a previous really do for you? Would it stop other cyclists from doping? What about the results (and money) from those races in which cyclists admit to doping? I just don't see it changing anything.

    Another issue is if you have an amnesty, does this mean that those with positive tests would be punished more? Until we see what the Landis arbitration committee says I'm not sure that the confidence in the laboratories are high enough to be accepted by cyclists.

    On the other hand, I'm all for admitting one's mistakes and suffering the consequences. Thanks for posting the news.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham at heart
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    Actually, I was begining to think that Landis might have a point, that he was being railroaded . . . and then the LaMond thing came out. After that, you either have to believe that (1) Landis is a dirty bastard who will do anything to save his title, or (2) he deplored what happened, but stayed silent out of hope of saving the reputation of his friend. I find it very difficult to believe the second choice. Am I missing something here, Mullet?
    Sorry, I haven't looked at this thread in a while. Knowing what I know of Landis' upbringing and background, I find it hard to believe that he was fully in the know about that call. And by that I mean that he knew what had been said. Perhaps he wanted to save his friend's hide, but in reality, I feel like he'd have cut him loose if he really knew everythign that had been said. Maybe not. Maybe he is a dirty bastard, and maybe he did dope.

    Or maybe the French were so f888ing ticked that they never got Lance that they figured Landis was the next best thing.

    Here's my problem... eventhough there seem to be inconsistencies with Landis' story, there is no doubt in my mnd that the lab screwed with the test results. They didn't follow the protocols, there's significant differences in the samples from test to test, and MDs can't even figure how one by-product can be so elevated while others are not... this also varying from sample to sample. The science is so bad that it seems to tell me that he DIDN'T use testosterone.

    Now... something else? We'll never know. Ever.
    WWJDD?

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by hughgs View Post
    It makes no difference whether Landis is guilty or not, only he knows that and no amount of debating will change that fact.
    No more ducking it: Landis was a cheat.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    No more ducking it: Landis was a cheat.
    Simple country lawyer my donkey. You're Paul Ekman, aren't you?

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Lewisville, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    No more ducking it: Landis was a cheat.
    How much credence do we give his accusations about others? He could be right, but Floyd's level of credibility ain't much these days.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of sports teams that disappoint in the playoffs
    Quote Originally Posted by roywhite View Post
    How much credence do we give his accusations about others? He could be right, but Floyd's level of credibility ain't much these days.
    The International Cycling governing body (whatever they are called, I forget) is dismissing him and saying his accusations have no evidence and no cred.

    --Jason "I have a hard time trusting him now after how hard he protested his innocence" Evans
    Don't ask me why, but my mother is making me Tweet. Says it will be good for my career. So, follow my ramblings, mostly on the film industry, @TVFilmTalk

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    The International Cycling governing body (whatever they are called, I forget) is dismissing him and saying his accusations have no evidence and no cred.

    --Jason "I have a hard time trusting him now after how hard he protested his innocence" Evans
    This all reeks of someone who is broke and has a book coming out...... just saying.

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    The International Cycling governing body (whatever they are called, I forget) is dismissing him and saying his accusations have no evidence and no cred.

    --Jason "I have a hard time trusting him now after how hard he protested his innocence" Evans
    My guess is that given the rumblings over the years, he is probably correct. However, like everyone else, a cyclist is innocent until proven guilty. Lance hasn't failed a test, so it's all just idle speculation.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Quote Originally Posted by roywhite View Post
    How much credence do we give his accusations about others? He could be right, but Floyd's level of credibility ain't much these days.
    Well, people can choose to believe one of the following:

    1. One guy in an entire sport known for rule breaking and bending acted alone.
    2. One guy gets all the headlines, but is just an example of a greater problem.

    I see competitive cycling, like baseball, in a weird limbo state right now because fan enjoyment is tempered with a deep distrust. Maybe one problem is that the rapid advancement of medicine conflicts with the (legal-oriented) slow process of rule making. Where does a sport stand when it makes the most sense to redefine the concept of purity?

    Oh, and I'm not excusing Floyd Landis in any of this. Maybe his allegations are true, but he doesn't deserve to be believed.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 184
    Last Post: 07-16-2008, 04:50 PM
  2. Cycling Advice
    By Exiled_Devil in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-06-2008, 10:53 PM
  3. Drug testing in NASCAR?
    By Bluedawg in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-12-2008, 09:33 AM
  4. Tim Floyd/O.J. Mayo
    By CMS2478 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 12-08-2007, 09:44 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •