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.
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:
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 ... ",
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.you obviously weren't interested in reading the material
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 it wouldn't matter if I did ..."
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.and then proceeded to pronounce Landis guilty because he "... sure acted like he was guilty ..."
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.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.
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 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.
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.
By the way, how can you reconcile these two statements?
and: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.
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?As far as Landis is concerned I'm withholding judgment until I see what the arbitration committee presents.
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.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.
*In a non-criminal context, courts and arbitration panels simply deal in the world of liable and non-liable, and similar findings.
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.
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.
The Int'l Cycling Union is now considering granting amnesty to admitted dopers:
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.
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.
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
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.