Absence of previous proof of guilt is not proof of innocence. No smart doping doctor would employ a technology that was detectable, and from what we know of Lance, he sure wouldn't use it unless he was absolutely sure.
And, no, I don't need to prove it, the USADA does. And the only person currently standing in the way of proof being submitted is Lance. Google armstrong "fully consistent" "blood doping" and you'll see the USADA is widely reported as having this evidence. There's no doubt that they would bring it to court. And how would they convince 10 ex-teammates to testify against him if it wasn't true? Why would 10 different cyclists all decide now's the time to make up a story, if it meant their victories were also nullified?
If you want evidence, pressure him, not me. It's his legacy that's at stake here.
I've got all of his books, have followed him since forever, still have his victories on tape. I'd love, love for him to be innocent.
>>Absence of previous proof of guilt is not proof of innocence.
Or in other words guilty unless proven innocent?? Sorry I don't think how standard justice system works any where in the whole world.
>>No smart doping doctor would employ a technology that was detectable, and from what we know of Lance, he sure wouldn't use it unless he was absolutely sure.
So we first totally convince ourselves that he is a cheat and then set up a game totally designed to prove that. Again presumption of guilt is not compatible with natural justice.
>>and you'll see the USADA is widely reported as having this evidence.
This is like person A accusing person B of being a thief. When asked to provide the proof- person A says he won't. But rather we must first decide that B is actually a thief and must prove his innocence other wise he is guilty by default.
I don't think his legacy is at stake here. It was clear that if USADA had any proof they would not be holding it since past 3-4 years.
>>>>Absence of previous proof of guilt is not proof of innocence.
>>Or in other words guilty unless proven innocent??
Would you not put words in my mouth, please? Here are the facts:
1) You can't prove innocence, you can only prove guilt. 100 tests that fail to prove guilt do not prove innocence. That does not make him guilty, that just means the burden of proof is still on the accusers.
2) They say they will bring forth evidence that proves guilt. Their case rests on 10+ witnesses and blood tests.
3) He's stopping the process, which prevents them from submitting the evidence.
4) His current behaviour is not consistent with his previous behaviour. He's never given up without a fight before.
>>You can't prove innocence, you can only prove guilt. 100 tests that fail to prove guilt do not prove innocence.
Sorry you can. A person is either innocent or guilty. Never both. So as long you don't prove him guilty he continues to remain innocent.
>>They say they will bring forth evidence that proves guilt. Their case rests on 10+ witnesses and blood tests.
'They' should! Seriously. What are they waiting for, from the past 3-4 years?
>>He's stopping the process, which prevents them from submitting the evidence.
No body is stopping anything. All they have to do is give out their proof in open which can be validated.
>>His current behaviour is not consistent with his previous behaviour. He's never given up without a fight before.
That basically happens when you torture and trouble a person for years without proof, the person realizes that the other side has gamed the system to beat him hence playing more only means legitimizing their staged game.
So as long you don't prove him guilty he continues to remain innocent.
In a legal sense this is true under most jurisdictions, but it isn't true in any absolute sense. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that
Comments
Absence of previous proof of guilt is not proof of innocence. No smart doping doctor would employ a technology that was detectable, and from what we know of Lance, he sure wouldn't use it unless he was absolutely sure.
And, no, I don't need to prove it, the USADA does. And the only person currently standing in the way of proof being submitted is Lance. Google armstrong "fully consistent" "blood doping" and you'll see the USADA is widely reported as having this evidence. There's no doubt that they would bring it to court. And how would they convince 10 ex-teammates to testify against him if it wasn't true? Why would 10 different cyclists all decide now's the time to make up a story, if it meant their victories were also nullified?
If you want evidence, pressure him, not me. It's his legacy that's at stake here.
I've got all of his books, have followed him since forever, still have his victories on tape. I'd love, love for him to be innocent.
>>Absence of previous proof of guilt is not proof of innocence.
Or in other words guilty unless proven innocent?? Sorry I don't think how standard justice system works any where in the whole world.
>>No smart doping doctor would employ a technology that was detectable, and from what we know of Lance, he sure wouldn't use it unless he was absolutely sure.
So we first totally convince ourselves that he is a cheat and then set up a game totally designed to prove that. Again presumption of guilt is not compatible with natural justice.
>>and you'll see the USADA is widely reported as having this evidence.
This is like person A accusing person B of being a thief. When asked to provide the proof- person A says he won't. But rather we must first decide that B is actually a thief and must prove his innocence other wise he is guilty by default.
I don't think his legacy is at stake here. It was clear that if USADA had any proof they would not be holding it since past 3-4 years.
>>>>Absence of previous proof of guilt is not proof of innocence.
>>Or in other words guilty unless proven innocent??
Would you not put words in my mouth, please? Here are the facts:
1) You can't prove innocence, you can only prove guilt. 100 tests that fail to prove guilt do not prove innocence. That does not make him guilty, that just means the burden of proof is still on the accusers.
2) They say they will bring forth evidence that proves guilt. Their case rests on 10+ witnesses and blood tests.
3) He's stopping the process, which prevents them from submitting the evidence.
4) His current behaviour is not consistent with his previous behaviour. He's never given up without a fight before.
>>You can't prove innocence, you can only prove guilt. 100 tests that fail to prove guilt do not prove innocence.
Sorry you can. A person is either innocent or guilty. Never both. So as long you don't prove him guilty he continues to remain innocent.
>>They say they will bring forth evidence that proves guilt. Their case rests on 10+ witnesses and blood tests.
'They' should! Seriously. What are they waiting for, from the past 3-4 years?
>>He's stopping the process, which prevents them from submitting the evidence.
No body is stopping anything. All they have to do is give out their proof in open which can be validated.
>>His current behaviour is not consistent with his previous behaviour. He's never given up without a fight before.
That basically happens when you torture and trouble a person for years without proof, the person realizes that the other side has gamed the system to beat him hence playing more only means legitimizing their staged game.
So as long you don't prove him guilty he continues to remain innocent.
In a legal sense this is true under most jurisdictions, but it isn't true in any absolute sense. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that