good it doesn't work like that.

Incorrect I think. If you're known for lying, withholding information, being bribed (and accepting them) and are not trusted by the FBI generally speaking (correct me if I'm wrong) a judge won't allow your testimony in his courtroom, or even if he does the defense's lawyer will tear you apart with ease.

Bribes? Conspiracy much? ;)

Not quite I was only going off what party said about the money aspect coming into play :D

Under the circumstances of the accusations their previous dishonesty and doping can be explained.

Indeed, but that goes both ways since there is certainly more than one explanation that can be used to explain their actions.

And now you're telling me that Armstrong, who beat all of them, did that without enhancement after a physically exhausting cure? Again, no proof fit for court, but c'mon man.

I'm saying this: "There is not enough evidence to determine his guilt. Thus according to the Canadian or American Constitution he is innocent until his guilt is proven.

So far all of your evidence has been circumstantial and controversial. You have no infallible evidence at all that he has doped. For these reasons I'm sure if Lance wanted to (which he has been recommended to) if he pursued this matter and appealed/entered a stage of arbitration I have no doubt he would win it.

P.S. I've never watched this guy race before and only vaguely heard of him before he became headline news. I'm only defending a guy I think to be innocent.

in court under oath you can't lie. that is a crime.

Incorrect I think. If you're known for lying, withholding information, being bribed (and accepting them) and are not trusted by the FBI generally speaking (correct me if I'm wrong) a judge won't allow your testimony in his courtroom, or even if he does the defense's lawyer will tear you apart with ease.

not where i live.
under oath we believe what they say.
if it turns out he lies (can be done in multiple ways) then the judge discards the testimony and send the interrogated to a other judge for prejury. then the interrogated gets jail for his crime.

"There is not enough evidence to determine his guilt. Thus according to the Canadian or American Constitution he is innocent until his guilt is proven.

can't agree more.
but there sure is something iffy. els it wouldn't be blown up so much that sponsors stop because they do not want to link their name whit the sport anymore. the sport is great, but the whole world around it sucks.

P.S. I've never watched this guy race before and only vaguely heard of him before he became headline news. I'm only defending a guy I think to be innocent.

if you did see him race and would have followed him a bit. then you knew that what he did was extraordinary and hard to imagion doing whitout some sort of steroids.

about that facepalm.. i could do the same whit you. instead i reply on t. so please reply on it. and not some silly pics.

not where i live.

And that is...?

Anyways I'm pretty sure that is wrong, if a witness is deemed unreliable generally speaking in most first world countries a judge won't allow their testimonies in court, and if they are allowed they would be easily made redundant or dismissed by the opposing lawyer.

under oath we believe what they say.

And since Lance Armstrong would say he is innocent under oath we must believe that, right?

And we could also believe these guys:

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20048066]

can't agree more.

If you can't agree more that the evidence leans towards innocent why are you even arguing with me?

but there sure is something iffy. els it wouldn't be blown up so much that sponsors stop because they do not want to link their name whit the sport anymore.

Nothing iffy or even semi-suspicious about this, sponsors are known to withdraw their support merely due to allegations and accusations. There never has been need of proof or conviction for sponsors to withdraw their support.

if you did see him race and would have followed him a bit. then you knew that what he did was extraordinary and hard to imagion doing whitout some sort of steroids.

That is definitely redundant and would not hold up in court. According to this logic any number of competitors in any number of sports should be guilty of "doping" if this were enough to put them away. Such as Usaine Bolt. The Burden of Proof is up to the Crown (prosecution) to prove. Controversial witnesses, baseless suspicions such as "hard to imagine" and allegations is no where close enough to gain a conviction of doping. Is this not all the "evidence" you have against Lance? Nothing infallible, all disputable and controversial???

Lance has witnesses supporting his claim of innocence (below link), he has passed hundreds (maybe a little less) of drug tests, the only time he failed them was when he had a doctors note, there is supposed to be a statute of limitations which seems to be ignored, and a legal principle called double jeopardy that is also ignored. Not that he even needs any evidence showing his innocence considering that there isn't even a "reverse onus" applied in this case (that is a Latin term for a person having to prove ones innocence). 

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20048066]

about that facepalm.. i could do the same whit you. instead i reply on t. so please reply on it. and not some silly pics.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 2,266,800 adults were incarcerated in U.S. federal and state prisons and county jails

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States]

I'm just curious how many of these people do you think plead not guilty in court? So we can effectively say millions upon millions of people have lied on oath. It is ridiculous to say we should trust what people say on oath. Sorry to have facepalmed you, but that is why.

Sorry that the links didn't work, but if you follow the html's of those links you should be able to go to the site.

You're argumenting from a strict judicial viewpoint.. "it's only a crime if you get caught", am I right? You made your point pretty clear that you think there is no evidence that can positively convict Lance. You may have a point, but the court obviously thought differently. How do you explain that?

How do you explain that?

Trial? What trial?

"No case filed in this court or any court in the United States would go to trial," under similar circumstances, Sparks said.

USADA general counsel Bill Bock countered that Armstrong's case isn't a matter for the legal courts, but is subject to the established rules of sports doping violations and arbitration.

There was no trial, according the the Federal government there is not enough evidence to go to court. You hear that, there is so little evidence that the U.S.A. wouldn't even bother wasting time and assets to go to court to determine if Lance is guilty or not. They see how silly the charges are and how there is no real proof.

USADA showed their "evidence" to the cycling union or company or w/e their official name is, the company/cycling club accepted it and banned Armstrong for life. Armstrong then refused to enter into a stage of arbitration or appeal because he says "these allegation have dogged me for to long and I just want them to end, one way or another". A statement I believe. There was no court and no trial to my knowledge. 

http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/8254727/judge-questions-usada-lance-armstrong-lawyers

You're argumenting from a strict judicial viewpoint..

You make it sound like a bad thing. I believe in the courts and their decisions. I have no reason not to. A judicial viewpoint is an unbiased one, ignoring all opinions and looking at the facts. That is the most important and least corrupt viewpoint in my opinion.

Trial? What trial?

No trial? Oh, I must have missed that. But then why that huge fuss if there wasn't even a trial? It's the cyclist company's decision to ban members or not. If Armstrong didn't want to resist, his fault.

You make it sound like a bad thing. I believe in the courts and their decisions. I have no reason not to. A judicial viewpoint is an unbiased one, ignoring all opinions and looking at the facts. That is the most important and least corrupt viewpoint in my opinion.

Though that also sometimes leads to executions of innocents or acquittals of reckless people because common sense was left aside.

Though that also sometimes leads to executions of innocents or acquittals of reckless people because common sense was left aside.

Can you prove that it is because common sense was left, and not that the guy was framed?

It is certainly a shame and a tragedy when this happens though.

But then why that huge fuss if there wasn't even a trial?

It's unconstitutional? And that he was actually innocent...

It's the cyclist company's decision to ban members or not.

Not if it's unconstitutional, then it really isn't...

If Armstrong didn't want to resist, his fault.

I suppose so, but haven't we been discussing he refusal to enter a phase of arbitration or appeal. We've been discussing his guilt or innocence haven't we?

No trial? Oh, I must have missed that.

Well the guy from that link did say no court would ever hear a trial with that sort of evidence.

Glad to enlighten you ;)

Anyways I'm pretty sure that is wrong, if a witness is deemed unreliable generally speaking in most first world countries a judge won't allow their testimonies in court,

the netherlands.
the International Court of Justice is under our controle. choosen because our system is 1 of the best.

And since Lance Armstrong would say he is innocent under oath we must believe that, right?
And we could also believe these guys:

(not going into this case. i'm speaking generally)
yes, and the duty is to figure out if there is something wrong whit it. and if so, figure out if the testimony could have know that. and if so, confront him and the judge whit your findings.
it's a longer progress then just saying they are unreliable.
a unreliable source are for example mental handicapped people. could be anything.
but a sane person should know not to lie. and has to pay for the crime if he does lie.

if neither can (dis)proof anything. then the judge can dismiss the case and not give any punishments.

If you can't agree more that the evidence leans towards innocent why are you even arguing with me?

i agree that everyone is innocent until proven different.
i do not agree that a sane person can be dismissed from court only because he was unreliable in the past. if he didn't learn back then, he should learn it this time. let him lie under oath. get your proof of his lies and send him to jail for it.

That is definitely redundant and would not hold up in court. According to this logic any number of competitors in any number of sports should be guilty of "doping" if this were enough to put them away. Such as Usaine Bolt.

ow yes, there sure is something iffy whit him aswell.
anyway i can't argue this when you have never seen him and actually don't know him at all. i can't give you examples because you dont know them.
(ow btw this wasn't mend to be a statement in court. i'm not that stupid)

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 2,266,800 adults were incarcerated in U.S. federal and state prisons and county jails

your even making less sense now.
this isn't a reason to facepalm on that quote.
try again plz.

I'm just curious how many of these people do you think plead not guilty in court? So we can effectively say millions upon millions of people have lied on oath. It is ridiculous to say we should trust what people say on oath. Sorry to have facepalmed you, but that is why.

i'm talking about the interrogated or ...hmm dunno the right english word for them atm (eyewitnesses and sutch) not the accused. when the accused lies they usually do not add prejury to the punishment because the other punishment is worse. or they simply forget it. but theoretically., yes they could add prejury to them all indeed.

Not if it's unconstitutional, then it really isn't...

1. france doesn't has your constitution.
2. they make the rules of the game. not the government.

if they believe he is guilty. then it is there good right to ban him and strip him of his titles. especially when the person in question does no longer want to defend himself.