Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Lance Armstrong

Posted Nov 1, '12 at 7:08pm

Devoidless

Devoidless

3,838 posts

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

Right! Because something being a crime automatically means that no one is ever going to do it. That clears things up pretty well.
 

Posted Nov 1, '12 at 9:34pm

VonHeisenbourg

VonHeisenbourg

379 posts

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.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSqsttOkAhAoI3U6M_eY__83GrqKx9rRda0TJDqsVo3l1Z9UjZOUw
 

Posted Nov 2, '12 at 9:03am

partydevil

partydevil

5,119 posts

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.
 

Posted Nov 2, '12 at 9:05am

partydevil

partydevil

5,119 posts

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.

 

Posted Nov 2, '12 at 4:37pm

VonHeisenbourg

VonHeisenbourg

379 posts

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.
 

Posted Nov 2, '12 at 4:40pm

VonHeisenbourg

VonHeisenbourg

379 posts

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.

 

Posted Nov 2, '12 at 4:49pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,260 posts

Knight

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?

 

Posted Nov 2, '12 at 5:06pm

VonHeisenbourg

VonHeisenbourg

379 posts

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.
 

Posted Nov 2, '12 at 5:23pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,260 posts

Knight

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.
 

Posted Nov 2, '12 at 7:34pm

VonHeisenbourg

VonHeisenbourg

379 posts

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 ;)
 
Reply to Lance Armstrong

You must be logged in to post a reply!