Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Lance Armstrong

Posted Nov 2, '12 at 10:27pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,109 posts

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.

 

Posted Nov 2, '12 at 11:14pm

VonHeisenbourg

VonHeisenbourg

215 posts

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

I have nothing to say to this. I don't mean that to be rude, I just have no real comment that relates to that except you can't compare Netherland laws and Constitution with American/French laws and Constitutions.

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.

I disagree with this, if a person is known to be unreliable due to past actions they should not be allowed to state their testimony in court and possibly ruin a mans life if you're known to be unreliable. Until you gain your reliability and trust ability back your testimony should be dismissed as it usually is in court. I wholeheartedly disapprove of that legal principle that you just said. Is that actually a thing the judges do in Netherlands?

i do not agree that a sane person can be dismissed from court only because he was unreliable in the past.

I simply have to disagree. I don't believe in believing people who are known for being corrupt, liars, bribe accepting etc...

(ow btw this wasn't mend to be a statement in court. i'm not that stupid)

You do realize I argue from a strictly judicial point of view don't you? So if something isn't going to be used in court, it probably shouldn't be mentioned, otherwise I just disregard it. I say this because we are arguing a mans innocence or guilt. When doing this the point of view has to be judicial. Not hunches and opinions such "I saw this man run unbelievably fast, therefore he must be doping!" Do you really think I'll even consider that and think it as a reason to consider Armstrong guilty?

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

Here is what I am saying, I'll try again to see if you can understand it via other terms.

Millions upon millions of criminals go to court every year. Millions of these men and women plead not guilty. Therefore it stands to reason that many of these (except the few that are exonerated) lied under oath.

You said to believe what someone says under oath. If everyone believed what everyone said under oath (including the prosecution, defense, and jury) all these men should be immediately released, because everyone would consider them innocent. No point in continuing the trial since everyone believes the accused is innocent because he said so.

What I am saying is to not believe everyone's testimonies, especially those known for having a notorious nature. Since they are more likely to lie especially in these circumstances (concerning Armstrong) since they lied and been notorious previously in similar circumstances.

1. france doesn't has your constitution.

1. I'm not American, I'm Canadian so don't say your Constitution.
2. The jurisdiction of this case was heavily disputed. It was determined that either the cycling company (is company the right word?) or American Court system has the most jurisdiction, not France, therefore the American Constitution does indeed matter and the French one proves meaningless in this situation.

2. they make the rules of the game. not the government.

Constitutions and Charter of Rights and Freedoms make the rules of the game, not France nor the Cycling Company.

if they believe he is guilty. then it is there good right to ban him and strip him of his titles.

A baseless, evidence-less belief does not give someone the right to ban Lance Armstrong of his titles. If Lance filed an appeal or entered a stage of Arbitration or any legal pursuit I have no doubt he would have won. In fact the legality of the USADA procedure to convict Lance is VERY questionable, something top lawyers agree with that it is unconstitutional and unlawful. This whole case by USADA is very illegitimate and ignored legal circles and principles.

A lawyer in the below link even said and I quote "A sports lawyer based in Switzerland, Alexis Schloeb, commented: “We've not got a classic anti-doping procedure but an Armstrong procedure."

You may want to read this, or other articles I have link

 

Posted Nov 3, '12 at 5:47am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,070 posts

Knight

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

How exactly is it unconstitutional? And his innocence, though possibly not completely to be discarded, is anything but clear, so don't say "actually innocent".

 

Posted Nov 3, '12 at 10:20am

partydevil

partydevil

5,109 posts

Is that actually a thing the judges do in Netherlands?

it's not the job of the judge but the advocates. but if the judge makes that conclusion/finding proof by himself he ofcourse will confront the testimony whit it.
short: yes

I simply have to disagree. I don't believe in believing people who are known for being corrupt, liars, bribe accepting etc...

get proof for the lie and let him pay for his crime. that is justice. what you do is prejudice.
just like you defense for armstrong. "innocent until proven otherwise"
we do also for the testimony.
people can come clean for multiply personal reasons. if you simply discard them. you might not get valuable info.

You do realize I argue from a strictly judicial point of view don't you?

as i said, im not going into the case of armstrong. anything i say about the case holds no ground.

You said to believe what someone says under oath. If everyone believed what everyone said under oath (including the prosecution, defense, and jury) all these men should be immediately released, because everyone would consider them innocent. No point in continuing the trial since everyone believes the accused is innocent because he said so.

believe until proven otherwise. if the court doesn't has anything on him to say he is guilty he go's free and we have to believe him.
is there proof he is guilty then he has lied and gets a punishment.
it's as simple as that, by the same rule you advocate. "innocent until proven different"

1. I'm not American, I'm Canadian so don't say your Constitution

still france doesn't has your constitution.

2. The jurisdiction of this case was heavily disputed. It was determined that either the cycling company (is company the right word?) or American Court system has the most jurisdiction, not France, therefore the American Constitution does indeed matter and the French one proves meaningless in this situation.

the cycling company (organization ;) ) is france right?
then we have to look at the constitution of france to check if they can do this. and i think they can. if it would be dutch i'm almost sure they could.

Constitutions and Charter of Rights and Freedoms make the rules of the game

thats a different game. stripping someone from it's title he earned from a sport event isn't something the government should care about. let alone constitutional.
it's the work of the company.

 

Posted Nov 3, '12 at 2:53pm

VonHeisenbourg

VonHeisenbourg

215 posts

How exactly is it unconstitutional?

Breaking laws, ignoring legal principles, ignoring the statute of limitations, double jeopardy, assuming he is guilty without proper proof. All that is unconstitutional...

And his innocence, though possibly not completely to be discarded, is anything but clear, so don't say "actually innocent".

There wasn't enough proof to even go to court... So... I'm going to go out on a limb and say he is likely to be innocent instead of "actually innocent".

it's not the job of the judge but the advocates. but if the judge makes that conclusion/finding proof by himself he ofcourse will confront the testimony whit it.
short: yes

get proof for the lie and let him pay for his crime. that is justice. what you do is prejudice.
just like you defense for armstrong. "innocent until proven otherwise"
we do also for the testimony.
people can come clean for multiply personal reasons. if you simply discard them. you might not get valuable info.

believe until proven otherwise. if the court doesn't has anything on him to say he is guilty he go's free and we have to believe him.
is there proof he is guilty then he has lied and gets a punishment.
it's as simple as that, by the same rule you advocate. "innocent until proven different"

All I have to say to that is I disapprove of that concept in the Netherlands for aforementioned reasons. No point in saying them again because that would only create in circle in this discussion.

as i said, im not going into the case of armstrong. anything i say about the case holds no ground.

I don't know how to reply to someone that says "I know everything I say holds no grounds, but this Lance guy is still innocent".

still france doesn't has your constitution.

I'm not well enough informed on the French constitution, but I'm willing to bet it is similar to the Canadian or even American constitution.

the cycling company (organization ;) ) is france right?

USADA is American though :D US in USADA stands for United States Anti-Doping Association. Therefore it falls upon the American constitution not French constitution to determine is what USADA did was legal. The American courts decided to say something like "the jurisdiction in this case is to confusing therefore we are not going to do anything about the unlaw, and unconstitutional procedure of USADA, however you may (Armstrong) appeal their (the cycling organizations) decision or enter into a stage of arbitration in Switzerland." So even now the French constitution doesn't matter, but instead the Switzerland one does LOL.

thats a different game. stripping someone from it's title he earned from a sport event isn't something the government should care about. let alone constitutional.
it's the work of the company.

Incorrect, everything relates to a countries constitutional, all companies have to follow it. They can't ignore government laws MUCH LESS the constitution. It is not the work of the company...

 

Posted Nov 3, '12 at 2:57pm

VonHeisenbourg

VonHeisenbourg

215 posts

Correction *arguing your points on whether or not to allow an untrustworthy man to testify would only lead to circular arguments, nothing new would be said, thus I shall not repeat myself. We simply have to disagree on that matter.

 

Posted Nov 3, '12 at 3:21pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,109 posts

"I know everything I say holds no grounds, but this Lance guy is still innocent".

if you look back at page 1 you see that i do not say he is guilty or innocent. but that i go whit what the final rapport is going to say.
all i say about the case is mend as a example in the discussin we have or to break the tension (what didn't work as it seems you take it highly)

I'm not well enough informed on the French constitution, but I'm willing to bet it is similar to the Canadian or even American constitution.

wouldn't you have made that same bet whit the dutch last week?
i don't know their constitution either but i know in ours the company could.

USADA stands for United States Anti-Doping Association.

they do not organize the tour le france. they can't strip him of his titles.
it's a anti-doping organization. they probably do more then just the cycling. but the do not organize any sport event.
we are talking about 2 different organizations here.

Incorrect, everything relates to a countries constitutional, all companies have to follow it. They can't ignore government laws MUCH LESS the constitution. It is not the work of the company...

just 1 question.
is the constitution like a holy scripture for you?

 

Posted Nov 3, '12 at 3:56pm

VonHeisenbourg

VonHeisenbourg

215 posts

if you look back at page 1 you see that i do not say he is guilty or innocent. but that i go whit what the final rapport is going to say.

The six pages of arguing with me on this matter must of confused me and made me forget that you did not say he is guilty or innocent.

all i say about the case is mend as a example in the discussin we have or to break the tension (what didn't work as it seems you take it highly)

Oh... I didn't know there was tension between us =.= I thought this was just one long discussion.

By the way I'm not sure what you mean when you say you take it highly

wouldn't you have made that same bet whit the dutch last week?

No because some of my ancestors are from France and I know a little bit about the French culture and society. I know nothing about the Dutch.

they do not organize the tour le france. they can't strip him of his titles.

Tour de France, not le. Le means the and de means of.

However you're right that the USADA can't strip him of his titles, however it was their statements and "evidence" that got him stripped of it. If the American Federal government wanted to they could have stopped this sad excuse of an "investigation" and deemed it as unlawful and unconstitutional, thus stopping USADA from submitting it to the cycling organization and if it had been deemed as such by the Federal government the cycling group wouldn't of banned and stripped Lance of his titles. If the Federal Government claimed this under their jurisdiction (which they could have) the cycling committee (I think) have said they would have respected that and thrown aside the allegations by USADA and let Lance keep his titles and not ban him.

It said that in the news... and the articles I linked for you.

just 1 question.
is the constitution like a holy scripture for you?

Well just to let you know Canada has a thing called "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" not a constitution, but yea, by whatever name you want to call it I suppose I would consider it a "holy scripture". In North America (excluding perhaps Mexico) everything any company or person or anything at all does has to follow our Charter or in America it has to follow the constitution.

Wouldn't you consider a constitution or charter a "holy scripture" and should be followed to the letter?

 

Posted Nov 3, '12 at 4:05pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,070 posts

Knight

Breaking laws, ignoring legal principles, ignoring the statute of limitations, double jeopardy, assuming he is guilty without proper proof. All that is unconstitutional...

Would have been in court.. however, if an organisation decides to dump one of their participants and said participant doesn't sue them, you cannot really blame them.

There wasn't enough proof to even go to court... So... I'm going to go out on a limb and say he is likely to be innocent instead of "actually innocent".

From a strict judicial point of view, I think I can agree with that. Now, knowing what doping moor the TdF is and how he cycled, is another matter altogether, but we've gone through that already.

 

Posted Nov 3, '12 at 4:39pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,109 posts

Well just to let you know Canada has a thing called "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" not a constitution,

name is different but it basicly is the same.
it's the foundation from where law are created and formed in your country.
anyway.. this is where we differ. a constitution isn't holy for me. it is just a guideline. i should be flexible and not static.

It said that in the news... and the articles I linked for you.

1 organization is not allowed to give info to a other organization anymore?
danm my whole business is illegal instandly. =o

 
Reply to Lance Armstrong

You must be logged in to post a reply!