Friday, May 27, 2011

In this Country you have an inalienable right to a Trial By the Media...

The New “abridged version” of the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution: In all criminal prosecutions involving Tour winners, the accused shall enjoy the right to a long long long drawn out pre-trial circus that may last for years, may not even result in a trial, and will be paid for by taxpayers monies, ...by a partial jury consisting of the Media and convicted dopers accompanied by public relations attorneys, ghost writers, and talk show hosts, ...and to be not be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation...etc...

I know that I shouldn’t be, I should be use to it by now...but once again I am both dismayed and distressed at how easily the simple masses can be manipulated by the mainstream media. The notion that a convicted full-on "tattle-tail" doper with well-documented psychological and substance abuse issues can go onto 60 Minutes, shed a tear or two and subsequently turn public opinion against an iconic cycling champion that has never been charged with any wrong doing during his long cycling career, speaks well to the ever increasing fragile nature of this democratic republic. I hope that I don’t have to point out to you that at this point in the matter, it is irrelevant if Lance did or did not use drugs to win all those Tours of France. For the record I have NOT seen Lance do drugs...

“Four legs good, two legs bhaddddd.”
“Tyler good, Lance bhaddd.”


The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred by the Latin Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty) is a FUNDAMENTAL legal right of the accused in a criminal trial. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to proof that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of remaining doubts, the accused is to be acquitted. This presumption is seen to stem from the Latin legal principle that ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies)...Source: Wikipedia.

Apart from the Trial by biased Media... 60 Minutes' public conviction of Lance is also based on simple faulty logic as exemplified below:


Charlie travels with a group of students to Wabasha, MN for the first time in their lives. They see 10 people, all of them children under the age of 14. Charlie asks a kid,"Any adults live here?" The kid says, "Almost everyone, nearly everyone, just about EVERYBODY that lives here is a kid." Charlie and his students return to Esko and report that there are no adult residents living in Wabasha. or....

The Non-cycling poorly informed, easily swayed public learns about systemic doping in professional cycling for the first time in their lives by watching Tyler Hamilton's heartfelt and tragic confession on 60 minutes last Sunday. Hamilton is portrayed as a victim of drugs and Lance is typed cast as the evil drug pusher. The American people return to their places of work and report that there are no " clean" professional cyclists. Lance Armstrong is a professional cyclist; so he is not clean. Lance is bad. Or...

Premise 1: Hamilton and Landis were professional bicycle racers and they hung out with Lance. Hamilton is nice.

Premise 2: Lance is a professional bike racer. Lance is mean.

Premise 3: Hamilton and Landis used illegal drugs and now they cry a lot because they had to use the drugs ‘cuz almost everybody else was using drugs. Lance even made Tyler use drugs, sorta...

Premise 4: Did I mention that Hamilton and Landis contend that most everybody in the sport used drugs, including Lance and that it makes them very sad to think about it now that they got caught (and Lance did not get caught). Did I mention that Lance is not nice to people that accuse him of being a doper or to Sheryl Crow or to LeMond.

Obvious Conclusion: Lance is guilty...Lance used drugs. Bad Lance. Bad Bad Lance and good, but poor Tyler...




19 comments:

  1. awesome, now Lance may have used them, but I need a bit more real proof other than tyler's opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am a slow, old cyclist but at some point in my life I could cycle with some fast riders. When I see that the Creme de la Creme of climbers is flying up a hill of Hors Categorie and then comes Lance from Behind and passes them at 100 mph. I don't believe it is feasible. I don't believe it is feasible to win 7 tours in a row without any "Bad" days. I have my doubts. I really do.
    Ari

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ari: The same could be said of Michael Jordon, Wayne Gretzky, Tiger Woods, Einstein, Hemingway, and a few other incredibly, extraordinary gifted athletes/intellectuals/writers...I got to watch Gretzky play in a big game back in the day...it was like watching boyz playing against a MAN. The point is that Lance's past accomplishments should not hinge on the testimony of two criminal informants...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Buffington is the new Armstrong!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here is another point...
    Premise 1: According the Convicted Ones: all the top guyz in the Tour are using drugs.
    Premise 2: So that means a level playing field...

    Conclusion: Lance is just that much better...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Level playing field? Hardly. It's whoever has the best doctors and the best doping program. Look how many got caught after they left US Postal? Landis, Roberto Heras, Hamilton. It's a lot harder when you're doing it yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Life is so simple, so black and white, so American Idol-esque...Whoever has the best drugs can win the Tour. Lance is not only the world's best Roadie...He is also the Worlds's Best Doper and has the World's Best Team of Doper Doctors...and best at setting up Cancer Research Centers...$400 Million so far given to Cancer Research...My wife, who knows about this stuff, sez EPO is EPO...but maybe I am wrong about this...Maybe Lance has EPOX2...I think Mozart was in drugs cuz he was way better than anybody else...So classic...Judge, Jury, Sentence...all based on hearsay and on the testimony of busted dopers...I think Obama's on drugs cuz hez way smarter than I'll ever be...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Quite possibly the biggest transgression Mr. Armstrong has made is taking advantage of the naive who have made such an emotional investment in him. This is going to be awfully, awfully painful as it plays out.

    BTW: What will the smear be for George Hincapie? A bit difficult to label him a jealous malcontent, no?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Melvin, you disappoint. I care nothing for Lance, my emotional investment is in the legal process that has allowed this country to progress beyond the kangaroo courts of yesteryear (Aka Red Scare & McCarthyism, and the Southern Racists Courts, etc.etc.etc.). The only pain that I will potentially feel is if Lance is NOT afforded the protections he is entitled to as a US citizen. I wept not for Marion Jones...She was caught, convicted, and sentenced...If they justly convict Lance in a court of law, he will join the ranks of the other dopers...Hincapie has responded appropriately to the legal protocols as dictated by this thing we have called the Rule of Law. He is NOT talking to the press and he has NOT been busted as a doper...I think it is "naive" to believe without critical skepticism what Tyler and a couple of the other dopers are "alledging." Itz called the Prisoner's Dilemma: Cops say--"Tyler, we will cut you a deal if you help us bring down the BIG FISH." As stated above,I care liitle if Lance is a doper. I think all roadies, hedge-fund managers, and politicans are suspect..I care only that proper legal procedures are followed. I thought I made that clear in my post. What I find outrageous is how quickly we turn on people based on the testimony of guyz that are not honorable people. Note: I'll bet ya a case of Bell's Kalamazoo Stout that the Feds won't have enough to take it to trial!!!
    Charlie

    ReplyDelete
  10. Circumstantial evidence, eye witness testimony. Many have been executed after being found guilty with less damming testimony. Those pursuing Lance feel he didn't just cheat, but became very wealthy by cheating. USPS monies used makes that a very serious crime that the authorities have to investigate. Bummer for the sport, but it's image has to be cleaned up.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Whether or not Lancy Pants goes to trial may have more to do with whether Trek, Livestrong, or the International Cycling Union wants him too...a ton of poo would hit the fan that's for darn sure.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sadly, Charlie, many of us have been saying these things for years as Armstrong's machine has smeared anyone who dared say an unkind word about the man. Had he behaved otherwise, I might be able to muster some sympathy. Alas, he's earned none. He's built an empire upon a lie and it will be his inevitable undoing.

    You can keep parroting the remark that's it's only confirmed dopers speaking out, but Hincapie has never tested positive and Pharmstrong has previously described him as a "stand-up guy." Ouch. Plus, there's yet another unnamed ex-teammate who has never tested positive who testified.

    The problem is that he entrusted his secrets with guys who aren't half as tough as he is. And they will crack. And they have cracked.

    "Neck deep in the big muddy and the big fool says to move on..."

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thank God for the Rule of Law. As far as I know there is no law against being arrogant or being the very best at what you do. Many called Galileo and Newton heretics and their works were stifled. Luckily here we have societal structures to protect the individual from the easily swayed mob mentality. Did you see that Switzerland is suing Landis for libel? The rest of the "educated" world cannot believe how we attack our own....Only in America!!! Again Hincapie has not spoken to the press...Maybe he told the Feds that Lance was not a doper? Unless you have George's confidence...how would you know? Also, If I was neck deep in a mud hole I would say move on...What would you say? Confused by your quote?
    C

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sorry Melvin...Your last comment have been deleted...I think Lance was some how involved :)Plus Google has heard from reliable sources that you have used drugs in the past.....

    ReplyDelete
  16. Some interesting comments here about what others are saying about Lance. I would like to come at this from a different angle. I think he probably did dope. Not because of all the people coming out and saying he did, but because of what Lance himself has not said. To win the Tour 7 times you pretty much have to be one of the most if not THE most competitive person on earth. Second is not an option. Now your telling me that a guy that competitive and clean has all this doping going on around him including on his own team and he says nothing. Look at the spectacle Lemond has made of himself throwing around doping allegations. I realize pretty much all top level sports have a code of silence but I just find it hard to believe he himself could keep his mouth shut all this time.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Agreed...he may have doped, probably did dope, I know that I would have doped had I been at that level (certainly if my buddies were all doping), but he was a darn smart doper if he was a doper. He beat the system...My simple point has always been that he should be afforded protections under the Constitution; the same protections we all get. That we should NOT convict based solely on what other dopers say...Plus I loath tattle-tails..Hamilton and Landis are NOT whistle blowers, they are malcontented tattle-tails. We use to beat up the tattle-tails back in primary school.
    Charlie

    ReplyDelete
  18. Charlie, I haven't written anything profane nor personal. When people begin deleting comments like mine, it reveals the barren position of the person doing the deleting.

    Your denial of any emotional investment in this issue is belied by your actions. Instead of deleting legitimate objections to your points, refute them.

    You continue to base your objections upon the usual explanation: "Persons A, B & C are jealous malcontents." Numerous, reputable media outlets have confirmed that Hincapie testified that he witnessed "Lance" doping. Hincapie never registered a positive test. (I guess that makes him "smart" too) "Lance" has also heaped praise upon Hincapie's character in the past. Hincapie is not only still respected, moderately successful rider, but also a businessman with little motive to smear "Lance" with lies.

    There will be others, by the way, who will testify and who will be difficult to smear with the usual "he's a jealous malcontent" garbage.

    Taking all that into account, I see it's now on to a new position: "Well, he may have doped, but he was a 'smart' doper." Ah, yes, so even in his deceit, we should admire his wily ability to outwit the coppers. Rather than attributing it to intelligence, the more likely explanation is that the better-funded riders on the better-funded teams are better able to evade detection. Shall I list some of the greats of the last few decades who've admitted to doping and never registered a positive? Observe the status of most of the riders who do get busted.

    BTW, were you this strenuous in defending Marco Pantani when he was pursued for years, even after suspension for being a fraction above the haematocrit threshhold? After all, you have to be a massive competitor to do the double, as he did in '98.

    Did "Lance" ever do the double?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Melvin: The delete was me trying to funny...The debate was fun but now it is time to move on. Big Race coming up this Saturday. Best regards,
    C

    ReplyDelete

Comments?