Sorry Saga - “It’s actually quite funny people thinking they know more than they actually do”


#3036

Ok. But isn’t the critical difference that in sports doping you can be found guilty in the absence of a positive test; thats what happened to Lance Armstrong and the banned EFC players.

My understanding is a different onus on proof was applied by the AFL tribunal. But that didn’t preclude the anti-doping bodies applying the worldwide standards.

No double jeopardy applies between the sports governing bodys decision and the ASADA.

Or am i misding something here.


#3037

Lance Armstrong teammate had a positive and rolled over. Then George Hincape and at least 2 others admitted guilt and cooperated in divulging what they knew while they were US Postal.


#3038

The US applied a standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt to Armstrong . In three earlier CAS cases not involving positive tests CAS applied a standard of proof close to that ( and two of them involved whistleblowers).
The standard of proof applied to the E34 was exceedingly low and inconsistent with CAS jurisprudence.
The evidentiary tests were abysmal, including the ascription of ulterior motives to statements which , if benchmarked against statements commonly made in society , would not have credence as evidence. There is also the doctoring of evidence by the likes of Clothier and Haddad, which was exposed in part in the Federal Court proceedings.
Clothier got his reward as the IAAF integrity officer. Haddad, who had been involved in the AFL bringing down Dean Bailey, is still at the AFL, still in the so-called integrity area.


#3039

The crucial difference seems to be that in sports doping you can be found guilty without evidence.
And, yes, it would seem that you’re missing a few things.


#3040

That’s not true.

The only reason he never tested positive was because he got doctor/s to back date prescriptions, paid people off, etc, etc.


#3041

Those links seem to back up that he was charged with use of banned substances but not on the basis of positive test.

The revelation about falsified/backdating a prescription for cream used for saddle soreness seems to have occured post ban. So not relevant.


#3042

Lance Armstrong did have a positive test. That’s what started it all.


#3043

In the past, the US had a history of covering up doping by the big stars, as for example Carl Lewis, when Ben Johnson copped the opprobrium and USOC “losing “ evidence. To the world, it was mostly only those dastardly communist countries that doped.
After the BALCO scandal, the US became more transparent but with Armstrong, as the face of cycling and sponsored by the US Postal Service, the cover-up continued.
The current US litigation against Armstrong for recovery of sponsorship could expose a lot more cover-ups, with Armstrong appearing to base his defence that the relevant US bodies were aware that so many US cyclists were doping, but were complicit in the cover-up.


#3044

Yep.

However he did test positive and they all (US Postal) went to great lengths to avoid testing and using other types of injections to cover the doping etc.

‘I don’t recall’ that our player’s tested positive to anything, let alone avoid testing or covering up.

I do recall a couple of our players having elevated levels of TB-4, but so did about 30 players from other teams.

Regardless, what happened with Lance Armstrong/US Postal is on a completely different planet to what happened with our players and it irks me greatly that comparisons are made between the 2 cases.


#3045

Lance Armstrong is just about the least…most comparable…errr…comparison.
Trust me, that sentence was a lot more withering in my head.


#3046

Only by those who have skimmed the info and closely followed media coverage.


#3047

Guys, I’m pretty sure, Lance Armstrong admitted to doping in Oprah.

Whistleblowers, positive tests, performance well above previous best, admissions of guilt.

So as Wim pointed out, it’s nothing like the EFC case.


#3048

Individual instead of team-based.
Governing body collusion in the doping!
It is literally the laziest, most inaccurate comparison possible.

Edit: And aside from all that, I don’t understand what point is being attempted here.
Armstrong didn’t test positive, and Essendon didn’t test positive, therefore Essendon were equally guilty?
That doesn’t make a lick of sense, even in a basic logic sense. It’s one of the most famous fallacies.
It seems to be that if there’s no positive test then players must prove their innocence.
In which case, wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwtf?


#3049

There is no reason to enter this thread unless you have done research and have some knowledge of doping and it’s history - I fully understand why are a few are a touch frustrated.


#3050

Newcomers to the site can’t be expected to have all the info that long termers have (yes, makes it sound like a prison sentence). If not for blitz over the last 5 years I probably would be relatively uninformed.


#3051

Hey - Do you think all the Blitzers that have a reasonable grasp of this subject only obtained their information from this site ?

There is nothing wrong with calling out misinformed posts.


#3052

Oh no, nothing wrong with that at all.

And I know many have searched far and wide. For people like me though, this place just makes it so much easier by providing the links, if not the content itself.

Sorry, might not have gone right back to check the context of your post


#3053

Except that it was pretty much what Howman of WADA said in a statement


#3054

Why is Dave Culbert commentating the winter games - he has zero relevance or credibility.

For those with twitter time to start bombarding the ch 7 winter games account.


#3055

J34 are going to release Fact Checking CAS #4 on…Tuesday.

This one contains new information.