"logic?"

That's in short supply on this thread. And frankly, Death by Tray displayed some of the most sound logic once he deigned to join the conversation. Of course sound logic doesn't always equate with the right answer, especially when we're dealing with opinions and judgements of men and women.

Is that a response to me?

To say that idiot displayed sounds logic completely defies logic. He was only on here to troll and start as many fights as possible as evidenced by his twitter comments and posts on other forums. There are plenty of people on both sides of the debate who can make a rational argument. He is not one of them.

I’ll try to ignore the insults and please don’t put words in my mouth.

Psychology studies have shown that the biggest deterrent against wrongdoing is not the severity of the punishment, but the probability of getting caught.

Of all the arguments against the USADA’s processes, I have not yet heard anyone complain that their process is suffering from reliance on eye-witness testimony, as you seem to suggest.

And when the eye-witnesses testified to the Feds, I doubt their disclosures were influenced at that time by an incentive to say things that would result in a lesser ban. Rather, at the time, their prime motivation to say what they said, was the fact that they were under oath and could face jail time if later found to have lied.

To say that idiot displayed sounds logic completely defies logic. He was only on here to troll and start as many fights as possible as evidenced by his twitter comments and posts on other forums. There are plenty of people on both sides of the debate who can make a rational argument. He is not one of them.

Here's the most common flaw made when people defend USADA versus the current practices of the USADA in this case. The USADA was created and funded on the basis that science was it's foundational body of evidence. This is why their rules of discovery are less like the US courts. As the reliability of science gave us (and lawmakers) more confidence in having an agency handing out punishment based on it.

Yet, the USADA is not following that protocol in this case.

You can't uphold the truth when your evidence isn't based on truth (fact). As an attorney, Travis Tygart (CEO of USADA) will do whatever he can to catch people yet he's applying his knowledge and expertise of the US court system in which he was schooled. Since there is no oversight the unchallenged power of his actions has scewed the focus of it's cases and disconnected it's basis and credibility. A once honorable agency disgraced by a confused and misguided leader.

The USADA should have a scientist as it's CEO, not an attorney.

These are doping charges. It's chemical. You either have the science or you don't. Kay, what's truly sad is a society that includes people who don't make a stand when it comes to abuses of due process. Who only know enough to be confident the USADA is bound to be fighting for the right reasons and be convinced that whatever tactics they use are obviously needed, because they are already convinced in someone's guilt - WITHOUT SCIENCE. What's sad is people who can't overlook the people involved to see when a system is flawed (because of the people involved).

A much more dangerous environment for our kids is one in which they might have to worry about who they piss off rather than who they piss for.

That is a very bad result. Notice "the evidence was convincing enough". Not beyond a reasonable doubt. But, they did have pics of epo, or so they say. LOL!

If I tell you that I took Xarelto is that evidence beyond a reasonable doubt I took Xarelto? LOL! What are people thinking? These are complex compounds and without a valid drug test how do I know what I take? I take Saw Palmetto every day yet for all I know there is zero Saw Palmetto in the capsules. Unfortunately, when it comes to OTC stuff that's too often the case.

"Nor should [participation in anti-doping protocol] be [voluntary]."

no argument. i agree with you. however, usada, wada, cas, thing that your participation is voluntary.

the "law of associations" presumes that, because you freely chose to join a club that was not mandatory for you to join, you take upon yourself an implicit acknowledgment and assent of the procedures that association employs. you are a company that chose to do business with another company. you are a homeowner who chose to buy a home in THIS specific neighborhood with THIS specific set of CC&Rs. that's what usada says you do when you decide to participate in sport.

further, this model assumes that the participants have direct input and control over the rules contemplated for arbitration.

my view is that your participation in usada's process is not voluntary, you have no choice, and you have no input. now, you might argue that no, it isn't, that you can simply choose not to engage in sport. you can play chess. or, you can run, you just can't enter a running competition. i think that's a harsh alternative. i therefore think that, because this is truly NOT an association of choice, and because usada has been funded by, and has been granted a legal monopoly by, the u.s. congress, the AAA arbitration rules that attend a commercial dispute are not adequate.

i'm not saying armstrong shouldn't be subject to an anti-doping investigation. i don't think his 500 passed tests give him a free pass. i don't think he should be shielded from scrutiny. i'm not advocating for any harm to come to usada. rather, i'm saying that if YOU were hauled in front of a usada court, you deserve the sorts of rights and protections that would attach to you if, for example, you were in front of a disciplinary panel or board scrutinizing your conduct as a lawyer, teacher, stock trader, doctor.

i disagree with you. let's just agree to disagree.

Since dreaming about drugs could lead to a ban under USADA "rules", I'm not surprised. Normally, all the elements of a crime, except completion must be present in an attempt. Unless you live in the alternate universe of the USADA.
The irony of this procedural unfairness is it's allegedly being done to ensure fairness.

Good idea, since he will NEVER agree that Lance is anything less than the Devil.

.

i disagree with you. let's just agree to disagree.

I love how because you don't agree with me, you put words in my mouth. Lance has done plenty of good things in the realms of cancer survivorship support and "awareness" as a general term. But those good deeds don't mean his misdeeds in cycling should be ignored.

"Nor should [participation in anti-doping protocol] be [voluntary]."

no argument. i agree with you. however, usada, wada, cas, thing that your participation is voluntary.

the "law of associations" presumes that, because you freely chose to join a club that was not mandatory for you to join, you take upon yourself an implicit acknowledgment and assent of the procedures that association employs. you are a company that chose to do business with another company. you are a homeowner who chose to buy a home in THIS specific neighborhood with THIS specific set of CC&Rs. that's what usada says you do when you decide to participate in sport.

further, this model assumes that the participants have direct input and control over the rules contemplated for arbitration.

my view is that your participation in usada's process is not voluntary, you have no choice, and you have no input. now, you might argue that no, it isn't, that you can simply choose not to engage in sport. you can play chess. or, you can run, you just can't enter a running competition. i think that's a harsh alternative. i therefore think that, because this is truly NOT an association of choice, and because usada has been funded by, and has been granted a legal monopoly by, the u.s. congress, the AAA arbitration rules that attend a commercial dispute are not adequate.

i'm not saying armstrong shouldn't be subject to an anti-doping investigation. i don't think his 500 passed tests give him a free pass. i don't think he should be shielded from scrutiny. i'm not advocating for any harm to come to usada. rather, i'm saying that if YOU were hauled in front of a usada court, you deserve the sorts of rights and protections that would attach to you if, for example, you were in front of a disciplinary panel or board scrutinizing your conduct as a lawyer, teacher, stock trader, doctor.

No one, including Dan is saying ignore anything!! Some of us are just saying let's have a due process. But you seemed to be hung up on not allowing this to happen for reasons that make no sense to me.
If you were in Lances shoes, I think you might be looking at it differently.

It is one thing to debate, but it is another to go so personal on folks who just have a different opinion. But, that is just my opinion. :o)
.

Okay, just like Dan, we agree to disagree. Life is WAY WAY to short to put the kind of energy you are into this.

.

Im sorry, but what are you talking about? I havent been personal on anyone. Are you sure this reply was meant for me? I havent brought once Dans friendship with Lance in any of my discussions.

if this was meant for me, Im fine with looking at the process, Im not fine with using the excuse that we need to look at the policy as a stall tactic for Lance or any other athlete as has been attempted before.

I never said it was a crime.

The courts have routinely given administrative tribunals broad latitude. I'm not saying what USADA is doing is illegal. I'm saying their rules are arbitrary and capricious and should be overhauled. Congress has given USADA unfettered power. They should try again because USADA will not reform from within.