Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
I see no logic fail. It is one thing in a court where the defendant has the chance to cross examine witnesses etc. The USADA does not allow that you are essentially guilty because some people said you were with no chance to defend yourself. The test should be the arbitrator.
"The day I became a winning trader was the day it became boring. Daily losses no longer bother me and daily wins no longer excited me. Took years of pain and busting a few accounts before finally got my mind right. I survived the darkness within and now just chillax and let my black box do the work."
Where are you getting this? The USADA runs what is essentially a form of binding arbitration. Without knowing the full details of the court procedures and makeup, I can tell you that having read and studied past cases, the defense is always permitted to present it's counter evidence and mitigating circumstances.
Dennis Mitchell for example, argued that his elevated testosterone levels were a result of consuming a lot of alcohol and having copious amounts of sex (which they actually backed up with clinical studies).
The entire reason Armstrong has given up is because he knows that the cirumustantial evidence against him is overwhelming at this point and his fight is unwinnable....so his strategy is to simply throw his hands in the air and claim "I can't win" and argue that the governing body is viciously and frivolously pursuing the case against him. He's essentially throwing isht against the wall to see if it will stick...he knows he'll lose in a "court" case against him with basically his word against several of his former teammates.
Roger Clemens never popped hot either, but he had a former trainer AND a former teammate (Pettite) testify against him. His only saving grace was an angry ex-wife (McNamee) to discredit one of them and then write the other (Pettite) off as having misunderstood. However, Clemens case was in a criminal court which bears the highest burden of conviction....rather than civil courts (preponderance of the evidence) the prosecution would have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he lied to Congress (and therefore have to prove that he was actually doping). His wife was fetching him HGH through her doctor and her prescriptions and he was getting shots in the ars from his trainer.
Just because you can't PROVE something, doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means you don't have sufficient evidence to satisfy the threshold of the court you're in.
The NCAA is a perfect example. They have no legal authority and unless someone opens their mouth (like in the Reggies Bush case) things go un-noticed and un-punished. Miami is another perfect example. If Shapiro hadn't decided to spill his guts after being in prison, we'd have no idea of what went on....Miami's only saving grace is that it's easy to discredit a convicted felon serving jail time. Again, just because you can't PROVE something doesn't mean that it clearly didn't happen.
"A dumb man never learns. A smart man learns from his own failure and success. But a wise man learns from the failure and success of others."
@RM99 have you ever tried to fight your property taxes and gone through the arbitration process if you can't reach an agreement with taxing agencies? You have virtually no chance of winning. It is a stacked system. It is the same with the USADA. Once they say you are guilty you will never prove your innocence. It is obvious we will not agree on this as we are both apparently to thick headed to be swayed. So I say we get back to trading discussions.
"The day I became a winning trader was the day it became boring. Daily losses no longer bother me and daily wins no longer excited me. Took years of pain and busting a few accounts before finally got my mind right. I survived the darkness within and now just chillax and let my black box do the work."
It's worth noting that Lance has spent upwards of $5 million fighting this case.
I have no idea whether he doped or not. But I do think it's absurd for anyone to claim that his dropping the case is an admission of defeat. He is a grown man, with a foundation, a family, and this is taking up all his time, and for what? I'd drop it too, guilty or innocent.
Also worth noting that he's raised half a billion dollars for cancer research, while inspiring tens of thousands of cancer patients.
None of this is to say he didn't cheat, or to excuse him if he did. But it is rather harsh to call a man we don't know who has done so much good for the world a douchebag.
Other than half a dozen witnesses who were willing to testify.....and another investigation (that has no legal authority to seize bank records, etc) that he came up positive before and bought off the European agency.
"A dumb man never learns. A smart man learns from his own failure and success. But a wise man learns from the failure and success of others."
