View Poll Results: Do you believe Tyler is innocent of doping?
I believe Tyler Hamilton NEVER used illegal performance enhancements (drugs or blood).
6
7.32%
I believe Tyler Hamilton HAS used illegal performance enhancements (drugs or blood).
76
92.68%
Voters: 82. You may not vote on this poll
Do you believe Tyler is innocent of doping?
#1
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Do you believe Tyler is innocent of doping?
Extensive doping alleged for Hamilton
One day after the initial report by Danish Politiken, Belgian newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws has published details of the alleged "doping diary" of Tyler Hamilton, found among the papers of Spanish doctor Eufemiano Fuentes.
According to the Belgian media, Hamilton's doping practices in 2003, when he won both Liège-Bastogne-Liège and the Tour de Romandie as well as a stage in the Tour de France despite a collarbone fracture, were extensive and cost him a total of 43,040 Euros.
The paper cites information according to which the then-CSC rider used EPO 30 times between December 2002 and February 2003, as well as anabolic steroids. In the beginning of March 2003, Hamilton allegedly used a pregnancy hormone to cover up the traces of the cure. Two blood transfusions are reported to have been administered to his body two days prior to Paris-Nice, where Hamilton won the mountains jersey.
In April, the American is thought to have used growth hormone and insulin to promote muscle growth. After the Tour de Romandie, the paper claims to have evidence that he transfused three bags of blood (a total of 1.35 litres), returned to normal blood levels with the help of EPO, and re-injected two bags of blood six days before the start of the Dauphiné Libéré.
Another growth hormone cure came after the race according to the media, as well as several blood transfusions in the count down to the Tour de France. The information gathered even points at a blood transfusion on the day of the medical control at the start of the Grand Tour, and twice during the race.
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...g06/aug22news2
June 26, 2006
I was very upset to read the accusations against me and to see my name associated with the "Operacion Puerto" investigation in Spain. I have not been treated by Dr. Fuentes. I have not done what the article alleges. In addition, I have never been contacted by authorities in Spain regarding these allegations. Therefore, it is impossible to comment on a situation I have no knowledge of.
https://www.tylerhamilton.com/
#2
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 45
Bikes: Felt F65 / Raliegh M80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
No. Tyler failed two test + his name comes up in any doping scandal involving cycling.
i wonder what his dog was on. Tugboat was a big dog.
i wonder what his dog was on. Tugboat was a big dog.
#3
pan y agua
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 31,271
Bikes: Willier Zero 7; Merlin Extralight; Calfee Dragonfly tandem, Calfee Adventure tandem; Cervelo P2; Motebecane Ti Fly 29er; Motebecanne Phantom Cross; Schwinn Paramount Track bike
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1426 Post(s)
Liked 692 Times
in
351 Posts
Apparently the Landis supporters never heard the Who sing "We won't get fooled again". Just think how silly all the Tyler couldn't have doped threads look now. Of course Landis may ultimately prevail, and those us of who believe that Landis is likely going down may end up with egg on our faces, but I don't think the odds favor it.
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 1,038
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Whoever leaked the story is more wrong than Hamilton. Hasn't Hamilton already been convicted of this through other means (testing)? This is kind of redundant.
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by merlinextraligh
Apparently the Landis supporters never heard the Who sing "We won't get fooled again". Just think how silly all the Tyler couldn't have doped threads look now. Of course Landis may ultimately prevail, and those us of who believe that Landis is likely going down may end up with egg on our faces, but I don't think the odds favor it.
I'd hate to go through life with such a small, bitter and hateful mind that this would come as good news to me. Before the tdf this year, I didn't really like Floyd, but after stage 17, it was one of the greatest individual accomplishments I had ever see in sports, any sport. The allegation doesn't hurt me much as a fan of Floyd's but as a believer in the possibility of greatness.
I do have my own hypothetical poll question though:
Would you rather see the test be invalidated and therefore he is not stripped of the tdf win EVEN IF he actually doped
or
Would you rather see him stripped of the win based on a faulty test EVEN THOUGH he never did dope?
(no other option and understanding that the doping question may never be answered definitively)
#6
Shut Up and Ride
Join Date: May 2005
Location: PA (Worst roads in existence)
Posts: 1,969
Bikes: 05 Cannondale Six 13 (Record 2008 with DT rr 1.1 rims, WI H2 Hubs and CX-ray spokes), OLMO Antares (Micx of 06 Record and Chorus), 1988 Tunturri, 1980's Fuji, 1970's Crescent (Sweeden)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Can Tyler get in any more trouble? He is already serving a ban for doping.... so even if new evidence is brought forth it only seals the case that he is already serving punishment for.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 1,038
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ggusta
I do have my own hypothetical poll question though:
Would you rather see the test be invalidated and therefore he is not stripped of the tdf win EVEN IF he actually doped
or
Would you rather see him stripped of the win based on a faulty test EVEN THOUGH he never did dope?
(no other option and understanding that the doping question may never be answered definitively)
Would you rather see the test be invalidated and therefore he is not stripped of the tdf win EVEN IF he actually doped
or
Would you rather see him stripped of the win based on a faulty test EVEN THOUGH he never did dope?
(no other option and understanding that the doping question may never be answered definitively)
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 404
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Trevor98
Easy, I would rather chance a guilty person getting away with it than chancing the punishment of an innocent person. Far more harm is done by a corrupt system (faulty testing) than by the actions of an individual.
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 1,038
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
This is bigger than any one rider, arbitrary justice harms everyone and by accepting it we diminish ourselves. I am not good with doping but a choice between injustice and allowing doping, I choose the lesser of the two wrongs.
#10
pan y agua
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 31,271
Bikes: Willier Zero 7; Merlin Extralight; Calfee Dragonfly tandem, Calfee Adventure tandem; Cervelo P2; Motebecane Ti Fly 29er; Motebecanne Phantom Cross; Schwinn Paramount Track bike
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1426 Post(s)
Liked 692 Times
in
351 Posts
Originally Posted by Trevor98
Easy, I would rather chance a guilty person getting away with it than chancing the punishment of an innocent person. Far more harm is done by a corrupt system (faulty testing) than by the actions of an individual.
I'd come out 100% on the other side of that question. This is not a criminal prosecution; people aren't going to jail, and the evidentiary standard isn't guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
what's at stake is an individual's right to continue to participate in the sport. If having a clean sport requires something less than 100% certainty in testing, I'd certainly take a system with say a 0.1% false positive rate, if that was the price for a much cleaner sport.
The "better that 1000 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent be condemned" line may have some merit for capital punishement debates but it is a recipe for never doing anything to clean up sports.
#11
pan y agua
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 31,271
Bikes: Willier Zero 7; Merlin Extralight; Calfee Dragonfly tandem, Calfee Adventure tandem; Cervelo P2; Motebecane Ti Fly 29er; Motebecanne Phantom Cross; Schwinn Paramount Track bike
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1426 Post(s)
Liked 692 Times
in
351 Posts
Originally Posted by ggusta
I have been thinking a lot about this. I HOPE that Landis is telling the truth, but have no objective way to prove or disprove it and therein lies the issue, as far as I am concerned. But there are a lot of people that are so very glad that this doping allegation came out that THEY refuse to consider any other possibility. It makes me wonder why would someone be so happy to hear that and not at all eager to examine why this may not be true. In my mind I try and imagine who is the athlete that I resent so much that I would be overjoyed to watch thi happen to (and there are some real a-holes, imo) and i can't think of one.
I'd hate to go through life with such a small, bitter and hateful mind that this would come as good news to me. Before the tdf this year, I didn't really like Floyd, but after stage 17, it was one of the greatest individual accomplishments I had ever see in sports, any sport. The allegation doesn't hurt me much as a fan of Floyd's but as a believer in the possibility of greatness.
I do have my own hypothetical poll question though:
Would you rather see the test be invalidated and therefore he is not stripped of the tdf win EVEN IF he actually doped
or
Would you rather see him stripped of the win based on a faulty test EVEN THOUGH he never did dope?
(no other option and understanding that the doping question may never be answered definitively)
I'd hate to go through life with such a small, bitter and hateful mind that this would come as good news to me. Before the tdf this year, I didn't really like Floyd, but after stage 17, it was one of the greatest individual accomplishments I had ever see in sports, any sport. The allegation doesn't hurt me much as a fan of Floyd's but as a believer in the possibility of greatness.
I do have my own hypothetical poll question though:
Would you rather see the test be invalidated and therefore he is not stripped of the tdf win EVEN IF he actually doped
or
Would you rather see him stripped of the win based on a faulty test EVEN THOUGH he never did dope?
(no other option and understanding that the doping question may never be answered definitively)
I think the vast majority of us that believe that it is highly likely that Landis doped, were dismayed when the news came out of the positive test. I think most of us would love to see LAndis cleared in a definitive way. However at this point the objective evidence makes it highly unlikely that will happen.
Personally what I don't want to see, is a lot of BS arguments pressed through hearing and appeals in a deserate bid to defeat what is likely the inevitable outcome. A repeat of the Tyler Hamilton saga doesn't do anyone any good. Of course only LAndis and his legal team are really in a position to assess whether he has any valid arguments. But from publically available information, it sounds like his defense is pretty much going to be to just cast doubt, obfuscate, and hope they catch a break. Or in Southpark terms, the Chewbaca defense
#14
pan y agua
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 31,271
Bikes: Willier Zero 7; Merlin Extralight; Calfee Dragonfly tandem, Calfee Adventure tandem; Cervelo P2; Motebecane Ti Fly 29er; Motebecanne Phantom Cross; Schwinn Paramount Track bike
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1426 Post(s)
Liked 692 Times
in
351 Posts
oh come on, can't somebody at least toss Tyler a bone, perhaps in memory of Tugboat?
#15
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SaintAndrew
what is the point of this poll? no one who isn't "special" would think hamilton's innocent.
#16
Banned
Join Date: May 2005
Location: GA
Posts: 5,317
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Trevor98
This is bigger than any one rider, arbitrary justice harms everyone and by accepting it we diminish ourselves. I am not good with doping but a choice between injustice and allowing doping, I choose the lesser of the two wrongs.
isn;t there as much if not more injustice against the clean rider who landis beat? I don't think you understand the reason why our criminal justice system uses such high standards of proof and tends to err on the side of caution. It is not because it increases justice. Justice would be maximized by simply minimizing the number of BOTH wrongful convictions and aquitals. Rather it attempts to minimize the number of wrongful convictions while merely keeping the number of incorrect aquitals within reason. This is because most modern political thought accepts the idea of natural or human rights. These rights are valued above everything else in any computations of right and wrong. Therefore when the government is granted the right to revoke such "inalienable" rigths from individuals it must do so very carefully. This care comes at the cost of justice.
The UCI/*ADA cannot seperate people from these rights rather they serve to mediate and control pleasure/bussiness relations between people. As such they should not be held to the same high standards as a criminal justice system. Further, there is justice in a doper getting found out earlier rather then later... especially if such leaks prevent him from making up consisted lies to worm his way out of punishment. So far they have been completely accurate and therefore completely just.
Your cries of injustice and complaining about the horror of leaks are getting a bit tired. I do like that tried desperately to be consistent with Hamilton but it's time to give up. Admit you backed yourself into a corner and your talk of justice and corruption is complete nonsene. Maybe landis will take a lead from you and go to gatlin route rather then the hamilton one too.
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 1,038
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by merlinextraligh
I'd come out 100% on the other side of that question. This is not a criminal prosecution; people aren't going to jail, and the evidentiary standard isn't guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
what's at stake is an individual's right to continue to participate in the sport. If having a clean sport requires something less than 100% certainty in testing, I'd certainly take a system with say a 0.1% false positive rate, if that was the price for a much cleaner sport.
The "better that 1000 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent be condemned" line may have some merit for capital punishement debates but it is a recipe for never doing anything to clean up sports.
what's at stake is an individual's right to continue to participate in the sport. If having a clean sport requires something less than 100% certainty in testing, I'd certainly take a system with say a 0.1% false positive rate, if that was the price for a much cleaner sport.
The "better that 1000 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent be condemned" line may have some merit for capital punishement debates but it is a recipe for never doing anything to clean up sports.
Secondly, while our legal system heightens the burden of proof for more stringent punishments the basic system is based on a sound ethical system, that it, it is better to let a guilty person off than persecute an innocent one. That ethical system stands on its own. Additionally, it is a standard that WADA and the UCI operate under and it is an underlying moral code of western society (which we unfortunately seem to be rapidly abandoning in our personal lives).
An anti-doping system in which people are not given the privilege of fairness might "clean-up" sports but at too heavy a cost to the rest of our society. Jail and death are not the only punishments a society can hand out. Any punishment should be metered out as fairly as possible else it is arbitrary and thus useless.
Originally Posted by dutret
isn;t there as much if not more injustice against the clean rider who landis beat?
I don't think you understand the reason why our criminal justice system uses such high standards of proof and tends to err on the side of caution. It is not because it increases justice. Justice would be maximized by simply minimizing the number of BOTH wrongful convictions and aquitals. Rather it attempts to minimize the number of wrongful convictions while merely keeping the number of incorrect aquitals within reason. This is because most modern political thought accepts the idea of natural or human rights. These rights are valued above everything else in any computations of right and wrong. Therefore when the government is granted the right to revoke such "inalienable" rigths from individuals it must do so very carefully. This care comes at the cost of justice.
The UCI/*ADA cannot seperate people from these rights rather they serve to mediate and control pleasure/bussiness relations between people. As such they should not be held to the same high standards as a criminal justice system. Further, there is justice in a doper getting found out earlier rather then later... especially if such leaks prevent him from making up consisted lies to worm his way out of punishment. So far they have been completely accurate and therefore completely just.
Your cries of injustice and complaining about the horror of leaks are getting a bit tired. I do like that tried desperately to be consistent with Hamilton but it's time to give up. Admit you backed yourself into a corner and your talk of justice and corruption is complete nonsene. Maybe landis will take a lead from you and go to gatlin route rather then the hamilton one too.
Last edited by Trevor98; 08-23-06 at 06:48 PM.
#18
In Transition
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: here and there
Posts: 382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by domestique
Can Tyler get in any more trouble? He is already serving a ban for doping.... so even if new evidence is brought forth it only seals the case that he is already serving punishment for.
This isn't about additional "trouble" or punishment, it is about Tyler Hamiltons credibility and character. Most people just wish he would come clean and put an end to the farce. As several BF posters have picked-up on its totally become a Monty Python skit.
"The parrot is not pineing for the fjords, the parrot is deceased. . ."
Last edited by fruitless; 08-24-06 at 12:01 AM.
#19
Banned
Join Date: May 2005
Location: GA
Posts: 5,317
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You clearly don't know much about political philosophy so let's drop "justice" for "fairness"? Still the maximally just system is fair(the one that makes the least number of mistakes not the one that punishes the least number of innocent people.) Fairness doesn't even have to go that far though. A fair system is just one that treats everyone equally.
Given the state of cycling today I think you could easily make an argument that the system that outs the mosts cheats is the fairest as long as it kept false positives within reason and punishes them all very thoughly. That would increase the fairness of cycling more then anything else because monetary advantages would be minimized and high profile riders to be treated the same a pack fodder.
Definetly it is the case that a system based on tests and only tests is a fair system. If you fail the test you get punished no appeals no bull**** drs notes. The tests that are used and trusted are determined ahead of time and thier results stand.
Leaks are not always unethical. Unless they are inaccurate or misleading they are usually completely ethical. These labs are not the riders personal drs. there is no dr/patient privelige no privacy. In the case of the landis tests the results came out becasue landis was missing races and that had to be accounted for. The further leaks disproved the lies he was spouting. He should not get a "free period" to lie and confuse the public as much as he wants... allowing such behaviour is unethical and unfair.
Similiarly the public had a right to know that there was concrete evidence of LAs cheating and those reporters that connected the dots to show it were at the height of ethical reporting not muckracking.
Finally why should the documents uncovered in operacion puerto be kept secret? The police announced the names of the other riders caught red handed why should they leave hamilton out?
In a more general sense truth justifies the defamation of a public figure regarding thier public role. In specific those leaks are completely ethical because an athelete deserves no privacy regarding accurate evidence that they cheated.
Given the state of cycling today I think you could easily make an argument that the system that outs the mosts cheats is the fairest as long as it kept false positives within reason and punishes them all very thoughly. That would increase the fairness of cycling more then anything else because monetary advantages would be minimized and high profile riders to be treated the same a pack fodder.
Definetly it is the case that a system based on tests and only tests is a fair system. If you fail the test you get punished no appeals no bull**** drs notes. The tests that are used and trusted are determined ahead of time and thier results stand.
Leaks are not always unethical. Unless they are inaccurate or misleading they are usually completely ethical. These labs are not the riders personal drs. there is no dr/patient privelige no privacy. In the case of the landis tests the results came out becasue landis was missing races and that had to be accounted for. The further leaks disproved the lies he was spouting. He should not get a "free period" to lie and confuse the public as much as he wants... allowing such behaviour is unethical and unfair.
Similiarly the public had a right to know that there was concrete evidence of LAs cheating and those reporters that connected the dots to show it were at the height of ethical reporting not muckracking.
Finally why should the documents uncovered in operacion puerto be kept secret? The police announced the names of the other riders caught red handed why should they leave hamilton out?
In a more general sense truth justifies the defamation of a public figure regarding thier public role. In specific those leaks are completely ethical because an athelete deserves no privacy regarding accurate evidence that they cheated.
#20
Crawlin' up, flyin' down
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Democratic Peoples' Republic of Berkeley
Posts: 5,612
Bikes: 1967 Paramount; 1982-ish Ron Cooper; 1978 Eisentraut "A"; two mid-1960s Cinelli Speciale Corsas; and others in various stages of non-rideability.
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 996 Post(s)
Liked 2,444 Times
in
1,023 Posts
Originally Posted by dutret
You clearly don't know much about political philosophy so let's drop "justice" for "fairness"? Still the maximally just system is fair(the one that makes the least number of mistakes not the one that punishes the least number of innocent people.) Fairness doesn't even have to go that far though. A fair system is just one that treats everyone equally.
Given the state of cycling today I think you could easily make an argument that the system that outs the mosts cheats is the fairest as long as it kept false positives within reason and punishes them all very thoughly. That would increase the fairness of cycling more then anything else because monetary advantages would be minimized and high profile riders to be treated the same a pack fodder.
Definetly it is the case that a system based on tests and only tests is a fair system. If you fail the test you get punished no appeals no bull**** drs notes. The tests that are used and trusted are determined ahead of time and thier results stand.
Leaks are not always unethical. Unless they are inaccurate or misleading they are usually completely ethical. These labs are not the riders personal drs. there is no dr/patient privelige no privacy. In the case of the landis tests the results came out becasue landis was missing races and that had to be accounted for. The further leaks disproved the lies he was spouting. He should not get a "free period" to lie and confuse the public as much as he wants... allowing such behaviour is unethical and unfair.
Similiarly the public had a right to know that there was concrete evidence of LAs cheating and those reporters that connected the dots to show it were at the height of ethical reporting not muckracking.
Finally why should the documents uncovered in operacion puerto be kept secret? The police announced the names of the other riders caught red handed why should they leave hamilton out?
In a more general sense truth justifies the defamation of a public figure regarding thier public role. In specific those leaks are completely ethical because an athelete deserves no privacy regarding accurate evidence that they cheated.
Given the state of cycling today I think you could easily make an argument that the system that outs the mosts cheats is the fairest as long as it kept false positives within reason and punishes them all very thoughly. That would increase the fairness of cycling more then anything else because monetary advantages would be minimized and high profile riders to be treated the same a pack fodder.
Definetly it is the case that a system based on tests and only tests is a fair system. If you fail the test you get punished no appeals no bull**** drs notes. The tests that are used and trusted are determined ahead of time and thier results stand.
Leaks are not always unethical. Unless they are inaccurate or misleading they are usually completely ethical. These labs are not the riders personal drs. there is no dr/patient privelige no privacy. In the case of the landis tests the results came out becasue landis was missing races and that had to be accounted for. The further leaks disproved the lies he was spouting. He should not get a "free period" to lie and confuse the public as much as he wants... allowing such behaviour is unethical and unfair.
Similiarly the public had a right to know that there was concrete evidence of LAs cheating and those reporters that connected the dots to show it were at the height of ethical reporting not muckracking.
Finally why should the documents uncovered in operacion puerto be kept secret? The police announced the names of the other riders caught red handed why should they leave hamilton out?
In a more general sense truth justifies the defamation of a public figure regarding thier public role. In specific those leaks are completely ethical because an athelete deserves no privacy regarding accurate evidence that they cheated.
In reading your posts, I'm a little confused as to what your view of the highest good to be achieved here is - maximizing the number of accurate test results, positive or negative, or maximizing the number of doping cheats caught. In either case, you are willing to tolerate punishing some innocents,meaning those whose tests come back as false positives, as the price top be paid.
Trevor88, on the other hand, is advocating identifying as many of the cheaters as possible without subjecting any innocents to unearned punishment. He is willing to tolerate letting some cheaters off the hook as the price to be paid for making sure that no one is punished for a doping violation they did not commit.
Trying to dismiss Trevor88's position with a wave of a rhetorical hand and an off-hand insult simply doesn't cut it. His base principles are ones that are shared, explicitly or implicitly, by a great many people. Indeed, those principles are a major part of the foundation of the American criminal justice system. That doesn't mean that Trevor88 is "correct" in some quantitive, Platonic way - but it certainly means that you can't simply wish his position away.
__________________
"I'm in shape -- round is a shape." Andy Rooney
"I'm in shape -- round is a shape." Andy Rooney
#21
Banned
Join Date: May 2005
Location: GA
Posts: 5,317
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bikingshearer
Trevor88, on the other hand, is advocating identifying as many of the cheaters as possible without subjecting any innocents to unearned punishment.
His understanding of why the criminal justice system is overly cautious is simplistic at best. Yes the governments authority can be abused and that is the criminal justice system has such high standards.... Specifically though the criminal justice system has the "authority" to deprive us of human rights unlike the civil justice system(or any sporting organization I know of). We place a higher value on these rights then we do justice therefore we allow some of those guilty to go free in order to reasonably protect them. We still convict and punish inocent people and always will. That is why the standard is beyond reasonable doubt not beyond any doubt.
Yes in a very general sense his opinions are shared by a great many people(myself included) <b> when it comes to criminal justice</b> Even tort reform fanatics haven't tried to get civil justice system to work within those restraints. Why? Because that would sacrifice justice for nothing. Neither lofty ideals nor inalieable rights. It instead tries to maximise justice as I described previously.
I didn't discount what he said. He switched from using the term justice to faireness himself. I merely accepted that change since I didn't want to have a drawn out argument over the nature or justice with someone who lacks a sophisticated view of the concept.
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 1,038
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dutret
You clearly don't know much about political philosophy so let's drop "justice" for "fairness"? Still the maximally just system is fair(the one that makes the least number of mistakes not the one that punishes the least number of innocent people.) Fairness doesn't even have to go that far though. A fair system is just one that treats everyone equally.
Given the state of cycling today I think you could easily make an argument that the system that outs the mosts cheats is the fairest as long as it kept false positives within reason and punishes them all very throughly. That would increase the fairness of cycling more then anything else because monetary advantages would be minimized and high profile riders to be treated the same a pack fodder.
Definetly it is the case that a system based on tests and only tests is a fair system. If you fail the test you get punished no appeals no bull**** drs notes. The tests that are used and trusted are determined ahead of time and thier results stand.
Leaks are not always unethical. Unless they are inaccurate or misleading they are usually completely ethical. These labs are not the riders personal drs. there is no dr/patient privelige no privacy. In the case of the landis tests the results came out becasue landis was missing races and that had to be accounted for. The further leaks disproved the lies he was spouting. He should not get a "free period" to lie and confuse the public as much as he wants... allowing such behaviour is unethical and unfair.
Similiarly the public had a right to know that there was concrete evidence of LAs cheating and those reporters that connected the dots to show it were at the height of ethical reporting not muckracking.
Finally why should the documents uncovered in operacion puerto be kept secret? The police announced the names of the other riders caught red handed why should they leave hamilton out?
In a more general sense truth justifies the defamation of a public figure regarding their public role. In specific those leaks are completely ethical because an athelete deserves no privacy regarding accurate evidence that they cheated.
Originally Posted by bikingshearer
Uh, I don't think the ad hominem attack on Trevor88 was called for. He is coming from a set of base principles that are different than yours. That hardly qualifies as a valid reason to accuse him of knowing little about political philosophy.
Trevor88, on the other hand, is advocating identifying as many of the cheaters as possible without subjecting any innocents to unearned punishment. He is willing to tolerate letting some cheaters off the hook as the price to be paid for making sure that no one is punished for a doping violation they did not commit.
Trying to dismiss Trevor88's position with a wave of a rhetorical hand and an off-hand insult simply doesn't cut it. His base principles are ones that are shared, explicitly or implicitly, by a great many people. Indeed, those principles are a major part of the foundation of the American criminal justice system. That doesn't mean that Trevor88 is "correct" in some quantitive, Platonic way - but it certainly means that you can't simply wish his position away.
Originally Posted by dutret
That is impossible unless you let everyone off. Even the criminal justice system doesn't attempt to acheive that. Fortunately I don't think thats what he's saying.
His understanding of why the criminal justice system is overly cautious is simplistic at best. Yes the governments authority can be abused and that is the criminal justice system has such high standards.... Specifically though the criminal justice system has the "authority" to deprive us of human rights unlike the civil justice system(or any sporting organization I know of). We place a higher value on these rights then we do justice therefore we allow some of those guilty to go free in order to reasonably protect them. We still convict and punish innocent people and always will. That is why the standard is beyond reasonable doubt not beyond any doubt.
Are you advocating that punishing innocent people is acceptable as long as you are not depriving them of human rights?
Yes in a very general sense his opinions are shared by a great many people(myself included) <b> when it comes to criminal justice</b> Even tort reform fanatics haven't tried to get civil justice system to work within those restraints. Why? Because that would sacrifice justice for nothing. Neither lofty ideals nor inalieable rights. It instead tries to maximise justice as I described previously.
I didn't discount what he said. He switched from using the term justice to faireness himself. I merely accepted that change since I didn't want to have a drawn out argument over the nature or justice with someone who lacks a sophisticated view of the concept.
This discussion has really gone askew, instead of a simplistic opinion about perception we are debating the merits of the justice system and the ethicalness of leakers- a worthwhile discussion but under a misleading heading.
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bikingshearer
Uh, I don't think the ad hominem attack on Trevor88 was called for. He is coming from a set of base principles that are different than yours.
Trying to dismiss Trevor88's position with a wave of a rhetorical hand and an off-hand insult simply doesn't cut it. His base principles are ones that are shared, explicitly or implicitly, by a great many people. Indeed, those principles are a major part of the foundation of the American criminal justice system. That doesn't mean that Trevor88 is "correct" in some quantitive, Platonic way - but it certainly means that you can't simply wish his position away.
Trying to dismiss Trevor88's position with a wave of a rhetorical hand and an off-hand insult simply doesn't cut it. His base principles are ones that are shared, explicitly or implicitly, by a great many people. Indeed, those principles are a major part of the foundation of the American criminal justice system. That doesn't mean that Trevor88 is "correct" in some quantitive, Platonic way - but it certainly means that you can't simply wish his position away.
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 425
Bikes: Torelli Titanio; Serotta Atlanta Concept; Specialized Rockhopper, Raleigh Twenty, Velo Orange Polyvalent
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
4 Posts
Originally Posted by merlinextraligh
what's at stake is an individual's right to continue to participate in the sport. If having a clean sport requires something less than 100% certainty in testing, I'd certainly take a system with say a 0.1% false positive rate, if that was the price for a much cleaner sport.
#25
Banned
Join Date: May 2005
Location: GA
Posts: 5,317
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It can be much cleaner that it is though.
It is possible that trevor98 has a principaled consistent belief regarding authority and safegaurds. However, he doesn't sound like one who has a well thought out reason for the standards of american criminal court to be applied more broadly to prevent the abuse of athourity. There are many radicals who do but they would have instantly pointed out that in thier minds civil court is not a good example because it is a farce of a fair just system and rife with government abuse of the private citizen. I think it is much more likely that a month ago he really wanted to think landis was innocent and said some stuff and is now backed into a corner he feels the need to keep defending. It happens all the time on message boards and the correct response is to create a new username.
To try and show this I will ask him a few questions regarding his beliefs that might help him develop a more sophisticated view of jurisprudence, governence and sports arbitration. Sorry if alot of this is only tagentially related to the matter at hand but if you don't want me to brush off his inconsistencies I will address them.
First a little clarification about the american system of jurisprudence and the citizens.
-The criminal justice system has the authority to deprive an individual of life and liberty.
-The civil courts can only deprive the individual of property(if we use property in a broad sense).
-The criminal justice system uses a very high level of proof that allows many guilty people to go free to prevent smaller number of innocent ones from being deprived of thier rights.
-The civil one uses a much lower standard in order to minimize the total number of mistakes it makes regardless of whose favor they are in.
Do you think that the right to life and liberty are fundamentally more important then the right to property?
Do you accept that in matters of property a lesser standard of proof that maximizes justice is a better choice?
Do you agree with the structuring of the american civil justice system which only has the authority to dole out punishment by depriving individuals of thier property after only a lessor standard of proof has been met?
Do you think that fining atheletes according to contractual agreements and preventing them from participating in specific events/ revoking the titles to those events is a matter of depriving them of thier right to property, liberty, life or something lessor entirely?
If you chose anything other then life or liberty why don't you think that the sporting organizations should require a lessor standard of proof?
Now regarding leaks.
Do you believe in the freedom of the press?
If so how can you not think that "truth justifies the defamation of a public figure regarding their public role."?(a basic tenent of american law incidentally)
Who actually leaked anything about landis except to directly contridict a lie told by landis or his lackeys?
Doesn't the individual with proof that a public figure is lying have an ethical duty to bring this proof into the open?
Doesn't a journalist have an even greater duty to report this proof providing it is reliable?
Finally regarding your constent insistence that accusations hurt riders as much as conviction even if they are able to get off during appeal since they never recover from the turn of public opinion against them:
Do you really LAs earning etc were reduced because he was caught cheating and got off with an after the fact drs note?
It is possible that trevor98 has a principaled consistent belief regarding authority and safegaurds. However, he doesn't sound like one who has a well thought out reason for the standards of american criminal court to be applied more broadly to prevent the abuse of athourity. There are many radicals who do but they would have instantly pointed out that in thier minds civil court is not a good example because it is a farce of a fair just system and rife with government abuse of the private citizen. I think it is much more likely that a month ago he really wanted to think landis was innocent and said some stuff and is now backed into a corner he feels the need to keep defending. It happens all the time on message boards and the correct response is to create a new username.
To try and show this I will ask him a few questions regarding his beliefs that might help him develop a more sophisticated view of jurisprudence, governence and sports arbitration. Sorry if alot of this is only tagentially related to the matter at hand but if you don't want me to brush off his inconsistencies I will address them.
First a little clarification about the american system of jurisprudence and the citizens.
-The criminal justice system has the authority to deprive an individual of life and liberty.
-The civil courts can only deprive the individual of property(if we use property in a broad sense).
-The criminal justice system uses a very high level of proof that allows many guilty people to go free to prevent smaller number of innocent ones from being deprived of thier rights.
-The civil one uses a much lower standard in order to minimize the total number of mistakes it makes regardless of whose favor they are in.
Do you think that the right to life and liberty are fundamentally more important then the right to property?
Do you accept that in matters of property a lesser standard of proof that maximizes justice is a better choice?
Do you agree with the structuring of the american civil justice system which only has the authority to dole out punishment by depriving individuals of thier property after only a lessor standard of proof has been met?
Do you think that fining atheletes according to contractual agreements and preventing them from participating in specific events/ revoking the titles to those events is a matter of depriving them of thier right to property, liberty, life or something lessor entirely?
If you chose anything other then life or liberty why don't you think that the sporting organizations should require a lessor standard of proof?
Now regarding leaks.
Do you believe in the freedom of the press?
If so how can you not think that "truth justifies the defamation of a public figure regarding their public role."?(a basic tenent of american law incidentally)
Who actually leaked anything about landis except to directly contridict a lie told by landis or his lackeys?
Doesn't the individual with proof that a public figure is lying have an ethical duty to bring this proof into the open?
Doesn't a journalist have an even greater duty to report this proof providing it is reliable?
Finally regarding your constent insistence that accusations hurt riders as much as conviction even if they are able to get off during appeal since they never recover from the turn of public opinion against them:
Do you really LAs earning etc were reduced because he was caught cheating and got off with an after the fact drs note?