User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » AppleOutsider »

Doping Dorks


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Doping Dorks
Thread Tools
kscherer
Which way is up?
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
 
2021-06-16, 16:29

So, ever since I had to eat my lunch over the Lance Armstrong thing (I very strongly supported his innocence), I have taken a "guilty until proven innocent" approach to sports and doping. There are so many cheaters out there that I won't take their word for anything. However, I do believe it's important to keep in mind that my opinion is squarely held within the court of public opinion, and not within a court of law. That said, in this story I'm just a bit perplexed at the arbitration court's opinion on the matter. From the article:

Quote:
The Court of Arbitration for Sport confirmed Tuesday its panel of judges “unanimously determined that Shelby Houlihan had failed” to prove how the anabolic steroid nandrolone got into her system.
So, let me get this straight. Shelby Houlihan failed to prove her innocence?

Now, this Court of Arbitration for Sport is not a U.S. court of law, so "innocent until proven guilty" may not apply. Still, when it comes to court proceedings, I stand 100% by that concept. The authorities must prove your guilt, and you should never have to prove your innocence.

For context, I don't believe her. Lance Armstrong taught me that cheaters will resort to anything to get out of trouble (Houlihan blames eating pork the night prior to the test; Armstrong blamed the use of cortisone cream for saddle sores), even at the risk of absolutely destroying innocent people, as Armstrong did. However, the inferred statement that she "could not prove her innocence" does not resonate well with me. She could not prove how nandrolone got into her system, but then neither could the court. In that same thought, Lance Armstrong could never prove how steroids got into his body, but neither could the court (which is why he got off for so long). I sided him for years and will never side another athlete (outside of sitting on a jury, in which case I would presume the athlete's innocence unless the "state" could prove their guilt ). But! This is a dangerous concept. I think she is guilty as hell, but I also think she may have been legally handed that guilt by the presumption of guilt, and I don't like that.

What do you guys think?

- AppleNova is the best Mac-users forum on the internet. We are smart, educated, capable, and helpful. We are also loaded with smart-alecks! :)
- Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Mat 5:9)
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
 
2021-06-17, 08:17

I happen to believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

However, I also go with a zero tolerance policy on drugs and such in sports, military, etc. so there is no excuse as to why it is in their system. All the others seem to be clean on blood tests so there is no reason she shouldn't be clean too.

If you pop positive, then you failed to stay clean. Even if it means you have to avoid being around "second hand smoke" or whatever.

Bad choice to eat pork before her check if she's telling the truth. I don't buy it. She thought she'd get away with it and failed to do so.

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
Visit our archived Minecraft world! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2021-06-17, 09:02

Let’s face it, almost all these top athletes are on something. The only difference is some of them get caught, while most don’t. The dopers are more often than not one step ahead of the testers, this women wasn’t lucky enough to be on the newest stuff when tested, so she was caught.
  quote
kscherer
Which way is up?
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
 
2021-06-17, 10:59

I agree with both of you guys as far as not believing her, and feeling quite certain she was doping. It may not seem like there is much money in the sport she is involved in, but staying on top means grants, uniforms, training, housing, travel, and all the glitz and glamour available to her level of competition. There's a lot to lose if you aren't consistently in the world's top-ten. A lot of reward, but also a lot of pressure.

And the rules are clear: If you test positive for X, then you're out—end of story. I get that, and I support it 100%.

It's just the statement that bothers me. I get that she failed a drug test, and she failed because she's guilty as charged. But the next step is a court of law. And it seems to me that that court has a "guilty until proven innocent" approach to enforcing the law, and that's what bothers me. I cannot and will not be swayed on that opinion, and yes I realize that sometimes guilty people get away with their crimes, but it's a precedent that I don't care for. I'd much rather have a few guilty people walking the streets than prisons chock-full of innocent people.

- AppleNova is the best Mac-users forum on the internet. We are smart, educated, capable, and helpful. We are also loaded with smart-alecks! :)
- Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Mat 5:9)
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2021-06-17, 11:03

Unless there is a problem with the drug tests, it's kind of hard to deny that the athlete is guilty unless proven innocent. The sporting court exists for that very purpose, if someone didn't fail the test they wouldn't be there in the first place. If it was a criminal or civil court, sure innocent until proven guilty, but in this case I don't see the need for that presumption.
  quote
kscherer
Which way is up?
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
 
2021-06-17, 11:32

Oh, I'm certain that in ten years this woman will be on Oprah crying and apologizing for her lying, cheating ways, and the whole country will feel sorry for her and all that, and she'll be banned for life right after posing in front of all her trophies.

And those tests are pretty spot on! And, again, I believe she is guilty—but not because I have any evidence in front of me or know the whole story. I just know that these athletes can no longer be trusted. However, trust is not fact.

So, if this were brought before a jury and I was on that jury, I would hunt for reasonable doubt. If I could find none, then I would be forced to find her guilty. But if there was anything even remotely approaching reasonable doubt, then I would have to find her not guilty.

And, yes, I agree that that implies criminal court.

- AppleNova is the best Mac-users forum on the internet. We are smart, educated, capable, and helpful. We are also loaded with smart-alecks! :)
- Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Mat 5:9)
  quote
Bryson
Rocket Surgeon
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Canadark
 
2021-06-18, 08:41

I don't know, I think they did prove her "guilt" - they did the test, and found the substance. Her extraordinary claim that a food truck burrito somehow caused the positive was just that - an extraordinary claim that required extraordinary evidence. She failed to do that. That's not her being innocent until proven guilty - she was already proven guilty but attempting a Hail Mary last-ditch escape, which she failed to do.
  quote
drewprops
Space Pirate
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta
 
2021-06-18, 09:40

Where is that food truck? I could use some steroids.



...
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2021-06-18, 09:53

What, nobody told you that all food truck hot dogs and burritos are loaded with roids?
  quote
kscherer
Which way is up?
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
 
2021-06-18, 10:47

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryson View Post
I don't know, I think they did prove her "guilt" - they did the test, and found the substance. Her extraordinary claim that a food truck burrito somehow caused the positive was just that - an extraordinary claim that required extraordinary evidence. She failed to do that. That's not her being innocent until proven guilty - she was already proven guilty but attempting a Hail Mary last-ditch escape, which she failed to do.
Oh, I think they did prove her guilt. It's just the statement that bothers me. Saying, "Hey, we proved her guilt and she was unable to refute the evidence." is very much different than saying, "Well, she failed to prove her innocence."

The more I think about it, the more I think that it's just the wording that bothers me. But, words matter.

Hopefully, a transcript will land somewhere and I can form an opinion based on something more than a reporter's interpretation.

- AppleNova is the best Mac-users forum on the internet. We are smart, educated, capable, and helpful. We are also loaded with smart-alecks! :)
- Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Mat 5:9)
  quote
Bryson
Rocket Surgeon
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Canadark
 
2021-06-18, 12:31

Agreed. I think it's a bit of lazy wording, possibly on the part of the reporter, and possibly on the part of the "arbitrator".
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lance was one of many doping bags of shit. alcimedes AppleOutsider 218 2013-01-23 05:22


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 13:54.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova