Implications of Lance Armstrong saga on PED testing procedures
Case in point, there is a general consensus Lance Armstrong is guilty of doping.
But doesn't it set a dangerous precident that someone could be stripped of titles without actually failing a test?
Not saying said athlete is innocent, I just worry the message that that sends for the future.
The doping tests is their system. It's their criteria, and I think you get through those tests, thats good enough to keep your titles.
I think LEGALLY sooner or later this will become an issue. Its a moral one but also a burden of proof issue too.
Obviously the tests aren't as good as DNA etc. So does that mean that you could pass a test and actually be innocent? If the testing is foolproof why do you need a B sample?
I would like to see doping cases go to court because then we could actually see how reliable these tests are vs say DNA. How reliable and consistant and qualified the testers are worldwide, and how the risks of contamination vary from country to country, as athletes travel all around the world for testing.
But the side issue is, aside from a confession, does it set a slippery slope for the future to be able to convict someone without failing a test?
It's a lot like a murder case where you have no DNA evidence but eyewitnesses who saw you do it or talk about it. It's compelling, but reasonable doubt would come into the equation in a courtroom setting, where it doesn't so much in a civil type of case, which doping court is more in line with.
What do you guys think? Theres no point in discussing Lance Armstrongs guilt or innocence, there is another thread for that. This is for disucssion about the future of TESTING, how reliable it is vs DNA and similar things, risks of contamination, skill of testers, and whether testing results should now be seen as inferior to eyewitnesses.
What does this mean for me? WE MUST now try dopers in criminal court settings in my opinion. As long as we continue to keep the law out of this ordeal, there will always be too many what ifs for my liking. Doping is ruining sport. It would also mean that people who LIE about their doping and then get proven would recieve a harsher sentence than someone who confesses right away (criminal logic 1.01). The way it is now, you can just deny deny deny and it only hurts your reputation, NOT your freedom. This needs to change.
"I did not play my best tennis, no? And..that is what enable him to win..to win this match no? "
- Rafael Nadal, ever so "humble", - press conference after shock 4 set loss to Robeen Soderling @ 2009 French Open 4th round.
Proud member of the Anti Dull Alliance