Le Tour 2012: Anybody's Race?

[krischan]

This isn't about that good deeds he did. I don't wish him anything and I don't have to prove anything. He admitted that he was doped. Now I expect justice to be served accordingly, respectively the closest approximation which the law can provide. Our half-knowledge about the case and the legal situation is certainly not enough to decide it. That's why a court decides about it and not you or me.

I hope you don't believe that he did it just to do those deeds. In that case he would have given it all away, but he didn't. Anyway, I don't care which motives he had, but the law doesn't allow a rebate on crimes when enough of it (or even all of it) is done for good things. You aren't allow to commit fraud and then spend the money on a good cause. and in particular, you won't get away with stealing two pairs of shoes if you gave one to the poor.

With your interesting point of view about justice and the law, I think that it's your priorities which need revision and not mine, but that's just my personal opinion. Unlike you, I don't demand a change, however. You will have to do that on your own behalf.

[KrimLjubljana]

He admitted that he was doped. Now I expect justice to be served accordingly, respectively the closest approximation which the law can provide.

So you'll believe me too, if I admit to.. whatever? When you're looking for a perpetrator, and someone admits to the crime, you require information that would to a good certainty uniquely define the person as the offender. If such information cannot be provided, a testimony is worthless. Please remember this is not a police movie, where they've a suspect, and the moment the suspect admits to the crime, the movie ends. About the law stuff. By admitting to it, he'll be presented the option of a "discount" by giving testimony in court. If he hadn't admitted to it, he'd probably be going to jail without any real proof, only testimony from people who were obviously biased. By not admitting, he'd not have the option of getting a discount.

With your interesting point of view about justice and the law, I think that it's your priorities which need revision and not mine

It's unpleasant how you went from "if you think X statement", which I don't, btw., to present it as I clearly believed those statements. I am better than straw man logic. The part of my post, directed at you, focused at how you seemed to want him to go to jail. At which I informed you, that he's a hero, not a villain. I.e. it's directed at what you wish for, not the law. That you use this to somehow conclude that I think there are laws taking good deeds into account (which there are btw., just not in your specific examples, it's mainly cases of intend), and further more somehow believe Armstrong is guilty, yet did it on purpose to do good, is beyond my level of understanding. Especially considering how I even wrote that I don't have enough trust in Armstrong to believe him when he says he lied about the doping question. At least you made it clear that you do not wish him ill, as such I apologize for having misunderstood you. You ought to improve your reading comprehension though, which should be evident on how you completely misread my reply, and please avoid straw man logic. There are actual statements, and not statements you think the person believes. Relate to the actual parts of the post, and ask for any further explanation if the post isn't sufficient clear, or you're in doubt for other reasons.

[krischan]

I haven't said that his testimony has to lead to a conviction or adjucate it, only that justice has to be served. I phrased it like that on purpose. The law doesn't care about somebody being a good guy or a hero in the eyes of a couple of people, only whether he is to be considered guilty or not. I'm not going to decide that and all I can do is making adjucations from what I hear about the case. He admitted it, that will have a certain weight.

I will ignore your analysis of my statements and speculations about my comprehending skills.

[Stevinator]

Krim, he's no hero. Sure he started livestrong, but he openly defrauded several sponsors by certifying that he was clean. That's fraud. i don't particularly care about how he ruined cycling, since I didn't watch it anyway, and i don't particularly care that he himself took drugs, but he also made his teammates take them or they were off his team.

[KrimLjubljana]

I decided not to respond to your post Krischan, because I believe you still do not reply to the content of my posts. Beside you clarified your previous statement already, so I don't see the point.

Krim, he's no hero.

He was a hero until he went on the telly and spoke to the world. His actions didn't change, your perception of him did.

I find the subjectivity of a person's opinion of another person non discussable in an objective manner. At least not the sort I seek.

but he also made his teammates take them or they were off his team.

That is speculation.

[BobCox2]

I'm sorry I have to count IRL factor and he was a Hero.

Now he's a infamous hero with a tragic black sheep past.

Still a Legend of the sport

[krischan]

If somebody cheats others, donates half of the money and keeps the other half, it doesn't sound heroic, but miserable. I think he should be kicked off his pedestal and be forgotten.

He was a hero until he went on the telly and spoke to the world. His actions didn't change, your perception of him did.

Yes, my perception changed, but not in the manner described by you. I never regarded him as a hero and a saint (there are very few people who deserve being called something like a hero), but of being a typical top end street cyclist. My previous perception about him was that he might be doping and that he's lying about not doing it. Now my perception is that it's more than just a suspicion and that the accusations aren't results of people conspiring against him.

There are a lot of people who turned a blind eye on all that doping, so they have a hero to be glorified and now, as the accusations cannot be dismissed that easily anymore, they turn away from him. That's hypocrisy, so if that's your point, I agree. It was the same here with Jan Ullrich. However, that doesn't mean that people have to keep on glorifying him instead of admitting to themselves that they turned a blind eye on the issue, so they shouldn't become too upset about it, as it's partly a matter of their own shame.

Of course, his sponsors are a bunch of miserable hypocrits as well. They knew all that, respectively they wanted to see results and didn't care about the means or didn't want to hear about them. They wanted armstrong to take the risk and the blame when it's all going to be revealed.

There are more than enough evidence for what he is accused of. You can certainly make up motives for what he did or theories which would explain things while he's completely innocent, but that's pointless and I'm not going to form an opinion in that manner.

[KrimLjubljana]

I am not interested in continuing this discussion, sorry. I beg to differ on some points, I agree on other points.

My own stance can be summed up as Belkar says it:
"I don't trust him enough, to believe he lied" as he's "an admitted liar for starters"

What's the truth, I don't know, and I don't really care. I merely like the idea of questioning a confession when no extra evidence follows from it. To me, there's no difference between the world where Armstrong confessed, and where he didn't, because he didn't prove his confession.
A court will likely find the evidence sufficient, I agree. I don't find the evidence sufficient, it's subjective.

To me, the fact that he brought expansion to a noble goal, makes him a hero, no matter if he kept 50% of the wealth, or cheated to get the wealth. Obviously, it's not an absolute statement, please don't read it as such.

What a hero is, in ones own opinion is of course very subjective. My initial point was not to define a hero, but to point out he did more good with the money he might have cheated himself into, than the bad he did. Again, it's subjective, I care more about curing diseases than biking and money, I don't expect everyone to agree.

[Stevinator]

I am not interested in continuing this discussion, sorry. I beg to differ on some points, I agree on other points.

My own stance can be summed up as Belkar says it:
"I don't trust him enough, to believe he lied" as he's "an admitted liar for starters"

What's the truth, I don't know, and I don't really care. I merely like the idea of questioning a confession when no extra evidence follows from it. To me, there's no difference between the world where Armstrong confessed, and where he didn't, because he didn't prove his confession.
A court will likely find the evidence sufficient, I agree. I don't find the evidence sufficient, it's subjective.

To me, the fact that he brought expansion to a noble goal, makes him a hero, no matter if he kept 50% of the wealth, or cheated to get the wealth. Obviously, it's not an absolute statement, please don't read it as such.

What a hero is, in ones own opinion is of course very subjective. My initial point was not to define a hero, but to point out he did more good with the money he might have cheated himself into, than the bad he did. Again, it's subjective, I care more about curing diseases than biking and money, I don't expect everyone to agree.

If he DIDN'T do it then why would he confess? I mean, he went to a lot of trouble to say he did it. He even tracked down Oprah, who I thought had faded into irrelevancy. Anyway, there is no advantage to him to say he did it if he didn't.

[KrimLjubljana]

It's commonly expected for any participant in a discussion to read the previous posts of an ongoing discussion before initializing opinion sharing. Since, disappointingly, no one else did, I will have to redirect you to my initial post myself, clearly showing what Armstrong gets out of it. A short summary, he gets an 'out of jail' card.Not that I personally even care, as it's not up to me to come up with any justification to counter your opinion. You've to justify your opinion to me, if you want me to "buy" it.Imagine if I tell you Harry Potter is the best book out there ever, and then ask you to prove me wrong, where in fact I am the one who should prove myself to be correct. Similarly here. I do not know if Armstrong doped himself or not. I am merely pointing out that any statement of his are not trustworthy. That you believe in one statement over the other must also mean it's up to you to make one statement more likely than the other, and not up to me to disprove a non-justified statement.