# Ex head of WADA says this! Uh oh?



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

*Non-analytical evidence* *regarding Landis accusations towards Armstrong etc recently*

Pound said that once a few riders begin to open up it’s likely that more will, and that will make building cases against “protected” riders even easier. He said he’s quite comfortable seeing cases made on eyewitness testimony rather than waiting for the occasional positive doping test.


“Absolutely,” Pound said. “You can do a lot more with a confession like that and allegations and information that they can provide than you can ever do with results that come from the odd guy who pees in a bottle. In principle, I am very comfortable with it.”
In criminal trials, he said, “you can hang people even without bloodstained clothes. It’s a matter of having the kind of panels and the people on those panels who are in a position to weigh the evidence and arrive at level of proof — to the comfortable satisfaction of the panel — that CAS has adopted as the standard of proof.”


Pound added that the more rigorous “comfortable satisfaction” standard is applied to anti-doping authorities when presenting their evidence “but the athlete must only meet a ‘balance of probabilities’ standard. It really is all well calibrated.
Citing a hypothetical example of someone charged with distribution of 300 syringes of Aranesp, Pound said: “You don’t need the actual syringes to make the case. Eyewitness testimony of a delivery, credit card receipts … all of that is admissible and it’s up to the panel to weigh that evidence.”


“Look at the BALCO case,” he added. “Victor Conte, at one point said, ‘I sat beside her, watched her roll up her shorts and inject herself.’ In these cases, you put the witness through cross-examination and whatever tests you subject him to and then it’s left to the panel to determine how much weight is to be given to that evidence. That works for me.”

-VeloNews June 3, 2010


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

So he's saying that if enough credible witnesses and reliable evidence can be brought together to convince a panel (jury) of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt that their will be a conviction? It sound to me like he's just playing politics with more and bigger words to tell us what we should all know from the beginning. Nothing new here.


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

I'd hate to have that name. 

I did find what he said about LA and some urine samples interesting.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Yes, you can hang people even without bloodstained clothes, but in the 21st century, capital offenses generally require a lot more proof, including some kind of physical evidence. You don't need a body, but you better have something else that is definitive. Successful prosecutors know that eyewitness testimony is always suspect, and they do not rely on it exclusively. It's always better to have the bloodstained clothes.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

StillRiding said:


> So he's saying that if enough credible witnesses and reliable evidence can be brought together to convince a panel (jury) of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt that their will be a conviction? It sound to me like he's just playing politics with more and bigger words to tell us what we should all know from the beginning. Nothing new here.



I posted this simply to show another angle, an angle that some members seemed to have overlooked as a POSSIBILITY. Some members in the doping forum seem to subscribe 100% to the theory that without a "smoking gun", then there is no possible way to convict riders such as LA.

So, yep...for some members this concept is brand spankin' new. Your avatar pic seems appropriate BTW.

Thank you so much for not telling me to "take my head out of by butt" again.

Madskillz...you are correct. Dick Pound is a very unfortunate name!


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> Yes, you can hang people even without bloodstained clothes, but in the 21st century, capital offenses generally require a lot more proof, including some kind of physical evidence. You don't need a body, but you better have something else that is definitive. Successful prosecutors know that eyewitness testimony is always suspect, and they do not rely on it exclusively. It's always better to have the bloodstained clothes.


A lot of it seems to be wishful thinking at this point. Landis, who's not the most credible witness right now, has already pointed fingers. If however another former teamate speaks, then that may be the proverbial first domino to fall.
So far we only have 2 other former teamates that have said something, althought hesitantly.
Frankie Andreu and Jonathan Vaughters.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

MG537 said:


> A lot of it seems to be wishful thinking at this point. Landis, who's not the most credible witness right now, has already pointed fingers. If however another former teamate speaks, then that may be the proverbial first domino to fall.
> So far we only have 2 other former teamates that have said something, althought hesitantly.
> Frankie Andreu and Jonathan Vaughters.



Like Dick Pound already said, the omerta concept will fall by the wayside once Feds get involved. Lying to the Feds is risky biz. I bet that there are many riders that wish the sport was 100% clean and all the hiding/lying/use of dangerous drugs would disappear finally.

I think that many riders want to talk, but are not protected if they do so. Being questioned by the Feds = honesty usually.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> Like Dick Pound already said, the omerta concept will fall by the wayside once Feds get involved. Lying to the Feds is risky biz. I bet that there are many riders that wish the sport was 100% clean and all the hiding/lying/use of dangerous drugs would disappear finally.
> 
> I think that many riders want to talk, but are not protected if they do so. Being questioned by the Feds = honesty usually.


We'll just have to wait and see. These investigations never move at the speed of the internet.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

rydbyk said:


> Like Dick Pound already said, the omerta concept will fall by the wayside once Feds get involved. Lying to the Feds is risky biz. I bet that there are many riders that wish the sport was 100% clean and all the hiding/lying/use of dangerous drugs would disappear finally.
> 
> I think that many riders want to talk, but are not protected if they do so. Being questioned by the Feds = honesty usually.


However, this only pertains to American Cyclists since the feds can't really question riders from other nations who may never have raced or done anything in America.

The American riders may sing link canaries, but in the end it will make little impact on Pro Cycling in general. It will just be looked at as cheating Americans, nothing more.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

MG537 said:


> We'll just have to wait and see. These investigations never move at the speed of the internet.


Heck, they don't even move at the speed of snail mail.


----------



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

Wookiebiker said:


> However, this only pertains to American Cyclists since the feds can't really question riders from other nations who may never have raced or done anything in America.


The story Cyclingnews ran on Bruyneel said there was going to be a Belgian federal official involved in his investigation in order to determine if The Hog had broken any laws.


----------



## eyebob (Feb 3, 2004)

I would think that what's new is the possibility of an actual US prosecuter actually putting riders and team members in front of a grand jury, under oath. The threat of the US judicial system chasing after you, to a US rider is probably something that does worry them. If it doesn't, even if innocent, they're an idiot. Due process can be exhausting in it's effort to uncover the truth.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

Interesting discussion - which leads to some questions.

Okay, we don't have the syringes with EPO or the blood-bags for evidence - but we do have say two former teammates who are willing to say "Yeah, I saw John Doe using EPO - in fact, he even got some for me!" Would that be enough to ban a rider?

Have previous bans been based on that level of proof?

As to the Feds getting involved (what about Interpol as this crime seems to cross national borders?) - I think that would be great for the reasons stated by OPs - but their Italian, French, Spanish etc. counterparts should work together and agree on what level of evidence is needed to trigger prosecution.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

LostViking said:


> Interesting discussion - which leads to some questions.
> 
> Okay, we don't have the syringes with EPO or the blood-bags for evidence - but we do have say two former teammates who are willing to say "Yeah, I saw John Doe using EPO - in fact, he even got some for me!" Would that be enough to ban a rider?
> 
> ...



Good points.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

One thing I've noted from this thread and a lot of other threads:

People are just drooling for oodles of riders to get caught. They care about nothing but busting riders. Race results are almost secondary to their own little crusde.

Seems like a backward way of thinking, but to each their own...


----------



## muscleendurance (Jan 11, 2009)

MaddSkillz said:


> I'd hate to have that name.


If ever there was a person you'd like to call by their nickname though  dick pound! :lol:


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> One thing I've noted from this thread and a lot of other threads:
> 
> People are just drooling for oodles of riders to get caught. They care about nothing but busting riders. Race results are almost secondary to their own little crusde.
> 
> Seems like a backward way of thinking, but to each their own...


That's because it allows them the fantasy that without the dope that 'all the pros use,' they'd be worthwhile on a bike.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

*Sad, but true.*



robdamanii said:


> One thing I've noted from this thread and a lot of other threads:
> 
> People are just drooling for oodles of riders to get caught. They care about nothing but busting riders. Race results are almost secondary to their own little crusde.
> 
> Seems like a backward way of thinking, but to each their own...


Sad but true. But I can understand it on a level (and that being beyond callous cynicism) - I would love to see all of the cheaters get caught more often as this would have a chilling effect on new riders coming up. But on the other hand, many of us seem to have reached the point where every achievement is questioned and I fear that clean riders are being caught in the backlash against the dopers.

That kind of cynicism, if unchecked, will lead to the death of this sport.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

*I disagree*

One a small level, I felt/feel like I could relate to what the pros are doing. IF a superstar such as LA really is doping, I no longer can relate to him AS WELL.

There is something special to know how hard I work at cycling and then to see a superstar like LA just crush your very own ability. It is humbling.

I do not want to watch LA during the tour and EVER think to myself..."Hmm...well how good is he really w/o the EPO etc??" It ruins it FOR ME.

The cycling fan loses a valued connection to the pro level when you are no longer able to relate to them on a "clean level".

Is the sport still difficult with EPO use etc? Absolutely. It just messes with my mind a bit and it's a bummer.

Honestly, if I had IT MY WAY, I would absolutely love nothing more than to find out that no pros are doping.

On the other hand, I want those who cheat to be stopped.

I bet that most of the other "angered" members here feel the same as I do to a certain extent.


----------



## RRRoubaix (Aug 27, 2008)

rydbyk said:


> There is something special to know how hard I work at cycling and then to see a superstar like LA just crush your very own ability. It is humbling.
> 
> I do not want to watch LA during the tour and EVER think to myself..."Hmm...well how good is he really w/o the EPO etc??" It ruins it FOR ME.


But, Lance aside for a minute, doesn't this already happen every time you watch bicycle racing now? Whenever I see somebody crush their opponents now and have stellar victory, I cheer ... and then I start to doubt it's all based solely on their athletic ability...


----------



## RRRoubaix (Aug 27, 2008)

rydbyk said:


> *Non-analytical evidence* *regarding Landis accusations towards Armstrong etc recently*
> 
> Pound said that once a few riders begin to open up it’s likely that more will, and that will make building cases against “protected” riders even easier. He said he’s quite comfortable seeing cases made on eyewitness testimony rather than waiting for the occasional positive doping test.
> 
> ...


Now I certainly don't want to defend any dopers- but isn't this the same kind of awesome evidence that got thousands of so-called witches burned at the stake?
Just sayin'...


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> One a small level, I felt/feel like I could relate to what the pros are doing. IF a superstar such as LA really is doping, I no longer can relate to him AS WELL.
> 
> There is something special to know how hard I work at cycling and then to see a superstar like LA just crush your very own ability. It is humbling.
> 
> ...


So...

You're jealous that they're better than you and you don't have the "advantage" that they have. Got it...


----------



## ArkRider (Jul 27, 2007)

eyebob said:


> I would think that what's new is the possibility of an actual US prosecuter actually putting riders and team members in front of a grand jury, under oath. The threat of the US judicial system chasing after you, to a US rider is probably something that does worry them. If it doesn't, even if innocent, they're an idiot. Due process can be exhausting in it's effort to uncover the truth.



You mean when the talking-heads on the news channels tell us that if you're innocent you don't have anything to worry about they weren't telling us the truth? Can't be!


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> So...
> 
> You're jealous that they're better than you and you don't have the "advantage" that they have. Got it...



Wow. You missed the point COMPLETELY. Re-read as needed. Maybe a few times perhaps??? Seems like a troll comment really...


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

*I bet most top pros wish that....*

I feel like most top pros would love for the sport of cycling to magically all be clean when they wake up tomorrow for the following reasons:

1. They know they are adversely affecting their health by using PED's.

2. The stress involved with the "secrecy" has got to be mentally taxing.

3. The possibility of a ban/loss of money that impacts their families/careers has got to be stressful.

4. Etc etc.

It seems most of them are probably looking for a reason to spill the beans on what goes on behind closed doors. This whole Landis thing involving the Feds etc just might be their chance to be "forced to finally fess up".


----------



## jd3 (Oct 8, 2004)

I want to let the past be and move forward to a clean cycling sport. We have already seen enough teams disappear and sponsors leave the sport as a result of doping implications. Tough economic times coupled with massive negative press about doping will cause sponsorship money to totally dry up. We all know what has gone on in the past. Let sleeping dogs lie and work for a better future.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

jd3 said:


> I want to let the past be and move forward to a clean cycling sport. We have already seen enough teams disappear and sponsors leave the sport as a result of doping implications. Tough economic times coupled with massive negative press about doping will cause sponsorship money to totally dry up. We all know what has gone on in the past. Let sleeping dogs lie and work for a better future.


save the post. That way you won't have to re-type it in 2022.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

den bakker said:


> save the post. That way you won't have to re-type it in 2022.


Funny. I agree. There is no other option than to confront the past in order to FIX the future of the sport. Unfortunately, so teams/riders may have to be sacrificial lambs. Big numbers and big penalties = first step towards fixing this issue. Not just the random Valverdes here and there....


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Or you could accept that there is never a level playing field in ANY sport and stop worrying about who's cheating, and how much...


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> Or you could accept that there is never a level playing field in ANY sport and stop worrying about who's cheating, and how much...



Yeh. We should just give up and not "worry". I want the UCI etc to worry at the very least. Do you suggest that they should not "worry". Perhaps MLB should not 'worry" either?

Again, Americans will put up with anything as long as it does not block traffic. Amazing. A fatalist mentality perhaps?

Sounds kind of like the "nobody should bother voting in America anymore because it does not make any difference" mentality.


----------

