So they're trying to nail Armstrong, but acquitted Clemens.... yin/yang?

[George Jung]

Clemens acquitted of charges of illegal use of drugs/hormones while playing baseball. Of course, he wasn't trying to continue as an athlete while under investigation. The witch hunt of Armstrong continues, keeping him from participation in triathalons.

I had the opportunity to see a guy today who's a still-competitive biker, and his son coaches pro-bikers in europe. His take on Armstrong -all politics on the part of those organizations still harrassing him. Cycling sounds like one of the nastiest sports around, confirmed by this guy.

[johnw]

Clemens wasn't charged with use of performance enhancing um, performance enhancers. He was charged with perjury, mopery, and lying to congress. Much harder to prove.

[Gerarddm]

Two different Theys here. One is a governing body of a sport. The other was the Feds.

[B_B]

Absolutely, posts 2 and 3 nailed it.

Armstrong's latest embroglio stems from a Federal Prosecutor (IIRC) refusing to press criminal charges. The new twist is an administrative action brought on by the bodies charged with keeping sports and cycling clean of drugs. The required level of proof is very different from a criminal proceeding.

Clemens was charged with perjury, obstruction and making false statements. His acquittal on these charges has no bearing on whether you believe his former team-mate and trainer (amongst others) who say they witnessed him using steroids.

[Tom Montgomery]

Yep. Clemens was tried on criminal charges. The standard was whether the charges could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Armstrong, on the other hand, will be judged based upon the preponderance of the evidence

[Ian McColgin]

The problem with judging Armstrong is that all actual blood tests have been negative. The only evidence is that he won a lot. Cyclists make ballarinas look like nice people.

[John Smith]

We'll see. Speaking for myself, I hope we don't get nightly reports of testimony hand picked by the one reporting it. I can wait for the jury's decision.

[B_B]

The problem with judging Armstrong is that all actual blood tests have been negative. The only evidence is that he won a lot. Cyclists make ballarinas look like nice people.

AFAIK, it's a little more complicated than saying "there were no drugs in his system". IIRC the testing procedures not only look for the specific drug, but for other drugs which are used to mask performance enhancing substances. Testing procedures and protocols have evolved to look for these masking agents for the masking agents, and biological and/or chemical evidence ("residue" if you will) that things like the above were used.

If you have a blood sample that indicates that a substance may have been used, and you have former team-mates saying they saw him use it, and you have him being a patient of a Doctor who's been linked to the development and use of designer drugs, etc. etc. then you have circumstantial evidence that he may have used them.

The hearing will determine if there is enough ancillary and circumstantial evidence to hold him accountable.

Let's not forget that there have been many former star track and field athletes who'd been tested hundreds of times with no positive tests only to be found out as testing procedures evolved. The thing that gets me are the number of ex-team-mates who've accused Armstrong. I get that they may have a personal vendetta against him, but to have that many people lie about you seems weird.

[pefjr]

A jury trial with a celebrity, or a sport star is stupid and wasteful. Only one of the 12 can prevent a conviction, and the defense gets to choose several of the 12 from the pool of course. How easy is that ?

[Phillip Allen]

A jury trial with a celebrity, or a sport star is stupid and wasteful. Only one of the 12 can prevent a conviction, and the defense gets to choose several of the 12 from the pool of course. How easy is that ?

I take it then that you don't like the idea of a conviction being prevented?

[pefjr]

I take it then that you don't like the idea of a conviction being prevented?

I am not at all surprised that you take it that way. Do you think there is another way you could take it? I could suggest a way.