don't cheat. it's not worth it. - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

10/12/2012 06:38:46 PM · #77

Mr. Incredible: You mean you killed off real heroes so that you could *pretend* to be one?
Syndrome: Oh, I'm real. Real enough to defeat you! And I did it without your precious gifts, your oh-so-special powers. I'll give them heroics. I'll give them the most spectacular heroics the world has ever seen! And when I'm old and I've had my fun, I'll sell my inventions so that *everyone* can have powers. *Everyone* can be super! And when everyone's super... [chuckles evilly]: - no one will be.

bassbone

Nikon Z8

Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120 f/4 S

10/13/2012 03:30:03 PM · #78

Originally posted by ambaker:

Originally posted by bassbone:

Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by mike_311:
yikes.

...My sentiments exactly.

One could hope that these allegations are NOT true, but given the number of people making accusations, I really don't like his chances.

Ray

somehow it seems wrong when the proof is just people talking and there has been drug testing all the way along. If the tests are negative, and people talk, I'd tend to believe the tests more. I'd rather have proof than rumors.

The problem is that the science of doping was and likely still is ahead of the testing. It is an analytical chemistry issue with many components - including continuously new doping agents, the sensitivity required to test each of them, and the masking tools used make doping even more difficult to test. In order to test for a compound, it is easiest to have a sample of it to figure out how to test for it. If you continually invent new substances, the analytical chemists don't know what they are testing for. They may see new peaks in a chromatogram and say "there is something here", but they don't exactly what it is. They then need to first figure out what the peaks are, decipher the structures, etc.

I'd sure hate to see this logic stand up in a court of law, in a criminal case. Because I read this as, "Criminals are always finding new ways to commit crimes. So, even though you have passed all the forensic tests, available to us today, we are going to go ahead and send you to jail; because you might be getting away with something."

If the witnesses weren't all guilty, and getting reduced sentences for their "cooperation", I'd be more inclined to accept the reasoning.

I don't know that Armstrong is innocent. I'm not sure I even believe his is innocent. However, under the US legal system, that means acquittal. You have to prove guilt, not just raise suspicions.

Where did I say this was an argument to be used in court? I was explaining the issue with testing and doping in the past (and current) sports history and explaining that just because someone did not fail a drug doping test does not mean they didn't dope.

bhuge

Canon EOS-550D Rebel T2i

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

10/13/2012 03:47:48 PM · #79

Originally posted by ambaker:

That's a good point, but how many eye witnesses do you need to convict without evidence? Lets assume someone murders someone in a crowd of 25 people. If all 24 remaining people testify to the murder, but the murder weapon is never found, would that be enough to convict?

Not that it really matters as this isn't a normal court system.

ambaker

Google Glass Google Glass

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

10/13/2012 10:08:19 PM · #80

If the other 24 were innocent bystanders, I vote to convict. If they are convicted killers "cooperating" for a reduced sentence, then maybe not so much. Especially if they claim that the 25th was the trigger man, yet the accused finger prints are not on the gun, and there is DNA evidence from all 24, but not the 25th.

10/14/2012 06:44:25 AM · #81

Instead of speculating and developing all kinds of possible scenarios, I think I will opt to wait and see what happens next.

Ray

Message edited by author 2012-10-14 07:01:53.

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

10/14/2012 07:00:08 AM · #82

Originally posted by ambaker:

...Just out of curiousity, are you suggesting that this is what is transpiring here?

Ray

bhuge

Canon EOS-550D Rebel T2i

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

10/14/2012 12:05:14 PM · #83

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by ambaker:
If the other 24 were innocent bystanders, I vote to convict. If they are convicted killers "cooperating" for a reduced sentence, then maybe not so much. Especially if they claim that the 25th was the trigger man, yet the accused finger prints are not on the gun, and there is DNA evidence from all 24, but not the 25th.

...Just out of curiousity, are you suggesting that this is what is transpiring here?

Ray

That Lance is a murderer? Heh, absolutely not. I'm just trying to make the point that it is possible to convict without any physical evidence. But as Alex pointed out the eye witness accounts in this case could have their own agendas, and are far from innocent themselves.

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

10/14/2012 12:21:25 PM · #84

Originally posted by bhuge:

I dunno... Who else could have cycled away quickly enough?

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS

10/14/2012 02:05:50 PM · #85

Originally posted by bhuge:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by ambaker:
If the other 24 were innocent bystanders, I vote to convict. If they are convicted killers "cooperating" for a reduced sentence, then maybe not so much. Especially if they claim that the 25th was the trigger man, yet the accused finger prints are not on the gun, and there is DNA evidence from all 24, but not the 25th.

...Just out of curiousity, are you suggesting that this is what is transpiring here?

Ray

That Lance is a murderer? Heh, absolutely not. I'm just trying to make the point that it is possible to convict without any physical evidence. But as Alex pointed out the eye witness accounts in this case could have their own agendas, and are far from innocent themselves.

I will grant you the fact that the witnesses are far for innocent, but with regards to agendas... just what exactly would those be?

Ray

vawendy

Sony Alpha 1

10/14/2012 10:01:41 PM · #86

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by bhuge:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by ambaker:
If the other 24 were innocent bystanders, I vote to convict. If they are convicted killers "cooperating" for a reduced sentence, then maybe not so much. Especially if they claim that the 25th was the trigger man, yet the accused finger prints are not on the gun, and there is DNA evidence from all 24, but not the 25th.

...Just out of curiousity, are you suggesting that this is what is transpiring here?

Ray

That Lance is a murderer? Heh, absolutely not. I'm just trying to make the point that it is possible to convict without any physical evidence. But as Alex pointed out the eye witness accounts in this case could have their own agendas, and are far from innocent themselves.

I will grant you the fact that the witnesses are far for innocent, but with regards to agendas... just what exactly would those be?

Ray

The agenda is they are trying to lighten their own sentences.

Seriously. He passed all the tests. Some of the people accusing haven't passed the tests. If he was doing it with them, you think that they would have passed as well. Or that he would have failed them.