– if someone was accused of murder, would sworn testimony, a receipt for a weapon and a threatening email be enough to convict them?
Serious answer; Yes. Most court cases revolve around witness testimony. It is not unusual to have no forensic evidence (despite the influence of CSI on juries ideas) and there have been murder convictions where the body has never been found, let alone the weapon.
I was due to give witness evidence in, funnily enough, a drugs case in crown court last week. No forensic evidence linking the defendant to the drugs found (in his car not on him personally). Despite that on the day of the trial he changed his plea to guilty, as he took his defence team’s advice that the evidence (all witness statement and testimony, so the sort of thing STW arguments deem ‘circumstantial’) was overwhelming. I would suggest the same was behind LA’s decision not to continue to challenge the USADA case…
I don’t expect a change in the L.A apologists (not aimed at you PP) attitude that the only acceptable evidence is a positive test, but frustrating for someone involved in the criminal justice system to keep hearing that line trotted out.
edit
Armstrong never failed a doping test
🙄
Wrong. He failed a cortisone test in the 1999 TdeF and produced a back dated TUE (therapeutic exemption certificate). Do we really need another thread discussing the evidence against LA when the information is readily available for anyone interested enough to come to an informed opinion?