Dutch steeple chaser and European record holder Simon Vroemen has been declared innocent in the `illegal drip case`. His defence convincingly showed the saline infusion, which was given to him after he got seriously ill, followed all Wada rules and was only administered to him as a medical emergency treatment against dehydration.
Not a single piece of evidence for an illegal action has been presented by the prosecution. The case was started based on rumours.
I'm generally familiar with the incident, but I'm not familiar with the legal "case" that you're talking about. Your use of the terms "illegal" and "the prosecution" implies a criminal proceeding. What proceeding was this, and in what country?
I assume, by the way, that Vroemen remains suspended for his positive test for an anabolic steroid last year.
I believe he has tested positive for a banned substance two other times in addition to the "illegal drip case", so it's a joke to call him innocent.
was he DECLARED "Innocent"? Or pronounced 'not guilty'? There is a world of difference between the two!
listen, that dude is diiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeerty. dear god. he'll probably PR again when he's 50.
Obviously Obscure wrote:
was he DECLARED "Innocent"? Or pronounced 'not guilty'? There is a world of difference between the two!
No there isn't. Only in your biased mind is their a difference.
our judicial system is innocent, but it does not mean you are innocent. We prove innocence in our system. Test of our judicial system is the only one is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, it is a binary test. In other words, you were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt, or beyond can not be convicted.
Obviously Obscure wrote:
was he DECLARED "Innocent"? Or pronounced 'not guilty'? There is a world of difference between the two!
wheating what wrote:
No there isn't. Only in your biased mind is their a difference.
Of course there is. Only in your biased mind is there no differecne.
wheating what wrote:
No there isn't. Only in your biased mind is their a difference.
You wouldn't have made it far as a lawyer. Innocent means you didn't commit the act, not guilty means it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you commited the act. In US criminal law the burden of poof lies on the prosecution, meaning the accused need not prove his innocence, the state must prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Dingler wrote:
You wouldn't have made it far as a lawyer. Innocent means you didn't commit the act, not guilty means it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you commited the act. In US criminal law the burden of poof lies on the prosecution, meaning the accused need not prove his innocence, the state must prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Thank you. I was hoping I wouldn't be the one to have to make this clear. There is life on these boards. My faith in the LetsRun IQ is restored.
To Wheating What, Get a clue man!
Dingler wrote:
You wouldn't have made it far as a lawyer. Innocent means you didn't commit the act, not guilty means it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you commited the act. In US criminal law the burden of poof lies on the prosecution, meaning the accused need not prove his innocence, the state must prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
You wouldn't have made it far either! "Innocent means you didn't commit the act". No. It means there is at least a reasonable doubt that you committed the act.
sc42 wrote:
Dingler wrote:You wouldn't have made it far as a lawyer. Innocent means you didn't commit the act, not guilty means it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you commited the act. In US criminal law the burden of poof lies on the prosecution, meaning the accused need not prove his innocence, the state must prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
You wouldn't have made it far either! "Innocent means you didn't commit the act". No. It means there is at least a reasonable doubt that you committed the act.
Since when did Vroemen become a US citizen?
You all miss the point. If you can't be proven guilty, you're innocent. That's how the Western World works. (Which Netherlands is included in.) It's only biased people who assume, oh, well, they just couldn't prove it, I'm gonna have my own jury in my head. Have fun with it, but don't go acting like someone isn't innocent just coz you don't like them.
That is just conventions of criminal law.
wheating what wrote:
You all miss the point. If you can't be proven guilty, you're innocent.
no. you need to re-read your stats texts.
guilty/not guilty - hypothesis/null hypothesis
The null hypothesis is never PROVEN, it is either rejected or not rejected. It is never accepted.
So to pronounce somebody is "not guilty" is not saying "s/he is innocent".
The prosecution says, "The defendant did X, Y and Z". The null hypothesis is "The defendant did not do X,Y and Z". So only until you can reject the null hypothesis to a certain degree of confidence (shadow of a doubt etc), can you declare a defendant "guilty".
I know I am screwing this up, but this is the general idea.
As far as Vroemen...the whole thing has raised eyebrows...
Was this the guy who tested positive for steroids early last year?
There is an error in spelling or grammar or thinking in virtually every post here.
asdfsdfsdafasddd wrote:
There is an error in spelling or grammar or thinking in virtually every post here.
Grammar police head explosion!
The positive test for anabolics has not reached a verdict yet, after 1 year of research. That case is far from clear and is now being researched at universities around Europe.
It is far from a clear doping case. And Vroemen did never get convicted for any other banned substance, the (false?) posiitive of last year was his first offence (2004 was only a warning for en expired permission to use an anti-asthma inhalor).
I will keep you informed, case seems to be very unclear and complicated - substance also a non-standard / non-logical dope for a long distance guy I guess...
illegal drip case? long time ago...
steroids? last year...