On the Zimmerman trial

I don't normally comment on that many current events on this type of forum but I felt compelled with this particular case. The reason is that it illustrates to me the difference between what is 'general knowledge' in the public and a further, deeper understanding of the story behind the title.

The Zimmerman trial just wrapped up yesterday with the well-known acquittal. Not surprisingly, it resulted in an immense amount of outrage among those that saw it turn into a symbolic battle of racism and civil rights in the US. As a superficial follower at that time who really didn't know much about the case, it seemed odd to me that this guy who shot this unarmed teenager got away with no sentence at all. So I read deeper...

The defence's case had a number of flaws, as outlined in this New York Times article...

1. The only witness (Ms. Jeantel) of the incident had her credibility torn apart by inconsistent testimony
2. Outside of Ms. Jeantel, nobody else witnessed the actual altercation clearly. Yes, Zimmerman was following Trayvon Martin, seemingly on a vendetta, but did Martin lunge at Zimmernan first? There's some reasonable doubt there. 
3. Florida's self-defence laws when it comes to trespassing are terrible, at best. From the same NYT article: 

The laws allow someone with a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death to use lethal force, even if retreating from danger is an option. In court, the gunman is given the benefit of the doubt.

As a result, it's not really a surprise the jury could not come to a "guilty" verdict. What that requires is they have to have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that manslaughter or second-degree murder was committed. Was Zimmerman out to prove a lesson? Probably. He pursued the teenager against the police's instructions not to do so. Was he profiling Trayvon Martin? Probably. However, was there reasonable doubt surrounding the sequence of events and in the context of Florida self-defence law?

Unfortunately, yes.

Lance Armstrong stops fighting: is it really a concession?

Breaking just this evening, Lance Armstrong, undoubtedly the most famous athlete in cycling history and a major icon in fundraising cancer research, has decided to end his fight against charges made by the United States Anti-Doping Agency.

Stories found at The New York Times, but a more thorough one for now (suprisingly) at ESPN.

What does this mean exactly? Well now, the USADA can pursue charging Armstrong for doping and are looking to strip him of his seven Tour de France titles and ban him for life from cycling. I'm not exactly sure how this procedure works given that the International Cycling Union is the governing body, but I'll leave that to the lawyers to explain.

More damaging however, is that the USADA can proceed now without opposition, and publicly without Armstrong denying the claims many people can assume that it is an admission of guilt. Of course, Armstrong vehemently denies this notion.

So which is it? A judge had previously questioned the USADA's motivations in pursuing Armstrong after his retirement, while the USADA counters that they have evidence he has been doping for over a decade and has former teammates willing to testify. Armstrong has never failed a drug test, but in this day and age that can't be taken at face value either.

Unless all the facts come out, we'll never know for sure. Regardless, the damage has been done. The legacy Armstrong prided himself on is forever tarnished, at the very least, with an asterisk. Countless people looked to him as a role model, including patients with cancer and their families. He won't be seen the same way again.

But is it really an admission of guilt? It is very reasonable to suggest that after years and years of being hounded and pursued by the USADA, this accusation has worn him to his core. I bet, regardless of his guilt, it was truly exhausting. Perhaps he is simply throwing his arms up in despair, conceding this defeat in the name of temporary peace.

Or perhaps it's a re-evaluation of his priorities. Maybe all that matters to him is that he truly knows he won those races fairly, and that his family knows he won the races fairly. Maybe that's enough for him. Maybe he's decided it's not worth the headache, and he knows that although he will lose many fans, many more will still rally around him for what he has done for cancer research so far. This wouldn't be the first time that what was someone's livelihood no longer matters; it was a first life. He could be ready to turn the page and throw that old book away, where he wants to refocus on his endeavours and philanthropy.

Or maybe he's guilty. We'll likely never know.