Armstrong and Lemond

[Kyle Legate]

Laz wrote:
>
> What I always found stupid about greg is how he in his latter years would
> always talk up his chances in the tour and falter miserably. year after
> year.
>
Like Jan Ullrich?

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Jack Hollis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 18:40:48 GMT, gwhite <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> > You obviously don't know the meaning of prima facae.
>>>
>>> Do tell us the meaning of "prima facae" also spelled "facie" (mostly in
>>> the
>>> US).
>>
>>
>>Prime Feces := ******** "at the face" circumstantial evidence
>
>
> Prima Facie \PRY-muh-FAY-shee; -shuh\, adverb:
> At first view; on the first appearance.
>
> =================================================
> adjective:
> 1. True, valid, or adequate at first sight; as it seems at first
> sight; ostensible.
> 2. Self-evident; obvious.
> 3. (Law) Sufficient to establish a fact or a case unless disproved.
> =================================================
>
> PF is not circumstantial. The only real PF evidence of doping is a
> confirmed positive blood test.

Wrong. There are other forms of evidence that can be used to make not only
a prima facae case but also prove guilt by a preponderance, as required
here, or beyond a reasonable doubt. Ask any prosecutor. .

> That is sufficent to establish the
> fact of doping. Even possession would not, in itself, be PF evidence
> that someone actually took dope.
>
> So to say there's a PF case is simply incorrect.

We'll just have to disagree.
>
> If you want a legal term to describe LA and drugs, you might try
> reasonable suspicion and even that's a stretch. Reasonable suspicion
> is the standard (in the US) that allows police agencies to conduct an
> investigation and/or obtain search warrants and wire taps.

Incorrect. Probable cause is the standard used to obtain a search warrant.

Jack, go play lawyer someplace where there aren't any lawyers.

 

[Laz]

"Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Laz wrote:
> >
> > What I always found stupid about greg is how he in his latter years
would
> > always talk up his chances in the tour and falter miserably. year after
> > year.
> >
> Like Jan Ullrich?

Absolutely !!! ( If you sample any of my posts about Jan- you'll see I come
down fairly consistently on him too- I guess I just don't like pretenders ).

Laz

 

[Philo]

You really blame Lance after the attacks that Greg has thrown his way?
Greg has openly accused Lance of using drugs. He said something to the
effect "I don't know how long he can continue to deceive people about
his drug use" to the media. How would you react after being smeared in
the press? With charity? With "modesty and grace"?

Et tu yourself.

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Philo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> You really blame Lance after the attacks that Greg has thrown his way?
> Greg has openly accused Lance of using drugs. He said something to the
> effect "I don't know how long he can continue to deceive people about
> his drug use" to the media. How would you react after being smeared in
> the press? With charity? With "modesty and grace"?
>
> Et tu yourself.
>

Perhaps significantly, Armstrong has not sued Lemond for defamation. That
is probably because, as a public figure, Armstrong would have to prove
actual malice in a US court, a rather difficult legal burden. Armstrong
would also open himself up to discovery including deposition under oath by
Lemond's attorneys. That could prove interesting and great fun reading.

 

[Tom]

Then, as always, he could throw his stack of passed drug screenings
at them, and say, so there. I mean, how many tests does he have to
pass to consider him "clean"? Yeah, I know there are possibly ways
you can cheat the test, but in absence of evidence what do you have?
Nothing really, nothing at all.

Tom

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Then, as always, he could throw his stack of passed drug screenings
> at them, and say, so there. I mean, how many tests does he have to
> pass to consider him "clean"? Yeah, I know there are possibly ways
> you can cheat the test, but in absence of evidence what do you have?
> Nothing really, nothing at all.
>
> Tom
>

Not exactly nothing. Ask the lawyer for the Texas insurance company that is
refusing to pay Armstrong his bonus.

 

[Gary]

Wow! There's an objective source. LOL

B. Lafferty wrote:
> "Tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>>Then, as always, he could throw his stack of passed drug screenings
>>at them, and say, so there. I mean, how many tests does he have to
>>pass to consider him "clean"? Yeah, I know there are possibly ways
>>you can cheat the test, but in absence of evidence what do you have?
>>Nothing really, nothing at all.
>>
>>Tom
>>
>
>
> Not exactly nothing. Ask the lawyer for the Texas insurance company that is
> refusing to pay Armstrong his bonus.
>
>

 

[Philo]

>Not exactly nothing. Ask the lawyer for the Texas insurance company that is
>refusing to pay Armstrong his bonus

Whatever happened until "innocent until proven guilty"? I guess it is
really "innocent unless some lawyer is manuevering and the media prints
some accusations". And "someone on rbr thinks he has a prima facie
case even though no DA will try it".

Wanna bet the Texas insurance company will eventually pay Lance his
full bonus? Will that cause your case to collapse?

 

[Jack Hollis]

On 18 Jul 2005 17:32:54 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>Well, Lance is doing much better than Marion Jones, who has been
>systematically excluded from invitational events, despite never
>having tested positive. Like Lance, her accusers are untrustworthy
>people with an axe to grind.
>
>-ilan

I think that Victor Conte is a much more credible source than anyone
who has made accusations against Lance. It's a fact that Balco
produced an undetectable steroid and VC says he personally gave
performance enhancing drugs to Jones.

Even so, there is no PF evidence that Jones took drugs.

It's basically a case of he said, she said. But, as I said, the he is
a lot more credible and what he is claiming is a lot more damaging
than what exists against Lance.

 

[Tom]

So they use a book that is all circumstantial evidence (as cited by the
guys that wrote it) as proof of doping? That's some burden of proof
there. I'd say that the evidence that Arsmtrong has is way more than
circumstantial proving that he doesn't dope. Once again, he has how
many negative doping tests over the last 14 years of him being a pro
cyclist?? I'm not sure of the number, but it's a lot no doubt.

Tom

 

[Jack Hollis]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 10:27:14 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> So to say there's a PF case is simply incorrect.
>
>We'll just have to disagree.

Fair enough.

 

[Jack Hollis]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 10:27:14 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Jack, go play lawyer someplace where there aren't any lawyers.

If you're a lawyer perhaps you should review PF evidence.

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Gary" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Wow! There's an objective source. LOL
>

Not the issue.

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Philo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> >Not exactly nothing. Ask the lawyer for the Texas insurance company that
> >is
>>refusing to pay Armstrong his bonus
>
> Whatever happened until "innocent until proven guilty"? I guess it is
> really "innocent unless some lawyer is manuevering and the media prints
> some accusations".

No. An insurer with an obligation to pay millions of $$ if contract terms
are met, as it has in the past, has serious questions based on the reported
statements of people in the W&B book. This isn't a criminal matter. To deny
payment, the insurer will have to prove that the contract terms were not met
or that the contract was fraudulently induced. The court or arbitrator will
decide the case. Walsh has stated that he and B. have more information that
will be included in the next edition of their book. I wonder if the
insurer's investigators have spoken with W&B.


>And "someone on rbr thinks he has a prima facie
> case even though no DA will try it".

This is not a criminal case--no District Attorney is involved.

>
> Wanna bet the Texas insurance company will eventually pay Lance his
> full bonus? Will that cause your case to collapse?
>

They might pay or settle. Time will tell.

 

[Kyle Legate]

Tom wrote:
> Then, as always, he could throw his stack of passed drug screenings
> at them, and say, so there. I mean, how many tests does he have to
> pass to consider him "clean"?
>
Inadmissable, since there's a clear conflict of interest in that Lance
is a big money contributor to the anti-doping programme.

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> So they use a book that is all circumstantial evidence (as cited by the
> guys that wrote it) as proof of doping?

No, the book will not be admitted in evidence. There would be testimony and
the introduction of real evidence such as medical records.


>That's some burden of proof
> there.

You appear to be confusing the concept of burden of proof with weight to be
accorded certain pieces of evidence used in attempting to meet the burden of
proof.

> I'd say that the evidence that Arsmtrong has is way more than
> circumstantial proving that he doesn't dope. Once again, he has how
> many negative doping tests over the last 14 years of him being a pro
> cyclist?? I'm not sure of the number, but it's a lot no doubt.

You know quite well that not testing positive means nothing today. David
Miller never tested positive for the EPO he was using. Who was the pro
rider who said last year that only stupid riders test positive? Apologies
to Tyler.

>
> Tom
>

 

[[email protected]]

"I think that Lemond could have
really helped racing in the US if he did more."

or drank less.

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Jack Hollis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 10:27:14 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Jack, go play lawyer someplace where there aren't any lawyers.
>
> If you're a lawyer perhaps you should review PF evidence.

I am and I have. As I said earlier, we'll just have to disagree on this
one.

 

[gym.gravity]

B. Lafferty wrote:

> You know quite well that not testing positive means nothing today. David
> Miller never tested positive for the EPO he was using.

was he on Salvodelli's team?