The Thread about Nothing....



62vette

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2003
1,961
236
63
60
Te Ika a Maui
Originally Posted by matagi .

Who?
Which one who?

Neil Armstrong - one small step...
Phyllis Diller - ancient seppo comedienne
Tony Scott - Ridley Scott's brother, directed Top Gun (I'll give you this who?, I didn't know who he was either till the news stories came out)
 

62vette

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2003
1,961
236
63
60
Te Ika a Maui
Originally Posted by 62vette .

Which one who?

Neil Armstrong - one small step...
Phyllis Diller - ancient seppo comedienne
Tony Scott - Ridley Scott's brother, directed Top Gun (I'll give you this who?, I didn't know who he was either till the news stories came out)
And to be fair, Tony Scott should have been drowned at birth for launching an scientologist fuckwit gnome on an unsuspecting planet
 

swampy1970

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2008
10,075
381
83
Originally Posted by Jono L .


As far as I understand most of the evidence will come out. And everyone will get to see that there was plenty of hard evidence and the whole 'witch hunt' theory is just another well played Livestrong PR strategy.
I hope it does come out and that it's full of hard facts that cannot be disputed. But when an impartial Judge sees the evidence and pretty much says the USADA documents contain no facts, just conclusions and would never pass muster in a court room, then one has to wonder whether the hundreds of 'facts' that we've heard about over the past decade really are facts.
 

Jono L

Well-Known Member
Apr 28, 2005
4,434
124
48
Originally Posted by swampy1970 .


I hope it does come out and that it's full of hard facts that cannot be disputed. But when an impartial Judge sees the evidence and pretty much says the USADA documents contain no facts, just conclusions and would never pass muster in a court room, then one has to wonder whether the hundreds of 'facts' that we've heard about over the past decade really are facts.
Where did the judge say that?

from what I had read he got stuck into them about not giving armstrong enough evidence so that he could prepare a defence to which USADA said they didnt want to risk having witnesses intimidated?

Surely, surely, with his A+ legal team, if the evidence was a weak as you suggest, they would exploit that angle to the nth degree
 

swampy1970

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2008
10,075
381
83
Originally Posted by Jono L .


Where did the judge say that?

from what I had read he got stuck into them about not giving armstrong enough evidence so that he could prepare a defence to which USADA said they didnt want to risk having witnesses intimidated?

Surely, surely, with his A+ legal team, if the evidence was a weak as you suggest, they would exploit that angle to the nth degree
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-delays-ruling-in-armstrong-and-usada-case


Sparks’ concerns and subsequently delayed ruling on jurisdiction were primarily based around the specifics provided by USADA, or rather apparent lack of which did not provide Armstrong with enough information to mount an edequate defence.

"I couldn't find anything but conclusions (in the charges)," Sparks said. "Not one name, not one event, not one date,” said Sparks.
also:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-issues-stinging-criticism-of-usada-in-armstrong-case


In the opinion, Sparks takes USADA to task, stating, "there are troubling aspects of this case, not least of which is USADA's apparent single-minded determination to force Armstrong to arbitrate the charges against him, in direct conflict with UCI's equally evident desire not to proceed against him."

In another note, Sparks writes, "Among the Court's concerns is the fact that USADA has targeted Armstrong for prosecution many years after his alleged doping violations occurred, and intends to consolidate his case with those of several other alleged offenders, including - incredibly - several over whom USA Cycling and USOC apparently have no authority whatsoever. Further, if Armstrong's allegations are true, and USADA is promising lesser sanctions against other allegedly offending riders in exchange for their testimony against Armstrong, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that USADA is motivated more by politics and a desire for media attention than faithful adherence to its obligations to USOC."

"The Court noted during the August 10 hearing, this "charging document" is so vague and unhelpful it would not pass muster in any court in the United States. The Court is assured, however, that Armstrong will be given adequate notice of the specific allegations against him in a timely fashion prior to arbitration, and proceeds under the assumption this will actually occur.

"Indeed, the Court has serious doubts whether USADA' s arbitration procedures would comport with due process if Armstrong were not to receive such notice sufficiently in advance of his arbitration to allow him to prepare a defense."
 

bbp

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2006
5,028
776
83
Apprentice North Sentinelese.
And that carefully edited fraction of what the Judge said conveniently neglects the fact that his only real job was to see whether Armstrong was allowed to be charged by ASADA, which is the national WADA representative body, (and I'd imagine USOC for example wouldn't have liked the precedent set that US courts could invalidate the IOC and WADA codes which would by definition jeopardize USA's Olympic eligibility status) and which the Judge quite plainly did.
The charges therefore stood, and were proven to stand by the Judge in that exact matter, and affirmed by a court of law.

So the charges... as is normal in any court of law, the evidence and testimony gets presented in the court of law, NOT publicly prior. That's the court bit. Not the charging bit. Right? You don't just get to say "oh no I'm not" if you're CHARGED with a crime, do you?

And not contesting the charges is plainly stated in the WADA code and charter to mean the charges stand. Guilty. I'm pretty sure all of those fancy lawyers knew that. Are you gonna argue LA didn't know what his choice meant? When another conveniently left out bit of the Judge's statement was that he advised LA to go to the proven lawful arbitration?

Now as other defendants were named in the same conspiracy charges, and some of them ARE contesting the charges, we'll simply have to wait for their arbitrations for the smoking guns. As Tygart has plainly said, the information will be made public.
 

Jono L

Well-Known Member
Apr 28, 2005
4,434
124
48
Second to that, there, is, no, farking, way, Lance would NOT contest unless he knew what it meant. No way.
 

Jono L

Well-Known Member
Apr 28, 2005
4,434
124
48
Good read
http://theconversation.edu.au/is-the-lance-armstrong-affair-a-race-to-the-bottom-for-cycling-9073
 

swampy1970

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2008
10,075
381
83
The charging letter was pretty generalized, then again apparently they usually are. What isn't supposed to be vague is the documentation that supports the charges. Names, places, times, how stuff was procured, distributed etc...If the charging letter says "Fred bloggs took EPO" then there needs to be specific evidence to show that this actually took place in the full dossier of fluff that's presented to the defendant. This is what the judge is calling vague. As Lance is hardly the mafia and has no prior history of killing or threatening people with bodily harm, withholding names is likely to be laughed at. What's he gonna do? Shout at a guy in a coffee shop again? Witness Protection required!!!!! This will probably be the info that'll also be sent to the UCI, which WADA affiliates are required to do. It seems like lots of big talk with no fluff to back it up - but it there is a mountain of specifics that'll nail him to a cross then fair deal. If it can be proven with specific evidence to have doped, deceived and distributed then his ass should be brought to task. Same deal with banned Ferarri. Ban him from what? He was never a card carrying member of any sporting organization or employed by a team. Claims by USADA that Armstrong was doping during the 08 Tour because of values of the blood passport. That passport is there to monitor riders and to see if any variances suggest that riders needed additional testing. It was never designed, nor can it prove doping - but it can suggest that it "might" have taken place. Might does not equal proof. One thing that really puzzles me is why 98 and on... Doesn't all the other pre-cancer claims of doping not deserve attention too? Why do the job half hearted? It's **** like this that makes me think like the judge did and that it's another round of "let's take pot shots at Lance and hope I can be the man to take him down" claim to fame, especially when you combine the unethical reduction in punishment that some riders are supposed to have received... Y'all don't have anything much to worry about - this **** is being paid for with my tax dollars!
 

Jono L

Well-Known Member
Apr 28, 2005
4,434
124
48
Shut up about your tax dollars you tea swindly party whinger.

Read this instead
http://www.reddit.com/r/sports/comments/ytzwv/if_he_can_handle_the_psychological_pressure_he/c5yzpw4
/img/vbsmilies/smilies/biggrin.gif
 

Jono L

Well-Known Member
Apr 28, 2005
4,434
124
48
I never thought we'd have the Livestrong PR campaing brought onto the TAN/img/vbsmilies/smilies/frown.gif
 

stevebaby

New Member
Jun 22, 2004
3,515
4
0
Originally Posted by Jono L .

I never thought we'd have the Livestrong PR campaing brought onto the TAN/img/vbsmilies/smilies/frown.gif
The whole Livestrong PR machine mostly exists to keep Lance Armstrong the brand in the public eye. I have to laugh at the notion that he "beat" cancer, as though he cured himself by some supreme act of will. Nobody beats cancer except the medical professionals to whom you hand your life, literally. The patient makes a choice to endure treatment and maybe live, or refuse it and probably die. After that, you're just along for the ride, however bumpy. There are millions of people who die every year without ever having the options that he and most Westerners can choose. Bravery has fuckall to do with it until further treatment no longer works, and even then it's really just a matter of acceptance.
I got to know a kid who had been living with leukaemia for years. She was 17 and looked about 12 from all the chemo she'd been through. She was going to die, and knew it, and she went through 6 months of palliative chemo, not for herself, but for her family. She died a few months after she finished her Higher School Certificate.
That kid had more courage in her little fingernail than anyone I've ever known.

On a different note,I've just finished David Millar's autobiography, and a cracking read it is too. I'm now convinced more than ever that pro cyclists are a bunch of mentalists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: paulambry

531Aussie

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2004
12,633
297
83
Cool, a Team Kevin-Eleven Merckx. Opening bid: $1. And 36-spoked wheels!! The only thing spoiling it is the spzzo bars.,
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Eddy-Merckx-SLX-Corsa-Extra-7-Eleven-Shimano-Dura-Ace-Classic-Road-bike-/190719729363?pt=AU_Sport_Cycling_Frames&hash=item2c67c81ed3

7_01.jpg