Which one who?Originally Posted by matagi .
And to be fair, Tony Scott should have been drowned at birth for launching an scientologist fuckwit gnome on an unsuspecting planetOriginally 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)
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.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.
Where did the judge say that?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.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-delays-ruling-in-armstrong-and-usada-caseOriginally 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
also:Sparksâ€™ 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,â€ said Sparks.
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."
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.Originally Posted by Jono L .
I never thought we'd have the Livestrong PR campaing brought onto the TAN/img/vbsmilies/smilies/frown.gif