The writing is on the walls...

[MagillaGorilla]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/aug06/aug30news3

It should be obvious Basso is going to be fully exonerated. First of
all, this so-called guido "prosecutor" seems to be claiming that Basso
answered all the questions exhaustively to his satisfaction. I've never
heard of a prosecutor making such a broad concession to a defendant that
he is supposed to believe is guilty.

Basso's quotes don't make him appear too worried either that he got
tripped up on anything.

And once Basso's case is dismissed, all the federations will fall in
line and conduct similar mock trials with lover-boy prosecutors.

And then McQualude can claim clean hands and that the UCI handled the
situation aggressively but "unfortunately there wasn't enough evidence."

This is so predictable. This is just a big publicity stunt by the UCI
and national federations.


Magilla

 

[[email protected]]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/aug06/aug30news3
>
> It should be obvious Basso is going to be fully exonerated. First of
> all, this so-called guido "prosecutor" seems to be claiming that Basso
> answered all the questions exhaustively to his satisfaction. I've never
> heard of a prosecutor making such a broad concession to a defendant that
> he is supposed to believe is guilty.
>
> Basso's quotes don't make him appear too worried either that he got
> tripped up on anything.
>
> And once Basso's case is dismissed, all the federations will fall in
> line and conduct similar mock trials with lover-boy prosecutors.
>
> And then McQualude can claim clean hands and that the UCI handled the
> situation aggressively but "unfortunately there wasn't enough evidence."
>
> This is so predictable. This is just a big publicity stunt by the UCI
> and national federations.
>
>
> Magilla

Huh? The Spanish turn over a bunch of documents to the Italian
prosecutors (the most damning of which uses a code name that happens to
be the name of Basso's dog).

How are they supposed to immediately believe he is guilty? Are they
not supposed to investigate? An Italian prosecutor has a look at the
documents, interviews the suspect, and walks away convinced that there
really is not much there for him to work with. Why blame him? It
isn't even his investigation.

And why affix your rage to the Italians? What about the Spaniards? If
they have not filed anything against Basso yet, why on earth would you
expect the Italians to do so? Blame Spain.

 

[Donald Munro]

photoshoppper wrote:
> Blame Spain.

Aren't you americans supposed to always blame canada ?

 

[MagillaGorilla]

[email protected] wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/aug06/aug30news3
>>
>>It should be obvious Basso is going to be fully exonerated. First of
>>all, this so-called guido "prosecutor" seems to be claiming that Basso
>>answered all the questions exhaustively to his satisfaction. I've never
>>heard of a prosecutor making such a broad concession to a defendant that
>>he is supposed to believe is guilty.
>>
>>Basso's quotes don't make him appear too worried either that he got
>>tripped up on anything.
>>
>>And once Basso's case is dismissed, all the federations will fall in
>>line and conduct similar mock trials with lover-boy prosecutors.
>>
>>And then McQualude can claim clean hands and that the UCI handled the
>>situation aggressively but "unfortunately there wasn't enough evidence."
>>
>>This is so predictable. This is just a big publicity stunt by the UCI
>>and national federations.
>>
>>
>>Magilla
>
>
> Huh? The Spanish turn over a bunch of documents to the Italian
> prosecutors (the most damning of which uses a code name that happens to
> be the name of Basso's dog).
>
> How are they supposed to immediately believe he is guilty? Are they
> not supposed to investigate? An Italian prosecutor has a look at the
> documents, interviews the suspect, and walks away convinced that there
> really is not much there for him to work with. Why blame him? It
> isn't even his investigation.
>
> And why affix your rage to the Italians? What about the Spaniards? If
> they have not filed anything against Basso yet, why on earth would you
> expect the Italians to do so? Blame Spain.
>


I disagree that the most damning evidence is Basso's dog's name. The
most damning evidence are going to be things like large financial debits
by Basso and corresponding deposits made by Fuentes that cannot be
explained by Basso, assuming the allegations are valid. The dog's name
was just the link that got it started.

Hey asshead - this isn't a criminal prosecution...it's a prosecution to
determine whether Basso can keep his cycling license. Also, you don't
interview the suspect to find out the truth because you assume the
suspect is lying. It's like asking OJ if he stabbed his wife - what
difference does his answer make?

I blame the Italians because this so-called "trial" is just a publicity
stunt by the Italian cycling federation and the UCI that people like you
and the media try to pawn off as a serious investigation that's
conducted on the up-and-up.

This entire Operacion Puerto thing is going to disappear - you watch. I
know this to be true because look who's conducting the investigations.
In the Festina Affair, the only reason why that went down is because the
French police prosecuted that case. The UCI had nothing to do with it.

Do you really think the BALCO scandal would have been exposed by Major
League Baseball annd Track & Field? Of course not - federal prosecutors
in conjunction with USADA did that.

In Opercion Puerto, the UCI is turning over all the documents and
leaving it to the Och's and Steve Johnson's of the world to prosecute
the very same cyclists who make money for them. Such "investigations"
will lead to predictable outcomes.

Stop acting like a gullible retard.


Thanks,


Magilla

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, MagillaGorilla
('[email protected]') wrote:

> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/aug06/aug30news3
>
> It should be obvious Basso is going to be fully exonerated. First of
> all, this so-called guido "prosecutor" seems to be claiming that Basso
> answered all the questions exhaustively to his satisfaction. I've
> never heard of a prosecutor making such a broad concession to a
> defendant that he is supposed to believe is guilty.

It's possible that he knows there isn't nearly enough evidence to mount
a 'prosecution'. In fact, seeing he's the prosecutor, it's certain that
he knows that. The case against Basso wouldn't stack in any court in any
Western democracy.

* There is no evidence of any money paid by Basso to Fuentes.
* There is no document which Basso has signed, or written on or even
handled, linking him to Fuentes.
* No products of any kind sold by Fuentes have been found in Basso's
possession, or in the possession of his mother in law, or in the
possession of his dog.
* No blood found in Fuentes possession has been identified as Basso's.

In fact the /only/ things linking Basso to Fuentes (which have thus far
been made public) are

(i) references made in telephone conversations to an unnamed rider whose
position in the Giro was similar to Basso's, and whom Fuentes boasted
was one of his clients - but we know Fuentes is a liar;
(ii) a code name which was thought to be that of Basso's dog, but which
turned out not to be;
(iii) one memo by Fuentes which names Basso but does not identify him as
a customer of Fuentes'.

In other words, Fuentes has made no explicit statement implicating Basso,
there is no corroboration of the implicit statements in which Fuentes
appears to implicate Basso, and there is no material evidence that the
two men have ever had any dealings whatever.

Of course, none of these things prove Basso's innocence. Plenty of people
are found 'not guilty' in court for lack of convincing evidence, who
were nevertheless guilty. Proving innocence is pretty difficult. The
fact that, according to Team CSC's press officer, Team CSC have not had
sight of Basso's defence dossier bothers me. The fact that Basso invited
Team CSC to send a representative to the hearing encourages me - I don't
believe he would do that if he were guilty.

> Basso's quotes don't make him appear too worried either that he got
> tripped up on anything.

If he's telling the truth, he won't be. It is still possible that he is.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Human history becomes more and more a race between
;; education and catastrophe.
H.G. Wells, "The Outline of History"

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>,
[email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/aug06/aug30news3
>>
>> It should be obvious Basso is going to be fully exonerated. First of
>> all, this so-called guido "prosecutor" seems to be claiming that Basso
>> answered all the questions exhaustively to his satisfaction. I've
>> never heard of a prosecutor making such a broad concession to a
>> defendant that he is supposed to believe is guilty.
>>
>> Basso's quotes don't make him appear too worried either that he got
>> tripped up on anything.
>>
>> And once Basso's case is dismissed, all the federations will fall in
>> line and conduct similar mock trials with lover-boy prosecutors.
>>
>> And then McQualude can claim clean hands and that the UCI handled the
>> situation aggressively but "unfortunately there wasn't enough
>> evidence."
>>
>> This is so predictable. This is just a big publicity stunt by the UCI
>> and national federations.
>
> Huh? The Spanish turn over a bunch of documents to the Italian
> prosecutors (the most damning of which uses a code name that happens to
> be the name of Basso's dog).

The code name was not recognised by Basso's two year old daughter. An
adult can lie about the name of a dog, but I don't think a two year old
can.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; MS Windows: A thirty-two bit extension ... to a sixteen bit
;; patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a
;; four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that
;; can't stand one bit of competition -- anonymous

 

[MagillaGorilla]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> in message <[email protected]>, MagillaGorilla
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/aug06/aug30news3
>>
>>It should be obvious Basso is going to be fully exonerated. First of
>>all, this so-called guido "prosecutor" seems to be claiming that Basso
>>answered all the questions exhaustively to his satisfaction. I've
>>never heard of a prosecutor making such a broad concession to a
>>defendant that he is supposed to believe is guilty.
>
>
> It's possible that he knows there isn't nearly enough evidence to mount
> a 'prosecution'. In fact, seeing he's the prosecutor, it's certain that
> he knows that. The case against Basso wouldn't stack in any court in any
> Western democracy.
>
> * There is no evidence of any money paid by Basso to Fuentes.
> * There is no document which Basso has signed, or written on or even
> handled, linking him to Fuentes.
> * No products of any kind sold by Fuentes have been found in Basso's
> possession, or in the possession of his mother in law, or in the
> possession of his dog.
> * No blood found in Fuentes possession has been identified as Basso's.
>


How do you know the answers to these questions? Did they do DNA tests -
did they even bother to get Basso's bank records?

Of course there's no evidence - they're not looking for any. So they
won't find any. It's a self-serving conclusion.

This isn't an aggressive prosecution. It's a publicity stunt. Fuentes
doesn't even deny it.

Magilla

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, MagillaGorilla
('[email protected]') wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/aug06/aug30news3
>>>
>>>It should be obvious Basso is going to be fully exonerated. First of
>>>all, this so-called guido "prosecutor" seems to be claiming that Basso
>>>answered all the questions exhaustively to his satisfaction. I've
>>>never heard of a prosecutor making such a broad concession to a
>>>defendant that he is supposed to believe is guilty.
>>>
>>>Basso's quotes don't make him appear too worried either that he got
>>>tripped up on anything.
>>>
>>>And once Basso's case is dismissed, all the federations will fall in
>>>line and conduct similar mock trials with lover-boy prosecutors.
>>>
>>>And then McQualude can claim clean hands and that the UCI handled the
>>>situation aggressively but "unfortunately there wasn't enough
>>>evidence."
>>>
>>>This is so predictable. This is just a big publicity stunt by the UCI
>>>and national federations.
>>>
>>>
>>>Magilla
>>
>>
>> Huh? The Spanish turn over a bunch of documents to the Italian
>> prosecutors (the most damning of which uses a code name that happens
>> to be the name of Basso's dog).
>>
>> How are they supposed to immediately believe he is guilty? Are they
>> not supposed to investigate? An Italian prosecutor has a look at the
>> documents, interviews the suspect, and walks away convinced that there
>> really is not much there for him to work with. Why blame him? It
>> isn't even his investigation.
>>
>> And why affix your rage to the Italians? What about the Spaniards?
>> If they have not filed anything against Basso yet, why on earth would
>> you
>> expect the Italians to do so? Blame Spain.
>
> I disagree that the most damning evidence is Basso's dog's name. The
> most damning evidence are going to be things like large financial
> debits by Basso and corresponding deposits made by Fuentes that cannot
> be
> explained by Basso, assuming the allegations are valid.

Except that these financial debits have not been reported to have been
found - and Fuentes finances have been explored exhaustively.

> Hey asshead - this isn't a criminal prosecution...it's a prosecution to
> determine whether Basso can keep his cycling license.

But if there isn't any evidence that he doped, he should - must - keep
his licence.

> Also, you don't
> interview the suspect to find out the truth because you assume the
> suspect is lying. It's like asking OJ if he stabbed his wife - what
> difference does his answer make?

That's true of course. But in the OJ case there was material evidence
(the glove) and evidence that OJ and his wife had met (they met at their
wedding, if nowhere else), In the 'Basso case', no-one (not even
Fuentes, explicitly) says Basso was a customer of Fuentes, no money has
been shown to have changed hands, there is no material evidence, and
there's no evidence that the two men even met. That's... a bit tenuous.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

<p>Schroedinger's cat is <blink><strong>NOT</strong></blink> dead.</p>

 

[RicodJour]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> I disagree that the most damning evidence is Basso's dog's name. The
> most damning evidence are going to be things like large financial debits
> by Basso and corresponding deposits made by Fuentes that cannot be
> explained by Basso, assuming the allegations are valid. The dog's name
> was just the link that got it started.

How would Basso know anything about Fuentes deposits? Gambling debts,
recreational drugs for the wife and girlfriend, hookers for everyone -
there's plenty of legitimate, and if illegitimate still plausible
explanations.

> Hey asshead - this isn't a criminal prosecution...it's a prosecution to
> determine whether Basso can keep his cycling license. Also, you don't
> interview the suspect to find out the truth because you assume the
> suspect is lying. It's like asking OJ if he stabbed his wife - what
> difference does his answer make?

I wish Brian was arguing the legal aspects instead of you. Don't
question the accused - that makes perfect sense. The more questions
you answer, the more likely you are to trip yourself up and give the
prosecution avenues of exploration.

> I blame the Italians because this so-called "trial" is just a publicity
> stunt by the Italian cycling federation and the UCI that people like you
> and the media try to pawn off as a serious investigation that's
> conducted on the up-and-up.

We could extradite them all to your planet and let you deal with it in
you efficient, fascist fashion.

> This entire Operacion Puerto thing is going to disappear - you watch. I
> know this to be true because look who's conducting the investigations.
> In the Festina Affair, the only reason why that went down is because the
> French police prosecuted that case. The UCI had nothing to do with it.
>
> Do you really think the BALCO scandal would have been exposed by Major
> League Baseball annd Track & Field? Of course not - federal prosecutors
> in conjunction with USADA did that.
>
> In Opercion Puerto, the UCI is turning over all the documents and
> leaving it to the Och's and Steve Johnson's of the world to prosecute
> the very same cyclists who make money for them. Such "investigations"
> will lead to predictable outcomes.

You seem to be confused over the objective of these investigations and
prosecutions. It's surgery. They can out _any_ tumor pretty much
instantly, but it takes a bit longer if they want the patient to live.
These are warning shots being shot across everyone's bows. Get it?

R

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> The
> fact that, according to Team CSC's press officer, Team CSC have not had
> sight of Basso's defence dossier bothers me.

The rider's contract with the team says that the team must
suspend the rider if the rider is even suspected of
doping. Basso and his attorneys damn well better keep CSC
management out of it.

> The fact that Basso invited
> Team CSC to send a representative to the hearing encourages me - I don't
> believe he would do that if he were guilty.

Speculating on what guilty and innocent parties do?

--
Michael Press

 

[Snippy Bobkins]

"Donald Munro" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> photoshoppper wrote:
>> Blame Spain.
>
> Aren't you americans supposed to always blame canada ?

No, France. "It's not that Americans have a bad impression of their
northern neighbour - it's that they have no impression at all."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060829.wtourismm0829/BNStory/Business/home

--
Snippy Bobkins
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain;
as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
--Albert Einstein

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:02:54 -0400, MagillaGorilla
<[email protected]> wrote:

>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/aug06/aug30news3
>
>It should be obvious Basso is going to be fully exonerated.

There are two separate issues. Or perhaps three. One is Basso's
status under the legal system. The second is his status with his
team. It's possible he had contact with Fuentes, which he told his
team he hadn't, but did nothing illegal. He could still be kept off
his team for lying to them, even though the prosecutor doesn't pursue
the case.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

> And then McQualude can claim clean hands and that the UCI handled the
> situation aggressively but "unfortunately there wasn't enough evidence."

You may henceforth refer to him as "Mc714." Oh, you know that 'Ludes are also
called "Gorilla Bisquits?" Coincidence, or...

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Steven L. Sheffield]

On 08/30/2006 12:02 PM, in article [email protected],
"MagillaGorilla" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I've never
> heard of a prosecutor making such a broad concession to a defendant that
> he is supposed to believe is guilty.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/28/ramsey.arrest/

--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot flahute dot com [foreword] slash

 

[MagillaGorilla]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, MagillaGorilla
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/aug06/aug30news3
>>>>
>>>>It should be obvious Basso is going to be fully exonerated. First of
>>>>all, this so-called guido "prosecutor" seems to be claiming that Basso
>>>>answered all the questions exhaustively to his satisfaction. I've
>>>>never heard of a prosecutor making such a broad concession to a
>>>>defendant that he is supposed to believe is guilty.
>>>>
>>>>Basso's quotes don't make him appear too worried either that he got
>>>>tripped up on anything.
>>>>
>>>>And once Basso's case is dismissed, all the federations will fall in
>>>>line and conduct similar mock trials with lover-boy prosecutors.
>>>>
>>>>And then McQualude can claim clean hands and that the UCI handled the
>>>>situation aggressively but "unfortunately there wasn't enough
>>>>evidence."
>>>>
>>>>This is so predictable. This is just a big publicity stunt by the UCI
>>>>and national federations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Magilla
>>>
>>>
>>>Huh? The Spanish turn over a bunch of documents to the Italian
>>>prosecutors (the most damning of which uses a code name that happens
>>>to be the name of Basso's dog).
>>>
>>>How are they supposed to immediately believe he is guilty? Are they
>>>not supposed to investigate? An Italian prosecutor has a look at the
>>>documents, interviews the suspect, and walks away convinced that there
>>>really is not much there for him to work with. Why blame him? It
>>>isn't even his investigation.
>>>
>>>And why affix your rage to the Italians? What about the Spaniards?
>>>If they have not filed anything against Basso yet, why on earth would
>>>you
>>>expect the Italians to do so? Blame Spain.
>>
>>I disagree that the most damning evidence is Basso's dog's name. The
>>most damning evidence are going to be things like large financial
>>debits by Basso and corresponding deposits made by Fuentes that cannot
>>be
>>explained by Basso, assuming the allegations are valid.
>
>
> Except that these financial debits have not been reported to have been
> found - and Fuentes finances have been explored exhaustively.
>
>
>>Hey asshead - this isn't a criminal prosecution...it's a prosecution to
>>determine whether Basso can keep his cycling license.
>
>
> But if there isn't any evidence that he doped, he should - must - keep
> his licence.
>
>
>>Also, you don't
>>interview the suspect to find out the truth because you assume the
>>suspect is lying. It's like asking OJ if he stabbed his wife - what
>>difference does his answer make?
>
>
> That's true of course. But in the OJ case there was material evidence
> (the glove) and evidence that OJ and his wife had met (they met at their
> wedding, if nowhere else), In the 'Basso case', no-one (not even
> Fuentes, explicitly) says Basso was a customer of Fuentes, no money has
> been shown to have changed hands, there is no material evidence, and
> there's no evidence that the two men even met. That's... a bit tenuous.
>


If Fuentes was going to claim Basso was his client, why would he list
him by only his dog's name - how would other cyclists know that refers
is Basso or know that any other nicknames referred to specific cyclists
(i.e. Pavarotti = Cipollini) in prive records that are not given out to
other cyclists?

Also, ask yourself why Basso wasn't able to convince Bjarne Riis that he
had no involvement. Riis didn't seem so convinced.

And Ullrich was fired over the incident. Do you think T-Mobile dumped
its franchise rider for absolutely no reason whatsoever?

There's evidence against these riders - it's just a matter of finding
it. The national federations and UCI have no desire to do that.


Magilla

 

[MagillaGorilla]

RicodJour wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>I disagree that the most damning evidence is Basso's dog's name. The
>>most damning evidence are going to be things like large financial debits
>>by Basso and corresponding deposits made by Fuentes that cannot be
>>explained by Basso, assuming the allegations are valid. The dog's name
>>was just the link that got it started.
>
>
> How would Basso know anything about Fuentes deposits? Gambling debts,
> recreational drugs for the wife and girlfriend, hookers for everyone -
> there's plenty of legitimate, and if illegitimate still plausible
> explanations.
>


Hey dumbass,

You ask Basso how come his account shows a debit of 40,000 Euros on
such-and-such a date (or whatever the amount is), and ask him what he
spent it on. And then you ask him to produce receipts. And if Basso
has problems in answering that question or producing corroborating
receipts, you consider that circumstantial evidence against him.

That's how you do it. And you ask Basso these questions without
informing him in advance you are going to ask him these questions.

And you also watch his demeanor in how he answers it. If it takes him
10 minutes to answer where he spent 40,000 Euroes 4 months ago and gives
a vague answer, then you know where to dig deeper.

It's very simple.


Magilla

 

[Steve]

Hey, I Floyd or Tyler rode for Disco then they would not have problems with
the USADA. Of course that is because they would not have doped. No
conspiracy theories.
"MagillaGorilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/aug06/aug30news3
>
> It should be obvious Basso is going to be fully exonerated. First of
> all, this so-called guido "prosecutor" seems to be claiming that Basso
> answered all the questions exhaustively to his satisfaction. I've never
> heard of a prosecutor making such a broad concession to a defendant that
> he is supposed to believe is guilty.
>
> Basso's quotes don't make him appear too worried either that he got
> tripped up on anything.
>
> And once Basso's case is dismissed, all the federations will fall in
> line and conduct similar mock trials with lover-boy prosecutors.
>
> And then McQualude can claim clean hands and that the UCI handled the
> situation aggressively but "unfortunately there wasn't enough evidence."
>
> This is so predictable. This is just a big publicity stunt by the UCI
> and national federations.
>
>
> Magilla
>

 

[Fred Fredburger]

MagillaGorilla wrote:

> And Ullrich was fired over the incident. Do you think T-Mobile dumped
> its franchise rider for absolutely no reason whatsoever?

The evidence against Ullrich is not the evidence against Basso. There
exists the possibility that the evidence is stronger in some cases than
others and even that some are guilty while others are not.

We'll see, though. You could well prove correct. I'm just not cynical
enough to accept it as a done deal. Yet.

 

[Keith]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:28:38 -0700, Fred Fredburger
<[email protected]> wrote:

>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> And Ullrich was fired over the incident. Do you think T-Mobile dumped
>> its franchise rider for absolutely no reason whatsoever?
>
>The evidence against Ullrich is not the evidence against Basso.

Other than the alleged Pevenage SMSmessages, it seems to be identical,
anything you know that we don't ?

>There
>exists the possibility that the evidence is stronger in some cases than
>others and even that some are guilty while others are not.
>
>We'll see, though. You could well prove correct. I'm just not cynical
>enough to accept it as a done deal. Yet.

 

[RicodJour]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
>
> > MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >
> >>I disagree that the most damning evidence is Basso's dog's name. The
> >>most damning evidence are going to be things like large financial debits
> >>by Basso and corresponding deposits made by Fuentes that cannot be
> >>explained by Basso, assuming the allegations are valid. The dog's name
> >>was just the link that got it started.
> >
> >
> > How would Basso know anything about Fuentes deposits? Gambling debts,
> > recreational drugs for the wife and girlfriend, hookers for everyone -
> > there's plenty of legitimate, and if illegitimate still plausible
> > explanations.
> >
>
>
> Hey dumbass,
>
> You ask Basso how come his account shows a debit of 40,000 Euros on
> such-and-such a date (or whatever the amount is), and ask him what he
> spent it on. And then you ask him to produce receipts. And if Basso
> has problems in answering that question or producing corroborating
> receipts, you consider that circumstantial evidence against him.
>
> That's how you do it. And you ask Basso these questions without
> informing him in advance you are going to ask him these questions.
>
> And you also watch his demeanor in how he answers it. If it takes him
> 10 minutes to answer where he spent 40,000 Euroes 4 months ago and gives
> a vague answer, then you know where to dig deeper.
>
> It's very simple.

Actually, you're very confusing. Didn't you write in this same thread
that there's no point in questioning the accused because you assume
they will lie? Please pick just one side of the fence to be on.

As far as receipts, funny thing. The last hooker I had over didn't
provide a receipt. Come to think of it, neither did my bookie, drug
dealer nor mistress. I wonder if I should report them to the Better
Business Bureau...

There are plenty of things people do that they'd prefer to not be
splashed across the newspapers, and many of those things, believe it or
not, have nothing to do with cycling and doping.

R