The writing is on the walls...



I am terribly surprised that if he is innocent he has not brought a
defamation of character lawsuit, suing for damages, losses by being
pulled from the TdF. If he is innocent, he would have contacted Lance
to ask to borrow a lawyer to prosecute the lawsuit (?); maybe Lance
would have revealed that he was contacted by Basso for said reason.
Maybe...

But, I reciently got Overcoming, and I was surprised at Basso's
apparent lack of self-confidence...he seemed like such a weak
character, that I could easily see how going into the 2006 TdF, even
with Lance gone, Jan still lacking a proper preseason and Floyd being
his only real oppenent, he would still feel compelled to dope.
 
RicodJour wrote:

> 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.


Yes and No. You don't ask open-ended questions (i.e. did you dope?).
I'm sure the "prosecutor" in the Basso case asked stupid, open-ended
questions that Basso could easily answer.

Without DNA, bank records, or other specific information, what possible
questions could he have asked Basso that he couldn't simply deny?


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

> 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?


As far as I know, no-one has taken Basso up on his public offer to submit
to a DNA test. Why not? Presumably because they know they don't have any
of his blood. I don't know whether anyone has checked Basso's bank
records, but the Guardia Civil certainly have checked Fuentes - with a
fine tooth comb.

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


They certainly won't find any if there isn't any. And the Spanish Guardia
Civil are not particularly interested in the career of an Italian
cyclist - particularly one who, if he's forced to serve a four year
suspension, will leave a Spaniard as the lead rider for his team.

If the investigation was being carried out by the Italian authorities, or
by the UCI, you might have an argument. But the investigation is being
carried out by the Spanish authorities, so you don't.

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


Fuentes hasn't claimed that Basso was his customer. No document or phone
tap makes that claim. The Spanish police guessed the identity behind a
code name. They may be right, or they may be wrong. If they're right,
Fuentes might be claiming to other cyclists that Basso was his customer
in order to drum up business. It isn't evidence which would stand up in
any court of law in any western democracy.

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

;; Friends don't send friends HTML formatted emails.
 
in message <[email protected]>,
Michael Press ('[email protected]') wrote:

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


Hope springs eternal.

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

The trouble with Simon is that he only opens his mouth to change feet.
;; of me, by a 'friend'
 
in message <[email protected]>, MagillaGorilla
('[email protected]') 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.

>
> 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.


Hey, dumbass, do you keep receipts for everything you spend money on? I
surely don't. If you asked me to account for all the money I've spent in
the past six months, I couldn't do it. Why should I? It isn't
circumstantial evidence of anything except a clear conscience.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; First they came for the asylum seekers,
;; and I did not speak out because I was not an asylum seeker.
;; Then they came for the gypsies,
;; and I did not speak out because I was not a gypsy...
;; Pastor Martin Niemöller, translated by Michael Howard.
 
in message <[email protected]>, MagillaGorilla
('[email protected]') wrote:

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


Oh, drop that one. The Spanish police /thought/ it was his dog's name,
but that turned out to be wrong. Why do you continue to assume that a
person known only by a name which isn't Basso's dog's name is Basso?

And remember, Basso's two year old daughter, asked, unprompted, by a
journalist whether she knew a dog called 'Birillo', did not. Sure, Basso
might quickly change, or lie about, the name of his dog, but a two year
old? Come on.

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


No, that /is/ a point to your side.

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


They dumped their rider for lying to them; they said so. There is
documentary evidence linking Ullrich to Fuentes. It's a different case.

> 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.


The national federations and the UCI aren't the people doing the
investigating. The Guardia Civil are.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
.::;===r==\
/ /___||___\____
//==\- ||- | /__\( MS Windows IS an operating environment.
//____\__||___|_// \|: C++ IS an object oriented programming language.
\__/ ~~~~~~~~~ \__/ Citroen 2cv6 IS a four door family saloon.
 
Keith 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 ?
>


Your must be using a definition for the word "identical" of which I am
unaware.

Oddly, the evidence against Basso is the evidence against Basso. Kind of
tricky, I know. They even keep the evidence against Ullrich and Basso in
separate files and have passed them on to different teams and
investigators. And those files are said to have different things in
them. OH, the complexity! Is Basso Basso, or is Basso Ullrich? How can
anyone keep this straight? And the evidence for which of these guys is
also the evidence for WMDs in Iraq? I can't remember any more.

While I have no idea why you say the cases are identical, I DO know that
the code name associated with Basso was erroneous and I've read quotes
that refer to Ullrich's file as "damning". Ulle's file is said to have
his menu from the first week of the 2005 tour. Very little has been said
about the contents of Basso's file.
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > I am terribly surprised that if he is innocent he has not brought a
> > defamation of character lawsuit, suing for damages, losses by being
> > pulled from the TdF.

>
> He isn't an American, dumbass. He's a gentleman, and has dignity.


Even a gentleman has a character that can be defamed,
although the monetary value of the damage to a gentleman's
reputation may not be worth the effort.

Ben
commoner

p.s. This "if he's innocent, why hasn't he sued" argument
has too many holes in it, even for gentlemen.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote:
> > in message <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:
> >
> > > I am terribly surprised that if he is innocent he has not brought a
> > > defamation of character lawsuit, suing for damages, losses by being
> > > pulled from the TdF.

> >
> > He isn't an American, dumbass. He's a gentleman, and has dignity.

>
> Even a gentleman has a character that can be defamed,
> although the monetary value of the damage to a gentleman's
> reputation may not be worth the effort.
>
> Ben
> commoner
>
> p.s. This "if he's innocent, why hasn't he sued" argument
> has too many holes in it, even for gentlemen.


You have cast aspersions on the character of one I hold in high regard.
This cannot stand. I say, dear sir, though you are neither dear to me
nor a gentleman, I shall silence your blasphemous tongue. Pistols at
dawn on the Village Green. Bring your second. Do not be tardy as I
have breakfast reservations at Ye Olde Ham and Eggery. Regards.

R
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
<snip>


The national federations and UCI have no desire to do that.
>
>
> The national federations and the UCI aren't the people doing the
> investigating. The Guardia Civil are.
>



Then why did the Italian federation need a prosecutor in the Basso case,
since according to you, the Guardia already did the investigation? The
reality is the Spanish Guardia Civil or whatever they call themselves
did an incomplete investigation and they gave what they have to the
cycling federations for some strange reason.

You would never see the FBI "give" their evidence to MLB. That's a
bizarre friendship. Why are the Spanish police acting all buddy-buddy
with the cycling federations - I don't see the state interest.

Magilla
 
Simon Brooke wrote:

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

>>
>>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.

>
>
> Hey, dumbass, do you keep receipts for everything you spend money on? I
> surely don't. If you asked me to account for all the money I've spent in
> the past six months, I couldn't do it. Why should I? It isn't
> circumstantial evidence of anything except a clear conscience.
>



So if I asked you why you withdrew 60,000 Euros on April 17, 2005, and
you said "I don't remember" you think that would go over well in a hearing?

People go to jail for life for circumstantial evidence like that. Stop
acting like a retard.

Magilla
 
Simon Brooke wrote:

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

>
>
> As far as I know, no-one has taken Basso up on his public offer to submit
> to a DNA test. Why not? Presumably because they know they don't have any
> of his blood. I don't know whether anyone has checked Basso's bank
> records, but the Guardia Civil certainly have checked Fuentes - with a
> fine tooth comb.
>
>
>>Of course there's no evidence - they're not looking for any. So they
>>won't find any. It's a self-serving conclusion.

>
>
> They certainly won't find any if there isn't any. And the Spanish Guardia
> Civil are not particularly interested in the career of an Italian
> cyclist - particularly one who, if he's forced to serve a four year
> suspension, will leave a Spaniard as the lead rider for his team.
>
> If the investigation was being carried out by the Italian authorities, or
> by the UCI, you might have an argument. But the investigation is being
> carried out by the Spanish authorities, so you don't.
>
>
>>This isn't an aggressive prosecution. It's a publicity stunt. Fuentes
>>doesn't even deny it.

>
>
> Fuentes hasn't claimed that Basso was his customer. No document or phone
> tap makes that claim. The Spanish police guessed the identity behind a
> code name. They may be right, or they may be wrong. If they're right,
> Fuentes might be claiming to other cyclists that Basso was his customer
> in order to drum up business. It isn't evidence which would stand up in
> any court of law in any western democracy.
>


Dude, you have no idea what evidence they have or don't have. All I'm
saying is I seriously doubt the Italian cycling federation conducted an
adversarial cross-examination of Basso or added anything to the
investigation.

Their goal is to exonerate Basso and keep the cycling sponsorship money
flowing.

Magilla
 
Simon Brooke wrote:

> in message <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>
>>I am terribly surprised that if he is innocent he has not brought a
>>defamation of character lawsuit, suing for damages, losses by being
>>pulled from the TdF.

>
>
> He isn't an American, dumbass. He's a gentleman, and has dignity.
>



Dude, we kicked your country's ass in 1776 and all you have to show for
it 200 years later is a spineless ****** leader whose entire legacy is
being George Bush's marionette puppet.

Thanks for the Spice Girls though (and the naked photos of Sheryl Crow).

Magilla
 
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> People go to jail for life for circumstantial evidence like that. Stop
> acting like a retard.


Wow, a trailer park lawyer.
 
MagillaGorilla wrote:

> You would never see the FBI "give" their evidence to MLB. That's a
> bizarre friendship. Why are the Spanish police acting all buddy-buddy
> with the cycling federations - I don't see the state interest.


MLB for all intents and purposes is contained within the US where the FBI
has jurisdiction. The focus of the Spanish investigation is also
different, they seem utterly unconcerned with users and only to be
interested in suppliers. So they're turning over evidence they don't
really have a use for (it seems as though the riders didn't break Spanish
law, or if they did it's not one Spain seems intent on enforcing just yet)
to jurisdictions that do.

Why shouldn't they turn over evidence to foreign jurisdictions? Would the
FBI hand over information to Italy for violations of Italian law that we
uncovered in a US investigation if asked?

I'm actually fairly cynical about doping in cycling, but some how you and
**** Pound always seem to force me to the other side of the fence...
 
In article <[email protected]>,
MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

> Half the time the FBI doesn't even want to work wiith other law
> enforcement agencies because they simply don't trust them.


Other law enforcement agencies, particularly local
jurisdictions, do not trust the FBI; never have.

--
Michael Press
 
Michael Press wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Half the time the FBI doesn't even want to work wiith other law
>>enforcement agencies because they simply don't trust them.

>
>
> Other law enforcement agencies, particularly local
> jurisdictions, do not trust the FBI; never have.
>


I've never heard of local law enforcement doing a sting operation on FBI
agents. However, the opposite is routinely true. It's a one way street
because the corruption is generally a one-way street.

Magilla
 
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Half the time the FBI doesn't even want to work wiith other law
> >>enforcement agencies because they simply don't trust them.

> >
> >
> > Other law enforcement agencies, particularly local
> > jurisdictions, do not trust the FBI; never have.
> >

>
> I've never heard of local law enforcement doing a sting operation on FBI
> agents. However, the opposite is routinely true. It's a one way street
> because the corruption is generally a one-way street.
>
> Magilla

J. Edgar his folks were paragons of honoring the constitution. You
sure you aren't Stevie or Kunich?
The list of FBI abuses are long and spectacular.
Bill C