velonews: Legally speaking

[limerickman]

No, Ressiot hasn't it done. He was the one who set out to "get" Armstrong, and lied out of his ass to do it. L'Equipe may not be a "tabloid" in the strictest sense of the word, but the sensationalism of their story on Armstrong would have made the editors of the National Enquirer green with envy. And the LNDD is "well-known" due to the fact it's as leaky as a chicken wire canoe.

This thread is morphing away from the original topic.

Once more for the cheap seats :
Armstrong July 1999 "extraordinary (doping) allegations, require extraordinary proof - if one of you (press) can provide extraordinary proof, I will answer your questions. Until then I will not be taking questions about unsubstantiated allegations".
Armstrong laid down the challenge to the assembled press.

Ressiot, like any good journalist, accepted that challenge and went away and provided the extraordiany proof courtesy of LNDD.

 

[limerickman]

Those of you interested in the POSSIBILITY of Landis being innocent might like to check out this post on today's VeloNews.com

http://velonews.com/news/fea/10679.0.html

Plain and simple: Landis might get off on a technicality. The American Anti-doping may decide that 'the french blew it' with regard to releasing damaging information about the Landis ''A'' test before the "B" was tested.

Okay, I admit I didn't read this article in minute detail, but that is part of the gist I am getting from it.

Main point was to inform the forum and you can draw your own conclusions.

I am leaning toward Landis being guilty of intentionally taking drugs, but would like to believe otherwise.

tucson guy (tucson is in arizona, usa for those of you who don't know)

Landis's problem is that two samples show that 11:1 ratio - proving that he was using testosterone.

The release of the confirmation of his positive results doesn't mitigate the fact that his samples show 11:1 ratio.

It might be a mitigating factor in reducing his sentence.

But it doesn't mitigate the result of the test.

I think Landis should follow pat McQuaids advice - deal with the core issue issue 11:1 ratio.

 

[JohnO]

I believe that in the context of Armstrong's statement regarding proof, he meant "extraordinarily good", not "extraordinarily iffy", or "extraordinarily unethical".

This thread is morphing away from the original topic.

Once more for the cheap seats :
Armstrong July 1999 "extraordinary (doping) allegations, require extraordinary proof - if one of you (press) can provide extraordinary proof, I will answer your questions. Until then I will not be taking questions about unsubstantiated allegations".
Armstrong laid down the challenge to the assembled press.

Ressiot, like any good journalist, accepted that challenge and went away and provided the extraordiany proof courtesy of LNDD.

 

[sydsyd]

This thread is morphing away from the original topic.

Isn't that how its done around here?