Recent content by Speedzero

Re: Re: I mean, they're both hoping to persuade the jury to change its mind (unlikely) or minimize any other consequences, so of course they're going to make nice, regardless of how they really feel. I still want to know why Luke moved across and put his shoulder into Steven K, which is what...

Examples? I mean other than riders that have subsequently been determined to be doping. I mean, the first names that come to my mind as meeting your description are LA and Contador. I thought the two disciplines were generally recognized as calling for different characteristics.

Great review of Tyler's book, and possibly the best summation of the entire Armstrong affair I have read, in the London Review of Books: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n22/david-runciman/everybody-gets-popped Highly recommended.

Susan, that is exactly right. (IAAL)

CN has written that they have the full transcript of her testimony . . . why not post it? Are they under some confidentiality obligation? It certainly sounds like a document that should get broader circulation. If it's already posted somewhere, I apologize, but I haven't been able to find...

His next step should be: hire more lawyers. Doping: not a crime in the US. Bribery, perjury, witness intimidation: all crimes. This got real serious for him, real fast.

Can CN get nothing right?? There, fixed it for you. See the difference, CN? No-one believes it was really cortisone cream. That's just the cover story.

Lance did not pass all his drug tests. Try again.

40 or 50, which is it? Lance claims 500 tests, I think you should claim $500 million, as that would be more impressive. Fact: USADA's total annual grant from the government, covering everything they do, is $10 million. See page 37 of this link...

I have to say, I am treating anyone's statement that they are "shocked and suprised" by all this as, in effect, an admission of guilt.

Basically: he says he didn't intentionally dope with someone else's blood. He doesn't know the answer, but he and Coyle speculate that Fuentes was sloppy and a bit of someone else's blood got mixed in with his. This might have happened, for example, when glycol was being mixed with the blood...

Tyler does say that, but later in the book he talks about actually taking a lie detector test, while trying to clear his name: "I even took a lie-detector test to help prove my innocence, and passed. (Though, just before taking it, we Googled a few tips for beating the test. Clenching your...

Nope, not kidding. We're talking about whether Tyler's book will really name names and air the dirty laundry or whether the fear of litigation will inhibit him. If the book does say "I saw so-and-so doping" there might well be a lawsuit. The plaintiff would say Tyler had no proof and that...

Sorry, I'm confused. I was talking about Tyler's book. What book of LA's are you thinking of?

Because you don't have, or don't want to spend, $2 million defending yourself against a libel suit. Your vindication will be cold comfort when the money's gone. A publishing company might be willing to put out a book with statements that are likely to attract libel suits if (i) they are...