Interesting piece on Livestrong

[JRTinMA]

Th end result is that when anyone opens the end of a thread, they are presented with page after page after page after page after page of this idiot's clearly baiting posts and people's responses to him. No one can ignore him because you insist on reponding to every one of his god damned posts. It is just not worth wading through buckets of crap to find the few worthwhile kernels of corn in the thread, which is exactly his goal.

This is all made worse by the mods new "let all play nice" policies, which amount to, "You are free to troll, but we will step in if anyone tells you what they think of you."

What the forum software should have is a way for moderators to mark certain threads so that no on can posts more than twice a day to marked threads.

Bro you are half right but it takes two idiots or more to keep a thread like this alive. Or maybe one idiot and one shut in to keep responding.

 

[miloman]

Post 481? Which was a link that proved what exactly....?

But since you are in the mood for answering questions - you can start with some of the ones that you ignored before.

If you feel Floyd should pay back all who gave to the FFF and he should give the rest to charity - can you confirm that the same applies to Armstrong shoud he be shown to be a fraud?

Not only have I answered it before, I believe this will be the 3rd time. Refer to post 287. . . . And finally, if Armstrong's charity is found to have committed fraud, then yes, he/they need to pay. . . . If and when there is proof that the LAF is on the wrong side of the law, they should pay whatever penalty is exacted upon them – including the board, and Armstrong, whoever is culpable.

Yes, you do the crime you do the time! Question, what criminal penalty do you think should be levied against Floyd? Do you think it is fair to be granted immunity in cases like this? Would you be alright with it if that is the deal that was struck with Floyd? I’m not saying it is, but how would you feel about everything then?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Not only have I answered it before, I believe this will be the 3rd time. Refer to post 287. . . . And finally, if Armstrong's charity is found to have committed fraud, then yes, he/they need to pay. . . . If and when there is proof that the LAF is on the wrong side of the law, they should pay whatever penalty is exacted upon them – including the board, and Armstrong, whoever is culpable.

Yes, you do the crime you do the time! Question, what criminal penalty do you think should be levied against Floyd? Do you think it is fair to be granted immunity in cases like this? Would you be alright with it if that is the deal that was struck with Floyd? I’m not saying it is, but how would you feel about everything then?

Nice try - but again you do not answer the question.

can you confirm that the same applies to Armstrong shoud he be shown to be a fraud?

I didn't mention the charity - its irrelevant - if LA is shown to have taken PEDs he's a fraud, so all those nice books are lies- so should LA pay back all that money to them? And as all his income has come from the fraud I assume he has to pay it all to charity as you suggest FL does.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Well this place certainly has at least a qualifying representation of idiots then. It's an internet forum, what were you expecting?
Since it is an internet forum though is it really a realistic expectation that it will not be loaded with crap? Ignore function or not nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to read every post. Be your own censor, if you don't like what is going on in a thread.....stop reading that thread. Or you can be like Speedway and just check in from time to time to complain about what a terrible place it is and how much everyone here sux.

 

[Barrus]

Also funnily enough you can call the FFF alot of things, but no fraud. There has been no evidence, nor any indication that the money from that Fund has been used for anything else than sproting and legal proceedings, thus doing exactly what the fund was for.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Th end result is that when anyone opens the end of a thread, they are presented with page after page after page after page after page of this idiot's clearly baiting posts and people's responses to him. No one can ignore him because you insist on reponding to every one of his god damned posts. It is just not worth wading through buckets of crap to find the few worthwhile kernels of corn in the thread, which is exactly his goal.

This is all made worse by the mods new "let all play nice" policies, which amount to, "You are free to troll, but we will step in if anyone tells you what they think of you."

What the forum software should have is a way for moderators to mark certain threads so that no on can posts more than twice a day to marked threads.

I agree to a point - but I actually think the Mods have done a much better job recently in seperating OT stuff from different threads.
So, if it is the goal of someone to disrupt a thread by bringing in OT stuff to bait - it quickly gets moved and leaves the other thread free.

This thread is a nothing thread - as it started out of a comment by Miloiman in another thread, so it has served its purpose.

 

[miloman]

Nice try - but again you do not answer the question.

can you confirm that the same applies to Armstrong shoud he be shown to be a fraud?

I didn't mention the charity - its irrelevant - if LA is shown to have taken PEDs he's a fraud, so all those nice books are lies- so should LA pay back all that money to them? And as all his income has come from the fraud I assume he has to pay it all to charity as you suggest FL does.

The thread was supposedly about Armstrong’s charity. Thanks for the encouragement by the way. Regardless, I will state it again as I said in the previous post: ". . . Yes, you do the crime, you do the time"; that holds for Armstrong, LAF anyone! That is my opinion!

 

[miloman]

Also funnily enough you can call the FFF alot of things, but no fraud. There has been no evidence, nor any indication that the money from that Fund has been used for anything else than sproting and legal proceedings, thus doing exactly what the fund was for.

I will wait for the independent audit to confirm what you say before I agree. We are getting into the "opinion category" again. I will welcome the findings for this and also the independent audit of LAF, if and when it happens. Correct me if I am wrong, wasn’t FFF charity founded on what Floyd now admits was a lie? He did indeed dope at the Tour. Unless proven otherwise, it does appear that Lance did have cancer and he hasn’t lied about that.

 

[Barrus]

I will wait for the independent audit to confirm what you say before I agree. We are getting into the "opinion category" again.

Wait so when I say there is no evidence available to suggest otherwise, this is not enough. But you propose the same thing about livestrong. How come you are so hypocritical on this point?

I will welcome the findings for this and also the independent audit of LAF, if and when it happens. Correct me if I am wrong, wasn’t FFF charity founded on what Floyd now admits was a lie? He did indeed dope at the Tour. Unless proven otherwise, it does appear that Lance did have cancer and he hasn’t lied about that.

If you did believe Floyd was innocent, you were either extremely stupid or extremely gullible

The fund was set up to cover the legal funds, that was the basis and the goal of the fund, now unless you say that that was not what they did, he did not commit a fraud in the manner you propose. The question of whether he did or did not dope was not of consequence, it was concerning a fair trial.

 

[pmcg76]

This thread is a joke, Dr as always some great research and info.

Miloman is simply making the point that he is unable to form a conclusion or opinion based on evidence unless some official organisation verifies it first. In fact he doesnt have any opinions on anything at all because he cant form any opinions unless they come from an official source. For example, in his world OJ Simpson is innocent because that is what the official verdict was, right.

Funny, there was programme about June 17 1994 on television last night. I was too young at the time to remember much of the details of that case but even based on the conversation between OJ and the guy who was talking to him whilst on the run, it is pretty clear that OJ was a/suicidal and b/showing all the signs of someone who was guilty. I think anyone with half a brain could have figured that out but not Miloman cos he was waiting on the official verdict which of course scandalously cleared him.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The thread was supposedly about Armstrong’s charity. Thanks for the encouragement by the way. Regardless, I will state it again as I said in the previous post: ". . . Yes, you do the crime, you do the time"; that holds for Armstrong, LAF anyone! That is my opinion!

Well you wanted FL to repay everyone and give the rest to charity - which is not "doing the time", it's just something you made up.

So, again - should LA have to give over his fraudulent earnings ($125 million) to charity as you suggested for FL?

 

[D-Queued]

Wait so when I say there is no evidence available to suggest otherwise, this is not enough. But you propose the same thing about livestrong. How come you are so hypocritical on this point?




If you did believe Floyd was innocent, you were either extremely stupid or extremely gullible

The fund was set up to cover the legal funds, that was the basis and the goal of the fund, now unless you say that that was not what they did, he did not commit a fraud in the manner you propose. The question of whether he did or did not dope was not of consequence, it was concerning a fair trial.

Well, we probably shouldn't get into the FFF here, but there was more than one fraudulent principle/activity involved.

If you visited the FFF site, for example, the ONLY call-to-action was to contact your House/Senate representative and tell them to tell WADA to 'play by the rules'. It was an explicit campaign to try and solicit political pressure and to restrict funding support for WADA and others.

Of course, the only one not playing by the rules was the FFF. Thus, the call-to-action was fraudulent as was the fundamental premise that this would help Floyd (it was really a thinly veiled extortion/bullying attempt). And, the FFF campaign was pursued with a clear motivation to cause serious financial hardship and case abandonment.

Dave.

 

[miloman]

Wait so when I say there is no evidence available to suggest otherwise, this is not enough. But you propose the same thing about livestrong. How come you are so hypocritical on this point?


If you did believe Floyd was innocent, you were either extremely stupid or extremely gullible

The fund was set up to cover the legal funds, that was the basis and the goal of the fund, now unless you say that that was not what they did, he did not commit a fraud in the manner you propose. The question of whether he did or did not dope was not of consequence, it was concerning a fair trial.

I am not being "hypocritical", I can neither confirm nor deny any wrong doing in LAF or FFF, can you? Without any proof how can you say LAF is corrupt and FFF wasn’t? Logic dictates that they should both be held in the same light until proven other wise. To put it another way, without evidence to the contrary, they should either be both viewed as corrupt or both in compliance. That is my opinion. Your personal bias should not be a consideration.

 

[miloman]

This thread is a joke, Dr as always some great research and info.

Miloman is simply making the point that he is unable to form a conclusion or opinion based on evidence unless some official organisation verifies it first. In fact he doesnt have any opinions on anything at all because he cant form any opinions unless they come from an official source. For example, in his world OJ Simpson is innocent because that is what the official verdict was, right.

Funny, there was programme about June 17 1994 on television last night. I was too young at the time to remember much of the details of that case but even based on the conversation between OJ and the guy who was talking to him whilst on the run, it is pretty clear that OJ was a/suicidal and b/showing all the signs of someone who was guilty. I think anyone with half a brain could have figured that out but not Miloman cos he was waiting on the official verdict which of course scandalously cleared him.

Let’s not be confused. A fact is something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven. An opinion is what someone thinks about that subject. I have plenty of opinions and form conclusions everyday and will share them when warranted. However, I won’t share an opinion and pass it off as fact, even though it may be proved accurate at a later date. In my opinion, if you are going to make a statement an expect everyone to accept it as fact, you must be prepared to provide the proper corroboration.

Using your example of O.J., that would be like me saying he was found guilty of murder and post it on the internet and get enough people to believe it that it is cited as truth. We all know that he was acquitted and regardless of how you or I may personally feel about the verdict or him, we cannot deny the facts. Your bias betrays you. If the tables were turned, I think you’d expect nothing less than the rules being applied fairly and without favoritism.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Let’s not be confused. A fact is something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven. An opinion is what someone thinks about that subject. I have plenty of opinions and form conclusions everyday and will share them when warranted. However, I won’t share an opinion and pass it off as fact, even though it may be proved accurate at a later date. In my opinion, if you are going to make a statement an expect everyone to accept it as fact, you must be prepared to provide the proper corroboration.

Using your example of O.J., that would be like me saying he was found guilty of murder and post it on the internet and get enough people to believe it that it is cited as truth. We all know that he was acquitted and regardless of how you or I may personally feel about the verdict or him, we cannot deny the facts. Your bias betrays you. If the tables were turned, I think you’d expect nothing less than the rules being applied fairly and without favoritism.

O.J. is closing in on the real killers.
And those were only ugly rumors about Hitler too.

 

[Hugh Januss]

O.J. is closing in on the real killers.
And those were only ugly rumors about Hitler too.

mmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Let’s not be confused. A fact is something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven. An opinion is what someone thinks about that subject. I have plenty of opinions and form conclusions everyday and will share them when warranted. However, I won’t share an opinion and pass it off as fact, even though it may be proved accurate at a later date. In my opinion, if you are going to make a statement an expect everyone to accept it as fact, you must be prepared to provide the proper corroboration.

Using your example of O.J., that would be like me saying he was found guilty of murder and post it on the internet and get enough people to believe it that it is cited as truth. We all know that he was acquitted and regardless of how you or I may personally feel about the verdict or him, we cannot deny the facts. Your bias betrays you. If the tables were turned, I think you’d expect nothing less than the rules being applied fairly and without favoritism.

So? What are you the Forum Police?
If that is your standard then firstly you should use it - you have no business telling anyone how they should post.

This is a public forum if it is not reaching your exacting standards (which you don't adhere to) then don't log in.

 

[pmcg76]

Let’s not be confused. A fact is something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven. An opinion is what someone thinks about that subject. I have plenty of opinions and form conclusions everyday and will share them when warranted. However, I won’t share an opinion and pass it off as fact, even though it may be proved accurate at a later date. In my opinion, if you are going to make a statement an expect everyone to accept it as fact, you must be prepared to provide the proper corroboration.

Using your example of O.J., that would be like me saying he was found guilty of murder and post it on the internet and get enough people to believe it that it is cited as truth. We all know that he was acquitted and regardless of how you or I may personally feel about the verdict or him, we cannot deny the facts. Your bias betrays you. If the tables were turned, I think you’d expect nothing less than the rules being applied fairly and without favoritism.

I think your bias betrays you, really simple question, before the trial, did you think OJ was guilty or not and after the trial, do you think OJ is innocent or guilty?

 

[miloman]

So? What are you the Forum Police?
If that is your standard then firstly you should use it - you have no business telling anyone how they should post.

This is a public forum if it is not reaching your exacting standards (which you don't adhere to) then don't log in.

I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, but you forgot to add "(IMO)" before that last sentence. And from what I know of you from one of you previous post, you are a stickler for that!

 

[D-Queued]

OJ was found guilty:

Simpson guilty

OJ was also had a judgment of wrongful death, lost an appeal, and failed a lie detector test.

On February 5, 1997, a jury unanimously found there was a preponderance of evidence to hold Simpson liable for damages in the wrongful death of Goldman and battery of Brown.[10] On February 21, 2008, a Los Angeles court upheld a renewal of the civil judgment against him

Go ahead, Milo, keep obfuscating reality and creating new facts.

Dave.

 

[Gaear Grimsrud]

I think your bias betrays you, really simple question, before the trial, did you think OJ was guilty or not and after the trial, do you think OJ is innocent or guilty?

Simpson was found guilty of wrongful death in the civil suit. The standard there is "preponderance of evidence" -- the standard the grand jury will use in Armstrong's case.

 

[Gaear Grimsrud]

preponderance of evidence

Isn't that the standard of proof the grand jury will use on Armstrong, too?

 

[miloman]

I think your bias betrays you, really simple question, before the trial, did you think OJ was guilty or not and after the trial, do you think OJ is innocent or guilty?

I thought he was guilty both before and after the trial, but that doesn't change the fact that he was acquitted. And to say otherwise would be inaccurate. There is a big difference between what I think and what is. Perception, in this case is not reality. Reality is what can be proved.

Let’s bring this back to cycling. Tyler Hamilton has an Olympic medal. That is a fact. As best as I can recall the story, his sample came back showing a non-negative analytical finding. As I understand it, the rules called for testing of the “B” sample to confirm the non-negative finding. Unfortunately, the “B” sample was stored improperly so no testing could be done. Tyler was allowed to keep his medal. You may have a strong opinion about his guilt or innocence, but the fact remains he still has his medal and name is in the Olympic records. To say anything different would be inaccurate. You can say he got away with cheating and perhaps he did, but it is only your opinion and without the “B” sample and due process you can’t say it is a fact.

So goes the debate with LAF. Without facts, it's just an educated guess or someone's personal opinion.

 

[D-Queued]

In a further analogy to Livestrong (what the thread is about), and profiting from the misfortune of others:

A bankruptcy court, in Florida, awarded 90 percent of any proceeds from O.J. Simpson’s controversial book “If I Did It” to relatives of murder victim Ron Goldman.
and the best part:

The Goldmans’ lawyer says they may change the name of the book to “Confessions of a Double Murderer.”

Can't wait to see what the title of 'It's not about the bike' gets changed to.

My candidate: "How I doped my way through the Tour, and ripped off cancer victims in the process"

Dave.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, but you forgot to add "(IMO)" before that last sentence. And from what I know of you from one of you previous post, you are a stickler for that!

No, because it is not an opinion, it is a fact you do not adhere to the standard that you expect from others.