Micheal Anderson Testimony / Versus Lance Armstrong And David Luke LLC

[ItsWitz]

Drop a Dime !?!

They have been overwhelmed by the number of people willing to drop the dime on Wonderboy.

i find the whole thing mildly interesting .... and i've Loved the Tour since the late 60's. If ... "everyone is using", ... then, it's a level playing field ... only thing is, ... its such a high level that it really does affect the strategy and outcome of the race. .... unfortunately, the worst collateral damage would be to the Cancer Community ...!

I say, do away with Teams altogether! Every man for himself. Personally, I'd like to see the Tour be open to EVERYone and ANYone .... thousands would ride (tho it wouldn't change the use of PED). It would be more fun; a massive ride rather than an elite only affair.

But what really sparks my interest is the above quote ... "drop a dime". I first saw this phrase in a book by Mr. Armstrong - the OTHER Mr. Armstrong; Louis Armstrong!!! Louis writes in an auto biographical sketch about how - in 1930 - someone "dropped a nickle" (that's what a phone call cost in those days) on him to report to the police that he was out back smoking a joint. He explains how easily a person can lay his "malice" upon another anonomously .... "could be you, me, or anybody".

Yes, Louis Armstrong used marijuana and yes, it improved his performance .. "I'm ready, i'm ready, so help me I'm ready". I'd suggest that Lance might enjoy his performance more - tho perhaps profit less - if he rode with a little Gage ("as they so beautifully call it some times"; L.A.) or even some shrooms. You know, get the joy back.

And before someone rips me a brand new one, .... lighten UP !!! ha ha

If there is ANYone who doesn't know who Pops IS ... here's a link to his '56 performance in Africa (which is perhaps appropriate) ... "What Did I Do To Be So Black & Blue" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ9SQ3AutoA<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ9SQ3AutoA>

Peace & Perspirity

Happy New Year,

itsWITZ
Moab


"I kissed a cow which had just been fed Clenbuteral" ... Holy Cow, do you believe it ???

 

[Monte Zoncolon]

Affidavits are considered "hearsay" and are not admissable as 'best evidence." Best evidence would be the testimony, in person, of the individual who gave the affidavit. Such a personal appearance allows the opposing side to cross-examine the witness. You can't cross-examine a piece of paper.

FYI: This statement is nonsense .

I am well aware, of what an affidavit is. But if You must know, the above statement, which You describe as nonsense, was copied and pasted from the following Link:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_signed_and_sworn_affidavits_admissible_in_all_courts


I suppose it all depend's on how one interprets a written statement.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Why is it the groupies are always hoping, praying, that the Fed's case is only based on limited evidence.....it is not. They have been overwhelmed by the number of people willing to drop the dime on Wonderboy.

This (andro something or other steroid in the cabinet) could very well be a piece for the Fed’s puzzle.

Watch out I am about to break from the accepted herd for a minute.

Since M.A. was a personal assistant to Lance Armstrong for a couple of years I would think his observations would collaborate something or some of the Floyd Landis information.

In my opinion the hoops that were gone through to try and create a smoke screen for the random drug testers showing up in the Texas Hill country was very interesting.

 

[BotanyBay]

The point is moot, as the document we're discussing is actually an "Answer" as opposed to an "Affidavit". Lance sued Anderson. Anderson answered and sued him right back. The case was settled and that's that. But Mike stands by every word in the document. Unfortunately, as usually is the case with a settlement, he's prevented from making further comments about the case.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The point is moot, as the document we're discussing is actually an "Answer" as opposed to an "Affidavit". Lance sued Anderson. Anderson answered and sued him right back. The case was settled and that's that. But Mike stands by every word in the document. Unfortunately, as usually is the case with a settlement, he's prevented from making further comments about the case.

Your answering colon on this one correct?

I am not questioning the truth in regards to Mike Andersons "Answer". I happen to believe it.

Just curious what else was there left unsaid. Speculation is the fun part in my opinion, since that is what we have here on this message board the majority of the time.

 

[MarkvW]

confusion

I am well aware, of what an affidavit is. But if You must know, the above statement, which You describe as nonsense, was copied and pasted from the following Link:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_signed_and_sworn_affidavits_admissible_in_all_courts


I suppose it all depend's on how one interprets a written statement.

Monte Zoc, you are conflating two doctrines of evidence: the best evidence rule and the hearsay rule. Every bit of reasoning derived from that error is nonsense.

You don't analyze a hearsay problem with the aid of best evidence analysis, and vice versa.

It seems you were talking about the requirement of first hand knowledge, but I couldn't be sure. That doctrine is involved in hearsay analysis.

Sorry, but your post was Cliff Klavenesque.

 

[BotanyBay]

Your answering colon on this one correct?

Correct

I am not questioning the truth in regards to Mike Andersons "Answer". I happen to believe it.

Just curious what else was there left unsaid. Speculation is the fun part in my opinion, since that is what we have here on this message board the majority of the time.

Anderson says a lot, just in very small chunks. Put the chunks together and you get a decent picture of what LA is like and what motivates the guy. He's a real SOB.

 

[BotanyBay]

Sorry, but your post was Cliff Klavenesque.