fatandfast said:
She wrongly explains what EPO is
"a drug called EPO, which is a blood oxygenator. It really helps you so much in the mountains, and it gives you an incredible boost."
What's wrong with that?
she gives a timeline of 2 weeks for Armstrong to get counsel and respond to remarks before they are printed in one the the largest sports mags.
"Well, for two weeks, we reached out to Lance Armstrong"
That's how long she tried. Nothing here about a timeline, whether this was the last two weeks before publication, whether she wouldn't have extended the time if LA's team had been serious about responding.
She classifies fellow team mates as employees of Armstrong.
"did he pressure his fellow riders, who would be considered
sort of his employees, to take drugs?"
You are aware that LA basically made the hiring decisions on his teams, aren't you? And that he paid them bonuses from his TDF winnings?
Then tries a government weave on the Postal Service..like congress or the Pres. gave authorization for the sponsorship..
Where does she say that? I can't find it.
Says she gets a sense of totality from all the people she has spoken with..
" I think that if you take the totality of who we talked to, maybe one or two of the people we spoke to had been in litigation."
You really like to misrepresent what people say, don't you? Wouldn't it just be easier if you said, I really hope this investigation goes nowhere? No need to spend so much time and effort twisting what others say to fit your desires.