• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Official "another interesting piece I found on Floyd Landis" Thread

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Nov 20, 2010
783
0
0
BroDeal said:
I don't see what a conviction of FLandis can be based on. He was tried in absentia. There is no evidence that he had anything to do with hacking the lab. There is some evidence that his coach was involved. That evidence amounts to the hacker being hired by an English speaker and stolen documents being traced back to Baker. The info about a virus being traced to Baker does not make a lot of sense. Even acceeding that Baker is responsible, it is a giant leap to find that Landis was involved. Is Landis criminally responsible for the actions of everyone who helped in his defense?
Did the French government seek to extradite either Landis or Baker. I think not.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,842
0
0
Extradition for a charge like this? Not likely. That is reserved for serious offences when there is a mutual assistance treaty in place. Rendition maybe. Yeah, a quick snatch n' grab from the waffle shack followed by a couple of years in the foreign legion. Think of all the water bottles he could drink during a hike in the Sahara. Highly suspicious. He could add to his collection of cool chapeaux too, the ones that look like cycling caps with tails at the back.
 
Correct my if I'm wrong, because the sentencing was done in France under French law, but doesn't the suspended sentence mean he will not serve a jail term as long as he keeps his nose clean for the next 18 months? But if he gets caught breaking the law (and I don't know if it would be any law) anytime in the next 18 months, then he will spend 18 months in jail?
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,373
0
0
BroDeal said:
I don't see what a conviction of FLandis can be based on. He was tried in absentia. There is no evidence that he had anything to do with hacking the lab. There is some evidence that his coach was involved. That evidence amounts to the hacker being hired by an English speaker and stolen documents being traced back to Baker. The info about a virus being traced to Baker does not make a lot of sense. Even acceeding that Baker is responsible, it is a giant leap to find that Landis was involved. Is Landis criminally responsible for the actions of everyone who helped in his defense?
Were you there? Sounds like it from all the certitudes you have regarding the quality of evidence.

In any case, the decision not to take part in the process was Floyds, so he is in no position to complain about the result - if indeed he has. In any case, a suspended sentence isn't particularily severe for a charge as serious as hacking. Floyd made a lot of bad decisions back then, if you ask me he has gotten off pretty easy overall.
 
Feb 23, 2010
2,022
0
0
on3m@n@rmy said:
Correct my if I'm wrong, because the sentencing was done in France under French law, but doesn't the suspended sentence mean he will not serve a jail term as long as he keeps his nose clean for the next 18 months? But if he gets caught breaking the law (and I don't know if it would be any law) anytime in the next 18 months, then he will spend 18 months in jail?
The tariff, as far as I'm aware, would be added to any subsequent conviction and it does not expire. However Landis would have to be present of course but even so, his ability to enter FR and certain other countries is now doubtful, so one supposes a worldwide book tour would be out of the question. :)
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
frenchfry said:
Were you there? Sounds like it from all the certitudes you have regarding the quality of evidence.
Would you care to enlighten us as to the evidence that links Landis personally to the hacking?

Baker has not even said that he was involved let alone said that Landis knew about it. Baker could have acted alone. Unless there is an explanation for the sketchy reports on a virus linked to an IP Baker used, he could have simply received docs from someone else since the middleman cannot identify the person who paid for the hack.

frenchfry said:
In any case, the decision not to take part in the process was Floyds, so he is in no position to complain about the result - if indeed he has. In any case, a suspended sentence isn't particularily severe for a charge as serious as hacking. Floyd made a lot of bad decisions back then, if you ask me he has gotten off pretty easy overall.
According to Landis, the french never sent him anything. If the french wanted something other than a PR stunt then they might have at least contacted the accused.
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,373
0
0
BroDeal said:
Would you care to enlighten us as to the evidence that links Landis personally to the hacking?

Baker has not even said that he was involved let alone said that Landis knew about it. Baker could have acted alone. Unless there is an explanation for the sketchy reports on a virus linked to an IP Baker used, he could have simply received docs from someone else since the middleman cannot identify the person who paid for the hack.



According to Landis, the french never sent him anything. If the french wanted something other than a PR stunt then they might have at least contacted the accused.
I don't know what the evidence is, but I don't pretend to know either. I certainly don't give Baker's word any value whatsoever - he proved himself to be a total joke and habitual liar during the entire Landis affair. From the little I do know from media reports, Baker is directly linked to the hacking. The only question is whether Floyd is proven to be directly involved or if it is only by association with Baker and the fact that the hacked information was used to defend him.

Do you really believe the French courts didn't contact Floyd and Baker? Are you willing to believe everything they say?

In any case, the sentence is basically symbolic. I don't even think it would stop Floyd from coming to France if he wanted to.

The fact that Floyd has come out of his dark period and is now a commendable, though pretty off the wall, kind of guy doesn't mean he should get off totally clean for his past indiscretions. He did a lot of pretty stupid things for a while.
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,373
0
0
Initially the Landis story was a footnote to the EDF hacking of Greenpeace story. Now it has it's own headline in Le Monde.

http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article/2011/11/10/cyclisme-floyd-landis-condamne-pour-l-espionnage-d-un-laboratoire-antidopage_1602191_3242.html#ens_id=1589083

New information - there is also a €75K fine payable to the LNDD (jointly by Landis and Baker). The ruling is also based on the fact that Landis and Baker used the hacked documents for his defence, and not just the fact (or possibliity?) that they ordered the hacking in the first place.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
frenchfry said:
(...)

The fact that Floyd has come out of his dark period and is now a commendable, though pretty off the wall, kind of guy doesn't mean he should get off totally clean for his past indiscretions. He did a lot of pretty stupid things for a while.
Perhaps Landis (like he stated on several occasions) really was convinced that he was being set-up. He never denied having been doped to the gills, but he seemed to truly believe he wasn't on testosterone that day. Perhaps that's a reason why he wanted somebody to hack into that lab, to look for hints of a set-up.

Anyway, for Landis, I don't think the sentence is just symbolic.
Even though he'll never serve the time, to have a pending jail-sentence in France on your CV is a big hit to take for anybody who still needs to earn a living, apply for jobs, or look for sponsors, etc.
 
Jul 18, 2010
934
0
0
sniper said:
...Anyway, for Landis, I don't think the sentence is just symbolic. Even though he'll never serve the time, to have a pending jail-sentence in France on your CV is a big hit to take for anybody who still needs to earn a living, apply for jobs, or look for sponsors, etc.
You can't be serious. No one will care, least of all Landis. Most Americans I know would consider a criminal record in France brag-worthy.


So the French try a man who doesn't bother to show for the trial and convict him in absentia, then tell him he needn't worry about serving the sentence.

How typically French.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
StyrbjornSterki said:
You can't be serious. No one will care, least of all Landis. Most Americans I know would consider a criminal record in France brag-worthy.

So the French try a man who doesn't bother to show for the trial and convict him in absentia, then tell him he needn't worry about serving the sentence.
+1

It could be restated as, "So the French charge a man, don't bother to contact him about the charges, try a him in absentia when doesn't bother to show for the trial, and convict him with zero evidence that he is personally connected to or even knew about the hacking, then tell him he needn't worry about serving the sentence."

Even the old Soviet show trials were more fair than this.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,223
0
0
sniper said:
Perhaps Landis (like he stated on several occasions) really was convinced that he was being set-up. He never denied having been doped to the gills, but he seemed to truly believe he wasn't on testosterone that day. Perhaps that's a reason why he wanted somebody to hack into that lab, to look for hints of a set-up.

Anyway, for Landis, I don't think the sentence is just symbolic.
Even though he'll never serve the time, to have a pending jail-sentence in France on your CV is a big hit to take for anybody who still needs to earn a living, apply for jobs, or look for sponsors, etc.
Landis' AAF was for synthetic testosterone not other PEDs that would would have concluded he was "doped to the gills" during Stage 17 on drugs other than synthetic testosterone. The AAF for testosterone was the single issue.

His huge bonk on Stage 16 necessitated working on recovery for Stage 17. Synthetic testosterone would be one of the drugs of choice. A top up by autologous blood doping, not detectable, would provide the performance.

Landis returned an 11:1 t/e ratio which substantially exceeded the 4:1 limit that permitted the dope testers to test for synthetic testosterone.

If Landis was sincere in defending that he had never doped on testosterone for Stage 17 then he would not have run the inane justifications of it being the result of naturally occurring or beer and Jack Daniels to record an 11:1 result.

The proof of the pudding was in the reliable spectrometer test which found exogenous synthetic testosterone.

Furthermore, if Landis truly believed he was Innocent of testosterone doping that caused the legal challenges he would not have recently offered to pay back all contributions to his FF Fund (excepting contributions arranged by Wonderboy).

The information found by way of hacking of the LNDD lab computers was produced in the Tribunal by Landis in an attempt to discredit LNDD. Results had been tampered with after being downloaded.
.
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,463
0
0
sniper said:
Perhaps Landis (like he stated on several occasions) really was convinced that he was being set-up. He never denied having been doped to the gills, but he seemed to truly believe he wasn't on testosterone that day. Perhaps that's a reason why he wanted somebody to hack into that lab, to look for hints of a set-up.

Anyway, for Landis, I don't think the sentence is just symbolic.
Even though he'll never serve the time, to have a pending jail-sentence in France on your CV is a big hit to take for anybody who still needs to earn a living, apply for jobs, or look for sponsors, etc.
Landis was already unable to get a ride with anybody.
If asked about if he is convicted of anything on a job application that's a real stumper. Almost a trick question for Landis. I would just put no. Anybody that is going to hire him, will do so because he is an excellent boat washer, furniture maker, whatever.
Anybody who hires him from the bike business doesn't give a f-ck about some French court saying he got data files about himself.
The guy knows how to train and go fast, there is a market for that, esp in S.Cal where every guy wants to have an edge or know how to add secret sauce to his jumbo jack to go off the front and get a placing .
Landis should make a job out of knowing what it takes to make it, yes he blew it when he got there, burned every bridge to and from, didn't get any illumination from everything and everybody burning around him, but he can't have forgotten how to go fast on a bike.
Flandis if you are reading this, fill up your tank and drive around. Ask Brock Glover, ask David Bailey,Jeremy McGrath knowing how to go fast is a skill but it doesn't always translate to another sport at the top level. You are surrounded by people that can help you, transition from fallen fringe athlete to regular person. I know you like the water ask some of the surfers, or pro skateboarders who had a ride w a top notch for a couple of years and now go from party to party asking people "Do you know who I am?" and when they can't answer he bolts for the free mini quiches and free beer.
I can't believe Larry King is off the air. Maybe Jim Rome needs PA help or set design, there was some others and you have their numbers
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
Velodude said:
Landis' AAF was for synthetic testosterone not other PEDs that would would have concluded he was "doped to the gills" during Stage 17 on drugs other than synthetic testosterone. The AAF for testosterone was the single issue.

His huge bonk on Stage 16 necessitated working on recovery for Stage 17. Synthetic testosterone would be one of the drugs of choice. A top up by autologous blood doping, not detectable, would provide the performance.

Landis returned an 11:1 t/e ratio which substantially exceeded the 4:1 limit that permitted the dope testers to test for synthetic testosterone.

If Landis was sincere in defending that he had never doped on testosterone for Stage 17 then he would not have run the inane justifications of it being the result of naturally occurring or beer and Jack Daniels to record an 11:1 result.

The proof of the pudding was in the reliable spectrometer test which found exogenous synthetic testosterone.

Furthermore, if Landis truly believed he was Innocent of testosterone doping that caused the legal challenges he would not have recently offered to pay back all contributions to his FF Fund (excepting contributions arranged by Wonderboy).

The information found by way of hacking of the LNDD lab computers was produced in the Tribunal by Landis in an attempt to discredit LNDD. Results had been tampered with after being downloaded.
.
Nice post, velodude.

The clinic usually has a tendency to forgive and forget, and to use pretel logic to defend or excuse the actions of those who are on the outs with LA. Hopefully LA and this Sandusky *** from Penn State will not have a falling out, else brodeal etal will say he was just playing watersports in the shower and nothing else.

I commend you on your even handedness on this subject, and not taking what Baker or FL says about things after the AAF as the truth.

FL made a mockery of the system. He lied over and over costing millions of dollars and IMO setting back the fight against PEDs due to sowing unfounded doubt in terms of the science into the system. He was either involved with or knew about hacking LNDD. His buddy attacked GL about GL's abuse (I am sure that is a confusing situation now for the forum regulars). If you think they both weren't laughing about this then you are an idiot. They made of the BS you allude to about whisky theories and beer. All BS.

He still does not come clean about taking testosterone as you say, to this day. He has promised to pay back all the dupes that gave him donations. I personally don't think they deserve to be paid back because I think stupid people shouldn't get do-overs, but I digress.

It is good that he has come clean and has been the catylist for the current investigations; let the chips fall where they may. But, the revisionist history and the excuse's made for his actions, that we all rightfully mocked and ridiculed at the time, are so easily forgotten due to his being a hero now to some.

That is why most of the people in here have zero credibility.
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,204
0
0
ChrisE, I don't know if you've considered this, but people can like and dislike different aspects of a person and their behaviour without being a raging hypocrite. On the subject of FL, most people on the clinic will dislike his doping, but like his present honesty. They'll dislike his conduct during various trials, but appreciate the work he's done since then. I'm sure quite a few think he seems like an alright guy in some respects, but would agree that he was cruel to LeMond. And I expect that many think his problems are all his fault, but also have some sympathy for a man who has been utterly broken by doping.

In the same vein, I love my dad, but the guy drives me nuts. Just because someone praises something positive about someone doesn't mean they're ignoring everything negative. Maybe some are, but why bother trying to talk sense into someone who believes FL is an angel?
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Velodude said:
Landis' AAF was for synthetic testosterone not other PEDs that would would have concluded he was "doped to the gills" during Stage 17 on drugs other than synthetic testosterone. The AAF for testosterone was the single issue.

His huge bonk on Stage 16 necessitated working on recovery for Stage 17. Synthetic testosterone would be one of the drugs of choice. A top up by autologous blood doping, not detectable, would provide the performance.

Landis returned an 11:1 t/e ratio which substantially exceeded the 4:1 limit that permitted the dope testers to test for synthetic testosterone.

If Landis was sincere in defending that he had never doped on testosterone for Stage 17 then he would not have run the inane justifications of it being the result of naturally occurring or beer and Jack Daniels to record an 11:1 result.

The proof of the pudding was in the reliable spectrometer test which found exogenous synthetic testosterone.

Furthermore, if Landis truly believed he was Innocent of testosterone doping that caused the legal challenges he would not have recently offered to pay back all contributions to his FF Fund (excepting contributions arranged by Wonderboy).

The information found by way of hacking of the LNDD lab computers was produced in the Tribunal by Landis in an attempt to discredit LNDD. Results had been tampered with after being downloaded.
.
You do, as always, know what you're talking about.

There is one caveat, however, and that is the fact that so many cyclists do the same but without getting caught. So ok, let's assume he took the testosterone, and that he knows he took it. It then still needs a small miracle for him to get caught. So that's where he may have thought "hey, me and others have done this time and time again without getting caught, and now that I'm on the verge of winning the tour, they suddenly dewcide to bust me".

I'm considering it a real possibility that (regardless of whether he did or did not knowingly take the testosterone) Landis has honestly believed he was being screwed with.
 
ChrisE said:
Nice post, velodude.

The clinic usually has a tendency to forgive and forget, and to use pretel logic to defend or excuse the actions of those who are on the outs with LA. Hopefully LA and this Sandusky *** from Penn State will not have a falling out, else brodeal etal will say he was just playing watersports in the shower and nothing else.

I commend you on your even handedness on this subject, and not taking what Baker or FL says about things after the AAF as the truth.

FL made a mockery of the system. He lied over and over costing millions of dollars and IMO setting back the fight against PEDs due to sowing unfounded doubt in terms of the science into the system. He was either involved with or knew about hacking LNDD. His buddy attacked GL about GL's abuse (I am sure that is a confusing situation now for the forum regulars). If you think they both weren't laughing about this then you are an idiot. They made of the BS you allude to about whisky theories and beer. All BS.

He still does not come clean about taking testosterone as you say, to this day. He has promised to pay back all the dupes that gave him donations. I personally don't think they deserve to be paid back because I think stupid people shouldn't get do-overs, but I digress.

It is good that he has come clean and has been the catylist for the current investigations; let the chips fall where they may. But, the revisionist history and the excuse's made for his actions, that we all rightfully mocked and ridiculed at the time, are so easily forgotten due to his being a hero now to some.

That is why most of the people in here have zero credibility.
This only demonstrated how stupid and ingenuous most Americans are when it comes to doping in sports and how easily they are given over to an access of sentimentality, when the athlete in question is one of their own.

If Landis had been say French, Belgian, Spanish, Dutch or Italian, there is absolutely no way he could have successfully hoodwinked the public for so long, at least not in terms of making them actually believing his innocence, like he was able to deceive and defraud the American public in this regard. Only in America could one have orchestated such a colossal plan of willful deceit and fraud, and have earned so much credit for it in setting up an organization that thousands and tens of thousands of thoroughly mindless and stupid Americans would have actually contributed to monetarily. So, as I see it, those Amercans are partly to blame for their ridiculous gulability and childish innocence first and for funding hims second.

After all, anything that happens in France is suspicious, and we must never trust the French, who are a thoroughly dishonest and depraved people as everybody knows, that are always up to no good and have got it in for America and the American people in general.

Landis wagered a bet in playing upon this anti-French sentiment that prevails among the American people, having been a pupil as he was of the greatest Frankish opportunist and US manipulator of them all, Lance Armstrong, and it was nearly a winning bet. Having learned from the Yankee pide piper Lance himself, Floyd appealed to the American people's deepest patriotic and jingoistic sentiments, and if it hadn't been for all the overbeaing scientific evidence, would have easily won his public cause by a landslide. This only demonstrates how easily the American people are given over to being defrauded by a carefully orchestrated and well played-up conspiracy in the media outlets against them, which is natually appalling.

Having said that, and not having been one that was hoodwinked by his ludicrous affirmations and scandalous comportment, I have to say the man seems to me today more the victim of a totally corrupt and depraved system, than of his own poor decisions, whereas Armstrong was the system personified and so will receive no forbearance. Because he paid the heavy price of his career, his credibility and his psychological wellbeing, I find it difficult now to dwell on the gross errors of his past. Especially since the guy has contributed significantly to finally exposing the greatest defrauder of them all, Armstrong, while things like his letter to Hein Verbruggen was just a sporting masterpiece for its witty rebutle, satire and caustic criticism of a system that doesn't just need to be reformed, but totally rebuilt from scratch.
 
Mar 19, 2009
2,235
0
0
Caruut said:
ChrisE, I don't know if you've considered this, but people can like and dislike different aspects of a person and their behaviour without being a raging hypocrite. On the subject of FL, most people on the clinic will dislike his doping, but like his present honesty. They'll dislike his conduct during various trials, but appreciate the work he's done since then. I'm sure quite a few think he seems like an alright guy in some respects, but would agree that he was cruel to LeMond. And I expect that many think his problems are all his fault, but also have some sympathy for a man who has been utterly broken by doping.

In the same vein, I love my dad, but the guy drives me nuts. Just because someone praises something positive about someone doesn't mean they're ignoring everything negative. Maybe some are, but why bother trying to talk sense into someone who believes FL is an angel?
Post of the month!
 
Mar 19, 2009
2,235
0
0
@Velodude
Would returning donations be only required if the substance they got him for was in fact true? FL admitted to be well jacked on blood doping, though perhaps not as much as he could have been. Surely he's not so hypocrit to say I was wrongly accused of doping, period? He accepts fault, just claims he was taken for the wrong substance. Or at least can't make a better story for himself why he tested in that way. The drinking AFAIK did happen. And the great ride following I could explain by the bonking the day before alone. He was not able to dig as deep, and needed less recovery. Plus, he rode like a lion and hydrated extremely well, to the point of risking bladder complications.
I would like to her more, but at this stage am not convinced FL is knowingly lying to us about something related to testosterone. Can't rule it out, he's surprised most of us with his admissions, or at least the full story he rolled out to us.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Cloxxki said:
@Velodude
Would returning donations be only required if the substance they got him for was in fact true? FL admitted to be well jacked on blood doping, though perhaps not as much as he could have been. Surely he's not so hypocrit to say I was wrongly accused of doping, period? He accepts fault, just claims he was taken for the wrong substance. Or at least can't make a better story for himself why he tested in that way. The drinking AFAIK did happen. And the great ride following I could explain by the bonking the day before alone. He was not able to dig as deep, and needed less recovery. Plus, he rode like a lion and hydrated extremely well, to the point of risking bladder complications.
I would like to her more, but at this stage am not convinced FL is knowingly lying to us about something related to testosterone. Can't rule it out, he's surprised most of us with his admissions, or at least the full story he rolled out to us.
Exactly the point I was trying to make in my previous post. (And indeed, Caruut's post was a post of the month candidate.)

That is also why I suggested that Landis' & Baker's hacking action may have been driven by the hope to find indications that would support their case, rather than to manipulate data.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
Caruut said:
ChrisE, I don't know if you've considered this, but people can like and dislike different aspects of a person and their behaviour without being a raging hypocrite. On the subject of FL, most people on the clinic will dislike his doping, but like his present honesty. They'll dislike his conduct during various trials, but appreciate the work he's done since then. I'm sure quite a few think he seems like an alright guy in some respects, but would agree that he was cruel to LeMond. And I expect that many think his problems are all his fault, but also have some sympathy for a man who has been utterly broken by doping.

In the same vein, I love my dad, but the guy drives me nuts. Just because someone praises something positive about someone doesn't mean they're ignoring everything negative. Maybe some are, but why bother trying to talk sense into someone who believes FL is an angel?
Wow, really?

Thanks for the observation, but I don't follow what that has to do with my post. I am not talking about liking or disliking somebody despite their faults. I don't 'dislike' FL...I am just pointing out revisionist history of some in here based upon his present hero status in the clinic.

I am alluding to the fact that people who once ridiculed and criticized FL are now his defenders on those same allegations, giving him the benefit of the doubt using preposterous logic. All because he has come clean now, and is an LA enemy.

I am all for the the "yes, he lied and did all of these things but now he is my hero because of the present circumstances" position.

That is different than the "prior to May 2010 I thought he lied and did all of these things, but now I am not sure because of the present circumstances" position.

Post of the month!
and, some of us are easily impressed as well. :rolleyes:
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,204
0
0
ChrisE said:
Wow, really?

Thanks for the observation, but I don't follow what that has to do with my post. I am not talking about liking or disliking somebody despite their faults. I don't 'dislike' FL...I am just pointing out revisionist history of some in here based upon his present hero status in the clinic.

I am alluding to the fact that people who once ridiculed and criticized FL are now his defenders on those same allegations, giving him the benefit of the doubt using preposterous logic. All because he has come clean now, and is an LA enemy.

I am all for the the "yes, he lied and did all of these things but now he is my hero because of the present circumstances" position.

That is different than the "prior to May 2010 I thought he lied and did all of these things, but now I am not sure because of the present circumstances" position.



and, some of us are easily impressed as well. :rolleyes:
What I'm suggesting is that what you're seeing as "revisionist history" is partly seeming that way because you only see one snippet of someone's opinion at a time.

I wonder if you know what revisionist history is - revisionist history is actually challenging, in the face of overwhelming evidence against you, the generally accepted version of "facts". Holocaust denial is the most obvious and possibly the most odious example of this.

What you're describing is people re-evaluating someone's character based on events between now and then. When Floyd denied everything and so much was clearly untrue, why would you trust anything he said? Now that he's told a different, clearly more truthful version of events, it seems reasonable to re-evaluate some of the assumptions about events you made, based on your previous perception of his character.

If it were the other way round, everyone would do the same. Consider an example where someone of good standing has told you many seemingly improbable things, but you accept them because the person is held to be trustworthy. If something then happens which shows that many of the things this person has said are lies, it's entirely reasonable to question the ones you don't yet know about.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
Caruut said:
What I'm suggesting is that what you're seeing as "revisionist history" is partly seeming that way because you only see one snippet of someone's opinion at a time.

snip babble (thanks RR)
No, what I am suggesting is people are reevaluating facts, to the point of insulting one's intelligence with that reevaluation as much as FL did with the BS presented during his AAF ordeal.

It has nothing to do with character, except the character of those whose deductive reasoning skills vary depending on who hates who at a particular point in time.

Finally, save the patronizing pseudo-Dr. Phil. You know nothing about me. By simply pointing out the revisionist history (yes, I know what it means) in here inre to FL by some, I have received a lecture on human interaction and evaluation from a clown on the internet named caruut, whatever the **** a caruut is.

Maybe you should go troll the Oprah Winfrey forum.
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,373
0
0
BroDeal said:
+1

It could be restated as, "So the French charge a man, don't bother to contact him about the charges, try a him in absentia when doesn't bother to show for the trial, and convict him with zero evidence that he is personally connected to or even knew about the hacking, then tell him he needn't worry about serving the sentence."

Even the old Soviet show trials were more fair than this.
Then what do you think should have been done when the LNDD discovered that someone hacked their computer, stole confidential documents, modified them then distributed them to the press.

You seem hung up on the idea that the "French" didn't inform Floyd of the charges or of the trial. Are you still basing this on the declarations of Arnie Baker? Did you see his powerpoint presentation where he systematically and willfully distorted and manipulated information to turn public opinion away from the obvious reality?

Don't trials "in absentia" exist in the hallowed" US justice system?

"Zero evidence" is a strong statement, do you really think there was NO evidence that Floyd had used the stolen and modified LNDD documents in order to try and discredit the lab?

And by the way, no one told Floyd he didn't have to worry about serving the sentence, there is no sentence to be served.

You disappoint me Brodeal, I thought you could be a bit more objective than this.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS