Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[Netserk]

It was explicit enough to George and Swart for them to put in their affidavits

You do know the difference between implicit and explicit, right?

Why is it soooo difficult for you to admit that Lance *didn't* explicitly say it?

 

[mewmewmew13]

You do know the difference between implicit and explicit, right?

Why is it soooo difficult for you to admit that Lance *didn't* explicitly say it?

What a patronizing tone and personal attacking style.
It shows immaturity.
Why don't you stop it

 

[Netserk]

What a patronizing tone and personal attacking style.
It shows immaturity.
Why don't you stop it

Why don't you HTFU or STFU?

 

[Race Radio]

You do know the difference between implicit and explicit, right?

Why is it soooo difficult for you to admit that Lance *didn't* explicitly say it?

Ah, the semantics game.....Zzzzzzz

Lets ask George what he thought.

George Hincapie Affidavit
I understood that to mean the team had to take EPO

And Swart

Stephen Swart Affidavit
Lance Armstrong was leading the conversation and strongly stated that the riders who were in line to ride the Tour de France that year needed to be on an EPO program

 

[Netserk]

Ah, the semantics game.....Zzzzzzz

Lets ask George what he thought.



And Swart

Still too difficult to admit you were wrong?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

People are talking about a "personal agenda" by RR...and are doing so in a way that overtly suggest a "personal agenda" for their disagreement...I mean, when almost the only person you respond to and quote is one person...there's an issue. I don't see any of you jumping on me or mew or pretty much anyone else, but when RR posts, the dogs come howling.

Personal agenda's and sh!t...yea, lets talk about that...

Anyway, that some of you are now on the "Armstrong was no different than anyone else, and all the dirty dopers who testified to the USADA are just as dirty and deserve just as much derision" is interesting when one takes a look at your entire history of posing on the subject. Lance has always been good at getting people on his side. Nothing's changed.

SSDD

 

[Scott SoCal]

You do know the difference between implicit and explicit, right?

Why is it soooo difficult for you to admit that Lance *didn't* explicitly say it?

You must be kidding. A better question might be why on earth would anyone believe anything other than Lance directing traffic at USPS.

Given the capital A in the Alpha Male profile that is everything Lance Armstrong... yeah, it makes total sense for him to passively sit around and not bark out the orders.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Why don't you HTFU or STFU?

Nice. ***.

 

[Scott SoCal]

People are talking about a "personal agenda" by RR...and are doing so in a way that overtly suggest a "personal agenda" for their disagreement...I mean, when almost the only person you respond to and quote is one person...there's an issue. I don't see any of you jumping on me or mew or pretty much anyone else, but when RR posts, the dogs come howling.

Personal agenda's and sh!t...yea, lets talk about that...

Anyway, that some of you are now on the "Armstrong was no different than anyone else, and all the dirty dopers who testified to the USADA are just as dirty and deserve just as much derision" is interesting when one takes a look at your entire history of posing on the subject. Lance has always been good at getting people on his side. Nothing's changed.

SSDD

That's because you'll rip 'em a new one. I'm an expert on that.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You do know the difference between implicit and explicit, right?

Why is it soooo difficult for you to admit that Lance *didn't* explicitly say it?

I think because the practical legal and real effect is not different in this case. You do know that many times and in may ways the law treats implicit and explicit statements the same right? You know why? Because the practical effect is exactly the same.

But RR said it, so wail away I guess.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

That's because you'll rip 'em a new one. I'm an expert on that.

Yea, and I like you.

 

[Netserk]

Seems like people forgot to read the thread.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Seems like people forgot to read the thread.

Why don't you HTFU or STFU?

 

[Netserk]

Why don't you HTFU or STFU?

Yes, I'm clearly the thin-skinned one in this thread

 

[Scott SoCal]

Yes, I'm clearly the thin-skinned one in this thread

Yep.

Mew has you pinned and politely suggested you stop. And what did you do? Respond like a 9 year old.

 

[sittingbison]

Gentle(wo)men,
This convo has gone beyond the pail. I seriously suggest you have a think before hitting the send button with comments like those above, which I am leaving as examples of what not to post.

Keep it civil, don't hound or look for a fight, don't bait.

Cheers
Bison

 

[DirtyWorks]

Why is it soooo difficult for you to admit that Lance *didn't* explicitly say it?

I think it has been established by now You can't trust Wonderboy, or George to tell you the weather outside, much less an accurate statement about the past.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

People are talking about a "personal agenda" by RR...and are doing so in a way that overtly suggest a "personal agenda" for their disagreement...I mean, when almost the only person you respond to and quote is one person...there's an issue. I don't see any of you jumping on me or mew or pretty much anyone else, but when RR posts, the dogs come howling.

Personal agenda's and sh!t...yea, lets talk about that...

Anyway, that some of you are now on the "Armstrong was no different than anyone else, and all the dirty dopers who testified to the USADA are just as dirty and deserve just as much derision" is interesting when one takes a look at your entire history of posing on the subject. Lance has always been good at getting people on his side. Nothing's changed.

SSDD

Say something on topic worth responding to, and let's see what happens.

My only beef is with the incorrect claim that George wrote something in his affidavit that he didn't in fact write. The intent, and the leader / instigator are not in question. George's reprehensible actions now, so late in the piece are despicable, and Lance is someone for whom I have no respect.

But George did not write what is being claimed. I find it very difficult to believe you could submit that claim (Lance said use EPO) as evidence in court, based on what George has written (Lance said something needs to be done ==> I interpreted that to mean we have to use EPO).

 

[Boeing]

You do know the difference between implicit and explicit, right?

Why is it soooo difficult for you to admit that Lance *didn't* explicitly say it?

As in there is a sticky thread with Explicit instructions that We have an implicit agreement not to raise this subject?

 

[Fausto's Schnauzer]

Here's an interesting glimpse into George's way of thinking.

 

[Kretch]

The way you lot, who are ostensibly on the same side, are having a go at RR over semantics suggests that the Lance PR shyte is actually working. Pity really.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Say something on topic worth responding to, and let's see what happens.

My only beef is with the incorrect claim that George wrote something in his affidavit that he didn't in fact write. The intent, and the leader / instigator are not in question. George's reprehensible actions now, so late in the piece are despicable, and Lance is someone for whom I have no respect.

But George did not write what is being claimed. I find it very difficult to believe you could submit that claim (Lance said use EPO) as evidence in court, based on what George has written (Lance said something needs to be done ==> I interpreted that to mean we have to use EPO).

It could easily be argued as implied consent.

 

[BroDeal]

Say something on topic worth responding to, and let's see what happens.

My only beef is with the incorrect claim that George wrote something in his affidavit that he didn't in fact write. The intent, and the leader / instigator are not in question. George's reprehensible actions now, so late in the piece are despicable, and Lance is someone for whom I have no respect.

But George did not write what is being claimed. I find it very difficult to believe you could submit that claim (Lance said use EPO) as evidence in court, based on what George has written (Lance said something needs to be done ==> I interpreted that to mean we have to use EPO).

People are claiming Hincapie said a lot of things he never said.

He says seeing Andreu using EPO made an impact on him. It gets translated to Hincapie being white as snow and Andreu is responsible for him doping. He says Andreu doped like everyone else. It gets translated to Andreu was part of USPS' blood transfusion program.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The way you lot, who are ostensibly on the same side, are having a go at RR over semantics suggests that the Lance PR shyte is actually working. Pity really.

Or, it is simply RR telling someone they are wrong, and suggesting they did not read an affidavit (despite the accused linking to said affidavit), when the content in question does not say what is being claimed to have been said.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Myerson is not a doper.

I realize that now...thanks. It's still funny to me though that dopers are arguing with each other.