Official Lance Armstrong Thread **READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING**

[python]

again, i only have to use your own words, since i'm only interested in discussing your input, NOT YOU... yes, everyone can make their mind up - as hugh janus did, as the hogg did and apparently several others but God help them if they do, as you will waltz them and call it a victory until they shake their heads in response and decide to walk away...

but i will let the facts of your own words to speak for the absolutely obvious falseness of your statements.
Post # 10583

I never said Jones perjury had nothing to do with doping

This is a crude, simplistic misrepresentation as only several posts back you said…

Post#10369
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=778370&postcount=10369

Jones was done for perjury. Nothing to do with doping.

Everyone can now read and link back to your own words..and yes make up their own minds as to who had said what and who backed up their words.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

again, i only have to use your own words, since i'm only interested in discussing your input, NOT YOU... yes, everyone can make their mind up - as hugh janus did, as the hogg did and apparently several others but God help them if they do, as you will waltz them and call it a victory until they shake their heads in response and decide to walk away...

Aha - you're interested in discussing my input?
This is a thread about Lance Armstrong. Strange you have not mentioned anything about him in all your posts?

but i will let the facts of your own words to speak for the absolutely obvious falseness of your statements.
Post # 10583

This is a crude, simplistic misrepresentation as only several posts back you said…

Post#10369
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=778370&postcount=10369



Everyone can now read and link back to your own words..and yes make up their own minds as to who had said what and who backed up their words.

And I will let the facts remain that there was nothing false about it (you would have shown where it was false)

As I said, this has nothing to do with Armstrong, or even the discussion I had with LarryBud, this is about you being upset because I called you a bully on the Contador thread and with every keystroke you validate that.

 

[Ulle Relaxes]

From the Armstrong Lies thread:

Calm down with the insults.

I am not holding anyone up as a paragon of virtue. I have asked a simple question that you, and your buddies, refuse to answer. You want people to stop questioning Armstrong's actions, to focus on riders who are dead or have nor raced for 30 years. Good luck with that.

When does it become OK to question Armstrong's actions? Is he above all questioning?

I'm not the one who brought up the 'champions of the past' argument (it was velodude and billy) but when I see a faulty argument I am going to pounce. So once again obfuscation.

Also 'Calm down with the insults' is hilarious. If there is a problem with you et al is that you have taken Lance Armstrong to heart against a man who is not going to defend himself here. At least I'm throwing rocks with people who can throw them back. Hell if the moderators think I've over stepped the mark let them ban me. I can survive.

It seems quite clear that you are holding Lance to some standard of personal virtue by the amount of times you bring up 'hookers and blow', 'Yellow Rose' etc. Would you like me to quote you on that?

The only difference between 'At what point is it OK to question the myth?' and 'At what point is it OK to question your own delusion?' is politeness. When the word 'myth' is used it is the same as 'belief' which can be a 'delusion'. You see what I did there? Using your own words against you?

Question Armstrong's actions all you like but atleast provide solid arguments like Dr Maserati has attempted to do by reiterating the first post. Not by a mixture of pop psychology, religious fervour, moral crusading, rumour mongering and what you're often predisposed to doing which is the 'I know something you don't know' argument.

He's a public persona, cultivates celebrity and tries to portray himself as a paragon of virtue who lives a life of virtue due to surving cancer. He said he would never put any dodgy substance in his body again after suffering cancer. But he is smoking blow? never mind his doping! Athletes have been thrown out of the Olympics for testing positive for soft drugs.

Please. Boonen's coke problem was seen as an off season problem too.

 

[palmerq]

As I said, this has nothing to do with Armstrong

I concur... please keep it relevant to lance python(and everyone else)

 

[python]

Aha - you're interested in discussing my input?
This is a thread about Lance Armstrong. Strange you have not mentioned anything about him in all your posts?

this is another crude deflection as i only quoted YOU. is quoting you not your input that had nothing to do with the subject ?...by that logic YOU were never interested in discussing the subject.


you see, i keep refering to your own words, to the simplistic misrepresentations i have shown conclusively and and backed the up and you keep trying to bring other threads that have nothing to do with what i expose you for - the cheap misrepresentations IN THIS THREAD.


why would you not instead address my points i made, that you clamed you never said, and right there in your face and everyone's ability to read you did twist around ? do you really feel the posters are that silly ?

 

[MarkvW]

Do we have to argue any more about why Marion Jones went to prison or how Maserati doesn't argue fairly?

 

[Velodude]

Does this fairly summarize the points you are trying to make: (1) Lance is obviously guilty of LEADING ORGANIZED CRIME under the RICO statutes. This is established by the legal analysis provided by Velodude (and written in five minutes). (2) The feds will surely charge Lance with the above, because the guilt is so obvious. (3) Absent a stupid jury (and lots of juries are stupid), Lance will be convicted because the evidence is overwhelming. (4) Lance should be sentenced to prison because the law requires it. "Settling" for anything less is "bs."

Am I missing anything?

It took longer than five minutes of my valuable time.

It was not a legal analysis.

 

[Berzin]

At this point you guys are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Until the indictments come down, when the charges are made public and some of the people questioned by the grand jury begin speaking out about their testimony, all that's going on right now is the regurgitation and re-chewing of stale information.

 

[MarkvW]

It took longer than five minutes of my valuable time.

It was not a legal analysis.

I was trying to distill the essence of the Melman Doctrine in the hope that it would help draw the Melman-Maserati dialog to an end. The "five minutes" and "legal analysis" points were intended as a summary of Melman's points and shouldn't be taken as an expression of my agreement or disagreement with them. And I certainly wasn't suggesting that you either adopt or reject Melman's conclusions or that you endorse or reject the use he made of your work.

 

[Hugh Januss]

So python comes on to complain about Dr. M and LBM spending multiple pages arguing over minutia and then proceeds to spend several pages arguing about that.

 

[Hugh Januss]

At this point you guys are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Until the indictments come down, when the charges are made public and some of the people questioned by the grand jury begin speaking out about their testimony, all that's going on right now is the regurgitation and re-chewing of stale information.

http://youtu.be/hnTmBjk-M0c

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So python comes on to complain about Dr. M and LBM spending multiple pages arguing over minutia and then proceeds to spend several pages arguing about that.

No, you missed the key point - because of something I wrote pages ago, it shows that Jones did or perhaps did not am, go to jail for perjury or something
and Armstrong am... ok, I will quote Python as he explains it so eloquently.

to the simplistic misrepresentations i have shown conclusively and and backed the up

 

[Ulle Relaxes]

If you are going to argue at least be entertaining about it. Show some wit and humour like Polish and I.

 

[python]

arguing about that.

actually it was about something much easier to follow and prove as utterly false. here it is again...
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=780897&postcount=10586

Post # 10583

I NEVER said Jones perjury had nothing to do with doping

yes he did but admitting to being exposed is not in the cards

Post#10369
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpos...ostcount=10369

Jones was done for perjury. Nothing to do with doping.

 

[palmerq]

not again :S.... deleted some posts, please remember how many warnings have been posted in this thread, stick to the topic or else... err please. Leave this strange argument in the past...

 

[Cobblestoned]

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=780398&postcount=564

That wasn't THE typical defense, but more an official judgment done by a prosecutor, ChrisE.
ChrisE ?

 

[LarryBudMelman]

this is another crude deflection as i only quoted YOU. is quoting you not your input that had nothing to do with the subject ?...by that logic YOU were never interested in discussing the subject.


you see, i keep refering to your own words, to the simplistic misrepresentations i have shown conclusively and and backed the up and you keep trying to bring other threads that have nothing to do with what i expose you for - the cheap misrepresentations IN THIS THREAD.


why would you not instead address my points i made, that you clamed you never said, and right there in your face and everyone's ability to read you did twist around ? do you really feel the posters are that silly ?

Actually I am afraid that the posters and potential members of the jury are that silly. Dr Maserati is putting on a good demonstration of the kind of nonsense Armstrong's lawyers will argue. That we should believe them/him and not the evidence that is in plain sight right in our face. Dr Maserati says, 'are you going to believe me or your own lying eyes.' Thanks Doc!

As for Velodude, brilliance can come in a flash. No offense intended to him and I should have been extremely careful about my characterization of his "work" product because people get blinded by irrelevant issues like whether it took him 5 or 20 minutes to put together a post.

The relevance of Marion Jones is that she like Armstrong was facing doping related charges and some of the issues are similiar.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

not again :S.... deleted some posts, please remember how many warnings have been posted in this thread, stick to the topic or else... err please. Leave this strange argument in the past...

Nothing strange about it at all....Talking about how a jury may judge Armstrong and why he may get off? Talking about what constitutes perjury in a potential Armstrong trial? Talking about the very possible charges he may face. Talking about how the public relations environment that Armstrong has created and continues to try to create may influence the outcome of the investigation.

Every single one of these issues is relevant in the Official Lance Armstrong thread.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Do we have to argue any more about why Marion Jones went to prison or how Maserati doesn't argue fairly?

Marion Jones is relevant to the Armstrong discussion.

It's not that Dr. Maserati is not arguing fairly. It's that he is denying his own quotes which are in black and white and are plain for everyone to see.

 

[aphronesis]

Nothing strange about it at all....Talking about how a jury may judge Armstrong and why he may get off? Talking about what constitutes perjury in a potential Armstrong trial? Talking about the very possible charges he may face. Talking about how the public relations environment that Armstrong has created and continues to try to create may influence the outcome of the investigation.

Every single one of these issues is relevant in the Official Lance Armstrong thread.

What if he is never exposed to public charges? Let alone trial?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Actually I am afraid that the posters and potential members of the jury are that silly. Dr Maserati is putting on a good demonstration of the kind of nonsense Armstrong's lawyers will argue. That we should believe them/him and not the evidence that is in plain sight right in our face. Dr Maserati says, 'are you going to believe me or your own lying eyes.' Thanks Doc!

As for Velodude, brilliance can come in a flash. No offense intended to him and I should have been extremely careful about my characterization of his "work" product because people get blinded by irrelevant issues like whether it took him 5 or 20 minutes to put together a post.

The relevance of Marion Jones is that she like Armstrong was facing doping related charges and some of the issues are similiar.

I will ignore the red herrings about me arguing just like Armstrongs lawyers - (since I did say he is guilty and will face some penalties)

But can you link to what doping related charges were served on Marion Jones? It might finally explain your confusion on the issue.

 

[Velodude]

What if he is never exposed to public charges? Let alone trial?

By public charges I take it you mean Armstrong, the alleged target, will not be indicted on any count by the Grand Jury.

It is rare for a Federal target not to be indicted. The statistics I read are about one in two thousand are un-indicted (0.05%).

The defense are not permitted to present their case and witnesses to the Grand Jury. It is only the prosecution and their witnesses. It is one sided so no objections, hearsay evidence is admissable, etc.

To answer your next question, once indicted by the Grand Jury the target will be a Defendant or one of the Defendants in a trial.

I would not be running a betting book with odds that Armstrong is not the target or that he won't be indicted.

 

[Race Radio]

A lot of babble on this thread about Statute of limitations, most of it wrong.

http://www.usada.org/default.asp?uid=3788

Hellebuyck took the position that the statute of limitations prevented his past competitive results from being disqualified. However, the AAA Panel found the statute of limitations inapplicable due to Hellebuyck’s fraudulent conduct.

Simply put if you try to conceal your doping you can't hide behind SOL

 

[MarkvW]

A lot of babble on this thread about Statute of limitations, most of it wrong.

http://www.usada.org/default.asp?uid=3788



Simply put if you try to conceal your doping you can't hide behind SOL

Mr. Hellebuyck's concealment consisted of lying at an antidoping hearing. Are you babbling that any kind of concealment would extend the limitations period or just concealment in the context of an anti-doping hearing? I'd like to hear your babbling on this issue.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Ok everyone, enough with the "babbling". Let's play nice here.

Susan