"some dopers worse than others".....

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
the sceptic said:
hog is a grandmother?
...and an amazingly unsuccessful one, but he chops the wood and carries the water every day like any good Babushka would.

I considered using felatial imagery, but that would be over-the-top.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
...and an amazingly unsuccessful one, but he chops the wood and carries the water every day like any good Babushka would.

I considered using felatial imagery, but that would be over-the-top.
amazing the kind of things you can learn in law school these days
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
guilt

all dopers are guilty..............however WADA code allows different penalties
according to specifics.....................recognises the innocent

fans see their disliked riders displaying greater guilt

personally some dopers are more likeable than others and may be less guilty of conspiring others to dope etc

....................and there are some here who think micky f should be lauded
while calling into question others despite being a stranger to honesty

Mark L
 
the sceptic said:
amazing the kind of things you can learn in law school these days
Those who shout loudest are those you tend to know the least. Always weary of the guy trying tell everyone they know more than everyone else. Steer clear of that one! :p
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
thehog said:
Those who shout loudest are those you tend to know the least. Always weary of the guy trying tell everyone they know more than everyone else. Steer clear of that one! :p
I like how you are beginning to understand your patterns of behavior. Good post hog.

Good post Chewie!
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
thehog said:
I'm no lawyer as the profession has largely been outsourced to India, but what you write is not necessarily correct.

Broken windows theory and zero tolerance law has been very successful in New York and New Jersey.

Americas drug policy effectively punishes a small time dealer the same as a larger criminal.

One only needs to look at the Banking meltdown to know that the "legal profession" nor the "law" provides equal punishment for the crimes committed.

Some real life experience helps in these circumstances to know how the law is applied.
Here's what I will grant you: Under the rules of the WADA and USADA, which do not take into consideration the external actions related to abusing the legal system for vendetta purposes, and tortious interference with contracts, it is hard to justify some of the disparity in punishment.

My point is that Lance's, and his defenders' protestations fall on mostly deaf ears when I think of the larger context. Within the legal context, I do have a different opinion.

Magnanimous post Chewie!
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
ebandit said:
all dopers are guilty..............however WADA code allows different penalties
according to specifics.....................recognises the innocent

fans see their disliked riders displaying greater guilt

personally some dopers are more likeable than others and may be less guilty of conspiring others to dope etc

....................and there are some here who think micky f should be lauded
while calling into question others despite being a stranger to honesty

Mark L
Its all about personality. Tygart was out to get Armstrong. It was personal.
It certainly has not benefited cycling in anyway.
No one forced DZ etc to stick a needle in their arms. I doubt there was a team you could have raced for clean.
What would happen if the same legal tenacity was applied to all teams from that era T mobile CSC etc ? I'm surprised some smart *** lawyer as not thought about it. That's where the money is made.
 
ChewbaccaD said:
Here's what I will grant you: Under the rules of the WADA and USADA, which do not take into consideration the external actions related to abusing the legal system for vendetta purposes, and tortious interference with contracts, it is hard to justify some of the disparity in punishment.

My point is that Lance's, and his defenders' protestations fall on mostly deaf ears when I think of the larger context. Within the legal context, I do have a different opinion.

Magnanimous post Chewie!
Of course. There is no legal argument that because someone is an ******* they deserve a harsher punishment. Might go some way to building character but little else. Which leads us to be point that punishments and the like that are balanced are only there for the Lance haters and the Lance supporters. Those in between look at it with more a pragmatic view and see that Mr. Tygart whilst making an example of Armstrong had to let a lot other dopers go free. Which shows how personal it became for him. Tygart is serverly compromised.

And it took you this long just to post this? With all that huffing and puffing about trying to be right? Try being clearer and less aggressive because you simply aren't understandable most of the time.
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
ban

lance was banned for life.........................result!

if other long term habitual dopers were banned for life it would be a good
result too

Mark L
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
thehog said:
Of course. There is no legal argument that because someone is an ******* they deserve a harsher punishment. Might go some way to building character but little else. Which leads us to be point that punishments and the like that are balanced are only there for the Lance haters and the Lance supporters. Those in between look at it with more a pragmatic view and see that Mr. Tygart whilst making an example of Armstrong had to let a lot other dopers go free. Which shows how personal it became for him. Tygart is serverly compromised.

And it took you this long just to post this? With all that huffing and puffing about trying to be right? Try being clearer and less aggressive because you simply aren't understandable most of the time.
I disagree completely with that statement however. Tygart did what DA's do all the time, and do so for the exact reason that some people's conduct, taken as a whole, is more worthy of severe punishment than others. Armstrong was offered the opportunity to come in and fess up, and he didn't. His punishment would have been less had he. My point is that the actual disparity in sentences is hard to justify, but that kind of thing happens all the time. I would certainly have preferred to see more severe punishments for the others. Then again, I don't count the ethical opinion of someone who treats Stephanie Mcilvain like a saint with much notice.

As for the remainder of your post, I can't be blamed for your inability to understand complex legal arguments. Go to law school, or quit engaging in discussions that surpass your knowledge...but that would take away half of your TrollKraft, so I don't expect it to happen.

Good Post Chewie!
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
ebandit said:
lance was banned for life.........................result!

if other long term habitual dopers were banned for life it would be a good
result too

Mark L
even if they were...... british?
 
ChewbaccaD said:
I disagree completely with that statement however. Tygart did what DA's do all the time, and do so for the exact reason that some people's conduct, taken as a whole, is more worthy of severe punishment than others. Armstrong was offered the opportunity to come in and fess up, and he didn't. His punishment would have been less had he. My point is that the actual disparity in sentences is hard to justify, but that kind of thing happens all the time. I would certainly have preferred to see more severe punishments for the others. Then again, I don't count the ethical opinion of someone who treats Stephanie Mcilvain like a saint with much notice.

As for the remainder of your post, I can't be blamed for your inability to understand complex legal arguments. Go to law school, or quit engaging in discussions that surpass your knowledge...but that would take away half of your TrollKraft, so I don't expect it to happen.

Good Post Chewie!
"Go to law school"? You appear awfully hung up on this point. You bring it up in all of your posts like it means something to you very dearly rather than whom you are saying to... why is this? You do wear your heart on your sleeve a little. You don't think people have been to college and earn't a degree? Like 85% of the population? :rolleyes:

The law is acceasible to all, not only those whom "study" the law. It really is that simple. It also one thing to know the law and another thing to be able to convey it. Pretending it's "complex" is very naive. The law is not complex only the situations it's applied to. Complex legal argument.. oh Chewie, please, did those words come out of your mouth? I'm sure if someone said that to you you'd want hit them! :rolleyes: LOL!

Back to Tygart; he got his man. He did well. But has a lot of collateral damage around and I do worry about his relationship with Vaughters. It's doesn't appear very healthy.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
thehog said:
"Go to law school"? You appear awfully hung up on this point. You bring it up in all of your posts like it means something to you very dearly rather than whom you are saying to... why is this? You do wear your heart on your sleeve a little. You don't think people have been to college and earn't a degree? Like 85% of the population? :rolleyes:

The law is acceasible to all, not only those whom "study" the law. It really is that simple. It also one thing to know the law and another thing to be able to convey it. Pretending it's "complex" is very naive. The law is not complex only the situations it's applied to. Complex legal argument.. oh Chewie, please, did those words come out of your mouth? I'm sure if someone said that to you you'd want hit them! :rolleyes: LOL!

Back to Tygart; he got his man. He did well. But has a lot of collateral damage around and I do worry about his relationship with Vaughters. It's doesn't appear very healthy.
Apparently, it isn't to you. And you're right, you don't seem to be able to understand even simple legal arguments.

Good post Chewie!
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
yup!

the sceptic said:
even if they were...... british?
yup!................why is that even questioned.....................next you will

be telling me that brits don't dope

Mark L
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Apparently, it isn't to you. And you're right, you don't seem to be able to understand even simple legal arguments.

Good post Chewie!
Next up, Google brain surgeons.

Powerful post, Mac!!!
 
MacRoadie said:
Next up, Google brain surgeons.

Powerful post, Mac!!!
Tell me about it...

1st year grads claiming they know the world sans actual practical experience. If I had a dollar for every one of those who ended up doing conveyancing :rolleyes:

Rich man.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
0
0
thehog said:
Tell me about it...

1st year grads claiming they know the world sans actual practical experience. If I had a dollar for every one of those who ended up doing conveyancing :rolleyes:

Rich man.
Tell me about it...

If I had a dollar for every time you've Googled some point of law...:rolleyes:

Rich man.


Lucrative post, Mac!!!


P.S. Even those "1st year grads" doing conveyancing are still law school graduates, have passed the bar exam, and are legally and legitimately earning a living practicing the law.
 
MacRoadie said:
Tell me about it...

If I had a dollar for every time you've Googled some point of law...:rolleyes:

Rich man.


Lucrative post, Mac!!!
Not really. You failed to provide a link for your false assertion.

Fairly poor response to be honest and is just normal baiting without discussing the thread subject matter.

That's dire. Deary me... what an utter waste of time.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
0
0
thehog said:
Not really. You failed to provide a link for your false assetertion.

Fairly poor response to be honest and is just normal baiting without discussing the thread subject matter.

That's dire. Deary me... what an utter waste of time.
Tried looking up "assetertion" in Black's Law Dictionary, as well as on Google, but I don't possess your mad skills.

Humbling post, Mac!!!
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
They saying Is "ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law" Bullsh%t
The Law can be a minefield. Black and white it is not and lawyers love a precedent and I reckon they have been all over the Armstrong case.
MONEY MONEY MONEY
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
0
0
thehog said:
Not really. You failed to provide a link for your false assertion.

Fairly poor response to be honest and is just normal baiting without discussing the thread subject matter.

That's dire. Deary me... what an utter waste of time.
Oh, and I only pop in here once in awhile to make sure Lance is still serving a lifetime ban, and to see if any of the nit wits who try to argue legal theories without any benefit of a legal education or training have finally come to their senses.

Both questions answered, see you in a few months...

Retiring post, Mac!!!
 
MacRoadie said:
Tried looking up "assetertion" in Black's Law Dictionary, as well as on Google, but I don't possess your mad skills.

Humbling post, Mac!!!
I've reported your post. It's just routine baiting and not you're very good at it either.

At least pretend you're attempting to discuss the thread topic.

Dire.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY