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.
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
the sceptic said:hog is a grandmother?
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.
the sceptic said:amazing the kind of things you can learn in law school these days
the sceptic said:amazing the kind of things you can learn in law school these days
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!
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.
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
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!
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.
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
the sceptic said: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!
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?
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! 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.
the sceptic said:even if they were...... british?
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!
MacRoadie said:Next up, Google brain surgeons.
Powerful post, Mac!!!
MacRoadie said:Next up, Google brain surgeons.
Powerful post, Mac!!!
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
Rich man.
MacRoadie said:Tell me about it...
If I had a dollar for every time you've Googled some point of law...
Rich man.
Lucrative post, Mac!!!
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.
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.
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!!!