The media's contribution to the Armstrong Lie

[DirtyWorks]

Another API Rework

Classic denial journalism, but makes the claims sound original. At what point does a journalist wake up and realize she/he is just repurposing content and feel good about it?

http://www.statesman.com/sports/inv...-stalls-1250254.html?cxtype=rss_ece_frontpage

Leading Lie: Investigation Stalls.
Buried in body: Investigation has a long ways to go yet. Yeah, some stall.

Leading Lie: Never tested positive
Buried later: '99 positive, Vrijman whitewash.

I also disagree 100% that their 'holy grail' is an establishing Pharmstrong took the drugs. Consuming PED's is a minor crime in the U.S. Possession and distribution of controlled substances are felonies with consequences. RICO violations would be great too. Catch the hoodlums in a few lies. Judges don't like that either.

 

[Polish]

According to whom? It passed elgal muster to enter the SI piece, which they claim to have proof Lance obtained the HemAssist.

Maybe Lance flushed the HemAssist evidence down the toilet.
Right after he dumped Floyd's blood.
Flush Flush.

You fail to address the point of violating the USPS endorsement contract, you know, the one that requires them to adhere to the rules of the sport and the laws of the country? Yes, that one.

Ignoring this issue will not make it go away.

The contract states no such thing. Re Read it...

The contract gave the right to the USPS Gov to fire anyone that acted naughty. Why did they not fire anyone? Government redtape?

 

[Race Radio]

read the SI article a bit more closely and I believe you'll see that the above claim was not made - though it was certainly heavily implied.

As for it being illegal, under what law would it be illegal to possess a substance currently under the drug approval process? I suppose there might be something, but I don't see what it would be.

Guess you missed this from the SI story

the FDA has information that Armstrong gained access to a Baxter-made drug in clinical trial in the U.S. and Europe in the late 1990s

Using, possessing, and transporting unapproved drugs is illegal.

 

[DirtyWorks]

that's because the hemassist story can not be confirmed..because it's simply not true.

Please, tell us more. Specifics. I await your credible evidence that the claim is not true. I'm open to new information.

What law allows trial drugs to be distributed to persons way, way outside the medical establishment for an unintended use? I will gladly share this opportunity to make my first billion with you if you can show me this loophole.

 

[Race Radio]

The contract states no such thing. Re Read it...

The contract gave the right to the USPS Gov to fire anyone that acted naughty. Why did they not fire anyone? Government redtape?

Yes it does.

The did not fire because the management hid the drug use of the team and lies to the USPS. That is called fraud

 

[eleven]

According to whom? It passed elgal muster to enter the SI piece, which they claim to have proof Lance obtained the HemAssist.

it passed no legal muster to enter the SI piece. It paseed the editorial staff at SI. There is a chasm between the two.

So because you suppose there might be something but don't see what it would be, I guess that settles it? Given the stringent controls on experimental medicines, what makes you think it is "legal" to obtain something of that sort? Find that law, accommodating such a thing, and I will concede the point.

You want me to find a law that makes something legal? Eh, no thanks. That's a goose chase. Find a law that makes possessing such a thing illegal.

You fail to address the point of violating the USPS endorsement contract, you know, the one that requires them to adhere to the rules of the sport and the laws of the country? Yes, that one.

That's because Armstrong etal may well be in serious jeopardy on that point. I don't deny that at all!

 

[eleven]

Yeah, well, that's like, your opinion, man.

Right, and you've shared your "opinion" as well. Time will demonstrate that my "opinion" was accurate.

 

[eleven]

Guess you missed this from the SI story



Using, possessing, and transporting unapproved drugs is illegal.

No, I saw quite clearly in the article what SI claimed.

What SI claimed isn't evidence that the Feds confirmed. The Feds aren't talking because it's an ongoing investigation.

 

[Race Radio]

No, I saw quite clearly in the article what SI claimed.

What SI claimed isn't evidence that the Feds confirmed. The Feds aren't talking because it's an ongoing investigation.

What I posted was a cut and past from SI. They made it clear that Armstrong gained access to an unapproved drugs, a crime, and the Feds were aware of it.

Are you saying the Feds are going to ignore this crime?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Seems like they've got a tenacious crew of interns...

 

[eleven]

What I posted was a cut and past from SI.

I know.

They made it clear that Armstrong gained access to an unapproved drugs, a crime, and the Feds were aware of it.

indeed!

Are you saying the Feds are going to ignore this crime?

I'm saying that:
(A) Armstrong did not use Hemassist. I thought I made that clear in my earlier post. Reading back, I see I didn't.

(B) The illegality of being in possession of a substance that might be under control in the future might be illegal, but I'm not sure what the law would be.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I know.



indeed!



I'm saying that:
(A) Armstrong did not use Hemassist. I thought I made that clear in my earlier post. Reading back, I see I didn't.

(B) The illegality of being in possession of a substance that might be under control in the future might be illegal, but I'm not sure what the law would be.

 

[Polish]

Seems like they've got a tenacious crew of interns...

Maybe CN should be at the Top Journalism Schools recruiting Moderator Interns.

Fight fire with fire.

 

[Race Radio]

snip

ahhh. you are arguing just to argue and do not have anything to actually add to the discussion, got it

 

[eleven]

That's quite hilarious because you clearly didn't bother to read what I wrote earlier. I agree with most people here that Armstrong is in jeopardy on a host of real charges.

The Hemassist claim is not one of them.

But I realize that in the court of cycling news forum, any disagreement with claims that Armstrong is guilty of every last charge leveled (real or imaginary) is treated as heresy. This post is exhibit 1.

 

[eleven]

ahhh. you are arguing just to argue and do not have anything to actually add to the discussion, got it

^Exhibit 2: Dismissing the poster with irrelevant information unrelated to the previous post.

It would be sad if it wasn't so obvious.

 

[Hugh Januss]

That's quite hilarious because you clearly didn't bother to read what I wrote earlier. I agree with most people here that Armstrong is in jeopardy on a host of real charges.

The Hemassist claim is not one of them.

But I realize that in the court of cycling news forum, any disagreement with claims that Armstrong is guilty of every last charge leveled (real or imaginary) is treated as heresy. This post is exhibit 1.

You have no way of knowing that.
Glad you liked the pic.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

I'm saying that:
(A) Armstrong did not use Hemassist. I thought I made that clear in my earlier post. Reading back, I see I didn't.

He did not have to "use" it. He, or his organization, had to obtain it. That it passed legal muster at SI to be included, and that Lance did not file for an injunction, which would have forced SI to reveal its source to authenticate the veracity of the claim or require them to yank that allegation, to stop the publication of the story, tells me it is true.

(B) The illegality of being in possession of a substance that might be under control in the future might be illegal, but I'm not sure what the law would be.

Rest assured, it is illegal in most countries with a stringent drug testing agency, in the USA it is the FDA, the same blokes who are investigating.

 

[eleven]

He did not have to "use" it. He, or his organization, had to obtain it.

Not much competitive advantage in having access to a drug.

That it passed legal muster at SI to be included,

It passed legal muster at SI? No. It passed across the editorial staff.

and that Lance did not file for an injunction, which would have forced SI to reveal its source to authenticate the veracity of the claim or require them to yank that allegation, to stop the publication of the story, tells me it is true.

Filing an injunction does not prevent SI from publishing the report, nor does it require SI to reveal its source.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Not much competitive advantage in having access to a drug.

...possession is a doping violation, and a violation of their USPS contract.

It passed legal muster at SI? No. It passed across the editorial staff.

...who in turn review the legal implications, and then forward over for fact checking and legal review, so, yes, the story HAD to go through a legal review. Only items that could be fact-checked, substantiated and prevent a lawsuit made it in the (any) credible article.

Filing an injunction does not prevent SI from publishing the report, nor does it require SI to reveal its source.

Oh, how wrong you are. Filing an lawsuit for injunctive relief would most certainly been their route to getting the article frozen in its tracks. The fact that they did no such thing is enough indication that their claim would have failed and they'd be looking even more foolish. Please recall that Lance pulled the same maneuver to prevent the Walsh/Ballister book from being printed in English. Only the French version got printed.

If you'd like to go round and round, fine. Maybe a bit of fact checking of your own would help you overcome these ill-informed positions you seem to be taking?

 

[Dallas_]

It passed legal muster at SI? No. It passed across the editorial staff.

No, you are wrong eleven. It passed legal muster at SI as stated previously

Plus SI check all sources. There are no grey areas here - that is all facts in the article.

You are entitled to your opinion, as opposed to SI dealing in facts and covering all bases before publishing.

cheers

 

[sniper]

...possession is a doping violation, and a violation of their USPS contract.



...who in turn review the legal implications, and then forward over for fact checking and legal review, so, yes, the story HAD to go through a legal review. Only items that could be fact-checked, substantiated and prevent a lawsuit made it in the (any) credible article.



Oh, how wrong you are. Filing an lawsuit for injunctive relief would most certainly been their route to getting the article frozen in its tracks. The fact that they did no such thing is enough indication that their claim would have failed and they'd be looking even more foolish. Please recall that Lance pulled the same maneuver to prevent the Walsh/Ballister book from being printed in English. Only the French version got printed.

If you'd like to go round and round, fine. Maybe a bit of fact checking of your own would help you overcome these ill-informed positions you seem to be taking?

+1 for the claritiy and information density of this post.
Hadn't heard before about the Walsh/Ballister English version being prohibited due to Lance taking legal action. Interesting.

 

[CowboyTx]

+1 for the claritiy and information density of this post.
Hadn't heard before about the Walsh/Ballister English version being prohibited due to Lance taking legal action. Interesting.

I think you used to be able to download the english version in PDF format thanks to a prominent member here having it on a special chinese site. Probably still around for the google experts.

 

[jimmypop]

Right, and you've shared your "opinion" as well. Time will demonstrate that my "opinion" was accurate.

Uh-oh, I took the bait. Nice to see you, back, ______ !

 

[jimmypop]

It passed legal muster at SI? No. It passed across the editorial staff.

Given the legal threats made toward SI about that article, and the parts that were eventually omitted, it goes without saying that SI's counsel vetted what was published.

But, since you're actually _______, you're not here to debate, only to troll.
Please, tell us how you're going to prove this negative that you're asserting?
Common sense dictates otherwise.