• 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 @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

The USADA letter in full

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Did you see the part about 10+ direct witnesses? or the part about the blood values in 2009 and 2010 that showed blood doping?

Yeah, nothing to see here. just a witch hunt

Of course we can not see the 10+ direct witnesses. Not named.
Of course we can not see the blood values. Not given.

Yes, nothing to see here. SSDD Witch Hunt. Duh.

Last ditch attempt. Tic Toc Tic.
Hail Mary Pass.
A Hail Mary Pass with the score 70-0.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Visit site
Polish said:
Of course we can not see the 10+ direct witnesses. Not named.
Of course we can not see the blood values. Not given.

Yes, nothing to see here. SSDD Witch Hunt. Duh.

Last ditch attempt. Tic Toc Tic.
Hail Mary Pass.
A Hail Mary Pass with the score 70-0.

Good luck with that.
 
zigmeister said:
ROFL, I finally got around to reading the entire thing, and just as I assumed and expected, their case relies entirely on:

1) Tyler
2) Floyd
3) Frankie/Betsy

And that is about it.

Every line for each person states, several people will testify that they witnessed or knew first hand the allegations.

We all know they are referring to the same old usual suspects listed above, who the Feds couldn't get a grand jury to indict Lance, with just their testimony due to the often shady past and credibility issues the have.

Good luck with this USADA.

I don't think Lance, himself, is so dismissive of the charges. He's taking them very seriously. He's considering civil action! To the Supreme Court, even".

Lance used to say that he welcomed a USADA hearing. Now he doesn't. Why is that?

Shouldn't you be arguing "leaks," or "fairness," or "most tested?"
 
Polish said:
Of course we can not see the 10+ direct witnesses. Not named.
Of course we can not see the blood values. Not given.

Yes, nothing to see here. SSDD Witch Hunt. Duh.

Last ditch attempt. Tic Toc Tic.
Hail Mary Pass.
A Hail Mary Pass with the score 70-0.

As Led Zeppelin once said: "All will be revealed."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Polish said:
Of course we can not see the 10+ direct witnesses. Not named.
Of course we can not see the blood values. Not given.

Ain't it grand?

LA and the FBoi base can just sit and spin.
 
zigmeister said:
ROFL, I finally got around to reading the entire thing, and just as I assumed and expected, their case relies entirely on:

1) Tyler
2) Floyd
3) Frankie/Betsy

And that is about it.

Every line for each person states, several people will testify that they witnessed or knew first hand the allegations.

We all know they are referring to the same old usual suspects listed above, who the Feds couldn't get a grand jury to indict Lance, with just their testimony due to the often shady past and credibility issues the have.

Good luck with this USADA.

Don't get too excited, I'm not sure the burden of proof is the same for USADA as it was for the Feds. I promptly came out and claimed LA would walk on the charges from the Feds, I took a lot of grief from the clinic 12 for being right. I'm getting a little more info before I predict the outcome of the USADA case. I do totally agree with Polish though, this is a hail mary when your down 70-0, means very little but avoids the shutout.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
JRTinMA said:
Don't get too excited, I'm not sure the burden of proof is the same for USADA as it was for the Feds. I promptly came out and claimed LA would walk on the charges from the Feds, I took a lot of grief from the clinic 12 for being right. I'm getting a little more info before I predict the outcome of the USADA case. I do totally agree with Polish though, this is a hail mary when your down 70-0, means very little but avoids the shutout.

LA didn't walk on the charges, it was dropped before he was charged. I remembered this prediction from April.

JRTinMA said:
I respect your fight Race but ask yourself, who cares what USADA does now? If you think bigger than the clinic I think you will find the answer is nobody.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
LA didn't walk on the charges, it was dropped before he was charged. I remembered this prediction from April.

He walked just as I predicted, the mechanism by which he walked is not important to me. I never predicted exactly how he would walk as far as I remember. As far as your link, I have no idea how that fits into the context of this discussion.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
JRTinMA said:
He walked just as I predicted, the mechanism by which he walked is not important to me. I never predicted exactly how he would walk as far as I remember. As far as your link, I have no idea how that fits into the context of this discussion.

The reason for the link - because you seem to confuse your predictions with blind hope.
 
zigmeister said:
ROFL, I finally got around to reading the entire thing, and just as I assumed and expected, their case relies entirely on:

1) Tyler
2) Floyd
3) Frankie/Betsy

And that is about it.

Every line for each person states, several people will testify that they witnessed or knew first hand the allegations.

We all know they are referring to the same old usual suspects listed above, who the Feds couldn't get a grand jury to indict Lance, with just their testimony due to the often shady past and credibility issues the have.

Good luck with this USADA.

This post is just as asinine here as it was in the other thread. Nothing but wishful thinking.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
Hugh Januss said:
This post is just as asinine here as it was in the other thread. Nothing but wishful thinking.

What part of the thinking is wishful?
Do not see any wishes there at all.

Wishful thinking is imagining 10+ people testifying.
Wishful thinking is imagining 2009-2010 blood values.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Visit site
Polish said:
Now THATS an example of Wishful Thinking.
See, that wasn't so hard.

Wishful how?
Wishful because it would be absurd to believe you actually took the time to read the basis for the thread before you decided to post about it?
Wishful because it is somehow supposed to be obvious that you read something it appears you know little to nothing about?
Please be clear when you post.
Grrrrrr Steely Focus!!!

"I,I,I,I,I...I'm, I'm hooked on a feeling, I'm high on believing..."
 
Dr. Maserati said:
The reason for the link - because you seem to confuse your predictions with blind hope.

You always struggled with reading comprehension. That quote doesn't even speak to hope, blind or otherwise.

I predicted that LA would walk from the Federal charges. I have yet to predict the outcome of the USADA trial, as I stated in a previous post. Do you follow?

Thanks again for digging up that quote and showing my consistency though.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ChewbaccaD said:
Wishful how?
Wishful because it would be absurd to believe you actually took the time to read the basis for the thread before you decided to post about it?
Wishful because it is somehow supposed to be obvious that you read something it appears you know little to nothing about?
Please be clear when you post.
Grrrrrr Steely Focus!!!

"I,I,I,I,I...I'm, I'm hooked on a feeling, I'm high on believing..."

Reading the story just clouds the mind... having a cursory understanding of what's being discussed stifles the creative process.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
ChewbaccaD said:
Wishful how?
Wishful because it would be absurd to believe you actually took the time to read the basis for the thread before you decided to post about it?
Wishful because it is somehow supposed to be obvious that you read something it appears you know little to nothing about?
Please be clear when you post.
Grrrrrr Steely Focus!!!

"I,I,I,I,I...I'm, I'm hooked on a feeling, I'm high on believing..."

Was there ANYTHING in those 15 pages that has not been discussed already?
Something/Anything?

Look, TFF, my procrastination time is valuable.
So many things to procrastinate over, so little time.
Why should I read those 15 pages of SSDD? It wouldn't have made any difference, if I read them. SSDD.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Polish said:
(...)
Why should I read those 15 pages of SSDD? It wouldn't have made any difference, if I read them. SSDD.

if the same **** has been raining down upon lance on so many different days, he must be burried under an enormous pile of **** by now.
 
Hugh Januss said:
This post is just as asinine here as it was in the other thread. Nothing but wishful thinking.

ROFL. Then let's hear it. Let's have all the "witnesses" and "riders" and their names that they have to say more than what we already know and have gone through with the Feds?

Maybe you should read some of my posts in the original Fed case thread, about predicting how that was going nowhere and the charges are going to be dropped.

Well, guess what, it happened. I must be a mind-reader and should play the lottery. Hardly, I'm the first to admit I'm not that smart.

But this USADA "hearing" and review board is a sham from the start. The outcome is predicted and known already. Just proclaim they are guilty, ban them, take away some victories and move on.

But, I'm really interested to read how you think this is all going to play out and the results, I'm sure it is fascinating what you come up with.

And the real result, how this is going to change the sport and doping so radically due to the outcome! Zero. I predict.
 

TRENDING THREADS