USADA-Armstrong Phase II

[ChewbaccaD]

chuba, I appreciate the the law student delivered a very civil and to be perfectly honest uncomplicated lesson in common sense law to someone claiming to be too expensive for armstrong lawyers and more interestingly pouding his own chest each time a plain question was asked...that did not comport with Armstrong spin.

Prediction: when you are done with the studies, I am sure you will not have shortage of clients.

...man I hope not, those student loans are a bear.

Thanks!

 

[the big ring]

Which I probably would have let pass if you hadn't pulled the "Grasshopper" BS as part of your post.

+1

I hold self-advertised experts to a much higher standard - and find the less they say the better. Less opportunity to make a mistake. Of which I have made a few myself, no question, but I'm only expert at reading old posts and forum search

 

[QuickStepper]

This is the best post I've read all day!

M

Yes, it is, isn't it.

 

[python]

1. Nope.

2. Nope.

There's a third option. You can just stop responding to my posts,and I'll stop responding to your's. You can stop acting in a childish manner.

You can stop pretending that you dictate my options (or anyone else's) on this forum.

Please quit...your opinions have turned out to be patronizing insults to those asking simple questions, like krebs did.

Having been checked, in stead of thanking chuba for a lecture, you show all the signs of a defeated legal side unwilling to accept the facts...just like the side you tried to spin --- armstrong's

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Please quit...your opinions have turned out to be patronizing insults to those asking simple questions, like krebs did.

Having been checked, in stead of thanking chuba for a lecture, you show all the signs of a defeated legal side unwilling to accept the facts...just like the side you tried to spin --- armstrong's

Yea, it is amusing that the guy who interjected himself into a discussion to which he had not been invited, then totally cocked up the actual law on the subject, and then whined that I should just stop pointing out his errors feels like such a victim. Maybe a bit of introspection would help him.

 

[ebandit]

gentlemen

gentlemen........... back to usada v armstrong

do you think that lance really is 'done fighting' or will we hear from his legal team next week

will phaseII now be uci v usada

or will uci see sense ( under wada direction ) and back off

 

[D-Queued]

Yea, it is amusing that the guy who interjected himself into a discussion to which he had not been invited, then totally cocked up the actual law on the subject, and then whined that I should just stop pointing out his errors feels like such a victim. Maybe a bit of introspection would help him.

Me, I will defer expertise in the law to the lawyers and the law students.

As the good judge showed us in the Landis case, however, experience in the law does not always equate to good judgement.

I cannot figure if QS is fish or fowl.

Sometimes QS posts in complete or willful ignorance (e.g. suggesting that no offenses occurred in the US, which is both irrelevant and wrong), but sometimes an unobjectionable point or two.

Dave.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

gentlemen........... back to usada v armstrong

do you think that lance really is 'done fighting' or will we hear from his legal team next week

will phaseII now be uci v usada

or will uci see sense ( under wada direction ) and back off

I don't have any idea as to the answer to that...you wanna know something about the requirements of negotiable instruments, we can talk...as to this...I have no idea.

My hunch is that Armstrong will drop any of this he can as the actual evidence is against him. Outside of admitting what is plainly the truth, it is his best option, and he is maybe being smart for the time being.

The UCI...well, they haven't shown any more foresight than Armstrong to this point, so while they should follow his lead and just drop their protestations, stupid is as stupid does, and Fat Pat doesn't seem like the sharpest tool in the box.

 

[ebandit]

thanks!

I don't have any idea as to the answer to that...you wanna know something about the requirements of negotiable instruments, we can talk...as to this...I have no idea.

My hunch is that Armstrong will drop any of this he can as the actual evidence is against him. Outside of admitting what is plainly the truth, it is his best option, and he is maybe being smart for the time being.

The UCI...well, they haven't shown any more foresight than Armstrong to this point, so while they should follow his lead and just drop their protestations, stupid is as stupid does, and Fat Pat doesn't seem like the sharpest tool in the box.

thanks! chewie in time we will find out..............absolutely zero interest in requirements of negotiable instruments

hoping to deflect attention from this petty squabbling

 

[Elagabalus]

Please quit...your opinions have turned out to be patronizing insults to those asking simple questions, like krebs did.

Having been checked, in stead of thanking chuba for a lecture, you show all the signs of a defeated legal side unwilling to accept the facts...just like the side you tried to spin --- armstrong's

You know, when I want to buy something on Amazon not only do I wade through the positive reviews but I also like to look through the negative reviews as well. Then I decide if I want purchase the item.

It's kinda' like this thread. I want to read all of the opinions on here and not just the "Whoooooooah, we won!!!" opinions. So if all three of you could just quit your rather silly and pointless sniping at one another and just state what you want to say in a concise and factual manner-that would be great.

Then I'll decide which ones have merit-thank you very much ...

 

[D-Queued]

I don't have any idea as to the answer to that...you wanna know something about the requirements of negotiable instruments, we can talk...as to this...I have no idea.

My hunch is that Armstrong will drop any of this he can as the actual evidence is against him. Outside of admitting what is plainly the truth, it is his best option, and he is maybe being smart for the time being.

The UCI...well, they haven't shown any more foresight than Armstrong to this point, so they should follow his lead and just drop their protestations, but stupid is as stupid does, and Fat Pat doesn't seem like the sharpest tool in the box.

Expect a few more press releases/statements thanking all of the 'support' he has received.

The Indurain support is still, to me, the most surprising. Did the UCI contact him? What do they have on Big Mig?

As for Merckx, sorry Eddy, I hung up my Team Weinmann Corsa Extra SLX a long time ago and placed the photos and signed clothing into a box in the attic. Awesome cycling record, but poor judge of character.

Dave.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

thanks! chewie in time we will find out..............absolutely zero interest in requirements of negotiable instruments

hoping to deflect attention from this petty squabbling

I think I'll adopt "petty squabbling" as my new nickname.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Expect a few more press releases/statements thanking all of the 'support' he has received.

The Indurain support is still, to me, the most surprising. Did the UCI contact him? What do they have on Big Mig?

As for Merckx, sorry Eddy, I hung up my Team Weinmann Corsa Extra SLX a long time ago and placed the photos and signed clothing into a box in the attic. Awesome cycling record, but poor judge of character.

Dave.

To me it looks like everyone is collectively sh*tting their pants.

If the UCI doesn't have control (since they've signed the WADA Code), then they all may be left twisting in the wind.

There is a boat-load of *ss-covering going on. Look at the Cannibal et al...

 

[fasthill]

Reminds me of the joke about McGregor the Scot.

That was lame. For a lawyer, you seem to have an awful lot of free time.

 

[Elagabalus]

Expect a few more press releases/statements thanking all of the 'support' he has received.

The Indurain support is still, to me, the most surprising. Did the UCI contact him? What do they have on Big Mig?

As for Merckx, sorry Eddy, I hung up my Team Weinmann Corsa Extra SLX a long time ago and placed the photos and signed clothing into a box in the attic. Awesome cycling record, but poor judge of character.

Dave.

Indurain came (at the behest of LA) to one of LA's benefit rides in Texas so it's not that surprising that he supports Lance. IMO.

 

[fasthill]

Who's next to stand up for Lance? Francesco Moser?

 

[jackwolf]

Who's next to stand up for Lance? Francesco Moser?

Ben Johnson

 

[fatandfast]

Indurain came (at the behest of LA) to one of LA's benefit rides in Texas so it's not that surprising that he supports Lance. IMO.

or maybe he knows how pro bike racing really works.

 

[eyemgh]

Indurain...

Big Mig's support is no mystery. He was really the first cyclist to fully utilize the new blood tools in a systematic way. He started the wave of riders who could simply ride away from Lemond. He'd be hypocritical doing anything but offering support or remaining silent.

M

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Ben Johnson

Sh*t, Barry Bonds was standing at the side of the road during the Pro Cycling Challenge in CO, I vote he does it. Those two seem like two peas in a pod.

 

[TubularBills]

Straight to DVD & the bargain bin at Kmart:
"The Road Back"

First they need to change the title:

Dope Rides Again

if you aren't a WSJ subscriber, search article title:

Head Start on Big Fall in Cycling

 

[ÅSBJÖRN BENKT]

Just in:

Obama: Armstrong Was 'Great American Hero'

many people believe neil armstrong faked the moonlandings. maybe USADA should strip him.....no need for the statute of limitations.

 

[MarkvW]

Re: The bolded text. I think you mean "hearsay" not "heresy". Either way, it's not correct.

It's not hearsay if a witness testifies in court, for example, "I personally saw Armstrong fill a syringe with EPO from a bottle labeled EPO." It's not hearsay because the witness is only testifying to what he or she observed personally. If, on the other hand, a witness testifies "Floyd Landis told me that Betsy Andreu told him that Lance used EPO," that is hearsay, and can't be used as evidence if the other side objects.

Capiche, Grasshopper?

Before you get condescending, Quickstepper, you had better make sure that you are precisely correct in what you say. And you are most assuredly not precisely correct.

You state "If . . . a witness testifies 'Floyd Landis told me that Betsy Andreu told him that Lance used EPO,' that statement is hearsay, and can't be used as evidence if the other side objects."

What you wrote is ONLY true if the proponent of the hearsay statement is seeking to introduce the statement for the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

If, for example, the proponent is trying to introduce the statement to establish that Floyd made the statement at a specific time, then the statement is not being admitted for a hearsay purpose.

If the statement is being introduced to establish that Floyd can talk, then the statement is not a hearsay statement.

If the statement is being introduced to establish that Betsy conversed with Floyd, then the statement is not a hearsay statement.

So, your blanket assertion that the statement "can't be used as evidence" is FALSE and WRONG. In some circumstances it CAN be used as evidence.

So, from a Google Lawyer only, mellow out on the condescension, eh?

 

[thehog]

That was lame. For a lawyer, you seem to have an awful lot of free time.

I know! Billable hours! What the!? No lawyers spends their time on an Internet forum when they can be charging up the hours and for paper clips.

 

[mewmewmew13]

The funny thing is, for as busy as we all are, we all seem to have an awful lot of free time for the forum.


back on topic...what is next for wonderboy...? The evidence just keeps on rolling....is there a CAS or appeal in sight?