USADA - Armstrong

Page 229 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jul 30, 2011
7,654
155
17,680
Dr. Maserati said:
But what about the truth?


In a legal process you are asked to swear to "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" - I guess if I ever find myself in that situation I will argue "well, which truth are we on about?"

.

Right, and so on topic for this thread: how much of that "truth" that one swears to is left after lawyers and legal protections intervene? What shape and form does "the truth" actually take in a legal procedure?

(You can grandstand for the court all you like, but your lawyer will advise to do something different: which of those options is the "truth"?)

Therefore, by extension, what is this "truth," let alone honesty and fairness, that certain posters are expecting to see emerge even if the proceedings were to tilt entirely (in their view) against Armstrong?
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,285
2
17,485
roadfreak44 said:
sorry to interrupt your feral slavering but,well, its not over til its over...as for all you amazing athletes who have never accomplished ANYTHiNG inyour surly lives...even if...so what? wont change the simple fact that he accomplished what no other athlete ever has or will... Lemond admitted that in one of his tours he was feeling badly and riding about as well and the doctor gave him an "Iron injection"...sure he did. that doctor was later implicated in doping a team. Lemond went on to win the tour...a miracle... Indurain was the first to win five in a row and his doctor was the same that administered probenecid to delgado though it wasnt technically an illegal drug at the time but its only known use was to mask steroids. . why arent you calling for an investigation into him? It goes on and on with a list of other contemporary riders as well. If this isnt a witch hunt why did landis and hamilton ONLY implicate Armstrong? Given their knowledge of a VAST conspiracy seems thered be a mighty long list ...Quite simple they wouldnt get as much money from anyone else as their fair share for offering evidence and their list probla bly extends to tow members... Incredibly convincing cast of characters. You really should wait until the verdict is in before you begin your sanctimonius gloating. BTW what races have you won???
call me a lance boy or whatever other pathetic stereotypes you typically us e to justify the witch hunt you are leading. Being an American unlike you I find any form of mob sentiment that si generated by hyenas to run counter to the sense decency most americans I know live by. The comments on here remind me of the McCarthy era hearings and you my friend wouldve been there self righteously pointing fingers. Something about a twig and a log comes to mind...what are your palmares again???

Won't it be great for the facts to get out!
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
aphronesis said:
Right, and so on topic for this thread: how much of that "truth" that one swears to is left after lawyers and legal protections intervene? What shape and form does "the truth" actually take in a legal procedure?

(You can grandstand for the court all you like, but your lawyer will advise to do something different: which of those options is the "truth")

Therefore, by extension, what is this "truth," let alone honesty and fairness, that certain posters are expecting to see emerge even if the proceedings were to tilt entirely (in their view) against Armstrong?

The truth is i don't care about your theory.
If you truthfully wish to discuss it then open a separate thread on the matter so I can (truthfully) ignore it.

This thread is about Armstrong and his fraud that is being dealt with by USADA - I am sorry for you if the truth hurts.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,285
2
17,485
Marva32 said:
The argument on this would be that he lost his contract to race in triathlons

That would be damage he suffered, he'd still have to show that a bad act caused those damages.
 

thehog

BANNED
Jul 27, 2009
31,285
2
22,485
BroDeal said:
If you were a fan of the Trust But Verify comedy then check out this Slowtwitch thread.

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/S...d_investigation_into_USADA_oversigh_P4042566/

It is like a repeat with Landis' name replaced with Armstrong's and Brower replaced with Dan Empfield, the owner of Slowtwitch.

It's hilarious. Just like TBV, it is a bunch of people cloaking their belief that Armstrong should get away with it in a phony wrapping of concern about process and protecting other athletes from the injustice of the USADA.

The comments are great!
--

Things are heating up!

http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/...px?DocumentID=303025

Uh ohhhh.. USADA ***. They might lose all their funding now for pursuing a personal venddenta against LA. Way to go USADA... now they will have to back off or lose their funding.. if they back off, they show will lose all creditability as well. Bad decisions by their CEO.

--

Re: Congressman has launched investigation into USADA oversigh [zdesmond]
This is interesting, not just a no name Congressman, Wisconsins most tenured, introduced the Patriot Act.
Quick google search seems he has no ties to Lance....and from the looks of him he's not a bike rider either. Wonder why he decided to send this letter, genuine interest in wasted tax money? Seems they have to acknowledge this.
 
May 19, 2012
537
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
The truth is i don't care about your theory.
If you truthfully wish to discuss it then open a separate thread on the matter so I can (truthfully) ignore it.

This thread is about Armstrong and his fraud that is being dealt with by USADA - I am sorry for you if the truth hurts.

It does shed light on the "denier" phenomenon.

To study the meaning of man and of life — I am making significant progress here. I have faith in myself. Man is a mystery: if you spend your entire life trying to puzzle it out, then do not say that you have wasted your time. I occupy myself with this mystery, because I want to be a man. Personal correspondence (1839), as quoted in Dostoevsky : His Life and Work (1971) by Konstantin Mochulski, as translated by Michael A. Minihan, p. 17


We really do need to know how the Armstrong mythology took hold and why it persists....:eek:
 
May 19, 2012
537
0
0
thehog said:
The comments are great!
--

Things are heating up!

http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/...px?DocumentID=303025

Uh ohhhh.. USADA ***. They might lose all their funding now for pursuing a personal venddenta against LA. Way to go USADA... now they will have to back off or lose their funding.. if they back off, they show will lose all creditability as well. Bad decisions by their CEO.

--

Re: Congressman has launched investigation into USADA oversigh [zdesmond]
This is interesting, not just a no name Congressman, Wisconsins most tenured, introduced the Patriot Act.
Quick google search seems he has no ties to Lance....and from the looks of him he's not a bike rider either. Wonder why he decided to send this letter, genuine interest in wasted tax money? Seems they have to acknowledge this.

They are onto an essential truth which may still prevail however.

The big guys like Armstrong tend to get a bonus.

The little guys have to suck up lest they get a bone a$s.
 
Jul 30, 2011
7,654
155
17,680
Dr. Maserati said:
The truth is i don't care about your theory.
If you truthfully wish to discuss it then open a separate thread on the matter so I can (truthfully) ignore it.

This thread is about Armstrong and his fraud that is being dealt with by USADA - I am sorry for you if the truth hurts.

This is called irony: it doesn't hurt me in the least. Regardless of how this situation goes.

However, on topic, again, which you seem to be having trouble with as you keep expressing personal opinions about posters: there are facts and there is "truth," the facts are already well available for anyone who cares. The truth is matter of situational determination: professional, personal, financial, juridical, social, mediatized, etc.

I am asking posters in this thread to define that term as it pertains to the USADA's case: that is nothing but strictly on topic. Are they speaking factual disclosure? If so, to whom? The world of cycling? And, again, which world? Professional omerta? The "fans"? Those who got burned and intimidated by LA? All of the above? Or are they speaking some sort of transcendental revelation?

Hypotethical: in 2060 suppose that all LA's titles have been stripped. Do you think it will matter much. How about 2160? And here I mean within the "world" of cycling.

You can ignore me by putting me on ignore, or skipping over my posts when you see my name. I do it regularly.
 
Apr 17, 2009
402
0
9,280
Deagol said:
One of the comments on the Velonews article (paraphrased): If Trek is involved in this, then they should be boycotted.

Deagol said:
I've never owned a Trek (and certainly never will). I used to have some Oakley stuff, but never will again. I had a Giro helmet, and never will again (their customer service SUCKED anyway). I will never buy anything Nike.

My wife went to buy ski goggles and I steered her away from Oakley. She also bought a road bike and I steered her away from Trek. Heck, we won't even consider Honey Stinger or anything else we know he is connected with. And, FWIW, I will do what I can when freinds/family ask me for advice on these types of purchasing decisions in the future. You know how it works, if freinds or co-workers consider a bike related purchase, they ask the person they know is a cyclist for advice.


+1. The best, and often only, way to vote and/or send a message is with you wallet. Trek makes it easy to avoid them since they make crap products. I'll look for any reason not to drink a Michelob Ultra. Oakley - I must confess I wear Jawbones and love them :eek:, but come time to switch there are other good products out there.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,285
2
17,485
TubularBills said:
Neophyte and naive question... does 'open court' mean public?

Maxiton said:
I thought the whole point of the state actor argument is that, having gotten it accepted, the case has to move away from arbitration and into open court?

The opposite. The object is to get the case to federal court, kill it, and bury the evidence. No doubt about it.
 
May 27, 2010
6,333
3
17,485
spetsa said:
roadfreak44 said:
sorry to interrupt your feral slavering but,well, its not over til its over...as for all you amazing athletes who have never accomplished ANYTHiNG inyour surly lives...even if...so what? wont change the simple fact that he accomplished what no other athlete ever has or will... Lemond admitted that in one of his tours he was feeling badly and riding about as well and the doctor gave him an "Iron injection"...sure he did. that doctor was later implicated in doping a team. Lemond went on to win the tour...a miracle... Indurain was the first to win five in a row and his doctor was the same that administered probenecid to delgado though it wasnt technically an illegal drug at the time but its only known use was to mask steroids. . why arent you calling for an investigation into him? It goes on and on with a list of other contemporary riders as well. If this isnt a witch hunt why did landis and hamilton ONLY implicate Armstrong? Given their knowledge of a VAST conspiracy seems thered be a mighty long list ...Quite simple they wouldnt get as much money from anyone else as their fair share for offering evidence and their list probla bly extends to tow members... Incredibly convincing cast of characters. You really should wait until the verdict is in before you begin your sanctimonius gloating. BTW what races have you won???
call me a lance boy or whatever other pathetic stereotypes you typically us e to justify the witch hunt you are leading. Being an American unlike you I find any form of mob sentiment that si generated by hyenas to run counter to the sense decency most americans I know live by. The comments on here remind me of the McCarthy era hearings and you my friend wouldve been there self righteously pointing fingers. Something about a twig and a log comes to mind...what are your palmares again???

I held a USPRO turned USAC/UCI license for 16 years (1991-2007). I deserve answers. Please tell us who the F*CK you are.

dear freak,

It is not important who we are. It is Lance's record and his cheating that is the subject here. As a refresher, the thread is entitled "USADA - Armstrong".

There is absolutely no chance that either Lance or USADA would enter my athletic record as evidence, even if I were to appear as a witness. In a strange quirk of fate, it is theoretically possible that I could actually have been called as a witness in the Armstrong-Trek-Lemond dispute.

Moreover, there is absolutely no chance that Lance or the USADA would be interested in false reports of communist activity during the McCarthy era.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that even if someone like me, or spetsa, or MarkvW who have all replied to you can see the blinding obvious when were are nothing more than mere anonymous contributors to a pseudo-monitored (by similarly anonymous people) on-line chat forum, then Lance should be really, really worried.

Thus, the most powerful part of my resume - and the one that apparently is of most concern to you and Lance - is that I am an anonymous forum contributor, just like most others here.

The weakest part of my resume is that I have never utilized any of the drugs or doping techniques that Lance has been accused or suspected of.

Do you have experiences to share with these doping products?

The only relevant experience I can offer is that I have certainly raced against at least one person currently banned for life. Oh, and a family member was falsely accused to the Attorney General of the United States of being a communist during the McCarthy era by a prominent, but completely mad, US citizen.

Thus, if you want to cite McCarthyism I believe my knowledge outranks yours.

Dave.
 
aphronesis said:
This is called irony: it doesn't hurt me in the least. Regardless of how this situation goes.

However, on topic, again, which you seem to be having trouble with as you keep expressing personal opinions about posters: there are facts and there is "truth," the facts are already well available for anyone who cares. The truth is matter of situational determination: professional, personal, financial, juridical, social, mediatized, etc.

I am asking posters in this thread to define that term as it pertains to the USADA's case: that is nothing but strictly on topic. Are they speaking factual disclosure? If so, to whom? The world of cycling? And, again, which world? Professional omerta? The "fans"? Those who got burned and intimidated by LA? All of the above? Or are they speaking some sort of transcendental revelation?

Hypotethical: in 2060 suppose that all LA's titles have been stripped. Do you think it will matter much. How about 2160? And here I mean within the "world" of cycling.

You can ignore me by putting me on ignore, or skipping over my posts when you see my name. I do it regularly.


Please open a new thread to discuss your theories.

Thank you.

Susan
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
But what about the truth?


In a legal process you are asked to swear to "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" - I guess if I ever find myself in that situation I will argue "well, which truth are we on about?"


Nice try - I did not try and out the poster Colleges identity.
However they were starting to make references that they were indeed that person - which would be a disgraceful thing to do if they were NOT that person.
That is misrepresentation - and a very serious abuse of any forum.

and you were off topic in talking about it, derailing the thread with the vortex. thanks goodness for the mods is all i can say :D
 
May 27, 2010
6,333
3
17,485
aphronesis said:
...

You can ignore me by putting me on ignore, or skipping over my posts when you see my name. I do it regularly.

I didn't know that you could put yourself on ignore.

Dave.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aphronesis said:
I am not implying that you are wrong. Far from it. I am suggesting that "truth" is not....relative, say, but a condition of its definitions: be it a context of media, juridical findings, emotional attachments, monetary reward, public visibility etc.

Therefore I would suggest that the truth is a balance sheet, not an absolute, and that the "truth" about LA already resides with all those for whom it matters. Few will be affected by the qui tam for example. Sure, Floyd might be buying drinks for a few members here, but that's trickle down capital not truth.


If I swindle you out of a bunch of money by running an elaborate conspiracy it's only truth to you? The truth is a balance sheet...

What a bunch of crap.
 
Mar 22, 2010
908
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Just hope Judge Sparks will get to know this. :eek:

Judge Sparks did not appear to be anyone's fool. We will find out soon enough or I suppose folks could go back and see his prior writings and infer from there.

folks the back and forth with aphronesis is getting tedious, let's stay on topic please.
 

Bill Murray

BANNED
Jul 12, 2012
26
0
0
When Judge Sparks throws this out, Ulrich and Basso should write a letter of thanks that their rights as clean athletes has been protected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.