USADA - Armstrong

[thehog]

No restraining order was entered either. The only order that has been entered is the order dismissing the first filing without prejudice.

It is not Tuesday and there has been no drumroll, Hog. You have asserted that there has been a restraining order. I have disputed that. There is a simple way to resolve this.

It is unfortunate that you accuse me of making things up. Before you continue, why don't you locate the restraining order that you say exists.

"No restraining order was entered either. The only order that has been entered is the order dismissing the first filing without prejudice."

Mark your telling the story. I think you better take it up with the WSJ, the Washington Post that they got their stories incorrect.

Where did I assert there was a restraining order issued? I simply said a retraining order was requested. I also said that request was withdrawn with the 30 day extension.

This was the point you went full *** and just started making things up to appear like you knew what you were talking about.

Nice one Marky.

 

[Cal_Joe]

Oh dear... Marky? Again? Lying? In public? What happened?

I seriously cannot stop laughing. You're great. Love it. More!

It is painfully obvious that you have absolutely no understanding of the USA legal system. Instead of making stuff up, you might want to post some links to back up your assertions regarding restraining orders.

Unless you can not. My guess is that most here with half a brain do not expect a reasoned response, and will just do the "roll eyes" at another post based on fabrication.

 

[thehog]

It is painfully obvious that you have absolutely no understanding of the USA legal system. Instead of making stuff up, you might want to post some links to back up your assertions regarding restraining orders.

Unless you can not. My guess is that most here with half a brain do not expect a reasoned response, and will just do the "roll eyes" at another post based on fabrication.

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/cont..._lawyers_file.html?cxntfid=blogs_austin_legal

Armstrong’s lawyers initially asked the U.S. District Court in Austin for a temporary restraining order Monday morning. But by afternoon, Judge Sam Sparks informed Armstrong’s legal team he was dismissing their plea “without prejudice” because it came in at more than 80 pages.

More links?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...gainst-usada/2012/07/09/gJQA1UL8XW_story.html



Granted the extension, Armstrong attorney Tim Herman on Wednesday withdrew a request for a temporary restraining order while Judge Sam Sparks reviews the complaint and a request for an injunction.

http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId=8156920

 

[Cal_Joe]

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/cont..._lawyers_file.html?cxntfid=blogs_austin_legal

Armstrong’s lawyers initially asked the U.S. District Court in Austin for a temporary restraining order Monday morning. But by afternoon, Judge Sam Sparks informed Armstrong’s legal team he was dismissing their plea “without prejudice” because it came in at more than 80 pages.

More links?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...gainst-usada/2012/07/09/gJQA1UL8XW_story.html



Granted the extension, Armstrong attorney Tim Herman on Wednesday withdrew a request for a temporary restraining order while Judge Sam Sparks reviews the complaint and a request for an injunction.

http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId=8156920

From the post you responded to:

People don't file restraining orders, Hoggy. They ask the court to issue restraining orders.

Your post:

Armstrong’s lawyers initially asked the U.S. District Court

Not quite sure why you can not follow logic tonight. A restraining order was asked for, but not granted.

In simpler terms, if you wander down to your favorite corner grocer, you can ask for some Vegemite, some beer, and a restraining order. You can get the first two - the last one requires a wee bit of judicial process.

Again, puzzled by your logic and an apparent total fail on understanding the USA legal system.

 

[thehog]

"No restraining order was entered either. The only order that has been entered is the order dismissing the first filing without prejudice."

Mark your telling the story. I think you better take it up with the WSJ, the Washington Post that they got their stories incorrect.

Where did I assert there was a restraining order issued? I simply said a retraining order was requested. I also said that request was withdrawn with the 30 day extension.

This was the point you went full *** and just started making things up to appear like you knew what you were talking about.

Nice one Marky.

From the post you responded to:



Your post:


Not quite sure why you can not follow logic tonight. A restraining order was asked for, but not granted.

In simpler terms, if you wander down to your favorite corner grocer, you can ask for some Vegemite, some beer, and a restraining order. You can get the first two - the last one requires a wee bit of judicial process.

Again, puzzled by your logic and an apparent total fail on understanding the USA legal system.

Are you arguing with me or yourself?

You demanded links on restraining orders and in an effort to save you're own embarrassment when I effortlessly provided them you make up a story about Vegemite?

See my previous quote. As stated. I made no assertion a restraining order was issued only requested.

You guys actually crack me up.

When will it end?

 

[Cal_Joe]

Are you arguing with me or yourself?

You demanded links on restraining orders in in an effort to save you're own embarrassment you make up a story about Vegemite?

See my previous quote. As stated. I made no assertion a restraining order was issued only requested.

You guys actually crack me up.

When will it end?

Sorry Hoggy - as far as the bolded part is concerned, that never happened. I asked for links, not demanded - just another case of you making stuff up. Your previous posts are all over the map. Get your story straight.

And why do you hate Vegemite?

I fully expect the mods to delete many of these posts, as they may be considered off topic. You may want to report the last little interchange so it can be deleted and spare you from further ridicule.

 

[sittingbison]

Cal Joe, you leapt before you looked. This entire sequence was started when MarkvW said this:

No restraining order was entered either. The only order that has been entered is the order dismissing the first filing without prejudice.

Both thehog and I responded simultaneously that a restraining order application was entered, then removed when USADA granted the extension, making the RO moot.

 

[MarkvW]

Cal Joe, you leapt before you looked. This entire sequence was started when MarkvW said this:



Both thehog and I responded simultaneously that a restraining order application was entered, then removed when USADA granted the extension, making the RO moot.

The term "entered" has a precise meaning in federal court.

 

[sittingbison]

The term "entered" has a precise meaning in federal court.

Mark, whatever its "precise" meaning is, that is not what you were talking about.

Anyway, now we have all agreed that an application for a restraining order did actually exist, Susan can happily delete the last thirty or so posts

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I'm not going to delete any posts, but you guys must be pretty bored to be splitting hairs like this. Just drop the ad-infinitum legal quotes and such. Feel free to speculate on what's going to happen between now and the 10th, or beyond, but cut the endless nonsense or I will delete posts.

 

[rata de sentina]

I'm not going to delete any posts, but you guys must be pretty bored to be splitting hairs like this.

Maaate, it's a legal thing I once had some lawyer donkey having apoplexy and a major meltdown on a interweb forum once because he couldn't get it that normal people use the word "cite" as a verb not a noun.

 

[Boeing]

Maaate, it's a legal thing I once had some lawyer donkey having apoplexy and a major meltdown on a interweb forum once because he couldn't get it that normal people use the word "cite" as a verb not a noun.

I got all over brodeal once because he spelled Ritte wrong

 

[TubularBills]

I got all over brodeal once because he spelled Ritte wrong

Awl eye whope phor iz wen da duzt setles je loozes.

 

[thehog]

Cal Joe, you leapt before you looked. This entire sequence was started when MarkvW said this:



Both thehog and I responded simultaneously that a restraining order application was entered, then removed when USADA granted the extension, making the RO moot.

The beauty all of this was the word "entered" was never used. It's a Mark invention. He brought the term into play then claimed it has "precise" meaning and shouldn't be used.

Mark was caught out. And no amount of posturing will change that.

 

[alberto.legstrong]

Is there anything new since USADA's response?

came by to see if anything notable has happened since the usada filed a motion (and please, I beseech thee to not belabor the point if I am not using appropriate terminolgy) to dismiss the armstrong assertion that it belongs in court.

Are we still waiting for the Hon. Sam Sparks to rule?
has anything else meaningful happened other than the enthralling debate over what 'entered' means?

 

[Cavalier]

Short answer: No ruling yet, still waiting.

 

[doperhopper]

wow, what a joke of the day:

Del Moral's lawyer claims doctor was banned for not giving evidence against Armstrong

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/del...ned-for-not-giving-evidence-against-armstrong

 

[D-Queued]

wow, what a joke of the day:

Del Moral's lawyer claims doctor was banned for not giving evidence against Armstrong

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/del...ned-for-not-giving-evidence-against-armstrong

Er, wouldn't it have made sense, then, to testify as to the truth - especially if it differs from the version we are led to believe?

Wouldn't that have been in Lance's best interest.

In other words, while this was almost certainly prompted by Lance it actually harms him.

Dave.

 

[Race Radio]

wow, what a joke of the day:

Del Moral's lawyer claims doctor was banned for not giving evidence against Armstrong

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/del...ned-for-not-giving-evidence-against-armstrong

I like this part

"Dr. del Moral is serving a lifetime ban for providing drugs to young cyclists, and nothing he makes up now in an effort to continue the cover-up of the USPS doping conspiracy will deter us from doing our duty to protect the rights of clean athletes and integrity of competition,"

 

[mewmewmew13]

I like this part

Travis not about to be intimidated by the 'spin'.

 

[Benotti69]

wow, what a joke of the day:

Del Moral's lawyer claims doctor was banned for not giving evidence against Armstrong

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/del...ned-for-not-giving-evidence-against-armstrong

So there is evidence then

 

[FitSsikS]

Our friends over at The Science Of Sport aren't helping Lance's case at all.

I just watched their online presentation (summary/explanation of the biological passport) and they used LA's image on a particular 'slide'.

 

[D-Queued]

Our friends over at The Science Of Sport aren't helping Lance's case at all.

I just watched their online presentation (summary/explanation of the biological passport) and they used LA's image on a particular 'slide'.

They probably didn't know it was Lance, and simply took the first image that showed up for the search term 'doping cyclist claiming more than five TDF wins while riding high cadence doing it all with superior preparation and focus'.

Dave.

 

[FitSsikS]

They probably didn't know it was Lance, and simply took the first image that showed up for the search term 'doping cyclist claiming more than five TDF wins while riding high cadence doing it all with superior preparation and focus'.

Dave.

Why...of course!

 

[MacRoadie]

They probably didn't know it was Lance, and simply took the first image that showed up for the search term 'doping cyclist claiming more than five TDF wins while riding high cadence doing it all with superior preparation and focus'.

Dave.

Lance needs to be talking with someone over at Demand Media...