scribe said:You aint gonna get one without the other.
Not true. It would be very possible for the Federal case to go forward and the Whistle blower case to not.
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
scribe said:You aint gonna get one without the other.
ChrisE said:Yes, but that doesn't explain why you and I don't agree all the time. I think you are inflating your IQ just because we do agree this time, and you think you have evolved intellectually. Please don't ride my coattails out of the doldrums of double-digit IQism.
The UCI has given them the free pass. That bothers me as it will always leave a twinge of reasonable doubt. Everything else that nowinsky is doing now borders on futility, IMO. Armstrong will likely continue to deny and come out of this damaged but not broken. That's not what I hope or want. Just an assessment.Race Radio said:We are all aware of the talking points as to why it should be ignored, I am asking how big would it have to be for it not to be ignored? We understand that you think Armstrong et al should give a free pass......the question is how large a free pass? Where is the line?
scribe said:If it pans out that they can't come up with anything substantial, then it was an obvious waste of tax payer dollars. If they try slinging **** against the wall and it doesn't stick in a the form of a conviction, that is an obvious waste of tax payer dollars.
If nothing sticks in the form of a crime, and it is anecdotally exposed, in the form of floydian admission, that the blue train doped, it is a waste of tax payer dollars. Much in the way that we don't need a prosecutor digging around in a GJ room to prove that Liberace was gay.[/QUOTE]
I think Liberace admitted he was gay. Armstrong has actively campaigned that he has not ever, ever, ever, done PEDs. And again, if he is only a player in a larger scheme to commit crimes he may not do time. Novitsky doesn't have to see him behind bars to have a successful investigation in the USADA's mind and his. What we think doesn't count.
Oldman said:I think Liberace admitted he was gay. Armstrong has actively campaigned that he has not ever, ever, ever, done PEDs. And again, if he is only a player in a larger scheme to commit crimes he may not do time. Novitsky doesn't have to see him behind bars to have a successful investigation in the USADA's mind and his. What we think doesn't count.
Race Radio said:It is funny to watch the modification of the Armstrong talking point. At first it was "Never tested positive" "Most tested Athlete" As it became clear that neither of these was true it became "Never Sanctioned". When the extent of the UCI's corruption became clear even this started sounding silly.
If you listen to Armstrong's most recent statements he now says "I never, ever, ever, pressured people to dope" Key change.
I think Armstrong will admit to to doping and toss Weisel and others under the bus. It is the smart move, he escapes with a slap on the wrist and his groupies just move on to the "Everyone does it" "Level Playing field" excuse.
Race Radio said:If you listen to Armstrong's most recent statements he now says "I never, ever, ever, pressured people to dope" Key change.
hughmoore said:What was the key change with the above statement?
Can you show us where he said the opposite with regard to "pressuring people to dope" or did you just make this up?
Regards
Hugh
Race Radio said:The key change is instead of saying he never, ever, doped he is now saying he never, ever pressured others to dope.
It appears that the key parts of the federal case will be the organized financing, organizing, and influencing of a international doping program. It is very possible that Armstrong has "Plausible deniablity" of any guilt in this. As long as he does not lie to the Feds about it there is a good chance he could get off.
Colm.Murphy said:Popovych was served a subpoena last week in Texas, appearing before GJ tomorrow in LA.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-lance-armstrong-20101103,0,1212983.story
Interesting.
I wonder how well his English will hold up.
hughmoore said:So you are now saying he is no longer denying he is a doper!
Thats amazing news, I wasnt aware he was now admitting he is a doper, does CN know this?
Hugh
Colm.Murphy said:Popovych was served a subpoena last week in Texas, appearing before GJ tomorrow in LA.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-lance-armstrong-20101103,0,1212983.story
Interesting.
I wonder how well his English will hold up.
Race Radio said:Recently a certain world famous doping doctor had a visit with some friends in Utah....I wonder if he got a nice invitation for a non-paid speaking engagement as well?
flicker said:If POPO ever doped it was an unsuccessful process.
frenchfry said:One of the rare articles in the French press on the Armstrong investigation. Maybe because a non-American (Popovych) is involved.
http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article...enquete-sur-lance-armstrong_1434767_3242.html
buckwheat said:C'mon dude. I'm an ugly American. I can't read that.
Please give a very short synopsis of the article.
L'arriviste said:
Cette dernière a affirmé devant le jury n'avoir jamais entendu Arsmtrong [sic] admettre l'usage de substances dopantes, selon son avocat.
[Popovych] affirmed before the jury that he had never heard Armstrong admit to using doping substances, said his lawyer.
That is all we need to know.
theswordsman said:Actually, that's way off. "Cette dernier" refers to "the latter". Your quote was from the start of paragraph 3. At the end of paragraph 2 was a mention of Stephanie McIlvain. She's the one who said what you attribute to Popovych. We have no idea what he said.
Running something through Google Translate and also Babelfish can usually give you a decent idea o what an article says. It's sure better than trusting a biased quote from someone here.
TERMINATOR said:You have no idea what you are talking about. The case is a FEDERAL case that will be heard in a Los Angeles federal district court, which has NOTHING to do with Texas state politics or state courts.
Even if the case somehow is channeled into a FEDERAL court in Texas, local state politics will have no influence on federal court ops.
The fact that you don't even seem to realize this is a federal case and not a state case is troubling.