-
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
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
this_is_edie said:
No, being wrong = being wrong.
You're allowed to be wrong in court. You're not allowed to willfully be wrong in court.
eleven said:
LMAO. You mean Lance thought he owned a portion of the team but actually didn't?
You fanboys are hilarious. Lance testifies under oath that he owns part of the team (gee whiz, the team's actually registered with the same address as Mellow Johnnie's bike shop...strange) but his attorney then says Lance was wrong? So, Lance lied under oath according to eleven?
Too funny.
The basic premise of this whole thread appears to be that LA will be found guilty of defrauding the US Government and that the ASO will seek to vacate his wins in the TdF. This makes for two very big maybes. It is very unlikely that LA will be found guilty of fraud. If he is, it is very unlikely that a French sports organization will interpret a US based fraud as cheating in a French race.
Perhaps the basic premise of this thread is actually Noose NcMuckles' life long dream that LA is going to be found guilty of something and he will finally feel closure for the time that LA refused his request for an autograph at the blue oyster bar in Frisco. I wouldn't hold my breath on that one, though I would like some action on the odds. Who is taking bets?
Perhaps the basic premise of this thread is actually Noose NcMuckles' life long dream that LA is going to be found guilty of something and he will finally feel closure for the time that LA refused his request for an autograph at the blue oyster bar in Frisco.
I wouldn't hold my breath on that one, though I would like some action on the odds. Who is taking bets?
Comeback 2011 said:
Lance also testified UNDER OATH. One of they is obviously lying. We'll see which one it is.
Yeah, it's not "important" for Lance to know whether he owns something or not. Especially a portion of the entire team. Right.
Mach Schnell said:Now THIS is funny stuff
That "mid-grade pro" soundly beat Jalabert to become the first American to win a classics race in the 95 edition of the San Sebastian
So he was clean before his cancer then?
I'd put money on him being on steriods as a 15yr old winning those triathlons.
Moose McKnuckles said:
Indeed. he believed he had a small share of the team but, according to his attorneys, that transfer of ownership from CSE to Armstrong had not been processed.
Why is that strange? MJ's did not exist when he testified. Its registered address is the same as CSE because it is partly owned and managed by CSE. here's a hint: Google C3 presents and check the address. Is it Moose's claim that the address is proof that Armstrong owns Lollapalooza?
eleven said:
Well, we're hopefully going to get to see which one of them is correct, Lance or his attorneys.
ASO and UCI's official position should be:
Mr. Armstrong has passed every test given him during the tours, except one minor case that we forgave with a postdated doctors note, and all those tests given by the various other testing agencies that test him outside of competition. Therefore according to the rules of the sport, he is the legitimate winner of the events.
If investigations and speculation by newspapers, authors, former champions, and internet cycling discussion board regulars, or even criminal investigations in other countries, turns up evidence that makes us (aso/uci/etc.) suspicious about how Mr. Armstrong actually behaved in regards to doping regulations during our events, then well, too bad for us: we didn't catch him and that's the limit of our authority or interest in the matter and we'll just have to live with it.
Now...the one thing that would change all this is if there is proof that Armstrong did fail tests and then bribed his way out of it. That right there is the only allegation to surface that really means anything. Because that violates the principal, the contract that we all agree to live by: if you're caught, and are proven in a reasonable manner to have violated the rules, you pay the penalty. Everything else just amounts to the usual cat and mouse game between individuals and authority that defines western civilization.
Mr. Armstrong has passed every test given him during the tours, except one minor case that we forgave with a postdated doctors note, and all those tests given by the various other testing agencies that test him outside of competition. Therefore according to the rules of the sport, he is the legitimate winner of the events.
If investigations and speculation by newspapers, authors, former champions, and internet cycling discussion board regulars, or even criminal investigations in other countries, turns up evidence that makes us (aso/uci/etc.) suspicious about how Mr. Armstrong actually behaved in regards to doping regulations during our events, then well, too bad for us: we didn't catch him and that's the limit of our authority or interest in the matter and we'll just have to live with it.
Now...the one thing that would change all this is if there is proof that Armstrong did fail tests and then bribed his way out of it. That right there is the only allegation to surface that really means anything. Because that violates the principal, the contract that we all agree to live by: if you're caught, and are proven in a reasonable manner to have violated the rules, you pay the penalty. Everything else just amounts to the usual cat and mouse game between individuals and authority that defines western civilization.
Of course they will! Then they can trumpet in TdF winners such as Ullrich, Basso, and Beloki. /snarkMoose McKnuckles said:
As evidenced by the OP's lack of deep thought (eg just who gets the win with an Armstrong DQ) you are right. Unfortunately, LA brought alot of this on himself with his un-retiring. Although he did finish on the podium last year, I still maintain it was a stupid and selfish decision. But then, since 1992, I've known that LA was an arrogant and selfish prick.scribe said:
Cycling fans, American or European are fans of the Le Tour with or without Lance. Long live Le Tour.
iI'm new to this forum, joined about 10 minutes ago. It's clear there are some people who lurk here for the sole purpose of stirring controversy. Too bad you don't have to be an adult to be a member of this forum.
fixedgearwizard said:
If that were the case, you wouldn't be here. Now run off back to the Public Strategies toolbox.
OK smart guy, if ASO "vacates" LA's 7 tour wins, who won?Moose McKnuckles said:
I'm sure ASO would just love these records:
1999 - 1st ___________ , 2nd Alex Zulle, 3rd Fernando Excartin
2000 - 1st ___________ , 2nd Jan Ullrich, 3rd Joseba Beloki
2001 - 1st ___________ , 2nd Jan Ullrich, 3rd Joseba Beloki
2002 - 1st ___________ , 2nd Joseba Beloki, 3rd Raimondas Rumas
2003 - 1st ___________ , 2nd Jan Ullrich, 3rd Alexander Vinokourov
2004 - 1st ___________ , 2nd Andreas Kloden, 3rd Ivan Basso
2005 - 1st ___________ , 2nd Ivan Basso, 3rd Jan Ullrich
Yeah, vacated works well...
benpounder said:
Nobody wins. That's why it's called "VACATE." Thanks for proving you don't know what the word means.
Let me help you out. USC had to "vacate" the 2005 championship? You know why the NCAA called it "vacate"? BECAUSE THEIR OPPONENTS DIDN'T GET THE WIN. That's what vacate means. No winner that year.
Hey smart guy, the UT Longhorns beat the USC (University of Spoiled Children) Trojans fair and square in 2005.Moose McKnuckles said:
frizzlefry said:
The question I have is in what way was the government defrauded? The USPS is entirely self-funded, and does not receive money from the government for its budget.
A plain reading of the information regarding the Postal Service Fund is that it receives money from the government for services the government requires and/or desires, the same as any patron would get as being a paying customer. Not the same as other government agencies which rely on government funding for their budgets. I actually had to argue an issue related to this in Federal Court
Marva32 said:
This has been documented in many of the articles on the Armstrong investigation. For example, from Boulder Report:
Although not primarily supported by tax dollars, the Postal Service is explicitly authorized in the U.S. Constitution and enjoys a federally mandated monopoly on regular mail service. Even since the 1970 Postal Reorganization Act, it is considered a government agency and is defined by the U.S. Code as a “legally independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States.”
i keep reading the title of this thread as "Will Lance get to keep any TdF titties"
makes me laugh every time.
makes me laugh every time.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 985
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
Latest posts
-
-
-
Teams & Riders The "MVP" Mathieu Van der Poel Road Discussion Thread- Latest: gregrowlerson
-
-
77th Tour de Romandie (2.UWT) // 23rd - 28th of April 2024- Latest: gregrowlerson
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram