Or more gossip with very little substance...I mean come on folks, if the guy is guilty, let him be found guilty beyond doubt in the appropriate court, if not, why do we allow ourselves to be swayed by idle gossip, insinuation and tittle tattle?
why do we allow ourselves to be swayed by idle gossip, insinuation and tittle tattle?
Or more gossip with very little substance...I mean come on folks, if the guy is guilty, let him be found guilty beyond doubt in the appropriate court, if not, why do we allow ourselves to be swayed by idle gossip, insinuation and tittle tattle?
Crackle was merely linking to a report of the incident. We are entirely at liberty to read all the tittle tattle, innuendo and gossip and ,ake up our own minds as to its authenticity. Cheers
No swaying here, I'm convinced! Just waiting for the courts to agree with me
You can think whatever you like
Or more gossip with very little substance...I mean come on folks, if the guy is guilty, let him be found guilty beyond doubt in the appropriate court, if not, why do we allow ourselves to be swayed by idle gossip, insinuation and tittle tattle?
Or more gossip with very little substance...I mean come on folks, if the guy is guilty, let him be found guilty beyond doubt in the appropriate court...
Larner told the Times that she doubted that it would help the FBI because the confrontation occurred in the bar area. “I wish I had the incident on tape, so the whole world could see what happened between Tyler and Lance, and shut up about it already,” she said. “It was a non-event.”
From the article FM linked to...
My bold. My gut feel is it probably was just that, nought more than a pissing contest probably. One that, under the circumstances, could have been expected. Still, it seems 'witness intimidation' is a serious offence so maybe this could go on the charge sheet too. Something to add pressure, be traded-off in exchange for testimony.
Don't forget, the FDA are after more than Armstrong. The net is broader than him, though he could well be the biggest fish in that net.
the worst thing about it is that they wouldn't be far wrong (except for the justification bit). I've been really taken aback by stuff written about my favourite cyclist of the moment.When (and I use this on purpose as I believe it is a certainty) Armstrong is found guilty, he and his supporters will continue to deny it anyway. Or use the "they were all at it" argument to justify his cheating.
His guilt or innocence should and will be decided by a court of law, not the press, and be dependent on verifyable and impartial evidence - that's the way I understand things.