Armstrong charged and banned

Status
Not open for further replies.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
You're good at twisting words to a meaning that suits you, I'll give you that. And trying to divert attention from the salient issue too.

Do you honestly expect us to believe that you used the expression 'held secret' with absolutely no intention to create the implication that USADA are acting in a clandestine manner? Or acting in a manner other than to agreed and set-out procedures?

I think your fevered imagination is working overtime. Words mean what they mean and the OED definition of "secret" is:

"Kept from public knowledge, or from the knowledge of persons specified; not allowed to be known, or only by selected persons"​
And it remains kept secret until it is released and becomes public. Even UCI do not know what is in it and at one stage USADA were not intending to let Armstrong know so he could prepare his defence (although Judge Sparks got them to change that stance and give assurances otherwise). To claim the evidence is other than secret at present is the real twisting of words from their natural meanings.
 
Given that your response to my reasoned post, explaining my position in a clear manner in #2097, was to post a picture of a pram and a duck I don't feel any need to respond to that any further.
I do wonder if you're not getting this all slightly out of perspective and it might be a good thing if you step back a little. Just a thought.

Your observation skill are not the best then?
 

rich p

ridiculous old lush
Location
Brighton
Your observation skill are not the best then?
Sorry, I have no idea what your point is but this childish tit for tat is unseemly and diverts the thread. I shall desist from reading your posts by reluctantly adding to the ignore list after all. It's been fun. Au revoir.
 
OP
OP
Y

yello

Guest
Red Light, I'm not entering into a semantics debate as it does not further the discussion. I'll simply take it that you didn't mean to imply that USADA are being clandestine.
 
Red Light, I'm not entering into a semantics debate as it does not further the discussion. I'll simply take it that you didn't mean to imply that USADA are being clandestine.

Correct. I meant that it has not been made available to anyone outside of USADA and certainly not the public. And until it is its impossible to assess what the evidence is and its strength. At the moment we have rumours of positives concealed with UCI help which the UCI have denied. We have rumours of retrospective B tests which would breach the rules for testing and adverse findings. So until the evidence is out there and people can comment on it we really are no further forward than we were six months ago in terms of evidence of guilt. So lets wait for that evidence.
 

Panter

Just call me Chris...
Just a quick line to thank the contributors to this thread. I've been (fairly) avidly following it, unless it suddenly jumps multiple pages since I last looked, in which case I catch up at the end :blush:
Anyway, it's made fascinating reading for this new-to-cycle-racing and LA fanboy, I shall continue to follow it with interest
 
Sorry, I have no idea what your point is but this childish tit for tat is unseemly and diverts the thread. I shall desist from reading your posts by reluctantly adding to the ignore list after all. It's been fun. Au revoir.

Success!
 

tigger

Über Member
Just a quick line to thank the contributors to this thread. I've been (fairly) avidly following it, unless it suddenly jumps multiple pages since I last looked, in which case I catch up at the end :blush:
Anyway, it's made fascinating reading for this new-to-cycle-racing and LA fanboy, I shall continue to follow it with interest

Really? For me its the opposite. It's the most disappointing thread I've read for a while. Going absolutely nowhere apart from semantic circles. It's a shame as the pro racing section here s normally a decent read with knowledgable contributors.

Bottom line is Armstrong is a cheat. This is of no great surprise to anyone who has followed road racing with an open mind in recent years. We still don't know the full details yet, we don't know what the ramifications will be for him or those around him, and there are some questions around the process followed and juristiction of the body involved.

So what? Who gives a toss about semantics? He's a massive fraud on an industrial scale. Let's just hope our sport can recover once the full horror story is revealed.
 

just jim

Guest
In the meantime, I wanted the Tyler Hamilton book preordered on Kindle but it's not possible, unless I'm doing it wrong...
 
Bottom line is Armstrong is a cheat. This is of no great surprise to anyone who has followed road racing with an open mind in recent years. We still don't know the full details yet, we don't know what the ramifications will be for him or those around him, and there are some questions around the process followed and juristiction of the body involved.

And your open minded evidence for that is?
 
Actually it's funny: he has seen USADA's evidence and I think now his line has changed to something like:
"I never took unfair advantage over my competitors"...

In fact I'm reminded of an interesting parallel between Lance and one of his fellow Americans, Bill Clinton. Clinton stuck to his line of saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". And, based on what is common US terminology, "sexual relations" does not cover the oral relief provided by Monica Lewinsky. So technically, when he was first asked, he was correct. Of course he did later admit to a relationship that was not appropriate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom