Armstrong charged and banned

[lukesdad]

Of course its the bloody smokescreen or part of it anyway so its proved he s only had 250.... then he counters all blood tests no matter who they were conducted by... then you, ah but thats not what you meant is it ?...... game of tennis, adding to the soap opera ,further dilution and diverting the focus.

Your posts on here have been full of referrence to people who disagree with you, here and on other forums, whether the subject has been Armstrong, wiggins, Sky or whatever, obviously no interest whatsoever.

 

[Chuffy]

Of course its the bloody smokescreen or part of it anyway so its proved he s only had 250.... then he counters all blood tests no matter who they were conducted by... then you, ah but thats not what you meant is it ?...... game of tennis, adding to the soap opera ,further dilution and diverting the focus.

What on earth are you on about? Seriously, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Diverting focus to or from what?

Your posts on here have been full of referrence to people who disagree with you, here and on other forums, whether the subject has been Armstrong, wiggins, Sky or whatever, obviously no interest whatsoever.

Again, what are you trying to say?

Look, I doubt we're ever going to agree on anything Armstrong related but I really don't understand what you're getting at, sorry.

 

[lukesdad]

What on earth are you on about? Seriously, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Diverting focus to or from what?


Again, what are you trying to say?

Look, I doubt we're ever going to agree on anything Armstrong related but I really don't understand what you're getting at, sorry.

We probably agree on more than we appear to,however I can do without the flowery language and personal attacks from both sides. IT DIVERTS THE FOCUS.

 

[Chuffy]

We probably agree on more than we appear to,however I can do without the flowery language and personal attacks from both sides. IT DIVERTS THE FOCUS.

I didn't attack you. I didn't understand what point you were trying to get across, which is why I asked. Repeating things in BOLD doesn't help and I still have no idea what IT is or what it DIVERTS THE FOCUS to or from.

Look - you're getting wound up and I'm just getting more perplexed. Let's call this quits, at least for tonight.

 

[yello]

re the 500 tests lie, I think I see what ld is saying; it's the results of those tests that we should be looking at, the number of them is irrelevant (whatever that number is). Lieing is not a crime (except under oath!) and.. ah, actually doping isn't either... that destroys that line! You know what I mean!

The thing I would say about exposing the lie is (and to use court parlance) 'it goes to character'.

 

[Chuffy]

re the 500 tests lie, I think I see what ld is saying; it's the results of those tests that we should be looking at, the number of them is irrelevant (whatever that number is). Lieing is not a crime (except under oath!) and.. ah, actually doping isn't either... that destroys that line! You know what I mean!

Is that why he has never said under oath that he has never doped?

The thing I would say about exposing the lie is (and to use court parlance) 'it goes to character'.

My point exactly.

 

[lukesdad]

re the 500 tests lie, I think I see what ld is saying; it's the results of those tests that we should be looking at, the number of them is irrelevant (whatever that number is). Lieing is not a crime (except under oath!) and.. ah, actually doping isn't either... that destroys that line! You know what I mean!

The thing I would say about exposing the lie is (and to use court parlance) 'it goes to character'.

A rational line of thought, that is, untill you apply it to the up and comming evidence to be given by, I assume equally dodgy charachters ? Hopefully the process will succeed the trouble is will it be concluded to everybodys satisfaction ? I have my doubts, probably to most of the posters here it will, but far too many will be let off the hook not least the UCI.

 

[raindog]

....... but far too many will be let off the hook not least the UCI.

Let's hope not, if that story of the Swiss lab positive being bought off is true. In fact, I'm dying to see what evidence they've got for that - I find it to be the hottest item of this whole saga.

 

[lukesdad]

Let's hope not, if that story of the Swiss lab positive being bought off is true. In fact, I'm dying to see what evidence they've got for that - I find it to be the hottest item of this whole saga.

Im "dying" to see all the evidence they ve got. Question is will we ? That particular piece of evidence if it exsists, would sink the whole ship.

 

[yello]

A rational line of thought, that is, untill you apply it to the up and comming evidence to be given by, I assume equally dodgy charachters ?.

Are you're suggesting (and do correct me if I'm wrong) that all of the witnesses will be lieing in their testimonies?

 

[Alun]

Are you're suggesting (and do correct me if I'm wrong) that all of the witnesses will be lieing in their testimonies?

I think the important point from the Armstrong camp is whether sufficient doubt can be cast on their characters and/or previous deceptions to render their testimonies "unreliable".

 

[lukesdad]

Are you're suggesting (and do correct me if I'm wrong) that all of the witnesses will be lieing in their testimonies?

You ve got it arse about face yello, If they ve lied before (give 'em the benefit of the doubt...told big fibs) . Is that not the anology being applied to " Big Tex " ?

 

[yello]

To answer a question with a question is deflection, so I'll take it from your response that you expect all 10+ witnesses to be telling big fibs. I'm only trying to establish what you're suggesting here.

 

[yello]

I think the important point from the Armstrong camp is whether sufficient doubt can be cast on their characters and/or previous deceptions to render their testimonies "unreliable".

We don't know who the witnesses testimony comes from but I feel safe in saying that doubt can be cast as to the 'reliability' of a few of them. However, getting the review panel (or court of law, if it goes that way) to dismiss all of them as 'unreliable' is going to be difficult. I personally don't see it happening.

 

[Alun]

I can't help thinking that the USADA's case seems to be weaker than it appeared a few weeks ago, when many regarded it as game, set and match.