That'll be a first thenBut true and accurate dross
That'll be a first thenBut true and accurate dross
That'll be a first then
Here we go again; past eleven o'clock on a Saturday night and more collobks from the man with the envious social life, Cunobellend. Why don't you give it a well-earned rest?You obviously haven't read the previous posts then
Such inteligence and a high level of debate?
Don't shoot the messenger, check the facts.....
Is there a "double jeopardy rule or does the USADA have the ability to repeat the same charges?
Dismissing it collobks and personal insults are not going to change the facts!
You claim it is collobks - now prove it...... or just add a few insults if you are unable to do so, far easier!
Since you're all about collobks and your 'mind' is irretrievably made up on this issue, I'll take the insults option.
What makes you think we haven't read it?So, no-one's read Jonathan Vaughters' superb little piece in the New York Times today about doping? You all really should. Of course, one can also note that, given the current inquiry, it isn't just about him. I expect Vaughters was one of those who gave a full and frank account of what they know about Lance to USADA.
You don't expect cyclists to do the tour on bread and vaughter, do you?
That's terrible...
truly appalling
It depends on how much precious time you can afford to condescend to us out of your non-stop social agenda. They can't find a good word for you, but I can...Yep - I admit it - my mind is absolutely made up that USADA does not have a "double jeopardy" clause and that this is a factual statement..... how unacceptable, actually using a fact and an informed decision based upon it!
What standards will we stoop to next?