The Armstrong Lie

[ufkacbln]

It makes you almost miss Red Light
By the way, can anyone tell me if USADA have jurisdiction yet?

Says the person who claimed that Post Mortem evidence was invalid as proof of doping in Simpson's case

It was explained last time why you asked this question.USADA had no jurisdiction in this case, Do I really need to explain again that was founded some years after SImpson died

Ironic that my knowledge in this area seems much wider then yours?

Have you actually learnt after I provided the evidence that post mortem evidence of doping is accepted by the authorities.... despite your claims that it is not?

 

[rich p]

Says the person who claimed that Post Mortem evidence was invalid as proof of doping in Simpson's case

It was explained last time why you asked this question.USADA had no jurisdiction in this case, Do I really need to explain again that was founded some years after SImpson died

Ironic that my knowledge in this area seems much wider then yours?

Whoooshhhhh!!!! again!!!!!!!!

 

[ufkacbln]

Whoooshhhhh!!!! again!!!!!!!!

Far easier than actually answering the claims that you made that Post Mortem is not valid evidence?

But your usual standard of reply.

 

[rich p]

Far easier than actually answering the claims that you made that Post Mortem is not valid evidence?

But your usual standard of reply.

So, do USADA have jurisdiction over Armstrong? You never did answer that one.

 

[just jim]

"You've tried my lies, now try my pies!"

 

[ufkacbln]

So, do USADA have jurisdiction over Armstrong? You never did answer that one.

I think that I will answer this one when you have the civility to answer the queries about Whether I have managed to educate you that Post Mortem evidence is valid...

 

[rich p]

I think that I will answer this one when you have the civility to answer the queries about Whether I have managed to educate you that Post Mortem evidence is valid...

I doubt you will - I first asked it years ago

 

[ufkacbln]

You are right... I am not going to stoop to your level.

The answer at the time was unclear.

In 2012 the jurisdiction of the USADA in Armstrong's case was questioned by the UCI.

The facts are simple... there was a dispute over jurisdiction, and neither side at the time was clear legally as to where jurisdiction lay.

This was a query whether the USADA had any jurisdiction outside the US, and this argument resulted in the intervention of the WADA who found in favour of the USADA and queried whether the UCI was in fact the one in breach of it's jurisdiction.

The eventual outcome of the legal arguments and infighting between the WADA, UCI and USADA was that the latter did indeed have jurisdiction

Now here are we on your claim that Post Mortem evidence is not valid evidence of cheating with performance enhancing drugs?

 

[rich p]

You are right... I am not going to stoop to your level.

The answer at the time was unclear.

In 2012 the jurisdiction of the USADA in Armstrong's case was questioned by the UCI.

The facts are simple... there was a dispute over jurisdiction, and neither side at the time was clear legally as to where jurisdiction lay.

This was a query whether the USADA had any jurisdiction outside the US, and this argument resulted in the intervention of the WADA who found in favour of the USADA and queried whether the UCI was in fact the one in breach of it's jurisdiction.

The eventual outcome of the legal arguments and infighting between the WADA, UCI and USADA was that the latter did indeed have jurisdiction

Now here are we on your claim that Post Mortem evidence is not valid evidence of cheating with performance enhancing drugs?

Of course it's evidence of drug taking but it's not a failed test, you idiot - whooooooooosh again

 

[ufkacbln]

Of course it's evidence of drug taking but it's not a failed test, you idiot - whooooooooosh again

i can understand your resorting to personal insults after having been forced to withdraw your claims that Post Mortem was not valid evidence, but this is a low level even for you.

Care to explain how you managed to link positive post mortems and failed drugs tests?

 

[rich p]

i can understand your resorting to personal insults after having been forced to withdraw your claims that Post Mortem was not valid evidence, but this is a low level even for you.

Care to explain how you managed to link positive post mortems and failed drugs tests?

Still missing the point then!

 

[ufkacbln]

Still missing the point then!

Not at all....

You have admitted at last that you were wrong in your claims that Post Mortem is not valid evidence, now all you need to do is explain how you have linked this revelation to a failed drugs test.

Of course you can resort to infantile name calling again, rather than explain yourself....

 

[rich p]

I admit nothing! You're still missing the point but hey ho!

 

[ufkacbln]

Your latest claim is really rather Armstroneque - that a post mortem finding of drug use, is not the same as afailed drugs test.

The same test on the same sample type has the same result, yet one is a fail and one apparently isn't?

Both samples prove positive for the drug, then in both cases it is a fail.... and both prove that the rider in question was cheating

 

[AndyRM]

I've only roughly scanned through the thread, but I'm not sure anyone's actually denying that Simpson doped, as that where we seem to have ended up? Of course he did, and it killed him, which is absolutely tragic. There is no such tragedy around Armstrong, unless you count the lives he ruined and the damage he did to the sport. Pharmaceutical activities aside, I don't see how the two are comparable.