What you chose to completely ignore, is that the point is that the team was guilty of inventing back dated prescriptions to deal with this according to the masseuse. This subterfuge ties in with a whole host of other witness statements.
Once again I repeat, why would a masseuse make all of this up?
ANd yet a bloody again, I repeat witness statements are sufficient to gain a conviction, if corroborated, in athletics why should it be any different in cycling where USADA state they have a dozen witness statements.
To put it bluntly the only people who believe Armstrong is innocent of doping, are playing dumb, plain dumb or Lance Armstrong!!!
Lance Armstrong
Re: Arginald/Dog
David wrote:
"I repeat witness statements are sufficient to gain a conviction,"
And that is the problem we have heard 18 months of CONSPIRACIES and yet still not enough evidence to file any criminal charges, fuck off with the CONSPIRACIES!
"dumb" no, guilty until proven innocent' is the problem here, OK even if did take drugs why not prove it in Court? It is very worrying that USADA play it in a way that forms its out come on Armstrong refusing to take part, and after so long he has just had enough.
And just another point there is so much misinformation about this, the biggest one is the USADA have removed Armstrong's Titles.
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVE GUILTY
"I repeat witness statements are sufficient to gain a conviction,"
And that is the problem we have heard 18 months of CONSPIRACIES and yet still not enough evidence to file any criminal charges, fuck off with the CONSPIRACIES!
"dumb" no, guilty until proven innocent' is the problem here, OK even if did take drugs why not prove it in Court? It is very worrying that USADA play it in a way that forms its out come on Armstrong refusing to take part, and after so long he has just had enough.
And just another point there is so much misinformation about this, the biggest one is the USADA have removed Armstrong's Titles.
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVE GUILTY
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Dog
I will leave it with a re-statement of my earnest wish that you never ever get on a jury.
No-one would ever get convicted in your world. It would be impossible.
If 12 witness statements were against me, all I would have to do is to say they are jealous of me.
All I would have to do is try to get legal proceedings to stop any hearing and if that failed, I could just walk away from the independent hearing so that the evidence cannot be heard in an independent environment which was supported by the World Anti Doping Agency.
That is what Armstrong has done. If you think that is a conspiracy, more fool you.
End of.
No-one would ever get convicted in your world. It would be impossible.
If 12 witness statements were against me, all I would have to do is to say they are jealous of me.
All I would have to do is try to get legal proceedings to stop any hearing and if that failed, I could just walk away from the independent hearing so that the evidence cannot be heard in an independent environment which was supported by the World Anti Doping Agency.
That is what Armstrong has done. If you think that is a conspiracy, more fool you.
End of.
Re: Dog
Dave wrote:
"No-one would ever get convicted in your world."
It is like you work for the Daily Mail when someone puts the truth in front of you! Keep away from real facts and stay with your Conspiracy Theory's?
Here is list of tour de france winners,
http://www.letour.fr/2012/TDF/HISTO/us/palmares.html
I see Mr Armstrong is still holding the title of winner!
End off.
"No-one would ever get convicted in your world."
It is like you work for the Daily Mail when someone puts the truth in front of you! Keep away from real facts and stay with your Conspiracy Theory's?
Here is list of tour de france winners,
http://www.letour.fr/2012/TDF/HISTO/us/palmares.html
I see Mr Armstrong is still holding the title of winner!
End off.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Dog
"Keep away from real facts and stay with your Conspiracy Theory's?"
You are talking shite. Now pay attention.
1. If I make a signed statement that I saw Dog stab a bloke in the Old Kent Road that is a witness statement. Got that?
2. If 12 people make signed statements that they saw Dog stab a bloke in the Old Kent Road then things are looking very very bad for Dog. Got that? Sure?
3. However, if I say to 11 mates, look I want to get Dog sent down so I want you to say you saw that fella stab someone. That is a conspiracy. Got that?
4. To summarise then, a witness statement is a witness statement which may or may not be part of a conspiracy. Now the more difficult part! On to point 5.
5. How do you show a witness statement is part of a conspiracy? You attend the relevant hearing with your legal team and discuss, destroy, dispute or whatever the evidence. What you do not do is refuse to attend so that the evidence of the biggest doping story the world has seen is not heard. That is what Armstrong has done. He has walked away so that the more gullible like you, Dog, can say "He is innocent until proven guilty".
Now I am going to shock you, Dog. I really wish Armstrong was innocent.
Why? Because it is a lovely, beautiful story. How an all-American boy got cancer which spread to his brain and against all the odds survived. How he went on to be one of the most successful professional cyclists ever and raised hundreds of millions for charity. How despite cycling being completely riddled with drug taking, with whole teams doping and teams driving cars full of drugs, with doctors complicit in avoiding raps, with cycling administration being piss poor at having adequate doping controls, with the Tour de France on the point of collapse because of being totally discredited and yet and yet.
Above all of that, rode the great white hope, Lance Armstrong who despite people around him in his team doping, he was above all of that and so strong and beautiful that he won clean irrespective of everything that went on around him.
But I just can't believe that Dog, when Armstrong twists and turns, screams and brings in umpteen legal challenges to avoid attending the hearing and the evidence being put out, and then when all else fails walks away.
Tell me Dog, do you also believe in Santa Claus?
You are talking shite. Now pay attention.
1. If I make a signed statement that I saw Dog stab a bloke in the Old Kent Road that is a witness statement. Got that?
2. If 12 people make signed statements that they saw Dog stab a bloke in the Old Kent Road then things are looking very very bad for Dog. Got that? Sure?
3. However, if I say to 11 mates, look I want to get Dog sent down so I want you to say you saw that fella stab someone. That is a conspiracy. Got that?
4. To summarise then, a witness statement is a witness statement which may or may not be part of a conspiracy. Now the more difficult part! On to point 5.
5. How do you show a witness statement is part of a conspiracy? You attend the relevant hearing with your legal team and discuss, destroy, dispute or whatever the evidence. What you do not do is refuse to attend so that the evidence of the biggest doping story the world has seen is not heard. That is what Armstrong has done. He has walked away so that the more gullible like you, Dog, can say "He is innocent until proven guilty".
Now I am going to shock you, Dog. I really wish Armstrong was innocent.
Why? Because it is a lovely, beautiful story. How an all-American boy got cancer which spread to his brain and against all the odds survived. How he went on to be one of the most successful professional cyclists ever and raised hundreds of millions for charity. How despite cycling being completely riddled with drug taking, with whole teams doping and teams driving cars full of drugs, with doctors complicit in avoiding raps, with cycling administration being piss poor at having adequate doping controls, with the Tour de France on the point of collapse because of being totally discredited and yet and yet.
Above all of that, rode the great white hope, Lance Armstrong who despite people around him in his team doping, he was above all of that and so strong and beautiful that he won clean irrespective of everything that went on around him.
But I just can't believe that Dog, when Armstrong twists and turns, screams and brings in umpteen legal challenges to avoid attending the hearing and the evidence being put out, and then when all else fails walks away.
Tell me Dog, do you also believe in Santa Claus?
Re: Lance Armstrong
On the whole, I agree with David on this one. It's not enough to say that Lance Armstrong never failed a drug test, when a) he did and wriggled out of it, and b) you have to look at the evidence against him as a whole. Lance Armstrong is very rich and known to be a fighter, yet he walked away from the hearing without trying to defend himself. That speaks volumes. He's guilty.
Re: Lance Armstrong
Robches wrote:
"you have to look at the evidence against him as a whole."
Let me remind all that a court case isn't about establishing if someone is guilty it is about proving that something happened in a certain place at a certain time etc.
Funny old thing there hasn't been a full trial as yet!
And how could you "look at the evidence"??? The USADA haven't as yet released their evidence! Which is a big problem. And so with so much miss information about removing his Titles, they even believe that they have the power to take them away, I think their the one's on Drugs. They need to put the information out in to the public domain, that is what they haven't done. And who are the people saying he took drugs, no one in the public real knows who they are and what they have said. Just tit bits is all we have.
I guess your just reading the press tit bits and thinking it must be right, well lets see that "evidence" which is oddly missing at the moment, o and maybe a proper trial, IE one that is open and seen by the public, which brings up a point, why was the other trial the formal one kicked out of Court??????
So if Mr Armstrong has been taking Drugs let see some real proof, that is what I want to see. Yes if he has taken drugs then it needs dealing with, but until it is proven, you can't make him "guilty" can you?
"you have to look at the evidence against him as a whole."
Let me remind all that a court case isn't about establishing if someone is guilty it is about proving that something happened in a certain place at a certain time etc.
Funny old thing there hasn't been a full trial as yet!
And how could you "look at the evidence"??? The USADA haven't as yet released their evidence! Which is a big problem. And so with so much miss information about removing his Titles, they even believe that they have the power to take them away, I think their the one's on Drugs. They need to put the information out in to the public domain, that is what they haven't done. And who are the people saying he took drugs, no one in the public real knows who they are and what they have said. Just tit bits is all we have.
I guess your just reading the press tit bits and thinking it must be right, well lets see that "evidence" which is oddly missing at the moment, o and maybe a proper trial, IE one that is open and seen by the public, which brings up a point, why was the other trial the formal one kicked out of Court??????
So if Mr Armstrong has been taking Drugs let see some real proof, that is what I want to see. Yes if he has taken drugs then it needs dealing with, but until it is proven, you can't make him "guilty" can you?
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am