Tyler sinks the Lance
Comments
-
afx237vi wrote:If the CBS stuff contains "demonstrable falsehoods" you'd think the lawyers would, y'know, demonstrate the falsities. Or is that too obvious?
D'ya think he's banking on enough US fanboys who will continue to support him like Landis' lot did (before he 'fessed up) to make a flat-out denial a viable option?
So throwing out stuff like this keeps them happy?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:afx237vi wrote:If the CBS stuff contains "demonstrable falsehoods" you'd think the lawyers would, y'know, demonstrate the falsities. Or is that too obvious?
D'ya think he's banking on enough US fanboys who will continue to support him like Landis' lot did (before he 'fessed up) to make a flat-out denial a viable option?
So throwing out stuff like this keeps them happy?
I think that if it weren't for the threat of a trial hanging over his head he might well be heading for a tearful turn on Oprah's sofa, fess up, say sorry, ask for forgiveness "I made a mistake" etc.
That's not an option open to him at the moment though.
It's worth remembering that any trial would only really be interested in doping as a step to getting a conviction for some form of financial irregularity. But there's a long way from being able to say "yeah, he took drugs" to "he swindled the public purse". So the angle he's probably taking is to cross his fingers that a fraud conviction doesn't stick and to maintain a defence of liars/conspiracy/flawed-science at the same time - hopefully just enough to leave him with the remnants of a fanbase at the end of it all.
He's painted himself into a corner though, not really a lot of options open to him. He can deny or keep his mouth shut, that's about it.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:afx237vi wrote:If the CBS stuff contains "demonstrable falsehoods" you'd think the lawyers would, y'know, demonstrate the falsities. Or is that too obvious?
D'ya think he's banking on enough US fanboys who will continue to support him like Landis' lot did (before he 'fessed up) to make a flat-out denial a viable option?
So throwing out stuff like this keeps them happy?
.
He's painted himself into a corner though, not really a lot of options open to him. He can deny or keep his mouth shut, that's about it.
That's what I mean. For someone who is considered such an operator and player, his rhetoric has bound him to a 2 dimensional response that won't help him.
Maybe I've over-estimated his political ability, and it's more the circumtance in which he's found himself - cancer survivor come winner that has given him so much power - rather than any innate talent for anything beyond cycling.0 -
It's the massive investment that a lot of people would like to keep safe that has painted him into the corner, imo.
Meanwhile, the wheels continue to fall off:
http://www.iol.co.za/sport/cycling/feds ... -1.1077292
Saugy apparently confirmed to the feds they knew who the rider was, but says there were people at the meeting with the UCI he didn't expect to be there...
Even if nothing sticks from this it at least corroborates some of the testimony of Landis and Hamilton. We wouldn't even have heard about it if Landis hadn't told us.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
The thing i find odd in the reports about the Swiss is the phrase "suspicious results". Does that mean "close to the limit for failing the test - enough to suggest doping - but not QUITE there"? If so, then what value is this information? None I'd say. Although the meeting looks dodgy, if it wasn't actually a failed test, then there is no cover up.0
-
Well CBS saying they wont.60 MINUTES stands by its story as truthful, accurate and fair. Lance Armstrong and his lawyers were given numerous opportunities to respond to every detail of our reporting for weeks prior to the broadcast and their written responses were fairly and accurately included in the story. Mr. Armstrong still has not addressed charges by teammates Tyler Hamilton and George Hincapie that he used performance enhancing drugs with them.
1) The letter from Keker & Van Nest, Mr. Armstrong's attorneys, claims that there was no “positive” or “suspicious” test from the 2001 Tour de Suisse:
Mr. Armstrong's teammate, Tyler Hamilton, told 60 MINUTES about the 2001 Tour de Suisse test. Included in his interview are the same facts that Hamilton reported under oath to U.S. federal officials under the penalty of perjury.
60 MINUTES also reported that the Swiss Anti-Doping Laboratory Director, Dr. Martial Saugy, told U.S. officials and the FBI that that there was a “suspicious” test result from the Tour de Suisse in 2001.
This was confirmed by a number of international officials who have linked the "suspicious" test to Armstrong. In recent days, Dr. Saugy finally confirmed to the media that there were "suspicious" test results.
2) The letter from Armstrong’s attorneys claims that 60 MINUTES was inaccurate in reporting about a meeting between Dr. Saugy, Mr. Armstrong and former U.S. Postal Team Director, Johan Bruyneel:
60 Minutes reported there was a meeting between Dr. Saugy, Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Bruyneel. Dr. Saugy refused our requests for an interview, but after the broadcast he confirmed that the meeting took place. Mr. Armstrong, after our broadcast, said he couldn’t recall that any such meeting took place.
3) Mr. Armstrong's lawyers claim our story was "shoddy," while we found at least three inaccuracies in their letter:
They claimed that 60 MINUTES reported the meeting took place at the Swiss lab; they claimed that 60 MINUTES reported the meeting took place in 2001; and they claimed that 60 MINUTES said it was a "secret" meeting. All three are wrong.
David Howman, managing director of the World Anti-Doping Agency, told 60 MINUTES that any meeting between Mr.Armstrong, Mr. Brunyeel and the Swiss lab director, Dr. Saugy, would be "highly unusual” and “inappropriate.”
Jeff Fager, chairman, CBS News, executive producer, 60 MINUTESContador is the Greatest0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Well CBS saying they wont.60 MINUTES stands by its story as truthful, accurate and fair. Lance Armstrong and his lawyers were given numerous opportunities to respond to every detail of our reporting for weeks prior to the broadcast and their written responses were fairly and accurately included in the story. Mr. Armstrong still has not addressed charges by teammates Tyler Hamilton and George Hincapie that he used performance enhancing drugs with them.
1) The letter from Keker & Van Nest, Mr. Armstrong's attorneys, claims that there was no “positive” or “suspicious” test from the 2001 Tour de Suisse:
Mr. Armstrong's teammate, Tyler Hamilton, told 60 MINUTES about the 2001 Tour de Suisse test. Included in his interview are the same facts that Hamilton reported under oath to U.S. federal officials under the penalty of perjury.
60 MINUTES also reported that the Swiss Anti-Doping Laboratory Director, Dr. Martial Saugy, told U.S. officials and the FBI that that there was a “suspicious” test result from the Tour de Suisse in 2001.
This was confirmed by a number of international officials who have linked the "suspicious" test to Armstrong. In recent days, Dr. Saugy finally confirmed to the media that there were "suspicious" test results.
2) The letter from Armstrong’s attorneys claims that 60 MINUTES was inaccurate in reporting about a meeting between Dr. Saugy, Mr. Armstrong and former U.S. Postal Team Director, Johan Bruyneel:
60 Minutes reported there was a meeting between Dr. Saugy, Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Bruyneel. Dr. Saugy refused our requests for an interview, but after the broadcast he confirmed that the meeting took place. Mr. Armstrong, after our broadcast, said he couldn’t recall that any such meeting took place.
3) Mr. Armstrong's lawyers claim our story was "shoddy," while we found at least three inaccuracies in their letter:
They claimed that 60 MINUTES reported the meeting took place at the Swiss lab; they claimed that 60 MINUTES reported the meeting took place in 2001; and they claimed that 60 MINUTES said it was a "secret" meeting. All three are wrong.
David Howman, managing director of the World Anti-Doping Agency, told 60 MINUTES that any meeting between Mr.Armstrong, Mr. Brunyeel and the Swiss lab director, Dr. Saugy, would be "highly unusual” and “inappropriate.”
Jeff Fager, chairman, CBS News, executive producer, 60 MINUTES
i guess large media corporations are much harder to bully....0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:
I think that if it weren't for the threat of a trial hanging over his head he might well be heading for a tearful turn on Oprah's sofa, fess up, say sorry, ask for forgiveness "I made a mistake" etc.
That's not an option open to him at the moment though.
.
True - Oprah's show has finished.
Seen the latest toto?(230)0 -
It's more likely to go the barry bonds way, with a conviction of something wussy like obstruction of justice rather than the marian jones crying on the stairs...0
-
Man, Floyd on twitter is cracking value.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
-
iainf72 wrote:Man, Floyd on twitter is cracking value.
can't find him .....@floydlandis has no posts since 09.0 -
-
I dread to think of what our Net Filter will make of the term "Manrod"
(If anyone wants me, I'll probably be down in the HR director's office -"Look, "Manrod" is nothing to do with pr0n, its about drug......oh bugger, that doesn't help matters, does it?")'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
Have we just identified our mystery Cav Hater?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
LangerDan wrote:I dread to think of what our Net Filter will make of the term "Manrod"
The filter will have more problems with the actual tweets. Let's just say his sense of humour owes more to straight-to-video frat boy comedies than Oscar Wilde. (Personally, I think he comes across as a bit of a moron, playing up to his newly acquired fanboys).Twitter: @RichN950 -
Is he drunk or is it always like that?0
-
It was more than i deserved manRick Chasey wrote:It's more likely to go the barry bonds way, with a conviction of something wussy like obstruction of justice rather than the marian jones crying on the stairs...0 -
-
Blimey 'Manrod' is a nutter. I'm sure his testimony wont be ripped to pieces in court eh ?0
-
"@markcavendish now there's a little mini retard we could do without"
he uses the word retard a bit too often, he's boring me. im guessing he has a problem with cav because he's very anti-doping? and he's friendly with lance isn't he?0 -
B3rnieMac wrote:"@markcavendish now there's a little mini retard we could do without"
he uses the word retard a bit too often, he's boring me. im guessing he has a problem with cav because he's very anti-doping? and he's friendly with lance isn't he?
The retard thing is from when he accused Lance's spokeman of going "full retard"
Why would he have a problem with someone who's anti-doping? He doesn't like hypocrites much, but I think it's more the friendship with Lance + Cavendish saying he hoped Ricco went to prison and was someones girlfriend in prison.
GrayManrod just kind of mirrors was Lance and his crew of astroturfers do. Every now and then he posts some hints about things - He mentioned the 60 minutes things a long time ago.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
He's just made me laugh out loud with his comments on Graham Watson.0
-
It's pretty funny that Landis grabbed the Facts4Lance twitter account for himself, because LA's people forgot to register it before launching the website.0
-
He told me to fuck off, AND called me a retard. LANCE WAS RIGHT.0
-
iainf72 wrote:
Why would he have a problem with someone who's anti-doping? He doesn't like hypocrites much, but I think it's more the friendship with Lance + Cavendish saying he hoped Ricco went to prison and was someones girlfriend in prison.
GrayManrod just kind of mirrors was Lance and his crew of astroturfers do. Every now and then he posts some hints about things - He mentioned the 60 minutes things a long time ago.
He must hate himself on that basis, he was a complete two faced liar while it suited him, he only found the light when he couldn't get a job.I don't have much sympathy for him. Retard, Epic, Retard, Epic, people really find that worth their time?0 -
cajun_cyclist wrote:Back to charity:
Litigation is one thing, I would hope for the most part, charities in the USA would be following more stringent requirements like Feed The Children
....
On the subject of Livestrong, here's an interesting piece written by a US Professor of Accounting who specialises in the detection of financial statement fraud, and who runs the "FraudBytes" business law blog. The LiveStrong references start about 1/3 of the way down:-
http://fraudbytes.blogspot.com/2011/06/ ... s-and.html
Nothing new there to anyone who has followed this closely, but it's of note that someone with his credentials is writing it.0
