JTL
Comments
-
RichN95 wrote:
He talks about it in the Humans Invert podcast. Basically, he was unsure as to whether to run the story as wasn't particularly fair on JTL, who had the right to expect the process not to be leaked (it probably came from within the UCI). However, after discussing it with his editor they decided that they not only had to run the story but to do it bigger than it probably merited because of the common part ownership between the Sunday Times and Sky.rayjay wrote:Thanks for that Rich. I never knew that so I Apologise for that error.
It's a bit Strange that it did come out then. Sometimes the press do shut up shop.
With what's happened with Armstrong any Cycling doped type story is worth a few lines.
I wonder if Walsh would report it now given his new founded Sky status.
That does seem a bit harsh. The Process should not be leaked.
But news is news and if it makes a splash.
Could JTL sue Walsh if he his cleared ? The innuendo is that of doping.0 -
rich pcp wrote:Hi everyone. My abject apologies for naively resurrecting this thread prematurely by asking when a decision will be made.
I had no idea that such a simple request would spawn another 10 pages of nonsense when absolutely nothing new has been put in the public domain.
The internet is truly a bizarre place sometimes.
^POST OF THE THREAD
Well said, rich0 -
rayjay wrote:That does seem a bit harsh. The Process should not be leaked.
But news is news and if it makes a splash.
Could JTL sue Walsh if he his cleared ? The innuendo is that of doping.
Seriously Rayjay?
Read that post back. Reread your earlier posts. Then reread that post again.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
He couldn't sue Walsh. What he wrote was true. It's not his fault - he's not part of the process - it's whoever leaked it to him (and Walsh hasn't said where it came from - the UCI is my best guess)rayjay wrote:That does seem a bit harsh. The Process should not be leaked.
But news is news and if it makes a splash.
Could JTL sue Walsh if he his cleared ? The innuendo is that of doping.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Yellow Peril wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:cougie wrote:What can sky say ? They aren't the ones analysing the passport.
The only thing to say at the moment is nothing - at least until the results come back.
Same thing with court cases - they don't comment on that until we have a verdict. Its a simple concept ?
I'm not aware of a concept of not commenting in court cases, no? Whereby does the law forbid participants talking? (with the exception of jury deliberation). If one that public interest is important then there is nothing prohibiting a participant talking or making a statement.
Oh dear, I thought you were a lawyer...I was obviously mistaken. Look up sub judice.
I'm a lawyer, I think Sky have said as much as they should pending the outcome of this investigation.
You're a lawyer and you wish to apply sub judice in this instance?
As I've stated. JTL is not at trial phase nor at arbitration.
He is at the "please explain" portion of the process.
Not sure how one would apply a "gag order" order unless UCI rules prevent the parties from speaking?
Thoughts?0 -
RichN95 wrote:
He couldn't sue Walsh. What he wrote was true. It's not his fault - he's not part of the process - it's whoever leaked it to him (and Walsh hasn't said where it came from - the UCI is my best guess)rayjay wrote:That does seem a bit harsh. The Process should not be leaked.
But news is news and if it makes a splash.
Could JTL sue Walsh if he his cleared ? The innuendo is that of doping.
Its an interesting question.
The leaking is of little relevance. They are Walsh's printed words.
But I think not. Opinion is the right of anyone. And JTL did indeed have a letter. So Walsh was right. Not false.
Now unless JTL lost his contract without being suspended. Then JTL could infer that Walsh lead to a loss of income through his words.
Perhaps. But a long bow to be drawn at that.0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:cougie wrote:What can sky say ? They aren't the ones analysing the passport.
The only thing to say at the moment is nothing - at least until the results come back.
Same thing with court cases - they don't comment on that until we have a verdict. Its a simple concept ?
I'm not aware of a concept of not commenting in court cases, no? Whereby does the law forbid participants talking? (with the exception of jury deliberation). If one that public interest is important then there is nothing prohibiting a participant talking or making a statement.
Oh dear, I thought you were a lawyer...I was obviously mistaken. Look up sub judice.
I'm a lawyer, I think Sky have said as much as they should pending the outcome of this investigation.
You're a lawyer and you wish to apply sub judice in this instance?
As I've stated. JTL is not at trial phase nor at arbitration.
He is at the "please explain" portion of the process.
Not sure how one would apply a "gag order" order unless UCI rules prevent the parties from speaking?
Thoughts?
My, you're a prevaricating, dissembling piece of work.0 -
Coriander wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:cougie wrote:What can sky say ? They aren't the ones analysing the passport.
The only thing to say at the moment is nothing - at least until the results come back.
Same thing with court cases - they don't comment on that until we have a verdict. Its a simple concept ?
I'm not aware of a concept of not commenting in court cases, no? Whereby does the law forbid participants talking? (with the exception of jury deliberation). If one that public interest is important then there is nothing prohibiting a participant talking or making a statement.
Oh dear, I thought you were a lawyer...I was obviously mistaken. Look up sub judice.
I'm a lawyer, I think Sky have said as much as they should pending the outcome of this investigation.
You're a lawyer and you wish to apply sub judice in this instance?
As I've stated. JTL is not at trial phase nor at arbitration.
He is at the "please explain" portion of the process.
Not sure how one would apply a "gag order" order unless UCI rules prevent the parties from speaking?
Thoughts?
My, you're a prevaricating, dissembling piece of work.
I stand by my words.
Or if you wish to argue different?
An employer is well within its right to comment on one of its employees under investigation, yes? or in court for that matter.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:rich pcp wrote:Hi everyone. My abject apologies for naively resurrecting this thread prematurely by asking when a decision will be made.
I had no idea that such a simple request would spawn another 10 pages of nonsense when absolutely nothing new has been put in the public domain.
The internet is truly a bizarre place sometimes.
^POST OF THE THREAD
Well said, rich
+1
Someone give me a nudge to check this thread when there are some facts pertaining to the case in hand.Contador is the Greatest0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:rich pcp wrote:Hi everyone. My abject apologies for naively resurrecting this thread prematurely by asking when a decision will be made.
I had no idea that such a simple request would spawn another 10 pages of nonsense when absolutely nothing new has been put in the public domain.
The internet is truly a bizarre place sometimes.
^POST OF THE THREAD
Well said, rich
+1
Someone give me a nudge to check this thread when there are some facts pertaining to the case in hand.
Well according to you guys we are not privy to those facts and we should wait.
Might as well close down the thread until then
0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:Well according to you guys we are not privy to those facts and we should wait.
Sure you said that too. Absolutely. 100%
Remember?whiteboytrash wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:The UCI investigate under their code, which affords the rider privacy at this time, then publicly release their decision.
Sky then "act", if necessary, in response to said UCI findings.
Why is their any confusion over this?
I suspect the answer is that there isn't.
This I agree with, absolutely. 100%.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:Well according to you guys we are not privy to those facts and we should wait.
Sure you said that too. Absolutely. 100%
Remember?whiteboytrash wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:The UCI investigate under their code, which affords the rider privacy at this time, then publicly release their decision.
Sky then "act", if necessary, in response to said UCI findings.
Why is their any confusion over this?
I suspect the answer is that there isn't.
This I agree with, absolutely. 100%.
Of course I agree to this. Why would I not after McQuaid/Cookson and co. made a joke of due process for years.
But I also believe in openness and transparency which was a part of the Cookson election manifesto:
Revolutionise our approach to anti-doping
Embrace openness and transparency0 -
WBT. I truly am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but I can't see how you can reconcile a 100% agreement to rider privacy during the UCI investigation but at the same time feel entitled to updates from Sky on what JTL will be submitting as an explanation.
It makes no sense whatsoever.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:WBT. I truly am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but I can't see how you can reconcile a 100% agreement to rider privacy during the UCI investigation but at the same time feel entitled to updates from Sky on what JTL will be submitting as an explanation.
It makes no sense whatsoever.
You don't need to give me anything.
Look if this wasn't a Sky rider what would your thoughts be?
Would you want to know what's going on?
And what's this rider privacy business? What's that mean?
If JTL truly has a legitimate reason for his anomalies then out with it. I understand they don't want trial by media but that's not going to happen here.
If he does have a BS excuse and it remains private then you should feel cheated that the team you support is BS'ing you. Because there is a lot of talk of openness and transparency but its not really happening is it?0 -
TailWindHome wrote:rayjay wrote:That does seem a bit harsh. The Process should not be leaked.
But news is news and if it makes a splash.
Could JTL sue Walsh if he his cleared ? The innuendo is that of doping.
Seriously Rayjay?
Read that post back. Reread your earlier posts. Then reread that post again.
Could you explain? I am willing to listen and learn and take back any errors I have made.
How the Press behave and a discussion on a forum based on the info that I now know was leaked does still not change my opinion of events concerning JTL.
I can't now pretend I don't know he his Bio has irregularities.
Just makes my statements about the media and their story first consequences later approach seem more justified.
That's why I said it was a bit harsh on JTL if nothing is found.
But we do know and it's a forum and a talking point.0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:
If JTL truly has a legitimate reason for his anomalies then out with it. I understand they don't want trial by media but that's not going to happen here.
If he does have a BS excuse and it remains private then you should feel cheated that the team you support is BS'ing you. Because there is a lot of talk of openness and transparency but its not really happening is it?
1. Sky are not the defendant - they are a third party that really has to stay out of the case
2. This case will not be decided by the public and especially not you
3. The most effective way to jeopardise a fair hearing is to put information in the public domain.
4. 'Transparency' is not a justification for breaching medical ethics, legal ethics and employment law just to placate an anonymous internet poster.
MOD EDIT - Cut out the personal insultsTwitter: @RichN950 -
I just don't understand what Sky/WADA/UCI/CAS et al are playing at. Don't they realise that a proper soap opera requires regular plot updates? You can't just have one episode then have to wait months and months for the denouement - where's the entertainment value in that?
Other than that:
The Sky is flat.
Some of my best forum friends are rats.
Shame on Sky-loving Frenchie for trying to shut the debate down with his JTL pics.
We really do need to ask the deep and difficult questions here. Like:
What am I doing here?
How the f*** is this thread still going on?
Why? Why? Why, Delilah?Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
RichN95 wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:
If JTL truly has a legitimate reason for his anomalies then out with it. I understand they don't want trial by media but that's not going to happen here.
If he does have a BS excuse and it remains private then you should feel cheated that the team you support is BS'ing you. Because there is a lot of talk of openness and transparency but its not really happening is it?
1. Sky are not the defendant - they are a third party that really has to stay out of the case
2. This case will not be decided by the public and especially not you
3. The most effective way to jeopardise a fair hearing is to put information in the public domain.
4. 'Transparency' is not a justification for breaching medical ethics, legal ethics and employment law just to placate an anonymous internet poster.
MOD EDIT - Cut out the personal insults
But I also think you don't actually believe what you wrote. Your just going on mob rule and wanting to support whatever Sky decide to do.
Per point 4.
If one looks at the specialized debate currently going on. There's a lot of anonymous internet posters requesting transparency in that particular instance.
Or is that different?
I'm also not sure anonymity has anything to do with it. Why would it be any different who gave their name to not giving ones name?
I'm not following that logic.
Per point 2.
Not entirely correct. Public opinion is a very important facet in the decision making process. Without it we wouldn't have democracy would we? Judges and arbitrators always garnish public sentiment and what is important for the greater good in decision making. Yes they apply the law however parliament which is public representation and is the supreme law making body. In this case UCI license holders have the right to effect change.
McQuaid's EGM was a classic example of "the public" inserting themselves into the decision making process and effecting change.
Yes?
Per point 3.
I disagree. The judiciary is public by its very nature. That is its foundation. That you will be judged by your peers. The individual if they wish also has the choice for it to be a public hearing. The Commons hearings are held in public. Our courts are also public for those who wish to sit in the public gallery. Arbitration also is generally judged by at least one lay person who can represent public opinion and sentiment.
You appear to have lost your brains on this one.
Per point 1.
Sky should represent zero tolerance anti-doping cycling or whatever they call it this week. They have a vested interest and is the employer of JTL. They should be involved. And I would presume have bankrolled the kid with doctors and excuses to jam down the committee's throats.0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:TailWindHome wrote:WBT. I truly am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but I can't see how you can reconcile a 100% agreement to rider privacy during the UCI investigation but at the same time feel entitled to updates from Sky on what JTL will be submitting as an explanation.
It makes no sense whatsoever.
You don't need to give me anything. I'm afraid I do. In spite of all evidence to the contrary I have to assume you're not just trolling and are actually interested in a discussion if I'm to engage with you.
Look if this wasn't a Sky rider what would your thoughts be? Same. Pointing out weaknesses in your argument shouldn't be brushed aside with the banal assumption that I'm a Sky fan. I'm not. I'm impressed with their approach to GT riding but find it a bit boring. I'm also not British so have no national bias.
Would you want to know what's going on? I much prefer that the process is followed and the findings made public at the end rather than during. It's also more preferably that Sky, the UCI and the rider don't try to fight this case in the media. We had enough of that with Lance.
And what's this rider privacy business? What's that mean? Primarily the both the UCI and Sky refrain from public statements outside of what is a necessary part of the process. That said you should have a good understanding of what it means as you have agreed with it. Absolutely. 100%
If JTL truly has a legitimate reason for his anomalies then out with it. By 'out with it' do you mean present it to the UCI investigation? Surely you don't want Sky/JTL (or the UCI) subverting the process by publishing details of the investigation to the media?
I understand they don't want trial by media but that's not going to happen here.
If he does have a BS excuse and it remains private then you should feel cheated that the team you support is BS'ing you. Because there is a lot of talk of openness and transparency but its not really happening is it?
As pointed out above I don't support Sky in any particular way. Though I'm looking forward to seein Deignan back in the big time. More to the point I'm not that emotionally involved that I would feel personally cheated.
It's interesting that you use the word 'excuse' instead of explanation. It really does reveal a certain bias.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:
Sky should represent zero tolerance anti-doping cycling or whatever they call it this week. They have a vested interest and is the employer of JTL. They should be involved. And I would presume have bankrolled the kid with doctors and excuses to jam down the committee's throats.
Sounds like you've decided he's guilty already? If Sky were involved, then it would be a case of them trying to manage to an outcome. If they're not it's a different stick to beat them with.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:
Sky should represent zero tolerance anti-doping cycling or whatever they call it this week. They have a vested interest and is the employer of JTL. They should be involved. And I would presume have bankrolled the kid with doctors and excuses to jam down the committee's throats.
Sounds like you've decided he's guilty already? If Sky were involved, then it would be a case of them trying to manage to an outcome. If they're not it's a different stick to beat them with.
Not at all. I actually think in this case he's not doping. (well I should elaborate but later on).
But the passport process is fairly useless. Providing an over abundance of information will see him through.
If there's a thread on how the passport process plays out its worth understanding. There's a lot of cracks in the system.
Not that it means JTL is doping but its fairly hard to be found guilty.
Target testing is another thing though.0 -
iainf72 wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:
Sky should represent zero tolerance anti-doping cycling or whatever they call it this week. They have a vested interest and is the employer of JTL. They should be involved. And I would presume have bankrolled the kid with doctors and excuses to jam down the committee's throats.
Sounds like you've decided he's guilty already? If Sky were involved, then it would be a case of them trying to manage to an outcome. If they're not it's a different stick to beat them with.
There you go then. If he is guilty it is Sky's fault, they made him do it. If the committee find he has no case to answer it is because Sky bankrolled him with doctors and excuses, so...still guilty. You could not make this stuff up, If it were a 5 year old coming up with this I could possibly understand.
MOD EDIT - Cut out the personal insults0 -
mike6 wrote:iainf72 wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:
Sky should represent zero tolerance anti-doping cycling or whatever they call it this week. They have a vested interest and is the employer of JTL. They should be involved. And I would presume have bankrolled the kid with doctors and excuses to jam down the committee's throats.
Sounds like you've decided he's guilty already? If Sky were involved, then it would be a case of them trying to manage to an outcome. If they're not it's a different stick to beat them with.
There you go then. If he is guilty it is Sky's fault, they made him do it. If the committee find he has no case to answer it is because Sky bankrolled him with doctors and excuses, so...still guilty. You could not make this stuff up, If it were a 5 year old coming up with this I could possibly understand.
MOD EDIT - Cut out the personal insults
You miss my point.
Or more likely you don't understand the passport process.
At this point you need to create doubt in the committee's minds that the anomaly is something else other than doping. Be it sickness, natural causes or what have you.
If they can't categorically say it was doping then you're home free.
So yes. Jam information from several different sources down their throats from multiple experts will get you there....three experts have a unanimous conclusion that it is “highly likely that a prohibited substance or prohibited method had been used and unlikely that it is the result of any other cause”
Well worth reading the process here: http://inrng.com/2013/10/uci-bio-passpo ... nan-locke/0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:cougie wrote:What can sky say ? They aren't the ones analysing the passport.
The only thing to say at the moment is nothing - at least until the results come back.
Same thing with court cases - they don't comment on that until we have a verdict. Its a simple concept ?
I'm not aware of a concept of not commenting in court cases, no? Whereby does the law forbid participants talking? (with the exception of jury deliberation). If one that public interest is important then there is nothing prohibiting a participant talking or making a statement.
Oh dear, I thought you were a lawyer...I was obviously mistaken. Look up sub judice.
I'm a lawyer, I think Sky have said as much as they should pending the outcome of this investigation.
You're a lawyer and you wish to apply sub judice in this instance?
As I've stated. JTL is not at trial phase nor at arbitration.
He is at the "please explain" portion of the process.
Not sure how one would apply a "gag order" order unless UCI rules prevent the parties from speaking?
Thoughts?
I never said it applied in this instance. re-read what you wrote and I highlighted in bold above. Sub-judice does apply in court cases but as you wrote you weren't aware of that. That is what you wrote isn't it? There is no mistake now is there?
My comment on sub judice which you were blissfully unaware of and my opinion that Sky have said enough are not related. that is something that you have read into my post which is as good a demonstration, if one were needed, as to why Sky should say no more at present.
Thanks0 -
Hehe“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
Yellow Peril wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:cougie wrote:What can sky say ? They aren't the ones analysing the passport.
The only thing to say at the moment is nothing - at least until the results come back.
Same thing with court cases - they don't comment on that until we have a verdict. Its a simple concept ?
I'm not aware of a concept of not commenting in court cases, no? Whereby does the law forbid participants talking? (with the exception of jury deliberation). If one that public interest is important then there is nothing prohibiting a participant talking or making a statement.
Oh dear, I thought you were a lawyer...I was obviously mistaken. Look up sub judice.
I'm a lawyer, I think Sky have said as much as they should pending the outcome of this investigation.
You're a lawyer and you wish to apply sub judice in this instance?
As I've stated. JTL is not at trial phase nor at arbitration.
He is at the "please explain" portion of the process.
Not sure how one would apply a "gag order" order unless UCI rules prevent the parties from speaking?
Thoughts?
I never said it applied in this instance. re-read what you wrote and I highlighted in bold above. Sub-judice does apply in court cases but as you wrote you weren't aware of that. That is what you wrote isn't it? There is no mistake now is there?
My comment on sub judice which you were blissfully unaware of and my opinion that Sky have said enough are not related. that is something that you have read into my post which is as good a demonstration, if one were needed, as to why Sky should say no more at present.
Thanks
Thanks for the follow up.
Sub Judice as you present is outdated and largely irrelevant. I think what you were trying to presuppose was contempt of court?
My comment that one is allowed to comment is valid. It's the norm for comment to occur. There is no law prohibiting making comment on court proceedings. In fact the courts fully allow commentary of trials which are of "public interest".
Whole hardly agree that one should never prejudice hearing by making strong statements or lying. Someone brought up Armstrong and his tactics. A valid point. However in he US one is protected by the first and as such those types of persuasive techniques are considered legitimate.
More recently in Australia there has been instances of media commentators making public comment on the guilt and innocence of those on trial. They were duly dealt with. But those comments threatened a mistrial which was not in "the publics interest".
In JTL's context he has yet to be charged. True no one should know at this point that he has a letter. But we do. That cannot be changed. Thus there (in my belief) should be comment from Sky.
It's a personal opinion. Doesn't mean everyone will agree with me. But I don't subscribe to shutting down the debate entirely on the discussion. That's a very important part of a democracy.0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:cougie wrote:What can sky say ? They aren't the ones analysing the passport.
The only thing to say at the moment is nothing - at least until the results come back.
Same thing with court cases - they don't comment on that until we have a verdict. Its a simple concept ?
I'm not aware of a concept of not commenting in court cases, no? Whereby does the law forbid participants talking? (with the exception of jury deliberation). If one that public interest is important then there is nothing prohibiting a participant talking or making a statement.
Oh dear, I thought you were a lawyer...I was obviously mistaken. Look up sub judice.
I'm a lawyer, I think Sky have said as much as they should pending the outcome of this investigation.
You're a lawyer and you wish to apply sub judice in this instance?
As I've stated. JTL is not at trial phase nor at arbitration.
He is at the "please explain" portion of the process.
Not sure how one would apply a "gag order" order unless UCI rules prevent the parties from speaking?
Thoughts?
I never said it applied in this instance. re-read what you wrote and I highlighted in bold above. Sub-judice does apply in court cases but as you wrote you weren't aware of that. That is what you wrote isn't it? There is no mistake now is there?
My comment on sub judice which you were blissfully unaware of and my opinion that Sky have said enough are not related. that is something that you have read into my post which is as good a demonstration, if one were needed, as to why Sky should say no more at present.
Thanks
Thanks for the follow up.
Sub Judice as you present is outdated and largely irrelevant. I think what you were trying to presuppose was contempt of court?
Then some smoke screen waffle
.
You really are starting to show your backside on this. Sub judice is a contempt of court. I don't present it in any way other than to highlight a principle of law that you were ignorant of. Now here you are pontificating that it is outdated and largely irrelevant. :roll:
EDIT: I see your "outdated and irrelevant " take on sub judice is a crib from Wikipedia. Priceless! I should really do away with reference to the Common Law and Halsbury's Laws of England in my day job!
You are stumbling punch drunk and bloodied around the ring on this point. You are losing whatever credibility you had. Throw the towel in and go home.
Oh and you get to have the last say. I know when to call it a day.0 -
Yellow Peril wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:cougie wrote:What can sky say ? They aren't the ones analysing the passport.
The only thing to say at the moment is nothing - at least until the results come back.
Same thing with court cases - they don't comment on that until we have a verdict. Its a simple concept ?
I'm not aware of a concept of not commenting in court cases, no? Whereby does the law forbid participants talking? (with the exception of jury deliberation). If one that public interest is important then there is nothing prohibiting a participant talking or making a statement.
Oh dear, I thought you were a lawyer...I was obviously mistaken. Look up sub judice.
I'm a lawyer, I think Sky have said as much as they should pending the outcome of this investigation.
You're a lawyer and you wish to apply sub judice in this instance?
As I've stated. JTL is not at trial phase nor at arbitration.
He is at the "please explain" portion of the process.
Not sure how one would apply a "gag order" order unless UCI rules prevent the parties from speaking?
Thoughts?
I never said it applied in this instance. re-read what you wrote and I highlighted in bold above. Sub-judice does apply in court cases but as you wrote you weren't aware of that. That is what you wrote isn't it? There is no mistake now is there?
My comment on sub judice which you were blissfully unaware of and my opinion that Sky have said enough are not related. that is something that you have read into my post which is as good a demonstration, if one were needed, as to why Sky should say no more at present.
Thanks
Thanks for the follow up.
Sub Judice as you present is outdated and largely irrelevant. I think what you were trying to presuppose was contempt of court?
Then some smoke screen waffle
.
You really are starting to show your backside on this. Sub judice is a contempt of court. I don't present it in any way other than to highlight a principle of law that you were ignorant of. Now here you are pontificating that it is outdated and largely irrelevant. :roll:
EDIT: I see your "outdated and irrelevant " take on sub judice is a crib from Wikipedia. Priceless! I should really do away with reference to the Common Law and Halsbury's Laws of England in my day job!
You are stumbling punch drunk and bloodied around the ring on this point. You are losing whatever credibility you had. Throw the towel in and go home.
Oh and you get to have the last say. I know when to call it a day.
"I'm a lawyer", "you are ignorant", "you are stumbling punch drunk and bloodied around the ring", "you are losing whatever credibility you had", "throw the towel in and go home".
Odd selection of insults and putdowns.
You are taking this a little too seriously are you not?
May I remind you that your role in the law is to advise not to judge.
You are no more above the law than anyone else.
Its also nice to know that the common folk just like myself, according to you the lawyer, are not entitled to our own opinions and have no access to the law because we are too stupid.
Charming.
Matters it not. JTL has not been charged and this is not court of law proceedings.
Sky should comment and provide openness and transparency on the case.
Its not a difficult concept to understand. Even for a lawyer! :P0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:Sky should comment and provide openness and transparency on the case.
Butwhiteboytrash wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:The UCI investigate under their code, which affords the rider privacy at this time, then publicly release their decision.
Sky then "act", if necessary, in response to said UCI findings.
Why is their any confusion over this?
I suspect the answer is that there isn't.
This I agree with, absolutely. 100%.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:You are taking this a little too seriously are you not?
The final move in the Troll playbook.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
This discussion has been closed.
