USADA files doping charges against Lance

rick_chasey

Dave_1 wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

IanLD wrote:

Didn't see your point as trolling at all. Nothing wrong with asking the question or the manner in which it was asked.

symo's response if anything was more in a trolling nature, but I'm sure it wasn't meant that way either...

Hope we get as far as hearing some of the evidence under whatever kind of oath is taken!

Think we are reliant on Bruyneel going to arbitration for that. And with the steady trickle of info and then Hamiltons book this week I can't see that happening. Think he will do an Armstrong.

I am wondering if Bruyneel is asking for the arbitration just so as the current riders who confessed will be identified and the UCI will exact revenge on them with career ending bans and stripping of wins. Bruyneel has zero chance of a win against USADA so why do it?

He's working for the UCI to wriggle out of trouble?

Whatever happens, his involvement in any competitive bike race will be zero from now.

dave_1

Rick Chasey wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

IanLD wrote:

Didn't see your point as trolling at all. Nothing wrong with asking the question or the manner in which it was asked.

symo's response if anything was more in a trolling nature, but I'm sure it wasn't meant that way either...

Hope we get as far as hearing some of the evidence under whatever kind of oath is taken!

Think we are reliant on Bruyneel going to arbitration for that. And with the steady trickle of info and then Hamiltons book this week I can't see that happening. Think he will do an Armstrong.

I am wondering if Bruyneel is asking for the arbitration just so as the current riders who confessed will be identified and the UCI will exact revenge on them with career ending bans and stripping of wins. Bruyneel has zero chance of a win against USADA so why do it?

He's working for the UCI to wriggle out of trouble?

Whatever happens, his involvement in any competitive bike race will be zero from now.

I guess UCI will not appeal.....the story will die sooner. I wonder what type of contact Bruyneel and Lance still have? This must be putting a sever strain on them...but I just can't see Lance confessing, it's too late..feds will arrest him and he'll be bankrupt eh?

symo

IanLD wrote:

Didn't see your point as trolling at all. Nothing wrong with asking the question or the manner in which it was asked.

symo's response if anything was more in a trolling nature, but I'm sure it wasn't meant that way either...

Hope we get as far as hearing some of the evidence under whatever kind of oath is taken!

Bing, I was merely pointing out an argument that had nothing to do with the point being made.
I don't care if someone is swearing on the bible,quaran, bhagavad gita or ladybird book of numbers as long as it is the truth and can be backed up by whereabouts or other side evidence.

At the moment this is now just a PR war being waged by armstrong; his back is up against the wall now as Fat Pat is trying to distance himself, however if Pat disagree's with USADA then the whole of cycling at the olympics is at stake.

bompington

symo wrote:

I don't care if someone is swearing on the bible,quaran, bhagavad gita or ladybird book of numbers as long as it is the truth and can be backed up by whereabouts or other side evidence.

Funnily enough, neither do the courts... I don't know if it ever used to be a requirement, but it's certainly optional now. Dare I suggest that wraps up this cul-de-sac?

le_patron

If LA confessed, would that automatically bring in the feds again ? I am not sure what mechanism would pick that up again.
But if true, then there is no value whatseover in confessing, even in the face of looking completely ridiculous to David Icke levels. Better to be a complete crackpot and not be in jail.

And what about the Landis whistleblower case ? I understood that just sat there quietly on the back-burner and could be progressed at any point. Surely the mountain of evidence there seems to be means that can't go away.

symo

I think who ever told novitsky (sic) to back off, must be crapping it. Especially if the evidence shows a clear link between all the USPS crew and movement of federal funds for doping products.

RichN95.

symo wrote:

I think who ever told novitsky (sic) to back off, must be crapping it. Especially if the evidence shows a clear link between all the USPS crew and movement of federal funds for doping products.

The team didn't use federal funds for anything. They used their own money. Once US Postal had paid the team for advertising, which they got, the money ceased to be federal funds.

I'm a civil servant. I get paid by the government. If I go and blow my wages on the horses, that's my business. I'm not misusing government money.

rick_chasey

Some of you law fans would be interested in this post:

viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=12874141&start=100#p17844251

Vino'sGhost

RichN95 wrote:

symo wrote:

I think who ever told novitsky (sic) to back off, must be crapping it. Especially if the evidence shows a clear link between all the USPS crew and movement of federal funds for doping products.

The USPS didn't use federal funds for anything. They used their own money. Once US Postal had paid the team for advertising, which they got, the money ceased to be federal funds.

I'm a civil servant. I get paid by the government. If I go and blow my wages on the horses, that's my business. I'm not misusing government money.

hmmm at work now are you blowing my taxes like all the other work shy government skivers, thats missusing government money.