I don't believe Lance Armstrong and I never will...

EKE_38BPM

I'm thinking DDD has missed his calling and should have been a lawyer. He could then get paid to twist the available evidence and attempt to persuade others that his point of view is correct, despite, not because of, the evidence.

Troll.

I'm out.

gabriel959

DDD, doping charges don't work like normal criminal charges. You are guilty unless you can prove your innocence. Same as Contadope, they caught clen in his body, he decided to fight the charge but his excuses weren't really good enough (vas in very very unlikely) and therefore lost.

Same thing here but with a twist, the evidence is presented but Lance didn't decide to fight it. Hence that is it. He is a doper and a cheat. And I don't give a damn what Wiggo or Brailsford say, bunch of hypocrites the both of them.

jzed

DDD have you read the 202 pages?

DonDaddyD

gabriel959 wrote:

DDD, doping charges don't work like normal criminal charges. You are guilty unless you can prove your innocence. Same as Contadope, they caught clen in his body, he decided to fight the charge but his excuses weren't really good enough (vas in very very unlikely) and therefore lost.

Same thing here but with a twist, the evidence is presented but Lance didn't decide to fight it. Hence that is it. He is a doper and a cheat.

But I'm not saying he didn't do it remember. I'm saying that he probably did do what he is accused of. Or that the evidence against him is damning. People take an issue because I won't commit to saying that he did do it.

And I don't give a damn what Wiggo or Brailsford say, bunch of hypocrites the both of them.

The above proves that everyone in cycling has an opinion no matter how unique.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

Our Super-mod being the hypocrite again. (You never accept anything but your own opinion - look at my banning for example).

Yes or no questions (to all):

Has Lance been tried in court and found guilty? Yes or No.

In view of your answer above, is it correct to say that he is guilty (in the legal sense) of what he has been accused of? Yes or No.

If you look at your thread title, it's about what you believe, rather than what the courts say.

If it was what the court says, there's precedence as mentioned in the USADA document that a refusal to contest doping charges is considered an admission of guilt.

It's been taken as such, hence all the furore and general consensus etc etc.

After all, we're talking about sport rules regarding doping, rather than a proper criminal court, so the rules to play by are different, as far as I understand anyway.

---

Point is, in light of all that you've seen, do you still refuse to believe he doped and never will? If so, why do you consider his word more highly than the people who have testified against him, as well as all the glaringly obvious circumstantial evidence?

Or is your thread title actually saying you don't believe a word that comes out of Armstrong's mouth?

Wrath Rob

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I'm thinking DDD has missed his calling and should have been a lawyer. He could then get paid to twist the available evidence and attempt to persuade others that his point of view is correct, despite, not because of, the evidence.

Nah, politician. Avoid the binary question and provide a different answer. Have you read the report yet?

DonDaddyD

JZed wrote:

DDD have you read the 202 pages?

I keep saying yes and no one will believe me.

It's like when people ask me have I read the Bible.

"Yes, Jesus did it".

gabriel959

The analogy is incorrect as all the New Testament books were written after Jesus' death.

Notwithstanding this there has been (and there is) serious debate about the authorship of the gospel, leters, etc (unlike in this case).

So, no the comparison with the Bible isn't valid.

notsoblue

Wrath Rob wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I'm thinking DDD has missed his calling and should have been a lawyer. He could then get paid to twist the available evidence and attempt to persuade others that his point of view is correct, despite, not because of, the evidence.

Nah, politician. Avoid the binary question and provide a different answer.

*US politician.

jzed

DonDaddyD wrote:

JZed wrote:

DDD have you read the 202 pages?

I keep saying yes and no one will believe me.

I must have missed it.

Anonymous

Im with RC on this one. So you do believe he doped but are on some holier than thou crusade as you seem to think you are the only one who is aware that it hasn't been legally proven yet.

Same as everyone else.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

If you look at your thread title, it's about what you believe, rather than what the courts say.

If it was what the court says, there's precedence as mentioned in the USADA document that a refusal to contest doping charges is considered an admission of guilt.

It's been taken as such, hence all the furore and general consensus etc etc.

After all, we're talking about sport rules regarding doping, rather than a proper criminal court, so the rules to play by are different, as far as I understand anyway.

---

Point is, in light of all that you've seen, do you still refuse to believe he doped and never will? If so, why do you consider his word more highly than the people who have testified against him, as well as all the glaringly obvious circumstantial evidence?

Or is your thread title actually saying you don't believe a word that comes out of Armstrong's mouth?

And

Im with RC on this one. So you do believe he doped but are on some holier than thou crusade as you seem to think you are the only one who is aware that it hasn't been legally proven yet.

Same as everyone else.

Read what I wrote:

I'm not saying he did not do the things he is accused of, that would deny the validity of the evidence given. What I am doing is stopping short of saying that he absolutely did

And

But I'm not saying he didn't do it remember. I'm saying that he probably did do what he is accused of. Or that the evidence against him is damning. People take an issue because I won't commit to saying that he did do it.

Anonymous

So you believe that he probably doped (and all that other stuff), but you do not feel strongly enough to state it as fact.

Noone is taking an issue with that. Seems fair enough, if not a bit stubborn.

You have this way of taking a simple concept - such as the top line, and turning into 7 pages of drivel which no-one quite understands, so ends up questioning your intelligence.

DonDaddyD

coriordan wrote:

So you believe that he probably doped (and all that other stuff), but you do not feel strongly enough to state it as fact.

Noone is taking an issue with that. Seems fair enough, if not a bit stubborn.

You have this way of taking a simple concept - such as the top line, and turning into 7 pages of drivel which no-one quite understands, so ends up questioning your intelligence.

Thank you for the insult. You seemed happy to participate and respond, so the real question is how stupid are you?

rick_chasey

If you apply that logic to the rest of the world I'm surprised you can get out of bed in the morning without getting bogged down in epitsemological turmoil.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

You seemed happy to participate and respond, so the real question is how stupid are you?

Perhaps you could make a new thread for this.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

If you apply that logic to the rest of the world I'm surprised you can get out of bed in the morning without getting bogged down in epitsemological turmoil.

I get by just fine thank you.

I am not so arrogant as to look down my snout (or up - depending on stature) at others who choose to live and think differently.

There is a time for when, when not to and when I so please and I am not answerable to you.

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

coriordan wrote:

So you believe that he probably doped (and all that other stuff), but you do not feel strongly enough to state it as fact.

Noone is taking an issue with that. Seems fair enough, if not a bit stubborn.

You have this way of taking a simple concept - such as the top line, and turning into 7 pages of drivel which no-one quite understands, so ends up questioning your intelligence.

Thank you for the insult. You seemed happy to participate and respond, so the real question is how stupid are you?

There is no insult in Coriordans post.

It's a good summary of the thread.

You don't feel the evidence has been tested. Fair enough. It's up to you how you choose to interpret Armstrongs waiving of the right to challenge the evidence. But when we get into pages of drivel about Spiderman, evil geniuses and deals with super doctors you look like a fool.

TailWindHome wrote:

Either way I'm out.

Shut up you

Anonymous

Thanks TWH, it wasn't really meant to be, just 'to the point'

My work here is done. Unsubscribe

waddlie

DonDaddyD wrote:

gabriel959 wrote:

DDD, doping charges don't work like normal criminal charges. You are guilty unless you can prove your innocence. Same as Contadope, they caught clen in his body, he decided to fight the charge but his excuses weren't really good enough (vas in very very unlikely) and therefore lost.

Same thing here but with a twist, the evidence is presented but Lance didn't decide to fight it. Hence that is it. He is a doper and a cheat.

But I'm not saying he didn't do it remember. I'm saying that he probably did do what he is accused of. Or that the evidence against him is damning. People take an issue because I won't commit to saying that he did do it.

And I don't give a damn what Wiggo or Brailsford say, bunch of hypocrites the both of them.

The above proves that everyone in cycling has an opinion no matter how unique.

To be fair, I was taking issue with the fact that you were giving more weight to the evidence he doped than you were to the evidenced that he co-erced and mistreated those around him.

I was hoping for an explanation but we got lost in a sea of obfuscation.

DonDaddyD

TailWindHome wrote:

But when we get into pages of drivel about Spiderman, evil geniuses and deals with super doctors you look like a fool.

This is what happens when you lose your seed. You exaggerate to female proportions. What is it like living in a World where 2+2=5?

Example:

"Honey did you wash the dishes"

"No, I know I normally do but this one time I didn't have time"

"I can't believe you haven't washed the dishes, I do everything around here and you don't love me, I hate you! You think I'm fat!"

Honestly, I made one or two posts, one about Spider-man and probably (that word again) another referring to Lance as an evil genius and even then, it was a JOKE!

A fart with no smell.

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

But when we get into pages of drivel about Spiderman, evil geniuses and deals with super doctors you look like a fool.

This is what happens when you lose your seed. You exaggerate to female proportions. What is it like living in a World where 2+2=5?

What's it like being more annoying than my right testicle?

EKE_38BPM

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

But when we get into pages of drivel about Spiderman, evil geniuses and deals with super doctors you look like a fool.

This is what happens when you lose your seed. You exaggerate to female proportions. What is it like living in a World where 2+2=5?

What's it like being more annoying than my right testicle?

TWH, you know better than to feed the troll. Step away from the thread.

tailwindhome

Example:

"Honey did you wash the dishes"

"What you mean I haven't washed the dishes? Are you the dish? Do you know wether or not you've been washed. Yes it may look as if the dishes haven't been washed but you haven't proven that I didn't wash them. It may be that I probably didn't wash them or likely didn't wash them or it's probably likley that I didn't wash them but you can't commit to saying 100% that I didn't wash them. Anyway what difference does it make if I didn't wash them, everyone else didn't wash them. Spiderman didn't wash Mary Jane's dishes but he still wore lycra. You just want me to say that I didn't wash the dishes well I can't say that. Straight question. Has it been proven 100% in court that I didn't wash the dishes or indeed that the dishes weren't washed? Greg is a lawyer and he says I might have done the dishes. What are you some kind of evil super dish genius?"

"O f*ck it. I'll wash them myself"

waddlie

Awesome.

jzed

TailWindHome wrote:

Example:

"Honey did you wash the dishes"

"What you mean I haven't washed the dishes? Are you the dish? Do you know wether or not you've been washed. Yes it may look as if the dishes haven't been washed but you haven't proven that I didn't wash them. It may be that I probably didn't wash them or likely didn't wash them or it's probably likley that I didn't wash them but you can't commit to saying 100% that I didn't wash them. Anyway what difference does it make if I didn't wash them, everyone else didn't wash them. Spiderman didn't wash Mary Jane's dishes but he still wore lycra. You just want me to say that I didn't wash the dishes well I can't say that. Straight question. Has it been proven 100% in court that I didn't wash the dishes or indeed that the dishes weren't washed? Greg is a lawyer and he says I might have done the dishes. What are you some kind of evil super dish genius?"

"O f*ck it. I'll wash them myself"

Superb!

il_principe

What irritates me most about this, are the pathetic bans given to the likes of Leipheimer who raced for years whilst doped. I guess the USDA would argue that these 'sweetheart' deals were a necessity, but these guys have made a good living on the back of their doping and at the expense of clean cyclists. 6 months is a slap in the face to the sport, the fans and the clean riders. Why can't these guys be hit in the pocket? Otherwise we're saying, ok so dope. If you get caught you get a ban and results get revoked, but all that money you accrued over 5/6 years, you get to keep all of that. Doping ban should = a fine based on money earned whilst doped. A big fat fine that leaves these f*ckers gasping for air. That'd lay down a marker.

DonDaddyD

TailWindHome wrote:

Example:

"Honey did you wash the dishes"

"What you mean I haven't washed the dishes? Are you the dish? Do you know wether or not you've been washed. Yes it may look as if the dishes haven't been washed but you haven't proven that I didn't wash them. It may be that I probably didn't wash them or likely didn't wash them or it's probably likley that I didn't wash them but you can't commit to saying 100% that I didn't wash them. Anyway what difference does it make if I didn't wash them, everyone else didn't wash them. Spiderman didn't wash Mary Jane's dishes but he still wore lycra. You just want me to say that I didn't wash the dishes well I can't say that. Straight question. Has it been proven 100% in court that I didn't wash the dishes or indeed that the dishes weren't washed? Greg is a lawyer and he says I might have done the dishes. What are you some kind of evil super dish genius?"

"O f*ck it. I'll wash them myself"

I salute you.

I DonDaddydD have been pwned.

dhope

TailWindHome wrote:

Example:

"Honey did you wash the dishes"

"What you mean I haven't washed the dishes? Are you the dish? Do you know wether or not you've been washed. Yes it may look as if the dishes haven't been washed but you haven't proven that I didn't wash them. It may be that I probably didn't wash them or likely didn't wash them or it's probably likley that I didn't wash them but you can't commit to saying 100% that I didn't wash them. Anyway what difference does it make if I didn't wash them, everyone else didn't wash them. Spiderman didn't wash Mary Jane's dishes but he still wore lycra. You just want me to say that I didn't wash the dishes well I can't say that. Straight question. Has it been proven 100% in court that I didn't wash the dishes or indeed that the dishes weren't washed? Greg is a lawyer and he says I might have done the dishes. What are you some kind of evil super dish genius?"

"O f*ck it. I'll wash them myself"

Nicely done Sir. I was going to ask if he thought Jimmy Savile was innocent, but this is probably a less emotive analogy.

bigmat

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/despite ... -supporter

Have Liggett and DDD ever been spotted in the same room together?!