Anybody not in frothing rage over LA ?

dennisn

rob churchill wrote:

dennisn wrote:

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Monty Dog wrote:

"witch-hunt' is the term adopted by the doping-apologist, sock-puppets.

In terms of innocence until proven guilty, that doesn't apply to drug testing as it's assumed to be absolute liability - athlete's are responsible for what is in their bodies and any artificial substance is assumed to have been ingested purposefully unless they can demonstrate their innocence otherwise.

Quite right MD. There is too much bleating by athletes about "circumstantial evidence" as though that's enough to kill off any accusations.

How would you feel if you were accused of something by "circumstantial evidence"? Because you have a friend who committed a crime and you hung around with him a lot, are you ready to serve time or pay the price simply by guilt by association? That's like saying "gee, that apple didn't taste very good - therefore all apples are bad".

Circumstantial evidence is what the Times had on LA way back when. It's why LA won big money in his lawsuit against them. They couldn't prove what they claimed and it cost them. Of course history has changed a few of the thoughts since then but The Times couldn't prove what they claimed. Personally I think that his lawsuit against them was a good thing. The idea that someone can claim things and make allegations against another without any proof is the sad part of all that.

Well, if the circumstantial evidence in question was that my dna or fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime, that anonymous deposits were made to my bank account which exactly matched those paid to my criminal friend, that I had means, motive, and opportunity, and a bunch of other circumstantial evidence which cumulatively added up to proof beyond reasonable doubt, then I'd probably say "it's a fair cop, Guv."

Because Dennis, circumstantial evidence is admissible in criminal cases. If there's enough of it, it's proof. If it links to non-circumstantial evidence then it's called 'corroborating evidence'. And it really isn't a good thing that a man guilty of wrongdoing was able to abuse England's notoriously unbalanced libel law to successfully sue those who published nothing but the truth by perjuring himself. It's just not. Dennis, admit it: you were an LA fanboy. You cheered when he won his case against The Sunday Times. Now you that you realise you were played for a fool, you're looking for some crumbs of vindication. You project your own neurotic cognitions onto other conveniently anonymous people on the internet and then go through a pantomime of analysing them, but what you are doing is so f***ing transparent that your every post is unintentionally hilarious. Please don't ever stop.

I think it's a great thing when a media organization gets sued because they overstep their bounds. In any case it's not my fault that England has a "notoriously unbalanced libel law". With laws like that one might expect more caution from The Times, but no. I'm betting that in the future they may exhibit just a bit more responsibility. Just a bit. I love the idea of the media getting blasted like that.

One thing that I find fascinating is everyone calling me a fanboy. If that's what you want to think that's fine with me.
Tell ya what, I will admit to being a fanboy if any of you can find any evidence that I have ever logged onto LA's website or Facebook site(if he even has one), ever bought ANY book by him or about him, ever contributed to his charity, even owned a yellow wristband, ever followed his tweets or whatever that's called, ever joined or belonged to any organization that he was affiliated with, etc., etc. Should be an easy task for the lot of you as you were the ones who gathered all the evidence against the man and brought him down. You keep saying I'm a fanboy. i challenge you to prove it.

meggiedude

WRT - not being able to prove it through direct evidence, I believe you Dennis
After all you seem to spend many hours tapping away at your keyboard so clearly haven't any time to do those other things you mention.
As others have pointed out though - there is such a thing as circumstantial evidence

Pross

dennisn wrote:

I think it's a great thing when a media organization gets sued because they overstep their bounds.

What? Even if what they have written is true and the plaintiff purjures themself to win the case?

dennisn

Pross wrote:

dennisn wrote:

I think it's a great thing when a media organization gets sued because they overstep their bounds.

What? Even if what they have written is true and the plaintiff purjures themself to win the case?

Now you're frothing.

ddraver

Dennis does nt know what frothing rage is guys...

vs

Armstrong's Strava profile:

"According to my rivals, peers, and teammates I won the Tour de France 7 times."

LeicesterLad

vs wrote:

Armstrong's Strava profile:

"According to my rivals, peers, and teammates I won the Tour de France 7 times."

Regret to inform you, I know it's hard to keep track, but it's been covered in the other 482 Lance threads

feltkuota

I kind of agree with what Dennis is saying. I would much rather the courts decide a man's guilt based on evidence presented to them rather than public opinion (media). Been proved more than once what is published as evidence in the media is not right. 45mins for WMD. Total rubbish. The professor that was named/shamed for nothing more serious than living upstairs from the woman that got murdered (forget the names) as a couple of the many incidents that I can remember off the top of my head. Ok so LA lied in court and for that he should face whatever the courts decide is due. That is after all why we have courts and due process.

Monkeypump

feltkuota wrote:

I kind of agree with what Dennis is saying. I would much rather the courts decide a man's guilt based on evidence presented to them rather than public opinion (media). Been proved more than once what is published as evidence in the media is not right. 45mins for WMD. Total rubbish. The professor that was named/shamed for nothing more serious than living upstairs from the woman that got murdered (forget the names) as a couple of the many incidents that I can remember off the top of my head. Ok so LA lied in court and for that he should face whatever the courts decide is due. That is after all why we have courts and due process.

That's very rational. What on earth are you doing posting in Pro Race????

Pross

dennisn wrote:

Pross wrote:

dennisn wrote:

I think it's a great thing when a media organization gets sued because they overstep their bounds.

What? Even if what they have written is true and the plaintiff purjures themself to win the case?

Now you're frothing.

Yep. I'm turning green and my bulging muscles have ripped my clothes I'm seething so much as can be seen from me pointing out that you seem to think media organisations should be sued for telling the truth :roll:

Pross

feltkuota wrote:

45mins for WMD. Total rubbish.

How was that the media lying? That was the media reporting information the Government gave them. I'll give you the others though.

FocusZing

Good poker learning material, any tells?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klz86uQMrVg

rob churchill

dmclite-3.0 wrote:

rob churchill wrote:

dennisn wrote:

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Monty Dog wrote:

"witch-hunt' is the term adopted by the doping-apologist, sock-puppets.

In terms of innocence until proven guilty, that doesn't apply to drug testing as it's assumed to be absolute liability - athlete's are responsible for what is in their bodies and any artificial substance is assumed to have been ingested purposefully unless they can demonstrate their innocence otherwise.

Quite right MD. There is too much bleating by athletes about "circumstantial evidence" as though that's enough to kill off any accusations.

How would you feel if you were accused of something by "circumstantial evidence"? Because you have a friend who committed a crime and you hung around with him a lot, are you ready to serve time or pay the price simply by guilt by association? That's like saying "gee, that apple didn't taste very good - therefore all apples are bad".

Circumstantial evidence is what the Times had on LA way back when. It's why LA won big money in his lawsuit against them. They couldn't prove what they claimed and it cost them. Of course history has changed a few of the thoughts since then but The Times couldn't prove what they claimed. Personally I think that his lawsuit against them was a good thing. The idea that someone can claim things and make allegations against another without any proof is the sad part of all that.

Well, if the circumstantial evidence in question was that my dna or fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime, that anonymous deposits were made to my bank account which exactly matched those paid to my criminal friend, that I had means, motive, and opportunity, and a bunch of other circumstantial evidence which cumulatively added up to proof beyond reasonable doubt, then I'd probably say "it's a fair cop, Guv."

Because Dennis, circumstantial evidence is admissible in criminal cases. If there's enough of it, it's proof. If it links to non-circumstantial evidence then it's called 'corroborating evidence'. And it really isn't a good thing that a man guilty of wrongdoing was able to abuse England's notoriously unbalanced libel law to successfully sue those who published nothing but the truth by perjuring himself. It's just not. Dennis, admit it: you were an LA fanboy. You cheered when he won his case against The Sunday Times. Now you that you realise you were played for a fool, you're looking for some crumbs of vindication. You project your own neurotic cognitions onto other conveniently anonymous people on the internet and then go through a pantomime of analysing them, but what you are doing is so f***ing transparent that your every post is unintentionally hilarious. Please don't ever stop.

Apart from my own ramblings this has to be up there with "most ironic posts, evah!", wally.

Intentionally so. As was obvious to everyone on the forum with the exception of you, apparently. Wally.

rob churchill

dennisn wrote:

One thing that I find fascinating is everyone calling me a fanboy. If that's what you want to think that's fine with me.
Tell ya what, I will admit to being a fanboy if any of you can find any evidence that I have ever logged onto LA's website or Facebook site(if he even has one), ever bought ANY book by him or about him, ever contributed to his charity, even owned a yellow wristband, ever followed his tweets or whatever that's called, ever joined or belonged to any organization that he was affiliated with, etc., etc. Should be an easy task for the lot of you as you were the ones who gathered all the evidence against the man and brought him down. You keep saying I'm a fanboy. i challenge you to prove it.

So... you're not actually denying being a fanboy, just saying you never tested positive for it?

ddraver

dennisn

rob churchill wrote:

dennisn wrote:

One thing that I find fascinating is everyone calling me a fanboy. If that's what you want to think that's fine with me.
Tell ya what, I will admit to being a fanboy if any of you can find any evidence that I have ever logged onto LA's website or Facebook site(if he even has one), ever bought ANY book by him or about him, ever contributed to his charity, even owned a yellow wristband, ever followed his tweets or whatever that's called, ever joined or belonged to any organization that he was affiliated with, etc., etc. Should be an easy task for the lot of you as you were the ones who gathered all the evidence against the man and brought him down. You keep saying I'm a fanboy. i challenge you to prove it.

So... you're not actually denying being a fanboy, just saying you never tested positive for it?

I'm not saying anything until I talk to my lawyer(s).

No_Ta_Doctor

rob churchill wrote:

dennisn wrote:

One thing that I find fascinating is everyone calling me a fanboy. If that's what you want to think that's fine with me.
Tell ya what, I will admit to being a fanboy if any of you can find any evidence that I have ever logged onto LA's website or Facebook site(if he even has one), ever bought ANY book by him or about him, ever contributed to his charity, even owned a yellow wristband, ever followed his tweets or whatever that's called, ever joined or belonged to any organization that he was affiliated with, etc., etc. Should be an easy task for the lot of you as you were the ones who gathered all the evidence against the man and brought him down. You keep saying I'm a fanboy. i challenge you to prove it.

So... you're not actually denying being a fanboy, just saying you never tested positive for it?

Chapeau

ratsbeyfus

dennisn wrote:

One thing that I find fascinating is everyone calling me a fanboy. If that's what you want to think that's fine with me.
Tell ya what, I will admit to being a fanboy if any of you can find any evidence that I have ever logged onto LA's website or Facebook site(if he even has one), ever bought ANY book by him or about him, ever contributed to his charity, even owned a yellow wristband, ever followed his tweets or whatever that's called, ever joined or belonged to any organization that he was affiliated with.

You sound like a 'Hater'.

dennisn

ratsbeyfus wrote:

dennisn wrote:

One thing that I find fascinating is everyone calling me a fanboy. If that's what you want to think that's fine with me.
Tell ya what, I will admit to being a fanboy if any of you can find any evidence that I have ever logged onto LA's website or Facebook site(if he even has one), ever bought ANY book by him or about him, ever contributed to his charity, even owned a yellow wristband, ever followed his tweets or whatever that's called, ever joined or belonged to any organization that he was affiliated with.

You sound like a 'Hater'.

No, not really. More of a didn't care attitude than anything else. I'm sort of the opinion that no one is capable of spoiling cycling for me. I enjoy it too much. The riding, the racing, working on bikes and wheels, is a real draw for me. Much more so than someone doping and or cheating could even begin to take away. My fondness for cycling is in no way controlled by my feelings toward racers, most of whom I consider simply people who like to ride. Some go astray and some don't.

I may have seemed to have stood up for him but it was more me simply trying to argue the opposite side. Point / Counterpoint if you will. A very good book by Huxley by the way. I was also interested in why people seemed so "distraught", for lack of a better word, over the whole thing, while for me nothing changed.

FWIW, over here the whole thing doesn't get a lot of talk around the bike shops and the riders that I know. Other than a chuckle or two and the occasional "what a f*cking idiot".

dmclite-3.0

rob churchill wrote:

dmclite-3.0 wrote:

rob churchill wrote:

dennisn wrote:

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Monty Dog wrote:

"witch-hunt' is the term adopted by the doping-apologist, sock-puppets.

In terms of innocence until proven guilty, that doesn't apply to drug testing as it's assumed to be absolute liability - athlete's are responsible for what is in their bodies and any artificial substance is assumed to have been ingested purposefully unless they can demonstrate their innocence otherwise.

Quite right MD. There is too much bleating by athletes about "circumstantial evidence" as though that's enough to kill off any accusations.

How would you feel if you were accused of something by "circumstantial evidence"? Because you have a friend who committed a crime and you hung around with him a lot, are you ready to serve time or pay the price simply by guilt by association? That's like saying "gee, that apple didn't taste very good - therefore all apples are bad".

Circumstantial evidence is what the Times had on LA way back when. It's why LA won big money in his lawsuit against them. They couldn't prove what they claimed and it cost them. Of course history has changed a few of the thoughts since then but The Times couldn't prove what they claimed. Personally I think that his lawsuit against them was a good thing. The idea that someone can claim things and make allegations against another without any proof is the sad part of all that.

Well, if the circumstantial evidence in question was that my dna or fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime, that anonymous deposits were made to my bank account which exactly matched those paid to my criminal friend, that I had means, motive, and opportunity, and a bunch of other circumstantial evidence which cumulatively added up to proof beyond reasonable doubt, then I'd probably say "it's a fair cop, Guv."

Because Dennis, circumstantial evidence is admissible in criminal cases. If there's enough of it, it's proof. If it links to non-circumstantial evidence then it's called 'corroborating evidence'. And it really isn't a good thing that a man guilty of wrongdoing was able to abuse England's notoriously unbalanced libel law to successfully sue those who published nothing but the truth by perjuring himself. It's just not. Dennis, admit it: you were an LA fanboy. You cheered when he won his case against The Sunday Times. Now you that you realise you were played for a fool, you're looking for some crumbs of vindication. You project your own neurotic cognitions onto other conveniently anonymous people on the internet and then go through a pantomime of analysing them, but what you are doing is so f***ing transparent that your every post is unintentionally hilarious. Please don't ever stop.

Apart from my own ramblings this has to be up there with "most ironic posts, evah!", wally.

Intentionally so. As was obvious to everyone on the forum with the exception of you, apparently. Wally.

ocdupalais

For all the frothers out there
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48bkluHu ... ata_player