MyE28.com

I bet Armstrong's cycles have clean serial numbers.

Kyle in NO wrote:I bet Armstrong's cycles have clean serial numbers.

Kyle in NO wrote:I bet Armstrong's cycles have clean serial numbers.

Coldswede wrote:Since when does heresy prove guilt?

Hearsay. "Heresy" is speaking out established religion.

davintosh wrote:

Duke wrote:

davintosh wrote:What dog do you have in this fight anyway, Duke, that makes you take such pleasure in seeing the guy disgraced?

Uhhhhhhhhhhh....it's news.

So is the shooting at the Empire State Building, but all I hear on that topic is...

No more crickets.....

http://www.mye28.com/viewtopic.php?p=1057392#1057392

carnutdallas wrote:No more crickets.....

Uhhhhhh....ohhhhhhhhhhh....shooter had a .45, multiple victims have 9mm rounds in them. COPs have some splainin to do.

Duke wrote:

carnutdallas wrote:No more crickets.....

Uhhhhhh....ohhhhhhhhhhh....shooter had a .45, multiple victims have 9mm rounds in them. COPs have some splainin to do.

Yep....Yep, Yep! Damn coppers. Right now in Dallas, I am more afraid of them than the perps. 14 shootings by DPD this year - but not all fatal. Might be 12, have not found stats online yet....but anyway. They seem to be using the Shoot first ask later policy here.....looks like the same for NYPD. Now we have witnesses and the shooter definitely committed a crime, but to come out gunning in a crowd is stupid. How about plain clothes follow and get close Just seems Rambo-ish to me. Not there and no idea so I am just talking out my

In the end, looks like the 9mm were not fatal, for the bystanders.

It's like the Julian Assange thing - what's relevant isn't so much whether he did or didn't do it. After all, every cyclist in those races was doping in one way or another. It's about why such enormous resources have been poured into attacking him specifically. In that light, it's inarguably a witch hunt.

I don't see the Obama administration putting massive pressure on the UK government to extradite any other criminals wanted for questioning in another EU jurisdiction, and similarly I don't see a huge effort by USADA to get to the bottom of whether, for example the Giro D'Italia winner in 2002 was doping. Therefore, in both cases, you have to question the motives..

snakebrain wrote:It's like the Julian Assange thing - what's relevant isn't so much whether he did or didn't do it.

Poor analogy.

Shawn D. wrote:

snakebrain wrote:It's like the Julian Assange thing - what's relevant isn't so much whether he did or didn't do it.

Poor analogy.

Very apposite in my opinion.

To clarify, the stated aims in each case are quite clearly not the actual reaons underlying the actions being taken. The Obama administration does not want Assange in Sweden to be questioned regarding alleged rape charges, and the USADA does not have the fairness of sporting activities in mind in it's prosecution of Armstrong. In both cases, a spurious but technically defensible case is being used to perpetrate a hidden agenda.

Shawn D. wrote:I think this is BS and agree with Lance's statement: http://lancearmstrong.com/news-events/l ... st-23-2012

Lance Armstong's Statement of August 23, 2012

AUSTIN, Texas - August 23rd, 2012 - There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a two-year federal criminal investigation followed by Travis Tygart's unconstitutional witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense.

I think the first part of the statement tells the story. I don't know how many of you have been subject to an inquiry by a government body. Unfortunately I have. Governments in civil situations don't seem to have to follow the same rules as we do. Unless you fight, you lose. They take your tax dollars and legally beat you over the head. You wake up one morning and realize yippee, I get to hire a lawyer and spend my after tax dollars to fight someone who has unlimited funding. I understand his comments about how it affected his family. My circumstance took two years to put right and was a constant thorn in my family's side. I think he had to decide, "what do I have to lose". As he said in other statements, people who believe the hundreds of negative drugs tests will believe him, people like Duke who believe he cheated will not be persuaded otherwise if he wins the USADA fight too.

I do think it is interesting that the Federal judge even questioned the USADA motives.

In my case with the government, oh yes after two years I won without even going to court and all my funds were returned to me. Not the $30,000 in legal fees, although the amount I got back was substantially more so it was worth the fight. That's what people have to keep in mind, how long does Armstrong want to keep fighting and paying out of his own pocket if the claims will never end. He's retired. Even if he cheated, based on those that have been caught since, he still was the best athlete in those races.

clangpap wrote:

Shawn D. wrote:I think this is BS and agree with Lance's statement: http://lancearmstrong.com/news-events/l ... st-23-2012

Lance Armstong's Statement of August 23, 2012

AUSTIN, Texas - August 23rd, 2012 - There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a two-year federal criminal investigation followed by Travis Tygart's unconstitutional witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense.

I think the first part of the statement tells the story. I don't know how many of you have been subject to an inquiry by a government body. Unfortunately I have. Governments in civil situations don't seem to have to follow the same rules as we do. Unless you fight, you lose. They take your tax dollars and legally beat you over the head. You wake up one morning and realize yippee, I get to hire a lawyer and spend my after tax dollars to fight someone who has unlimited funding. I understand his comments about how it affected his family. My circumstance took two years to put right and was a constant thorn in my family's side. I think he had to decide, "what do I have to lose". As he said in other statements, people who believe the hundreds of negative drugs tests will believe him, people like Duke who believe he cheated will not be persuaded otherwise if he wins the USADA fight too.

I do think it is interesting that the Federal judge even questioned the USADA motives.

In my case with the government, oh yes after two years I won without even going to court and all my funds were returned to me. Not the $30,000 in legal fees, although the amount I got back was substantially more so it was worth the fight. That's what people have to keep in mind, how long does Armstrong want to keep fighting and paying out of his own pocket if the claims will never end. He's retired. Even if he cheated, based on those that have been caught since, he still was the best athlete in those races.

Sorry for you and glad it somewhat worked out. Well said and right on point for the current situation.

this was an interesting analysis, for a blog...
http://150wattsofawesome.blogspot.com/

The takeaway from the whole story is that pro cycling, for which the U.S. is not the majority audience, is maniacally concerned about the cleanliness of the athletes, and although there may be instances of crookedness, nobody is off-limits with regard to enforcement. Lance is a trigger-figure, particularly for a lot of U.S. fans, and lots of folks would have their pride defended to see him exonerated. In many other countries, including those of his major rivals during his fame-inducing wins, jail time is the result of upheld doping charges. This ain't temporary suspension level risk, like many U.S. league sports, for those in much of the rest of the world of Lance's sport. The more important story is how comparatively clean cycling is in the world of sport, the level of risk and dedication it takes to be at the top, and the brutal people and forces which enable and demand some athletes to accept a "program" or go down in flames. Regrettably, the big story attached to Lance gets told rather than the important story. Same old story, sure, but understanding cycling, like many things, demands more information than we're likely to encounter in our large-media daily news exposures.

Kyle in NO wrote:I bet Armstrong's cycles have clean serial numbers.

Or at least they are "legally registered" as US models.

mooseheadm5 wrote:

Kyle in NO wrote:I bet Armstrong's cycles have clean serial numbers.

Or at least they are "legally registered" as US models.

Shawn D. wrote:

Coldswede wrote:Since when does heresy prove guilt?

Hearsay. "Heresy" is speaking out established religion.

Well, I intended to use "Heresy". I was using it in reference to the "Religion" like inquisition going on here.

"Hearsay" may or not be appropriate here, I have no idea exactly how the allegations are being made.

snakebrain wrote:To clarify, the stated aims in each case are quite clearly not the actual reaons underlying the actions being taken. The Obama administration does not want Assange in Sweden to be questioned regarding alleged rape charges, and the USADA does not have the fairness of sporting activities in mind in it's prosecution of Armstrong. In both cases, a spurious but technically defensible case is being used to perpetrate a hidden agenda.

That doesn't make any sense. It's Assange who does not want to be extradited to Sweden because he is afraid of being further extradited to the US. The US "doesn't have a dog in that fight" with regards to the alleged rape situation with Sweden.

Coldswede wrote:

Shawn D. wrote:

Coldswede wrote:Since when does heresy prove guilt?

Hearsay. "Heresy" is speaking out established religion.

Well, I intended to use "Heresy". I was using it in reference to the "Religion" like inquisition going on here.

"Hearsay" may or not be appropriate here, I have no idea exactly how the allegations are being made.

"Hearsay" is appropriate here, as the accusers have no proof other than their statements.

Kyle in NO wrote:I bet Armstrong's cycles have clean serial numbers.

All bikes have been sold

Shawn D. wrote:That doesn't make any sense. It's Assange who does not want to be extradited to Sweden because he is afraid of being further extradited to the US. The US "doesn't have a dog in that fight" with regards to the alleged rape situation with Sweden.

They most certainly do.

The British government have confirmed that they will enter the Ecuadorean embassy to extract Assange. (To be more precise, they will strip it of diplomatic status then enter the building.) This is a direct consequence of massive and sustained pressure from Washington. I'm not merely hypothesising here either - that is the sole reason for Britain preparing to overrule their Geneva Convention obligations.

Why does Washington want Assange in Sweden so badly? Because of a commitment to justice? Or because there is a dual-recipricocity instance regarding the charges being prepared against him in the US in the relationship with Sweden that does not exist with the UK?

mooseheadm5 wrote:

Kyle in NO wrote:I bet Armstrong's cycles have clean serial numbers.

Or at least they are "legally registered" as US models.

I bet their market value exceeds that of their scrap weight value to boot.

This is probably a stupid question but how does the US Anti Doping Agency strip someone of wins in a race held in another country? Could the Tour de France organizers tell the USADA to kiss their collective ass?

^^^^^^From what I have read, YES!

Karl Grau wrote:This is probably a stupid question but how does the US Anti Doping Agency strip someone of wins in a race held in another country?

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winnah!

Karl Grau wrote:Could the Tour de France organizers tell the USADA to kiss their collective ass?

Lance already did that, many times, which is probably the motivation behind the witch hunt.

As for the UCI and the status of Armstrong's Tour de France titles, they are waiting for a more thorough explanation from the USADA as to why he should lose them. They haven't even commented on the situation, much less stripped him of the titles yet, so I'm not sure why everyone is getting their underwear bundled over this. So maybe Duke will stop dancing now.

Apparently the Tour de France is privately owned, though run under the umbrella of a sanctioning organization, so it would appear anything is possible. And the French are known for their independence.

snakebrain wrote:

Shawn D. wrote:That doesn't make any sense. It's Assange who does not want to be extradited to Sweden because he is afraid of being further extradited to the US. The US "doesn't have a dog in that fight" with regards to the alleged rape situation with Sweden.

They most certainly do.

The British government have confirmed that they will enter the Ecuadorean embassy to extract Assange. (To be more precise, they will strip it of diplomatic status then enter the building.) This is a direct consequence of massive and sustained pressure from Washington. I'm not merely hypothesising here either - that is the sole reason for Britain preparing to overrule their Geneva Convention obligations.

Why does Washington want Assange in Sweden so badly? Because of a commitment to justice? Or because there is a dual-recipricocity instance regarding the charges being prepared against him in the US in the relationship with Sweden that does not exist with the UK?

Huh? You said before that the US does not want Assange to be extradited to Sweden:

snakebrain wrote:The Obama administration does not want Assange in Sweden to be questioned regarding alleged rape charges

What did you mean by that, then? Is this poor phrasing on your part, and what you really meant was "The Obama administration does not want Assange in Sweden to be questioned regarding alleged rape charges, but instead wants him in Sweden so he can be extradited"? If so, that would mean you actually agree with my statement that "The US 'doesn't have a dog in that fight' with regards to the alleged rape situation with Sweden."

Shawn D. wrote:Huh? You said before that the US does not want Assange to be extradited to Sweden:

snakebrain wrote:The Obama administration does not want Assange in Sweden to be questioned regarding alleged rape charges

What did you mean by that, then? Is this poor phrasing on your part, and what you really meant was "The Obama administration does not want Assange in Sweden to be questioned regarding alleged rape charges, but instead wants him in Sweden so he can be extradited"? If so, that would mean you actually agree with my statement that "The US 'doesn't have a dog in that fight' with regards to the alleged rape situation with Sweden."

No - what I said was logically consistent. I thought it was obvious that I was implying the ulterior motive given the parallel with the Lance Armstrong situation and my comments regarding the promotion of a hidden agenda using a spurious legal position. The US have no interest whatsoever in the rape charges per se, but are exerting enormous pressure on the UK government to extradite Assange to Sweden. They're just a mechanism to place Assange within the reach of US extradition. Therefore it's fair to say they very much do have a dog in the fight regarding the extradition proceedings.

We're essentially in agreement here, just quibbling over verbiage!

There is a heaven!