MyE28.com

SD45T-2 wrote: There is a heaven!

I believe the quote is: "There is a God in Heaven."

If so, due to the proceedings, Boy is he "Pist"!

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? Could the Tour de France organizers tell the USADA to kiss their collective ass?

Le Tour is but one event, though an important one, governed by UCI regulations (an international body), and the UCI delegates much authority with regard to doping regulation to each country's regulatory bodies. The USADA is a non-governmental U.S. organization that fills that role here.
The USADA is acting on new evidence received after a U.S Attorney investigation terminated, having yielded inadequate evidence to substantiate allegations of fraud, not doping, against Armstrong. Exit witch-hunt claim.
In years past, there was, in fact, a movement among the organizers of certain events such as the TdF to tell the UCI to KTCA, owing more to calendar restrictions, money, and conflicts than any concerns of riders or national cycling governance bodies. It fell on its face after threatening to deter and/or derail the corporate team sponsorship that enables the whole show to continue. At any rate, the TdF would suffer substantial loss of favorite entrants if it left the UCI calendar in order to ignore the USADA. Even one of the sport's bigger celebrities doesn't have enough cash to patch that hole, even if they would be so inclined, which I think they wouldn't be.

Duke wrote:

Mark 88/M5 Houston wrote:In the long run I believe he has done much more good than bad through out his career and his foundation.

I agree with you.

Cheaters always get caught though. I guess all of the fellow cyclist who have testified that they saw him dopeing were all mistaken.

He never got caught. And everyone who finished second to him did. So what will they do, give his titles to proven dopers? Some of the athletes testifying against him have their own charges to deal with. I think it's envy.

At worst, he was doped and he beat all the other cheaters on a level playing field. At best, he was clean and beat the cheaters anyway. Given the level of scrutiny he received, it's more likely that he was clean than any other pro cyclist (which isn't saying much).

The USADA is a bunch of tightasses who are drunk on what power they think they have; they're breaking their own rules and trying to do what they have no authority to do.

-tammer

davintosh wrote:

oldskool wrote:I wish they'd devote half as much time and energy exposing the cheats in Washington and the whole entitlement machine. Screw this noise.

There; FIFY.

Yeah, it's those damned poors who wrecked the economy.

For someone who occasionally sounds smart, you sure are a moron.

-tammer

The lawyers can weigh in...but as a layman, here is what I see:

Allegations.

Over 200 on-the-spot tests with a 100% pass rate.

In my business, that's called "exoneration". I am able to be drug/alcohol tested at any time, night or day while I am at "work" or "on duty for work".
As such, I can attest that it is impossible to "cheat" a testing system such as that. Hell, if I eat a bagel with the wrong toppings I test positive for drugs...that's a fact.
Therefore, it is my opinion that Lance simply chose to stop spending his $$ fighting a government agency with a hard-on for him.
As a fellow cancer -fighter, I applaud him and fully support the LiveStrong Foundation.

You go, boy.

TSMacNeil wrote:The lawyers can weigh in...but as a layman, here is what I see:

Allegations.

Over 200 on-the-spot tests with a 100% pass rate.

In my business, that's called "exoneration". I am able to be drug/alcohol tested at any time, night or day while I am at "work" or "on duty for work".
As such, I can attest that it is impossible to "cheat" a testing system such as that. Hell, if I eat a bagel with the wrong toppings I test positive for drugs...that's a fact.
Therefore, it is my opinion that Lance simply chose to stop spending his $$ fighting a government agency with a hard-on for him.
As a fellow cancer -fighter, I applaud him and fully support the LiveStrong Foundation.

You go, boy.

Well said.

I'm so glad the USDA has nothing else better to do with their time

Tony wrote:I'm so glad the USDA has nothing else better to do with their time

I thought it was Livestrong, not Livestock.

Tammer in Philly wrote:

davintosh wrote:

oldskool wrote:I wish they'd devote half as much time and energy exposing the cheats in Washington and the whole entitlement machine. Screw this noise.

There; FIFY.

Yeah, it's those damned poors who wrecked the economy.

For someone who occasionally sounds smart, you sure are a moron.

-tammer

Hugs and kisses right back atcha, Tammer.



Funny how I was thinking the same of you recently.

And in case it evaded your amazing powers of perception, the complaint was against the entitlement machine, not those who are deserving of entitlements.

As long as corporate entitlements are included in the entitlement machine, I'm down with that.

mooseheadm5 wrote:As long as corporate entitlements are included in the entitlement machine, I'm down with that.

X2

davintosh wrote: John 8:7-9

FTFY -right link, wrong reference.

Shawn D. wrote:

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.

Actually, the US does. If Assange gets extradited to Sweden, Sweden's very friendly legal/political relationship with the US would make it very easy for the US to get him extradited to here.

Assange has offered to come to Sweden willingly if they'll promise not to extradite him to the US or hand him over to US authorities. The fact that Sweden won't make that guarantee reveals the motive for pushing so hard for his extradition. If they simply wanted to try his case, why withhold the guarantee of non-extradition to the US?

If they truly wanted justice on the rape charges, he could be tried in absentia. That doesn't appear to be the ultimate goal, however. The ultimate goal appears to be get him in a location where US authorities can get their hands on him and then drag him someplace to face espionage charges.

Jeremy wrote:The ultimate goal appears to be get him in a location where US authorities can get their hands on him and then drag him someplace to face espionage charges.

+1, love to watch that trial and then execution. I call dibs on the firing squad!

Jeremy wrote:Actually, the US does. If Assange gets extradited to Sweden, Sweden's very friendly legal/political relationship with the US would make it very easy for the US to get him extradited to here.

Assange has offered to come to Sweden willingly if they'll promise not to extradite him to the US or hand him over to US authorities. The fact that Sweden won't make that guarantee reveals the motive for pushing so hard for his extradition. If they simply wanted to try his case, why withhold the guarantee of non-extradition to the US?

If they truly wanted justice on the rape charges, he could be tried in absentia. That doesn't appear to be the ultimate goal, however. The ultimate goal appears to be get him in a location where US authorities can get their hands on him and then drag him someplace to face espionage charges.

The issue is not so much the close relationship between the US and Sweden, but the nature of the law on extradition. Essentially, under international law, a country will only extradite for a crime that would be against it's own laws. That's what I was referring to when I mentioned dual recipricocity. The likely basis of the charges being prepared against Assange in the US, under the Espionage Act, do not exist under UK law, so the UK wouldn't extradite as any acts that would contravene those laws under US jurisdiction would be lawful in the UK. However, under the Swedish legal system those acts would be unlawful and therefore recipricocity exists and extradition is possible.

The reason the Swedes won't give a guarantee that they won't extradite Assange is the same reason the US is presently holding the precise legal basis of the case against Assange under wraps.

Sweden cannot guarantee that they will not extradite Assange, as to do so would disregard their obligation under international law to extradite any person who has committed an offence within US (or any other) jurisdiction, providing that offence is recognised as a crime under Swedish law. To make an exemption in Assange's case, and state that they categorically would not extradite him would undermine the basis of all extraditions and would itself be unlawful. Suppose, for example, if the US suddenly produced cast iron evidence that Assange had committed first degree murder on American soil and requested extradition on those grounds after Sweden had made a promise not to extradite him. What would the implications be for other instances of extradition for murder charges?

So if the US was to reveal the natiure of the case they intend to present against Assange, and the Swedes were to somehow formulate a basis whereby they could justify not handing Assange over to face those precise charges, then there would be a possibility of providing some kind of guarantee of that nature. But as long as the US refuses to clarify 1) that it wants Assange extradited to US soil, and 2) precisely what charges they intend him to face, Sweden cannot legally provide that guarantee.

Clearly, given the extent of the pressure being piled on the UK government by Washington, to the point where they've announced their intention to disregard the Geneva Convention orthodoxies that guarantee the immunity of diplomatic premises, the US very much do want Assange in Sweden, from where he will inevitably end up on American soil. It will be very interesting to see how where this goes, but I suspect it will not end well for Julian Assange, whatever else may happen...

Duke wrote:

Jeremy wrote:The ultimate goal appears to be get him in a location where US authorities can get their hands on him and then drag him someplace to face espionage charges.

+1, love to watch that trial and then execution. I call dibs on the firing squad!

What's your specific beef with Assange?

Matt wrote:What's your specific beef with Assange?

Really..................you as an American ask that?

How about 1000s if not 10,000s of our troops and allies being put in peril due to the information he stole (that POS soldier lives very close to me) and published. The amount of people who are dead because of this will never be known.

Duke wrote:

Matt wrote:What's your specific beef with Assange?

Really..................you as an American ask that?

How about 1000s if not 10,000s of our troops and allies being put in peril due to the information he stole (that POS soldier lives very close to me) and published. The amount of people who are dead because of this will never be known.

Ironically your bosses don't give a crap about that. All they're concerned with is what the Wikileaks info revealed about their diplomatic strategies.

Agreed, more info should have been redacted. But really you're vastly overstating the 'peril' that US troops were exposed to. And what about the peril your illegal invasion of Iraq placed millions in?

Get off your high horse and take a reality check.

snakebrain wrote:But really you're vastly overstating the 'peril' that US troops were exposed to. And what about the peril your illegal invasion of Iraq placed millions in?

WTF do you know Wanker? Keep on your little island and try not to kill each other over minor religious differences.

Duke wrote:

snakebrain wrote:But really you're vastly overstating the 'peril' that US troops were exposed to. And what about the peril your illegal invasion of Iraq placed millions in?

WTF do you know Wanker? Keep on your little island and try not to kill each other over minor religious differences.

You have no idea what a stupid thing you just said, given where I personally fit into this 'little island'.

Why don't you stick to your big guns and leave the complicated stuff to people like me?!

snakebrain wrote:You have no idea what a stupid thing you just said, given where I personally fit into this 'little island'.

Thats cool....you the BIG MAN on the little island, congratulations.

Love my big guns thank you......you did too in the 40's.

Duke wrote:

snakebrain wrote:You have no idea what a stupid thing you just said, given where I personally fit into this 'little island'.

Thats cool....you the BIG MAN on the little island, congratulations.

Love my big guns thank you......you did too in the 40's.

I'm don't claim to be the big man anywhere, but both I and my family have been in small ways instrumental in the establishment of peace on this island. It's a LOT harder to make peace than it is to shoot things up.

But you'll never need to understand that. All you need to know is how to shoot things up and move on to the next place. Your bosses do the thinking.

snakebrain wrote:All you need to know is how to shoot things up and move on to the next place.

And there is a problem with that? Wait till the Borg attack.....then its ON!

Duke wrote:

snakebrain wrote:All you need to know is how to shoot things up and move on to the next place.

And there is a problem with that?

No, useful idiots are, as the name suggests, useful.

Getting back to the title of this clusterf***, or should I say post, unless Lance did something to Duke personally, I'm distressed at the attitude of celebrating a comedown of a remarkable athlete. I'll even throw the flag out there and say a remarkable American athlete succeeding in a sport where we have traditionally had little involvement in.

Duke wrote:

Matt wrote:What's your specific beef with Assange?

Really..................you as an American ask that?

Don't be so dramatic. You should know that the "America" we have today shares some geographic boundaries with the America that inspired the myth we are all told about in school. But that America has been dead for a long time. This country is -- for a while longer at least -- merely the least shitty of all of them. It's not what it's supposed to be and I'll dispense with it just as soon as something else better comes along. Why? Because most politicians and most citizens dispensed with it a long time ago.

How about 1000s if not 10,000s of our troops and allies being put in peril due to the information he stole (that POS soldier lives very close to me) and published. The amount of people who are dead because of this will never be known.

Well, I figured you might say that.

Here's the thing. Military brass have publicly said that _no_ military operations or people were compromised because of the leaks.

So were they lying to cover/save face?

Or, if they were telling the truth, doesn't that mean that 100% of the uproar over these leaks is because it catches quite a few useless politicians with their pants down?

I am not a fan of government having secrets. I understand the need for OpSec. I haven't seen evidence that any was compromised as a result of this work.

To me, it looks like a bunch of politicians are going to crucify a guy and burn any bridges and break any laws they need to in order to save face.

Matt wrote:I am not a fan of government having secrets. I understand the need for OpSec. I haven't seen evidence that any was compromised as a result of this work.

Sorry dude about the reality of life on this earth but secrets keep all of us in freedom. You will never see any "evidence" of compromise. If you have a TS/SCI and are read into the right programs, you might.

BTW - The National Enquirer is not a good reference document.

Duke wrote:

Matt wrote:I am not a fan of government having secrets. I understand the need for OpSec. I haven't seen evidence that any was compromised as a result of this work.

Sorry dude about the reality of life on this earth but secrets keep all of us in freedom. You will never see any "evidence" of compromise. If you have a TS/SCI and are read into the right programs, you might.

I'm not free now, but that's a separate discussion.

If you have specific information that the brass were lying and that US personnel were compromised, you fucked up by implying so here.

But I suspect you don't have that, and that you're running your hot headed mouth, like usual.

The US should stop fucking around and charge Assange with what they actually want him for. The fact that they haven't details all of their motives entirely.

Matt wrote:The US should stop fucking around and charge Assange with what they actually want him for. The fact that they haven't details all of their motives entirely.

That's the part I really don't understand. Various US and Canadian officials have gone as far as to publicly call for his outright assassination, which is pretty over the top. There are rumors of a secret sealed indictment against him (that's referenced directly in one of the Wikileaks releases), but the US won't just come out and say, "We want this guy for X, please help us get him." I don't understand what the US stands to gain from playing coy about the whole thing.

Jeremy wrote:

Matt wrote:The US should stop fucking around and charge Assange with what they actually want him for. The fact that they haven't details all of their motives entirely.

That's the part I really don't understand. Various US and Canadian officials have gone as far as to publicly call for his outright assassination, which is pretty over the top. There are rumors of a secret sealed indictment against him (that's referenced directly in one of the Wikileaks releases), but the US won't just come out and say, "We want this guy for X, please help us get him." I don't understand what the US stands to gain from playing coy about the whole thing.

It's no longer over the top for the American government to call for assassination, since the American president has authorized the successful assassination of an American child.

Assange isn't even an American. He's completely expendable, comparatively. He's a "hacker" and he's been "accused of a sex crime"

The incompetence of the administration is really showing here. Yes, you can take down political enemies in _America_ by waving vague accusations of sexual misconduct at them, but in Europe nobody cares. It's not a successful takedown tactic there, and our administration trying it there indicates how amero-Centric and inept they are.

For what its worth, Duke (and others), I think Manning should have the book thrown at him. Manning took an oath and knew the consequences. Even if he thought he was blowing the whistle for the cause of justice, courageous whistleblowers expect to do time and to face retribution. He should either be satisfied that the information is out there; his "moral good" accomplished, or his motives for doing any of this lose 100% of any credibility or moral armor they might have ever had.

But Assange never signed to or agreed to anything. That's the thing -- it's not clear he broke any law or did anything wrong. He's guilty of embarrassing a bunch of people who think they are above the law -- and now those people are doing their best to make sure nobody else sees that the emperors have no clothes.