Why Lance Armstrong stopped fighting ...

Why Lance Armstrong stopped fighting the doping charges

There are 24 comments on the The Daily Caller story from Aug 27, 2012, titled Why Lance Armstrong stopped fighting the doping charges. In it, The Daily Caller reports that:

Eric Dezenhall is the CEO of Dezenhall Resources, Ltd. , a crisis management firm.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Daily Caller.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
GeeMan

Bangor, UK

#24 Oct 4, 2012
Turtle, thought you said you were off and finished posting after your last rant in the other thread!

After you accused me of being LA and the Devil incarnate with 666 behind my ear all at once as well as you being chosen to carry a Cross and Holy Water against us, it doesn’t leave much room to take any serious consideration to your ramblings.

It’s difficult at times dealing with someone wishing to contest your posts with no argument or facts and if my responses are taken in the wrong context by you that’s unfortunate but something I shall just live with it in my lair of fire and brimstone.

You need to get a grasp of reality and understand what is going on and that this NOT a battle of Good v Evil and that both sides are completely at it. This whole matter has nothing to do with did LA took PED’s or not it is Sport Politics being played out in a match of brinksmanship and both USADA and WADA trying out their new Code that so far hasn’t been tested in anyone’s Home Law but is now in the US. They are working outwith their own rules and those of US Law.

WADA president stated that Contador only got a ban because the Spanish President spoke up in his defence and if he kept quiet he wouldn’t have been banned. That is fact and how these guys work is no better than anyone else as they try and wield their power.
WHY would WADA force their Scientists to sign a legal agreement preventing them commenting on Doping cases unless an Executive approves it and this agreement is legally binding for 8 years regardless if they are in their employment or not. Is that a fair and reasonable way of working or does it smack of a control freak organisation. That’s why their top scientist left them because he refused but you know all of this because I have informed you but you still believe they are lily white, utter nonsense.
WADA President also publicly stated UCI must approve USADA sanctions immediately and without contest and without any file being issued to UCI, that as well know is not correct or within WADA Code and he actually runs them! Madmen who are power crazed are not confined to Government or large Corporations but found regularly in place like WADA and also UCI.

Also STOP saying there is a Legal Case to answer, there is not. It was dropped this year and Judge Sparks also said the same. No case is pending or lodged for Trial, FACT! Do you ever wonder WHY LA has NEVER been called to testify under oath? That must be seen as Strange if they wished to narrow his ability to make a defence but they never did, why?

USADA as we all know are not working within a Legal framework but on their own rules but as noted above they are testing out if they can push this to the limit in many aspects and time shall tell how it works out for them.

We shall also soon see if Tygart is willing to repeat his accusations that UCI have buried positive tests for LA after the recent UCI v Landis ruling in Switzerland. Let’s hope he does and we shall see how it’s dealt with when he has to answer to a Court for defamation on an accepted ruling instead of hiding behind comments. If USADA also table this in the evidence to UCI they shall be in Court and if they leave it out UCI shall be in a position to force them to make full public apology and retraction.
My view is that UCI will not ask for the apology but use it to negotiate their own findings with USADA and if we see it emerge it means negotiations are not going to well. Like I said this is not about LA but USADA/WADA and UCI and possibly USADA/US Law, LA is now a pawn I the game.

It also doesn’t look good after the Landis ruling for Kimmage case with UCI. It is of no surprise why all these organisations are based in Switzerland!
Based on your logic turtle that means as a Court have agreed UCI did not hide LA positive tests then it must be true!

I’m now off to cook my dinner with my pitchfork and look at the reflection of LA coming back at me in my full length mirror. You are comedy Gold m8.
GeeMan

Bangor, UK

#25 Oct 4, 2012
Turtle, thought you said you were off and finished posting after your last rant in the other thread!

After you accused me of being LA and the Devil incarnate with 666 behind my ear all at once as well as you being chosen to carry a Cross and Holy Water against us, it doesn’t leave much room to take any serious consideration to your ramblings.

It’s difficult at times dealing with someone wishing to contest your posts with no argument or facts and if my responses are taken in the wrong context by you that’s unfortunate but something I shall just live with it in my lair of fire and brimstone.

You need to get a grasp of reality and understand what is going on and that this NOT a battle of Good v Evil and that both sides are completely at it. This whole matter has nothing to do with did LA took PED’s or not it is Sport Politics being played out in a match of brinksmanship and both USADA and WADA trying out their new Code that so far hasn’t been tested in anyone’s Home Law but is now in the US. They are working outwith their own rules and those of US Law.

WADA president stated that Contador only got a ban because the Spanish President spoke up in his defence and if he kept quiet he wouldn’t have been banned. That is fact and how these guys work is no better than anyone else as they try and wield their power.
WHY would WADA force their Scientists to sign a legal agreement preventing them commenting on Doping cases unless an Executive approves it and this agreement is legally binding for 8 years regardless if they are in their employment or not. Is that a fair and reasonable way of working or does it smack of a control freak organisation. That’s why their top scientist left them because he refused but you know all of this because I have informed you but you still believe they are lily white, utter nonsense.
WADA President also publicly stated UCI must approve USADA sanctions immediately and without contest and without any file being issued to UCI, that as well know is not correct or within WADA Code and he actually runs them! Madmen who are power crazed are not confined to Government or large Corporations but found regularly in place like WADA and also UCI.

Also STOP saying there is a Legal Case to answer, there is not. It was dropped this year and Judge Sparks also said the same. No case is pending or lodged for Trial, FACT! Do you ever wonder WHY LA has NEVER been called to testify under oath? That must be seen as Strange if they wished to narrow his ability to make a defence but they never did, why?

USADA as we all know are not working within a Legal framework but on their own rules but as noted above they are testing out if they can push this to the limit in many aspects and time shall tell how it works out for them.

We shall also soon see if Tygart is willing to repeat his accusations that UCI have buried positive tests for LA after the recent UCI v Landis ruling in Switzerland. Let’s hope he does and we shall see how it’s dealt with when he has to answer to a Court for defamation on an accepted ruling instead of hiding behind comments. If USADA also table this in the evidence to UCI they shall be in Court and if they leave it out UCI shall be in a position to force them to make full public apology and retraction.
My view is that UCI will not ask for the apology but use it to negotiate their own findings with USADA and if we see it emerge it means negotiations are not going to well. Like I said this is not about LA but USADA/WADA and UCI and possibly USADA/US Law, LA is now a pawn I the game.

It also doesn’t look good after the Landis ruling for Kimmage case with UCI. It is of no surprise why all these organisations are based in Switzerland!
Based on your logic turtle that means as a Court have agreed UCI did not hide LA positive tests then it must be true!

I’m now off to cook my dinner with my pitchfork and look at the reflection of LA coming back at me in my full length mirror. You are comedy Gold m8.
Freddy

Fayetteville, AR

#26 Oct 31, 2012
“The witness reports against him are detailed and corroborate one another. This itself is evidence”…..

Depending upon how the interviews were conducted and how the witnesses were lead to the pre-arranged conclusions.
Think it is impossible, consider a related witch-hunt in which a lack of physical evidence was proof the “master-satanists” were involved.
Wiki Satanic ritual abuse and look at the McMartin preschool trial and the outcome.

Can I question witnesses and make the testimony come out the way I want? The answer is yes!
Let’s take one of those affidavits from the “evidence”
For fun we will use Frankie Andreu…..items 23-28.
It appears as if his answers are listed, but where are the questions?
In 23 he asserts prevalence of EPO
In 24 he asserts a general team consensus that using will be necessary….
In 25 he asserts lance says lance “was in favor of doing something about it”
In 26 he incriminates himself and someone else going to get EPO
In 27 he says lance begins work with some doctor
In 28 he says he observed lance had “bulked up”

For fun let us add some speculative questions?
When did EPO come to your attention? Answer #23
When did it come to the teams full attention? Answer #24
What did Lance Armstrong say specifically about it? Answer #25
When did you obtain/use EPO? Answer #26
Where did Lance get EPO? Answer #27
How did you know lance was using EPO? Answer #28

Now replace EPO with EGG and Lance Armstrong (LA) with the Easter Bunny (EB).

Children were interviewed (glad that was on video so the truth could come out!)
Are there videos of the interviews of the persons making the accusations, where questions and answers can be seen, or is the evidence all carefully edited statements the individuals signed off on?

The McMartin preschool trial lasted 7 years and cost 15 million dollars.

I am a bit too wise to believe that “witness statement agreement” is iron-clad evidence, it can be strong evidence, or it can be manipulated to come to the pre-determined conclusion.

In a criminal trial, either side can ask the judge to exclude witnesses from the courtroom while another witness testifies. This is usually done before the trial begins by filing a Motion for Sequestration. Essentially, each witness testifies without being influenced by other testimony. This reduces any chance of a witness tailoring their testimony to match someone else’s testimony.
….may also exclude out-of-court communications between witnesses. For example, a witness isn’t allowed to read the transcript of another witness’s testimony. Basically, anything that involves one witness learning, prior to their own testimony, about another witness’s testimony can be forbidden
GeeMan

Glenrothes, UK

#27 Oct 31, 2012
@Freddy the Code only allows the cross examination of witnesses USADA call and their witnesses may not attend and their testimony is then placed on record as factual submission from them.

It is not just crooked leading into proceedings it is crooked all the way through.

The whole WADA Code will be unravelled very soon when a Government says Nope your Code does not supersede our Laws. I can tell you that under European Laws it would be thrown out for Home Law.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Cycling Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Alarm Siren Padlock 110dba Instructions Rev... Jul '17 NewYorkView 1
News Buy Nothing Day + Carnivalesque Rebellion | Adb... (Nov '10) Jun '17 BuyPhartsx 3
The Bicycle Air Pump Horn 120DB Super Loud Inst... Jun '17 NewYorkView 1
News Trump turns to 'The Snake' to warn about border... May '17 Wildchild 1
News Sir Dave Brailsford admits treatment by former ... (Mar '17) Mar '17 Sky phart 1
News British Cycling reputation 'in tatters', says M... (Mar '17) Mar '17 British phart 1
News Democratic pressure to oppose Trump roils Capit... (Feb '17) Feb '17 Democrats alienat... 1
More from around the web