Must Read: Tygart details Armstrong case in L'Equipe

Full story: Velonews

U.S. Anti-Doping Agency CEO Travis Tygart is confident of his agency's lifetime ban on Lance Armstrong, as well as its case against Johan Bruyneel, and believes his case file will go to the UCI before the end of September.
Comments
1 - 20 of 28 Comments Last updated Oct 7, 2012
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
GeeMan

Bo'ness, UK

#1 Sep 25, 2012
Why is it that Travis Tygart has a need to share what he purports to have discovered with a French newspaper that has long been against Armstrong rather than everyone else who is entitled to it first and without prejudice and/or Public debate or exposure i.e. confedential.
To be fair to L'Equipe they just hate anyone who is not French and wins Classics and the TDF because they have been unable to produce a home grown winner!

I said before lets see who leaks to the press and suggested it would be USADA and they dont dissapoint!

The time taken for this case has been Tygart trying to wind it up when the evidence and its security of tenure should be all that matters.
It looks like Tygart enjoys being in the media a lot and knows that no one else will be able to feed his need like Armstrong's name in the same way Hamilton has basically wrote a book Armstrong and what he says happened, who would buy his book if it was about him?

Tygart also says he offered Armstrong a chance to work with USADA and confess however it appears that offer is about as much worth as the paper is wasnt written on and all Armstrong needs do is deny it was offered, if indeed it was offered!

Tygart would have been better to issue the evidence then talk about it instead of winding everyone up about it before its issued but he appears to be self obsessed to be in the media and reeks of a wannabee Politician and it looks like, to me, he sees Armstrong as his ticket to that.

If anyone wants to take issue with my views on Tygarts behaviour please explain why his actions are acceptable, fitting and do not contravene Armstrong's constitutional rights?

Its OK for Tygart and USADA to go around saying what they want and go outwith the rules, bearing in mind their ability to go beyond 8 years needs an agreement at a Panel Hearing and that hasnt taken place and his defence in doing this is Armstrong cheated.

Lets say he is guilty of everything USADA say he is that does not mean they are entitled to do what they want outside their Code and questionable as a contravention of Armstrongs Constitutional Rights, a Judges comments not mine.
turtle

Huddersfield, UK

#2 Sep 25, 2012
GeeMan wrote:
Why is it that Travis Tygart has a need to share what he purports to have discovered with a French newspaper that has long been against Armstrong rather than everyone else who is entitled to it first and without prejudice and/or Public debate or exposure i.e. confedential.
To be fair to L'Equipe they just hate anyone who is not French and wins Classics and the TDF because they have been unable to produce a home grown winner!
I said before lets see who leaks to the press and suggested it would be USADA and they dont dissapoint!
The time taken for this case has been Tygart trying to wind it up when the evidence and its security of tenure should be all that matters.
It looks like Tygart enjoys being in the media a lot and knows that no one else will be able to feed his need like Armstrong's name in the same way Hamilton has basically wrote a book Armstrong and what he says happened, who would buy his book if it was about him?
Tygart also says he offered Armstrong a chance to work with USADA and confess however it appears that offer is about as much worth as the paper is wasnt written on and all Armstrong needs do is deny it was offered, if indeed it was offered!
Tygart would have been better to issue the evidence then talk about it instead of winding everyone up about it before its issued but he appears to be self obsessed to be in the media and reeks of a wannabee Politician and it looks like, to me, he sees Armstrong as his ticket to that.
If anyone wants to take issue with my views on Tygarts behaviour please explain why his actions are acceptable, fitting and do not contravene Armstrong's constitutional rights?
Its OK for Tygart and USADA to go around saying what they want and go outwith the rules, bearing in mind their ability to go beyond 8 years needs an agreement at a Panel Hearing and that hasnt taken place and his defence in doing this is Armstrong cheated.
Lets say he is guilty of everything USADA say he is that does not mean they are entitled to do what they want outside their Code and questionable as a contravention of Armstrongs Constitutional Rights, a Judges comments not mine.
Here you go again geedman, making assumptions and stretching anything you can to fit your view. Its more like you who has a personnel vendetta. Are you sure you do not work for la, when i can be bothered and have the time. I will again point out your mixture of facts and fiction and highlight where your assumptions become complete fiction. For the time being i ask you again to reread your own comments. You will find that either you have misread some of the material about this case or that you are deliberately twisting what has been said to suit your own views.
I thought that you had finally accepted some of your mistakes, when i pointed out where you had stated facts which were incorrect.
tygart is not giving L'Equipe the case file or revealing any of its evidence in this interview. So your whole post is based on an incorrect assumption. I wonder if you ever read anyone's posts or any reports before you go on the stampede. This is not a leek of material as you report it to be. Everything in the interview was already in the public domain. Like usada not receiving the federal case material, which i had to bring you up on before for making false statements about.
GeeMan

Bo'ness, UK

#3 Sep 25, 2012
Another point worth noting is 2 October is a date around the world to Cancer fundraisers including Livestrong.

Is this a coincidence on the delay to release the USADA file that should have been done on the day they applied sanctions last month!

Lets see what date it happens on.

GeeMan

Bo'ness, UK

#4 Sep 25, 2012
turtle once again you are bumping your gums with nothing to say.

The only facts you are aware of in this matter are those I have given you in other posts to point out where you were wrong.

Who said Tygart was giving L'Equipe the case file? That in FACT is YOU getting it wrong again.

What do you know that USADA have as evidence? Nothing like the rest of us apart from what Tygart has revealed and is revealing about the case in the press. NONE of which is official.

I said a while back that USADA would leak parts of the case and LOOK they did, another misunderstood point I suppose?

My point which you appear unable to understand is the KEY Official in this matter discussing the case with a newspaper when UCI and Armstrong are unable to get anything from them. he should be spending his time doing what he purports to be the USADA mantra of setting a level playing field for all athletes! Not happening here is it?

You are obviously unable to separate what an official should be doing in their role when National and International Associations are criticising them for issuing NO information.

Itís not about truth or guilt itís about the process but it appears your eyes are painted on that you cannot see that is what I am saying and have been saying for a very long time.

I sent you the link to USADA own procedures 'Code' noting where they have to prove certain aspects before applying certain sanctions and they have not and if they have they have not issued the disclosure required in their own Code.

As far as reading about this matter and Cycling it is clear from the nonsense you have spouted every time you make a post you are not a Cycling fan or you would actually know its history and the trials it has gone through and the history in this matter with EVERYONE involved.

Read your own posts M8 and try and thread a fact or two together before attempting to take apart mine as it looks like you are unable without help.

I will have to keep educating you because you donít know about Cycling and you donít make an effort to read about it, unlike true Cycling fans.

A point you also have NO IDEA about is Tygart was on the panel during the Federal Investigation and PLEASE tell me how it took $millions over 2 years for multiple agencies to compile a case file that was dropped BUT USADA took 4 months to gather MORE evidence than a huge Legal Team with the threat of perjury at their disposal over 2 years.
Grow up man and understand that not everything that government and quasi government agencies say is true. The FACT they have approach EVERY witness who testified in SECRET are now on USADA rota but I am sure you have a very good answer for that as well. You will not be aware of this FACT but all the testimonies taken must be kept secret however Tygart said he expected to receive this from FDA! Absolutely unbelievable.

turtle is a good name as you definitely live in a shell.

If you want to be clever try telling everyone something that is factual and correct and something we donít know as so far that has eluded you.

Why donít you find on the net what Tygart has said about his visits to France only, gained blood samples from the French Doping Agency, etc and post these here so you can validate your incorrect assumption these are public domain information, they are NOT!

You also are unable to understand prejudice of defendantís rights when evidence has not been shared or a hearing taken place.

You may admit to not having much time to look into stuff which is an admission of not knowing much about this but as all courts will tell you Ignorance is not a defence, try and not use it again please.
turtle

Huddersfield, UK

#5 Sep 25, 2012
GeeMan wrote:
turtle once again you are bumping your gums with nothing to say.
The only facts you are aware of in this matter are those I have given you in other posts to point out where you were wrong.
Who said Tygart was giving L'Equipe the case file? That in FACT is YOU getting it wrong again.
What do you know that USADA have as evidence? Nothing like the rest of us apart from what Tygart has revealed and is revealing about the case in the press. NONE of which is official.
I said a while back that USADA would leak parts of the case and LOOK they did, another misunderstood point I suppose?
My point which you appear unable to understand is the KEY Official in this matter discussing the case with a newspaper when UCI and Armstrong are unable to get anything from them. he should be spending his time doing what he purports to be the USADA mantra of setting a level playing field for all athletes! Not happening here is it?
You are obviously unable to separate what an official should be doing in their role when National and International Associations are criticising them for issuing NO information.
Itís not about truth or guilt itís about the process but it appears your eyes are painted on that you cannot see that is what I am saying and have been saying for a very long time.
I sent you the link to USADA own procedures 'Code' noting where they have to prove certain aspects before applying certain sanctions and they have not and if they have they have not issued the disclosure required in their own Code.
As far as reading about this matter and Cycling it is clear from the nonsense you have spouted every time you make a post you are not a Cycling fan or you would actually know its history and the trials it has gone through and the history in this matter with EVERYONE involved.
Read your own posts M8 and try and thread a fact or two together before attempting to take apart mine as it looks like you are unable without help.
trials.
Again you attempt to shout the loudest and most to validate your incorrect posts. What a surprise. Oh, and stop mixing up the process which takes place in a us court of law and that which takes place in an arbitration following pre specified guidelines for that particular area of arbitration. Reread your own posts geeman as you seem confused about what you have said. If all my knowledge of this situation came from you, i would surely only possess the narrow field of vision you have, thankfully that is not the case. As a side question, is English your first language? as you appear unable to understand it. If you take a second to look back you will see that i stated that tygart was not giving L'Equipe the case file or revealing any of its evidence in this interview. Not that this is what you had written. You actually wrote "Why is it that Travis Tygart has a need to share what he purports to have discovered with a French newspaper that has long been against Armstrong rather than everyone else who is entitled to it first and without prejudice and/or Public debate or exposure i.e. confidential" Nothing in the interview was of this nature. I repeat that everything said had already been said or was available. Have you read the whole interview? or just comments about the interview? is your french good enough to read the interview yourself without translation issues? Also this is not a leek as you purport it to be. I think it is quite reasonable and actually makes perfect sense that the newspaper which is intrinsically connected to the tour de france ( you would understand this if you were a true cycling fan) is ahead of all other news reporting medias when there is anything to do with the tour. They should rightly be the first to interview and report on any progress in this case or any area relating to the tour. Your notion of Lí…quipe being against la is wrong, it is for the tour. Always has been and always will be.
GeeMan

Bo'ness, UK

#6 Sep 26, 2012
turtle you are truly devoid of being able to make a new fresh and cogent comment/point without trying to write nonsense and use other peoples posts as the basis.
You keep saying comments made by me and others are not accurate but you add nothing to demonstrate your point which means you know nothing and just like making a noise for the sake of it.
Itís NOT ENOUGH to just say it you need to demonstrate it.'you have no time' doesnít wash and shows you up as someone without a fresh opinion of your own and leech off other peopleís views and opinions that you add complete nonsense to. I read what you have said and made constructive points to your ramblings and tried to help you understand why comments you make are wrong and I do this by facts that exist and I am not short to say, in my opinion when needed.

STOP leeching off other posts and add something fresh and new which I believe you are not capable of.

As far as your insults about English language I remember you saying you are NOT English so maybe itís not your 1st language and you are in fact struggling with it? That will help explain your lack of understanding between sharing the case file which UCI wish USADA to do and making guarded statements to people who have no interest in it such as newspapers in an effort to create misguided and misdirected debate and comments.
The word 'interest' by the way is a reference to those entitled within the due process and not just a passing interest.
That's not preaching itís to help you with your English.

Your comments about L'Equipe demonstrate how little you know about Cycling and highlight that you truly are unable to research anything before you say it. Every Cycling fan knows what the French Media feel about Armstrong, itís all in the record, but as you are incapable of spending time to discover your comments make no sense you will never find that out, unless of course someone else on here corrects you and educates you.
It is also quite clear that have NO IDEA that Armstrong sued LíEquipe for accusing him of doping but thatís OK and that USADA had no ulterior motive other than to discuss the case with the media. What about the Washington Post, Corriere dello Sport, The Telegraph and all the other newspapers and media stations being denied interviewed in favour of a newspaper who despise Armstrong.
There is a saying where I come from about people like you turtle who wants to keep saying stuff but make no sense and have no real opinions of their own and that is...íyou are full of wind and pissí.

You keep saying I/others donít understand stuff so why donít you do what I have asked and demonstrate what you are saying with valid facts or at least reasoned argument. I will not hold my breath as you have spent a lot of time leeching off others posts and have nothing new or fresh to contribute that make 'a debate'.

I wonít tell you what 'debate' means and hope you can find a good translation tool to help you but I am sure you donít have time for that so we will end up back here again with your no point ramblings to make comments.
Have you thought about going to night school to help with your English?
GeeMan

Bo'ness, UK

#7 Sep 26, 2012
Latest news is no later than 15 October for UCI/Others to receive the File from USADA.

29 June they formally issue a charge sheet on LA.
Thats less than 5 months to compile evidence the Federal Investigation couldnt achieve securely in 2 years.

October 15 is now the date which is 4 months after USADA issued their charge sheet and at that time based on the Code should have had the File completed.

Tygart said in a week then by end of this month and now they need more than 2 weeks more than this.

It shall also be interesting to see who USADA register on their investigations and approval panel i.e. if Clark Griffiths remains as their Legal Council and named on it!
Whilst his participation up to the charge sheet is accepted his involvement may have been curtailed to comply with the Judges order for him to seek sex offender councelling as part of his sentencing for indecent exposure.

Fit and proper person comes to mind when dealing with these matters or is that something USADA dont need to be concerned about and those who post in their favour does it matter to you?
Cam

Festus, MO

#8 Sep 30, 2012
~~~29 June they formally issue a charge sheet on LA.
Thats less than 5 months to compile evidence the Federal Investigation couldnt achieve securely in 2 years.~~~

USADA began its investigation in 2010, pausing for a while as the Feds conducted their own case on different charges, and then concluded it earlier this year. They didn't investigate after making the charges in June.

~~~and at that time based on the Code should have had the File completed.~~~

This is a complete fallacy. There is no timeline in the WADA code for USADA to have their dossier in by.

By the way, your above assertions of "leaks" is hilarious. This isn't grand jury testimony or national secrets. It's a dossier detailing a sports doping operation on a case that is over.
GeeMan

Cowdenbeath, UK

#9 Oct 1, 2012
Cam, your comments are opposed to those you have made in another Armstrong thread. Confused.com deliberately or not?

As I noted in the other post to you Tygart was present at Fed testimonies, you donít appear to know this!

There are also time line guidelines/requirements within the 'Code' you need to read it again if you have at all.

Your comment on leaks as hilarious is confusing when you are relying on newspaper articles to substantiate your comments in other posts! Confused.com as I said above. Perhaps the irony escapes you but it is also humorous which may have been your intention, which worked!

You also purport to know about the requirements of the 'Code' but you also claim the case is closed when in fact it has not been closed under current requirements. The reasoned argument to support proposed sanctions has not been issued despite the exclusive interview with L'Equipe and with David Walsh at Sunday Times (accident these are 2 newspapers with a vendetta against Armstrong? if you say yes you need to go back to school!). You are therefore wrong to suggest itís closed as they need to submit this file and ask for the sanctions to be approved by UCI and IOC.
You may also wish to look at what is being said by IOC and UCI in the matter and also take time to look into the history of doping in Cycling pre and post Armstrong and you may well appreciate better why Cycling Fans have a serious issue with WADA/USADA.

Itís not about Guilt as far as I am concerned as I am very comfortable with how I see Cycling and what Armstrong has done and how he did it. It is also clear to me that from USADA actions against Armstrong they share this view and not concentrating on their role and responsibilities under their own OM and their Code but instead to pile as much discomfort on Armstrong and are attempting to stop him from Fund Raising for a great cause.
Anyone who wants Armstrong stopped from continuing his work as one of the biggest, possibly the biggest, fundraiser in the world just now is morally bankrupt and I would ask them what if your family was victim of the big C and Livestrong could help you work through it and possibly overcome it would you say no thanks I donít agree with Armstrongís Sporting past. I simply will not believe you and some people on here and elsewhere need to separate the difference between them which USADA are unwilling to do also and I suggest that will cause them damage in the future both politically and with moral public support they are working so hard to establish ahead of the File formal issue.

Cam, try reading up more before posting contradictory posts.
Cam

Festus, MO

#10 Oct 1, 2012
My comments are in line with what I said in the other thread. Why you think differently is a mystery only you could understand.

There is no timeline in the code, but since you know differently, perhaps you could inform me of what that timeline is.

I never claimed parts of the dossier haven't been "leaked." I said that it is irrelevant. Armstrong's case is over as far as USADA is concerned. He refused to contest and thus accepted sanctions. There is nothing keeping USADA from putting its evidence out publicly except it wants to wait until after the other three cases are finished. The IOC has nothing to do with validating the sanctions. USADA will send its dossier to WADA and the UCI, either of which can appeal.

~~~and are attempting to stop him from Fund Raising for a great cause.~~~

So not only have you picked up Armstrong's catch phrases like vendetta, you are asserting that USADA wants to prevent cancer fund raising. Do people take you seriously around here?
GeeMan

Cowdenbeath, UK

#11 Oct 1, 2012
Cam your posts contradict themselves and I have explained why.

Timeline, there is one which you are obviously totally unaware of. How do you think that it can be measured to say without doubt that it has actually been concluded satisfactorily, by all relevant parties?
I am not going to educate you on this as you need to take time and find FACTS before making assumptions and bold unsubstantiated statements as you are doing.

On the leaked comments I know I didnít make them so I asked why you did and I am happy to see you confirm they were in fact erroneous.
Ethical procedures exist for any organisation that receives Government Funding and they are checked against this to ensure correct expenditure and not bringing the Government into question and/or disrepute.
This issue has been raised by those Senators you referred to as fools in another thread who raised the issue with the Governance Committee to check they operate within their guidelines. It is not acceptable practice to share details of information with parties who have no relevant interest in a matter before sharing with those who do. Hopefully you shall realise that as no one else is responding to USADA press comments other than no comment, there is a big clue there.

I shall also be very interested how you manage to work around your contradiction that itís OK to share information on the case with press without sharing it with relevant parties on the incorrect assumption it is closed, BUT you then say USADA are unwilling to share the evidence with the relevant parties due to 3 other cases. Why is this not a contradiction?

Once you have managed to work solve your contradiction conundrum can you then explain how you get around the Prejudice issues it has on the 3 cases you mention?

Regarding the IOC and Can you also explain why IOC has no input to USADA Sanctions? I am almost certain it was them who awarded it to him, perhaps I am wrong but I am sure you can explain?

On the fundraising issue re-read the ethics part and ask yourself apart from being vindictive what purpose does a lifetime ban have on an athlete who is retired?

I look forward to your reply which I hope has facts/reasoned arguments that allow debate and leaves unnecessary abuse out. Adding abuse is the same as shouting to win an argument, it leaves people thinking empty barrel making a lot of noise.

As far as anyone taking me serious, you replied!!
Cam

Festus, MO

#12 Oct 1, 2012
No, you have not explained why my posts supposedly are contradictory.

So, you can't tell me what the timeline is but you are going to continue with the claim that there is one and pretend I'm the one making unsubstantiated statements. Oh, we're going to get along well.

For the third time, there is nothing wrong with information from USADA's dossier getting out into the public. You are the only one pretending otherwise. The Senators said nothing about "leaks". The press reported their powerplay on September 22. None of the details from USADA's dossier emerged until a week later.

~~~itís OK to share information on the case with press without sharing it with relevant parties~~~

If by relevant parties you mean the UCI and WADA, they are about to get the dossier.

~~~BUT you then say USADA are unwilling to share the evidence with the relevant parties due to 3 other cases.~~~

Please read more thoroughly. I said USADA likely doesn't want the evidence released PUBLICLY until the other cases are finished. This is quite different than giving to the UCI and WADA.

The IOC will not be involved in this matter unless the UCI decides to ignore USADA's sanctions. WADA and the UCI are entitled to see USADA's reasoning and evidence before deciding whether to appeal.

Complaining about "abuse" only makes you sound hypocritical. Or have you not noticed your own writing?
GeeMan

Cowdenbeath, UK

#13 Oct 1, 2012
Cam you appear unwilling or unable to respond to my comments and all you have done is say the same things again when I have raised some points for you to answer in the hope there is some method behind the madness, so to speak.

So far there is none.

The contradictions have not only been explained you have taken time to repeat them again.
AGAIN,
How can USADA be allowed to speak about the case openly but are not wishing it to go public?
How can USADA achieve this whilst protecting the interests of 3 other cases and not want to go public but itís OK to speak about it.
CONFUSED or what!!!!!!!!!!

That has to be deliberate as no one would post and repost that; you must be having a laugh Cam.

I asked about the nonsense above and Prejudice and how thatís avoided with the hokey cokey of information going in and out of press? How do you address that one Cam, you decided not to answer last post, did you miss it or what?

Once again 'Leaks' are your invention; donít keep speaking about them, please!

Please go and read the Senators letter and try and understand they are raising Constitutional and Ethics issues against USADA. Ethics cover all the parts I have mentioned to you previously not the narrow view you wish to apportion unfortunately.

You are obviously unaware of USADA comments about issuing the file to UCI otherwise you would not say the nonsense you have.
They openly stated they believed issuing to UCI would make their evidence public and the witnesses would not be protected. Try researching the matter before making assumptions.

You have absolutely no clue about the IOC and the Bronze medal issue have you.
I asked you to explain but you have ignored that also.
Well I am not going to educate you on this and will leave you to find out about it.
Spelling it out didnít make any difference at all and I donít believe you will answer as you will either have to read and understand what I have said or research the matter and that appears to be too much trouble to let facts get in the way of your opinions.

Abuse!! I donít print that, which is difficult at times reading assumed nonsense like your own, I would rather offer 'critique' which can range from praise and agreement to go and get someone to help you as you donít understand what is going on. I would have to say you are the bottom end of the 'critique' ladder but everyone should look to improve if they want to. Letís see how you deal with that.

You also donít comment on a lifetime ban on a retired athlete which I am sure you just missed and therefore I assume you shall say 'thatís OK it serves a purpose', there you see help is at hand to anyone at Topix who needs it.

Why donít you CHALLENGE yourself and find something relevant, original about this matter and come back and post something worthwhile that can be debated.

I am not going to hold my breath for you as my hope whilst it normally springs eternal doesnít for you, for some reason.
Gus

Vancouver, Canada

#14 Oct 1, 2012
C'mon guys,get USADA to give out the straight goods etc.and get this charade over with it really is becoming a Joke,at this rate,pretty soon nobody will give a Rat's Ass.Lookin' forward to Alberto in Le Tour next year,unless he's given a tainted Hot Dog or something:)
GeeMan

Cowdenbeath, UK

#15 Oct 1, 2012
Gus I agree but its a moving target.

I am sure Contador will manage himself better nowadays and watchinh him in the Vuelta was great his stay away massive time trial was at the time seen by many, including myself, as suicide so early in the stage and he would blow up later in the stage but he didnt and it was awasome and inspiring.

Another thought for today, 2 October, LA was diiagnosed with Cancer and regardless of what folks want to say about him he has done a great job since beating it to help ease the pain and suffering of millions and help fund the research to hopefully beat it soon.

I like many have been affected by it within my family and have no issue with LA past and want him to keep doing what he is dong now.

Surely everyone else does as well and able to separate the Athlete from the Man.
Gus

Vancouver, Canada

#16 Oct 1, 2012
Agree,I've lost 4 family members ... regardless of the outcome of all this...
Live Strong Lance!
Cam

Festus, MO

#17 Oct 2, 2012
I'm not responding to you anymore, Geeman. There's no point since you misconstrue what I write and arrogantly dismiss everything else. Your constant presumptions and assertions are beyond annoying and I can not believe anyone around her enjoys debating with you.
GeeMan

Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK

#18 Oct 2, 2012
Cam your input and absence is something, I believe, cannot be measured.
turtle

Huddersfield, UK

#19 Oct 2, 2012
Cam wrote:
I'm not responding to you anymore, Geeman. There's no point since you misconstrue what I write and arrogantly dismiss everything else. Your constant presumptions and assertions are beyond annoying and I can not believe anyone around her enjoys debating with you.
i cam, i happened to glance at one of your earlier posts correcting the forever erroneous geeman, on some of his all to often misleading and incorrect statements. Since then i have followed yours and geemans correspondence with mounting hilarity, horror, glee, amazement, laughter, awe and sheer disbelief.
I will not quote any of the comments either of you have made or enter into the debate at all. As it would only allow for geeman to start posting his very own style of nonsense to me all over again !!! god forbid.
What i will say to you (and please geeman this is not meant for you or for you to reply to) Is that through reading your discussion, brought about in me a very strong feeling of deja vu. The actual detail and comments posted by both of you were mostly different, but the condescending replies were only to familiar. The actual length of replies, tone, nonsense, style and fabrication of your opponent were again, only to familiar. Please take the time to read my and our friends conversations on this thread and several others within this forum. You will instantly spot such a striking similarity that you may choke laughing.
It is like someone is writing from script and bending and twisting it to fit all circumstances.I have become convinced that our friend is la in disguise, roaming the cycling forums to try and drag his sorry ass of a name back from the muddy pool it is lying in. There seems no better explanation for the arrogant bullying style so similar to that of la in his own crazy self deluding world. The black will be white if i keep saying it and ignoring the people correcting me attitude repeated in posts to both you and me.
As i said, i will not quote points or comments related to the la case and what you and him have discussed as i do not want to go through the whole process again with him. It becomes so wearisome and the thought of repeating the process, oh my god! Look at one of my discussions with geeman and you will see what i say is true.
I am sure if we go back and look at earlier threads we will discover an only to familiar pattern.
I bet he has 666 behind his ear !!!!
Shit i can not take this anymore, i am out of here. good luck and make sure you have holy water and a cross with you at all times.
GeeMan

London, UK

#20 Oct 4, 2012
turtle, WOW what a Fantastic post.

I am actually LA and we are a bully, self obsessed, arrogant and in fact the Devil incarnate who cannot be approached without a Cross and Holy Water.
The inverse of this means you are USADA, righteous and Godly chosen to carry the Cross and Holy Water to exorcise us both from the World.

That was drawn from deep in your soul and presented as a Parody of USADA/Armstrong projected not to me but at me that we take up Good and Evil positions in the World reflecting your view of USADA who are Good and Godly and the Evil and Devil incarnate that you see in LA.

I hope you stay and post more like this as the entertainment value and fantasist approach is very entertaining, nothing to do with the thread in any way but nonetheless highly entertaining.

Just so you know I have checked behind my ear and did not find 666! I actually found 7 TDF marks! What does that mean? Am I still the Devil incarnate or something worse or better?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
pongo59 10 hr pongo59 1
Pagcor's homegrown artists take center stage th... Jul '14 shirley oliva 1
Last week,i bought a very cheap cycling jersey (Sep '10) Jul '14 Jeremy 2
Hope 2014 Tour is Clean Jul '14 Cyclingfan 1
Not Even Lance Deserves This (Dec '13) Jul '14 DCDierking 38
Colleagues pays tribute to 'committed' councillor May '14 GTA Toronto 1
Shadows on the Road, by Michael Barry Apr '14 Donna OBrien 1
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Cycling People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••