Armstrong and Lemond

Laz said:

What I always found stupid about greg is how he in his latter years would
always talk up his chances in the tour and falter miserably. year after
year.

Like Jan Ullrich?

"Jack Hollis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

gwhite said:

Quoted message said:

> You obviously don't know the meaning of prima facae.

Do tell us the meaning of "prima facae" also spelled "facie" (mostly in
the
US).

Prime Feces := [censored] "at the face" circumstantial evidence

Prima Facie \PRY-muh-FAY-shee; -shuh\, adverb:
At first view; on the first appearance.

=================================================
adjective:
1. True, valid, or adequate at first sight; as it seems at first
sight; ostensible.
2. Self-evident; obvious.
3. (Law) Sufficient to establish a fact or a case unless disproved.
=================================================

PF is not circumstantial. The only real PF evidence of doping is a
confirmed positive blood test.

Wrong. There are other forms of evidence that can be used to make not only
a prima facae case but also prove guilt by a preponderance, as required
here, or beyond a reasonable doubt. Ask any prosecutor. .

Quoted message said:

That is sufficent to establish the
fact of doping. Even possession would not, in itself, be PF evidence
that someone actually took dope.

So to say there's a PF case is simply incorrect.

We'll just have to disagree.

Quoted message said:

If you want a legal term to describe LA and drugs, you might try
reasonable suspicion and even that's a stretch. Reasonable suspicion
is the standard (in the US) that allows police agencies to conduct an
investigation and/or obtain search warrants and wire taps.

Incorrect. Probable cause is the standard used to obtain a search warrant.

Jack, go play lawyer someplace where there aren't any lawyers.

"Kyle Legate" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Laz said:

What I always found stupid about greg is how he in his latter years

would

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

always talk up his chances in the tour and falter miserably. year after
year.

Like Jan Ullrich?

Absolutely !!! ( If you sample any of my posts about Jan- you'll see I come
down fairly consistently on him too- I guess I just don't like pretenders ).

Laz

You really blame Lance after the attacks that Greg has thrown his way?
Greg has openly accused Lance of using drugs. He said something to the
effect "I don't know how long he can continue to deceive people about
his drug use" to the media. How would you react after being smeared in
the press? With charity? With "modesty and grace"?

Et tu yourself.

"Philo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You really blame Lance after the attacks that Greg has thrown his way?
Greg has openly accused Lance of using drugs. He said something to the
effect "I don't know how long he can continue to deceive people about
his drug use" to the media. How would you react after being smeared in
the press? With charity? With "modesty and grace"?

Et tu yourself.

Perhaps significantly, Armstrong has not sued Lemond for defamation. That
is probably because, as a public figure, Armstrong would have to prove
actual malice in a US court, a rather difficult legal burden. Armstrong
would also open himself up to discovery including deposition under oath by
Lemond's attorneys. That could prove interesting and great fun reading.

Then, as always, he could throw his stack of passed drug screenings
at them, and say, so there. I mean, how many tests does he have to
pass to consider him "clean"? Yeah, I know there are possibly ways
you can cheat the test, but in absence of evidence what do you have?
Nothing really, nothing at all.

Tom

"Tom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Then, as always, he could throw his stack of passed drug screenings
at them, and say, so there. I mean, how many tests does he have to
pass to consider him "clean"? Yeah, I know there are possibly ways
you can cheat the test, but in absence of evidence what do you have?
Nothing really, nothing at all.

Tom

Not exactly nothing. Ask the lawyer for the Texas insurance company that is
refusing to pay Armstrong his bonus.

Wow! There's an objective source. LOL

B. Lafferty said:

"Tom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Then, as always, he could throw his stack of passed drug screenings
at them, and say, so there. I mean, how many tests does he have to
pass to consider him "clean"? Yeah, I know there are possibly ways
you can cheat the test, but in absence of evidence what do you have?
Nothing really, nothing at all.

Tom

Not exactly nothing. Ask the lawyer for the Texas insurance company that is
refusing to pay Armstrong his bonus.

Quoted message said:

Not exactly nothing. Ask the lawyer for the Texas insurance company that is
refusing to pay Armstrong his bonus

Whatever happened until "innocent until proven guilty"? I guess it is
really "innocent unless some lawyer is manuevering and the media prints
some accusations". And "someone on rbr thinks he has a prima facie
case even though no DA will try it".

Wanna bet the Texas insurance company will eventually pay Lance his
full bonus? Will that cause your case to collapse?

Quoted message said:

Well, Lance is doing much better than Marion Jones, who has been
systematically excluded from invitational events, despite never
having tested positive. Like Lance, her accusers are untrustworthy
people with an axe to grind.

-ilan

I think that Victor Conte is a much more credible source than anyone
who has made accusations against Lance. It's a fact that Balco
produced an undetectable steroid and VC says he personally gave
performance enhancing drugs to Jones.

Even so, there is no PF evidence that Jones took drugs.

It's basically a case of he said, she said. But, as I said, the he is
a lot more credible and what he is claiming is a lot more damaging
than what exists against Lance.

So they use a book that is all circumstantial evidence (as cited by the
guys that wrote it) as proof of doping? That's some burden of proof
there. I'd say that the evidence that Arsmtrong has is way more than
circumstantial proving that he doesn't dope. Once again, he has how
many negative doping tests over the last 14 years of him being a pro
cyclist?? I'm not sure of the number, but it's a lot no doubt.

Tom

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 10:27:14 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So to say there's a PF case is simply incorrect.

We'll just have to disagree.

Fair enough.

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 10:27:14 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Jack, go play lawyer someplace where there aren't any lawyers.

If you're a lawyer perhaps you should review PF evidence.

"Gary" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:xN8De.79489$Fv.3488@lakeread01...

Quoted message said:

Wow! There's an objective source. LOL

Not the issue.

"Philo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not exactly nothing. Ask the lawyer for the Texas insurance company that
is
refusing to pay Armstrong his bonus

Whatever happened until "innocent until proven guilty"? I guess it is
really "innocent unless some lawyer is manuevering and the media prints
some accusations".

No. An insurer with an obligation to pay millions of $$ if contract terms
are met, as it has in the past, has serious questions based on the reported
statements of people in the W&B book. This isn't a criminal matter. To deny
payment, the insurer will have to prove that the contract terms were not met
or that the contract was fraudulently induced. The court or arbitrator will
decide the case. Walsh has stated that he and B. have more information that
will be included in the next edition of their book. I wonder if the
insurer's investigators have spoken with W&B.

Quoted message said:

And "someone on rbr thinks he has a prima facie
case even though no DA will try it".

This is not a criminal case--no District Attorney is involved.

Quoted message said:

Wanna bet the Texas insurance company will eventually pay Lance his
full bonus? Will that cause your case to collapse?

They might pay or settle. Time will tell.

Tom said:

Then, as always, he could throw his stack of passed drug screenings
at them, and say, so there. I mean, how many tests does he have to
pass to consider him "clean"?

Inadmissable, since there's a clear conflict of interest in that Lance
is a big money contributor to the anti-doping programme.

"Tom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So they use a book that is all circumstantial evidence (as cited by the
guys that wrote it) as proof of doping?

No, the book will not be admitted in evidence. There would be testimony and
the introduction of real evidence such as medical records.

Quoted message said:

That's some burden of proof
there.

You appear to be confusing the concept of burden of proof with weight to be
accorded certain pieces of evidence used in attempting to meet the burden of
proof.

Quoted message said:

I'd say that the evidence that Arsmtrong has is way more than
circumstantial proving that he doesn't dope. Once again, he has how
many negative doping tests over the last 14 years of him being a pro
cyclist?? I'm not sure of the number, but it's a lot no doubt.

You know quite well that not testing positive means nothing today. David
Miller never tested positive for the EPO he was using. Who was the pro
rider who said last year that only stupid riders test positive? Apologies
to Tyler.

Quoted message said:

Tom

"I think that Lemond could have
really helped racing in the US if he did more."

or drank less.

"Jack Hollis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 10:27:14 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Jack, go play lawyer someplace where there aren't any lawyers.

If you're a lawyer perhaps you should review PF evidence.

I am and I have. As I said earlier, we'll just have to disagree on this
one.

B. Lafferty said:

You know quite well that not testing positive means nothing today. David
Miller never tested positive for the EPO he was using.

was he on Salvodelli's team?