Doctor.House is lying to the forum

[limerickman]

limerickman, if you are called up for jury service, will you decide on the defendant's guilt or innocence without knowing all the facts of the case ? I am not prepared to state that Contador is clean when I do not know all the facts of this case. I did not 'evade the question', I gave the reason why I cannot answer the question. If you, or anyone else, can provide any more factual evidence to help me in deciding Contador's guilt or innocence, then please post it.
The best answer to your question that I can give you at present is the verdict that a Scottish court might arrive at;- 'not proven'

This retreat in to legal speak smacks of doubt on your part, Lucy
You can't unequivocally say whether or not you think Contador is clean.

I'll ask the question again.
On the balance of probabilities and having viewed the race : do you think that
Contador is clean or not?

 

[Tim Lamkin]

ask a Disco fan

 

[K'Ching]

YOU have no clue who I support, and NO I am not a DC supporter.....is Contador clean…… until his test show up different and is validated by independent labs with a repeatable process...YES he is...got problems with that too?

When it comes to the cancer part of all this DH will not come out form under his rock to talk about that, because he does not know **** about it.

So Rasmussen is also clean?

 

[jhuskey]

limerickman, if you are called up for jury service, will you decide on the defendant's guilt or innocence without knowing all the facts of the case ? I am not prepared to state that Contador is clean when I do not know all the facts of this case. I did not 'evade the question', I gave the reason why I cannot answer the question. If you, or anyone else, can provide any more factual evidence to help me in deciding Contador's guilt or innocence, then please post it.
The best answer to your question that I can give you at present is the verdict that a Scottish court might arrive at;- 'not proven'

The sad truth is that most jurors form an opinion within the first 15 minutes of a trial, and determine which of the opposing parties they like or dislike.
The evidence or proof comes later.
Of course I can't prove this.

 

[limerickman]

The evidence or proof comes later.

And I fear that this too will be the case for the 2007 TDF.

Of course I can't prove this.

You're muddying the waters!

 

[jhuskey]

And I fear that this too will be the case for the 2007 TDF.




You're muddying the waters!

So much has happened this year ,fans are either in a defensive posture,attack mode or totally disgusted with the sport.
I believe that what is happening goes much deeper than riders and teams.
As usual you can follow the money trail and you will find manipulation and unethical influence.

 

[Serafino]

Lim,

1. Who do you think is clean? And how would you know?

2. Who do you think is dirty? And how would you know?

3. Were Kelly and Roche clean? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Cat. Kettle. Black.

Sad state of affairs when every rider is assumed dirty by those who hate his nationality or team.

 

[trucker39]

This retreat in to legal speak smacks of doubt on your part, Lucy
You can't unequivocally say whether or not you think Contador is clean.

I'll ask the question again.
On the balance of probabilities and having viewed the race : do you think that
Contador is clean or not?

Really limerickman, please. You condemn the use of legal speak, and in the next sentence you use legal jargon (incorrect legal jargon by the way, if you want to use it get it right). I merely have a go as you seem to be confused as to when legal speak should be used...i.e. by you, but noone else.

Your pursuit of the earlier contributors is also erroneous. They can give you an opinion on whether they believe AC is a doper, and they have. Why are you persisting with the matter? Do you want to sue them for malicious falsehood or intentional infliction of emotional distress if AC tests positive? Gimme a break.

 

[Tim Lamkin]

Why are you persisting with the matter?

Because ....it is me

 

[lucybears]

This retreat in to legal speak smacks of doubt on your part, Lucy
You can't unequivocally say whether or not you think Contador is clean.

I'll ask the question again.
On the balance of probabilities and having viewed the race : do you think that
Contador is clean or not?

No, you have now asked a totally different question.
Q1 was "are you then saying that Contador is clean?
Simple yes or no answer will suffice."
Q2 is now "On the balance of probabilities and having viewed the race, are you then saying that Contador is clean?"

If I had answered Q1 with a simple yes or no, then I would have been asserting that Contador is DEFINITELY guilty or innocent.
To answer Q2 with a simple yes or no IS possible, however, because then I am NOT asserting that Contador is DEFINITELY guilty or innocent.

Now, having explained the vast difference between those two questions (OK, not quite in words of one syllable, but I still hope you get the point), I will answer Q2 :-

No

 

[Doctor.House]

Lance calls the truth: jealous lies. (I have written the truth on doping)

Memo to the blissfully ignorant and all meanspirited doping apologists:

Alberto Contador is a flaming drug cheat and sporting fraud. DeNile is a river in Africa and the Easter Bunny was a lie.

Contador has an Operation Puerto doping dossier and his voice appears ona recorded police telephone call speaking with his gynochologist, Dr. Eufemiano Fuentes.

Contador's supervisiors were Manolo Saiz (Liberty-Seguros) and Johan Bruyneel/Lance Pharmstrong (Discovery Channel).

Contador has many confirmed drug cheater teammates: Alexander Vinokourov, Roberto Heras, Gianpaolo Caruso, Jorg Jaksche.

Without the cow blood witness, Whitney Richards, against Michael Rasmussen, Contador would not be in Yellow.

Lance Pharmstrong and Nike proved that some dopers are excuded, whilst others are protected.

The 2007 Tour was FIXED in favor of a Spanish drug cheat, Contadoper.

No, you have now asked a totally different question.
Q1 was "are you then saying that Contador is clean?
Simple yes or no answer will suffice."
Q2 is now "On the balance of probabilities and having viewed the race, are you then saying that Contador is clean?"

If I had answered Q1 with a simple yes or no, then I would have been asserting that Contador is DEFINITELY guilty or innocent.
To answer Q2 with a simple yes or no IS possible, however, because then I am NOT asserting that Contador is DEFINITELY guilty or innocent.

Now, having explained the vast difference between those two questions (OK, not quite in words of one syllable, but I still hope you get the point), I will answer Q2 :-

No

 

[limerickman]

Really limerickman, please. You condemn the use of legal speak, and in the next sentence you use legal jargon (incorrect legal jargon by the way, if you want to use it get it right). I merely have a go as you seem to be confused as to when legal speak should be used...i.e. by you, but noone else.

I'm not condemning anyone for using legalspeak.

What I noted was that Lucy couched his answers in legalspeak when asked if Contador was clean.

Your pursuit of the earlier contributors is also erroneous. They can give you an opinion on whether they believe AC is a doper, and they have. Why are you persisting with the matter? Do you want to sue them for malicious falsehood or intentional infliction of emotional distress if AC tests positive? Gimme a break.

They haven't actually given an opinion as to whether they consider Contador clean or not.
Except for Tim, when asked, none of the DC supporters have said that they think Contadors clean

Given that teams recent history - I can fully understand their reticience.

 

[limerickman]

No, you have now asked a totally different question.
Q1 was "are you then saying that Contador is clean?
Simple yes or no answer will suffice."
Q2 is now "On the balance of probabilities and having viewed the race, are you then saying that Contador is clean?"

If I had answered Q1 with a simple yes or no, then I would have been asserting that Contador is DEFINITELY guilty or innocent.
To answer Q2 with a simple yes or no IS possible, however, because then I am NOT asserting that Contador is DEFINITELY guilty or innocent.

Now, having explained the vast difference between those two questions (OK, not quite in words of one syllable, but I still hope you get the point), I will answer Q2 :-

No

Thanks for the answer, Lucy.

I hope that whoever wins a race is clean.

 

[Gregers]

God, that was hard work.

Thanks for the answer, Lucy.

I hope that whoever wins a race is clean.

 

[Doctor.House]

God, that was hard work.

Amazing---that after the Nike Lance LIVE WRONG era, people still grasp onto miracles of fraud.

 

[lucybears]

What I noted was that Lucy couched his answers in legalspeak when asked if Contador was clean.

This was not legalspeak. It was an attempt to illustrate that saying "On the balance of probabilities and having viewed the race, I am not saying that Contador is clean" is completely different to the good Doc's assertion that

He is a cheat.

Thanks for the answer, Lucy.
I hope that whoever wins a race is clean.

So do I, even if others posting here obviously don't

 

[RedFury]

you're a naive, stupid, disco fanboy and the only person lyign to the forum is redfury, who pretends to be a spaniard yet somehow has perfect english grammar and deep knowledge of all things american, from our baseball leagues to the way our public schools function.

Seguro que nunca se te ha ocurrido que existen Españoles educados en universidades Americanas, algunos de los cuales terminaron casandose con Americanas y hasta tienen hijos Americanos y son completamente bilingues. Probrecito. Lo que es la incultura y la xenofobia...

Paleto de mierda, que te den por el culo!

 

[cheapie]

i have no idea why DH is still a member here. if he was a poster and ANY other forum i frequent he'd be gone in a day.

baseless attacks, thread-crapping, insults, baiting, lying, etc are his MO. it speaks volumes about this place that he is allowed to repeatedly return.

 

[Maison]

Let's be clear, Dr House has contended that all professional riders dope.

You tried to evade the question when answering on Saluki's behalf.

You're not prepared to say that your rider, Contador, is clean.
That's damning in my opinion.

If all the allegations have no foundation - why can't you state that Contador is clean?

I seem to recall seeing a poster calling you out, while I was lurking, and you set the standard around here for evading questions.

Whether Contador doped or not Doctor.House is a troll plain and simple. He turns any and every thread into his personal crusade and 90% of what he says has no proof to back it up. Even people who agree with many things he says agree that he is just clogging up the forum with his obsessive behavior.

 

[Tim Lamkin]

Lim protects DH.