greg lemond theory

[MagillaGorilla]

Michael Press wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Michael Press wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>This is huge circumstantial evidence. It would send most people to jail
>>>>if it were the only evidence in a criminal trial.
>>>
>>>
>>>You write `if'.
>>>
>>>If it were admitted as evidence,
>>>and that is not assured.
>>>And what is on the tape?
>>>Somebody said that Lance said something.
>>>Other somebodys with equal standing
>>>say that Lance did not say something.
>>>
>>>Humans 1
>>>Monkeys 0
>>
>>People go to jail every day in this country based upon false testimoney
>>and false witnesss identification. In this case, there is no reason to
>>believe anything that Stephanie McIlvain said to LeMond was false. Plus
>>it is corroborated by 2 other individuals.
>
>
> And other individuals testify to the contrary.
>
>
>>Lance and his team knew this which is why they got Oakley to put
>>pressure on McIlvain to reverse her testimoney. All she ended up doing
>>was committing perjury. And it can be argued Oakley suborned perjury by
>>putting pressure on McIlvain and her husband to lie about what they
>>heard in that hospital room.
>
>
> Then we are to take the word of a perjurer?
>


Yes, you are to take the word of a woman prior to when she committed
perjury...when she was surreptitiously recorded and told the truth to
LemonD because she had no reason to lie. The reason why she lied in the
SCA affidavit was to protect her job at Oakley and her sick child's
health care insurance.

She had no motive to lie to LemonD about Lance. LemonD had no financial
affialiation with McIlvain or Oakley at the time and Lance was basically
responsible for her job at Oakley. In fact, McIlvain actually had a
reason to lie to protect Lance and the company, which she ultimately did.

But when she was asked "off the record" what she heard in that hospital
room, what she said confirmed what the Andreu's also said.

This really isn't a difficult puzzle to put together. It's only
difficult for people who think French lab techs are out to frame
innocent American cyclists.

You have to be a complete mental retard to think that European pro
cyclists are clean.


Magilla

 

[MagillaGorilla]

Michael Press wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Michael Press wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>This is huge circumstantial evidence. It would send most people to jail
>>>>if it were the only evidence in a criminal trial.
>>>
>>>
>>>You write `if'.
>>>
>>>If it were admitted as evidence,
>>>and that is not assured.
>>>And what is on the tape?
>>>Somebody said that Lance said something.
>>>Other somebodys with equal standing
>>>say that Lance did not say something.
>>>
>>>Humans 1
>>>Monkeys 0
>>
>>People go to jail every day in this country based upon false testimoney
>>and false witnesss identification. In this case, there is no reason to
>>believe anything that Stephanie McIlvain said to LeMond was false. Plus
>>it is corroborated by 2 other individuals.
>
>
> And other individuals testify to the contrary.
>


All of whom have a major financial reason to lie.

The problem with your implication is if Franke Andreu really wanted to
lie he would just say he saw Lance take injections of EPO or something
more nefarious. It would be bizarre to invent a lie that he merely
heard Lance admit to taking banned substances in 1996 when asked by a
doctor. And why would Stephanie McIlvain corroborate that story if it
were a lie? She has no business relationship with the Andreu's. Her
bread and butter is Lance.

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 5, 11:51 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

> All these guys - Museuuw, Zabel, Ullrich...they've been on EPO, growth
> hormone, testosoterone, and blood doping for most of their career. This
> "I only used it once" ******** is a total sack of lies.
>
> If you believe it, you are delusional.
>
> These riders are total frauds.
>

dumbass,

those teary confessions about how much "pressure" they are under and
blaming the "system" is sickening.

sinkewitz was doping since he was a kid and was making $700,000 a year
as a twenty seven year old. without it he would be another tim johnson
or mike creed.

but what's more sickening are fans and reporters (which in cycling is
the same thing) gushing about how much they respect someone for
"coming clean" and wanting to give millar and basso a hug.

cycling reporters would rather have a beer with neil stephens than ask
the hard questions.

and people in the sport wonder why mainstream companies that routinely
spend hundreds of millions in marketing don't want anything to do with
a pro cycling team.

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Michael Press wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <[email protected]>,
> >>> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>This is huge circumstantial evidence. It would send most people to jail
> >>>>if it were the only evidence in a criminal trial.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You write `if'.
> >>>
> >>>If it were admitted as evidence,
> >>>and that is not assured.
> >>>And what is on the tape?
> >>>Somebody said that Lance said something.
> >>>Other somebodys with equal standing
> >>>say that Lance did not say something.
> >>>
> >>>Humans 1
> >>>Monkeys 0
> >>
> >>People go to jail every day in this country based upon false testimoney
> >>and false witnesss identification. In this case, there is no reason to
> >>believe anything that Stephanie McIlvain said to LeMond was false. Plus
> >>it is corroborated by 2 other individuals.
> >
> >
> > And other individuals testify to the contrary.
> >
> >
> >>Lance and his team knew this which is why they got Oakley to put
> >>pressure on McIlvain to reverse her testimoney. All she ended up doing
> >>was committing perjury. And it can be argued Oakley suborned perjury by
> >>putting pressure on McIlvain and her husband to lie about what they
> >>heard in that hospital room.
> >
> >
> > Then we are to take the word of a perjurer?
> >
>
>
> Yes, you are to take the word of a woman prior to when she committed
> perjury...when she was surreptitiously recorded and told the truth to
> LemonD because she had no reason to lie. The reason why she lied in the
> SCA affidavit was to protect her job at Oakley and her sick child's
> health care insurance.

Time sequence is irrelevant.

> She had no motive to lie to LemonD about Lance.

You keep saying A or B or C have no reason to lie.
People lie all the time. People are liars and lie
to simply to keep their hand in. You speak knowingly
of people's motives. Guessing people's motives is a
mug's game. You have no idea why people do things.
You think you do, but you do not.

> LemonD had no financial
> affialiation with McIlvain or Oakley at the time and Lance was basically
> responsible for her job at Oakley. In fact, McIlvain actually had a
> reason to lie to protect Lance and the company, which she ultimately did.
>
> But when she was asked "off the record" what she heard in that hospital
> room, what she said confirmed what the Andreu's also said.
>
> This really isn't a difficult puzzle to put together. It's only
> difficult for people who think French lab techs are out to frame
> innocent American cyclists.
>
> You have to be a complete mental retard to think that European pro
> cyclists are clean.

Well, you can be a complete mental retard and think
European pro cyclists do a lot of drugs too.

--
Michael Press

 

[MagillaGorilla]

[email protected] wrote:

> On Dec 5, 11:51 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>All these guys - Museuuw, Zabel, Ullrich...they've been on EPO, growth
>>hormone, testosoterone, and blood doping for most of their career. This
>>"I only used it once" ******** is a total sack of lies.
>>
>>If you believe it, you are delusional.
>>
>>These riders are total frauds.
>>
>
>
> dumbass,
>
> those teary confessions about how much "pressure" they are under and
> blaming the "system" is sickening.
>
> sinkewitz was doping since he was a kid and was making $700,000 a year
> as a twenty seven year old. without it he would be another tim johnson
> or mike creed.
>
> but what's more sickening are fans and reporters (which in cycling is
> the same thing) gushing about how much they respect someone for
> "coming clean" and wanting to give millar and basso a hug.
>
> cycling reporters would rather have a beer with neil stephens than ask
> the hard questions.
>
> and people in the sport wonder why mainstream companies that routinely
> spend hundreds of millions in marketing don't want anything to do with
> a pro cycling team.


Sing it, brother. Where is DA47?

Magilla

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]
egroups.com>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Dec 5, 11:51 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > All these guys - Museuuw, Zabel, Ullrich...they've been on EPO, growth
> > hormone, testosoterone, and blood doping for most of their career. This
> > "I only used it once" ******** is a total sack of lies.
> >
> > If you believe it, you are delusional.
> >
> > These riders are total frauds.
> >
>
> dumbass,
>
> those teary confessions about how much "pressure" they are under and
> blaming the "system" is sickening.
>
> sinkewitz was doping since he was a kid and was making $700,000 a year
> as a twenty seven year old. without it he would be another tim johnson
> or mike creed.
>
> but what's more sickening are fans and reporters (which in cycling is
> the same thing) gushing about how much they respect someone for
> "coming clean" and wanting to give millar and basso a hug.
>
> cycling reporters would rather have a beer with neil stephens than ask
> the hard questions.
>
> and people in the sport wonder why mainstream companies that routinely
> spend hundreds of millions in marketing don't want anything to do with
> a pro cycling team.

Why do you think that is?

A Because they find doping distasteful?
2 Because the various governing bodies
cannot govern a public entertainment?

I go with
iii) The governing bodies can't pour ****
out of a boot with the directions on the heel.

All this doping going on for years under their noses?
Inept? Stupid? Complicit?

--
Michael Press