petatodd Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Yeah Akon as sooner or later the truth will out. Is it like Zuma and the corruption charges he faced, easier to get the charges suppressed than beat them? Fortunately the US Judge saw through the BS.
eddy Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) Yeah Akon as sooner or later the truth will out. Fortunately the US Judge saw through the BS. Yes, in throwing out LA's suit the judge goes as far as saying: "“Contrary to Armstrong's apparent belief, pleadings filed in the United States District Courts are not press releases, internet blogs, or pieces of investigative journalism. All parties, and their lawyers, are expected to comply with the rules of this Court, and face potential sanctions if they do not.” I do not know if LA complied with doping rules or not (that is currently a matter of speculation), but he has demonstrated his disdain for the rules of court so egregiously that he and his legal team had to be so definatively rebuked by a judge. It does make him seem to be the kind of guy who thinks he is above the rules, which only apply to others..... . Edited July 10, 2012 by eddy
Chro Mo Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 I was always a supporter of LA, but this just seals it for me. Bogus lawsuits with no substance? Why?This is not a political campaign - though his team seem to be treating it as such. Face the charges and present a comprehensive defense. Win or lose on the merits of that defense. This prosecution is going to play hell with his political ambitions - which he most certainly has.
Squier Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Sparks made it clear he was not ruling on the merits of Armstrong's claims -- only that they were not properly and concisely stated in the filing. The motion was dismissed without prejudice, meaning that Armstrong can have his lawyers refile an amended motion within 20 days, which one of his lawyers, Tim Herman, said he will do -- probably within a couple of days.
Tumbleweed Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!!!! But Lance doesn't want you to see it…
Eldron Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 I love soap operas - USADA are legally bound to give Armstrong evidence against but don't meet the deadline.... Armstrong presents to court case full of "factoids". Is that a brewery? Are we having a pi$$ up? Who organised this? Where are we?
goya-goya Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Correct: Unlike “beyond a reasonable doubt” in a criminal case, the accusing party will only have to prove to a “comfortable satisfaction” (Article 3.1-WADA Code) that Armstrong committed anti-doping rule violations. http://www.cyclismas...it-needs-to-be/ Yea but that is subjective... so in fact it is irrelevant
Tumbleweed Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Yea but that is subjective... so in fact it is irrelevant Not if you're an athlete and agreed to compete under those rules.
goya-goya Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 goya-goya it's not the media who are destroying the sport, it's the guys who cheat and lie about their cheating who are destroying the sport. If in fact it is being destroyed. Your comments here are pretty biased towards the cheating Texan and you appear to be pretty taken in by his money making schemes on the back of his cheating and lying. Actually... you have taken your stance too!... if you say it is the guys who are doping who are destroying the sport... then why in the face of your allegations has the sport grown whilst all the hero's of the past have all, according to everyone in the "know", doped!! I do not mind people who disagree... i just mind when people follow the loudest side of the story... like listening to some juvenile radio presenter and then thinking they know what they are talking about.
goya-goya Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Not if you're an athlete and agreed to compete under those rules. How blind are you in the face of understanding the word subjective in the "comfortable satisfaction " quote... when the people who will be deciding have it in for him
Tumbleweed Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 How blind are you in the face of understanding the word subjective in the "comfortable satisfaction " quote... when the people who will be deciding have it in for him Doesn't change the fact that it's a WADA rule. One he is subject too.
goya-goya Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Doesn't change the fact that it's a WADA rule. One he is subject too. Is this WADA who is judging this case?? or is at some other Committee of wannabes???
Wonder Woman Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 I don't like Armstrong one bit but this is getting ridiculous in my opinion. Either catch him for doping or leave him alone. Maybe he has done this on purpose as he has been kinda forgotten in the tabloids. The Ghost 1
Tumbleweed Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Is this WADA who is judging this case?? or is at some other Committee of wannabes??? USADA, who have adopted the WADA Code.
The Ghost Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 USADA, w@nkers... all w@nkers.Move on bitches! goya-goya 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now