fandacious Posted January 26, 2016 Share I see your logic...but let's look at this again.... What Fandacious said at the time, you say was truth....it is truth now...but at the time Kevin was presumed as a doper purely by association.....the old "I told you so" adage applies to these type of actions....there was no proof at the time that Kevin was in actual fact doping...all we had was that his teammate George was now a confirmed doper.....so it's easy to make statements and comments at the time and later on say "I told you so, I just knew it"Very much like attending a wedding and saying I don't give it a year and trues nuts they divorce within a year and you sit back and say "see I was right" Now understand that I have no horse in this race.....not Kevin, Fandacious or Oldcootbiker (I am more of a fan in regards to a golfing lady)Now you say "knowing full well he was doping"......Kevin would have known that he was....but did Fandacious know for fact that he was doping and did he have the evidence to prove it...or was it all just a case of venting and making a noise at the time as well as speculating ? Now let's touch on the bit where Kevin abuses his own lawyer and the law....doing some digging as I was not here when all that broke out...I have looked at everything with a totally unbiased approach....and from what I can see it was the Oldcootbiker on twitter who got Emma involved and not actually Kevin....yes I understand that Kevin knowing that he was doping should have then informed the Oldcoot and Emma that he was either actually guilty of the accusations lobbied at him....or he should have just informed them to let it be...this he did not do so quite a shallow move from his side..... What I am saying and it's pretty simple and let's leave Kevin and his deceitful behaviour out of it for a second (and I know some will say but you can't) the Oldcoot and Emma acted on what was then at that time within that particular time frame and by their own logic in a way that was justifiable...if it was to go to court (then)...let's be honest as to what the outcome would have been...without knowing what we know now.... Touching on a few more things you pointed out...yes Emma should be rather pissed....Fandacious has all the right to be angry especially if we look at "because in hindsight" or "I told you so" and I certainly don't begrudge his anger and I certainly don't suggest he build a bridge.... I do still have the one question...the one thing that has me totally perplexed....what was the motive at the time...why did Fandacious go full tilt in the manner that he did....and as we are looking at the Kari tweets thinking the language is shocking....do yourselves a favour and do what I did on a Saturday arvie when I had nothing better to do and I went in on those Twitter archives.....things got pretty nasty back then...what we are seeing now is mild in comparison.... It's easy for us to sit and say what happened THEN is warranted because of the NOW....no siree we can't just call someone a pedophile because their surname is Van Rooyen...Just as a final note...I have nothing against Fandacious and in actual fact if I was him I would certainly sit and gloat and have my day..... In short, if it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. You don't need a special commission of inquiry to determine whether or not it is in fact a duck. A duck sending you lawyers letters telling you its not a duck doesn't change the fact that its a duck DJR and intern 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intern Posted January 26, 2016 Share Quack quack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intern Posted January 26, 2016 Share By the way, you will all be pleased to hear that Twitter the company is in serious Shiite. Not hard to see why; ask any Twat what the value of tweeter is and they will likely reel off a list of things, like being informed, being able to hear what celebs think about global warning, and all sorts of other esoteric boloux. Yeah, OK fine (personally I think it is all about ego and who can say the smartest thing in 140 characters [nobody likes a smartarrse, remember!]).Then ask that Twat how much they will pay for the service. That there is the value of Tweeter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted January 26, 2016 Share The little duckling quacked...it wasn't a duck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy Posted January 26, 2016 Share An interesting thought: If those who got Emma letters decided to stand up to the bullying and the matter progressed to trial, would KE now have been a perjurer as well as a doper ? Edited January 26, 2016 by eddy PhilipV, Tumbleweed and Paul Ruinaard 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted January 26, 2016 Share By the way, you will all be pleased to hear that Twitter the company is in serious Shiite. Not hard to see why; ask any Twat what the value of tweeter is and they will likely reel off a list of things, like being informed, being able to hear what celebs think about global warning, and all sorts of other esoteric boloux. Yeah, OK fine (personally I think it is all about ego and who can say the smartest thing in 140 characters [nobody likes a smartarrse, remember!]).Then ask that Twat how much they will pay for the service. That there is the value of Tweeter. Watch Juju take credit for Twitter failing... Did you see that story about them thinking about introducing a "long-form" Twitter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Ruinaard Posted January 26, 2016 Share An interesting thought: If those who got Emma letters decided to stand up to the bullying and the matter progressed to trial, would KE now have been a perjurer as well as a doper ?This is what i was trying to point out earlier. HKGK - people have long memories..... Never mind the clauses he would have signed in his contracts which would have specifically described penalties for doping and possible recoveries of sponsorship monies paid.... The water is getting warmer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fandacious Posted January 26, 2016 Share An interesting thought: If those who got Emma letters decided to stand up to the bullying and the matter progressed to trial, would KE now have been a perjurer as well as a doper ? I think you can only perjure yourself in a court or a sworn statement. Technically he took offence that I slandered him. He never made a sworn testimony that he wasn't doping Paul Ruinaard 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Ruinaard Posted January 26, 2016 Share By the way, you will all be pleased to hear that Twitter the company is in serious Shiite. Not hard to see why; ask any Twat what the value of tweeter is and they will likely reel off a list of things, like being informed, being able to hear what celebs think about global warning, and all sorts of other esoteric boloux. Yeah, OK fine (personally I think it is all about ego and who can say the smartest thing in 140 characters [nobody likes a smartarrse, remember!]).Then ask that Twat how much they will pay for the service. That there is the value of Tweeter.Twitter is in shite cause of seriously bad management and egos. Business model is pretty sound but the US stock markets are ruthless mate. Skubarra 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted January 26, 2016 Share An interesting thought: If those who got Emma letters decided to stand up to the bullying and the matter progressed to trial, would KE now have been a perjurer as well as a doper ? Doubtful as Evans would have been unlikely to testify in a court action. The lawfulness of the comments made against him at the time, and the defendants' ability to justify them, would be the focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarHugger Posted January 26, 2016 Share In short, if it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. You don't need a special commission of inquiry to determine whether or not it is in fact a duck. A duck sending you lawyers letters telling you its not a duck doesn't change the fact that its a duckCorrect....letter to duck then - justifiable .... Letter to duck now - not justifiable .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 26, 2016 Share An interesting thought: If those who got Emma letters decided to stand up to the bullying and the matter progressed to trial, would KE now have been a perjurer as well as a doper ? As said above. No. You need to lie while under oath for it to be perjury. So it need's to be done in an affidavit or in court, not some lawyer's letter. Tumbleweed 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Ruinaard Posted January 26, 2016 Share I think you can only perjure yourself in a court or a sworn statement. Technically he took offence that I slandered him. He never made a sworn testimony that he wasn't dopingAlthough, and it has been pointed out here multiple times, the court of public opinion has a lot lower level of burden of proof and is much quicker to judge as well as forget actually. Lets use the case of Cycle Science who have closed their doors after the Pinarello case, and I dont see their signage up the road any more where they tried to move to. People seem to quickly distrust other people who may have demonstrated character flaws in other areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Showtime Posted January 26, 2016 Share In short, if it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. You don't need a special commission of inquiry to determine whether or not it is in fact a duck. A duck sending you lawyers letters telling you its not a duck doesn't change the fact that its a duck Did you have any proof at that stage when you made the accusations? BarHugger 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarHugger Posted January 26, 2016 Share Did you have any proof at that stage when you made the accusations?I did ask that question but it was shot down by a few and avoided by others....???????? Edited January 26, 2016 by BarHugger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fandacious Posted January 26, 2016 Share Did you have any proof at that stage when you made the accusations? technically, nothing that can be used in court. lots of off the record stuff. why does everyone know that group as "the chemical brothers"? they've had that name since long before my saga with them intern 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts