Kevin Evans accepts doping charge

[Tumbleweed]

You have seen all the facts now....

 

Would you have taken it to court?

 

As plaintiff or defendant? 

[Patchelicious]

As plaintiff or defendant? 

If you were in ZKs shoes.

[jcza]

Reminds me of when we watch "new generation" & "clean" riders go faster than known dopers and its always due to weather conditions, new technology, pillows, nutella bans etc 

[Tumbleweed]

If you were in ZKs shoes.

 

I would never have made the statement knowing I couldn't back it up... 

 

...But...hypothetically, if I was a self-styled anti-doping crusader I would have replied to Emma's demand that my comment was fair comment and in the public interest, offered to publish an explanation of them on a similar platform and wait for the response. 

Edited January 26, 2016 by Tumbleweed

[BarHugger]

I made no such statement.

 

I said its amazing that how a SA pro's performance has dropped now that his riding partner has been busted.

 

1) i never mentioned his name

2) I never called him a doper.

 

very few people would have suspected anything if KE hadnt gone on the rampage the way he did. Streissand effect kinda?

Again...no horse in this race for me and no favourite either....but when you make fleeting statements about a convicted cyclists riding partner....then the odds are already very thin and with a little bit of logic everyone knows who you are referring to...no need to even mention a name....kinda like a boomerang effect....KE went on a rampage and understandably so...it's human nature to want to defend ourselves and our honour...what I would not have done if I was KE....I would not have gone on that that rampage if I knew that I was actually doping...

[Patchelicious]

I would never have made the statement knowing I couldn't back it up... 

 

...But...hypothetically, if I was a self-styled anti-doping crusader I would have replied to Emma's demand that my comment was fair comment and in the public interest, offered to publish an explanation of them on a similar platform and wait for the response. 

Cool.. fanacious went a different route. Doest mean either are wrong.

[Patchelicious]

Again...no horse in this race for me and no favourite either....but when you make fleeting statements about a convicted cyclists riding partner....then the odds are already very thin and with a little bit of logic everyone knows who you are referring to...no need to even mention a name....kinda like a boomerang effect....KE went on a rampage and understandably so...it's human nature to want to defend ourselves and our honour...what I would not have done if I was KE....I would not have gone on that that rampage if I knew that I was actually doping...

This!!!

 

The fact that he did says so much.

[BarHugger]

 

“So, theres a SA pro, who, since his partner got busted for EPO in 2012, suddenly hasn’t been performing. Make me wonder...”

But post the entire string....this was the offending tweet which they used from a legal standpoint....it was the mess it melted in to after the tweet was made....

[eddy]

 

 

Would you have taken it to court?

 

 

There is a bullying phenomena that started in the US and is described as a S.L.A.P.P. or Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation suit.

 

This started where property developers started suing public interest groups or communities which raised any objection to a new development for the "cost" of the delay in the development.

 

Faced with a billion dollar claim and the costs to defend their often reasonable objections, they of course capitulate. The claimants have no intention to go to trial, the merely wish to intimidate anybody they think may be standing in their way.

 

This technique has been used in SA as well, amongst others IIRC, by developers in the Crocodile river valley near Blair Atholl and also by developers applying for business rights in residential areas.

 

Lance used exactly the same thing. Threaten to sue everybody who even casts a doubt on any of his performances, reasonable or not.

 

Sending people an Emma letter is no different.

[SwissVan]

nah its not just jealous speculation. These guys are so blatant about it (like keeping it in the fridge next to their beer).

 

They should have taken a picture, just imagine starting a "What's inside your fridge right now" thread and posting that as the first picture

 

I don't get why anyone involved in competitive cycling in this day and age (or the last 10 years) would be blatant about it.... it goes against all logic

[eddy]

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.

 

 

As the question posed clearly said "had the matter progressed to trial"  how will KE make his case without an affidavit or testimony ?

[Tumbleweed]

Cool.. fanacious went a different route. Doest mean either are wrong.

 

Maybe not. But it's pretty hollow calling someone to account when you can't answer when you yourself are called to account. 

[BarHugger]

Lets not forget the bigger picture here:

 

David George: Busted for doping, negatively affects the sport.

Brandon Stewart: Busted for doping, negatively affects the sport.

Kevin Evans: Busted for doping, negatively affects the sport.

 

ZK, hurt their feelings.... we flame HIM?

 

The logic astounds me.

I agree with you a million times over...the bold bit is where I am a little more stubborn....ZK was being flamed because he had no conclusive evidence....ZK might now get flamed again because his motives for being an anti-doping crusader is called in to question....I think in the end of the day...don't dope....don't say stuff in public you might regret....in short...don't be an @$$hole (not referring to you) unless of course we want to be stravasholes.....

[fandacious]

Maybe not. But it's pretty hollow calling someone to account when you can't answer when you yourself are called to account. 

 

1) I never called anyone to account. It was a musing, not a demand for information or an answer.

2) I was never called to account. I was asked to please remove as he felt it defamed him. I couldnt be bothered to fight it, so i removed it

 

stop using strawmen to try make a point - lets just stick with simple facts

[Patchelicious]

I agree with you a million times over...the bold bit is where I am a little more stubborn....ZK was being flamed because he had no conclusive evidence....ZK might now get flamed again because his motives for being an anti-doping crusader is called in to question....I think in the end of the day...don't dope....don't say stuff in public you might regret....in short...don't be an @$$hole (not referring to you) unless of course we want to be stravasholes.....

I agree that ZK was running close to the line last year. Naughty Zayin...

 

But it had a positive outcome in my opinion, it has exposed KE's character by the way he reacted. He might have had more public support if it wasnt for that incident.

[jcza]

Litigation has nothing to do with right or wrong but everything to do with the deepest pockets and the biggest ego.