'for the thing'

sorry, bad translation. "for fun".

and so on and so on

not relevant or not his fault, as he liked dogs? no. So armstrong gave money for charity. but it was fake money. a money he got by cheating. like al- kapone who donated money and fet the hungries.

this time the tour had investigated, not the FBI, so its a diffrunte case. secondely, more withness have talked, which opened the case again, and more evidence were discovered.

1. This is irrelevant. Ever heard of the "statute of limitations"?
2. Try to use grammar.
3. I'm sure the tour is better at investigations than the FBI eh? (sarcasm)

By your logic, if you cant convict a criminal, and then you found in his house 5 bodies and a chainsaw, you cant put him in jail as he was already announced innocent.

It isn't by "my logic", there is a legal thing called "double jeopardy". Look it up.

P.S. You can't convict or charge someone for the same crime twice if they were already acquitted of it once. It isn't my logic little Einstein, it's how the legal system works. So before you start patronizing and being rude and ignorant think before you talk.

So all of these doctors, judges, teammates and rivals lie to take him off? its like saying you dont grow up, the world is shrinking.

Witnesses have been determined to be unreliable according to the FBI, that's good enough for me to consider them unreliable.

and its aall a big concpiracy?

I've never once stated that it was a conspiracy, I just tend to well you know trust the FBI and their judgement...

its like saying you dont grow up, the world is shrinking.

I have no idea at all what you mean by this.

As i said when yoo raged quit,

I raged quit? Do explain to me how I raged quit, I would love to hear this.

i in first belived too he was innocent. but there are too many Evidence.

What do you mean "too"? I'm arguing the defense for this guy. Doesn't mean I think he is innocent (much like how lawyers do in court). I simply do not know, but I'm pointing out what I believe to be logical points.

Im sorry dude, but your hero is down.

He isn't my hero. I have never once seen him race and only vaguely heard of him before this. I come to his defense only because I think you guys are being to single minded about his guilt and trashing him to much.

Have you actually read my last post on page 2? If you call this paranoia and conspiracy, I don't know what you need to convict someone.

Let me ask you something about the witnesses, if they knew about this for years earlier why didn't they come clean about this before? Suspicious much (obviously in my opinion yes), and years ago when some were asked and if they lied and said no to a judge and jury or investigators or w/e why would you trust them now when they have been known for lying or withholding information? knowing this about them I would proceed to immediately throw out any of their statements as unreliable.

itler was a vegaterian who claimed that hunting is unhuman and ciggaretes are bad for your health. that make all of the holocaust, killing of millions of jews, roma tribe {also known as Gypsies}, gays, communist, mental illed peoples, jazz fans and so on and so on? no. a man can do good things but do bad things too. A man can be the best father, a loving son and a supporting brother, but yet killing a taxi driver 'for the thing'. In Israel they are called "kids from good families". Moshe Ben-Ivgi and Arbel Aloni. Ben-Ivgi fled to argentina, and they dont agree to give him to us to serve his punishment, as in argentina, a murdur done by a kid go to much less time then in Israel.

All I'm saying is that in all cases where the accused guilt's isn't already proven the mans character witness/traits has to be taken into account. Obviously it isn't going to single handedly determine his guilt or innocence, but regardless you still have to consider it.

not relevant or not his fault, as he liked dogs? no

You'll have to forgive me, but I have no idea what this has to do with anything.

So armstrong gave money for charity. but it was fake money. a money he got by cheating.

It was real money given to real charities (that truly helped these charities) that he ALLEGEDLY got by cheating.

like al- kapone who donated money and fet the hungries.

fet the hungries?

What does that mean?

I still fail to see how that would have prevented him from taking drugs.

You wouldn't make a good judge would you? I never said it proves him as innocent. Just saying you have to take into into some consideration, no matter how small.

"More likely to"? You went down to my level ;)

Went down to your level? Lol, you just insulted yourself for nothing. I said nothing in that quote to go as you put it "down to my level".

Let's take into account two scenarios shall we?

1. We have a man known for making summary offences, stealing and assault. He is known for being a liar or cheater. He is brought before a judge for "doping" in a race.

2. We have a man who is a diligent worker, volunteers around the community and donates to charities. He is a perfect role model, but he wins a race by an extraordinary feat and is accused of "doping".

Who is the most like to be guilty? Do you think they're equally likely as being guilty? Or do you take into account the character traits/witnesses?

Hein Verbruggen: Former UCI president, claimed that Armstrong is living proof of a cyclist that never uses drugs, but before that the UCI is accused to have covered in 1999 and 2001 positive drug tests of Armstrong.

Key words is accused, therefore it is to be discounted as evidence I think.

P.S. Your arguing that Armstrong is guilty so I'm not going to translate parts of whole sites I known nothing about to prove myself wrong LOL, that is up to you my friend :D

it talks also of Lances connections to Ferrari, connections that he denied before the court.

Unless it can PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that he had connections with Ferrai that a judge would consider infallible evidence, then  that accusation is meaningless, and even if he did have connections to Ferrari it doesn't mean he used them to "dope".

It also confirms that he was tested positive for corticoids in 1999, and that he provided an antedated medical certificate allowing him to take some, and the UCI left the charges.

A few questions for you, they aren't rhetorical or sarcastic. Should the corticoids been out of his system if he was using the medical certificate as prescribed? How long does corticoids stay in your system for? Would the drug test have caught him taking those drugs legally? If it is legal for him to take is as a medal prescription why are you bringing it up? If he wasn't allowed to take it why did UCL drop the charges? Please elaborate :)

There's also quite a lot about what the witnesses told (like them being threatened by him and so), but I don't think you will attach much importance to what several people witness.

Don't patronize me please. I do take it into a count, but I mostly disregard it seeing as how the FBI didn't trust their testimonies.

if they knew about this for years earlier why didn't they come clean about this before?

money?

and there were people telling it since 2000. but they were not taken seriously.
everyone loved him and his cancer story. that was bigger news back then.

knowing this about them I would proceed to immediately throw out any of their statements as unreliable.

that is circular thinking. under oath they have to tell the truth. if they dont, that is perjury.
btw if you do so then you got no one left.

fet the hungries?

What does that mean?

feed the hungry ofcourse. what els?
this is i-net, dont be so nitpicking about grammar/spelling.

feed the hungry ofcourse. what els?
this is i-net, dont be so nitpicking about grammar/spelling.

I genuinely did not know that Al Capone donated to food kitchens or feed the hungry. I thought that was what "fet the hungries" may have meant, but I didn't think Al Capone was a caring/giving guy, so I was double checking. Care to post a link to show him feeding the hungry?

Hence I wasn't nitpicking, just wasn't sure.

that is circular thinking. under oath they have to tell the truth. if they dont, that is perjury.
btw if you do so then you got no one left.

money?

If they lied under oath before, withheld criminally culpable information and are known for accepting bribes why in the world would you take their current statements into consideration?

From what I have gather Lance could've appealed these charges a dozen different ways and probably win....

Let's try this again...

that is circular thinking. under oath they have to tell the truth. if they dont, that is perjury.
btw if you do so then you got no one left.

If they lied under oath before, and or withheld criminally culpable information and are known for accepting bribes why in the world would you take their current statements into consideration?

money?

See above.

From what I have gather Lance could've appealed these charges a dozen different way

P.S. Sorry for any poor grammar or phrasing on behalf.

Again most of your arguments stem from the mere fact that the FBI deemed the witnesses unreliable. I'm not saying they're a bunch of lying idiots, don't get me wrong; but I just don't trust an old impression as much as I do several witnesses. And yes, why didn't they come out earlier? At least one did, which obviously wasn't enough; the reason most didn't is, first, well, would you accuse someone of doping if it implies you've been taking drugs too? They did admit now because they were trapped anyway. Second, the witnesses say he's been threatening them and keeping them under control, which, assuming it is right, explains their late confessions.

Anyway, out of simple parsimony, he couldn't be the only clean one on the tip of the competition. He raced others into the ground that were convicted of doping, after surviving a cancer. It certainly isn't a proof fit for the court, but it is something to keep in mind, which imo has much more weight than his charity thing.

but I didn't think Al Capone was a caring/giving guy, so I was double checking. Care to post a link to show him feeding the hungry?

i know it from a al capone docu. i think it was this 1.
he wasn't so bad for the people around him. he was a business man that had to keep his employees happy. these food houses was 1 way.

see it the same as bill gates giving his wealth to charity. it makes good publicity for him. so people are going to see him as that nice guy and not as a ruthless business man.

Hence I wasn't nitpicking, just wasn't sure.

i'll give you the benefit of the doubt here.

From what I have gather Lance could've appealed these charges a dozen different ways and probably win....

i'm not going into this armstrong case. my reply was on the general view.
you can't say they lie now because they have been lieing for all these years.
all these years they were not under oath. now they are they can't lie. and if they do then they can get jail time themself. (if it turns out that they lie)
at 1st instance you have to believe they speak the truth under oath and not instandly jump on the case that they lie only because they did so befor.

Again most of your arguments stem from the mere fact that the FBI deemed the witnesses unreliable.

And the fact that they dropped the charges as well as double jeopardy and primarily the statute of limitations. You seem to be ignoring both of these two key legal laws/principles as irrelevant.

Besides, these witnesses is one of the key factors here, no? Discredit the witnesses, and that'll lead to an acquittal.

And yes, why didn't they come out earlier? At least one did, which obviously wasn't enough; the reason most didn't is, first, well, would you accuse someone of doping if it implies you've been taking drugs too?

I'll ask this one time. Simply yes or no answer. Do you consider witnesses to be credible if they've lied about this before, withheld information, broke the law themselves by doping, discredited by FBI, and lastly but certainly not least possibly/probably accepted bribes?

That's what this boils down to for you right? Do you consider them credible or not. If you do then you should think Lance is guilty, if not Lance would be innocent

P.S. One plausible reason Lance's team mates may be saying that Lance dope is so that they can get a deal for a 6 month ban and not a life long ban.

Saying Lance is guilty of doping because he is the best is like saying Usain Bolt most have doped as well.

They did admit now because they were trapped anyway.

Or they lied for a plea bargain?

Second, the witnesses say he's been threatening them and keeping them under control, which, assuming it is right, explains their late confessions.

Allegation, not facts, therefore not infallible proof to use against Lance.

It certainly isn't a proof fit for the court, but it is something to keep in mind, which imo has much more weight than his charity thing.

I agree with this. You certainly would have to consider this, but I think with all the other details of this case there are more pros than cons for Armstrong.

you can't say they lie now because they have been lieing for all these years.

No, I'm not saying that they are lying, I am saying their credibility should be so tarnished as to exclude their testimonies from trial, if Lance had taken this to court.

I am saying their credibility should be so tarnished as to exclude their testimonies from trial,

good it doesn't work like that.
in court under oath you can't lie. that is a crime.

I'll ask this one time. Simply yes or no answer. Do you consider witnesses to be credible if they've lied about this before, withheld information, broke the law themselves by doping, discredited by FBI, and lastly but certainly not least possibly/probably accepted bribes?

Yes. For the following reasons:
- The FBI made their evaluation before and not after; besides, as long as I don't know for what reasons they deemed the witnesses unreliable, I'll stay sceptic.
- Under the circumstances of the accusations their previous dishonesty and doping can be explained.
- Bribes? Conspiracy much? ;)

Saying Lance is guilty of doping because he is the best is like saying Usain Bolt most have doped as well.

It's not just being the best, that would indeed be a tad ridiculous. But let's look at it that way: if they had decided to give the seven titles to the next in the list, they would have, dependent on the race, to skip 2-10 places because all the following people were positively convicted of doping. And now you're telling me that Armstrong, who beat all of them, did that without enhancement after a physically exhausting cure? Again, no proof fit for court, but c'mon man.

good it doesn't work like that.
in court under oath you can't lie. that is a crime.

Well, Armstrong is accused of lying to the court, right?