Posted Nov 5, '12 at 9:38pm
maybe its handy that you say who you are talking to.
Posted Nov 6, '12 at 10:55pm
I don't recall ever saying that it was there fault that Lance didn't sue them. I've only been arguing his innocence and his being not guilty. I have also been saying the investigation was illegal and unconstitutional.
Even aside from a strict judicial point of view and look at it from an unbiased and neutral point of view I think you'd still agree that he was likely innocent and only an extraordinary racer...
"Doping moor the TdF is and how he cycled``
I don`t understand what you mean to say by "doping moor the Tour de France is."
lol, not quite what I was saying :D All I meant was that the expulsion was wrong, the condemnation of Lance is wrong. Trashing Lance is wrong, and Lance actually being guilty is unlikely.
Voila Godwin`s law...
Anyways this comment makes me mad. Do you not understand the differences of context and circumstances? Have you read what I've been saying? How can you say that because I think Lance is innocent I think sadistic Nazis should never be brought to justice =,=
Now let's slowly dissect your paragraphs...
A blatantly baseless and false claim.
This evidence was what exactly???
As I asked above do you not see a difference in circumstances here? There were specific reasons those witnesses testifying against Lance should have (and was) been considered unreliable, those being: the people testifying against Lance for the most part were known for being corrupt, liars, bribe accepting, deemed unreliable by the FBI, withholding information from officials without good cause etc...
Unlike with victims of the holocaust and survivors of the war. They could be scarred from the war and were simply emotionally unavailable to testify. If you lived through such a horrible time and seen the things they saw perhaps you would understand a difference of circumstances and take common sense into account before saying I support Nazis's freedom.
You deserve to be smacked upside the head for saying that =.=
You obviously do not know what a Statute of Limitations or Double Jeopardy is if you say that trash.
1.The Statute of Limitations does not apply in cases of murder.
This seems to back up my above statement.
If he was guilty, good.
1. The Lance case was not dead for a number of years. There was always suspicion on him and people were always continuously investigating cases of doping. Especially with Lance Armstrong.
2. Someone can put 1 and 1 together and get 2, but in the case of Armstrong the USADA are putting 6 + 9 - 1 together to equal -2. In other words putting fallible and circumstantial evidence + unreliable witnesses minus the constitution to equal a guilty Lance Armstrong.
3. As previously mentioned by myself in this post there are exceptions to Double Jeopardy (being tried once for a crime) that you should know about if you are going to argue with me. Instead you say "blah blah blah, you are a Nazi supporter blah blah blah you think people should only ever be tried once! Blah blah blah". In place of blah you can replace it with much of the arguments you used or ignorance if you wish.
The FBI said nothing of the kind. They said and I paraphrase "these witnesses are unreliable and their testimonies will not hold up in court so we shall not use them" and "there is not enough evidence for a trial so we are dropping all charges and the investigations."
I hope you are spelling this way to prove some type of point and not from an unintelligent mind =.=
By the way no one including the FBI has ever said the FBI have always been right.
This is based on a lot of falsehoods and ifs... I can say with due certainty (I'd be willing to bet my life on) that they (the FBI) do indeed trust some people that are foreign and do not speak English.
The bikers were not anonymous, they were Lance Armstrong's teammates.
The word of the FBI is not the word of God, no one said anything of the kind. The FBI had reasonable cause to consider the bikers unreliable and I agree.
Everything said here (in this quote) is ridiculous. Your way of coming to these conclusions eludes me.
Agreed, and P.S. I have never said otherwise.
Forgive me for any grammar errors I may have written unintentionally...
Copyright 2005-2013 Armor Games. All Rights Reserved.
We strive to deliver the best online games experience on the internet, with thousands of free online games for kids, access to free mmorpg games, free online games for girls, online rpg games, fun online flash games, and more. We offer free flash games in many different genres: online shooting games, online puzzle games, online war games, free online car games, free online hidden object games and dozens more. This is the best place on the web to play online games for free... play on Armor Games! No matter what game style you prefer, we've got it here.
As one of the biggest free gaming websites, we offer thousands of new game reviews and ratings, making it easy for gamers to find new games every day. We offer only the best games from developers Jmtb02, Krin, ConArtist, Joey Betz, Tony Lavell, Louissi, Gameinabottle and of course Armor Games develops some of the best games around.Ready to play online games?
We are dedicated to providing our players the best online gaming experience on the internet! Visit every day to discover new games, achieve high scores, and participate in one of the most active gaming communities.
Have your game played by millions of gamers! Armor Games welcomes game submissions from talented game developers. Not every game makes the cut, but if it does, we'll promote it on Armor Games and give you all the credit and link back to your site. Submit your game here and good luck!