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
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.
