Would have been in court.. however, if an organisation decides to dump one of their participants and said participant doesn't sue them, you cannot really blame them.
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.
From a strict judicial point of view, I think I can agree with that. Now, knowing what doping moor the TdF is and how he cycled, is another matter altogether, but we've gone through that already.
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."
1 organization is not allowed to give info to a other organization anymore?
danm my whole business is illegal instandly. =o
lol, not quite what I was saying
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.
Well, in your way, Demaniuc would never see justice. He was a ukraine who worked at a nazi death camp, was in a quite high rank. In his first Trial {In Israel[!!!]} he was found Not guilty. After something like 50 years, new evidence were found, people who didnt wanted to talk talked. New paper work was found. SO by your way, its not ok to judge him again. But Germany did. and find him guilty. I dont know what ended up with him, but i think he is in jail. yea, at the age of 90, but in jail.
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...
Well, in your way, Demaniuc would never see justice.
A blatantly baseless and false claim.
After something like 50 years, new evidence were found, people who didnt wanted to talk talked.
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.
SO by your way, its not ok to judge him again.
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.2. There are
exceptions to Double Jeopardy, obviously the circumstances of the case met these exceptions.
3. This is only a recommendation, but if one is ill informed about what one speaks of,
one should not speak.. I dont know what ended up with him, but i think he is in jail. yea, at the age of 90, but in jail.
This seems to back up my above statement.
But Germany did. and find him guilty.
If he was guilty, good.
Investigations can become 'dead' for years, until someone find a clue, put 1+1, someone as confessed. so you cant judge them because "you tried once"? The FBI as spoken, this man is innocente?
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 as spoken, this man is innocente?
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."
As i siad, teh FBI was wrong from time to time. not everyone sucsess 100%.
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.
So what if they thought that all of these "Foreign people who dont speak english" are not trustble? So what if they find it more easier to belive to The lance armstrong then to some anonymus bikers? So its the word of god now?
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.
So its the word of god now? Sign rock-hewn? Never could be changed?
Everything said here (in this quote) is ridiculous. Your way of coming to these conclusions eludes me.
I dont wnat to live in this kind of world. Justice work slowly, and is unpredictable. Sometimes, one trial is not enough.
Agreed, and P.S. I have never said otherwise.
Forgive me for any grammar errors I may have written unintentionally...
