another nail in the coffin

[rich p]

His guilt or innocence should and will be decided by a court of law, not the press, and be dependent on verifyable and impartial evidence - that's the way I understand things.

I have no idea what you mean. We shouldn't speculate? The press shouldn't report facts?

Do you really think that FBI agent Novitsky and a grand jury will be swayed by what I think or what a foreign journo writes? I

For what it's worth the usual redress against current riders is not decided by a court of law. The UCI, the national federations and WADA are not courts of law. I appreciate that LA is not a current rider.

 

[yello]

His guilt or innocence should and will be decided by a court of law, not the press, and be dependent on verifyable and impartial evidence - that's the way I understand things.

And that's what will happen! The press don't decide anything, like they just present an argument - albeit one-sided in cases. Common folk like me and thee enjoy the speculation.

 

[yello]

From the article linked to by Crackle - she is described as a friend of Armstrong

I presume you're referring to Hamilton though I'm not sure of the reason you refer to him as "she".

In fairness to Hamilton, I can imagine that his lawyers made the complaint formally. I can see it as a possibility than Hamilton does actually feel some degree of guilt over his testimony. He may well feel, in part, that he has betrayed a colleague if not friend. I doubt he wanted to meet Armstrong again, let alone get into a slanging match with him.

 

[dellzeqq]

I presume you're referring to Hamilton though I'm not sure of the reason you refer to him as "she".

In fairness to Hamilton, I can imagine that his lawyers made the complaint formally. I can see it as a possibility than Hamilton does actually feel some degree of guilt over his testimony. He may well feel, in part, that he has betrayed a colleague if not friend. I doubt he wanted to meet Armstrong again, let alone get into a slanging match with him.

I don't get this at all. What were the chances? Really? I've dined out a lot, and I reckon that in thirty five years I've met someone I know in a restaurant (other than the people I was dining with) about.......twice.

If it is as Hamilton says it is, then Lance is for the high jump. Witness tampering is big stuff.

 

[MichaelM]

...I mean come on folks, if the guy is guilty.

Although it hasn't been proved in a court of law, I don't disagree with you.

 

[rich p]

I presume you're referring to Hamilton though I'm not sure of the reason you refer to him as "she".

In fairness to Hamilton, I can imagine that his lawyers made the complaint formally. I can see it as a possibility than Hamilton does actually feel some degree of guilt over his testimony. He may well feel, in part, that he has betrayed a colleague if not friend. I doubt he wanted to meet Armstrong again, let alone get into a slanging match with him.

I think Philip was referring to the restaurant owner.

 

[yello]

Ah, yes, sorry. I suspect you're right Rich. My apologies Philip.

 

[Erratic]

HEHE, nothing like jumping into a pool of Armstrong haters

I don't get this at all. What were the chances? Really? I've dined out a lot, and I reckon that in thirty five years I've met someone I know in a restaurant (other than the people I was dining with) about.......twice.

Yep...

I have no idea what you mean. We shouldn't speculate? The press shouldn't report facts?

What do you believe the press' motivation is to be in keeping this Armstrong story going? If they have evidence, surely it has been passed on to the relevant authority and should leave it at that.

Just to clarify, I was suggesting it is the conitunual...let's call it explotiation...by the press of this story that is the problem, not the average punters speculation and judgments. Clearly it is a very polarizing issue and many people have already made up their minds, so even any eventual official resolution of it is not going to end the arguments.

 

[raindog]

What do you believe the press' motivation is to be in keeping this Armstrong story going?

To keep people reading their magazines/newspapers/websites as with any story - what other motivation could there be? As to most people already making their minds up about whether or not LA is guilty or not, I think most bike enthusiasts did that years ago.

 

[rich p]

HEHE, nothing like jumping into a pool of Armstrong haters

HAHA.
If you'd been around for more than 5 minutes before telling us what we should think and write, you'd realise that most of us here have been following the story of LA for many years and reluctantly, in most cases, come to our unfavourable conclusions.

It's not a knee-jack reaction from lapping up biased, sensational press reportage and as such we are not Armstrong haters. BTW, that phrase always sounds like a blanket dismissal of alternative viewpoints in much the same way that Armstrong himself uses to dismiss his critics as bitter, book-promoting liars.

If you'd been here a bit longer you would also recognise that we disapprove of all doping cheats from LA to Ricco. LA is just a more famous example of them all.

 

[yello]

What do you believe the press' motivation is to be in keeping this Armstrong story going?

Of course it's to sell papers! Nobody is in it for the good of mankind. That doesn't mean the stories are fabricated... well, not always... but then we shouldn't judge all press by the standards set by British journalists

Moral of the story: if you want to keep your name out of the papers than keep your nose clean. Like speed cameras innit? Don't wan't to get done then don't speed.

Btw, whilst I'll own up to being a fully paid up member of the 'ur haterz' club I actually do find the the current saga WAY more interesting than any individual. You have to remember this is bigger than cycling. It's about fraud, conspiracy, trafficking.... cripes, being outed as a cyclist that doped is small change. I reckon Armstrong would settle for that willingly and hand back the 7 maillot jaunes this afternoon. (Well, actually HE wouldn't. He'll deny to the death. Others in the same position would though.) As it stands, he's looking at prison time and/or financial ruin.

Cycling authorities simply would not have the remit or scope to conduct this investigation (not least, in part, because it seems they are PART of the problem!). If there's any shame for cycling it's that it's part of the omerta and has a vested interest in keeping its own house untidy. For that, it deserves all the wrong headlines that the Armstrong story might bring.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Erratic, I'd wait for more than a couple of days before you start making wholesale judgements on people, if I were you.

You're simply wrong about most people here - there is a lot of knowledge and a wide range of opinions - most of us just aren't unthinking fan boys.

 

[Erratic]

Interesting responses, thanks. I reiterate, for me, anyone and everyone is innocent until proven guilty, that is a difficult concept for many to accomodate, or even accept, it is a prinicple on which many democracies are based. If he is guilty, then so be it, let him be punished accordingly, I do wonder with so much press coverage if, if it ever comes to it, he could ever be given a fair trial.

 

[dellzeqq]

Interesting responses, thanks. I reiterate, for me, anyone and everyone is innocent until proven guilty, that is a difficult concept for many to accomodate, or even accept, it is a prinicple on which many democracies are based. If he is guilty, then so be it, let him be punished accordingly, I do wonder with so much press coverage if, if it ever comes to it, he could ever be given a fair trial.

it has nothing to do with democracy. People are entitled to draw their own conclusions, and, also, to come to conclusions about the processes of sports administration.

To take as an example. Nobody has found Jack Warner guilty of anything. I remain unconvinced of his innocence.

All administrative and legal processes are, to a degree, open to influence, and a lot of people on these boards think that Armstrong and the money he represents have influence.

 

[philipbh]

I do wonder with so much press coverage if, if it ever comes to it, he could ever be given a fair trial.

An interesting point - though I am also interested to know the courts / judiciary reaction to a potential defendant intimidating a potential witness, thereby prejudicing his own trial.

Contempt of court at least, perhaps?