Lafferties Probably all over this

In article , Jimmy July
wrote:

On 7/18/2011 6:59 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
On Jul 18, 9:16 am, "William R.
wrote:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/arms...racter-assassi...

[ Watch for line wrap ]

I particularly like this snippet:

"The motion suggests that information from the Armstrong investigation
has been leaked to the New York Times, Sports Illustrated and 60
Minutes. The motion states that, due to the leaks, "even if exonerated
and never charged, Armstrong's reputation will have been severely damaged".

Which of course is true ...........

Hard to see any evidence of this, so far. LA and Livestrong still seem
to be doing fine, it'll take an indictment to change that.

I'm not sure an indictment will do it any more, the Clemons thing has
^^^^^^^
Clemens

--
Old Fritz

On Jul 18, 10:19*pm, ilan wrote:
On Jul 18, 6:16*pm, "William R. Mattil"
wrote:



http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/arms...racter-assassi...

[ Watch for line wrap ]

I particularly like this snippet:

"The motion suggests that information from the Armstrong investigation
has been leaked to the New York Times, Sports Illustrated and 60
Minutes. The motion states that, due to the leaks, "even if exonerated
and never charged, Armstrong's reputation will have been severely damaged".

Which of course is true ...........

Bill
--

William R. Mattil

http://www.celestial-images.com

The difference with Armstrong and Bruyneel is that they are actually
aware that they have rights, and know what they are. Maybe that's why
the UCI was afraid of them and made "deals" which Landis alludes to.
Maybe the deal was to keep tthem quiet so *the rest of the riders
wouldn't figure it out as well and cause a total breakdown of
professional cycling.

I'm still waiting for a rider to challenge blood samples in the Tour.
It is clearly against the principles of French law, so they should
eventually prevail. The point is that any kind of search, including
body search requires a formal request from a prosecutor, and is
otherwise invalid.

dumbass,

is that so ?

i can think of a number of cases where that hasn't been the case.

the festina car was stopped and searched and riders and staff were
detained (in cells).

david millar was approached by paris cops and his place was searched
until they found evidence of doping and he was placed in a cell.

edita rumsas' car was searched and turned up doping products and she
spent several months in jail.

so did a prosecutor request a search in each case ? i don't think you
can argue the results were "invalid", in each case riders were
suspended by the UCI regardless of whether they ultimately faced any
criminal charge.

there is discrepancy between what you claim and what actually
happens.

On Jul 19, 2:29*pm, Amit Ghosh wrote:
On Jul 18, 10:19*pm, ilan wrote:









On Jul 18, 6:16*pm, "William R. Mattil"
wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/arms...racter-assassi....

[ Watch for line wrap ]

I particularly like this snippet:

"The motion suggests that information from the Armstrong investigation
has been leaked to the New York Times, Sports Illustrated and 60
Minutes. The motion states that, due to the leaks, "even if exonerated
and never charged, Armstrong's reputation will have been severely damaged".

Which of course is true ...........

Bill
--

William R. Mattil

http://www.celestial-images.com

The difference with Armstrong and Bruyneel is that they are actually
aware that they have rights, and know what they are. Maybe that's why
the UCI was afraid of them and made "deals" which Landis alludes to.
Maybe the deal was to keep tthem quiet so *the rest of the riders
wouldn't figure it out as well and cause a total breakdown of
professional cycling.
I'm still waiting for a rider to challenge blood samples in the Tour.
It is clearly against the principles of French law, so they should
eventually prevail. The point is that any kind of search, including
body search requires a formal request from a prosecutor, and is
otherwise invalid.

dumbass,

is that so ?

i can think of a number of cases where that hasn't been the case.

the festina car was stopped and searched and riders and staff were
detained (in cells).

david millar was approached by paris cops and his place was searched
until they found evidence of doping and he was placed in a cell.

edita rumsas' car was searched and turned up doping products and she
spent several months in jail.

so did a prosecutor request a search in each case ? i don't think you
can argue the results were "invalid", in each case riders were
suspended by the UCI regardless of whether they ultimately faced any
criminal charge.

there is discrepancy between what you claim and what actually
happens.

These are police investigations, and the French police routinely do
illegal searches which is why the application of the law can be
appealed (good luck trying to go after the police though). However, a
private organisation like UCI can under no circumstances do
unreasonable searches.

-ilan

On Jul 19, 2:35*pm, ilan wrote:
On Jul 19, 2:29*pm, Amit Ghosh wrote:

These are police investigations, and the French police routinely do
illegal searches which is why the application of the law can be
appealed (good luck trying to go after the police though).

dumbass,

it doesn't matter if they are illegal - so much for the "spirit for
the french law" buddy. they are still able to detain people and
implicated riders still suffer sanctions from the governing body.

However, a
private organisation like UCI can under no circumstances do
unreasonable searches.

....and they don't. that's why the police catches more dopers than the
anti-doping (aka. biological) controls.

On Jul 19, 9:35*pm, Amit Ghosh wrote:
On Jul 19, 2:35*pm, ilan wrote:

On Jul 19, 2:29*pm, Amit Ghosh wrote:
These are police investigations, and the French police routinely do
illegal searches which is why the application of the law can be
appealed (good luck trying to go after the police though).

dumbass,

it doesn't matter if they are illegal - so much for the "spirit for
the french law" buddy. they are still able to detain people and
implicated riders still suffer sanctions from the governing body.

However, a
private organisation like UCI can under no circumstances do
unreasonable searches.

...and they don't. that's why the police catches more dopers than the
anti-doping (aka. biological) controls.

My point is to make a legal challenge to the whole process of doping
controls based on illegal search. Personally, I think it would
succeed.

A case in point, the French police policy of not allowing legal
counsel when under arrest was condemned by the European Court of Human
rights and the law was changed in 2010 to guarantee "miranda" type
guarantees. They had to change it, because case after case was
overturned on appeal.

-ilan

On 7/19/2011 2:04 AM, Frederick the Great wrote:
In , Jimmy
wrote:

On 7/18/2011 6:59 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
On Jul 18, 9:16 am, "William R.
wrote:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/arms...racter-assassi...

[ Watch for line wrap ]

I particularly like this snippet:

"The motion suggests that information from the Armstrong investigation
has been leaked to the New York Times, Sports Illustrated and 60
Minutes. The motion states that, due to the leaks, "even if exonerated
and never charged, Armstrong's reputation will have been severely damaged".

Which of course is true ...........

Hard to see any evidence of this, so far. LA and Livestrong still seem
to be doing fine, it'll take an indictment to change that.

I'm not sure an indictment will do it any more, the Clemons thing has
^^^^^^^
Clemens


If we have a couple more guys get off with mistrials, we could have a
Clemons Party. You'd love that, admit it! "Clemens Party" just doesn't
look right.

On Jul 20, 2:05*am, Jimmy July wrote:
On 7/19/2011 2:04 AM, Frederick the Great wrote:









In , Jimmy
wrote:

On 7/18/2011 6:59 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
On Jul 18, 9:16 am, "William R.
wrote:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/arms...racter-assassi....

[ Watch for line wrap ]

I particularly like this snippet:

"The motion suggests that information from the Armstrong investigation
has been leaked to the New York Times, Sports Illustrated and 60
Minutes. The motion states that, due to the leaks, "even if exonerated
and never charged, Armstrong's reputation will have been severely damaged".

Which of course is true ...........

Hard to see any evidence of this, so far. LA and Livestrong still seem
to be doing fine, it'll take an indictment to change that.

I'm not sure an indictment will do it any more, the Clemons thing has
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *^^^^^^^
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Clemens

If we have a couple more guys get off with mistrials, we could have a
Clemons Party. You'd love that, admit it! "Clemens Party" just doesn't
look right.

On Jul 20, 2:05*am, Jimmy July wrote:
On 7/19/2011 2:04 AM, Frederick the Great wrote:









In , Jimmy
wrote:

On 7/18/2011 6:59 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
On Jul 18, 9:16 am, "William R.
wrote:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/arms...racter-assassi....

[ Watch for line wrap ]

I particularly like this snippet:

"The motion suggests that information from the Armstrong investigation
has been leaked to the New York Times, Sports Illustrated and 60
Minutes. The motion states that, due to the leaks, "even if exonerated
and never charged, Armstrong's reputation will have been severely damaged".

Which of course is true ...........

Hard to see any evidence of this, so far. LA and Livestrong still seem
to be doing fine, it'll take an indictment to change that.

I'm not sure an indictment will do it any more, the Clemons thing has
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *^^^^^^^
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Clemens

If we have a couple more guys get off with mistrials, we could have a
Clemons Party. You'd love that, admit it! "Clemens Party" just doesn't
look right.

Clemens' party motto is: "Never the twain shall meet."

-ilan

In article , Jimmy July
wrote:

On 7/19/2011 2:04 AM, Frederick the Great wrote:
In , Jimmy
wrote:

On 7/18/2011 6:59 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
On Jul 18, 9:16 am, "William R.
wrote:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/arms...racter-assassi...

[ Watch for line wrap ]

I particularly like this snippet:

"The motion suggests that information from the Armstrong investigation
has been leaked to the New York Times, Sports Illustrated and 60
Minutes. The motion states that, due to the leaks, "even if exonerated
and never charged, Armstrong's reputation will have been severely damaged".

Which of course is true ...........

Hard to see any evidence of this, so far. LA and Livestrong still seem
to be doing fine, it'll take an indictment to change that.

I'm not sure an indictment will do it any more, the Clemons thing has
^^^^^^^
Clemens

If we have a couple more guys get off with mistrials, we could have a
Clemons Party. You'd love that, admit it! "Clemens Party" just doesn't
look right.

I take the fifth, but you can have a nip before I leave.

--
Old Fritz