FORUMula1.com

[andrew]

He cheated, plain and simple. Of course he should be stripped of his titles! He's pretty much admitted his guilt.

Has he? Where's that then?

He's not protesting his innocence is he? He's dropped his defence. If he was innocent then surely he would protest his innocence to his dying days?

You obviously haven't read the article's have you.

I have so explain why an innocent person wouldn't defend themselves?

I dont need to, as he has already explained himself, so I don't need to.

blah blah blah blah

[LRW]

He cheated, plain and simple. Of course he should be stripped of his titles! He's pretty much admitted his guilt.

Has he? Where's that then?

He's not protesting his innocence is he? He's dropped his defence. If he was innocent then surely he would protest his innocence to his dying days?

You obviously haven't read the article's have you.

I have so explain why an innocent person wouldn't defend themselves?

I dont need to, as he has already explained himself, so I don't need to.

blah blah blah blah

Andrew, the trick is to not use that when you are losing an argument - it just shows up your intellectual inadequacies.

[andrew]

He cheated, plain and simple. Of course he should be stripped of his titles! He's pretty much admitted his guilt.

Has he? Where's that then?

He's not protesting his innocence is he? He's dropped his defence. If he was innocent then surely he would protest his innocence to his dying days?

You obviously haven't read the article's have you.

I have so explain why an innocent person wouldn't defend themselves?

I dont need to, as he has already explained himself, so I don't need to.

blah blah blah blah

Andrew, the trick is to not use that when you are losing an argument - it just shows up your intellectual inadequacies.

I'm not loosing any argument. I'm waiting for a worth while answer to my question. Why does someone not defend themselves when they are innocent? To me that is an admission of guilt.

[LRW]

I'm not loosing any argument. I'm waiting for a worth while answer to my question. Why does someone not defend themselves when they are innocent? To me that is an admission of guilt.

You live in such a simple world Andrew.

[andrew]

Not answering my question with a serious answer tells me all I need to know.

[LRW]

Not answering my question with a serious answer tells me all I need to know.

I answered your question 3 posts back.

AND that was a serious answer - if you feel anyone who fails to defend themselves MUST be guilty then I feel you live in a very simple balck and white world.

[andrew]

Not answering my question with a serious answer tells me all I need to know.

I answered your question 3 posts back.

AND that was a serious answer - if you feel anyone who fails to defend themselves MUST be guilty then I feel you live in a very simple balck and white world.

Actually you didn't answer, you told me I hadn't read anything on this which is factually incorrect. By your logic, an innocent person accepts guilt even if they are innocent. To me that is totally moronic.

[LRW]

Not answering my question with a serious answer tells me all I need to know.

I answered your question 3 posts back.

AND that was a serious answer - if you feel anyone who fails to defend themselves MUST be guilty then I feel you live in a very simple balck and white world.

Actually you didn't answer, you told me I hadn't read anything on this which is factually incorrect. By your logic, an innocent person accepts guilt even if they are innocent. To me that is totally moronic.

I ACTUALLY said I didn't need to explain why he wasn't defending himself as HE had already explained in the artical(s) out there, which you apparently read.

But of course your continuing failure to EVER accept anyone elses opinion has blinded you to this.

So I give up trying to 'discuss' things with you.

[andrew]

No, I fail to accept your opinion as I do not agree with it. Understand?

But if you're not going to discuss anything with me that's fine. Add me to your foes list and you'll never see my posts again and won't feel the need to reply.

[darwin dali]

Ok girls - don't get your knickers in a twist about nothing!

[andrew]

It's ok DD, we've agreed to ignore each other. Peace, (relative) normality and civility will be resumed.

[LRW]

It's ok DD, we've agreed to ignore each other. Peace, (relative) normality and civility will be resumed.

This will be my last post on this thread - but Ive agreed to nothing.

[scotty]

He hasn't been stripped yet and there is no indication that the UCI will follow the lead of USADA (UCI actually challenged their jurisdiction on this). USADA categorically do not have the authority to change the records.

This all smacks of a witch hunt. There is no actual proof he did anything wrong, i thought it was innocent til proven guilty?

But that's my confusion, the BBC are quoting USADA as saying they have stripped him of his titles and given him a lifetime ban. But the UCI are witholding judgement for now.

So what gives USADA the right to state his titles are gone?

Innocent until proven guilty I say.

USADA have no right, none. I hope UCI do the right thing and bring them down a couple of notches by ignoring them.

[LRW]

He hasn't been stripped yet and there is no indication that the UCI will follow the lead of USADA (UCI actually challenged their jurisdiction on this). USADA categorically do not have the authority to change the records.

This all smacks of a witch hunt. There is no actual proof he did anything wrong, i thought it was innocent til proven guilty?

But that's my confusion, the BBC are quoting USADA as saying they have stripped him of his titles and given him a lifetime ban. But the UCI are witholding judgement for now.

So what gives USADA the right to state his titles are gone?

Innocent until proven guilty I say.

USADA have no right, none. I hope UCI do the right thing and bring them down a couple of notches by ignoring them.

Good. I thought I was going mad. Yes, I agree - at the end of the day they are an anti-doping body (for America) - the World Governing Body should be the one to strip anyone of any titles. Problem is if drug taking is so rife in the sport, then all titles by all winners need to be questioned if they are taking this line of things....?

[scotty]

Well, the fact remains that there is no hard evidence, just stories from various people. Lance passed the tests at the time, which is more proof of innocence than anything they have against him now. France isn't in America, so yeah... not their right or jurisdiction at all.