It remains his word vs. the word of several others, independently from each other, who say they have seen him do it. That is not the same as one man's word vs. another man's word. As I said, you were basically making the same argument as REEKO. You posted: What else did you want to describe by saying "a bunch of people playing he-said-she-said", other than hearsay? In any case, calling it "a bunch of people playing he-said-she-said" is inaccurate, as they are not relaying something someone said, but something they have seen happening with their own eyes. You still do not seem to understand the difference, as we see below. See above. First, I am qualified in the USA as well. This has nothing to do with German law. Do you actually think that someone could not be convicted of murder if the only evidence the police has is you having seen the guy shoot the other person? You think that it would be "likely incorrect" to think that this would be sufficient to convict someone of murder? Plus, there is much more evidence (his connection to Dr. Ferrari, the drug test that later turned out positive for EPO, etc.). As to the second case, see above. What else, other than hearsay, would you have meant by "a bunch of people playing he-said-she-said"? Relax. You, too, can be wrong on things, and this is one of those times. No need to get your panties in a bunch. That's because he is a douchelord. Not only that, I am convinced that sooner or later, he will be exposed as the liar and criminal that he is. Landis tried the same repertoire as Armstrong (denying, suing, etc.), and ultimately broke down and confessed (so did Marion Jones, etc.), but Armstrong has a lot more to lose. No, you have made your judgment already, as you are ignoring or dismissing the admissible evidence. Don't take it out of context. You have to look at the whole picture. Of course simply because the motive exists does not create a crime. But if eyewitnesses exist, as well as plenty of other evidence, then possibly it does. You look at all the different single pieces of evidence and say they are insufficient. But you don't look at the whole picture.
Jan Ullrich is a doper. In terms of cheating, he is just as bad as Armstrong and all the others. The only difference is that Ullrich was not as much of a mafia don as Armstrong, with the whole "intimidation of others"/"omerta" element added in Armstrong's case. That's also why I perfectly understand why some people do not want to believe what, inside, they already know to be true. They are in denial because they cheered for the guy. I felt the same way about Ullrich in the beginning.
Like most Germans Jan is high on ecstasy 98% of the time -- it's certainly obvious in your posts. No offense intended.
ATW - "he said she said" to me means that you are relaying what someone has directly told you (or for that matter, two people giving directly conflicting testimonies), not hearsay. I just use that to cover both sexes, as a turn of phrase, not to mean hearsay. If it is considered an informal substitute for hearsay, I apologize for the confusion.
Repped. It's absolutely hilarious watching the most delusional Pacquiao fan on this board criticize another athlete of using PEDs
<iframe width="640" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AAIQBcpHpSs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Thank you for thanking him for bringing it up ~ You are a true BBS yeoman. And in this case, a real gumshoe who might be on to something re:Manny.
Going from 130 to 144 in FOUR years? Right, there's no way he could have gained 3 and a half pounds a year without the help of PED's Pacman is 5 foot 7. It's not like he's a midget.
Yes I do think he could be that good. Wayne Gretzky was that good. Jim brown was that good. Wilt was that good. MJ was that good. Pete Sampras and Roger Federer were that good. It is not out of the realm of possibility that he in fact, was, that good. The DO YOU THINK argument is pretty weak anyway.
Where did I say I thought Armstrong was clean? Never said it. You shouldn't be calling anyone an idiot when you can't even put a coherent sentence together. You embarrass yourself every time you post nowadays
Those defending Armstrong are only doing so because he's from Texas/Austin. It's clear he's a cheater and a low character guy. He suffered from cancer and his wife took care of him, then he recovered, dumped her and started running around womanizing with Matthew Mcconaughey. I don't know who's worse IMO Armstrong or Clemens, but both are pretty much zero on the character scale.
It's not the weight gain. It's the fact that he's gaining a ridiculous amount of speed and power all while getting older. It's the exact same thing as Bonds. If Manny wasn't such a nice guy a lot more people would call him on it
LOL. Who the hell told you that everyone when reach just over 30 start to go down hill right away? The guy is only 32. Give me a scientific proof.
