The Italian scandal

pedalchick wrote:

It seems that the LA Confidential scandal is overshadowing something
even more serious - a doping scandal with some actualy proof? From
Eurosport (I'm not going to be pretentious and post it in French...)

This is what I call a troll.
What if I post some allegations that your hubby/boyfriend is a faggot?

It seems that the LA Confidential scandal is overshadowing something
even more serious - a doping scandal with some actualy proof? From
Eurosport (I'm not going to be pretentious and post it in French...)

___________________
Recorded telephone conversations most likely relating the use of EPO by
prominent Italian riders of the Saeco, Domina Vacanze, and Fassa Bortolo
teams have been leaked to French newspaper Le Monde. The evidence, which
most notably points the finger at Eddy Mazzoleni, room-mate of recent
Giro winner Damiano Cunego.

Among the riders indicted at the end of last month in what Italian
police have labeled "Operation Oil for Drugs" are Mazzoleni, and Saeco
team-mates Danilo Di Luca and Alessandro Spezialetti.

At the heart of the investigation is Carlo Santuccione, who presents
himself as a "simple family doctor," but who's known inside the peloton
as "Ali the Chemist" for his dubious reputation.

Santuccione has been charged with "prescribing and adminstering performance-
enhancing drugs outside of any therapeutic context and of having given
advice on how to take the medication with the sole purpose of avoiding
that the substances be identified in an eventual doping test."

"IF NOT FOR THE GIRO, THEN FOR THE TOUR"

In a transcript of a hidden microphone conversation in Santuccione's
office published in Wednesday's edition of Le Monde, Mazzoleni expressed
worry to the doctor last April 27:

"I spoke with Danilo [Di Luca] because for Sunday, I've made 4,000 units
in subcutaneous... and I'm riding Saturday... Saturday, there won't be
any problems?," Mazzoleni says on the tape.

"It's most probably Erythropoietin [EPO] precribed by Santuccione," an
investigator tells Le Monde.

The rider then talks about trying to obtain a new kind of EPO available
only in the United States.

"We should maybe bring it in through England or Spain, tomorrow my
girlfriend's coming up, and then there's the accountant, we should be
able to do it," Mazzoleni tells Santuccione before adding "Above all, if
you're not successful for the Giro, then for the Tour [de France]... "

NO DECISION FROM THE TOUR

Other riders implicated in the scandal include Fassa Bortolo sprint king
Alessandro Petacchi's team-mate Fabio Sacchi and two team-mates of 2002
world champion Mario Cipollini.

Domina Vacanze have suspended Mario Scirea and Alessandro Galletti.
Calls intercepted on Galletti's cellphone have enabled authorities to
uncover a supply network of blood transfusion bags.

Saeco and Fassa Bortolo have so far taken no measure against their
indicted riders.

Organisers of the Tour de France, reached by eurosport.com on Wednesday
said no decision had been taken so far on an eventual suspension of the
three Italian teams involved in the scandal.

Earlier this year, the Tour excluded Kelme following the doping
revelations of former rider Jesus Manzano while French team Cofidis
is back in the peloton after a hiatus due to a major drugs scandal
in France.



--

"Davide Tosi" wrote ...

This is what I call a troll.
What if I post some allegations that your hubby/boyfriend is a faggot?

You're what I call a dick.

Davide Tosi wrote:
pedalchick wrote:
It seems that the LA Confidential scandal is overshadowing something
even more serious - a doping scandal with some actualy proof? From
Eurosport (I'm not going to be pretentious and post it in French...)
This is what I call a troll. What if I post some allegations that your
hubby/boyfriend is a faggot?



last I checked he didn't look like a bundle of twigs, but thanks for
confirming my rec.bicycles.retards theory. I admit I am retarded
because I use cyclingforums, but at least I don't yell "Troll! *PLONK*"
at every post.



--

"pedalchick" wrote in message
.. .
Davide Tosi wrote:
pedalchick wrote:
It seems that the LA Confidential scandal is overshadowing something
even more serious - a doping scandal with some actualy proof? From
Eurosport (I'm not going to be pretentious and post it in French...)
This is what I call a troll. What if I post some allegations that your
hubby/boyfriend is a faggot?



last I checked he didn't look like a bundle of twigs, but thanks for
confirming my rec.bicycles.retards theory. I admit I am retarded
because I use cyclingforums, but at least I don't yell "Troll! *PLONK*"
at every post.

What the next big race on your calender? Just curious, did you post the
philly report on your website yet? I was interested in reading it. I have a
friend who is sending me a video of Philly, hopefully with the womens
coverage.

B-

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:48:11 GMT, pedalchick wrote:
I admit I am retarded because I use cyclingforums

There ya go, first step. Need help for next step?

What if I post some allegations that your hubby/boyfriend is a
faggot?

I would ask how you found that out.


"Davide Tosi" wrote in message
...
pedalchick wrote:

It seems that the LA Confidential scandal is overshadowing
something
even more serious - a doping scandal with some actualy proof? From
Eurosport (I'm not going to be pretentious and post it in
French...)

This is what I call a troll.
What if I post some allegations that your hubby/boyfriend is a
faggot?

"pedalchick" wrote in message
...
It seems that the LA Confidential scandal is overshadowing something
even more serious - a doping scandal with some actualy proof? From
Eurosport (I'm not going to be pretentious and post it in French...)

I find it interesting that non-lawyers seem to not understand the nature of
proof that can be offered at trial. Phone taps are very credible evidence
if there is a proper foundation for admission and the statements in them are
no ambiguous. A person can testify as to matters that occurred in their
presence and may even testify as to certain things said by another, e.g.,
admissions against interest. In the case of testimony, the issue becomes
the credibility of the witness. Demeanor counts heavily but supporting
documentation can also help. Circumstantial evidence cases are often the
strongest and most compelling while so-called eye witness cases are often
the weakest.

Turning to the allegations of Emma O'Reilly as one person in Walsh's book,
one would question her motivation for speaking to Walsh. Was money paid?
Or is the motive something else? Can her allgeations be supported by
records of border crossings into Spain, tesitmony from people met in Spain,
etc. If the matter goes to trial, Armstrong will be called to testify. What
is his motive to falsify? An estimated $16 million a year in endorsements
at risk could be a motivator that would bring his credibility into question.
One thing I can tell you, having been a trial attorney, is that no matter
how well you prep your witness, trials rarely go according to a script and
there are times when your witness is on the stand being picked apart making
the lawyer wish they had gone into shoe sales. It's happened to every
lawyer who's tried a case.

I have to think that the Times lawyers have done their homework. It's going
to be a very interesting case.

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
ink.net...

"pedalchick" wrote in message
...
It seems that the LA Confidential scandal is overshadowing something
even more serious - a doping scandal with some actualy proof? From
Eurosport (I'm not going to be pretentious and post it in French...)

I find it interesting that non-lawyers seem to not understand the nature
of
proof that can be offered at trial. Phone taps are very credible evidence
if there is a proper foundation for admission and the statements in them
are
no ambiguous. A person can testify as to matters that occurred in their
presence and may even testify as to certain things said by another, e.g.,
admissions against interest. In the case of testimony, the issue becomes
the credibility of the witness. Demeanor counts heavily but supporting
documentation can also help. Circumstantial evidence cases are often the
strongest and most compelling while so-called eye witness cases are often
the weakest.

Turning to the allegations of Emma O'Reilly as one person in Walsh's book,
one would question her motivation for speaking to Walsh. Was money paid?
Or is the motive something else? Can her allgeations be supported by
records of border crossings into Spain, tesitmony from people met in
Spain,
etc. If the matter goes to trial, Armstrong will be called to testify.
What
is his motive to falsify? An estimated $16 million a year in endorsements
at risk could be a motivator that would bring his credibility into
question.
One thing I can tell you, having been a trial attorney, is that no matter
how well you prep your witness, trials rarely go according to a script and
there are times when your witness is on the stand being picked apart
making
the lawyer wish they had gone into shoe sales. It's happened to every
lawyer who's tried a case.

I have to think that the Times lawyers have done their homework. It's
going
to be a very interesting case.

Brian, do you get any work done in your office during the month of July?

Generally, yes. From about 5 a.m. until OLN starts its daily coverage.
Then from after lunch until around 5 p.m. It's more work that all of France
combined during July.


"Sierraman" wrote in message
...

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
ink.net...

"pedalchick" wrote in message
...
It seems that the LA Confidential scandal is overshadowing something
even more serious - a doping scandal with some actualy proof? From
Eurosport (I'm not going to be pretentious and post it in French...)

I find it interesting that non-lawyers seem to not understand the nature
of
proof that can be offered at trial. Phone taps are very credible
evidence
if there is a proper foundation for admission and the statements in them
are
no ambiguous. A person can testify as to matters that occurred in their
presence and may even testify as to certain things said by another,
e.g.,
admissions against interest. In the case of testimony, the issue
becomes
the credibility of the witness. Demeanor counts heavily but supporting
documentation can also help. Circumstantial evidence cases are often
the
strongest and most compelling while so-called eye witness cases are
often
the weakest.

Turning to the allegations of Emma O'Reilly as one person in Walsh's
book,
one would question her motivation for speaking to Walsh. Was money
paid?
Or is the motive something else? Can her allgeations be supported by
records of border crossings into Spain, tesitmony from people met in
Spain,
etc. If the matter goes to trial, Armstrong will be called to testify.
What
is his motive to falsify? An estimated $16 million a year in
endorsements
at risk could be a motivator that would bring his credibility into
question.
One thing I can tell you, having been a trial attorney, is that no
matter
how well you prep your witness, trials rarely go according to a script
and
there are times when your witness is on the stand being picked apart
making
the lawyer wish they had gone into shoe sales. It's happened to every
lawyer who's tried a case.

I have to think that the Times lawyers have done their homework. It's
going
to be a very interesting case.

Brian, do you get any work done in your office during the month of July?