ok, fine, i'll say who the distance runners are gonna be...brahim boulami and rashid ramzi. sad day for track and field
ok, fine, i'll say who the distance runners are gonna be...brahim boulami and rashid ramzi. sad day for track and field
Sophia LoRent wrote:
there was some ambiguity in his statement but not enough to protect him from a potential lawsuit.
You're an idiot and you're wrong. Stop promoting misinformation and discouraging the OP from posting.
just sayin wrote:
ya
lagats sample got left in the sun
and turned into epo.......
thats how they make the stuff
you really don't know much about biology or testing procedure do you? maybe you should read up on the biology of samples before you open your mouth. eg:
In July 1995 Professor Simon Gaskell at UMIST in Manchester completed a six month study on bacterial degradation in urine samples. The study looked at three athletes: Modahl, a tennis player and a jogger. All gave a urine sample when the pH level was 5, and half the sample was frozen, while the other half was stored for three days at the same temperature as the room in Lisbon where Modahl´s original sample was stored (as part of the study the weather details where collected from the meteorological institute in Lisbon to recreate the conditions). The urine samples stored in elevated temperatures all measured pH 9 and all three samples showed a false positive reading for testosterone versus epi-testosterone. This evidence supported Modahl's claim of innocence and she won the appeal.
It's either, Out of, our 'outta'. Pick one. It doesn't have to mention a name. Besides being a runner I'm a legal consultant for an American media outlet. And he doesn't have to mention a name. If Gay or the ADA felt that it was specifically implied they could take him to court and he would have to prove with absolutely certainty that he wasn't talking about Tyson Gay's result before they were released by Gay himself. It's highly unlikely that Gay or the ADA would give a crap about some poster on a message board but he's not completely safe.
Say what? Yep wrote:
ok, fine, i'll say who the distance runners are gonna be...brahim boulami and rashid ramzi. sad day for track and field
Ramzi tested positive again? I guess that's justice.
Really? How specifically am I wrong. Explain to me exactly how, from a legal standpoint, he is completely safe from a potential lawsuit. I can cite you three cases very similar to what would be something like this.
you really don't know much about biology or testing procedure do you? maybe you should read up on the biology of samples before you open your mouth.
hey buddy
i was just kidding
Say what? Yep wrote:
ok, fine, i'll say who the distance runners are gonna be...brahim boulami and rashid ramzi. sad day for track and field
"Say what? Yep" suddenly forgot to type capital letters.
Sophia LoRent wrote:
I have read law actually. Graduated from law school. And I did read his original post. And there was some ambiguity in his statement but not enough to protect him from a potential lawsuit. He would have to prove that he was talking specifically about another sprinter and prove that the time frame he was talking about was not within the realm of between Gay's official statement and the announcement of another American sprinter testing positive for a banned substance.
Actually, you would be more likely to face a lawsuit than the original poster.
Your posts could be construed as "legal advice." Spreading legal advice, without a law license, is a crime in many jurisdictions.
As for you claiming to have graduated law school, I don't believe you, or else, you wouldn't be spewing nonsense. You even have the burden of proof issue backward.
You really think that just because they don't mention a name that protects them completely from a lawsuit? Really? Is that the extent of your legal knowledge? You think in a defamation lawsuit if you just change a couple of letters in the person's name you talk shit about their career and family, that's it? That's as far as the law goes?
Sophia LoRent wrote:
It's highly unlikely that Gay or the ADA would give a crap about some poster on a message board but he's not completely safe.
Yep, just what you do when you have an image/PR problem after testing positive - you sue an anonymous message board poster who didn't even mention your name for insinuating that news was coming less than a day before it actually came out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
categorically wrote:
Man, this means Bolt is also doping. Just look at the all time 100m list:
Bolt - 9.58
Gay - doper
Blake - doper
Powell - doper
Carter - doper
Gatlin - doper
Greene - could be clean 9.79
Mullings - doper
Donovan Bailey - could be clean 9.84
How am I supposed to believe that Bolt is 0.21 faster than the fastest sprinter who has never tested positive?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My single contribution to this thread:
No way Greene was clean.
Bolt - 9.58
Blake - doper
Gay - doper
Powell - doper
Carter - doper
Gatlin - doper
Montgomery - doper
Greene - doper
Mullings - doper
Donovan Bailey & Bruny Surin - could be clean 9.84
Frankie Fredericks - could be clean at 9.86 (-0.4)
MJ sucked, he is the BJ of the 200m.
When he got away with 19.32, all of a sudden it was considered a legitimate time to try to achieve.
Bolt has now lowered the WR by .26
LMAO
WR progression:
9.95
9.93(A) .02
9.92 .01
9.90 .02
9.86 .04
9.85 .01
9.84 .01
9.58 .26
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, there is no 9.69, because a goofed and negative-leaned 9.69 is a 9.58 running through the line.
Sophia LoRent wrote:
Really? How specifically am I wrong. Explain to me exactly how, from a legal standpoint, he is completely safe from a potential lawsuit. I can cite you three cases very similar to what would be something like this.
Go away.
Greene admitted paying $10K for drugs.
Carl Lewis failed a drug test. Linford Christie failed in 1988 and 1999. Then there was BJ of course.
Sophia LoRent wrote:
It's either, Out of, our 'outta'. Pick one. It doesn't have to mention a name. Besides being a runner I'm a legal consultant for an American media outlet. And he doesn't have to mention a name. If Gay or the ADA felt that it was specifically implied they could take him to court and he would have to prove with absolutely certainty that he wasn't talking about Tyson Gay's result before they were released by Gay himself. It's highly unlikely that Gay or the ADA would give a crap about some poster on a message board but he's not completely safe.
right
and I graduated from harvard law summa cum. laude at the age of 16
rofl
you seem to not know what you're talking about
the op doesn't have to prove anything
the PLAINTIFF is the one who has the burden of proof
wesaviours of the world wrote:
Sophia LoRent wrote:I call bullshit. I just did a two minute google search and found absolutely nothing but this thread. If this were actually true you would have already heard chatter all over the internet. People would be talking about it. And I found squat.
Lrc found the Boston bomber.
Bumping this post just to make sure you are cautious in the future as to what threads you call troll or bullsht on.
Believe whatever you like. And yes the plaintiff has, legally, the burden of proof in the case. But in order to counter the plaintiff's case, the defendant would obviously have to prove that the plaintiff's case is unsubstantiated. I.E. that the information he was giving out was not specifically about the plaintiff.
Sophia LoRent wrote:
I call bullshit. I just did a two minute google search and found absolutely nothing but this thread. If this were actually true you would have already heard chatter all over the internet. People would be talking about it. And I found squat.
Doesn't internet chatter have to start somewhere?
Even a law expert such as yourself can understand this concept, yes?
Actually it falls under the specific textbook difference between "legal advice" and "legal information." According to the law, "legal advice" (NY State Law)refers to the written or oral counsel about a legal matter that would affect the rights and responsibilities of the person receiving the advice." Meaning what I say would have to affect someone who is currently in legal proceedings at the moment. Or what I say would have to lead to a lawsuit. Otherwise it counts as "legal information." And yes, of course the plaintiff bears the burden of proof in the case. But to counter, the defendant obviously to prove the plaintiff's case unsubstantiated.
Sophia LoRent wrote:
Believe whatever you like. And yes the plaintiff has, legally, the burden of proof in the case. But in order to counter the plaintiff's case, the defendant would obviously have to prove that the plaintiff's case is unsubstantiated. I.E. that the information he was giving out was not specifically about the plaintiff.
Suggest you check out the word 'semantics'.