testimony is not hearsay.
testimony is not hearsay.
Testimony like this is hearsay unless it is corroborated by something else. The only way is not hearsay is if there is other evidence: A needle with DNA.
Remember the Armstrong did not test positive in a legally accepted manner. The sample management was botched. The botch cannot be fixed.
The best chance the USADA has is to let Armstrong compete again and test him. Yet, it doesn't want to. Why?
J.R. wrote:
If you seriously want to get the emphasis on drugs out of sport, then be more supportive of getting rid of those who are promoting and pushing it, WADA, the USADA, and the other bogus alphabet agencies and their mickey mouse tests.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Yes, because of course nobody used drugs before WADA and USADA started promoting and pushing them, and if WADA and USADA went away surely no athletes ever would.
Right, people didn't use drugs do the universal degree they're used now, prior to big pharma pushing them onto the unwitting public. Whether some people use drugs is not the primary issue, but the corporate role in athletics, that is perpetually promoting their garbage that runners need their harmful and toxic drugs to succeed, and that athletes need their bogus drugs to compete in athletics.
It is all garbage, smoke and mirrors, lies and deception.
sloppy lawyers wrote:
Testimony like this is hearsay unless it is corroborated by something else. The only way is not hearsay is if there is other evidence: A needle with DNA.
Yet another one that has not bothered to look up the meaning of the word hearsay.
long sox wrote:
Yet another one that has not bothered to look up the meaning of the word hearsay.
Right. They are just taking talking points straight from Lance. Rumor is that the Armstrong foundation pays people to post these sorts of arguments on message boards. I am beginning to believe those rumors.
The giant pharma corporations definitely DO pay people to post on message boards, like this one. I wouldn't at all be surprised that they post here regularly.
this is ridiculious. first hand eye witnesses are not hearsay. my saying somehtig that someone told me is hearsay. first hand witnesses usually have crdibiity among hsitorians and in the court of law. first hand testimony is not hearsay.....and lance is so bad he reeks of gullt.
G_G
Lost me at Weapons wrote:
Dropped by Lance Once wrote:...you rubes are going to feel about the same way that you did when the vaunted "weapons of mass destruction" never showed up in Iraq.
Ignoring of course the 520 tons of yellowcake uranium they found, was bought by Canadian company Cameco and shipped down the St. Lawrence in the summer of 2008. They had to go in to find out for sure, that and the fact Iraq violated the terms of the cease fire.
As for Lance, for him to be guilty there would have to be some massive collusion at many levels; that is as big as the acusations themselves.
Jesus H. Christ. So if he had made a statement in support of invading Iraq, you would believe everything else he wrote?! So he writes one thing you have a problem with and you disregard everything else he posted?! Unbelievable.
I'm not sure who's whackier:
1. Defenders of the invasion of Iraq.
2. Birthers.
3. Lance fanboys.
All are a bunch of frickin' idiots.
Regarding your last paragraph, do some research. There apparently is some evidence of mass collusion when it comes to Lance. Quit reading Men's Journal for your source of information regarding Lance and drugs.
long sox wrote:
[quote]sloppy lawyers wrote:
Yet another one that has not bothered to look up the meaning of the word hearsay.
The definition was posted a page back from an actual dictionary. I see you have ignored that.
The USADA lawyers, this includes the CEO, are either incredibly dumb, or they are trying to do something else.
It is win-win for Armstrong to compete and be tested again. Regardless of the outcome. Yet, it is people like you who don't want to find out if Armstrong at 40, is clean, and can beat the world's best triathletes. Or, if Armstrong is 40, dirty as hell, and finally captured.
Why are you afraid of getting a new answer?
Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of "hearsay evidence" in court is generally not allowed. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule.
Sloppy, JR, and the rest of the USADA haters:
After the SI article last year (January?), Lance tweeted the following:
"Great to hear that USADA is investigating some of SI's claims. I look forward to being vindicated."
Seems as though Lance was confident in the USADA doing a thorough and honest investigation. It just sucks when you don't get the outcome you want. Bummer. Be careful what you wish for.
I'm not sure which actual dictionary you are talking about.
From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of HEARSAY EVIDENCE
: evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath
==
There is no need for evidence to be corroborated by something else and a needle with DNA as claimed above. Simply put, if the witness is testifying from personal knowledge, then it is not called hearsay.
@Gem, a USADA lover.
You are delusional. Your hatred for proper process is laughable.
Why are you so afraid of letting Armstrong compete and being retested? He is willing. I am hoping he gets retested, regardless of he outcome.
You on the other hand are afraid he will be found clean.
@Long Sox: "I saw you beating an old lady. I have 10 friends who also saw you."
With the above claim in your view of the legal world I can crush you and have you put away in jail. Well, it doesn't work the way. Lucky you.
long sox wrote: Simply put, if the witness is testifying from personal knowledge, then it is not called hearsay.
But, if your personal knowledge is contradicted by test results that exist, and not by test results that have been tossed out, it is hearsay. You are swimming up a creek. Direct evidence does not support your knowledge.
sloppy lawyers wrote:
@Gem, a USADA lover.
You are delusional. Your hatred for proper process is laughable.
Why are you so afraid of letting Armstrong compete and being retested? He is willing. I am hoping he gets retested, regardless of he outcome.
You on the other hand are afraid he will be found clean.
I couldn't care less if they let Lance compete in Hawaii. I think it's comical that he publicly supported the USADA investigation 18 months ago, but is now crying foul.
BTW, Lance being clean during his tri career has no bearing on him being dirty during his cycling career. Apples to oranges, but I'm guessing it's too much for you to comprehend.
sloppy lawyers wrote:
@Long Sox: "I saw you beating an old lady. I have 10 friends who also saw you."
With the above claim in your view of the legal world I can crush you and have you put away in jail. Well, it doesn't work the way. Lucky you.
Are the police or some other legal authority? If you are, then I would suggest you bring those 10 friends to court so that the evidence can be seen.
Isn't that what people here are saying, that the process should continue and Lance Armstrong and the other accused should have their day in court (or the USADA equivalent).
But some people are suggesting there should be special conditions...
sloppy lawyers wrote:
It is win-win for Armstrong to compete and be tested again. Regardless of the outcome. Yet, it is people like you who don't want to find out if Armstrong at 40, is clean, and can beat the world's best triathletes. Or, if Armstrong is 40, dirty as hell, and finally captured.
That would be like saying...
@Sloppy lawyers - even though we know you have been beating an old lady, we'll let you go and do it again, because we want to see it again just to be sure and if you don't we'll forget about the other times.
sloppy lawyers wrote:
long sox wrote: Simply put, if the witness is testifying from personal knowledge, then it is not called hearsay.But, if your personal knowledge is contradicted by test results that exist, and not by test results that have been tossed out, it is hearsay. You are swimming up a creek. Direct evidence does not support your knowledge.
Which test results can prove the absence of doping?
here is a gem wrote: BTW, Lance being clean during his tri career has no bearing on him being dirty during his cycling career. Apples to oranges, but I'm guessing it's too much for you to comprehend.
You failed to justify your position so you try insults instead. You have done nothing more than justify the Armstrong is the best bike rider ever.
Armstrong being able to out ride the world's best triathletes, not just by a little, but by a massive amount, at the old man age of 40, doesn't concern you? How could he be clean for this but not clean before. Is that too much for you to comprehend?
long sox wrote:blah, blah, blah
@Sloppy lawyers - even though we know you have been beating an old lady, we'll let you go and do it again, because we want to see it again just to be sure and if you don't we'll forget about the other times.[/quote]
What you omitted is that there is no old lady victim to be found. We saw you but every old lady in the area checked out okay and was no where close to where we claimed we saw you.
Keep working on trying to figure out what is hearsay and what can be corroborated with other evidence. Unfortunately, the other evidence shows there was no old lady.