Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Armstrong banned for life, stripped of seven Tour titles
NBC.com ^

Posted on 10/22/2012 4:26:59 AM PDT by Perdogg

Cycling's governing body agreed Monday to strip Lance Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles and ban him for life, following a report from the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency that accused him of leading a massive doping program on his teams.

Speaking from Geneva, International Cycling Union President Pat McQuaid confirmed to a news conference that UCI had decided to uphold USADA'S decision to strip Armstrong of his Tour titles.

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


TOPICS: Sports
KEYWORDS: lancearmstrong
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-138 next last
To: Boogieman
So if I invent a new way to cheat that can’t be detected, it’s somebody else’s fault for not catching me fast enough?

I think it's rather preposterous to invent rules that are unenforceable. Let's say there was a magical performance enhancing drug that was not only legal, but absolutely undetectable by any test of any kind. Then let's say cycling banned it. What would be the purpose? Everyone would be on an honor system. This is essentially the state of cycling today. They are unable to objectively enforce their own rules.

51 posted on 10/22/2012 6:23:08 AM PDT by Mr. Bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: PghBaldy

there were no tests available at the time the cheating occurred for the cheating they were doing, including transfusions of their own blood during a race, EPO, and testosteron.


52 posted on 10/22/2012 6:24:06 AM PDT by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA
My understanding is that “doping” is evident as an increase of red blood cells, something that can be also achieved through diet and extreme physical training and as well as from pharmaceutically produced EPO. Is that correct?

In Armstrong's case it was both and he was given the benefit of the doubt by testers anytime the tests were close because of his cancer treatment. His rbc count and testosterone always tested high but within limits and excusable for someone recovering from cancer.

It's not that he was just another doper in the sport but that he was leading the charge and compelling his teammates to do so if they wanted to be on the team. And anyone competing against him had to resort to it as well.

And look at today. In light of all the evidence against him, his quiver is still full of deluded true believers. Think about how full his quiver was when he was still competing and winning and thus able to intimidate and threaten to the max.

53 posted on 10/22/2012 6:27:50 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Pecos

Curious connection; cheating at an organized sporting event with millions of $$ at stake is the same as raping a child???

Seriously messed up world you live in.


54 posted on 10/22/2012 6:29:27 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

He had over 500 blood and urine tests and not one showed doping.
People testified against him, that is not evidence.


55 posted on 10/22/2012 6:29:45 AM PDT by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dagnabitt

There was no physical evidence he was doped.


56 posted on 10/22/2012 6:31:00 AM PDT by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Bird

Cycling’s governing bodies need to own up to their inadequacy. If you impose rules on participants, you must have adequate and valid means for enforcing those rules. I am on the record as being ambivalent about PED use, and could probably even get behind the idea of its acceptance in all sports (provided no laws are broken).

We are definately in agreement on governing bodies needing to take responsibility for the way they have managed the sport.


57 posted on 10/22/2012 6:33:10 AM PDT by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
His rbc count and testosterone always tested high but within limits and excusable for someone recovering from cancer.

Really? Sounds very strange. Anyway, I would be interested in blood data from LA from other time periods except 2009 - 2010. Do you have them available?

58 posted on 10/22/2012 6:33:49 AM PDT by ScaniaBoy (Part of the Right Wing Research & Attack Machine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Coffee... Black... No Sugar

You are correct, no matter how much people think doping works, with out talent it is meaningless.


59 posted on 10/22/2012 6:33:49 AM PDT by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Bird

“I think it’s rather preposterous to invent rules that are unenforceable.”

They didn’t invent rules that were unenforceable, the cheaters invented ways to evade the enforcement. We don’t strike crimes from the books just because criminals innovate and find a way to commit them without getting caught. That’s just silly.


60 posted on 10/22/2012 6:35:07 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: svcw
You are correct, no matter how much people think doping works, with out talent it is meaningless.

That's true. However, given two talented athletes, doping may be the thing that gives the one the edge over the other, unfortunately.

61 posted on 10/22/2012 6:37:07 AM PDT by ScaniaBoy (Part of the Right Wing Research & Attack Machine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Bird

This is essentially the state of cycling today. They are unable to objectively enforce their own rules.

Thanks Mr. Bird. Well said.


62 posted on 10/22/2012 6:37:23 AM PDT by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: PghBaldy
They don’t have any test results.

They don't have any test results against all the other riders either.

And yet "the agency said 20 of the 21 riders on the podium in the Tour from 1999 through 2005 have been 'directly tied to likely doping through admissions, sanctions, public investigations' or other means. It added that of the 45 riders on the podium between 1996 and 2010, 36 were by cyclists 'similarly tainted by doping'."

Should we then excuse all of them along with Lance???

All of them have been tied to doping and cheating the same way Lance has and the evidence against him is more substantial.

63 posted on 10/22/2012 6:38:32 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: wita

After further review that should read mismanaged the sport!!!


64 posted on 10/22/2012 6:40:00 AM PDT by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
The agency said 20 of the 21 riders on the podium in the Tour from 1999 through 2005 have been "directly tied to likely doping through admissions, sanctions, public investigations" or other means. It added that of the 45 riders on the podium between 1996 and 2010, 36 were by cyclists "similarly tainted by doping."

THis is the saddest part. It shows that the Tour de France and Professional Cycling are a complete joke and the entire sport should just disintigrate into irrelevancy.

There is not a single cyclist out there that can now be considered a champion and taken seriously. It is a very sad indictment and tragic for the one or two cyclists that might actually be clean.

65 posted on 10/22/2012 6:40:57 AM PDT by commish (After Four Years of Obama, America needs a little R & R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: svcw
People testified against him, that is not evidence.

/facepalm

And what about the other, non-verbal evidence? Jeepers.

66 posted on 10/22/2012 6:53:21 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: phothus

- Interestingly, I did some research on EPO in a former career (working at a radiation oncology department) and was published on a paper about its effects on patients receiving cancer treatments. This was early on in its adoption for that purpose and it worked splendidly.”

This is one of the things that really bothers me about this. It seems they are trying to lump non-anabolic steroid type procedures and technologies in with anabolic steroids. Perhaps there are some health concerns associated with the use of anabolic steroids (personally I doubt it...but let’s stipulate that that is unhealthy).

Nobody has made the case that EPO is unhealthy. But yet they don’t want it done. Well, just why not? Why shouldn’t every cyclist do EPO?

And what if it turns out that EPO is actually a good thing to do?

What if it turns out that as you sort of note that EPO is a strong immune system stimulant, which fights off cancer?

The problem is, you can’t have that conversation in the light of day, because everyone is so obsessed about punishing those that are “doping”.

I just don’t get it...


67 posted on 10/22/2012 6:57:44 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ScaniaBoy
Really?

Yeh really

Sounds very strange.

What ??? that Armstrong always had high rbc and testosterone counts??? Why would that surprise you about a winner of 7TdFs??? and someone with such a magnificent training regimen??? and someone who used EPO and testosterone in his cancer treatment???

I would be interested in blood data from LA from other time periods except 2009 - 2010.

Read the USADA Report -- it's the closest you will get to them.

68 posted on 10/22/2012 6:58:14 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

500+ blood and urine tests - no doping.


69 posted on 10/22/2012 6:58:26 AM PDT by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: svcw

202 pages - doping


70 posted on 10/22/2012 6:59:11 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: svcw
500 = exaggeration and propaganda

264 = reality

Atleast 1 was questioned

71 posted on 10/22/2012 7:03:32 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: svcw

This is more about tearing down the heros of the world than any effective program. If you are exceptional, and can prove it, you become a target for any group with a cool acronym and a funding source. Be careful what devil you stand behind. Groups like USADA make me (and evidently UCI) nervous.


72 posted on 10/22/2012 7:05:49 AM PDT by Coffee... Black... No Sugar (I'm gonna' BICKER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Coffee... Black... No Sugar
tearing down the heros of the world

Bingo

73 posted on 10/22/2012 7:10:36 AM PDT by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman; driftdiver
a. It's a matter of logic, not degree. Understanding parallels does not imply that I live by myself in a seriously messed up world.

OTOH - we all, unfortunately, live in a seriously messed up world. b. Being better than others means a person must have cheated? I have no idea whether or not Armstrong cheated. I was only pointing out that international sports organizations operate as much on innuendo as facts. In many cases, their PR status is more important to them than the athletes that make them possible. Follow the money.

74 posted on 10/22/2012 7:14:53 AM PDT by Pecos (Double tap: the only acceptable gun control)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: newfreep

Euro-weenies have been enraged for years that a redneck American, from Texas no less, won their little bicycle race 7 times. They spit on him physically while he was racing, now metaphorically after he has retired. I’m guessing they’ll now pile on with lawsuits in an attempt to ruin him financially.


75 posted on 10/22/2012 7:21:36 AM PDT by jrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; babble-on; Uncle Chip

I just question the methods and if this is fair. From what I’ve red, it does not seem to be. It seems like it is impossible to fight against. Even the guilty, if he is, should have a chance. This? It seems like an injustice.


76 posted on 10/22/2012 7:23:49 AM PDT by PghBaldy (Obama in a binder!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Dear Uncle,

You may rightly be upset about cheating in general and in sports in particular, however, that does not excuse you from writing pure rot.

Patients post-chemotherapy do not have high blood counts, nor do they have high testosterone levels. To find this post cancer treatment would certainly not excuse an athlete, unless he was shown to undergo continuous replacement therapy. However, someone in need of EPO for medical reasons would not be able to compete at any level.

Also, as I mentioned in an earlier post (in another thread) there has always been a fear that EPO would act to promote cancer regrowth. It has, and is still used, in those cases where there is an absolute need to promote rbc production, but only then.

When it comes to LAs blood counts, they have as far as I know, never been exceptionally high. Apparently you don’t have any more knowledge since you point me towards the USADA report. I have read the relevant parts and it does not contain any data nor any physical evidence of blood manipulation.

However, the low rbc does not preclude doping or blood manipulation, but it shows how difficult it is to analyze the blood profile of athletes.

Finally, this discussion can be broken down into several parts.

There is a moral discussion about cheating in sports, and for the record I am against all forms of doping, though, unfortunately the grey zones are getting wider and wider.

Then there is a discussion of the weight of physical evidence against Armstrong. In that discussion it would be great if those commenting would post facts and not “hearsays” and “what is commonly known”.


77 posted on 10/22/2012 7:30:26 AM PDT by ScaniaBoy (Part of the Right Wing Research & Attack Machine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: PghBaldy

Rede some more. Read “The Secret Race” by Tyler Hamilton and see if you still think Lance is a golden boy who was able miraculously to beat all the proven cheaters without himself cheating.

Lance was the market leader, Lance was the innovator. The reason he kept winning was because he was the best at cheating.


78 posted on 10/22/2012 7:32:07 AM PDT by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Pecos

“Being better than others means a person must have cheated?”

No, but being better than top athletes who are using performance enhancers means either you must be using performance enhancers, or you are Superman. So, which should a reasonable person believe is the case with Armstrong? Is he a cheater or is he from the planet Krypton?


79 posted on 10/22/2012 7:37:38 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude

What confuses the subject for me is that what they now mean by “doping” doesn’t seem to mean what it used to mean. When I think of doping I’m thinking of the use of anabolic steroids and such very strong drugs that cause all sorts of extreme physical changes. It appears though now what they mean by “doping” amounts to little more than taking some extra vitamins on game day. I think I need to know more about what they’re really accusing before I decide to care. Then, if indeed they were all doing it too... Where’s the advantage?

Transfusions sound pretty extreme. I’ll stipulate that. I suppose it’s done to get the RBC count up? Though after all his chemo I’m not sure it’s the massive advantage it’s cracked up to be.

Then I’d like to know what the -legal- means are. What sorts of body chemistry is acceptable?


80 posted on 10/22/2012 7:51:44 AM PDT by Ramius (Personally, I give us one chance in three. More tea anyone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: ScaniaBoy
I read that statement this morning in one of the articles [daily mail or AP??) and heard an SI writer make it this morning on ABC news. I did not consider it unusual enough to copy it in light of all that has come out in the last couple of weeks. If I come across it again I will send it to you.

BTW where is your source for your statement that his test results were not at the higher side???

Since you know about EPO is it true that it is only detectable in the body for 24 hours but its effect can last 14 days.

81 posted on 10/22/2012 7:55:15 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Ramius

Those are all great points, and I agree. Except....I don’t think transfusions should be illegal, because I don’t see a downside either to the competitor or to the public who might follow the example of the competitors.

Of course if I were in charge, I’d de-regulate the whole thing and say, “let the fastest bike rider win. Period.”

But that’s sort of a non-starter......


82 posted on 10/22/2012 7:57:56 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: commish

Well there are still 9 untainted ones — that we know of.


83 posted on 10/22/2012 7:58:03 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
Well there are still 9 untainted ones — that we know of.

True dat. i am sure there are others too.

IMO I think professional cycling has come to a crossroads that they could use to ahem "clean up the sport".

It would be a radical thing to do and be wildly unpopular -- but here is what I would do:

1. Change all doping policy to complete no tolerance -- you fail a test and cannot prove it to be erroneous, you are BANNED FOR LIFE. Period!
2. Use the Armstrong precidence and go back through the 'doping years' (IE every year of existence) -- Any cyclist who failed a test or had proof of doping equal to that against Armstrong -- BANNED FOR LIFE and ALL RECORDS EXPUNGED. Period!

I realize this would remove almost every single winner of every race ever, and would also end up with the banning of 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% of all racers past and present, but it would allow cycling to get a "CLEAN" start and the respect of all who truly view doping as cheating.

Yes it would decimate the sport for a while, but IMO it is the only way for cycling to save itself and ever be taken seriously again.

84 posted on 10/22/2012 8:23:09 AM PDT by commish (After Four Years of Obama, America needs a little R & R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

This will teach athletes that individual accomplishment in sports is bad, that everyone deserves a first place medal, even if they come in last.

It’s not right that these ugly Americans kept winning a French race. They should have let others win. Therefore we will take away the winning after the fact, after coercing his team to turn on him or ban them as well.

“Everybody wins in the Tour de France, just like in the Special Olympics. Because all bicyclists are *special*, too.”


85 posted on 10/22/2012 9:00:34 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (DIY Bumper Sticker: "THREE TIMES,/ DEMOCRATS/ REJECTED GOD")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coffee... Black... No Sugar
Lance Armstrong? Hero?

Hardly.

86 posted on 10/22/2012 9:11:33 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Can’t trust the French, sneaky bastards . . . getting a bunch of Americans to establish for a fact that Lance Armstrong is dirty.


87 posted on 10/22/2012 9:12:58 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

I’m not sure. Never met his parents. ;-)


88 posted on 10/22/2012 9:21:30 AM PDT by Pecos (Double tap: the only acceptable gun control)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

I guess the problem I really have about this sort of thing is that is is commonly brought to us by the same thought crowd that second guesses everything in history. Just tired of people re-writing the record.


89 posted on 10/22/2012 9:23:29 AM PDT by Pecos (Double tap: the only acceptable gun control)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
I read that statement this morning in one of the articles [daily mail or AP??) and heard an SI writer make it this morning on ABC news.

That's one of the problems, we CANNOT trust the media. I guess everyone on FR is aware of the leftist bias in the MSM, but the real problem (pace Gov Palin) is that the media has totally forgotten the "where, what, how, when".

Part of my interest in the LA story has been to see how the media handles this story. Unfortunately, it appears that journalists are no longer able to quote the simplest statement without tweaking its meaning.

As for the low/medium blood counts it is stated by among other Dr Michele Ferrari on his blog, but also at least in one of the witness statement in the USADA report.

Yes, the way EPO (which is a natural hormone) works is that it binds to receptors on immature cells in the bone marrow. Naturally occurring EPO has a half-life around 6 hours in blood, though, recombinant EPO products usually have longer half-lifes to avoid having to give too frequent injections. Once it has bound to the receptors the formation of new blood cells will start. Therefore, a bolus dose of EPO will have an effect that lasts for days. (The exact time depends on the amount and other physical factors, such as the iron stores in the body.)

90 posted on 10/22/2012 9:35:05 AM PDT by ScaniaBoy (Part of the Right Wing Research & Attack Machine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Not a big fan of Armstrong.
Still, it took them about 10 years? to finally pin something on him?
I think this is more about the French unable to deal with the idea of an American winning the TDF SEVEN TIMES.

It would be the same as a french man winning America’s Got Tallent 7 times in a row.
Sac le blue!


91 posted on 10/22/2012 9:35:37 AM PDT by Leep (Forward! to serfdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScaniaBoy

The SI writer may have been referencing this article:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/analysis-armstrongs-tour-blood-levels-debated


92 posted on 10/22/2012 9:52:03 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
I have discussed that data set in a post on the Tour de France thread, here.

I wrote:

" Finally, we have the data for the blood tests taken during the Tour de France 2009. As noted previously the data are all well within the normal limits. A Danish researcher has pointed to, what he considers an anomaly, when Armstrong’s Hb value increased from 137 to 144 g/L from the 11 to the 14 July. However, avoiding discussion of any possible physiological variation, the fact is that the measurement error is about 1%. Add to that the blood sampling error, which is of the same magnitude, and you find that there is no statistical significant difference between the two values.

The discussion whether it is abnormal for the blood values to remain constant during week long bicycle races belongs to the scientific literature, and not to the anti-doping agencies. Some researchers have shown the Hb, and Hcr values decline during prolonged periods of physical exercise, but this is not a universal observation. Likewise, the mechanism for an exercise induced decline in Hb is not determined. Possible "culprits" are exercise induced destruction of red blood cells, reduction in iron stores, or fluid shifts in the body. Well trained individuals appear less affected than sedentary individuals."

(In my original post there followed a few links to statements by haematologists.)

Regarding the same set of data Michele Ferrari writes:

"The [Danish] study of Morkeberg et Al (Int J Sports Med 2009, 30: 130-138) shows the data of 7 (seven!) cyclists gathered during the TdF 2007.
From here to extrapolate a behavior common to all athletes, in all circumstances, is quite a stretch.
The same Authors of the study, commenting in an interview to DR Sport on Armstrong's data during the TdF 2009 (cyclingnews.com 10/09/2009), stated:

- “Of course we cannot state that he is doping” (Morkeberg)

- “Using those guidelines (of the Biologic Passport, ndr) …I have not established that there was any illegal matter in this case” (Damsgaard).

At the same time, Prof. Hans Erik Heier commented [a Norwegian haematologist]: “The Hb values are too low for it to be possible to manipolate them down there. I interpret this to mean that he must be clean”.

93 posted on 10/22/2012 10:30:41 AM PDT by ScaniaBoy (Part of the Right Wing Research & Attack Machine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: newfreep

Eye-witness testimony is NOT hearsay. If it were, we’d almost never convict anyone in court. Hearsay is just that...someone testifying they heard someone else saying something.

The eye-witness testimony of 26+ ex team mates, employees, trainers, etc. etc. aren’t enough?

What dream world are you living in?


94 posted on 10/22/2012 11:43:46 AM PDT by AnalogReigns (because the real world is not digital...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ScaniaBoy

I find it interesting that this data comes from LA’s website as proof that his tests were clean and well within limits during this particular TdF, and yet what the data actually means is still debatable amongst the experts who analyze it.


95 posted on 10/22/2012 11:55:44 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: jrp

Ding...ding...ding! You got that right! The French were completely insane with their resent and hate when they got their clocks cleaned by the uncouth American. All of this witch hunting is indicative of typical sour grapes liberals. Frankly I am surprised any conservative would buy into this cr@p.


96 posted on 10/22/2012 12:16:58 PM PDT by antceecee (Bless us Father.. have mercy on us and protect us from evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

When technology is available to provide an absolute answer, why accept sworn testimony?

Sounds like you still believe Bubba Clinton’s sworn testimony when he was lying to a Federal judge.

LOL - you trolls rejecting absolute evidence based on technology are such a hoot!


97 posted on 10/22/2012 12:37:15 PM PDT by newfreep (Breitbart sent me...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: newfreep
When technology is available to provide an absolute answer, why accept sworn testimony?

Surely thou jest.

you trolls rejecting absolute evidence based on technology are such a hoot!

Do you swear by that???

98 posted on 10/22/2012 12:52:47 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: newfreep
And yet they have NOT exhibited any proof of his cheating.

You got it! He didn't cheat, nobody ever cheated! O.J. didn't murder! Remember the glove!

99 posted on 10/22/2012 12:55:47 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

The hero is a zero and many can’t accept it clinging to their conspiracy theories against true heroes!


100 posted on 10/22/2012 12:57:49 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-138 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson