Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jason Thompson
An argument along the lines of 'this proof shows that this awful thing happened and we must investigate!' 'Er, OK, the proof turned out to be wrong, but this awful thing could have happened, so we still have to investigate!'
|
Something similar seems to happen with Lance Armstrong:
http://www.cbs13kvtv.com/sports/1047076.html
Quote:
Armstrong Goes Unpaid
A five (M) million dollar check owed Austin cyclist Lance Armstrong for winning a record sixth straight Tour de France isn't in the mail. It's tied up in court. The Dallas-based company that owes Armstrong the bonus money under a business incentive contract is withholding payment. SCA Promotions is citing allegations that Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs. He denies it. SCA points to doping allegations contained in a book called: "L.A. Confidential, the Secrets of Lance Armstrong."
Armstrong calls the book's claims "absolutely untrue" and he's launched defamation lawsuits against the publisher and authors. SCA attorney Chris Compton today told The Associated Press that the company wants to see Armstrong's medical records.
Armstrong's US Postal Cycling Team this month sued in Dallas -- claiming S-C-A doesn't have the right to question Armstrong's victories.
|
SCA has no proof, just a questionable book. But that's enough excuse for them to withdraw the promised check. This is *very* foul play.