# U.S. lawmaker requests probe of USADA over Armstrong case.



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Coincidence? I think not.



> House of Representatives member Jim Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, sent a letter on Thursday asking ONDCP director Gil Kerlikowske to investigate how the sports doping watchdogs spend about $9 million a year in U.S.  taxpayer funding.


http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...sts-probe-of-usada-over-armstrong-case_229472


----------



## gearsnspokes (Aug 28, 2006)

So...

At $3M/min and 30min to draft the letter, our national debt went up $90M to request an investigation into $9M.

Brilliant


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

The influence of money makes me sick. Trek sales must tick down when Armstrong is in the news in a bad way.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

A little info about Trek's pet Congressman.

_"In March 2004, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) introduced HR 3866, the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004. The Act proposed an amendment that would add anabolic steroids to the list of drugs prohibited under the Controlled Substances Act. The bill included a detailed list of many new substances that would be banned, and suggested double penalties for those who manufacture and sell steroids near ‘sports facilities."_

An Act of Congress to Stop Steroids – Blog Title : Without The Juice

A quote of his from another source:

_"It is essential that we put an end to steroid abuse and set a better example for aspiring young athletes to follow, so that some day, when they make it in the All Star Game, it will be because of their own natural talents, and not because of a performance enhancing product.

Several professional athletes have wrongly taught many young Americans by example that the only way to succeed in sports is to take steroids.

Football, basketball, and the Olympic sports all have their problems with banned substances."_


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

No wonder people have such low opinions of politicians.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

This tactic worked great for Marion Jones and John Conyers


----------



## PixelPaul (Oct 8, 2004)

Anything other than working on a jobs bill...


----------



## mmoose (Apr 2, 2004)

Just when I think Wisconsin hits bottom, another moreon proves me wrong.

$25B per year on the War on Drugs. Seems like we're wasting enough money there. Let's funnel some of that into USADA (and also WADA). (For cost recovery, can we 'tax' tv revenue and use that for serious testing of NFL/MLB/NBA/PGA testing? I'd like to see that.)


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

mmoose said:


> Just when I think Wisconsin hits bottom, another moreon proves me wrong.
> 
> $25B per year on the War on Drugs.


How else is the prison industry going to sustain itself


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Unfortunately for Trek (and their cash cow, Wonderboy), their Rep isn't on any relevant committees.

Committee Assignments - Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner

I'm sure it's a really sternly worded letter though.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

A fabulous Congress. This letter from Trek's man, and the House taking a show vote on national health care reform.


----------



## EuroSVT (Sep 15, 2011)

This is a direct quote from Trek, regarding me asking about their 2nd facility, in Whitewater:

" Just to be completely clear, while we are currently in the 2nd district, as of the fall 2012 elections, we will be represented within the 5th district by whoever wins the election for that district. there is redistricting that will go into effect "


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Gents, in fairness the Congressman's question is perfectly reasonable to my mind. Why and how the hell did $9 million get wasted investigating one guy? People want to talk and gripe about wasteful government spending...that was pretty much is the definition of it.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

EuroSVT said:


> This is a direct quote from Trek, regarding me asking about their 2nd facility, in Whitewater:
> 
> " Just to be completely clear, while we are currently in the 2nd district, as of the fall 2012 elections, we will be represented within the 5th district by whoever wins the election for that district. there is redistricting that will go into effect "


http://votesmart.org/search?q=53594-1379+&cx=004674700904797117618:iqzskagjgeo&cof=FORID:11

http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/District/zip_code.htm

They are welcoming each other!

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/bill-mashek/9/346/7b

Public Strategies..

http://www.pstrategies.com/

http://www.pstrategies.com/index.php/crises/

Crises 


Our proven “war room” operating model helps companies rapidly respond to situations that threaten reputation and constrain their license to operate. Our experts have been forged in the heat of hard fought political campaigns, high profile litigation, natural disasters and product recalls.

We define a crisis as any situation that threatens a company’s reputation. If a company is caught off-guard, lacking the ability to take control of a media frenzy, it can quickly find itself in a storm of negative headlines, misinformation and rampant rumors which ultimately threaten its bottom line.


http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/159132785.html#!page=1&pageSize=10&sort=newestfirst

*Bill Mashek, a Trek spokesman,* confirmed that Armstrong has a sponsorship agreement with the company.

"He has been a great partner for Trek," Mashek said.

He added that the company had no comment on the new allegations, "recognizing he is innocent until proven guilty."

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-07-13/sports/27069821_1_grand-jury-doping-subpoenas


http://article.wn.com/view/2010/08/06/Trek_Bicycle_cooperates_in_federal_probe_of_cycling_includin/


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Have they really spent $9,000,000 investigating Armstrong? 

And how much will trial cost? 

What a waste...


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> Have they really spent $9,000,000 investigating Armstrong?
> 
> And how much will trial cost?
> 
> What a waste...


Yeah, essential mandate from Sensenbrenner. He was for it before he was against it! Is this what they mean by flip flopper?

How much does Sensenbrenner get paid before the laws he help create are ignored?

I'm seeing a pattern here. Didn't Stapleton help write the USADA procedures? Who is he? But you know all this.

You keep hope alive though.

Hey, here's a thought. If Armstrong stopped getting public support from people like you who know the truth maybe he'd stop arguing nonsense in the face of the truth which would save everyone time and money.



trailrunner68 said:


> A little info about Trek's pet Congressman.
> 
> _"In March 2004, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) introduced HR 3866, the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004. The Act proposed an amendment that would add anabolic steroids to the list of drugs prohibited under the Controlled Substances Act. The bill included a detailed list of many new substances that would be banned, and suggested double penalties for those who manufacture and sell steroids near ‘sports facilities."_
> 
> ...


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Marc said:


> Gents, in fairness the Congressman's question is perfectly reasonable to my mind. Why and how the hell did $9 million get wasted investigating one guy? People want to talk and gripe about wasteful government spending...that was pretty much is the definition of it.


the article says no such thing. USADA's total budget is $13M, government funds $9M.


----------



## EuroSVT (Sep 15, 2011)

$9 million is the taxpayer contribution to USADA's annual budget. I can't find a single source anywhere that claims that USADA spent the entirety of that on Armstrong. It's likely that none of us will ever know how much, or how little was dedicated to a single case. I certainly support them doing exactly what they were created to do, weed out the rotten apples in U.S. athletes.

I used to be a purchasing agent & asset manager for the D.O.D. $9 million is a drop in the ocean regarding "wasting taxpayer monies". If we're to complain about wasteful spending, why stop at USADA? Why is it that in 12 years of operation nobody seemed to care what they did, yet throw Armstrong in the mix and we now have a Congressman, who represents(or will come Fall of this year) Trek Bicycles district, taking a keen interest in it?


----------



## 95zpro (Mar 28, 2010)

EuroSVT said:


> $9 million is the taxpayer contribution to USADA's annual budget. I can't find a single source anywhere that claims that USADA spent the entirety of that on Armstrong. It's likely that none of us will ever know how much, or how little was dedicated to a single case. I certainly support them doing exactly what they were created to do, weed out the rotten apples in U.S. athletes.
> 
> I used to be a purchasing agent & asset manager for the D.O.D. $9 million is a drop in the ocean regarding "wasting taxpayer monies". If we're to complain about wasteful spending, why stop at USADA? Why is it that in 12 years of operation nobody seemed to care what they did, yet throw Armstrong in the mix and we now have a Congressman, who represents(or will come Fall of this year) Trek Bicycles district, taking a keen interest in it?


Tygart already responded that he welcomed the inquiry from the congressman and that this inquiry still did not change the evidence of doping in the case! I'm liking this guy more and more, it looks like he has enough balls to lend one to LA!!!!


----------



## EuroSVT (Sep 15, 2011)

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=81e65d04-d3a5-57a6-a985-0c2ebfaa3cb0

I'm thinking hell has just frozen over: John McCain to the defense of USADA


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

EuroSVT said:


> http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=81e65d04-d3a5-57a6-a985-0c2ebfaa3cb0
> 
> I'm thinking hell has just frozen over: John McCain to the defense of USADA


McCain is a long time support of USADA. Has even spoke at some of their events.


----------



## EuroSVT (Sep 15, 2011)

That's good to know that they have someone of his stature backing them. What I meant by "hell has frozen over" is McCain is someone that I have always, always disagreed with. Just caught me off guard that he would be the guy to step up to Sensenbrenner


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Funny how the man responsible for curtailing the rights of American citizens by introducing the Patriot Act is so concerned about the rights of drug cheats.

Kudos to McCain for standing up against him. I never particularly like the guy but he is fighting the good fight on this one.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

John McCain opposes the "human cock fighting" in mixed martial arts.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Have they really spent $9,000,000 investigating Armstrong?
> 
> And how much will trial cost?
> 
> What a waste...


No, they haven't


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Local Hero said:


> Have they really spent $9,000,000 investigating Armstrong?
> 
> And how much will trial cost?
> 
> What a waste...


This is just baseless. If they receive a grant of $____ annually from the ONDCP, what has led you to conclude they spent the entire amount on LA? Thousands of organizations are grant-funded, including my employer. They generally seem to be able to allocate their funds accordingly to function w/i the limits of that grant.


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> McCain is a long time support of USADA. Has even spoke at some of their events.


You still want to claim that USADA is not a state actor? Actually makes me wonder if McCain isn't being shrewd and strengthening that case (USADA as state actor) so as to get more "due process" cover for LA while appearing to be supportive of the process. Would be a pretty typical double-game for any wily and seasoned politician.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

OldChipper said:


> You still want to claim that USADA is not a state actor? Actually makes me wonder if McCain isn't being shrewd and strengthening that case (USADA as state actor) so as to get more "due process" cover for LA while appearing to be supportive of the process. Would be a pretty typical double-game for any wily and seasoned politician.


What? So McCain is part of a big conspiracy? Really?

McCain, and many others in D.C., work often with NGO's. Having a Senator talk at one of your forums does not make your organization part of the government.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*Negative.*



OldChipper said:


> You still want to claim that USADA is not a state actor? Actually makes me wonder if McCain isn't being shrewd and strengthening that case (USADA as state actor) *so as to get more "due process" cover for LA while appearing to be supportive of the process. Would be a pretty typical double-game for any wily and seasoned politician*.


McCain said Congress had authorized USADA to enforce anti-doping rules to athletes like Armstrong “regardless of their public profile” and said the *organization’s arbitration process was “the proper forum to decide matters concerning individual cases of alleged doping violations.”
*
Read more: Senator John McCain defends U.S. Anti-Doping Agency in Lance Armstrong's doping case - NY Daily News

You're right! He was winking and had his fingers crossed behind his back during the statement...

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public...ecord_id=81e65d04-d3a5-57a6-a985-0c2ebfaa3cb0

STATEMENT BY SENATOR McCAIN ON USADA INVESTIGATION OF LANCE ARMSTRONG 

July 13, 2012

Washington, D.C. *– U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today released the following statement expressing his support for the US Anti-Doping Agency and its investigation of Lance Armstrong, a USA Cycling athlete, while he was a member of the professional cycling team sponsored by the US Postal Service.

“While the charges are serious, and *I expect the process to be fair, I fully support USADA and its right to undertake the investigation of,* and bring charges against, Lance Armstrong. *USADA is authorized by Congress *and provides assurances to taxpayers, fans and competitors that sports in America are clean. USADA’s rules and processes, approved by America’s athletes, the United States Olympic Committee and all U.S. sport federations, *apply to all athletes *regardless of their public profile or success in sport. This process is the proper forum to decide matters concerning individual cases of alleged doping violations.”

Lots of ambiguity in that statement!:crazy::rolleyes5::nono::hand:ut:


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> What? So McCain is part of a big conspiracy? Really?
> 
> McCain, and many others in D.C., work often with NGO's. Having a Senator talk at one of your forums does not make your organization part of the government.


You cancer-lovers are the conspiracy theorists, not me.  I've just been around politics too long perhaps, but this would be bush-league tactics compared to some things I've seen. 

Nope not talking at your forum but saying something like: "USADA is authorized by Congress..." could certainly qualify.


----------



## Rundfahrt (Jul 16, 2012)

Not sure if this has been posted but this article does a pretty good job talking about what is wrong with the USADA and it's system of ensuring guilty results.
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/celebrities/Lance-Armstrong-Victim.html?page=all

No, this is not me defending LA, I am simply adding some info to why an investigation on USADA is a good thing, regardless of Armstrong.


----------



## NextTime (Oct 13, 2007)

Rundfahrt said:


> Not sure if this has been posted but this article does a pretty good job talking about what is wrong with the USADA and it's system of ensuring guilty results.
> Lance Armstrong: Victim? | Outside Celebrities | OutsideOnline.com
> 
> No, this is not me defending LA, I am simply adding some info to why an investigation on USADA is a good thing, regardless of Armstrong.


OMG! An impartial post! Haven't seen one of these in a while. A rare siting in these parts. Thanks for passing this along.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Rundfahrt said:


> Not sure if this has been posted but this article does a pretty good job talking about what is wrong with the USADA and it's system of ensuring guilty results.
> http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/celebrities/Lance-Armstrong-Victim.html?page=all
> 
> No, this is not me defending LA, I am simply adding some info to why an investigation on USADA is a good thing, regardless of Armstrong.


Yes, it has been posted. It is completely inaccurate


----------



## Rundfahrt (Jul 16, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yes, it has been posted. It is completely inaccurate


How so? Looking at it just from the idea of the process and not about who the article is mainly about tell me how it is "completely inaccurate."


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*all bs*



Rundfahrt said:


> How so? Looking at it just from the idea of the process and not about who the article is mainly about tell me how it is "completely inaccurate."


WADA statement on Mutual Recognition - News - Play true magazine

One of Armstrong's arguments is that USADA doesn't have jurisdiction because his contract is/was with the UCI.

Ironically, Armstrong’s agent Bill Stapleton was the president of the Athletes’ Advisory Council at the time when USADA’s policies and procedures were drawn up, and had a big part hand in writing that code.

Read more: USADA says it is following established rules, confident Armstrong case will continue

Lance Armstrong's suit against USADA*to block doping charges dismissed - More Sports - SI.com

There are many posts on this. Bottom line, it's all bs. As for due process, Armstrong can avail himself of it as soon as USADA renders it's verdict if he needs to..


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Rundfahrt said:


> How so? Looking at it just from the idea of the process and not about who the article is mainly about tell me how it is "completely inaccurate."


The majority of the article is Armstrong talking points with little basis in fact. The fact is the process that he is complaining about is one that was written by Armstrong's business partner and agent, Bill Stapleton, when he was on the board of the USOC. Armstrong has signed the WADA code at least 7 times and has always been supportive of their process. All of the players in this case, WADA, USADA, Armstrong and the UCI have been in agreement for almost a decade on the code. 




> USADA runs the adjudication process when athletes fail a drug test, and it’s here where things become murky.


Nothing murky about it



> this cluster of murkily defined powers


Nothing murky about the rules. The WADA code has been around for over a decade. It has been signed by thousands of athletes and withstood hundreds of legal challenges. It appears the author, however, is intent on making it appear as murky as possible




> The concern I have now is the use of that evidence in this action..


USADA has made it clear they have used no testimony from the Federal case in their action



> Both USADA and WADA have openly declared that pro sports should fall under their control, which could abrogate union contracts with team owners


Nope. WADA has suggested that Pro Sports can benefit from their style of testing and arbitration. WADA's mandate is clear, they only regulate IOC sports and sports that sign the WADA code. The author is trying to paint them as power mad, he is wrong



> your right to be confronted with witnesses and have access to evidence used against you


This is a lie. You can indeed cross examine witness and have access to evidence. 



> Ignore USADA’s statement that one of his tests was “consistent” with doping. That’s scientifically meaningless: a test is either positive or it’s not.


BS. As we have seen Non-Anaylitcal positives have been increasingly common, especially in cycling. The UCI's BioPassport is built around this



> rewarding snitches.


Funny how the author pretend that AAA does not follow the process of a criminal court but complains when USADA uses the same methods as law enforcement world wide. Reduced sanctions in return for cooperation were hailed when they were introduced into the code. It is only when they are used on Lance that people cry



> How has USADA avoided being seen as a “state actor”? Basically—and I’m not joking—by saying it isn’t.


Wrong. WADA, and other NGO, have proven this fact in court over and over. 



> Is that how USADA got the evidence against Armstrong this time—from the federal investigation? Nobody really knows.


Yes, we do know. USADA even put it in their letter to Armstrong that no testimony from the Federal investigation was used

I


> n other words, one branch of government obtained secret evidence from another and supplied it to what’s supposed to be a private corporation.


Wrong again. USADA has had no access to Grand Jury testimony



> As Armstrong’s lawyers point out, USADA has refused to share the evidence it has against him.


Wrong again. Not only has USADA shared the blood value fluctuations but Armstrong gets full access to the evidence during the discovery phase. 

The fact remain, all the players in this case contributed and agreed to the process. Now that it is clear that Armstrong is in big trouble he and his media team are trying to create as much confusion as possible in the media

Dick Pound was right

*



“For all the folks wondering who the bad guys are, it is easy, They are the ones complaining.”

Click to expand...

*


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

At what point will the USADA finally release their evidence? 

What has been seen is a wash. The biopassport data--which has been debated in another thread--is open to expert interpretation and some literature points to natural explanations for the fluctuations. The charge that the values are consistent with doping and/or epo use is actually a non-statement. Being "consistent" with something isn't the same as being evidence of that thing. And to claim that something is consistent with this and/or that? You can drive a truck through that hole.

USADA keeping so much evidence secret has lead to confusion and speculation. We have guys like falsetti pretending that all the allegation made by the USADA are irrefutable truth, when nobody in the public even knows the details. And the rest of us are wondering what exactly is being alleged here. Why is it so secret?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> At what point will the USADA finally release their evidence?


That depends on Armstrong's response to the charges. It should have been last week but now has been extended 30 days. 

It is very similar to the normal court system. If Lance responds that he is not guilty and wants to go to arbitration then they enter into the discovery phase and evidence is shared. Armstrong will then have the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses in front of the arbitration panel. 

There is a good chance much of this evidence will remain secret, at Armstrong's request, to the general pubic until after the panel's decision. 

Given Armstrong's long history of harassing critics protecting witnesses at this step is a smart move. Criminal courts do the same


----------



## Rundfahrt (Jul 16, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti, I see, in response to my question you chose to focus on Armstrong and only use what parts suit your opinion. I do wonder if you are American, because you seem to have a strong opinion on how the USADA is and should be run. Although I do think your opinion is more based on being able to make it about Armstrong and if it was about a rider you don't seem to dislike a great deal your opinion would be different.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Rundfahrt said:


> Doctor Falsetti, I see, in response to my question you chose to focus on Armstrong and only use what parts suit your opinion. I do wonder if you are American, because you seem to have a strong opinion on how the USADA is and should be run. Although I do think your opinion is more based on being able to make it about Armstrong and if it was about a rider you don't seem to dislike a great deal your opinion would be different.


Have any evidence for that? Has Dr. F ever made apologetic posts in defense of a doper? Has he ever attacked the USADA because they were going after a pet rider of his? It looks like you just made that up out of whole cloth.


----------



## Rundfahrt (Jul 16, 2012)

I have seen the posts he makes about Armstrong and the ones he has made about this article. Logic says that putting these together will give one the opinion that his opinion about the article has more to do with Armstrong being involved then about the USADA. The fact that he was very selective about what he chose to refute is proof enough to base my opinion on.

Of course around here that will have me branded as an Armstrong lover and get me attacked by Doctor Falsetti and his minions. I think some excellent info comes from this forum and some good discussion but, when the discussion is about Armstrong it turns into the cyclingnews clinic forum (aka the asylum) where if you don't agree with everything the core group says you are attacked and scorned.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Rundfahrt said:


> I have seen the posts he makes about Armstrong and the ones he has made about this article. Logic says that putting these together will give one the opinion that his opinion about the article has more to do with Armstrong being involved then about the USADA. The fact that he was very selective about what he chose to refute is proof enough to base my opinion on.
> 
> Of course around here that will have me branded as an Armstrong lover and get me attacked by Doctor Falsetti and his minions. *I think some excellent info comes from this forum and some good discussion *but, when the discussion is about Armstrong it turns into the cyclingnews clinic forum (aka the asylum) where if you don't agree with everything the core group says you are attacked and scorned.


Who is providing that "excellent info" and what would you say is "good discussion?"


----------



## Rundfahrt (Jul 16, 2012)

Chris-x, I have seen excellent info from multiple people, including Falsetti. Good discussion is where facts are used, logic is brought in, people are willing to see things from both sides and there are no insults. ( ruh-oh, that throws a wrench into your agenda!)


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Rundfahrt said:


> Doctor Falsetti, I see, in response to my question you chose to focus on Armstrong and only use what parts suit your opinion. I do wonder if you are American, because you seem to have a strong opinion on how the USADA is and should be run. Although I do think your opinion is more based on being able to make it about Armstrong and if it was about a rider you don't seem to dislike a great deal your opinion would be different.


Post, not poster

Armstrong's media team is who is currently spreading the disinformation about WADA. I have also been vocal about Contador when he and the RFEC spread their BS. I have some friends who tangled with WADA in the past, and lost. I have no problem telling them when they are wrong. 

WADA is far from perfect but this procedural stuff is nothing more then smoke and mirrors


----------



## Rundfahrt (Jul 16, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Post, not poster
> 
> Armstrong's media team is who is currently spreading the disinformation about WADA. I have also been vocal about Contador when he and the RFEC spread their BS. I have some friends who tangled with WADA in the past, and lost. I have no problem telling them when they are wrong.
> 
> WADA is far from perfect but this procedural stuff is nothing more then smoke and mirrors


Yet the info in the article can be checked out, as I have done, but then again I have had issues with the way USADA was set up for ten or more years. In other words they can put out what they want but we can find the truth. Though some of us prefer to see ALL the details instead of only what suits us.

Personally I find it disingenuous of Armstrong to suddenly care about how screwed up USADA is only when he is in the lions mouth. But that does not mean that we should just ignore the issues they have.

I also don't care what you think of Contador and WADA because we are talking about the USADA and only looks like a tactic of distraction or misdirection on your part.

When it comes to post not poster, I agree, but you and your friends don't seem to follow that mantra very often.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Rundfahrt said:


> Chris-x, I have seen excellent info from multiple people, including *Falsetti.* Good discussion is where facts are used, logic is brought in, people are willing to see things from both sides and there are no insults. ( ruh-oh, that throws a wrench into your agenda!)


Both sides? He's one of the very few bringing any facts to the table. The facts say only one thing. Take a guess what that is.

The fans? Well, they're fans. They're the ones bringing emotion.


----------



## Rundfahrt (Jul 16, 2012)

Chris-X said:


> Both sides? He's one of the very few bringing any facts to the table. The facts say only one thing. Take a guess what that is.
> 
> The fans? Well, they're fans. They're the ones bringing emotion.


The fans? Do you mean like you, trailrunner, rex88, Doctor Falsetti and I? Aren't we all fans?

Answer me this: Which is a more emotional response, saying that good discussion is when people look at things from both sides or when someone says that only one side is right and only people on that side bring facts?


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

It'll be interesting to see how deep a congress person is willing to go for LA.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Real deep, especially when Trek bicycles is in your district.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

The Tedinator said:


> Real deep, especially when Trek bicycles is in your district.



Ah; Tis true.


----------

