cptgaio

Mmm, there would be a lot to say about this whole thing of giving certainties to oneself but I'll keep quiet so I don’t give you more hooks since you’re boring me. Think what you want, in fact you know what I’m saying: you’re right. To put it in Happypippo style: happy you, happy all.
Ps: just watch if it ends up saying "fiquata"...uuuuuhhhhh... :-D

I didn't know that Norgay Terzing had written a book. Thank you for the tip, Mauro.

Shermanaoks: if you read again (or read for the first time at this point: get it or not, it’s up to you) my posts, you will also find the answers and see that I have addressed your questions. As for the rest, I see you haven’t provided the links I asked for (and therefore, from my point of view, they don’t exist, like the “legal evidence” you mentioned, I suppose: you know, there’s a difference between accepted and rejected evidence) and so for me the discussion ends here. Just one last thought: personal attacks are never a good thing, but for those who write them (those who suffer them know if they have a clear conscience; mine is crystal clear) and anyway, if you find my writings and comments annoying (not so modestly, I don’t think the majority of users share your opinion; surely you’re in “great company” ;-), so I’m addressing you) you are more than welcome to ignore them; I don’t think I’ll shed any tears over it... Anyway, thank you for the last sentence of this latest post: it said a lot about you. Good night.

@Bartle: I don't know whose rights they are (not mine) ;-)

This has never really excited me much either, nice review.

The Fusillo always manages to be concise where I can't...zob! ;-)

P.S.: I almost forgot an important thing (while going along with you as you moved the goalposts, I was about to forget it): your speech was about the media storm against Pantani compared to that against Juve: well, both were in tones, overly so, exaggerated: there was no substantial difference. Period.

F) "And in any case, the data from Conte and Tacchinardi is well-known and even the defense couldn't refute it; simply having a hematocrit level of 525 is not proof of EPO use (only in the cases of Pantani, for you who hate him, it is, hehehe), and there was no conviction for that charge, simple as that." More data that has not been finalized: still serious are your sources, huh? (I'm still waiting) Anyway, we didn’t understand each other here either: in post 72 I clearly state that Giraudo and Agricola were acquitted due to the statute of limitations, and that the "evidence" presented by the prosecution regarding the use of EPO was considered unreliable, so there was a determination of drug abuse but not regarding EPO: that said, the data you anonymously cite loses value (you judge whether Pantani's data from '95 and '99 holds the same worth for you... at this point, I couldn't care less). This is to clarify that my position in the Juventus doping trial is that of someone who looks at the established evidence, the sentences issued, and the motivations; everything else is just talk (by the way, shifting the conversation to a topic that is completely unrelated is somewhat unfair, but it's also my fault for indulging you).
G) To conclude, not starting from your argument but from mine, I reiterate that I don't want to defend or accuse anything or anyone: simply from my point of view, Pantani committed a sports-related moral fault that prevents me from remembering him fondly, and when I think of the '90s (the years I experienced the most), I prefer to think of Indurain's achievements (who I personally consider stronger even in the climbs). If this discussion (with presenting findings, sources, etc.) is considered by you (but also by others: don't worry, you're in "very good company" ;-)) "falsely polite and benevolent" or by "crazy Berlusconians," I fear the problem is solely yours, so I believe the circle can truly be considered closed. Goodbye.

D) "On the sources, here too, you're doing the Berlusconi (or the crazy person) by considering only yours valid, also because you don't even know the ones that others bring (like the Isola 2000 stage)." What would your valid sources be? You've only provided me with a link to a website (I’ll skip what most think about that site... whatever...) but regarding my request to show me the exact page, you continue to “run away.” I simply don't remember the Isola 2000 stage, I'm still waiting for you to provide the references (I have given you two quite illustrative and precise links about the Pantani "signore"-Ullrich story) so I don’t understand where I should counter you; bring me the evidence and we'll talk about it. Then yes, I’ll be ignorant...
E) "Indurain has always denied that doping existed tout court in cycling, saying that at most there were a few dopers here and there, only worrying that his triumphs could be associated with a sick sport, when at the Festina trial, a former teammate, when asked 'the doping practices that were done at Festina were also done at his former teams including Banesto,' responded 'yes,' Miguel reacted like an old hysterical spinster, lamenting conspiracies and various things." See, you keep conjecturing. References, sources, and more please... which teammate? who? where? how? when? Show me this reaction of Miguel (like that of Conte... maybe...);-)
E) The thing about the Iene (which I partly agree with, though) I didn’t bring up, but again I see you have a short memory: I repeat, last time, Pantani disappeared for months and months, not even trying to defend himself, at a certain point his entourage played the sad and desperate card of the conspiracy, even... This is, for me, a moral fault: not being clear and resorting to a code of silence.
...I’ll continue in another post.

Mmm, it seems like we need a scheme here because we just didn’t understand each other, point by point.
A) "The things I was referring to can be found in the motivations of the first conviction for Agricola (when Giraudo was acquitted), it seems obvious to me." Well, bringing (without moreover reposting the page I asked you for... does it exist at this point?) as a reference the data that emerged from a trial whose outcome was (almost overturned) by the appeal is definitely serious...
B) "Pantani yes, Indurain no... conversation over"... haha, then tell me if this isn't a fan's fixation. I don't know if you realize that you end every one of your interventions by agreeing with yourself, as you always do on this site, with falsely polite tones of a goody-two-shoes." In order, no, it’s not a fan thing because in post 43, reread it if I haven't already done so and understand it if you haven't already (I don't think you have), I explained the motivation behind this statement, then, no, I don't end every statement by saying that I'm right; I quantify and qualify the sources. If you tried doing the same, you would understand many things. Then, if you don't like how I behave on this site (another one that took it for real life), you are free not to interact with me.
C) (I'll skip the personal attacks... when there's nothing to say, you use our buddy Silvietto's name a bit too much...) I won’t copy-paste the whole "history" of EPO doping that you make (there are some inaccuracies too, but this time, since you clearly don't read my posts, find the right references by yourself) because it's too long, and I'll just say that if we were to reason with "ifs" and "buts" (like you do), then Pantani should have been disqualified in '95 (incident in the Milan-Turin), but on this you brought up the altitude story, then forgetting it when I demonstrated that, indeed, it's just a story (by the way, I don’t know if you realize you’re contradicting yourself: you deny that Indurain is the strongest climber, but you wonder about the "unnatural" performance in the climbs... excuse me, but shouldn't you be wondering the same about who you consider to be stronger at this point? Don’t you think?)... I’ll continue in another post.