All

I assumed that for arguments sake since that's what some have said it was.

Wow, some typos. Stop the presses and go home, MXA. I've seen lots of typos at the RacerX website as well...on a regular basis in fact.

What about the Lenny haters who keep entering this thread to make comments. What's more pathetic?

OK. Assume it's an amphetamine and proceed.

OK, let's frame the question differently. The issue at stake here is whether or not James was taking, what is assumed to be adderall, as a ped? There's no clear evidence that that's the case and used as a therapeutic drug for a condition, it would not be effective as a ped. You've assumed guilt before having all the facts...

Where did I say that James' nurse "...claiming to administer IV to James should not be taken as factual evidence"?

Yes, my apologies. The banned substance was an amphetamine.

That's a cute little guy. Can't you find a cheaper vet in your area?

I think one of the funniest memes I saw of this guy was one that said: You see those statues over there that look like humans? They're aliens.

When did James test positive for a ped? Here's a clue: He didn't, he tested positive for a banned substance and it was adderall. When was a suspicious comment made about iv's? Here's a clue: It wasn't, his nurse made a comment about administering iv's to James. You see what you want to see and when that doesn't work, you...

Probably because he wouldn't beat neither one on their home turf.

I think he should run SX in the States for some seat time and run the Canada nationals when they start up in 2015 because he will have a good shot at the title. It's got to be a pretty big blow to Team Alessi if they don't win the title. I think they went in pretty confident that they...

I think in this case, your signature file is appropriate.

What circumstantial evidence? I've asked this a couple of times and no one has laid any out. What you have is a nurse who said that she was there to administer an iv to Stewart. That is not evidence that she was there to administer an iv to Stewart between motos. You have no circumstantial evidence, you have incredulity and...

If this were in a court of law and it was the state v stewart in a criminal case, the state would not have enough evidence to convict Stewart since it could not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It would be thrown out, and that should tell you something about what you think is "circumstantial evidence". lex parsimoniae...

Where did Stewart's nurse say that she was there to help Stewart cheat?

That was my initial thought as well.

So you believe as well that RV was doping? I mean, if being incredulous equals guilt... We can't prove otherwise. That's the same type of reasoning that people use who have unjustly accused RV of using peds. Of course, I am using that example not to accuse RV of cheating, but to make the point that just because it can't...

By the way, there is a great thread here and here that has nowhere near the views and hits that this thread does. The data speaks for itself. Those who don't like Lenny are part of the bunch that keep replying and keep viewing this thread.

I don't have to report any source. Unless Weigandt, JT$, and Matthes were witnesses to an iv being administered between motos to James Stewart, it is nothing more than hearsay. Hearsay does not constitute evidence against or guilt, and James Stewart is not guilty until proved innocent just because there are doubters. You've conveniently flipped the burden of proof around...