Tim Herman Shoots Lance in the Foot--Again
B. Lafferty
attacks and how it makes his client look like a desperate perp.
It really looks like Mr. Herman is afraid of other riders telling the
truth about Postal--not just Lance. If Tim Herman had half a brain in
his head, he would openly encourage all riders to tell the Feds and
USADA everything they know. The problem for Mr. Herman is that if
multiple, knowledgeable riders give consistent testimony implicating
Postal, Lance, Johan and others in doping and in the process corroborate
Landis, his client ,Lance, has a shitload of problems to face.
Hey Tim, the truth will set you free.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jKB9kJFPQK1-D9n_HllA_3nhyTMgD9HBI40O0
"USADA is promising riders a sweetheart deal if they can produce
anything harmful on Armstrong," Herman said. "A rider who has doped,
they tell them, 'If you can finger Armstrong, we'll get out the eraser
... and everything is cool.'"
Herman said he could not disclose which rider or riders have been
offered a deal.
----------------------------------------------------
USADA spokeswoman Erin Hannan said the agency could not comment in
detail about an investigation.
"Our effort in any investigation is a search for the truth, nothing more
and nothing less," Hannan said. "On behalf of clean athletes, we will
fairly and thoroughly evaluate all evidence of doping to reveal the
truth. When the process results in credible evidence of doping, clean
athletes can rest assured we will take appropriate action under the
rules established by federal law."
----------------------------------------------------
RicodJour
> This guy really doesn't understand how stupid he looks making these
> attacks and how it makes his client look like a desperate perp.
>
> It really looks like Mr. Herman is afraid of other riders telling the
> truth about Postal--not just Lance. If Tim Herman had half a brain in
> his head, he would openly encourage all riders to tell the Feds and
> USADA everything they know. The problem for Mr. Herman is that if
> multiple, knowledgeable riders give consistent testimony implicating
> Postal, Lance, Johan and others in doping and in the process corroborate
> Landis, his client ,Lance, has a shitload of problems to face.
You mean like if someone gives concrete evidence against whomever in a
criminal investigation, that will be a bad thing for that person?
Gee, djya think so, Sparky?
The word unbiased and you have obviously never been introduced, but I
get your point. After some years of mucking about with divorce cases,
until you couldn't hack it any longer, you now feel qualified to run a
big stakes legal defense, that's being played out on an international
stage, with literally scores of players, from the sidelines. Makes
perfect sense to me. Maybe you could represent LANCE pro boner!
"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit!" That's about as stupid as it
gets, but it worked, eh?
Isn't there somebody else in USCF (the boring one) that is pissing you
off and you want to sue? There's gotta be somebody. Work on it.
Barring that, maybe you should try out some new carbon forks.
R
B. Lafferty
> On Aug 2, 4:55 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> This guy really doesn't understand how stupid he looks making these
>> attacks and how it makes his client look like a desperate perp.
>>
>> It really looks like Mr. Herman is afraid of other riders telling the
>> truth about Postal--not just Lance. If Tim Herman had half a brain in
>> his head, he would openly encourage all riders to tell the Feds and
>> USADA everything they know. The problem for Mr. Herman is that if
>> multiple, knowledgeable riders give consistent testimony implicating
>> Postal, Lance, Johan and others in doping and in the process corroborate
>> Landis, his client ,Lance, has a shitload of problems to face.
>
> You mean like if someone gives concrete evidence against whomever in a
> criminal investigation, that will be a bad thing for that person?
> Gee, djya think so, Sparky?
Not surprisingly, you miss the point. If Mr. Herman were more media
savvy, he would point out that he appreciates that USADA has been
offering reduced punishment to riders to reveal what the know about drug
use in cycling. He could point out that all such testimony, just like
plea bargains for testimony in criminal cases, is suspect absent proper
corroboration. To present the situation as the USADA "bribing" riders
for testimony against his client Lance, does a disservice to both the
USADA and his client.
Mr. Herman was smart to turn the criminal aspect of this over to Daly in
California. Beyond that, there are ways to more effectively manage PR
during criminal investigations. In that sense Mr. Herman strikes me as
clueless.
>
> The word unbiased and you have obviously never been introduced, but I
> get your point. After some years of mucking about with divorce cases,
> until you couldn't hack it any longer, you now feel qualified to run a
> big stakes legal defense, that's being played out on an international
> stage, with literally scores of players, from the sidelines. Makes
> perfect sense to me. Maybe you could represent LANCE pro boner!
>
> "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit!" That's about as stupid as it
> gets, but it worked, eh?
>
> Isn't there somebody else in USCF (the boring one) that is pissing you
> off and you want to sue? There's gotta be somebody. Work on it.
> Barring that, maybe you should try out some new carbon forks.
Retard, thanks for your thoughts. As for that boring USCF, we did
succeed in getting ride of two board members who needed to go, IMO. My
understanding is that one of them, Susan Polgar, is linked to a criminal
investigation still ongoing in California by the US Attorney and the US
Secret Service. At least that's what the NY Times has reported.
>
> R
K. Fred Gauss
Lafferty is not their intended audience. It's a different set of people
that they are trying to convince of Lance's innocence. I'm not saying
it'll work, just that your explanations of why you don't find them
convincing miss the point.
When G.W. Bush left office, his approval rating was close to 30%. That's
the way things are. You can't fool all the people all the time, but you
can fool enough of them to make a decent living. Glen Beck said
something to that effect a few months ago; he's living proof.
H. Fred Kveck
"K. Fred Gauss" <I...@just.dont.know.anymore> wrote:
> When G.W. Bush left office, his approval rating was close to 30%.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/16/opinion/polls/main4728399.shtml
Reality is sometimes even worse than the way we remember it.
--D-y
> In article <4c5775f...@news.x-privat.org>,
> "K. Fred Gauss" <I...@just.dont.know.anymore> wrote:
>
> > When G.W. Bush left office, his approval rating was close to 30%.
>
>
> Reality is sometimes even worse than the way we remember it.
Isn't it great though, when part of the strategy is to leave a big
stinking pile of shit that will get all over the next administration?
Two end-run-around-the-Constitution wars, working on the third and
just ran out of time. Ah, Rome!
--D-y
--D-y
Forced "jailhouse" confessions ("give us something we can use or
else"), boilerplate BS declarations of "fairness in pursuit of
justice".
Continuous name calling, rhetorical leapfrogging.
--D-y
K. Fred Gauss
I guess I'm slightly comforted that it got below 25%.