CNBC on Armstrong
Vagina Gorilla
confrontation was described as just short of a fistfight. But found
this
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000023565
ilan
The Emperor wears spandex.
-ilan
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:5067838d-8aa3-454c...@i4g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
When I first started watching I was about to write it off as old news (it
was broadcast the day after the 60 minutes show) but that's a really good
piece! Thanks for the link.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Brad Anders
re: LA committing fraud - the one guy said that USPS invested $23M,
but got a return of $103M from the engagement. Can someone explain to
me how if USPS got more in return than they invested that they were
defrauded?
Oh, and to state it for another time: I'm certain everyone on USPS was
in a doping program, and that everyone on the team knew what everyone
else was doing. Just like the rest of the peloton. It's a pro sport.
--D-y
> On Jun 15, 2:41 pm, Vagina Gorilla <vaginagori...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I went looking for some footage from today where the Aspen
> > confrontation was described as just short of a fistfight. But found
> > this
>
> >http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000023565
>
> re: LA committing fraud - the one guy said that USPS invested $23M,
> but got a return of $103M from the engagement. Can someone explain to
> me how if USPS got more in return than they invested that they were
> defrauded?
Well, if you listened to the commentator, it's because USPS "lost"
billions of dollars last year!
The sharks are circling the USPS and have been doing so for a long
time. A little nip here, a head-butt there from the cowardly sharks,
and once the prey is immobilized, they will go in for the feeding
frenzy. And your mail will follow the trail blazed by the
privatization of the airlines-- poor service backed by rudeness, and
the whole rest of the nine yards.
Of course, if the USPS were allowed to Compete in the Free Market (did
I hear trumpets, or was that angels?), and charge a better price for
bulk mail, for one thing, USPS might all of a sudden magically turn
the show around. But that's part of the attack, "see above". Corporate-
owned-media brainwashing: Post Office Bad! Post Office Bad! (etc.
etc.).
> Oh, and to state it for another time: I'm certain everyone on USPS was
> in a doping program, and that everyone on the team knew what everyone
> else was doing. Just like the rest of the peloton. It's a pro sport.
"On the team" to include owners/managers, everyone on down to the poor
schleps who wash the bikes. Institutionalized doping in a sport, like
all other sports, that has had doping since before they started.
Sanity check (ironic in this context, no? Brian?) concludes.
Thanks, I do feel a little better.
--D-y
ilan
> re: LA committing fraud - the one guy said that USPS invested $23M,
> but got a return of $103M from the engagement. Can someone explain to
> me how if USPS got more in return than they invested that they were
> defrauded?
Why do I have to go to rbr to read this? Why is it that the "experts"
who are paid to comment on cycling can figure out stuff like this?
-ilan
Anton Berlin
A lot of Madoff investors made money - doesn't mean there wasn't fraud
Brad Anders
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, agree, but plenty of Madoff's investors were left holding the
bag, too. Hard to see who got filtched here. Even as a fan I got what
I wanted to see, a fully dope-fueled battle royale between the finest
pharmaceutical companies in the world.
Dave Lee
"Anton Berlin" wrote in message
news:6b1dae28-feb4-4b6e...@17g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
=========================
OTOH, I doubt that those folks are the ones who are considering filing suit
against Bernie.
dave
Vagina Gorilla
The govt is trying to settle the score so everyone is remedied the
best they can.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
> On Jun 15, 10:01 pm, Brad Anders <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 15, 2:41 pm, Vagina Gorilla <vaginagori...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I went looking for some footage from today where the Aspen
> > > confrontation was described as just short of a fistfight. But found
> > > this
>
> > >http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000023565
>
> > re: LA committing fraud - the one guy said that USPS invested $23M,
> > but got a return of $103M from the engagement. Can someone explain to
> > me how if USPS got more in return than they invested that they were
> > defrauded?
>
> Well, if you listened to the commentator, it's because USPS "lost"
> billions of dollars last year!
If you turn off your filter for a second, I'm pretty sure the
commentator was citing that number to show that the amount
of money USPS spent on LANCE and the team was very
small compared to the overall USPS budget.
Your other comments related to the anti-USPS
rhetoric (the service, not the team) I basically agree
with. The postal service is one of the few public services
in the US that compares better than the services in, say,
European states, on performance for the price. And the
effective subsidy for junk mail is socialism-for-business
at its worst.
Fredmaster Ben
--D-y
wrote:
> If you turn off your filter for a second, I'm pretty sure the
> commentator was citing that number to show that the amount
> of money USPS spent on LANCE and the team was very
> small compared to the overall USPS budget.
That wasn't my take; I thought it was more of a double-slam.
As to the "filter", I was surprised at the comment in the first place
but it was the dismissive (remember, there is a diss in dismissive)
tone that I caught more than any "drop in the bucket" comparison. But
if that's (d-i-b) it came across to America, good (IMHO).
> Your other comments related to the anti-USPS
> rhetoric (the service, not the team) I basically agree
> with. The postal service is one of the few public services
> in the US that compares better than the services in, say,
> European states, on performance for the price. And the
> effective subsidy for junk mail is socialism-for-business
> at its worst.
At one of the main substations in Austin, early in the era when Lance
was winning TdF's and still mainly lived here, I noticed none of the
USPS team posters, etc. were hanging.
I mean, if there has ever been a product/service tie-in-- "delivering
the mail", as LA was delivering victory in the world's grandest
sporting event????? Anyhow, employees were FORBIDDEN to show any USPS
"Postal Team" advertising. Why? Well, of course, that might lead to
positive ("good") employee morale and that's not what the management
wanted, quite the opposite. Attested to by contact with post office
workers there (at that station) and my mail carriers, before and
since.
I will delete my rant IRT bad management practices, Reagan-Bush
politics, the ruining of America, etc. etc.
You can call it a "filter" if you want...
--D-y
Brad Anders
done, they'll have spent at least $5M, and if they get a conviction,
they might get $5M back, for an effective zero net. Hardly worth the
effort for a $23M outlay for the govt.
Anton Berlin
At this point the government isn't worried about if the US will be
flushed down the toilet - they are only trying to make it happen as
fast as possible. For that reason they should be commended but
it's not as effective as starting another war somewhere.
I'm sure the people of Belgium have done something to offend us... if
not I'll start the ball rolling.
All Belgiums are waffle humping cowards.
A. Dumas
> All Belgiums are waffle humping cowards.
On Eddy's birthday, tsk tsk.
RicodJour
Huh? I think you seriously underestimate how quickly legal
investigation costs add up. I would be totally shocked if the end
cost didn't exceed what USPS paid in sponsorship funding.
When you add up the time lost that could have been spent on a real
investigation, or solving real problems, instead of having another
episode of The Kardashians in tights, then the costs are truly
staggering.
This is what shit-stirrers and trolls do. They keep dragging
attention back to stuff that doesn't deserve attention. Ask them a
question, and they refuse to answer it and drag it back to what they
want to talk about it.
You can feed it, or starve it and kill it. I'm all for killing.
R
Simply Fred
>> All Belgiums are waffle humping cowards.
A. Dumas wrote:
> On Eddy's birthday, tsk tsk.
Luckily Magilla isn't here to tell you how much he sucked.
Scott
Scott
or this one: http://youtu.be/8iXvhcw07do
Scott
too funny, but on one of the local Denver tv stations, during their
morning show they always have a list of celebrity birthdays. Today,
they listed Merckx... and one of the talking heads commented, "he won
5 Tours de France, back before they had performance enhancing drugs"
A. Dumas
> on one of the local Denver tv stations, during their
> morning show they always have a list of celebrity birthdays. Today,
> they listed Merckx... and one of the talking heads commented, "he won
> 5 Tours de France, back before they had performance enhancing drugs"
Awesome.
MagillaGorilla
> On Jun 15, 2:41�pm, Vagina Gorilla <vaginagori...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I went looking for some footage from today where the Aspen
> > confrontation was described as just short of a fistfight. �But found
> > this
> >
> > http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000023565
>
> re: LA committing fraud - the one guy said that USPS invested $23M,
> but got a return of $103M from the engagement. Can someone explain to
> me how if USPS got more in return than they invested that they were
> defrauded?
>
Sure...the $103 million is also a fraudulent figure. Second, the
contract Lance signed says NO FUCKING DOPING. Lance doped. Ergo, fraud
- defrauded the terms of the contract. The amount of PR garnered by the
team is irrelevant.
Third, the doping allegations with Postal are now tarnishing the U.S.
Postal brand to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in NEGATIVE
EXPOSURE...and we didn't even go to trial yet. You forgot to subtract
all the negative publicity from Lance that is now irreparably damaging
the U.S. Postal brand.
Fourth, Lance will be stripped of several of his Tour wins once Tygart at
USADA files doping charges. More bad imagery for U.S. Postal brand.
Let me know if you need any more help understanding why major corporate
sponsors don't want to be associated with doping and how doping harms
their brand image.
Thanks,
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
The deterrent effect of busting someone like Lance is huge and well
worth the money. That's why the feds always target the big fish (i.e.
Martha Stewart, Leona Hemsley, Barry Bonds, Clemens).
Why, do you think the feds should be spending $23 million busting up the
local steroid ring at my gym instead?
The logic behind busting Lance is that it sends a message to all
athletes throughout the country that if they got Lance, they can get
anyone. ..plus they will get way more free press by going after Lance
than some no-name college athlete...i.e. 60 Minutes would never have
done that story had the cyclist been Ernie Lechuga instead of Lance.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Merckx did suck. Merckx rode in an era where 80% of the pros were the
equivalent of today's Cat. 1. Merckx was an opportunist who beat
dumbed-down competition. Nothing to admire.
I won't even mention his 3 positive doping tests.
Magilla
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:4DFED596...@sandiegozoo.com...
Wait a sec. First you question the $103 million figure, presumably
because you don't think the publicity has any real lasting value. But
then you suggest that something USPS sponsored 6 or 7 or 8 years in the
past is having a significant effect tarnishing their brand image TODAY?
If that's the case, it's Novitsky causing the damage, not Lance. The
best way to minimize the damage is to pretend there isn't any, even if
there is. That's standard corporate policy. It's an over-simplification
to suggest that this investigation is all about a tarnished image
though. There's much more to it than that.
Beyond that, the US Postal Service was trying to get more awareness of
their brand overseas, specifically in Europe. They didn't just lack an
identity, they lacked visibility, period. Their sponsorship accomplished
that. The fact that this wasn't aimed in the slightest at the domestic
market is what people don't seem to grasp. The context is important
here.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com>
Fred Flintstein
> Let me know if you need any more help understanding why major corporate
> sponsors don't want to be associated with doping and how doping harms
> their brand image.
Could you first help me understand what happens in
velodrome turns?
F
RicodJour
wrote:
I'm still waiting for him to explain how rear brakes don't follow the
laws of physics.
He's got a backlog.
R
Simply Fred
>> Could you first help me understand what happens in
>> velodrome turns?
RicodJour wrote:
> I'm still waiting for him to explain how rear brakes don't follow the
> laws of physics.
> He's got a backlog.
In computing theory its called a queue. Lafferties implementation uses a
priority queue with a weighting factor of 1 billion for any content
containing the words Lance or Armstrong.
Scott
Back one day and still thinking that if you just yell something at us
it makes it a fact.
Please give one single shred of legit evidence that any of this LA
doping investigation BS is negatively impacting the USPS.
Brad Anders
It's ridiculous to believe it would. All this happened ages ago,
Postal moved on to other ad campaigns and activities. The figures
cited make good sense.
Magilla is like any other zealot, they can't give in the slightest to
any evidence that doesn't support their views. Nearly everyone here
knows that LA and Postal doped themselves to the gills, just like
every other pro team they raced against. Postal lawyers knew exactly
what kind of sport they were getting into, regardless of "no doping"
clauses in contracts. The idea that they were "defraded" in any way is
idiotic.
A. Dumas
> Postal lawyers knew exactly
> what kind of sport they were getting into
That, I don't think is true. American corporate lawyers ca. 1995 with
inside knowledge of pro cycling? Nah.
Fred Flintstein
I would generalize that. American corporate lawyers with
knowledge of the risks that come with associating with
professional athletes? Hell yes!
F
RicodJour
Next you'll be telling us that lawyers are cynical jaded bastards with
floppy jowls and huge cases of schadenfreude envy.
R
Brad Anders
> Brad Anders wrote:
> > I'd guess that by the time this fed investigation of LA and Postal is
> > done, they'll have spent at least $5M, and if they get a conviction,
> > they might get $5M back, for an effective zero net. Hardly worth the
> > effort for a $23M outlay for the govt.
>
> The deterrent effect of busting someone like Lance is huge and well
> worth the money. That's why the feds always target the big fish (i.e.
> Martha Stewart, Leona Hemsley, Barry Bonds, Clemens).
You're reaching. The fact that Stewart got busted for insider trading
hasn't stopped insider trading in the least. Everyone hated Helmsley's
guts and wanted to see her go down. The message most people got from
the Bonds case was that dope can make you famous and wealthy. He's not
expected to serve any time. Clemens is just like LA, a guy from the
past that today's athletes could give a shit about.
They target the big fish because it makes a name for the investigators
and lawyers, making them richer and more powerful. That's why they do
it. They ultimately could give a shit about deterrence.
> Why, do you think the feds should be spending $23 million busting up the
> local steroid ring at my gym instead?
No, I think an FDA investigator should be spending the Fed/taxpayer $$
on investigating things more important to the US population, such as
food contamination sources (hundreds die in the US from every year),
fraudulent drug claims (just watch TV), etc. Chasing after LA is a
misuse of FDA money.
> The logic behind busting Lance is that it sends a message to all
> athletes throughout the country that if they got Lance, they can get
> anyone. ..plus they will get way more free press by going after Lance
> than some no-name college athlete...i.e. 60 Minutes would never have
> done that story had the cyclist been Ernie Lechuga instead of Lance.
Regardless of what happens to LA, the benefit/risk from taking dope is
too good for some (most) pro cycling athletes. Anyone with a brain can
put themselves on a modest, safe, low-risk of detection program that
produces significant results. Nothing that happens to LA will change
this.
Fred Flintstein
> The logic behind busting Lance is that it sends a message to all
> athletes throughout the country that if they got Lance, they can get
> anyone. ..plus they will get way more free press by going after Lance
> than some no-name college athlete...i.e. 60 Minutes would never have
> done that story had the cyclist been Ernie Lechuga instead of Lance.
I'm curious. Is doping for an athletic contest illegal in the US?
F
Choppy Warburton
> I'm curious. Is doping for an athletic contest illegal in the US?
>
> F
It is if you signed a contract where you said you wouldn't dope you
stupid fucking dumbass.
William R. Mattil
Engage your brain before typing ....... A contract does not make doping
illegal or legal.
Sheesh .... Not even July and the nutcases are out
Bill
--
William R. Mattil
Fred Flintstein
> On 6/20/2011 1:27 PM, Choppy Warburton wrote:
>>
>>> I'm curious. Is doping for an athletic contest illegal in the US?
>>>
>>> F
>>
>> It is if you signed a contract where you said you wouldn't dope you
>> stupid fucking dumbass.
>
>
>
> Engage your brain before typing ....... A contract does not make doping
> illegal or legal.
>
>
> Sheesh .... Not even July and the nutcases are out
>
>
> Bill
>
It's important to build form gradually, so as to not peak too early.
The end of July is a long way off. The ape has the right idea. Lafferty
is already showing signs of fading.
F
Anton Berlin
wrote:
Bad sign William when a dipshit like BS is aligning with you.
RicodJour
wrote:
I find it curious that chimpissimo was nowhere to be seen in the early
season, and then he's all over the place like a bum on baloney. Maybe
he was in Mexico with Rasmussen and his wife. Relaxing. Yeah, that's
it.
R
Fredmaster of Brainerd
wrote:
Has any athlete ever been prosecuted for violating such a
contract? No at worst they get fired. The only rationale for
the heavy Novitsky/FBI presence is the fraud-on-the-Govt
angle.
The most likely outcome of this investigation - okay, the
third most likely, #1 being nothing and #2 being a conviction
of a bit player for perjury or bad bookkeeping - is to
deter future athletes from signing sponsorship deals
with the US Government.
Meanwhile, did you know that the US doesn't even have a
regulation requiring meatpackers to test for the rarer strains
of E. coli that caused the recent food-borne outbreak in
Germany?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/us/08food.html
Fredmaster Ben
Fred Flintstein
Frankie Andreau has been on record as having doped while riding for
US Postal for a number of years now. I wonder how he has been able
to sleep at night, what with all the worry about legal issues.
F
Anton Berlin
wrote:
Dumbass if you promise not to play checkers and you receive
compensation for that promise and then go play checkers it's fraud.
If Armstrong didn't make a promise to NOT DOPE then doping isn't
illegal... but since he did.... eh heh... he's fucked.
Why can't you ball gargling cock suckers get that through your fucking
brains?
Brad Anders
> If Armstrong didn't make a promise to NOT DOPE then doping isn't
> illegal... but since he did.... eh heh... he's fucked.
By this logic, if I violate any clause of a contract with an employer,
I've committed an illegal act. From what I see, he (and the whole
team) just didn't live up to the terms. So, they'd lose their
sponsorship money, despite the sponsor having made approximately 4X on
their investment. Still can't see how this is going to be considered
to be "fraud" by anyone, much less a jury that's had LA's team
twisting their ears.
Frederick the Great
MagillaGorilla <mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> The logic behind busting Lance is that it sends a message to all
> athletes throughout the country that if they got Lance, they can get
> anyone.
That is your logic. _The_ logic is that there are no
bragging rights for netting minnows. The minnows know
this and dope to the gills. You are wrong.
Wrongity, Wrongity, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.
--
Old Fritz
Frederick the Great
<37cddb3a-d752-4848...@gh5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Anton Berlin <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bad sign when you show he put the needle under your skin.
--
Old Fritz
Fredmaster of Brainerd
wrote:
Frankie often has a worried look. I think it's because
he's lying restlessly awake ever since Betsy got that crazy
wolfhound guard dog from Greg Lemond - Frankie
is afraid it's gonna jump up from the foot of the bed
and chomp off his toes in the middle of the night.
Fredmaster Ben
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:9279cf4d-2e5b-4db9...@28g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 20, 3:02 pm, Fred Flintstein <bob.schwa...@sbcremoveglobal.net>
wrote:
> On 6/20/2011 1:33 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>
> > On 6/20/2011 1:27 PM, Choppy Warburton wrote:
>
> >>> I'm curious. Is doping for an athletic contest illegal in the US?
>
> >>> F
>
> >> It is if you signed a contract where you said you wouldn't dope you
> >> stupid fucking dumbass.
>
> > Engage your brain before typing ....... A contract does not make
> > doping
> > illegal or legal.
>
> > Sheesh .... Not even July and the nutcases are out
>
> > Bill
>
> It's important to build form gradually, so as to not peak too early.
> The end of July is a long way off. The ape has the right idea.
> Lafferty
> is already showing signs of fading.
I find it curious that chimpissimo was nowhere to be seen in the early
season, and then he's all over the place like a bum on baloney. Maybe
he was in Mexico with Rasmussen and his wife. Relaxing. Yeah, that's
it.
R
=========
Actually, I thought our resident ape was off to a slow start. He began a
couple of threads, but hasn't come back much to maintain them. It's like
he's fertilizing the fields but not bothering to tend them afterward.
Sad, because there's the slightest hint of content, almost quality, in
some of his recent posts.
Mike Jacoubowsky
"Anton Berlin" <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:da98a055-b14b-445b...@34g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 20, 1:33 pm, "William R. Mattil" <wrmat...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
> On 6/20/2011 1:27 PM, Choppy Warburton wrote:
>
>
>
> >> I'm curious. Is doping for an athletic contest illegal in the US?
>
> >> F
>
> > It is if you signed a contract where you said you wouldn't dope you
> > stupid fucking dumbass.
>
> Engage your brain before typing ....... A contract does not make
> doping
> illegal or legal.
>
> Sheesh .... Not even July and the nutcases are out
>
> Bill
>
> --
>
> William R. Mattil
>
> http://www.celestial-images.com
========
Dumbass if you promise not to play checkers and you receive
compensation for that promise and then go play checkers it's fraud.
If Armstrong didn't make a promise to NOT DOPE then doping isn't
illegal... but since he did.... eh heh...
========
So you've seen the contract? Has anyone here? Is it posted somewhere?
Simply Fred
> Actually, I thought our resident ape was off to a slow start. He began a
> couple of threads, but hasn't come back much to maintain them. It's like
> he's fertilizing the fields but not bothering to tend them afterward.
> Sad, because there's the slightest hint of content, almost quality, in
> some of his recent posts.
He'll be OK once he transfuses some of Albright's blood.
Simply Fred
> Frankie often has a worried look. I think it's because
> he's lying restlessly awake ever since Betsy got that crazy
> wolfhound guard dog from Greg Lemond - Frankie
> is afraid it's gonna jump up from the foot of the bed
> and chomp off his toes in the middle of the night.
Or Bobbitt him.
Simply Fred
> That is your logic. _The_ logic is that there are no
> bragging rights for netting minnows. The minnows know
> this and dope to the gills.
William R. Mattil
> On Jun 20, 1:33 pm, "William R. Mattil"<wrmat...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>> On 6/20/2011 1:27 PM, Choppy Warburton wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I'm curious. Is doping for an athletic contest illegal in the US?
>>
>>>> F
>>
>>> It is if you signed a contract where you said you wouldn't dope you
>>> stupid fucking dumbass.
>>
>> Engage your brain before typing ....... A contract does not make doping
>> illegal or legal.
>>
>> Sheesh .... Not even July and the nutcases are out
>>
>
> Dumbass if you promise not to play checkers and you receive
> compensation for that promise and then go play checkers it's fraud.
I would suggest you spend a little time and investigate the differences
between illegality and "fraud" nitwit. If I sign a contract to not play
chess, and then I do, I do not end up in jail. I can, at best, be sued
for being in violation of the contract. Even a simpleton like yourself
should be able to grasp this subtlety.
>
> If Armstrong didn't make a promise to NOT DOPE then doping isn't
> illegal... but since he did.... eh heh... he's fucked.
Perhaps in your mind because your passion is ruling your brain, or
what's left of it. He would not go to jail/prison or whatever for being
in violation of the *contract*. Oh it might cost him some money. Perhaps
a lot of money. But that's not what you clowns are suggesting.
For him to go to jail or prison he will have had to be found guilty of
violating US Law. Or barring that, Novitsky will have to resort to the
old standby and try and catch him in a lie before a Jury. Then he could
be found guilty of obstruction of justice. Assuming that the case for
"justice" is deemed to be something other than BL's or you pipe dream.
> Why can't you ball gargling cock suckers get that through your fucking
> brains?
Best be silent and thought the fool than to use your keyboard and remove
all doubt.
Run along now ... we have more important issues to discuss.
Frederick the Great
Simply Fred <no...@mailinator.com> wrote:
Thanks---was unacquainted with this chapter in the history of doping.
--
Old Fritz