Strickland Believes Armstrong Doped
BL
http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/lance-armstrongs-endgame
http://fraudbytes.blogspot.com/2011/04/lance-armstrong-investigation-bicycling.html
Davey Crockett
So does Davey
--
Davey Crockett
Flying the Flag of the English
The Flag of Hengest and Horsa
http://usera.imagecave.com/daveycrockett/englishdragon.jpg
--D-y
> First Sports Illustrated. Now Bicycling.
>
> http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/lance-armstrongs-endgame
>
Go after the War Machine (the last legal, go-to-Congress-and-get-them-
to-declare-war-like-it-says-in-the-Constitution war the USA was in was
WWII, and even that one had some fudge factor).
Go after the thieves and crooks on Wall Street. And their God-damned
lawyers, too-- you can start with the lawyers.
Go after the liars and con artists who want to destroy the social
safety net (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid).
Go after the corporate honchos who are swimming in wealth while they
destroy the Middle Class.
Go after the serial killers-- start by making a list of the thousands
of "missing" women (and men) who, currently, no one seems to care
about, so the problem is undeniable, instead of being swept under the
rug.
Hey, somewhat ironically: find a cure for cancer! Meanwhile, find a
way to provide needed services for cancer sufferers and their families
and loved ones...
IOW, "get a life"-- but no, really!
--D-y
Brad Anders
> First Sports Illustrated. Now Bicycling.
>
> http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/lance-armstrongs-endgame
>
Who doesn't believe that LA doped? That's not the issue, it's proving
he doped.
BL
Is that *the* issue? It may be your issue, but it isn't everyone's issue.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
That's not the issue either. He's not on trial for doping,
so proving he doped is a matter for disillusioned fanboys,
not the legal system.
Actually, I'd like to point out that it's a Tuesday in April
and Armstrong isn't on trial for _anything_ yet.
Justice delayed is sometimes justice that isn't
happening.
Fredmaster Ben
Simply Fred
> Actually, I'd like to point out that it's a Tuesday in April
> and Armstrong isn't on trial for _anything_ yet.
> Justice delayed is sometimes justice that isn't
> happening.
Just wait until April 1 2014.
Jim Feeley
I've been attending part of the Barry Bonds perjury trial stemming from his
appearance before a federal grand jury in December 2003. The jury will probably
begin deliberations tomorrow, April 7, 2011. Seven-plus years.
Novitzky's been busy. After the verdict and sentencing (if necessary), he'll
have some time to turn back to Armstrong.
But don't hold your breath unless your blood is extraterrestrially-well
oxygenated.
Jim
--
Jim
Jim Feeley
POV Media
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Certainly, anything can still happen. And this is a
fraud investigation, not a doping investigation, and
contracts and fraud are pretty complicated, so it may
take a while. I was poking fun at the "Tuesdays in
January" concept. Admittedly, it might have been
better if I had been able to keep Tuesday and Wednesday
straight.
Fredmaster Ben
Fred Flintstein
> Certainly, anything can still happen. And this is a
> fraud investigation, not a doping investigation, and
> contracts and fraud are pretty complicated, so it may
> take a while.
Not just any fraud investigation. A fraud investigation
where the 'victim' was OK with it, because they benefited
greatly from it. Since the goal appears to be fame and
glory I think it is a given that Novitsky will not let
this go until it is pried from his attention grabbing
fingers.
Fred Flintstein
RicodJour
wrote:
Wait - who wanted the fame and glory? The sponsor or Novitsky? Or is
everyone just a money-grubbing, limelight-seeking whore?
That last question is rhetorical.
R
--D-y
Novitsky hasn't said "book deal" where anyone can hear recently.
Doesn't mean he's not expecting one.
--D-y
Simply Fred
> Novitsky hasn't said "book deal" where anyone can hear recently.
> Doesn't mean he's not expecting one.
Its not about the law ?
derf...@gmail.com
>
> Is that *the* issue? It may be your issue, but it isn't everyone's issue.
are you trying to say that you "have issues"? Tell us something we
don't already know.
Phil H
>
> - Show quoted text -
He's on trial for fraud because that's the only way to bring him down.
That's the issue, I don't believe anyone gives a rats about the money
that changed hands as a result of the team's/Lance's performance.
As for Strickland, anyone who has any part of the flowery technical
reviews in Bicycling magazine is a lightweight. This new bike is what
you would get if a formula one car collided with a La-Z-Boy, out of
the white-hot wreckage might emerge.....and by the way, Lance is a
doper........real credible.
Phil H
BL
Frederick the Great
BL <B...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Not everyone advertises them on usenet.
Did you make a business decision?
--
Old Fritz
Kurgan Gringioni
"BL" <B...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:296dnR8VsM8kJDzQ...@giganews.com...
Dumbass -
Not to the degree which you do.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
BL
Now that's funny, coming from you.
Kurgan Gringioni
>>
>>
>> Dumbass -
>>
>> Not to the degree which you do.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
>
> Now that's funny, coming from you.
Dumbass -
That's right. I only participate in rbr for one thing. To talk about LANCE.
ilan
> First Sports Illustrated. Now Bicycling.
>
> http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/lance-armstrongs-endgame
>
"I BECAME A FAN OF LANCE ARMSTRONG before he was the king of the Tour
de France, before he was a heroic cancer survivor and selfless
activist. He wasn't rich. He was neither a friend of celebrities nor a
celebrity. He wasn't the focus of the longest-running mudfight over
doping in sports. Lance Armstrong was 22 when I met him, and he was
kicking the shit out of his bicycle.
I was on a motorcycle speeding beside him in a time trial at the 1994
Tour DuPont."
In 1994, he had already won the $1,000,000 prize for winning the 3 top
US races, so the statement "he wasn't rich" doesn't seem very
accurate.
More generally, a poorly written article, the dichotomy "innocent or
guilty" is also misleading, since you can't prove innocence, only
guilt.
-ilan
ilan
>
> http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/lance-armstrongs-endgame
>
I've tried to read the article carefully to figure out what convinced
him that Armstrong was doping. The closest I've found so far is:
"I don't know how you'll feel. I don't know, if you're not already
there, what might lead you to believe that Lance Armstrong doped. It
wasn't Floyd Landis for me, or the federal investigation, or any
public revelation. My catalyst was another one of those statements
that was never said by someone I never talked with. It was not from
one of Armstrong's opponents. It was not from anyone who will gain any
clemency by affirming it under oath.
It was an admission that doping had occurred, one disguised so it
could assume innocence but unmistakable to me in meaning. The moment I
received it felt strangely like a relief, and after all these years
unreal and apart from what was happening, like those odd instants that
sometimes immediately follow the death of someone you love, when grief
is eclipsed by gratitude that the suffering has ended."
In other words, he had some kind of personal epiphany not based on any
particular evidence or testimony.
Maybe I've missed something, but if that's everything, then the
article is as worthless as this person's convictions.
-ilan
RicodJour
>
> In other words, he had some kind of personal epiphany not based on any
> particular evidence or testimony.
>
> Maybe I've missed something, but if that's everything, then the
> article is as worthless as this person's convictions.
Someone's convictions are never worthless. I'm convinced of that.
R
Frederick the Great
<73aa6b15-b451-4066...@p6g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
ilan <ila...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2:30 pm, BL <B...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > First Sports Illustrated. Now Bicycling.
> >
> > http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/lance-armstrongs-endgame
> >
> > http://fraudbytes.blogspot.com/2011/04/lance-armstrong-investigation-...
>
> I've tried to read the article carefully to figure out what convinced
> him that Armstrong was doping. The closest I've found so far is:
>
> "I don't know how you'll feel. I don't know, if you're not already
> there, what might lead you to believe that Lance Armstrong doped. It
> wasn't Floyd Landis for me, or the federal investigation, or any
> public revelation. My catalyst was another one of those statements
> that was never said by someone I never talked with. It was not from
> one of Armstrong's opponents. It was not from anyone who will gain any
> clemency by affirming it under oath.
>
> It was an admission that doping had occurred, one disguised so it
> could assume innocence but unmistakable to me in meaning. The moment I
> received it felt strangely like a relief, and after all these years
> unreal and apart from what was happening, like those odd instants that
> sometimes immediately follow the death of someone you love, when grief
> is eclipsed by gratitude that the suffering has ended."
Appeal to emotion. I am not having it.
> In other words, he had some kind of personal epiphany
Always personal; or if we more carefully consider
the concept of personality, then an epiphany is
never personal, which is kind of the idea.
> not based on any
> particular evidence or testimony.
>
> Maybe I've missed something, but if that's everything, then the
> article is as worthless as this person's convictions.
I am going with worthless and deliberately misleading.
--
Old Fritz
Frederick the Great
<49677d7b-d57a-48d7...@m7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
RicodJour <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote:
To them. The author's stated convictions are worthless to me.
For one thing, it matters to him if someone doped or not.
For another, I am not his counselor where it would make
a difference if I dismissed his worthless convictions.
--
Old Fritz
Fredmaster of Brainerd
>
> In other words, he had some kind of personal epiphany not based on any
> particular evidence or testimony.
>
> Maybe I've missed something, but if that's everything, then the
> article is as worthless as this person's convictions.
Strickland had convictions.
Armstrong associated with Strickland.
Therefore Armstrong associated with a convict,
and is of suspicious character.
See, it's very simple.
Fredmaster Ben
RBR Doping Logician
Phil H
aka dopey logic :)
Interesting how someone can get a great ride on a train and then not
only disassociate themselves but try to send the train hurtling over
the cliff. The editor in chief will now be known as Bill Strychnine.
Thanks
Phil H