Novitzky is going to tear Armstrong apart
Anton Berlin
keeping his ass out of hot water other than the perjuries I've already
indicated.
But the problem for Lance now is that there is much more information
available and Novitzky is way more thorough.
It's going to be great. Can't wait to see the transcript and the
racking up of perjury charges (new and old)
You're dead meat cocksucker Lance - dead fucking meat.
Magilla Gorilla
Well, the big difference between SCA case and Novitzky is Lance and his
country bumpkins think it's a game to lie in a civil hearing. But when
they go to federal grand jury to testify under oath and are cognizant
that the feds are not afraid to charge sports people with perjury....now
Lance needs a a criminal defense attorney and a PR machine to do his
lying for them.
Everybody knows Lance is a bigtime doper in this sport.
Magilla
Anton Berlin
> Well, the big difference between SCA case and Novitzky is Lance and his
> country bumpkins think it's a game to lie in a civil hearing. But when
> they go to federal grand jury to testify under oath and are cognizant
> that the feds are not afraid to charge sports people with perjury....now
> Lance needs a a criminal defense attorney and a PR machine to do his
> lying for them.
>
> Everybody knows Lance is a bigtime doper in this sport.
>
> Magilla
JT (SCA dep) made it pretty clear that Lance was under oath and
perjury charges are possible. The question is why didn't they pursue
it further?
They rolled over (or am I just being hindsite biased) as there is much
more informationa nd those willing to come forward now?
However, the line of questioning leads me to believe that they knew
(somewhat) the facts surrounding what we know to be true today.
Keith
<truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, the big difference between SCA case and Novitzky is Lance and his
>> country bumpkins think it's a game to lie in a civil hearing. But when
>> they go to federal grand jury to testify under oath and are cognizant
>> that the feds are not afraid to charge sports people with perjury....now
>> Lance needs a a criminal defense attorney and a PR machine to do his
>> lying for them.
>>
>> Everybody knows Lance is a bigtime doper in this sport.
>>
>> Magilla
>
>JT (SCA dep) made it pretty clear that Lance was under oath and
>perjury charges are possible. The question is why didn't they pursue
>it further?
Well they didn't have a case, even if he'd doped, no provision against
that (dumb, eh!) in the contract we've found out since.
BLafferty
Even without that clause in the contract, there still exists the common
law tort of fraudulent inducement. Had SCA lost and gone to court, that
might have been enough of an error at law to have a court overturn an
arbitration award. For understandable reasons, SCA decided to cut their
losses and settle.
RicodJour
>
> For understandable reasons, SCA decided to cut their losses and settle.
Which is operative wisdom that unsurprisingly escapes your own
actions.
R
BLafferty
Frederick the Great
BLafferty <Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Or the judge would have had a good laugh at somebody
naive enough to think there was no doping in cycling
and then in measured, no-nonsense terms rule against SCA.
--
Old Fritz
Magilla Gorilla
Lance is in serious danger of losing a few of his Tour wins if USADA decides
file formal charges. USADA has an 8-year statute of limitation window within
which to file formal charges, which means LA's Tour wins from both 2004 and
2005 are in jeopardy if they can prove he blood doped for either. If Lance's
2004 Tour win is taken away, this will retroactively vacate the SCA award,
which only agreed to pay Lance $5 million if he were to win 6 Tours, which he
achieved in 2004.
It is important to note that when Fraud said he witnessed Armstrong blood
doping when the bus pulled over on the side of the road, that was in 2004.
One example comes from 2004, when Landis said a team bus left the finish line,
headed for the hotel, and stopped over on the way for blood transfusions to
boost the riders' oxygen capacity.
"The driver pretended to have engine trouble and stopped on a remote mountain
road for an hour or so so the entire team could have half a liter of blood
added," Landis wrote. "This was the only time that I ever saw the entire team
being transfused in plain view of all the other riders and bus driver."
------------
If Lance is stripped of his 2004 (and thereby his 2005 Tour wins), SCA will get
all their money back and likely even go after Lance for attorney's fees.
Magilla
Anton Berlin
>
> If Lance is stripped of his 2004 (and thereby his 2005 Tour wins), SCA will get
> all their money back and likely even go after Lance for attorney's fees.
>
> Magilla
Worse than that sport.... interest + 3x actual damages in a case like
this. It would put Lance back in the trailer drinking sterno with his
daddy.
Speaking of which - I wonder if you can use sterno to cut the nasty
taste out of that FRS kool-aid crap. Anyone besides Jabouskey tried
it yet?
Beloved Fred No. 1
> Lance is in serious danger of losing a few of his Tour wins if USADA decides
> file formal charges.
Ah the beautiful irony of Ullrich finally getting another TDF victory.
Magilla Gorilla
What fucking perplexes me is Lance was doing those FRS ads when he was retired and
before he knew he was coming back. I don't get that from a marketing standpoint.
Does Lance need FRS to sit at a bar with the Olsen twins?
Magilla
Magilla Gorilla
"Ullrich never tested positive."
Magilla
Fred Flintstein
Dumbass,
Sure he did. Just not for PEDs.
Fred Flintstein
Beloved Fred No. 1
>>> Lance is in serious danger of losing a few of his Tour wins if USADA decides
>>> file formal charges.
Beloved Fred No. 1 wrote:
>> Ah the beautiful irony of Ullrich finally getting another TDF victory.
Magilla Gorilla wrote:
> "Ullrich never tested positive."
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/sports/othersports/04cycling.html?_r=1&ref=jan_ullrich>
Brad Anders
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/politics/28stevens.html
Brad Anders