WSJ: Prosecutors Step Up Armstrong Probe
bar
wife], Mr. Armstrong said "well, I think he's trying to back up his
old lady."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704700404575391591145915552.html
Choppy Warburton
objective evidence proves, based on the criteria of his sport, that
he's not a cheater," he said.
You're just going to piss people off with these outrageous claims that
Lance didn't dope.
Better focus on the real issue here - conspiracy - not Lance's
reputation.
B. Lafferty
It seems that the Feds know where they're headed and it's not a good
place for Lance, Thom, Johan and Och.
LawBoy01
If the whole investigation depends on 1998-2005, then who gives a shit
about 1995 and 1996? In other words, SCA's records are pretty much
meaningless. Somebody is going to have to corroborate Floyd. If and
when that happens, Lance will be in deep shit.
B. Lafferty
Mr. Lawyer, they are looking to show a) a long standing pattern of fraud
leading up to the Postal years and the SCA Promotions contract; b) that
every time Armstrong has said he has never used PEDs, he's been lying,
sometimes under oath; c) that the SCA Promotions contract was
fraudulently induced and that the payout was fraudulently sought and
obtained by perjured testimony.
Anton Berlin
I really have trouble believing you're a lawyer. You don't seem to
put the slightest bit of thought into any of this.
How many times have you been reprimanded and admonished for providing
inadequate legal representation?
It's god damn clear the govt wants to prove a pattern and history of
perjury and that SCA wants their money back.
Novitzky didn't need to subpoena the SCA transcripts - they already
fed-ex'd them to him days ago.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:nN2dne-A0vkva9PR...@giganews.com...
Would the Feds head anyplace else? What would the point be to that?
You're not going to prosecute unless you have a crime & victim in mind
are you? But just because you do (have a crime & victim in your thesis)
doesn't mean you win. Or even that you're right. It simply justifies
your job, does it not?
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
LawBoy01
Mr. Laughingstock,
You are describing a Whitewater fishing expedition. The federal
guvmit will have a hard time proving what SCA couldn't prove with the
same evidence and a higher burden of proof.
-Philip
Randall
The case against Lance is base on hearsay evidence. So it's hard to
see how the feds can get a conviction.
B. Lafferty
Mr. Lawyer Philsy, the feds are going to have much more than SCA
Promotions had. That's the result of criminal subpoena power and search
warrants. Your fantasy is on the way to its end.
B. Lafferty
Hearsay evidence??!! Far from it. Clearly, you haven't a clue as to
what hearsay is nor to you understand admissions made against interest.
Come back in a few months.
B. Lafferty
Actually, they probably asked for a criminal subpoena to cover
themselves as to any confidentiality issues regarding the records from
the arbitration. SOP.
B. Lafferty
> "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:nN2dne-A0vkva9PR...@giganews.com...
>> On 7/27/2010 10:23 AM, Choppy Warburton wrote:
>>> Lie # 1: Mr. Daly - "He's never tested positive for doping. The
>>> objective evidence proves, based on the criteria of his sport, that
>>> he's not a cheater," he said.
>>>
>>> You're just going to piss people off with these outrageous claims
>>> that
>>> Lance didn't dope.
>>>
>>> Better focus on the real issue here - conspiracy - not Lance's
>>> reputation.
>>
>> It seems that the Feds know where they're headed and it's not a good
>> place for Lance, Thom, Johan and Och.
>
> Would the Feds head anyplace else? What would the point be to that?
> are you? But just because you do (have a crime& victim in your thesis)
> doesn't mean you win. Or even that you're right. It simply justifies
> your job, does it not?
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
case as they should. I find it interesting that the WSJ now reports
that there are two AUSAs assigned to the case. That indicates to me
that the Lance matter has become a very high priority for the US
Attorney in LA.
LawBoy01
wrote:
> Mr. Lawyer Philsy, the feds are going to have much more than SCA
> Promotions had. That's the result of criminal subpoena power and search
> warrants. Your fantasy is on the way to its end.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mr. Laughingstock,
Oh wait, you mean SCA and Trek documents? Whatever. You and I both
know that if a conviction comes it will be through credible
coroboration of Landis' claims. Do you agree or disagree with that?
-Mr. Lawyer Philsy
Fred Flintstein
> Come
> back in a few months.
Will Landis be in jail for hacking the French
lab's computers then?
Fred Flintstein
B. Lafferty
B. Lafferty
make or break the case. Time will tell, Philsy.
Fred Flintstein
Will you ever pick up on the stuff that sails over your
head? Time will tell. Dumbass.
Fred Flintstein
Keith
wrote:
Except that it was reported that there was no "anti-doping" clause in
the SCA contract, so it was a moot point whether he doped or not to
win. Bit odd that SCA would have refused to pay because of doping
allegations though...
LawBoy01
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mr. Laughingstock,
Now you're admitting to "might" language. Perfect!
-Mr. Lawyer Philsy
B. Lafferty
LawBoy01
> On 7/27/2010 10:08 AM, bar wrote:
>
> > When asked why Mr. Andreu would testify to the same thing [as his
> > wife], Mr. Armstrong said "well, I think he's trying to back up his
> > old lady."
>
>
> http://nymag.com/daily/sports/2010/07/reviewing_the_ever-widening_in....
>
> http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_15607081
Did Lance fuck your wife or something?
Anton Berlin
Lawboy - everyone knows your wife goes to a hotel just about every
day.
LawBoy01
Mr. Laughingstock,
That was lame.
Regards,
Mr. Lawyer Philsy LawBoy, or whatever lame ass name that Brian
"Laughingstock" Lafferty can come up for me.
Anton Berlin
a week in order to make money?
A simple yes or no answer will suffice.
LawBoy01
Anton,
I don't give two shits about what you and Laughingstock say. You're a
troll, and he's a one trick pony.
-Philip
Betty
> I don't give two shits about what you and Laughingstock say. You're a
> troll, and he's a one trick pony.
They never showed any trolls riding one trick ponies in lord of the rings.
LawBoy01
It's happening on RBR.
Anton Berlin
B. Lafferty
And you're frustrated because you've run out of legal bullshit to sling.
Have a great day, Philsy. Say hi to your wife when you pick her up from
the hotel.
B. Lafferty
to do?
B. Lafferty
LawBoy01
>
> - Show quoted text -
Laughingstock,
I'm no more grasping at straws than you are hoping for their
existence. You hope that Lance goes down. You want him to go down.
You surmise what the evidence will show. You presume guilt when
nobody else has been able to prove it. I say we'll see. I also talk
about other things than Lance. You don't. You're a one a trick pony,
and you're slinging the legal bullshit. Not me.
As for my wife, like I said, what you say doesn't mean anything. My
wife's a saint. You still need some pussy.
-Mr. Lawyer Philsy Lawboy or whatever Brian "Laughingstock" Lafferty
wants to call me.
drmofe
Is his wife hot?
Fred Flintstein
> Don't you have some billable hours to do?
Dude,
Be careful about pitching stones from that
particular glass house.
Fred Flinstein
LawBoy01
RicodJour
You're confusing your fantasies. You're thinking of Pippi
Laughingstock.
A one trick pony would think Pippi's oeuvre in RBR is limited, and,
errr, hackneyed. LB, you know those putzes (another equine reference)
that gravitate towards the law because they just like to argue? Yep,
well Pippi is one of them, 'ceptin' he's closer to, drum roll please,
this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-572077907195969915#
Pay particular attention to the last two or three sentences of the
exchange.
It's Pippi Laughing Stocking's stock in trade. From his exchanges
here and in other newsgroups, it should be pretty clear why he is an
ex-lawyer. Antagonizing people with his broken record is his idea of
winning. Have you ever seen a good lawyer that antagonizes everyone?
Didn't think so - a good lawyer has to choose who to antagonize, and
PLS uses the blunderbuss approach. I'd imagine he got slapped down by
enough judges and "how the fuck did you loose this case?!" clients
that he got a reputation and his paycheck dwindled, or the firm booted
him.
When people stopped paying him to argue, he went freelance. Bottom
line, he's OCD on LANCE, so it's pointless to argue. I enjoy poking
him in the eye on occasion, but there's nothing there but a nerve net,
so why argue?
R
B. Lafferty
Oh. I see.
>You hope that Lance goes down. You want him to go down.
I consider Lance a liar and a fraud. I hope he goes down and goes down
as hard as his karma gives him.
> You surmise what the evidence will show. You presume guilt when
> nobody else has been able to prove it.
Incorrect, Philsy. The evidence is mounting and much of it has been
there for years for anyone with open eyes. That excludes you and many
others. I don't recall Lance ever having faced a Federal probe before.
We'll see what happens. Be patient, Philsy.
>I say we'll see. I also talk
> about other things than Lance. You don't. You're a one a trick pony,
> and you're slinging the legal bullshit. Not me.
I'm sorry you haven't paid attention to any of my non-Lance posts.
>
> As for my wife, like I said, what you say doesn't mean anything. My
> wife's a saint. You still need some pussy.
Years ago, when I was a newly minted lawyer, I did a fair amount of
matrimonial litigation. I recall one of my male clients saqying to me,
"I thought for years that she [his wife] was a saint. All she really is
is a fucking whore." Love is blind. Were you a virgin when you married
her, Philsy?
LawBoy01
You're right, Ricod.
B. Lafferty
Anton Berlin
know which tree your acorn fell from.
I don't like you attacking Laff's life or wife anymore than you
probably enjoy me attacking yours.
If you'd like to get the horns keep waving the red cape dumbass.
LawBoy01
> Lawboy - mind your own glass house. I know who the fuck you are and I
> know which tree your acorn fell from.
>
> probably enjoy me attacking yours.
>
> If you'd like to get the horns keep waving the red cape dumbass.
Come and get me, Anton.
LawBoy01
As for what I said to Laughingstock, it was along the lines of he's
mad like Lance fucked his wife, you know Anton, like Laughingstock has
a personal ax to grind with Lance, 'tis all.
Anton Berlin
See? That's why you suck as a lawyer.
You think others will get mad and respond to your anger in the heat of
the moment. Best served cold.
I'll deliver when the time is right and as I always do - on my
terms.
RicodJour
That actually goes without saying.
I find it interesting that he's taken a special shine to you. I think
it has something to do with you being a lawyer, and you're easy to get
a rise out of. It's also interesting how, not two days ago, he was
patting himself on the back about how he never takes the low road.
You should congratulate yourself on getting to him to the point where
he writes crap like that shows clearly he's a hypocrite and liar.
Just don't expect him to ever say that. That would be an unreasonable
expectation.
Listen, PLS' schadenfreude is showing. He relishes causing grief and
stirring shit. It's what he does. Just check out some of his
postings on that chess newsgroup. They wanted to muzzle him, too.
But it's a free country and he's an idjit. So save you breath and
just enjoy poking him in the eye once in a while. I have to stop now
- my comput r is running low on th l tt r and h l r .
R
RicodJour
> 6101 Sumter Court
> Frisco, Texas 75035
> (469) 323-0832
> philipATpwm-law.com
>
> Whenever you're ready, Anton.
Dude...? Not for nothing, but it's fookin' ridiculous for you to post
shit like that. I'm not quite sure how a client, judge, whoever,
would feel about a thread such as this turning up in a Google search
while they're idly checking you out, but I doubt it would help you.
It's unseemly. You should stop it.
R
Frederick the Great
Betty <no...@mailinator.com> wrote:
They should have. Then I would have fond memories of reading it.
--
Old Fritz
B. Lafferty
> 6101 Sumter Court
> Frisco, Texas 75035
> (469) 323-0832
> philipATpwm-law.com
>
> Whenever you're ready, Anton.
one day. He's also rather inexperienced. I suggest we cut him some slack.
LawBoy01
>
> - Show quoted text -
He's got it now. All talk, no action.
LawBoy01
>
> - Show quoted text -
Brian,
If there are two sides to the Lance debate, I'm on the fence. Jury's
out on his guilt or innocence. Where you and I differ is that you
presume Lance's guilt.
As for my cycling experience, well, fair game. I'm a Cat 4. I don't
race enough to "Cat up". I just moved up to Cat 2 on the dirt. Got
races coming up. Do you still race, Brian? Even master's races?
-Philip
Anton Berlin
Silly Texas child - did you think we'd have an old fashioned fist
fight?
You know it shows in this thread that you put down your address then
got a little fraid (or a momentary moment of 'smarts') and took it
away but too late it's internets history now
> > Philip W. Moore, Jr.
> > 6101 Sumter Court
> > Frisco, Texas 75035
> > (469) 323-0832
> > philipATpwm-law.com
Any joe blow can look at google maps and see where you live now.
Pretty stupid for a garbage man. Tragically stooopid for a lawyer.
B. Lafferty
I reserved judgment on Lance for quite a while. I've only in the past
year or two gone fully over the threshold of preponderance. I've never
liked the guy.
>
> As for my cycling experience, well, fair game. I'm a Cat 4. I don't
> race enough to "Cat up". I just moved up to Cat 2 on the dirt. Got
> races coming up. Do you still race, Brian? Even master's races?
I haven't done a road race since 1984 (GBSC. I was a Cat 3 back then,
but that wasn't very meaningful as everyone raced together except for
district time trials. Since then I've done the occasional time trial.
I placed third in the Mid-Atlantic TT at Colebrook Dam, CT around 2005
(Team Internet). Mostly I ride for pleasure/fitness these days.
BTW, I was referring to legal experience. Kudos to you for starting
your own practice.
>
> -Philip
B. Lafferty
LawBoy01
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anton,
Do what you gotta do. I don't exist anonymously. For better or
worse, I am who I am, I mean what I say and I say what I mean.
Regards,
Philip
LawBoy01
> You know it shows in this thread that you put down your address then
> got a little fraid (or a momentary moment of 'smarts') and took it
> away but too late it's internets history now
You're right, Anton. I did question my judgment. Do what you wanna
do.
B. Lafferty
Fredmaster of Brainerd
You're a slave to something, though.
Fredmaster Ben
Fredmaster of Brainerd
>
> I reserved judgment on Lance for quite a while. I've only in the past
> year or two gone fully over the threshold of preponderance.
Man, if you said that under oath, an AUSA would
nail your ass to the wall in fifteen different places.
There is plenty of evidence in RBR that you had
LANCE convicted more than a year or two ago.
> I've never liked the guy.
When did you start not liking him? Pre-Tour years,
or only after 1999 or so? I don't remember what your
attitude toward him was in say 1999-2000.
Trawling through the rbr archives is occasionally
interesting. The atmosphere was different,
(I wouldn't necessarily say it was better - in fact
I think the conversations about racing may have
been better and about doping, worse, because
less well-informed)
Fredmaster Ben
B. Lafferty
> On Jul 27, 3:01 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> I reserved judgment on Lance for quite a while. I've only in the past
>> year or two gone fully over the threshold of preponderance.
>
> Man, if you said that under oath, an AUSA would
> nail your ass to the wall in fifteen different places.
> There is plenty of evidence in RBR that you had
> LANCE convicted more than a year or two ago.
I've pointed out the different arguments, that he's been a doper and/or
that what he's done is not possible with his physique. But, I was very
careful to not reach a final judgment. About two years ago, I did.
>
>> I've never liked the guy.
>
> When did you start not liking him? Pre-Tour years,
> or only after 1999 or so? I don't remember what your
> attitude toward him was in say 1999-2000.
What is it about the word "never" that is unclear to you?
Fredmaster of Brainerd
> On 7/27/2010 7:05 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>
> > On Jul 27, 3:01 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
> > When did you start not liking him? Pre-Tour years,
> > or only after 1999 or so? I don't remember what your
> > attitude toward him was in say 1999-2000.
>
> What is it about the word "never" that is unclear to you?
When people say "never" or "always" they usually
mean "for a long time." There is presumably a point
at which you did not know of the existence of LANCE,
and my guess is that the first time you read a race
report in Winning or Velonews about some race he
placed in, you didn't say to yourself "That guy is named
Lance and he's from Texas, he must be a giant
flaming asshole."
So I'm curious if you started not liking him when he
was a U23, or around the Thrift Drug Classic, or Worlds,
or after Worlds, or after his comeback, or whatever,
and if there's any particular reason (I mean, other than
the issue that he's a giant flaming asshole and from
Plano to boot.)
Fredmaster Ben
B. Lafferty
or even neutral opinion about him. Can't remember ever thinking he
wasn't an arrogant guy. I suspect the first I heard anything of
substance about what he's like was from people I knew who had raced with
him.
Keith
wrote:
>>> Mr. Lawyer, they are looking to show a) a long standing pattern of fraud
>>> leading up to the Postal years and the SCA Promotions contract; b) that
>>> every time Armstrong has said he has never used PEDs, he's been lying,
>>> sometimes under oath; c) that the SCA Promotions contract was
>>> fraudulently induced and that the payout was fraudulently sought and
>>> obtained by perjured testimony.
>>
>> Except that it was reported that there was no "anti-doping" clause in
>> the SCA contract, so it was a moot point whether he doped or not to
>> win. Bit odd that SCA would have refused to pay because of doping
>> allegations though...
>>
>citation/link, please.
"The case was eventually settled out of court with SCA paying
Armstrong and Tailwind Sports $7.5 million, to cover the $5-million
bonus plus interest and lawyers' fees. It is understood that SCA lost
as they hadn’t put a no-doping clause in the contract, thus making
their line of defense invalid."
Makes them look pretty stupid if it was indeed the case.
Kyle Legate
> Philip W. Moore, Jr.
> 6101 Sumter Court
> Frisco, Texas 75035
> (469) 323-0832
> philipATpwm-law.com
>
> Whenever you're ready, Anton.
Get ready for over 9000 pizzas!
GoneBeforeMyTime
> 6101 Sumter Court
> Frisco, Texas 75035
> (469) 323-0832
> philipATpwm-law.com
>
> Whenever you're ready, Anton.
J. Crickets Lawboy. Best to stay away and come back another day. Rbr crew
are trollmasters deluxe. I wouldn't let it get to you. Anton gets the prize
for troll of the century, but it not worth getting into like this. Didn't
you challenge Magilla to a bout once? While I'm not sure about Lance either,
I saw something today that cracked me up. I'll post it here to break the
ice...Chill...
http://www.gq.com/sports/profiles/201008/andrew-corsello-on-lance-armstrong-doping-controversy
GoneBeforeMyTime
There is a nice long comment at the bottom of that page, well said.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Would it be accurate to say that to the best of
your recollection, you don't recall a specific
incident that turned your opinion of Mr. Armstrong
negative, nor do you recall when that occurred?
Fredmaster Ben
p.s. In case it's not clear, this is not a criticism of
your opinion, which is perfectly valid as an opinion.
I have a different point.
Betty
> I hope he goes down and goes down as hard as his karma gives him.
Stop trolling poor Dumas. His troll response code is already being
stress tested by Hampsten-Gavia trolls.
B. Lafferty
RicodJour
> On 7/28/2010 3:31 AM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 4:19 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> or even neutral opinion about him. Can't remember ever thinking he
> >> wasn't an arrogant guy. I suspect the first I heard anything of
> >> substance about what he's like was from people I knew who had raced with
> >> him.
>
> > Would it be accurate to say that to the best of
> > your recollection, you don't recall a specific
> > incident that turned your opinion of Mr. Armstrong
> > negative, nor do you recall when that occurred?
>
> > Fredmaster Ben
>
> > p.s. In case it's not clear, this is not a criticism of
> > your opinion, which is perfectly valid as an opinion.
> > I have a different point.
>
> WGAFF?
The balloon that's getting a pin stuck in it.
R
B. Lafferty
Fred Flintstein
> Any joe blow can look at google maps and see where you live now.
> Pretty stupid for a garbage man. Tragically stooopid for a lawyer.
Some of us are listed in the phone book. I've never
thought of that as one of the great risks of life.
Most people that drop out do so because they lose the
land line, not because they are afraid to get out of
the bed in the morning.
Fred Flintstein
Anton Berlin
Look lawboy I like you so far - regardless of how stupid it is to post
with your real name in these rooms - I appreciate you challenging a
vandal like Magilla that just puts crap into these rooms day after day
(at least last year) - I have some respect for that
But realize that everyone isn't so stable and as others have mentioned
-clients - judges etc could peer into this space just as employers do
into facebook.
But if you're going to get personal - like an attack on lafferty's
wife - realize it's a two edge sword - it didn't take me more than 10
minutes to find out more about your life then I am certain most of
your neighbors and friends know.
I gave up a long time ago on hitting people or being vengeful but I
don't like to see bullies operating anywhere.
B. Lafferty
I too am listed in the phone book. I've never hidden where I've lived.
That said, Susan Polgar's Texas attorney had a devil of a time finding
me. Tried to serve me through the Texas Secretary of State at the wrong
address. Even two years later, he was still using the wrong address in
papers to the court. Who was her attorney I hear you ask? Jim Killion
and Ms. Estrella of the Killion Law Firm, Lubbock, Texas.
RicodJour
Don't be a twit. If you must be a twit, try to be a funny twit.
A snide remark is not a personal attack. Ever hear a 'your momma's so
fat' joke? Ever see any punches thrown because of it?
You are the one who got all hot and bothered about a snide remark
about Laffriot's old lady...assuming she is in fact old and a lady.
You getting so upset about it makes me wonder if you have something
going with Laff's old lady. It's okay, you can tell me. I promise
not to snitch on you.
R
RicodJour
>
> I too am listed in the phone book. I've never hidden where I've lived.
Because absolutely no one in the world would want to talk to you, much
less visit, so you're safe.
R
LawBoy01
Anton,
I didn't insult Brian's wife. Don't know how to explain that to you
any other way.
-Philip
B. Lafferty
GoneBeforeMyTime
That's sound too good to be true. Does that include telemarketers?
RicodJour
> RicodJour wrote:
> > On Jul 28, 10:17 am, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> I too am listed in the phone book. I've never hidden where I've
> >> lived.
>
> > Because absolutely no one in the world would want to talk to you, much
> > less visit, so you're safe.
>
>
I pity the telemarketer who calls Laffs&Giggles. He'd keep the poor
guy on the phone for an hour explaining how LANCE ruined his
wife...errr....life. I meant life.
R
Anton Berlin
- about the same every 3 days.
# 1 reason to not use your real name or a valid address in these
forums
I'd hate to have to sort through all of that shit everyday to find
real mail
William R. Mattil
Probably more to the point is that nobody besides spammers would want to
email you
Bill
--
William R. Mattil
--D-y
That's why they call it "La Buttocks, Texas", Brian.
Myself, I use a nom de net because it so upsets some people, when it
shouldn't really, given the above "reasoning". Not that I or any
poster can't be pretty readily traced but it does make it a little
more complicated. From what I hear, not ever having tried to "locate"
someone.
--D-y
GoneBeforeMyTime
It's easier to just use one email for the web, and one for non-web, it's not
used in any shape of form on the internet, except personal email. My non-web
email gets zero spam, my online email used to get tons before I changed that
one too. However, my ISP also has filtering before it hits the mailbox. You
can check that on occasion to see if anything gets lost, but it rarely does
if it's very good enterprise software they are using. It's amazing how smart
that stuff is at sorting out junk. It's also probably got a blacklist built
into it. ID theft is a growing problem too, for sure.
I'd feel sorry for anyone that steals Laff's ID, or Lawboys I guess.
GoneBeforeMyTime
This is the comment I read, and I couldn't of said it better. I would only
add all the millions and millions stolen out of the sport over the years by
the Armstrong machine, and every company and spin off that got caught up in
that, (if he's guilty). I also don't justify cheating to advance your causes
or charities. In view of that, it's very unfair that he monopolized the
sport for as long as he did, if he did indeed cheat. I see Lance's face on
every mag, on every website, every where I turn, Lance's face is there. I am
so sick of seeing his face on the Web, I could puke, but that doesn't mean I
would refuse to honor his 7 tours and outstanding career if he's clean. It's
because I have to see so much of Lance everywhere, everyday that grieves me,
if he cheated during those years.
Comment from that article...
"I hear where you're coming from. Armstrong's accomplishments are among the
most superlative moments in American sports history. They rank up there with
the Red Sox's exorcism of the Bambino's ghost in '04 and the Miracle on Ice
in '84. They're a part of American sports lore, and to dislodge them at this
point would tear a ragged hole in our collective sports psyche. To say
you're a conflicted fan is one thing, but to take a
don't-let-the-facts-get-in-the-way-of-a-beautiful-story stance is even more
limp than Kristin Armstrong's response in Sports Illustrated. You and I are
at least far enough from the epicenter that we should be able to see what
ought to happen in this case. Your failure to recognize there is something
more important at play here than the prospect of spoiling shared memories
does indeed smack of the very anomie you refer to in your article. When
McGwire broke the single-season homerun record in '98, it was truly magical.
At first. Then came Canseco's book and the allegations. By the time McGwire
testified before Congress on steroid use in the majors, the music was fading
fast. Ultimately, McGwire himself came clean, leaving us where we are today:
The rightful heros of baseball must forever live behind an asterisk (and,
likely, more than just one.). In the end, it's not only unfair to honest
players and teams, it's bad for all sports. It casts a shadow of doubt on
the legitimate accomplishments of all great athletes. If we, the fans, think
cheating should get a pass when it's our boy who has stolen someone else's
glory, how can we point fingers when some schmuck from another team or
country does it? The double standard reeks to high heaven. Guarding the
mythos for our own selfish desires at the expense of the truth makes us, on
some level, complicit in the lie. We should always demand to know the truth.
Whether we'll ever get it in this instance remains to be seen, but we should
at least hope it prevails in the end. Armstrong right now is drifting in the
same no-man's land McGwire was in before he confessed. Everybody 'knows' but
we just can't really say it yet. The (circumstantial) evidence is
substantial, and the glory is already tarnished. It would be nice if we
could put this lame horse out of its misery so that whatever healing and
"What have we learned?'" reflecting can begin. If Armstrong cheated, he
should fall and fall hard. Maybe seeing Armstrong eat crow will put a dent
in the steroid problem in other corners of the sports world. Live strong,
yes. Compete strong, absolutely. But if he didn't do it honestly on his way
to the top and robbed what rightfully belonged to someone else, he deserves
to fall just as spectacularly as he once scaled the mountains of France. And
shame on him for making us believe in him once."
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Counselor, if you can't recall timelines or events surrounding
something you feel as strongly about as your disdain
for Mr. Armstrong, how do you expect potential grand jury
witnesses to recall accurately details of conversations,
ebay bike sales, and other miscellania from approximately
2003 or earlier?
Sometimes, when people say "Not to the best of my
recollection" it's a blatant dodge and an attorney can
(maybe) confront them, if there is other evidence to
confront them with. On the other hand, sometimes
they actually don't remember. Or their memory is wrong.
I have a pretty good memory, and yet there are times
where I've vividly remembered something that further
investigation reveals I remembered wrong, or put in
the wrong year. Thankfully, this has never happened
while under oath. To the best of my recollection,
anyway.
Fredrecall Ben
B. Lafferty
So it goes. Carry on.
K. Fred Gauss
> Don't be a twit. If you must be a twit, try to be a funny twit.
>
> A snide remark is not a personal attack. Ever hear a 'your momma's so
> fat' joke? Ever see any punches thrown because of it?
Anton's working his way up to getting shocked and flustered because
someone's been called a dumbass.
Betty
> Some things are worth recalling.
Only to you.
B. Lafferty
Wow!! What a one liner that is. Keep them coming, Boop.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
While most people think that decisions about
memory and forgetting are individual and a personal
matter, the law sees it otherwise. Forgetting is
not up to you; ultimately it is up to the AUSA and the
Grand Jury. At a minimum, I strongly recommend
that all decisions about what to forget be made only
after consulting experienced counsel.
Remember, memory erasures made in the heat of
passion can cause unexpected complications and
inchoate feelings of deep-seated regret.
Fredmnemonist Ben
Lacuna, Inc. Affiliate Reseller
Dumbass
> On Jul 27, 9:08 am, bar <barbari...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When asked why Mr. Andreu would testify to the same thing [as his
> > wife], Mr. Armstrong said "well, I think he's trying to back up his
> > old lady."
>
> >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870470040457539159114591...
>
> If the whole investigation depends on 1998-2005, then who gives a shit
> about 1995 and 1996? In other words, SCA's records are pretty much
> meaningless. Somebody is going to have to corroborate Floyd. If and
> when that happens, Lance will be in deep shit.
I think they will need physical evidence. Doctor's records at least.
Can you name anywone who was convicted of doping on mere accusations?
Dumbass
> On 7/27/2010 2:10 PM, Randall wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 9:04 am, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> On 7/27/2010 11:51 AM, LawBoy01 wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 27, 9:08 am, bar<barbari...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> When asked why Mr. Andreu would testify to the same thing [as his
> >>>> wife], Mr. Armstrong said "well, I think he's trying to back up his
> >>>> old lady."
>
> >>>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870470040457539159114591...
>
> >>> If the whole investigation depends on 1998-2005, then who gives a shit
> >>> about 1995 and 1996? In other words, SCA's records are pretty much
> >>> meaningless. Somebody is going to have to corroborate Floyd. If and
> >>> when that happens, Lance will be in deep shit.
>
> >> leading up to the Postal years and the SCA Promotions contract; b) that
> >> every time Armstrong has said he has never used PEDs, he's been lying,
> >> sometimes under oath; c) that the SCA Promotions contract was
> >> fraudulently induced and that the payout was fraudulently sought and
> >> obtained by perjured testimony.
>
> > The case against Lance is base on hearsay evidence. So it's hard to
> > see how the feds can get a conviction.
>
> Hearsay evidence??!! Far from it. Clearly, you haven't a clue as to
> what hearsay is nor to you understand admissions made against interest.
> Come back in a few months.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I can you name anyone, a single athelete, convicted of doping based on
mere accusations?
The will need doctor's records, I think.
Amit Ghosh
> I can you name anyone, a single athelete, convicted of doping based on
> mere accusations?
>
> The will need doctor's records, I think.
dumbass,
as the valpo prof in the article says: no one will get charged with or
convicted for doping.
someone might get charged with some associated activity, but as a
consequence the doping will be exposed.
that is the aim, to expose the doping - even though it is not a crime
in itself.
this is what happened with marion jones, barry bonds, mark mcgwire,
roger clemens.
Dumbass
> On Jul 29, 1:51 pm, Dumbass <tadams...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I can you name anyone, a single athelete, convicted of doping based on
> > mere accusations?
>
> > The will need doctor's records, I think.
>
> dumbass,
>
> as the valpo prof in the article says: no one will get charged with or
> convicted for doping.
>
> someone might get charged with some associated activity, but as a
> consequence the doping will be exposed.
Some is going to get charged with something? Not convicted?
That's nothing. That's the same old crap we have been hearing for
years about Armstrong.
You are agreeing with me, moron.
>
> that is the aim, to expose the doping - even though it is not a crime
> in itself.
>
> this is what happened with marion jones, barry bonds, mark mcgwire,
> roger clemens.
Geez...
They had physical evidence against Jones.
They have no more on Clemens currently already have on Armstrong, a
bunch of allegations. He's been convicted of nothing just like
Armstrong
I did not have time to research the other two. Unlike you, I try to
back up my claims.
Dumbass
>
> > I can you name anyone, a single athelete, convicted of doping based on
> > mere accusations?
>
> > The will need doctor's records, I think.
>
> dumbass,
>
> as the valpo prof in the article says: no one will get charged with or
> convicted for doping.
>
> someone might get charged with some associated activity, but as a
> consequence the doping will be exposed.
I see. Just like me, you don't think Armstrong can be convicted of
anything because there
is no good evidence.
You are just hoping that prosecuters will charge him with something
they
don't have the evidence to prove (an illegal activity call
prosecutorial harrasment)
in order to expose doping.
>
> that is the aim, to expose the doping - even though it is not a crime
> in itself.
>
> this is what happened with marion jones, barry bonds, mark mcgwire,
> roger clemens.
Are you aware that none of those four have been convicted of anything?
Three of them have more or less admitted drug use, but not one
conviction. They already
have more evidence against 3 of them then they do against Armstrong
and still no
convictions on any charges.,
Armstrong may just stick to his claim that he has never used drugs and
dare them
to prove otherwise.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:940v46htcclj1k12h...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:55:22 -0400, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> Mr. Lawyer, they are looking to show a) a long standing pattern of
>>>> fraud
>>>> leading up to the Postal years and the SCA Promotions contract; b) that
>>>> every time Armstrong has said he has never used PEDs, he's been lying,
>>>> sometimes under oath; c) that the SCA Promotions contract was
>>>> fraudulently induced and that the payout was fraudulently sought and
>>>> obtained by perjured testimony.
>>>
>>> the SCA contract, so it was a moot point whether he doped or not to
>>> win. Bit odd that SCA would have refused to pay because of doping
>>> allegations though...
>>>
>>citation/link, please.
>
> sure :
> http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/4892/Lance-Armstrong-contradicts-testimony-says-he-will-cooperate-with-Landis-investigation.aspx
>
> "The case was eventually settled out of court with SCA paying
> Armstrong and Tailwind Sports $7.5 million, to cover the $5-million
> bonus plus interest and lawyers' fees. It is understood that SCA lost
> as they hadn’t put a no-doping clause in the contract, thus making
> their line of defense invalid."
>
> Makes them look pretty stupid if it was indeed the case.
At the time, people were still willing to believe that the tests were
sometimes showing false positives. In that environment, it *might* have been
reasonable to keep such a clause out of the contract. That wouldn't fly
today, bit it wasn't out of the question rationalization back then.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Fredmaster of Brainerd
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:55:22 -0400, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>> Mr. Lawyer, they are looking to show a) a long standing pattern of fraud
> >>> leading up to the Postal years and the SCA Promotions contract; b) that
> >>> every time Armstrong has said he has never used PEDs, he's been lying,
> >>> sometimes under oath; c) that the SCA Promotions contract was
> >>> fraudulently induced and that the payout was fraudulently sought and
> >>> obtained by perjured testimony.
>
> >> Except that it was reported that there was no "anti-doping" clause in
> >> the SCA contract, so it was a moot point whether he doped or not to
> >> win. Bit odd that SCA would have refused to pay because of doping
> >> allegations though...
>
> >citation/link, please.
>
>
> "The case was eventually settled out of court with SCA paying
> Armstrong and Tailwind Sports $7.5 million, to cover the $5-million
> bonus plus interest and lawyers' fees. It is understood that SCA lost
> their line of defense invalid."
>
> Makes them look pretty stupid if it was indeed the case.
SCA's role was as an insurance company, not
a governing body or certifier of results. Tailwind
had a contract clause that would pay LANCE the $5M
bonus if he won the Tour six times, which was somewhat
outlandish (although he had alrady won twice). Tailwind
probably didn't have $5M so they took out an insurance
policy, paying SCA $420K for it.
Essentially, SCA and Tailwind made a bet at about 12:1
on whether LANCE would win the Tour six times.
This is fairly standard hedging. I kind of doubt whether
anti-doping clauses are standard in such contracts,
although there is probably a lot of boilerplate about
no unfair-means and how the winner is certified.
I wouldn't be surprised if many such contracts were
written for bonuses for baseball players like Mark McGwire
hitting 70 home runs and probably none of those contracts
had an anti-doping clause.
Even if there had been an anti-doping clause, it might
have been written to be activated if Armstrong got actually
busted for doping (just like winning has to be certified
by the ASO, getting busted also has to be defined in some
non-ambiguous way), and SCA could have lost anyway.
Also, the more clauses you add to an insurance contract,
the lower the premium you can charge.
Basically, SCA sued not to uphold the moral integrity of
the sport, but because they lost a bet and wanted to
avoid paying out. This is standard operating procedure
for insurance companies, so it is not some kind of
black mark against SCA, but it also wasn't a very good
bet since they lost fairly decisively and wound up having
to pay $7.5M with the interest and fees.
The lesson may just be that SCA followed moderately
questionable judgment with the 12:1 bet (given the example
of Indurain, maybe they should have taken more seriously the
possibility that LANCE would win four more times), with
aggressive poor judgment in pursuing the suit.
Fredmaster Ben
Amit Ghosh
> Some is going to get charged with something? Not convicted?
>
dumbass,
yes, they might get charged but not even convicted. what were the real
legal consequences of the balco scandal and mitchell report ?
none, but those athletes were compelled to admit to doping.
> They had physical evidence against Jones.
not really worse than anything they have against armstrong. she never
tested positive, but her other charges (perjury, cheque fraud) forced
her to admit to doping.
> They have no more on Clemens currently already have on Armstrong, a
> bunch of allegations. He's been convicted of nothing just like
> Armstrong
>
> I did not have time to research the other two. Unlike you, I try to
> back up my claims.
dumbass, read up on those cases, there were no (legitimate*) positive
tests or anything that i would consider physical evidence of doping,
it came about from the testimony of mcnamee the trainer. he was forced
to testify because of the charges he faced.
how the law reads doesn't really matter - it's all about deals. the
nly people that did time were the suppliers like conte and anderson
and the lawyer that leaked the grand jury testimony - novitzky's
legacy s that he was able to expose the doping by getting the athletes
to admit it themselves. this has nothing to do with actually enforcing
the law.
* there were the supposedly anonymous trial doping tests, but there
were no actual doping controls during the mcgwire "long ball" and
"bash bros." years, yet they were able to pressure mcgwire to admit to
doping - even though he initially resisted.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
> On Jul 29, 1:58 pm, Amit Ghosh <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 29, 1:51 pm, Dumbass <tadams...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I can you name anyone, a single athelete, convicted of doping based on
> > > mere accusations?
>
> > > The will need doctor's records, I think.
>
> > dumbass,
>
> > as the valpo prof in the article says: no one will get charged with or
> > convicted for doping.
>
> > someone might get charged with some associated activity, but as a
> > consequence the doping will be exposed.
>
> I see. Just like me, you don't think Armstrong can be convicted of
> anything because there
> is no good evidence.
>
> You are just hoping that prosecuters will charge him with something
> they
> don't have the evidence to prove (an illegal activity call
> prosecutorial harrasment)
> in order to expose doping.
Kloothommel,
Please stop using the moniker "Dumbass."
You haven't earned the right to the term and
you're dragging down the standards.
It has nothing to do with what Amit wants and he
didn't express a preference. It has to do with what
the prosecutor wants.
They can't "charge someone with doping" because
in the US, consuming PEDs to win a sporting event
is not a crime. Selling controlled PEDs without a
prescription is a crime, and buying them probably
is but buyers are hardly ever prosecuted. However,
actually ingesting the PEDs is not a crime, and there
is no law directly prohibiting using PEDs in sporting
events. The Italians have a law about "sporting fraud" which
is the closest major countries get to criminalizing doping
that I know of, and all the sporting-fraud trials for PEDs
have been fiascos, because criminal law isn't the right
place to adjudicate violations of the rules of sport.
This is what you are failing to understand. Armstrong et al
will not be charged with doping not because there is no
evidence, but because it is not a crime. It is possible
that the prosecutors will charge somebody with an
ancillary putative crime that is an actual criminal charge,
like fraud or perjury or conspiring to distribute a controlled
substance.
Prosecutors prosecute. It is what they do. Generally
prosecutorial success is measured by securing
convictions or plea deals, but with this particular gang,
forcing an embarrassing public disclosure of doping
activities would also be considered a "success." I put
success in quotation marks because although the
ostensible reason is that such revelations will help
clean up sport, it's my opinion that BALCO and related
investigations have not rendered track and field or
baseball free of doping - or even made doping less
common - I suspect that it is a little more discreet now
though, no bowls full of greenies in the locker room
or guys with forearms as big as my thigh.
So until you stop talking about "convicted of doping,"
you can lash out at dumbasses in rbr all you want,
but you'll be making less sense than a dumbass.
If you want to wear the colors, you have to obey the
club rules.
Fredmaster Ben