Keep It All Secret In the Back Room
BLafferty
Free Press=Anarchy?!
''Our [issues] most of the time play out in the public eye, [with]
people popping off in the press. As long as that kind of anarchy exists
we'll never move forward. It's easy for people to use the UCI as a sort
of whipping boy � To me, there is total lack of solidarity or unity when
it comes to the athlete and the team. Whether it's entry to races, or
race radios, there will still be issues.�
"You can never come to a consensus, which is fine. But some of it should
be dealt with behind closed doors - among the teams, among the riders
who [must] come to a solution that should be the approach they move
forward with. But it's not. People walk out of these meetings and
immediately � start popping off [to the media]."
Fred Fredburger
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-shrugs-off-fda-investigation
>
> Free Press=Anarchy?!
>
> ''Our [issues] most of the time play out in the public eye, [with]
> people popping off in the press. As long as that kind of anarchy exists
> we'll never move forward. It's easy for people to use the UCI as a sort
> it comes to the athlete and the team. Whether it's entry to races, or
>
> "You can never come to a consensus, which is fine. But some of it should
> be dealt with behind closed doors - among the teams, among the riders
> who [must] come to a solution that should be the approach they move
> forward with. But it's not. People walk out of these meetings and
I'm SHOCKED to learn that someone who is being investigated would prefer
that it be kept out of the public eye! Who could have possibly guessed
such a thing? Thank you for bringing this stunning news to my attention.
BLafferty
1. His comments were not about the investigation of Himself and Postal.
They were about the sport dealing (or not dealing) with problems and
keeping up the wall of silence.
2. The Fed's investigation has been remarkably non-public from the Fed's
side. They've played their cards very well and effectively shut down the
Lance PR machine's whining about leaks and trying the case in the press.
Brad Anders
> 2. The Fed's investigation has been remarkably non-public from the Fed's
> side. They've played their cards very well and effectively shut down the
> Lance PR machine's whining about leaks and trying the case in the press.
Yeah, that explains the constant flood of articles you've been posting
for the past months. Very non-public.
BLafferty
Look at all those articles again, and tell me how many you think were
prompted by the Lance & Co. PR machine. How many of those articles
quoted Novitsky or the AUSA, Miller, other than to say no comment?
Lance is a public figure. What he does and/or is involved in is news.
He's dealing with it. So can you.
RicodJour
News to who exactly? I don't care about the President's vacation any
more than I care about any other trivial bullshit. You're dribbling
in your pants, Jowls.
R
BLafferty
> On Jan 6, 10:54 am, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 1/6/2011 8:40 AM, Brad Anders wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 6, 5:20 am, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> 2. The Fed's investigation has been remarkably non-public from the Fed's
>>>> side. They've played their cards very well and effectively shut down the
>>>> Lance PR machine's whining about leaks and trying the case in the press.
>>
>>> Yeah, that explains the constant flood of articles you've been posting
>>> for the past months. Very non-public.
>>
>> Look at all those articles again, and tell me how many you think were
>> quoted Novitsky or the AUSA, Miller, other than to say no comment?
>> Lance is a public figure. What he does and/or is involved in is news.
>> He's dealing with it. So can you.
>
> News to who exactly? I don't care about the President's vacation any
> more than I care about any other trivial bullshit. You're dribbling
> in your pants, Jowls.
>
> R
this thread, FuckTard.
RicodJour
> this thread, FuckTard.
If you weren't such a goatse asshole you wouldn't have started it.
You roll on the floor a lot. My advice - less food, less liquor.
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, young man.
R
Mike Jacoubowsky
> side. They've played their cards very well and effectively shut down the
> Lance PR machine's whining about leaks and trying the case in the press.
While Jeff Novitsky has kept his name out of the papers, the Feds have
leaked quite a bit of information through "anonymous sources." Leaks
strategically designed to make people nervous and perhaps believe that
others had turned on them so they'd better 'fess up.
True, the past two months have been pretty quiet though. The irony here is
that Lance is complaining about things being in the public eye insead of
private, but he doesn't have a platform when things are done privately (at
least as far as the Fed case goes)... which was probably the point you were
making.
There's a time and place for everything. Evidently Novitsky has determined
this isn't the time and place for leaks, but that has *not* always been the
case. When it was stragically to the Fed's advantage to leak information,
they leaked information. They may have even leaked disinformation.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"BLafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:AKudneaFzf4cLrjQ...@giganews.com...
> On 1/6/2011 1:31 AM, Fred Fredburger wrote:
>> On 1/5/2011 11:07 AM, BLafferty wrote:
>>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-shrugs-off-fda-investigation
>>>
>>> Free Press=Anarchy?!
>>>
>>> ''Our [issues] most of the time play out in the public eye, [with]
>>> people popping off in the press. As long as that kind of anarchy exists
>>> we'll never move forward. It's easy for people to use the UCI as a sort
>>> of whipping boy � To me, there is total lack of solidarity or unity when
>>> it comes to the athlete and the team. Whether it's entry to races, or
>>> race radios, there will still be issues.�
>>>
>>> "You can never come to a consensus, which is fine. But some of it should
>>> be dealt with behind closed doors - among the teams, among the riders
>>> who [must] come to a solution that should be the approach they move
>>> forward with. But it's not. People walk out of these meetings and
>>> immediately � start popping off [to the media]."
Beloved Fred No. 1
> Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, young man.
Generic advice for the American public presumably.
RicodJour
American? It's universal, Flounder.
R
BLafferty
the floor a lot, you and the FuckWit brigade really are very amusing.
Carry on.
BLafferty
>> 2. The Fed's investigation has been remarkably non-public from the
>> Fed's side. They've played their cards very well and effectively shut
>> down the Lance PR machine's whining about leaks and trying the case in
>> the press.
>
> While Jeff Novitsky has kept his name out of the papers, the Feds have
> leaked quite a bit of information through "anonymous sources." Leaks
> strategically designed to make people nervous and perhaps believe that
> others had turned on them so they'd better 'fess up.
Which leaks do you attribute to anonymous sources in the US Attroney's
Office?
Mike Jacoubowsky
McIlvain's then-upcoming testimony, the trip to France (which was announced
by a French official, but he could have simply been the chosen vehicle), and
any of a number of other things you'll come up with when you toss
"anonymous" into a search regarding the investigation. Of course, given that
they were "anonymous" none of us can really know if they came from the Fed
or someone else. All we know for sure is that, at one point, people were
talking. Now, they are not. It's easiest to control information at the top.
Or, it could be that he really is Saint Novitsky, and would never resort to
such practices. I doubt that's the case; you'd be crazy not to use the tools
readily available to you in an investigation like this (or any other for
that matter). If you think making witnesses and potential witnesses nervous
would be to your benefit, why wouldn't you?
If it was your case, what would you do?
derf...@gmail.com
take away the mustache, and there's quite a resemblance:
http://lizzyknowsall.blogspot.com/2009/03/interview-with-executive-board.html
B Laff also shows up in this bit of weirdness (from
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/hippo-ky/TVRS8MLNRQH0NPTVB):
Nov 24, 2010
Does anyone know Brian Lafferty over at Hippo, Ky. He has been calling
me, but someone says he is married. Does anyone know?
Sammie
Nov 24, 2010
Yes he married, and his wife is very high tempered...you better let
that go.
Curious
Nov 28, 2010
So Brian is calling you, I don't think so he has a wife and a baby
girl!!
funny
Wednesday Dec 15
so just because he has a wife and a baby girl, he cant call on someone
else? so f'ing funny, you are....
Frederick the Great
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
> They may have even leaked disinformation
I prefer `plausible lies', or `lies' for short.
--
Old Fritz
BLafferty
Mike Jacoubowsky
If he did his job well, there wouldn't be any, would there?
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
BLafferty
>> Give us some hard facts and prove a causal link.
>
> If he did his job well, there wouldn't be any, would there?
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
Frederick the Great
<f013e76e-5169-4f7e...@k30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
"derF...@gmail.com" <derf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You're dribbling in your pants, Jowls.
>
> take away the mustache, and there's quite a resemblance:
>
> http://www.tmz.com/2010/11/17/bristol-palin-dancing-with-the-stars-man-shotgun-television-tv-wisconsin-steven-cowen/
>
> http://lizzyknowsall.blogspot.com/2009/03/interview-with-executive-board.html
Anonymous fully supports Brian Lafferty.
--
Old Fritz
Mike Jacoubowsky
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>
>>
> Candyass.
I participate in RBR, so once again you're repeating stuff that's already
well known. Bring something new to the party!!!
The question I asked, which you have not yet answered, is "What would YOU
do?" If you were in Novitsky's shoes, wouldn't you take advantage of the
press to make people nervous and more-likely to testify in a way that
benefits your case? Do you see any reason the Feds wouldn't do so? Is it
realistic to think that Novitsky would leave anything on the table? Isn't it
likely that he's as good at handling the press as anyone, possibly better
than most?
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"BLafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3pKdnWl_1pHs57XQ...@giganews.com...
Fred Flintstein
>>> If he did his job well, there wouldn't be any, would there?
>>>
>>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>>> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>>
>>>
>> Candyass.
>
> I participate in RBR, so once again you're repeating stuff that's already well known. Bring something new to the party!!!
>
> The question I asked, which you have not yet answered, is "What would YOU do?" If you were in Novitsky's shoes, wouldn't you take advantage of the press to make people nervous and more-likely to
> testify in a way that benefits your case? Do you see any reason the Feds wouldn't do so? Is it realistic to think that Novitsky would leave anything on the table? Isn't it likely that he's as good at
> handling the press as anyone, possibly better than most?
Mike, I'm just curious.
If someone with very obvious mental health issues walks into the
shop, do you try to engage them in a serious conversation?
Fred Flintstein
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:3NSdnYRG_ef0WrXQ...@giganews.com...
I try to engage as wide a variety of people as possible.At RBR, it's safe to
assume that even the most-reactionary may bring something of value to the
party; in Brian's case, his background is such that he understands how the
legal system works better than most here. The obsessive cheerleading for a
cause occurs on both sides; while Brian is obviously the poster-child for
the Lance haters, there are others who, while not staking their reputation
on the idea that Lance is clean, nevertheless feel the entire thing is much
ado about nothing, and anything that implies that a hero of theirs may have
cheated is cause for battle.
Obviously, many here (and on the street) are so set in their ways that
you're never going to have a pleasant conversation with them if they feel
you don't agree with them. We have some as customers; people whom you wonder
why they bother coming into the store, until you realize that you're the
only place that hasn't thrown them out. We have "fired" a few such customers
over the years. The problem is, some are "homeless" (not in the technical
sense of the word, but in terms of people who will put up with them) and
they keep coming back. For them, yes, you refuse to engage them at that
point.
BLafferty
BLafferty
I don't hate Lance. You really can't blame him for being trailer trash
to his core. It was just the luck of the draw. I don't wish him ill. I
wish him his Karma. :-)
Frederick the Great
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
Candyass. You hate doping and you cannot throw LANCE under the bus.
--
Old Fritz
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:rubrum-7ECD73....@Hello.NetWork...
I do hate doping. I wish it weren't part of the sport. I wish cheating
in general wasn't part of everyday life. I hate that people don't live
up to what they agreed. I have issues with a decline of ethical behavior
in general. I see "situational ethics" all around, and have, sadly,
adopted some of that into my own world view, because I will never see
the world I would like to see.
As for throwing Lance under the bus, why? Is this supposed to be one of
those things where the line must be drawn here, this far, no farther?
Why? If Lance doped, are we likely to find evidence he did so in a way
more evil or more damaging to the other GC contender's possibilities
than anyone else? If not, why should we be making any greater example of
him than others? Or does throwing Lance under the bus simply make us
feel better because it appears we're doing something about the problem?
Meaning that it's actually more about us than it is the sport?
If the sport really wants to progress in the battle against doping, it
needs to provide an amnesty for all who confess and give up names &
techniques etc., and then go for broke against others who don't 'fess up
and get caught. An opportunity for a clean re-start. This, of course,
means ignoring the past, an obvious travesty, but what better can you
do? What would YOU suggest?
My apologies for attempting to give a serious answer to your reply.
Frederick the Great
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
> I do hate doping. I wish it weren't part of the sport. I wish cheating
> in general wasn't part of everyday life. I hate that people don't live
> up to what they agreed. I have issues with a decline of ethical behavior
> in general. I see "situational ethics" all around, and have, sadly,
> adopted some of that into my own world view, because I will never see
> the world I would like to see.
>
> As for throwing Lance under the bus, why? Is this supposed to be one of
> those things where the line must be drawn here, this far, no farther?
> Why? If Lance doped, are we likely to find evidence he did so in a way
> more evil or more damaging to the other GC contender's possibilities
> than anyone else? If not, why should we be making any greater example of
> him than others? Or does throwing Lance under the bus simply make us
> feel better because it appears we're doing something about the problem?
> Meaning that it's actually more about us than it is the sport?
What is the sport? Something that needs crusaders to save?
It _is_ all about you because you disapprove of people who dope,
and think that a solution needs to be imposed. You think ethics
are some kind of universal good. You are incorrect in this view.
And your ethics are situational too. That is what this discussion
is about.
> If the sport really wants to progress in the battle against doping, it
> needs to provide an amnesty for all who confess and give up names &
> techniques etc., and then go for broke against others who don't 'fess up
> and get caught. An opportunity for a clean re-start. This, of course,
> means ignoring the past, an obvious travesty, but what better can you
> do? What would YOU suggest?
Total patient-physician confidentiality.
A man is responsible for his physical
health---nobody else. He needs to be at
liberty to maintain his health to make
his way in the world.
> My apologies for attempting to give a serious answer to your reply.
Snotty.
--
Old Fritz
Mike Jacoubowsky
>> If the sport really wants to progress in the battle against doping, it
>> needs to provide an amnesty for all who confess and give up names &
>> techniques etc., and then go for broke against others who don't 'fess up
>> and get caught. An opportunity for a clean re-start. This, of course,
>> means ignoring the past, an obvious travesty, but what better can you
>> do? What would YOU suggest?
>
> Total patient-physician confidentiality.
> A man is responsible for his physical
> health---nobody else. He needs to be at
> liberty to maintain his health to make
> his way in the world.
You have a higher opinion of people's ability to control their desires in a
reasonable manner when faced with choices that, taken to excess, would be
severely damaging and perhaps deadly. So yes, I'm at the opposite end of the
spectrum with you on this one, because I'm saying we need to protect people
from themselves, and you're taking a libertarian stance. Please correct me
if I've misinterpreted.
>
>> My apologies for attempting to give a serious answer to your reply.
>
> Snotty.
>
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Frederick the Great" <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:rubrum-E68A20....@Hello.NetWork...
Frederick the Great
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
> > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
> >> If the sport really wants to progress in the battle against doping, it
> >> needs to provide an amnesty for all who confess and give up names &
> >> techniques etc., and then go for broke against others who don't 'fess up
> >> and get caught. An opportunity for a clean re-start. This, of course,
> >> means ignoring the past, an obvious travesty, but what better can you
> >> do? What would YOU suggest?
> >
> "Frederick the Great" <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:rubrum-E68A20....@Hello.NetWork
> > Total patient-physician confidentiality.
> > A man is responsible for his physical
> > health---nobody else. He needs to be at
> > liberty to maintain his health to make
> > his way in the world.
>
> You have a higher opinion of people's ability to control their desires in a
> reasonable manner when faced with choices that, taken to excess, would be
> severely damaging and perhaps deadly. So yes, I'm at the opposite end of the
> spectrum with you on this one, because I'm saying we need to protect people
> from themselves, and you're taking a libertarian stance. Please correct me
> if I've misinterpreted.
How do you protect somebody from himself without
abrogating his liberties by force?
Answer: by engaging him in conversation.
I rate people's talents, abilities, and powers higher
than most people do. That is why I wish for them all
the latitude and liberty possible to develop; short of
harming others.
Anton Berlin
> In article <KJGdnUBT-LOPz7DQnZ2dnUVZ_redn...@earthlink.com>,
Another member of the Ayn Rand friendship club - probably on the dole
and asking his neighbors for help whenever possible.
Michael Press
<2c7e2a93-a918-4aa3...@s9g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
Anton Berlin <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Another member of the Ayn Rand friendship club - probably on the dole
> and asking his neighbors for help whenever possible.
Brother, can you spare a thousand dollars?
--
Michael Press