Armstrong Retains Criminal Counsel
B. Lafferty
http://www.sheppardmullin.com/bdaly
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2010/07/lance-armstrong-hires-criminal-lawyer/1
http://www.universalsports.com/news/article/newsid=484125.html
Anton Berlin
he's been using up until now.
LawBoy01
> Surely if Lance is innocent he could get by with the clubfoot lawyer
> he's been using up until now.
Whether Lance doped or not, he should have a very good attorney.
Anton Berlin
Philip - you do family law but how do you see this playing out?
LawBoy01
I do SOME criminal work. They are digging for evidence to present to
a grand jury. This will not turn up anything new with Armstrong; at
least I will be surprised if it does. Hincapie, Zabriskie, Hamilton
--- these guys are the key, IMHO. Remember in the U.S. how Roger
Clements was surprised by Andy Petite's testimony. We don't need
doping journals, etc if these three guys throw Lance under the bus.
That remains to be seen, but if they do then you will see a "true
bill" issued by the grand jury convened to consider the charges. I
don't think that anything Landis or Lemond has to say is worth a
shit. Lemond is in it because of his suit with Trek, and the Fed's
intent to engage in a fishing expedition to see what's in there.
Lemond has run his mouth about that stuff for years, so if something
was worth it in those documents then we would have heard about it
already. Landis just looks like a lying POS, and deservedly so. "Are
you lying now, or were you lying then, or both?" Landis can be fairly
asked that. With that said, if he can be corroborated, and come fully
clean about his lies in the past, then his answer may truthfully be "I
was lying then, but I'm telling the truth now."
--D-y
> http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2010/07/21/2010-07-21_l...
>
> http://www.sheppardmullin.com/bdaly
>
> http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2010/07/lance-arm...
>
> http://www.universalsports.com/news/article/newsid=484125.html
Well, you already indicated his usual counsel is way out of his depth.
Again, do you give good counsel to your clients, Brian? Such as
"retain the best counsel you can afford", or "take your lumps,
deserved or not"?
--D-y
PS There's some Bad News Brian stuff you missed over the last couple
of days. And I don't even go looking for it.
Maybe you should get your sleep schedule back in order, and rejoin the
fray fresh and rested?
Just a thought.
--D-y
B. Lafferty
> Surely if Lance is innocent he could get by with the clubfoot lawyer
> he's been using up until now.
>
still have a good criminal lawyer to look after his innocent interests
before the investigation and Grand Jury, if need be. It appears he has
good criminal counsel. An attorney friend of my in CA who is a former
AUSA, tells me he's got a very good reputation--Daly that is. :-)
LawBoy01
> Assume arguendo for a moment that Armstrong has done no wrong.
You simply assume that Lance has done wrong. What are you going to do
with your free time if he is found guilty?
B. Lafferty
> On Jul 22, 9:37 am, Anton Berlin<truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 22, 8:10 am, LawBoy01<phi...@pwm-law.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 22, 8:07 am, Anton Berlin<truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Surely if Lance is innocent he could get by with the clubfoot lawyer
>>>> he's been using up until now.
>>
>>> Whether Lance doped or not, he should have a very good attorney.
>>
>> Philip - you do family law but how do you see this playing out?
>
> I do SOME criminal work. They are digging for evidence to present to
> a grand jury. This will not turn up anything new with Armstrong; at
> least I will be surprised if it does.
I'd be prepared to be surprised, if I were you.
> Hincapie, Zabriskie, Hamilton
> --- these guys are the key, IMHO. Remember in the U.S. how Roger
> Clements was surprised by Andy Petite's testimony. We don't need
> doping journals, etc if these three guys throw Lance under the bus.
> That remains to be seen, but if they do then you will see a "true
> bill" issued by the grand jury convened to consider the charges.
I would find it difficult to believe that these three could not provide
some real evidence to back up their testimony and the allegations Landis
has made.
> I
> don't think that anything Landis or Lemond has to say is worth a
> shit.
Lemond said the other day that Landis did have real evidence to support
his claims. I suspect that Landis has been told by the Feds and his
attorney to say otherwise in public for now.
It's difficult to say what Lemond has to offer that is solid in an
evidential sense. If he can produce an affidavit from someone
supporting the claim that Armstrong threatened to pay a person or
persons to accuse Lemond of using EPO, that would go to the issue of
intimidating a critic and possible witness against him in furtherance of
a scheme to defraud.
Lemond is in it because of his suit with Trek, and the Fed's
> intent to engage in a fishing expedition to see what's in there.
> Lemond has run his mouth about that stuff for years, so if something
> was worth it in those documents then we would have heard about it
> already. Landis just looks like a lying POS, and deservedly so. "Are
> you lying now, or were you lying then, or both?" Landis can be fairly
> asked that. With that said, if he can be corroborated, and come fully
> clean about his lies in the past, then his answer may truthfully be "I
> was lying then, but I'm telling the truth now."
If this gets to trial, my feeling is that Landis is going to look very
good if there is corroboration. The question in my mind is who the AUSA
is really after. Would he cut a deal with Armstrong and Johan to nail
Thom and perhaps someone high in USACycling, like Och? I don't know.
>
B. Lafferty
You seem so hostile. Don't let your anger eat you up inside. OK?
B. Lafferty
I appreciate your need to turn every discussion into a personal attack
on me, but I'm really not interested in that nonsense. Enjoy your day.
B. Lafferty
allegations, there will be no indictment and thus no trial.
LawBoy01
That wasn't a personal attack, Brian. Honestly. But you do assume
that Lance is guilty. He may very well be proven to be guilty, but
nothing that's come up this time is really any different than what's
been disposed of before. Nevertheless, you latch onto any piece of
negative Armstrong news, and have done so literally for years. You
are a bit of a one-trick pony in that regard, and I truly wonder what
you will discuss if and when Armstrong is found guilty. For the
betterment of the group, please find some other subject to discuss.
Doing so will give you much needed street cred.
LawBoy01
> I'd be prepared to be surprised, if I were you.
You don't know anything that I don't know. You just hope that Lance
goes down like a turd in whipped cream, and I am just doubtful than
anything will come of the Lemond-Trek documents because you would have
heard about them already.
> It's difficult to say what Lemond has to offer that is solid in an
> evidential sense. If he can produce an affidavit from someone
> supporting the claim that Armstrong threatened to pay a person or
> persons to accuse Lemond of using EPO, that would go to the issue of
> intimidating a critic and possible witness against him in furtherance of
> a scheme to defraud.
Come on, Brian. Lemond doesn't want to testify. Yesterday, and
before today's statment that the subpoena was only for documents and
not testimony, Lemond said that he didn't know if he would testify.
Lemond also refused to give up the name of the guy who allegedly was
paid a bribe. The affidavit that you want to see would be all over
the news if it existed. If it ever does surface, remember that truth
is also a defense to bribery. In other words, if this guy who
Armstrong allegedly bribed and is still in cycling was worried about
his livelihood if he came out and told the "truth" about Lemond in the
'89 TdF (I have no opinion on this either way), and there's credible
evidence that the intent of the alleged 300k offer was to minimize the
burden on the Truth Teller should he have the courage to come clean,
then the "bribery" charges have no merit. In that same vein, Lemond
would look guilty as hell,.
> If this gets to trial, my feeling is that Landis is going to look very
> good if there is corroboration.
We agree on something.
>The question in my mind is who the AUSA
> is really after. Would he cut a deal with Armstrong and Johan to nail
> Thom and perhaps someone high in USACycling, like Och? I don't know.
Now you are wildly speculating.
Patrick Kehoe
Unless someone is using GL to 'pass on info' hitherto undiscovered/
withheld... there are likely a lot of 'axes' out there that could be
thrown at Armstrong for his 'temperment and tactics' over the glory
years... the question is will anyone credible (with credible evidence)
step up... as you say, hasn't really happened so far so it would be a
true 11th hour move should it happen...
P
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lance isn't going to go down to 'scandal'... he's insulated himself
with mega-philanthropy to a degree of total legal inoculation... his
not just US cycling, he's thee US international sporting figure of
this era on a mission 'to fight cancer'... that's a lot of symbolic
buffering... for sure he'd be given 'a way out' by the Feds...
P
RicodJour
> On 7/22/2010 12:12 PM, B. Lafferty wrote:
It's ever so special that you quote yourself.
Brian, home of the bean and the clod
where the Schlecks speak only to Armstrong
and Armstrong speaks only to God.
> > If this gets to trial, my feeling is that Landis is going to look very
> > good if there is corroboration. The question in my mind is who the AUSA
> > is really after. Would he cut a deal with Armstrong and Johan to nail
> > Thom and perhaps someone high in USACycling, like Och? I don't know.
Your daffynition of "look very good" is apparently most flexible, and
capricious...as is the effects of your LANCE-filter.
> Let me add that if there is no reasonable corroboration of Landis'
> allegations, there will be no indictment and thus no trial.
That's obviously a huge ASSumption. They could uncover something that
has nothing to do with Landmasses' assertions. I'm also beginning to
suspect that Lemond and Landis are having fun with insertions -
they're too buddy-buddy after being so overtly hostile to one
another. Not that there's anything wrong with two dopers rump-
rangering one another.
R
LawBoy01
> Unless someone is using GL to 'pass on info' hitherto undiscovered/
> withheld... there are likely a lot of 'axes' out there that could be
> thrown at Armstrong for his 'temperment and tactics' over the glory
> years... the question is will anyone credible (with credible evidence)
> step up... as you say, hasn't really happened so far so it would be a
> true 11th hour move should it happen...
We agree.
LawBoy01
> Lance isn't going to go down to 'scandal'... he's insulated himself
> with mega-philanthropy to a degree of total legal inoculation... his
> not just US cycling, he's thee US international sporting figure of
> this era on a mission 'to fight cancer'... that's a lot of symbolic
> buffering... for sure he'd be given 'a way out' by the Feds...
Now this is crazy talk.
Kurgan Gringioni
"B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:woOdnVGj8sm589XR...@giganews.com...
:
: If this gets to trial, my feeling is that Landis is going to look very
: good if there is corroboration.
Dumbass -
The $1million+ Floyd Fairness Fund says there's no way Landis will ever look
good.
If he's telling the truth now, he looked all those donors in the eye and
stole their money.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Kurgan Gringioni
"LawBoy01" <phi...@pwm-law.com> wrote in message
news:4837f452-7073-490a...@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
:: That wasn't a personal attack, Brian. Honestly. But you do assume
:: that Lance is guilty. He may very well be proven to be guilty, but
:: nothing that's come up this time is really any different than what's
:: been disposed of before. Nevertheless, you latch onto any piece of
:: negative Armstrong news, and have done so literally for years.
Dumbass -
It's been well over a decade. Maybe 15 years.
LawBoy01
wrote:
Somebody please comb the archives and date the the first Armstrong
Hatemail Posted by B. Lafferty. I'm curious, but not motivated to do
this myself.
Anton Berlin
Lawboy - you're being a sucker now. LeMond spoke about the $300k so
he would be COMPELLED to divulge the truth. How would Novitcky know
to ask him the question unless LeMond hand fed it to him.
And you call yourself a lawyer....
Anton Berlin
Kurgan Gringioni
:: I do SOME criminal work. They are digging for evidence to present to
:: a grand jury. This will not turn up anything new with Armstrong; at
:: least I will be surprised if it does. Hincapie, Zabriskie, Hamilton
:: --- these guys are the key, IMHO.
<snip>
Dumbass -
George, IMO, has much more to lose than to gain by talking.
As for the other two, Johan and LANCE, if they're smart (and they are
smart), will have dispatched intermediaries armed with bags of cash to buy
Hamilton & Zab's silence.
If they're creative enough to come up with refrigerated panniers, this plan
of action is a no-brainer.
thanks,
Don. presented by Corleone.
LawBoy01
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh, forgot you have a crystal ball. I should use you for jury
selection.
LawBoy01
> Patrick - Livestrong is a sham. Read up about it.
Show us what you're talking about. I've not heard or read that
Livestrong is a sham.
CowPunk
> http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2010/07/21/2010-07-21_l...
>
> http://www.sheppardmullin.com/bdaly
>
> http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2010/07/lance-arm...
>
> http://www.universalsports.com/news/article/newsid=484125.html
Even if Lance doped, everyone else did/is too.
The sad part for me is that BL doesn't care who else doped. Only
Lance.
And I doubt anyone else in America really cares either. Joesixpack
could care less. He only wants some entertainment on Sunday afternoon
while doing 12oz curls. The bottom line is that his contributions to
Cancer research and the attitudes/motivation of Cancer survivors is
priceless. I just could give a flip how he won the Tour.
It's sad that people like BL/FL want to take that away from good
people who have a lot of shit to deal with in their life.
RicodJour
But they're after THE TRUTH, man! THE TRUTH!
It simply doesn't matter what gets damaged on the way.
BrainFart would be the first one to break out the rubber hoses to get
at THE TRUTH.
Funny thing, though, BrainFart doesn't care about the truth, he only
cares if LANCE gets taken down. Where exactly is the truth in that?
In other words, the truth really doesn't matter, it's just a personal
vendetta against an individual.
An universal amnesty has been suggested as one way to move forward.
Acknowledging that things were done differently in the past, but it's
now time to move on, without ripping whole chapters out of the record
books, is a logical way to go, but that wouldn't fly with BranFart as
LANCE wouldn't get taken down hard.
If I had more time, or less of a life, I'd go digging in BrainFart's
background. I have never, not once, found a holier-than-thou asshole
that wasn't compensating for being a wide-stancer, knob-gobbler, etc.
It's self-loathing that fuels such fundamental boorishness.
R
B. Lafferty
*anyone* caught doping.
Anton Berlin
In chess, life and even a god damn texas courtroom full of shit
kicking hayseeds you have to think ahead as well as see the root cause
of someone's motivations.
Why else would LeMond let this out? I really am shocked at the idea
you're a lawyer. Were you on the debate team in high school because
you seem like a master-debater.
Anton Berlin
and compare it to other charity and cancer 501c3 organizations. I'm
not doing homework for stupid people any longer.
B. Lafferty
> On Jul 22, 11:12 am, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd be prepared to be surprised, if I were you.
>
> You don't know anything that I don't know. You just hope that Lance
> goes down like a turd in whipped cream, and I am just doubtful than
> anything will come of the Lemond-Trek documents because you would have
> heard about them already.
I didn't say I knew more than anyone posting here. IMO, you are choosing
to ignore parts of what has been reported in the press.
>
>> It's difficult to say what Lemond has to offer that is solid in an
>> evidential sense. If he can produce an affidavit from someone
>> supporting the claim that Armstrong threatened to pay a person or
>> persons to accuse Lemond of using EPO, that would go to the issue of
>> intimidating a critic and possible witness against him in furtherance of
>> a scheme to defraud.
>
> Come on, Brian. Lemond doesn't want to testify.
You have no idea what he "wants" to do, unless you've spoken with him
recently. I've seen nothing in his public statements that would in any
way indicate that he doesn't want to testify. Not knowing if he'll be
called to testify doesn't mean he doesn't want to testify.
>Yesterday, and
> before today's statment that the subpoena was only for documents and
> not testimony, Lemond said that he didn't know if he would testify.
> Lemond also refused to give up the name of the guy who allegedly was
> paid a bribe. The affidavit that you want to see would be all over
> the news if it existed. If it ever does surface, remember that truth
> is also a defense to bribery. In other words, if this guy who
> Armstrong allegedly bribed and is still in cycling was worried about
> his livelihood if he came out and told the "truth" about Lemond in the
> '89 TdF (I have no opinion on this either way), and there's credible
> evidence that the intent of the alleged 300k offer was to minimize the
> burden on the Truth Teller should he have the courage to come clean,
> then the "bribery" charges have no merit. In that same vein, Lemond
> would look guilty as hell,.
Hmmmm. You really are an attorney?? Did it ever occur to you that
Lemond has not released the name of the person he alleges was approached
by Armstrong or an Armstrong agent because it is not in his interest or
the government's interest to release that name at present? This is how
the investigators and the AUSA build the pressure on Armstrong. If you
don't know and understand that I have to assume you practice law in a
cave somewhere in Wyoming.
You really think someone still cycling is worried about outing Lemond if
the outing is the truth? You paint an interesting hypothetical. Did
this come to you in an opioid dream? Please. Think that through again.
>
>> If this gets to trial, my feeling is that Landis is going to look very
>> good if there is corroboration.
>
> We agree on something.
>
>> The question in my mind is who the AUSA
>> is really after. Would he cut a deal with Armstrong and Johan to nail
>> Thom and perhaps someone high in USACycling, like Och? I don't know.
>
> Now you are wildly speculating.
No. I'm asking a question. I have no idea what the AUSA's game plan is
or is not. If I said I thought the AUSA would do "X," that would be
speculation. Haven't done that.
>
B. Lafferty
The Lance Armstrong Foundation (LAF), founded by the champion bicyclist
and cancer survivor of the same name, is celebrating its 10-year
anniversary this year. Wouldn’t you think a charity that receives
massive publicity for having one of the most popular causes and most
admired celebrities as the face of the organization would be able to
easily raise lots of money? Unfortunately this is not the case. LAF
spent as much as $45 to raise each $100, exceeding AIP’s 35% recommended
fundraising ceiling by a significant margin. While LAF had difficulty
raising contributions efficiently, it did prove to be a savvy
merchandise marketer. LAF sold over $24 million in merchandise,
including the ubiquitous yellow “LIVESTRONG” wristband, as well as
clothing, sports gear and even dog leashes. Yet after spending $10
million in solicitation costs, the group brought in only $22 million in
contributions, according to AIP’s analysis of LAF’s 2005 financial
statements.
LawBoy01
>
> - Show quoted text -
You assume that the AUSA is after somebody mysterious. I just read
what you wrote and took it like biblical literalism. Whoops.
LawBoy01
This is not proof of a scam. Plus, it's old.
RicodJour
Yep - you've stopped doing _your_ homework.
R
LawBoy01
>
> Hmmmm. You really are an attorney?? Did it ever occur to you that
> Lemond has not released the name of the person he alleges was approached
> by Armstrong or an Armstrong agent because it is not in his interest or
> the government's interest to release that name at present? This is how
> the investigators and the AUSA build the pressure on Armstrong. If you
> don't know and understand that I have to assume you practice law in a
> cave somewhere in Wyoming.
I don't think Lemond has released the name because he's full of shit.
His reason, at least stated reason, was to protect the alleged would-b
recipient of the money. If what you're saying is true, then Lemond is
lying out loud in public. If Lemond is withholding information for
his own purposes, the fuck him. If he's cooperating the guvmit, then
we'll see if that's true.
Rememeber when you jacked me for allegedly making a personal attack on
you? Well, old washed up wanna be, I still practice law and deal
quite often with DAs as part of my family law practice. Yes, I know
how they apply pressure. And yes, I think Lemond has B.S. motives.
And yes, I think Armstrong may be guilty. But you'll always "know"
that Lance is guilty regardless of the outcome of this investigation.
And you'll never, ever shut the fuck up about it.
> You really think someone still cycling is worried about outing Lemond if
> the outing is the truth? You paint an interesting hypothetical. Did
> this come to you in an opioid dream? Please. Think that through again.
>
>
>
> >> If this gets to trial, my feeling is that Landis is going to look very
> >> good if there is corroboration.
>
> > We agree on something.
>
> >> The question in my mind is who the AUSA
> >> is really after. Would he cut a deal with Armstrong and Johan to nail
> >> Thom and perhaps someone high in USACycling, like Och? I don't know.
>
> > Now you are wildly speculating.
>
> No. I'm asking a question. I have no idea what the AUSA's game plan is
> or is not. If I said I thought the AUSA would do "X," that would be
> speculation. Haven't done that.
>
>
>
RicodJour
> On 7/22/2010 4:40 PM, CowPunk wrote:
>
> > The sad part for me is that BL doesn't care who else doped. Only
> > Lance.
>
> *anyone* caught doping.
Yeah, in the past, but as per your usual excuse-for-reason, you've
reverted to your all LANCE, all the time obsession. In a way it's
endearing.
The gears are turning right? The shit's being investigated, right?
There's a bloodhound with a track record on the case, right? What's
your function again? Right - GET LANCE.
Wouldn't it be great if you could just stroke LANCE's smooth, strong,
shaved legs? Basking in his muskiness and fondling the lone orb all
night long? Instead you have to console yourself with a personal-
though-I-never-met-him vendetta and self-flagellation. Go you!
R
RicodJour
>
> In chess, life and even a god damn texas courtroom full of shit
> kicking hayseeds you have to think ahead as well as see the root cause
> of someone's motivations.
>
> Why else would LeMond let this out? I really am shocked at the idea
> you're a lawyer. Were you on the debate team in high school because
> you seem like a master-debater.
As much as I enjoy your ideas of what constitutes witty repartee and
logic, are you seriously telling me that you think LemonD's motives
are easily ascertainable? AYFKM? Greg doesn't know what motivates
Greg!*
R
* Please see my earlier post on holier-than-thou types and what
motivates them.
B. Lafferty
> On Jul 22, 4:10 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hmmmm. You really are an attorney?? Did it ever occur to you that
>> Lemond has not released the name of the person he alleges was approached
>> by Armstrong or an Armstrong agent because it is not in his interest or
>> the government's interest to release that name at present? This is how
>> the investigators and the AUSA build the pressure on Armstrong. If you
>> don't know and understand that I have to assume you practice law in a
>> cave somewhere in Wyoming.
>
> I don't think Lemond has released the name because he's full of shit.
> His reason, at least stated reason, was to protect the alleged would-b
> recipient of the money. If what you're saying is true, then Lemond is
> lying out loud in public.
No. Reasons can be multiple and not exclusive of each other.
If Lemond is withholding information for
> his own purposes, the fuck him. If he's cooperating the guvmit, then
> we'll see if that's true.
You don't think people can act with more than one purpose in mind?
>
> Rememeber when you jacked me for allegedly making a personal attack on
> you? Well, old washed up wanna be, I still practice law and deal
> quite often with DAs as part of my family law practice.
You have my sincere condolences if you are still practicing law. I did
that, got the tee shirt and moved on.
> Yes, I know
> how they apply pressure. And yes, I think Lemond has B.S. motives.
> And yes, I think Armstrong may be guilty. But you'll always "know"
> that Lance is guilty regardless of the outcome of this investigation.
> And you'll never, ever shut the fuck up about it.
I presume, from following Lance for years, that he is a doper as were
his support riders. I would no doubt be subjected to one of your
peremptory challenges were I in Lance's jury pool and you were his
attorney. That's OK. I'm sure the justice system can find twelve men
and women honest and true to judge him--unless he asks for a bench trial.
B. Lafferty
Anton used the word sham; not scam. I agree it isn't proof of a scam,
which I consider to involve activities of a legally questionable nature.
Charity Watch has not rated LAF very well in comparison to other,
effective and efficient charities. Deal with it.
B. Lafferty
LOL! See my other post. As for my recreation, I enjoy both chess and
cycling and plan to continue doing both for as long as I'm able, thank
you very much.
B. Lafferty
> On Jul 22, 4:56 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 7/22/2010 4:40 PM, CowPunk wrote:
>>
>>> The sad part for me is that BL doesn't care who else doped. Only
>>> Lance.
>>
>> Oh, but I do care. In the past I've called for lifetime bans for
>> *anyone* caught doping.
>
> Yeah, in the past, but as per your usual excuse-for-reason, you've
> reverted to your all LANCE, all the time obsession. In a way it's
> endearing.
Lance is a male bimbo celebrity. He's big news, Tex. Deal with it.
There are lots of other dopers getting caught. Make a list and I'll
cross post it to every cycling newsgroup I can. ;-)
>
> The gears are turning right? The shit's being investigated, right?
> There's a bloodhound with a track record on the case, right? What's
> your function again? Right - GET LANCE.
I have no function. That said, I'm enjoying watching the truth finally
begin to come out. That both wonderful and fun.
>
> Wouldn't it be great if you could just stroke LANCE's smooth, strong,
> shaved legs? Basking in his muskiness and fondling the lone orb all
> night long?
ROTFL!! This says more about you than me, Tex.
Instead you have to console yourself with a personal-
> though-I-never-met-him vendetta and self-flagellation. Go you!
The truth will set you free, Tex. Embrace it.
>
> R
Kurgan Gringioni
:: And yes, I think Lemond has B.S. motives.
Dumbass -
Does he ever.
Kurgan Gringioni
"B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:-KOdnTSbmPy9WNXR...@giganews.com...
:: >
: > Rememeber when you jacked me for allegedly making a personal attack on
: > you? Well, old washed up wanna be, I still practice law and deal
: > quite often with DAs as part of my family law practice.
:
: You have my sincere condolences if you are still practicing law. I did
: that, got the tee shirt and moved on.
Dumbass -
Lawboy's analysis is far more insightful than yours by 100 times.
Patrick Kehoe
> Patrick - Livestrong is a sham. Read up about it.
I'm not talking about 'realities'... the US sporting media/it's meta-
narrative on Armstrong as thee knight of his age in sports... this
macro-perception has a lot of 'investors' with respect to big time
sports journalists, etc... it's one thing to take down Barry Bonds or
Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong is a transcendent American sporting
figure with various forms of insulation... and I say this as a non-
American and NOT a fan of Lance Armstrong... so, taking him down via
legal scandal is really going to be a major sea change with regards to
how he's been 'treated', characterized, knighted, lauded and admired
across a spectrum of influential figures in sports and media for a
decade...
Having said ALL that, there's always the possibility of the smoking
gun in public life :))))))
P
LawBoy01
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anton,
Lemond, like all legendary cyclists, is a fucked in the head insecure
asshole. Period. You have to be at that level. As soon as Lance
equaled Lemond in the TdF win category, Lemond started this shit and
not a minute before. You don't find it quesitonable that Lemond is
paying Landis' attorney's fees and that Landis has hired Lemond's old
law firm from the Trek lawsuit? If not, you are naive. Lemond gets
his money and without violating a confidentiality agreement gets to
try his claims against Armstrong again. And he gets to use Trek's
money to do it. Lemond in his eyes is the only cyclist who won
without doping. He should have won every TdF since he became pro.
It's all about V02 max, stupid. Didn't you know?
LawBoy01
> I have no function.
Yet, you're still a tool.
>That said, I'm enjoying watching the truth finally begin to come out.
Why don't we just have you convict him, Brian? I mean, you know what
so many people have never been able to prove.
Anton Berlin
>
> Having said ALL that, there's always the possibility of the smoking
> gun in public life :))))))
>
> P
In Armstrong's case it's the snorting strippers and the dripping iv
needle
Anton Berlin
Lemond boosted you freak. I can't even think that LeMond is clean
with out laughing about the impossibility of it.
LawBoy01
>
> - Show quoted text -
I never suggested that you thought otherwise.
Amit Ghosh
> On Jul 22, 9:37 am, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 22, 8:10 am, LawBoy01 <phi...@pwm-law.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 22, 8:07 am, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Surely if Lance is innocent he could get by with the clubfoot lawyer
> > > > he's been using up until now.
>
> > > Whether Lance doped or not, he should have a very good attorney.
>
> > Philip - you do family law but how do you see this playing out?
>
> I do SOME criminal work. They are digging for evidence to present to
> a grand jury. This will not turn up anything new with Armstrong; at
> least I will be surprised if it does. Hincapie, Zabriskie, Hamilton
> --- these guys are the key, IMHO. Remember in the U.S. how Roger
> Clements was surprised by Andy Petite's testimony. We don't need
> doping journals, etc if these three guys throw Lance under the bus.
> That remains to be seen, but if they do then you will see a "true
> bill" issued by the grand jury convened to consider the charges.
dumbass,
who is roger clements (i thought you were from texas?). in any case
why would anyone talk ....unless they were facing criminal charges ?
that is where the traction came from in the mitchell report,
the exception would be landis, because he is an idiot and adept as
doing whatever is worst for his own interests.
Betty
> LAF sold over $24 million in merchandise,
> including the ubiquitous yellow “LIVESTRONG” wristband, as well as
> clothing, sports gear and even dog leashes.
Tugboat's legacy.
Betty
> Somebody please comb the archives and date the the first Armstrong
> Hatemail Posted by B. Lafferty. I'm curious, but not motivated to do
> this myself.
Isn't that what legal assistants are for. Alternately Ben might loan you
one of his graduate students for a small fee.
B. Lafferty
How do you know Lemond is paying Landis' attorney fees?
B. Lafferty
LawBoy01
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
1 + 1 = 2
B. Lafferty
Betty
>> 1 + 1 = 2
B. Lafferty wrote:
> Sometimes. Depends on the base you're using.
Shirley its either 2, 10 or 69.
Frederick the Great
<f8f54bd1-ca90-434a...@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
RicodJour <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> If I had more time, or less of a life, I'd go digging in BrainFart's
> background. I have never, not once, found a holier-than-thou asshole
> that wasn't compensating for being a wide-stancer, knob-gobbler, etc.
> It's self-loathing that fuels such fundamental boorishness.
“The problem with people who have no vices is that
you can be sure they're going to have some
rather annoying virtues.
”
--Elizabeth Taylor
--
Old Fritz
Kurgan Gringioni
Dumbass -
You're welcome.
BTW, the reason Lawboy's analysis is so much better is he's objective about
the data coming in and reading his stuff is informative. Your analysis,
OTOH, isn't really analysis. It's cheerleading. It could be generated by a
bot.