Betsy Keeps Pulling Lance's Short Hairs
BLafferty
in comparison to the money being made by the athletes committing the
fraud. The investigation is a good thing for those of us who want clean
sport -- not just for the athlete who wants to compete clean but
especially for the youth who partake in it."
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/columns/story?id=5522910
Over to Fabio the Flak on drums.
Brad Anders
Personally, if the FDA has some limited $$ for investigations, I'd
rather see it going to addressing real problems affecting the majority
of US consumers (e.g. recent salmonella egg crisis, unregulated
supplements, etc.) than going after a decade-old case of doping by a
US athlete in a niche sport that most people in the US could give a
rat's ass about.
If old Betsy is all in a bunch about athletes who commit doping fraud,
she can always talk to Frankie.
Brad Anders
BLafferty
The investigation has gone beyond just one agency being involved. Hope
that makes you feel better. :-)
Brad Anders
> The investigation has gone beyond just one agency being involved. Hope
> that makes you feel better. :-)- Hide quoted text -
Quite the opposite. An even bigger waste of money and resources.
Brad Aners
BLafferty
So, how much money does one have to misappropriate from the US
government and/or corporations before the crime hits your radar?
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:2fSdnU5VueEjfRrR...@giganews.com...
Maybe I haven't been as faithful a follower of Ms Andreu as I should have
been, but has this been her stance from the beginning, that she's been on a
crusdade to clean up sports? That quote reads differently than I expected.
It's no longer about her vs Lance, who said what. Now it's "Think of the
children!" Was it always, and I just didn't notice?
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Fred
USPS entered into a sponsorship agreement w/ Tailwind Sports to
promote their brand in Europe. Tailwind Sports gave them exactly what
they wanted: exposure.
How is that misappropriation of funds from the US Govt?
Fred
Brad Anders
IMO, considering that everyone Postal competed against during the LA
era for grand tour GS spots was dosing as much or more than Postal
was, and Postal wanted to be on top to get the maximum return on their
investment (which I have no doubt that they realized, given their
success and LA's popularity), then any $$ that went to paying for dope
was a necessary cost-of-business expense. Better yet, it's likely that
the majority of the $$ that went to pay for dope came out of the
rider's pockets, so the taxpayer got an even better deal than you'd
think.
Brad Anders
RicodJour
Let's rephrase that: Since you are so fond of being in battle in
inconsequential little ponds - cycling, chess - how is it that you
save your moral outrage for something as stupid as doping in sports,
when there are real, consequential battles to be fought?
Setting your sights low is always an effective means to achieving
'success'.
R
BLafferty
Unfortunately for you, that is not the legal standard for these
indictable crimes. The Tailwind-Postal contract contained very clear
anti-doping provisions. Had USPS known of the doping, would they have
entered and/or continued funding Tailwind? Unlikely. If doping is
proved to have systematically occurred during the period the contract
was in force, that constitutes a material breach involving a continuing
criminal fraud. Covering up the use of drugs also has criminal
liability. There's also conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, money
laundering (as but one violation of Treasury law and regs), sobrining
perjury and possible obstruction of justice (new Oakleys for everyone on
rbr who supports Lance). None of these criminal acts is defensible by
claiming that Postal got a good PR return for their releasing of funds
to Tailwind. Of course Lance doesn't have to worry as he says that he
had no ownership interest in Tailwind--right?
Carry on.
Fred Fredburger
derf...@gmail.com
>
> Unfortunately for you, that is not the legal standard for these
> indictable crimes. The Tailwind-Postal contract contained very clear
> laundering (as but one violation of Treasury law and regs), blah blah blah
I used to work with this guy, "with" being a misnomer because every
interaction with him was an annoying exercise in arguing over
semantics, literal interpretations of words, and general
contrariness. He was one of those guys who would argue about
anything, just for the sake of arguing. But certain things always
seemed to particularly get him going -- inconsequential things like
the meaning of an error code -- and then he would be like a dog with a
sock in its mouth, refusing to give it up.
He ended up getting RIF'd in late '08 when the economic shit hit the
fan. He was an easy selection to be among the first to be let go. It
was like someone opened the window and let the fresh air in.
Fred Flintstein
> Had USPS known of the doping,
Dumbass,
You're making a large assumption there. It's a common one,
that sponsors don't know the details of how things happen
with the teams they are involved with. But it is an
assumption nevertheless. Dumbass.
Fred Flintstein
Brad Anders
> Unfortunately for you, that is not the legal standard for these
> indictable crimes.
I can't see how the "legal standard" is "unfortunate" for me in any
way, as I'm not on trial. I'm pretty sure the "legal standard" for
conviction of OJ Simpson was met a hundred times over, and he wasn't
convicted, just as I suspect LA won't be, either.
> The Tailwind-Postal contract contained very clear
> anti-doping provisions. Had USPS known of the doping, would they have
> entered and/or continued funding Tailwind? Unlikely.
You have to be kidding me. Even the most cursory examination of the
doping situation in pro cycling would have led the USPS to suspect
that a guy who won the most difficult race in the world a record
number of times against a pack of known dopers, might, just might, be
on the juice, too. Of course they suspected it, and of course, they
did nothing about it because they were getting the results they
wanted. They also expected Tailwind and others to do a good job of
keeping it under wraps.
> If doping is
> proved to have systematically occurred during the period the contract
> was in force, that constitutes a material breach involving a continuing
> criminal fraud. Covering up the use of drugs also has criminal
> liability.
I don't doubt this for a second. Just as I don't doubt that if it gets
this far, LA and his lawyers, as well as anyone else accused, will
claim that USPS knew what was going on or should have known. But it
will never get to that point.
Brad Anders
H. Fred Kveck
Brad Anders <pban...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 8, 6:26 pm, BLafferty <Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > The Tailwind-Postal contract contained very clear
> > anti-doping provisions. Had USPS known of the doping, would they have
> > entered and/or continued funding Tailwind? Unlikely.
>
> You have to be kidding me. Even the most cursory examination of the
> doping situation in pro cycling would have led the USPS to suspect
> that a guy who won the most difficult race in the world a record
> number of times against a pack of known dopers, might, just might, be
> on the juice, too. Of course they suspected it, and of course, they
> did nothing about it because they were getting the results they
> wanted. They also expected Tailwind and others to do a good job of
> keeping it under wraps.
Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
BLafferty
> On Sep 8, 6:26 pm, BLafferty<Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately for you, that is not the legal standard for these
>> indictable crimes.
>
> I can't see how the "legal standard" is "unfortunate" for me in any
> way, as I'm not on trial. I'm pretty sure the "legal standard" for
> conviction of OJ Simpson was met a hundred times over, and he wasn't
> convicted, just as I suspect LA won't be, either.
Unfortunate for the validity of your argument. But, you knew that.
>
>> The Tailwind-Postal contract contained very clear
>> anti-doping provisions. Had USPS known of the doping, would they have
>> entered and/or continued funding Tailwind? Unlikely.
>
> You have to be kidding me. Even the most cursory examination of the
> doping situation in pro cycling would have led the USPS to suspect
> that a guy who won the most difficult race in the world a record
> number of times against a pack of known dopers, might, just might, be
> on the juice, too. Of course they suspected it, and of course, they
> did nothing about it because they were getting the results they
> wanted. They also expected Tailwind and others to do a good job of
> keeping it under wraps.
ROTFL! Nice try. Try again.
>
>> If doping is
>> proved to have systematically occurred during the period the contract
>> was in force, that constitutes a material breach involving a continuing
>> criminal fraud. Covering up the use of drugs also has criminal
>> liability.
>
> I don't doubt this for a second. Just as I don't doubt that if it gets
> this far, LA and his lawyers, as well as anyone else accused, will
> claim that USPS knew what was going on or should have known. But it
> will never get to that point.
Good luck to them. They can make a motion to dismiss or argue that to
the jury if the judge allows the argument to be made at trial. Lance
will plead out and hang Thom. Then he'll tell the world how it wasn't
cheating. He was just leveling the playing field.
>
> Brad Anders
>
Fredmaster of Brainerd
One could say that about anything. The money spent by
the government to stop contamination in meat processing
is minuscule compared to the amount of money made
by meat packers. The amount of money spent by the
government to stop fraud by large and small financial
institutions is minuscule compared to the amount of money
made by financial fraudsters, as we have recently seen.
And so on.
Fredmaster Ben
Magilla Gorilla
FDA doesn't regulate eggs.
Thanks,
Magilla
Magilla Gorilla
Sounds like a great argument to make to the judge at sentencing to make
Lance pay restitution to cover the government's costs, no?
Magilla
Magilla Gorilla
Fred wrote:
Because there was an anti-doping clause in the contract that was violated
through fraud.
Thanks,
Magilla
Magilla Gorilla
Brad Anders wrote:
This is the exact same mentality that high school athletes use to justify
taking steroids and pro athletes use to take illegal substances. You've just
disqualified yourself from every high school or collegiate coaching job in the
entire country with that post.
Thanks,
Magilla
Magilla Gorilla
I'd rather hire that other guy as an airline mechanic than someone like you who is
proud to ignore details.
Thanks,
Magilla
Magilla Gorilla
> On Sep 8, 6:26 pm, BLafferty <Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately for you, that is not the legal standard for these
> > indictable crimes.
>
> I can't see how the "legal standard" is "unfortunate" for me in any
> way, as I'm not on trial. I'm pretty sure the "legal standard" for
> conviction of OJ Simpson was met a hundred times over, and he wasn't
> convicted, just as I suspect LA won't be, either.
>
> > The Tailwind-Postal contract contained very clear
> > anti-doping provisions. Had USPS known of the doping, would they have
> > entered and/or continued funding Tailwind? Unlikely.
>
> You have to be kidding me. Even the most cursory examination of the
> doping situation in pro cycling would have led the USPS to suspect
> that a guy who won the most difficult race in the world a record
> number of times against a pack of known dopers, might, just might, be
> on the juice, too. Of course they suspected it, and of course, they
> did nothing about it because they were getting the results they
> wanted. They also expected Tailwind and others to do a good job of
> keeping it under wraps.
I can promise you that nobody from USPS will ever testify to that in any
formal (or informal) setting. Neither will Trek or Nike. You know that,
right?
Magilla
Magilla Gorilla
Relatively speaking in terms of the entire universe, anything you do on planet
Earth is inconsequential and done in a "little pond."
Thanks,
Magillastein
Magilla Gorilla
No, I think it's Lance and his handlers and USA Cycling who say Lance is a
model for all children to emulate. They call it the "Lance Effect" I think.
Betsy's motives are irrelevant. What matters is: is she telling the truth?
And the answer to that is yes. Getting caught up in her motives is both
unnecessary and bizarre.
For all I know she hates lance because Lance has 10 inches in his pants. Who
fucking cares what her motive is? What does that have to do with a
fact-finding investigation?
Magilla
Fred Flintstein
Dude,
Your late season form sucks. Please step it up a little, eh?
Fred Flintstein
Magilla Gorilla
Fred Flintstein wrote:
After the Tour all I do is phone it in and collect my paycheck, just like every other
pro. World Cup races in September? The only reason to race in September in Canada is
to see if Sweet Amy Lee is auditioning fans to star in her next video.
I think you might want to consider taking some of your own advice there - this is like
the 5th message from you with those identical words. You're starting to repeat
yourself like Fabio.
Thanks,
Magilla
Brad Anders
> This is the exact same mentality that high school athletes use to justify
> taking steroids and pro athletes use to take illegal substances. You've just
> disqualified yourself from every high school or collegiate coaching job in the
> entire country with that post.
Don't worry, I wasn't planning on trying to take your job from you.
BTW, I think you meant to write "reality" where you wrote "mentality".
Brad Anders
Brad Anders
> On 9/8/2010 11:24 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
>
> > On Sep 8, 6:26 pm, BLafferty<Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> The Tailwind-Postal contract contained very clear
> >> anti-doping provisions. Had USPS known of the doping, would they have
> >> entered and/or continued funding Tailwind? Unlikely.
>
> > You have to be kidding me. Even the most cursory examination of the
> > doping situation in pro cycling would have led the USPS to suspect
> > that a guy who won the most difficult race in the world a record
> > number of times against a pack of known dopers, might, just might, be
> > on the juice, too. Of course they suspected it, and of course, they
> > did nothing about it because they were getting the results they
> > wanted. They also expected Tailwind and others to do a good job of
> > keeping it under wraps.
>
> ROTFL! Nice try. Try again.
No need to "try again", because I'm not kidding. Do you think that the
people behind the sponsorship deal at USPS are morons? I'm certain
they knew what they were getting into, and like good businessmen,
expected Tailwind and LA and the crew to hold up their end of the
deal, which they did quite well. Like MG said, nobody at USPS will
ever testify to this knowledge, nor would Trek or Nike. But only a
fool wouldn't have known, and they're not fools. We're not talking
about curling, we're talking about pro cycling, a sport with a dope
history that goes for decades, and during the period in question, had
scandal after scandal. It's ridiculous to think that they wouldn't
have suspected that their golden boy who was tearing the legs off of
every other juiced rider might have been juicing himself. Your posting
paints them as innocent rubes - give me a break.
Brad Anders
Brad Anders
Well, they sure seem to have some role in dealing with the problem.
http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm223248.htm
Brad Anders
LawBoy01
>
> - Show quoted text -
I wholeheartedly agree with Magilla here, except to say that animus is
a well-known and legally recognized reason to lie. With that said,
Betty hasn't said anything that implicates Lance in connection with
anything having to do with the USPS. So cares what she has to say?
All her testimony can be used to say is that Lance doped in the past,
and he denied that, so why should you believe him when he says that he
didn't dope during the USPS years. They're going to need more than
that and Landis to prevail.
BLafferty
Try again, Fuckwit.
LawBoy01
>
> - Show quoted text -
What specifically do you think Brad has said wrong, Brian? You're not
so good at defending your positions. You're capable of doing it, but
you just say fuckwit. I call you a fuckwit, because I think you are
one, but at least I say "here's why you're wrong, fuckwit."
Brad Anders
IMO, Brian's just being irrational about this whole situation with
Lance. You'd think Lance stole his girlfriend. Fact is that Lance
isn't any different from all of the other top pro's with the talent to
win, and enough brainpower to realize what they're up against.
Knocking Lance of his pedestal isn't going to change a thing.
Brad Anders
Brad Anders
> "The money spent by the government to stop fraud in sports is minuscule
> in comparison to the money being made by the athletes committing the
> fraud. The investigation is a good thing for those of us who want clean
> sport -- not just for the athlete who wants to compete clean but
> especially for the youth who partake in it."http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/columns/story?id=5522910
What a pile of shit from Betsy. Where was her moral indignation when
Frankie had the needle in his arm? IMO, this reeks of sour grapes.
Brad Anders
LawBoy01
I agree, but where's the value to the case if she's telling the
truth? This isn't an investigation into Montgomery Ward-Subarau,
Motorola or Cofidis.
Magilla Gorilla
> On Sep 9, 4:32 am, BLafferty <Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > On 9/8/2010 11:24 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
> >
> > > On Sep 8, 6:26 pm, BLafferty<Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > >> The Tailwind-Postal contract contained very clear
> > >> anti-doping provisions. Had USPS known of the doping, would they have
> > >> entered and/or continued funding Tailwind? Unlikely.
> >
> > > You have to be kidding me. Even the most cursory examination of the
> > > doping situation in pro cycling would have led the USPS to suspect
> > > that a guy who won the most difficult race in the world a record
> > > number of times against a pack of known dopers, might, just might, be
> > > on the juice, too. Of course they suspected it, and of course, they
> > > did nothing about it because they were getting the results they
> > > wanted. They also expected Tailwind and others to do a good job of
> > > keeping it under wraps.
> >
> > ROTFL! Nice try. Try again.
>
> No need to "try again", because I'm not kidding. Do you think that the
> people behind the sponsorship deal at USPS are morons?
Yes, absolutely. Do you actually think the people who work office jobs for
the United States Post Office know more about doping in cycling than the
people in here? Prior to Lance's '99 samples testing positive for EPO and
Landis' allegations, very few cyclists who know the sport thought Lance was a
chronic doper. Everyone knew Lance doped in the past, but nobody knew Lance
doped throughout every Tour he won.
At some point, the people at Trek suspected Lance had doped at least in his
first Tour..and since the Landis allegations everyone now knows Lance doped
throughout his 7 Tour wins. But I don't believe for one minute the pencil
pushers at Postal knew. How would they know?
70% of the fucking people in here thought Landis was innocent as recently as
2006, well after Lance retired. Yet you will have me believe that sponsors
who have no fucking clue about the sport "know" Lance was doped?
To give you an idea of how clueless people in this sport were to doping, I'd
say 90% of the people in here refused to believe Tyler transfused blood,
even after his doping conviction. That's 2005, Lance's last year, when
Operacion Puerto broke.
> I'm certain
> they knew what they were getting into, and like good businessmen,
> expected Tailwind and LA and the crew to hold up their end of the
> deal, which they did quite well. Like MG said, nobody at USPS will
> ever testify to this knowledge, nor would Trek or Nike.
Trek, Nike, and Postal know now only because of the Landis allegations and
the positive EPO tests evinced by L'Equipe in 2005, Lance's last Tour.
Despite this, most sponsors are so stupid and gullible that they still think
Lance is being framed. Prior to that, very few people - even in cycling -
suspected Lance was doped to the gills for every Tour. Quite frankly there
was no proof or direct evidence until LA Confidential came out. After
that...and particularly with the 6 positive EPO's from the '99 Tour, I think
the evidence is irrefutable. But most sponsors don't believe any of this
stuff and hold out for the Lance myth. They actually believe in the bullshit
they peddle.
> But only a
> fool wouldn't have known, and they're not fools.
Sponsors are absolutely fools. Like a wife, they are usually the last to
know about cheating in a relationship.
> We're not talking
> about curling, we're talking about pro cycling, a sport with a dope
> history that goes for decades, and during the period in question, had
> scandal after scandal. It's ridiculous to think that they wouldn't
> have suspected that their golden boy who was tearing the legs off of
> every other juiced rider might have been juicing himself. Your posting
> paints them as innocent rubes - give me a break.
>
> Brad Anders
Most sponsors and fans actually believe Lance is a superior person and
super-ethical who trains harder and smarter than his doped up competitors.
Lance knows they think this way which is why his little spiel of "never
tested positive" brainwashes the public (and sponsors) so effectively. Only
people who followed the details of each doping incident - such as a select
few people in here - began to see a picture of Lance emerge that showed he
was a total fraud.
And now the public is about to find out who LA really is. The funny thing is
all the excuses that everyone in here uses for Lance ("everyone else was
doing it")...Lance knows he can never cop to that logic because it was
destroy his legacy. So his continues to attack his accusers (and get them
fired).
The problem now is Lance has met an adversary that can't be dissuaded or
fired by one of his arrogant cell phone calls. Thank God for federal
prosecutors.
Magilla
Magilla Gorilla
No, I meant mentality.
Thanks,
Magilla
Magilla Gorilla
Brad Anders wrote:
Does FDA have the authority to inspect egg farms?
In the past, FDA has inspected egg farms under its broad authorities applicable to all food, focusing on farms
linked to recalls. The egg rule, which just went into effect for large farms on July 9, 2010, provides specific
requirements applicable to egg producers that will greatly facilitate compliance.
Generally, USDA is responsible for egg safety at what are called breaker plants or egg products processing
facilities. In these facilities eggs are broken and pasteurized. FDA is responsible for shell egg safety and egg
products once they leave the breaking facility.
Magilla
--D-y
Motivations can "color" (to put it in neutral terms) perception and
memory.
I don't know if Betsy already hated Lance as the Great Satan at the
time of the supposed hospital confession.
As I've said before, I can easily imagine-- and that's all it is, my
imagining-- that Betsy saw in Lance the consequences of doping
(getting cancer, being broken physically and financially) and saw
Lance as the head instigator of the doping program that had ensnared
her stud muffin/meal ticket/shopping trips in Paris hubby.
What can I say: "Hell hath no fury".
Please get real on this. You know eye-witness testimony can vary
greatly among those observing the same event at the same time.
Investigations into actions are "motive and opportunity" based.
At least one medical professional I know has told me this sort of
question would never, ever be asked in the presence of persons not
directly related to the questionee, and doubtful even in the presence
of family members, both IRT confidentiality and in the interest of
getting an honest answer, applying to diagnosis and treatment. But you
are ready to believe Betsy because of your apparent motivations IRT
Lance Armstrong.
I'm not saying Betsy is lying. She could be, or she could have mis-
heard what was said due to a high level of "static". Or she might be
100% correct. "Ask God".
The latest quote seen here, where she played the "For the _CHILDREN_"
card was pretty disgusting.
Especially when you figure parents are probably supplying their high-
school football players with steroids, HGH, whatever else, and there
are crooked doctors out there helping the show along.
(Just appealing further to your usual hard-baked, reality-based
rhetorical stance there, Magilla)
--D-y
Brad Anders
Yup, that's the verbatim quote from the article I cited, thanks.
IMO, the FDA's lawyers and investigative staff ought to be going after
cases like this one, where millions of consumers are affected, instead
of engaging in a high-profile investigation of an athlete in a sport
that nobody in the US gives a shit about, and where if they're
successful in nailing him, will have zero impact on US consumers.
Brad Anders
LawBoy01
>
> - Show quoted text -
Magilla, you are assuming a lot. I suspect that you are right, but
it's about evidence, not suspicion. Lance did not test "postitive" in
any TdF. Landis saying something doesn't make it so. Who wins the
swearing match?
Brad Anders
IMO, using the awareness of pro doping by "people here" isn't a very
good metric. People here are clueless. Those of us here in the '90's
who railed against doping were regularly set upon by the 70-90% who
thought we were nuts. In the general population, pre-2000, very few
people believed there was any kind of dope problem in baseball,
basketball, and football, though I think things have changed.
I don't agree that a cycling sponsor on the scale of Nike, Trek, or
USPS would be unaware of the high potential for doping by a team
they'd sponsor. I work at a $40+B company (29 years), and I can tell
you categorically that if we were to be a primary sponsor of a team,
our lawyers would be all over the risk factors. If this had been in
the early 2000's, when doping scandals in cycling were in the
newspaper regularly, it would have been equally sensitive. Perhaps
smaller sponsors would be clueless, but not major enteprises or
organizations.
As for LA being a "superior person", you've got to admit, with
everyone on the juice, he still came out on top, and he didn't get
nailed like Ulrich and his ilk. Off the dope, who knows? My guess if
they were all off the dope, the results would look the same.
Brad Anders
Magilla Gorilla
LawBoy01 wrote:
Betsy never had any goods on Lance except that quote in the Indiana hospital room,
which was confirmed by both her husband and Stephanie McIlvain (and then later by a
photographer in Europe who says he also heard McIlvain say that, as did the now
infamous telephone conversation with Greg Lemon Party).
I think McIlvain is a lynchpin witness in this case. Steph's got to make the
decision as to whether she wants to perjure herself and risk being indicted for
perjury, or coming clean and corroborating everything Betsy said and making Oakley
look like jackals.
I don't know of any other evidence Betsy has ever offered besides that quote in the
Indiana hospital room.
If Betsy really wanted to lie she could have very easily just said she witnessed
Lance giving EPO to Frankie or something more direct like that. Why would she
invent a lie about a statement from 1996 while the guy was hooked to an IV machine
in a hospital room? It would be so bizarre to falsely implicate Lance in doping
and come up with that instead of something more direct.
Lance antagonized Betsy and made is significantly worse for himself by trying to
get Frankie fired (not once, but twice, one successfully @ Toyota United), which
Betsy likely interpreted to be a direct threat against his ability to provide for
her children. Lance eventually realized he went overboard which is why he did an
about-face in the 2009 Tour de France and requested Versus to send Frankie to
interview him. Lance wanted to shut down the routine Betsy Beatings he was getting
all over the Internets. Betsy even beat the vulva off Sally "I want to be
Teabagged by Lance" Jenkins. Jenkins looked like Tom Kunich in her response. You
know Lance read that and knew it too.
Lance then got Landis fired on Bahati's Noble House team. What Lance never
anticipated is the feds getting involved. The feds have the ability to get others
to corroborate Fraud's testimony under oath.
Honestly, anybody who doesn't realize Lance was a major league doper is clueless or
themselves lying. This is a such a no-brainer.
Magilla
LawBoy01
Answer me this, Magilla: what value does LA's claims to the False
Claims Act case?
Michael Press
Magilla Gorilla <m.go...@sandiegozoo.org> wrote:
> Betsy's motives are irrelevant. What matters is: is she telling the truth?
> And the answer to that is yes. Getting caught up in her motives is both
> unnecessary and bizarre.
The reasons people say things have everything to do
with whether or not it is the truth.
You repeat your well taken stance on cycling over
and over, ignoring any other well taken stance.
Is that telling the truth?
--
Michael Press
Fredmaster of Brainerd
> > > On 9/8/2010 5:59 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 8, 2:41 pm, BLafferty<Br...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> The investigation has gone beyond just one agency being involved. Hope
> > > >> that makes you feel better. :-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > Quite the opposite. An even bigger waste of money and resources.
>
> > > > Brad Aners
>
> > > So, how much money does one have to misappropriate from the US
> > > government and/or corporations before the crime hits your radar?
>
> > era for grand tour GS spots was dosing as much or more than Postal
> > was, and Postal wanted to be on top to get the maximum return on their
> > investment (which I have no doubt that they realized, given their
> > success and LA's popularity), then any $$ that went to paying for dope
> > was a necessary cost-of-business expense. Better yet, it's likely that
> > the majority of the $$ that went to pay for dope came out of the
> > rider's pockets, so the taxpayer got an even better deal than you'd
> > think.
>
> > Brad Anders
>
> This is the exact same mentality that high school athletes use to justify
> taking steroids and pro athletes use to take illegal substances. You've just
> disqualified yourself from every high school or collegiate coaching job in the
> entire country with that post.
Evidence suggests that high school and collegiate
coaches are tasked to do what it takes to win.
The fact that Brad obviously wastes time posting to Usenet
when he could be on the cellphone committing recruiting violations
is probably a bigger blow to his college-coaching chances
than the content of his post.
Fredmaster Ben
BLafferty
Incorrect. Armstrong tested positive during one Tour for steroids. He
obtained a post-dated note from a physician which should not have been
accepted post-dated by the Tour and UCI. Further, the steroid in the
note was different from the steroid he tested positive for.
Brad Anders
More semantics. "Positive" in the sense that he was sanctioned? No.
But, of course, you knew that before you posted.
I suspect that LA's lawyers would have little trouble dealing with
this, if the prosecution were foolish enough to bring it up. Guess
we'll have to wait and see who is right.
Brad Anders
Beloved Fred No. 1
>> This is the exact same mentality that high school athletes use to justify
>> taking steroids and pro athletes use to take illegal substances. You've just
>> disqualified yourself from every high school or collegiate coaching job in the
>> entire country with that post.
Brad Anders wrote:
> Don't worry, I wasn't planning on trying to take your job from you.
All you need is a megaphone and a Spanish pronunciation of venga venga
and you could become a DS.
LawBoy01
>
> - Show quoted text -
How did that work out, Brian?
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:4C88DA52...@sandiegozoo.org...
> truth?
> And the answer to that is yes. Getting caught up in her motives is both
> unnecessary and bizarre.
I'm being scolded for the "bizarre" by Magilla? :-)
I understand your point, but in the end, motivation is relevant when
determining credibility, and while you and other may believe she is telling
the "truth" and it may be nearly plain as day, if there is motivation for
someone to lie, that does affect the weight of that testimony.
> Magilla
Frederick the Great
<a157359b-b5b2-40b5...@q16g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Brad Anders <pban...@gmail.com> wrote:
> MG, good stuff, I snipped it to make this more readable...
>
> IMO, using the awareness of pro doping by "people here" isn't a very
> good metric. People here are clueless. Those of us here in the '90's
> who railed against doping were regularly set upon by the 70-90% who
> thought we were nuts. In the general population, pre-2000, very few
> people believed there was any kind of dope problem in baseball,
> basketball, and football, though I think things have changed.
There is not now nor was there then a dope problem
in baseball, basketball, football, or cycling.
--
Old Fritz
Magilla Gorilla
Those 8 positive tests from the '99 Tour are irrefutable analytical evidence. In
criminal law, you don't have to even have a B-sample, let alone test it...that's
just some WADA advent.
If you test positive for drunk driving in any of 50 states, you won't be found
innocent just because the state didn't test a "B-sample."
Plus Landis' claims are credible to me and are also direct eyewitness evidence.
Landis saying so in fact does make it so. Most people are convicted of murder and
sentenced to life based on circumstantial evidence from convicted felons. Landis'
testimony is also corroborated by numerous other accounts - from Betsy Andreu to
Stephanie McIlvain to Emma O'Reilly....there's so much evidence against Lance that
only delusional yellow bracelet wearers don't see it.
Anyone who thinks Lance is innocent is likely the same type of person who thought
the French lab girls framed Fraud because they "didn't want an American to win the
Tour de France."
Not only did Lance dope, he was a major doper who didn't even hide his doping
activity amongst his teammates, wife, director, and friends. Lance never
anticipated that the feds would get involved...he always thought he could just
suppress any leaks with thug-like behavior of picking up his cell phone and trying
to get that person fired. He had the UCI acting as one of henchmen.
Lance never anticipated his teammates would be the ones who turned on him.
Most people in cycling don't even like Lance anymore. They might not say that out
loud, but they say it behind closed doors.
Magilla
Magilla Gorilla
BLafferty wrote:
Actually in fairness to Lance on this one, he tested below the positive limit in
'99, so he was still analytically negative, technically speaking.. The backdated
prescription was for PR damage control only. That is my recollection.
Magilla
Amit Ghosh
wrote:
> Those 8 positive tests from the '99 Tour are irrefutable analytical evidence. In
> criminal law, you don't have to even have a B-sample, let alone test it...that's
> just some WADA advent.
>
dumbass,
doping in itself isn't a crime, though some related activity could
be.
doping by individual riders isn't likely to be considered fraud
against the government - if it was andreu would be sitting in a jail
cell right now since he admitted to using EPO while riding for USPS
and he isn't the only one (clinger too and two more riders not named
publicly).
the most serious implication would be if it is shown that doping was a
team organized activity, for example if the team doctor is involved.
Magilla Gorilla
> MG, good stuff, I snipped it to make this more readable...
>
> IMO, using the awareness of pro doping by "people here" isn't a very
> good metric. People here are clueless.
Only some are. You won't see people like me or Amit posting that it's
'so unfair that Valverde and Ullrich weren't allowed to ride the Tour
because they never tested positive."
John Gotti is legally more innocent of mob activity than most pro
cyclists of doping.
> Those of us here in the '90's
> who railed against doping were regularly set upon by the 70-90% who
> thought we were nuts.
Kunich, Ken Papai to name a few. Those people were beat down like
dirty rugs on an Oklahoma front porch.
> In the general population, pre-2000, very few
> people believed there was any kind of dope problem in baseball,
> basketball, and football, though I think things have changed.
>
> I don't agree that a cycling sponsor on the scale of Nike, Trek, or
> USPS would be unaware of the high potential for doping by a team
> they'd sponsor.
That's a general response that has nothing to do with "knowing" that
Lance doped his whole career. I am only arguing they were clueless
about Lance. Garmin also thinks Anorexic Drew Carey's team is
clean...completely ignoring that Allen Lim is the Dr. Ferrari of the
American teams.
> I work at a $40+B company (29 years), and I can tell
> you categorically that if we were to be a primary sponsor of a team,
> our lawyers would be all over the risk factors.
Most lawyers are idiots. Did you see how the lawyers at RadioShithouse
handled Landis' email fusillade? They posted them on the team website
like that was somehow suppose to refute their damning content. For the
most part lawyers deal with legal issues like some kind of PR campaign
that is dumbed down for public consumption.
> If this had been in
> the early 2000's, when doping scandals in cycling were in the
> newspaper regularly, it would have been equally sensitive. Perhaps
> smaller sponsors would be clueless, but not major enteprises or
> organizations.
Most sponsors are liars and losers and tacitly condone doping regardless
of what they say in their press releases. Nike and Trek to name two.
They are complicity with the doping and only care about getting caught.
John Burke said so himself! Up until the time one of their own tests
positive, sponsors view the reality of doping as a cost of doing
business.and will defend their athletes like a defense attorney defends
their guilty client even though his DNA was found at the scene. Hell,
you even got Valverde's lawyers saying DNA match to blood bags is not
good evidence because it violated Valvoline's "human rights."
Nike....they defend Lance like they defend Tiger's Wood.
>
>
> As for LA being a "superior person", you've got to admit, with
> everyone on the juice, he still came out on top, and he didn't get
> nailed like Ulrich and his ilk. Off the dope, who knows? My guess if
> they were all off the dope, the results would look the same.
>
> Brad Anders
The statute of limitations for doping is 8 years under the WADA Code.
That means USADA can still go back as far as 2003 and disqualify Lance
from 2-3 of his Tour wins. I think Lance will be charged by USADA at
some point and he will be found guilty of blood doping.
Once that happens, then we'll see once again all the idiots like Tom
Kunich talking about how there's no evidence and how it's all this
French conspiracy. If Lance sets up a legal defense fund, he will get
millions, just like Landis. Even if Lance is found guilty, Lance will
go to his grave lying about it.
If Lance ever told the truth about what he actually did, his mother's
books about how great of a parent she was would come across as more
fraudulent than Fraud's Positively False.
Magilla
RicodJour
wrote:
>
> Most lawyers are idiots.
You know Barry is reading this, right?
> Did you see how the lawyers at RadioShithouse
> handled Landis' email fusillade? They posted them on the team website
> like that was somehow suppose to refute their damning content.
I had a mechanical engineering professor who would do that - he'd give
one of his consulting cases to us noobs as homework, then he'd pick
the best answer, gussy them up, and bill the client. He was my hero.
It actually makes a lot of sense - post the accusations first, then
let the intertube boobs (that's us) hash it out online with a lot of
competing theories, attacks and defenses, then the lawyers pick the
direction they want to go based on the best opinion/explanation.
The fact that you, the hirsute lad that's never shaved with Occam's
razor, didn't pick up on that, doesn't surprise me.
R
LawBoy01
wrote:
> Those 8 positive tests from the '99 Tour are irrefutable analytical evidence. In
> criminal law, you don't have to even have a B-sample, let alone test it...that's
> just some WADA advent.
> If you test positive for drunk driving in any of 50 states, you won't be found
> innocent just because the state didn't test a "B-sample."
> Magilla
I don't believe that you are correct, Magilla. In fact I know you're
not. Civil and criminal law track accepted scientific procedures for
toxicology testing. You don't test for steroids the same way you test
BAC with a breathalyzer test on the side of the road.
I practice family law in Collin County, Texas, and deal with junkie
parents from time-to-time. When I do, I call Jim Turnage with
Forensic DNA and Drug Testing in Dallas, and have him explain his test
results. I've got a call into him for a quesiton about drug testing
in a case I have, and will pose him this question about the "8
positive tests from the 1999 TdF" and get back to you. BTW, Jim has
survived challeges to the admissibility of his toxicology testimony in
state and federal district courts, so what he says ought to be give
great weight by you all (assuming you trust that I won't lie about
what he says).
Frederick the Great
<e833ff25-ce4c-4a86...@g10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
LawBoy01 <phi...@pwm-law.com> wrote:
Does he really want to be quoted on usenet?
--
Old Fritz
Frederick the Great
<a06403a4-eab3-45f3...@c13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
RicodJour <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 12:09 pm, Magilla Gorilla <m.gori...@sandiegozoo.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Most lawyers are idiots.
>
> You know Barry is reading this, right?
>
> > Did you see how the lawyers at RadioShithouse
> > handled Landis' email fusillade? They posted them on the team website
> > like that was somehow suppose to refute their damning content.
>
> I had a mechanical engineering professor who would do that - he'd give
> one of his consulting cases to us noobs as homework, then he'd pick
> the best answer, gussy them up, and bill the client. He was my hero.
>
> It actually makes a lot of sense - post the accusations first, then
> let the intertube boobs (that's us) hash it out online with a lot of
> competing theories, attacks and defenses, then the lawyers pick the
> direction they want to go based on the best opinion/explanation.
Then my vote _does_ count!
I'm gonna start stuffing the ballot box
to nullify the gila monster.
--
Old Fritz
Magilla Gorilla
Brad Anders wrote:
> On Sep 9, 10:44 am, Magilla Gorilla <m.gori...@sandiegozoo.org> wrote:
> > Brad Anders wrote:
> > > On Sep 9, 5:39 am, Magilla Gorilla <m.gori...@sandiegozoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > FDA doesn't regulate eggs.
> >
> > > Well, they sure seem to have some role in dealing with the problem.
> >
> > >http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm223248.htm
> >
> > > Brad Anders
> >
> > Does FDA have the authority to inspect egg farms?
> >
> > In the past, FDA has inspected egg farms under its broad authorities applicable to all food, focusing on farms
> > linked to recalls. The egg rule, which just went into effect for large farms on July 9, 2010, provides specific
> > requirements applicable to egg producers that will greatly facilitate compliance.
> >
> > Generally, USDA is responsible for egg safety at what are called breaker plants or egg products processing
> > facilities. In these facilities eggs are broken and pasteurized. FDA is responsible for shell egg safety and egg
> > products once they leave the breaking facility.
>
> Yup, that's the verbatim quote from the article I cited, thanks.
>
> IMO, the FDA's lawyers and investigative staff ought to be going after
> cases like this one, where millions of consumers are affected,
A recall is the best you can get. That's what they got. It's not like they had to toss a coin and decide to deal
with bad eggs or Lance.
> instead
> of engaging in a high-profile investigation of an athlete in a sport
> that nobody in the US gives a shit about, and where if they're
> successful in nailing him, will have zero impact on US consumers.
>
> Brad Anders
"Instead?" They can do both.
BTW, seeking justice isn't a popularity contest. The feds use high profile cases to send the message to everyone
else. That's why they went after Martha Stewart, Wesley Snipes, Helio Castroneves, Rodney King cops, Barry Bonds,
Tammy Thomas, Marion Jones, etc.
Magilla
Magilla Gorilla
Bruyneel's involvement means that management was involved. Only team
management/owners had the authority to sell team bikes to raise doping cash.
Lance's biggest threat likely comes from USADA, not the feds. If he's convicted by
CAS, his legacy will be permanently altered not to mention he might stand to be DQ'ed
from 2 to 3 of his Tour wins.
Magilla
Magilla Gorilla
> On Sep 10, 10:07 am, Magilla Gorilla <m.gori...@sandiegozoo.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Those 8 positive tests from the '99 Tour are irrefutable analytical evidence. In
> > criminal law, you don't have to even have a B-sample, let alone test it...that's
> > just some WADA advent.
>
> > If you test positive for drunk driving in any of 50 states, you won't be found
> > innocent just because the state didn't test a "B-sample."
>
> > Magilla
>
> I don't believe that you are correct, Magilla. In fact I know you're
> not. Civil and criminal law track accepted scientific procedures for
> toxicology testing. You don't test for steroids the same way you test
> BAC with a breathalyzer test on the side of the road.
There are tons of cases of cops falsifying DWI tests and getting convictions based on
fabricated test results:
http://www.romingerlegal.com/new_jersey/supreme/a-36-93.opn.html
Lance failed 8 EPO tests and then he blood doped and was observed doing so by
witnesses. That's good enough for me.
>
>
> I practice family law in Collin County, Texas, and deal with junkie
> parents from time-to-time. When I do, I call Jim Turnage with
> Forensic DNA and Drug Testing in Dallas, and have him explain his test
> results. I've got a call into him for a quesiton about drug testing
> in a case I have, and will pose him this question about the "8
> positive tests from the 1999 TdF" and get back to you.
Here's your expert witness for those 8 EPO tests:
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
> BTW, Jim has
> survived challeges to the admissibility of his toxicology testimony in
> state and federal district courts, so what he says ought to be give
> great weight by you all (assuming you trust that I won't lie about
> what he says).
Lance failed 8 EPO tests...and to date...dozens of athletes who have claimed their
tests were wrong (and hired experts to argue so)...later admitted to taking the
substance (i.e. Bo Hamburger, Jeanson, Fraud).
Magilla
Brad Anders
> If he's convicted by
> CAS, his legacy will be permanently altered not to mention he might stand to be DQ'ed
> from 2 to 3 of his Tour wins.
That's OK, because he'd still have more than LemonD.
Brad Anders
Brad Anders
> > > Brad Anders wrote:
> > IMO, the FDA's lawyers and investigative staff ought to be going after
> > cases like this one, where millions of consumers are affected,
>
> A recall is the best you can get. That's what they got.
So, the FDA can prosecute an athlete for a doping offense in Europe a
decade ago, but they can't prosecute the egg producers that
intentionally put spoiled product back into new packaging and on store
shelves, nor can they go after producers who knowingly shipped
contaminated products to customers? All they can do is order a recall?
I think you may want to check on that.
> It's not like they had to toss a coin and decide to deal
> with bad eggs or Lance.
>
> > instead
> > of engaging in a high-profile investigation of an athlete in a sport
> > that nobody in the US gives a shit about, and where if they're
> > successful in nailing him, will have zero impact on US consumers.
>
> > Brad Anders
>
> "Instead?" They can do both.
Just like any other agency, the FDA has limited resources. Those
resources should be focused on issues where they have the greatest
impact to the population as a whole. IMO, going after cycling dopers
is about #1,000,000 on the list. The only reason they're going after
Lance is because the FDA is where Novitsky landed, and it's all he
really knows how to do. Someone needs to show him what an egg looks
like.
Brad Anders
--D-y
Armstrong is famous and might be a clean kill. Bad-egg egg producers
in Iowa are... not so famous, and a whole lot harder to actually deal
with (they've been getting away with this crap for years, FDA or no,
from what it said in the paper).
Better the appearance of a successful crusade For The CHILDREN than
chasing chickens in Iowa.
Especially when the bad eggs are just pasteurized and put back into
food products anyhow.
Pass the salmon, Ella!
--D-y
Amit Ghosh
> Bruyneel's involvement means that management was involved. Only team
> management/owners had the authority to sell team bikes to raise doping cash.
>
dumbass,
yes. if it's revelaed the team doctors did the transfusions or team
personnel (ie. bruyneel) provided doping assistance a judge is going
to see that as team organized doping.
> Lance's biggest threat likely comes from USADA, not the feds.
i think so too.
Magilla Gorilla
> On Sep 10, 6:24 pm, Magilla Gorilla <m.gori...@sandiegozoo.org> wrote:
>
> > > > Brad Anders wrote:
> > > IMO, the FDA's lawyers and investigative staff ought to be going after
> > > cases like this one, where millions of consumers are affected,
> >
> > A recall is the best you can get. That's what they got.
>
> So, the FDA can prosecute an athlete for a doping offense in Europe a
> decade ago, but they can't prosecute the egg producers that
> intentionally put spoiled product back into new packaging and on store
> shelves, nor can they go after producers who knowingly shipped
> contaminated products to customers? All they can do is order a recall?
> I think you may want to check on that.
The FDA is not prosecuting anyone. Only the U.S. Attorney's Office
prosecutes people. The FDA - and specifically 1 investigator - is the
investigative body. A lot fo the fraud with Lance occurred up until 2005 and
included the SCA hearing which had a lot of perjury.
Regardless, I'm sure the feds figured out the whole statute of limitations
thing, so they are fine as far as time frame goes.
How do you know nobody will be prosecuted/fined in the egg recall?
And unlike the egg recall, at least the egg manufacturers and shippers agreed
that something was wrong. Lance is still maintaining 100% innocence. So
Lance is the one forcing the ongoing investigation by the FDA and USADA.
Lance is the one wasting the governments resources with this "catch me if you
can" attitude.
>
>
> > It's not like they had to toss a coin and decide to deal
> > with bad eggs or Lance.
> >
> > > instead
> > > of engaging in a high-profile investigation of an athlete in a sport
> > > that nobody in the US gives a shit about, and where if they're
> > > successful in nailing him, will have zero impact on US consumers.
> >
> > > Brad Anders
> >
> > "Instead?" They can do both.
>
> Just like any other agency, the FDA has limited resources. Those
> resources should be focused on issues where they have the greatest
> impact to the population as a whole.
Agreed. The use of performacing enhancing drugs and steroids is definitely a
great allocation of FDA resources. It's a very serious problem amongst
millions of athletes today. And it sends the message to all those high
school, college, and pro athletes not to do it....that the feds will track
you down into retirement and beat you like a pimp beats his ho's.
It's Jeff Novitzky's specialty.
> IMO, going after cycling dopers
> is about #1,000,000 on the list. The only reason they're going after
> Lance is because the FDA is where Novitsky landed, and it's all he
> really knows how to do. Someone needs to show him what an egg looks
> like.
>
> Brad Anders
If you have a problem with the way FDA is doing their job, I suggest you
write to the president - you know, the guy you voted for. Although keep in
mind that most of Novitzky's reputation was made under the Bush
administration.
Magilla
Magilla Gorilla
I don't know the answer to that question. But the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles
presenting the case to a grand jury probably does. You should ask him.
This is what I think. Lance was involved in an ongoing RICO conspiracy to defraud the
U.S. Postal Service and American taxpayers by breaching the anti-doping clauses in the
contract. Lance's use of cell phone, fax, mail, and email to carry out this conspiracy
constitutes numerous counts of mail fraud, if not by him alone, his entourage - Higgins,
Stapleton, Weisel.
The conspiracy by Lance resulted in several people being fired from their jobs to
further Lance's illegal enterprise. The firings were executed by direct threats from
Lance to cause financial harm (extortion) to numerous people unless they recanted their
allegations (Frankie Andreu, Fraud, Emma O'Reilly, David Walsh).. Lance's 501(c)3
Livestrong foundation is based on fraud in that Lance used doping products to win his
Tours. Without those Tour wins, Lance is Ernie Lechuga and his cancer comeback is more
similar to Ernie Lechuga's cancer comeback than the one we witnessed that was aided by
massive and chronic doping and fraud.
Lance and his handlers along with Oakley helped suborn perjury in the SCA hearing using
interstate communications with that little Stephanie McIlvain affidavit. Lance
committed perjury in his SCA depositions numerous times - perhaps dozens of times.
The total fraud netted Lance and his people tens of millions of dollars.
Lance's fraud also deprived other athletes of prize money and victories regardless of
whether some or most of those athletes were doping. One's defense to a speeding ticket
can't be that "others were speeding too."
Notwithstanding the federal case, Lance will likely be charged with an anti-doping
violation by USADA and stripped of 2-3 of his Tour wins, destroying his legacy, his
image, and his brand.
Thanks,
Magilla
Magilla Gorilla
--D-y wrote:
> Motivations can "color" (to put it in neutral terms) perception and
> memory.
I agree. That explains why Lance, Stapleton, Higgins, Steve Johnson, Bruyneel, and
the rest do and say what they do.
>
>
> I don't know if Betsy already hated Lance as the Great Satan at the
> time of the supposed hospital confession.
Forget Betsy for now. Explain to me why Stephanie McIlvain corroborates the same
story? See, you can't explain that. That's why you make it sound like Betsy is
the only one who heard it.
>
> As I've said before, I can easily imagine-- and that's all it is, my
> imagining-- that Betsy saw in Lance the consequences of doping
> (getting cancer, being broken physically and financially) and saw
> Lance as the head instigator of the doping program that had ensnared
> her stud muffin/meal ticket/shopping trips in Paris hubby.
>
> What can I say: "Hell hath no fury".
>
> Please get real on this. You know eye-witness testimony can vary
> greatly among those observing the same event at the same time.
> Investigations into actions are "motive and opportunity" based.
Eyewitness testimony can also be quite accurate, especially when corroborated by
numerous circumstantial evidence and transcripts of the SCA hearing. Do you really
think pro cyclists would say they blood doped and saw Lance doing it and somehow
just made that up or got it wrong through some eyewitness filter that clouds their
memory?
>
>
> At least one medical professional I know has told me this sort of
> question would never, ever be asked in the presence of persons not
> directly related to the questionee, and doubtful even in the presence
> of family members, both IRT confidentiality and in the interest of
> getting an honest answer, applying to diagnosis and treatment.
Not true. medical professional are some of the most unprofessional people around
when it comes to confidentiality. They talk openly about patients in elevators,
and even divulge medical information on celebrities to tabloids.
Second, anyone who visits someone in a hospital is considered "family" or close
enough to the patient to share information. Do you think absolute strangers would
be allowed to visit patients in hospitals?
> But you
> are ready to believe Betsy because of your apparent motivations IRT
> Lance Armstrong.
No, I believe Stephanie McIlvain. You keep leaving her out of this picture - I
wonder why.
>
>
> I'm not saying Betsy is lying. She could be, or she could have mis-
> heard what was said due to a high level of "static". Or she might be
> 100% correct. "Ask God".
That doesn't explain the conversation that Lance and Frankie had on a bike ride not
too long after that hospital room visit that corroborated the revelation as Betsy
heard it. You keep leaving important details out - I wonder why.
>
>
> The latest quote seen here, where she played the "For the _CHILDREN_"
> card was pretty disgusting.
Yeah, I think it's disgusting how Betsy doesn't want children to use steroids and
EPO since it could give them cancer or kill them or get them arrested. What an
idiot she is. People should be more like you and Richard Virenque - always
standing up for what you believe in.
>
> Especially when you figure parents are probably supplying their high-
> school football players with steroids, HGH, whatever else, and there
> are crooked doctors out there helping the show along.
You really believe that parents give their children steroids? C'mon. You might
need to get your brain recalibrated.
>
> (Just appealing further to your usual hard-baked, reality-based
> rhetorical stance there, Magilla)
> --D-y
Okay - thanks,
Magilla
Magilla Gorilla
> In article <4C88DA52...@sandiegozoo.org>,
> Magilla Gorilla <m.go...@sandiegozoo.org> wrote:
>
> > Betsy's motives are irrelevant. What matters is: is she telling the truth?
> > And the answer to that is yes. Getting caught up in her motives is both
> > unnecessary and bizarre.
>
> The reasons people say things have everything to do
> with whether or not it is the truth.
>
> You repeat your well taken stance on cycling over
> and over, ignoring any other well taken stance.
> Is that telling the truth?
>
> --
> Michael Press
Okay, let's examine Lance's motives for saying what he says. I'm all for that.
The bottom line is Betsy's motive is irrelevant because her testimony about what
she heard in the hospital room was corroborated by Stephanie McIlvain - Lance's
fucking agent at Oakley. Good look impeaching Steph's recollection - Oakley
made millions of dollars off Lance and Steph had no reason to lie.
What I found interesting about Stephanie McIlvain in her recorded conversation
(by Lemon Party) was how she really seemed to hate Lance and felt he was a
serial liar.
Thanks,
Magilla
Magilla Gorilla
Okay, let's talk about Lance's motivation for saying what he says then. I
think there are millions of reasons why he says what he says. Let's talk about
that.
Magilla
--D-y
Well put.
One quibble: the LAF was started in '97, before Lance won any Tours.
The "official story" IRT the Foundation's founding has to do with
"giving back"; helping others beat cancer. Lots of young men who have
never doped get testicular cancer and die from it; Lance's
contribution was being someone famous who "came out" and openly
discussed this subject, with its attendant taboos-- embarrassment
about self-examination being one of the chief concerns.
--D-y
--D-y
> > Motivations can "color" (to put it in neutral terms) perception and
> > memory.
>
> I agree. That explains why Lance, Stapleton, Higgins, Steve Johnson, Bruyneel, and
> the rest do and say what they do.
And Betsy Andreu.
> Forget Betsy for now.
Nope.
> Explain to me why Stephanie McIlvain corroborates the same
> story? See, you can't explain that. That's why you make it sound like Betsy is
> the only one who heard it.
I didn't say anything about McLIlvain.
I could say it seems there was some dislike by SM for LA. Maybe it was
totally based on what she is alleged to know about LA's doping. That
still could color what was "heard" (understood) in the hospital.
> Eyewitness testimony can also be quite accurate, especially when corroborated by
> numerous circumstantial evidence and transcripts of the SCA hearing. Do you really
> think pro cyclists would say they blood doped and saw Lance doing it and somehow
> just made that up or got it wrong through some eyewitness filter that clouds their
> memory?
No. I was speaking narrowly about Betsy Andreu.
> Not true. medical professional are some of the most unprofessional people around
> when it comes to confidentiality. They talk openly about patients in elevators,
> and even divulge medical information on celebrities to tabloids.
I won't deny that happens. It's not supposed to; patient
confidentiality is paramount with the true professionals in the
medical field; don't discount the privacy aspect where sensitive
questions are asked with no witnesses so as to get a truthful answer.
> Second, anyone who visits someone in a hospital is considered "family" or close
> enough to the patient to share information. Do you think absolute strangers would
> be allowed to visit patients in hospitals?
I've been in hospitals where there certainly was no Checkpoint Charlie
aspect to the nurses' station. Some where there was, big-time, too.
> No, I believe Stephanie McIlvain. You keep leaving her out of this picture - I
> wonder why.
She's in the picture, MG.
> That doesn't explain the conversation that Lance and Frankie had on a bike ride not
> too long after that hospital room visit that corroborated the revelation as Betsy
> heard it. You keep leaving important details out - I wonder why.
There's a detail I'm not familiar with at present-- whether I've ever
known about this, I can't say.
> > The latest quote seen here, where she played the "For the _CHILDREN_"
> > card was pretty disgusting.
>
> Yeah, I think it's disgusting how Betsy doesn't want children to use steroids and
> EPO since it could give them cancer or kill them or get them arrested. What an
> idiot she is. People should be more like you and Richard Virenque - always
> standing up for what you believe in.
I expressed doubt about Betsy's altruism, based on her expressed
hatred of Lance Armstrong. Why did she drag "the children" into this?
Kinda like praying in public, Maggie, even though I certainly agree
that doping among young athletes is a real evil that should be dealt
with harshly at all levels.
> > Especially when you figure parents are probably supplying their high-
> > school football players with steroids, HGH, whatever else, and there
> > are crooked doctors out there helping the show along.
>
> You really believe that parents give their children steroids? C'mon. You might
> need to get your brain recalibrated.
Yes, I think parents do whatever it takes to put their offspring in
positions to get that big-buck pro contract so they can bask in
reflected glory and live a posh lifestyle. Include "college
scholarships", and it's not just a tiny few, either and includes
females, to boot.
Remember, I live in Texas and even in Austin (a small oasis of
relative equilibrium, depending on who you ask), football leads to
insanity and wrongdoing at all levels.
> > (Just appealing further to your usual hard-baked, reality-based
> > rhetorical stance there, Magilla)
> Okay - thanks
Continuing and thank you! in turn. Good work.
--D-y
Magilla Gorilla
Brad Anders wrote:
Once Lance is convicted of doping during a few Tours, it will be inferred that he doped
for all of them. His legacy will be forever destroyed and his days as a product pitchman
will be over, not to mention governor.
Can you imagine Lance as governor or president? A guy with no college degree and a
history of fraud and lying and using his power to get people fired who simply told the
truth. He'd be worse than Bush.
Thanks,
Magilla
Michael Press
Magilla Gorilla <m.go...@sandiegozoo.org> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > In article <4C88DA52...@sandiegozoo.org>,
> > Magilla Gorilla <m.go...@sandiegozoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Betsy's motives are irrelevant. What matters is: is she telling the truth?
> > > And the answer to that is yes. Getting caught up in her motives is both
> > > unnecessary and bizarre.
> >
> > The reasons people say things have everything to do
> > with whether or not it is the truth.
> >
> > You repeat your well taken stance on cycling over
> > and over, ignoring any other well taken stance.
> > Is that telling the truth?
>
> Okay, let's examine Lance's motives for saying what he says. I'm all for that.
I do not look into motives. Seeking motives is a waste
of time unless I am paid for it, and nobody will. To
the question "Why did he do it?" I am thoroughly
satisfied by "He did it because he felt like it."
>
> The bottom line is Betsy's motive is irrelevant because her testimony about what
> she heard in the hospital room was corroborated by Stephanie McIlvain - Lance's
> fucking agent at Oakley. Good look impeaching Steph's recollection - Oakley
> made millions of dollars off Lance and Steph had no reason to lie.
There is at least one credible witness to the contrary.
> What I found interesting about Stephanie McIlvain in her recorded conversation
> (by Lemon Party) was how she really seemed to hate Lance and felt he was a
> serial liar.
There are many successful people profiting from
breaking the rules. Demanding that I care about any of
it is an unwarranted intrusion. Some of it does matter
to me. Bicycle racing is fun. Arguing about rule
breaking and doping can be fun; do not demand that I
care about it.
As for drugs. People take a lot of drugs, always have,
always will. I think some of it is ill advised. Bicycle
racers race on the edge. They should have whatever
competent medical advice they want to retain, and all
of it should be protected by patient-physician
confidentiality.
Think about it. What do the UCI and race promoters gain
by involving themselves in drugs? Everybody is covered
in mud.
--
Michael Press
Brad Anders
> --D-y wrote:
> > Especially when you figure parents are probably supplying their high-
> > school football players with steroids, HGH, whatever else, and there
> > are crooked doctors out there helping the show along.
>
> You really believe that parents give their children steroids? C'mon. You might
> need to get your brain recalibrated.
I think it's you that needs a recalibration. This came from less than
15 seconds on a Google search, I'm sure I can find plenty more:
"News of juicing preps generated from Florida, Georgia, Virginia,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas,
Louisiana, Texas, Arizona, Utah, California, and more states. The teen
athletes mostly used steroids but also growth hormone, experts said.
In some instances football coaches and parents were identified as
illicit sources of the drugs. In other cases, no reported links to
teens, criminal charges for steroids and HGH were filed against
coaches, teachers, and a district board president."
"Parents regularly pestered pediatrician Dr. Bernie Griesemer in
Missouri, seeking HGH prescriptions for their athletic offspring, and
he was publicized as a critic of such doping. “Everybody thinks they
are going to retire on their children’s sports incomes,” Griesemer
told The New York Daily News. In Dallas, athletic trainer Ken Locker
knew of an 18-year-old football player who tested positive for
steroids as a college freshman. “The parents admitted giving it to
him,” Locker told The Morning News. “They wanted him to get a
scholarship.” Only one prep football player in 17 would play in the
NCAA, but many parents sought scholarships for their sons. One study
found about 10 percent of parents polled knew of PED use by a prep
athlete."
I'll say it again for the hundredth time - anyone who believes that
nailing LA is going to change anything is seriously deluded.
Brad Anders
una farrar
> On Sep 12, 6:38 am, Magilla Gorilla <m.gori...@sandiegozoo.org> wrote:
>
> > --D-y wrote:
> > > Especially when you figure parents are probably supplying their high-
> > > school football players with steroids, HGH, whatever else, and there
> > > are crooked doctors out there helping the show along.
>
> > You really believe that parents give their children steroids? C'mon. You might
> > need to get your brain recalibrated.
>
> I think it's you that needs a recalibration. This came from less than
> 15 seconds on a Google search, I'm sure I can find plenty more:
>
>
> "News of juicing preps generated from Florida, Georgia, Virginia,
> Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas,
> Louisiana, Texas, Arizona, Utah, California, and more states. The teen
> athletes mostly used steroids but also growth hormone, experts said.
> In some instances football coaches and parents were identified as
> illicit sources of the drugs. In other cases, no reported links to
> teens, criminal charges for steroids and HGH were filed against
> coaches, teachers, and a district board president."
>
> "Parents regularly pestered pediatrician Dr. Bernie Griesemer in
> Missouri, seeking HGH prescriptions for their athletic offspring, and
> he was publicized as a critic of such doping. “Everybody thinks they
> are going to retire on their children’s sports incomes,” Griesemer
> told The New York Daily News. In Dallas, athletic trainer Ken Locker
> knew of an 18-year-old football player who tested positive for
> steroids as a college freshman. “The parents admitted giving it to
> him,” Locker told The Morning News. “They wanted him to get a
> scholarship.” Only one prep football player in 17 would play in the
> NCAA, but many parents sought scholarships for their sons. One study
> found about 10 percent of parents polled knew of PED use by a prep
> athlete."
>
> I'll say it again for the hundredth time - anyone who believes that
> nailing LA is going to change anything is seriously deluded.
>
> Brad Anders
Well, nailing Voet got us WADA, which came from French laws that
started when Simpson died. Some dead guys got us at least the hct
test. Nailing Johnson in 88 got us an international conference and an
agreement on anti-doping that was the stepping stone to WADA. We even
have two research groups that say they can identify gene doping, thru
grants from WADA. The first precedents for the passport nailed
Hamilton and stopped folks transfusing others blood.
What makes you think that nailing Armstrong won't lead to stronger
anti-doping laws, less complicit teams, and UCI officials that might
actually try to stop doping? Those would all be much more than what we
have now.
Brad Anders
It also got us a pro cycling sport that's almost out of sponsors, a
smaller calendar due to canceled races, a massive decline in fan
interest, and a general belief (unfounded, IMO), that pro cyclists are
the biggest dopers in pro sports.
> What makes you think that nailing Armstrong won't lead to stronger
> anti-doping laws, less complicit teams, and UCI officials that might
> actually try to stop doping? Those would all be much more than what we
> have now.
Because the rewards of doping will still outweigh the risks. Nailing
LA won't change that at all. Hell, it might even reinforce to people
that dope will help you gain wealth and fame.
Brad Anders
una farrar
I dunno. Chase a few bad food products among the thousands, for
taxpayers that don't even try to eat right.
Or, nail the symbol of fraud in the societal institution, sport, that
attracts the most volunteers of any aspect of society (THAT'S voting
with your feet), and through which virtually all fortune 500 CEO's
pass. Where they get socialized in what comprises honest
competition. Who have lead the world into the recent economic
meltdown.
Nah, yer right. Eggs are more important.
Brad Anders
> Or, nail the symbol of fraud in the societal institution, sport, that
> attracts the most volunteers of any aspect of society (THAT'S voting
> with your feet), and through which virtually all fortune 500 CEO's
> pass. Where they get socialized in what comprises honest
> competition. Who have lead the world into the recent economic
> meltdown.
I hope you're joking, though these days, it's hard to tell.
Brad Anders
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Dumbass,
Has anyone told you that you are a dumbass?
Sports are entertainment goddamnit. Please
stop exalting sports as some kind of essential
character building exercise that shapes Fortune 500
CEOs. You sound like a bad college coach. Please
stop trying to blame a few dopers for the lack of
foresight and ethics that caused an economic
collapse. Actions are the responsibility of those
who take them and not some hypothetical role
model. IOW, businessmen cheat because cheating
provides an advantage, not because Tiger Woods
or LANCE showed them cheating was okay.
I think hypercompetitive Little League fathers who
warp their kids' brains are far more destructive to
sports than adult athletes who make their own
decisions about dope.
Food safety regulation is important, BTW. If you don't
understand that, I don't know how to convince you.
Fredmaster Ben
mtb Dad
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry, wrong name on the above 2 'Una' posts. My daughter was logged
on. Don't blame her.
Your comment reminds me of the UCI officials who complained of the
term 'anti-doping', preferring the quaint "medical control", as if
this was all about stopping too many aspirins. It's there. Everyone
knows about it. Nailing Lance won't start anyone doping. But it will
wake up the sleeping custodians of sport who let it get this bad. I
still think Lance and Johan should blow the whistle on the UCI and go
with the defence that the sport culture forced them to do it. (I
suspect the title of Johan's book is a hint of this: "We Might As Well
Win") It will be much easier to pin that on the UCI; they're on
public record objecting to every successful step in the anti-doping
movement.
mtb Dad
Nope. Never mind the the Fortune 500 CEO's who learned at coach
Bruyneel's knee that winning is all that counts. How about the
average Joes that still watch baseball and don't care about Bond's
cheating? Ya think they haven't absorbed any of that in their daily
lives? Maybe short the waitress? Speed a little? Underdeclare their
income? That's even more far-fetched. Community sport is huge in
teaching values. The meathead dads Fredmaster worries about are just
passing along what the pros teach them.
Fredmaster, yes, I'm a dumbass. I think most people don't really like
this cheating shit, and worry it means everyone else is cheating
them. And want a better system. No-one's values come from a single
source like a role model. They come from influences, especially in
youth, like family, friends and sport. But you can't deny sport is
pretty big in that mix. Especially for the competitive people who end
up leading and making decisions in our society.
I agree food safety is important. Especially for poor people who have
to buy the cheapest stuff. But I think this is more than worthy of
the government's attention. Hell they're probably connected: if those
egg guys actually had acceptable values from their youth, (and there
was good oversight) they wouldn't sell bad eggs.
Brad Anders
> I agree food safety is important. Especially for poor people who have
> to buy the cheapest stuff. But I think this is more than worthy of
> the government's attention.
I really (seriously) don't say this to offend you, but you're off your
rocker if you think nailing a single individual for doping offenses at
a foreign race from a decade ago in a niche sport is more worthy of
the government's attention than general US food safety.
Brad Anders
Brad Anders
Sorry - I distorted what you said, which was "more than worthy" as
opposed to "more worthy". In that case, I don't think you're off your
rocker, IMO, given the limited ability of the FDA to procecute cases
(as outlined by MG), I think they'd be better used on other issues the
FDA has to deal with (e.g. unregulated supplements, food
contamination, unsubstantiated claims, etc.).
Brad Anders
Fred Flintstein
Dude,
And you didn't even touch the connection he draws between doping in
a niche sport and every moral failure that has ever infected society.
Fred Flintstein
mtb Dad
wrote:
Lance isn't niche. He's as big as they get. And you have failed to
address how important a socializing force sport is in society. That's
at risk when cheating is endemic in it. And I never said or implied
'every failure'. If we accept that sport is a huge socializing
influence, and we accept that doping is endemic, and we accept the
stats that Fortune 500 types come from sport backgrounds, (feel free
to debate those) then we must accept that it's at the very least a
very worrying trend. Every Skull and Bones society story, or frat
scandal, lives on the implications for what those implicated are doing
now. We should feel the same way about doping in sport. It's bigger.
I appreciate the correction Brad. I think you raised the level here
about 10 pts doing that. I'll try to follow. So, yes, there are
serious food issues that should be examined. And I agree with your
examples. But maybe they haven't got a Landis to move an
investigation, on supplements or bad eggs? FDA does with doping with
tax dollars.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Dumbass,
Seriously, you're a bigger Kool-Aid drinker than the
diehard fans of LANCE. What I mean by that is that you
are buying all the lines about the importance of sport
in society, building character, and so on.
Those are mostly rationalizations for making sports
such a large part of our lives, when it's really just
entertainment. Why do Texas schools spend way more
money on high school football than on teaching high
school algebra? Because football is fun, and fun for
people to watch, and algebra is work, and not fun to
watch. In order to justify this state of affairs, coaches
principals parents fans and dumbasses talk about
how sport is character building and creates Fortune
500 CEOs. I'm calling bullshit on it.
If you want to worry about something, worry about a
culture of entitlement where everyone is looking for
an easy way out and where parents consider
harassing teachers for grades more proper than
teaching little Jimmy and Jane that learning is
important. The low educational level of US (or Canadian,
so there) undergrads is more worrisome to me than
some goddamn doper.
> I appreciate the correction Brad. I think you raised the level here
> about 10 pts doing that. I'll try to follow. So, yes, there are
> serious food issues that should be examined. And I agree with your
> examples. But maybe they haven't got a Landis to move an
> investigation, on supplements or bad eggs? FDA does with doping with
> tax dollars.
You're nuts. FDA does not need a Landis to investigate
bad eggs. They know that if they inspect food factories
("factory" not the usual term, but I think it appropriate) they
can turn up violations. The problems are that they don't
have the budget to hire enough inspectors, and that the
food-factory lobby is so rich and influential that it can
influence regulations, prevent penalties with actual teeth,
and so on. The doper lobby, despite your thoughts about
its influence, is not doing that.
Fredmaster Ben
Magilla Gorilla
All you have proved there is physicians are violating the law and medical ethics. Generally speaking, the
only states where you'll see parents pestering pediatricians and GP's for steroids for their children is in
Bible belt states where football - particularly high school football - is king. You won't see that BS in
coastal states.
Lance is from a doping state of Texas....he's no different than the avg, high school football player in
Dallas, Houston, or Austin.
Go move down to Texas for a year and then tell me if that entire state isn't fucked up with their attitude
about football and chearleadin;.....
Thanks,
Magilla
Magilla Gorilla
una farrar wrote:
Did you know that Dick Pound was Ben Johnson's lawyer? Yep, and he believed him at the
time.
>
>
> What makes you think that nailing Armstrong won't lead to stronger
> anti-doping laws, less complicit teams, and UCI officials that might
> actually try to stop doping? Those would all be much more than what we
> have now.
Nailing Pharmstrong will definitely be a face-smacking for a lot of dopers.
Magilla
Magilla Gorilla
Nailing LA will be a plus. Don't deny it.
Magilla
Frederick the Great
<e2a75375-9c2b-45c6...@h37g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Brad Anders <pban...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 13, 1:33 pm, Brad Anders <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 11:46 am, mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I agree food safety is important. Especially for poor people who have
> > > to buy the cheapest stuff. But I think this is more than worthy of
> > > the government's attention.
> >
> > I really (seriously) don't say this to offend you, but you're off your
> > rocker if you think nailing a single individual for doping offenses at
> > a foreign race from a decade ago in a niche sport is more worthy of
> > the government's attention than general US food safety.
>
> Sorry - I distorted what you said, which was "more than worthy" as
> opposed to "more worthy". In that case, I don't think you're off your
> rocker, IMO, given the limited ability of the FDA to procecute cases
> (as outlined by MG), I think they'd be better used on other issues the
> FDA has to deal with (e.g. unregulated supplements, food
> contamination, unsubstantiated claims, etc.).
Department of Agriculture should be the principal in this matter.
--
Old Fritz
H. Fred Kveck
Magilla Gorilla <m.go...@sandiegozoo.org> wrote:
I know you love the contrarian thing but seriously? You're out to lunch on that.
Kids were pounding steroids at both high schools I went to in the coastal state of
California. Not out in the sticks, mind you - that was in the Bay Area. And I doubt
it's gotten better in the intervening years.
> Lance is from a doping state of Texas....he's no different than the avg, high
> school football player in Dallas, Houston, or Austin.
Oh, they're dating women that look like their moms too? Huh, who knew?
> Go move down to Texas for a year and then tell me if that entire state isn't
> fucked up with their attitude about football and chearleadin;.....
I'm not going to argue with that. But to one extent or the other, it's true across
the country.
Brad Anders
Thanks, that explains a lot. Ben made Dick look like a fool for
believing him, so it's no wonder Dick went off the deep end when he
ran WADA.
Brad Anders
mtb Dad
>
> - Show quoted text -
Looks like they have some inspectors doing the right things:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tainted_eggs
"Donations" to the UCI should be included in the category of 'doper
lobby'. And how about McQuaid getting the nod as Verbruggen's
appointed heir? Or clean docs like the Prentice getting shown the
door? Or no chaperones in the Tour until 2 years ago? In 08 TV crews
caught riders cyclocrossing across fields to avoid the first
chaperones. And penalties with teeth? Steroids got you a 10 minutes
penalty in the tour, when all other sports had 2 year suspension.
mtb Dad
>
> - Show quoted text -
Do you really think he went off the deep end? Everything he said has
been shown to be true. Sometimes the emperor doesn't actually have
any clothes on.
Brad Anders
It's pretty clear that Pound seemed to take every major case rather
personally, issuing pronouncements of guilt long before the process
(e.g. prior to B-sample testing) had reached conclusion. The fact that
most (not all) turned out to be guilty doesn't absolve Pound. A guy
with that little self-control is not a good match for an organization
like WADA, and certainly not the IOC. IMO, Ben Johnson playing Pound
for a sucker probably is a factor here.
There's a good article on Pound in Wired that you can find on Google.
Brad Anders