Angry and Impotent Armstrong Defense
BLafferty
Vagina Gorilla
BLafferty
Mike Jacoubowsky
"BLafferty" <laffer...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2650b46-b002-4a72...@e8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
> And Fabio is at a loss for words.
> http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/05/news/a-conversation-with-chris-manderson-hamilton-attorney-characterizes-armstrong-defense-as-angry-and-impotent_175728
While I agree with Manderson's assessment of Armstrong's legal & PR
team, I choked on the following-
"I think for the most part, people have been supportive," Manderson
said. "One thing I appreciate about the '60 Minutes' interview is that
it gave the public a chance to see the Tyler Hamilton that I have come
to know over the years. A man who is sincere, honest and who has
suffered greatly for his past mistakes."
Tyler is "A man who is sincere, honest."... Sincerity & honesty are in
very short supply on both sides. To claim otherwise is just more of the
Big Lie.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
BL
> "BLafferty"<laffer...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c2650b46-b002-4a72...@e8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>> And Fabio is at a loss for words.
>> http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/05/news/a-conversation-with-chris-manderson-hamilton-attorney-characterizes-armstrong-defense-as-angry-and-impotent_175728
>
> team, I choked on the following-
>
> "I think for the most part, people have been supportive," Manderson
> said. "One thing I appreciate about the '60 Minutes' interview is that
> it gave the public a chance to see the Tyler Hamilton that I have come
> to know over the years. A man who is sincere, honest and who has
> suffered greatly for his past mistakes."
>
> very short supply on both sides. To claim otherwise is just more of the
> Big Lie.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
>
>
us a take on that. There's something about striking a deal for immunity
and testifying to a grand jury with the threat that a lie will get your
immunity revoked, that makes one honest and sincere. That's not at all
to say that he's always been that way. By his own admission he has not
been.
Fred Flintstein
> Armstrong is fucked.
I agree completely. The Feds have him dead to rights for
hacking the French lab's computer.
It's over for him.
F
Fred Flintstein
> He may now be sincere and honest. The corroborating evidence will give
> us a take on that. There's something about striking a deal for immunity
> and testifying to a grand jury with the threat that a lie will get your
> immunity revoked, that makes one honest and sincere. That's not at all
> to say that he's always been that way. By his own admission he has not
> been.
Dumbass,
Why would Tyler care about immunity? He hasn't admitting to doing
anything illegal. Dumbass.
F
Brad Anders
> On 5/26/2011 12:46 AM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:c2650b46-b002-4a72...@e8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
> >> And Fabio is at a loss for words.
>
> > While I agree with Manderson's assessment of Armstrong's legal& PR
> > team, I choked on the following-
>
> > "I think for the most part, people have been supportive," Manderson
> > said. "One thing I appreciate about the '60 Minutes' interview is that
> > it gave the public a chance to see the Tyler Hamilton that I have come
> > to know over the years. A man who is sincere, honest and who has
> > suffered greatly for his past mistakes."
>
> > Tyler is "A man who is sincere, honest."... Sincerity& honesty are in
> > very short supply on both sides. To claim otherwise is just more of the
> > Big Lie.
>
> > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> >www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> He may now be sincere and honest. The corroborating evidence will give
> us a take on that. There's something about striking a deal for immunity
> and testifying to a grand jury with the threat that a lie will get your
> immunity revoked, that makes one honest and sincere. That's not at all
> to say that he's always been that way. By his own admission he has not
> been.
I believe that if/when this case goes to trial, LA's lawyers will
decimate any testimony from Landis and Hamilton by demonstrating to
the jury that both guys waged extensive campaigns to clear themselves
after they were found positive, campaigns that were based on lies,
were intended to deceive and defraud the athlete's most devoted
followers, and were outlandish in their nature (e.g. Tyler's
"absorbed" twin). They will convince the jury that both of these guys
are pathological liars, have axes to grind against LA, and that not a
word they say can be trusted. Combined with the complete lack of
supporting physical evidence that each brings to the table, I suspect
that LA's team will stand a good chance of being successful.
Do I believe that both are telling the truth? For the most part, after
omitting anything outside of their immunity agreements, yes. IMO, any
testimony by Hincapie that supports Hamilton or Landis will be far
more valuable - though I suspect LA's lawyers will figure out some
angle on him, too.
Still waiting for that smoking gun to emerge - doctor's records, money
transfer records, physical evidence of covered-up positive tests, etc.
dave a
Well, if raising millions of dollars for his defense by deceiving his
followers isn't illegal, it should be. Those who accuse LA of
defrauding LAF should hold others to the same standard. (I know you are
not among those).
BL
Yup, they will portray them as the scum of the earth. Landis probably
more so than Hamilton. Hamilton will say that he only testified to save
himself from prosecution. That will ring true because his testimony
occurred last summer--I don't recall he had a book deal or anything else
in the works when subpoenaed. But, there are thousands of guys sitting
in prison on the testimony of far worse people. I don't think any of
the witnesses against Armstrong will have committed murder, for example.
It's a very difficult road when there turns out to be a great deal of
corroborating evidence as there should be in this case.
Hincapie, assuming the CBS report is accurate, will be very difficult to
discredit. They'll hammer him on the deal he got to avoid prosecution,
but that's a difficult argument for such a long time friend who has
never tested positive (unlike Armstrong) and has still said nothing of
substance after having appeared in front of the GJ.
I'll make a prediction. Weisel, Och, Johnson and Stapleton will turn on
Armstrong to save themselves. Weisel isn't going to prison for
Armstrong. Stapleton won't if he can help it, although he had more
intimate dealings with Armstrong than some of the others.
Will Johan appear as a witness for Armstrong if he isn't indicted?
Should be interesting cross-examination if he show up one way or another.
> They will convince the jury that both of these guys
> are pathological liars, have axes to grind against LA, and that not a
> word they say can be trusted. Combined with the complete lack of
> supporting physical evidence that each brings to the table, I suspect
> that LA's team will stand a good chance of being successful.
If only trial work was so simple.................:-)
>
> Do I believe that both are telling the truth? For the most part, after
> omitting anything outside of their immunity agreements, yes. IMO, any
> testimony by Hincapie that supports Hamilton or Landis will be far
> more valuable - though I suspect LA's lawyers will figure out some
> angle on him, too.
>
> Still waiting for that smoking gun to emerge - doctor's records, money
> transfer records, physical evidence of covered-up positive tests, etc.
Be patient. The indictment is coming, followed by Bills of Particulars.
Fred Flintstein
Floyd did that. And of course, he maintains that he didn't do
what he tested positive for. So he hasn't admitted to doing
anything illegal either.
F
William R. Mattil
>
>
> Hincapie, assuming the CBS report is accurate, will be very difficult to
> discredit. They'll hammer him on the deal he got to avoid prosecution,
> but that's a difficult argument for such a long time friend who has
> never tested positive (unlike Armstrong) and has still said nothing of
> substance after having appeared in front of the GJ.
I thought GJ Testimony was sealed ? If that's true then 60 minutes is
probably pulling this information of their asses. Unless GH leaked it.
In which case it voids any immunity agreements that he might have made.
>
> I'll make a prediction. Weisel, Och, Johnson and Stapleton will turn on
> Armstrong to save themselves.
Save themselves from *what* exactly ? You still have not provided any
detail(s) about which laws they have reportedly ran afoul of. In fact
the only possibility that makes in sense is that Govt money might have
paid for it (the doping) which would be incredibly hard, if not
impossible to prove.
> Weisel isn't going to prison for
> Armstrong. Stapleton won't if he can help it, although he had more
> intimate dealings with Armstrong than some of the others.
>
> Will Johan appear as a witness for Armstrong if he isn't indicted?
> Should be interesting cross-examination if he show up one way or another.
>
Here is what we know .... at least those with two working brain cells.
1) Lance Doped.
2) No one really cares since no one can provide any documentation
showing that it was even illegal. Remember he cannot be tried in the US
for breaking laws outside the US.
I doubt that any of this will actually register with you. So keep
enjoying yourself and find a clean jizz rag as things heat up.
Oh yeah - please stop morphing your sent from. Most people have you kill
filed because of your silly rants.
Bill
--
William R. Mattil
Fred Flintstein
> Save themselves from *what* exactly ? You still have not provided any
> detail(s) about which laws they have reportedly ran afoul of. In fact
> the only possibility that makes in sense is that Govt money might have
> paid for it (the doping) which would be incredibly hard, if not
> impossible to prove.
And the fact that a government agency benefited greatly from it
is a pretty major complication if you are trying to prove fraud.
But don't tell the Berliner, he doesn't want to hear it.
F
Mike Jacoubowsky
"BL" <b...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:q6udnRdAnY4xtUPQ...@giganews.com...
So what's the scoop with Floyd then? He wasn't offered something
similar? He continues to spin interesting tales that aren't factual.
And regarding Tyler, did you or did you not read him as saying he was
introduced to doping during Armstrong's reign at USPS? Do you believe
that to be true?
BL
> On 5/26/2011 10:20 AM, BL wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hincapie, assuming the CBS report is accurate, will be very difficult to
>> discredit. They'll hammer him on the deal he got to avoid prosecution,
>> but that's a difficult argument for such a long time friend who has
>> never tested positive (unlike Armstrong) and has still said nothing of
>> substance after having appeared in front of the GJ.
>
> I thought GJ Testimony was sealed ? If that's true then 60 minutes is
> probably pulling this information of their asses. Unless GH leaked it.
> In which case it voids any immunity agreements that he might have made.
Grand jury testimony is sealed, usually until an indictment is handed
down. That said, witnesses are not bound by secrecy as to what they
testified to. Hincapie could have spoken to 60 Min. himself or told
others what he testified to whereupon they talked to CBS.
I'm not privy to CBS News' sources. If it was leaked by Hincapie, I
would assume he only did it knowing that it did not violate his immunity
agreement in-as-much-as the general rule it that witnesses may tell what
they told the GJ.
>
>
>>
>> I'll make a prediction. Weisel, Och, Johnson and Stapleton will turn on
>> Armstrong to save themselves.
>
> Save themselves from *what* exactly ? You still have not provided any
> detail(s) about which laws they have reportedly ran afoul of. In fact
> the only possibility that makes in sense is that Govt money might have
> paid for it (the doping) which would be incredibly hard, if not
> impossible to prove.
They are, from news reports, looking at charges that can form the basis
for a RICO indictment with, in all likelihood, Tailwind and other
business entities used by them for a doping program, are the named
criminal enterprise which they, the defendants controlled. Underlying
felonies alleged, again according to published reports, may include,
mail and wire fraud, insurance fraud, money laundering, criminal tax
evasion, conspiracy, soliciting perjury, perjury, obstruction of
justice. It's all much easier to prove than you might imagine given the
criminal subpoena power that the government has at its disposal as well
as cooperation agreements pursuant to international conventions.
Investigators have, for example, been reported to be examining Swiss
bank records as part of the investigation.
>
>
>> Weisel isn't going to prison for
>> Armstrong. Stapleton won't if he can help it, although he had more
>> intimate dealings with Armstrong than some of the others.
>>
>> Will Johan appear as a witness for Armstrong if he isn't indicted?
>> Should be interesting cross-examination if he show up one way or another.
>>
>
>
> Here is what we know .... at least those with two working brain cells.
>
> 1) Lance Doped.
>
> 2) No one really cares since no one can provide any documentation
> showing that it was even illegal. Remember he cannot be tried in the US
> for breaking laws outside the US.
It's about far more than doping.
>
> I doubt that any of this will actually register with you. So keep
> enjoying yourself and find a clean jizz rag as things heat up.
I doubt much, if any, of this will register with YOU. Clearly Armstrong
understands what is going on. He just added more attorneys to his
entourage. I'll wager Weisel and the others have been lawyered up for
quite some time and some of them may already have cut deals like
Hamilton did. We have no way of knowing that at present.
>
>
> Oh yeah - please stop morphing your sent from. Most people have you kill
> filed because of your silly rants.
I feel your pain. I do what's convenient for me--not for you.
>
>
> Bill
>
>
Jimmy July
> And regarding Tyler, did you or did you not read him as saying he was
> introduced to doping during Armstrong's reign at USPS? Do you believe
> that to be true?
Tyler still insists he didn't dope for the Olympics. "60 Minutes" didn't
pursue the question.
BL
I have no idea. Has he testified to the GJ? He probably has. I would
expect he has immunity of some sort.
>
> And regarding Tyler, did you or did you not read him as saying he was
> introduced to doping during Armstrong's reign at USPS? Do you believe
> that to be true?
Didn't he say that he was approached by a team doctor about starting a
doping program? When was that? Look at the interview. It should be
easy enough to find.
BL
Simply Fred
>> So what's the scoop with Floyd then? He wasn't offered something
>> similar? He continues to spin interesting tales that aren't factual.
BL wrote:
> I have no idea. Has he testified to the GJ? He probably has. I would
> expect he has immunity of some sort.
Immunity from what ? Rabies vaccination is reputed to be quite painful.
Brad Anders
Among other things. There were dozens of unasked questions during that
interview. Pretty crappy reporting.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
>
> I'll make a prediction. Weisel, Och, Johnson and Stapleton will turn on
> Armstrong to save themselves. Weisel isn't going to prison for
> Armstrong. Stapleton won't if he can help it, although he had more
> intimate dealings with Armstrong than some of the others.
This is about the fourth or fifth time that I've asked
you why you keep putting Ochowicz in the line up.
Yes he is a sleaze. Yes he worked for Weisel at some
point. But he was never a principal in Tailwind Sports, he
was never associated with the US Postal team. No one
has advanced a remotely rational theory of how Ochowicz
is on the hook for this. And yet you keep predicting his
ensnarement, which makes it painfully obvious that
the list is a list not of likely targets but of your obsessions.
If anyone has a good theory of how Ochowicz is involved
in this heinous fraud committed on the US Postal Service
by sponsorship of the USPS cycling team, now would be
a good time to air it. I will listen to any rational argument.
Thanks,
Fredmaster Ben
Jimmy July
Right. On top of that, I get the idea that part of Tyler's problem
during the interview was that he's used to answering questions from
prosecutors while "60 Minutes" was focused on whether LA doped or not.
Tyler was like "Yeah, all of us did. All the teams did. What planet are
you from, anyway?" The prosecutors already know LA took drugs, so that's
not where they've been probing. It's a completely different perspective.
For that reason, it's dangerous to try to deduce anything about the
investigation from that interview.
I'll do it anyway. From a certain perspective, Tyler's statements might
have been designed to protect Lance. Tyler indicates that many people on
the team took drugs, but he doesn't implicate Lance as a source of
distribution. He's very careful to ensure that he doesn't make that claim.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:8879163f-63dd-4c5b...@r27g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
On May 26, 9:59 am, Jimmy July <F...@Burger.com> wrote:
> On 5/26/2011 9:43 AM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> > And regarding Tyler, did you or did you not read him as saying he was
> > introduced to doping during Armstrong's reign at USPS? Do you believe
> > that to be true?
>
> Tyler still insists he didn't dope for the Olympics. "60 Minutes" didn't
> pursue the question.
Among other things. There were dozens of unasked questions during that
interview. Pretty crappy reporting.
More specifically, either crappy editing or craftily done to give the story
60 minutes wanted to deliver. They intereviewed Tyler for over three hours
(or was it much longer than that? Don't recall specifically, but Scott
what's-his-name was on Letterman the other night talking about it). We saw
very little of that three hours.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Simply Fred
> I will listen to any rational argument.
Are you sure you're at the right address ?