Shack statements
Scott
http://www.livestrong.com/teamradioshack/
Yeah, Landis seems credible alright.
Keith
These emails are quite confusing
http://www.livestrong.com/teamradioshack/news_series-emails-referenced-statement-regarding-doping-allegations/
What I don't understand is that they think that revealing that Landis
was "blackmailing them" (can't really see any trace of that in the
emails, but let's assume he was) is going to help them avoid
discussing the facts at hand ? Something Landis has apparently been
doing with USADA (and obtaining immunity in the process?) ?
K. Fred Gauss
I'm waiting for the Landis spin on this. It reads like a blackmail attempt.
Amit Ghosh
dumbass,
blackmailing someone only works if you have real dirt on them.
if landis is telling the truth, there is nothing illegal about it.
Scott
two very valid points, but nothing that we didn't already know.
drmofe
Thanks for that. It gives a rich new vein of memes for RBR:
1) It's great to see Floyd back in top form.
2) It's great to see Floyd smiling.
3) It's great to see Floyd and OUCH together again and back on top.
4) He's been through hell, give him a break.
5) Whether you believe him or not, you can't argue with the fact that
he has been punished a thousand times over.
6) I don't think he did it.
7) He didn't do it.
8) The french lab is a piece of s--t.
9) Let's move on.
10) Who cares about the past.
11) He overhauled the entire anti-doping system.
12) Check out his website and see what they did to him. (please do
this yourself if you haven't already)
13) He's working with the kids in South Central Los Angeles.
14) It's amazing to see him get through everything he has been
through and get back on top with an artificial hip!
15) Check out floydlandis.com for more info.
16) 2006 Tour of California Champion Floyd Landis.
K. Fred Gauss
You don't understand how these investigations work. Once the Feds get
their hands on this, it'll lead to another piece of evidence and
another. Things look bad for Landis. I guess that by this time next
week, he'll be indicted for being Julie Andrews.
Keith
<truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 21, 2:20ÔøΩpm, Amit Ghosh <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Amit,
>
>You've got that 100% wrong. Blackmailing - even when it's the truth
>is still an illegal act that has criminal and civil liabilities.
Yeah, but that's not going to make the facts go away, right ?
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<amit....@gmail.com> wrote:
>blackmailing someone only works if you have real dirt on them.
>
>if landis is telling the truth, there is nothing illegal about it.
Timed well, a false charge could wreak havoc, like timing it so it
effects the Tour de France selection with insufficient time to prove
or disprove the allegation. With the few years LA has left to race
before he turns 50, missing a Tour could be devastating.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Brad Anders
> On Fri, 21 May 2010 13:49:42 -0700 (PDT), Anton Berlin
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 21, 2:20Êpm, Amit Ghosh <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 21, 2:49Êpm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > interesting reading, take a look at the email trail.
>
> >> >http://www.livestrong.com/teamradioshack/
>
> >> > Yeah, Landis seems credible alright.
>
> >> dumbass,
>
> >> blackmailing someone only works if you have real dirt on them.
>
> >> if landis is telling the truth, there is nothing illegal about it.
>
> >Amit,
>
> >You've got that 100% wrong. Blackmailing - even when it's the truth
> >is still an illegal act that has criminal and civil liabilities.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
What facts? I was under the impression that facts had to be backed up
with evidence.
Brad Anders
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<pban...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What facts? I was under the impression that facts had to be backed up
>with evidence.
>
>Brad Anders
Well, I guess in the grand scheme of things, facts are facts, but
yeah, to be called anything like 'proof', it would be nice to have
some substantiation.
I AM using the common definition of 'facts' and not the one that BL
uses, where facts are verified solely by the biases and prejudices
floating around in his mind. Substantiation is an unnecessary
hobgoblin in those cases and easily dismissed when it doesn't properly
correspond to the conclusions he has already arrived at.
Frederick the Great
<99d512a1-f86e-4d31...@a2g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Anton Berlin <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Amit,
>
> You've got that 100% wrong. Blackmailing - even when it's the truth
> is still an illegal act that has criminal and civil liabilities.
> Blackmailing involves the promise to not publically disclose truthful
> information that otherwise would be legally or normally allowed.
>
> I believe you're thinking of slander and libel where 'truth is an
> absolute defense'
Taking money for not publishing damaging lies is extortion.
--
Old Fritz
F. Kurgan Gringioni
"Keith" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:oltdv5dpbsg26ld3g...@4ax.com...
>>
>>Amit,
>>
>>You've got that 100% wrong. Blackmailing - even when it's the truth
>>is still an illegal act that has criminal and civil liabilities.
>
> Yeah, but that's not going to make the facts go away, right ?
Dumbass -
Flandis doesn't have any actual evidence.
Fingerpointing doesn't constitute evidence.
Regardless, even if he did, it's still blackmail. Flandis is seriously dumb.
I kinda feel sorry for him. He has dug himself a deep, deep hole.
thanks,
Fred. presented by Gringioni.
F. Kurgan Gringioni
"Amit Ghosh" <amit....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fbafd11e-b312-40fe-b8be-
> blackmailing someone only works if you have real dirt on them.
>
> if landis is telling the truth, there is nothing illegal about it.
Dumbass -
See the David Letterman case.
H. Fred Kveck
"F. Kurgan Gringioni" <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Keith" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:oltdv5dpbsg26ld3g...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >>Amit,
> >>
> >>You've got that 100% wrong. Blackmailing - even when it's the truth
> >>is still an illegal act that has criminal and civil liabilities.
> >
> > Yeah, but that's not going to make the facts go away, right ?
> Flandis doesn't have any actual evidence.
>
> Fingerpointing doesn't constitute evidence.
Or a "fact."
> Regardless, even if he did, it's still blackmail. Flandis is seriously dumb.
> I kinda feel sorry for him. He has dug himself a deep, deep hole.
I'd say he's pretty much radioactive from here on out. I wonder what Rahsaan
Bahati is thinking right now...
K. Fred Gauss
>
> "Amit Ghosh" <amit....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fbafd11e-b312-40fe-b8be-
>
>> blackmailing someone only works if you have real dirt on them.
>>
>> if landis is telling the truth, there is nothing illegal about it.
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> See the David Letterman case.
>
Dumbass,
You are correct.
That said, Landis wont be prosecuted for blackmail. It's difficult to
pull an explicit threat associated with failing to meet his conditions
from any of these emails. You can't prove that blackmail was his intent
solidly enough to get a conviction. Any reasonable prosecutor will see this.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:4bf7...@news.x-privat.org...
I think any intelligent person reading that string of emails would come to
the same conclusion- Floyd is missing quite a bit of brain matter. Now, you
could claim that this missing brain matter happened after everyone set to
screw him over when he presented his defense for the testosteron
conviction... but the problem there is that they were screwing him over
because they thought he was guilty and basically a con-artist trying to get
people to pay for his attempts to get away with cheating. Oh, but wait, they
were RIGHT!
Nobody's going to touch Floyd, either to prove blackmail or to use his
statements against Lance & others. He's just gone way to wacko, and everyone
he's become close to and has sucked into his "rehabilitation" (for lack of a
better word) has come out destroyed by their efforts.
All Floyd can prove beyond reasonable doubt is that he's a low-quality
con-man who is much better at wrecking other people's lives than enriching
his own. That's pretty pathetic.
And yes, by the way, I believed Floyd back in the day. I lost all faith in
him when he was in the same room as his friend who made that awful call to
Greg LeMond claiming to be someone who had caused him great harm & trauma as
a boy. A decent person wouldn't allow that call to have been made.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Keith
<Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>
>Nobody's going to touch Floyd, either to prove blackmail or to use his
>statements against Lance & others.
Apparently the USADA are taking him seriously like anyone interested
in getting to the bottom of this is. Latest news is that two cyclists
have been approached for confirmation of some of his revelations and
wih offers of leniency. I'm guessing these two could be those involved
in the famous SMS conversation, i.e.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/similar-doping-charges-were-aired-in-2005-web-chat-by-former-armstrong-teammates/?scp=3&sq=landis&st=cse
>He's just gone way to wacko, and everyone
>he's become close to and has sucked into his "rehabilitation" (for lack of a
>better word) has come out destroyed by their efforts.
>
>All Floyd can prove beyond reasonable doubt is that he's a low-quality
>con-man who is much better at wrecking other people's lives than enriching
>his own. That's pretty pathetic.
>
>And yes, by the way, I believed Floyd back in the day.
I never believed in him and can't see how anyone looking at the facts
could have. Remember that all he was fighting for was to have the
carbon exogenous dismissed because he was not at 11:1 in the standard
testo/epo test but in fact 4:1. He was hoping to get off on a
technicality.
Not dissimular to LA and JB dismissing his comments because he's a
liar and supposedly tried to blackmail them. I have yet to see
evidence, of that in spite of the private email these idiots thought
clever to disclose, but it's irrelevant to the facts and they'll have
to come up with an answer before shit hits the fan for them. At long
last I must say.
ilan
They seem like a violation of copyright, you can't publish someone
else's e-mail without their permission.
-ilan
cur...@the-md-russells.org
wrote:
Probably - just as half of rbr is guilty of a copyright violation when
they alter/edit another person's post in a way that changes the
meaning of the post. In this case, FL would have to set up another
legal fund and spend a million to win, oh, maybe a thousand or so.
Of course, the average post on rbr is of significantly less value.
We're probably all safe from the results of any suit as long as there
is change in the lining of the couch. I don't know if anyone has ever
been sued and the court found that the alteration improved the value
of the post, but perhaps BL would like to sue someone to find out.
Amit Ghosh
wrote:
> All Floyd can prove beyond reasonable doubt is that he's a low-quality
> con-man who is much better at wrecking other people's lives than enriching
> his own. That's pretty pathetic.
dumbass,
yes, this sums up my feelings as well.
Michael Press
<e9982a1b-54c5-4d7b...@e21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
ilan <ila...@gmail.com> wrote:
Personal mail is the property of the recipient in the USA.
--
Michael Press
Anton Berlin
ilan
> In article
> <e9982a1b-54c5-4d7b-8507-d9aac556f...@e21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>
> ilan <ilan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 21, 8:49 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > interesting reading, take a look at the email trail.
>
> > >http://www.livestrong.com/teamradioshack/
>
> > > Yeah, Landis seems credible alright.
>
> > They seem like a violation of copyright, you can't publish someone
> > else's e-mail without their permission.
>
> Personal mail is the property of the recipient in the USA.
>
> --
> Michael Press
Yes, the recipient owns it, but the person who wrote it keeps the
copyright. Reposting personal mail without permission is a violation
of copyright.
-ilan
Betty Munro
> Probably - just as half of rbr is guilty of a copyright violation when
> they alter/edit another person's post in a way that changes the
> meaning of the post. In this case, FL would have to set up another
> legal fund and spend a million to win, oh, maybe a thousand or so.
>
> Of course, the average post on rbr is of significantly less value.
> We're probably all safe from the results of any suit as long as there
> is change in the lining of the couch. I don't know if anyone has ever
> been sued and the court found that the alteration improved the value
> of the post, but perhaps BL would like to sue someone to find out.
Editing bruce's posts is a service to humanity. The UN or a NGO should
take over.
Michael Press
<5b97f3b9-2bd2-4ad8...@a16g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
ilan <ila...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 23, 10:35 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <e9982a1b-54c5-4d7b-8507-d9aac556f...@e21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > ilan <ilan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 21, 8:49 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > interesting reading, take a look at the email trail.
> >
> > > >http://www.livestrong.com/teamradioshack/
> >
> > > > Yeah, Landis seems credible alright.
> >
> > > They seem like a violation of copyright, you can't publish someone
> > > else's e-mail without their permission.
> >
> > Personal mail is the property of the recipient in the USA.
>
> Yes, the recipient owns it, but the person who wrote it keeps the
> copyright. Reposting personal mail without permission is a violation
> of copyright.
Okay. The owner can make public fair user paraphrases,
which is not what happened in this case.
--
Michael Press
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Nobody gives a crap about this when the email or
letters contain threats, extortion, or publishing the
email is needed to prove a fact. For example, if
I deny ever having emailed you permission to
borrow my red 1961 Ferrari GT while you played
hooky from teaching, and you produce the email
as proof that I did in fact give you permission, I would
have a fairly pathetic case for copyright infringement.
Lafferty might represent me, though.
Fredmaster Ben
Betty Munro
> For example, if I deny ever having emailed you permission to
> borrow my red 1961 Ferrari GT while you played
> hooky from teaching, and you produce the email
> as proof that I did in fact give you permission, I would
> have a fairly pathetic case for copyright infringement.
>
> Lafferty might represent me, though.
Lafferty would only be interested if it was LANCE and a Ferrari (the
vintage wouldn't matter though).