What's going on??? How soon does Lance come crashing down, and who are
the current players engaged in helping to make that happen?
Just askin'
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
He's busy with porn links. I'm pretty sure one of them is for
Nasty Asian Legal Beavers.
Fred Flintstein
Brian, I know you've waited a long time for that moment.
> We know the investigation is proceeding.
"We have every confidence the investigation is proceeding although we
are worried because we haven't heard jack shit for weeks and weeks
now. We know what a loose cannon Novitsky is and we fervently hope he
hasn't screwed the pooch again and the whole thing is being quietly
hushed up on orders from Upstairs."
> It
> just appears that Novitsky and the other Federal investigators are
> staying quiet.
I agree, this is really strange, because that's not Jeff "I'm Getting
a Book Deal Here" Novitsky's style, at all. I'm wondering whassup,
too. Well, a little, now that I've read MJ's post a couple of minutes
ago.
>Isn't that what Armstrong's legal beavers were clamoring
> for?
I thought "we" were "clamoring" for the cops to go after real
criminals, like people with guns and hotshot lawyers, criminals who
are likely to fight back-- you know, organized crime, racketeers,
kidnappers, gangsters, thugs, that sort. Not skinny little guys in
lycra pants who have to sign their rights away so they can go race
their bicycles.
--D-y
I have to think the US Attorney has made it very clear to Novitsky that
he is not to leak information or speak to the press.
>
>> Isn't that what Armstrong's legal beavers were clamoring
>> for?
>
> I thought "we" were "clamoring" for the cops to go after real
> criminals, like people with guns and hotshot lawyers, criminals who
> are likely to fight back-- you know, organized crime, racketeers,
> kidnappers, gangsters, thugs, that sort. Not skinny little guys in
> lycra pants who have to sign their rights away so they can go race
> their bicycles.
Be patient. There may be a RICO indictment that includes charges of
money laundering, wire fraud and conspiracy. You don't need a gun to be
a criminal.
> --D-y
Says more about you than Novitsky.
So Armstrong, once patron of the Peloton, is now calling the shots for
the feds? Impressive!
But I think there's another possibility. Much of the "news" from
Novitsky et al came shortly after the latest wild story from Floyd,
which fed Floyd and encouraged him to come up with more. I'm thinking
Novitsky got smart and recognized this wasn't doing him any favors
(since some of Floyd's current stories were varifiably fabrications and
once Novitsky figured that out, it was time to get off the PR wagon and
back to the search for truth). Plus there's only so much of Floyd the
public can take, and an OD of Floyd, whether truthful or not, doesn't
help. Novitsky needs something new & different if he wants to be back in
the PR game again.
Dam beavers
Its more fun with a gun. And even more with 2.
Ooooh! I like it - even though it's a typo, it shouldn't be. A
combination of verifiable and variable.
Varifiably - Indisputable and well documented fact posted on Usenet
which turns out to be completely wrong, followed by the OP
proclaiming, "That's not what I meant", and the cycle repeats.
R
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-littman/barry-bonds-six-lessons-f_b_766853.html
Like the road season, Armstrong is low profile right now. Expect more
leaks as Armstrong heads to Australia.
In the public's interest...huh? We're talking about cycling in the
US, fer crissakes. When they bump cycling TV back in the schedule
because of a Bassmasters special, it's a little bit of a stretch to
call it 'public interest'.
I wonder how L'enema will take it when his hero Novitsky is the one
charged with perjury and misconduct. Crusaders often get hoisted on
their own petard. I'm saving up using retard and petard in a
forthcoming post when Novitsky gets censured, so don't steal it.
R
I excerpted the following from that link:
(quote):
Witness lists provided by the prosecutors and Bonds' attorneys this
past week only tell a part of the story. Trials are dramas, and the
defense said it has held back on full disclosure to avoid tipping off
prosecutors to "weaknesses in the government's case." Come March 21
two men will be on trial -- Bonds and the man who built the case
against him, Agent Jeff Novitzky, the same man spearheading the
Armstrong investigation.
The government plans to try Bonds for lying, but what's interesting is
that Novitzky himself has increasingly emerged as a controversial
figure. His flagrant violation of the 4th Amendment while illegally
seizing over a hundred 2003 MLB test results was condemned by the
Bonds trial judge, and last month again by the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals. Government attempts to introduce Bonds' rumored positive test
results from that illegal search may not succeed.
Then there are the potential wild card witnesses. Three fellow agents
have accused Novitzky of misconduct in BALCO, and Bonds' defense team
has met with all three and taken their statements. Meanwhile, Bonds'
attorneys may attempt to call Mike Rains to the stand, the lawyer who
represented the slugger before the grand jury. Court papers suggest
that Rains would testify that the prosecutors lied to Bonds in laying
an elaborate perjury trap, itself a serious violation of federal law,
described in a key underlying case as, "a concept in itself
abhorrent."
Beyond the rules of sport there are the larger principles of fairness
and justice under American law. How the testimony of these and other
witnesses ultimately play out in the Bonds trial and Armstrong
investigation remains to be seen. Everybody shades the truth.
But there's nothing a juror hates more than a government witness who
lies. (end)
There's that violation of the 4th Amendment again. Lafferty seems to
admire that.
Well, I guess you don't have anything to worry about if you haven't
done something wrong-- right, Brian?
--D-y
I think steroid use as a performance enhancer is perceived as a public
health risk, especially for "youth" (THE CHILDREN).
Well, all fine and good but that's not, in my estimation, Novitsky's
motivation, and we've seen that Betsy Andreu only recently added it to
her Top Twenty.
To loosely quote someone who is in a position to know, there was a
time when "doping" was part of the game (he was referring to pro
cycling but this applies to all sports, and chess, etc.) but times
have changed. Things that people did are being judged while looking in
the rearview mirror.
I hope there is "justice" enough for cops and criminals alike.
--D-y
Candyass!
Fred Flintstein
Perhaps they meant pubic interest.
Dumbass,
The Favre incident is a different investigation.
Fred Flintstein
ROTFL!! I think not.
>
> But I think there's another possibility. Much of the "news" from
> Novitsky et al came shortly after the latest wild story from Floyd,
> which fed Floyd and encouraged him to come up with more. I'm thinking
> Novitsky got smart and recognized this wasn't doing him any favors
> (since some of Floyd's current stories were varifiably fabrications and
> once Novitsky figured that out, it was time to get off the PR wagon and
> back to the search for truth). Plus there's only so much of Floyd the
> public can take, and an OD of Floyd, whether truthful or not, doesn't
> help. Novitsky needs something new& different if he wants to be back in
> the PR game again.
Can I have some of what you're smoking?
"It has been rumored that Armstrong will likely be indicted this
January, but pretrial moves could easily delay his trial to 2012 or
2013." Has that rumor appeared in the press anywhere else?
You'll swear that LA is clean before you quit candyassing.
So another instance when I should have used a smiley? I thought more highly
of your interpretive abilities than that...
>
>>
>> But I think there's another possibility. Much of the "news" from
>> Novitsky et al came shortly after the latest wild story from Floyd,
>> which fed Floyd and encouraged him to come up with more. I'm thinking
>> Novitsky got smart and recognized this wasn't doing him any favors
>> (since some of Floyd's current stories were varifiably fabrications and
>> once Novitsky figured that out, it was time to get off the PR wagon and
>> back to the search for truth). Plus there's only so much of Floyd the
>> public can take, and an OD of Floyd, whether truthful or not, doesn't
>> help. Novitsky needs something new& different if he wants to be back in
>> the PR game again.
>
>"BLafferty" <B...@nobody.com> wrote in message Can I have some of what you're
>smoking?
Instead of what I'm smoking, why don't you refute what I've written in an
intelligent fashion? Discuss rather than the usual rbr flippant remark?
I know it's not the norm, but it remains a crime without real punishment to
have a substantive discussion here. What are you afraid would happen?
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
What is the timeline for the relevant statute of limitations? Is there a
drop-dead date that forces the issue?
For that matter, what's the downside to Novitsky announcing an indictment
before the investigation is finished?
My apologies for posting questions relevant to the legal proceedings.
Whatever.
I'd rather have some of what you're smoking.
An indictment won't be announced until one is returned by the Grand
Jury. When an indictment is returned it may be under seal pending
further arrests or investigations. Novitsky has nothing whatsoever to do
with announcing an indictment. That is the provenance of the US Attorney.
That would be pretty boring for you. I was one of four who graduated UCSC in
1978 who never smoked or doped. At least the rumor was that there were three
others.
So you refuse to take a definitive stand on the question of whether you
are candyassing or not.
I'm SHOCKED!!!
We already have a word for candyassing, but now
we need a word for quoting a candyass as an
authority. This is very trying for rbr's limited
vocabulary.
It's kind of like hearsay candyass.
Fredmaster Ben
It's much simpler. Novitsky is preoccupied. After
reading on rbr that Kid Rock will be playing Landis
in the upcoming LANCE movie, Novitsky did some
investigating and discovered that the producers
were planning to cast John Malkovich as Jeff Novitsky.
So he's deep into three-way negotiations in an
attempt to get Bruce Willis to take the part instead.
Fredmaster Ben, C.S.A.
"Whatever."
Candypussy ?
ROTFLMAO!!! You guys are such a group of FuckTards. Carry on.
Ask me if I care, FuckWit.
Unnecessary. By responding you show that you do.
If one of you guys was a ham sandwich you could still be indicted
for that.
Fred Flintstein
PS I'm convinced that Laff has a ham sandwich for a brain. If I were
him I'd take extra care to avoid zombies.
>
> ROTFLMAO!!! You guys are such a group of FuckTards. Carry on.
Here is a Gem from Laff
<quote>
But, agreement isn�t really the most important issue. Listening,
actively listening, to others with differing opinions is more important.
Listening, followed by honest, transparent consensus building
</quote>
Obviously this isn't something he does here ..........
Bill
--
William R. Mattil
A Boltzman brain who flickers in and out of existence depending on
whether LANCE is in the news.
I like this part better:
<quote>
EV: What 5 personal characteristics / qualities / skills do you think
are most valuable in an EB member?
1. The ability to actively listen;
2. The desire and ability to set reasonable goals in concert with
others;
3. The ability to work toward goals through a consensus approach;
4. The ability to admit mistakes and seek solutions.
5. The ability to laugh at oneself.
</quote>
0 for 5 on his own scale. That's gotta be some kind of record.
R
On 10/27/10 8:31 AM, in article
_umdnUel1OR_2FXR...@earthlink.com, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>
> "BLafferty" <B...@nobody.com> wrote in message
> news:qt-dnVNZqrLZhFXR...@giganews.com...
>> On 10/27/2010 3:12 AM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> Haven't seen any updates on what's going on. Am I going to have to
>>> google stuff for myself to find out who the latest Grand Jury
>>> witnesses
>>> are? You guys have made me fat& lazy, 'cuz all I've had to do is
>>> check
>>> for news here, and now it's gone.
>>>
>>> What's going on??? How soon does Lance come crashing down, and who
>>> are
>>> the current players engaged in helping to make that happen?
>>>
>>> Just askin'
>>>
>>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>>> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> OK. I'll feed the Troll. We know the investigation is proceeding. It
>> just appears that Novitsky and the other Federal investigators are
>> staying quiet. Isn't that what Armstrong's legal beavers were
>> clamoring for?
>
> So Armstrong, once patron of the Peloton, is now calling the shots for
> the feds? Impressive!
>
> But I think there's another possibility. Much of the "news" from
> Novitsky et al came shortly after the latest wild story from Floyd,
> which fed Floyd and encouraged him to come up with more. I'm thinking
> Novitsky got smart and recognized this wasn't doing him any favors
> (since some of Floyd's current stories were varifiably fabrications and
> once Novitsky figured that out, it was time to get off the PR wagon and
> back to the search for truth). Plus there's only so much of Floyd the
> public can take, and an OD of Floyd, whether truthful or not, doesn't
> help. Novitsky needs something new & different if he wants to be back in
> the PR game again.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Maybe Novitzky just needs time. The grand jury that looked into BALCO first
convened in late Oct 2003. Witnesses testified in batches over a couple
months. Notitzky didn't just sit around after that. And note that Barry
Bonds is scheduled to go to trial in March 2011.
So who knows yet what'll come of all this...
Jim
> I know it's not the norm, but it remains a crime without real punishment
Lafferty is the punishment.
--
Old Fritz
Did you notice how they put the candyass in the title?
Fred Flintstein
I do not believe it's a requirement in rbr to drag all conversations into
the gutter, and try (and sometimes I'll admit it's difficult) to keep from
doing so myself. I think we lose a lot of valuable insight due to the
profane cheerleading and extreme polarization that goes on here. Whether
it's you responding with your own 4-letter epithets or someone else, it just
continues a spiral into the gutter. At any point, *any* point, someone can
decide not to do so. Yeah, this is a repeat of a post I made maybe a year
ago. Obviously I'm the insane one here for believing there's any reason to
bother.
Duh.
After all, the internal politics of rbr are much more
rational and courteous than those of the USCF
(chess version).
Anyway, you have to give Lafferty one out of five.
Although he has not often been interested in
consensus building on rbr, he has generally
been transparent.
Fredmaster Ben
> Anyway, you have to give Lafferty one out of five.
> Although he has not often been interested in
> consensus building on rbr, he has generally
> been transparent.
I think he's done some fine consensus building here. The consensus is that he's
obsessed with LANCE and Thom Weisel, and he's a candyass.
I'll be generous and allow 1 out of 6. Transparency wasn't on his
list. He wanted that in other people. Honesty also didn't make the
list.
R
But, as Lafferty says, "context, context, context". In the context of
Lafferty, rules of civil discourse do not apply. Or even sanity, in general.