100% without a doubt - Lance Armstrong commits perjury in SCA Deposition
Anton Berlin
2
Q.
Okay. I think it's clear. Let me -- can I
3 ask you some additional questions as a followup on
4 that?
5
A.
Sure.
6
Q.
You have never taken any
7 performance-enhancing drug in connection with your
8 cycling career.
9
A.
Correct.
10
Q.
And that would include any substance that's
11 ever been banned. Is that fair to say?
12
A.
Correct
A.
Correct.
13
Q.
Okay. Well, why don't you give me the
14 definition of what you're using when you say you've
15 never taken any performance-enhancing substances.
16 What would that include? Anything banned?
17
A.
That would have -- well, it would include
18 anything on the banned list.
19
Q.
Okay. For example, would -- would that
20 include that you've never used your own blood for
21 doping purposes, for example?
22
A.
Abso -- that would be banned.
23
Q.
Okay. I'm not trying to agitate you. I'm
24 just trying to make sure your testimony is clear.
Anton Berlin
Well, if I've never taken
20 performance-enhancing drugs, I never would have told a
21 doctor that I took performance-enhancing drugs,
22 therefore, they never would have written down in any
23 records that I'd taken performance-enhancing drugs.
Anton Berlin
1
A.
I think so. I've never had an A sample
2 positive.
3
Q.
Okay. That was my first question, was --
4
A.
So I don't know.
5
Q.
You -- I appreciate your answer. Let me ask
6 this so I have the question. Have you ever had a
7 positive A sample --
8
A.
No.
9
Q.
-- in any test you've ever taken that you
10 recall?
11
A.
No.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:5fb68d18-3114-4a07...@s19g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
Are you & Jute Andre the same person? Not that there's anything wrong
with that.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Anton Berlin
> Are you & Jute Andre the same person? Not that there's anything wrong
> with that.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Mike - AJ is a slimy prick and I don't spend enough time on these
boards to even have the faintest idea why you'd suggest such a thing.
It was I that put the post up that Jute would stone women if he wasn't
putting up all of this helmet bullshit.
But why you don't stay focused on two critical facts. We know
Armstrong has doped. Anyone that's paid any attention and has any
sense of an honest dialogue with their inner being knows that for a
fact.
And here we have 5 + occasions of him committing outright perjury.
Where do you stand on these facts?
Magilla Gorilla
It's common knowledge in the medical community that doctors do not write
down things like this in medical records because it has no purpose in
treatment. And in fact, doctors purposely leave stuff like this out of
the records.
It's like asking a skateboarder if he had permission to skate on the
property where he did a trick and broke his arm. Why would a doctor
give a fuck about about that information - is it going to change the way
he treats the patient? No.
Second, it seems pretty obvious that the people who asked Lance this
question were student doctors-in-training (he was at a teaching
hospital) and this question was just one of out curiosity's sake. Lance
answered it honestly, thinking that everyone in the room was part of his
doping team.
Wait until Ferrari comes out with a tell-all book about doping when he's
70. Lance will claim Ferrari is senile.
Magilla
Anton Berlin
>
> Wait until Ferrari comes out with a tell-all book about doping when he's
> 70. Lance will claim Ferrari is senile.
>
> Magilla
We won't have to wait that long. This will all be settled in the next
two years or so,
raamman
yep. you found it.
how the fuck did the judge and jury miss that ???
oh, wait, I got it- they're on the payroll too !
now be careful, I'm sure you are now a marked man.
you brain-dead dolt.
Anton Berlin
testicle lodged in your throat.
Please rinse the goo out and try again.
RicodJour
> > Are you & Jute Andre the same person? Not that there's anything wrong
> > with that.
>
> > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> Mike - AJ is a slimy prick and I don't spend enough time on these
> boards to even have the faintest idea why you'd suggest such a thing.
> It was I that put the post up that Jute would stone women if he wasn't
> putting up all of this helmet bullshit.
Well, maybe it's just the cycling cleats that are making you walk like
a duck, and talk like a duck, and act like a duck. The duck in this
case being AJ. Your newsgroup proclivities make you the two of you
indistinguishable.
> But why you don't stay focused on two critical facts. We know
> Armstrong has doped. Anyone that's paid any attention and has any
> sense of an honest dialogue with their inner being knows that for a
> fact.
>
> And here we have 5 + occasions of him committing outright perjury.
>
> Where do you stand on these facts?
What an odd question. Let me rephrase that - what a stupid question.
Again, my apologies as I'm searching for the right words - what an
inanely stupid question that is bereft of any meaning and not worthy
of a reply.
How you can make several logical mistakes in six words is close to
being a super power.
Here's my stand on the matter, since you're such a persistent guy - I
don't really care. Isn't that earth-shattering?
Aren't you supposed to be playing some high powered dude that's just
dabbling around on the intertubegroups? Supposed to be, being the
operative phrase, but you have just another one of the many online
obsessions, and it's eating you up. Who exactly are you trying to
convince? The people that already agree with you? The people that
don't and never will, or the large bulk of the population that don't
know, don't particularly care and are content to let the thing play
out on its own? From the cheap seats it looks like you don't have a
big potential-convert pool. Last time I had someone trying so hard to
convert me they were trying to have me take a 'free personality
test'. Are you a Scientologist by any chance?
You want to know why you get confused for Jute? It's because you're
like a dog with a bone. I don't _want_ your bone, dammit, doggie! Go
play with another mutt that'll give you the tussle you want.
R
BLafferty
FuckWit, there was no jury or judge. It was an arbitration before a
panel of three arbitrators. But, don't despair. A judge and jury trial
looms.
RicodJour
An arbitration panel in this instance is a jury and is also the judge
and your response doesn't address what rmananana-man pointed out at
all. But you already knew that.
R
Mike Jacoubowsky
> Are you & Jute Andre the same person? Not that there's anything wrong
> with that.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
==========
Mike - AJ is a slimy prick and I don't spend enough time on these
boards to even have the faintest idea why you'd suggest such a thing.
It was I that put the post up that Jute would stone women if he wasn't
putting up all of this helmet bullshit.
But why you don't stay focused on two critical facts. We know
Armstrong has doped. Anyone that's paid any attention and has any
sense of an honest dialogue with their inner being knows that for a
fact.
And here we have 5 + occasions of him committing outright perjury.
Where do you stand on these facts?
===========
Here's the problem with your fantasy. You define "fact" to suit your own
idea of what a "fact" should be (not saying that's unreasonable to do, but-)
and then you want to use the legal definition and ramifications thereof for
"perjury."
If you want to talk about what could legally happen to Lance, then you
should be consistent. You need to accept what a "fact" is in court, and I
can assure you, even Brian would tell you, that a "fact" is not considered
so in court when "Anyone that's paid any attention and has any sense of an
honest dialogue with their inner being knows that for a fact."
"Honest dialouge." I won't even google that to see if it comes up in any
sort of context with the legal system.
If you want to redefine perjury to fit your own idea, then fine, do so. But
don't put it within the context of what would happen in a court of law.
You're free to build your own sandbox and create your own rules within that
sandbox. But that's your sandbox and your rules.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
BLafferty
FuckTard, try re-reading what he wrote for comprehension this time. He
asked how the judge and jury missed "that." There was no judge. There
was no jury. There was an arbitration panel that acted as the finder of
fact and applied the law to the facts. As such they were/are more akin
to an Administrative Law Judge in function than a separate judge and
jury which raamadingdong though heard the case.
RicodJour
> asked how the judge and jury missed "that." There was no judge. There
> was no jury. There was an arbitration panel that acted as the finder of
> fact and applied the law to the facts. As such they were/are more akin
> to an Administrative Law Judge in function than a separate judge and
> jury which raamadingdong though heard the case.
Dear Ms. Douchebag,
Correct. The arbitration panel does serve as judge and jury - that's
why there's three of 'em. Splitting your gray pubic hairs about
terminology doesn't change the fact that an impartial, professional
panel, with access to whatever minutiae they asked for, didn't in fact
miss the information that seems to be a revelation only to you.
Whether or not another panel would have the same finding is a
pointless exercise, of which you are the admitted master. Now go back
to your knitting...maybe Judge Judy is on the telly.
R
BLafferty
FuckTard, while they perform the functions of finders of fact and
appliers of law, they aren't referred to as a judge or jury because they
aren't either. The combined functions have NOTHING to do with why there
are three of them. A single Administrative Judge performs both
functions in an administrative hearing. The reason why there are three
person arbitration panels is because each side wants to try to
neutralize any advantage the other side might have if there were only
one arbitrator. Thus, under the rules of the AAA, each side picks and
arbitrator from the AAA's approved panel of arbitrators and those two
then pick the third who normally chairs the hearing.
> Splitting your gray pubic hairs about
> terminology doesn't change the fact that an impartial, professional
> panel, with access to whatever minutiae they asked for, didn't in fact
> miss the information that seems to be a revelation only to you.
Since the arbitration panel did not have to render any decision, you
have no idea what they considered or did not consider. And, arbitration
panels don't normally ask for anything. They consider what is presented
to them by the parties.
>
> Whether or not another panel would have the same finding is a
> pointless exercise, of which you are the admitted master. Now go back
> to your knitting...maybe Judge Judy is on the telly.
Judy, Judy, Judy. Some of my friends actually appeared before the crazy
bitch before she left the the New York Supreme Court bench. I'll bet you
could score if you got on her arbitration show.
>
> R
Anton Berlin
credibility. I wouldn't buy a bike friday based on your nutty sense
of reality and skewness with what all others evidence and relent to as
truth.
We KNOW - we all god damn know that Lance took corticosteroids and EPO
and that these are performance enhancing drugs. It's been
scientifically and medically proven after the fact - as well it can be
reproved and will be again and again.
Your boy is delusional too - he thinks he is the savior of the world
and an inspiration to "hundreds of millions". What a god damn mind
that must harbor these thoughts!?
Norman Borlaug saved a billion people + from starvation and his ego
and claims when he was alive are 1/100oth of Armstrong's.
Here's the arrogance of this man - feel free to compare to a dickweed
that rides a bike "I am but one member of a vast team made up of many
organizations, officials, thousands of scientists, and millions of
farmers - mostly small and humble - who for many years have been
fighting a quiet, oftentimes losing war on the food production front."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
"Fighting for 18 million cancer victims" ? That cocksucker Armstrong
uses the money to grift free jet rides and grab Jenny Mccarthey's fake
tit while her autistic kid drools in the corner (probably a result of
silicone poisoning in the womb).
You need a god damn new hero to worship mate - you picked and have
defended one of the biggest slimiest cunts on the planet for way too
fucking long.
Beloved Fred No. 1
> bitch before she left the the New York Supreme Court bench. I'll bet you
> could score if you got on her arbitration show.
Perhaps she played chess.
RicodJour
Nice diatribe, but you missed the salient point. He's not challenging
your conclusion, and has admitted as much that you might well be
right, he's challenging your decision making. Your absolute certainty
is not proof and is little different than any other faith-based
conclusion. You either believe or you don't. We get it - you
believe.
Now that that's been established, why the relish at the prospect of
the tarnishing of one that most admired?
Do you think this war on drugs will work any better than the other
one?
Remind me once more who's the delusional one...
R
Frederick the Great
<4e85ed16-acbf-4538...@j5g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
Anton Berlin <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Are you & Jute Andre the same person? Not that there's anything wrong
> > with that.
>
> Mike - AJ is a slimy prick and I don't spend enough time on these
> boards to even have the faintest idea why you'd suggest such a thing.
> It was I that put the post up that Jute would stone women if he wasn't
> putting up all of this helmet bullshit.
You do have enough time to form a judgement and
publicize it in the harshest terms; but not enough
time to distinguish Jute Andre from AJ. Now I am
supposed to take seriously your pronouncements on
doping in cycling? I will omit from this reply your
further scurrilous assertions of guilt.
--
Old Fritz
Anton Berlin
There's lots of reasons old people die.
Now get out there and find one.
Be somebody!
Michael Press
<c973aed3-e784-490f...@a19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
RicodJour <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> Well, maybe it's just the cycling cleats that are making you walk like
> a duck, and talk like a duck, and act like a duck. The duck in this
> case being AJ. Your newsgroup proclivities make you the two of you
> indistinguishable.
Andre Jute and Jute Andre are two different personalities;
so much different that they are distinguishable as two
different people. Andre Jute could not throttle back his
prolixity if he wanted to; and he does not want to.
--
Michael Press
Beloved Fred No. 1
> Andre Jute and Jute Andre are two different personalities;
> so much different that they are distinguishable as two
> different people.
Ego altars.