"Shut it Up Popo"* - Popovych says he knows nothing !
Keith
And that from the man who was total crap at Lotto...I guess that
helped him not joining the ranks of the ex-uniballer mountain henchmen
to fall for doping, I guess there aren't too many around, let's
see...Rubiera only comes to mind for now.
BLafferty
I don't think Popo has said anything publicly.
His lawyer said, "He doesn't know anything about what the focus of the
investigation is," Miller said. You could interpret that in a couple of
ways. I'm surprised his attorney didn't say directly that Popo knows
nothing. It usually doesn't take 90 minutes to say you know nothing.
Then again, Mclvain was in the GJ room for over 6 hours, IIRC, and she
claims to know nothing. The eventual indictments said to be coming in
January will make interesting reading.
--D-y
>
> > And that from the man who was total crap at Lotto...I guess that
> > helped him not joining the ranks of the ex-uniballer mountain henchmen
> > to fall for doping, I guess there aren't too many around, let's
> > see...Rubiera only comes to mind for now.
>
> I don't think Popo has said anything publicly.
> His lawyer said, "He doesn't know anything about what the focus of the
> investigation is," Miller said. You could interpret that in a couple of
> ways. I'm surprised his attorney didn't say directly that Popo knows
> nothing. It usually doesn't take 90 minutes to say you know nothing.
>
> Then again, Mclvain was in the GJ room for over 6 hours, IIRC, and she
> claims to know nothing. The eventual indictments said to be coming in
> January will make interesting reading.
Well, Brian, don't forget, they're building the case against Novitsky,
too.
--D-y
RicodJour
>
> It usually doesn't take 90 minutes to say you know nothing.
After years of posting you still haven't said it. People had to
figure it out for themselves.
R
Keith
>
>I don't think Popo has said anything publicly.
>His lawyer said, "He doesn't know anything about what the focus of the
>investigation is," Miller said. You could interpret that in a couple of
>ways. I'm surprised his attorney didn't say directly that Popo knows
>nothing. It usually doesn't take 90 minutes to say you know nothing.
>
>Then again, Mclvain was in the GJ room for over 6 hours, IIRC, and she
>claims to know nothing. The eventual indictments said to be coming in
>January will make interesting reading.
Yes, a ton of "innocents" bystanders it seems...
Fred Fredburger
But then he denies it and insinuates that he meant something else.
Brad Anders
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/popovych-denies-witnessing-doping?ns_...
>
> And that from the man who was total crap at Lotto...I guess that
> helped him not joining the ranks of the ex-uniballer mountain henchmen
> to fall for doping, I guess there aren't too many around, let's
> see...Rubiera only comes to mind for now.
Yeah, this theory that all of LA's teammates were going to be so
terrified of the GJ that they'd all just roll over and spill the beans
just isn't working out, is it?
Brad Anders
Fred Flintstein
If the ex-uniballer can grow it back and not be a uniballer
anymore then we all have to concede that Novitsky is no
match for him.
Fred Flintstein
BLafferty
Brad, could you post a copy of the grand jury transcript of Popo's
testimony? You really have no idea what's going down in the Grand Jury
room. It's not at all unusual for co-conspirators to all lie in their
testimony. Now, I'm not saying Popo lied because I don't know what he
said. But, it's possible.
You should also consider that there are times when a witness testifies
one way in the room, and denies having testified that way on leaving the
room. It delays an unpleasant scene which can be deadly amongst some
folks engaged in criminal activity.
RicodJour
> On 11/5/2010 10:17 AM, Brad Anders wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 12:39 pm, Keith<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/popovych-denies-witnessing-doping?ns_...
>
> >> And that from the man who was total crap at Lotto...I guess that
> >> helped him not joining the ranks of the ex-uniballer mountain henchmen
> >> to fall for doping, I guess there aren't too many around, let's
> >> see...Rubiera only comes to mind for now.
>
> > Yeah, this theory that all of LA's teammates were going to be so
> > terrified of the GJ that they'd all just roll over and spill the beans
> > just isn't working out, is it?
>
> testimony? You really have no idea what's going down in the Grand Jury
> room. It's not at all unusual for co-conspirators to all lie in their
> testimony. Now, I'm not saying Popo lied because I don't know what he
> said. But, it's possible.
>
> You should also consider that there are times when a witness testifies
> one way in the room, and denies having testified that way on leaving the
> room. It delays an unpleasant scene which can be deadly amongst some
> folks engaged in criminal activity.
Translation: "Don't assume anything. Only I can do that - and when I
do it's not an assumption."
R
--D-y
At what level (cops, DA, GJ) are perps broken down and made
("volunteered", in some quarters) to wear a wire?
I'm wondering how interested the GJ might be in accurate "transcripts"
of Novitsky interviews with the subjects of this probe, given his past
grandstanding (the "book thing") and the mass violation of 4th
amendment rights, plus the following refusal to obey demands to return
evidence illegally seized. I mean, that might be one part of "I don't
know anything" that could take six hours or so.
True enough, one thing people (incl. judges, prosecutors, GJ's, etc.
etc.) hate is a liar. They also hate the vainglorious and those who
think the rules don't apply to them.
You know, sorta like Lafferty v. Lance Armstrong.
I continue to hope for a nice, fair helping of justice for all
concerned.
--D-y
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:xL2dnQ0B2sQHvknR...@giganews.com...
Most deadly scenes are unpleasant, for at least one of the parties
involved.
If you're right, the feds have better orchestrate serving Lance like
they did Popo, and make sure to do so in a liberal state where it's less
likely Lance will be surrounded by supporters with guns.
So were you holding back on this scenario or what? I don't recall you
previously suggesting that Lance's accusers could meet an untimely
demise.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
BLafferty
Often times such interviews are recorded by the agent and/or the
interviewee.
BLafferty
involved in another type of organized crime.
--D-y
wrote:
Are you referring to Texas (incl. "liberal" Austin) being a right-to-
carry state?
Well, I might be confused, but to me, right-to-carry *is* "liberal",
as opposed to being rigidly controlled and outlawed, when only the
outlaws (and police) can carry guns <g>.
Whatever. I've seen Lance & Co. (sometimes w/o Lance) out in the
country, pretty much always followed by a vehicle with tinted windows.
I never thought "guns" but that's the way I would do it, no problemo,
if I were rich, famous, and hated in some quarters.
We're still in Texas, but I don't think it's 1994 anymore, Toto:
<http://nos.nl/video/125261-armstrong-reportage-1994.html>
--D-y
Ben Trovato
Yeah! Damn right! 9/11 woulda never happened if all the passengers
had been armed!
BLafferty
crashed the plane(s) before reaching its target.
Frederick the Great
BLafferty <B...@nobody.com> wrote:
> On 11/5/2010 10:17 AM, Brad Anders wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 12:39 pm, Keith<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/popovych-denies-witnessing-doping?ns_...
> >>
> >> And that from the man who was total crap at Lotto...I guess that
> >> helped him not joining the ranks of the ex-uniballer mountain henchmen
> >> to fall for doping, I guess there aren't too many around, let's
> >> see...Rubiera only comes to mind for now.
> >
> > Yeah, this theory that all of LA's teammates were going to be so
> > terrified of the GJ that they'd all just roll over and spill the beans
> > just isn't working out, is it?
> >
> > Brad Anders
>
> Brad, could you post a copy of the grand jury transcript of Popo's
> testimony? You really have no idea what's going down in the Grand Jury
> room. It's not at all unusual for co-conspirators to all lie in their
> testimony. Now, I'm not saying Popo lied because I don't know what he
> said. But, it's possible.
Candyass.
>
> You should also consider that there are times when a witness testifies
> one way in the room, and denies having testified that way on leaving the
> room. It delays an unpleasant scene which can be deadly amongst some
> folks engaged in criminal activity.
Tonight Popo sleeps with the fishes.
--
Old Fritz
Frederick the Great
BLafferty <B...@nobody.com> wrote:
Mythbusters debunked that one. Are you paying attention?
--
Old Fritz
BLafferty
--D-y
> > Are you referring to Texas (incl. "liberal" Austin) being a right-to-
> > carry state?
> > Well, I might be confused, but to me, right-to-carry *is* "liberal",
> > as opposed to being rigidly controlled and outlawed, when only the
> > outlaws (and police) can carry guns <g>.
>
> Yeah! Damn right! 9/11 woulda never happened if all the passengers
> had been armed!
Better, if the mighty titans of industry had simply put locks on the
cockpit doors, as had been practice in Europe for some time...
(Just a little hubris, everyone-- I mean, we don't want to be like
those weakling socialist europeans, do we?)
Then Gordon Bethune came on TV and begged for money. Well, they got
the money, still laid off the workers, and spent the money to buy
fleets of very profitable charter planes, while old white men with hip
replacements were forced to take off their pants behind flimsy screens
set up in airports coast-to-coast.
--D-y
Frederick the Great
BLafferty <B...@nobody.com> wrote:
Candyass.
--
Old Fritz
Fredmaster of Brainerd
> In article <v-GdnT4Yur021knRnZ2dnUVZ_s6dn...@giganews.com>,
I've been trying to figure out why Lafferty wanted to
see a photo of Popovych being served with his
grand jury subpoena - I mean, what could such a
picture possibly prove, or how could it be used as
evidence in the Crusade?
I finally figured it out. The picture is important because
Lafferty thinks (not unreasonably) that it might tell us
whether Popo's girlfriend looks like Lance's Mom.
Fredmaster Ben
RicodJour
>
> I've been trying to figure out why Lafferty wanted to
> see a photo of Popovych being served with his
> grand jury subpoena - I mean, what could such a
> picture possibly prove, or how could it be used as
> evidence in the Crusade?
>
> I finally figured it out. The picture is important because
> Lafferty thinks (not unreasonably) that it might tell us
> whether Popo's girlfriend looks like Lance's Mom.
I think L'enema will have to find new wanking material elsewhere.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-littman/lance-armstrong-ambush-fe_b_778654.html
R
Mike Jacoubowsky
So then this was *not* one of those times where someone might not be
truthful about how he/she testified?
I get the point that you're trying to construct a scenario in which the
grand jury participant is scared to talk about what he said. But you
haven't explained why that would be the case for this situation. You've
only produced an over-the-top situation that you say isn't appropriate.
BLafferty
Don't know. We have no idea what he actually said to the Grand Jury.
Sometimes, GJ witnesses inadvertently give the government additional
leads to pursue. So really, there are just a lot of questions.
Eventually, the GJ testimony will all come out.
BLafferty
Mr. Littman is very much a Lance apologist in the guise of curmudgeon.
Look at his 9/30 piece and my comment to it.
--D-y
> On 11/6/2010 1:42 AM, RicodJour wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 5, 9:51 pm, Fredmaster of Brainerd<bjwei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I've been trying to figure out why Lafferty wanted to
> >> see a photo of Popovych being served with his
> >> grand jury subpoena - I mean, what could such a
> >> picture possibly prove, or how could it be used as
> >> evidence in the Crusade?
>
> >> I finally figured it out. The picture is important because
> >> Lafferty thinks (not unreasonably) that it might tell us
> >> whether Popo's girlfriend looks like Lance's Mom.
>
> > I think L'enema will have to find new wanking material elsewhere.
>
> > R
>
> Mr. Littman is very much a Lance apologist in the guise of curmudgeon.
> Look at his 9/30 piece and my comment to it.
I saw your comment didn't garner you any fans, Brian. I guess most
people don't appreciate gestapo-style intimidation tactics.
"A casually dressed woman flashed a badge" after two vehicles stopped
Popo's car. Wow. That's why those in the public eye tend to hire
bodyguards.
I also saw the "hubris" part. Good, you are in touch with your real
motivations here. The list of alleged offenses is just a means to an
end.
Novitsky is known to have a similar hatred (to yours for Lance
Armstrong) of Barry Bonds.
So, here we are, back to square one: "Brian Lafferty doesn't like
Lance Armstrong because Lance Armstrong has a big head in the opinion
of Brian Lafferty".
Following the description of events given: "Agents" who don't identify
themselves, grab door handles, block free passage? How many unlawful
acts were committed in a simple serving of papers? Along with
Novitsky's illegally seizing evidence and then holding on to said
evidence in spite of repeated "requests" to give it up, bragging about
book deals, intimidation of witnesses, it would appear there is enough
hubris to go around in this affair.
And threats jail sentences, too. Well, OK: Let's start with Lemond.
How much of that potential year in the slammer should Greggo get for
taping Stephanie without her permission, and then making the content
public, Brian? How about a month or so behind bars, just to make it
real, and then 400 hours of supervised community service? No, not
riding his bicycle in some self-serving bullshit "giving back"
publicity stunt, but dressed in an orange jump suit and assigned to
pick up trash along his adopted hometown's roadways?
Sounds good to me. "He broke the law!"
--D-y
Mike Jacoubowsky
And there's always the possibility that a somewhat-confused witness, one
without a great grasp of English, might be prone to saying something he
really would have thought better of otherwise. Even if that weren't the
case, the room for literal "interpretation" of what he said or meant
might give a lot more ammunition for a prosecutor.
>>
>> I get the point that you're trying to construct a scenario in which
>> the
>> grand jury participant is scared to talk about what he said. But you
>> haven't explained why that would be the case for this situation.
>> You've
>> only produced an over-the-top situation that you say isn't
>> appropriate.
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
BLafferty
I have no doubt that Popo was provided with a court certified translator.
Fred Fredburger
Candy ass,
BLafferty
Fans of comment posters on Huffington interest you?! LOL!
>
> Following the description of events given: "Agents" who don't identify
> themselves, grab door handles, block free passage? How many unlawful
> acts were committed in a simple serving of papers? Along with
> Novitsky's illegally seizing evidence and then holding on to said
> evidence in spite of repeated "requests" to give it up, bragging about
> book deals, intimidation of witnesses, it would appear there is enough
> hubris to go around in this affair.
We have one side of the story, the Armstrong and friends side as I and
at least one other person commented (with friends!!).
>
> And threats jail sentences, too.
That is pretty much a standard warning given to foreign nationals when
served with federal GJ subpoenas.
>Well, OK: Let's start with Lemond.
> How much of that potential year in the slammer should Greggo get for
> taping Stephanie without her permission, and then making the content
> public, Brian?
None at all. It was legal in his state for him to make the tape. There
is no restriction on the use of that tape in federal court.
>How about a month or so behind bars, just to make it
> real, and then 400 hours of supervised community service? No, not
> riding his bicycle in some self-serving bullshit "giving back"
> publicity stunt, but dressed in an orange jump suit and assigned to
> pick up trash along his adopted hometown's roadways?
You really have a hard on for Lemond. Let's hope it doesn't last more
than four hours.
>
> Sounds good to me. "He broke the law!"
What law is that?
> --D-y
--D-y
> You really have a hard on for Lemond. Let's hope it doesn't last more
> than four hours.
Well, if it does, I know where to get treatment. Shall I tell them you
sent me?
Just looking for a little "fair", there, Brian. IOW, if there is going
to be punishment, let's have punishment for all who committed crimes.
Can you get past your Lancehate and get on board with that?
> > Sounds good to me. "He broke the law!"
>
> What law is that?
It may have been legal for him to make a tape on his end. But, it may
not have been legal for him to make a tape of someone who was speaking
from California. That might be actionable, in criminal or civil court.
So, maybe he could go do his jail time and public "pickin' up roadside
trash" service time out there, too. As long as he's not advertising
"Greg Lemond" with a cycling camp or whatever, and is really
performing a public service and ruing his illegal actions while doing
so, fine by me. I mean, mighty small potatoes when compared with the
alleged crimes of Lance Armstrong, but what's good for the goose...
Jeeze, more "rights" being eroded. I remember when you had to tell
someone in front they were being recorded, plus the mandatory audible
"beeps" emitted by the recording device serving as a warning the
conversation was being recorded. Sneaky. Stinky. Self-serving misuse
of (unwisely) assumed confidentiality by someone who fits the doper
profile himself.
If that sounds like a "hard-on", your bias is showing.
--D-y