LA/Feds
Brad Anders
http://news.yahoo.com/feds-reply-armstrong-leaks-sealed-filing-141903038.html
Not a bright move by the feds to leak what they did, my guess is they
won't be sanctioned. Sure is taking a long time for the feds to file
charges.
Fred Flintstein
Haven't heard much from Lafferty. I did find something pretty funny
though. The Fraudbytes guy has been quiet as well, not posting anything
since the Tyler @ Cache Cache incident. But check it out:
http://fraudbytes.blogspot.com/2011/06/lance-armstrong-investigation-new.html
"I found yesterday's comments on Fraudbytes interesting too. The
readers were on top of the witness tampering issue before the news
outlets were. In sum, the comments said that postings on CyclingNews
suggest that Lance may have flown to Aspen when he discovered Tyler
would be at the Cache Cache and that the FBI is probably already in
Aspen interviewing witnesses.
Since I'm not a legal expert, I can't say if this will be the fatal
mistake for Lance. However, it appears that a lot of people who have
the background to know believe that he may be done intimidating those
around him in order to get his way."
Go ahead, click on the link and see who he's referencing.
F
Brad Anders
<bob.schwa...@sbcremoveglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Go ahead, click on the link and see who he's referencing.
I wasn't surprised. I sure haven't heard much about this incident
since it happened, if there really were some solid, incontrovertible
evidence, you'd think the feds would have filed charges by now (2
months).
Jim Feeley
I think I'm missing something. Do we know the feds were the source of the leaks?
Sure, prosecutors are often leaky. But think back to BALCO, specifically to US v
Victor Conte et al. In that case, many thought Novitzky and/or the prosecutors
were leaking grand jury transcripts. But it turns out, a key leaker was defense
lawyer Troy Ellerman...who then wanted a mistrial because someone of the leaks.
Could be there were other sources for those transcripts, such as the feds;
didn't really establish that one way or the other.
In the Armstrong case, I'd guess potential leakers include prosecutors, Novitzky
and some other FDA investigators, members of the defense team, and grand jury
members.
As for the timeline, think how long it took to finally charge Barry Bonds. Don't
really know if that's common or not, but the I don't know if we can read too
much into the pace of the proceedings.
Do we know the feds were the source of the leaks?
Jim
--
Jim
Jim Feeley
POV Media
Fredmaster of Brainerd
>
> > Not a bright move by the feds to leak what they did, my guess is they
> > won't be sanctioned. Sure is taking a long time for the feds to file
> > charges.
>
> I think I'm missing something. Do we know the feds were the source of the leaks?
> Sure, prosecutors are often leaky. But think back to BALCO, specifically to US v
> Victor Conte et al. In that case, many thought Novitzky and/or the prosecutors
> were leaking grand jury transcripts. But it turns out, a key leaker was defense
> lawyer Troy Ellerman...who then wanted a mistrial because someone of the leaks.
> Could be there were other sources for those transcripts, such as the feds;
> didn't really establish that one way or the other.
>
> In the Armstrong case, I'd guess potential leakers include prosecutors, Novitzky
> and some other FDA investigators, members of the defense team, and grand jury
> members.
>
> As for the timeline, think how long it took to finally charge Barry Bonds. Don't
> really know if that's common or not, but the I don't know if we can read too
> much into the pace of the proceedings.
>
> Do we know the feds were the source of the leaks?
>
Troy Ellerman was a defense lawyer for the BALCO
principals, and he leaked the grand jury transcripts after
the BALCOns were indicted. I assume that he received
the transcripts because the prosecutors were required to
disclose them to the defense after the indictments
were brought.
Prior to the indictment, I don't think a defense lawyer
would have had access to the GJ testimony. Armstrong's
lawyer would know what Armstrong testified to, but not
the contents of others' testimony.
There is no literal "defense team" in this investigation yet
because there is no defense, as there are no indictments.
Obviously we all know that the investigation is looking at
certain people, but those people's lawyers don't have a
privileged status giving them access to grand jury testimony,
I don't think.
GJ members are unlikely to have leaked the information as
they would have a lot to lose and little to gain.
Fredmaster Ben
is not a lawyer
BL
with access to the PACER system should be able to look at a docket entry
noting the filing of the reply under seal.
BL
up on Fraudbytes? LOL! Carry on, Moron.
BL
And what would they learn from a redacted version? Next to nothing.
They are protesting about a fairly straight forward process for the
court to handle such a motion. One has to suspect that the Armstrong
camp it getting very nervous. It has been quiet lately as Fabio notes.
Dear Fabio, it's the lull before the Cat 5 hurricane hits.
Steve Freides
> Feds respond to LA's leak complaints
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/feds-reply-armstrong-leaks-sealed-filing-141903038.html
>
Since when is being bright a qualification for government work?
-S-
Jimmy July
Nice job of trolling Brian! You ROCK!
Mike Jacoubowsky
"Brad Anders" <pban...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4720cce1-6446-4335...@y39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 23, 11:41 am, Fred Flintstein
<bob.schwa...@sbcremoveglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Go ahead, click on the link and see who he's referencing.
==========
I wasn't surprised. I sure haven't heard much about this incident
since it happened, if there really were some solid, incontrovertible
evidence, you'd think the feds would have filed charges by now (2
months).
==========
These things take time. Remember, "The word is out: It's over."
http://www.cyclingforums.com/t/182735/the-word-is-out-it-s-over
10/15/04
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
BL
BL
supporting a RICO charge. Duh.........Moron.
Jim Feeley
Doh! I'm clearly timeline challenged. You're right about the indictment thing.
But aren't witnesses at GJ's allowed, when faced with a tricky question from a
prosecutor, to step outside the room and get advice from their lawyer (who isn't
allowed into the room)?
And though I've never spoken with a grand jury member (I don't usually cover
courts...as is obvious from my previous post), I know some reporters who have.
And witnesses can be chatty.
Anyway, there are still sources of grand jury testimony other than prosecutors.
Though prosecutors are a likely source.
This article in yesterday's NY Daily News was kinda interesting:
Lance Armstrong's attorneys say government response to cyclist's leak accusation
shouldn't be sealed
<http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/iteam/
2011/08/24/2011-08-24_lance_fires_back_at_feds.html>
Same link shorter:
http://nydn.us/nognrd
Of course with laywers, sometimes where there's smoke there's smoke.
BL
The brief filed Wednesday states that Armstrong's attorneys would gain
access to information that they have no right to see at this point if
the motion is unsealed or redacted. The motion "describes an ongoing,
active, pre-indictment investigation for which secrecy is necessary to
preserve its quality and integrity."
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201....ap/index.html
Looks like Lance is firmly in the Feds cross-hairs.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:jYSdnTkBo6vvysvT...@giganews.com...
Brian: The point is that we're coming up on SEVEN YEARS since "it's
over." Or, to put it another way, over 350 Tuesdays. That's enough time
to question the effectiveness of the long arm of justice. That's enough
time to claim that justice delayed is justice denied. That's enough time
to wonder if they were ever that serious about it in the first place, or
intentionally delayed until the effect of any sort of "justice" was of
little consequence to Lance.
C'mon guy, why aren't you upset about this? If I felt the way you do
about Lance, or anything else for that matter, and things were dragging
out like this, I'd be a basket case. I'd be calling up my congressmen,
writing letters, kicking the dog. This whole thing borders on the
absurd.
BL
No. The fraud and conspiracy continue to the present and not include
probable witness intimidation. The cycling events are seven years old,
most of them anyway, but the criminal conspiracy continues. There isn't
anything close to justice delayed here, except to the extent that it's
been delayed by Armstrong and friends conspiracy and coverup.
>
> C'mon guy, why aren't you upset about this? If I felt the way you do
> about Lance, or anything else for that matter, and things were dragging
> out like this, I'd be a basket case. I'd be calling up my congressmen,
> writing letters, kicking the dog. This whole thing borders on the
> absurd.
As complex federal investigations go, this one seems to be proceeding
nicely. You won't have to wait much longer to read the indictment.
Fred Flintstein
Dumbass,
Trolling Laff isn't that hard. Mr OCD responds to everything.
He can't help himself.
F
William R. Mattil
>
> As complex federal investigations go, this one seems to be proceeding
> nicely. You won't have to wait much longer to read the indictment.
>
You don't have a clue about how the "indictment" is proceeding. Not hard
to imagine this mind you. How would you know ? or is this simply more of
your endless flag waving on your Anti-Lance diatribe ?
Give us details on your sources for this ..... Or better yet, shut the
fuck up.
Like pretty much everyone else here I've grown tired of your rhetoric.
Bill
--
William R. Mattil
Simply Fred
> Trolling Laff isn't that hard. Mr OCD responds to everything.
> He can't help himself.
Dumbass,
That feature was in the spec.
Jimmy July
Punctuation causes you difficulty, doesn't it?
Brad Anders
> Looks like Lance is firmly in the Feds cross-hairs.
Putting it in the cross-hairs is one thing, taking the shot is
another. You don't want your bow to start shaking.
BL
BL
I said the investigation seems to be going well. That is based on the
reports we've all seen in the press and with 60 Minutes. Do you read the
press and watch TV? And I've grow increasingly amused by your moronic
rhetoric. Keep it up.
dave a
Maybe Bob Martin could post a regular count of the number of Tuesdays
it's been since "it's over".
Fredmaster of Brainerd
As I understand it, a witness is perfectly free to
disclose their own GJ testimony.
Sure, Hincapie's lawyer undoubtedly knows what Hincapie
said, and Hamilton's lawyer knows what Hamilton said, and
so on, but if you believe LANCE's flacks, several different
pieces of information have been slipped to the press -
certainly several things have been reported on - and it's
hard for me to imagine that the witnesses or their lawyers
have been collectively feeding all of these tidbits to the
reporters. I could believe that one or two came from
witnesses, but all seems like a stretch.
I suspect most reporters would not contact a member of a
sitting grand jury - only after the GJ is released. At that point,
I think the GJ members are still under a vow of secrecy, I'm
sure it's been broken now and then. Obviously GJs are
not the same as trial juries, but contacting a member of a
trial jury during the trial is a huge no-no. Both the reporter
and the juror could wind up in prison. Perhaps the rules of
engagement are different for grand juries, but the motivation
is much easier to understand for the investigators to be a
little leaky than for a GJ member.
Fredmaster Ben
Mike Jacoubowsky
I'd say the 60 minutes report did a great job discrediting their *star*
witness. The story was built upon the revelation that Tyler was amazed
that Lance wasn't worried about a "positive" test at the TdS and, proof
of conspiracy, evidence that Lance met with the head of the lab!!! Good
heavens that was incriminating.
Except that the head of the lab explained that the test wasn't positive
because it didn't pass the threshold required (because the test wasn't
yet accurate enough to trust) *AND* that he met with many teams & riders
to explain the new procedures, nothing special with Lance & Johan.
THAT 60 minutes piece???
I'm not going to suggest that Lance was clean, partly because I don't
think it was possible to race at that time against known dopers and do
as well as he did without also doping, and partly because you can't
prove that someone's clean, only that they're dirty. But, as I've said
many, many times before, the anti-Lance crowd should be more demanding
of those investigating Lance, instead of cheerleading any and all
investigations and revelations simply because they're supportive of
one's belief.
Frederick the Great
<b688bd27-bc95-461d...@m4g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Fredmaster of Brainerd <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
I never had any idea a member of a petit jury
could be jailed for blabbing. All my experience
as a prospective juror and sitting juror does not
suggest that such could be the case. Last time
out the judge pleaded with us not to talk because
he would have to take a week or more out for an
evidentiary hearing; but no threats.
--
Old Fritz
BL
> to explain the new procedures, nothing special with Lance& Johan.
>
> THAT 60 minutes piece???
>
> I'm not going to suggest that Lance was clean, partly because I don't
> think it was possible to race at that time against known dopers and do
> as well as he did without also doping, and partly because you can't
> prove that someone's clean, only that they're dirty. But, as I've said
> many, many times before, the anti-Lance crowd should be more demanding
> of those investigating Lance, instead of cheerleading any and all
> investigations and revelations simply because they're supportive of
> one's belief.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
Fredmaster of Brainerd
>
> I never had any idea a member of a petit jury
> could be jailed for blabbing. All my experience
> as a prospective juror and sitting juror does not
> suggest that such could be the case. Last time
> out the judge pleaded with us not to talk because
> he would have to take a week or more out for an
> evidentiary hearing; but no threats.
I'm pretty sure that when on a trial jury, I was instructed
not to discuss the case with anyone until it was over,
and that this instruction is standard.
After the case is decided you can talk about it.
It's more common for persons outside the jury to be
tried for jury tampering; for a juror to be tried they have
to do something egregious like offer to be bribed to
find the defendant innocent.
It's certainly true that if jurors seek outside information
that can result in a mistrial. Apparently, googling the
defendant or posting updates on the Intertubes
is now a serious problem, for example
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/us/18juries.html
Who the fuck thinks Twittering updates from the
jury box is a good idea?
BTW, links I found suggest that the laws (state or fed)
typically apply to grand juries as well as petit juries.
Fredmaster Ben
Frederick the Great
<dfeae5bc-43d8-4bea...@b34g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Fredmaster of Brainerd <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 26, 2:14 am, Frederick the Great <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > I never had any idea a member of a petit jury
> > could be jailed for blabbing. All my experience
> > as a prospective juror and sitting juror does not
> > suggest that such could be the case. Last time
> > out the judge pleaded with us not to talk because
> > he would have to take a week or more out for an
> > evidentiary hearing; but no threats.
>
> I'm pretty sure that when on a trial jury, I was instructed
> not to discuss the case with anyone until it was over,
> and that this instruction is standard.
Yes, I heard those instruction.
> After the case is decided you can talk about it.
>
> It's more common for persons outside the jury to be
> tried for jury tampering; for a juror to be tried they have
> to do something egregious like offer to be bribed to
> find the defendant innocent.
>
> It's certainly true that if jurors seek outside information
> that can result in a mistrial. Apparently, googling the
> defendant or posting updates on the Intertubes
> is now a serious problem, for example
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/us/18juries.html
> Who the fuck thinks Twittering updates from the
> jury box is a good idea?
>
> BTW, links I found suggest that the laws (state or fed)
> typically apply to grand juries as well as petit juries.
But nothing about sanctions against sitting jurors.
You wrote
: Both the reporter
: and the juror could wind up in prison.
--
Old Fritz
Fredmaster of Brainerd
> Fredmaster of Brainerd <bjwei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > typically apply to grand juries as well as petit juries.
>
> But nothing about sanctions against sitting jurors.
>
> You wrote
>
> : Both the reporter
> : and the juror could wind up in prison.
I said "could," not "will certainly." A quick google will
turn up a number of cases where jurors have been
charged with contempt of court for communicating with
defendants or the outside world, or for doing their
own "investigation." It's rare, and it's more likely to lead
to a fine than jail, but it does happen.
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-07-12/local/me-22679_1_juror-misconduct
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-06-15/local/29681586_1_mistrial-jury-room-buchter
I didn't find offhand any cases of jurors being cited for
contempt for talking to reporters during a trial. As before,
I think this is partly because most reporters know not to take
that risk.
Fredmaster Ben
Jimmy July
> On 8/25/2011 2:47 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>> On 8/25/2011 1:30 PM, BL wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As complex federal investigations go, this one seems to be proceeding
>>> nicely. You won't have to wait much longer to read the indictment.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You don't have a clue about how the "indictment" is proceeding. Not hard
>> to imagine this mind you. How would you know ? or is this simply more of
>> your endless flag waving on your Anti-Lance diatribe ?
>>
>> Give us details on your sources for this ..... Or better yet, shut the
>> fuck up.
>>
>> Like pretty much everyone else here I've grown tired of your rhetoric.
>>
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
> Try re-reading what I wrote. I didn't say the indictment was proceeding.
> I said the investigation seems to be going well.
Candyass.
Jimmy July
Yeah.
You're never going to understand how ironic it is that you responded to
that.
BL
the thread before you all have hard-ons. Once I make any substantive
comment you kiddies pollute >80% the tread with personal invective.
It's so amusing to see you guys have your own little, inane dialogue. :-)
Jimmy July
Bob said "Mr OCD responds to everything", and you're knocking yourself
out proving him correct. No one's making you do this, so quit blaming
everyone else for your inability to STFU.
William R. Mattil
>
>Once I make any substantive comment
>
You have never actually done this. None of your comments have any
substance to them. And that dear boy is the problem.
BL
do have to admit that it's fun to troll you after the your first
non-substantive response.
BL
> On 8/27/2011 11:02 AM, BL wrote:
>>
> >Once I make any substantive comment
> >
>
> You have never actually done this. None of your comments have any
> substance to them. And that dear boy is the problem.
>
>
> Bill
>
>
>
a substantive reply to Anders and followed it up with a link to a news
article and a substantive comment regarding it. You children then
started running amok in the playground as you usually do with your
playground personal comments.
Jimmy July
> On 8/27/2011 12:30 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>> On 8/27/2011 11:02 AM, BL wrote:
>>>
>> >Once I make any substantive comment
>> >
>>
>> You have never actually done this. None of your comments have any
>> substance to them. And that dear boy is the problem.
>>
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
> Come now, you know that isn't true. Earlier in this thread I began with
> a substantive reply to Anders and followed it up with a link to a news
> article and a substantive comment regarding it.
Your delusions don't count as substance. You've been mindlessly
repeating yourself for a decade, pretending to know the inner workings
and processes that will lead to LA's imminent demise. And you've been
repeatedly wrong. That's not substance, it's just crazy.
When I tell you've been repeatedly wrong and you're acting crazy, it's
not a personal attack. It's just the simple truth.
BL
I've been saying for years that Armstrong is a doper and guess what--He
is! Amazing, eh. Deal with it and the fact that I've been correct all
along. Enjoy your day Jimmie.
Brad Anders
Brian, virtually everyone on this n.g. has known that LA was a doper
for years. The only reason people rag on you is because of your
obsession with his prosecution, and your belief that it would somehow
change the sport for the better. Anyone who has finished in the top 10
on GC of a major tour the past two (three? more?) decades has likely
doped either for the event or at some point in their career. Wasting
millions of dollars of US taxpayer money going after a guy who doped
in a sport full of dopers a decade ago seems ridiculous and pointless
to most of us. If you weren't obsessed with LA, maybe you'd see it
that way, too.
BL
Wrong. Go back and follow the discussion from 1999 on and you will see
the high level of denial of the doping problem here at rbr.
> The only reason people rag on you is because of your
> obsession with his prosecution, and your belief that it would somehow
> change the sport for the better.
Wrong again. I have not over the years called for Armstrong's
prosecution. I've called for him to be investigated and outed. I am
surprised and admittedly quite pleased that there is a major federal
investigation that may well lead now to his prosecution--not just for
doping, but for a variety of federal felonies and a RICO charge. I
don't think anyone, certainly not me, dreamed of such a potential
criminal prosecution even two years ago.
> Anyone who has finished in the top 10
> on GC of a major tour the past two (three? more?) decades has likely
> doped either for the event or at some point in their career.
But, that has not been the position of most of the denizens of rbr.
Until just the past couple of years, the posters to rbr remained in
abject denial of the depth of the doping problem in cycling.
> Wasting
> millions of dollars of US taxpayer money going after a guy who doped
> in a sport full of dopers a decade ago seems ridiculous and pointless
> to most of us.
That may be partially true, but it's not simplistically about going
after a guy who doped in a doping infested sport. That's the line that
Fabiani would like the public to swallow. This is about a group of guys
who have engaged in conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, insurance fraud,
perjury, suborning perjury, witness intimidation (not just Tyler of
late) money laundering, tax evasion, violations of the FCPA and other
crimes all at the expense of the US taxpayer and in violation of US
criminal law. It's also about hubris getting its just reward.
>If you weren't obsessed with LA, maybe you'd see it
> that way, too.
I would not see it that way because I see it as far more complex than a
simply old doping case. I am obsessed with getting at the truth about a
sport that has been competitively gutted by doping. It just happens that
the poster boy in that gutting is a guy named Armstrong who has created
one of the biggest and most complex sporting frauds (note: not doping
fraud) in history.
In the meantime, the children here continue to engage in moronic
playground games that have driven away many good people who were regular
posters to this forum. At least it does get quite amusing at times with
Morons like the Freds and Jimmy chiming in. Carry on.
Mike Jacoubowsky
Er... let's get this straight. You've been saying Armstrong is a doper
for years, and now say "...guess what--He is!"
Isn't this a repetition of what you've been saying all along? Or do you
have some new evidence that creates and open & shut case that slams the
door on Mr. Armstrong? Far as I know, he not only hasn't yet been
convicted of anything, he hasn't even been indicted. Far as I know,
there has been nothing substantive released at all that would convict
Lance Armstrong of any serious charge. We've already been over the 60
minutes piece... some of the worst "investigative" journalism, ever,
followed up by some of the worst, over-the-top responses by lawyers and
PR people (Lance's) ever. You want morons? Plenty on both sides.
*IF* George Hincapie gave testimony that shows Lance as guilty, fine,
game over, but we're not there yet. Unless you're privy to something
nobody else is.
--D-y
> This is about a group of guys
> who have engaged in conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, insurance fraud,
> perjury, suborning perjury, witness intimidation (not just Tyler of
> late) money laundering, tax evasion, violations of the FCPA and other
> crimes all at the expense of the US taxpayer and in violation of US
> criminal law.
> It's also about hubris getting its just reward.
IMHO it's *all* about Armstrong's perceived arrogance being punished
with you, Brian.
The rest is icing on the cake, added "punishment"-- and who knows,
Barry Bond's obstruction charge held. What kind of sentence will he
get, and will that pave the way for Lance to get served?
The Tuesdays are flowing by. Maybe after the racing season ends here
pretty soon, we'll have other distractions.
> I am obsessed with getting at the truth about a
> sport that has been competitively gutted by doping.
Inflamtory rhetoric, anyone? It's been the dopers against the other
dopers and maybe a few who really never doped including ever taking
anything they were "handed", so to speak, that had dope in it whether
they knew or not.
How about baseball, American football? International soccer? People
are doping to ride parking lot crits and play in old-guy softball
leagues. By your definition, there's an awful lot of "gutting" going
on.
--D-y
Brad Anders
> On 8/28/2011 12:45 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
>
> > Brian, virtually everyone on this n.g. has known that LA was a doper
> > for years.
>
> Wrong. Go back and follow the discussion from 1999 on and you will see
> the high level of denial of the doping problem here at rbr.
Brian, in case you haven't noticed, this isn't 1999. Those guys are
long gone, and have been for years. If you want to crow "I'm right" to
them, hunt them down and email them. FWIW, I was getting burned at the
stake here in the late '90's for insinuating there was a doping
problem. Acceptance of the problem happened a number of years ago.
> > The only reason people rag on you is because of your
> > obsession with his prosecution, and your belief that it would somehow
> > change the sport for the better.
>
> Wrong again. I have not over the years called for Armstrong's
> prosecution. I've called for him to be investigated and outed.
I'm talking about the current prosecution, and the current case. Not
the past.
> > Anyone who has finished in the top 10
> > on GC of a major tour the past two (three? more?) decades has likely
> > doped either for the event or at some point in their career.
>
> But, that has not been the position of most of the denizens of rbr.
> Until just the past couple of years, the posters to rbr remained in
> abject denial of the depth of the doping problem in cycling.
You're essentially agreeing with what I said above. Those people are
gone.
> > Wasting
> > millions of dollars of US taxpayer money going after a guy who doped
> > in a sport full of dopers a decade ago seems ridiculous and pointless
> > to most of us.
>
> That may be partially true, but it's not simplistically about going
> after a guy who doped in a doping infested sport. That's the line that
> Fabiani would like the public to swallow. This is about a group of guys
> who have engaged in conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, insurance fraud,
> perjury, suborning perjury, witness intimidation (not just Tyler of
> late) money laundering, tax evasion, violations of the FCPA and other
> crimes all at the expense of the US taxpayer and in violation of US
> criminal law. It's also about hubris getting its just reward.
If they're guilty of all of what you cite and the chances of it being
successfully prosecuted are good, then maybe it's worth an FDA
investigator spending 100% his time on it instead of investigating the
thousands of companies in this country that are producing tainted
foods and distributing them to the US public (google the recent CDC
report on food borne illness). IMO, the feds are going to have a hell
of a time proving much of anything against LA. He has reputable and
conflicting witnesses, there is virtually no paper trail of the acts
you describe, nobody has found a money trail, and the guy (in spite of
your beliefs) has an extremely strong public support base. IMO, the
case is a black hole for resources that should be allocated to more
important issues.
>
> >If you weren't obsessed with LA, maybe you'd see it
>
> > that way, too.
>
> I would not see it that way because I see it as far more complex than a
> simply old doping case. I am obsessed with getting at the truth about a
> sport that has been competitively gutted by doping. It just happens that
> the poster boy in that gutting is a guy named Armstrong who has created
> one of the biggest and most complex sporting frauds (note: not doping
> fraud) in history.
From my observation, you're a lot more interested in seeing LA in jail
out of your dislike for him than for any positive effect his
conviction would have on the competitive nature of bicycle racing.
IMO, doping hasn't gutted the competition - everyone worth a shit
dopes, so the advantage is essentially negated. It can be controlled
through testing, but it can't be stopped, any more than prostitution
or any other vice can be. If they nail LA, hey, great, but it won't
change anything. If he is nailed, on that day, my reaction will be,
"looks like LA finally got caught. Wonder what's for lunch?". I have a
feeling your reaction would be a lot more visceral.
As for people leaving this forum, usenet is dying all over. It's
archaic and obsolete, replaced by forums like Facebook Groups, and
even sites like Garmin Connect and Strava. All those people you miss
are still posting, just not here. Jimmy/Anton/Magilla didn't chase
them away - they left for greener pastures. Some of us still bop in
here from time to time to watch the death throes.
BL
wrong it may be. Carry on.
BL
to substantive, non-personal posts. You kids take up far to much
bandwidth with personal comments. If you don't like my posts, don't
read and respond to them. Pretty simple, eh?
BL
> door on Mr. Armstrong? Far as I know, he not only hasn't yet been
> convicted of anything, he hasn't even been indicted. Far as I know,
> there has been nothing substantive released at all that would convict
> Lance Armstrong of any serious charge. We've already been over the 60
> minutes piece... some of the worst "investigative" journalism, ever,
> followed up by some of the worst, over-the-top responses by lawyers and
> PR people (Lance's) ever. You want morons? Plenty on both sides.
>
> *IF* George Hincapie gave testimony that shows Lance as guilty, fine,
> game over, but we're not there yet. Unless you're privy to something
> nobody else is.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
Frederick the Great
<7aab7092-8104-47ee...@x11g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Brad Anders <pban...@gmail.com> wrote:
> FWIW, I was getting burned at the
> stake here in the late '90's for insinuating there was a doping
> problem. Acceptance of the problem happened a number of years ago.
I deny that there is or ever was a doping problem.
--
Old Fritz
Brad Anders
> I suggest, Brad, that you and the other children simply limit yourselves
> to substantive, non-personal posts. You kids take up far to much
> bandwidth with personal comments. If you don't like my posts, don't
> read and respond to them. Pretty simple, eh?
Sure. Just as long as you abide by the same suggestions. Can't say I
see that happening.
RicodJour
>
> Sure. Just as long as you abide by the same suggestions. Can't say I
> see that happening.
Hoisted on his own fucktard.
R
Mike Jacoubowsky
Thanks. Appreciate the opportunity to help bring light to a confusing
situation.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"BL" <b...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:a9qdnSKrZOCHRsbT...@giganews.com...
Fredmaster of Brainerd
>
> As for people leaving this forum, usenet is dying all over. It's
> archaic and obsolete, replaced by forums like Facebook Groups, and
> even sites like Garmin Connect and Strava. All those people you miss
> are still posting, just not here. Jimmy/Anton/Magilla didn't chase
> them away - they left for greener pastures. Some of us still bop in
> here from time to time to watch the death throes.
Oddly, rbr, while dying, is still more active than many other
once-lively usenet groups, which are now dark alleys
trodden only by the occasional spammer, and raccoons
looking to tip over a garbage can. For example, in the
rec hierarchy, the previous denizens of rec.climbing are now
on web forums, and rec.backcountry and rec.skiing.*
are elsewhere. (RBR vets may remember the time we
discovered by crosspost that rec.skiing.alpine was much much
viler and crazier than we ever were.)
I've occasionally wondered why RBR has sort-of-survived - I suspect
factors include the bitchy attitude, combined with some actual
knowledge, which meant that regulars didn't all flee when Usenet
started to get more anonymous and flame-ridden; and the OCD
nature of racing cyclists.
Finally, and Brian will love this, there's the LANCE effect.
Look at the frequency of posts to rbr:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/about
RBR prospered during the LANCE years (his comeback,
like Michael Jordan's, is not "canon" and does not count).
This almost certainly maintained it while other parts of
Usenet began to die.
RBR started to tail off a little in 2005 and maintained a decent
tempo (Floyd riding Lance's coattails?) in 2006. Since then
it's been downhill. Although the July Frequency has
declined much more than the off-season, in the last year or
two even the off-season is going to pot. Probably people
don't post here anymore because they're afraid Novitsky
will call them to testify.
It's also more than a little ironic that some of the biggest
kvetchers about the decline of RBR, Kunich and Lafferty,
have been guilty of the abusive manners they decry in
others. So it goes. Like WADA, they make a desert and
call it peace.
So long, it's been good to know you,
this dusty old dust has taken LANCE home,
Fredmaster Ben
Simply Fred
> Oddly, rbr, while dying, is still more active than many other
> once-lively usenet groups, which are now dark alleys
> trodden only by the occasional spammer, and raccoons
> looking to tip over a garbage can. For example, in the
> rec hierarchy, the previous denizens of rec.climbing are now
> on web forums, and rec.backcountry and rec.skiing.*
> are elsewhere. (RBR vets may remember the time we
> discovered by crosspost that rec.skiing.alpine was much much
> viler and crazier than we ever were.)
Never mind rec.skiing, alt.cnc are much eviler than us, just ask Kurgan
(Is he getting married too ?). Anyway I dislike schmaltzy facetube, not
only for its schmaltziness but also because you can't separate your
alleged friends into groups. At least the new google plus does have the
concept of circles so I can put all the rbr people into one circle jerk
and everyone else in another.
> Finally, and Brian will love this, there's the LANCE effect.
You forgot about Liz and Magilla/Anton effect.
Mike Jacoubowsky
> yourselves to substantive, non-personal posts. You kids take up far
> to much bandwidth with personal comments. If you don't like my posts,
> don't read and respond to them. Pretty simple, eh?
There's little evidence you provide substantive responses even to posts
without personal comments.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"BL" <b...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:a9qdnSOrZOBhR8bT...@giganews.com...
BL
DirtRoadie
QED
Fred Flintstein
> I've occasionally wondered why RBR has sort-of-survived - I suspect
> factors include the bitchy attitude, combined with some actual
> knowledge, which meant that regulars didn't all flee when Usenet
> started to get more anonymous and flame-ridden; and the OCD
> nature of racing cyclists.
>
> Finally, and Brian will love this, there's the LANCE effect.
> Look at the frequency of posts to rbr:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/about
Dumbass,
I stay for the Chung Charts.
F
dave a
Even those have declined in frequency. How about a Chung Chart on Chung
Charts?
Scott
Could you imagine the harmonic resonance that would result from such a
thing? It would make synchronized pedaling pale in comparison.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=edward+tufte&word2=chung+chart
Fredmaster Ben
I invented the Chung Chart:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/df532402e841e4bc
Fred Flintstein
Their decline shows you what is possible if you negotiate hard with
Fabiani's staff, rather than just roll over for nothing like most of
you dumbasses do.
F
Robert Chung
Mike Jacoubowsky
>>> On 8/25/2011 2:47 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>>>> On 8/25/2011 1:30 PM, BL wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As complex federal investigations go, this one seems to be
>>>>> proceeding
>>>>> nicely. You won't have to wait much longer to read the indictment.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't have a clue about how the "indictment" is proceeding. Not
>>>> hard
>>>> to imagine this mind you. How would you know ? or is this simply
>>>> more
>>>> of
>>>> your endless flag waving on your Anti-Lance diatribe ?
>>>>
>>>> Give us details on your sources for this ..... Or better yet, shut
>>>> the
>>>> fuck up.
>>>>
>>>> Like pretty much everyone else here I've grown tired of your
>>>> rhetoric.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Try re-reading what I wrote. I didn't say the indictment was
>>> proceeding. I said the investigation seems to be going well. That is
>>> based on the reports we've all seen in the press and with 60
>>> Minutes.
>>> Do you read the press and watch TV? And I've grow increasingly
>>> amused
>>> by your moronic rhetoric. Keep it up.
>>
>> I'd say the 60 minutes report did a great job discrediting their
>> *star*
>> witness. The story was built upon the revelation that Tyler was
>> amazed
>> that Lance wasn't worried about a "positive" test at the TdS and,
>> proof
>> of conspiracy, evidence that Lance met with the head of the lab!!!
>> Good
>> heavens that was incriminating.
>>
>> Except that the head of the lab explained that the test wasn't
>> positive
>> because it didn't pass the threshold required (because the test
>> wasn't
>> yet accurate enough to trust) *AND* that he met with many teams&
>> riders
>> to explain the new procedures, nothing special with Lance& Johan.
>>
>> THAT 60 minutes piece???
>>
>> I'm not going to suggest that Lance was clean, partly because I don't
>> think it was possible to race at that time against known dopers and
>> do
>> as well as he did without also doping, and partly because you can't
>> prove that someone's clean, only that they're dirty. But, as I've
>> said
>> many, many times before, the anti-Lance crowd should be more
>> demanding
>> of those investigating Lance, instead of cheerleading any and all
>> investigations and revelations simply because they're supportive of
>> one's belief.> Thanks, Mike. lol.
OK, if you won't get involved substantively answering questions asked
regarding doping, Lance, whatever, how about a link to something more
current than this?
http://www.kenpapai.com/cycling/rbr/rbr2.html
Do you still ride much? Race? Is regular cycling still a part of your
day-to-day life? Is there some common ground upon which a reasonable
conversation can take place? Yeah, I'll admit that I'm really reaching
on this. :-)
Fred Flintstein
> Is there some common ground upon which a reasonable
> conversation can take place?
Mike,
If I were to walk into your shop and start talking to random people
about the legitimacy of the Federal Reserve, would you try to
correct my views on fiscal policy?
This is no different.
F
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:2vGdncTvXLU_FMLT...@giganews.com...
I understand your point, but this isn't a group of random people, it's a
community. Brian isn't out there in the streets with a sandwich board
that says "Lance is a Cancer." He's here. Among friends. :-)
Regarding the Federal Reserve and its charter, I did major in Economics.
I try to stay out of political discussions at the shop though. Not good
for business.
William Fred
news:5da2d870-28c2-4625...@r40g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> On Aug 30, 5:42 pm, dave a <blkcatREMOVET...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/30/2011 4:41 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
>> > Dumbass,
>> >
>> > I stay for the Chung Charts.
>>
>> Even those have declined in frequency. How about a Chung Chart on
>> Chung Charts?
>
> That would be depressing.
Yeah. Sort of like figuring out your own h-index.
--
Bill Fred
Simply Fred
>>> Even those have declined in frequency. How about a Chung Chart on
>>> Chung Charts?
Robert Chung wrote:
>> That would be depressing.
William Fred wrote:
> Yeah. Sort of like figuring out your own h-index.
Or your h**2 index.
Randall
and prove that LA played a active role in team management and knew
about the doping. Since Lance was team captain and owner in Tailwind
sports they might be able to prove this. The argument would be that
Lance was aware of the doping and did nothing to stop it. Lance has
tried to deny he was involved in team management. But there are
numerous stories and witnesses that can probably prove he was. In one
of Lance's books, a rider said that he did not feel like riding one
day. Lance then threatened to fire him. I believe that this was when
Lance was riding for US Postal.
If there was actual purchases of drugs and storing of blood by USPS
team management then Lance has a lot to worry about. But if it was
simply individual riders doping then it is less of a issue.
> Isn't this a repetition of what you've been saying all along? Or do you
> have some new evidence that creates and open & shut case that slams the
Frederick the Great
<2e911ba6-2ef1-4669...@e34g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Randall <randall...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I doubt the prosecutor can prove that Lance doped. So they will try
> and prove that LA played a active role in team management and knew
> about the doping. Since Lance was team captain and owner in Tailwind
> sports they might be able to prove this. The argument would be that
> Lance was aware of the doping and did nothing to stop it. Lance has
> tried to deny he was involved in team management. But there are
> numerous stories and witnesses that can probably prove he was. In one
> of Lance's books, a rider said that he did not feel like riding one
> day. Lance then threatened to fire him. I believe that this was when
> Lance was riding for US Postal.
>
> If there was actual purchases of drugs and storing of blood by USPS
> team management then Lance has a lot to worry about. But if it was
> simply individual riders doping then it is less of a issue.
LANCE does not know you exist.
Tell us what you intend to do
to get his attention. Posting
weak phantasies of his downfall
in a forum for losers is not
getting the job done.
--
Old Fritz