First SI; Now ESPN Shines the Harsh Light On the Uniballer
BLafferty
Brad Anders
> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=6054645
Yawn. It's a rehash. Nothing new. Still waiting for that Baxter
employee's name.
Anton Berlin
There's some new nuances there. - nice overview and some hope for
Armstrong fans as it doesn't appear he'll be steamrolled
The problem lies in the jury system - they only need to find one idiot
that either believes in things like Lance and Jesus and the govt
causing 9/11 and they'll have a hung jury.
In Amerika that should be easy to do.
Doubtful he'll be found innocent - might be found guilty but probable
the govt will give up eventually - unless some hard smoking evidence
is produced - then Lance takes a plea and tries to save face - "but
everyone was doing it"
BLafferty
Novitsky. Problem is, juries tend not to be impressed by those personal
attacks. It often backfires, especially if the agent hasn't done
anything approaching improper in the case at bar.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:iNKdnbvaLs8T3KLQ...@giganews.com...
This is where Lance's cancer and subsequent foundation and work could be
used as a trump card. Very tough to find a jury of people who haven't been
touched by cancer in some way, either themselves or a close relative.
Personal experience tells me there's a huge difference between the
"personalities" of Lance and the LAF. The existence of the LAF and its good
work doesn't mean somebody should get a "get out of jail free card" in my
book, but when you bring up the "personal attacks" stuff, Lance may yet have
a pretty decent shield surrounding him. Novitsky has no such shield.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Fredmaster of Brainerd
wrote:
Novitsky isn't on trial though.
Of course, neither is LANCE (yet).
They would have to go after Novitsky's behavior
in this investigation. What he did in other
investigations is irrelevant unless it can be related
to something he did in this one. A clever enough
lawyer can figure out ways to drag in mud (for ex
OJ's lawyers impeaching Mark Fuhrman) but it's
got to be somehow related.
IMO, all of this is kind of irrelevant personality
posturing. The government's biggest problem will
be that the case is indirect and that securing a
conviction hinging on complex details of contracts
and fraud is difficult. Hell, it was hard for them to
nail the bosses of Enron, an enterprise that was
far more shot through with fraud than Tailwind
Fucking Sports.
Fredmaster Ben
Anton Berlin
wrote:
Mike with all respect - you need to look closer at the LAF finances -
they won't hold up very well - a) when compared with other similar and
much more efficient foundations and b) on their own - if they dwelve
into to the nature of the 'fund raising and spend',
It's not a decent charity by any measure. I am involved in this
subject on a professional and personal basis regularly
Fred Flintstein
> IMO, all of this is kind of irrelevant personality
> posturing. The government's biggest problem will
> be that the case is indirect and that securing a
> conviction hinging on complex details of contracts
> and fraud is difficult. Hell, it was hard for them to
> nail the bosses of Enron, an enterprise that was
> far more shot through with fraud than Tailwind
> Fucking Sports.
Yep. People are easily confused about this being about
doping. The US has no sporting fraud laws. The case
will rely on convincing people that USPS didn't get
exactly what they paid for in abundance. Good luck with
that.
Its probably a good thing that I'm not Novitsky's boss.
If I was we would be having discussions about what he
was trying to accomplish and if there might be better
uses for money that currently is paying for things like
joyrides to Europe.
Fred Flintstein
RicodJour
wrote:
Better uses for money than joyriding to Europe...? Do you read what
you write? Sheesh. Unless it was Novitsky's first time out of the
US, he probably flew in through Amsterdam, smoked some banging weed
(yeah, right, Novitsky gets drug tested!) at a coffee shop, and than
banged some beaver in the red light district. That sounds like a good
of use of taxpayer dollars to me. At least as good as the
investigation.
R
NoDannyNo
wrote:
>This is where Lance's cancer and subsequent foundation and work could be
>used as a trump card.
This is exactly why he is Bullet Fucking Proof and the feds are
pissing up a rope with the whole thing.
Even if the bald-headed FDA stooge has a high def video of him
injecting EPO, the Unimpeachable One ain't goin' to the booty-house.
In fact, the UO could walk into the courtroom festooned in
testosterone patches, hooked up to an IV drip and no jury in these
United States is going to find him guilty of anything, ever.
The Legend > The Truth (whatever it may be)
RicodJour
>
> Mike with all respect - you need to look closer at the LAF finances -
> they won't hold up very well - a) when compared with other similar and
> much more efficient foundations and b) on their own - if they dwelve
> into to the nature of the 'fund raising and spend',
>
> It's not a decent charity by any measure. I am involved in this
> subject on a professional and personal basis regularly
I question your use of the words 'decent', 'charity', and
'professional' as those words probably don't mean what you think they
mean. At least you haven't exhibited any of them at any time...unless
we include you getting in a twist when Mike inadvertently phrased
something about Jobst's accident that was not to your liking.
If those other more efficient foundations are so good at their job,
how come LAF and Livestrong has become a household word in the matter
of ten years and pretty much eclipsed them? Hmmm? Those other
foundations get a big fail for not conducting better marketing and
awareness campaigns.
But in one way you are right - those other foundations belong in the
cycling world with the troubled sport that is largely ignored
worldwide unless there is a scandal going on, and LANCE belongs in a
more mainstream sport as his self-marketing, including the LAF, is
second to none.
R
Mike Jacoubowsky
Mike with all respect - you need to look closer at the LAF finances -
they won't hold up very well - a) when compared with other similar and
much more efficient foundations and b) on their own - if they dwelve
into to the nature of the 'fund raising and spend',
It's not a decent charity by any measure. I am involved in this
subject on a professional and personal basis regularly
=====
The finances are irrelevant to the person who has been helped. Talk to
people who have called the LAF cancer hotline. No, don't, because you'll
probably just make them depressed and not take action regarding their
illness. But if you can do it dispassionately, try it. You'll be blown aware
at what you hear. People will tell you how they learned all sorts of stuff
about the best doctors in their area, what to do if your insurance won't
cover something, and generally be a whole lot more friendly than anyone they
spoke with so far in the medical profession regarding their situation. That
goes a lot further than accusations about their finances. You go after their
hopes and dreams and they'll more likely go after you rather than Lance.
That's the real danger Novitsky faces in a trial. People won't act
rationally. Maybe over time, years, they might come to believe that it was
all a facade to help Lance retain his legacy. But that won't happen today,
tomorrow, or even next year. Even if he's indicted and convicted.
Lance did at least something right. He put really good people in place at
the LAF, at least in those places that touch the public.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Anton Berlin" <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4c700988-0415-422b...@s5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Fred Flintstein
> Mike with all respect - you need to look closer at the LAF finances -
> they won't hold up very well - a) when compared with other similar and
> much more efficient foundations and b) on their own - if they dwelve
> into to the nature of the 'fund raising and spend',
>
> It's not a decent charity by any measure. I am involved in this
> subject on a professional and personal basis regularly
Livestrong gets average grades from charity watchdogs.
Better than some, worse than others.
If you were familiar with this professionally you would
know that.
Fred Flintstein
PS Aren't you the guy that insists that LANCE doesn't
like up to your standards of honesty?
Fred Flintstein
Rated about the middle for health charities:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6570
Better Business Bureau accredited:
http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/cancer/lance-armstrong-foundation-in-austin-tx-3996
Fred Flintstein
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:99da1084-70fa-4377...@z26g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 25, 10:02 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
wrote:
>This is where Lance's cancer and subsequent foundation and work could
>be
>used as a trump card.
This is exactly why he is Bullet Fucking Proof and the feds are
pissing up a rope with the whole thing.
Even if the bald-headed FDA stooge has a high def video of him
injecting EPO, the Unimpeachable One ain't goin' to the booty-house.
In fact, the UO could walk into the courtroom festooned in
testosterone patches, hooked up to an IV drip and no jury in these
United States is going to find him guilty of anything, ever.
The Legend > The Truth (whatever it may be)
==========
So I take it you've never destroyed a teflon fry pan?
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
rickhopkins
wrote:
> "NoDannyNo" <riggodee...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Let's not get to far ahead of ourselves. LA has not even been indited
yet and if he is on what charge and what is the key evidence. Keep in
mind Barry Bonds trial is to happen in March, and the smart money
(most attorney expert in these matters based on interview on Bay Area
radio) bet he will beat the feds. Keep in mind the feds spent over a
year (or two) loosing in court on critical evidence (drug test) and on
appeal (e.g., think of the french lab testing 1999 samples with poor
ability to defend chain of custody records - LA will use UCI report,
he needs to only create doubt). If Bonds beats the rap (and he is
clearly guilty - he admits to using the cream and clear he just
thought it was flax seed oil - yeah right), I suspect the feds may be
reeling and may choose to indite some small fry to show a win. If
they were to loose Bonds and LA they will look really stupid and
wasteful. The outcome is far from certain either way and both sides
stand a lot to loose - however to Lafathimself is likely to be very
disappointed in the end as I suspect the LA PR machine will prevail in
the end. For evidence, Bush jr. approval rating is steadily growing -
that is frightening. LA will go on his way because of his foundation
still loved by many and Lafathimself will end up a bitter old man who
has probably not ridden his bike in years because he is combing the
web for negative stories on LA. Brian, you need to enjoy life and
forget LA - what will happen will happen - regardless of your
obsession. You are like a bad soap opera - I get on rbr every few
months and your obsession over the last several years has never
changed. Did LA run over your dog?
Rick
Nagurski
> The problem lies in the jury system - they only need to find one idiot
> that either believes in things like Lance and Jesus and the govt
> causing 9/11 and they'll have a hung jury.
YOU don't believe the U.S. government was behind 9/11? That surprises
the shit out of me.
Anton Berlin
You forgot to include the gargling noises.
Anton Berlin
Think of the best burger joint in your town - think of the most famous
burger joint in your town. Get the difference?
Anton Berlin
wrote:
1. All of that 'testicle-mony will be irrelevant in a criminal
proceeding - they will present that bullshit at the sentencing phase
so if you're a real ball gargler you better hope it never gets that
far.
2. When that happens they're not going to line up the 18 million that
"lance is fighin fer' They will get one or two and most people will
know that LAF had little actually to do with the success or failure of
treatment - it just come down to statistics and luck and that's the
breaks.
3. If the prosecution is vicious I think they may present some
information - not as a cross examination because I don't think that
happens in the sentencing phase but they could find credible people
that would dwelve into the finances and spend of LAF and it won't be
pretty.
4. A good friend and riding buddy had non-hodgkins lymphoma an
survived (he blames it on a topical psoriasis medicine that he ued for
decades ) Amazing that the shit has on the warning label - may cause
cancer but they prescribe it all the same to anyone wanting better
skin - even without psoriasis - and he thought the world of Lance
Armstrong but as the information comes out and he's read at his own
pace he's become more than disillusioned by Lance - in fact he seems
more angry about it than I do. I'll bet this will be common among the
'deep believers' once they encounter the reality in a way they can
assimilate.
Anton Berlin
wrote:
That's exactly where I've put him (middle of the pack) and that isn't
decent when many charities achieve 90% + with no motives other than
helping humanitarian causes.
Here's one I donate to on regular basis - 98% efficient
http://www.hearttoheart.org/Home/About-Us/Financials.aspx and no
hidden agendas like perpetuating the jesus myth or making a power and
money crazed egomaniac dope to win a silly little bike race.
But the nature of the fund raising and the spend is where they might
find fault - how do we know that an LAF paid for plane wasn't used to
courier drugs for Lances doping?
It's a little bit the way the rich judge a donation - one gets more
credit for building an anonymous new wing at the childrens hospital
than building the "Anton Berlin" Wing at the children's hospital.
After all I still get to tell my wife and mistress that I built the
wing anonymously.
Anton Berlin
>
> Fred Flintstein
BBB means no complaints - about as effective as a Shitzu guard dog.
Anton Berlin
Rick what exactly is meant by 'loosing' ?
Lance will be loosing up his sphincter once he loses the trial and is
the loser ?
PS - you should "where a batting helmet" in the cage from now on -
your logic shows you took one too many to the noggin.
RicodJour
>
> PS - you should "where a batting helmet" in the cage from now on -
> your logic shows you took one too many to the noggin.
There a batting helmet! With apologies to Marty Feldman.
R
Mike Jacoubowsky
shows is the obvious. The friends we choose are friends we choose, not
random people off the street. Or to put it even more obviously, why
should it be a surprise that a friend of yours feels similarly regarding
Lance to yourself?
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Anton Berlin" <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f6f79773-5a25-480d...@r16g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
RicodJour
> burger joint in your town. Get the difference?
Both of them will attract attention to burgers which will benefit the
burger industry overall. Do I win?
BTW, AdamAnt, while we're on the topic of consuming cooked animal, did
you see the recent thing in the news about Tacobell's taco meat?
R
rickhopkins
I was enjoying a nice bottle of Chimay Grand Reserve last night.
Anton, you remind me of Glen Beck, as you practice crying in front of
the mirror - meaning you probably believe very little of what you
say. Yoiu spend way to much time on rbr trying to be cute or witty,
so you either you do not work, are self-employed or your employer is
not getting your full attention - usually you are neither cute nor
witty. But, I must admit on occasions you are mildly amusing.
Reading you and Brian reminds me of Francis Bacon's (one of the
fathers of modern science) observations some 300 years ago "that the
quilt of the senses is of two sorts, either it destitutes us or else
deceives us". Simply put, your severe biases and perceptions
adversely affect your ability to make thoughtful and reasonable
predictions of future events. Based on Brian's continued poor
predictions (as has been quantified by several on rbr) of the past, if
he is right it is pure luck -not logic.
Currently, it is way to earlier (LA has not even testified in front of
the grand jury yet) to make any precise predictions as to what is
likely to occur. What we do know, is that the gov (some of the same
folks) have put an awful lot of effort in to attempting to convict
Barry Bonds for lying to the grand jury. They have lost in court and
on appeal regarding some very important evidence (drug test results)
and many legal authorities believe without said evidence, there case
is very flimsy - which is why the prosecution invested a couple of
years of trying to win on that matter. No guarantee for Bonds, but
makes the feds case difficult. While the issues are somewhat
different, there are some similar threads. The outcome of Bonds case
is very relevant to trying to understand what various permutations
could come out of any trial of LA.
That being said, my early prediction is that LA has a 50-100% chance
of being indited and if indited about a 50-50 chance of being
convicted (obviously as more is known of the process these predictions
can be modified and tightened). If Bonds is acquitted LA's chance of
conviction if indited is probably south of 50% and if Bonds is
convicted than LA's probability of being convicted is likely north of
50%. Forgetting the outcome of Bonds trial for the moment, simply put
LA presently has a 25% to 50% chance of being convicted (multiply the
probabilities). If you measure success by LA being convicted based on
what we know today you stand a 50% or less chance of being happy.
On the other hand, if you measure success by LA becoming a social
outcast that has to bum change on the corner you have a near 100%
chance of being disappointed. Since last years Amgen Tour (San Jose
has been a stop each year so most people I chat with have at least a
vague notion/interest in cycling), I have taken the time to
unofficially poll many of my friends and colleagues regarding LA and
drugs in cycling. Less than 20% of these folks have anything more
than a vague awareness of bicycle racing - i.e., most have never heard
of VeloNews or CyclingNews or any other racing journals. Virtually
everyone was a sports fan, mostly of baseball and football, with
hockey (San Jose Sharks) a distant third. I was a bit surprised (or
not) that most believed LA used drugs during some portion if not all
of his career, many were disappointed but due to LA's foundation, the
vast majority see LA in a positive light. Admittedly, this is not a
cross section of society as these were virtually all professionals in
the high earner wage class - a few grad students thrown in, but all
rather educated. I assume their generally positive view of LA has a
lot to do with general acceptance of the "steroid era" of baseball
(Bruce Jenkins of the SF Chronicle within the last few days noted when
Bonds is eligible for the Hall of Fame in a year or two, he will be
voting for him because he was a great player - steroids or no - you
can agree or disagree but that is the view of at least one voter) and
the fact that most people have a very positive opinion of the LA
Foundation. Everyone knows somebody with cancer, and I was a bit
surprised how many people knew someone with cancer or a family member
of someone with cancer that had been in touch with the Foundation in a
positive way (6 degrees of separation of Kevin Bacon). So when all is
said and done, even if convicted, he will still be worth quite a bit
of money, have a large house in Austin, Vale, Italy and elsewhere,
still rub elbows with gov and presidents and world leaders and still
will be viewed favorably by many.
Whether LA is convicted or not, my life will not be affected in any
appreciable way - I really do not care either way. You play at being
bothered by LA, but I suspect it is just a weird way you get your
jollies , but if LA remains popular whether convicted or not, Brian
may end up on the street a bitter old man - well ok he is that
already.
Rick
Frederick the Great
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
It gives of clouds of poisonous vapor.
--
Old Fritz
Beloved Fred No. 1
> BTW, AdamAnt, while we're on the topic of consuming cooked animal, did
> you see the recent thing in the news about Tacobell's taco meat?
H. Fred will be getting too emotional and feeding you to the lions for
making an Adam and the Ants reference. That is of course unless he's to
American to have come across Britain's version of The Knack crossed with
Kiss.
NoDannyNo
wrote:
> "NoDannyNo" <riggodee...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Never used one. Strictly cast-iron for me. That said...
Nothing of this sordid affair will stick to Lance The Unimpeachable.
The unwashed masses-- from which "a jury of his peers" would be
chosen-- don't understand or care about the particulars of
professional bike racing or the doping milieu that surrounds it.
Saint Lance is the good ol' Texas country boy who got up from his
death bed, stomped the crap out of the EuroGoobs in their signature
event, and then pumped a pile of dough into the fight against cancer.
That is what has been drilled into the collective skulls of the
potential jury pool. Nothing that the feds have is likely to penetrate
that persona.