Can See if You're Not There
B. Lafferty
Interesting that an ONCE veteran comes to Armstrong's defense. Let's
see if he comes to the US to give testimony before the grand jury.
RicodJour
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/jonker-speaks-out-in-defence-of-armst...
>
> Interesting that an ONCE veteran comes to Armstrong's defense. Let's
> see if he comes to the US to give testimony before the grand jury.
Drink less and proofread, please. Sheesh.
You wouldn't know "the ring of truth" if it bit your shriveled nut
sack. Here's an example:
"If they want to ask were there any performance enhancing drugs taken
at US Postal, I'd say, 'I wish there was' because I would have liked
to improve my performance,” he added jokingly."
Does that mean that there absolutely wasn't any doping? Of course
not. Is Jonker telling the truth? Yep. He basically _asked_ to be
subpoenaed. Will he get subpoenaed. We'll see. I also wouldn't be
surprised to start seeing more people coming out of the woodwork
saying that they never saw any doping.
I'll leave you space here:
...so you can insert your "LANCE bought them off" response.
R
B. Lafferty
We'll see if he's subpoenaed or not. He can always provide an affidavit
to Amrstong's attorneys or to the US Attorney. Perhaps he'll eventually
be called as a witness at trial, if that eventually comes about.
Lest anyone forget the ONCE pedigree of doping:
ONCE----Liberty Seguros (Saiz implicated in Operation Puerto, Liberty
Mutual plus sponsorship plug; Heras positive for EPO and stripped of
Vuelta title, Vino recruited by Saiz)---Astana
Bruyneel and Jonker teammates at ONCE.
We'll just have to sit back and see if Lance has any other witnesses to
call on to defend him by telling us they saw nothing. It would help
Armstrong to have riders like Hincapie say under oath that they saw no
doping at Postal. It's been reported that Hincapie has already
testified before the grand jury. I wonder which side of the fence he
stepped off on. MY feeling is that he's going to stay in Australia and
not say anything under oath in the US. On the other hand, I would expect
Swart to come to the US from New Zealand to give testimony.
RicodJour
Here's the algorithm vis a vis cycling and doping:
Everybody has been on a team where there is doping. The end.
There's a fine line between your observations/comments and mind-
numbingly boring obviousness. Everybody already knows the stuff that
you think are your flashes of insight.
> We'll just have to sit back and see if Lance has any other witnesses to
> call on to defend him by telling us they saw nothing. It would help
> Armstrong to have riders like Hincapie say under oath that they saw no
> doping at Postal. It's been reported that Hincapie has already
> testified before the grand jury. I wonder which side of the fence he
> stepped off on. MY feeling is that he's going to stay in Australia and
> not say anything under oath in the US. On the other hand, I would expect
> Swart to come to the US from New Zealand to give testimony.
That's the main objection people have with you and your posts - the
sit back and see thing. You don't do it. You jump on the stupidest
tidbits and post them to bolster...what exactly? LANCE doped? Yeah,
maybe, possibly, probably, take your pick. But you're simply jerking
it with posting People magazine's analysis and the like. Get me
something from TMZ and I'd be more likely to believe there's something
behind your post, other than the periodical's wish to sell more and
your wish to have LANCE punished because he didn't sign your autograph
book.
R
B. Lafferty
scrutiny that we extend to all potential witnesses in this matter.
Landis's allegations need corroboration. The Feds are investigating and
looking for that with Hincapie, Hamilton and others. That's as it
should be.
IMO, Rico, you need to grow up and stop bleating like a baby goat
looking to head butt anyone or anything that questions your worship of
Lance & Co.
Brad Anders
+1. You nailed it.
Brad Anders
William R. Mattil
> We'll see ........
Snip
>
> Lest anyone forget the ONCE pedigree of doping:
>
> ONCE----Liberty Seguros (Saiz implicated in Operation Puerto, Liberty
> Mutual plus sponsorship plug; Heras positive for EPO and stripped of
> Vuelta title, Vino recruited by Saiz)---Astana
>
> Bruyneel and Jonker teammates at ONCE.
>
Good Lord man you really need to get back on your Medication. According
to this pathetic attempt, anyone supporting Lance must be a dope too.
Sheesh. If water were rational thought you couldn't hit it if you fell
out of a boat.
> We'll just have to sit back ........
You use the word "We" a lot where in reality you are the only one that
gives a shit.
Bill
--
William R. Mattil
Anton Berlin
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/jonker-speaks-out-in-defence-of-armst...
>
> see if he comes to the US to give testimony before the grand jury.
This is stupid. Having not saw anything doesn't mean shit. Absence
of evidence isn't evidence.
Unless you were with someone 24/7 and never fell asleep your
'testimony' that you "never saw nuthin" doesn't mean dick
LawBoy01
> This is stupid. Having not saw anything doesn't mean shit. Absence
> of evidence isn't evidence.
Not true. If he was around and in positions where he could have seen
things, then it can be evidence. The weight afforded to that evidence
is initially up to a grand jury, and then a regular jury. I agree
with you, however, that such evidence can't be worth much, but it's
undoubtebly admissible.
> Unless you were with someone 24/7 and never fell asleep your
> 'testimony' that you "never saw nuthin" doesn't mean dick
Still not true. Again, your problem with the evidence has everything
to do with its weight and nothing to do with its admissibility.
RicodJour
>
> Wrong, Rico. I'm subjecting a potential witness to the same background
> scrutiny that we extend to all potential witnesses in this matter.
> Landis's allegations need corroboration. The Feds are investigating and
> looking for that with Hincapie, Hamilton and others. That's as it
> should be.
You're subjecting a potential witness...? YOU are? Really. Hmmm.
You might have potentially, at one time, done that, but you've lost
that potential. It was either taken away from you, or you ran away.
But you left.
If you're such the blindingly brilliant legal eagle, Barrhoid, why are
you dicking around on a newsgroup? Why not check out
legalpunditjobsearch.com I'm sure there are people out there that
will appreciate whatever it is that you think you're doing. I don't
because, well, I don't really think you know what you are doing. Here
you're just an idiot with an opinion and a LANCE obsession.
> IMO, Rico, you need to grow up and stop bleating like a baby goat
> looking to head butt anyone or anything that questions your worship of
> Lance & Co.
I've said it before, and I don't mind repeating myself for the slow
people. I don't fookin' care about LANCE, I think he's probably a
dick in real life, but I really have no idea - never met the guy. He
was simply good on the bike and provided excitement and
entertainment. Kind of like Lenny Bruce - who also provided
excitement and entertainment. I really didn't care about his legal
troubles or his alcohol and drug problems as that's not what I find
entertaining.
I do know, however, that LANCE had done a lot to pick up the spirits
of people with cancer. You, on the other hand, what have you done?
Other than proven to be RBR's resident hemorrhoid, that is, despite
repeated attempts by a slew of RBR amateur proctologists who really
were trying to help you.
You're just a lost cause - and that saddens me.
R
B. Lafferty
using dope or doping methods at the same time as those who say they saw
him using dope were there. Maybe that someone will be Hincapie.
B. Lafferty
> On Aug 11, 3:32 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> Wrong, Rico. I'm subjecting a potential witness to the same background
>> scrutiny that we extend to all potential witnesses in this matter.
>> Landis's allegations need corroboration. The Feds are investigating and
>> looking for that with Hincapie, Hamilton and others. That's as it
>> should be.
>
> You're subjecting a potential witness...? YOU are? Really. Hmmm.
> You might have potentially, at one time, done that, but you've lost
> that potential. It was either taken away from you, or you ran away.
> But you left.
>
> If you're such the blindingly brilliant legal eagle, Barrhoid, why are
> you dicking around on a newsgroup? Why not check out
> legalpunditjobsearch.com I'm sure there are people out there that
> will appreciate whatever it is that you think you're doing. I don't
> because, well, I don't really think you know what you are doing. Here
> you're just an idiot with an opinion and a LANCE obsession.
>
>> IMO, Rico, you need to grow up and stop bleating like a baby goat
>> looking to head butt anyone or anything that questions your worship of
>
> I've said it before, and I don't mind repeating myself for the slow
> people. I don't fookin' care about LANCE, I think he's probably a
> dick in real life, but I really have no idea - never met the guy. He
> was simply good on the bike and provided excitement and
> entertainment. Kind of like Lenny Bruce - who also provided
> excitement and entertainment. I really didn't care about his legal
> troubles or his alcohol and drug problems as that's not what I find
> entertaining.
>
> I do know, however, that LANCE had done a lot to pick up the spirits
> of people with cancer. You, on the other hand, what have you done?
> Other than proven to be RBR's resident hemorrhoid, that is, despite
> repeated attempts by a slew of RBR amateur proctologists who really
> were trying to help you.
>
> You're just a lost cause - and that saddens me.
>
> R
RicodJour
You shouldn't drunk type anymore than you should drunk dial,
Barrhoid. Thanks.
R
B. Lafferty
RicodJour
I was providing constructive criticism. Thanks for spell-checking
your post.
R
raamman
> I do know, however, that LANCE had done a lot to pick up the spirits
> of people with cancer.
> R
more than spirits it goes without having to say, but let me ask you-
should that factor in any way whether or not an investigation into LA
be conducted based on Landis' claims ?
do you think if Novitsky concludes LA was clean- the rumours and
hearsay will subside ? what would the investigation have accomplished ?
derf...@gmail.com
> Wrong, Rico. I'm subjecting a potential witness to the same background
> scrutiny that we extend to all potential witnesses in this matter.
> Landis's allegations need corroboration. The Feds are investigating and
> looking for that with Hincapie, Hamilton and others. That's as it
> should be.
I would bet a 6-pack of EPO that Laff is emailing Novitsky, in true
fan-boy style, trying to give him tips on how to conduct his case.
> IMO, Rico, you need to grow up and stop bleating like a baby goat
> looking to head butt anyone or anything that questions your worship of
> Lance & Co.
you really need to hold your mirror up a little higher.
LawBoy01
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lafferty, for fuck's sake man you must not have been a trial lawyer.
Kurgan Gringioni
"LawBoy01" <phi...@pwm-law.com> wrote in message
news:2e2242b8-649c-474e...@g17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
:: Lafferty, for fuck's sake man you must not have been a trial lawyer.
Dumbass -
You finally figured that out?
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
RicodJour
> On Aug 11, 6:03 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
> > I do know, however, that LANCE had done a lot to pick up the spirits
> > of people with cancer.
> > R
>
> more than spirits it goes without having to say, but let me ask you-
> should that factor in any way whether or not an investigation into LA
> be conducted based on Landis' claims ?
My opinion is not bound by the law. As far as the law goes, of course
they are separate issues, but if it comes to a verdict and a sentence,
no one - not the judge, not the prosecutor, not the jury - will be
able to ignore his standing in the cancer community, and it will
certainly reduce whatever sentence would be imposed.
> do you think if Novitsky concludes LA was clean- the rumours and
> hearsay will subside ? what would the investigation have accomplished ?
Everything subsides. If it comes to naught, and the carrion-eating
crows fly off, the damage will have still been done. What will it
have accomplished when there's no charges to be pressed? Well, for
one thing Barrhoid will feel he 'won', and a lot of periodicals and
news programs will have more fodder.
Ah, for the days of an innocent Paris Hilton sex tape...
R
raamman
thank you for your considered reply
Anton Berlin
cancer efforts. It's good he did something rather than nothing but
let's face it - if the ACS can't fix cancer on 1 billion a year and
the NCI can't do it on a budget of 5.2B then LAF doesn't do shit with
the $16M the foundation actually gets to the cause.
BTW - the 'cancer foundations' (once researched) seem to have an
unwritten agenda to allow cancer to persist and at the levels of
incidence we currently see.
Same with diabetes foundations that take money from candy and coke
companies or milk etc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agh2Ubunxu4
http://www.naturalnews.com/019325.html
http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/wealthiest_links.htm
RicodJour
>
> Lance's cancer efforts amount to less that 1/2 of 1 percent of all
> cancer efforts.
It's not simply a financial thing, as I'm sure you are aware. You
could dump ten trillion dollars into cold fusion research, and it
would probably not end with a Mr. Fusion in your modified DeLorean.
When, and if, they ever do such a thing, it will be some guys plugging
along that has an insight, or an accident, or an accidental insight.
But if the guy doesn't find the research sexy, then he's most likely
not going to go into that field, right?
R
Frederick the Great
"B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> We'll see.
What you mean "We", white man?
--
Old Fritz
Anton Berlin
their own health through education and preventative measures and not
rely on some altruistic organization once they have cancer, diabetes
etc.
These organizations are comprised of people that benefit from the
existence of the diseases they 'want to eradicate'.
RicodJour
That's like saying a doctor or nurse doesn't want people to get better
because they'd be out of a job.
Do you believe that lobbying is best done by a motley crew of
disorganized individuals representing themselves, or by a professional
representative?
R
Anton Berlin
It's not like saying that at all. It's SAYING that without cancer
there would be no foundation and the radiologists, oncologists and
pharma would be out of work and closed the next day if it was
discovered that swallowing a housefly cured every form of cancer.
Their homes, cars, vacations, student loans are paid for by sick
people and the idea of people that think it's good karma to give to
these causes. And despite the ACS charter to 'prevent cancer' if you
had read the information you would see then when they had a chance to
influence policy on PREVENTING CANCER they had no opinion or back out
of testifying or or.
It's god damn stupid to wear a ribbon, (or a yellow wristband) donate
$50 and think you're doing something good AGAINST cancer. More than
likely you are feeding the machine that lives off of cancer. Better
to spend that money on sunscreen and a book on natural diet and
preventative measures for cancer.
RicodJour
If there were a cure for cancer it would be a million times harder to
suppress it then a Paris Hilton sex tape. The person who 'discovered'
it, brought it to light, blew the whistle, or whatever, would be
lauded for centuries to come, would never have to buy a beer or a meal
in their life, etc., etc.
I like conspiracy theories as much as the next crackpot, just not
stupid ones.
Now, if you'd said that the research money was being misdirected due
to the financial pictures in play of the big boys, I'd be in lock step
with you, bro.
R
Anton Berlin
Once again - I am not saying there is a cure for cancer and that
someone is hiding it. And I'm not saying that they misuse research
funds (although I am sure they do)
The point is - they have little interest in cancer prevention and
people need to educate themselves.
(and that Lance Armstrong foundation is a rounding error in the
wasteland )
Fred Flintstein
> The point is - they have little interest in cancer prevention and
> people need to educate themselves.
>
Dumbass, irony just walked up and whacked you really hard upside
the head. Did you notice? You are to medical analysis what Lafferty
is to rbr legal analysis.
Fred Flintstein
Michael Press
<d069cae6-3a34-40dc...@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Anton Berlin <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> My point is more that each individual better take a vested interest in
> their own health through education and preventative measures and not
> rely on some altruistic organization once they have cancer, diabetes
> etc.
Agree on the first part.
Anybody can get sick.
In most such organizations
there are people doing good
work--work aligned with the
ideals of the organization.
I have personally benefitted
from the good will of people
working in organizations that
are sometimes spoken badly of.
--
Michael Press
Magilla Gorilla
> On 8/11/2010 1:14 PM, RicodJour wrote:
> > On Aug 11, 1:02 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/jonker-speaks-out-in-defence-of-armst...
> >>
> >> Interesting that an ONCE veteran comes to Armstrong's defense. Let's
> >> see if he comes to the US to give testimony before the grand jury.
> >
> > Drink less and proofread, please. Sheesh.
> >
> > You wouldn't know "the ring of truth" if it bit your shriveled nut
> > sack. Here's an example:
> > "If they want to ask were there any performance enhancing drugs taken
> > at US Postal, I'd say, 'I wish there was' because I would have liked
> > to improve my performance,” he added jokingly."
> >
> > Does that mean that there absolutely wasn't any doping? Of course
> > not. Is Jonker telling the truth? Yep. He basically _asked_ to be
> > subpoenaed. Will he get subpoenaed. We'll see. I also wouldn't be
> > surprised to start seeing more people coming out of the woodwork
> > saying that they never saw any doping.
> >
> > I'll leave you space here:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ...so you can insert your "LANCE bought them off" response.
> >
> > R
>
> We'll see if he's subpoenaed or not. He can always provide an affidavit
> to Amrstong's attorneys or to the US Attorney. Perhaps he'll eventually
> be called as a witness at trial, if that eventually comes about.
Yeah, I'm sure it would be just as credible as the affidavit that Stephanie
McIlvain signed in the SCA case.
Thanks,
Magilla