Trek in the News
B. Lafferty
Be sure to read the reader comments after the article.
LawBoy01
> http://www.jsonline.com/business/100122104.html
>
> Be sure to read the reader comments after the article.
Thank you for starting another gay thread
Choppy Warburton
Why not ? He's so generous and giving.
He could choose to give 9 cents or even 8 but no he stretched himself
and gives a WHOLE DIME.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:-9CdnWtP7tAm3sHR...@giganews.com...
> http://www.jsonline.com/business/100122104.html
>
> Be sure to read the reader comments after the article.
I think this one sums up what many feel quite well-
==========
nfcchamp - Aug 06, 2010 12:27 PM
Speaking of BALCO, what do we hope to get out of this? Another Gerorge
Mitchell report that gets leaked slowly? Performance enhancing goes on in
all sports. Cycling and track simply are ahead in their testing due to lack
of
player's unions. I *think* the only defrauding argument relates to
converting Trek bikes into cash to fund the alleged doping program. Not
sure how winning races defrauds a sponsor - particularly if USPS is getting
press a full six years after its sponsorship ended. BTW, Eddie was the
greatest, and it is not even close. But LA brought cycling to the US in a
way LeMond could not and through his Comeback 2.0, arguably re-
energized cycling in Europe imho.
==========
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
B. Lafferty
This one seems to be indicative of the shifting sentiment towards Armstrong.
What?
I don't think the Feds would be launching such a vast investigation
unless they had cause. It seems very likely that they are gathering more
information, to use against Lance. I used to think (or want to believe)
that he was innocent- I don't anymore.
Kurgan Gringioni
Dumbass -
Sure he was a doper.
That's still not defrauding USPS. It's the opposite - giving USPS more
exposure for the buck by winning.
If I was a sponsor, I'd consider it to be more of a fraud if the riders were
clean, got their ass kicked anonymously, and didn't deliver any sponsorship
value in the way of press. I'd want my team to be doping.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
B. Lafferty
> :
> : This one seems to be indicative of the shifting sentiment towards
> Armstrong.
> :
> : What?
> : I don't think the Feds would be launching such a vast investigation
> : unless they had cause. It seems very likely that they are gathering more
> : information, to use against Lance. I used to think (or want to believe)
> : that he was innocent- I don't anymore.
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Sure he was a doper.
>
> That's still not defrauding USPS. It's the opposite - giving USPS more
> exposure for the buck by winning.
Well Henry, that's an interesting argument. Sadly, it won't work, but
you could always run it by Bryan Daly for use in his magnificent public
relations campaign on Lance's behalf.
>
> If I was a sponsor, I'd consider it to be more of a fraud if the riders were
> clean, got their ass kicked anonymously, and didn't deliver any sponsorship
> value in the way of press. I'd want my team to be doping.
ROTFLMAO!!!!! Henry, thanks for the funny. You made my afternoon.
Carry on, mon petit.
Kurgan Gringioni
: > :
: > : This one seems to be indicative of the shifting sentiment towards
: > Armstrong.
: > :
: > : What?
: > : I don't think the Feds would be launching such a vast investigation
: > : unless they had cause. It seems very likely that they are gathering
more
: > : information, to use against Lance. I used to think (or want to
believe)
: > : that he was innocent- I don't anymore.
: >
: >
: >
: > Dumbass -
: >
: > Sure he was a doper.
: >
: > That's still not defrauding USPS. It's the opposite - giving USPS more
: > exposure for the buck by winning.
:
: Well Henry, that's an interesting argument.
Dumbass -
It's also true.
derf...@gmail.com
> http://www.jsonline.com/business/100122104.html
>
> Be sure to read the reader comments after the article.
This dude apparently has never visited rbr:
"I've said it before and I'll say it again all one needs to do to see
that America is going to hell (and is no longer the great country that
it once was) is to come to the blogs."
derf...@gmail.com
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Lance is going to have to get off the bike and kick your little chess-
boy ass for that .. especially the exclamation points.
LawBoy01
FRS
Mike Jacoubowsky
"I'd always have it (grease in at least two places, in case the umpires
would ask me to wipe one off. I never wanted to be caught out there with
anything though, it wouldn't be professional."
You think the Giants were telling Gaylord Perry to clean up his act? Did
Dodgers fans stay away from games with Gaylord Perry beause they resented
his cheating? In both cases, the opposite was true. I'm not defending
cheating in athletic endeavors. But I am suggesting that it doesn't take
away from the spectacle, and the $$$ follows the spectacle.
If Lance doped, some, perhaps many, would argue that he, and every other
cyclist that doped (and it's difficult to construct a scenario in which
Lance doped and not most of his competitors), did so with the tacit
blessings of the UCI and perhaps even WADA. Basically any organization that
came out with numbers that said look, you can go to this point, no further,
and we won't disqualify you.
The problem is that doping/cheating is *not* binary, at least not in terms
of being penalized for it. You can't do this, but we'll allow a certain
amount of it in your blood. We can't test for that, but we'll allow for you
to receive its benefits up to a certain level (for "safety" reasons).
I have changed 100% on my attitude towards doping. OK, not really, I think
the biological passport has a lot of potential to make things better. But
aside from that, non-binary testing is a big issue for me. I'm thinking we
need to put more energy into following the money and dealing with the
transactions. Tomorrow maybe I'll be rethinking that position.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
B. Lafferty
It's not about the doping---per se. It's about fraud on a
governmental/quasi-governmental entity. Of course they all doped. The
UCI was complicit, IMO. WADA, I think not. It's kind of like saying
well, foreign businesses all pay bribes to do business in the third
world. Sure the US has laws against that, but US business has to do it
to level the playing field.
Not a defense. US companies that use foreign bribes have been and will
be prosecuted when caught. So will Lance, in all probability, along
with Dan O., Thom, Johan, Och, Bill S. and probably a few others.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
> Armstrong.
> :
> : What?
> : I don't think the Feds would be launching such a vast investigation
> : unless they had cause. It seems very likely that they are gathering more
> : information, to use against Lance. I used to think (or want to believe)
> : that he was innocent- I don't anymore.
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Sure he was a doper.
>
> That's still not defrauding USPS. It's the opposite - giving USPS more
> exposure for the buck by winning.
>
> If I was a sponsor, I'd consider it to be more of a fraud if the riders were
> clean, got their ass kicked anonymously, and didn't deliver any sponsorship
> value in the way of press. I'd want my team to be doping.
>
> thanks,
>
> Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Dumbasses,
First, I want to say that Lafferty's appeal to the comments
on a Milwaukee newspaper article as evidence that the
tide is turning against LANCE are the brightest signs of
hope for LANCE I've seen in a while. Not because of the
content of the comments, but because people who write
comments on blogs and on newspaper websites are such
a bunch of ill-informed morons that they make rbr look good.
These are the people who used to write crackpot letters
to the newspaper and got one printed once a year.
Appealing to them is a sign of desperation.
Second, Kurgan, of course you are correct that a sponsor
wants a winning team without any "embarrassments," and
the reality of what has to be done to secure that winning
team is an inconvenient truth that everyone washes their
hands of. The sponsor and the team management
negotiate, and the sponsor says "You'll bring us a nice
clean winner," and the management says "Of course I will,"
and there's no need for the wink-wink nudge-nudge.
Deniability has been assured.
Of course Armstrong didn't defraud USPS by doping just
enough to win the TdF without getting caught. That is
exactly what a sponsor needs. However, it is possible that
in the negotiations for sponsorship, Tailwind represented
that their team would be pure as the driven snow and not
cause USPS any embarrassments. In theory, if they knew
they were not pure, they obtained the sponsorship under
false pretenses (no matter how much see-no-evil USPS
was actually engaging in), and that is likely to be the legal
basis for the fraud charge, if there is one.
I'm still dubious about this fraud charge theory. Of course it's
ridiculous in the sense that USPS was not actually defrauded
in the sense of getting poor value for money, but the prosecutors
don't care about that. What makes me dubious is that it seems
that in order to prove fraud, the prosecutors should have to show
that either a contract clause was violated, or that material
misrepresentations were made during contract negotiations.
I have not seen any evidence that the USPS contract actually
included a "LANCE and teammates may not put any funny stuff in
their bodies" clause or that such was ever enforced (recall
USPS had several near-positives: LANCE's saddle cream,
Joachim, Padrnos, an Italian who got kicked off (Mondini?), etc)
and there was never a threat to yank sponsorship. A clause that
allowed USPS to terminate in the face of an actual doping
positive wouldn't count, because the issue is whether LANCE
committed fraud by doping in itself, not by testing positive; such
a clause was never activated.
The question of material misrepresentations may boil down
to what was said during contract negotiations and it seems
unlikely that a case could be made solid on verbal
representations from such a long-ago contract.
Maybe someone can put this legal theory on a more sound basis -
I think they'd have to look at the actual sponsorship contract,
because I don't think the idea that doping is prima facie
evidence of fraud is going to pass muster. It is more likely
that the prosecutors can, while pursuing this theory, do one
of several things:
- catch a big fish (LANCE or otherwise) in perjury
- embarrass LANCE with either others' testimony or
his own, but not convict him of fraud
- bust LANCE or others on a conspiracy to distribute
drugs charge. This would require a fair amount of
corroboration. It is entirely possible that RICO charges
could be brought (if you look at the standard for RICO,
it's pretty low) but there is no guarantee that they would win.
Sometimes, prosecutorial overcharging can backfire
because the disproportionality diminishes the seriousness
of the defendant's conduct in the jury's eyes. (I've been on
a jury where this happened.) Overcharging is most likely
intended to scare the defendant into pleading out. Of
course it's premature to speculate on the charges since
we don't know that there are even going to be any
indictments yet. I think it's highly unlikely that LANCE will
actually do 10-15 years as Lafferty wished for recently
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/ead89d942475e792?hl=en
much less Weisel or Johan. And Lafferty, you still haven't
explained why you think Ochowicz is going to be dragged
in at all; he didn't have any interests in Tailwind Sports as far
as I can tell, so your theory seems to be that he's going to
jail because he's a rat bastard and on your enemies list.
Fredmaster Ben
B. Lafferty
Fred, feel free to give us a link to any major market newspaper article
on Lance & Co. in which the comments are not turning against Armstrong.
I look forward to your link(s).
LawBoy01
>
> > much less Weisel or Johan. And Lafferty, you still haven't
> > explained why you think Ochowicz is going to be dragged
> > in at all; he didn't have any interests in Tailwind Sports as far
> > as I can tell, so your theory seems to be that he's going to
> > jail because he's a rat bastard and on your enemies list.
>
> > Fredmaster Ben
>
> Fred, feel free to give us a link to any major market newspaper article
> on Lance & Co. in which the comments are not turning against Armstrong.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
There's an investigation going on, what the fuck do you expect,
dumbass?
Kurgan Gringioni
"Fredmaster of Brainerd" <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2613f8e2-c795-480a...@a4g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
:: I'm still dubious about this fraud charge theory. Of course it's
:: ridiculous in the sense that USPS was not actually defrauded
:: in the sense of getting poor value for money, but the prosecutors
:: don't care about that. What makes me dubious is that it seems
:: that in order to prove fraud, the prosecutors should have to show
:: that either a contract clause was violated, or that material
:: misrepresentations were made during contract negotiations.
<snip>
Dumbass -
My point is that USPS wasn't harmed.
It's kinda hard to convince people that USPS was defrauded when the reality
is that they *benefitted* from the results of the doping.
B. Lafferty
>>
>> I look forward to your link(s).- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> There's an investigation going on, what the fuck do you expect,
> dumbass?
Got a link, mon petit garcon.
B. Lafferty
Fredmaster of Brainerd
>
> > much less Weisel or Johan. And Lafferty, you still haven't
> > explained why you think Ochowicz is going to be dragged
> > in at all; he didn't have any interests in Tailwind Sports as far
> > as I can tell, so your theory seems to be that he's going to
> > jail because he's a rat bastard and on your enemies list.
>
> > Fredmaster Ben
>
> Fred, feel free to give us a link to any major market newspaper article
> on Lance & Co. in which the comments are not turning against Armstrong.
>
> I look forward to your link(s).
Dumbass,
I'm not going to because I avoid reading the
comments on newspaper articles. I get all the
idiots I can stand on Usenet. I don't care if every
commenter on every newspaper tears up their
signed photo of LANCE and feeds their Livestrong
bracelets to the neighbor's beagle. It has absolutely
no bearing on either LANCE's worth, or the
likelihood that LANCE is going to Pelican Bay,
or, God help us all, cleaning up doping in cycling.
The fact that you care about the balance of
newspaper comments shifting is a sign that
you have lost all perspective.
Now, do you care to explain why you think Ochowicz
is going to be sent up the river, even though he was
not a principal in either Tailwind or the USPS cycling
team?
Fredmaster Ben
Mike Jacoubowsky
--
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:zbqdndO60aJBJMHR...@giganews.com...
Assuming a jury trial, which assumes a Grand Jury indicts, I don't see a
conviction. True that Novitsky is trying to build a case that's "not about
doping." But to believe that a jury will follow the rule of law instead of
ask "Does this makes sense?" is ludirous. I was on a jury in pretty much
that exact same situation. We had no doubt the guy was guilty, but what the
prosecutor was trying to do was simply wrong, and we actively looked for
(and found) a way in which "reasonable doubt" would get the guy off.
Basically, the arresting officers really didn't seem to have their heart in
it, it was obvious they'd picked this guy up for something entirely
unrelated, yada yada yada.
A total waste of taxpayer $$$ and juror's time. And I don't think it's going
to be very difficult for Lance's attorney (presumably not the guy he has
now) to convince a jury of the same thing, regardless of the actual rule of
law (a phrase I don't even know if I'm using correctly).
Novitsky's best hope is to actually let this thing run on... and on... and
on... before getting to any sort of trial, hoping that public opinion in
general turns against Lance. Lance's best bet is to get the process moving
as quickly as possible, before his good will is further eroded. --Mike--
Mike Jacoubowsky
But as you admitted yourself, you cannot predict what a jury will do. They
don't always follow "the legal standard."
Kurgan Gringioni
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
news:L6adnRzH_ON1WcHR...@earthlink.com...
: "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
Dumbass -
Be kinda hard to convince a jury that a crime was committed against USPS
when USPS benefitted from the "misdeeds".
RicodJour
wrote:
>
> A total waste of taxpayer $$$ and juror's time. And I don't think it's going
> to be very difficult for Lance's attorney (presumably not the guy he has
> now) to convince a jury of the same thing, regardless of the actual rule of
> law (a phrase I don't even know if I'm using correctly).
>
> Novitsky's best hope is to actually let this thing run on... and on... and
> on... before getting to any sort of trial, hoping that public opinion in
> general turns against Lance. Lance's best bet is to get the process moving
> as quickly as possible, before his good will is further eroded. --Mike--
Novitsky's best hope is to have the trial moved to a location where
the juror pool is assured to not have any family members that have/had
cancer.
Should be an interesting voir dire...
"Have you or anyone in your family had cancer."
"My mother died of cancer you scum-sucking bastard."
"Next."
"Have you or anyone in your family had cancer."
"My grandmother told me to tell you she hopes that you die painfully."
"Next."
It's going to be a long day...
R
Sneakyfox Pepsifranke
wrote:
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
>
> news:L6adnRzH_ON1WcHR...@earthlink.com...
> : "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> :news:PuednT5BqOQoXcHR...@giganews.com...
> : > On 8/6/2010 10:00 PM, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> : >>
> : >>news:2613f8e2-c795-480a...@a4g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> : >>
> : >> :: I'm still dubious about this fraud charge theory. Of course it's
> : >> :: ridiculous in the sense that USPS was not actually defrauded
> : >> :: in the sense of getting poor value for money, but the prosecutors
> : >> :: don't care about that. What makes me dubious is that it seems
> : >> :: that in order to prove fraud, the prosecutors should have to show
> : >> :: that either a contract clause was violated, or that material
> : >> :: misrepresentations were made during contract negotiations.
> : >>
> : >>
> : >> <snip>
> : >>
> : >>
> : >> Dumbass -
> : >>
> : >> My point is that USPS wasn't harmed.
> : >>
> : >> It's kinda hard to convince people that USPS was defrauded when the
> : >> reality
> : >> is that they *benefitted* from the results of the doping.
> : >>
> : >> thanks,
> : >>
> : >> Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
> : >>
> : > That isn't the legal standard, mon petit.
> :
> : But as you admitted yourself, you cannot predict what a jury will do. They
> : don't always follow "the legal standard."
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Be kinda hard to convince a jury that a crime was committed against USPS
> when USPS benefitted from the "misdeeds".
>
> thanks,
>
> Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
That comment just about makes you the dumbest son of a bitch I've come
across this year.
If you commit a crime (rob a bank) and you give the 100% of the money
to an orphanage you're still guilty of the crime.
Sneakyfox Pepsifranke
"Like most cycling fans I would be reluctant to believe Lance
Armstrong, or any other member of the U.S. Postal Service Team, used
performance-enhancing drugs. But if that were indeed the case, and the
company was aware of that at the time, the company may very well have
exposure for treble damages under the False Claims Act," says Paul
Scott, a former U.S. Department of Justice trial attorney in San
Francisco specializing in cases involving the act.
I asked Scott, and a different False Claims Act specialist who spoke
off the record, to review pages from copies of sponsorship agreements
between the Postal Service and Weisel-affiliated companies. I asked
them to consider an imagined scenario in which a team member was found
to have improperly used drugs, the team organization knew about it,
then hid it from its government sponsor.
"The default clause would seem to indicate that compliance with the
drug clause was a condition of payment. If that were the case, and
they violated the drug clause, and they knew about it, and they
continued to solicit payment from the government with that knowledge,
they may very well have a problem with the U.S. government," Scott
said.
Sneakyfox Pepsifranke
Retard 1,
Don't pass puberty without growing some hair on your balls and some
synapses in your brain.
Lance and team can play the cancer card about as effectively as Obama
and administration can play the race card.
Kurgan Gringioni
"Sneakyfox Pepsifranke" <sneaky.fox.an...@gmail.com> wrote in
message
news:674ce786-0cd1-4e8d...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> : >>
> : >> My point is that USPS wasn't harmed.
> : >>
> : >> It's kinda hard to convince people that USPS was defrauded when the
> : >> reality
> : >> is that they *benefitted* from the results of the doping.
> : >>
> : >> thanks,
> : >>
> : >> Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
> : >>
> : > That isn't the legal standard, mon petit.
> :
> : But as you admitted yourself, you cannot predict what a jury will do.
> They
> : don't always follow "the legal standard."
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Be kinda hard to convince a jury that a crime was committed against USPS
> when USPS benefitted from the "misdeeds".
>
> thanks,
>
> Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
:: That comment just about makes you the dumbest son of a bitch I've come
:: across this year.
::
:: If you commit a crime (rob a bank) and you give the 100% of the money
:: to an orphanage you're still guilty of the crime.
Dumbass -
You're the idiot here.
USPS is supposed to be the victim of the fraud..
Michael Press
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
You certainly put a lot of thought into it.
I do not. First across the line wins.
Did you read the CN article on Basso's
victory in his home town, post TdF
criterium? They kept hammering on his
suspension and connections with doping
scandal. How do we enjoy bicycle racing
with that viciousness going on? It's revolting.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
> Assuming a jury trial, which assumes a Grand Jury indicts, I don't see a
> conviction. True that Novitsky is trying to build a case that's "not about
> doping." But to believe that a jury will follow the rule of law instead of
> ask "Does this makes sense?" is ludirous. I was on a jury in pretty much
> that exact same situation. We had no doubt the guy was guilty, but what the
> prosecutor was trying to do was simply wrong, and we actively looked for
> (and found) a way in which "reasonable doubt" would get the guy off.
> Basically, the arresting officers really didn't seem to have their heart in
> it, it was obvious they'd picked this guy up for something entirely
> unrelated, yada yada yada.
>
> A total waste of taxpayer $$$ and juror's time.
No it is not. Rethink it.
Or I will explain it to you.
--
Michael Press
Frederick the Great
"Kurgan Gringioni" <soulinth...@gmail.com> wrote:
This is getting to the point where USPS
conceivably would ask why Novitzky is
pursuing this on USPS's behalf, and
tell him not to drag them into it.
--
Old Fritz
K. Fred Gauss
What is your point behind calling Henry "mon petit"? It sounds as though
you're dying to blow him. It's not especially persuasive, just creepy.
Beloved Fred No. 1
B. Lafferty wrote:
>> ROTFLMAO!!!!!
derF...@gmail.com wrote:
> Lance is going to have to get off the bike and kick your little chess-
> boy ass for that .. especially the exclamation points.
Fat Steve and Lafferty are merging.
B. Lafferty
>>
>> I look forward to your link(s).
>
> Dumbass,
>
> I'm not going to because I avoid reading the
> comments on newspaper articles. I get all the
> idiots I can stand on Usenet. I don't care if every
> commenter on every newspaper tears up their
> signed photo of LANCE and feeds their Livestrong
> bracelets to the neighbor's beagle. It has absolutely
> no bearing on either LANCE's worth, or the
> likelihood that LANCE is going to Pelican Bay,
> or, God help us all, cleaning up doping in cycling.
> The fact that you care about the balance of
> newspaper comments shifting is a sign that
> you have lost all perspective.
>
> Now, do you care to explain why you think Ochowicz
> is going to be sent up the river, even though he was
> not a principal in either Tailwind or the USPS cycling
> team?
>
> Fredmaster Ben
B. Lafferty
to reason legally. But, you knew that.
Kurgan Gringioni
"K. Fred Gauss" <I...@just.dont.know.anymore> wrote in message
news:4c5d0e89$1...@news.x-privat.org...
: >>
: > That isn't the legal standard, mon petit.
:
: What is your point behind calling Henry "mon petit"? It sounds as though
: you're dying to blow him. It's not especially persuasive, just creepy.
Dumbass -
It's the classic ad hominem. When the logic of one's position fails, resort
to personal attack.
K. Fred Gauss
"mon petit" isn't a good ad hominem. He says nothing about you while
making himself sound effete.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
> On 8/6/2010 10:17 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>
> > On Aug 6, 6:44 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> On 8/6/2010 9:43 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>
> >>> First, I want to say that Lafferty's appeal to the comments
> >>> on a Milwaukee newspaper article as evidence that the
> >>> tide is turning against LANCE are the brightest signs of
> >>> hope for LANCE I've seen in a while. Not because of the
> >>> content of the comments, but because people who write
> >>> comments on blogs and on newspaper websites are such
> >>> a bunch of ill-informed morons that they make rbr look good.
> >>> These are the people who used to write crackpot letters
> >>> to the newspaper and got one printed once a year.
> >>> Appealing to them is a sign of desperation.
>
> >>> I think they'd have to look at the actual sponsorship contract,
> >>> because I don't think the idea that doping is prima facie
> >>> evidence of fraud is going to pass muster. It is more likely
> >>> that the prosecutors can, while pursuing this theory, do one
> >>> of several things:
>
Brian,
You know that thing you do that makes people
not like you and turns them against your cause?
You're doing it again.
Newspaper reader comments are irrelevant.
If you want to have a substantive conversation about
this, you can respond to my skepticism of the
fraud argument since it ought to be based on a
violation of contract or material misrepresentation
(I haven't read the sponsorship agreement and it's
possible there is a clause in it that can be cited as
evidence for the fraud argument -feel free to point it out).
Or you can respond to my question, for the third time -
why do you keep saying Ochowicz is going up the river
when he wasn't a principal in either Tailwind or the
USPS team and is probably thus not a party to any
fraud even if it's proven? Counselor, if you don't
answer this question, you may be held in contempt of rbr.
Fredmaster Ben
K. Fred Gauss
I followed this up with some research and I've figured out what Brian's
doing here. I understand why you think "mon petit" is an argumentum ad
hominem, but it turns out that the Greeks and Roman's compiled a list of
THOUSANDS of logical fallacies. Only a few of these are in common use
today. What Brian's actually doing is what the Romans called the "Post
hoc ergo talk like Gomez Addams" fallacy which is designed to end an
argument by convincing everyone that you're too creepy, kooky,
mysterious and spooky to mess with. It was only popular for a couple of
years, but has enjoyed brief revivals.
B. Lafferty
Give us a link to a newspaper, as I requested, or just admit that your
initial reply was inane. Thanks.
Beloved Fred No. 1
> I followed this up with some research and I've figured out what Brian's
> doing here. I understand why you think "mon petit" is an argumentum ad
> hominem, but it turns out that the Greeks and Roman's compiled a list of
> THOUSANDS of logical fallacies. Only a few of these are in common use
> today. What Brian's actually doing is what the Romans called the "Post
> hoc ergo talk like Gomez Addams" fallacy which is designed to end an
> argument by convincing everyone that you're too creepy, kooky,
> mysterious and spooky to mess with. It was only popular for a couple of
> years, but has enjoyed brief revivals.
Didn't Nero try that one once upon a time ?
DirtRoadie
> > : On 8/6/2010 3:59 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > :> "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > Armstrong.
> > :
> > : What?
> > : I don't think the Feds would be launching such a vast investigation
> > : unless they had cause. It seems very likely that they are gathering more
> > : information, to use against Lance. I used to think (or want to believe)
> > : that he was innocent- I don't anymore.
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > Sure he was a doper.
>
> > That's still not defrauding USPS. It's the opposite - giving USPS more
> > exposure for the buck by winning.
>
> you could always run it by Bryan Daly for use in his magnificent public
> relations campaign on Lance's behalf.
>
> > clean, got their ass kicked anonymously, and didn't deliver any sponsorship
> > value in the way of press. I'd want my team to be doping.
>
> Carry on, mon petit.
IIRC, the argument made by HC (KG) WAS a factor in the decision in
LA's action against SCA. To summarize, the decision basically said
"Hey, even if LA doped, which has not been established, there's
nothing in the contract that says that LA must win without doping."
Judgment Armstrong.
Please feel free to find a link and prove me wrong.
DR
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Counselor,
The court of rbr opinion will note that you are
avoiding the question.
I said that the specific WI newspaper comments are
irrelevant and a sign that you are grasping at straws,
because all newspaper comments are irrelevant.
It would be ridiculous for me to provide a link to a paper
with pro-Armstrong comments, because I believe
that would also be irrelevant.
Now, answer the questions: What contract provisions
underlie the argument that the sponsorship agreement
was negotiated fraudulently?
And why do you keep indicting Ochowicz when this is
the one sleazy thing in all of US cycling that he probably
did not have a stake in?
Fredmaster Ben
B. Lafferty
Fred, I think you should just sit back and read the indictment when it
comes down and is unsealed.
K. Fred Gauss
Oui, mon cheri.
RicodJour
wrote:
>
> I followed this up with some research and I've figured out what Brian's
> doing here. I understand why you think "mon petit" is an argumentum ad
> hominem, but it turns out that the Greeks and Roman's compiled a list of
> THOUSANDS of logical fallacies. Only a few of these are in common use
> today. What Brian's actually doing is what the Romans called the "Post
> hoc ergo talk like Gomez Addams" fallacy which is designed to end an
> argument by convincing everyone that you're too creepy, kooky,
> mysterious and spooky to mess with. It was only popular for a couple of
> years, but has enjoyed brief revivals.
And left Barry in the Lurch.
R
LawBoy01
>
> - Show quoted text -
Brian is a pussy. He can't answer the question.
RicodJour
Yes it is too. USPS is either a government entity or it's not. You
can't have it both ways. Any lawsuit or prosecution that relies on
the qualifier 'quasi-governmental' should be thrown out as frivolous.
The government, or any 'quasi-governmental' agency, should not be
sponsoring any sports beyond the grade school level, as all sports
involve doping. If they want to advertise, fucking advertise. They
shouldn't try to leverage the advertising dollars and then call
backsies.
They took down Al Capone because for tax evasion because they couldn't
make anything else stick. They _knew_ they had to get him, so they
used what they could. It was hardly the most heinous of his crimes.
Unfortunately, using the 'quasi-governmental' and potential RICO
(thank you very much) statue against doping in sports is so far beyond
ludicrous it's not even funny. The fucking guy wearing the pants with
the blue stripes down the side in the post office mail room, selling a
little weed on the side, would then also qualify for the RICO thing.
It's absurd.
R
Fredmaster of Brainerd
> On Aug 7, 3:09 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>
> > > Assuming a jury trial, which assumes a Grand Jury indicts, I don't see a
> > > conviction. True that Novitsky is trying to build a case that's "not about
> > > doping." But to believe that a jury will follow the rule of law instead of
> > > ask "Does this makes sense?" is ludirous. I was on a jury in pretty much
> > > that exact same situation. We had no doubt the guy was guilty, but what the
> > > prosecutor was trying to do was simply wrong, and we actively looked for
> > > (and found) a way in which "reasonable doubt" would get the guy off.
> > > Basically, the arresting officers really didn't seem to have their heart in
> > > it, it was obvious they'd picked this guy up for something entirely
> > > unrelated, yada yada yada.
>
> > > A total waste of taxpayer $$$ and juror's time.
>
> > No it is not. Rethink it.
> > Or I will explain it to you.
>
> Yes it is too. USPS is either a government entity or it's not. You
> can't have it both ways. Any lawsuit or prosecution that relies on
> the qualifier 'quasi-governmental' should be thrown out as frivolous.
>
> The government, or any 'quasi-governmental' agency, should not be
> sponsoring any sports beyond the grade school level, as all sports
> involve doping. If they want to advertise, fucking advertise. They
> shouldn't try to leverage the advertising dollars and then call
> backsies.
I think what Press meant is that Mike J serving
on a jury that threw out a seemingly improper
prosecution, was not a waste of the jury's time.
You can argue semantically about whether the
prosecution wasted the jury's time by bringing
the case in the first place (which is what Mike J
meant) but basically I agree with Press. We have
an adversarial justice system and juries as
arbiters, and terrible as trial by a jury of your peers
is, it's far superior to the alternatives.
As to the whole USPS thing, I suspect
quasi-governmental has an actual legal meaning,
but who cares. Even fully-governmental agencies
sponsor sporting events, unless all those Army and
Marines ads I see are for private armies. The main
issue is that "the government" is not monolithic.
It is not calling backsies. Somebody at USPS
negotiated a sponsorship, and somebody at the
US Attorney's office is exploring bringing charges
related to that, completely unprompted by the USPS,
which isn't "pressing charges." You can bet that
whoever at USPS was in charge of the sponsorship
negotiations will get dragged in front of the grand jury
and is not happy about it.
Prosecutors prosecute. It is what they do. That is one
reason why we have juries. Sometimes, when the
offense is something nebulous like conspiracy or
"theft of honest services," it seems quite bogus. Whether
you think that is the only way to nail perps who cleverly
cover their tracks or is a prosecutorial trick to jail people
when they can't be convicted of an underlying crime,
depends on whose foot the boot is on.
As I previously stated, and asked Lafferty to clarify, this
whole fraud charge is going to depend on what the
contract actually says and the representations that
were made during negotiations (which might be
"We're 100% clean" or "We're 100% clean", wink-wink).
It's entirely possible it will never be brought. One thing
prosecutions do is leak their potential charges to
scare witnesses into testifying and maybe turning up
solid evidence. (Leaking prosecution strategy, unlike
leaking grand jury testimony, is perfectly legal.)
Fredmaster Ben
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:rubrum-A90E0E....@news.albasani.net...
You'll have to explain it to me, mostly because I'm not sure what "it"
is that you'll be explaining.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Michael Press
<a652a262-751a-4ec8...@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
RicodJour <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote:
You did not think this through.
Question: How are you going to curb these prosecutions?
Answer: By juries finding the defendant not guilty.
Hence, the money spent on the trial where Mike was a juror
is money well spent.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
> You'll have to explain it to me, mostly because I'm not sure what "it"
> is that you'll be explaining.
"it" = "waste of taxpayer $$$"
You and your fellow jurors put
one in the eye of the prosecutor.
You do not think that is sweet?
--
Michael Press
Beloved Fred No. 1
> Brian is a pussy. He can't answer the question.
I doubt if he knows what pussy is.
RicodJour
>
> You did not think this through.
> Question: How are you going to curb these prosecutions?
> Answer: By juries finding the defendant not guilty.
>
> Hence, the money spent on the trial where Mike was a juror
> is money well spent.
That's kind of like having your wallet stolen by a hooker to figure
out that a crack whore can't be trusted. Weird, but I see your point.
R
Mike Jacoubowsky
I can hope so, we hoped so, but we also suspected the prosecutor and his
boss must be seriously dense and beyond such reasoning. The guy claimed
to have picked up a pair of pants at a salvation army depot, and the
pants had what, 4 ounces of grass sewn into them I think? The prosecutor
doubted his story, but among other absurdities, NEVER CHECKED IT OUT. We
were in disbelief. When the defense attorney asked the prosecutor if
they had checked out his story (which seemed plausible, picking up a
pair of pants at the salvation army), and they said no, it was almost
surprising the judge didn't call a halt to it right then and there. How
many of us on the jury were trying to stifle a laugh I don't know.
The fatal mistake was the prosecutor's insistence that there's no way
the guy couldn't have known the grass was there (it was found when he
was being searched at the jail for whatever minor unrelated charge he'd
been picked up on; we suspected the cops just wanted him to get a bath
and a meal for the night). So we asked for the packet in the
deliberation room, and a few of us placed it where it had been sewn into
the pants, and you know what? You couldn't tell it was there. That was
that. The reasonable doubt we needed (as if we needed any more).
Too bad they don't do exit polls on juries to ask them what convinced
them one way or another. Or maybe a rate the attorneys thing like you
have in school for professors.
RicodJour
wrote:
>
> I can hope so, we hoped so, but we also suspected the prosecutor and his
> boss must be seriously dense and beyond such reasoning. The guy claimed
> to have picked up a pair of pants at a salvation army depot, and the
> pants had what, 4 ounces of grass sewn into them I think? The prosecutor
> doubted his story, but among other absurdities, NEVER CHECKED IT OUT. We
> were in disbelief. When the defense attorney asked the prosecutor if
> they had checked out his story (which seemed plausible, picking up a
> pair of pants at the salvation army), and they said no, it was almost
> surprising the judge didn't call a halt to it right then and there. How
> many of us on the jury were trying to stifle a laugh I don't know.
>
> The fatal mistake was the prosecutor's insistence that there's no way
> the guy couldn't have known the grass was there (it was found when he
> was being searched at the jail for whatever minor unrelated charge he'd
> been picked up on; we suspected the cops just wanted him to get a bath
> and a meal for the night). So we asked for the packet in the
> deliberation room, and a few of us placed it where it had been sewn into
> the pants, and you know what? You couldn't tell it was there. That was
> that. The reasonable doubt we needed (as if we needed any more).
Ummm...where exactly were the packets sewn into the pants? It's a
perfectly innocent question and has nothing at all to do with my
frequent flights to Colombia and Cambodia.
R
RicodJour
You are such a loser, Barrhoid. You're free to spew nonsense based on
nothing other than your alcoholic, puckered sphincter's opinion, but
when other people offer an opinion, you tell them to sit back and
wait? Pitiful - really, pitiful.
R
Fredmaster of Brainerd
>
> Too bad they don't do exit polls on juries to ask them what convinced
> them one way or another. Or maybe a rate the attorneys thing like you
> have in school for professors.
>
It was probably fairly obvious to them, or at least to the
judge. Remember, you're in there once, and they're in
there day after day they must get a sense of how to read
how a trial is going.
When I was on a jury (it was a driving under the influence
of Xanax charge, plus various associated things) we let the
defendant off on most of the charges and hung on the actual
DUI charge, or maybe it was a reckless driving charge.
The judge came in to talk to us about after we returned the
verdict and then brought in both the ADA and public defender
to talk. This may have been partly so they could decide whether
to retry the hung charge or plead it down, and also may
have been because both the ADA and PD were young
and the judge wanted to give them feedback, but in any
case, the exit interview you're thinking of does sometimes
happen.
Fredmaster Ben
Michael Press
<a9b7e48b-e0ac-4763...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
RicodJour <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote:
You do not see my point.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
> I can hope so, we hoped so, but we also suspected the prosecutor and his
> boss must be seriously dense and beyond such reasoning. The guy claimed
> to have picked up a pair of pants at a salvation army depot, and the
> pants had what, 4 ounces of grass sewn into them I think? The prosecutor
> doubted his story, but among other absurdities, NEVER CHECKED IT OUT. We
> were in disbelief. When the defense attorney asked the prosecutor if
> they had checked out his story (which seemed plausible, picking up a
> pair of pants at the salvation army), and they said no, it was almost
> surprising the judge didn't call a halt to it right then and there. How
> many of us on the jury were trying to stifle a laugh I don't know.
>
> The fatal mistake was the prosecutor's insistence that there's no way
> the guy couldn't have known the grass was there (it was found when he
> was being searched at the jail for whatever minor unrelated charge he'd
> been picked up on; we suspected the cops just wanted him to get a bath
> and a meal for the night). So we asked for the packet in the
> deliberation room, and a few of us placed it where it had been sewn into
> the pants, and you know what? You couldn't tell it was there. That was
> that. The reasonable doubt we needed (as if we needed any more).
>
> Too bad they don't do exit polls on juries to ask them what convinced
> them one way or another. Or maybe a rate the attorneys thing like you
> have in school for professors.
It is better not to have exit polls on juries.
--
Michael Press
harg...@yahoo.com
There is several scenarios under which Lance might be indicted. I
doubt Lance will be found guilty of doping since he has not tested
positive. Allegations that in which Lance said he doped to others is
not enough. Now Lance said that he was just a rider and not part of
the management. Lance did however own 10% of the team, but this is
probably not enough to make him a part of management. Lance was
however team captain and helped make decisions. This might constitute
management. The prosecutor would then have to prove that Lance knew
about doping on the team. There is a good likelihood that the DS and
other team management knew nothing about the doping since the riders
often train on their own.
DirtRoadie
Please explain further.
"Indictment" = accused of a criminal offense. Please identify the
criminal offense.
DR
H. Fred Kveck
DirtRoadie <DirtR...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Aug 8, 10:21 pm, "hargo...@yahoo.com" <hargo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Indictment:
(snip of gibberish)
> Please explain further.
No, please don't. Spare us.
harg...@yahoo.com
Fredmaster of Brainerd
So speculation on who might be indicted and
for what and for how long they're going up the river
is just baseless rbr trash-talking in which
legal knowledge is of little assistance, since
we have no knowledge of the underlying documents,
contracts, or evidence, and we don't know what, if
anything, the investigation has turned up.
Finally, something you and I can agree on.
Fredmaster Ben
H. Fred Kveck
In Brian's case, it's a lot of wishful thinking.
DirtRoadie
wrote:
> In article <bb995ce4-274d-4488-91af-7e26bfce5...@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 8, 10:21 pm, "hargo...@yahoo.com" <hargo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Indictment:
>
> (snip of gibberish)
>
> > Please explain further.
>
> No, please don't. Spare us.
On second thought, I agree.
DR
Frederick the Great
<581fbcc3-a1c9-425c...@a4g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Fredmaster of Brainerd <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 7, 3:37 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > On 8/7/2010 5:05 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> >
> > > Counselor,
> >
> > > The court of rbr opinion will note that you are
> > > avoiding the question.
> >
> > > I said that the specific WI newspaper comments are
> > > irrelevant and a sign that you are grasping at straws,
> > > because all newspaper comments are irrelevant.
> > > It would be ridiculous for me to provide a link to a paper
> > > with pro-Armstrong comments, because I believe
> > > that would also be irrelevant.
> >
> > > Now, answer the questions: What contract provisions
> > > underlie the argument that the sponsorship agreement
> > > was negotiated fraudulently?
> > > And why do you keep indicting Ochowicz when this is
> > > the one sleazy thing in all of US cycling that he probably
> > > did not have a stake in?
> >
> > > Fredmaster Ben
> >
> > Fred, I think you should just sit back and read the indictment when it
> > comes down and is unsealed.
>
> So speculation on who might be indicted and
> for what and for how long they're going up the river
> is just baseless rbr trash-talking
Not even good quality trash-talking.
Sounds similar to recycled Lafferty trash talk.
--
Old Fritz