Novitzky gets the Ball rolling

On Jun 27, 4:58*am, Betty wrote:
B. Lafferty wrote:
My heart really goes out to you, poor fool that you are. *It's sad that
you can't accept that I've been right about Armstrong for years. In time
you'll get over it, Freddy. :-)

You and Durex 94 don't seem to get that just about everybody here (apart
perhaps from Papai back in the day) accepted and accepts that LANCE (and
Ullrich and everyone else who won anything) doped. It just doesn't
bother us like it seems to bother you.

That's the way it seems to me, too. Since it's obvious that cycling
cannot and will not ever be "clean" because of the availability of
effective, undetectable doping methods, the limitations of dope
testing, and human nature regarding cheating, the only thing I can see
coming out of the continued doping witch hunts is the eventual demise
of pro cycling. People who believe that it will arise new and
unspoiled from the ashes need to quit reading Harry Potter novels.

Brad Anders

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 22:34:01 -0700, "K. Fred Gauss"
wrote:

It's "The Return of the Sock Puppets!"

Suck Puppets. Think 'wet socks'.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On 6/26/2010 9:30 PM, Fred Gringioni wrote:

"B. wrote in message
...
:
: Dumbass -
:
: Floyd didn't make his allegation until six years after the alleged
: crimes. So how could there be a cover up in the interim?
:
: This is why they're going after the small fish that is Rock Racing. If
: they could go after USPS, they would.
:
: thanks,
:
: Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
: Man, you are thick as a brick. Armstrong has issued denials and
: commenced legal actions to silence anyone who would dare to assert he's
: a doper. He entire pr campaign can be viewed as part of a lulling cover
: up. It's not what Landis has now done. It's about the course of
: conduct from Armstrong and his publicity machine.



Dumbass -

If the legal system really worked the way you imagine, there'd be no reason
to have a statute of limitations.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

Spoken like the true non-attorney putz that you are. Congratulations.

On 6/27/2010 8:26 AM, Brad Anders wrote:
On Jun 27, 4:58 am, wrote:
B. Lafferty wrote:
My heart really goes out to you, poor fool that you are. It's sad that
you can't accept that I've been right about Armstrong for years. In time
you'll get over it, Freddy. :-)

You and Durex 94 don't seem to get that just about everybody here (apart
perhaps from Papai back in the day) accepted and accepts that LANCE (and
Ullrich and everyone else who won anything) doped. It just doesn't
bother us like it seems to bother you.

That's the way it seems to me, too. Since it's obvious that cycling
cannot and will not ever be "clean" because of the availability of
effective, undetectable doping methods, the limitations of dope
testing, and human nature regarding cheating, the only thing I can see
coming out of the continued doping witch hunts is the eventual demise
of pro cycling. People who believe that it will arise new and
unspoiled from the ashes need to quit reading Harry Potter novels.

Brad Anders

Wrong. I anything comes out of this, it will have to do with misuse of
government money and insurance fraud. This criminal investigation is
*not* primarily about doping although you folks would like to dismiss it
as such. It's about mail and wire fraud.

In article ,
"B. Lafferty" wrote:

On 6/27/2010 8:26 AM, Brad Anders wrote:
On Jun 27, 4:58 am, wrote:
B. Lafferty wrote:
My heart really goes out to you, poor fool that you are. It's sad that
you can't accept that I've been right about Armstrong for years. In time
you'll get over it, Freddy. :-)

You and Durex 94 don't seem to get that just about everybody here (apart
perhaps from Papai back in the day) accepted and accepts that LANCE (and
Ullrich and everyone else who won anything) doped. It just doesn't
bother us like it seems to bother you.

That's the way it seems to me, too. Since it's obvious that cycling
cannot and will not ever be "clean" because of the availability of
effective, undetectable doping methods, the limitations of dope
testing, and human nature regarding cheating, the only thing I can see
coming out of the continued doping witch hunts is the eventual demise
of pro cycling. People who believe that it will arise new and
unspoiled from the ashes need to quit reading Harry Potter novels.

Brad Anders

Wrong. I anything comes out of this, it will have to do with misuse of
government money and insurance fraud. This criminal investigation is
*not* primarily about doping although you folks would like to dismiss it
as such. It's about mail and wire fraud.

Brian, you dismissively write K. Fred's comments about your LA obsession off as
those of a LANCE fanboy, as someone who was too dumb to recognize what you and you
alone could see, that the peloton was not pure as the driven snow. Betty and Brad
responded that that was not the case. Your response here changes the subject. You
have made it plenty clear that you're seriously obsessed with LA - now you're trying
to tell us that it's all about the "misuse of government money and insurance fraud?"
Are you kidding me? Whether the investigation is about "misuse of government money
and insurance fraud" or not, you come here to gloat over the idea that LA "might go
down." Fact.

On 6/27/2010 10:15 AM, H. Fred Kveck wrote:
In articleKMudnfdcWffD0LrRnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@giganews. com,
"B. wrote:

On 6/27/2010 8:26 AM, Brad Anders wrote:
On Jun 27, 4:58 am, wrote:
B. Lafferty wrote:
My heart really goes out to you, poor fool that you are. It's sad that
you can't accept that I've been right about Armstrong for years. In time
you'll get over it, Freddy. :-)

You and Durex 94 don't seem to get that just about everybody here (apart
perhaps from Papai back in the day) accepted and accepts that LANCE (and
Ullrich and everyone else who won anything) doped. It just doesn't
bother us like it seems to bother you.

That's the way it seems to me, too. Since it's obvious that cycling
cannot and will not ever be "clean" because of the availability of
effective, undetectable doping methods, the limitations of dope
testing, and human nature regarding cheating, the only thing I can see
coming out of the continued doping witch hunts is the eventual demise
of pro cycling. People who believe that it will arise new and
unspoiled from the ashes need to quit reading Harry Potter novels.

Brad Anders

Wrong. I anything comes out of this, it will have to do with misuse of
government money and insurance fraud. This criminal investigation is
*not* primarily about doping although you folks would like to dismiss it
as such. It's about mail and wire fraud.

Brian, you dismissively write K. Fred's comments about your LA obsession off as
those of a LANCE fanboy, as someone who was too dumb to recognize what you and you
alone could see, that the peloton was not pure as the driven snow. Betty and Brad
responded that that was not the case. Your response here changes the subject. You
have made it plenty clear that you're seriously obsessed with LA - now you're trying
to tell us that it's all about the "misuse of government money and insurance fraud?"
Are you kidding me? Whether the investigation is about "misuse of government money
and insurance fraud" or not, you come here to gloat over the idea that LA "might go
down." Fact.

Learn to read for comprehension. I am, and have been for years,
concerned with drug use in the cycling from a sporting perspective. My
comment above relates to the investigation opened by the feds--different
issue related to drug use.

As for Betty Boop, Brad and the other rbr kids, they have not taken a
particularly skeptical position regarding drugs in professional cycling
and drug use by Postal/Discovery/Lance in particular. I've been posting
here since 1994 and can tell you that what you claim is false; the
history of rbr has been to deny that drug use was/is a problem of
massive proportions in pro cycling. The overwhelming majority of posters
here have been in denial on that issue for years. Your revisionist
history of rbr doesn't fly.

You might want to dig up the comments here directed at Andy Hampsten
back in the mid-1990s when he was interviewed in Cycling Weekly about
how his career was more circumscribed than it would have been absent
doping in pro cycling. He and Max Testa discussed going down the doping
road and rejected that direction of Hampsten. Hampsten's position was
ridiculed by many here at rbr at the time. As I recall, it was one of
the things that drove Bruce Hildenbrand away from rbr.

On Jun 26, 7:38*pm, Fred Flintstein
wrote:
Fred wrote:
Fred Flintstein wrote:
B. Lafferty wrote:
On 6/26/2010 9:12 PM, Fred wrote:
Fred wrote:
He won't admit that he's wrong. That's not a bug, it's a feature.

Fred Flintstein


PS Armstrong will be finished when Walsh's book comes out in
English, remember that?


If I'm not mistaken, LA Confidentiel has not been released in English.


Correct.


Dude,


Stop talking to yourself.


http://www.scribd.com/search?cat=red...ntiel+&x=0&y=0


Fred Flintstein



I wouldn't exactly call that link evidence
of this book's "release in English" as it more
resembles a pirated translation typeset on toilet
paper and then ocr scanned into a pdf.

Got anything else?



Got anything else?

Were you talking to me? Or to yourself? It isn't
obvious sometimes.

Fred Flintstein


Fred (not of the Flintsteins),
,
He won't admit that he's wrong. That's not a bug, it's a feature.

Watch out though, if you call him on his inconsistencies he might
accuse you of having a man-crush but don't worry it's just his rbr wet
dream. Move along. Nothing to see here.

But hey, if you get a chance, ask him about the fascinating doping
phenomenon he uncovered where pros use stimulants in training and then
take "**** to enhance recovery" so they can train harder. I'm trying
to get ahold of Novitzsky to tell him to be on the watch out for this
one.

You're Welcome,
DA74

On Jun 26, 3:35*pm, --D-y wrote:

The reason it says "read more" is because you didn't trim like you're
supposed to

Are you sure? "Read more" could be educational advice for the
dumbasses around here.

-rj

Betty wrote:
B. Lafferty wrote:
My heart really goes out to you, poor fool that you are. It's sad
that you can't accept that I've been right about Armstrong for years.
In time you'll get over it, Freddy. :-)

You and Durex 94 don't seem to get that just about everybody here (apart
perhaps from Papai back in the day) accepted and accepts that LANCE (and
Ullrich and everyone else who won anything) doped. It just doesn't
bother us like it seems to bother you.

Absolutely. It's the second half of the "LA dopes and he's bigger vermin
than Adolf Hitler" combination that gets people to argue with Laff.

B. Lafferty wrote:

As for Betty Boop, Brad and the other rbr kids, they have not taken a
particularly skeptical position regarding drugs in professional cycling
and drug use by Postal/Discovery/Lance in particular.

Bull****. You've been doing the same schtick for years.

You say "LA is doping and that's the cause of all the world's problems"
People respond by saying that's not the cause of all the world's
problems. You accuse them of denying that Armstrong dopes. Repeat.