CNBC on Armstrong

On Jun 20, 12:54*pm, Fred Flintstein
wrote:
On 6/20/2011 11:11 AM, A. Dumas wrote:
Brad Anders wrote:

Postal lawyers knew exactly
what kind of sport they were getting into

That, I don't think is true. American corporate lawyers ca. 1995 with
inside knowledge of pro cycling? Nah.

I would generalize that. American corporate lawyers with
knowledge of the risks that come with associating with
professional athletes? Hell yes!

Next you'll be telling us that lawyers are cynical jaded *******s with
floppy jowls and huge cases of schadenfreude envy.

R

On Jun 19, 10:17*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
Brad Anders wrote:
I'd guess that by the time this fed investigation of LA and Postal is
done, they'll have spent at least $5M, and if they get a conviction,
they might get $5M back, for an effective zero net. Hardly worth the
effort for a $23M outlay for the govt.

The deterrent effect of busting someone like Lance is huge and well
worth the money. *That's why the feds always target the big fish (i.e.
Martha Stewart, Leona Hemsley, Barry Bonds, Clemens).

You're reaching. The fact that Stewart got busted for insider trading
hasn't stopped insider trading in the least. Everyone hated Helmsley's
guts and wanted to see her go down. The message most people got from
the Bonds case was that dope can make you famous and wealthy. He's not
expected to serve any time. Clemens is just like LA, a guy from the
past that today's athletes could give a **** about.

They target the big fish because it makes a name for the investigators
and lawyers, making them richer and more powerful. That's why they do
it. They ultimately could give a **** about deterrence.

Why, do you think the feds should be spending $23 million busting up the
local steroid ring at my gym instead?

No, I think an FDA investigator should be spending the Fed/taxpayer $$
on investigating things more important to the US population, such as
food contamination sources (hundreds die in the US from every year),
fraudulent drug claims (just watch TV), etc. Chasing after LA is a
misuse of FDA money.

The logic behind busting Lance is that it sends a message to all
athletes throughout the country that if they got Lance, they can get
anyone. ..plus they will get way more free press by going after Lance
than some no-name college athlete...i.e. 60 Minutes would never have
done that story had the cyclist been Ernie Lechuga instead of Lance.

Regardless of what happens to LA, the benefit/risk from taking dope is
too good for some (most) pro cycling athletes. Anyone with a brain can
put themselves on a modest, safe, low-risk of detection program that
produces significant results. Nothing that happens to LA will change
this.

On 6/20/2011 12:17 AM, MagillaGorilla wrote:
The logic behind busting Lance is that it sends a message to all
athletes throughout the country that if they got Lance, they can get
anyone. ..plus they will get way more free press by going after Lance
than some no-name college athlete...i.e. 60 Minutes would never have
done that story had the cyclist been Ernie Lechuga instead of Lance.

I'm curious. Is doping for an athletic contest illegal in the US?

F

I'm curious. Is doping for an athletic contest illegal in the US?

F

It is if you signed a contract where you said you wouldn't dope you
stupid ****ing dumbass.

On 6/20/2011 1:27 PM, Choppy Warburton wrote:

I'm curious. Is doping for an athletic contest illegal in the US?

F

It is if you signed a contract where you said you wouldn't dope you
stupid ****ing dumbass.



Engage your brain before typing ....... A contract does not make doping
illegal or legal.


Sheesh .... Not even July and the nutcases are out


Bill

--

William R. Mattil

http://www.celestial-images.com

On 6/20/2011 1:33 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
On 6/20/2011 1:27 PM, Choppy Warburton wrote:

I'm curious. Is doping for an athletic contest illegal in the US?

F

It is if you signed a contract where you said you wouldn't dope you
stupid ****ing dumbass.



Engage your brain before typing ....... A contract does not make doping
illegal or legal.


Sheesh .... Not even July and the nutcases are out


Bill


It's important to build form gradually, so as to not peak too early.
The end of July is a long way off. The ape has the right idea. Lafferty
is already showing signs of fading.

F

On Jun 20, 1:33*pm, "William R. Mattil"
wrote:
On 6/20/2011 1:27 PM, Choppy Warburton wrote:



I'm curious. Is doping for an athletic contest illegal in the US?

F

It is if you signed a contract where you said you wouldn't dope you
stupid ****ing dumbass.

Engage your brain before typing ....... A contract does not make doping
illegal or legal.

Sheesh .... Not even July and the nutcases are out

Bill

--

William R. Mattil

http://www.celestial-images.com

Dumbass if you promise not to play checkers and you receive
compensation for that promise and then go play checkers it's fraud.

If Armstrong didn't make a promise to NOT DOPE then doping isn't
illegal... but since he did.... eh heh... he's ****ed.

Why can't you ball gargling cock suckers get that through your ****ing
brains?

On Jun 20, 2:02*pm, Fred Flintstein
wrote:
On 6/20/2011 1:33 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:



On 6/20/2011 1:27 PM, Choppy Warburton wrote:

I'm curious. Is doping for an athletic contest illegal in the US?

F

It is if you signed a contract where you said you wouldn't dope you
stupid ****ing dumbass.

Engage your brain before typing ....... A contract does not make doping
illegal or legal.

Sheesh .... Not even July and the nutcases are out

Bill

It's important to build form gradually, so as to not peak too early.
The end of July is a long way off. The ape has the right idea. Lafferty
is already showing signs of fading.

F

Bad sign William when a dip**** like BS is aligning with you.

On Jun 20, 11:27*am, Choppy Warburton
wrote:
I'm curious. Is doping for an athletic contest illegal in the US?

F

It is if you signed a contract where you said you wouldn't dope you
stupid ****ing dumbass.

Has any athlete ever been prosecuted for violating such a
contract? No at worst they get fired. The only rationale for
the heavy Novitsky/FBI presence is the fraud-on-the-Govt
angle.

The most likely outcome of this investigation - okay, the
third most likely, #1 being nothing and #2 being a conviction
of a bit player for perjury or bad bookkeeping - is to
deter future athletes from signing sponsorship deals
with the US Government.

Meanwhile, did you know that the US doesn't even have a
regulation requiring meatpackers to test for the rarer strains
of E. coli that caused the recent food-borne outbreak in
Germany?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/us/08food.html

Fredmaster Ben

On Jun 20, 3:02*pm, Fred Flintstein
wrote:
On 6/20/2011 1:33 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:









On 6/20/2011 1:27 PM, Choppy Warburton wrote:

I'm curious. Is doping for an athletic contest illegal in the US?

F

It is if you signed a contract where you said you wouldn't dope you
stupid ****ing dumbass.

Engage your brain before typing ....... A contract does not make doping
illegal or legal.

Sheesh .... Not even July and the nutcases are out

Bill

It's important to build form gradually, so as to not peak too early.
The end of July is a long way off. The ape has the right idea. Lafferty
is already showing signs of fading.

I find it curious that chim****imo was nowhere to be seen in the early
season, and then he's all over the place like a bum on baloney. Maybe
he was in Mexico with Rasmussen and his wife. Relaxing. Yeah, that's
it.

R