Professional snark about Lance Armstrong

On Jul 9, 8:34*pm, DirtRoadie wrote:

Me neither. I just thought the counterpoint was well put together.
Even more significant was its accurate anticipation of the complaint
which LA actually filed. Now we wait to see whether that is refiled in
"Just the facts, Ma'am" *form as might be accepted by the judge.

I predict the word "kangaroo" will not be found in any refiling.

Yeah. There were some parts that were just ridiculously self-serving
and in an obnoxious way. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
They would have had a stronger and less annoying document without the
fluff.

R

Tim Dockery is officially a Ballgargler after writing that pro-suck-
off-Lance article. What a ****ing cheerleader.

On Jul 9, 6:54*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Jul 9, 8:34*pm, DirtRoadie wrote:



Me neither. I just thought the counterpoint was well put together.
Even more significant was its accurate anticipation of the complaint
which LA actually filed. Now we wait to see whether that is refiled in
"Just the facts, Ma'am" *form as might be accepted by the judge.

I predict the word "kangaroo" will not be found in any refiling.

Yeah. *There were some parts that were just ridiculously self-serving
and in an obnoxious way. *Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
They would have had a stronger and less annoying document without the
fluff.


It's hard to know what they were thinking, but the judge's ruling is
only a minor glitch in the legal proceedings. It may be more
significant in the court of public opinion where the average person is
only likely to pick up on the word "dismissed" without knowing that it
only means "for today, anyhow."
DR

DirtRoadie a écrit profondement:

| It's hard to know what they were thinking, but the judge's ruling is
| only a minor glitch in the legal proceedings. It may be more
| significant in the court of public opinion where the average person is
| only likely to pick up on the word "dismissed" without knowing that it
| only means "for today, anyhow."
| DR

Davey thinks Lance has got the judge and his clerks ad other compeers a
trifle ticked off

It could be that the next judgement dismisses the plaintiff's statement
of claim "With Prejudice."

--
Davey Crockett
Flying the Flag of the English
The Flag of Hengest and Horsa

On Jul 10, 3:33*pm, Davey Crockett wrote:
DirtRoadie a écrit profondement:

| It's hard to know what they were thinking, but the judge's ruling is
| only a minor glitch in the legal proceedings. It may be more
| significant in the court of public opinion where the average person is
| only likely to pick up on the word "dismissed" without knowing that it
| only means "for today, anyhow."
| DR

Davey thinks Lance has *got the judge and his clerks ad other compeers a
trifle ticked off

It could be that the next judgement dismisses the plaintiff's statement
of claim "With Prejudice."

Everything is prejudiced in Texas. pre-judged, eh?

R

On Jul 10, 1:33*pm, Davey Crockett wrote:
DirtRoadie a écrit profondement:

| It's hard to know what they were thinking, but the judge's ruling is
| only a minor glitch in the legal proceedings. It may be more
| significant in the court of public opinion where the average person is
| only likely to pick up on the word "dismissed" without knowing that it
| only means "for today, anyhow."
| DR

Davey thinks Lance has *got the judge and his clerks ad other compeers a
trifle ticked off

It could be that the next judgement dismisses the plaintiff's statement
of claim "With Prejudice."

That seems very unlikely. And in any case I doubt it would be solely
initiated by the judge without USADA filing a motion in that regard.
All the judge has really said thus far is "We have rules and we are
going to play by those rules. And here's how we are going to do that."
And Lance's attorneys have responded "Yes Sir!"
Stay tuned for the next chapter.
DR

On Jul 10, 5:30*pm, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Jul 10, 1:33*pm, Davey Crockett wrote: DirtRoadie a écrit profondement:

| It's hard to know what they were thinking, but the judge's ruling is
| only a minor glitch in the legal proceedings. It may be more
| significant in the court of public opinion where the average person is
| only likely to pick up on the word "dismissed" without knowing that it
| only means "for today, anyhow."
| DR

Davey thinks Lance has *got the judge and his clerks ad other compeers a
trifle ticked off

It could be that the next judgement dismisses the plaintiff's statement
of claim "With Prejudice."

That seems very unlikely. And in any case I doubt it would be solely
initiated by the judge without USADA filing a motion in that regard.
All the judge has really said thus far is "We have rules and we are
going to play by those rules. And here's how we are going to do that."
And Lance's attorneys have responded "Yes Sir!"
Stay tuned for the next chapter.
DR

I often wonder just where all the money for Lance's lawyers is coming
from. This vendetta against Lance is, in my opinion, damaging to
bicycling. Who is really the winner of any bicycling race if years
later the winning results can be changed so drastically?

Cheers

On Jul 10, 4:06*pm, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Jul 10, 5:30*pm, DirtRoadie wrote:









On Jul 10, 1:33*pm, Davey Crockett wrote: DirtRoadie a écrit profondement:

| It's hard to know what they were thinking, but the judge's ruling is
| only a minor glitch in the legal proceedings. It may be more
| significant in the court of public opinion where the average person is
| only likely to pick up on the word "dismissed" without knowing that it
| only means "for today, anyhow."
| DR

Davey thinks Lance has *got the judge and his clerks ad other compeers a
trifle ticked off

It could be that the next judgement dismisses the plaintiff's statement
of claim "With Prejudice."

That seems very unlikely. And in any case I doubt it would be solely
initiated by the judge without USADA filing a motion in that regard.
All the judge has really said thus far is "We have rules and we are
going to play by those rules. And here's how we are going to do that."
And Lance's attorneys have responded "Yes Sir!"
Stay tuned for the next chapter.
DR

I often wonder just where all the money for Lance's lawyers is coming
from. This vendetta against Lance is, in my opinion, damaging to
bicycling. Who is really the winner of any bicycling race if years
later the winning results can be changed so drastically?

Like it or not Lance is an event. He long ago transcended bike racing
and became a celebrity - a wealthy celebrity. I'm not entirely sure
how he did that but that may be why I'm not a wealthy celebrity. I
think they play with a whole different set of guidelines.

I can't say that I'm particularly impressed with the position of
either side of the current USADA fiasco. But I am spectating. Maybe
it's just the voyeuristic aspect of watching a train wreck in
progress.
DR

On Jul 10, 6:37*pm, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Jul 10, 4:06*pm, Sir Ridesalot wrote:







On Jul 10, 5:30*pm, DirtRoadie wrote:

On Jul 10, 1:33*pm, Davey Crockett wrote: DirtRoadie a écrit profondement:

| It's hard to know what they were thinking, but the judge's ruling is
| only a minor glitch in the legal proceedings. It may be more
| significant in the court of public opinion where the average person is
| only likely to pick up on the word "dismissed" without knowing that it
| only means "for today, anyhow."
| DR

Davey thinks Lance has *got the judge and his clerks ad other compeers a
trifle ticked off

It could be that the next judgement dismisses the plaintiff's statement
of claim "With Prejudice."

That seems very unlikely. And in any case I doubt it would be solely
initiated by the judge without USADA filing a motion in that regard.
All the judge has really said thus far is "We have rules and we are
going to play by those rules. And here's how we are going to do that."
And Lance's attorneys have responded "Yes Sir!"
Stay tuned for the next chapter.
DR

I often wonder just where all the money for Lance's lawyers is coming
from. This vendetta against Lance is, in my opinion, damaging to
bicycling. Who is really the winner of any bicycling race if years
later the winning results can be changed so drastically?

Like it or not Lance is an event. He long ago transcended bike racing
and became a celebrity - a wealthy celebrity. I'm not entirely sure
how he did that but that may be why I'm not a wealthy celebrity. I
think they play with a whole different set of guidelines.

From Wiki:
In their book Tell Newt to Shut Up, David Maraniss and Michael
Weisskopf credit Bono with being the first person to recognize
Gingrich's public relations problems in 1995. Drawing on his long
experience as a celebrity and entertainment producer, Bono (according
to Maraniss and Weisskopf) recognized that Gingrich's status had
changed from politician to celebrity, and that Gingrich was not making
allowances for that change:

"You're a celebrity now, ... The rules are different for celebrities.
I know it. I've been there. I've been a celebrity. I used to be a
bigger celebrity. But let me tell you, you're not being handled right.
This is not political news coverage. This is celebrity status. You
need handlers. You need to understand what you're doing. You need to
understand the attitude of the media toward celebrities."

Someone please **** that to Lance for me.

R

In article
,
Anton Berlin wrote:

Tim Dockery is officially a Ballgargler after writing that pro-suck-
off-Lance article. What a ****ing cheerleader.

You are as one with those atheists who are mesmerized by
religious doctrinaires---following them around everywhere
they go barking and barking.

--
Old Fritz