WSJ: Prosecutors Step Up Armstrong Probe

When asked why Mr. Andreu would testify to the same thing [as his
wife], Mr. Armstrong said "well, I think he's trying to back up his
old lady."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...145915552.html

Lie # 1: Mr. Daly - "He's never tested positive for doping. The
objective evidence proves, based on the criteria of his sport, that
he's not a cheater," he said.

You're just going to **** people off with these outrageous claims that
Lance didn't dope.

Better focus on the real issue here - conspiracy - not Lance's
reputation.

On 7/27/2010 10:23 AM, Choppy Warburton wrote:
Lie # 1: Mr. Daly - "He's never tested positive for doping. The
objective evidence proves, based on the criteria of his sport, that
he's not a cheater," he said.

You're just going to **** people off with these outrageous claims that
Lance didn't dope.

Better focus on the real issue here - conspiracy - not Lance's
reputation.

It seems that the Feds know where they're headed and it's not a good
place for Lance, Thom, Johan and Och.

On Jul 27, 9:08*am, bar wrote:
When asked why Mr. Andreu would testify to the same thing [as his
wife], Mr. Armstrong said "well, I think he's trying to back up his
old lady."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57539159114591...

If the whole investigation depends on 1998-2005, then who gives a ****
about 1995 and 1996? In other words, SCA's records are pretty much
meaningless. Somebody is going to have to corroborate Floyd. If and
when that happens, Lance will be in deep ****.

On 7/27/2010 11:51 AM, LawBoy01 wrote:
On Jul 27, 9:08 am, wrote:
When asked why Mr. Andreu would testify to the same thing [as his
wife], Mr. Armstrong said "well, I think he's trying to back up his
old lady."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57539159114591...

If the whole investigation depends on 1998-2005, then who gives a ****
about 1995 and 1996? In other words, SCA's records are pretty much
meaningless. Somebody is going to have to corroborate Floyd. If and
when that happens, Lance will be in deep ****.

Mr. Lawyer, they are looking to show a) a long standing pattern of fraud
leading up to the Postal years and the SCA Promotions contract; b) that
every time Armstrong has said he has never used PEDs, he's been lying,
sometimes under oath; c) that the SCA Promotions contract was
fraudulently induced and that the payout was fraudulently sought and
obtained by perjured testimony.

On Jul 27, 10:51*am, LawBoy01 wrote:
On Jul 27, 9:08*am, bar wrote:

When asked why Mr. Andreu would testify to the same thing [as his
wife], Mr. Armstrong said "well, I think he's trying to back up his
old lady."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57539159114591...

If the whole investigation depends on 1998-2005, then who gives a ****
about 1995 and 1996? *In other words, SCA's records are pretty much
meaningless. *Somebody is going to have to corroborate Floyd. *If and
when that happens, Lance will be in deep ****.

I really have trouble believing you're a lawyer. You don't seem to
put the slightest bit of thought into any of this.

How many times have you been reprimanded and admonished for providing
inadequate legal representation?

It's god damn clear the govt wants to prove a pattern and history of
perjury and that SCA wants their money back.

Novitzky didn't need to subpoena the SCA transcripts - they already
fed-ex'd them to him days ago.

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
...
On 7/27/2010 10:23 AM, Choppy Warburton wrote:
Lie # 1: Mr. Daly - "He's never tested positive for doping. The
objective evidence proves, based on the criteria of his sport, that
he's not a cheater," he said.

You're just going to **** people off with these outrageous claims
that
Lance didn't dope.

Better focus on the real issue here - conspiracy - not Lance's
reputation.

It seems that the Feds know where they're headed and it's not a good
place for Lance, Thom, Johan and Och.

Would the Feds head anyplace else? What would the point be to that?
You're not going to prosecute unless you have a crime & victim in mind
are you? But just because you do (have a crime & victim in your thesis)
doesn't mean you win. Or even that you're right. It simply justifies
your job, does it not?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

On Jul 27, 11:04*am, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
On 7/27/2010 11:51 AM, LawBoy01 wrote:

On Jul 27, 9:08 am, *wrote:
When asked why Mr. Andreu would testify to the same thing [as his
wife], Mr. Armstrong said "well, I think he's trying to back up his
old lady."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57539159114591....

If the whole investigation depends on 1998-2005, then who gives a ****
about 1995 and 1996? *In other words, SCA's records are pretty much
meaningless. *Somebody is going to have to corroborate Floyd. *If and
when that happens, Lance will be in deep ****.

Mr. Lawyer, they are looking to show a) a long standing pattern of fraud
leading up to the Postal years and the SCA Promotions contract; b) that
every time Armstrong has said he has never used PEDs, he's been lying,
sometimes under oath; c) that the SCA Promotions contract was
fraudulently induced and that the payout was fraudulently sought and
obtained by perjured testimony.

Mr. Laughingstock,

You are describing a Whitewater fishing expedition. The federal
guvmit will have a hard time proving what SCA couldn't prove with the
same evidence and a higher burden of proof.

-Philip

On Jul 27, 9:04*am, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
On 7/27/2010 11:51 AM, LawBoy01 wrote:

On Jul 27, 9:08 am, *wrote:
When asked why Mr. Andreu would testify to the same thing [as his
wife], Mr. Armstrong said "well, I think he's trying to back up his
old lady."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57539159114591....

If the whole investigation depends on 1998-2005, then who gives a ****
about 1995 and 1996? *In other words, SCA's records are pretty much
meaningless. *Somebody is going to have to corroborate Floyd. *If and
when that happens, Lance will be in deep ****.

Mr. Lawyer, they are looking to show a) a long standing pattern of fraud
leading up to the Postal years and the SCA Promotions contract; b) that
every time Armstrong has said he has never used PEDs, he's been lying,
sometimes under oath; c) that the SCA Promotions contract was
fraudulently induced and that the payout was fraudulently sought and
obtained by perjured testimony.

The case against Lance is base on hearsay evidence. So it's hard to
see how the feds can get a conviction.

On 7/27/2010 2:03 PM, LawBoy01 wrote:
On Jul 27, 11:04 am, "B. wrote:
On 7/27/2010 11:51 AM, LawBoy01 wrote:

On Jul 27, 9:08 am, wrote:
When asked why Mr. Andreu would testify to the same thing [as his
wife], Mr. Armstrong said "well, I think he's trying to back up his
old lady."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57539159114591...

If the whole investigation depends on 1998-2005, then who gives a ****
about 1995 and 1996? In other words, SCA's records are pretty much
meaningless. Somebody is going to have to corroborate Floyd. If and
when that happens, Lance will be in deep ****.

Mr. Lawyer, they are looking to show a) a long standing pattern of fraud
leading up to the Postal years and the SCA Promotions contract; b) that
every time Armstrong has said he has never used PEDs, he's been lying,
sometimes under oath; c) that the SCA Promotions contract was
fraudulently induced and that the payout was fraudulently sought and
obtained by perjured testimony.

Mr. Laughingstock,

You are describing a Whitewater fishing expedition. The federal
guvmit will have a hard time proving what SCA couldn't prove with the
same evidence and a higher burden of proof.

-Philip

Mr. Lawyer Philsy, the feds are going to have much more than SCA
Promotions had. That's the result of criminal subpoena power and search
warrants. Your fantasy is on the way to its end.