Could Lafferty's Tuesday be this Tuesday ?

On 5/21/2011 10:54 AM, Anton Berlin wrote:
On May 21, 10:19 am, Fred Flintstein
wrote:
On 5/21/2011 9:34 AM, Anton Berlin wrote:

Dumbass - I was contacted by SCA attorneys. I can assure you doping
was a pertinent and majority part of the conversation.

Ummm, the guy that rendered the judgment disagreed. Whose
opinion counted more? Dumbass?

F

PS If you repeat the same arguments over and over, surely
at some point they will be correct, eh?

Don't you feel uncomfortable being a grown man and being obsessively
in love with another man ? Why does Lance's innocence influence your
masturbation fantasies so thoroughly?

Creepy dumbass,

I am quite certain that LANCE doped. I am also quite
certain that your infatuation with him is without
peer except for Laff.

F

On May 21, 11:03*am, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
SCA, Jesus ****ing Christ! Dope wasn't relevant to the
contract. Thus lying about dope isn't perjury. But you know
that.

If you google 'legal definition of fraud' you'll find the, um,
legal definition of fraud. Check it out.

F

PS And if they get him for possession I certainly hope someone
in the FDA hierarchy has an uncomfortable discussion with
Novitsky about the proper use of scarce law enforcement
resources. Especially since they aren't ****ing likely to get
him for possession a decade after the fact.

=======
Dumbass - I was contacted by SCA attorneys. *I can assure you doping
was a pertinent and majority part of the conversation.
=======

Could you elaborate on that? It didn't seem to have anything to do with
the final decision in the case. Do you think it was just posturing, an
attempt to rattle people? Maybe something like Greg LeMond did when he
threatened Trek with public disclosure of everything-Lance and various
internal discussions, something that Trek negated by disclosing
everything first (the "nuclear" option). Maybe SCA figured that Lance
would drop the lawsuit under the threat of negative publicity?

--Mike-- * * Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Mainly questions surrounding my experience at the OTC with the coaches
that Lance later had. Questions about his teammates and statements
they had made on training rides. A lot of other specifics that I
can't recall or don't wish to talk about now. I still have friends
out there.

On 5/20/2011 7:18 PM, Anton Berlin wrote:
On May 20, 9:14 pm, Substance wrote:
On 5/20/2011 9:25 AM, Fred Flintstein wrote:









On 5/20/2011 10:22 AM, Anton Berlin wrote:
On May 20, 10:18 am, Fred Flintstein
wrote:
On 5/20/2011 9:53 AM, Choppy Warburton wrote:

On May 20, 9:03 am, Fred
wrote:
On 5/20/2011 8:34 AM, wrote:

The Uniballer's PR man, Fabio, is
already spinning the the greed motive for Tyler, but it simply isn't
going to fly at this point. Too many former associated are biting the
snake's tail. Once it comes out in an indictment that the alleged TdS
positive was covered up, Armstrong will be dead in the water.

Dumbass,

Is doping to win a bike race illegal?

F

It's not about the doped up cyclist on a bike dumbass. Racketeering,
fraud, money laundering and a host of other crimes are.

Then how is covering up a TdS positive relevant?

And is selling bikes on ebay illegal?

F

You're being obtuse.

Read the god damn criminal code and get your head out of your ass.
Your faggy obsession is clouding your judgment.

And yes conversion (aka theft by deception) is a crime.

Neither you nor Laff can tell me what he did that was illegal.
Both of you guys are falling back on HE-DID-REALLY-BAD-STUFF
as a description of his alleged offense.

Don't it bother you to be on the same side of this as someone
like Lafferty? Using the same tactic? Aren't you going to tell
us that time will tell?

F

Your point is valid and reasonable, but it doesn't take prosecutor
creativity into account. They will find the things they can prove and
try to find a way to shoe horn them into the criminal code as best they
can. Predicting whether that'll work or not is another matter but it's
obscenely likely that they will try.

His point isn't "valid and reasonable". if you take the time to read
this you will learn that the average citizen is committing felonies
and misdemeanors nearly every day. It's just that most of us don't
get caught.

When you say "if you take the time to read this...", what does "this"
refer to? I don't see a link.

It is reasonable to recognize that the prosecutors are not a bunch of
fanboys and amateurs. The fanboys and amateurs arguing this in RBR are
not familiar with neither the evidence nor the law. Where you and I
differ is that I include you and Lafferty in the list of fanboys and
amateurs.

When you say "if you take the time to read this...", what does "this"
refer to? I don't see a link.



http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/71...sup_01_18.html

In article
,
Anton Berlin wrote:


[...]

Dumbass - I was contacted by SCA attorneys. I can assure you doping
was a pertinent and majority part of the conversation.

This is the definition of clutching at straws.

--
Old Fritz

Anton Berlin wrote:
However, Lance is getting caught.

Fred Flintstein wrote:
Doing what?

Frederick the Great wrote:
Cavorting with B list celebrities.
He should raise his sights and go
on dancing with the stars.

Fred Flintstein wrote:
Just like the Amstel, he wouldn't be able to beat
Boogerd.

Does dancing have an equivalent of sitting a wheel and sprinting at the
end ? In that case Bruyneel might have an outside chance too.

On 05/20/11 13:53, Anton Berlin wrote:
Riding the 60 minutes tsunami ?

Oh well there's always next Tuesday. Or Tuesday the 29th of February.