Angry and Impotent Armstrong Defense

On May 26, 10:20*am, BL wrote:

I'll make a prediction. Weisel, Och, Johnson and Stapleton will turn on
Armstrong to save themselves. *Weisel isn't going to prison for
Armstrong. Stapleton won't if he can help it, although he had more
intimate dealings with Armstrong than some of the others.

This is about the fourth or fifth time that I've asked
you why you keep putting Ochowicz in the line up.
Yes he is a sleaze. Yes he worked for Weisel at some
point. But he was never a principal in Tailwind Sports, he
was never associated with the US Postal team. No one
has advanced a remotely rational theory of how Ochowicz
is on the hook for this. And yet you keep predicting his
ensnarement, which makes it painfully obvious that
the list is a list not of likely targets but of your obsessions.

If anyone has a good theory of how Ochowicz is involved
in this heinous fraud committed on the US Postal Service
by sponsorship of the USPS cycling team, now would be
a good time to air it. I will listen to any rational argument.

Thanks,
Fredmaster Ben

On 5/26/2011 4:29 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
On May 26, 9:59 am, Jimmy wrote:
On 5/26/2011 9:43 AM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

And regarding Tyler, did you or did you not read him as saying he was
introduced to doping during Armstrong's reign at USPS? Do you believe
that to be true?

Tyler still insists he didn't dope for the Olympics. "60 Minutes" didn't
pursue the question.

Among other things. There were dozens of unasked questions during that
interview. Pretty crappy reporting.

Right. On top of that, I get the idea that part of Tyler's problem
during the interview was that he's used to answering questions from
prosecutors while "60 Minutes" was focused on whether LA doped or not.
Tyler was like "Yeah, all of us did. All the teams did. What planet are
you from, anyway?" The prosecutors already know LA took drugs, so that's
not where they've been probing. It's a completely different perspective.
For that reason, it's dangerous to try to deduce anything about the
investigation from that interview.

I'll do it anyway. From a certain perspective, Tyler's statements might
have been designed to protect Lance. Tyler indicates that many people on
the team took drugs, but he doesn't implicate Lance as a source of
distribution. He's very careful to ensure that he doesn't make that claim.

"Brad Anders" wrote in message
...
On May 26, 9:59 am, Jimmy July wrote:
On 5/26/2011 9:43 AM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

And regarding Tyler, did you or did you not read him as saying he was
introduced to doping during Armstrong's reign at USPS? Do you believe
that to be true?

Tyler still insists he didn't dope for the Olympics. "60 Minutes" didn't
pursue the question.
=====
Among other things. There were dozens of unasked questions during that
interview. Pretty crappy reporting.
=====
More specifically, either crappy editing or craftily done to give the story
60 minutes wanted to deliver. They intereviewed Tyler for over three hours
(or was it much longer than that? Don't recall specifically, but Scott
what's-his-name was on Letterman the other night talking about it). We saw
very little of that three hours.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
I will listen to any rational argument.

Are you sure you're at the right address ?