--
You can edit your Group Email settings by visiting the following link.
http://groups.google.com/group/medarticles/subscribe
You can choose abridged email or digest email so that you will receive only one email per day.
rec.bicycles.racing@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Federal Investigation widened... - 9 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/27cdb77f089bfdaf?hl=en
* Over/under - 6 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/0dc78e7a29aee9c2?hl=en
* More on microdosing, Ashenden, and Caitlin - 5 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/dfe4b2136c36fcf7?hl=en
* Q for the "Get Lance" Camp - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/1771350564bfd3a6?hl=en
* Still in Lance's Innocence Camp ? - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/791f129b5933acea?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Federal Investigation widened...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/27cdb77f089bfdaf?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 6:29 pm
From: "z, fred"
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. wrote:
> On May 26, 3:55 pm, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Of course they don't have the actual receipts fucktard. What I was
>> apparently unhumorously trying to say is that if you have a business
>> and you have an expense, whether legitimate or otherwise you've got to
>> stick it somewhere on the ledger. If these guys were sponsoring a
>> doping program which it appears Floyd is accusing them of doing
>> (transfusions on the team bus), they had to capture that expense
>> somewhere.
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> True, but that expense could be listed under any one of a slew of
> legitimate expense categories.
>
> If I was thinking about running a dirty cycling team, I'd have the
> doping budget buried inside all the legit stuff.
>
> Willie Nelson got audited by the IRS and had to pay a small fortune in
> back taxes. I'd bet that they didn't manage to find his marijuana
> expense account (word is he smokes *a lot*) in the touring budget.
>
> thanks,
>
> Fred. presented by Gringioni.
I'd bet that as long as he paid his taxes on his marijuana expense
account, the IRS really didn't care.
== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 6:46 pm
From: DA74
On May 26, 6:29 pm, "z, fred" <N...@not.ca> wrote:
> Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 3:55 pm, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Of course they don't have the actual receipts fucktard. What I was
> >> apparently unhumorously trying to say is that if you have a business
> >> and you have an expense, whether legitimate or otherwise you've got to
> >> stick it somewhere on the ledger. If these guys were sponsoring a
> >> doping program which it appears Floyd is accusing them of doing
> >> (transfusions on the team bus), they had to capture that expense
> >> somewhere.
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > True, but that expense could be listed under any one of a slew of
> > legitimate expense categories.
>
> > If I was thinking about running a dirty cycling team, I'd have the
> > doping budget buried inside all the legit stuff.
>
> > Willie Nelson got audited by the IRS and had to pay a small fortune in
> > back taxes. I'd bet that they didn't manage to find his marijuana
> > expense account (word is he smokes *a lot*) in the touring budget.
>
> > thanks,
>
> > Fred. presented by Gringioni.
>
> I'd bet that as long as he paid his taxes on his marijuana expense
> account, the IRS really didn't care.- Hide quoted text -
>
Fucktard,
You don't pay taxes on an expense account. Expense accounts reduce
your taxable income provided they are legitimate expenses. The IRS
would definitely care if Willie was writing off his weed as a business
expense, and in his case I bet they did find it and that's why he had
to pay the small fortune to the IRS;-)
Weed and music go hand in hand. Weed and accounting, not so much.
-DA74
== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 7:31 pm
From: Anton Berlin
On May 26, 5:55 pm, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 3:15 pm, "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
>
>
>
>
>
> <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 26, 12:11 pm, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Weisel will never even be involved.
>
> > > Uh bro, he doesn't have a choice at this point. He was the original
> > > owner of Tailwind and they cashed the checks from the USPS. That's
> > > what you call a paper trail. The feds will want to see the receipts
> > > for the "misc medical expenses" account on the ledger for a few of
> > > those years.
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > Let us assume for the sake of argument that there was a team organized
> > doping program. If they kept receipts which would tie the team to
> > doping outside the rules, then they deserve to go down. Thing is, IMO,
> > it's very unlikely that they were that stupid.
>
> > I mean, you'd have to be really, really dumb to do that.
>
> > thanks,
>
> > Fred. presented by Gringioni.
>
> Of course they don't have the actual receipts fucktard. What I was
> apparently unhumorously trying to say is that if you have a business
> and you have an expense, whether legitimate or otherwise you've got to
> stick it somewhere on the ledger. If these guys were sponsoring a
> doping program which it appears Floyd is accusing them of doing
> (transfusions on the team bus), they had to capture that expense
> somewhere.
>
> This whole thing is going to come down to is a question of whether or
> not the feds can get access to
> Tailwind's books and then whether the auditors can find out where this
> stuff got stuck (if in fact Tailwind was paying for it).
> -DA74- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
That jackass down in Dallas stole several hundred thousand from EDS
http://velonews.competitor.com/2001/12/news/fear-and-loathing-in-plano_1680
It's possible as long as Lance was winning no one wanted to look as
close as EDS looked at Chenowith
== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 7:55 pm
From: "z, fred"
Amit Ghosh wrote:
> On May 26, 9:05 pm, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't get your snip but I doubt LA's $ to Ferrari covered
>> transfusions for the whole team on the bus during the tour. "This
>> round's on me boys!" I think that's the kind of thing the feds are
>> interested in. I don't think they're going to find anything.
>
> dumbass,
>
> landis claims lim did transfusions for him - he was also on the team
> payroll. but really, do you think the paper trail is where the
> evidence will come from.
>
> in the balco case and mitchell report there were people who were
> charged and they cooperated for leniency. unless there is proof of a
> crime and that person has useful information i can't see this going
> very far.
>
> the only person who might have tangible evidence is landis.
>
If it happened, I'd bet more than Landis has tangible evidence. Why
should he be the only one?
== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 7:58 pm
From: "z, fred"
DA74 wrote:
> On May 26, 6:29 pm, "z, fred" <N...@not.ca> wrote:
>
>> Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 26, 3:55 pm, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Of course they don't have the actual receipts fucktard. What I was
>>>> apparently unhumorously trying to say is that if you have a business
>>>> and you have an expense, whether legitimate or otherwise you've got to
>>>> stick it somewhere on the ledger. If these guys were sponsoring a
>>>> doping program which it appears Floyd is accusing them of doing
>>>> (transfusions on the team bus), they had to capture that expense
>>>> somewhere.
>>> Dumbass -
>>> True, but that expense could be listed under any one of a slew of
>>> legitimate expense categories.
>>> If I was thinking about running a dirty cycling team, I'd have the
>>> doping budget buried inside all the legit stuff.
>>> Willie Nelson got audited by the IRS and had to pay a small fortune in
>>> back taxes. I'd bet that they didn't manage to find his marijuana
>>> expense account (word is he smokes *a lot*) in the touring budget.
>>> thanks,
>>> Fred. presented by Gringioni.
>> I'd bet that as long as he paid his taxes on his marijuana expense
>> account, the IRS really didn't care.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
>
> Fucktard,
> You don't pay taxes on an expense account. Expense accounts reduce
> your taxable income provided they are legitimate expenses. The IRS
> would definitely care if Willie was writing off his weed as a business
> expense, and in his case I bet they did find it and that's why he had
> to pay the small fortune to the IRS;-)
>
> Weed and music go hand in hand. Weed and accounting, not so much.
> -DA74
Show us where he tried to write off his pot purchases as business expenses.
== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 8:03 pm
From: Amit Ghosh
On May 26, 10:55 pm, "z, fred" <N...@not.ca> wrote:
> If it happened, I'd bet more than Landis has tangible evidence. Why
> should he be the only one?
dumbass,
other people might but why would they share ?
but landis could conceivably get charged with a crime - fraud ?
(fairness fund), money laundering maybe ?
in both the balco and mitchell cases the critical witnesses were
facing charges, some of which didn't directly relate to doping.
== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 8:08 pm
From: DA74
On May 26, 7:58 pm, "z, fred" <N...@not.ca> wrote:
> DA74 wrote:
> > On May 26, 6:29 pm, "z, fred" <N...@not.ca> wrote:
>
> >> Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. wrote:
>
> >>> On May 26, 3:55 pm, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Of course they don't have the actual receipts fucktard. What I was
> >>>> apparently unhumorously trying to say is that if you have a business
> >>>> and you have an expense, whether legitimate or otherwise you've got to
> >>>> stick it somewhere on the ledger. If these guys were sponsoring a
> >>>> doping program which it appears Floyd is accusing them of doing
> >>>> (transfusions on the team bus), they had to capture that expense
> >>>> somewhere.
> >>> Dumbass -
> >>> True, but that expense could be listed under any one of a slew of
> >>> legitimate expense categories.
> >>> If I was thinking about running a dirty cycling team, I'd have the
> >>> doping budget buried inside all the legit stuff.
> >>> Willie Nelson got audited by the IRS and had to pay a small fortune in
> >>> back taxes. I'd bet that they didn't manage to find his marijuana
> >>> expense account (word is he smokes *a lot*) in the touring budget.
> >>> thanks,
> >>> Fred. presented by Gringioni.
> >> I'd bet that as long as he paid his taxes on his marijuana expense
> >> account, the IRS really didn't care.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Fucktard,
> > You don't pay taxes on an expense account. Expense accounts reduce
> > your taxable income provided they are legitimate expenses. The IRS
> > would definitely care if Willie was writing off his weed as a business
> > expense, and in his case I bet they did find it and that's why he had
> > to pay the small fortune to the IRS;-)
>
> > Weed and music go hand in hand. Weed and accounting, not so much.
> > -DA74
>
> Show us where he tried to write off his pot purchases as business expenses
My sarcastometer is on the fritz. Are you being serious?
== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 8:08 pm
From: Amit Ghosh
On May 26, 10:31 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> That jackass down in Dallas stole several hundred thousand from EDS
>
> http://velonews.competitor.com/2001/12/news/fear-and-loathing-in-plan...
>
> It's possible as long as Lance was winning no one wanted to look as
> close as EDS looked at Chenowith
dumbass,
get real. do you think the bosses at EDS actually think it's worth
paying a track cyclist six figures a year ?
what chenowth did was commit outright fraud, he might even beat out
brent kay for the guy who shafts himself the most for a cyclist.
the only person committing fraud in this case is landis.
== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 8:47 pm
From: "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
On May 26, 5:53 pm, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 5:44 pm, Amit Ghosh <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 8:31 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > > ROTFL!! Look at the news coverage of Thom and the Posties back in the
> > > day. Thom was quite involved with them and USACycling.
>
> > dumbass,
>
> > get our of your fantasyland.
>
> > where were george steinbrenner and joe torre and the other managers
> > and owners during the doping investigations in baseball ?
>
> > andreu already confessed to doping in 1999, why wasn't weisel charged
> > then ? what you are imagining just doesn't happen.
>
> > unless weisel actually handled drugs in some way (very unlikely), he
> > will not be involved.
>
> Fucktard,
> According to the most recent articles the feds are working on a fraud
> angle. It appears they don't care about individual doping cases. Their
> interest is in a question like, 'Did Tailwind take USPS dollars and
> divert them towards funding a teamwide doping program?.' He was
> "involved" because he owned Tailwind.
Dumbass -
Sounds kinda nebulous to me. A successful doping program would
increase USPS's publicity return on the dollar.
Results = publicity, right?
thanks,
Fred. presented by Gringioni.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Over/under
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/0dc78e7a29aee9c2?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 6:58 pm
From: "GoneBeforeMyTime"
DA74 wrote:
> On May 26, 5:04 pm, Amit Ghosh <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 26, 7:09 pm, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think the problem is that some of you fucktards just don't like
>>> him and automatically want to get into it with him. I think he's
>>> provided some excellent links and analyses pertaining to Floydgate.
>>
>> dumbass,
>>
>> lafferty is too obsessed with armstong to be objective. he didn't
>> suggest adam bergman could be charged with fraud after testing
>> positive.
>
> Did you ever think that maybe it's a matter of you fucktards being too
> obsessed with Lafferty to be objective?
I've always known Laff to be civil unless you want to jerk his chain, and
then he retaliates. Otherwise he makes good points and provides interesting
links. However, correct, when this Lance-Landis thing is over, he will
likely retire from rbr. The Lance files have got to be the longest running
case Laff has ever looked into. X-Files is longer though I think.
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 7:23 pm
From: --D-y
On May 26, 8:15 pm, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 6:07 pm, --D-y <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 7:36 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 5/26/2010 7:09 PM, DA74 wrote:
>
> > > > On May 26, 4:01 pm, Fred<fred.gar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >> sort of. I think we should start a betting pool to see how long
> > > >> before we see a thread that Lafferty responds to that does not include
> > > >> any messages from him in which he personally insults whoever he is
> > > >> responding to. Every stinking post from him includes, or in some
> > > >> cases is limited to, him belittling someone or calling names.
>
> > > >> Has anyone ever met him IRL? If so, how'd you resist the urge to just
> > > >> bitch slap the attitude right out of him?
>
> > > >> Fred
>
> > > > I think the problem is that some of you fucktards just don't like him
> > > > and automatically want to get into it with him. I think he's provided
> > > > some excellent links and analyses pertaining to Floydgate.
>
> > > Thank you.
>
> > No doubt informed. It might sound funny to call Lance Armstrong a
> > scapegoat, but Lafferty and a few others are serious about blaming LA
> > for what-- being one of the most successful dopers (when everyone is
> > doping). What was the latest-- "ruined the last ten years of racing".
> > Jeeze, all by himself? <g>
>
> > The personal attack thing that has bothered me and I've asked several
> > times "what is the problem here" without to my memory getting a "good
> > answer". I think BL did say something about "arrogance" once and that
> > is a common complaint IRT Armstrong.
>
> > It's making the riders into scapegoats that, to me, is the most
> > objectionable part of this. That seems to be OK with Brian-- "do the
> > crime, do the time", I guess. That forgets "Lead us not into
> > temptation"-- if you might remember an exchange where Brian celebrated
> > the high-ups in Wada (and other) celebrating with brandy and cigars as
> > another athlete took the fall. There's just a whole lot wrong with
> > that in my book.
> > --D-y- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Floyd said that nobody asked him to dope. He just saw that he had to
> do it if he wanted to advance in the game. The honest riders just say
> no and ride in domestic obscurity / poverty or go get real jobs. In
> the end it is the fault of the rider.
While the owners/operators smoke their cigars and drink brandy.
No thanks.
--D-y
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 7:26 pm
From: Anton Berlin
> In the end it is the fault of the rider.
Now THAT IS FUCKING RETARDED DA74.
The catalog of research on moral breeches would think you retarded
also, the environment, certain situations can change anyone's values
or morals.
Read Buss
http://www.amazon.com/Murderer-Next-Door-Mind-Designed/dp/1594200432
or Shermer (yes the ex-RAAM rider)
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Good-Evil-People-Gossip/dp/0805075208
and cease spouting your moronic uninformed opinions
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 7:27 pm
From: Anton Berlin
On May 26, 8:18 pm, "Steve Freides" <st...@kbnj.com> wrote:
> DA74 wrote:
> > On May 26, 4:01 pm, Fred <fred.gar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> sort of. I think we should start a betting pool to see how long
> >> before we see a thread that Lafferty responds to that does not
> >> include any messages from him in which he personally insults whoever
> >> he is responding to. Every stinking post from him includes, or in
> >> some cases is limited to, him belittling someone or calling names.
>
> >> Has anyone ever met him IRL? If so, how'd you resist the urge to just
> >> bitch slap the attitude right out of him?
>
> >> Fred
>
> > I think the problem is that some of you fucktards just don't like him
> > and automatically want to get into it with him. I think he's provided
> > some excellent links and analyses pertaining to Floydgate.
>
> I've got chunks of guy tougher than Lafferty in my stool. To assume
> that any of us care about him, one way or the other, is to assume facts
> not in evidence, IMHO.
>
> -S-- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wouldn't you have to swallow 'chunks of guy' before you could crap
'chunks of guy' ? Strange confession Friedes.
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 7:40 pm
From: DA74
On May 26, 7:26 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In the end it is the fault of the rider.
>
> Now THAT IS FUCKING RETARDED DA74.
>
> The catalog of research on moral breeches would think you retarded
> also, the environment, certain situations can change anyone's values
> or morals.
>
> Read Buss
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Murderer-Next-Door-Mind-Designed/dp/1594200432
>
> or Shermer (yes the ex-RAAM rider)
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Science-Good-Evil-People-Gossip/dp/0805075208
>
> and cease spouting your moronic uninformed opinions
Fuckface, It wasn't a moral judgement. It is a simple fact. Riders
dope of their own free will. They choose to operate in the environment
of professional cycling where the situation has values that are not
aligned with those written in the rules set forth by the UCI.
You're Welcome,
-DA74
PS
Breach:
1. a. An opening, a tear, or a rupture.
2. A violation or infraction, as of a law, a legal obligation, or a
promise.
3. A breaking up or disruption of friendly relations; an estrangement.
Breech:
1. The lower rear portion of the human trunk; the buttocks.
2. Where retards like Anton insert their heads when posting while
drinking
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 7:41 pm
From: "Steve Freides"
DA74 wrote:
> On May 26, 6:18 pm, "Steve Freides" <st...@kbnj.com> wrote:
>> DA74 wrote:
>>> On May 26, 4:01 pm, Fred <fred.gar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> sort of. I think we should start a betting pool to see how long
>>>> before we see a thread that Lafferty responds to that does not
>>>> include any messages from him in which he personally insults
>>>> whoever he is responding to. Every stinking post from him
>>>> includes, or in some cases is limited to, him belittling someone
>>>> or calling names.
>>
>>>> Has anyone ever met him IRL? If so, how'd you resist the urge to
>>>> just bitch slap the attitude right out of him?
>>
>>>> Fred
>>
>>> I think the problem is that some of you fucktards just don't like
>>> him and automatically want to get into it with him. I think he's
>>> provided some excellent links and analyses pertaining to Floydgate.
>>
>> I've got chunks of guy tougher than Lafferty in my stool. To assume
>> that any of us care about him, one way or the other, is to assume
>> facts not in evidence, IMHO.
>>
>> -S-- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Bro, IMHO I think this is more a matter of you having chunks of stool
> in your head.
> -DA74
Wow, good one.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/3531/saturday-night-live-the-sinatra-group but
you'll have to watch until right near the end.
-S-
==============================================================================
TOPIC: More on microdosing, Ashenden, and Caitlin
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/dfe4b2136c36fcf7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 7:59 pm
From: "K. Fred Gauss"
B. Lafferty wrote:
> On 5/26/2010 8:52 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
>> Brad Anders wrote:
>>> This article has some interesting new info, too:
>>>
>>> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/magazine/05/25/lance.armstrong/index.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Quote:
>>> -----------------
>>> Landis's mention of Kristin Armstrong, who was divorced from Lance in
>>> 2004, raises the possibility that the feds will question her. But
>>> Kristin told SI in a text message, "I have not been contacted, nor am
>>> I in communication with Floyd or anyone else." As for Landis's claim
>>> that he received EPO in her presence, Kristin wrote, "I don't remember
>>> that."
>>> ------------------
>>>
>>> Hmm, strike Kristin from those earlier reports of her cooperating with
>>> the feds.
>>
>> No, Lafferty was ambivalent about whether she'd cooperate or not.
>
> I merely commented that press reports have he cooperating with the Feds.
> That could be part of a negotiation posture. Telling the press you
> don't remember is much easier to do than saying the same thing under
> oath of to a Federal investigator. She has a separation agreement to
> protect and isn't going to say anything negative until she's compelled
> to by a criminal subpoena to appear before a grand jury. Don't be
> surprised if her attorney, Herman, makes a proffer in return for immunity.
Immunity from what?
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 8:14 pm
From: "z, fred"
K. Fred Gauss wrote:
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> On 5/26/2010 8:52 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
>>> Brad Anders wrote:
>>>> This article has some interesting new info, too:
>>>>
>>>> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/magazine/05/25/lance.armstrong/index.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quote:
>>>> -----------------
>>>> Landis's mention of Kristin Armstrong, who was divorced from Lance in
>>>> 2004, raises the possibility that the feds will question her. But
>>>> Kristin told SI in a text message, "I have not been contacted, nor am
>>>> I in communication with Floyd or anyone else." As for Landis's claim
>>>> that he received EPO in her presence, Kristin wrote, "I don't remember
>>>> that."
>>>> ------------------
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, strike Kristin from those earlier reports of her cooperating with
>>>> the feds.
>>>
>>> No, Lafferty was ambivalent about whether she'd cooperate or not.
>>
>> I merely commented that press reports have he cooperating with the
>> Feds. That could be part of a negotiation posture. Telling the press
>> you don't remember is much easier to do than saying the same thing
>> under oath of to a Federal investigator. She has a separation
>> agreement to protect and isn't going to say anything negative until
>> she's compelled to by a criminal subpoena to appear before a grand
>> jury. Don't be surprised if her attorney, Herman, makes a proffer in
>> return for immunity.
>
> Immunity from what?
Voiding a divorce settlement agreement?
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 8:18 pm
From: "z, fred"
z, fred wrote:
> K. Fred Gauss wrote:
>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>> On 5/26/2010 8:52 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
>>>> Brad Anders wrote:
>>>>> This article has some interesting new info, too:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/magazine/05/25/lance.armstrong/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Quote:
>>>>> -----------------
>>>>> Landis's mention of Kristin Armstrong, who was divorced from Lance in
>>>>> 2004, raises the possibility that the feds will question her. But
>>>>> Kristin told SI in a text message, "I have not been contacted, nor am
>>>>> I in communication with Floyd or anyone else." As for Landis's claim
>>>>> that he received EPO in her presence, Kristin wrote, "I don't remember
>>>>> that."
>>>>> ------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm, strike Kristin from those earlier reports of her cooperating with
>>>>> the feds.
>>>>
>>>> No, Lafferty was ambivalent about whether she'd cooperate or not.
>>>
>>> I merely commented that press reports have he cooperating with the
>>> Feds. That could be part of a negotiation posture. Telling the
>>> press you don't remember is much easier to do than saying the same
>>> thing under oath of to a Federal investigator. She has a separation
>>> agreement to protect and isn't going to say anything negative until
>>> she's compelled to by a criminal subpoena to appear before a grand
>>> jury. Don't be surprised if her attorney, Herman, makes a proffer in
>>> return for immunity.
>>
>> Immunity from what?
>
> Voiding a divorce settlement agreement?
I guess that's a dumb statement. You can only offer immunity from
criminal charges. I don't think you can offer immunity from a civil suit.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 8:30 pm
From: "Fred on a stick"
"Brad Anders" <pbanders@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f44ab67b-5151-4528-896d-b0e10b35e8eb@q36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Ashenden comes across as amazingly naive
Yeah, he hasn't changed.
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 8:32 pm
From: DA74
On May 26, 7:59 pm, "K. Fred Gauss" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> B. Lafferty wrote:
> > On 5/26/2010 8:52 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
> >> Brad Anders wrote:
> >>> This article has some interesting new info, too:
>
> >>>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/magazine/05/25/lance.armstrong/...
>
> >>> Quote:
> >>> -----------------
> >>> Landis's mention of Kristin Armstrong, who was divorced from Lance in
> >>> 2004, raises the possibility that the feds will question her. But
> >>> Kristin told SI in a text message, "I have not been contacted, nor am
> >>> I in communication with Floyd or anyone else." As for Landis's claim
> >>> that he received EPO in her presence, Kristin wrote, "I don't remember
> >>> that."
> >>> ------------------
>
> >>> Hmm, strike Kristin from those earlier reports of her cooperating with
> >>> the feds.
>
> >> No, Lafferty was ambivalent about whether she'd cooperate or not.
>
> > I merely commented that press reports have he cooperating with the Feds.
> > That could be part of a negotiation posture. Telling the press you
> > don't remember is much easier to do than saying the same thing under
> > oath of to a Federal investigator. She has a separation agreement to
> > protect and isn't going to say anything negative until she's compelled
> > to by a criminal subpoena to appear before a grand jury. Don't be
> > surprised if her attorney, Herman, makes a proffer in return for immunity.
>
> Immunity from what?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dude you obviously have no clue what cycling wives have to do. Here's
a primer: Edita Rumsas.
-DA74
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Q for the "Get Lance" Camp
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/1771350564bfd3a6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 8:05 pm
From: Frederick the Great
In article <eIjLn.4731$mj4.4511@newsfe08.iad>, "z, fred" <Nope@not.ca>
wrote:
> Frederick the Great wrote:
> > In article <TWgLn.21196$HG1.12795@newsfe21.iad>,
> > "z, fred" <Nope@not.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> Frederick the Great wrote:
> >>> In article <ycmdnTxQg_8c4WDWnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> >>> Fred Flintstein <bob.schwartz@sbcREMOVEglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 5/26/2010 12:45 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
> >>>>> Honest question for those who are just dying to see Lance get nailed:
> >>>>> do you believe that Lance has used dope and other illegal methods in a
> >>>>> manner that gave him unfair advantage over the other top contenders
> >>>>> he's been up against? From the evidence I've seen, his competition was
> >>>>> juicing themselves to the gills, with everyone knowing the limits of
> >>>>> what they could get away with. In fact, because many were caught, you
> >>>>> could make the arguement that they were the ones who were trying to
> >>>>> get an unfair advantage, because they pushed it too far.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IMO, what we're seeing at the top is a fair fight, albeit an enhanced
> >>>>> one. I haven't seen evidence that Lance was doing anything his
> >>>>> competition wasn't.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Brad Anders
> >>>> Remember that LANCE had an agreement with Dr Juice to not work
> >>>> for other bike racers. Restricting his potential clients probably
> >>>> cost LANCE a chunk of change.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course, LANCE's competition was doping also. But since LANCE
> >>>> had an exclusive, highly regarded medical adviser it is easy to
> >>>> make a case that he was doing things that others weren't.
> >>> A big advantage of the arrangement for LANCE is
> >>> that Dr. Fiat was not vulnerable through other
> >>> patients because there were none.
> >>>
> >> Dumbass,
> >>
> >> Ferrari could have/be helping athletes in other sports.
> >
> > The other sports know how to keep there mouths shut.
> >
>
> That's not what you said in you're previous post.
No, it is not. I was thinking only of bicycling.
--
Old Fritz
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 8:15 pm
From: "z, fred"
Frederick the Great wrote:
> In article <eIjLn.4731$mj4.4511@newsfe08.iad>, "z, fred" <Nope@not.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> Frederick the Great wrote:
>>> In article <TWgLn.21196$HG1.12795@newsfe21.iad>,
>>> "z, fred" <Nope@not.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Frederick the Great wrote:
>>>>> In article <ycmdnTxQg_8c4WDWnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>>>> Fred Flintstein <bob.schwartz@sbcREMOVEglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/26/2010 12:45 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
>>>>>>> Honest question for those who are just dying to see Lance get nailed:
>>>>>>> do you believe that Lance has used dope and other illegal methods in a
>>>>>>> manner that gave him unfair advantage over the other top contenders
>>>>>>> he's been up against? From the evidence I've seen, his competition was
>>>>>>> juicing themselves to the gills, with everyone knowing the limits of
>>>>>>> what they could get away with. In fact, because many were caught, you
>>>>>>> could make the arguement that they were the ones who were trying to
>>>>>>> get an unfair advantage, because they pushed it too far.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IMO, what we're seeing at the top is a fair fight, albeit an enhanced
>>>>>>> one. I haven't seen evidence that Lance was doing anything his
>>>>>>> competition wasn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brad Anders
>>>>>> Remember that LANCE had an agreement with Dr Juice to not work
>>>>>> for other bike racers. Restricting his potential clients probably
>>>>>> cost LANCE a chunk of change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, LANCE's competition was doping also. But since LANCE
>>>>>> had an exclusive, highly regarded medical adviser it is easy to
>>>>>> make a case that he was doing things that others weren't.
>>>>> A big advantage of the arrangement for LANCE is
>>>>> that Dr. Fiat was not vulnerable through other
>>>>> patients because there were none.
>>>>>
>>>> Dumbass,
>>>>
>>>> Ferrari could have/be helping athletes in other sports.
>>> The other sports know how to keep there mouths shut.
>>>
>> That's not what you said in you're previous post.
>
> No, it is not. I was thinking only of bicycling.
>
I can't help you there.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 8:17 pm
From: "z, fred"
Frederick the Great wrote:
> In article <eIjLn.4731$mj4.4511@newsfe08.iad>, "z, fred" <Nope@not.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> Frederick the Great wrote:
>>> In article <TWgLn.21196$HG1.12795@newsfe21.iad>,
>>> "z, fred" <Nope@not.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Frederick the Great wrote:
>>>>> In article <ycmdnTxQg_8c4WDWnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>>>> Fred Flintstein <bob.schwartz@sbcREMOVEglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/26/2010 12:45 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
>>>>>>> Honest question for those who are just dying to see Lance get nailed:
>>>>>>> do you believe that Lance has used dope and other illegal methods in a
>>>>>>> manner that gave him unfair advantage over the other top contenders
>>>>>>> he's been up against? From the evidence I've seen, his competition was
>>>>>>> juicing themselves to the gills, with everyone knowing the limits of
>>>>>>> what they could get away with. In fact, because many were caught, you
>>>>>>> could make the arguement that they were the ones who were trying to
>>>>>>> get an unfair advantage, because they pushed it too far.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IMO, what we're seeing at the top is a fair fight, albeit an enhanced
>>>>>>> one. I haven't seen evidence that Lance was doing anything his
>>>>>>> competition wasn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brad Anders
>>>>>> Remember that LANCE had an agreement with Dr Juice to not work
>>>>>> for other bike racers. Restricting his potential clients probably
>>>>>> cost LANCE a chunk of change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, LANCE's competition was doping also. But since LANCE
>>>>>> had an exclusive, highly regarded medical adviser it is easy to
>>>>>> make a case that he was doing things that others weren't.
>>>>> A big advantage of the arrangement for LANCE is
>>>>> that Dr. Fiat was not vulnerable through other
>>>>> patients because there were none.
>>>>>
>>>> Dumbass,
>>>>
>>>> Ferrari could have/be helping athletes in other sports.
>>> The other sports know how to keep there mouths shut.
>>>
>> That's not what you said in you're previous post.
>
> No, it is not. I was thinking only of bicycling.
>
You did not write "cyclists", you wrote "patients".
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Still in Lance's Innocence Camp ?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/791f129b5933acea?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 8:28 pm
From: raamman
On May 26, 11:26 am, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 8:57 am, raamman <raam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 25, 1:14 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The oceans of so called 'circumstantial evidence', ex-teammates and
> > > contemporaries caught red handed, money paid to the governing body
> > > (why the only cyclist ever to do this?) Floyd's confession, Strock
> > > testimony and evidence, Carmichael and USCF settlement, the steroid
> > > positive, the positive EPO findings on A samples, microdosing
> > > techniques and somehow you still believe Lance Armstrong is clean?
>
> > > Stand up be counted. Post your denials and delusions here.
>
> > how many innocents sent for life or execution even in criminal court
> > where the rules of evidence are more strict who were later exonerated
> > on basis of dna or other new evidence ?
>
> I support the Innocence Project with financial donations -- however
> most of those cases involve a certain amount of pressure and illicit
> tactics by police.
>
> I don't think anyone is threatening to throw Betsy Andeau in jail for
> not coming forward. Too many people from too diverse an area are
> stepping forward for too diverse a set of reasons. It's not like a
> single cop, dept or DA is forcing this to happen.
so if there are no penalities, why wouldn't more folk have come
forward with stories on Lance ? I think Floyd is still lying, and I
hope if he is embellishing hearsay and making false statements to
investigators I hope he gets suitably charged.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 8:30 pm
From: raamman
On May 26, 4:32 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <6b0eee3d-3a43-4f93-b797-94173d071...@e21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>
> --D-y <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> > Don't trust testing, don't trust "truth machines" (which are coming,
> > supposedly), with humans at the controls.
>
> Truth machines exist. Some brain scans resolve
> brain activity well enough to detect when the
> subject is lying.
>
> --
> Michael Press
who interprets the scans and determines who or what is lying ?
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.bicycles.racing"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.bicycles.racing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
rec.bicycles.racing@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Federal Investigation widened... - 13 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/27cdb77f089bfdaf?hl=en
* More on microdosing, Ashenden, and Caitlin - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/dfe4b2136c36fcf7?hl=en
* LANCE DOPING - THE TRUTH! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/55fda3848b379889?hl=en
* Over/under - 6 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/0dc78e7a29aee9c2?hl=en
* Q for the "Get Lance" Camp - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/1771350564bfd3a6?hl=en
* rbr Turncoat Pool - State's Evidence Edition - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5312ca4d0851a002?hl=en
* Playboy at the Giro - Say What!? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/02d1d162c8503e60?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Federal Investigation widened...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/27cdb77f089bfdaf?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:43 pm
From: "K. Fred Gauss"
Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> Anyway, I have a different question, Lafferty. Once upon
> a time, you were interested in doping prosecutions as
> a way to clean up the sport - I remember proclamations
> that now the dopers were on the run and this year we would
> see some real suffering in the mountains.
This is precisely how Lafferty knew Landis was clean during the 2006
TdF. Landis was in pain, he had bad days, HE WASN'T A ROBOT. Landis'
suffering was PROOF of Lance's doping. Lafferty wouldn't shut up about
that shit back in July of '06.
== 2 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:43 pm
From: DA74
On May 26, 5:15 pm, "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
<kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 3:59 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/26/2010 6:55 PM, DA74 wrote:
>
> > > On May 26, 3:15 pm, "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
> > > <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On May 26, 12:11 pm, DA74<davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>> Weisel will never even be involved.
>
> > >>> Uh bro, he doesn't have a choice at this point. He was the original
> > >>> owner of Tailwind and they cashed the checks from the USPS. That's
> > >>> what you call a paper trail. The feds will want to see the receipts
> > >>> for the "misc medical expenses" account on the ledger for a few of
> > >>> those years.
>
> > >> Dumbass -
>
> > >> Let us assume for the sake of argument that there was a team organized
> > >> doping program. If they kept receipts which would tie the team to
> > >> doping outside the rules, then they deserve to go down. Thing is, IMO,
> > >> it's very unlikely that they were that stupid.
>
> > >> I mean, you'd have to be really, really dumb to do that.
>
> > >> thanks,
>
> > >> Fred. presented by Gringioni.
>
> > > Of course they don't have the actual receipts fucktard. What I was
> > > apparently unhumorously trying to say is that if you have a business
> > > and you have an expense, whether legitimate or otherwise you've got to
> > > stick it somewhere on the ledger. If these guys were sponsoring a
> > > doping program which it appears Floyd is accusing them of doing
> > > (transfusions on the team bus), they had to capture that expense
> > > somewhere.
>
> > > This whole thing is going to come down to is a question of whether or
> > > not the feds can get access to
> > > Tailwind's books and then whether the auditors can find out where this
> > > stuff got stuck (if in fact Tailwind was paying for it).
> > > -DA74
>
> > The Feds will get Tailwind's books. The question is whether or not the
> > books are cooked.
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Either they're idiots and they're not cooked (unlikely).
>
> Or they're not idiots and they're cooked.
>
> Weisel is an investment banker. If there's one thing those types know
> it's how to cook the books.
>
> thanks,
>
> Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is a correct analysis. With Thom in the mix I'd be shocked if the
feds were able to get anywhere. In the end I think that this will be
little more than an inconvenience for LA and Co.
-DA74
== 3 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:44 pm
From: Amit Ghosh
On May 26, 8:31 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> ROTFL!! Look at the news coverage of Thom and the Posties back in the
> day. Thom was quite involved with them and USACycling.
dumbass,
get our of your fantasyland.
where were george steinbrenner and joe torre and the other managers
and owners during the doping investigations in baseball ?
andreu already confessed to doping in 1999, why wasn't weisel charged
then ? what you are imagining just doesn't happen.
unless weisel actually handled drugs in some way (very unlikely), he
will not be involved.
== 4 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:49 pm
From: Amit Ghosh
On May 26, 8:43 pm, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 5:15 pm, "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
> This is a correct analysis. With Thom in the mix I'd be shocked if the
> feds were able to get anywhere. In the end I think that this will be
> little more than an inconvenience for LA and Co.
>
dumbass,
armstrong already had ferrari as a trainer and presumably was paying
him.
do you think he got an itemized invoice listing all the dope ?
for all you know he paid $40,000 / yr for VAM calculations and
lactate tests.
== 5 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:51 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"
On 5/26/2010 8:44 PM, Amit Ghosh wrote:
> On May 26, 8:31 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> ROTFL!! Look at the news coverage of Thom and the Posties back in the
>> day. Thom was quite involved with them and USACycling.
>
> dumbass,
>
> get our of your fantasyland.
>
> where were george steinbrenner and joe torre and the other managers
> and owners during the doping investigations in baseball ?
>
> andreu already confessed to doping in 1999, why wasn't weisel charged
> then ? what you are imagining just doesn't happen.
>
> unless weisel actually handled drugs in some way (very unlikely), he
> will not be involved.
>
>
No. If Weisel had knowledge of a Postal drug program, he has potential
criminal liability as one of the owners of the team.
== 6 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:53 pm
From: DA74
On May 26, 5:44 pm, Amit Ghosh <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 8:31 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > ROTFL!! Look at the news coverage of Thom and the Posties back in the
> > day. Thom was quite involved with them and USACycling.
>
> dumbass,
>
> get our of your fantasyland.
>
> where were george steinbrenner and joe torre and the other managers
> and owners during the doping investigations in baseball ?
>
> andreu already confessed to doping in 1999, why wasn't weisel charged
> then ? what you are imagining just doesn't happen.
>
> unless weisel actually handled drugs in some way (very unlikely), he
> will not be involved.
Fucktard,
According to the most recent articles the feds are working on a fraud
angle. It appears they don't care about individual doping cases. Their
interest is in a question like, 'Did Tailwind take USPS dollars and
divert them towards funding a teamwide doping program?.' He was
"involved" because he owned Tailwind.
== 7 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:53 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"
On 5/26/2010 8:49 PM, Amit Ghosh wrote:
> On May 26, 8:43 pm, DA74<davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 26, 5:15 pm, "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
>
>> This is a correct analysis. With Thom in the mix I'd be shocked if the
>> feds were able to get anywhere. In the end I think that this will be
>> little more than an inconvenience for LA and Co.
>>
>
> dumbass,
>
> armstrong already had ferrari as a trainer and presumably was paying
> him.
>
> do you think he got an itemized invoice listing all the dope ?
>
> for all you know he paid $40,000 / yr for VAM calculations and
> lactate tests.
>
ROTFLMAO!
Time will tell. Hey, do you think SCA has made it's files available yet
to the Feds?
== 8 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:54 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"
On 5/26/2010 8:38 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
> Keith wrote:
>> ...http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/scope-of-us-doping-inquiry-may-be-widened?cid=OTC-RSS&attr=news_headlines
>>
>>
>> Looks like the feds will be asking some questions to LA and company,
>> probably won't be a good idea to lie...
>
> Telling the truth is a pretty unpleasant option, too.
For some of them it's approaching Montey time--Let's make a deal.
== 9 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 6:05 pm
From: DA74
On May 26, 5:49 pm, Amit Ghosh <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 8:43 pm, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 26, 5:15 pm, "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
> > This is a correct analysis. With Thom in the mix I'd be shocked if the
> > feds were able to get anywhere. In the end I think that this will be
> > little more than an inconvenience for LA and Co.
>
> dumbass,
>
> armstrong already had ferrari as a trainer and presumably was paying
> him.
>
> do you think he got an itemized invoice listing all the dope ?
>
> for all you know he paid $40,000 / yr for VAM calculations and
> lactate tests.
I don't get your snip but I doubt LA's $ to Ferrari covered
transfusions for the whole team on the bus during the tour. "This
round's on me boys!" I think that's the kind of thing the feds are
interested in. I don't think they're going to find anything.
== 10 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 6:10 pm
From: Amit Ghosh
On May 26, 8:53 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 5/26/2010 8:49 PM, Amit Ghosh wrote:
>
> > On May 26, 8:43 pm, DA74<davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 26, 5:15 pm, "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
>
> >> This is a correct analysis. With Thom in the mix I'd be shocked if the
> >> feds were able to get anywhere. In the end I think that this will be
> >> little more than an inconvenience for LA and Co.
>
> > dumbass,
>
> > armstrong already had ferrari as a trainer and presumably was paying
> > him.
>
> > do you think he got an itemized invoice listing all the dope ?
>
> > for all you know he paid $40,000 / yr for VAM calculations and
> > lactate tests.
>
> ROTFLMAO!
>
> Time will tell. Hey, do you think SCA has made it's files available yet
> to the Feds?
dumbass,
there might be more circumstantial evidence - that's all that will
happen.
armstrong has already had bad hits to his credibility which have not
"brought him down".
i know you want to see him jailed or something - but it just won't
happen.
== 11 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 6:13 pm
From: Amit Ghosh
On May 26, 9:05 pm, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't get your snip but I doubt LA's $ to Ferrari covered
> transfusions for the whole team on the bus during the tour. "This
> round's on me boys!" I think that's the kind of thing the feds are
> interested in. I don't think they're going to find anything.
dumbass,
landis claims lim did transfusions for him - he was also on the team
payroll. but really, do you think the paper trail is where the
evidence will come from.
in the balco case and mitchell report there were people who were
charged and they cooperated for leniency. unless there is proof of a
crime and that person has useful information i can't see this going
very far.
the only person who might have tangible evidence is landis.
== 12 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 6:20 pm
From: DA74
On May 26, 6:13 pm, Amit Ghosh <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 9:05 pm, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't get your snip but I doubt LA's $ to Ferrari covered
> > transfusions for the whole team on the bus during the tour. "This
> > round's on me boys!" I think that's the kind of thing the feds are
> > interested in. I don't think they're going to find anything.
>
> dumbass,
>
> landis claims lim did transfusions for him - he was also on the team
> payroll. but really, do you think the paper trail is where the
> evidence will come from.
>
> in the balco case and mitchell report there were people who were
> charged and they cooperated for leniency. unless there is proof of a
> crime and that person has useful information i can't see this going
> very far.
>
> the only person who might have tangible evidence is landis.
I'm only talking about a paper trail because it leads down roads that
lets the feds get people under oath. As we all know that's when people
go to jail - when they get caught lying to the feds. No one is going
to go to jail for sticking a needle in their arm.
Paper trails are the red blood cells of investigations.
-DA74
== 13 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 6:29 pm
From: "z, fred"
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. wrote:
> On May 26, 3:55 pm, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Of course they don't have the actual receipts fucktard. What I was
>> apparently unhumorously trying to say is that if you have a business
>> and you have an expense, whether legitimate or otherwise you've got to
>> stick it somewhere on the ledger. If these guys were sponsoring a
>> doping program which it appears Floyd is accusing them of doing
>> (transfusions on the team bus), they had to capture that expense
>> somewhere.
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> True, but that expense could be listed under any one of a slew of
> legitimate expense categories.
>
> If I was thinking about running a dirty cycling team, I'd have the
> doping budget buried inside all the legit stuff.
>
> Willie Nelson got audited by the IRS and had to pay a small fortune in
> back taxes. I'd bet that they didn't manage to find his marijuana
> expense account (word is he smokes *a lot*) in the touring budget.
>
> thanks,
>
> Fred. presented by Gringioni.
I'd bet that as long as he paid his taxes on his marijuana expense
account, the IRS really didn't care.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: More on microdosing, Ashenden, and Caitlin
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/dfe4b2136c36fcf7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:52 pm
From: "K. Fred Gauss"
Brad Anders wrote:
> This article has some interesting new info, too:
>
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/magazine/05/25/lance.armstrong/index.html
>
> Quote:
> -----------------
> Landis's mention of Kristin Armstrong, who was divorced from Lance in
> 2004, raises the possibility that the feds will question her. But
> Kristin told SI in a text message, "I have not been contacted, nor am
> I in communication with Floyd or anyone else." As for Landis's claim
> that he received EPO in her presence, Kristin wrote, "I don't remember
> that."
> ------------------
>
> Hmm, strike Kristin from those earlier reports of her cooperating with
> the feds.
No, Lafferty was ambivalent about whether she'd cooperate or not.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:59 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"
On 5/26/2010 8:52 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
> Brad Anders wrote:
>> This article has some interesting new info, too:
>>
>> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/magazine/05/25/lance.armstrong/index.html
>>
>>
>> Quote:
>> -----------------
>> Landis's mention of Kristin Armstrong, who was divorced from Lance in
>> 2004, raises the possibility that the feds will question her. But
>> Kristin told SI in a text message, "I have not been contacted, nor am
>> I in communication with Floyd or anyone else." As for Landis's claim
>> that he received EPO in her presence, Kristin wrote, "I don't remember
>> that."
>> ------------------
>>
>> Hmm, strike Kristin from those earlier reports of her cooperating with
>> the feds.
>
> No, Lafferty was ambivalent about whether she'd cooperate or not.
I merely commented that press reports have he cooperating with the Feds.
That could be part of a negotiation posture. Telling the press you
don't remember is much easier to do than saying the same thing under
oath of to a Federal investigator. She has a separation agreement to
protect and isn't going to say anything negative until she's compelled
to by a criminal subpoena to appear before a grand jury. Don't be
surprised if her attorney, Herman, makes a proffer in return for immunity.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: LANCE DOPING - THE TRUTH!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/55fda3848b379889?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:53 pm
From: "K. Fred Gauss"
Uncle Dave wrote:
> I don't care. There, I said it. So sue me.
>
> UD
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Over/under
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/0dc78e7a29aee9c2?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 6:00 pm
From: "K. Fred Gauss"
DA74 wrote:
> I think the problem is that some of you fucktards just don't like him
> and automatically want to get into it with him.
Lafferty's predicted courtroom losses and public humilation for LA every
year for the last decade. When someone is that frequently, loudly,
insultingly and annoyingly wrong there are predictable consequences.
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 6:03 pm
From: Dear Crabby
On 5/26/10 5:16 PM, in article
9f1dcf63-0ecf-4da6-bce3-b7365e7558da@s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com, "DA74"
<davidastor74@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 5:04 pm, Amit Ghosh <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 26, 7:09 pm, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think the problem is that some of you fucktards just don't like him
>>> and automatically want to get into it with him. I think he's provided
>>> some excellent links and analyses pertaining to Floydgate.
>>
>> dumbass,
>>
>> lafferty is too obsessed with armstong to be objective. he didn't
>> suggest adam bergman could be charged with fraud after testing
>> positive.
>
> Did you ever think that maybe it's a matter of you fucktards being too
> obsessed with Lafferty to be objective?
You mean kinda like Kunich?
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 6:07 pm
From: --D-y
On May 26, 7:36 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 5/26/2010 7:09 PM, DA74 wrote:
>
> > On May 26, 4:01 pm, Fred<fred.gar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> sort of. I think we should start a betting pool to see how long
> >> before we see a thread that Lafferty responds to that does not include
> >> any messages from him in which he personally insults whoever he is
> >> responding to. Every stinking post from him includes, or in some
> >> cases is limited to, him belittling someone or calling names.
>
> >> Has anyone ever met him IRL? If so, how'd you resist the urge to just
> >> bitch slap the attitude right out of him?
>
> >> Fred
>
> > I think the problem is that some of you fucktards just don't like him
> > and automatically want to get into it with him. I think he's provided
> > some excellent links and analyses pertaining to Floydgate.
>
> Thank you.
No doubt informed. It might sound funny to call Lance Armstrong a
scapegoat, but Lafferty and a few others are serious about blaming LA
for what-- being one of the most successful dopers (when everyone is
doping). What was the latest-- "ruined the last ten years of racing".
Jeeze, all by himself? <g>
The personal attack thing that has bothered me and I've asked several
times "what is the problem here" without to my memory getting a "good
answer". I think BL did say something about "arrogance" once and that
is a common complaint IRT Armstrong.
It's making the riders into scapegoats that, to me, is the most
objectionable part of this. That seems to be OK with Brian-- "do the
crime, do the time", I guess. That forgets "Lead us not into
temptation"-- if you might remember an exchange where Brian celebrated
the high-ups in Wada (and other) celebrating with brandy and cigars as
another athlete took the fall. There's just a whole lot wrong with
that in my book.
--D-y
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 6:15 pm
From: DA74
On May 26, 6:07 pm, --D-y <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 7:36 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/26/2010 7:09 PM, DA74 wrote:
>
> > > On May 26, 4:01 pm, Fred<fred.gar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> sort of. I think we should start a betting pool to see how long
> > >> before we see a thread that Lafferty responds to that does not include
> > >> any messages from him in which he personally insults whoever he is
> > >> responding to. Every stinking post from him includes, or in some
> > >> cases is limited to, him belittling someone or calling names.
>
> > >> Has anyone ever met him IRL? If so, how'd you resist the urge to just
> > >> bitch slap the attitude right out of him?
>
> > >> Fred
>
> > > I think the problem is that some of you fucktards just don't like him
> > > and automatically want to get into it with him. I think he's provided
> > > some excellent links and analyses pertaining to Floydgate.
>
> > Thank you.
>
> No doubt informed. It might sound funny to call Lance Armstrong a
> scapegoat, but Lafferty and a few others are serious about blaming LA
> for what-- being one of the most successful dopers (when everyone is
> doping). What was the latest-- "ruined the last ten years of racing".
> Jeeze, all by himself? <g>
>
> The personal attack thing that has bothered me and I've asked several
> times "what is the problem here" without to my memory getting a "good
> answer". I think BL did say something about "arrogance" once and that
> is a common complaint IRT Armstrong.
>
> It's making the riders into scapegoats that, to me, is the most
> objectionable part of this. That seems to be OK with Brian-- "do the
> crime, do the time", I guess. That forgets "Lead us not into
> temptation"-- if you might remember an exchange where Brian celebrated
> the high-ups in Wada (and other) celebrating with brandy and cigars as
> another athlete took the fall. There's just a whole lot wrong with
> that in my book.
> --D-y- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Floyd said that nobody asked him to dope. He just saw that he had to
do it if he wanted to advance in the game. The honest riders just say
no and ride in domestic obscurity / poverty or go get real jobs. In
the end it is the fault of the rider.
-DA74
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 6:18 pm
From: "Steve Freides"
DA74 wrote:
> On May 26, 4:01 pm, Fred <fred.gar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> sort of. I think we should start a betting pool to see how long
>> before we see a thread that Lafferty responds to that does not
>> include any messages from him in which he personally insults whoever
>> he is responding to. Every stinking post from him includes, or in
>> some cases is limited to, him belittling someone or calling names.
>>
>> Has anyone ever met him IRL? If so, how'd you resist the urge to just
>> bitch slap the attitude right out of him?
>>
>> Fred
>
> I think the problem is that some of you fucktards just don't like him
> and automatically want to get into it with him. I think he's provided
> some excellent links and analyses pertaining to Floydgate.
I've got chunks of guy tougher than Lafferty in my stool. To assume
that any of us care about him, one way or the other, is to assume facts
not in evidence, IMHO.
-S-
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 6:26 pm
From: DA74
On May 26, 6:18 pm, "Steve Freides" <st...@kbnj.com> wrote:
> DA74 wrote:
> > On May 26, 4:01 pm, Fred <fred.gar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> sort of. I think we should start a betting pool to see how long
> >> before we see a thread that Lafferty responds to that does not
> >> include any messages from him in which he personally insults whoever
> >> he is responding to. Every stinking post from him includes, or in
> >> some cases is limited to, him belittling someone or calling names.
>
> >> Has anyone ever met him IRL? If so, how'd you resist the urge to just
> >> bitch slap the attitude right out of him?
>
> >> Fred
>
> > I think the problem is that some of you fucktards just don't like him
> > and automatically want to get into it with him. I think he's provided
> > some excellent links and analyses pertaining to Floydgate.
>
> I've got chunks of guy tougher than Lafferty in my stool. To assume
> that any of us care about him, one way or the other, is to assume facts
> not in evidence, IMHO.
>
> -S-- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bro, IMHO I think this is more a matter of you having chunks of stool
in your head.
-DA74
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Q for the "Get Lance" Camp
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/1771350564bfd3a6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 6:14 pm
From: "z, fred"
Frederick the Great wrote:
> In article <TWgLn.21196$HG1.12795@newsfe21.iad>,
> "z, fred" <Nope@not.ca> wrote:
>
>> Frederick the Great wrote:
>>> In article <ycmdnTxQg_8c4WDWnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>> Fred Flintstein <bob.schwartz@sbcREMOVEglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/26/2010 12:45 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
>>>>> Honest question for those who are just dying to see Lance get nailed:
>>>>> do you believe that Lance has used dope and other illegal methods in a
>>>>> manner that gave him unfair advantage over the other top contenders
>>>>> he's been up against? From the evidence I've seen, his competition was
>>>>> juicing themselves to the gills, with everyone knowing the limits of
>>>>> what they could get away with. In fact, because many were caught, you
>>>>> could make the arguement that they were the ones who were trying to
>>>>> get an unfair advantage, because they pushed it too far.
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO, what we're seeing at the top is a fair fight, albeit an enhanced
>>>>> one. I haven't seen evidence that Lance was doing anything his
>>>>> competition wasn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Brad Anders
>>>> Remember that LANCE had an agreement with Dr Juice to not work
>>>> for other bike racers. Restricting his potential clients probably
>>>> cost LANCE a chunk of change.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, LANCE's competition was doping also. But since LANCE
>>>> had an exclusive, highly regarded medical adviser it is easy to
>>>> make a case that he was doing things that others weren't.
>>> A big advantage of the arrangement for LANCE is
>>> that Dr. Fiat was not vulnerable through other
>>> patients because there were none.
>>>
>> Dumbass,
>>
>> Ferrari could have/be helping athletes in other sports.
>
> The other sports know how to keep there mouths shut.
>
That's not what you said in you're previous post.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: rbr Turncoat Pool - State's Evidence Edition
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5312ca4d0851a002?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 6:16 pm
From: "z, fred"
DA74 wrote:
> On May 26, 3:46 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 5/26/2010 6:00 PM, DA74 wrote:
>>
>>> On May 26, 1:52 pm, Uncle Dave<davidco...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>> On May 26, 9:45 am, Betty Munro<n...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>>>> DA74 wrote:
>>>>>> Lafferty says KG has some anal beads he'll donate as a prize.
>>>>> Used anal beads have a high rate of depreciation.
>>>> Despite myself, I have to ask how you know this...
>>>> UD
>>> Lafferty told me.
>> Yeah. You put Kurgan's used beads in a drip coffee maker with civit
>> coffee beans. Let us know what you think.
>
> I'll start with the aroma - I'll confirm what he has often inferred
> here on rbr, it didn't stink. But as for the taste I'll have to say it
> was too acerbic.
>
> You're Welcome,
> -DA74
I think it's telling that Laff@me seems to know that KG uses anal beads.
I don't want to know how he knows.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Playboy at the Giro - Say What!?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/02d1d162c8503e60?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 6:19 pm
From: heather
raamman wrote:
> On May 25, 11:27 pm, TheCoz <cycled...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/cgi/gallerypicget.asp?pic=http://www.pe...
>>
>> Coz
>
> when you said playboy I assumed you meant the great Mario C.; instead
> you have me click a link to a worthless dumballena with no better job
> prospects than a hooker on a streetcorner.
wait, what?
ok, first, it's a "pez" link..
second, I like looking at pretty girls.
(fuck... clearly I have not been doing my porn link job here in rbr very
well lately, sorry, all...)
h
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.bicycles.racing"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.bicycles.racing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
rec.bicycles.racing@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Federal Investigation widened... - 13 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/27cdb77f089bfdaf?hl=en
* Over/under - 7 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/0dc78e7a29aee9c2?hl=en
* rbr Turncoat Pool - State's Evidence Edition - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5312ca4d0851a002?hl=en
* Q for the "Get Lance" Camp - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/1771350564bfd3a6?hl=en
* Playboy at the Giro - Say What!? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/02d1d162c8503e60?hl=en
* Monomaniacs have infiltrated the gubment - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5971e49c8f1c181a?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Federal Investigation widened...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/27cdb77f089bfdaf?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 3:59 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"
On 5/26/2010 6:55 PM, DA74 wrote:
> On May 26, 3:15 pm, "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
> <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 26, 12:11 pm, DA74<davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Weisel will never even be involved.
>>
>>> Uh bro, he doesn't have a choice at this point. He was the original
>>> owner of Tailwind and they cashed the checks from the USPS. That's
>>> what you call a paper trail. The feds will want to see the receipts
>>> for the "misc medical expenses" account on the ledger for a few of
>>> those years.
>>
>> Dumbass -
>>
>> Let us assume for the sake of argument that there was a team organized
>> doping program. If they kept receipts which would tie the team to
>> doping outside the rules, then they deserve to go down. Thing is, IMO,
>> it's very unlikely that they were that stupid.
>>
>> I mean, you'd have to be really, really dumb to do that.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> Fred. presented by Gringioni.
>
> Of course they don't have the actual receipts fucktard. What I was
> apparently unhumorously trying to say is that if you have a business
> and you have an expense, whether legitimate or otherwise you've got to
> stick it somewhere on the ledger. If these guys were sponsoring a
> doping program which it appears Floyd is accusing them of doing
> (transfusions on the team bus), they had to capture that expense
> somewhere.
>
> This whole thing is going to come down to is a question of whether or
> not the feds can get access to
> Tailwind's books and then whether the auditors can find out where this
> stuff got stuck (if in fact Tailwind was paying for it).
> -DA74
The Feds will get Tailwind's books. The question is whether or not the
books are cooked.
== 2 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:07 pm
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd
On May 26, 3:42 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 5/26/2010 6:15 PM, Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. wrote:
>
> > On May 26, 12:11 pm, DA74<davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Weisel will never even be involved.
>
> >> Uh bro, he doesn't have a choice at this point. He was the original
> >> owner of Tailwind and they cashed the checks from the USPS. That's
> >> what you call a paper trail. The feds will want to see the receipts
> >> for the "misc medical expenses" account on the ledger for a few of
> >> those years.
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > Let us assume for the sake of argument that there was a team organized
> > doping program. If they kept receipts which would tie the team to
> > doping outside the rules, then they deserve to go down. Thing is, IMO,
> > it's very unlikely that they were that stupid.
>
> > I mean, you'd have to be really, really dumb to do that.
>
> > thanks,
>
> > Fred. presented by Gringioni.
>
> My God, but you are a simpleton. I hope nobody is ever dumb enough to
> join you in a criminal conspiracy. Carry on, Fred.
The great thing about a conspiracy charge is that you
can bring it even if you might not be able to win a case
on the underlying crime (of course, the underlying crime
doesn't generally even have to be committed, just
intended). It's actually probably harder to find someone
who hasn't technically engaged in such behavior at some
point in their life, but most of such law-breaking is minor
and never draws the attention of investigators with
subpoena power, which is why we're not all in jail for
lying to insurance agents about whether or not we use
our cars for daily commuting. (Actually, I don't, but I think
my agent once put down that I used my car for
"pleasure driving," which must be a lie given today's traffic.)
Anyway, I have a different question, Lafferty. Once upon
a time, you were interested in doping prosecutions as
a way to clean up the sport - I remember proclamations
that now the dopers were on the run and this year we would
see some real suffering in the mountains.
Have you given up on that shit? I mean, it's understandable
if you think the entire sport of pro cycling is irredeemably
dirty and you couldn't care about rescuing it anymore, let
it die. That's a defensible position. But then, why give
a damn about nailing LANCE? I don't think one can make a
case that nailing LANCE is going to help clean up the sport.
Is it anything other than personal animus?
Honestly I think you've accidentally won a Pyrrhic victory.
RBR is not like it was 10 years ago. Few people are willing
to fight to prove LANCE is clean. The reason the victory
is Pyrrhic is that it turns out at the same time as belief
in clean cyclists has dissipated, moral outrage has also
dissipated, so few RBR dumbasses are interested in crusading
to clean up cycling anymore. It seems like you aren't either.
Fredmaster Ben
== 3 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:15 pm
From: "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
On May 26, 3:59 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 5/26/2010 6:55 PM, DA74 wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 3:15 pm, "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
> > <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 26, 12:11 pm, DA74<davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Weisel will never even be involved.
>
> >>> Uh bro, he doesn't have a choice at this point. He was the original
> >>> owner of Tailwind and they cashed the checks from the USPS. That's
> >>> what you call a paper trail. The feds will want to see the receipts
> >>> for the "misc medical expenses" account on the ledger for a few of
> >>> those years.
>
> >> Dumbass -
>
> >> Let us assume for the sake of argument that there was a team organized
> >> doping program. If they kept receipts which would tie the team to
> >> doping outside the rules, then they deserve to go down. Thing is, IMO,
> >> it's very unlikely that they were that stupid.
>
> >> I mean, you'd have to be really, really dumb to do that.
>
> >> thanks,
>
> >> Fred. presented by Gringioni.
>
> > Of course they don't have the actual receipts fucktard. What I was
> > apparently unhumorously trying to say is that if you have a business
> > and you have an expense, whether legitimate or otherwise you've got to
> > stick it somewhere on the ledger. If these guys were sponsoring a
> > doping program which it appears Floyd is accusing them of doing
> > (transfusions on the team bus), they had to capture that expense
> > somewhere.
>
> > This whole thing is going to come down to is a question of whether or
> > not the feds can get access to
> > Tailwind's books and then whether the auditors can find out where this
> > stuff got stuck (if in fact Tailwind was paying for it).
> > -DA74
>
> The Feds will get Tailwind's books. The question is whether or not the
> books are cooked.
Dumbass -
Either they're idiots and they're not cooked (unlikely).
Or they're not idiots and they're cooked.
Weisel is an investment banker. If there's one thing those types know
it's how to cook the books.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
== 4 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:19 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"
On 5/26/2010 8:15 PM, Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. wrote:
> On May 26, 3:59 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 5/26/2010 6:55 PM, DA74 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 26, 3:15 pm, "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
>>> <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 26, 12:11 pm, DA74<davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Weisel will never even be involved.
>>
>>>>> Uh bro, he doesn't have a choice at this point. He was the original
>>>>> owner of Tailwind and they cashed the checks from the USPS. That's
>>>>> what you call a paper trail. The feds will want to see the receipts
>>>>> for the "misc medical expenses" account on the ledger for a few of
>>>>> those years.
>>
>>>> Dumbass -
>>
>>>> Let us assume for the sake of argument that there was a team organized
>>>> doping program. If they kept receipts which would tie the team to
>>>> doping outside the rules, then they deserve to go down. Thing is, IMO,
>>>> it's very unlikely that they were that stupid.
>>
>>>> I mean, you'd have to be really, really dumb to do that.
>>
>>>> thanks,
>>
>>>> Fred. presented by Gringioni.
>>
>>> Of course they don't have the actual receipts fucktard. What I was
>>> apparently unhumorously trying to say is that if you have a business
>>> and you have an expense, whether legitimate or otherwise you've got to
>>> stick it somewhere on the ledger. If these guys were sponsoring a
>>> doping program which it appears Floyd is accusing them of doing
>>> (transfusions on the team bus), they had to capture that expense
>>> somewhere.
>>
>>> This whole thing is going to come down to is a question of whether or
>>> not the feds can get access to
>>> Tailwind's books and then whether the auditors can find out where this
>>> stuff got stuck (if in fact Tailwind was paying for it).
>>> -DA74
>>
>> The Feds will get Tailwind's books. The question is whether or not the
>> books are cooked.
>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Either they're idiots and they're not cooked (unlikely).
>
> Or they're not idiots and they're cooked.
>
> Weisel is an investment banker. If there's one thing those types know
> it's how to cook the books.
>
> thanks,
>
> Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Asshole. Read the following:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d456baa8-6206-11df-998c-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss
== 5 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:22 pm
From: "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
On May 26, 3:55 pm, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Of course they don't have the actual receipts fucktard. What I was
> apparently unhumorously trying to say is that if you have a business
> and you have an expense, whether legitimate or otherwise you've got to
> stick it somewhere on the ledger. If these guys were sponsoring a
> doping program which it appears Floyd is accusing them of doing
> (transfusions on the team bus), they had to capture that expense
> somewhere.
Dumbass -
True, but that expense could be listed under any one of a slew of
legitimate expense categories.
If I was thinking about running a dirty cycling team, I'd have the
doping budget buried inside all the legit stuff.
Willie Nelson got audited by the IRS and had to pay a small fortune in
back taxes. I'd bet that they didn't manage to find his marijuana
expense account (word is he smokes *a lot*) in the touring budget.
thanks,
Fred. presented by Gringioni.
== 6 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:25 pm
From: Amit Ghosh
On May 26, 8:19 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> Asshole. Read the following:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d456baa8-6206-11df-998c-00144feab49a.html?f...
dumbass,
it not unlikely that a banker might get charge with securities fraud.
though in this case it is an employee of his company (and by proxy the
company) - not the man himself.
he isn't going to be held responsible for the behavior of some
athletes. why would he even have any relevant information ?
== 7 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:29 pm
From: "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
On May 26, 3:27 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 1:59 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > As to proving cases in court, time will tell what is developed. It's
> > > amazing the kinds of tracks even the most careful people leave. Try to
> > > get it though your head into that pea sized brain of yours that the
> > > interest the Feds have centers on fraudulent use of US government monies
> > > and fraud in the procurement of an insurance policy from SCA Promotions
> > > worth $5million+.
>
> > Is this just busy work for someone (at the Fed) needing something to do?
>
> > In the "real" world, it would depend entirely upon how the SCA contract was
> > worded. There may not be an after-the-finding recourse; it may be very
> > specifically spelled out that there is a timeframe in which any evidence
> > must be brought forth before a finding can be made in favor of SCA. Even a
> > typical insurance policy allows for payment in the event of fraud after a
> > period of time (typically two years, in the case of my own life insurance
> > policy, meaning that I could lie about my medical condition and only during
> > the first two years can they cancel or modify the policy).
>
> > If the Feds have nothing better to do than to go after an $8 million/year
> > expenditure that ended many years ago, while people wrote up and made tons
> > of $$$ from fraudulent mortgages backed by the government every single day
> > for years (fraudulent because they were based on false information regarding
> > ability to pay)... and those people haven't been touched... something's
> > seriously wrong with this picture.
>
> > The government has a legitimate role in looking at potential tax fraud, but
> > this other stuff is just way too far out there, and with too-little possible
> > recovery of significant revenue, for me to be happy that they're spending
> > tax dollars on it.
>
> > --Mike Jacoubowsky
> > Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> > Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> It's not about the money Mike - they're are bigger tax cheats than
> Wesley Snipes and bigger frauds than Lance Armstrong.
<snip>
Dumbass -
That's true.
However, Mike has a good point. The mortgage crisis almost brought
down the entire financial system.
There's also other sorts of crime which are infinitely more likely to
affect even cycling fans. The crisis in Mexico is a direct result of
US citizen's drug consumption. There's this little oil spill off the
coast of Louisiana that needs some attention in the civil (and maybe
criminal) courts. There's the execution of innocents we discussed in
another thread. And so on.
I'm gonna go dope up on some caffeine along with a very large majority
of my fellow citizens who also dope (though not necessarily on
caffeine).
thanks,
Fred. presented by Gringioni.
== 8 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:31 pm
From: "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
On May 26, 5:19 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 5/26/2010 8:15 PM, Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 3:59 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/26/2010 6:55 PM, DA74 wrote:
>
> >>> On May 26, 3:15 pm, "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
> >>> <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On May 26, 12:11 pm, DA74<davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Weisel will never even be involved.
>
> >>>>> Uh bro, he doesn't have a choice at this point. He was the original
> >>>>> owner of Tailwind and they cashed the checks from the USPS. That's
> >>>>> what you call a paper trail. The feds will want to see the receipts
> >>>>> for the "misc medical expenses" account on the ledger for a few of
> >>>>> those years.
>
> >>>> Dumbass -
>
> >>>> Let us assume for the sake of argument that there was a team organized
> >>>> doping program. If they kept receipts which would tie the team to
> >>>> doping outside the rules, then they deserve to go down. Thing is, IMO,
> >>>> it's very unlikely that they were that stupid.
>
> >>>> I mean, you'd have to be really, really dumb to do that.
>
> >>>> thanks,
>
> >>>> Fred. presented by Gringioni.
>
> >>> Of course they don't have the actual receipts fucktard. What I was
> >>> apparently unhumorously trying to say is that if you have a business
> >>> and you have an expense, whether legitimate or otherwise you've got to
> >>> stick it somewhere on the ledger. If these guys were sponsoring a
> >>> doping program which it appears Floyd is accusing them of doing
> >>> (transfusions on the team bus), they had to capture that expense
> >>> somewhere.
>
> >>> This whole thing is going to come down to is a question of whether or
> >>> not the feds can get access to
> >>> Tailwind's books and then whether the auditors can find out where this
> >>> stuff got stuck (if in fact Tailwind was paying for it).
> >>> -DA74
>
> >> The Feds will get Tailwind's books. The question is whether or not the
> >> books are cooked.
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > Either they're idiots and they're not cooked (unlikely).
>
> > Or they're not idiots and they're cooked.
>
> > Weisel is an investment banker. If there's one thing those types know
> > it's how to cook the books.
>
> > thanks,
>
> > Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
>
> Asshole. Read the following:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d456baa8-6206-11df-998c-00144feab49a.html
Dumbass -
Doesn't that story support my point?
thanks,
Fred. presented by Gringioni.
== 9 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:31 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"
On 5/26/2010 8:25 PM, Amit Ghosh wrote:
> On May 26, 8:19 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> Asshole. Read the following:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d456baa8-6206-11df-998c-00144feab49a.html?f...
>
> dumbass,
>
> it not unlikely that a banker might get charge with securities fraud.
> though in this case it is an employee of his company (and by proxy the
> company) - not the man himself.
>
> he isn't going to be held responsible for the behavior of some
> athletes. why would he even have any relevant information ?
>
ROTFL!! Look at the news coverage of Thom and the Posties back in the
day. Thom was quite involved with them and USACycling.
== 10 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:33 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"
On 5/26/2010 8:29 PM, Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. wrote:
> On May 26, 3:27 pm, Anton Berlin<truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 26, 1:59 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"<Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> As to proving cases in court, time will tell what is developed. It's
>>>> amazing the kinds of tracks even the most careful people leave. Try to
>>>> get it though your head into that pea sized brain of yours that the
>>>> interest the Feds have centers on fraudulent use of US government monies
>>>> and fraud in the procurement of an insurance policy from SCA Promotions
>>>> worth $5million+.
>>
>>> Is this just busy work for someone (at the Fed) needing something to do?
>>
>>> In the "real" world, it would depend entirely upon how the SCA contract was
>>> worded. There may not be an after-the-finding recourse; it may be very
>>> specifically spelled out that there is a timeframe in which any evidence
>>> must be brought forth before a finding can be made in favor of SCA. Even a
>>> typical insurance policy allows for payment in the event of fraud after a
>>> period of time (typically two years, in the case of my own life insurance
>>> policy, meaning that I could lie about my medical condition and only during
>>> the first two years can they cancel or modify the policy).
>>
>>> If the Feds have nothing better to do than to go after an $8 million/year
>>> expenditure that ended many years ago, while people wrote up and made tons
>>> of $$$ from fraudulent mortgages backed by the government every single day
>>> for years (fraudulent because they were based on false information regarding
>>> ability to pay)... and those people haven't been touched... something's
>>> seriously wrong with this picture.
>>
>>> The government has a legitimate role in looking at potential tax fraud, but
>>> this other stuff is just way too far out there, and with too-little possible
>>> recovery of significant revenue, for me to be happy that they're spending
>>> tax dollars on it.
>>
>>> --Mike Jacoubowsky
>>> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
>>> Redwood City& Los Altos, CA USA
>>
>> It's not about the money Mike - they're are bigger tax cheats than
>> Wesley Snipes and bigger frauds than Lance Armstrong.
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> That's true.
>
> However, Mike has a good point. The mortgage crisis almost brought
> down the entire financial system.
>
> There's also other sorts of crime which are infinitely more likely to
> affect even cycling fans. The crisis in Mexico is a direct result of
> US citizen's drug consumption. There's this little oil spill off the
> coast of Louisiana that needs some attention in the civil (and maybe
> criminal) courts. There's the execution of innocents we discussed in
> another thread. And so on.
>
> I'm gonna go dope up on some caffeine along with a very large majority
> of my fellow citizens who also dope (though not necessarily on
> caffeine).
>
> thanks,
>
> Fred. presented by Gringioni.
Talk about coming all over the keyboard. That was quite a load, Fred.
== 11 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:38 pm
From: "K. Fred Gauss"
Keith wrote:
> ...http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/scope-of-us-doping-inquiry-may-be-widened?cid=OTC-RSS&attr=news_headlines
>
> Looks like the feds will be asking some questions to LA and company,
> probably won't be a good idea to lie...
Telling the truth is a pretty unpleasant option, too.
== 12 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:37 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"
On 5/26/2010 8:31 PM, Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. wrote:
> On May 26, 5:19 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 5/26/2010 8:15 PM, Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 26, 3:59 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/26/2010 6:55 PM, DA74 wrote:
>>
>>>>> On May 26, 3:15 pm, "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
>>>>> <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On May 26, 12:11 pm, DA74<davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Weisel will never even be involved.
>>
>>>>>>> Uh bro, he doesn't have a choice at this point. He was the original
>>>>>>> owner of Tailwind and they cashed the checks from the USPS. That's
>>>>>>> what you call a paper trail. The feds will want to see the receipts
>>>>>>> for the "misc medical expenses" account on the ledger for a few of
>>>>>>> those years.
>>
>>>>>> Dumbass -
>>
>>>>>> Let us assume for the sake of argument that there was a team organized
>>>>>> doping program. If they kept receipts which would tie the team to
>>>>>> doping outside the rules, then they deserve to go down. Thing is, IMO,
>>>>>> it's very unlikely that they were that stupid.
>>
>>>>>> I mean, you'd have to be really, really dumb to do that.
>>
>>>>>> thanks,
>>
>>>>>> Fred. presented by Gringioni.
>>
>>>>> Of course they don't have the actual receipts fucktard. What I was
>>>>> apparently unhumorously trying to say is that if you have a business
>>>>> and you have an expense, whether legitimate or otherwise you've got to
>>>>> stick it somewhere on the ledger. If these guys were sponsoring a
>>>>> doping program which it appears Floyd is accusing them of doing
>>>>> (transfusions on the team bus), they had to capture that expense
>>>>> somewhere.
>>
>>>>> This whole thing is going to come down to is a question of whether or
>>>>> not the feds can get access to
>>>>> Tailwind's books and then whether the auditors can find out where this
>>>>> stuff got stuck (if in fact Tailwind was paying for it).
>>>>> -DA74
>>
>>>> The Feds will get Tailwind's books. The question is whether or not the
>>>> books are cooked.
>>
>>> Dumbass -
>>
>>> Either they're idiots and they're not cooked (unlikely).
>>
>>> Or they're not idiots and they're cooked.
>>
>>> Weisel is an investment banker. If there's one thing those types know
>>> it's how to cook the books.
>>
>>> thanks,
>>
>>> Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
>>
>> Asshole. Read the following:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d456baa8-6206-11df-998c-00144feab49a.html
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Doesn't that story support my point?
>
> thanks,
>
> Fred. presented by Gringioni.
No, but carry on, Fucktard.
== 13 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:43 pm
From: "K. Fred Gauss"
Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> Anyway, I have a different question, Lafferty. Once upon
> a time, you were interested in doping prosecutions as
> a way to clean up the sport - I remember proclamations
> that now the dopers were on the run and this year we would
> see some real suffering in the mountains.
This is precisely how Lafferty knew Landis was clean during the 2006
TdF. Landis was in pain, he had bad days, HE WASN'T A ROBOT. Landis'
suffering was PROOF of Lance's doping. Lafferty wouldn't shut up about
that shit back in July of '06.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Over/under
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/0dc78e7a29aee9c2?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 4:01 pm
From: Fred
sort of. I think we should start a betting pool to see how long
before we see a thread that Lafferty responds to that does not include
any messages from him in which he personally insults whoever he is
responding to. Every stinking post from him includes, or in some
cases is limited to, him belittling someone or calling names.
Has anyone ever met him IRL? If so, how'd you resist the urge to just
bitch slap the attitude right out of him?
Fred
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 4:09 pm
From: DA74
On May 26, 4:01 pm, Fred <fred.gar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> sort of. I think we should start a betting pool to see how long
> before we see a thread that Lafferty responds to that does not include
> any messages from him in which he personally insults whoever he is
> responding to. Every stinking post from him includes, or in some
> cases is limited to, him belittling someone or calling names.
>
> Has anyone ever met him IRL? If so, how'd you resist the urge to just
> bitch slap the attitude right out of him?
>
> Fred
I think the problem is that some of you fucktards just don't like him
and automatically want to get into it with him. I think he's provided
some excellent links and analyses pertaining to Floydgate.
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:04 pm
From: Amit Ghosh
On May 26, 7:09 pm, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I think the problem is that some of you fucktards just don't like him
> and automatically want to get into it with him. I think he's provided
> some excellent links and analyses pertaining to Floydgate.
dumbass,
lafferty is too obsessed with armstong to be objective. he didn't
suggest adam bergman could be charged with fraud after testing
positive.
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:14 pm
From: Fred
On May 26, 5:09 pm, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 4:01 pm, Fred <fred.gar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > sort of. I think we should start a betting pool to see how long
> > before we see a thread that Lafferty responds to that does not include
> > any messages from him in which he personally insults whoever he is
> > responding to. Every stinking post from him includes, or in some
> > cases is limited to, him belittling someone or calling names.
>
> > Has anyone ever met him IRL? If so, how'd you resist the urge to just
> > bitch slap the attitude right out of him?
>
> > Fred
>
> I think the problem is that some of you fucktards just don't like him
> and automatically want to get into it with him. I think he's provided
> some excellent links and analyses pertaining to Floydgate.
I think the reason (or, one of the reasons) folks don't like him is
that he insults/attacks/belittles in nearly every single post. He
strikes me as either very bitter or very narcissistic. His analysis
may be spot on, but he's still an ass.
Fred
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:16 pm
From: DA74
On May 26, 5:04 pm, Amit Ghosh <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 7:09 pm, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think the problem is that some of you fucktards just don't like him
> > and automatically want to get into it with him. I think he's provided
> > some excellent links and analyses pertaining to Floydgate.
>
> dumbass,
>
> lafferty is too obsessed with armstong to be objective. he didn't
> suggest adam bergman could be charged with fraud after testing
> positive.
Did you ever think that maybe it's a matter of you fucktards being too
obsessed with Lafferty to be objective?
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:35 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"
On 5/26/2010 8:14 PM, Fred wrote:
> On May 26, 5:09 pm, DA74<davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 26, 4:01 pm, Fred<fred.gar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> sort of. I think we should start a betting pool to see how long
>>> before we see a thread that Lafferty responds to that does not include
>>> any messages from him in which he personally insults whoever he is
>>> responding to. Every stinking post from him includes, or in some
>>> cases is limited to, him belittling someone or calling names.
>>
>>> Has anyone ever met him IRL? If so, how'd you resist the urge to just
>>> bitch slap the attitude right out of him?
>>
>>> Fred
>>
>> I think the problem is that some of you fucktards just don't like him
>> and automatically want to get into it with him. I think he's provided
>> some excellent links and analyses pertaining to Floydgate.
>
> I think the reason (or, one of the reasons) folks don't like him is
> that he insults/attacks/belittles in nearly every single post. He
> strikes me as either very bitter or very narcissistic. His analysis
> may be spot on, but he's still an ass.
>
> Fred
Do you need a hug? HUG.
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:36 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"
On 5/26/2010 7:09 PM, DA74 wrote:
> On May 26, 4:01 pm, Fred<fred.gar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> sort of. I think we should start a betting pool to see how long
>> before we see a thread that Lafferty responds to that does not include
>> any messages from him in which he personally insults whoever he is
>> responding to. Every stinking post from him includes, or in some
>> cases is limited to, him belittling someone or calling names.
>>
>> Has anyone ever met him IRL? If so, how'd you resist the urge to just
>> bitch slap the attitude right out of him?
>>
>> Fred
>
> I think the problem is that some of you fucktards just don't like him
> and automatically want to get into it with him. I think he's provided
> some excellent links and analyses pertaining to Floydgate.
Thank you.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: rbr Turncoat Pool - State's Evidence Edition
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5312ca4d0851a002?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 4:04 pm
From: DA74
On May 26, 3:46 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 5/26/2010 6:00 PM, DA74 wrote:
>
> > On May 26, 1:52 pm, Uncle Dave<davidco...@t-online.de> wrote:
> >> On May 26, 9:45 am, Betty Munro<n...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> >>> DA74 wrote:
> >>>> Lafferty says KG has some anal beads he'll donate as a prize.
>
> >>> Used anal beads have a high rate of depreciation.
>
> >> Despite myself, I have to ask how you know this...
>
> >> UD
>
> > Lafferty told me.
>
> Yeah. You put Kurgan's used beads in a drip coffee maker with civit
> coffee beans. Let us know what you think.
I'll start with the aroma - I'll confirm what he has often inferred
here on rbr, it didn't stink. But as for the taste I'll have to say it
was too acerbic.
You're Welcome,
-DA74
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Q for the "Get Lance" Camp
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/1771350564bfd3a6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 4:07 pm
From: Frederick the Great
In article <TWgLn.21196$HG1.12795@newsfe21.iad>,
"z, fred" <Nope@not.ca> wrote:
> Frederick the Great wrote:
> > In article <ycmdnTxQg_8c4WDWnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> > Fred Flintstein <bob.schwartz@sbcREMOVEglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/26/2010 12:45 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
> >>> Honest question for those who are just dying to see Lance get nailed:
> >>> do you believe that Lance has used dope and other illegal methods in a
> >>> manner that gave him unfair advantage over the other top contenders
> >>> he's been up against? From the evidence I've seen, his competition was
> >>> juicing themselves to the gills, with everyone knowing the limits of
> >>> what they could get away with. In fact, because many were caught, you
> >>> could make the arguement that they were the ones who were trying to
> >>> get an unfair advantage, because they pushed it too far.
> >>>
> >>> IMO, what we're seeing at the top is a fair fight, albeit an enhanced
> >>> one. I haven't seen evidence that Lance was doing anything his
> >>> competition wasn't.
> >>>
> >>> Brad Anders
> >> Remember that LANCE had an agreement with Dr Juice to not work
> >> for other bike racers. Restricting his potential clients probably
> >> cost LANCE a chunk of change.
> >>
> >> Of course, LANCE's competition was doping also. But since LANCE
> >> had an exclusive, highly regarded medical adviser it is easy to
> >> make a case that he was doing things that others weren't.
> >
> > A big advantage of the arrangement for LANCE is
> > that Dr. Fiat was not vulnerable through other
> > patients because there were none.
> >
>
> Dumbass,
>
> Ferrari could have/be helping athletes in other sports.
The other sports know how to keep there mouths shut.
--
Old Fritz
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Playboy at the Giro - Say What!?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/02d1d162c8503e60?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:19 pm
From: dave a
On 5/26/2010 2:17 PM, Uncle Dave wrote:
> On May 26, 5:29 am, raamman<raam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 25, 11:27 pm, TheCoz<cycled...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/cgi/gallerypicget.asp?pic=http://www.pe...
>>
>>> Coz
>>
>> when you said playboy I assumed you meant the great Mario C.; instead
>> you have me click a link to a worthless dumballena with no better job
>> prospects than a hooker on a streetcorner.
>
> You can tell all that from a photo? Do you work for Playboy Italia?
>
> http://www.playboy.it/video/video.asp?id_video=76&galleria_video=Il+fascino+della+carovana+rosa
>
> UD
Finally! Something I care about is posted on rbr.
- dave a
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:24 pm
From: bar
On May 26, 12:29 am, raamman <raam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 25, 11:27 pm, TheCoz <cycled...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/cgi/gallerypicget.asp?pic=http://www.pe...
>
> > Coz
>
> when you said playboy I assumed you meant the great Mario C.; instead
> you have me click a link to a worthless dumballena with no better job
> prospects than a hooker on a streetcorner.
damn. did someone hurt you, bro?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Monomaniacs have infiltrated the gubment
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5971e49c8f1c181a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, May 26 2010 5:35 pm
From: Amit Ghosh
On May 26, 12:45 pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime" <F...@EuroForums.com> wrote:
> I just want to know if Lance doped
dumbass,
if any more evidence is unearthed it will be circumstantial and will
probably not be any more damning than what is already known.
both the mitchell report and the balco case depended on leveraging the
fact that there were people charged with a crime and they chose to
talk in exchange for leniency.
lafferty will pull his hair out because there will not be a smoking
gun, just more circumstantial evidence and armstrong will still have
10,000 people show up to his twitter rides and have six-figure
speaking engagements.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.bicycles.racing"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.bicycles.racing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
Posts
All Comments
