It's Tuesday [Archive] - CycleBanter.com

Fredmaster of Brainerd

November 15th 11, 07:11 PM

On Nov 15, 7:02*am, BL > wrote:
> On 11/15/2011 8:36 AM, Brad Anders wrote:
>
> >http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-lawyers-ready-for-federal-b...
>
> > Looks like Laff's Tuesday may be coming soon. Or not.
>
> Up to $5 million for his defense team thus far. *I've seen other
> estimates of $3 to $3.5 million. Regardless, that's a lot of money for a
> guy who has nothing to hide.

Remember, only guilty people hire good lawyers.
If you're innocent, you can get by with crappy
representation. Especially in capital cases in Texas,
of course.

The only nugget of information in this article was that
Hincapie has not testified before the grand jury, although
he has been questioned by investigators. A lot of the
speculation seemed to assume that he had testified.

Fredmaster Ben

RicodJour[_2_]

November 15th 11, 07:34 PM

On Nov 15, 2:11*pm, Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
>
> Remember, only guilty people hire good lawyers.
> If you're innocent, you can get by with crappy
> representation. *Especially in capital cases in Texas,
> of course.
>
> The only nugget of information in this article was that
> Hincapie has not testified before the grand jury, although
> he has been questioned by investigators. *A lot of the
> speculation seemed to assume that he had testified.

Well done! You pulled the only nugget out of the steaming pile of
crap that was a tip o' the hat to that if-it's-a-slow-day-it-must-be-
Tuesday news story.

Now go wash your hands.

R

Anton Berlin

November 15th 11, 09:57 PM

On Nov 15, 7:36*am, Brad Anders > wrote:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-lawyers-ready-for-federal-b...
>
> Looks like Laff's Tuesday may be coming soon. Or not.

My favorite part --- Fabio complaining that "it's been really quiet"

“The only thing that’s happened over the summer is that Armstrong’s
lawyers filed a motion complaining about the leaks of information
about the case from the government,” Fabiani said.

isn't that what you wanted jack ass ?

Kekers and Peters - sounds like a 60's british duo or a new Disney
movie ?

Jimmy July[_3_]

November 16th 11, 12:34 AM

On 11/15/2011 8:11 AM, William R. Mattil wrote:
> On 11/15/2011 8:02 AM, BL wrote:
>> On 11/15/2011 8:36 AM, Brad Anders wrote:
>>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-lawyers-ready-for-federal-battle
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Looks like Laff's Tuesday may be coming soon. Or not.
>>
>> Up to $5 million for his defense team thus far. I've seen other
>> estimates of $3 to $3.5 million. Regardless, that's a lot of money for a
>> guy who has nothing to hide.
>
>
> What an idiot .....
>
> You better than anyone should know that this is simply legalized extortion.

No, BL has been consistent in saying that N-1 out of N of all people
investigated by grand juries are guilty. The fact that there is an
investigation proves guilt.

BL[_2_]

November 16th 11, 12:46 AM

On 11/15/2011 7:34 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
> On 11/15/2011 8:11 AM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>> On 11/15/2011 8:02 AM, BL wrote:
>>> On 11/15/2011 8:36 AM, Brad Anders wrote:
>>>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-lawyers-ready-for-federal-battle
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Looks like Laff's Tuesday may be coming soon. Or not.
>>>
>>> Up to $5 million for his defense team thus far. I've seen other
>>> estimates of $3 to $3.5 million. Regardless, that's a lot of money for a
>>> guy who has nothing to hide.
>>
>>
>> What an idiot .....
>>
>> You better than anyone should know that this is simply legalized
>> extortion.
>
> No, BL has been consistent in saying that N-1 out of N of all people
> investigated by grand juries are guilty. The fact that there is an
> investigation proves guilt.
I have never said that. There was a prosecutor in New York state who
once told a jury during summation that the state does not indict
innocent people--but, that was reversed on appeal.

I can understand any target of a gj investigation lawyering up. But this
amount of lawyering up is extraordinary for a person who has done no wrong.

BL[_2_]

November 16th 11, 12:47 AM

On 11/15/2011 2:34 PM, RicodJour wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2:11 pm, Fredmaster of > wrote:
>>
>> Remember, only guilty people hire good lawyers.
>> If you're innocent, you can get by with crappy
>> representation. Especially in capital cases in Texas,
>> of course.
>>
>> The only nugget of information in this article was that
>> Hincapie has not testified before the grand jury, although
>> he has been questioned by investigators. A lot of the
>> speculation seemed to assume that he had testified.
>
> Well done! You pulled the only nugget out of the steaming pile of
> crap that was a tip o' the hat to that if-it's-a-slow-day-it-must-be-
> Tuesday news story.
>
> Now go wash your hands.
>
> R
You guys are so bright. LOL!

BL[_2_]

November 16th 11, 12:49 AM

On 11/15/2011 11:47 AM, dave a wrote:
> On 11/15/2011 5:36 AM, Brad Anders wrote:
>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-lawyers-ready-for-federal-battle
>>
>>
>> Looks like Laff's Tuesday may be coming soon. Or not.
>
> The entire story is devoted to the fact that there is no news to report.
> It's definitely Tuesday.
It was apparently begun by Fabiani. It's part of the pr offensive that
is about to take off with the indictments.

BL[_2_]

November 16th 11, 12:50 AM

On 11/15/2011 4:57 PM, Anton Berlin wrote:
> On Nov 15, 7:36 am, Brad > wrote:
>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-lawyers-ready-for-federal-b...
>>
>> Looks like Laff's Tuesday may be coming soon. Or not.
>
> My favorite part --- Fabio complaining that "it's been really quiet"
>
> “The only thing that’s happened over the summer is that Armstrong’s
> lawyers filed a motion complaining about the leaks of information
> about the case from the government,” Fabiani said.
>
> isn't that what you wanted jack ass ?
>
> Kekers and Peters - sounds like a 60's british duo or a new Disney
> movie ?

IIRC, Kecker was the lead prosecutor in Iran-Contra. He is simply one of
the best criminal defense attorneys in the United States. IIRC, he gets
around $900 per hour.

Jimmy July[_3_]

November 16th 11, 03:56 AM

On 11/15/2011 4:50 PM, BL wrote:
> On 11/15/2011 4:57 PM, Anton Berlin wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 7:36 am, Brad > wrote:
>>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-lawyers-ready-for-federal-b...
>>>
>>> Looks like Laff's Tuesday may be coming soon. Or not.
>>
>> My favorite part --- Fabio complaining that "it's been really quiet"
>>
>> “The only thing that’s happened over the summer is that Armstrong’s
>> lawyers filed a motion complaining about the leaks of information
>> about the case from the government,” Fabiani said.
>>
>> isn't that what you wanted jack ass ?
>>
>> Kekers and Peters - sounds like a 60's british duo or a new Disney
>> movie ?
>
> IIRC, Kecker was the lead prosecutor in Iran-Contra. He is simply one of
> the best criminal defense attorneys in the United States.

Your second sentence is a strong endorsement. The first sentence, not so
much. If the prosecution finds a way to get Ollie North on the stand,
Armstrong's in BIG trouble.

Simply Fred

November 16th 11, 08:28 AM

Jimmy July wrote:
> If the prosecution finds a way to get Ollie North on the stand,
> Armstrong's in BIG trouble.

The plot thickens. I suspect Ollie North bought dope from Gewiss to sell
to Iranian olympic cyclists in the late eighties in order to fund US
Postal's rise in the nineties. It can thus be proven that Armstrong was
also involved in The Iran-Contra affair in addition to the Kennedy
assassination and Whitewater.

Fred Flintstein

November 16th 11, 02:14 PM

On 11/15/2011 6:46 PM, BL wrote:
> I can understand any target of a gj investigation lawyering up. But this
> amount of lawyering up is extraordinary for a person who has done no wrong.

Dumbass,

Who is making the case that LANCE did no wrong?

F

Brad Anders

November 16th 11, 08:53 PM

On Nov 15, 5:46*pm, BL > wrote:
> On 11/15/2011 7:34 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11/15/2011 8:11 AM, William R. Mattil wrote:
> >> On 11/15/2011 8:02 AM, BL wrote:
> >>> On 11/15/2011 8:36 AM, Brad Anders wrote:
> >>>>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-lawyers-ready-for-federal-b....
>
> >>>> Looks like Laff's Tuesday may be coming soon. Or not.
>
> >>> Up to $5 million for his defense team thus far. I've seen other
> >>> estimates of $3 to $3.5 million. Regardless, that's a lot of money for a
> >>> guy who has nothing to hide.
>
> >> What an idiot .....
>
> >> You better than anyone should know that this is simply legalized
> >> extortion.
>
> > No, BL has been consistent in saying that N-1 out of N of all people
> > investigated by grand juries are guilty. The fact that there is an
> > investigation proves guilt.
>
> I have never said that. There was a prosecutor in New York state who
> once told a jury during summation that the state does not indict
> innocent people--but, that was reversed on appeal.
>
> I can understand any target of a gj investigation lawyering up. But this
> amount of lawyering up is extraordinary for a person who has done no wrong.

Another possibility is that LA may believe that support for this case
by the FDA is poor, and that by publicizing that he's put together a
high-end legal team and will tooth-and-nail against the feds, he'll
get Novitzky's bosses to drop this case and head for greener pastures
- e.g. the dozens and dozens of food contamination cases out there for
the picking. Given that no knowledge of any "smoking gun" evidence in
this case has been revealed, perhaps this silence from the feds is an
indication they're letting it die.

BTW, again, I think LA doped, that Postal doped and used sponsorship
money for dope, just like all the other top GC riders and other teams
were/are doing. I just don't think that in the case of LA, anyone is
going to be able to prove it in court and get convictions. I'd rather
see Novitzky and the FDA working on cases that have more significance
to the majority of citizens.

Frederick the Great

November 16th 11, 09:20 PM

In article >,
Fred Flintstein > wrote:

> On 11/15/2011 6:46 PM, BL wrote:
> > I can understand any target of a gj investigation lawyering up. But this
> > amount of lawyering up is extraordinary for a person who has done no wrong.
>
> Dumbass,
>
> Who is making the case that LANCE did no wrong?

I am.

--
Old Fritz

atriage[_6_]

November 16th 11, 10:54 PM

On 16/11/2011 20:53, Brad Anders wrote:

> BTW, again, I think LA doped, that Postal doped and used sponsorship
> money for dope, just like all the other top GC riders and other teams
> were/are doing. I just don't think that in the case of LA, anyone is
> going to be able to prove it in court and get convictions. I'd rather
> see Novitzky and the FDA working on cases that have more significance
> to the majority of citizens.

These are all clearly valid statements and if I was a USAian I'd be ****ing
outraged at the money the Feds are spending trying to nail the Patron Saint of
Cancer. However relatively new as I am here I've already realised that there is
zero chance of BL ever grasping the sheer dopeyness of the Feds actions.
--

BL[_2_]

November 17th 11, 12:43 AM

On 11/16/2011 3:53 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
> On Nov 15, 5:46 pm, > wrote:
>> On 11/15/2011 7:34 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 11/15/2011 8:11 AM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>>>> On 11/15/2011 8:02 AM, BL wrote:
>>>>> On 11/15/2011 8:36 AM, Brad Anders wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-lawyers-ready-for-federal-b...
>>
>>>>>> Looks like Laff's Tuesday may be coming soon. Or not.
>>
>>>>> Up to $5 million for his defense team thus far. I've seen other
>>>>> estimates of $3 to $3.5 million. Regardless, that's a lot of money for a
>>>>> guy who has nothing to hide.
>>
>>>> What an idiot .....
>>
>>>> You better than anyone should know that this is simply legalized
>>>> extortion.
>>
>>> No, BL has been consistent in saying that N-1 out of N of all people
>>> investigated by grand juries are guilty. The fact that there is an
>>> investigation proves guilt.
>>
>> I have never said that. There was a prosecutor in New York state who
>> once told a jury during summation that the state does not indict
>> innocent people--but, that was reversed on appeal.
>>
>> I can understand any target of a gj investigation lawyering up. But this
>> amount of lawyering up is extraordinary for a person who has done no wrong.
>
> Another possibility is that LA may believe that support for this case
> by the FDA is poor, and that by publicizing that he's put together a
> high-end legal team and will tooth-and-nail against the feds, he'll
> get Novitzky's bosses to drop this case and head for greener pastures
> - e.g. the dozens and dozens of food contamination cases out there for
> the picking. Given that no knowledge of any "smoking gun" evidence in
> this case has been revealed, perhaps this silence from the feds is an
> indication they're letting it die.

This is far, far beyond being an FDA investigation. Even if it wasn't, I
interpret this kind of expenditure for legal services by a person
claiming to be innocent of any wrongdoing to be a total disconnect.

>
> BTW, again, I think LA doped, that Postal doped and used sponsorship
> money for dope, just like all the other top GC riders and other teams
> were/are doing. I just don't think that in the case of LA, anyone is
> going to be able to prove it in court and get convictions. I'd rather
> see Novitzky and the FDA working on cases that have more significance
> to the majority of citizens.

BL[_2_]

November 17th 11, 12:44 AM

On 11/16/2011 5:54 PM, atriage wrote:
> On 16/11/2011 20:53, Brad Anders wrote:
>
>> BTW, again, I think LA doped, that Postal doped and used sponsorship
>> money for dope, just like all the other top GC riders and other teams
>> were/are doing. I just don't think that in the case of LA, anyone is
>> going to be able to prove it in court and get convictions. I'd rather
>> see Novitzky and the FDA working on cases that have more significance
>> to the majority of citizens.
>
> These are all clearly valid statements and if I was a USAian I'd be
> ****ing outraged at the money the Feds are spending trying to nail the
> Patron Saint of Cancer. However relatively new as I am here I've already
> realised that there is zero chance of BL ever grasping the sheer
> dopeyness of the Feds actions.
Perhaps, but I do grasp the dopiness of posters such as you.

Phil H

November 17th 11, 02:32 AM

On Nov 16, 5:43*pm, BL > wrote:
> On 11/16/2011 3:53 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 15, 5:46 pm, > *wrote:
> >> On 11/15/2011 7:34 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
>
> >>> On 11/15/2011 8:11 AM, William R. Mattil wrote:
> >>>> On 11/15/2011 8:02 AM, BL wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/15/2011 8:36 AM, Brad Anders wrote:
> >>>>>>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-lawyers-ready-for-federal-b...
>
> >>>>>> Looks like Laff's Tuesday may be coming soon. Or not.
>
> >>>>> Up to $5 million for his defense team thus far. I've seen other
> >>>>> estimates of $3 to $3.5 million. Regardless, that's a lot of money for a
> >>>>> guy who has nothing to hide.
>
> >>>> What an idiot .....
>
> >>>> You better than anyone should know that this is simply legalized
> >>>> extortion.
>
> >>> No, BL has been consistent in saying that N-1 out of N of all people
> >>> investigated by grand juries are guilty. The fact that there is an
> >>> investigation proves guilt.
>
> >> I have never said that. There was a prosecutor in New York state who
> >> once told a jury during summation that the state does not indict
> >> innocent people--but, that was reversed on appeal.
>
> >> I can understand any target of a gj investigation lawyering up. But this
> >> amount of lawyering up is extraordinary for a person who has done no wrong.
>
> > Another possibility is that LA may believe that support for this case
> > by the FDA is poor, and that by publicizing that he's put together a
> > high-end legal team and will tooth-and-nail against the feds, he'll
> > get Novitzky's bosses to drop this case and head for greener pastures
> > - e.g. the dozens and dozens of food contamination cases out there for
> > the picking. Given that no knowledge of any "smoking gun" evidence in
> > this case has been revealed, perhaps this silence from the feds is an
> > indication they're letting it die.
>
> This is far, far beyond being an FDA investigation. Even if it wasn't, I
> interpret this kind of expenditure for legal services by a person
> claiming to be innocent of any wrongdoing to be a total disconnect.

Not really, if you look at it from a purely financial aspect; what is
the potential return on investment versus financial loss if found
guilty?
On a more personal level, you of all people shouldn't be questioning
overuse of resources for an arguably questionable quest. Of course, an
obsessive personality motive is far less attractive to you than your
implication of guilt.
Phil H

Fred Flintstein

November 17th 11, 03:37 AM

On 11/15/2011 8:02 AM, BL wrote:
> On 11/15/2011 8:36 AM, Brad Anders wrote:
>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-lawyers-ready-for-federal-battle
>>
>>
>> Looks like Laff's Tuesday may be coming soon. Or not.
>
> Up to $5 million for his defense team thus far. I've seen other
> estimates of $3 to $3.5 million. Regardless, that's a lot of money for a
> guy who has nothing to hide.

Are your sources better informed than pro cyclists in
California? I mean, you're not very picky about your
sources and are apparently immune to detecting whether
or not you are being jerked off.

F

Scott

November 17th 11, 03:42 AM

On Nov 16, 5:43*pm, BL > wrote:
> On 11/16/2011 3:53 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 15, 5:46 pm, > *wrote:
> >> On 11/15/2011 7:34 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
>
> >>> On 11/15/2011 8:11 AM, William R. Mattil wrote:
> >>>> On 11/15/2011 8:02 AM, BL wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/15/2011 8:36 AM, Brad Anders wrote:
> >>>>>>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-lawyers-ready-for-federal-b...
>
> >>>>>> Looks like Laff's Tuesday may be coming soon. Or not.
>
> >>>>> Up to $5 million for his defense team thus far. I've seen other
> >>>>> estimates of $3 to $3.5 million. Regardless, that's a lot of money for a
> >>>>> guy who has nothing to hide.
>
> >>>> What an idiot .....
>
> >>>> You better than anyone should know that this is simply legalized
> >>>> extortion.
>
> >>> No, BL has been consistent in saying that N-1 out of N of all people
> >>> investigated by grand juries are guilty. The fact that there is an
> >>> investigation proves guilt.
>
> >> I have never said that. There was a prosecutor in New York state who
> >> once told a jury during summation that the state does not indict
> >> innocent people--but, that was reversed on appeal.
>
> >> I can understand any target of a gj investigation lawyering up. But this
> >> amount of lawyering up is extraordinary for a person who has done no wrong.
>
> > Another possibility is that LA may believe that support for this case
> > by the FDA is poor, and that by publicizing that he's put together a
> > high-end legal team and will tooth-and-nail against the feds, he'll
> > get Novitzky's bosses to drop this case and head for greener pastures
> > - e.g. the dozens and dozens of food contamination cases out there for
> > the picking. Given that no knowledge of any "smoking gun" evidence in
> > this case has been revealed, perhaps this silence from the feds is an
> > indication they're letting it die.
>
> This is far, far beyond being an FDA investigation. Even if it wasn't, I
> interpret this kind of expenditure for legal services by a person
> claiming to be innocent of any wrongdoing to be a total disconnect.
>

You seem to think that only a guilty person with something to hide
would spend that much money on their defense, whereas I (and I assume
many others) are thinking an innocent man with a lot to lose would
hire the best attorneys as well. Not that I'm saying LA is innocent,
but he sure as hell has a lot to lose, and he has the resources to
fight the as yet to be filed charges.

RicodJour[_2_]

November 17th 11, 05:26 AM

On Nov 16, 9:32 pm, Phil H > wrote:
>
> Not really, if you look at it from a purely financial aspect; what is
> the potential return on investment versus financial loss if found
> guilty?

On more immediate motives, his Little Dutch Boy legal team stuck their
collective finger in the dike's "leaks". This has kept LANCE out of
the news. It's no fun for Nowitsky if he has to play by the rules and
his name isn't in the papers.

R

BL[_2_]

November 17th 11, 01:42 PM

On 11/16/2011 9:32 PM, Phil H wrote:
> On Nov 16, 5:43 pm, > wrote:
>> On 11/16/2011 3:53 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 15, 5:46 pm, > wrote:
>>>> On 11/15/2011 7:34 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 11/15/2011 8:11 AM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/15/2011 8:02 AM, BL wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/15/2011 8:36 AM, Brad Anders wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-lawyers-ready-for-federal-b...
>>
>>>>>>>> Looks like Laff's Tuesday may be coming soon. Or not.
>>
>>>>>>> Up to $5 million for his defense team thus far. I've seen other
>>>>>>> estimates of $3 to $3.5 million. Regardless, that's a lot of money for a
>>>>>>> guy who has nothing to hide.
>>
>>>>>> What an idiot .....
>>
>>>>>> You better than anyone should know that this is simply legalized
>>>>>> extortion.
>>
>>>>> No, BL has been consistent in saying that N-1 out of N of all people
>>>>> investigated by grand juries are guilty. The fact that there is an
>>>>> investigation proves guilt.
>>
>>>> I have never said that. There was a prosecutor in New York state who
>>>> once told a jury during summation that the state does not indict
>>>> innocent people--but, that was reversed on appeal.
>>
>>>> I can understand any target of a gj investigation lawyering up. But this
>>>> amount of lawyering up is extraordinary for a person who has done no wrong.
>>
>>> Another possibility is that LA may believe that support for this case
>>> by the FDA is poor, and that by publicizing that he's put together a
>>> high-end legal team and will tooth-and-nail against the feds, he'll
>>> get Novitzky's bosses to drop this case and head for greener pastures
>>> - e.g. the dozens and dozens of food contamination cases out there for
>>> the picking. Given that no knowledge of any "smoking gun" evidence in
>>> this case has been revealed, perhaps this silence from the feds is an
>>> indication they're letting it die.
>>
>> This is far, far beyond being an FDA investigation. Even if it wasn't, I
>> interpret this kind of expenditure for legal services by a person
>> claiming to be innocent of any wrongdoing to be a total disconnect.
>
> Not really, if you look at it from a purely financial aspect; what is
> the potential return on investment versus financial loss if found
> guilty?
> On a more personal level, you of all people shouldn't be questioning
> overuse of resources for an arguably questionable quest. Of course, an
> obsessive personality motive is far less attractive to you than your
> implication of guilt.
> Phil H
I quite happy that Lance is supporting members of the defense bar and
their firms.

BL[_2_]

November 17th 11, 01:44 PM

On 11/17/2011 12:26 AM, RicodJour wrote:
> On Nov 16, 9:32 pm, Phil > wrote:
>>
>> Not really, if you look at it from a purely financial aspect; what is
>> the potential return on investment versus financial loss if found
>> guilty?
>
> On more immediate motives, his Little Dutch Boy legal team stuck their
> collective finger in the dike's "leaks". This has kept LANCE out of
> the news. It's no fun for Nowitsky if he has to play by the rules and
> his name isn't in the papers.
>
> R
Not likely. If they alleged that Georgie had his grand jury testimony
leaked they only managed to make themselves look like fools. If you
watched 60 Minutes, you know why.

BL[_2_]

November 17th 11, 01:48 PM

On 11/16/2011 10:42 PM, Scott wrote:
> On Nov 16, 5:43 pm, > wrote:
>> On 11/16/2011 3:53 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 15, 5:46 pm, > wrote:
>>>> On 11/15/2011 7:34 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 11/15/2011 8:11 AM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/15/2011 8:02 AM, BL wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/15/2011 8:36 AM, Brad Anders wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-lawyers-ready-for-federal-b...
>>
>>>>>>>> Looks like Laff's Tuesday may be coming soon. Or not.
>>
>>>>>>> Up to $5 million for his defense team thus far. I've seen other
>>>>>>> estimates of $3 to $3.5 million. Regardless, that's a lot of money for a
>>>>>>> guy who has nothing to hide.
>>
>>>>>> What an idiot .....
>>
>>>>>> You better than anyone should know that this is simply legalized
>>>>>> extortion.
>>
>>>>> No, BL has been consistent in saying that N-1 out of N of all people
>>>>> investigated by grand juries are guilty. The fact that there is an
>>>>> investigation proves guilt.
>>
>>>> I have never said that. There was a prosecutor in New York state who
>>>> once told a jury during summation that the state does not indict
>>>> innocent people--but, that was reversed on appeal.
>>
>>>> I can understand any target of a gj investigation lawyering up. But this
>>>> amount of lawyering up is extraordinary for a person who has done no wrong.
>>
>>> Another possibility is that LA may believe that support for this case
>>> by the FDA is poor, and that by publicizing that he's put together a
>>> high-end legal team and will tooth-and-nail against the feds, he'll
>>> get Novitzky's bosses to drop this case and head for greener pastures
>>> - e.g. the dozens and dozens of food contamination cases out there for
>>> the picking. Given that no knowledge of any "smoking gun" evidence in
>>> this case has been revealed, perhaps this silence from the feds is an
>>> indication they're letting it die.
>>
>> This is far, far beyond being an FDA investigation. Even if it wasn't, I
>> interpret this kind of expenditure for legal services by a person
>> claiming to be innocent of any wrongdoing to be a total disconnect.
>>
>
> You seem to think that only a guilty person with something to hide
> would spend that much money on their defense, whereas I (and I assume
> many others) are thinking an innocent man with a lot to lose would
> hire the best attorneys as well. Not that I'm saying LA is innocent,
> but he sure as hell has a lot to lose, and he has the resources to
> fight the as yet to be filed charges.
That's a matter of opinion. I've got two friends in the federal criminal
defense bar who find it quite amusing that Armstrong has lawyered up to
the tune of $3 to $5 million, pre-indictment. I doubt that Thom has
lawyered up to that extent. The only reason Armstrong may have retained
all of these guys might be to prevent any of his co-defendants from
retaining them. However, a simple consultation would have the same effect.

Steve Freides[_2_]

November 17th 11, 01:52 PM

Scott wrote:

>>> Another possibility is that LA may believe that support for this
>>> case by the FDA is poor, and that by publicizing that he's put
>>> together a high-end legal team and will tooth-and-nail against the
>>> feds, he'll get Novitzky's bosses to drop this case and head for
>>> greener pastures - e.g. the dozens and dozens of food contamination
>>> cases out there for the picking. Given that no knowledge of any
>>> "smoking gun" evidence in this case has been revealed, perhaps this
>>> silence from the feds is an indication they're letting it die.
>>
>> This is far, far beyond being an FDA investigation. Even if it
>> wasn't, I interpret this kind of expenditure for legal services by a
>> person claiming to be innocent of any wrongdoing to be a total
>> disconnect.
>>
>
> You seem to think that only a guilty person with something to hide
> would spend that much money on their defense, whereas I (and I assume
> many others) are thinking an innocent man with a lot to lose would
> hire the best attorneys as well. Not that I'm saying LA is innocent,
> but he sure as hell has a lot to lose, and he has the resources to
> fight the as yet to be filed charges.

Stop making rational statements - this is r.b.r.

-S-

RicodJour[_2_]

November 17th 11, 04:52 PM

On Nov 16, 9:32*pm, Phil H > wrote:
>
> Not really, if you look at it from a purely financial aspect; what is
> the potential return on investment versus financial loss if found
> guilty?

Or look at it another way - LANCE got ~$2 million for appearing at the
Tour Down Under, so he basically did the race for free. Horrors.

A million ain't what it used to be.

R

Jimmy July[_3_]

November 17th 11, 07:19 PM

On 11/16/2011 6:32 PM, Phil H wrote:

> On a more personal level, you of all people shouldn't be questioning
> overuse of resources for an arguably questionable quest. Of course, an
> obsessive personality motive is far less attractive to you than your
> implication of guilt.

Perfect.

Jimmy July[_3_]

November 17th 11, 07:21 PM

On 11/16/2011 12:28 AM, Simply Fred wrote:
> Jimmy July wrote:
>> If the prosecution finds a way to get Ollie North on the stand,
>> Armstrong's in BIG trouble.
>
> The plot thickens. I suspect Ollie North bought dope from Gewiss to sell
> to Iranian olympic cyclists in the late eighties in order to fund US
> Postal's rise in the nineties. It can thus be proven that Armstrong was
> also involved in The Iran-Contra affair in addition to the Kennedy
> assassination and Whitewater.

Oliver North ... Oliver Stone? Coincidence? Time will tell.

--D-y

November 17th 11, 07:22 PM

On Nov 16, 6:43*pm, BL > wrote:

> This is far, far beyond being an FDA investigation. Even if it wasn't, I
> interpret this kind of expenditure for legal services by a person
> claiming to be innocent of any wrongdoing to be a total disconnect.

They're bringing their big guns-- and worse, the loose cannons ("that
would be Novitsky").

I think the standard warning is "you'd better bring the best defense
you can afford" when you go to court, for any reason-- or, better yet
(often if not always), hire the best you can and stay out of court.

Or, are you hoping Lance won't fight hard, and lose? <g> Chip, chip,
chip, Brian.
--D-y

BL[_2_]

November 17th 11, 11:32 PM

On 11/17/2011 2:22 PM, --D-y wrote:
> On Nov 16, 6:43 pm, > wrote:
>
>> This is far, far beyond being an FDA investigation. Even if it wasn't, I
>> interpret this kind of expenditure for legal services by a person
>> claiming to be innocent of any wrongdoing to be a total disconnect.
>
> They're bringing their big guns-- and worse, the loose cannons ("that
> would be Novitsky").
>
> I think the standard warning is "you'd better bring the best defense
> you can afford" when you go to court, for any reason-- or, better yet
> (often if not always), hire the best you can and stay out of court.
>
> Or, are you hoping Lance won't fight hard, and lose?<g> Chip, chip,
> chip, Brian.
> --D-y
I hope he fights as hard as he can--to his last penny. Make his defense
counsel wealthier than they already are.

Phil H

November 18th 11, 04:25 AM

On Nov 17, 4:32*pm, BL > wrote:
> On 11/17/2011 2:22 PM, --D-y wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 6:43 pm, > *wrote:
>
> >> This is far, far beyond being an FDA investigation. Even if it wasn't, I
> >> interpret this kind of expenditure for legal services by a person
> >> claiming to be innocent of any wrongdoing to be a total disconnect.
>
> > They're bringing their big guns-- and worse, the loose cannons ("that
> > would be Novitsky").
>
> > I think the standard warning is "you'd better bring the best defense
> > you can afford" when you go to court, for any reason-- or, better yet
> > (often if not always), hire the best you can and stay out of court.
>
> > Or, are you hoping Lance won't fight hard, and lose?<g> *Chip, chip,
> > chip, Brian.
> > --D-y
>
> I hope he fights as hard as he can--to his last penny. Make his defense
> counsel wealthier than they already are.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Worth every penny if it maintains his current reputation and as
someone else pointed out, will be recouped with a couple of appearance
payments. Phil H

Simply Fred

November 18th 11, 08:29 AM

Jimmy July wrote:
>>> If the prosecution finds a way to get Ollie North on the stand,
>>> Armstrong's in BIG trouble.

Simply Fred wrote:
>> The plot thickens. I suspect Ollie North bought dope from Gewiss to sell
>> to Iranian olympic cyclists in the late eighties in order to fund US
>> Postal's rise in the nineties. It can thus be proven that Armstrong was
>> also involved in The Iran-Contra affair in addition to the Kennedy
>> assassination and Whitewater.

Jimmy July wrote:
> Oliver North ... Oliver Stone? Coincidence? Time will tell.

Oh yes, I forgot HE is also developing a HAARP variant in order to cause
earthquakes in France. That is the reason for the high water usage at
HIS Texas home.

Jimmy July[_3_]

November 18th 11, 07:46 PM

On 11/15/2011 04:49 PM, BL wrote:
> On 11/15/2011 11:47 AM, dave a wrote:
>> On 11/15/2011 5:36 AM, Brad Anders wrote:
>>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-lawyers-ready-for-federal-battle
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Looks like Laff's Tuesday may be coming soon. Or not.
>>
>> The entire story is devoted to the fact that there is no news to report.
>> It's definitely Tuesday.
> It was apparently begun by Fabiani. It's part of the pr offensive that
> is about to take off with the indictments.

There you have it, folks!

Brian says the indictments are "about to take off". It's last January,
all over again!

BL[_2_]

November 19th 11, 02:16 AM

On 11/17/2011 11:25 PM, Phil H wrote:
> On Nov 17, 4:32 pm, > wrote:
>> On 11/17/2011 2:22 PM, --D-y wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 16, 6:43 pm, > wrote:
>>
>>>> This is far, far beyond being an FDA investigation. Even if it wasn't, I
>>>> interpret this kind of expenditure for legal services by a person
>>>> claiming to be innocent of any wrongdoing to be a total disconnect.
>>
>>> They're bringing their big guns-- and worse, the loose cannons ("that
>>> would be Novitsky").
>>
>>> I think the standard warning is "you'd better bring the best defense
>>> you can afford" when you go to court, for any reason-- or, better yet
>>> (often if not always), hire the best you can and stay out of court.
>>
>>> Or, are you hoping Lance won't fight hard, and lose?<g> Chip, chip,
>>> chip, Brian.
>>> --D-y
>>
>> I hope he fights as hard as he can--to his last penny. Make his defense
>> counsel wealthier than they already are.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Worth every penny if it maintains his current reputation and as
> someone else pointed out, will be recouped with a couple of appearance
> payments. Phil H
It won't happen that way.

BL[_2_]

November 19th 11, 02:17 AM

On 11/18/2011 2:46 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
> On 11/15/2011 04:49 PM, BL wrote:
>> On 11/15/2011 11:47 AM, dave a wrote:
>>> On 11/15/2011 5:36 AM, Brad Anders wrote:
>>>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-lawyers-ready-for-federal-battle
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Looks like Laff's Tuesday may be coming soon. Or not.
>>>
>>> The entire story is devoted to the fact that there is no news to report.
>>> It's definitely Tuesday.
>> It was apparently begun by Fabiani. It's part of the pr offensive that
>> is about to take off with the indictments.
>
> There you have it, folks!
>
> Brian says the indictments are "about to take off". It's last January,
> all over again!
I think it will be early next year for indictments. Nobody wants to
indict and start a major case during the holiday period.

--D-y

November 19th 11, 03:39 PM

On Nov 17, 5:32*pm, BL > wrote:
> On 11/17/2011 2:22 PM, --D-y wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 6:43 pm, > *wrote:
>
> >> This is far, far beyond being an FDA investigation. Even if it wasn't, I
> >> interpret this kind of expenditure for legal services by a person
> >> claiming to be innocent of any wrongdoing to be a total disconnect.
>
> > They're bringing their big guns-- and worse, the loose cannons ("that
> > would be Novitsky").
>
> > I think the standard warning is "you'd better bring the best defense
> > you can afford" when you go to court, for any reason-- or, better yet
> > (often if not always), hire the best you can and stay out of court.
>
> > Or, are you hoping Lance won't fight hard, and lose?<g> *Chip, chip,
> > chip, Brian.
> > --D-y
>
> I hope he fights as hard as he can--to his last penny. Make his defense
> counsel wealthier than they already are.

That's only one layer of the "crooked lawyer" onion-- "make sure you
get it all".
--D-y

Jimmy July[_3_]

November 19th 11, 08:20 PM

On 11/18/2011 6:17 PM, BL wrote:
> On 11/18/2011 2:46 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
>> On 11/15/2011 04:49 PM, BL wrote:
>>> On 11/15/2011 11:47 AM, dave a wrote:
>>>> On 11/15/2011 5:36 AM, Brad Anders wrote:
>>>>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-lawyers-ready-for-federal-battle
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks like Laff's Tuesday may be coming soon. Or not.
>>>>
>>>> The entire story is devoted to the fact that there is no news to
>>>> report.
>>>> It's definitely Tuesday.
>>> It was apparently begun by Fabiani. It's part of the pr offensive that
>>> is about to take off with the indictments.
>>
>> There you have it, folks!
>>
>> Brian says the indictments are "about to take off". It's last January,
>> all over again!
> I think it will be early next year for indictments. Nobody wants to
> indict and start a major case during the holiday period.

OK, it's a Tuesday in January again. Am I taking unwarranted liberties
if I interpret "next year" to mean 2013AD? There's always some reason,
after the fact, that you didn't really predict the things you predicted.
It'd be good if we cleared up the inevitable misunderstanding ahead of time.

BL[_2_]

November 20th 11, 04:27 PM

On 11/19/2011 3:20 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
> On 11/18/2011 6:17 PM, BL wrote:
>> On 11/18/2011 2:46 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
>>> On 11/15/2011 04:49 PM, BL wrote:
>>>> On 11/15/2011 11:47 AM, dave a wrote:
>>>>> On 11/15/2011 5:36 AM, Brad Anders wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-lawyers-ready-for-federal-battle
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looks like Laff's Tuesday may be coming soon. Or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> The entire story is devoted to the fact that there is no news to
>>>>> report.
>>>>> It's definitely Tuesday.
>>>> It was apparently begun by Fabiani. It's part of the pr offensive that
>>>> is about to take off with the indictments.
>>>
>>> There you have it, folks!
>>>
>>> Brian says the indictments are "about to take off". It's last January,
>>> all over again!
>> I think it will be early next year for indictments. Nobody wants to
>> indict and start a major case during the holiday period.
>
> OK, it's a Tuesday in January again. Am I taking unwarranted liberties
> if I interpret "next year" to mean 2013AD? There's always some reason,
> after the fact, that you didn't really predict the things you predicted.
> It'd be good if we cleared up the inevitable misunderstanding ahead of
> time.
I don't recall making any firm predictions. I have offered opinions on
when an indictment might come down and have certainly not seen my
opinions become a reality. I do think an indictment is coming, sooner
rather than later. To paraphrase David Steinberg, the US DoJ moves in
its own mystical way on its own schedule. That said, I do think that
Fabiani's posturing this past week indicates that Armstrong's counsel
expects an indictment soon and has effectively taunted the DoJ to
indict. IMO, they will.

I don't see this investigation lingering on into 2013. I think you need
to make a distinction between opinions and predictions. So, I will
*predict* indictments by July 1, 2012. And if I'm wrong? So what? :))

Brad Anders

November 21st 11, 05:00 AM

On Nov 20, 9:27*am, BL > wrote:

> I don't recall making any firm predictions.

Well, at least, none that have come true. Only ones that become true
are "firm".

Simply Fred

November 21st 11, 09:31 AM

BL wrote:
>> I don't recall making any firm predictions.

Brad Anders wrote:
> Well, at least, none that have come true. Only ones that become true
> are "firm".

Ask Schrodinger's cat.

Frederick the Great

November 21st 11, 11:37 PM

In article >,
Simply Fred > wrote:

> BL wrote:
> >> I don't recall making any firm predictions.
>
> Brad Anders wrote:
> > Well, at least, none that have come true. Only ones that become true
> > are "firm".
>
> Ask Schrodinger's cat.

You will get a better answer from his rat.

--
Old Fritz

Brad Anders

November 28th 11, 02:30 AM

On Nov 20, 9:27*am, BL > wrote:
> So, I will
> *predict* indictments by July 1, 2012. And if I'm wrong? So what? :))

The problem isn't if you're wrong - it's if you're right. I'll make my
own prediction - if LA is indicted by July 1, 2012, you will ignore
every single time you previously predicted imminent indictments, and
tell us all how you've always been right about LA's prosecution, and
act as if you personally had delivered the indictment papers to LA.

Prove me wrong...

Phil H

November 29th 11, 03:36 AM

On Nov 27, 7:30*pm, Brad Anders > wrote:
> On Nov 20, 9:27*am, BL > wrote:
>
> > So, I will
> > *predict* indictments by July 1, 2012. And if I'm wrong? So what? :))
>
> The problem isn't if you're wrong - it's if you're right. I'll make my
> own prediction - if LA is indicted by July 1, 2012, you will ignore
> every single time you previously predicted imminent indictments, and
> tell us all how you've always been right about LA's prosecution, and
> act as if you personally had delivered the indictment papers to LA.
>
> Prove me wrong...

Most of us have probably considered this scenario and I don't think it
will change anyone's perception of BL. The monkey that eventually
writes something is still a monkey.
Phil H

Fredmaster of Brainerd

November 29th 11, 05:16 AM

Simply Fred

November 29th 11, 07:51 AM

Brad Anders wrote:
> The problem isn't if you're wrong - it's if you're right. I'll make my
> own prediction - if LA is indicted by July 1, 2012, you will ignore
> every single time you previously predicted imminent indictments, and
> tell us all how you've always been right about LA's prosecution, and
> act as if you personally had delivered the indictment papers to LA.
>
> Prove me wrong...

A meteorite will strike the earth on a Tuesday or +/- 6 days before or
after a Tuesday.

Frederick the Great

November 29th 11, 08:27 AM

In article >,
BL > wrote:

> On 11/19/2011 3:20 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
> > On 11/18/2011 6:17 PM, BL wrote:
> >> On 11/18/2011 2:46 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
> >>> On 11/15/2011 04:49 PM, BL wrote:
> >>>> On 11/15/2011 11:47 AM, dave a wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/15/2011 5:36 AM, Brad Anders wrote:
> >>>>>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-lawyers-ready-for-federal-battle
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Looks like Laff's Tuesday may be coming soon. Or not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The entire story is devoted to the fact that there is no news to
> >>>>> report.
> >>>>> It's definitely Tuesday.
> >>>> It was apparently begun by Fabiani. It's part of the pr offensive that
> >>>> is about to take off with the indictments.
> >>>
> >>> There you have it, folks!
> >>>
> >>> Brian says the indictments are "about to take off". It's last January,
> >>> all over again!
> >> I think it will be early next year for indictments. Nobody wants to
> >> indict and start a major case during the holiday period.
> >
> > OK, it's a Tuesday in January again. Am I taking unwarranted liberties
> > if I interpret "next year" to mean 2013AD? There's always some reason,
> > after the fact, that you didn't really predict the things you predicted.
> > It'd be good if we cleared up the inevitable misunderstanding ahead of
> > time.
> I don't recall making any firm predictions. I have offered opinions on
> when an indictment might come down and have certainly not seen my
> opinions become a reality. I do think an indictment is coming, sooner
> rather than later. To paraphrase David Steinberg, the US DoJ moves in
> its own mystical way on its own schedule. That said, I do think that
> Fabiani's posturing this past week indicates that Armstrong's counsel
> expects an indictment soon and has effectively taunted the DoJ to
> indict. IMO, they will.
>
> I don't see this investigation lingering on into 2013. I think you need
> to make a distinction between opinions and predictions. So, I will
> *predict* indictments by July 1, 2012. And if I'm wrong? So what? :))

It's a Sunday. ???

--
Old Fritz