AP Breaking News: Prosecutors close Armstrong inquiry, no charges [Archive]

Rick Hopkins

February 4th 12, 12:25 AM

On Feb 3, 4:18*pm, Jimmy July > wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 2:56 PM, dave a wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2/3/2012 2:44 PM, A. Dumas wrote:
> >> On 03/02/2012 23:35, Ken Prager wrote:
> >>>> Federal prosecutors dropped their investigation of Lance Armstrong on
> >>>> Friday,
> >>>> ending a nearly two-year effort aimed at determining whether the
> >>>> seven-time
> >>>> Tour de France winner and his teammates participated in a doping
> >>>> program.
>
> >>> <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CYC_DOPING_ARMSTRONG?SITE=OHCI...>
>
> >>http://www.usada.org/media/statement232012:
> >> "Unlike the U.S. Attorney, USADA's job is to protect clean sport rather
> >> than enforce specific criminal laws. Our investigation into doping in
> >> the sport of cycling is continuing and we look forward to obtaining the
> >> information developed during the federal investigation."
>
> > Friday is the new Tuesday.
>
> Nuh-uh! Novitsky's a bulldog who will bring LA to Justice! He's got all
> that ebay evidence, and Tyler's word, and the Landis testimony, and once
> Lance threatened a witness, remember? That alone is worth charges.
> They've got Lance nailed, this all a ruse to lull Fabio and Lance into a
> false sense of security.
>
> Tuesday, just you wait, you'll see next Tuesday!

The tragic thing for BL is he will go to his grave with LA still
famous, worth a lot of money, still respected in the circles that are
important to LA, still living in his mansions flying around the world
speaking about cancer, and hanging with a beautiful model that looks
like his mom. BL will be a bitter old man pulling out yellow
newspaper articles harassing people in bars about why he is right and
just wait, someday somehow someone will walk the perp to jail..... and
if BL had not been so adamant about how this was all going to happen,
I might actually have some sympathy for him - instead I laughed so
hard I think I blew snot out my ears.

Brad Anders

February 4th 12, 12:26 AM

On Feb 3, 5:05*pm, Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
> On Feb 3, 3:44*pm, "A. Dumas" > wrote:
>
> > On 03/02/2012 23:35, Ken Prager wrote:
>
> > >> Federal prosecutors dropped their investigation of Lance Armstrong on Friday,
> > >> ending a nearly two-year effort aimed at determining whether the seven-time
> > >> Tour de France winner and his teammates participated in a doping program.
>
> > > <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CYC_DOPING_ARMSTRONG?SITE=OHCI...>
>
> >http://www.usada.org/media/statement232012:
> > "Unlike the U.S. Attorney, USADA's job is to protect clean sport rather
> > than enforce specific criminal laws. Our investigation into doping in
> > the sport of cycling is continuing and we look forward to obtaining the
> > information developed during the federal investigation."
>
> Also, the Fraudbytes Blog will persevere in seeing this matter
> through to its conclusion!
>
> Fredmaster Ben
>
> p.s. You never know, maybe Tommy Weisel is still in jeopardy.

I figure BL will simply shift from the Fed investigation to the
USADA's supposed follow-up, assuming he ever resurfaces here.
Regardless, looks like a year of Tuesdays just went down the toilet.
One thing I've learned in 20+ years on Usenet - when a person's long-
held beliefs on a subject are utterly and completely obliterated by
events and facts, I have yet to see anyone cry "mea culpa" and admit
to being wrong, and own up to what a douche they were for they years
we've put up with their pig-headedness. I don't expect that will
happen here, either.

tritonrider

February 4th 12, 01:11 AM

On Feb 3, 7:25*pm, Rick Hopkins > wrote:
- instead I laughed so
> hard I think I blew snot out my ears.

Whole bunch of folks here are going to have to be put on suicide
watch. Their lives were wrapped around the government was going to put
Lance in prison. The emotional trauma from this will be brutal to
those folks.
Bill C

William R. Mattil

February 4th 12, 02:17 AM

Hope LAFF doesn't go off the deep end with this announcement.......

--

William R. Mattil

http://www.celestial-images.com

Jimmy July[_5_]

February 4th 12, 02:40 AM

On 2/3/2012 6:17 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
> Hope LAFF doesn't go off the deep end with this announcement.......

When has Laff ever been out of the deep end?

tritonrider

February 4th 12, 03:11 AM

On Feb 3, 9:40*pm, Jimmy July > wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 6:17 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>
> > Hope LAFF doesn't go off the deep end with this announcement.......
>
> When has Laff ever been out of the deep end?

Believe it or not Brian is one of the most rational, objective, and
reasonable people I know with the exception of one or two minor issues
related to doping in sports.
Good friend, great guy
Bill C

--D-y

February 4th 12, 03:39 AM

On Feb 3, 6:05*pm, Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
> On Feb 3, 3:44*pm, "A. Dumas" > wrote:
>
> > On 03/02/2012 23:35, Ken Prager wrote:
>
> > >> Federal prosecutors dropped their investigation of Lance Armstrong on Friday,
> > >> ending a nearly two-year effort aimed at determining whether the seven-time
> > >> Tour de France winner and his teammates participated in a doping program.
>
> > > <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CYC_DOPING_ARMSTRONG?SITE=OHCI...>
>
> >http://www.usada.org/media/statement232012:
> > "Unlike the U.S. Attorney, USADA's job is to protect clean sport rather
> > than enforce specific criminal laws. Our investigation into doping in
> > the sport of cycling is continuing and we look forward to obtaining the
> > information developed during the federal investigation."
>
> Also, the Fraudbytes Blog will persevere in seeing this matter
> through to its conclusion!
>
> Fredmaster Ben
>
> p.s. You never know, maybe Tommy Weisel is still in jeopardy.

We don't know what WADA might yet be able to achieve with those aged-
like-fine-wine urine samples.

After all, they've absolutely proved they don't care one bit about
their image. In contrast, it would seem that renegade investigators,
leaks (including, allegedly, Grand Jury testimony), problems with
custody of "evidence", lack of supposed "confidentiality", etc., do
matter at US Legal.

There's a lesson there, folks-- even if this dropping of the
investigation is all based on "appearances", maybe it's considered a
good thing in some quarters to preserve at least the appearance of
some kind of fair-and-just legal process?
I hope so. However, I'd also be good with knowing that Betsy Andreu is
more or less correct, just based on Novitsky's balls-in-the-vice
"evidence-finding" tactics. Money talks, and Lance got the money...

Or hell, maybe the boss prosecutor figured out "what good is any of
this doing, compared to Armstong's continued ability to work with his
Foundation?"

Or hell, maybe he figured out "they were all doping", and the
prosecution of Barry Bonds wasn't exactly putting his agency in the
limelight with the American public . Speaking of whom: I hope Bonds
wins his appeal, it's important in his world that he does (and the
baseball players were all doping, too, remember), and then maybe we
can MOVE ON. Whew, what a concept...

Excuse me: Brian? Brian??? Yo, BRIIIIIIAN!!!! Helloooo...
(whew, now I'm gonna get it)
--D-y

Fred Flintstein

February 4th 12, 04:15 AM

On 2/3/2012 6:18 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
> Nuh-uh! Novitsky's a bulldog who will bring LA to Justice! He's got all
> that ebay evidence, and Tyler's word, and the Landis testimony, and once
> Lance threatened a witness, remember? That alone is worth charges.
> They've got Lance nailed, this all a ruse to lull Fabio and Lance into a
> false sense of security.
>
> Tuesday, just you wait, you'll see next Tuesday!

Dumbass,

You forgot about Och and Wiesel. The forensic accountants were
going to string them all up.

F

PS Who was it that was going off about how doping for a bike
race wasn't a criminal offense. Anyone remember who that was?

Ronko

February 4th 12, 04:21 AM

In article >,
says...
>
>
>On 2/3/2012 2:56 PM, dave a wrote:
>> On 2/3/2012 2:44 PM, A. Dumas wrote:
>>> On 03/02/2012 23:35, Ken Prager wrote:
>>>>> Federal prosecutors dropped their investigation of Lance Armstrong
on
>>>>> Friday,
>>>>> ending a nearly two-year effort aimed at determining whether the
>>>>> seven-time
>>>>> Tour de France winner and his teammates participated in a doping
>>>>> program.
>>>>
>>>>
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CYC_DOPING_ARMSTRONG?
SITE=OHCIN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.usada.org/media/statement232012 :
>>> "Unlike the U.S. Attorney, USADA's job is to protect clean sport rather
>>> than enforce specific criminal laws. Our investigation into doping in
>>> the sport of cycling is continuing and we look forward to obtaining the
>>> information developed during the federal investigation."
>>
>> Friday is the new Tuesday.
>
>Nuh-uh! Novitsky's a bulldog who will bring LA to Justice! He's got all
>that ebay evidence, and Tyler's word, and the Landis testimony, and once
>Lance threatened a witness, remember? That alone is worth charges.
>They've got Lance nailed, this all a ruse to lull Fabio and Lance into a
>false sense of security.
>
>Tuesday, just you wait, you'll see next Tuesday!
Lance has a total top dog lawyer, John Keker. I wouldn't bet against him.

RicodJour[_2_]

February 4th 12, 05:04 AM

On Feb 3, 7:25*pm, Rick Hopkins > wrote:
>
> The tragic thing for BL is he will go to his grave with LA still
> famous, worth a lot of money, still respected in the circles that are
> important to LA, still living in his mansions flying around the world

LANCE has flying mansions...? ****. I knew he was rich, but that's
just sick!

As far as said obsession - just expect it to be transferred. Either
to Contador, another doper of the day, or maybe his
therapist...assuming he has the sense to get one.

R

Simply Fred

February 4th 12, 08:51 AM

William R. Mattil wrote:
>> Hope LAFF doesn't go off the deep end with this announcement.......

Jimmy July wrote:
> When has Laff ever been out of the deep end?

Shirley you mean deep throat ?

tritonrider

February 4th 12, 01:46 PM

On Feb 3, 10:39*pm, --D-y > wrote:

> Or hell, maybe he figured out "they were all doping", and the
> prosecution of Barry Bonds wasn't exactly putting his agency in the
> limelight with the American public . Speaking of whom: I hope Bonds
> wins his appeal, it's important in his world that he does (and the
> baseball players were all doping, too, remember), and then maybe we
> can MOVE ON. Whew, what a concept...
>
> Excuse me: Brian? Brian??? Yo, *BRIIIIIIAN!!!! Helloooo...
> (whew, now I'm gonna get it)
> --D-y

I'm guessing they took a hard look at what happened with Barry Bonds
and realized that they didn't even have anything near the evidence
they had against Bonds. Bonds basically walked.
What amazes me is that both the US and French governments, and
multiple major media types can go balls to the wall for a decade or so
trying to nail this guy and NONE of them can find any kind of smoking
gun. I didn't think you could do that with anyone in any sport and not
be able to at least nail them for a couple of solid offenses.
Let's face it he's easily the most tested/investigated athlete in
history and comes out, if not clean at least reasonably so in
comparison.
Bill C

Simply Fred

February 4th 12, 01:47 PM

Ken Prager wrote:
>> Federal prosecutors dropped their investigation of Lance Armstrong on Friday,
>> ending a nearly two-year effort aimed at determining whether the seven-time
>> Tour de France winner and his teammates participated in a doping program.
>
> <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CYC_DOPING_ARMSTRONG?SITE=OHCIN&S
> ECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>

Have they published the total cost including a European holiday for
Novitsky ?

Brad Anders

February 4th 12, 02:33 PM

On Feb 3, 8:11*pm, tritonrider > wrote:
> On Feb 3, 9:40*pm, Jimmy July > wrote:
>
> > On 2/3/2012 6:17 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>
> > > Hope LAFF doesn't go off the deep end with this announcement.......
>
> > When has Laff ever been out of the deep end?
>
> Believe it or not Brian is one of the most rational, objective, and
> reasonable people I know with the exception of one or two minor issues
> related to *doping in sports.

What about chess?

BLafferty[_4_]

February 4th 12, 03:19 PM

On Feb 3, 10:11*pm, tritonrider > wrote:
> On Feb 3, 9:40*pm, Jimmy July > wrote:
>
> > On 2/3/2012 6:17 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>
> > > Hope LAFF doesn't go off the deep end with this announcement.......
>
> > When has Laff ever been out of the deep end?
>
> Believe it or not Brian is one of the most rational, objective, and
> reasonable people I know with the exception of one or two minor issues
> related to *doping in sports.
> *Good friend, great guy
> *Bill C
Thanks, Bill. It will be interesting to see if the DoJ says more about
why the Central CA US Attorney closed the investigation without
indicting. IMO, it lilely has to do with fallout from the Bonds
case,the PR campaign of the cancer fighter and perceived statute of
limitations issues. That said, it is pretty clear that Armstong's
clean athlete reputation is in the landfill. The downside of non-
accountability, if USADA and WADA don't act, is the the sport's
credibility is in the toilet whirlpool. I look for Contador to be let
off. RIP competitive cycling. I won't be following it at all anymore.

BLafferty[_4_]

February 4th 12, 04:12 PM

Zeno

February 4th 12, 06:44 PM

On Feb 4, 8:19*am, BLafferty > wrote:
> On Feb 3, 10:11*pm, tritonrider > wrote:> On Feb 3, 9:40*pm, Jimmy July > wrote:
>
> > > On 2/3/2012 6:17 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>
> > > > Hope LAFF doesn't go off the deep end with this announcement.......
>
>
> Thanks, Bill. It will be interesting to see if the DoJ says more about
> why the Central CA US Attorney closed the investigation without
> indicting. IMO, it lilely has to do with fallout from the Bonds
> case,the PR campaign of the cancer fighter and perceived statute of
> limitations issues. That said, it is pretty clear that Armstong's
> clean athlete reputation is in the landfill. The downside of non-
> accountability, if USADA and WADA don't act, is the the sport's
> credibility is in the toilet whirlpool. I look for Contador to be let
> off. RIP competitive cycling. I won't be following it at all

Because he didn't get his man, Brian would like us to believe that
nothing has changed for the better in pro cycling since the good old
days of shooting heroin, washing down handfuls of amphetamines with
cheap wine & 60 percenters climbing like they're in elevators. "Après
moi, le deluge."

With the threat of prosecution removed and the grand jury testimony
sealed, the chances of WADA, et al, pinning anything on LA are as
likely as Brian winning the Tour clean. Not to mention that LA will
probably be more likely to pursue libel actions now that the Feds are
no longer a stalking him.

It's sad Brian will no longer be following any more competitive
cycling, and presumably no longer posting here. (What would be the
point?)

And since he's not a hypocrite, I assume he has written off viewing
all other pro sports too, most of which are not nearly as rigorous in
dope testing as cycling. Have fun watching those reruns of Bewitched!

Zeno

BLafferty[_4_]

February 4th 12, 07:55 PM

On Feb 4, 1:44*pm, Zeno > wrote:
> On Feb 4, 8:19*am, BLafferty > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 3, 10:11*pm, tritonrider > wrote:> On Feb 3, 9:40*pm, Jimmy July > wrote:
>
> > > > On 2/3/2012 6:17 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>
> > > > > Hope LAFF doesn't go off the deep end with this announcement........
>
> > Thanks, Bill. It will be interesting to see if the DoJ says more about
> > why the Central CA US Attorney closed the investigation without
> > indicting. IMO, it lilely has to do with fallout from the Bonds
> > case,the PR campaign of the cancer fighter and perceived statute of
> > limitations issues. That said, it is pretty clear that Armstong's
> > clean athlete reputation is in the landfill. The downside of non-
> > accountability, if USADA and WADA don't act, is the the sport's
> > credibility is in the toilet whirlpool. I look for Contador to be let
> > off. RIP competitive cycling. I won't be following it at all
>
> Because he didn't get his man, Brian would like us to believe that
> nothing has changed for the better in pro cycling since the good old
> days of shooting heroin, washing down handfuls of amphetamines with
> cheap wine & 60 percenters climbing like they're in elevators. "Après
> moi, le deluge."
>
> With the threat of prosecution removed and the grand jury testimony
> sealed, the chances of WADA, et al, pinning anything on LA are as
> likely as Brian winning the Tour clean. Not to mention that LA will
> probably be more likely to pursue libel actions now that the Feds are
> no longer a stalking him.
>
> It's sad Brian will no longer be following any more competitive
> cycling, and presumably no longer posting here. (What would be the
> point?)
>
> And since he's not a hypocrite, I assume he has written off viewing
> all other pro sports too, most of which are not nearly as rigorous in
> dope testing as cycling. Have fun watching those reruns of Bewitched!
>
> Zeno

Even if the grand jury testimony remains completely sealed, there is a
good deal of collected evidence, including sworn affidavits and
documentary evidence, that is likely to go to USADA. Much of it will
become public knowledge eventually. Armstrong's reputation as a clean
rider is effectively trashed. Polls have consistently shown that the
public is increasingly skeptical of his purity claims. Hopefully,
people damaged by Armstrong and his lie(s) will still find a way to
make themselves whole. If you think Armstrong is going to pursue libel
actions anywhere, you need to rethink the dope you're using. The last
thing Armstrong wants now is to be placed on a witness stand under
oath. He's dodged this bullet, but I doubt he so stupid as to put a
loaded gun to his head a dare someone to pull the trigger. Then again,
hubris does make people do destructive things. Carry on. lol!!

Zeno

February 4th 12, 08:53 PM

On Feb 4, 12:55*pm, BLafferty > wrote:
> On Feb 4, 1:44*pm, Zeno > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 8:19*am, BLafferty > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 3, 10:11*pm, tritonrider > wrote:> On Feb 3, 9:40*pm, Jimmy July > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 2/3/2012 6:17 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>
> > > > > > Hope LAFF doesn't go off the deep end with this announcement........
>
> > > Thanks, Bill. It will be interesting to see if the DoJ says more about
> > > why the Central CA US Attorney closed the investigation without
> > > indicting. IMO, it lilely has to do with fallout from the Bonds
> > > case,the PR campaign of the cancer fighter and perceived statute of
> > > limitations issues. That said, it is pretty clear that Armstong's
> > > clean athlete reputation is in the landfill. The downside of non-
> > > accountability, if USADA and WADA don't act, is the the sport's
> > > credibility is in the toilet whirlpool. I look for Contador to be let
> > > off. RIP competitive cycling. I won't be following it at all
>
> > Because he didn't get his man, Brian would like us to believe that
> > nothing has changed for the better in pro cycling since the good old
> > days of shooting heroin, washing down handfuls of amphetamines with
> > cheap wine & 60 percenters climbing like they're in elevators. "Après
> > moi, le deluge."
>
> > With the threat of prosecution removed and the grand jury testimony
> > sealed, the chances of WADA, et al, pinning anything on LA are as
> > likely as Brian winning the Tour clean. Not to mention that LA will
> > probably be more likely to pursue libel actions now that the Feds are
> > no longer a stalking him.
>
> > It's sad Brian will no longer be following any more competitive
> > cycling, and presumably no longer posting here. (What would be the
> > point?)
>
> > And since he's not a hypocrite, I assume he has written off viewing
> > all other pro sports too, most of which are not nearly as rigorous in
> > dope testing as cycling. Have fun watching those reruns of Bewitched!
>
> > Zeno
>
> Even if the grand jury testimony remains completely sealed, there is a
> good deal of collected evidence, including sworn affidavits and
> documentary evidence, that is likely to go to USADA. *Much of it will
> become public knowledge eventually. Armstrong's reputation as a clean
> rider is effectively trashed. *Polls have consistently shown that the
> public is increasingly skeptical of his purity claims. Hopefully,
> people damaged by Armstrong and his lie(s) will still find a way to
> make themselves whole. If you think Armstrong is going to pursue libel
> actions anywhere, you need to rethink the dope you're using. The last
> thing Armstrong wants now is to be placed on a witness stand under
> oath. He's dodged this bullet, but I doubt he so stupid as to put a
> loaded gun to his head a dare someone to pull the trigger. Then again,
> hubris does make people do destructive things. Carry on. lol!!

Brian, for a practicing lawyer, you have a remarkable distain for due
process and the rule of law.

He who laughs last laughs best.

--D-y

February 4th 12, 09:32 PM

On Feb 4, 1:55*pm, BLafferty > wrote:
> On Feb 4, 1:44*pm, Zeno > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 8:19*am, BLafferty > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 3, 10:11*pm, tritonrider > wrote:> On Feb 3, 9:40*pm, Jimmy July > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 2/3/2012 6:17 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>
> > > > > > Hope LAFF doesn't go off the deep end with this announcement........
>
> > > Thanks, Bill. It will be interesting to see if the DoJ says more about
> > > why the Central CA US Attorney closed the investigation without
> > > indicting. IMO, it lilely has to do with fallout from the Bonds
> > > case,the PR campaign of the cancer fighter and perceived statute of
> > > limitations issues. That said, it is pretty clear that Armstong's
> > > clean athlete reputation is in the landfill. The downside of non-
> > > accountability, if USADA and WADA don't act, is the the sport's
> > > credibility is in the toilet whirlpool. I look for Contador to be let
> > > off. RIP competitive cycling. I won't be following it at all
>
> > Because he didn't get his man, Brian would like us to believe that
> > nothing has changed for the better in pro cycling since the good old
> > days of shooting heroin, washing down handfuls of amphetamines with
> > cheap wine & 60 percenters climbing like they're in elevators. "Après
> > moi, le deluge."
>
> > With the threat of prosecution removed and the grand jury testimony
> > sealed, the chances of WADA, et al, pinning anything on LA are as
> > likely as Brian winning the Tour clean. Not to mention that LA will
> > probably be more likely to pursue libel actions now that the Feds are
> > no longer a stalking him.
>
> > It's sad Brian will no longer be following any more competitive
> > cycling, and presumably no longer posting here. (What would be the
> > point?)
>
> > And since he's not a hypocrite, I assume he has written off viewing
> > all other pro sports too, most of which are not nearly as rigorous in
> > dope testing as cycling. Have fun watching those reruns of Bewitched!
>
> > Zeno
>
> Even if the grand jury testimony remains completely sealed, there is a
> good deal of collected evidence, including sworn affidavits and
> documentary evidence, that is likely to go to USADA. *Much of it will
> become public knowledge eventually. Armstrong's reputation as a clean
> rider is effectively trashed. *Polls have consistently shown that the
> public is increasingly skeptical of his purity claims. Hopefully,
> people damaged by Armstrong and his lie(s) will still find a way to
> make themselves whole. If you think Armstrong is going to pursue libel
> actions anywhere, you need to rethink the dope you're using. The last
> thing Armstrong wants now is to be placed on a witness stand under
> oath. He's dodged this bullet, but I doubt he so stupid as to put a
> loaded gun to his head a dare someone to pull the trigger. Then again,
> hubris does make people do destructive things. Carry on. lol!!

"They'll (lots of 'theys' being possibilities) will get him yet".

The "libel" I'm interested in is Betsy Andreu's comment about buying
people in the "Feds".
Fair is fair, after all!

Not only that, but:
<http://teslaw.org/images/journals/vol.%2019-2%20fall%202010.pdf>
Reading the "Did the Feds have investigative jurisdiction?" article,
gosh gee whiz, maybe the reason the investigation got dropped was fear
the whole expensive mess was just gonna get dropped the first time a
judge had the chance to drop the case?

And then the other black eyes, etc. would have hit the fan:

(quoting from <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/
CYC_DOPING_ARMSTRONG?SITE=OHCIN&S>)

At the center of the investigation was federal agent Jeff Novitzky,
who also helped bring the charges against Bonds and Clemens and has
been criticized for targeting athletes and wasting taxpayer dollars.

"The enormous bill for this fruitless trophy hunting expedition led by
agent Jeff Novitzky needs to be totaled up and those responsible
should be held accountable," said Victor Conte, the BALCO founder and
president, who spent four months in prison after pleading guilty to
steroids distribution. "Especially in this economic crisis it's
important to make the highest use of the available tax dollars and
that certainly does not seem to be the case with this investigation."

Indeed, the government spent plenty of time and resources
investigating Armstrong. Federal prosecutors traveled to Europe and
met with foreign officials and they called some of Armstrong's former
teammates and associates to testify before a grand jury in Los
Angeles.

Government officials declined to say how much money was spent on the
Armstrong probe.

Going forward, some legal experts said, the government's time may be
better spent prosecuting other crimes - rather than sending a message
to the professional sports community.

"In light of this decision and the Bonds and Clemens investigations,"
Rosengart said, "the government may be more willing to defer to the
regulatory agencies to police alleged misconduct of athletes." (end
quote)

So go after Wall Street already with your federales. Eee-nough.
--D-y

BLafferty[_4_]

February 4th 12, 10:10 PM

On Feb 4, 3:53*pm, Zeno > wrote:
> On Feb 4, 12:55*pm, BLafferty > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 1:44*pm, Zeno > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 4, 8:19*am, BLafferty > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 3, 10:11*pm, tritonrider > wrote:> On Feb 3, 9:40*pm, Jimmy July > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 2/3/2012 6:17 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Hope LAFF doesn't go off the deep end with this announcement........
>
> > > > Thanks, Bill. It will be interesting to see if the DoJ says more about
> > > > why the Central CA US Attorney closed the investigation without
> > > > indicting. IMO, it lilely has to do with fallout from the Bonds
> > > > case,the PR campaign of the cancer fighter and perceived statute of
> > > > limitations issues. That said, it is pretty clear that Armstong's
> > > > clean athlete reputation is in the landfill. The downside of non-
> > > > accountability, if USADA and WADA don't act, is the the sport's
> > > > credibility is in the toilet whirlpool. I look for Contador to be let
> > > > off. RIP competitive cycling. I won't be following it at all
>
> > > Because he didn't get his man, Brian would like us to believe that
> > > nothing has changed for the better in pro cycling since the good old
> > > days of shooting heroin, washing down handfuls of amphetamines with
> > > cheap wine & 60 percenters climbing like they're in elevators. "Après
> > > moi, le deluge."
>
> > > With the threat of prosecution removed and the grand jury testimony
> > > sealed, the chances of WADA, et al, pinning anything on LA are as
> > > likely as Brian winning the Tour clean. Not to mention that LA will
> > > probably be more likely to pursue libel actions now that the Feds are
> > > no longer a stalking him.
>
> > > It's sad Brian will no longer be following any more competitive
> > > cycling, and presumably no longer posting here. (What would be the
> > > point?)
>
> > > And since he's not a hypocrite, I assume he has written off viewing
> > > all other pro sports too, most of which are not nearly as rigorous in
> > > dope testing as cycling. Have fun watching those reruns of Bewitched!
>
> > > Zeno
>
> > Even if the grand jury testimony remains completely sealed, there is a
> > good deal of collected evidence, including sworn affidavits and
> > documentary evidence, that is likely to go to USADA. *Much of it will
> > become public knowledge eventually. Armstrong's reputation as a clean
> > rider is effectively trashed. *Polls have consistently shown that the
> > public is increasingly skeptical of his purity claims. Hopefully,
> > people damaged by Armstrong and his lie(s) will still find a way to
> > make themselves whole. If you think Armstrong is going to pursue libel
> > actions anywhere, you need to rethink the dope you're using. The last
> > thing Armstrong wants now is to be placed on a witness stand under
> > oath. He's dodged this bullet, but I doubt he so stupid as to put a
> > loaded gun to his head a dare someone to pull the trigger. Then again,
> > hubris does make people do destructive things. Carry on. lol!!
>
> Brian, for a practicing lawyer, you have a remarkable distain for due
> process and the rule of law.
>
> He who laughs last laughs best.

Bull****. We'll see who laughs last.

Steve Freides[_2_]

February 4th 12, 10:20 PM

Ken Prager wrote:
>> Federal prosecutors dropped their investigation of Lance Armstrong
>> on Friday, ending a nearly two-year effort aimed at determining
>> whether the seven-time Tour de France winner and his teammates
>> participated in a doping program.
>
> <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CYC_DOPING_ARMSTRONG?SITE=OHCIN&S
> ECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>

<yawn>

-S-

Fredmaster of Brainerd

February 4th 12, 10:39 PM

On Feb 4, 12:55*pm, BLafferty > wrote:
>
> Even if the grand jury testimony remains completely sealed,

Isn't that a virtual certainty? It took 35 years before Richard
Nixon's Watergate GJ testimony was unsealed and that was
done at the chief judge of the circuit's discretion as a matter
of compelling historical interest. I can't see a similar appeal
succeeding in this case.

> ... good deal of collected evidence, including sworn affidavits and
> documentary evidence, that is likely to go to USADA. *Much of it will
> become public knowledge eventually.

where it will be fought over on the cyclingnews forums, but
everyone else will have ceased to pay attention. USADA can
do what it likes, but if they suspend Armstrong (from what?
Leadville?) the general public isn't going to give a damn - the
general public will see it as sour grapes (or worse yet they'll
see it as rotten Frenchies trying to undermine Our American
Hero, although that isn't how I see it).

> Armstrong's reputation as a clean
> rider is effectively trashed. *Polls have consistently shown that the
> public is increasingly skeptical of his purity claims.

and that most of the public doesn't really give a ****. Especially
because he didn't make a fool of himself in front of Congress
like Mark McGwire.

> Hopefully,
> people damaged by Armstrong and his lie(s) will still find a way to
> make themselves whole.

Who is that? You, the Fraudbytes Blog, and all the people
with cancer that are going to die now that Armstrong is a known
doper, instead of like before where they weren't going to die
because he wasn't?

> If you think Armstrong is going to pursue libel
> actions anywhere, you need to rethink the dope you're using.

I agree, except maybe to restrain David Walsh-type books.
Libel is hard to prove (especially if the underlying facts are
not false), except in the UK, and Armstrong, having
scored a major PR victory, doesn't need to refight the battle
in another court. He can have his flacks brush off any
allegations with the formula that the Feds cleared him.

> The last
> thing Armstrong wants now is to be placed on a witness stand under
> oath. He's dodged this bullet, but I doubt he so stupid as to put a
> loaded gun to his head a dare someone to pull the trigger. Then again,
> hubris does make people do destructive things. Carry on. lol!!

This is more than a dodging-the-bullet victory for
Armstrong. His credibility is dented among the blowhard
sports columnists of the world, but for the Feds and the people
who naively thought that nailing LA would clean up cycling, this
is a debacle. For the public and even most cycling fans it's reaching
the "acceptance" stage of the LA-doping-Tour nexus. That is,
10 years ago most fans denied Armstrong doped to win the Tour;
now many have passed through that stage and accepted that
he did, but that it is all in the past and they don't really care.

As we close the book on LA's cycling career, several years
after it ended, I get the feeling we're closing down Usenet RBR
as well. At least, so the post count totals lead me to think.

Good night and good luck,
Fredmaster Ben

Brad Anders

February 4th 12, 11:26 PM

On Feb 4, 8:19*am, BLafferty > wrote:
> On Feb 3, 10:11*pm, tritonrider > wrote:> On Feb 3, 9:40*pm, Jimmy July > wrote:
>
> > > On 2/3/2012 6:17 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>
> > > > Hope LAFF doesn't go off the deep end with this announcement.......
>
> > > When has Laff ever been out of the deep end?
>
> > Believe it or not Brian is one of the most rational, objective, and
> > reasonable people I know with the exception of one or two minor issues
> > related to *doping in sports.
> > *Good friend, great guy
> > *Bill C
>
> Thanks, Bill. It will be interesting to see if the DoJ says more about
> why the Central CA US Attorney closed the investigation without
> indicting. IMO, it lilely has to do with fallout from the Bonds
> case,the PR campaign of the cancer fighter and perceived statute of
> limitations issues. That said, it is pretty clear that Armstong's
> clean athlete reputation is in the landfill.

Can't say that seems clear at all. Most people who aren't into cycling
like we are will take this non-action by the feds as saying Lance is
clean. They won't look further, and as a result, he will retain most
if not all of his reputation. Now that he's doing Xterra and other
events, he's going to rebuild his athlete rep, which will sell his
brand and make him more money.

Face it, he beat the system and he beat the Feds. Hate him all you
want, but you can't deny he's proven you wrong, with regard to your
decade-long certainty that he was going down. It would redeem your
credibility to admit this.

T. Miller

February 5th 12, 12:57 AM

On Feb 4, 8:44*am, Zeno > wrote:
> On Feb 4, 8:19*am, BLafferty > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 3, 10:11*pm, tritonrider > wrote:> On Feb 3, 9:40*pm, Jimmy July > wrote:
>
> > > > On 2/3/2012 6:17 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>
> > > > > Hope LAFF doesn't go off the deep end with this announcement........
>
> > Thanks, Bill. It will be interesting to see if the DoJ says more about
> > why the Central CA US Attorney closed the investigation without
> > indicting. IMO, it lilely has to do with fallout from the Bonds
> > case,the PR campaign of the cancer fighter and perceived statute of
> > limitations issues. That said, it is pretty clear that Armstong's
> > clean athlete reputation is in the landfill. The downside of non-
> > accountability, if USADA and WADA don't act, is the the sport's
> > credibility is in the toilet whirlpool. I look for Contador to be let
> > off. RIP competitive cycling. I won't be following it at all
>
> Because he didn't get his man, Brian would like us to believe that
> nothing has changed for the better in pro cycling since the good old
> days of shooting heroin, washing down handfuls of amphetamines with
> cheap wine & 60 percenters climbing like they're in elevators. "Après
> moi, le deluge."
>
> With the threat of prosecution removed and the grand jury testimony
> sealed, the chances of WADA, et al, pinning anything on LA are as
> likely as Brian winning the Tour clean. Not to mention that LA will
> probably be more likely to pursue libel actions now that the Feds are
> no longer a stalking him.
>
> It's sad Brian will no longer be following any more competitive
> cycling, and presumably no longer posting here. (What would be the
> point?)
>
> And since he's not a hypocrite, I assume he has written off viewing
> all other pro sports too, most of which are not nearly as rigorous in
> dope testing as cycling. Have fun watching those reruns of Bewitched!
>
> Zeno

Bewitched? Are you kidding? Everybody knows Darren was doped to the
gills. Look at this image and see how the excessive use of HGH and
other drugs to try to stay competitive has completely changed his
features. http://brandaffinity.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/recast_bewitched.jpg
Any day now an indictment will be coming down from the grand jury.
I'm right. I just know it. I know it. It has to be true. Am I the
only one who can see the fraud? Clearly history's greatest monster.
I can't wait for Tuesday. Any day now. You'll see. You won't be
LAFFing at me when Darren gets perp-walked across the evening news.
Any...day...now....

Frederick the Great

February 5th 12, 01:47 AM

In article >,
Fred Flintstein > wrote:

> On 2/3/2012 6:18 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
> > Nuh-uh! Novitsky's a bulldog who will bring LA to Justice! He's got all
> > that ebay evidence, and Tyler's word, and the Landis testimony, and once
> > Lance threatened a witness, remember? That alone is worth charges.
> > They've got Lance nailed, this all a ruse to lull Fabio and Lance into a
> > false sense of security.
> >
> > Tuesday, just you wait, you'll see next Tuesday!
>
> Dumbass,
>
> You forgot about Och and Wiesel. The forensic accountants were
> going to string them all up.
>
> PS Who was it that was going off about how doping for a bike
> race wasn't a criminal offense. Anyone remember who that was?

I remember. (and agree) Those that had their
palms over their earholes at the time are not
even around to not hear you gloat.

None of this means a dedicated prosecutor
could not have found a way to bring LANCE
to justice. He got away with it---for now.

--
Old Fritz

Phil H

February 5th 12, 01:59 AM

tritonrider

February 5th 12, 03:16 AM

On Feb 4, 8:59*pm, Phil H > wrote:
> On Feb 3, 8:11*pm, tritonrider > wrote:
>
> > On Feb 3, 9:40*pm, Jimmy July > wrote:
>
> > > On 2/3/2012 6:17 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>
> > > > Hope LAFF doesn't go off the deep end with this announcement.......
>
> > > When has Laff ever been out of the deep end?
>
> > Believe it or not Brian is one of the most rational, objective, and
> > reasonable people I know with the exception of one or two minor issues
> > related to *doping in sports.
> > *Good friend, great guy
> > *Bill C
>
> How very odd, *what you describe is the antithesis of the BL in rbr.
>
> Phil H

Rbr is a sideshow and Brian understands that pretty well. He's also a
lawyer and they like to argue and win, at least in general. He may
also be half as hard headed as I am, and that's saying something. I'm
not telling anyone anything new when I point out that Brian is (My
word here) fanatically dedicated to a fair and level playing field for
everyone. People will use that kind of dedication to yank your chain,
anything is grounds for chain yanking around here anyway. It gets
messier from there and what you see now here is what you get from
years and years of back and forth in rbr.
I respect where He's coming from and his dedication, and amazingly
enough if He's treated with basic respect he returns it even when you
disagree, and, lord knows, Brian and I don't agree on a whole lot but
I can't think of a single angry word between us.
He does understand "Reasonable people can have reasonable
differences" and that we don't all place the same value, or priority,
on the same things in life and is incredibly good at respecting others
positions if they respect his.
Bill C

ilan[_2_]

February 5th 12, 04:06 AM

On Feb 3, 11:44*pm, "A. Dumas" > wrote:
> On 03/02/2012 23:35, Ken Prager wrote:
>
> >> Federal prosecutors dropped their investigation of Lance Armstrong on Friday,
> >> ending a nearly two-year effort aimed at determining whether the seven-time
> >> Tour de France winner and his teammates participated in a doping program.
>
> > <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CYC_DOPING_ARMSTRONG?SITE=OHCI...>
>
> http://www.usada.org/media/statement232012:
> "Unlike the U.S. Attorney, USADA's job is to protect clean sport rather
> than enforce specific criminal laws. Our investigation into doping in
> the sport of cycling is continuing and we look forward to obtaining the
> information developed during the federal investigation."

It seems clear to me that the data from the federal investigation
should not be passed on to WADA. The reason is that it contains
information that could only be discovered using the powers of a
federal investigator and a grand jury. For example, if part of the
information contains conversations for a wire-tapped phone
conversation, where the wiretap was ordered by a judge, then WADA,
which cannot order wire-taps, can't have access to this information
since they don't have the power to order a wire-tap. Maybe
Armstrong's lawyers will be able to use this argument or some other
argument to block the transfer.

-ilan

--D-y

February 5th 12, 04:20 AM

On Feb 4, 9:16*pm, tritonrider > wrote:
> On Feb 4, 8:59*pm, Phil H > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 3, 8:11*pm, tritonrider > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 3, 9:40*pm, Jimmy July > wrote:
>
> > > > On 2/3/2012 6:17 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>
> > > > > Hope LAFF doesn't go off the deep end with this announcement........
>
> > > > When has Laff ever been out of the deep end?
>
> > > Believe it or not Brian is one of the most rational, objective, and
> > > reasonable people I know with the exception of one or two minor issues
> > > related to *doping in sports.
> > > *Good friend, great guy
> > > *Bill C
>
> > How very odd, *what you describe is the antithesis of the BL in rbr.
>
> > Phil H
>
> *Rbr is a sideshow and Brian understands that pretty well. He's also a
> lawyer and they like to argue and win, at least in general. He may
> also be half as hard headed as I am, and that's saying something. I'm
> not telling anyone anything new when I point out that Brian is (My
> word here) fanatically dedicated to a fair and level playing field for
> everyone. People will use that kind of dedication to yank your chain,
> anything is grounds for chain yanking around here anyway. It gets
> messier from there and what you see now here is what you get from
> years and years of back and forth in rbr.
> *I respect where He's coming from and his dedication, and amazingly
> enough if He's treated with basic respect he returns it even when you
> disagree, and, lord knows, Brian and I don't agree on a whole lot but
> I can't think of a single angry word between us.
> *He does understand "Reasonable people can have reasonable
> differences" and that we don't all place the same value, or priority,
> on the same things in life and is incredibly good at respecting others
> positions if they respect his.

I've sparred with him and I may (well) have done some chain-yanking,
and recently, but I have to say I can believe what you've said IRT BL
in this thread.
He did admit, in a direct reply to me, what he didn't/doesn't like
about Lance Armstrong and I can also understand a desire to see a
malefactor (as he considers LA to be) "get his".
I sure don't agree with his various positions regarding doping, as far
as I understand them.
To repeat, I agree with one thing Brian has expressed in this thread:
"this isn't over". As to "what any of it means", including past and
future, relating to personal credibility, personal and professional
reputations, "credibility of sport", that's a different kettle of
fish.
Yup, it's all been hashed out over and over and there have been some
big messes. I don't think anyone much escapes from responsibility for
the "state of what is" around here. "Including me", if I need to spell
that out.

A year or two ago, Chann McRae gave a talk at a meeting of my club
regarding training and "other". The discussion naturally turned to
"doping". I don't remember the exact words, but Chann basically said
"That was then, this is now. Things have changed and we're going
forward with the way things are now". I thought that was a good
answer.
Not exactly up there with "Let he who is without sin cast the first
stone", but pretty good nonetheless.
--D-y

BLafferty[_4_]

February 5th 12, 05:10 AM

On Feb 4, 10:16*pm, tritonrider > wrote:
> On Feb 4, 8:59*pm, Phil H > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 3, 8:11*pm, tritonrider > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 3, 9:40*pm, Jimmy July > wrote:
>
> > > > On 2/3/2012 6:17 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>
> > > > > Hope LAFF doesn't go off the deep end with this announcement........
>
> > > > When has Laff ever been out of the deep end?
>
> > > Believe it or not Brian is one of the most rational, objective, and
> > > reasonable people I know with the exception of one or two minor issues
> > > related to *doping in sports.
> > > *Good friend, great guy
> > > *Bill C
>
> > How very odd, *what you describe is the antithesis of the BL in rbr.
>
> > Phil H
>
> *Rbr is a sideshow and Brian understands that pretty well. He's also a
> lawyer and they like to argue and win, at least in general. He may
> also be half as hard headed as I am, and that's saying something. I'm
> not telling anyone anything new when I point out that Brian is (My
> word here) fanatically dedicated to a fair and level playing field for
> everyone. People will use that kind of dedication to yank your chain,
> anything is grounds for chain yanking around here anyway. It gets
> messier from there and what you see now here is what you get from
> years and years of back and forth in rbr.
> *I respect where He's coming from and his dedication, and amazingly
> enough if He's treated with basic respect he returns it even when you
> disagree, and, lord knows, Brian and I don't agree on a whole lot but
> I can't think of a single angry word between us.
> *He does understand "Reasonable people can have reasonable
> differences" and that we don't all place the same value, or priority,
> on the same things in life and is incredibly good at respecting others
> positions if they respect his.
> *Bill C
Thanks again,Bill. There are several people who have become friends
over the years here at rbr; you, Richard Rosenthal, Bruce Hildenbran
Les Ernst and Davey. Usent is dying for a number of reasons. It's
decline is sad, but the electronic world has changed a lot since 1993
when I first posted to rbr. It is what it is today. Rather mean
spirited and ad homenium. Ride on.......

Jimmy July[_5_]

February 5th 12, 07:06 AM

On 2/3/2012 8:15 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 6:18 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
>> Nuh-uh! Novitsky's a bulldog who will bring LA to Justice! He's got all
>> that ebay evidence, and Tyler's word, and the Landis testimony, and once
>> Lance threatened a witness, remember? That alone is worth charges.
>> They've got Lance nailed, this all a ruse to lull Fabio and Lance into a
>> false sense of security.
>>
>> Tuesday, just you wait, you'll see next Tuesday!
>
> Dumbass,
>
> You forgot about Och and Wiesel. The forensic accountants were
> going to string them all up.
>
> F
>
> PS Who was it that was going off about how doping for a bike
> race wasn't a criminal offense. Anyone remember who that was?

As for Lance, the Schwartz was with him.

Simply Fred

February 5th 12, 10:35 AM

Fred Flintstein wrote:
>> PS Who was it that was going off about how doping for a bike
>> race wasn't a criminal offense. Anyone remember who that was?

Jimmy July wrote:
> As for Lance, the Schwartz was with him.

The dark side.

tritonrider

February 5th 12, 03:13 PM

On Feb 5, 12:10*am, BLafferty > wrote:
> On Feb 4, 10:16*pm, tritonrider > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 8:59*pm, Phil H > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 3, 8:11*pm, tritonrider > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 3, 9:40*pm, Jimmy July > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 2/3/2012 6:17 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>
> > > > > > Hope LAFF doesn't go off the deep end with this announcement........
>
> > > > > When has Laff ever been out of the deep end?
>
> > > > Believe it or not Brian is one of the most rational, objective, and
> > > > reasonable people I know with the exception of one or two minor issues
> > > > related to *doping in sports.
> > > > *Good friend, great guy
> > > > *Bill C
>
> > > How very odd, *what you describe is the antithesis of the BL in rbr..
>
> > > Phil H
>
> > *Rbr is a sideshow and Brian understands that pretty well. He's also a
> > lawyer and they like to argue and win, at least in general. He may
> > also be half as hard headed as I am, and that's saying something. I'm
> > not telling anyone anything new when I point out that Brian is (My
> > word here) fanatically dedicated to a fair and level playing field for
> > everyone. People will use that kind of dedication to yank your chain,
> > anything is grounds for chain yanking around here anyway. It gets
> > messier from there and what you see now here is what you get from
> > years and years of back and forth in rbr.
> > *I respect where He's coming from and his dedication, and amazingly
> > enough if He's treated with basic respect he returns it even when you
> > disagree, and, lord knows, Brian and I don't agree on a whole lot but
> > I can't think of a single angry word between us.
> > *He does understand "Reasonable people can have reasonable
> > differences" and that we don't all place the same value, or priority,
> > on the same things in life and is incredibly good at respecting others
> > positions if they respect his.
> > *Bill C
>
> Thanks again,Bill. (snipped) It's
> decline is sad, but the electronic world has changed a lot since 1993
> when I first posted to rbr. It is what it is today. Rather mean
> spirited and ad homenium. Ride on.......

No problem. Haven't even done much lurking here in a while and really
thought hard about joining into this but wanted to at least comment on
what's become the myth and legend of "Laff atMe" on rbr. There's
always a bit of truth at the bottom of folklore, and I think you still
exist, but you've been used to create a new chunk of social myth and
legend. For someone interested in that stuff it's been fun to watch,
mostly from the sidelines.
What's been really strange is watching "Gummer" conduct reasonable
human interactions on quite a few boards I read. Leaves me wondering
just how much he was playing a character here too.
Interesting take here:
http://news.yahoo.com/90-days-without-cell-phone-email-social-media-015300257.html
Still some great people here. One of the reasons I do come back is to
just really enjoy D-y's stuff. It's always great to be able to get a
reminder that people like him are still out there.
Best to everyone
Bill C
Not my place to speak for you, or even about you really, but as we
all know watching a friend trashed unfairly is one of my buttons.

Zeno

February 5th 12, 05:25 PM

On Feb 4, 2:32*pm, --D-y > wrote:
> On Feb 4, 1:55*pm, BLafferty > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 1:44*pm, Zeno > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 4, 8:19*am, BLafferty > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 3, 10:11*pm, tritonrider > wrote:> On Feb 3, 9:40*pm, Jimmy July > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 2/3/2012 6:17 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Hope LAFF doesn't go off the deep end with this announcement........
>
> > > > Thanks, Bill. It will be interesting to see if the DoJ says more about
> > > > why the Central CA US Attorney closed the investigation without
> > > > indicting. IMO, it lilely has to do with fallout from the Bonds
> > > > case,the PR campaign of the cancer fighter and perceived statute of
> > > > limitations issues. That said, it is pretty clear that Armstong's
> > > > clean athlete reputation is in the landfill. The downside of non-
> > > > accountability, if USADA and WADA don't act, is the the sport's
> > > > credibility is in the toilet whirlpool. I look for Contador to be let
> > > > off. RIP competitive cycling. I won't be following it at all
>
> > > Because he didn't get his man, Brian would like us to believe that
> > > nothing has changed for the better in pro cycling since the good old
> > > days of shooting heroin, washing down handfuls of amphetamines with
> > > cheap wine & 60 percenters climbing like they're in elevators. "Après
> > > moi, le deluge."
>
> > > With the threat of prosecution removed and the grand jury testimony
> > > sealed, the chances of WADA, et al, pinning anything on LA are as
> > > likely as Brian winning the Tour clean. Not to mention that LA will
> > > probably be more likely to pursue libel actions now that the Feds are
> > > no longer a stalking him.
>
> > > It's sad Brian will no longer be following any more competitive
> > > cycling, and presumably no longer posting here. (What would be the
> > > point?)
>
> > > And since he's not a hypocrite, I assume he has written off viewing
> > > all other pro sports too, most of which are not nearly as rigorous in
> > > dope testing as cycling. Have fun watching those reruns of Bewitched!
>
> > > Zeno
>
> > Even if the grand jury testimony remains completely sealed, there is a
> > good deal of collected evidence, including sworn affidavits and
> > documentary evidence, that is likely to go to USADA. *Much of it will
> > become public knowledge eventually. Armstrong's reputation as a clean
> > rider is effectively trashed. *Polls have consistently shown that the
> > public is increasingly skeptical of his purity claims. Hopefully,
> > people damaged by Armstrong and his lie(s) will still find a way to
> > make themselves whole. If you think Armstrong is going to pursue libel
> > actions anywhere, you need to rethink the dope you're using. The last
> > thing Armstrong wants now is to be placed on a witness stand under
> > oath. He's dodged this bullet, but I doubt he so stupid as to put a
> > loaded gun to his head a dare someone to pull the trigger. Then again,
> > hubris does make people do destructive things. Carry on. lol!!
>
> "They'll (lots of 'theys' being possibilities) will get him yet".
>
> The "libel" I'm interested in is Betsy Andreu's comment about buying
> people in the "Feds".
> Fair is fair, after all!
>
> Not only that, but:
> <http://teslaw.org/images/journals/vol.%2019-2%20fall%202010.pdf>
> Reading the "Did the Feds have investigative jurisdiction?" article,
> gosh gee whiz, maybe the reason the investigation got dropped was fear
> the whole expensive mess was just gonna get dropped the first time a
> judge had the chance to drop the case?
>
> And then the other black eyes, etc. would have hit the fan:
>
> (quoting from <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/
> CYC_DOPING_ARMSTRONG?SITE=OHCIN&S>)
>
> At the center of the investigation was federal agent Jeff Novitzky,
> who also helped bring the charges against Bonds and Clemens and has
> been criticized for targeting athletes and wasting taxpayer dollars.
>
> "The enormous bill for this fruitless trophy hunting expedition led by
> agent Jeff Novitzky needs to be totaled up and those responsible
> should be held accountable," said Victor Conte, the BALCO founder and
> president, who spent four months in prison after pleading guilty to
> steroids distribution. "Especially in this economic crisis it's
> important to make the highest use of the available tax dollars and
> that certainly does not seem to be the case with this investigation."
>
> Indeed, the government spent plenty of time and resources
> investigating Armstrong. Federal prosecutors traveled to Europe and
> met with foreign officials and they called some of Armstrong's former
> teammates and associates to testify before a grand jury in Los
> Angeles.
>
> Government officials declined to say how much money was spent on the
> Armstrong probe.
>
> Going forward, some legal experts said, the government's time may be
> better spent prosecuting other crimes - rather than sending a message
> to the professional sports community.
>
> "In light of this decision and the Bonds and Clemens investigations,"
> Rosengart said, "the government may be more willing to defer to the
> regulatory agencies to police alleged misconduct of athletes." (end
> quote)
>
> So go after Wall Street already with your federales. Eee-nough.
> --D-y

There also seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about what UASDA is
and what it can do.

Like the US Olympic commitee, it is a private, not a governmental,
organization that has no legal power to subpoena witnesses, issue
warrants or enforce federal or state law. It also has no leagal power
to require that the Feds hand over anything and no more right than any
private individual to have access to grand jury proceedings and
findings.

Just as important:

"The U.S. Congress recognized USADA as "the official anti-doping
agency for Olympic, Pan American and Paralympic sport in the United
States." See http://www.usada.org/about

That's their mandate. I don't see anything about non Olympic cycling
or the Tour de France there. So WTF does USADA think it's doing, other
than grand standing?

PantyBoy

February 6th 12, 12:55 AM

On Feb 5, 12:25*pm, Zeno > wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2:32*pm, --D-y > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 1:55*pm, BLafferty > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 4, 1:44*pm, Zeno > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 4, 8:19*am, BLafferty > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 3, 10:11*pm, tritonrider > wrote:> On Feb 3, 9:40*pm, Jimmy July > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 2/3/2012 6:17 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Hope LAFF doesn't go off the deep end with this announcement.......
>
> > > > > Thanks, Bill. It will be interesting to see if the DoJ says more about
> > > > > why the Central CA US Attorney closed the investigation without
> > > > > indicting. IMO, it lilely has to do with fallout from the Bonds
> > > > > case,the PR campaign of the cancer fighter and perceived statute of
> > > > > limitations issues. That said, it is pretty clear that Armstong's
> > > > > clean athlete reputation is in the landfill. The downside of non-
> > > > > accountability, if USADA and WADA don't act, is the the sport's
> > > > > credibility is in the toilet whirlpool. I look for Contador to be let
> > > > > off. RIP competitive cycling. I won't be following it at all
>
> > > > Because he didn't get his man, Brian would like us to believe that
> > > > nothing has changed for the better in pro cycling since the good old
> > > > days of shooting heroin, washing down handfuls of amphetamines with
> > > > cheap wine & 60 percenters climbing like they're in elevators. "Après
> > > > moi, le deluge."
>
> > > > With the threat of prosecution removed and the grand jury testimony
> > > > sealed, the chances of WADA, et al, pinning anything on LA are as
> > > > likely as Brian winning the Tour clean. Not to mention that LA will
> > > > probably be more likely to pursue libel actions now that the Feds are
> > > > no longer a stalking him.
>
> > > > It's sad Brian will no longer be following any more competitive
> > > > cycling, and presumably no longer posting here. (What would be the
> > > > point?)
>
> > > > And since he's not a hypocrite, I assume he has written off viewing
> > > > all other pro sports too, most of which are not nearly as rigorous in
> > > > dope testing as cycling. Have fun watching those reruns of Bewitched!
>
> > > > Zeno
>
> > > Even if the grand jury testimony remains completely sealed, there is a
> > > good deal of collected evidence, including sworn affidavits and
> > > documentary evidence, that is likely to go to USADA. *Much of it will
> > > become public knowledge eventually. Armstrong's reputation as a clean
> > > rider is effectively trashed. *Polls have consistently shown that the
> > > public is increasingly skeptical of his purity claims. Hopefully,
> > > people damaged by Armstrong and his lie(s) will still find a way to
> > > make themselves whole. If you think Armstrong is going to pursue libel
> > > actions anywhere, you need to rethink the dope you're using. The last
> > > thing Armstrong wants now is to be placed on a witness stand under
> > > oath. He's dodged this bullet, but I doubt he so stupid as to put a
> > > loaded gun to his head a dare someone to pull the trigger. Then again,
> > > hubris does make people do destructive things. Carry on. lol!!
>
> > "They'll (lots of 'theys' being possibilities) will get him yet".
>
> > The "libel" I'm interested in is Betsy Andreu's comment about buying
> > people in the "Feds".
> > Fair is fair, after all!
>
> > Not only that, but:
> > <http://teslaw.org/images/journals/vol.%2019-2%20fall%202010.pdf>
> > Reading the "Did the Feds have investigative jurisdiction?" article,
> > gosh gee whiz, maybe the reason the investigation got dropped was fear
> > the whole expensive mess was just gonna get dropped the first time a
> > judge had the chance to drop the case?
>
> > And then the other black eyes, etc. would have hit the fan:
>
> > (quoting from <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/
> > CYC_DOPING_ARMSTRONG?SITE=OHCIN&S>)
>
> > At the center of the investigation was federal agent Jeff Novitzky,
> > who also helped bring the charges against Bonds and Clemens and has
> > been criticized for targeting athletes and wasting taxpayer dollars.
>
> > "The enormous bill for this fruitless trophy hunting expedition led by
> > agent Jeff Novitzky needs to be totaled up and those responsible
> > should be held accountable," said Victor Conte, the BALCO founder and
> > president, who spent four months in prison after pleading guilty to
> > steroids distribution. "Especially in this economic crisis it's
> > important to make the highest use of the available tax dollars and
> > that certainly does not seem to be the case with this investigation."
>
> > Indeed, the government spent plenty of time and resources
> > investigating Armstrong. Federal prosecutors traveled to Europe and
> > met with foreign officials and they called some of Armstrong's former
> > teammates and associates to testify before a grand jury in Los
> > Angeles.
>
> > Government officials declined to say how much money was spent on the
> > Armstrong probe.
>
> > Going forward, some legal experts said, the government's time may be
> > better spent prosecuting other crimes - rather than sending a message
> > to the professional sports community.
>
> > "In light of this decision and the Bonds and Clemens investigations,"
> > Rosengart said, "the government may be more willing to defer to the
> > regulatory agencies to police alleged misconduct of athletes." (end
> > quote)
>
> > So go after Wall Street already with your federales. Eee-nough.
> > --D-y
>
> There also seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about what UASDA is
> and what it can do.
>
> Like the US Olympic commitee, it is a private, not a governmental,
> organization that has no legal power to subpoena witnesses, issue
> warrants or enforce federal or state law. It also has no leagal power
> to require that the Feds hand over anything and no more right than any
> private individual to have access to grand jury proceedings and
> findings.
>
> Just as important:
>
> "The U.S. Congress recognized USADA as "the official anti-doping
> agency for Olympic, Pan American and Paralympic sport in the United
> States." *Seehttp://www.usada.org/about
>
> That's their mandate. I don't see anything about non Olympic cycling
> or the Tour de France there. So WTF does USADA think it's doing, other
> than grand standing?

I agree USADA is grand standing as they don't have the discretionary
funding to go after Lance in earnest. Their budget is probably less
than $15 million and mostly committed to planned programs, testing,
etc. So unless some private individual or company comes up with the
funding, I would think the USADA's two primary funding sources,
especially the US Govt., are not going to cough-up the dough.

Rick Hopkins

February 6th 12, 04:26 AM

On Feb 4, 7:19*am, BLafferty > wrote:
> On Feb 3, 10:11*pm, tritonrider > wrote:> On Feb 3, 9:40*pm, Jimmy July > wrote:
>
> > > On 2/3/2012 6:17 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>
> > > > Hope LAFF doesn't go off the deep end with this announcement.......
>
> > > When has Laff ever been out of the deep end?
>
> > Believe it or not Brian is one of the most rational, objective, and
> > reasonable people I know with the exception of one or two minor issues
> > related to *doping in sports.
> > *Good friend, great guy
> > *Bill C
>
> Thanks, Bill. It will be interesting to see if the DoJ says more about
> why the Central CA US Attorney closed the investigation without
> indicting. IMO, it lilely has to do with fallout from the Bonds
> case,the PR campaign of the cancer fighter and perceived statute of
> limitations issues. That said, it is pretty clear that Armstong's
> clean athlete reputation is in the landfill. The downside of non-
> accountability, if USADA and WADA don't act, is the the sport's
> credibility is in the toilet whirlpool. I look for Contador to be let
> off. RIP competitive cycling. I won't be following it at all anymore.

Brian, while you may theoretically understand the law, you lack a
sense of reality. You were adamant 2 yrs ago LA was going down, you
noted on multiple occasions, ad naseum how he was going to get nailed
and was being poorly served by his attorneys. I, a scientist on the
other hand with only a reasonable lay knowledge of the law, but an
unbiased read of reality, noted it was a low probability that LA would
be indited and if so unlikely to be convicted. I suggested at the
time, that a lack of conviction will be used by the LA PR machine to
rebuild any damage to his image and in a couple of years this will be
a blip. He will still rub elbows with the Clinton's and other
politicians and much of the public will see him generally favorably,
even if they think he may have cheated. The public is fickle, while
much of the public doubt his innocence, he is still rather admired -
simply note how he easily commands large audience's when he speaks.
This may disturb you, but for many of us, we simply do not care, as LA
has no hold on us.

Competitive cycling may well be dead to you, but a million people will
line the TDF this year and thousands of people will again line the Mt.
Baldy stage of the Amgen Tour (last year I rode to the top and
thousands of cycling fans lined a steep and dead end road to the Mt.
Baldy Ski area). Only brain dead people believe Barry Bonds did not
use steroids (even he claimed he used the clear and cream and thought
it was flax seed oil - right), yet AT&T Park was filled to the brim
because the Giants won the World Series in 2010; BB quilt or innocence
had absolutely no affect on the fans. On the local sports talk radio
station (KNBR 680), a number of existing and retired ball players
regularly speak of how great BB was, they simply ignore the fact he
used steriods. A number of sports writers have even indicated that
they believe BB and Clemens will make the Hall of Fame, maybe not the
first year, but they suspect within 5 or 6 yrs - that will remain to
be seen. All in all, the vast majority of the public simply do not
care and their memory is short. Remember how many people said Bush
will go down as the worst president ever, I do not expect he will ever
be highly rated, but the dislike of him has certainly waned. IMO,
developing an obsession (positive or negative) over an athlete (or
any celebrity for that matter) is unhealthy and a waste of energy.
You need to ride your bike more and obsess less - LA will be famous 5
yrs from now, and the rest of us will not. I really do not care one
way or the other, LA has no hold on my like or dislike of cycle
racing.

Enjoy, Rick

Fredmaster of Brainerd

February 6th 12, 05:45 AM

On Feb 5, 10:25*am, Zeno > wrote:
>
> There also seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about what UASDA is
> and what it can do.
>
> Like the US Olympic commitee, it is a private, not a governmental,
> organization that has no legal power to subpoena witnesses, issue
> warrants or enforce federal or state law. It also has no leagal power
> to require that the Feds hand over anything and no more right than any
> private individual to have access to grand jury proceedings and
> findings.
>
> Just as important:
>
> "The U.S. Congress recognized USADA as "the official anti-doping
> agency for Olympic, Pan American and Paralympic sport in the United
> States." *Seehttp://www.usada.org/about
>
> That's their mandate. I don't see anything about non Olympic cycling
> or the Tour de France there. So WTF does USADA think it's doing, other
> than grand standing?

Cycling is an Olympic sport, the UCI is the governing body
for it, the UCI sanctions professional cycling.

If you are an athlete eligible to compete in the Olympics
(most pro road and track cyclists certainly are), WADA and
its national agencies such as USADA are going to be
in your business.

I don't exactly know how USADA derives the authority to
sanction Masters racing - other than that Masters racing is
under the USCF and the USCF reports to the USOC. But
we know that the USADA does investigate Masters racing
and other stuff that you'd think might be beneath its notice.
There has been a case of a "professional" curler being
sanctioned for missing a test.

I agree that USADA has no legal authority to compel
testimony (however, they can offer someone a reduced ban
in exchange for testimony) and certainly no access to grand
jury testimony, which as I pointed out elsewhere remains
sealed except for extremely unusual cases (like, Nixon
in Watergate).

Fredmaster Ben

Fred Flintstein

February 6th 12, 03:44 PM

On 2/3/2012 4:44 PM, A. Dumas wrote:
> On 03/02/2012 23:35, Ken Prager wrote:
>>> Federal prosecutors dropped their investigation of Lance Armstrong on
>>> Friday,
>>> ending a nearly two-year effort aimed at determining whether the
>>> seven-time
>>> Tour de France winner and his teammates participated in a doping
>>> program.
>>
>> <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CYC_DOPING_ARMSTRONG?SITE=OHCIN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>
>>
>
> http://www.usada.org/media/statement232012 :
> "Unlike the U.S. Attorney, USADA's job is to protect clean sport rather
> than enforce specific criminal laws. Our investigation into doping in
> the sport of cycling is continuing and we look forward to obtaining the
> information developed during the federal investigation."

If Travis Tygart is going to take action against retired riders,
first on the list is Frankie Andreau. Who has admitted to taking
EPO, that's sufficient evidence.

Unless he's investigating Hincapie. I don't think the list of
active riders involved is a long one.

Or maybe he's just talking out of his ass. That's my guess.

F

Simply Fred

February 7th 12, 10:35 AM

tritonrider wrote:
> I respect where He's coming from

He (hee hee) ? Definitely, Lafferty is the god of rbr, who else can
singlehandedly quadruple rbr posts in one day ?

Simply Fred

February 7th 12, 10:41 AM

wrote:
> it was all just a cabal of Lafferties. (and if that thought doesn't
> make you nauseous you must have a strong stomach)

Lafferty a la carte.

William R. Mattil

February 7th 12, 04:05 PM

On 2/4/2012 7:46 AM, tritonrider wrote:

> Let's face it he's easily the most tested/investigated athlete in
> history and comes out, if not clean at least reasonably so in
> comparison.

Now if Brian would just agree with this then we could all move on <g>

Bill

--

William R. Mattil

http://www.celestial-images.com

tritonrider

February 7th 12, 07:10 PM

On Feb 7, 11:05*am, "William R. Mattil" >
wrote:
> On 2/4/2012 7:46 AM, tritonrider wrote:
>
> > * Let's face it he's easily the most tested/investigated athlete in
> > history and comes out, if not clean at least reasonably so in
> > comparison.
>
> Now if Brian would just agree with this then we could all move on <g>
>
> Bill
>
> --
>
> William R. Mattil
>
> http://www.celestial-images.com

Unfortunately it doesn't look like it. Wada and Usada are demanding
that the Fed's turn over all the info they have. I have to wonder how
much of that was collected using powers that the doping kangaroos
don't have and the legality of turning that info over to an agency
outside the Justice Dept and legal system.
Bill C

Frederick the Great

February 7th 12, 09:10 PM

In article
>,
BLafferty > wrote:

> On Feb 4, 1:44Â*pm, Zeno > wrote:
> > On Feb 4, 8:19Â*am, BLafferty > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 3, 10:11Â*pm, tritonrider > wrote:> On Feb 3, 9:40Â*pm, Jimmy July > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On 2/3/2012 6:17 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Hope LAFF doesn't go off the deep end with this announcement.......
> >
> > > Thanks, Bill. It will be interesting to see if the DoJ says more about
> > > why the Central CA US Attorney closed the investigation without
> > > indicting. IMO, it lilely has to do with fallout from the Bonds
> > > case,the PR campaign of the cancer fighter and perceived statute of
> > > limitations issues. That said, it is pretty clear that Armstong's
> > > clean athlete reputation is in the landfill. The downside of non-
> > > accountability, if USADA and WADA don't act, is the the sport's
> > > credibility is in the toilet whirlpool. I look for Contador to be let
> > > off. RIP competitive cycling. I won't be following it at all
> >
> > Because he didn't get his man, Brian would like us to believe that
> > nothing has changed for the better in pro cycling since the good old
> > days of shooting heroin, washing down handfuls of amphetamines with
> > cheap wine & 60 percenters climbing like they're in elevators. "AprÃ¨s
> > moi, le deluge."
> >
> > With the threat of prosecution removed and the grand jury testimony
> > sealed, the chances of WADA, et al, pinning anything on LA are as
> > likely as Brian winning the Tour clean. Not to mention that LA will
> > probably be more likely to pursue libel actions now that the Feds are
> > no longer a stalking him.
> >
> > It's sad Brian will no longer be following any more competitive
> > cycling, and presumably no longer posting here. (What would be the
> > point?)
> >
> > And since he's not a hypocrite, I assume he has written off viewing
> > all other pro sports too, most of which are not nearly as rigorous in
> > dope testing as cycling. Have fun watching those reruns of Bewitched!
>
> Even if the grand jury testimony remains completely sealed, there is a
> good deal of collected evidence, including sworn affidavits and
> documentary evidence, that is likely to go to USADA. Much of it will
> become public knowledge eventually. Armstrong's reputation as a clean
> rider is effectively trashed. Polls have consistently shown that the
> public is increasingly skeptical of his purity claims. Hopefully,
> people damaged by Armstrong and his lie(s) will still find a way to
> make themselves whole. If you think Armstrong is going to pursue libel
> actions anywhere, you need to rethink the dope you're using. The last
> thing Armstrong wants now is to be placed on a witness stand under
> oath. He's dodged this bullet, but I doubt he so stupid as to put a
> loaded gun to his head a dare someone to pull the trigger. Then again,
> hubris does make people do destructive things. Carry on. lol!!

When you find you are riding a dead horse, dismount.

--
Old Fritz

BLafferty[_4_]

February 7th 12, 09:10 PM

On Feb 7, 11:05*am, "William R. Mattil" >
wrote:
> On 2/4/2012 7:46 AM, tritonrider wrote:
>
> > * Let's face it he's easily the most tested/investigated athlete in
> > history and comes out, if not clean at least reasonably so in
> > comparison.
>
> Now if Brian would just agree with this then we could all move on <g>
>
> Bill
>
> --
>
> William R. Mattil
>
> http://www.celestial-images.com

Well, it now appears that something odd went on. The investigators
think there was a strong criminal case. The US Attorney has discretion
to diagree, but the manner in which the USA acted on short notice with
no apparent consultation with his investigators, smell to high heaven.
It's not over.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/concerns-over-closure-of-federal-investigation-into-armstrong-and-us-postal

Frederick the Great

February 7th 12, 09:15 PM

In article
>,
BLafferty > wrote:

> On Feb 4, 3:53Â*pm, Zeno > wrote:
> > On Feb 4, 12:55Â*pm, BLafferty > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 4, 1:44Â*pm, Zeno > wrote:
> >
> > > > On Feb 4, 8:19Â*am, BLafferty > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Feb 3, 10:11Â*pm, tritonrider > wrote:> On Feb 3, 9:40Â*pm, Jimmy July > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On 2/3/2012 6:17 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > Hope LAFF doesn't go off the deep end with this announcement.......
> >
> > > > > Thanks, Bill. It will be interesting to see if the DoJ says more about
> > > > > why the Central CA US Attorney closed the investigation without
> > > > > indicting. IMO, it lilely has to do with fallout from the Bonds
> > > > > case,the PR campaign of the cancer fighter and perceived statute of
> > > > > limitations issues. That said, it is pretty clear that Armstong's
> > > > > clean athlete reputation is in the landfill. The downside of non-
> > > > > accountability, if USADA and WADA don't act, is the the sport's
> > > > > credibility is in the toilet whirlpool. I look for Contador to be let
> > > > > off. RIP competitive cycling. I won't be following it at all
> >
> > > > Because he didn't get his man, Brian would like us to believe that
> > > > nothing has changed for the better in pro cycling since the good old
> > > > days of shooting heroin, washing down handfuls of amphetamines with
> > > > cheap wine & 60 percenters climbing like they're in elevators. "AprÃ¨s
> > > > moi, le deluge."
> >
> > > > With the threat of prosecution removed and the grand jury testimony
> > > > sealed, the chances of WADA, et al, pinning anything on LA are as
> > > > likely as Brian winning the Tour clean. Not to mention that LA will
> > > > probably be more likely to pursue libel actions now that the Feds are
> > > > no longer a stalking him.
> >
> > > > It's sad Brian will no longer be following any more competitive
> > > > cycling, and presumably no longer posting here. (What would be the
> > > > point?)
> >
> > > > And since he's not a hypocrite, I assume he has written off viewing
> > > > all other pro sports too, most of which are not nearly as rigorous in
> > > > dope testing as cycling. Have fun watching those reruns of Bewitched!
> >
> > > > Zeno
> >
> > > Even if the grand jury testimony remains completely sealed, there is a
> > > good deal of collected evidence, including sworn affidavits and
> > > documentary evidence, that is likely to go to USADA. Â*Much of it will
> > > become public knowledge eventually. Armstrong's reputation as a clean
> > > rider is effectively trashed. Â*Polls have consistently shown that the
> > > public is increasingly skeptical of his purity claims. Hopefully,
> > > people damaged by Armstrong and his lie(s) will still find a way to
> > > make themselves whole. If you think Armstrong is going to pursue libel
> > > actions anywhere, you need to rethink the dope you're using. The last
> > > thing Armstrong wants now is to be placed on a witness stand under
> > > oath. He's dodged this bullet, but I doubt he so stupid as to put a
> > > loaded gun to his head a dare someone to pull the trigger. Then again,
> > > hubris does make people do destructive things. Carry on. lol!!
> >
> > Brian, for a practicing lawyer, you have a remarkable distain for due
> > process and the rule of law.
> >
> > He who laughs last laughs best.
>
> Bull****. We'll see who laughs last.

I am laughing now, and it is sweet.
Truly, laughter is the best medicine,
and you have not been getting any.

Last laugh never comes except relatively;
and I have the last laugh on Lance
in front of a grand jury, Lance prosecuted
on a federal case, Lance doing the perp walk.
Not only am I laughing now, I was laughing
at you all these years, because I knew it
would end in tears for you.

--
Old Fritz

atriage[_6_]

February 7th 12, 09:28 PM

On 07/02/2012 21:10, Frederick the Great wrote:
> In article
> >,
> > wrote:
>
>> On Feb 4, 1:44 pm, > wrote:
>>> On Feb 4, 8:19 am, > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Feb 3, 10:11 pm, > wrote:> On Feb 3, 9:40 pm, Jimmy > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On 2/3/2012 6:17 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Hope LAFF doesn't go off the deep end with this announcement.......
>>>
>>>> Thanks, Bill. It will be interesting to see if the DoJ says more about
>>>> why the Central CA US Attorney closed the investigation without
>>>> indicting. IMO, it lilely has to do with fallout from the Bonds
>>>> case,the PR campaign of the cancer fighter and perceived statute of
>>>> limitations issues. That said, it is pretty clear that Armstong's
>>>> clean athlete reputation is in the landfill. The downside of non-
>>>> accountability, if USADA and WADA don't act, is the the sport's
>>>> credibility is in the toilet whirlpool. I look for Contador to be let
>>>> off. RIP competitive cycling. I won't be following it at all
>>>
>>> Because he didn't get his man, Brian would like us to believe that
>>> nothing has changed for the better in pro cycling since the good old
>>> days of shooting heroin, washing down handfuls of amphetamines with
>>> cheap wine& 60 percenters climbing like they're in elevators. "AprÃ¨s
>>> moi, le deluge."
>>>
>>> With the threat of prosecution removed and the grand jury testimony
>>> sealed, the chances of WADA, et al, pinning anything on LA are as
>>> likely as Brian winning the Tour clean. Not to mention that LA will
>>> probably be more likely to pursue libel actions now that the Feds are
>>> no longer a stalking him.
>>>
>>> It's sad Brian will no longer be following any more competitive
>>> cycling, and presumably no longer posting here. (What would be the
>>> point?)
>>>
>>> And since he's not a hypocrite, I assume he has written off viewing
>>> all other pro sports too, most of which are not nearly as rigorous in
>>> dope testing as cycling. Have fun watching those reruns of Bewitched!
>>
>> Even if the grand jury testimony remains completely sealed, there is a
>> good deal of collected evidence, including sworn affidavits and
>> documentary evidence, that is likely to go to USADA. Much of it will
>> become public knowledge eventually. Armstrong's reputation as a clean
>> rider is effectively trashed. Polls have consistently shown that the
>> public is increasingly skeptical of his purity claims. Hopefully,
>> people damaged by Armstrong and his lie(s) will still find a way to
>> make themselves whole. If you think Armstrong is going to pursue libel
>> actions anywhere, you need to rethink the dope you're using. The last
>> thing Armstrong wants now is to be placed on a witness stand under
>> oath. He's dodged this bullet, but I doubt he so stupid as to put a
>> loaded gun to his head a dare someone to pull the trigger. Then again,
>> hubris does make people do destructive things. Carry on. lol!!
>
> When you find you are riding a dead horse, dismount.
>

Not so fast, some pro-cyclists in Texas tell me there are some parking
violations Lance has still to account for.

--

Fred Flintstein

February 7th 12, 10:06 PM

On 2/7/2012 3:10 PM, BLafferty wrote:
> It's not over.

Dumbass,

True. Some gifts never stop giving.

F

Frederick the Great

February 8th 12, 12:21 AM

In article >,
Simply Fred > wrote:

> tritonrider wrote:
> > I respect where He's coming from
>
> He (hee hee) ? Definitely, Lafferty is the god of rbr, who else can
> singlehandedly quadruple rbr posts in one day ?

This thread began 3 February 2012.
His first post in this thread is dated 4 February 2012.
This thread doubled to tripled the daily posting rate.
A very rough count suggests fewer than 10 messages
are direct replies to Lafferty

Here is a tabulation of dates for posts in rbr for February

2012-01-31 08.00 2012-02-03 16.36 2012-02-04 13.32 2012-02-05 20.26 2012-02-06 13.16
2012-01-31 09.40 2012-02-03 17.11 2012-02-04 14.10 2012-02-05 21.45 2012-02-06 17.33
2012-02-01 12.43 2012-02-03 18.17 2012-02-04 14.20 2012-02-06 04.12 2012-02-07 02.35
2012-02-01 21.19 2012-02-03 18.40 2012-02-04 14.39 2012-02-06 05.39 2012-02-07 02.41
2012-02-01 21.34 2012-02-03 19.11 2012-02-04 15.26 2012-02-06 05.42 2012-02-07 02.43
2012-02-02 08.26 2012-02-03 19.20 2012-02-04 16.15 2012-02-06 05.46 2012-02-07 02.45
2012-02-02 08.50 2012-02-03 19.39 2012-02-04 16.57 2012-02-06 05.47 2012-02-07 04.13
2012-02-02 10.16 2012-02-03 20.15 2012-02-04 17.47 2012-02-06 05.49 2012-02-07 04.42
2012-02-02 11.42 2012-02-03 20.21 2012-02-04 17.59 2012-02-06 07.07 2012-02-07 06.38
2012-02-02 14.20 2012-02-03 21.04 2012-02-04 19.16 2012-02-06 07.40 2012-02-07 06.41
2012-02-02 20.45 2012-02-04 00.51 2012-02-04 20.06 2012-02-06 07.44 2012-02-07 07.05
2012-02-03 14.13 2012-02-04 01.17 2012-02-04 20.20 2012-02-06 08.02 2012-02-07 07.18
2012-02-03 14.35 2012-02-04 03.05 2012-02-04 21.10 2012-02-06 09.48 2012-02-07 08.05
2012-02-03 14.44 2012-02-04 05.46 2012-02-04 21.18 2012-02-06 09.55 2012-02-07 08.45
2012-02-03 14.56 2012-02-04 05.47 2012-02-04 23.06 2012-02-06 09.59 2012-02-07 11.10
2012-02-03 15.09 2012-02-04 06.33 2012-02-05 02.35 2012-02-06 10.35 2012-02-07 13.10
2012-02-03 15.20 2012-02-04 07.19 2012-02-05 05.44 2012-02-06 10.40 2012-02-07 13.10
2012-02-03 16.05 2012-02-04 08.12 2012-02-05 07.13 2012-02-06 10.46 2012-02-07 13.15
2012-02-03 16.18 2012-02-04 10.44 2012-02-05 09.25 2012-02-06 10.59 2012-02-07 13.28
2012-02-03 16.25 2012-02-04 11.55 2012-02-05 13.11 2012-02-06 11.02 2012-02-07 14.06
2012-02-03 16.26 2012-02-04 12.53 2012-02-05 16.55 2012-02-06 11.05

--
Old Fritz

Fred Flintstein

February 8th 12, 12:54 AM

On 2/7/2012 6:21 PM, Frederick the Great wrote:
> In >,
> Simply > wrote:
>
>> tritonrider wrote:
>>> I respect where He's coming from
>>
>> He (hee hee) ? Definitely, Lafferty is the god of rbr, who else can
>> singlehandedly quadruple rbr posts in one day ?
>
> This thread began 3 February 2012.
> His first post in this thread is dated 4 February 2012.
> This thread doubled to tripled the daily posting rate.
> A very rough count suggests fewer than 10 messages
> are direct replies to Lafferty
>
> Here is a tabulation of dates for posts in rbr for February
>
> 2012-01-31 08.00 2012-02-03 16.36 2012-02-04 13.32 2012-02-05 20.26 2012-02-06 13.16
> 2012-01-31 09.40 2012-02-03 17.11 2012-02-04 14.10 2012-02-05 21.45 2012-02-06 17.33
> 2012-02-01 12.43 2012-02-03 18.17 2012-02-04 14.20 2012-02-06 04.12 2012-02-07 02.35
> 2012-02-01 21.19 2012-02-03 18.40 2012-02-04 14.39 2012-02-06 05.39 2012-02-07 02.41
> 2012-02-01 21.34 2012-02-03 19.11 2012-02-04 15.26 2012-02-06 05.42 2012-02-07 02.43
> 2012-02-02 08.26 2012-02-03 19.20 2012-02-04 16.15 2012-02-06 05.46 2012-02-07 02.45
> 2012-02-02 08.50 2012-02-03 19.39 2012-02-04 16.57 2012-02-06 05.47 2012-02-07 04.13
> 2012-02-02 10.16 2012-02-03 20.15 2012-02-04 17.47 2012-02-06 05.49 2012-02-07 04.42
> 2012-02-02 11.42 2012-02-03 20.21 2012-02-04 17.59 2012-02-06 07.07 2012-02-07 06.38
> 2012-02-02 14.20 2012-02-03 21.04 2012-02-04 19.16 2012-02-06 07.40 2012-02-07 06.41
> 2012-02-02 20.45 2012-02-04 00.51 2012-02-04 20.06 2012-02-06 07.44 2012-02-07 07.05
> 2012-02-03 14.13 2012-02-04 01.17 2012-02-04 20.20 2012-02-06 08.02 2012-02-07 07.18
> 2012-02-03 14.35 2012-02-04 03.05 2012-02-04 21.10 2012-02-06 09.48 2012-02-07 08.05
> 2012-02-03 14.44 2012-02-04 05.46 2012-02-04 21.18 2012-02-06 09.55 2012-02-07 08.45
> 2012-02-03 14.56 2012-02-04 05.47 2012-02-04 23.06 2012-02-06 09.59 2012-02-07 11.10
> 2012-02-03 15.09 2012-02-04 06.33 2012-02-05 02.35 2012-02-06 10.35 2012-02-07 13.10
> 2012-02-03 15.20 2012-02-04 07.19 2012-02-05 05.44 2012-02-06 10.40 2012-02-07 13.10
> 2012-02-03 16.05 2012-02-04 08.12 2012-02-05 07.13 2012-02-06 10.46 2012-02-07 13.15
> 2012-02-03 16.18 2012-02-04 10.44 2012-02-05 09.25 2012-02-06 10.59 2012-02-07 13.28
> 2012-02-03 16.25 2012-02-04 11.55 2012-02-05 13.11 2012-02-06 11.02 2012-02-07 14.06
> 2012-02-03 16.26 2012-02-04 12.53 2012-02-05 16.55 2012-02-06 11.05
>

I'm getting the urge to make a chart out of that. I'll just lay down
until the feeling goes away.

F

Frederick the Great

February 8th 12, 01:27 AM

In article >,
Fred Flintstein > wrote:

> On 2/7/2012 6:21 PM, Frederick the Great wrote:
> > In >,
> > Simply > wrote:
> >
> >> tritonrider wrote:
> >>> I respect where He's coming from
> >>
> >> He (hee hee) ? Definitely, Lafferty is the god of rbr, who else can
> >> singlehandedly quadruple rbr posts in one day ?
> >
> > This thread began 3 February 2012.
> > His first post in this thread is dated 4 February 2012.
> > This thread doubled to tripled the daily posting rate.
> > A very rough count suggests fewer than 10 messages
> > are direct replies to Lafferty
> >
> > Here is a tabulation of dates for posts in rbr for February
> >
> > 2012-01-31 08.00 2012-02-03 16.36 2012-02-04 13.32 2012-02-05 20.26 2012-02-06 13.16
> > 2012-01-31 09.40 2012-02-03 17.11 2012-02-04 14.10 2012-02-05 21.45 2012-02-06 17.33
> > 2012-02-01 12.43 2012-02-03 18.17 2012-02-04 14.20 2012-02-06 04.12 2012-02-07 02.35
> > 2012-02-01 21.19 2012-02-03 18.40 2012-02-04 14.39 2012-02-06 05.39 2012-02-07 02.41
> > 2012-02-01 21.34 2012-02-03 19.11 2012-02-04 15.26 2012-02-06 05.42 2012-02-07 02.43
> > 2012-02-02 08.26 2012-02-03 19.20 2012-02-04 16.15 2012-02-06 05.46 2012-02-07 02.45
> > 2012-02-02 08.50 2012-02-03 19.39 2012-02-04 16.57 2012-02-06 05.47 2012-02-07 04.13
> > 2012-02-02 10.16 2012-02-03 20.15 2012-02-04 17.47 2012-02-06 05.49 2012-02-07 04.42
> > 2012-02-02 11.42 2012-02-03 20.21 2012-02-04 17.59 2012-02-06 07.07 2012-02-07 06.38
> > 2012-02-02 14.20 2012-02-03 21.04 2012-02-04 19.16 2012-02-06 07.40 2012-02-07 06.41
> > 2012-02-02 20.45 2012-02-04 00.51 2012-02-04 20.06 2012-02-06 07.44 2012-02-07 07.05
> > 2012-02-03 14.13 2012-02-04 01.17 2012-02-04 20.20 2012-02-06 08.02 2012-02-07 07.18
> > 2012-02-03 14.35 2012-02-04 03.05 2012-02-04 21.10 2012-02-06 09.48 2012-02-07 08.05
> > 2012-02-03 14.44 2012-02-04 05.46 2012-02-04 21.18 2012-02-06 09.55 2012-02-07 08.45
> > 2012-02-03 14.56 2012-02-04 05.47 2012-02-04 23.06 2012-02-06 09.59 2012-02-07 11.10
> > 2012-02-03 15.09 2012-02-04 06.33 2012-02-05 02.35 2012-02-06 10.35 2012-02-07 13.10
> > 2012-02-03 15.20 2012-02-04 07.19 2012-02-05 05.44 2012-02-06 10.40 2012-02-07 13.10
> > 2012-02-03 16.05 2012-02-04 08.12 2012-02-05 07.13 2012-02-06 10.46 2012-02-07 13.15
> > 2012-02-03 16.18 2012-02-04 10.44 2012-02-05 09.25 2012-02-06 10.59 2012-02-07 13.28
> > 2012-02-03 16.25 2012-02-04 11.55 2012-02-05 13.11 2012-02-06 11.02 2012-02-07 14.06
> > 2012-02-03 16.26 2012-02-04 12.53 2012-02-05 16.55 2012-02-06 11.05
> >
>
> I'm getting the urge to make a chart out of that. I'll just lay down
> until the feeling goes away.

I consider it to be a chart already.
There---better now?

--
Old Fritz

William Fred

February 8th 12, 03:50 AM

BLafferty > wrote in
:

> On Feb 4, 9:33*am, Brad Anders > wrote:
>
>> What about chess?
>
> We did get an indictment and a guilty plea there of Polgar's
> webmaster, Gregory Alexander. He is awaiting sentencing on March 22.
> His allocution will be interesting. Stay tuned.
>:-)
>

At last it's safe to play chess again!

--
Bill Fred

Rick Hopkins

February 8th 12, 06:38 AM

On Feb 7, 1:10*pm, BLafferty > wrote:
> On Feb 7, 11:05*am, "William R. Mattil" >
> wrote:
>
> > On 2/4/2012 7:46 AM, tritonrider wrote:
>
> > > * Let's face it he's easily the most tested/investigated athlete in
> > > history and comes out, if not clean at least reasonably so in
> > > comparison.
>
> > Now if Brian would just agree with this then we could all move on <g>
>
> > Bill
>
> > --
>
> > William R. Mattil
>
> >http://www.celestial-images.com
>
> Well, it now appears that something odd went on. The investigators
> think there was a strong criminal case. The US Attorney has discretion
> to diagree, but the manner in which the USA acted on short notice with
> no apparent consultation with his investigators, smell to high heaven.
> It's not over.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/concerns-over-closure-of-federal-inve...

Why am I reminded of Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown. If
it helps you get through the day Brian, believe whatever..... Hey let
me hold the football and I promise not to pull out this time,
really......

Fredmaster of Brainerd

February 8th 12, 07:42 AM

On Feb 7, 3:06*pm, Fred Flintstein >
wrote:
> On 2/7/2012 3:10 PM, BLafferty wrote:
>
> > It's not over.
>
> Dumbass,
>
> True. Some gifts never stop giving.
>

Now we'll have to wait for Jeff Novitsky to figure out what details
of the investigation he can print in his book without breaching
any grand jury secrecy. I can't wait to find out, and neither
should you!

Sincerely,
Jeff Novitsky

Simply Fred

February 8th 12, 08:41 AM

Fred Flintstein wrote:
> I'm getting the urge to make a chart out of that. I'll just lay down
> until the feeling goes away.

Wanting to make a chart is to rbr what getting laid is to everyone else.
Just take a cold shower and you'll feel much better. If that doesn't
work try imagining Newt Gingrich having sex with Rosie O'Donnell and
Susan Boyle.

Simply Fred

February 8th 12, 08:43 AM

Frederick the Great wrote:
> When you find you are riding a dead horse, dismount.

I think he prefers flogging it. Anyway i doubt whether necrophilia with
a beast of burden is a crime in most US states.

Simply Fred

February 8th 12, 08:46 AM

BLafferty wrote:
>> We did get an indictment and a guilty plea there of Polgar's
>> webmaster, Gregory Alexander. He is awaiting sentencing on March 22.
>> His allocution will be interesting. Stay tuned.

William Fred wrote:
> At last it's safe to play chess again!

Until Kasparov's flying penis returns.

Fred Flintstein

February 8th 12, 02:06 PM

On 2/8/2012 1:42 AM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> On Feb 7, 3:06 pm, Fred >
> wrote:
>> On 2/7/2012 3:10 PM, BLafferty wrote:
>>
>>> It's not over.
>>
>> Dumbass,
>>
>> True. Some gifts never stop giving.
>>
>
> Now we'll have to wait for Jeff Novitsky to figure out what details
> of the investigation he can print in his book without breaching
> any grand jury secrecy. I can't wait to find out, and neither
> should you!
>
> Sincerely,
> Jeff Novitsky
>

When he publishes it in English it'll all she wrote for LANCE.

F

Jimmy July[_5_]

February 9th 12, 02:06 AM

On 2/7/2012 10:38 PM, Rick Hopkins wrote:
> On Feb 7, 1:10 pm, > wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 11:05 am, "William R. >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/4/2012 7:46 AM, tritonrider wrote:
>>
>>>> Let's face it he's easily the most tested/investigated athlete in
>>>> history and comes out, if not clean at least reasonably so in
>>>> comparison.
>>
>>> Now if Brian would just agree with this then we could all move on<g>
>>
>>> Bill
>>
>>> --
>>
>>> William R. Mattil
>>
>>> http://www.celestial-images.com
>>
>> Well, it now appears that something odd went on. The investigators
>> think there was a strong criminal case. The US Attorney has discretion
>> to diagree, but the manner in which the USA acted on short notice with
>> no apparent consultation with his investigators, smell to high heaven.
>> It's not over.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/concerns-over-closure-of-federal-inve...
>
> Why am I reminded of Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown. If
> it helps you get through the day Brian, believe whatever..... Hey let
> me hold the football and I promise not to pull out this time,
> really......

But I always hated Lucy, while in this case...

BLafferty[_4_]

February 10th 12, 02:58 PM

On Feb 4, 9:33*am, Brad Anders > wrote:
> On Feb 3, 8:11*pm, tritonrider > wrote:
>
> > On Feb 3, 9:40*pm, Jimmy July > wrote:
>
> > > On 2/3/2012 6:17 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>
> > > > Hope LAFF doesn't go off the deep end with this announcement.......
>
> > > When has Laff ever been out of the deep end?
>
> > Believe it or not Brian is one of the most rational, objective, and
> > reasonable people I know with the exception of one or two minor issues
> > related to *doping in sports.
>
> What about chess?

Transcript of Alexander's plea hearing is available here:
http://www.krinternetlaw.com/internet-l ... y-Plea.pdf

Q. Mr. Alexander, do you understand that, as we've just
talked about, once you enter a guilty plea, a
presentence report would be prepared, and the sentencing
judge, in this case, probably Magistrate Judge Laporte,
will have to review that, and you will have a chance to
comment or object to the report before any sentencing.
Do you understand that?
A. Yes, your Honor.
Q. And you understand that although the sentencing judgewill consider
the recommendation, it's not bound by the
recommendation that is in this plea agreement, that she
could impose a sentence that is different than that
which is recommended here?
A. Yes, your Honor.
Q. And that even if she imposes a sentence that's more
severe than is recommended, you would not have a right
to withdraw your plea once you enter it. Do you
understand that?
A. I understand.
Q. All right. And you've discussed with your attorney how
the sentencing guidelines operate here?
A. Yes, your Honor.
Q. And you understand that the United States Supreme Court
has ruled that the guideline ranges, once they're
calculated, is advisory only and not binding on the
Court?
A. Yes.
Q. And that you will have a chance to, as I I mentioned, to
address any calculation that you disagree with at the
sentencing hearing. Do you understand that?
A. Can you repeat the last sentence?
Q. That at the sentencing hearing, if for some reason you
disagree with the judge's calculation, you have a chance
to comment on that?
A. Yes, your Honor.
Q. And you understand that parole in the federal system has
been abolished, and if you are sentenced to prison, you
will not be released on parole. Do you understand that?
A. Yes, your Honor....................

Q.And that during the time you repeatedly accessed his
personal e-mail account, Hough was a member of the U.S.
Chess Federation board of directors. By gaining access
to his e-mail account you were able to obtain
confidential information related to the United States
Chess Federation internal investigation; that you
forwarded some of that information to other individuals
who were associated with the United States Chess
Federation. Is that true?
A. Yes, your Honor.

I anticipate that the USCF and a number of former Polgar defendants,
including myself, will ask the court to to require Alexander to name
ALL of the above referenced individuals. Failing to do that, the court
will be asked to sentence Alexander to a term in prison not exceeding
one year for failure to properly and fully accept responsibility for
his criminal act(s) as set forth in his plea agreement.

RicodJour[_2_]

February 10th 12, 05:43 PM

On Feb 5, 10:13*am, tritonrider > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 12:10*am, BLafferty > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 10:16*pm, tritonrider > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 4, 8:59*pm, Phil H > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 3, 8:11*pm, tritonrider > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 3, 9:40*pm, Jimmy July > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 2/3/2012 6:17 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Hope LAFF doesn't go off the deep end with this announcement........
>
> > > > > > When has Laff ever been out of the deep end?
>
> > > > > Believe it or not Brian is one of the most rational, objective, and
> > > > > reasonable people I know with the exception of one or two minor issues
> > > > > related to *doping in sports.
> > > > > *Good friend, great guy
> > > > > *Bill C
>
> > > > How very odd, *what you describe is the antithesis of the BL in rbr.
>
> > > > Phil H
>
> > > *Rbr is a sideshow and Brian understands that pretty well. He's also a
> > > lawyer and they like to argue and win, at least in general. He may
> > > also be half as hard headed as I am, and that's saying something. I'm
> > > not telling anyone anything new when I point out that Brian is (My
> > > word here) fanatically dedicated to a fair and level playing field for
> > > everyone. People will use that kind of dedication to yank your chain,
> > > anything is grounds for chain yanking around here anyway. It gets
> > > messier from there and what you see now here is what you get from
> > > years and years of back and forth in rbr.
> > > *I respect where He's coming from and his dedication, and amazingly
> > > enough if He's treated with basic respect he returns it even when you
> > > disagree, and, lord knows, Brian and I don't agree on a whole lot but
> > > I can't think of a single angry word between us.
> > > *He does understand "Reasonable people can have reasonable
> > > differences" and that we don't all place the same value, or priority,
> > > on the same things in life and is incredibly good at respecting others
> > > positions if they respect his.
> > > *Bill C
>
> > Thanks again,Bill. (snipped) It's
> > decline is sad, but the electronic world has changed a lot since 1993
> > when I first posted to rbr. It is what it is today. Rather mean
> > spirited and ad homenium. Ride on.......
>
> No problem. Haven't even done much lurking here in a while and really
> thought hard about joining into this but wanted to at least comment on
> what's become the myth and legend of "Laff atMe" on rbr. There's
> always a bit of truth at the bottom of folklore, and I think you still
> exist, but you've been used to create a new chunk of social myth and
> legend. For someone interested in that stuff it's been fun to watch,
> mostly from the sidelines.
> *What's been really strange is watching "Gummer" conduct reasonable
> human interactions on quite a few boards I read. Leaves me wondering
> just how much he was playing a character here too.
> *Interesting take here:http://news.yahoo.com/90-days-without-cell-phone-email-social-media-0...
> *Still some great people here. One of the reasons I do come back is to
> just really enjoy D-y's stuff. It's always great to be able to get a
> reminder that people like him are still out there.
> *Best to everyone
> Bill C
> *Not my place to speak for you, or even about you really, but as we
> all know watching a friend trashed unfairly is one of my buttons.

Sheesh. I don't know if you're talking with tongue in cheek or simply
trying to be BL's PR flack in full-on damage control mode.

Nobody used BL's words to make him look like an obsessive idiot. He
did it all by his lonesome. People used his words to ridicule his On
Any Tuesday & I Don't Need No Steenking Presumed Innocent campaign
platforms.

Witness his recent diatribe summation post "proving" LANCE's guilt.
See? He's been right all along and he shall rise up again and woe to
the wicked! Sancho! My horse!

Stop enabling a destructive obsession and schedule an intervention.
It's what a good friend would do.

R