"Shut it Up Popo"* - Popovych says he knows nothing !

BLafferty wrote:
On 11/5/2010 12:23 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 11/5/2010 10:17 AM, Brad Anders wrote:
On Nov 4, 12:39 pm, wrote:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/popo...ing-doping?ns_...


And that from the man who was total crap at Lotto...I guess that
helped him not joining the ranks of the ex-uniballer mountain
henchmen
to fall for doping, I guess there aren't too many around, let's
see...Rubiera only comes to mind for now.

Yeah, this theory that all of LA's teammates were going to be so
terrified of the GJ that they'd all just roll over and spill the
beans
just isn't working out, is it?

Brad Anders

Brad, could you post a copy of the grand jury transcript of Popo's
testimony? You really have no idea what's going down in the Grand Jury
room. It's not at all unusual for co-conspirators to all lie in their
testimony. Now, I'm not saying Popo lied because I don't know what he
said. But, it's possible.

You should also consider that there are times when a witness testifies
one way in the room, and denies having testified that way on leaving
the room. It delays an unpleasant scene which can be deadly amongst
some folks engaged in criminal activity.

Most deadly scenes are unpleasant, for at least one of the parties
involved.

If you're right, the feds have better orchestrate serving Lance like
they did Popo, and make sure to do so in a liberal state where it's less
likely Lance will be surrounded by supporters with guns.

So were you holding back on this scenario or what? I don't recall you
previously suggesting that Lance's accusers could meet an untimely
demise.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


I haven't suggested any such think. My reference was to certain folks
involved in another type of organized crime.

Candy ass,

On 11/6/2010 11:14 AM, --D-y wrote:
On Nov 6, 8:06 am, wrote:
On 11/6/2010 1:42 AM, RicodJour wrote:





On Nov 5, 9:51 pm, Fredmaster of wrote:

I've been trying to figure out why Lafferty wanted to
see a photo of Popovych being served with his
grand jury subpoena - I mean, what could such a
picture possibly prove, or how could it be used as
evidence in the Crusade?

I finally figured it out. The picture is important because
Lafferty thinks (not unreasonably) that it might tell us
whether Popo's girlfriend looks like Lance's Mom.

I think L'enema will have to find new wanking material elsewhere.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonath...mstrong-ambush...

R

Mr. Littman is very much a Lance apologist in the guise of curmudgeon.
Look at his 9/30 piece and my comment to it.

I saw your comment didn't garner you any fans, Brian. I guess most
people don't appreciate gestapo-style intimidation tactics.
"A casually dressed woman flashed a badge" after two vehicles stopped
Popo's car. Wow. That's why those in the public eye tend to hire
bodyguards.

I also saw the "hubris" part. Good, you are in touch with your real
motivations here. The list of alleged offenses is just a means to an
end.
Novitsky is known to have a similar hatred (to yours for Lance
Armstrong) of Barry Bonds.
So, here we are, back to square one: "Brian Lafferty doesn't like
Lance Armstrong because Lance Armstrong has a big head in the opinion
of Brian Lafferty".

Fans of comment posters on Huffington interest you?! LOL!


Following the description of events given: "Agents" who don't identify
themselves, grab door handles, block free passage? How many unlawful
acts were committed in a simple serving of papers? Along with
Novitsky's illegally seizing evidence and then holding on to said
evidence in spite of repeated "requests" to give it up, bragging about
book deals, intimidation of witnesses, it would appear there is enough
hubris to go around in this affair.

We have one side of the story, the Armstrong and friends side as I and
at least one other person commented (with friends!!).



And threats jail sentences, too.

That is pretty much a standard warning given to foreign nationals when
served with federal GJ subpoenas.

Well, OK: Let's start with Lemond.
How much of that potential year in the slammer should Greggo get for
taping Stephanie without her permission, and then making the content
public, Brian?

None at all. It was legal in his state for him to make the tape. There
is no restriction on the use of that tape in federal court.


How about a month or so behind bars, just to make it
real, and then 400 hours of supervised community service? No, not
riding his bicycle in some self-serving bull**** "giving back"
publicity stunt, but dressed in an orange jump suit and assigned to
pick up trash along his adopted hometown's roadways?

You really have a hard on for Lemond. Let's hope it doesn't last more
than four hours.


Sounds good to me. "He broke the law!"

What law is that?

--D-y

On Nov 6, 12:00*pm, BLafferty wrote:

You really have a hard on for Lemond. *Let's hope it doesn't last more
than four hours.

Well, if it does, I know where to get treatment. Shall I tell them you
sent me?

Just looking for a little "fair", there, Brian. IOW, if there is going
to be punishment, let's have punishment for all who committed crimes.
Can you get past your Lancehate and get on board with that?

Sounds good to me. "He broke the law!"

What law is that?

It may have been legal for him to make a tape on his end. But, it may
not have been legal for him to make a tape of someone who was speaking
from California. That might be actionable, in criminal or civil court.
So, maybe he could go do his jail time and public "pickin' up roadside
trash" service time out there, too. As long as he's not advertising
"Greg Lemond" with a cycling camp or whatever, and is really
performing a public service and ruing his illegal actions while doing
so, fine by me. I mean, mighty small potatoes when compared with the
alleged crimes of Lance Armstrong, but what's good for the goose...

Jeeze, more "rights" being eroded. I remember when you had to tell
someone in front they were being recorded, plus the mandatory audible
"beeps" emitted by the recording device serving as a warning the
conversation was being recorded. Sneaky. Stinky. Self-serving misuse
of (unwisely) assumed confidentiality by someone who fits the doper
profile himself.

If that sounds like a "hard-on", your bias is showing.
--D-y