Novitzky is going to tear Armstrong apart

Reading this SCA deposition - Lance is able to do a C- level at
keeping his ass out of hot water other than the perjuries I've already
indicated.

But the problem for Lance now is that there is much more information
available and Novitzky is way more thorough.

It's going to be great. Can't wait to see the transcript and the
racking up of perjury charges (new and old)

You're dead meat cocksucker Lance - dead ****ing meat.

Anton Berlin wrote:

Reading this SCA deposition - Lance is able to do a C- level at
keeping his ass out of hot water other than the perjuries I've already
indicated.

But the problem for Lance now is that there is much more information
available and Novitzky is way more thorough.

It's going to be great. Can't wait to see the transcript and the
racking up of perjury charges (new and old)

You're dead meat cocksucker Lance - dead ****ing meat.

Well, the big difference between SCA case and Novitzky is Lance and his
country bumpkins think it's a game to lie in a civil hearing. But when
they go to federal grand jury to testify under oath and are cognizant
that the feds are not afraid to charge sports people with perjury....now
Lance needs a a criminal defense attorney and a PR machine to do his
lying for them.

Everybody knows Lance is a bigtime doper in this sport.

Magilla

Well, the big difference between SCA case and Novitzky is Lance and his
country bumpkins think it's a game to lie in a civil hearing. *But when
they go to federal grand jury to testify under oath and are cognizant
that the feds are not afraid to charge sports people with perjury....now
Lance needs a a criminal defense attorney and a PR machine to do his
lying for them.

Everybody knows Lance is a bigtime doper in this sport.

Magilla

JT (SCA dep) made it pretty clear that Lance was under oath and
perjury charges are possible. The question is why didn't they pursue
it further?

They rolled over (or am I just being hindsite biased) as there is much
more informationa nd those willing to come forward now?

However, the line of questioning leads me to believe that they knew
(somewhat) the facts surrounding what we know to be true today.

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:55:12 -0700 (PDT), Anton Berlin
wrote:


Well, the big difference between SCA case and Novitzky is Lance and his
country bumpkins think it's a game to lie in a civil hearing. ÊBut when
they go to federal grand jury to testify under oath and are cognizant
that the feds are not afraid to charge sports people with perjury....now
Lance needs a a criminal defense attorney and a PR machine to do his
lying for them.

Everybody knows Lance is a bigtime doper in this sport.

Magilla

JT (SCA dep) made it pretty clear that Lance was under oath and
perjury charges are possible. The question is why didn't they pursue
it further?

Well they didn't have a case, even if he'd doped, no provision against
that (dumb, eh!) in the contract we've found out since.

On 9/20/2010 1:42 PM, Keith wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:55:12 -0700 (PDT), Anton Berlin
wrote:


Well, the big difference between SCA case and Novitzky is Lance and his
country bumpkins think it's a game to lie in a civil hearing. But when
they go to federal grand jury to testify under oath and are cognizant
that the feds are not afraid to charge sports people with perjury....now
Lance needs a a criminal defense attorney and a PR machine to do his
lying for them.

Everybody knows Lance is a bigtime doper in this sport.

Magilla

JT (SCA dep) made it pretty clear that Lance was under oath and
perjury charges are possible. The question is why didn't they pursue
it further?

Well they didn't have a case, even if he'd doped, no provision against
that (dumb, eh!) in the contract we've found out since.

Even without that clause in the contract, there still exists the common
law tort of fraudulent inducement. Had SCA lost and gone to court, that
might have been enough of an error at law to have a court overturn an
arbitration award. For understandable reasons, SCA decided to cut their
losses and settle.

On Sep 20, 2:40*pm, BLafferty wrote:

For understandable reasons, SCA decided to cut their losses and settle.

Which is operative wisdom that unsurprisingly escapes your own
actions.

R

On 9/20/2010 3:34 PM, RicodJour wrote:
On Sep 20, 2:40 pm, wrote:

For understandable reasons, SCA decided to cut their losses and settle.

Which is operative wisdom that unsurprisingly escapes your own
actions.

R
Speak for yourself, ****Tard.

In article ,
BLafferty wrote:

On 9/20/2010 1:42 PM, Keith wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:55:12 -0700 (PDT), Anton Berlin
wrote:


Well, the big difference between SCA case and Novitzky is Lance and his
country bumpkins think it's a game to lie in a civil hearing. But when
they go to federal grand jury to testify under oath and are cognizant
that the feds are not afraid to charge sports people with perjury....now
Lance needs a a criminal defense attorney and a PR machine to do his
lying for them.

Everybody knows Lance is a bigtime doper in this sport.

Magilla

JT (SCA dep) made it pretty clear that Lance was under oath and
perjury charges are possible. The question is why didn't they pursue
it further?

Well they didn't have a case, even if he'd doped, no provision against
that (dumb, eh!) in the contract we've found out since.

Even without that clause in the contract, there still exists the common
law tort of fraudulent inducement. Had SCA lost and gone to court, that
might have been enough of an error at law to have a court overturn an
arbitration award.

Or the judge would have had a good laugh at somebody
naive enough to think there was no doping in cycling
and then in measured, no-nonsense terms rule against SCA.

--
Old Fritz

BLafferty wrote:

On 9/20/2010 1:42 PM, Keith wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:55:12 -0700 (PDT), Anton Berlin
wrote:


Well, the big difference between SCA case and Novitzky is Lance and his
country bumpkins think it's a game to lie in a civil hearing. But when
they go to federal grand jury to testify under oath and are cognizant
that the feds are not afraid to charge sports people with perjury....now
Lance needs a a criminal defense attorney and a PR machine to do his
lying for them.

Everybody knows Lance is a bigtime doper in this sport.

Magilla

JT (SCA dep) made it pretty clear that Lance was under oath and
perjury charges are possible. The question is why didn't they pursue
it further?

Well they didn't have a case, even if he'd doped, no provision against
that (dumb, eh!) in the contract we've found out since.

Even without that clause in the contract, there still exists the common
law tort of fraudulent inducement. Had SCA lost and gone to court, that
might have been enough of an error at law to have a court overturn an
arbitration award. For understandable reasons, SCA decided to cut their
losses and settle.

Lance is in serious danger of losing a few of his Tour wins if USADA decides
file formal charges. USADA has an 8-year statute of limitation window within
which to file formal charges, which means LA's Tour wins from both 2004 and
2005 are in jeopardy if they can prove he blood doped for either. If Lance's
2004 Tour win is taken away, this will retroactively vacate the SCA award,
which only agreed to pay Lance $5 million if he were to win 6 Tours, which he
achieved in 2004.

It is important to note that when Fraud said he witnessed Armstrong blood
doping when the bus pulled over on the side of the road, that was in 2004.

------------
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/mo...during_to.html

One example comes from 2004, when Landis said a team bus left the finish line,
headed for the hotel, and stopped over on the way for blood transfusions to
boost the riders' oxygen capacity.

"The driver pretended to have engine trouble and stopped on a remote mountain
road for an hour or so so the entire team could have half a liter of blood
added," Landis wrote. "This was the only time that I ever saw the entire team
being transfused in plain view of all the other riders and bus driver."

------------

If Lance is stripped of his 2004 (and thereby his 2005 Tour wins), SCA will get
all their money back and likely even go after Lance for attorney's fees.


Magilla

If Lance is stripped of his 2004 (and thereby his 2005 Tour wins), SCA will get
all their money back and likely even go after Lance for attorney's fees.

Magilla

Worse than that sport.... interest + 3x actual damages in a case like
this. It would put Lance back in the trailer drinking sterno with his
daddy.

Speaking of which - I wonder if you can use sterno to cut the nasty
taste out of that FRS kool-aid crap. Anyone besides Jabouskey tried
it yet?