Could Lafferty's Tuesday be this Tuesday ?

On 5/20/2011 9:18 PM, Anton Berlin wrote:
However, Lance is getting caught.

Dumbass,

Doing what?

F

In article ,
Fred Flintstein wrote:

On 5/20/2011 9:18 PM, Anton Berlin wrote:
However, Lance is getting caught.

Dumbass,

Doing what?

Cavorting with B list celebrities.
He should raise his sights and go
on dancing with the stars.

--
Old Fritz

Anton Berlin wrote:
However, Lance is getting caught.

Fred Flintstein wrote:
Doing what?

Frederick the Great wrote:
Cavorting with B list celebrities.
He should raise his sights and go
on dancing with the stars.


With Liz. OTOH Berliner would probably consider that punishment enough.

On May 20, 10:06*pm, Fred Flintstein
wrote:
On 5/20/2011 9:18 PM, Anton Berlin wrote:

However, Lance is getting caught.

Dumbass,

Doing what?

F

You're being a troll. But I'll answer to shut you up. True there are
few criminal penalties for doping for any sport. But at the same time
there are a lot of supporting crimes that accompany the act of
doping.

Fraud is when you misrepresent yourself or violate the terms of a
contract or agreement. Lance and others committed fraud with their
'doping for a bike race'.

Racketeering is when you commit a series of criminal acts (many acts
of fraud in Lance's example) as well as money laundering, bribery,
interstate transportation, mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud.

These that are right up Lance's alley - felonious manufacture,
importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise
dealing in narcotic or other dangerous drugs; and any act that is
indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act.
(which there are more than likely a host of traceable violations and
charges)

The testosterone handed out like candy that Hincappie and others have
testified to - chemicals and drugs that fall under the Controlled
Substances Act. Anabolic steroids, for example, are classified as
Schedule III controlled substances. (don't forget the andro found in
his apartment in Spain) No doubt testified to already.

There is also misuse of public funds, perjury related to the SCA
depositions, the money he received subject to criminal fraud, bank
fraud and other civil remedies. Bribery with the UCI. Doubt those
fat swiss pigs will take a fall for Lance.

Lance is in some hot water not for 'doping for a bike race' but for
all of the acts he did to make doping in a bike race possible.

On 5/21/2011 9:12 AM, Anton Berlin wrote:
On May 20, 10:06 pm, Fred Flintstein
wrote:
On 5/20/2011 9:18 PM, Anton Berlin wrote:

However, Lance is getting caught.

Dumbass,

Doing what?

F

You're being a troll. But I'll answer to shut you up. True there are
few criminal penalties for doping for any sport. But at the same time
there are a lot of supporting crimes that accompany the act of
doping.

Fraud is when you misrepresent yourself or violate the terms of a
contract or agreement. Lance and others committed fraud with their
'doping for a bike race'.

Racketeering is when you commit a series of criminal acts (many acts
of fraud in Lance's example) as well as money laundering, bribery,
interstate transportation, mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud.

These that are right up Lance's alley - felonious manufacture,
importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise
dealing in narcotic or other dangerous drugs; and any act that is
indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act.
(which there are more than likely a host of traceable violations and
charges)

The testosterone handed out like candy that Hincappie and others have
testified to - chemicals and drugs that fall under the Controlled
Substances Act. Anabolic steroids, for example, are classified as
Schedule III controlled substances. (don't forget the andro found in
his apartment in Spain) No doubt testified to already.

There is also misuse of public funds, perjury related to the SCA
depositions, the money he received subject to criminal fraud, bank
fraud and other civil remedies. Bribery with the UCI. Doubt those
fat swiss pigs will take a fall for Lance.

Lance is in some hot water not for 'doping for a bike race' but for
all of the acts he did to make doping in a bike race possible.

Dumbass,

If you google 'legal definition of fraud', what do you find?
You're missing a key point of the definition. But you know
that.

You're also unclear about the definition of perjury. Or maybe
you do get it and you're intentionally misrepresenting it. But
I'm pretty sure it has to be relevant to an illegal act and
I'm also pretty sure that taking the 5th doesn't count as
perjury.

SCA, Jesus ****ing Christ! Dope wasn't relevant to the
contract. Thus lying about dope isn't perjury. But you know
that.

If you google 'legal definition of fraud' you'll find the, um,
legal definition of fraud. Check it out.

F

PS And if they get him for possession I certainly hope someone
in the FDA hierarchy has an uncomfortable discussion with
Novitsky about the proper use of scarce law enforcement
resources. Especially since they aren't ****ing likely to get
him for possession a decade after the fact.

On 5/21/2011 2:27 AM, Frederick the Great wrote:
In articleV6mdnavhh9LasUrQnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@giganews. com,
Fred wrote:

On 5/20/2011 9:18 PM, Anton Berlin wrote:
However, Lance is getting caught.

Dumbass,

Doing what?

Cavorting with B list celebrities.
He should raise his sights and go
on dancing with the stars.


Just like the Amstel, he wouldn't be able to beat
Boogerd.

F

On May 21, 9:31*am, Fred Flintstein
wrote:
On 5/21/2011 9:12 AM, Anton Berlin wrote:









On May 20, 10:06 pm, Fred Flintstein
*wrote:
On 5/20/2011 9:18 PM, Anton Berlin wrote:

However, Lance is getting caught.

Dumbass,

Doing what?

F

You're being a troll. *But I'll answer to shut you up. *True there are
few criminal penalties for doping for any sport. *But at the same time
there are a lot of supporting crimes that accompany the act of
doping.

Fraud is when you misrepresent yourself or violate the terms of a
contract or agreement. * Lance and others committed fraud with their
'doping for a bike race'.

Racketeering is when you commit a series of criminal acts (many acts
of fraud in Lance's example) as well as money laundering, bribery,
interstate transportation, mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud.

These that are right up Lance's alley - felonious manufacture,
importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise
dealing in narcotic or other dangerous drugs; and any act that is
indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act.
(which there are more than likely a host of traceable violations and
charges)

The testosterone handed out like candy that Hincappie and others have
testified to - chemicals and drugs that fall under the Controlled
Substances Act. Anabolic steroids, for example, are classified as
Schedule III controlled substances. *(don't forget the andro found in
his apartment in Spain) No doubt testified to already.

There is also misuse of public funds, perjury related to the SCA
depositions, the money he received subject to criminal fraud, bank
fraud and other civil remedies. *Bribery with the UCI. *Doubt those
fat swiss pigs will take a fall for Lance.

Lance is in some hot water not for 'doping for a bike race' but for
all of the acts he did to make doping in a bike race possible.

Dumbass,

If you google 'legal definition of fraud', what do you find?
You're missing a key point of the definition. But you know
that.

You're also unclear about the definition of perjury. Or maybe
you do get it and you're intentionally misrepresenting it. But
I'm pretty sure it has to be relevant to an illegal act and
I'm also pretty sure that taking the 5th doesn't count as
perjury.

SCA, Jesus ****ing Christ! Dope wasn't relevant to the
contract. Thus lying about dope isn't perjury. But you know
that.

If you google 'legal definition of fraud' you'll find the, um,
legal definition of fraud. Check it out.

F

PS And if they get him for possession I certainly hope someone
in the FDA hierarchy has an uncomfortable discussion with
Novitsky about the proper use of scarce law enforcement
resources. Especially since they aren't ****ing likely to get
him for possession a decade after the fact.

Dumbass - I was contacted by SCA attorneys. I can assure you doping
was a pertinent and majority part of the conversation.

Your boy is nailed - breathe deep and exhale that testicle you've been
keeping throat warm for the last decade.

On 5/21/2011 9:34 AM, Anton Berlin wrote:
Dumbass - I was contacted by SCA attorneys. I can assure you doping
was a pertinent and majority part of the conversation.

Ummm, the guy that rendered the judgment disagreed. Whose
opinion counted more? Dumbass?

F

PS If you repeat the same arguments over and over, surely
at some point they will be correct, eh?

On May 21, 10:19*am, Fred Flintstein
wrote:
On 5/21/2011 9:34 AM, Anton Berlin wrote:

Dumbass - I was contacted by SCA attorneys. *I can assure you doping
was a pertinent and majority part of the conversation.

Ummm, the guy that rendered the judgment disagreed. Whose
opinion counted more? Dumbass?

F

PS If you repeat the same arguments over and over, surely
at some point they will be correct, eh?

Don't you feel uncomfortable being a grown man and being obsessively
in love with another man ? Why does Lance's innocence influence your
masturbation fantasies so thoroughly?

SCA, Jesus ****ing Christ! Dope wasn't relevant to the
contract. Thus lying about dope isn't perjury. But you know
that.

If you google 'legal definition of fraud' you'll find the, um,
legal definition of fraud. Check it out.

F

PS And if they get him for possession I certainly hope someone
in the FDA hierarchy has an uncomfortable discussion with
Novitsky about the proper use of scarce law enforcement
resources. Especially since they aren't ****ing likely to get
him for possession a decade after the fact.
=======
Dumbass - I was contacted by SCA attorneys. I can assure you doping
was a pertinent and majority part of the conversation.
=======

Could you elaborate on that? It didn't seem to have anything to do with
the final decision in the case. Do you think it was just posturing, an
attempt to rattle people? Maybe something like Greg LeMond did when he
threatened Trek with public disclosure of everything-Lance and various
internal discussions, something that Trek negated by disclosing
everything first (the "nuclear" option). Maybe SCA figured that Lance
would drop the lawsuit under the threat of negative publicity?

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