Novitzky gets the Ball rolling

On Jun 28, 4:39*pm, "K. Fred Gauss" wrote:
DA74 wrote:
On Jun 27, 4:03 pm, "K. Fred Gauss" wrote:
DA74 wrote:
Jesus ****ing christ boys. This thread is littered with a litany of
baseless and/or vaguely defined attacks on Lafferty. You guys come out
swinging with all the grace of drunken cavemen. If he is as full of
**** as all you jagoffs purport then it shouldn't be too hard to do a
quick search and present some direct quotes here.
It's been done several times before, as recently as this month.

If you're interested, the only time I put much energy into arguing with
Lafferty was July of 2006, when Brian was arguing that:

1. Pro cycling was finally clean
* * A. Lance was gone.
* * B. Operation Puerto had cleaned up the rest.

2. The tour finally had a clean champion in Landis
* * A. He had good days and bad days, he wasn't super consistent like
Lance. That proved he was clean.
* * B. He suffered, he wasn't a robot like LANCE.

Many people called bull**** on all of the above, Lafferty argued in
predictable ways. Then the failed Landis test came out, Lafferty hung
around for a week or 2 and then disappeared for a couple years.

This is a months worth of bull**** I've condensed for you, it's not
possible to find a single post that holds it all. Here's a start:http://tinyurl.com/3acmyua. His message from Jul 21 2006, 11:19 am
should get you going.

Bro - I'm not talking about anything in this thread but the fact that
Lafferty has been right all along about LA. It's true.
DA74

If all Lafferty had ever said was that Lance was doping, he wouldn't get
the reaction he does now. He said too many other, incorrect things along
the way to claim he was right all along. If we qualify it (as you do)
that Lafferty was right all along when he said Lance was a doper, I
don't think there'd be much argument. Definitely none from me, at any rate.

On the other hand, the fact that he fact that he proclaimed Landis and
Ulrich clean

snip


Dumbass -

Just a few months ago Laff@me was ranting on about Flandis and Arnie
Baker as hackers and touting his very own IT expertise.

Laffable indeed.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

In article ,
"B. Lafferty" wrote:

On 6/27/2010 11:07 PM, H. Fred Kveck wrote:

Speaking of learning to "read for comprehension..." I'm aware that you've
been posting about doping in here for years. That doesn't alter the fact that
you've been posting about the imminent demise of Lance for years too. We
know what the investigation is about - yet for you, it's still, at heart, about
taking Lance down.

If I have been predicting the "imminent demise of Lance for years," I'm
not aware of that prediction. If you can dig up a thread in which I
predicted that, please do. The effect the ongoing criminal
investigation may be the taking down of Lance, Thom and a number of
their associates in doping and doping cover up related to mail, wire and
insurance fraud. I do look forward to that possibility as I view these
people as disreputable hypocrites and liars. Disagree if you like.

Brian, you're ignoring or trying to bluff your way out of things you've been
saying and wishing for for years, things that you've posted about as recently as mere
days ago. Example: "It's difficult to race while you're in the little room being
interrogated."

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...9828b368a09372

I'm starting to think that Amit is pretty close on Och and Weisel being what's
really eating at you. I wonder why?

The "revisionist history" is being perpetrated by you by trying to claim that
you're glad that Novitsky and co. are going to root out "misuse of government
money and insurance fraud." That's just a means to an end: the end of Lance.
If you can't see that (and I already know you can't), you're in serious denial.

Actually, that's not what I said and not what I'm happy to see. I'm
happy to see the criminal investigative power of the Federal government
focused on the issue of doping in cycling and those at the very top of
the food chain. That the link allowing or driving the probe is possible
mail and wire fraud is lovely, IMO.

It is what you've been saying and you just described yourself as being happy to
see it happen! ("That the link allowing or driving the probe is possible mail and
wire fraud is lovely, IMO.") Too funny that you'll deny something and reinforce it
within a couple of sentences.

I think it's ****ing retarded to have " the criminal investigative power of the
Federal government focused on the issue of doping in cycling." Cycling is just
another form of entertainment and there are other things far more worthy of the
government spending time and resources on than looking into doping in cycling (that
mostly happened in *Europe*, btw), baseball or any other form of entertainment.

"Carry on..." hahahaha

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. wrote:

Dumbass -

Just a few months ago Laff@me was ranting on about Flandis and Arnie
Baker as hackers and touting his very own IT expertise.

Laffable indeed.


Yeah, stuff like that is silly enough that I almost enjoy having
Lafferty around. But I'm an IT guy, so I might have had a special
appreciation for it.

On Jun 28, 7:20*pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
On 6/28/2010 12:38 PM, Amit Ghosh wrote:

On Jun 27, 11:07 pm, "H. Fred Kveck"YOURhow...@h-

* * Amit is probably also on the mark with his comment that you also hope it brings
down Ochowicz and Weisel. Wonder if that'd be collateral damage for you, or the
actual primary target?

weisel's quaking in his booots !!!

Thom Weisel and his first have a history of problems with Federal
securities regulators. *I doubt he will enjoy being drawn into a
possible Federal mail, wire and insurance fraud investigation. *Whether
or not he's worried is irrelevant, IMO.

Luftmensch,

Wouldn't it be possible to conclude from these
facts that Thom Weisel has beaten more serious
charges that strike at the core of his business,
and got off with fines even though he's probably a
wretched dirty capitalist tool, and therefore that
he isn't going to be scared of Jeff Novitsky and
his crack team of federal meat inspectors?

Fredmaster Ben

On 6/29/2010 8:50 AM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
On Jun 28, 7:20 pm, "B. wrote:
On 6/28/2010 12:38 PM, Amit Ghosh wrote:

On Jun 27, 11:07 pm, "H. Fred Kveck"YOURhow...@h-

Amit is probably also on the mark with his comment that you also hope it brings
down Ochowicz and Weisel. Wonder if that'd be collateral damage for you, or the
actual primary target?

weisel's quaking in his booots !!!

Thom Weisel and his first have a history of problems with Federal
securities regulators. I doubt he will enjoy being drawn into a
possible Federal mail, wire and insurance fraud investigation. Whether
or not he's worried is irrelevant, IMO.

Luftmensch,

Wouldn't it be possible to conclude from these
facts that Thom Weisel has beaten more serious
charges that strike at the core of his business,
and got off with fines even though he's probably a
wretched dirty capitalist tool, and therefore that
he isn't going to be scared of Jeff Novitsky and
his crack team of federal meat inspectors?

Fredmaster Ben

Just about anything is possible.