Lafferties Probably all over this

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/arms...-assassination

[ Watch for line wrap ]

I particularly like this snippet:

"The motion suggests that information from the Armstrong investigation
has been leaked to the New York Times, Sports Illustrated and 60
Minutes. The motion states that, due to the leaks, "even if exonerated
and never charged, Armstrong's reputation will have been severely damaged".

Which of course is true ...........



Bill
--

William R. Mattil

http://www.celestial-images.com

In article ,
"William R. Mattil" wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/arms...-assassination

[ Watch for line wrap ]

I particularly like this snippet:

"The motion suggests that information from the Armstrong investigation
has been leaked to the New York Times, Sports Illustrated and 60
Minutes. The motion states that, due to the leaks, "even if exonerated
and never charged, Armstrong's reputation will have been severely damaged".

Which of course is true ...........

How many Lafferties are we talking about here?

--
Old Fritz

On Jul 18, 6:16*pm, "William R. Mattil"
wrote:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/arms...racter-assassi...

[ Watch for line wrap ]

I particularly like this snippet:

"The motion suggests that information from the Armstrong investigation
has been leaked to the New York Times, Sports Illustrated and 60
Minutes. The motion states that, due to the leaks, "even if exonerated
and never charged, Armstrong's reputation will have been severely damaged".

Which of course is true ...........

Bill
--

William R. Mattil

http://www.celestial-images.com

The difference with Armstrong and Bruyneel is that they are actually
aware that they have rights, and know what they are. Maybe that's why
the UCI was afraid of them and made "deals" which Landis alludes to.
Maybe the deal was to keep tthem quiet so the rest of the riders
wouldn't figure it out as well and cause a total breakdown of
professional cycling.

I'm still waiting for a rider to challenge blood samples in the Tour.
It is clearly against the principles of French law, so they should
eventually prevail. The point is that any kind of search, including
body search requires a formal request from a prosecutor, and is
otherwise invalid.

-ilan

On 18/07/2011 21:45, Frederick the Great wrote:
In ,
"William R. wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/arms...-assassination

[ Watch for line wrap ]

I particularly like this snippet:

"The motion suggests that information from the Armstrong investigation
has been leaked to the New York Times, Sports Illustrated and 60
Minutes. The motion states that, due to the leaks, "even if exonerated
and never charged, Armstrong's reputation will have been severely damaged".

Which of course is true ...........

How many Lafferties are we talking about here?


****ing modern yoof have no cloo about the use of the utterly superb apostrophe.
World''''s going to hell in a handcart.

--

On Jul 18, 4:45*pm, Frederick the Great wrote:

How many Lafferties are we talking about here?

You mean they're multiplying? Someone needs to get Sigourney Weaver
on his ass.

On Jul 18, 9:16*am, "William R. Mattil"
wrote:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/arms...racter-assassi...

[ Watch for line wrap ]

I particularly like this snippet:

"The motion suggests that information from the Armstrong investigation
has been leaked to the New York Times, Sports Illustrated and 60
Minutes. The motion states that, due to the leaks, "even if exonerated
and never charged, Armstrong's reputation will have been severely damaged".

Which of course is true ...........

Hard to see any evidence of this, so far. LA and Livestrong still seem
to be doing fine, it'll take an indictment to change that.

On 7/18/2011 6:59 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
On Jul 18, 9:16 am, "William R.
wrote:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/arms...racter-assassi...

[ Watch for line wrap ]

I particularly like this snippet:

"The motion suggests that information from the Armstrong investigation
has been leaked to the New York Times, Sports Illustrated and 60
Minutes. The motion states that, due to the leaks, "even if exonerated
and never charged, Armstrong's reputation will have been severely damaged".

Which of course is true ...........

Hard to see any evidence of this, so far. LA and Livestrong still seem
to be doing fine, it'll take an indictment to change that.

I'm not sure an indictment will do it any more, the Clemons thing has
made that look pretty lame. This all boils down to a matter of faith
and, if you're looking to justify your disbelief, the Clemons fiasco
makes the prosecutors look like dumbasses.

Jimmy July wrote in :

I'm not sure an indictment will do it any more, the Clemons thing has
made that look pretty lame. This all boils down to a matter of faith
and, if you're looking to justify your disbelief, the Clemons fiasco
makes the prosecutors look like dumbasses.


For a minute I thought they had indicted a dead saxophone player, which
really wouldn't suprise me, but then I realized it's just rbr. Carry on.

--
Bill Fred

On 7/18/2011 7:49 PM, William Fred wrote:
Jimmy wrote in :

I'm not sure an indictment will do it any more, the Clemons thing has
made that look pretty lame. This all boils down to a matter of faith
and, if you're looking to justify your disbelief, the Clemons fiasco
makes the prosecutors look like dumbasses.


For a minute I thought they had indicted a dead saxophone player, which
really wouldn't suprise me, but then I realized it's just rbr. Carry on.


Dead writer?

In article
,
ilan wrote:

On Jul 18, 6:16Â*pm, "William R. Mattil"
wrote:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/arms...racter-assassi...

[ Watch for line wrap ]

I particularly like this snippet:

"The motion suggests that information from the Armstrong investigation
has been leaked to the New York Times, Sports Illustrated and 60
Minutes. The motion states that, due to the leaks, "even if exonerated
and never charged, Armstrong's reputation will have been severely damaged".

Which of course is true ...........

The difference with Armstrong and Bruyneel is that they are actually
aware that they have rights, and know what they are. Maybe that's why
the UCI was afraid of them and made "deals" which Landis alludes to.
Maybe the deal was to keep tthem quiet so the rest of the riders
wouldn't figure it out as well and cause a total breakdown of
professional cycling.

And I thought _I_ am cynical.

I'm still waiting for a rider to challenge blood samples in the Tour.
It is clearly against the principles of French law, so they should
eventually prevail. The point is that any kind of search, including
body search requires a formal request from a prosecutor, and is
otherwise invalid.

Interesting. In the USA forced blood donations are routine,
somehow abrogating fourth and fifth amendment rights.

--
Old Fritz