CNBC on Armstrong

Brad Anders wrote:

I'd guess that by the time this fed investigation of LA and Postal is
done, they'll have spent at least $5M, and if they get a conviction,
they might get $5M back, for an effective zero net. Hardly worth the
effort for a $23M outlay for the govt.

The deterrent effect of busting someone like Lance is huge and well
worth the money. That's why the feds always target the big fish (i.e.
Martha Stewart, Leona Hemsley, Barry Bonds, Clemens).

Why, do you think the feds should be spending $23 million busting up the
local steroid ring at my gym instead?

The logic behind busting Lance is that it sends a message to all
athletes throughout the country that if they got Lance, they can get
anyone. ..plus they will get way more free press by going after Lance
than some no-name college athlete...i.e. 60 Minutes would never have
done that story had the cyclist been Ernie Lechuga instead of Lance.

Magilla

Simply Fred wrote:

Anton Berlin wrote:
All Belgiums are waffle humping cowards.

A. Dumas wrote:
On Eddy's birthday, tsk tsk.

Luckily Magilla isn't here to tell you how much he sucked.

Merckx did suck. Merckx rode in an era where 80% of the pros were the
equivalent of today's Cat. 1. Merckx was an opportunist who beat
dumbed-down competition. Nothing to admire.

I won't even mention his 3 positive doping tests.

Magilla

"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...
Brad Anders wrote:

On Jun 15, 2:41 pm, Vagina Gorilla wrote:
I went looking for some footage from today where the Aspen
confrontation was described as just short of a fistfight. But found
this

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000023565

LA committing fraud - the one guy said that USPS invested $23M,
but got a return of $103M from the engagement. Can someone explain to
me how if USPS got more in return than they invested that they were
defrauded?


Sure...the $103 million is also a fraudulent figure. Second, the
contract Lance signed says NO ****ING DOPING. Lance doped. Ergo,
fraud
- defrauded the terms of the contract. The amount of PR garnered by
the
team is irrelevant.

Third, the doping allegations with Postal are now tarnishing the U.S.
Postal brand to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in
NEGATIVE
EXPOSURE...and we didn't even go to trial yet. You forgot to subtract
all the negative publicity from Lance that is now irreparably damaging
the U.S. Postal brand.

Fourth, Lance will be stripped of several of his Tour wins once Tygart
at
USADA files doping charges. More bad imagery for U.S. Postal brand.

Let me know if you need any more help understanding why major
corporate
sponsors don't want to be associated with doping and how doping harms
their brand image.

Thanks,

Magilla

Wait a sec. First you question the $103 million figure, presumably
because you don't think the publicity has any real lasting value. But
then you suggest that something USPS sponsored 6 or 7 or 8 years in the
past is having a significant effect tarnishing their brand image TODAY?
If that's the case, it's Novitsky causing the damage, not Lance. The
best way to minimize the damage is to pretend there isn't any, even if
there is. That's standard corporate policy. It's an over-simplification
to suggest that this investigation is all about a tarnished image
though. There's much more to it than that.

Beyond that, the US Postal Service was trying to get more awareness of
their brand overseas, specifically in Europe. They didn't just lack an
identity, they lacked visibility, period. Their sponsorship accomplished
that. The fact that this wasn't aimed in the slightest at the domestic
market is what people don't seem to grasp. The context is important
here.

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

On 6/20/2011 12:07 AM, MagillaGorilla wrote:
Let me know if you need any more help understanding why major corporate
sponsors don't want to be associated with doping and how doping harms
their brand image.

Could you first help me understand what happens in
velodrome turns?

F

On Jun 20, 3:07*am, Fred Flintstein
wrote:
On 6/20/2011 12:07 AM, MagillaGorilla wrote:

Let me know if you need any more help understanding why major corporate
sponsors don't want to be associated with doping and how doping harms
their brand image.

Could you first help me understand what happens in
velodrome turns?

I'm still waiting for him to explain how rear brakes don't follow the
laws of physics.

He's got a backlog.

R

Fred Flintstein wrote:
Could you first help me understand what happens in
velodrome turns?

RicodJour wrote:
I'm still waiting for him to explain how rear brakes don't follow the
laws of physics.
He's got a backlog.

In computing theory its called a queue. Lafferties implementation uses a
priority queue with a weighting factor of 1 billion for any content
containing the words Lance or Armstrong.

On Jun 19, 11:07*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
Brad Anders wrote:
On Jun 15, 2:41*pm, Vagina Gorilla wrote:
I went looking for some footage from today where the Aspen
confrontation was described as just short of a fistfight. *But found
this

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000023565

LA committing fraud - the one guy said that USPS invested $23M,
but got a return of $103M from the engagement. Can someone explain to
me how if USPS got more in return than they invested that they were
defrauded?

Sure...the $103 million is also a fraudulent figure. *Second, the
contract Lance signed says NO ****ING DOPING. *Lance doped. *Ergo, fraud
- defrauded the terms of the contract. * The amount of PR garnered by the
team is irrelevant.

Third, the doping allegations with Postal are now tarnishing the U.S.
Postal brand to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in NEGATIVE
EXPOSURE...and we didn't even go to trial yet. *You forgot to subtract
all the negative publicity from Lance that is now irreparably damaging
the U.S. Postal brand.

Fourth, Lance will be stripped of several of his Tour wins once Tygart at
USADA files doping charges. *More bad imagery for U.S. Postal brand.

Let me know if you need any more help understanding why major corporate
sponsors don't want to be associated with doping and how doping harms
their brand image.

Thanks,

Magilla

Back one day and still thinking that if you just yell something at us
it makes it a fact.

Please give one single shred of legit evidence that any of this LA
doping investigation BS is negatively impacting the USPS.

On Jun 20, 5:43*am, Scott wrote:
On Jun 19, 11:07*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:





Brad Anders wrote:
On Jun 15, 2:41*pm, Vagina Gorilla wrote:
I went looking for some footage from today where the Aspen
confrontation was described as just short of a fistfight. *But found
this

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000023565

LA committing fraud - the one guy said that USPS invested $23M,
but got a return of $103M from the engagement. Can someone explain to
me how if USPS got more in return than they invested that they were
defrauded?

Sure...the $103 million is also a fraudulent figure. *Second, the
contract Lance signed says NO ****ING DOPING. *Lance doped. *Ergo, fraud
- defrauded the terms of the contract. * The amount of PR garnered by the
team is irrelevant.

Third, the doping allegations with Postal are now tarnishing the U.S.
Postal brand to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in NEGATIVE
EXPOSURE...and we didn't even go to trial yet. *You forgot to subtract
all the negative publicity from Lance that is now irreparably damaging
the U.S. Postal brand.

Fourth, Lance will be stripped of several of his Tour wins once Tygart at
USADA files doping charges. *More bad imagery for U.S. Postal brand.

Let me know if you need any more help understanding why major corporate
sponsors don't want to be associated with doping and how doping harms
their brand image.

Thanks,

Magilla

Back one day and still thinking that if you just yell something at us
it makes it a fact.

Please give one single shred of legit evidence that any of this LA
doping investigation BS is negatively impacting the USPS.

It's ridiculous to believe it would. All this happened ages ago,
Postal moved on to other ad campaigns and activities. The figures
cited make good sense.

Magilla is like any other zealot, they can't give in the slightest to
any evidence that doesn't support their views. Nearly everyone here
knows that LA and Postal doped themselves to the gills, just like
every other pro team they raced against. Postal lawyers knew exactly
what kind of sport they were getting into, regardless of "no doping"
clauses in contracts. The idea that they were "defraded" in any way is
idiotic.

Brad Anders wrote:
Postal lawyers knew exactly
what kind of sport they were getting into

That, I don't think is true. American corporate lawyers ca. 1995 with
inside knowledge of pro cycling? Nah.

On 6/20/2011 11:11 AM, A. Dumas wrote:
Brad Anders wrote:
Postal lawyers knew exactly
what kind of sport they were getting into

That, I don't think is true. American corporate lawyers ca. 1995 with
inside knowledge of pro cycling? Nah.

I would generalize that. American corporate lawyers with
knowledge of the risks that come with associating with
professional athletes? Hell yes!

F