Log in:  

Register

Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen

Re: Re:

28 Feb 2017 11:43

Alpe73 wrote:
D-Queued wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
D-Queued wrote:Oh, and FMK just did us all a favor by posting a like that illustrates how Lance is and was the acknowledge king of dope.
Uh, reality check: I did no such thing. At best the Sunset Times quote suggests that Nike kept things in-house, so to speak, which is actually kinda artisanal.



Ironically, the fan boys conceded a long time ago. It's the evangelicals who soldier on ... confident that there's a stake ... that well delivered, ... will square 'their' moral reckoning with this one guy.

For what?

Why do you care?
kingjr
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,520
Joined: 09 Sep 2012 18:53
Location: Germany

Re: Re:

28 Feb 2017 12:20

kingjr wrote:
Alpe73 wrote:
D-Queued wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
D-Queued wrote:Oh, and FMK just did us all a favor by posting a like that illustrates how Lance is and was the acknowledge king of dope.
Uh, reality check: I did no such thing. At best the Sunset Times quote suggests that Nike kept things in-house, so to speak, which is actually kinda artisanal.



Ironically, the fan boys conceded a long time ago. It's the evangelicals who soldier on ... confident that there's a stake ... that well delivered, ... will square 'their' moral reckoning with this one guy.

For what?

Why do you care?


Like morality ... caring is relative, as well. I average about 35 posts per year. Dave (for example) ... 750 per year.
User avatar Alpe73
Junior Member
 
Posts: 165
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

Re: Re:

28 Feb 2017 13:52

Alpe73 wrote:I average about 35 posts per year. Dave (for example) ... 750 per year.
If you're going to imply that someone is on PEDs - post enhancing drugs - I suggest you just out and say it and don't be messing with the innuendo.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,888
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

28 Feb 2017 19:16

Alpe73 wrote:...
Dave .... where are you (and several others on the Clinic) going with all this, man?

You gotta know that outside these sweaty walls, your angsts don't get much play time. Not that shey shouldn't or should ... they don't. Most people have moved on.

That you're seemingly bothered by what sponsors have done ... I mean .... what do you do, what can you do with that? And the "wouldn't it be nice" song about "conspiring sponsors." You'll get numbers to follow you "on here" if the sponsors are outed ... but who else would listen? Again, not that they shouldn't or should listen to you ... they wouldn't.

The moral relativists are right (but wrong from your moral judgement point). Maybe you are waiting for some big nail in the coffin that will give you some relief. If he took your woman, you gotta punch him out. If he won dirty, while you lost clean ... whatya gonna do about it? Commiserate with Binotti? If that's not who you are ... give yourself a break, man.

Ironically, the fan boys conceded a long time ago. It's the evangelicals who soldier on ... confident that there's a stake ... that well delivered, ... will square 'their' moral reckoning with this one guy.

For what?


Dear Alpe73,

This is the Lance Armstrong thread, not the D-Queued thread. Discussing my participation is a waste of bandwidth. Even if the remaining readers are few, they don't need their time to be wasted. If you want to send a message, go ahead and DM me.

Since you insist, however, for the record, please observe my record.

You might note that I have uttered barely a whisper in this forum for years as real news about Lance's case has diminished. Yet, after a single post commenting on real news, it is striking that I have been the recipient of ongoing ad hominem attacks. What is the agenda?

Now, especially in the current climate of abandoning all pretense of ethics and truthfulness, if you cannot fathom why the big dopie needs to receive the full measure of justice that is long and well deserved, then please put me on ignore and go ahead and sleep better.

Yes, I am bothered by what the sponsors did. The apparent forcing of Stephanie to lie for Lance is just nasty. As for Nike, please do some research on their origins with Steve Prefontaine. It is gut-wrenching, to say the least, to see them as doping facilitators.

To that point, please allow me to offer a quote on the Salazar affair (following on FMK's introduced topic) from Ben Cook (Former Nike Oregon Project Coach “Not Surprised” by Doping Allegations http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/former-nike-oregon-project-coach-not-surprised-by-doping-allegations):

The other thing that bothers me: I knew Steve Prefontaine pretty well, and I knew Bill Bowerman a little bit, and respected him a great deal. I don’t think they’d be happy with what’s going on in the sport right now. I’m not saying you have to go back to the old days. I’m not that stupid. But that part of the sport is gone. And that’s the part of the sport I like.

Dave.
D-Queued
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,181
Joined: 26 May 2010 23:41

Re: Re:

01 Mar 2017 02:19

D-Queued wrote:
aphronesis wrote:...

Most of your post has nothing to do with USPS. Forgiven or forgotten? Get real. Key phrase in your rehearsal of the known litanies is "his corruption", as opposed to the sport's. You want to grind your axe, fine but leave the homilies and "justice" in your basement. That's not ad hominem: the rhetoric you push is not viable and no negligible schadenfreude of lance in a plano trailer park will change that.


:lol:

Oh, and try and follow the plot here. You commented about structure. I responded on structure.

Ok, the attempted purchase of ASO/TdF was post Posties (2006-8). Pretty much everything else was Postal related or connected. The attempted purchase of ASO/TdF, however, is relevant on a discussion of Lance's impact on the sport's structure, however, as noted by The Sydney Morning Herald:

Rumours are circulating that behind Armstrong's decision, which will allow him to race in next year's Tour de France, is an audacious plan that will change the face of cycling. http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/once-he-dominated--now-lance-could-own-the-tour/2008/09/19/1221331205913.html

Now, you want to switch the subject - one that you introduced - again. :rolleyes:

Your arguments are vapid.

Oh, and FMK just did us all a favor by posting a like that illustrates how Lance is and was the acknowledge king of dope.

'His corruption' refers to more than just Lance himself. He corrupted the sport, not the reverse. Knowing just how bad cycling was way back when he began tilting the scale, that is quite a feat.

Dave.


The original post in which you asked if you'd missed anything had to do with LA and the USPs case. I'm keeping up, try to hold the big picture in view.

So did the ASO thing happen? No. So that matters how?

So LA doped heavier than others, so what? He didn't corrupt the sport, he arrived at a particular conjuncture and took advantage. You've yet to make a single comment about structure that does so from any perspective but that of LA. People call my arguments lots of things; vapid is fine. Let's say that yours evidence a certain detachment from reality.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,376
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re: Re:

01 Mar 2017 03:04

aphronesis wrote:...

The original post in which you asked if you'd missed anything had to do with LA and the USPs case. I'm keeping up, try to hold the big picture in view.

So did the ASO thing happen? No. So that matters how?

So LA doped heavier than others, so what? He didn't corrupt the sport, he arrived at a particular conjuncture and took advantage. You've yet to make a single comment about structure that does so from any perspective but that of LA. People call my arguments lots of things; vapid is fine. Let's say that yours evidence a certain detachment from reality.


So that matters hnow?

Simple. Doesn't this example underscore actionable intent and further evidence of financial collusion with the head of the UCI towards an inarguable corruption of the sport's structure?

Not a single comment on non-LA structural corruption? Thanks for acknowledging that I am staying on topic.

Moving slightly off-topic, wrt a non-LA perspective on structural corruption perhaps we could consider actions of UCI-creator Verdruggen at both the UCI and IOC.

Of course, there is at least one other thread around here somewhere that discusses these and related issues so no point in distracting from LA in this thread.

Dave.
D-Queued
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,181
Joined: 26 May 2010 23:41

Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

01 Mar 2017 12:29

86TDFWinner wrote:
DamianoMachiavelli wrote:
86TDFWinner wrote:Curious, What exactly are you talking about here in regards to claiming Betsy is supposedly "lying", what is she supposedly "lying" about, explain?


Have you been living in a cave for the last year while Betsy, Kathy, and Greg ran a smear campaign based on lies about Lance using motors?


Enlighten us, show us these "lies" you claim Betsy is guilty of? Simple question that requires a simple answer really.


No need to be patronizing.
Had you read a little bit further back in the thread, you would have understood Damiano was responding to me (absolutely) in reference to another discussion.

As for Betsy's lying, I'm happy to help. I described a few of them in this post : http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=19751&p=2062153#p2062153
I am myself still waiting for MarkvW to explain what is his definition of "lies", so feel free to enlighten me if you think those aren't lies.



That being said, I too would have loved more informations or proofs about her role in the motor story. She definitely spread (create?) the Rumor and leaked Armstrong's name to friendly medias... and the 60 minutes document ended up to be a complete disappointment with zero evidence against him. But did she know 60 minutes had nothing and started a false rumor on purpose? Or did she really think they had something and was let down by 60 min and Varjas?
absolutely_not
Junior Member
 
Posts: 56
Joined: 14 Nov 2013 13:06

01 Mar 2017 12:50

As has been said upthread, CBS 60 Minutes wanted to go harder on Lance but Lance's lawyers wrote a letter prompting them to leave certain things out of it. What things? Nobody knows. But fair to assume it was considered too speculative.
Lies or no lies, anybody's guess at this point.
But Betsy should've been more cautious, that's obvious.
Still, in time she may be vindicated.
A few months ago I would have said "no way" as I was under the naive assumption that Cancellara 2010 was a pioneer. He clearly wasn't.
Right now I wouldn't be surprised to hear Lance had a motor, though i'm still not convinced.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,545
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re:

01 Mar 2017 15:05

sniper wrote:As has been said upthread, CBS 60 Minutes wanted to go harder on Lance but Lance's lawyers wrote a letter prompting them to leave certain things out of it. What things? Nobody knows. But fair to assume it was considered too speculative.
Lies or no lies, anybody's guess at this point.
But Betsy should've been more cautious, that's obvious.
Still, in time she may be vindicated.
A few months ago I would have said "no way" as I was under the naive assumption that Cancellara 2010 was a pioneer. He clearly wasn't.
Right now I wouldn't be surprised to hear Lance had a motor, though i'm still not convinced.


Yes, she could.
Even if, so far, the evidences that Armstrong never used a motor are far greater than the evidences that he did.

On one side :
- Ferrari not knowing about motors (he asked Varjas about it around 2013-2014) while being the one who helped Armstrong to chose his bikes in the 2000's
- Absolutely no one (ex-employee, mechanics, Mike Anderson, teamates) having witnessed mechanical doping despite multiple investigations
- The alleged confirmation by Varjas that he didn't sold his technology to Armstrong. (Granted, this is from Armstrong legal team, but I guess there would have been some denials if it was a false afirmation, so I give it some credit)
Contacted by Bicycling, Armstrong denied ever having used a motor in a race, and said that his legal representatives had recently spoken with Varjas. “He confirmed to us that he never sold that technology to me, to anyone on the team or to anyone associated with me,” Armstrong said, and asserted that such information had been provided to 60 Minutes. Michael Rey, one of the two producers on the 60 Minutes piece, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

http://www.bicycling.com/racing/doping/are-tour-de-france-racers-cheating-with-secret-motors

- Armstrong not being the wealthiest rider in the pro tour in 98 having been out for more than one year and not sure he could come back. 2 millions is a lot of money if you're 26, not sure you will be working in 2 years and if the cancer will come back one day.


On the other side :
- Armstrong was the one winning in 99/2005 so it makes no sense another rider was using a motor during that time (but are we even sure it was used back then???)
- The exclusivity deal Varjas claims having made reminds a little bit the deal between Armstrong and Ferrari
- And...?????

The only reason Armstrong is so much under suspicion is because world was passed for weeks that 60 minutes was going to expose him (we're coming back to Betsy :) )

Anyway, yes, she may be vindicated in time. That's why I didn't include the motors story in my sample of lies
absolutely_not
Junior Member
 
Posts: 56
Joined: 14 Nov 2013 13:06

02 Mar 2017 03:05

Varjas cannot even demonstrate a working model of his wheel motor. He is a fraud. He backdated his story once Betsy and the LeMonds started the rumors of Lance using a motor.

Betsy is upset Lance won't confirm a twenty year old conversation in a hospital. When does she plan on admitting her lies about motor use? Currently she is attempting a Trump-like denial of what she said earlier.
"Their world is crumbling. Ours is being built."
DamianoMachiavelli
Junior Member
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 21 Oct 2015 22:35

Re: Re:

02 Mar 2017 05:41

D-Queued wrote:
aphronesis wrote:...

The original post in which you asked if you'd missed anything had to do with LA and the USPs case. I'm keeping up, try to hold the big picture in view.

So did the ASO thing happen? No. So that matters how?

So LA doped heavier than others, so what? He didn't corrupt the sport, he arrived at a particular conjuncture and took advantage. You've yet to make a single comment about structure that does so from any perspective but that of LA. People call my arguments lots of things; vapid is fine. Let's say that yours evidence a certain detachment from reality.


So that matters hnow?

Simple. Doesn't this example underscore actionable intent and further evidence of financial collusion with the head of the UCI towards an inarguable corruption of the sport's structure?

Not a single comment on non-LA structural corruption? Thanks for acknowledging that I am staying on topic.

Moving slightly off-topic, wrt a non-LA perspective on structural corruption perhaps we could consider actions of UCI-creator Verdruggen at both the UCI and IOC.

Of course, there is at least one other thread around here somewhere that discusses these and related issues so no point in distracting from LA in this thread.

Dave.


Well, it only matters to this thread with the repetition of hairshirt posts that "he corrupted the sport" when worldwide corruption is continuing apace without him. You object that it's not the DQ thread, but if other posters find DQ's repetition of old facts trite and drawn toward an inevitable moral conclusion re. LA; and then somewhat oldmaidish and distant from the sport (as it lives) , never mind wholly disregarding material exigencies--demands felt by riders and anyone-- as well as checking out from histories of sport doping then and since; also pointlessly biased, then that's something for the poster to live with if others don't buy the absolutist and what if claims.
Last edited by aphronesis on 02 Mar 2017 12:11, edited 1 time in total.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,376
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re: Re:

02 Mar 2017 11:53

D-Queued wrote:
Alpe73 wrote:...
Dave .... where are you (and several others on the Clinic) going with all this, man?

You gotta know that outside these sweaty walls, your angsts don't get much play time. Not that shey shouldn't or should ... they don't. Most people have moved on.

That you're seemingly bothered by what sponsors have done ... I mean .... what do you do, what can you do with that? And the "wouldn't it be nice" song about "conspiring sponsors." You'll get numbers to follow you "on here" if the sponsors are outed ... but who else would listen? Again, not that they shouldn't or should listen to you ... they wouldn't.

The moral relativists are right (but wrong from your moral judgement point). Maybe you are waiting for some big nail in the coffin that will give you some relief. If he took your woman, you gotta punch him out. If he won dirty, while you lost clean ... whatya gonna do about it? Commiserate with Binotti? If that's not who you are ... give yourself a break, man.

Ironically, the fan boys conceded a long time ago. It's the evangelicals who soldier on ... confident that there's a stake ... that well delivered, ... will square 'their' moral reckoning with this one guy.

For what?


Dear Alpe73,

This is the Lance Armstrong thread, not the D-Queued thread. Discussing my participation is a waste of bandwidth. Even if the remaining readers are few, they don't need their time to be wasted. If you want to send a message, go ahead and DM me.

Since you insist, however, for the record, please observe my record.

You might note that I have uttered barely a whisper in this forum for years as real news about Lance's case has diminished. Yet, after a single post commenting on real news, it is striking that I have been the recipient of ongoing ad hominem attacks. What is the agenda?

Now, especially in the current climate of abandoning all pretense of ethics and truthfulness, if you cannot fathom why the big dopie needs to receive the full measure of justice that is long and well deserved, then please put me on ignore and go ahead and sleep better.

Yes, I am bothered by what the sponsors did. The apparent forcing of Stephanie to lie for Lance is just nasty. As for Nike, please do some research on their origins with Steve Prefontaine. It is gut-wrenching, to say the least, to see them as doping facilitators.

To that point, please allow me to offer a quote on the Salazar affair (following on FMK's introduced topic) from Ben Cook (Former Nike Oregon Project Coach “Not Surprised” by Doping Allegations http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/former-nike-oregon-project-coach-not-surprised-by-doping-allegations):

The other thing that bothers me: I knew Steve Prefontaine pretty well, and I knew Bill Bowerman a little bit, and respected him a great deal. I don’t think they’d be happy with what’s going on in the sport right now. I’m not saying you have to go back to the old days. I’m not that stupid. But that part of the sport is gone. And that’s the part of the sport I like.

Dave.


Dave ... I didn't know. Jeesh ... how could I have known?

You're a Romantic ... and now you got me ... all starry eyed and foggy.

As I type this, I'm standing on a Bill Dellinger-inspired 'slant board' ... stretching my tight old achilles tendons ... leafing through the book that gave me the plans for the contraption, Dellinger's, "Winning Running." One of my X-Country kids gave it to me in 1980. Those were the days."Date Pace", "Goal Pace", "10 day Championship pattern."

Ran into Rudy Chapa at the Paradise 10K in Bali in '89; he was a race organizer (won by Barrios in 28.00). Boutayeb was there (but didn't run). Saw Mark Nenow there, as well. Guess John Cook's memories re: Mark are foggier than his memories of what Pre would think? (Or maybe better! Ha!) Dave, what do you think a guy (Pre) set in 1972-75 would think about the world (of sport) today? About professional cycling in 2000?

Sorry, stupid question.
User avatar Alpe73
Junior Member
 
Posts: 165
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

Re: Re:

03 Mar 2017 01:17

Alpe73 wrote:...

Dave ... I didn't know. Jeesh ... how could I have known?

You're a Romantic ... and now you got me ... all starry eyed and foggy.

As I type this, I'm standing on a Bill Dellinger-inspired 'slant board' ... stretching my tight old achilles tendons ... leafing through the book that gave me the plans for the contraption, Dellinger's, "Winning Running." One of my X-Country kids gave it to me in 1980. Those were the days."Date Pace", "Goal Pace", "10 day Championship pattern."

Ran into Rudy Chapa at the Paradise 10K in Bali in '89; he was a race organizer (won by Barrios in 28.00). Boutayeb was there (but didn't run). Saw Mark Nenow there, as well. Guess Ben Cook's memories re: Mark are foggier than his memories of what Pre would think? (Or maybe better! Ha!) Dave, what do you think a guy (Pre) set in 1972-75 would think about the world (of sport) today? About professional cycling in 2000?

Sorry, stupid question.


Hi Alpe,

The guy to ask - re Pre - is our friend from Texas (no, not Lance... a real friend Glen (?) here in the forums). But, I dunno if he is still around. He got banninated once, then I think he was posting again for a while.

But, you are probably right, we can easily anticipate Pre's thoughts on what sport has become.

Balco. Pharmstrong. OP. Russians. Geez.

Lasse Viren is almost excusable in hindsight. Heck, ten years ago The Guardian proclaimed that for a few days in '72 and again in '76 Viren was the greatest athlete in the world. Hard to get over that kind of rubbish if you know anything about Pre.

Dave.
D-Queued
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,181
Joined: 26 May 2010 23:41

Re: Re:

03 Mar 2017 02:59

D-Queued wrote:
Alpe73 wrote:...

Dave ... I didn't know. Jeesh ... how could I have known?

You're a Romantic ... and now you got me ... all starry eyed and foggy.

As I type this, I'm standing on a Bill Dellinger-inspired 'slant board' ... stretching my tight old achilles tendons ... leafing through the book that gave me the plans for the contraption, Dellinger's, "Winning Running." One of my X-Country kids gave it to me in 1980. Those were the days."Date Pace", "Goal Pace", "10 day Championship pattern."

Ran into Rudy Chapa at the Paradise 10K in Bali in '89; he was a race organizer (won by Barrios in 28.00). Boutayeb was there (but didn't run). Saw Mark Nenow there, as well. Guess Ben Cook's memories re: Mark are foggier than his memories of what Pre would think? (Or maybe better! Ha!) Dave, what do you think a guy (Pre) set in 1972-75 would think about the world (of sport) today? About professional cycling in 2000?

Sorry, stupid question.


Hi Alpe,

The guy to ask - re Pre - is our friend from Texas (no, not Lance... a real friend Glen (?) here in the forums). But, I dunno if he is still around. He got banninated once, then I think he was posting again for a while.

But, you are probably right, we can easily anticipate Pre's thoughts on what sport has become.

Balco. Pharmstrong. OP. Russians. Geez.

Lasse Viren is almost excusable in hindsight. Heck, ten years ago The Guardian proclaimed that for a few days in '72 and again in '76 Viren was the greatest athlete in the world. Hard to get over that kind of rubbish if you know anything about Pre.

Dave.


Dave:

You've missed (or have pretended to miss ;) ) my point. But let's just leave it there.

Now, what to wear ...... Wattle or Griffey Jr.? ...... Hmmmmmmmmm. ;)
User avatar Alpe73
Junior Member
 
Posts: 165
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

07 Mar 2017 13:45

LA gave a 1h interview yesterday on the Howard Stern show to plug his podcast. I didnt know were to put the link. I looked at the "clinic" but didnt find any so if its wrong here i'm sorry!! i've just thought this is a ongoing thread that was yesterday..!?.. If it it's possible to move to were is superposed to, please...
Howard doesnt know anything about cycling and doesnt claim to know but it's a good interviewer. No "big" new news but interesting side of his personal life..
starts at 1h44min;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvnicW7rYsQ and suddenly stops at 1h57min.
It continues at;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DDvQbGK13Y
User avatar Jungle Cycle
Member
 
Posts: 502
Joined: 03 Apr 2016 17:00

Re:

08 Mar 2017 05:32

Jungle Cycle wrote:LA gave a 1h interview yesterday on the Howard Stern show to plug his podcast. I didnt know were to put the link. I looked at the "clinic" but didnt find any so if its wrong here i'm sorry!! i've just thought this is a ongoing thread that was yesterday..!?.. If it it's possible to move to were is superposed to, please...
Howard doesnt know anything about cycling and doesnt claim to know but it's a good interviewer. No "big" new news but interesting side of his personal life..
starts at 1h44min;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvnicW7rYsQ and suddenly stops at 1h57min.
It continues at;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DDvQbGK13Y


Thanks for whoever redirected the post and sorry for not looking far enough on the "clinic"...
User avatar Jungle Cycle
Member
 
Posts: 502
Joined: 03 Apr 2016 17:00

08 Mar 2017 12:35

I don't know what Fuller skinned up on before talking to LA but I'm betting you can't get a TUE for it. Comparing LA to Ali has got to be the greatest crock of **** since **** started being served in crocks.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,888
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

08 Mar 2017 13:38

Jungle Cycle wrote:
Jungle Cycle wrote:LA gave a 1h interview yesterday on the Howard Stern show to plug his podcast. I didnt know were to put the link. I looked at the "clinic" but didnt find any so if its wrong here i'm sorry!! i've just thought this is a ongoing thread that was yesterday..!?.. If it it's possible to move to were is superposed to, please...
Howard doesnt know anything about cycling and doesnt claim to know but it's a good interviewer. No "big" new news but interesting side of his personal life..
starts at 1h44min;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvnicW7rYsQ and suddenly stops at 1h57min.
It continues at;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DDvQbGK13Y


Thanks for whoever redirected the post and sorry for not looking far enough on the "clinic"...

No worries...

In case you didn't know this already the forum has a search function. :)
Darryl Webster wrote:
"Nothing seems to blind peeps as much as patriotism does it!"
User avatar Irondan
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,065
Joined: 30 Apr 2014 02:13
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

11 Mar 2017 13:06

Does anyone know how and if the Trump order for 46 US Attorneys to resign will impact the LA case?

My understanding is that Christopher Cooper is the presiding judge, is he on the list?

I wasn't able to find a list of the 46 to verify.
User avatar TubularBills
Member
 
Posts: 887
Joined: 15 Sep 2010 04:17
Location: Guest

Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

11 Mar 2017 16:09

TubularBills wrote:Does anyone know how and if the Trump order for 46 US Attorneys to resign will impact the LA case?

My understanding is that Christopher Cooper is the presiding judge, is he on the list?

I wasn't able to find a list of the 46 to verify.


Mark MacKinnon was LA's GOP guy, think everyone else was a Democrat. But I would expect, Wiesel, has his hands in both pies, and can access backchannel. Fabiani was a Clinton advisor and speechwriter. And he got to Birotte with Bill, and now Birotte got a plum gov't job.

I would look to Wiesel, and how he can access influence in Trump's admin. He will be able to have 'a' influence. 'an' influence. but how much, can he get his way, and decisions influenced. or just like a lobbyist.
"Hitler … didn't even sink to using chemical weapons."
User avatar blackcat
Veteran
 
Posts: 12,232
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 19:20

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 70kmph, Captain Sensible, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 18 guests

Back to top