Lemond/Trek new thread

[scribe]

Rarely does either side want to take a chance with a jury for that reason. You might think you have a homerun, but judging from the responses on this forum alone, you can never be sure.

 

[British Pro Cycling]

Rarely does either side want to take a chance with a jury for that reason. You might think you have a homerun, but judging from the responses on this forum alone, you can never be sure.

Yeah these guys are hoping they can get it to a jury and try out these smear tactics and bunkum, hoping the jury can be hoodwinked. There's no telling how that would work out though. I believe it was a jury that ruled in favour or LA before - the seven times champ is a hit under questioning.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I believe it was a jury that ruled in favour or LA before...

Armstrong has never appeared before a jury.

 

[Race Radio]

Rarely does either side want to take a chance with a jury for that reason. You might think you have a homerun, but judging from the responses on this forum alone, you can never be sure.

I have yet to see anything on this forum that would change my mind that Lemond has anything but a homerun. Zero detail, just the normal lies, baiting and trolling.

No wonder Trek wants to settle so badly.

 

[British Pro Cycling]

I believe it was a jury that ruled in favour or LA before...QUOTE]
Armstrong has never appeared before a jury.

There was no jury during the other thing? Okay, well judges seem to like him then. That makes sense if you think about it.

Your best chance is with people who don't understand what's going on and rule against him because they fall for this PR firm sob story and the like.

Again I will be astonished if LeMond settles - unless he has lost cash recently he would be bonkers to do so.

 

[Race Radio]

Armstrong has never appeared before a jury.

Correct. He is the king of the settlement. Lot of talk but gives up before he has to face reality.

The one time he did have a deposition (no jury) he suffered from selective amnesia with dozens of "I do not recall" ....I wonder if it is contagious because it appears Kristen has caught the same early onset memory issues.

Judges don't seem to like him. One judge even made him pay a fine for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

 

[British Pro Cycling]

The one time he did have a deposition (no jury) he suffered from selective amnesia with dozens of "I do not recall" ....I wonder if it is contagious because it appears Kristen has caught the same early onset memory issues.

Clinton did a lot of that but his approval rating actually went up after the tape was released. People understand that it's not necessary to leave themselves open to vicious lawyers exploiting the situaton and going around the houses with legalistic drivel.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You're best chance is with people who don't understand what's going on and rule against him because they fall for this PR firm sob story and the like.

Interesting point....

Armstrong retains a PR firm.
Trek retains a PR firm - the same one Lance uses.
Greg Lemond does not have a PR firm.

Armstrong gave a deposition in the SCA case - it was not heard by a Judge as the case was settled when SCA were judged to be an insurer.

 

[British Pro Cycling]

Interesting point....

Armstrong retains a PR firm.
Trek retains a PR firm - the same one Lance uses.
Greg Lemond does not have a PR firm.

The difference is, the PR firm would have told LeMond not to turn up to LA's press conference, and they probably would have a few stories in the press before the trial "my fight against doping" "my Trek to hell".

Armstrong gave a deposition in the SCA case - it was not heard by a Judge as the case was settled when SCA were judged to be an insurer.

I don't understand what that means to be honest. You're saying there was no judge? Clearly Armstrong impressed someone.

 

[Race Radio]

Asking questions that have been answered over and over are just another scream for attention from our local troll

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The ...
I don't understand what that means to be honest. You're saying there was no judge? Clearly Armstrong impressed someone.

Clearly you have no idea what you are talkng about- as the depositions that were taken were not used in the settlement of the case - it was decided on Texas contract law.

Yes Greg could be well served by retaining a PR firm.

 

[British Pro Cycling]

I believe "pretend bpc is a troll" is a tag.

Unfortunate that people can't debate the issue and have to resort to that offtopic personal stuff. Let the record show it is not me who is doing this.

 

[British Pro Cycling]

Clearly you have no idea what you are talkng about

No it doesn't - it shows that I don't know about whether there was a judge or jury at this last trial, which was supposed to be secret but was leaked. That's a narrow issue.

Yes Greg could be well served by retaining a PR firm.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

Yes it would tidy up some of his issues, but whether it would clear up his over all image I don't know. If he always had a PR firm they would have told him not to go after LA in the first place.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No it doesn't - it shows that I don't know about whether there was a judge or jury at this last trial, which was supposed to be secret but was leaked. That's a narrow issue.

.

No - it shows that you know little about the case and yet seem qualified to discuss something you clearly know little about.

Lances deposition had nothing whatsoever to do with the outcome of the SCA case.
The SCA case has absolutely no relevance to the Lemond V Trek case.

 

[Race Radio]

No - it shows that you know little about the case and yet seem qualified to discuss something you clearly know little about.

Lances deposition had nothing whatsoever to do with the outcome of the SCA case.
The SCA case has absolutely no relevance to the Lemond V Trek case.

I think we can all agree that "Discussion" is not his goal, disruption is.

 

[British Pro Cycling]

No - it shows that you know little about the case and yet seem qualified to discuss something you clearly know little about.

No, it shows that I didn't know if there was only a judge or jury involved. It seems like you're trying to focus in on that to make out all my points are invalid. I'm sure that's not the case.

Lances deposition had nothing whatsoever to do with the outcome of the SCA case.
The SCA case has absolutely no relevance to the Lemond V Trek case.

Unfortunately that could well be true, but I'm inclined not to believe it from you.

You say he impressed the insurer - well goodie for them, they obviously were put at ease by LA on the stand. It bodes well for stand related activity and LA.

 

[red_flanders]

There was no jury during the other thing?

If I were proven wrong as often as you, I'd do about 6 or 8 months of heavy research into the sport before I spoke again. Watch videos, catch up on Armstrong's historical case load, study race results, and read whatever histories of the sport I could find.

How you can continually embarrass yourself is beyond me. It's not surprising that people think you're getting paid to do it, it's hard to imagine anyone acting this way for free.

 

[ChrisE]

Can somebody draw me a diagram of what a PR firm in this case would look like?

And, toss in some concrete examples of direct influence of this PR campaign in terms of the case. I believe sprocket and scribe are potential prime examples, but they refute they were contacted. Polish my be a plant. I'm certainly not, because I can see the validity of the case yet call BS on all the conspiracy. LA should get his money back on me.

Anyway, LA/Treks lawyers will have a chance to dq potential jury members that have come under the mesmerizing spell of this PR campaign.

 

[British Pro Cycling]

If I were proven wrong as often as you.

It's almost as if you're ignoring all my points on the thread and focusing in on this narrow issue.

Why don't you take RR to task for fessing up to there being no campaign by LA to smear LeMond?

 

[British Pro Cycling]

There is no Lance Smear campaign.

---------------------------

 

[scribe]

Can somebody draw me a diagram of what a PR firm in this case would look like?

And, toss in some concrete examples of direct influence of this PR campaign in terms of the case. I believe sprocket and scribe are potential prime examples, but they refute they were contacted. Polish my be a plant. I'm certainly not, because I can see the validity of the case yet call BS on all the conspiracy. LA should get his money back on me.

Anyway, LA/Treks lawyers will have a chance to dq potential jury members that have come under the mesmerizing spell of this PR campaign.

If I get a PM from someone offering money in exchange for forum gymnastics, should I be suspicious about whether they are a double agent or not? I am thinking if they have 'strong in their user name I should probably think they are from the Lance end of the spectrum.

Anyone remember the guy whispering in all the kid's ears in Willy Wonka? I always thought it was strange he was RIGHT THERE when they opened the winning ticket. These dark and mysterious PR guys are probably just that slick.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, it shows that I didn't know if there was only a judge or jury involved. It seems like you're trying to focus in on that to make out all my points are invalid. I'm sure that's not the case.



Unfortunately that could well be true, but I'm inclined not to believe it from you.

You say he impressed the insurer - well goodie for them, they obviously were put at ease by LA on the stand. It bodes well for stand related activity and LA.

A reason why many say you are a 'troll' is because you continue to post "controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community".

LA did not take a 'stand' - he gave his deposition at his lawyers Tim Hermans office. From memory there was a 3 person arbitration panel for the SCA case with of course a Judge to rule on any legalities within the case.

If you do not wish to believe me - good, then DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.
But until you actually have some facts instead of unsubstantiated opinions it is probably in your own interest to remain silent.

 

[British Pro Cycling]

A reason why you many say you are a 'troll' is because you continue to post "controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community".

LA did not take a 'stand'....

So I'm a troll for saying LA took a "stand" in a situation where he clearly gave evidence? Very poor example of trollery. Whatever you want to call it, he did the job.

If you do not wish to believe me - good, then DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.
But until you actually have some facts instead of unsubstantiated opinions it is probably in your own interest to remain silent.

But the facts you are choosing to talk about is the phrase LA took a "stand". This is absolute pants and everyone can see that.

Nice try.

 

[British Pro Cycling]

Even ****ed off my face I can take these guys.

 

[Race Radio]

It's almost as if you're ignoring all my points on the thread and focusing in on this narrow issue.

Why don't you take RR to task for fessing up to there being no campaign by LA to smear LeMond?

In a feeble attempt to bait me into responding to your drivel you have to resort to lying again. Only confirms you are interested only in trolling, not contributing.