• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Official lance armstrong thread, part 2 (from september 2012)

Page 113 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 16, 2012
210
0
0
Visit site
The USPS loss, assuming for Mountainrman's sake loss is somehow required, is the repeating global distribution of the USPS brand on a rider with a caption about doping. Exactly the damage the clause was intended to prevent.
 
May 12, 2011
241
0
0
Visit site
ChewbaccaD said:
You haven't made a logical, law based argument yet, and somehow you think you can ascertain the validity of another legal argument? Yea, I see that a lot in 1L's in their first semester...

Pot meet kettle. You can't make a cogent argument to save your life. And, frankly you act like a -1L. If you try this crap in a court of law you'll be cited for contempt.

You can't make a legal argument yet. You're not a lawyer and have no standing. So, you're just blowing smoke like the rest of us. Somehow you think that studying to be a lawyer makes you one. Try that argument in court and let me know how it works out. FWIW, I am not trying to make legal argument, I'm making logical argument. If I were an attorney, I still wouldn't make a legal argument as I don't have access to all the data I would need to actually make one. Not that lack of facts has bothered anyone on this or any other forum.
 
May 12, 2011
241
0
0
Visit site
reginagold said:
The USPS loss, assuming for Mountainrman's sake loss is somehow required, is the repeating global distribution of the USPS brand on a rider with a caption about doping. Exactly the damage the clause was intended to prevent.

USPS does more damage daily to their own reputation than Lance ever could. Can we sue them?
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Visit site
Aleajactaest said:
Pot meet kettle. You can't make a cogent argument to save your life. And, frankly you act like a -1L. If you try this crap in a court of law you'll be cited for contempt.

You can't make a legal argument yet. You're not a lawyer and have no standing. So, you're just blowing smoke like the rest of us. Somehow you think that studying to be a lawyer makes you one. Try that argument in court and let me know how it works out. FWIW, I am not trying to make legal argument, I'm making logical argument. If I were an attorney, I still wouldn't make a legal argument as I don't have access to all the data I would need to actually make one. Not that lack of facts has bothered anyone on this or any other forum.

Look dude, I will quote the Wall St. Journal article again (note that the quote comes from a real attorney, as my word seems to not be worthy of your 3 degrees)

But David Koenigsberg, a whistleblower attorney at Menz Bonner & Komar in New York, said that may not be a strong defense. "If you take money from the federal government, you have to abide by the terms by which that money was given to you," he said. But Mr. Koenigsberg said that there is some legal precedent that would allow Mr. Armstrong and others named in the suit to argue for a lower penalty because of the benefit the Postal Service received.

Now, I was able to read a little last night, and what I read confirms this: The fraudulent taking of money (measured by violating a clear ****ing clause in the ****ing contract) FROM A FEDERAL ENTITY WHO IS PARTIALLY FUNDED BY US TAX DOLLARS IS THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES. For some reason, this appears to be a concept that 3 degrees didn't help you understand. The money would not have been given if they had known, therefore all of that money (which may have some offset, but is still fraudulently procured) is the measure. I don't care whether or not you like it; I don't care whether or not you cannot seem to wrap your head around it; I don't care if your mommy can't explain it to you. That is how the statute appears to read upon first impression and my reading is backed up by the attorney quoted in the Journal. As for having to know more facts, mmmkay, you go ahead and wait. Me, I am not a ****ing court of law, and will proceed upon the wealth of information that is already present in the public sphere. I don't have to present it to a ****ing judge today, tomorrow, or next week. If you want to back off of your previous support of BPC...sorry mountainrman, feel free. I don't care. But the fact is that you tried to come in off the top rope, and you fell flat on your face. Quit blaming me for it. I an not writing this to a court of law, I am writing this to some blowhard Armstrong apologist who wants to pretend he knows what he is talking about because he can build a really freaking sweet model plane. Sorry, but someone like you does't dole out contempt charges, so my tone can be what it is.

Now, run along and engineer something because you sure as **** are too thick to carry on this conversation.
 
May 12, 2011
241
0
0
Visit site
While I may not be an attorney I certainly know that the value of any argument isn't help at any level by use of profanity. Try THAT is a brief and let me know how it works.

Maybe it is a weak argument but the fact that your quote discusses it means it has been raised as an issue and should be considered. To do any less would be to do less than their job by an attorney. You don't always have a great case but you don't throw up your hands and say I quit. Or maybe YOU do.

As for how the USPS is funded. They get payment to compensate them for services that they are required to provide for free as a result of government laws and polices. USPS says they get no operational funding from the US Government. It's not entirely clear how you parse their status. They are legally a government entity but they also have powers that normal agencies don't have. Including:

"power to "enter into and perform contracts, execute instruments, and determine the character of, and necessity for, its expenditures";"

Which is the subject at hand. USPS tries to have things both ways. They want to be and are independent about how they run the business. To claim fraud against the government I believe ( lawyers can clarify) that they have to prove that the money spend with Team USPS came from the pool of money provided by the government. Since that pool is not allowed to be used for this, that's a tough sell.

"The USPS does get some taxpayer support. Around $96 million is budgeted annually by Congress for the "Postal Service Fund." These funds are used to compensate USPS for postage-free mailing for all legally blind persons and for mail-in election ballots sent from US citizens living overseas. A portion of the funds also pays USPS for providing address information to state and local child support enforcement agencies."
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Visit site
Aleajactaest said:
While I may not be an attorney I certainly know that the value of any argument isn't help at any level by use of profanity. Try THAT is a brief and let me know how it works.

Your sense of propriety means ****-all to me. That you somehow feel you are automatically deserving of the respect due to a court isn't my problem. I am quite capable of discerning the difference between the two, and when your posts begin to take on my personal understanding and position as a law student, I will respond personally. Go lick your wounds if the language hurts so much.

Aleajactaest said:
Maybe it is a weak argument but the fact that your quote discusses it means it has been raised as an issue and should be considered. To do any less would be to do less than their job by an attorney. You don't always have a great case but you don't throw up your hands and say I quit. Or maybe YOU do.

As for how the USPS is funded. They get payment to compensate them for services that they are required to provide for free as a result of government laws and polices. USPS says they get no operational funding from the US Government. It's not entirely clear how you parse their status. They are legally a government entity but they also have powers that normal agencies don't have. Including:

"power to "enter into and perform contracts, execute instruments, and determine the character of, and necessity for, its expenditures";"

Which is the subject at hand. USPS tries to have things both ways. They want to be and are independent about how they run the business. To claim fraud against the government I believe ( lawyers can clarify) that they have to prove that the money spend with Team USPS came from the pool of money provided by the government. Since that pool is not allowed to be used for this, that's a tough sell.

"The USPS does get some taxpayer support. Around $96 million is budgeted annually by Congress for the "Postal Service Fund." These funds are used to compensate USPS for postage-free mailing for all legally blind persons and for mail-in election ballots sent from US citizens living overseas. A portion of the funds also pays USPS for providing address information to state and local child support enforcement agencies."

All that stuff, yea, I know. They are a quasi-private entity...and that $96 million makes all the difference in the world. The fact is that there is a clear clause in the contract that forbade use of performance enhancing drugs by riders, and now we (well, you anyway, I have known for many years) find out that the whole lot of them (sure we can wait on the disposition for Johan, but again, I am not a court of law, and I can read, so my burden of proof is what I say it is) were systematically doping. You may not read that as a clear violation of a clear contractual clause, but I do. Call me Judge Judy.

I really don't have time for this right now, and am showing my stupidity by getting involved in a conversation that makes no difference anyway. As will be the case with all of the Armstrong apologist lines, sooner or later, they will all fall down and be shown as the bull**** they were to begin with. It is a matter of time. Tick tock tick tock. Funny how so many of you (this isn't your first rodeo here, we all know you are a sock puppet) change names or just leave once it is shown that the arguments you made day in and day out were noting but the rhetorical bull**** of a star struck fanboy who can't take the fact that their hero is a fraud. Luckily, reality is and has been on my side for this whole time.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,770
3
0
Visit site
Sup?

Received a E-mail from ChrisE today. Seems he read's the news ......who knew. Anyhow He had put a link in the email for this interwebs story.

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/1...plemented-salaries-of-cancer-agency-staffers/

This would be a Christmas research gift from ChrisE. Interesting name for a company that received a large grant.

"Then it was disclosed that an $11 million grant to a Dallas business, Peloton Therapeutics, never underwent a review of any kind."
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Visit site
Glenn_Wilson said:
Sup?

Received a E-mail from ChrisE today. Seems he read's the news ......who knew. Anyhow He had put a link in the email for this interwebs story.

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/1...plemented-salaries-of-cancer-agency-staffers/

This would be a Christmas research gift from ChrisE. Interesting name for a company that received a large grant.

"Then it was disclosed that an $11 million grant to a Dallas business, Peloton Therapeutics, never underwent a review of any kind."

There's a lot of money to be made on the backs of cancer patients, just ask Armstrong.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Visit site
ChewbaccaD said:
Look dude, I will quote the Wall St. Journal article again (note that the quote comes from a real attorney, as my word seems to not be worthy of your 3 degrees)



Now, I was able to read a little last night, and what I read confirms this: The fraudulent taking of money (measured by violating a clear ****ing clause in the ****ing contract) FROM A FEDERAL ENTITY WHO IS PARTIALLY FUNDED BY US TAX DOLLARS IS THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES. For some reason, this appears to be a concept that 3 degrees didn't help you understand. The money would not have been given if they had known, therefore all of that money (which may have some offset, but is still fraudulently procured) is the measure. I don't care whether or not you like it; I don't care whether or not you cannot seem to wrap your head around it; I don't care if your mommy can't explain it to you. That is how the statute appears to read upon first impression and my reading is backed up by the attorney quoted in the Journal. As for having to know more facts, mmmkay, you go ahead and wait. Me, I am not a ****ing court of law, and will proceed upon the wealth of information that is already present in the public sphere. I don't have to present it to a ****ing judge today, tomorrow, or next week. If you want to back off of your previous support of BPC...sorry mountainrman, feel free. I don't care. But the fact is that you tried to come in off the top rope, and you fell flat on your face. Quit blaming me for it. I an not writing this to a court of law, I am writing this to some blowhard Armstrong apologist who wants to pretend he knows what he is talking about because he can build a really freaking sweet model plane. Sorry, but someone like you does't dole out contempt charges, so my tone can be what it is.

Now, run along and engineer something because you sure as **** are too thick to carry on this conversation.

It is quite fascinating how Chewbacca in between the usual insults , tries to drag up a quote from a real lawyer, when he/she is the FIRST to squeal when quotes from other lawyers disagree saying "yes but they are all lance supporters" - such as the considerable legal opinion published against the extending of SOL.

The reality is the entire scumbag profession lives off quibbling mindless detail on which none of them can be sure, until the lottery dice is rolled in court , and then rolled again at appeal.

Chewbacca - I am still waiting to hear of evidence of a case of the "false claims act" in which someone was prosecuted without the government showing tangible loss, which is the essence of fraud. Lying is not in itself a fraud - until it can be shown that it was done with intent to inflict loss or damage on the government. - indeed the government presumably has to show it did not know the truth at the time! Give us a precedent (preferably not from a real estate 101 law book) - if you have done so I missed it, but then I cannot be bothered reading acrimonious drivel.

PS I hate lawyers - but in this instance, it might just give some satisfaction, knowing LA is getting an eye watering legal bill each month!
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Visit site
mountainrman said:
Troll babble

I will address this. Have no fear. And when I show you just how incompetent and inept you are at discerning legal argument, you will simply switch bait and continue on BPC.

As for the SOL argument. Last time I checked, Lance was stripped of his wins. Seems the SOL was valid. Nobody is going to go back and change that. Period. Therefore in practice and effect, the SOL is valid. Courts validate by not addressing issues all the time. The issue was addressed by all of the bodies that dealt with stripping Armstrong of his titles, and they stripped him of his titles. Evidently they, unlike you, found the SOL to be perfectly valid. Hey, you'll find another issue to troll on champ, don't fret.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Visit site
mountainrman said:
It is quite fascinating how Chewbacca in between the usual insults , tries to drag up a quote from a real lawyer, when he/she is the FIRST to squeal when quotes from other lawyers disagree saying "yes but they are all lance supporters" - such as the considerable legal opinion published against the extending of SOL.

The reality is the entire scumbag profession lives off quibbling mindless detail on which none of them can be sure, until the lottery dice is rolled in court , and then rolled again at appeal.

Chewbacca - I am still waiting to hear of evidence of a case of the "false claims act" in which someone was prosecuted without the government showing tangible loss, which is the essence of fraud. Lying is not in itself a fraud - until it can be shown that it was done with intent to inflict loss or damage on the government. - indeed the government presumably has to show it did not know the truth at the time! Give us a precedent (preferably not from a real estate 101 law book) - if you have done so I missed it, but then I cannot be bothered reading acrimonious drivel.

PS I hate lawyers - but in this instance, it might just give some satisfaction, knowing LA is getting an eye watering legal bill each month!

But let me give a tease of where I am going with this: And yes, there will have to be a shoehorn used (that is what attorneys and law students do), but this situation fits much more clearly here than the statutes you keep relying on. Just substitute the word "contractual" for "statutory" and you will see where this goes. And I have never said anything was a slam dunk. Just that you were looking behind the wrong bush. And when this all rolls out, I think we will see that was clearly the case.

Damages in False Certification Cases. False certification cases involve a defendant claiming entitlement to certain statutory benefits after either explicitly or implicitly falsely declaring that specific criteria have been met. The basic measure of damages in false certification cases is the amount the Government paid higher than the amount it would have paid if the statements were true. Under the broad “but for” measure of damages, the calculation may also include incidental expenses paid as a result of the fraud. Because it includes incidental expenses, the “but for” measure leads to greater recovery than the “actual loss” test. Circuits are split regarding measuring damages in a false certification cases.Any amount paid to the Government as compensation reduces the amount of damages awarded.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Visit site
ChewbaccaD said:
I will address this. Have no fear. And when I show you just how incompetent and inept you are at discerning legal argument, you will simply switch bait and continue on BPC.

As for the SOL argument. Last time I checked, Lance was stripped of his wins. Seems the SOL was valid. Nobody is going to go back and change that. Period. Therefore in practice and effect, the SOL is valid. Courts validate by not addressing issues all the time. The issue was addressed by all of the bodies that dealt with stripping Armstrong of his titles, and they stripped him of his titles. Evidently they, unlike you, found the SOL to be perfectly valid. Hey, you'll find another issue to troll on champ, don't fret.

Seems you don't understand the process. Until CAS is asked to rule in that case it is untested. (just like real courts) UCI clearly objected. WADA are considering extending the SOL, demonstrating they are not convinced either whatever their "consultants" said.

It may yet reach CAS in the JB case (which is wholly different) and CAS may clarify what it thinks the rules are - in that judgement if such a ruling is made.

I think the WADA SOL clause should be rewritten to stop country agencies going on fishing expeditions in National Laws when they don't like the rules as they are. That way at least the rules woiuld be clear.

I am still in the balance whether JB will go for the hearing. By now he should have the evidence in his case under the rules - and from that decide what to do - but Tygart is not such a stickler for process, so who knows? If I were JB I would go to CAS to get a ruling on the SOL before discussing the wider issues, so he does not have to discuss anything prior to 2005
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Visit site
mountainrman said:
Seems you don't understand the process. Until CAS is asked to rule in that case it is untested. UCI clearly objected. WADA are considering extending the SOL, demonstrating they are not convinced either.

It may yet reach CAS in the JB case (which is wholly different) and CAS may clarify what it thinks the rules are - in that judgement if such a ruling is made.

I am still in the balance whether JB will go for the hearing. By now he should have the evidence in his case under the rules - and from that decide what to do - but Tygart is not such a stickler for process, so who knows? If I were JB I would go to CAS to get a ruling on the SOL, so he does not have to discuss anthing prior to 2005

Who cares what you think really? You are just a doping apologist looking for a way out.

You seem not to understand the process whereby the results were stripped for years clearly outside of the SOL, meaning that nowhere did the SOL issue create enough friction to invalidate the disposition of the case. It was tested, it just wasn't tested by who you want it to have been tested by. Doesn't change the fact that the bodies that did test it found the original disposition valid. The fact that WADA is considering extending only reflects a desire to extinguish and ambiguity. Being ambiguous and being invalid are not the same thing BPC.

Look at the scoreboard.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Visit site
ChewbaccaD said:
But let me give a tease of where I am going with this: And yes, there will have to be a shoehorn used (that is what attorneys and law students do), but this situation fits much more clearly here than the statutes you keep relying on. Just substitute the word "contractual" for "statutory" and you will see where this goes. And I have never said anything was a slam dunk. Just that you were looking behind the wrong bush. And when this all rolls out, I think we will see that was clearly the case.

Chewbacca - the opinions I state may be inept - but they are not mine They belong to some of your better qualified and supposedly more competent brethren!

Ever since the qui tam suit started there has been legal opinion questioning whether it is a hammer being applied to a screw, because of the various issued raised. The false claims had no impact on the amount of publicity they got for the money. It would not have been cheaper had they known.

Sio we can only wait for a lot of meaningless drivel from lawyers then a judge to roll a dice on the matter, then at appeal , and only then will we find out how the law can be abused in this case.

I hardly think that an essentially bankrupt company can talk about who else is damaging their publicitiy! They seem to be good at that themselves.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Visit site
mountainrman said:
Chewbacca - the opinions I state may be inept - but they are not mine They belong to some of your better qualified and supposedly more competent brethren!

Ever since the qui tam suit started there has been legal opinion questioning whether it is a hammer being applied to a screw, because of the various issued raised. The false claims had no impact on the amount of publicity they got for the money. It would not have been cheaper had they known.

Sio we can only wait for a lot of meaningless drivel from lawyers then a judge to roll a dice on the matter, then at appeal , and only then will we find out how the law can be abused in this case.

Sympathy for the criminal...no, the abuse here was by Armstrong and Bruyneel. You keep missing the people who deserve enmity here and instead place it on those just upholding the law. There is a motive behind that, and it's apparent to everyone. Because Wonderboy and The Hog procured funds by false pretenses, and some of that money was mine. I want people who do such things to be punished for their lies, and also to serve as a warning to others to not abuse the system in that same way. There may be no other case like this one, but that is true of any case really. Your suggestion is based on Napoleonic Code or something because you want this to play out: If there is no statute or case exactly like this, then the case cannot be tried. Here, in the US, we do things a little differently (well, except for Louisiana), and cases that are not exactly like others (where there is clearly fraud, false pretenses, or other violations or laws) are tried for the good of society based on trying to discern (with the law that is there), the best remedy. Sorry you don't like that, but it produces much more just outcomes than the system you seem to favor.
 
ChewbaccaD said:
Sympathy for the criminal...no, the abuse here was by Armstrong and Bruyneel. You keep missing the people who deserve enmity here and instead place it on those just upholding the law. There is a motive behind that, and it's apparent to everyone. Because Wonderboy and The Hog procured funds by false pretenses, and some of that money was mine. I want people who do such things to be punished for their lies, and also to serve as a warning to others to not abuse the system in that same way. There may be no other case like this one, but that is true of any case really. Your suggestion is based on Napoleonic Code or something because you want this to play out: If there is no statute or case exactly like this, then the case cannot be tried. Here, in the US, we do things a little differently (well, except for Louisiana), and cases that are not exactly like others (where there is clearly fraud, false pretenses, or other violations or laws) are tried for the good of society based on trying to discern (with the law that is there), the best remedy. Sorry you don't like that, but it produces much more just outcomes than the system you seem to favor.

Do you have a major in troll feeding?

As you pointed out, the scoreboard would prove you right, the rest is just useless babble.

Lancey-poo is on a downward slide to oblivion. Anything else is almost irrelevant.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Visit site
ChewbaccaD said:
Sympathy for the criminal....

Chewbacca. Rule for life. First read. Second comment - do not assume you understand your opponents position until you have actually read it. You will not make a good lawyer until you do!

Because -
I have never expressed sympathy for either Armstrong or Bruyneel - other than in the context of the JB information should not be in public domain before a hearing!

I entered many of the threads not to contest the sanctions against armstrong but to comment on the ridiculously low sanctions for GH and LL, and the wrongful lifetime sanction given to Rasmussen by the back door because the sport plays too many "favourites"

If they are guilty they deserve proper sentence according to the rules. No more and no less, no favourites. No scapegoats. No blacklists.

And that should be your position as a lawyer too.

I have protected to the hilt their right to justice and to proper treatment within the rules.

I am a fan of justice not either of them, and certainly not of the vindictive and nasty UCI, nor a process which hops into US law because it does not like the rules. They should amend the code to make it self stand - and in the light of all CAS rulings - it should not be necessary to invoke US law.
They should clean up the clearly blurred lines of jurisdiction, and the process has to be changed so that prosecutors cannot be judge too, and so that country federations cannot protect the Spanish and attack the Danes. It should not matter where you live.

The scoreboard does not matter. The score board as it would be if all cases were taken to proper opinion does. This case on SOL was not. It is absurd that Riis still has a TdF title despite admitting cheating, (because of SOL) when Armstrong does not. It is proof of injustice , not justice. Ends do not justify means.

I have seen what happens when the "guilty at all costs" rabble get their way when someone I knew who was innocent , and ultimately proved so, was destroyed by the presumption of guilt in athletics. No doubt she would have been vilified in the clinic too, on the fact of suspicion and charge, before the defence got a chance.

That is why proper process matters to me.

You have misread my position because you are too quick to attack anyone who disagrees with you.
 
May 26, 2009
460
0
0
www.parrabuddy.blogspot.com
Clicked onto this thread thinking that something interesting might be appearing ? i find there are two adults having a childish spat . Normally it costs me 300kb , to raise as page BUT today 22MB disappear ! Thought there was a " personal message " facility for people to use to resolve disputes ?

Whether chewy or the goat is right or wrong is of no concern to me , BUT , 25+pages of a spat , when LA has just been " advised by UCI " , is a fraud on my time and resources !

Now going to look for Adults discussing relevant material !
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Visit site
mountainrman said:
Chewbacca. Rule for life. First read. Second comment - do not assume you understand your opponents position until you have actually read it. You will not make a good lawyer until you do!

Because -
I have never expressed sympathy for either Armstrong or Bruyneel - other than in the context of the JB information should not be in public domain before a hearing!

I entered many of the threads not to contest the sanctions against armstrong but to comment on the ridiculously low sanctions for GH and LL, and the wrongful lifetime sanction given to Rasmussen by the back door because the sport plays too many "favourites"

If they are guilty they deserve proper sentence according to the rules. No more and no less, no favourites. No scapegoats. No blacklists.

And that should be your position as a lawyer too.

I have protected to the hilt their right to justice and to proper treatment within the rules.

I am a fan of justice not either of them, and certainly not of the vindictive and nasty UCI, nor a process which hops into US law because it does not like the rules. They should amend the code to make it self stand - and in the light of all CAS rulings - it should not be necessary to invoke US law.
They should clean up the clearly blurred lines of jurisdiction, and the process has to be changed so that prosecutors cannot be judge too, and so that country federations cannot protect the Spanish and attack the Danes. It should not matter where you live.

The scoreboard does not matter. The score board as it would be if all cases were taken to proper opinion does. This case on SOL was not. It is absurd that Riis still has a TdF title despite admitting cheating, (because of SOL) when Armstrong does not. It is proof of injustice , not justice. Ends do not justify means.

I have seen what happens when the "guilty at all costs" rabble get their way when someone I knew who was innocent , and ultimately proved so, was destroyed by the presumption of guilt in athletics. No doubt she would have been vilified in the clinic too, on the fact of suspicion and charge, before the defence got a chance.

That is why proper process matters to me.

You have misread my position because you are too quick to attack anyone who disagrees with you.

You mistake not reading for not believing. I don't believe your protestations regarding Wonderboy or The Hog. As for the rest, SSDD.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Visit site
skippy said:
Clicked onto this thread thinking that something interesting might be appearing ? i find there are two adults having a childish spat . Normally it costs me 300kb , to raise as page BUT today 22MB disappear ! Thought there was a " personal message " facility for people to use to resolve disputes ?

Whether chewy or the goat is right or wrong is of no concern to me , BUT , 25+pages of a spat , when LA has just been " advised by UCI " , is a fraud on my time and resources !

Now going to look for Adults discussing relevant material !

And you bothering to comment is even more useless. Nobody forces you to read anything. Personal responsibility, look it up.
 
DirtyWorks said:
I think there are now, or will be, records released as a result of the denial. I didn't see any posted at RR's scribd account.

Yes. Armstrong's argument was that the releasing of documents could reveal "grand jury" testimonies. But he has been denied his request for "seal". So the document will be coming out in the coming days. Should make interesting reading.