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

[BroDeal]

Weisel will settle for no money and no admission of guilt. He has an ego as large as Armstrong's and he won't want his business deals looked at too closely.

The self-dealing he was doing leaves him open to more than the doping fraud.

 

[Benotti69]

It's the other way around. Unless Armstrong settles, the USA gets to avail themselves of the liberal discovery rules, backed by the power of the federal court. Only settlement will stop the depositions and subpoenas.

read my post again.....big egg chewy has on that face.

 

[Benotti69]

Weisel will settle for no money and no admission of guilt. He has an ego as large as Armstrong's and he won't want his business deals looked at too closely.

The self-dealing he was doing leaves him open to more than the doping fraud.

If Weisel doesn't pony up I guess the Feds will dig and get other government agencies involved.

I doubt Armstrong has the funds to pay the Qui Tam in settlement, at least 50$mill.

 

[Carols]

Just making sure no one has missed this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blo...ders-film-posters#/?picture=404600544&index=5

 

[Netserk]

Just making sure no one has missed this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blo...ders-film-posters#/?picture=404600544&index=5

This was my favourite of the 5:

 

[D-Queued]

...

I'm tired of the banging on Markvw. Yeah, some of his arguments are weak, but just leave it there.

Sorry, but no.

There is a difference between weak, faulty or pretzel logic and a concerted PR campaign to smear people like Frankie.

One can be excused or ignored. The other, however, cannot.

Was Markvw being reckless when he made his multiple inappropriate and incorrect comments about Frankie, or was this part of a Lance PR campaign?

Either way, an explicit correction is required and his arguments cannot be just 'left there'.

Dave.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

IMHO, no. Not close. Ashenden's feud with the UCI ripped open the bio-passport fraud for what it is, no testing at all. That story hasn't made it out of Velonation. IMHO, it's because it reaches directly into the IOC's intentions of creating WADA in the first place. It should have been a silent cuckold like Francesca Rossi at the UCI. Instead, they got people that wanted to do the real job, not the actors they were looking for.

Controversy has hounded the Saugy/UCI cozy relationship for months now and nothing has changed.

Beyond all that, if you check the thread about the IOC, you will see they demand supranational authority in order for a country to be an IOC member. They will take exception to a national investigation. Rogge has publicly supported Hein.

As long as the narrative remains "problem athlete" and stays at that level, the IOC/UCI is happy throwing Wonderboy under the bus.

I'm tired of the banging on Markvw. Yeah, some of his arguments are weak, but just leave it there.

You misspelled "all."

 

[MarkvW]

Of course!

Now that everyone wants to sue him, Lance is going to lie down and admit everything.

And, by admitting everything, he won't be legally liable for any of it.

That is so cool.

I love your logic.

Dave.

Look at it from Lance's perspective. He's already been a subject of a multi-year criminal investigation that has amassed a lot of facts about the USPS conspiracy. That investigation is broader than the USADA investigation because it was focused on more than just doping.

Lance has no way of knowing the full scope of the knowledge that the feds have. Novitsky, on the other hand, knows exactly what information was gathered in the criminal investigation--and he'll likely have access to the USPS lawsuit's evidence. If Lance says anything that contradicts the information that the feds have from the criminal case, then Lance risks a new perjury charge. Lance has already run the federal indictment gauntlet once, I doubt he'll want to run it again.

Sure, Lance is going to want to lie in his deposition, but he also doesn't want to get a perjury conviction. He can't craft a lie that is carefully tailored to the facts known by the government, because he doesn't know the full extent of what the government knows. He's traversing a minefield if he lies.

I'm thinking that there will be some truth coming from Lance's USPS deposition--at least as much as Tygart would have gotten from Lance.

Thanks for your rude and thoughtless response!

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Look at it from Lance's perspective. He's already been a subject of a multi-year criminal investigation that has amassed a lot of facts about the USPS conspiracy. That investigation is broader than the USADA investigation because it was focused on more than just doping.

Lance has no way of knowing the full scope of the knowledge that the feds have. Novitsky, on the other hand, knows exactly what information was gathered in the criminal investigation--and he'll likely have access to the USPS lawsuit's evidence. If Lance says anything that contradicts the information that the feds have from the criminal case, then Lance risks a new perjury charge. Lance has already run the federal indictment gauntlet once, I doubt he'll want to run it again.

Sure, Lance is going to want to lie in his deposition, but he also doesn't want to get a perjury conviction. He can't craft a lie that is carefully tailored to the facts known by the government, because he doesn't know the full extent of what the government knows. He's traversing a minefield if he lies.

I'm thinking that there will be some truth coming from Lance's USPS deposition--at least as much as Tygart would have gotten from Lance.

Thanks for your rude and thoughtless response!

You referenced the SCA case in relation to how it will be affected by a deposition. It was very clear that D was referring to that element of your statement. If you are going to throw accusations of "thoughtless[ness]" out there, you might consider not being thoughtless in your own responses.

You're welcome.

 

[MarkvW]

Sorry, but no.

There is a difference between weak, faulty or pretzel logic and a concerted PR campaign to smear people like Frankie.

One can be excused or ignored. The other, however, cannot.

Was Markvw being reckless when he made his multiple inappropriate and incorrect comments about Frankie, or was this part of a Lance PR campaign?

Either way, an explicit correction is required and his arguments cannot be just 'left there'.

Dave.

Frankie was a knowing part of a corrupt cycling team. He doped, and he knowingly rode in support of doped Lance Armstrong, and the doped USPS team. BUT, he didn't do it for long, he quit entirely on his own, and he has been honest, ever after. I am not a Frankie-Hater. This paragraph expresses my thoughts on the man.

My comments arose in the context of a moderation by Berzin of another poster. I was offended by Berzin's response to that poster.

If you think I am posting for Armstrong, you really are mistaken.
ed. by hiero2: name-calling / personal attack
ed. netserk: personal attack

 

[MarkvW]

You referenced the SCA case in relation to how it will be affected by a deposition. It was very clear that D was referring to that element of your statement. If you are going to throw accusations of "thoughtless[ness]" out there, you might consider not being thoughtless in your own responses.

You're welcome.

Sorry! That post wasn't directed at you.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Sorry! That post wasn't directed at you.

I knew who you were addressing.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Frankie was a knowing part of a corrupt cycling team. He doped, and he knowingly rode in support of doped Lance Armstrong, and the doped USPS team. BUT, he didn't do it for long, he quit entirely on his own, and he has been honest, ever after. I am not a Frankie-Hater. This paragraph expresses my thoughts on the man.

My comments arose in the context of a moderation by Berzin of another poster. I was offended by Berzin's response to that poster.

If you think I am posting for Armstrong, you really are mistaken.

You wrote that Frankie "helped Lance dope." You have never backed away from that statement, nor its implication (unless you are doing it in a sideways manner in the above post). That being the case, we are still waiting for you to admit you made something up, the reasons for which you will likely not convince anyone of, but we at least want to see you admit it was complete bull**** to post that. What you term a "vendetta" we just call looking for you to retract your smear.

 

[D-Queued]

Frankie was a knowing part of a corrupt cycling team. He doped, and he knowingly rode in support of doped Lance Armstrong, and the doped USPS team. BUT, he didn't do it for long, he quit entirely on his own, and he has been honest, ever after. I am not a Frankie-Hater. This paragraph expresses my thoughts on the man.

My comments arose in the context of a moderation by Berzin of another poster. I was offended by Berzin's response to that poster.

If you think I am posting for Armstrong, you really are mistaken.

Please respond directly to the question of what you state conclusively was Frankie's complicity in directly (!) aiding the doping activities of Lance.

You posted this brazen and absurd accusation multiple times. You have yet to correct yourself.

Please don't try and hide behind a response to a moderator. This is not the place, and such an action can only be interpreted as a misdirection to avoid the question at hand. Dialog on moderator comments has a completely separate location in the Forum.

Dave.

 

[aphronesis]

Please respond directly to the question of what you state conclusively was Frankie's complicity in directly (!) aiding the doping activities of Lance.

You posted this brazen and absurd accusation multiple times. You have yet to correct yourself.

Please don't try and hide behind a response to a moderator. This is not the place, and such an action can only be interpreted as a misdirection to avoid the question at hand. Dialog on moderator comments has a completely separate location in the Forum.

Dave.

He's said what he meant more than once. In that regard, I wouldn't say it's interesting, but it's certainly unsurprising that people with the proper amount of vehemence toward this topic can jumble all kinds of facts and post any amount of gibberish with regard to psychology and intent--not of Armstrong per se, but of the other players on his side of this situation and none of that even gets corrected, let alone questioned.

If Mark thinks that Frankie was to some degree complicit in the doping and that complicity is tantamount to assistance (because it's not prevention) why keep going over the same point?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

He's said what he meant more than once. In that regard, I wouldn't say it's interesting, but it certainly unsurprising that people with the proper amount of vehemence toward this topic can jumble all kinds of fact and post any amount of gibberish with regard to psychology and intent--not of Armstrong per se, but of the other players on his side of this situation and none of that even gets corrected, let alone questioned.

If Mark thinks that Frankie was to some degree complicit in the doping and that complicity in tantamount to assistance (because it's not prevention) why keep going over the same point?

Maybe he should have used words like "tantamount"...only he didn't. He said Frankie "helped Lance dope." I don't see "tantamount" anywhere in that statement.

 

[aphronesis]

That's what it's there for. I seem to recall that distinction coming out over the course of his clarification. Or maybe I'm being generous in seeing that implied in his statements.

Either way, what point does sticking on the literalness of the statement serve?

 

[peterst6906]

Either way, what point does sticking on the literalness of the statement serve?

Because someone has to win the internet.

Though more seriously, it's suits the argument to stick to the literalness sometimes and ignore it at others. No real point other than that.

 

[MarkvW]

Please respond directly to the question of what you state conclusively was Frankie's complicity in directly (!) aiding the doping activities of Lance.
You posted this brazen and absurd accusation multiple times. You have yet to correct yourself.

Please don't try and hide behind a response to a moderator. This is not the place, and such an action can only be interpreted as a misdirection to avoid the question at hand. Dialog on moderator comments has a completely separate location in the Forum.

Dave.

Your "question" isn't a question. It isn't even phrased in coherent English. I think Frankie and all the other Posties helped Lance dope for the reasons stated in my last post. But for the doped teammates, Lance would have been a doper without a team. It's as simple as that.

Frankie's a good guy who made a mistake.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

That's what it's there for. I seem to recall that distinction coming out over the course of his clarification. Or maybe I'm being generous in seeing that implied in his statements.

Either way, what point does sticking on the literalness of the statement serve?

It serves to color his commentary here, and it is all on him.

His "distin[guishment]" came first in the form of the Ike Turner defense of "I'm sorry I had to hit you baby, but you brought it on yourself."

Twisting your words to make them look less harmless later is what everyone does when it's pointed out they were full of ****. I say either own your statement, or admit you were wrong. But that's how I roll.

We didn't even discuss his rooster act last Thursday when he thought the Feds were not going to join the Qui Tam. He came in here strutting around and throwing out barbs left and right. But that is a topic for another day.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Your "question" isn't a question. It isn't even phrased in coherent English. I think Frankie and all the other Posties helped Lance dope for the reasons stated in my last post. But for the doped teammates, Lance would have been a doper without a team. It's as simple as that.

Frankie's a good guy who made a mistake.

See, there it is again. Sextupling down. Lance helped Lance dope. Lance helped everyone else dope. Nobody else helped Lance dope though, well, except for Johan, Ferrari, his wife and evidently a girlfriend or two (one of which was a girlfriend before the wife was not the wife), and lots of others. But Frankie didn't.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

And let me reiterate why continuing to shove this in MarkvW's face matters: For years, Betsy and Frankie were drug through the mud by Wonderboy's fanboys. They received more abuse than anyone until Manrod sent his letters and emails. They were savaged.

MarkvW had the option of disparaging a lot of people in relation to the topic of Wonderboy's doping, but he chose Frankie. A dog will always return to its vomit.

His original statement had a specific implication. He is choosing to dance like a $2 stripper about it now, but that doesn't change anything. He chose the subject and words, and until he admits he was FOS for doing so, he needs to be reminded of it.

 

[Benotti69]

And let me reiterate why continuing to shove this in MarkvW's face matters: For years, Betsy and Frankie were drug through the mud by Wonderboy's fanboys. They received more abuse than anyone until Manrod sent his letters and emails. They were savaged.

MarkvW had the option of disparaging a lot of people in relation to the topic of Wonderboy's doping, but he chose Frankie. A dog will always return to its vomit.

His original statement had a specific implication. He is choosing to dance like a $2 stripper about it now, but that doesn't change anything. He chose the subject and words, and until he admits he was FOS for doing so, he needs to be reminded of it.

Yep +1

Lots of fanboys dragged those Armstrong bullied through the forum mud, even after it was obvious to a blindman he was wrong

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Mark is right.

Lets be honest - we all helped Lance dope.
Did you write a letter to Lance or his mob asking them not to dope? If not then you to helped and assisted Lance dope.

Lance is not responsible here, he is a victim because you didn't write to him....ohh, and Frankie is responsible too. And Betsy for marrying Frankie.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Yep +1

Lots of fanboys dragged those Armstrong bullied through the forum mud, even after it was obvious to a blindman he was wrong

Sorry, but the fact that you guys keep re-acting to the un-ending flow of crap that the select few keep providing is painful to watch....