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

[Scott SoCal]

It has already started. Judges. Bill Clinton. You have to wonder just how far up the totem pole this conspiracy goes. Surely the Queen of England and Da Joos can be worked in there somewhere.

Of course the prosecution failures with Bonds and Clemens had nothing to do with it. A cautious man may think that winning over juries when prosecuting celebrities might be problematic, but--No!--it's a conspiracy. Some might even point to Birotte's refusal to prosecute Angelo Mozilo, a man who ran what a Congressional investigation called a "fraud factory" and cost the U.S. public tens of billions of dollars, perhaps even hundreds of billions, as a sign that Birotte shies away from tough cases, something that would explain not wanting to prosecute a popular celebrity, but--No!--it's a conspiracy I tell ya.

Countrywide probably gave a sweetheart loan to Birotte.

 

[MarkvW]

Not really. It's obvious, however, the process of connecting the dots will always be lost lost on some.

It's okay. You can't be great at everything.

The problem with your theory is that you only have one dot! And an ad hominem attack. And you ignore the new dots (qui tam, appointment to federal judgeship) as they become known.

 

[RetroActive]

The problem with your theory is that you only have one dot! And an ad hominem attack. And you ignore the new dots (qui tam, appointment to federal judgeship) as they become known.

 

[BroDeal]

The problem with your theory is that you only have one dot! And an ad hominem attack. And you ignore the new dots (qui tam, appointment to federal judgeship) as they become known.

One dot if you are lucky. For some here everything that happens is a conspiracy. Someone writes a book that is not critical enough of Armstrong. Conspiracy. Someone gives an interview to the wrong newspaper. Conspiracy. A cave painting on Ancient Aliens has a vague resemblance to Armstrong. Conspiracy.

It is par for the course and goes well with those who blame everything that happened to them on Armstrong. Did not get a job. Lance Armstrong. Did not get a race invite. Lance Armstrong. Burger King forgot the pickle on a Whopper. Lance Armstrong.

 

[BroDeal]

I could definitely buy fear over losing. Maybe even making a bad call because of fear of losing. But not influence or corruption...there's just nowhere near enough evidence of that. Except here in the Clinic!

You don't get to be a judge by losing highly publicized cases.

 

[Scott SoCal]

The problem with your theory is that you only have one dot! And an ad hominem attack. And you ignore the new dots (qui tam, appointment to federal judgeship) as they become known.

Oh my. Not this again.

Rather than go over the info again (surely will bore the **** outta everybody) I'll resist disturbing your faith.

 

[MarkvW]

You don't get to be a judge by losing highly publicized cases.

Fed prosecutors will only take strong stuff to trial--and federal judges get REALLY ****ed off if weak stuff is tried in front of them. They view it as a waste of time. This is true for all cases. Not just Lance Armstrong's case.

 

[MarkvW]

Oh my. Not this again.

Rather than go over the info again (surely will bore the **** outta everybody) I'll resist disturbing your faith.

Good. Then Berzin won't be censoring the thread again.

 

[Scott SoCal]

One dot if you are lucky. For some here everything that happens is a conspiracy. Someone writes a book that is not critical enough of Armstrong. Conspiracy. Someone gives an interview to the wrong newspaper. Conspiracy. A cave painting on Ancient Aliens has a vague resemblance to Armstrong. Conspiracy.

It is par for the course and goes well with those who blame everything that happened to them on Armstrong. Did not get a job. Lance Armstrong. Did not get a race invite. Lance Armstrong. Burger King forgot the pickle on a Whopper. Lance Armstrong.

Yep. Been tested 800 times. Lance Armstrong. Conspiracy.

 

[RetroActive]

Yep. Been tested 800 times. Lance Armstrong. Conspiracy.

It was just a missing pickle (honest). Nobody can keep a secret. Interests don't overlap.

ps, I wonder what the NSA knows that we don't - does that include judges? nah, that wouldn't happen. I mean it's not like there's been evidence for decades as to how these games are played.

History is a desert with respect to people conspiring for power. It's a fact - really.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Fed prosecutors will only take strong stuff to trial--and federal judges get REALLY ****ed off if weak stuff is tried in front of them. They view it as a waste of time. This is true for all cases. Not just Lance Armstrong's case.

I musta missed Novitsky having concluded his investigation.

Ima guessing Jeffie is still shaking his head over his bosses lack of spine (and that's being charitable).

 

[Scott SoCal]

It was just a pickle (honest). Nobody can keep a secret.

Don't I know it. May Cancer Jesus rise again. The over-persecution is really getting to me.

 

[MarkvW]

One dot if you are lucky. For some here everything that happens is a conspiracy. Someone writes a book that is not critical enough of Armstrong. Conspiracy. Someone gives an interview to the wrong newspaper. Conspiracy. A cave painting on Ancient Aliens has a vague resemblance to Armstrong. Conspiracy.

It is par for the course and goes well with those who blame everything that happened to them on Armstrong. Did not get a job. Lance Armstrong. Did not get a race invite. Lance Armstrong. Burger King forgot the pickle on a Whopper. Lance Armstrong.

For example, it is interesting how certain attitudes regarding Emma O'Reilly have changed now that Emma has made it clear that her personal attitude toward Armstrong differs from the "Lance is the evillest and worstest person in the whole world" attitude. And how Walsh went from a godlike figure to a shill for the corrupt world of pro cycling.

 

[Scott SoCal]

You don't get to be a judge by losing highly publicized cases.

True. Not taking pols calls can hurt your judgeship too.

But I'm sure it was truly a merit based decision.

You think Holder wanted to take down Angelo? Neither do I.

 

[Scott SoCal]

For example, it is interesting how certain attitudes regarding Emma O'Reilly have changed now that Emma has made it clear that her personal attitude toward Armstrong differs from the "Lance is the evillest and worstest person in the whole world" attitude. And how Walsh went from a godlike figure to a shill for the corrupt world of pro cycling.

You see no duplicity in Walsh's love affair with Froome? That's just a poor example.

 

[MarkvW]

You see no duplicity in Walsh's love affair with Froome? That's just a poor example.

He's the same guy now that he was when he was exposing Armstrong. It's not like his whole personality suddenly changed, or anything. Many people were hostile to anything critical of Walsh's journalistic technique (his awfulness as a writer for example) while he was after Armstrong. But now that he's favoring a team suspected of doping, Walsh is harshly and personally criticized up one side and down the other.

 

[Merckx index]

He's the same guy now that he was when he was exposing Armstrong. It's not like his whole personality suddenly changed, or anything. Many people were hostile to anything critical of Walsh's journalistic technique (his awfulness as a writer for example) while he was after Armstrong. But now that he's favoring a team suspected of doping, Walsh is harshly and personally criticized up one side and down the other.

Yeah, it's really weird, people playing the ball and not the man.

 

[thehog]

You see no duplicity in Walsh's love affair with Froome? That's just a poor example.

To be fair on the situation, the federal court just recently appeared to vote on party (appointed) lines on state subsidies for Obama care.

Down the middle for Repub. and Dems. It was odd. So I'm sure judges are open to influence.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/24/5932883/jon-stewart-obamacare-lawsuits-halbig/in/5690430

But as Bro said; one making a play for a Judgeship would keep themselves out of controversy. At the time Armstrong still had a lot of love. It wouldn't have been a popular move. Now not a problem but back then it could have been a tricky trial to put forward from a public perception point of view.

 

[BullsFan22]

Very good entertainment right here:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/lance-armstrong-a-career-in-39-quotes


The bits about Bassons and Simeoni put a wry smile to my face.

 

[Energy Starr]

Very good entertainment right here:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/lance-armstrong-a-career-in-39-quotes


The bits about Bassons and Simeoni put a wry smile to my face.

It sums up everything very nicely. What an incredible dbag that guy is.

 

[Cycle Chic]

Documentary

Cycling's Greatest Fraud on National Geographic

Sky Channel 543 tomorrow night at 9pm Sunday 26th July

 

[mewmewmew13]

Very good entertainment right here:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/lance-armstrong-a-career-in-39-quotes


The bits about Bassons and Simeoni put a wry smile to my face.

That was good entertainment for sure! Just spent a good several minutes languishing in the hubris of Lance...LOL

 

[ChewbaccaD]

He's the same guy now that he was when he was exposing Armstrong. It's not like his whole personality suddenly changed, or anything. Many people were hostile to anything critical of Walsh's journalistic technique (his awfulness as a writer for example) while he was after Armstrong. But now that he's favoring a team suspected of doping, Walsh is harshly and personally criticized up one side and down the other.

Evidently, you haven't been paying much attention to Walsh these past couple of years...

 

[aphronesis]

Yeah, it's really weird, people playing the ball and not the man.

Nice try. Even you are smarter than this.

 

[aphronesis]

Evidently, you haven't been paying much attention to Walsh these past couple of years...

You and details are never in the same room...

MarkvW the fanboy doping apologist has returned. Good to see you back.

Tosser. 10k