Official Lance Armstrong Thread **READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING**

[krebs303]

I have a feeling the comments may get shut down

I was enjoying myself until Lance Armstrong propositioned me for gay sex on the way to the restrooms.
by Tyler H (1 review)
June 13, 2011
Then he proceeded to have his **** buddy, the owner, tell me to finish my meal, leave the premises and that I was no longer welcome back.

8 people recommend this review Recommended

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Restaurant review site allows people to vote on whether they like Cache Cache. It has a user review section.

http://www.urbanspoon.com/r/101/840098/restaurant/Colorado/Cache-Cache-Aspen

The Internet is a wonderful thing. I'm so glad Al Gore invented it. Carry on.

 

[Oldman]

Restaurant review site allows people to vote on whether they like Cache Cache. It has a user review section.

http://www.urbanspoon.com/r/101/840098/restaurant/Colorado/Cache-Cache-Aspen

Eating at Cache Cache, pretentious. Reviewing Cache Cache, PRICELESS.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Only a few things. JV has personal experience. The chat session made it clear that Armstrong encouraged doping, lied about how much doping was being done by other teams, and a shocking number of injections were being given to Postal riders.

That is conjecture. It comes from reading between the lines of JV's deliberately evasive answers. Why is it that a deceptive dirtbag shyster to Queen's English translator is needed to understand anything that JV says? He dodges, bobs and weaves, shucks and jives, and his fanboys use tea leaves and goat entrails to figure out what he did not say. Since he did not specifically deny it, it must be true. Why can he not make a simple statement that he has spoken with investigators?

What have you offered to say that JV has been called in front of a GJ - conjecture!
And you dismiss everything as you have a biased opinion - I prefer facts or in its absence more proof.

We have heard that Mcilvain, Lim, Livingston, Hincapie, Hamilton, Popo have been called in front of a GJ, yet nothing about JV.

You are on about JV being evasive - and I would agree he often has been - however in this case he denied he had been called - thats not evasive.
And if he has it will come out when this goes to trial, he is not that dumb.

 

[Polish]

This involves likely future testimony by Hamilton at trial of Armstrong, et al. This is very serious stuff. If Fabiani and Armstrong's other lawyers haven't already explained this to Pharmstrong, they darn well better communicate the reality to him ASAP.

Oh I see.

Imaginary future testimony at an imaginary future trial.
The Imaginary Witness Intimidation makes sense in that context.

Yes, very serious indeed.
Colorado has not seen anything this serious since ManBearPig.
Super serious.

And of course business at Cache Cache will see a big spike in business from all the free publicity.
The Lance Effect in action once again

 

[Oldman]

Oh I see.

Imaginary future testimony at an imaginary future trial.
The Imaginary Witness Intimidation makes sense in that context.

Yes, very serious indeed.
Colorado has not seen anything this serious since ManBearPig.
Super serious.

And of course business at Cache Cache will see a big spike in business from all the free publicity.
The Lance Effect in action once again

The man just can't stop doing good things.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The Internet is a wonderful thing. I'm so glad Al Gore invented it. Carry on.

I wish I had the internet.

 

[uspostal]

Are you channeling Fabiani or are you in Fabiani's employ? When the indictments come down, I think people like you will have serious decisions about where to seek treatment for depression. Than again, maybe not. True believers stay true, right?

Depression for what, I'll be fine with the not guilty verdict will you !!!

Why would Fabiani or LA pay me anything

My moost urgent decision is what to have at our victory party
I think Michelob Ultra is on the menu, you'll never guess where its going to be held at.

 

[Granville57]

I have a feeling the comments may get shut down

To write a review you need an Urbanspoon account. This helps keep the conversation clean. Thanks!

Yeah, that's effective.

 

[MarkvW]

What have you offered to say that JV has been called in front of a GJ - conjecture!
And you dismiss everything as you have a biased opinion - I prefer facts or in its absence more proof.

We have heard that Mcilvain, Lim, Livingston, Hincapie, Hamilton, Popo have been called in front of a GJ, yet nothing about JV.

You are on about JV being evasive - and I would agree he often has been - however in this case he denied he had been called - thats not evasive.
And if he has it will come out when this goes to trial, he is not that dumb.

Your argument is pretty thin. It boils down to a premise that Vaughters wouldn't lie to the public about a GJ appearance because "it will come out when this goes to trial" and "he is not that dumb."

"This" may not ever get to indictment. If it gets to indictment, "this" might not relate to Vaughters' testimony. If "this" does get to indictment and Vaughters' testimony is needed, that GJ testimony might still remain sealed. Vaughters might have a motive for keeping himself out of it until the last moment (fear of retaliation, commercial consequences, civil liability, etc.). Or, he might want to avoid a distraction.

A smart person with a good reason could reasonably lie about appearance before a grand jury. It wouldn't necessarily be dumb . . . You could avoid the Tyler/George circus.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Your argument is pretty thin. It boils down to a premise that Vaughters wouldn't lie to the public about a GJ appearance because "it will come out when this goes to trial" and "he is not that dumb."

"This" may not ever get to indictment. If it gets to indictment, "this" might not relate to Vaughters' testimony. If "this" does get to indictment and Vaughters' testimony is needed, that GJ testimony might still remain sealed. Vaughters might have a motive for keeping himself out of it until the last moment (fear of retaliation, commercial consequences, civil liability, etc.). Or, he might want to avoid a distraction.

A smart person with a good reason could reasonably lie about appearance before a grand jury. It wouldn't necessarily be dumb . . . You could avoid the Tyler/George circus.

And you say my argument is pretty thin after writing all that?

At least I have one.
How did not telling anyone about their appearance at a GJ work for good old George?

JV is a lawyers son - he is careful when he makes public statements - if he was at a GJ he would probably say he could not discuss an ongoing investigation.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Maybe Vaughters is keeping silent because he's worried about being harassed in the toilet by an angry one balled Texan? He should remember that there are Republicans who would pay good money to have that happen to them.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

What have you offered to say that JV has been called in front of a GJ - conjecture!
And you dismiss everything as you have a biased opinion - I prefer facts or in its absence more proof.

I never said that JV has been called before the grand jury. It is the JV faithful that are making the assumption that since JV says he has not been before the grand jury then he must have spoken with investigators without need of the grand jury. Then this becomes faith that JV must be working quietly with the feds and he cannot say anything publicly for fear of jeopardizing the investigation.

You are on about JV being evasive - and I would agree he often has been - however in this case he denied he had been called - thats not evasive.

He did not just deny speaking to the grand jury. He used the denial to evade answering a question. He was asked whether he had been contacted by law enforcement, and he answered that he had not been in front of the grand jury. From his answer, he might have been hauled into an FBI basement and waterboarded, he could have been given the third degree by the DEA, he could have been anally probed by the FDA, he could have spent three weeks in Gauntanamo being debriefed by CIA operatives with cattle prods. Investigators working for everything from the DOJ to the local dog catcher might have contacted him for information. He evaded the question. How can anyone trust a person who cannot answer a simple question?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I never said that JV has been called before the grand jury. It is the JV faithful that are making the assumption that since JV says he has not been before the grand jury then he must have spoken with investigators without need of the grand jury. Then this becomes faith that JV must be working quietly with the feds and he cannot say anything publicly for fear of jeopardizing the investigation.



He did not just deny speaking to the grand jury. He used the denial to evade answering a question. He was asked whether he had been contacted by law enforcement, and he answered that he had not been in front of the grand jury. From his answer, he might have been hauled into an FBI basement and waterboarded, he could have been given the third degree by the DEA, he could have been anally probed by the FDA, he could have spent three weeks in Gauntanamo being debriefed by CIA operatives with cattle prods. Investigators working for everything from the DOJ to the local dog catcher might have contacted him for information. He evaded the question. How can anyone trust a person who cannot answer a simple question?

Ok - the below post is what started this - which was a reply to my post from Moose that JV had said he was not called before a GJ.

You remember writing this, right?

Very convenient. He has to maintain omerta to protect the investigation...uh, protect the sport...uh, protect his sponsors...uh, protect the team...uh, protect himself. No, no, not that last one. That sounds too self-serving. It is the riders. Yeah, that is the ticket. It is his riders that he is protecting.

JV was protecting Lance long before there was an investigation. He will still be protecting him while he is sitting in prison.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

Ok - the below post is what started this - which was a reply to my post from Moose that JV had said he was not called before a GJ.

You remember writing this, right?

You remember writing these, right?

JV has not been called before a GJ - the only reason for that is that he discussed his past with investigators.

then

I prefer facts or in its absence more proof.

No, it appears that you prefer conjecture.

For the record, this the question and JV's answer:

Bz:

At least three times Bikezilla has had visitors from the DOJ and FDA, on searches based on doping or Lance Armstrong. Twice, including 23 May 2011, those searches concerned you. The most recent was from the USDOJ "Lance Armstrong Jonathan Vaughters doping".

Have you been contacted by any law enforcement agency seeking information you might have regarding doping, either within professional cycling in general, specifically at U.S. Postal or regarding Lance Armstrong?

JV:

“I have not appeared in front of a Grand Jury at this time. I fully expect that at some point I will, or that I'll be asked to.

As of here and now, today, that hasn't happened."

You may call that answering the question. I call it evasion. I do not trust someone who evades simple questions. A "no comment" would be better than deflecting the query.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Who is Terry Lee? Who is John Bucksbaum? What relation do they have to Lance or Weisel?

And if you do not know then why have you been speaking as if you know what is happening. Hint PM RR and he MAY let you in on the info.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Maybe Vaughters is keeping silent because he's worried about being harassed in the toilet by an angry one balled Texan? He should remember that there are Republicans who would pay good money to have that happen to them.

great but hamstrong is NOT a repub. good luck with the rest. Maybe you are from townie and maybe about to knock off a bank?

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

And if you do not know then why have you been speaking as if you know what is happening.

I do not know who they are. I can only make the assumption that they must be connected to Lance or to Weisel because everyone else on the board has such a connection.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You remember writing these, right?



then



No, it appears that you prefer conjecture.

For the record, this the question and JV's answer:

Bz:

At least three times Bikezilla has had visitors from the DOJ and FDA, on searches based on doping or Lance Armstrong. Twice, including 23 May 2011, those searches concerned you. The most recent was from the USDOJ "Lance Armstrong Jonathan Vaughters doping".

Have you been contacted by any law enforcement agency seeking information you might have regarding doping, either within professional cycling in general, specifically at U.S. Postal or regarding Lance Armstrong?

JV:

“I have not appeared in front of a Grand Jury at this time. I fully expect that at some point I will, or that I'll be asked to.

As of here and now, today, that hasn't happened."

You may call that answering the question. I call it evasion. I do not trust someone who evades simple questions. A "no comment" would be better than deflecting the query.

Its both.
He answered one part of the question (denying being in front of a GJ) and was evasive about the rest.

No I don't prefer conjecture - and I clearly wrote "I prefer facts or in its absence more proof" - you have provided neither.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

Its both.
He answered one part of the question (denying being in front of a GJ) and was evasive about the rest.

No I don't prefer conjecture - and I clearly wrote "I prefer facts or in its absence more proof" - you have provided neither.

I am not the one excusing JV upholding omerta by making up stories about JV working with investigators that are divined by how chicken bones land between the lines of JV's evasive answers to interview questions. The only thing we know is that in the past JV punked out. Past performance is no guarantee of future results, but it is a huge clue. Chances are JV is punking out now and will punk out in the future.

This has become tedious, and we are not getting anywhere.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I have a feeling the comments may get shut down

Omg...had to wipe the tears out of my eyes before I could finish ...
some unsuspecting customer perusing reviews is going to be very surprised.

Bets as to how long these reviews survive!
ummm...2 hrs?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I am not the one excusing JV upholding omerta by making up stories about JV working with investigators that are divined by how chicken bones land between the lines of JV's evasive answers to interview questions. The only thing we know is that in the past JV punked out. Past performance is no guarantee of future results, but it is a huge clue. Chances are JV is punking out now and will punk out in the future.

This has become tedious, and we are not getting anywhere.

The reason it is tedious is because you have used your bias against JV to cloud logical thinking.

This is a massive investigation - lots of Fed agencies putting serious money in to it. When they drew up a list of people to question do you expect JVs name to be on it? Of course it will.

The only question is did JV sit down and discuss it with them when they called or did he lawyer up and get hauled in front of the GJ.

JV says he has not been called up yet - and no other media has said he has been called even when we have had heard other names.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The reason it is tedious is because you have used your bias against JV to cloud logical thinking.

This is a massive investigation - lots of Fed agencies putting serious money in to it. When they drew up a list of people to question do you expect JVs name to be on it? Of course it will.

The only question is did JV sit down and discuss it with them when they called or did he lawyer up and get hauled in front of the GJ.

JV says he has not been called up yet - and no other media has said he has been called even when we have had heard other names.

I like it when you prop up JV. Any chance you are getting paid by JV and his media group?

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

This is a massive investigation - lots of Fed agencies putting serious money in to it. When they drew up a list of people to question do you expect JVs name to be on it? Of course it will.

The only question is did JV sit down and discuss it with them when they called or did he lawyer up and get hauled in front of the GJ.

JV says he has not been called up yet - and no other media has said he has been called even when we have had heard other names.

And this explains why JV cannot be a stand up guy, step forward, and tell the world what he knows? He could lead by example instead of cowering in the Garmin bus, letting others do the right thing. Every person who comes forward makes it easier for others to do so. It has been left to Floyd and Tyler to take the brunt of the Armstrong attack machine while the self styled leader against doping fattens his wallet and writes condescending tracts about what is good for cycling.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I like it when you prop up JV. Any chance you are getting paid by JV and his media group?

I so enjoy it when people say I prop up JV - see which poster started this thread called "JV.... is "yes" so hard to say".
I doubt JV will be paying me for that thread.