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

[Benotti69]

Actually, I think what he is doing is the most effective strategy against the joke of the UCI and the LA "miracle".

They have more money and power to block legal measures, spam media outlets and control the release of information. Flandis's approach, while appearing reckless, is precisely the type of lose-cannon the UCI and LA fear. He's not scared of anything and calls them out on everything.

Landis's greatest effect is he is winning fans for his actions and making UCI and LA react to his actions that they are making mistakes because of him, ie allegedly suing Landis in SwissBankLand

 

[MacRoadie]

It would be easy, if they knew it was a restaurant he frequented. You, MacRaodie, would make lousy reporter because you seemed to think that asking a lot of questions is not a large part of the job, especially if your an investigative reporter, which Outside's Abe Streep has been on occassion for that publication. What part of "investigative" don't you understand? Go work as a reporter and report back in a year.

So, for about the 50th time, why didn't the Outside magazine reporters get any audio, or photos, or even get close enough to hear the conversation?

You can't have it both ways. You want us to believe that they executed this operation, including asking "asking a lot of questions" yet came away empty. I fully understand what an investigative reporter's job entails, and the tools available to said reporter, but you would have us believe that that these guys brought all these skills to bear, were able to orchestrate a fairly elaborate and impeccably-timed sting, then turned around and dropped the ball completely once they had all of their disparate ducks lined up. They performer their job flawlessly and to a "T", then did a complete 180 and simply sat on the patio while Tyler faced Armstrong alone.

Apparently the part of "investigative" that I don't understand is the part where they apparently didn't investigate anything.

And quit with the reporter stuff. You're as much a reporter as Walter Mitty.

 

[Mishrak]

Actually, I think what he is doing is the most effective strategy against the joke of the UCI and the LA "miracle".

They have more money and power to block legal measures, spam media outlets and control the release of information. Flandis's approach, while appearing reckless, is precisely the type of lose-cannon the UCI and LA fear. He's not scared of anything and calls them out on everything.

You're probably right in that respect. What I'm more curious about is how the perception of a jury will be affected. I'd be shocked if it didn't influence their view of Floyd at least a little bit. It's one thing to slander someone and talk trash, it's another thing to start impersonating organizations that aren't real. Especially given how boldface he lied to the people and fought tooth and nail back when he tested positive for drugs.

"Duel-y" vs 'duly' ?

Forum duel! Duly it is.

 

[Mishrak]

"Duel-y" vs 'duly' ?

Forum duel! Duly it is.

 

[Benotti69]

When they revert to calling you "fanboy," you know you've soundly defeated them.

when you have the fanboys shaking at their keyboards and they cant spell their replies correctly you know you have won.

 

[Race Radio]

I stand corrected there, then. A fake corporation sending emails to the UCI though? That's just stupid if he wants people to actually see him as credible.

I cannot think of a better way to respond to a fake lawsuit.

The UCI threat of a lawsuit was absurd so responding to it in that manner makes perfect sense. The fact the UCI has never actually filed a lawsuit makes Floyd's respond all the more understandable.

 

[Race Radio]

You're probably right in that respect. What I'm more curious about is how the perception of a jury will be affected. I'd be shocked if it didn't influence their view of Floyd at least a little bit. It's one thing to slander someone and talk trash, it's another thing to start impersonating organizations that aren't real. Especially given how boldface he lied to the people and fought tooth and nail back when he tested positive for drugs.
.

This will never go to a jury.

 

[BillytheKid]

talk about trying to obfuscate

you know damned well that this hasn't come out, one way or another.

however, in my experience, it is usual to extend this courtesy only to frequent patrons you do know.

she'd look pretty unprofessional going up to TH and going "pssssssst! the guy with one ball will be here tonight!" wink wink.

Excuse me, but I beleive that would be "Pssssst! The guy you just accused of doping on national TV is about to arrive...."

 

[Mishrak]

when you have the fanboys shaking at their keyboards and they cant spell their replies correctly you know you have won.

LOL

You give yourself too much credit.

 

[BillytheKid]

So, for about the 50th time, why didn't the Outside magazine reporters get any audio, or photos, or even get close enough to hear the conversation?

You can't have it both ways. You want us to believe that they executed this operation, including asking "asking a lot of questions" yet came away empty. I fully understand what an investigative reporter's job entails, and the tools available to said reporter, but you would have us believe that that these guys brought all these skills to bear, were able to orchestrate a fairly elaborate and impeccably-timed sting, then turned around and dropped the ball completely once they had all of their disparate ducks lined up. They performer their job flawlessly and to a "T", then did a complete 180 and simply sat on the patio while Tyler faced Armstrong alone.

Apparently the part of "investigative" that I don't understand is the part where they apparently didn't investigate anything.

And quit with the reporter stuff. You're as much a reporter as Walter
Mitty.

MacRoadie: the all seeing, the all knowing eye?

 

[jackwolf]

no, but i'll gladly watch others do it

As far as I know Jodi Larner is only a co-owner, and it seems licking Armstrong's a** will turn out to be a far worse investment for her than she thought it would be. Of all of Armstrong's aiders and abetters, she probably got the worst deal. I think whatever happens to her now will probably be more than enough punishment.

 

[MacRoadie]

MacRoadie: the all seeing, the all knowing eye?

Just as I thought...

 

[thirteen]

As far as I know Jodi Larner is only a co-owner, and it seems licking Armstrong's a** will turn out to be a far worse investment for her than she thought it would be. Of all of Armstrong's aiders and abetters, she probably got the worst deal. I think whatever happens to her now will probably be more than enough punishment.

i agree with you.

 

[BillytheKid]

Just as I thought...

Suppose LA went to Boulder and ran into TH at TH's favourite eatery. What then? Most here would be pointing a fingure of guilt at LA and there would be no defence of him as with happenstance Hamilton.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

MacRoadie: the all seeing, the all knowing eye?

Somewhere along your twenty years of investigative journalism you must have run into the premise of Occam's Razor.

I think it's time for you to apply it to your theory vs. reported events.

I think Mac's spot on with the Walter Mitty tag...

 

[BillytheKid]

Somewhere along your twenty years of investigative journalism you must have run into the premise of Occam's Razor.

I think it's time for you to apply it to your theory vs. reported events.

I think Mac's spot on with the Walter Mitty tag...

Much of journalism is investigative, and I am just doubtful about this just being a chance meeting. So what? That's my opinion. The name calling here is just childish. What's spot on is that you can't understand that. It's an opinion, base on experience. Get over it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Much of journalism is investigative, and I am just doubtful about this just being a chance meeting. So what? That's my opinion. The name calling here is just childish. What's spot on is that you can't understand that. It's an opinion, base on experience. Get over it.

Much of journalism is reporting, much of that comes from press releases.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Much of journalism is investigative, and I am just doubtful about this just being a chance meeting. So what? That's my opinion. The name calling here is just childish. What's spot on is that you can't understand that. It's an opinion, base on experience. Get over it.

I agree that this event was not a chance meeting.

What's spot on is that you can't understand that your theories fly so far beyond likelihood, and run contrary to the events reported by real journalists, that they're ludicrous.

There is no point in continuing this discussion.

 

[MacRoadie]

Much of journalism is investigative, and I am just doubtful about this just being a chance meeting. So what? That's my opinion. The name calling here is just childish. What's spot on is that you can't understand that. It's an opinion, base on experience. Get over it.

The Walter Mitty tag is not name calling. It is an assertion that you are not who you claim to be.

Based on the short story by James Thurber, "Walter Mittyism" or the "Walter Mitty Syndrome" has entered the modern lexicon (and in fact "Mittyesque" is actually found in many dictionaries) and is used to describe an individual "who intentionally attempts to mislead or convince others that he is something that he is not."

You qualify almost every post by representing that you have 20 years of experience as an investigative reporter. This is an argument from authority or an appeal to authority. As such, you invite questions and criticisms of that authority.

One of those criticisms is the remarkably poor quality of spelling, syntax, and grammar in your posts. One would think that a journalist with two decades of experience would have a firmer grasp of writing and the English language.

Further, you repeatedly demonstrate a reluctance or ignorance to entertain any facts presented to you which may be counter to what you now represent to be purely your opinion and speculation, rather than the result of any independent investigation on your part. Isn't the hallmark of the real investigative reporter, the uncompromising drive to ascertain the facts, no matter what the cost? One would think that a highly trained and experienced investigative reporter, even one in retirement, would still excercise that same thoroughness, curiosity, and doggedness in seeking out and verifying or refuting any and all information presented to you. You seem incapable of or uninterested in doing so.

 

[PotentialPro]

One does not have to be a party to a federal crime, to be seen as attempting to influence witness testimony relevant to that crime.

Not a question in any legal sense. RICO laws cover it, thoroughly.

Fair enough to be curious about it if you've never considered the issues before. But that is assuredly not the case for the federal investigators and prosecutors involved, and the laws on this are clear. That clarity is what you're pondering, but in fact is not in question, at all.

See:
United States v. Guadalupe, 402 F.3d 409, 412 (3d Cir. 2005)
United States v. Lopez, 372 F.3d 86, 91-92 (2d Cir. 2004)


A goon can be sent to intimidate a federal witness he's never seen before or has any direct connection to. That goon is still guilty of witness tampering. It's straighforward, boilerplate federal law.

The law is boilerplate and inclusive of the alleged actions. Proving motivation i.e. intent is the only ponderable, and whether the feds will get enough dots connected that they believe they can indict.

My reading on this is that there are not many dots that need to be connected, and Armstrong's motivations -- due to citation by the witness in GJ testimony as being involved in the commission of federal offenses -- is taken by the courts as largely self-evident.

Nice post, thank you.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

The Garden Gnome should not expect any public, or private, encouragement from Wonderboy anytime soon.

Magnifique!

 

[cat6cx]

Much of journalism is investigative, and I am just doubtful about this just being a chance meeting. So what? That's my opinion. The name calling here is just childish. What's spot on is that you can't understand that. It's an opinion, base on experience. Get over it.

Let’s run through your “possible” timeline of Tyler’s plan
1) Sat 2pm, Receive message from mole at TN airport that LA’s plane is taking off
2) 2:30pm, Release mole’s kidnapped family member used as leverage to obtain information
3) 3:00pm, Set up police scanner east of Aspen airport
4) 3:30pm, Buy coffee and donuts for guys in truck monitoring scanner
5) 4:00pm, Receive call from scanner truck that LA’s plane is landing in Aspen
6) 4:30pm, Determine that LA will be at Cache Cache (actually BTK, you haven’t explained that yet, so far we just know it may be a 43% chance, oh well, close enough for your argument)
7) 6:00pm, Arrive at Cache Cache and eat meal
8) 8:00pm, Use rest room
9) 8:02pm, (This one is cloudy also BTK….) Convince LA to stop TH and berate him.
10) Sunday, Report events to FBI

Ok that adds up, you got me.

Yes indeed everything there is possible (not saying you said it happened, just saying you said it could happen)

 

[Polish]

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoo...itter-War-Against-Lance-Armstrong.html?page=1
]

Getting back to TrueCyclingFan's excellent original point regarding the "Campaign of harrassment", there surely is a difference between Floyd and Tyler.

Floyd is being truthful. He admits to harrassing Lance.
Takes pride in it lol.
Floyd harrasses at every chance he gets.
OutsideMag/GermanTV/SundayTimes/Nightline/twitter/etcetcetc

Tyler, however, is being much more passive aggressive.
60 Minutes almost apologetic...
Cache Cache "chance meeting"..."oh Hi Lance, imagine meeting you here"

But Tyler showing up at Lance's House the next morning may be crossing the line from passive to more aggressive behavior.

What if Lance had been home?
What did Tyler want to discuss? Outside of Lance's house.
Maybe Tyler wanted to give Lance a heads up that his lawyers were about to rip into Lance?

 

[Deagol]

Suppose LA went to Boulder and ran into TH at TH's favourite eatery. What then? Most here would be pointing a fingure of guilt at LA and there would be no defence of him as with happenstance Hamilton.

For *&^%$# sake, LA doesn't own Aspen anymore than TH owns Boulder.

 

[MacRoadie]

But Tyler showing up at Lance's House the next morning may be crossing the line from passive to more aggressive behavior

Manderson said it best: "Fabiani's allegation is utter horse----,"