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

[Velodude]

C'mon MacRoadie, now you are just being contumacious.

Mr Keker was falsely accused of filing a frivolous application by Big Oil, not for filing a frivolous motion

Big Difference.

Like comparing the Alps to the Pyrenees <snip>

Polish, courts have quite a distaste to any frivolous and misleading conduct of officers of the court whether it be for applications or motions.

The test is how did the judge eventually rule on the motion to admit Mr. Keker pro hac vice in the light of Chevron's opposing motion objecting to his conduct in the case thus far?

 

[Polish]

Got a link?

It appears to have come from her own lawyer...

Bienert, who was not in the room with his client, said “it was an emotional day” for his client

No, that was not the comment from the "unnamed source" I was refering to.

The comment I am talking about, and we discussed it in the clinic but I forget where, had to do with RIDERS. Multiple riders iirc.

The comment from the "unnamed source" was along the lines of:

"We have not had a problem with riders spilling the beans"
"They are more than willing as a a matter of fact"
"The problem we HAVE had is the crying while they try to spill the beans"

That struck me at the time as being odd.
It seemed a bit mocking.
Maybe the "unnamed source" was talking to ESPN or SI?
The kind of comment you would might hear from non-cycling jock/writers?

It did not sound like it came from a rider's lawyer.
Anyway, it had to come from someone inside the room.
Someone had to SEE the rider(s) trying to speak through their tears...

 

[theswordsman]

I did a Google search for those three lines of quotes, and they only seem to exist here. I also tried the first line by itself. Nothing

 

[MarkvW]

I did a Google search for those three lines of quotes, and they only seem to exist here. I also tried the first line by itself. Nothing

Per Legalnewsline.com, he was admitted pro hac vice in the Chevron case. Search: "chevron 'pro hac vice' keker"

 

[Polish]

I did a Google search for those three lines of quotes, and they only seem to exist here. I also tried the first line by itself. Nothing

I found the thread where we discussed the "unnamed source"...
Start on Page 6 on the "Official 60 Minutes Thread" with the post from TeamSkyFan....

Seems the quote comes from the Sunday Times.
Murdoch owns that paper I believe

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=531210&highlight=crying#post531210

"What is also clear is that fears about professional cyclists refusing to speak about their doping were misplaced. "The problem" said one source close to the investigation, "was not getting them to talk but to stop them from crying so they could continue talking"

Ok, how does this "source close to the investigation" know about the sobbing?
Was he/she in the room?
Did someone else leak the info to him/her?

Was the Sunday Times tapping the phone lines of the FEDs?

 

[D-Queued]

Per Legalnewsline.com, he was admitted pro hac vice in the Chevron case. Search: "chevron 'pro hac vice' keker"

Admitted, yes, but not without a stern hand slap.

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, for the Southern District of New York, in a two-page order filed Wednesday, said the Feb. 25 filing (by Keker et al) was made in direct violation of the court's orders and local rules.

"The fact that the Keker firm was not retained until after the papers were due did not justify it in ignoring the orders and rules,

Should fit in really well with the Armstrong spray and pray defense strategy.

Dave.

 

[Race Radio]

I found the thread where we discussed the "unnamed source"...
Start on Page 6 on the "Official 60 Minutes Thread" with the post from TeamSkyFan....

Seems the quote comes from the Sunday Times.
Murdoch owns that paper I believe

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=531210&highlight=crying#post531210



Ok, how does this "source close to the investigation" know about the sobbing?
Was he/she in the room?
Did someone else leak the info to him/her?

Was the Sunday Times tapping the phone lines of the FEDs?

That is about Tyler, not Stephanie

 

[dbrower]

I'd like to note that things that are told to an investigator (Novitsky) outside the Grand Jury are not subject to the same confidentiality rules. Anything told to an investigator in a non-grand jury interview is fair game for him to use to pursue the investigation, subject to tactical discretion. It is already established that cops don't need to tell suspects the truth during questioning, and are free to lie or give other misinformation as they see fit. That is, a cop in the little room is free to tell you your partner has told him all about it already, and your story had better line up with his -- even if your partner has never said anything. Its part of the pressure to get people to make mistakes.

Filing a motion about "leaks" when there are no "leaks" might be that kind of mistake.

-dB

 

[MarkvW]

I found the thread where we discussed the "unnamed source"...
Start on Page 6 on the "Official 60 Minutes Thread" with the post from TeamSkyFan....

Seems the quote comes from the Sunday Times.
Murdoch owns that paper I believe

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=531210&highlight=crying#post531210



Ok, how does this "source close to the investigation" know about the sobbing?
Was he/she in the room?
Did someone else leak the info to him/her?

Was the Sunday Times tapping the phone lines of the FEDs?

A federal judge is not going to be interested in leaks that originate outside the grand jury room. If Tyler sobbed while voluntarily talking to a federal investigator on the street . . . so what? If Tyler sobbed while voluntarily talking to a reporter about his GJ testimony. . . so what? If that kind of stuff leaks out, tough for Armstrong.

 

[Polish]

A federal judge is not going to be interested in leaks that originate outside the grand jury room. If Tyler sobbed while voluntarily talking to a federal investigator on the street . . . so what? If Tyler sobbed while voluntarily talking to a reporter about his GJ testimony. . . so what? If that kind of stuff leaks out, tough for Armstrong.

Maybe you should read the quote in question again...

""What is also clear is that fears about professional cyclists refusing to speak about their doping were misplaced. "The problem" said one source close to the investigation, "was not getting them to talk but to stop them from crying so they could continue talking"

The "fears", the "problems", the "talking", and the "crying" all refer to GJ Testimony(s) - not conversations out on the street.

You do realize that, right?
And you do realize Lance's motion was not frivilous right?

 

[Oldman]

Maybe you should read the quote in question again...

""What is also clear is that fears about professional cyclists refusing to speak about their doping were misplaced. "The problem" said one source close to the investigation, "was not getting them to talk but to stop them from crying so they could continue talking"

The "fears", the "problems", the "talking", and the "crying" all refer to GJ Testimony(s) - not conversations out on the street.

You do realize that, right?
And you do realize Lance's motion was not frivilous right?[/QUOTE]

It's a very serious attempt at a Public Relations strategy. It is all of that and little else.

 

[Polish]

It's a very serious attempt at a Public Relations strategy. It is all of that and little else.

Would you agree that the FEDs are also mounting a PR Campaign?

I do agree with you that Lance's Motion is a SERIOUS attempt - not frivolous by any measure or metric.

It will be interesting to see how the FED's respond and the Judge's ruling.

 

[D-Queued]

Maybe you should read the quote in question again...

""What is also clear is that fears about professional cyclists refusing to speak about their doping were misplaced. "The problem" said one source close to the investigation, "was not getting them to talk but to stop them from crying so they could continue talking"

The "fears", the "problems", the "talking", and the "crying" all refer to GJ Testimony(s) - not conversations out on the street.

You do realize that, right?
And you do realize Lance's motion was not frivilous right?

ROTFLMAO

What I realize is how ludicrous your assertion is. Frivolous PR campaign.

Your quote about crying witnesses could as easily, and more likely, be applied to events, dialog and activity outside of the GJ room.

Has Popo even appeared before the GJ yet? How do you know he wasn't in tears when questioned by authorities?

Dave.

 

[Anonymous]

I found the thread where we discussed the "unnamed source"...
Start on Page 6 on the "Official 60 Minutes Thread" with the post from TeamSkyFan....

Seems the quote comes from the Sunday Times.
Murdoch owns that paper I believe

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=531210&highlight=crying#post531210



Ok, how does this "source close to the investigation" know about the sobbing?
Was he/she in the room?
Did someone else leak the info to him/her?

Was the Sunday Times tapping the phone lines of the FEDs?

The problem with presenting this as evidence of a "leak" is that there is no substantive information included, and certainly NOTHING in regards to anything said about Mr. Armstrong. What is clear is that Mr. Armstrong knows precisely what is being spilled when he hears that someone is talking freely because he knows what others know about him because HE DID IT.

That motion was bull**** PR, and calculated very precisely under the model rules to not get their a$$es in trouble. They are fudging the line because they are allowed to respond to accusations made by the other side, so all they have to do is CLAIM the other side is making accusations or leaking info, and they have cover because their actions have that slimy coating of bull**** needed to avoid an ethics violation. Their "motion" was done with full knowledge that it was specious, but also with the knowledge that there is enough deniability to get away with it. Common tactic by slimy lawyers like the ones a guilty doping liar has to hire. Pretty transparent if you know what you are talking about actually.

 

[Anonymous]

Maybe you should read the quote in question again...

""What is also clear is that fears about professional cyclists refusing to speak about their doping were misplaced. "The problem" said one source close to the investigation, "was not getting them to talk but to stop them from crying so they could continue talking"

The "fears", the "problems", the "talking", and the "crying" all refer to GJ Testimony(s) - not conversations out on the street.

You do realize that, right?
And you do realize Lance's motion was not frivilous right?

Only if you can explain how that information is damaging to Lance...because it doesn't mention him. Just because he knows the contents of the beans being spilled because he was there does not mean that statement in ANY WAY reveals information about anything that was said. Actually, it is simply more confirmation that Lance is a lying, doping piece of ****. See, he is PROJECTING what he knows to be true onto statements that do not mention him in any way. Again, transparent if you are willing to think one level more deeply...

You can have your a$$ back now lol.

 

[mewmewmew13]

The problem with presenting this as evidence of a "leak" is that there is no substantive information included, and certainly NOTHING in regards to anything said about Mr. Armstrong. What is clear is that Mr. Armstrong knows precisely what is being spilled when he hears that someone is talking freely because he knows what others know about him because HE DID IT.

That motion was bull**** PR, and calculated very precisely under the model rules to not get their a$$es in trouble. They are fudging the line because they are allowed to respond to accusations made by the other side, so all they have to do is CLAIM the other side is making accusations or leaking info, and they have cover because their actions have that slimy coating of bull**** needed to avoid an ethics violation. Their "motion" was done with full knowledge that it was specious, but also with the knowledge that there is enough deniability to get away with it. Common tactic by slimy lawyers like the ones a guilty doping liar has to hire. Pretty transparent if you know what you are talking about actually.

Exactly what I was thinking.
If he were sitting on his throne and watching all the flurry of activity from his high perch and saw that they were hitting way off base, do you think that he would react with such intensity?
It's getting too close to home for him...

 

[powerste]

Would you agree that the FEDs are also mounting a PR Campaign?

I do agree with you that Lance's Motion is a SERIOUS attempt - not frivolous by any measure or metric.

It will be interesting to see how the FED's respond and the Judge's ruling.

Actually those responses are quite predictable:

FEDs: "Show us the evidence."

Judge: "Where's the evidence so I can rule on it?"

Any investigation is gonna have to do better than the anecdotal newspaper reports of teary witnesses you've been posting here.

 

[shawnrohrbach]

The problem with presenting this as evidence of a "leak" is that there is no substantive information included, and certainly NOTHING in regards to anything said about Mr. Armstrong. What is clear is that Mr. Armstrong knows precisely what is being spilled when he hears that someone is talking freely because he knows what others know about him because HE DID IT.

That motion was bull**** PR, and calculated very precisely under the model rules to not get their a$$es in trouble. They are fudging the line because they are allowed to respond to accusations made by the other side, so all they have to do is CLAIM the other side is making accusations or leaking info, and they have cover because their actions have that slimy coating of bull**** needed to avoid an ethics violation. Their "motion" was done with full knowledge that it was specious, but also with the knowledge that there is enough deniability to get away with it. Common tactic by slimy lawyers like the ones a guilty doping liar has to hire. Pretty transparent if you know what you are talking about actually.

+1 Yeah, what this guy says.

 

[Polish]

Some of you guys crack me up

"Show me the evidence"
"The FEDs have never tested positive for leaks"
"Never never never leaked"
"The defense lawyers are slimy"

 

[bigloco]

Some of you guys crack me up

"Show me the evidence"
"The FEDs have never tested positive for leaks"
"Never never never leaked"
"The defense lawyers are slimy"

The Feds: Most tested organization for leaks in the world!

 

[Anonymous]

Some of you guys crack me up

"Show me the evidence"
"The FEDs have never tested positive for leaks"
"Never never never leaked"
"The defense lawyers are slimy"

Look, don't take the fact that I exposed your argument as the bull**** that it is out on me lol. It isn't my fault it was so transparently erroneous. Try harder next time is all I can say lol.

 

[Polish]

Look, don't take the fact that I exposed your argument as the bull**** that it is out on me lol. It isn't my fault it was so transparently erroneous. Try harder next time is all I can say lol.

My argument = there have been Prosecution Leaks in the so-caled Lance GJ Investigation. There should be an investigation.

How did you expose that as bull**** again?

Are you sure there have NOT been any Prosecution Leaks?

 

[sniper]

My argument = there have been Prosecution Leaks in the so-caled Lance GJ Investigation. There should be an investigation.

How did you expose that as bull**** again?

Are you sure there have NOT been any Prosecution Leaks?

if i may intervene,
this must have been said already, but:
lance saying that there should be an investigation is horsecrap, because lance and his followers constantly whine about how investigating crimes is a waste of taxpayers money.

 

[Anonymous]

My argument = there have been Prosecution Leaks in the so-caled Lance GJ Investigation. There should be an investigation.

How did you expose that as bull**** again?

Are you sure there have NOT been any Prosecution Leaks?

I think there is an alien living up hour ***, can you prove there isn't one lol? Any jaggoff can make an accusation without any proof what so ever lol. I'd formulate a witchhunt or tax payer money obfuscatory thingie if I were you, because that leak dog don't hunt lol.

 

[Polish]

I think there is an alien living up hour ***, can you prove there isn't one lol? Any jaggoff can make an accusation without any proof what so ever lol. I'd formulate a witchhunt or tax payer money obfuscatory thingie if I were you, because that leak dog don't hunt lol.

So you are saying there have NOT been any leaks by the FEDs?