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

[JRTinMA]

Always?

Quite true - which is why I called you on misrepresenting the opinion that Cimacoppi wrote earlier this year.


Isn't the highlighted obsessive?
No-one knows if LA will end up in jail or not - it is nothing more than opinion, which you and they are perfectly entitled to have.

However I don't understand the emotion you have invested in whether people will be right or wrong in the matter.
It is that kind of behavior that calls in to question your motivation when you continue to do so.

BTW - I have been quite clear that I do not think LA will serve any prison time - if I am wrong, I will happily admit it.


He will walk..... as in no prison, perhaps.

We here have gone through an exhaustive list of potential charges that could arise from this investigation, I actually think if there is disappointment it will be in what charges are finally made that they did not include more.
But I feel that they will only proceed with charges that they feel they are exceedingly confident in securing convictions.

So Armstrong may not serve any prison time, he may get a fine that for him is small - but the collateral damage will be that he will be exposed for what he really is and his 'legacy' will be in ruins.
For an egomaniac like Armstrong that in itself will be hardest punishment to take.

1) When they play the game they can avoid jail provided the crime is not to significant and the harm is limited. In your little world here in the clinic LA is a horrible man, in the rest of the world nobody really cares about what he did. Always? No, but highly unlikely if he plays his cards right.

2) I didn't misrepresent him at all, from memory I used "source" and it was his own opinion. The guy rambles on frequently about friends, discussions, judges, wives friends and the like. Did I misrepresent his exact statement? I suppose I did, your hope was to derail me so I would quit like I always do when I engage with you as you have unlimited time and I don't. In that process you missed the point, imagine that.

3) This whole thing is emotional for some of your clinic friends, ask them. Others have said I am wrong and he will go to jail, I simply stated I will show up here and expect too be told I'm right on that day. Go look it up its something you love to do. So again you like your pal Berzin have attributed something to me that was a response not my own.

4) No, that is nothing like obsessive. A better example may be somebody who would actually go find a post to really prove nothing and then continue a feeble argument just to be able to win an internet argument.

5) He will walk, its an opinion of an apparent fanboy but its my opinion. Its all anybody has now. You and your buddies just don't like it so you throw around fanboy. Which I totally love by the way. If I'm trolling for anything its to get python to engage and call me a fanboy. Thats when I feel complete. If follows me around like a puppy and when he can't be drawn in its just no fun. This experience should be fun, no?

6) The charges will not turn a single person in my opinion. He will not be fully ruined as you wish, this country forgets way to soon. Does LA love Kobe? The Eagles sent DNabs to Washington for Vick and he's a hero. In Boston we love Roger again, sorry bro, no one cares. The ones who will turn have already. Again, just because a new guy shows up in the clinic looking to belong to something does not mean a new one has turned.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Doc will be along soon to explain to the difference between bulleted or numbered sets of text. Its like a "hard stop" only WAY more obvious.

So, instead of answering the question you bait/troll out of it by bringing in someone who was not part of it?

Didn't you just post this to Berzin "While you are actually doing the trolling it proves you have nothing."

You can answer RF's question, or not answer RF's question just quit bringing others in to it.

 

[JRTinMA]

So, instead of answering the question you bait/troll out of it by bringing in someone who was not part of it?

Didn't you just post this to Berzin "While you are actually doing the trolling it proves you have nothing."

You can answer RF's question, or not answer RF's question just quit bringing others in to it.

Why didn't you show up to defend me like you did for that other guy? Explain sentence structure and stuff? I really think you should have so its hardly trolling. If you are interested in the truth and accuracy the fact that we disagree should have nothing to to do with it. Or were you just trying to derail my point yesterday?

 

[red_flanders]

Doc will be along soon to explain to the difference between bulleted or numbered sets of text. Its like a "hard stop" only WAY more obvious.

I'll not pretend to understand what you're talking about. Pretty sure I quoted you directly, used your complete sentence and asked you a simple and direct question.

I will admit it was rhetorical to some degree, and that I didn't expect any serious introspection.

 

[Race Radio]

How does one win if they haven't taken a side? What exactly are you winning here?

Duh, same thing Charlie Sheen Won!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

1) When they play the game they can avoid jail provided the crime is not to significant and the harm is limited. In your little world here in the clinic LA is a horrible man, in the rest of the world nobody really cares about what he did. Always? No, but highly unlikely if he plays his cards right.

Have I ever said Armstrong is "horrible"? Of course not - this is what gets you in to bother, misrepresenting peoples opinion.

So - it isn't always.

Walking away from a prison sentence and walking away from a conviction are 2 different things - if not getting prison time is some sort of victory for Amstrong then good luck with that.

2) I didn't misrepresent him at all, from memory I used "source" and it was his own opinion. The guy rambles on frequently about friends, discussions, judges, wives friends and the like. Did I misrepresent his exact statement? I suppose I did, your hope was to derail me so I would quit like I always do when I engage with you as you have unlimited time and I don't. In that process you missed the point, imagine that.

And your memory was faulty.
I pointed out that it was wrong, it is not my problem that you attempted to continue to justify your position, so you are the one who derailed it.

3) This whole thing is emotional for some of your clinic friends, ask them. Others have said I am wrong and he will go to jail, I simply stated I will show up here and expect too be told I'm right on that day. Go look it up its something you love to do. So again you like your pal Berzin have attributed something to me that was a response not my own.

I am not "pals" with Berzin, or anyone else here - I have agreed and disagreed with them on numerous posts, again it is this viewpoint that you hold that questions your objectivity.

4) No, that is nothing like obsessive. A better example may be somebody who would actually go find a post to really prove nothing and then continue a feeble argument just to be able to win an internet argument.

Yes, I like to look up things and check the information - from that I form my own opinion.
I wish you would do the same so I don't have to correct you.

5) He will walk, its an opinion of an apparent fanboy but its my opinion. Its all anybody has now. You and your buddies just don't like it so you throw around fanboy. Which I totally love by the way. If I'm trolling for anything its to get python to engage and call me a fanboy. Thats when I feel complete. If follows me around like a puppy and when he can't be drawn in its just no fun. This experience should be fun, no?

I have never called you a "fanboy".
If you don't want to be constantly corrected then stop attributing comments or opinions to people who have not made them.

6) The charges will not turn a single person in my opinion. He will not be fully ruined as you wish, this country forgets way to soon. Does LA love Kobe? The Eagles sent DNabs to Washington for Vick and he's a hero. In Boston we love Roger again, sorry bro, no one cares. The ones who will turn have already. Again, just because a new guy shows up in the clinic looking to belong to something does not mean a new one has turned.

Did I say I wished him to be "ruined"? Of course I didn't - again, you misrepresent what I said.
Why do you keep doing that?

 

[JRTinMA]

Have I ever said Armstrong is "horrible"? Of course not - this is what gets you in to bother, misrepresenting peoples opinion.

So - it isn't always.

Walking away from a prison sentence and walking away from a conviction are 2 different things - if not getting prison time is some sort of victory for Amstrong then good luck with that.


And your memory was faulty.
I pointed out that it was wrong, it is not my problem that you attempted to continue to justify your position, so you are the one who derailed it.


I am not "pals" with Berzin, or anyone else here - I have agreed and disagreed with them on numerous posts, again it is this viewpoint that you hold that questions your objectivity.


Yes, I like to look up things and check the information - from that I form my own opinion.
I wish you would do the same so I don't have to correct you.



I have never called you a "fanboy".
If you don't want to be constantly corrected then stop attributing comments or opinions to people who have not made them.


Did I say I wished him to be "ruined"? Of course I didn't - again, you misrepresent what I said.
Why do you keep doing that?

I never said that not getting jail time was a win for LA, stop misrepresenting me. Why do you always do that? I said it won't happen, end of story.

I group the clinic all together for the most part. If you speak on behalf of another you are part of the clinic groupthink, its my opinion and you all sound same, ffs you have mulled over the same info hundreds of times. If you don't like it don't engage me.

I know who your clinic pals are and its an appropriate word. Remember that time the hog told you to backdown and you did immediately? You don't challenge your pals. If you want it to be different be objective.

 

[JRTinMA]

Bye Doc, we can catch up later. I know you clinic types hate when people use the "go ride your bike" line. So to be safe and not draw the ire of the clinic any further I'm going to quote one of the clinic regulars.

Later doc I'm going to exercise and socialize...

(in the form of riding a bike and actually going on dates with members of the opposite sex)

...only I'm actually going to do it.

 

[sniper]

interesting footage (4 minutes) of and on armstrong's case, unfortunately in German:

http://www.sportschau.de/sp/layout/jsp/komponente/mediaseite/index.jsp?id=132778#mbContent

betsy's there, floyd's there...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I never said that not getting jail time was a win for LA, stop misrepresenting me. Why do you always do that? I said it won't happen, end of story.

Nor did I say you did -
"if not getting prison time is some sort of victory for Amstrong then good luck with that".

I group the clinic all together for the most part. If you speak on behalf of another you are part of the clinic groupthink, its my opinion and you all sound same, ffs you have mulled over the same info hundreds of times. If you don't like it don't engage me.

And that is your continuing mistake, I don't group you in with others - I respond to the individual.

If you don't want me to "engage" you - then stop attributing comments or opinions to me that I don't make.

I know who your clinic pals are and its an appropriate word. Remember that time the hog told you to backdown and you did immediately? You don't challenge your pals. If you want it to be different be objective.

I vaguely remember it - but if theHog was such a pal, then why would I have "challenged" him out in the first place?
Nor did I backdown - there was nothing to backdown to, he made a claim I queried it and he could not back it up - it ended there.

 

[JRTinMA]

Nor did I say you did -
"if not getting prison time is some sort of victory for Amstrong then good luck with that".


And that is your continuing mistake, I don't group you in with others - I respond to the individual.

If you don't want me to "engage" you - then stop attributing comments or opinions to me that I don't make.


I vaguely remember it - but if theHog was such a pal, then why would I have "challenged" him out in the first place?
Nor did I backdown - there was nothing to backdown to, he made a claim I queried it and he could not back it up - it ended there.

I never said I don't want you to engage me, again you are attributing things to me I did not say. I said if YOU don't like it don't engage me. You always do that.

You challenged him twice and he told you to back off, you did not bring it up again. Thats from memory, but if you want to be reminded how well you can behave when a clinic pal tells to, go look it up.

 

[ChrisE]

This is great.

I'm going boating. I am sure I will be in the right frame of mind to take JRT's side when I get back. Not that he needs any help. Its like shooting fish in a barrel in here for us "fanboys" lol.

JRT - In support of Berzin, we should consider an avatar of VdB or Rumsas in here, so we can start hating LA in the proper manner.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

I never said I don't want you to engage me, again you are attributing things to me I did not say. I said if YOU don't like it don't engage me. You always do that.

You challenged him twice and he told you to back off, you did not bring it up again. Thats from memory, but if you want to be reminded how well you can behave when a clinic pal tells to, go look it up.

Dude, you're a Troll and that's all there is to it. I for one will not be responding to you at all anymore.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I never said I don't want you to engage me, again you are attributing things to me I did not say. I said if YOU don't like it don't engage me. You always do that.

Nor did I say that:
If you don't want me to "engage" you - then stop attributing comments or opinions to me that I don't make.

You challenged him twice and he told you to back off, you did not bring it up again. Thats from memory, but if you want to be reminded how well you can behave when a clinic pal tells to, go look it up.

Again, if he is such a pal - why would I engage him once, let alone (from your memory) twice??

As I said I vaguely remember it - but it shows that I do not have "pals" here and that if I feel someone is talking out their rear then I will call them on it.

 

[thehog]

Speaking honestly. The claim you made was that no other rider has paid the UCI other than Armstrong. Which is incorrect. Funny enough Floyd confirmed 2 weeks later that many riders had paid off the UCI in the Yahoo interviews.

theHog never backs down. I remember everything.

Sometimes I worry you argue for the sake of arguing.

You're not tough around at theHogs house.

Be cool man. Lighten up. The troll beat you up.

Nor did I say you did -
"if not getting prison time is some sort of victory for Amstrong then good luck with that".


And that is your continuing mistake, I don't group you in with others - I respond to the individual.

If you don't want me to "engage" you - then stop attributing comments or opinions to me that I don't make.


I vaguely remember it - but if theHog was such a pal, then why would I have "challenged" him out in the first place?
Nor did I backdown - there was nothing to backdown to, he made a claim I queried it and he could not back it up - it ended there.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Speaking honestly. The claim you made was that no other rider has paid the UCI other than Armstrong. Which is incorrect. Funny enough Floyd confirmed 2 weeks later that many riders had paid off the UCI in the Yahoo interviews.

theHog never backs down. I remember everything.

Sometimes I worry you argue for the sake of arguing.

You're not tough around at theHogs house.

Be cool man. Lighten up. The troll beat you up.

Well, "pal", since you remember everything than I am sure it will take you know time at all to find where Floyd said other riders paid off the UCI and link the piece.

 

[JRTinMA]

Well, "pal", since you remember everything than I am sure it will take you know time at all to find where Floyd said other riders paid off the UCI and link the piece.

Scratch the "pal" thing, after that last post you should probably just refer to him as Sir.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Philly

I guess all of Y'all will be in Philly tomorrow for the LS challenge? LA will be there! Probably he will answer questions from the media.

 

[Velodude]

The list goes on....

Blood is a also a controlled substance. The extraction, storage, and transfusion of it is controlled.

The bribery of the UCI would fall under FCPA. It is no surprise that one of Armstrong's many lawyers is a FCPA expert. It will also be no surprise when part of the smear campaign against Miller includes a FCPA case he lost on appeal.

The French transfusion equipment investigation? No, it is not dead. They are waiting for the Federal charges before they file.

But Wonderboy wants everyone to think there is nothing to see, case is going nowhere, witch hunt, blah, blah.....and anyone that questions the myth is just an obsessed stalker. As usual the talking points fail

I had looked at the FCPA (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) provisions but concluded that the UCI and/or its decision makers would not be caught in the dragnet.

The UCI is the international governing body for all national federations which are, to my knowledge, all NGO's.

Comparatively, the United Nations is considered under the FCPA as a government body as member representation is comprised of national government bodies.

For the FCPA to apply there has to be a ownership/control/management nexus between the UCI and a foreign government or governments. That appears not to be present.

The second requirement is the bribe must have benefited a "foreign official" not the body in which he or she officiates.

There has been admissions that LA has made cash donations in the direction of the UCI only. However, the stumbling and inconsistent explanations by Armstrong, Verbruggen and McQuaid arouses suspicions that UCI decision makers may have also personally benefited.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Scratch the "pal" thing, after that last post you should probably just refer to him as Sir.

Back from your cycle already?

I though you would be first to approve of querying TheHog on this claim? But of course that would mean your pal theory would be shown as being incorrect.

TheHog has made a claim, it may even be true but it is one that I have not seen before. So thats why I ask them to back it up.

Unlike you I form my opinion on the available information - not seek information to back my opinion.

 

[patricknd]

I guess all of Y'all will be in Philly tomorrow for the LS challenge? LA will be there! Probably he will answer questions from the media.

berzin pm`d me and said he's riding in it, but keep it quiet. oops.....................

 

[JRTinMA]

Back from your cycle already?

I though you would be first to approve of querying TheHog on this claim? But of course that would mean your pal theory would be shown as being incorrect.

TheHog has made a claim, it may even be true but it is one that I have not seen before. So thats why I ask them to back it up.

Unlike you I form my opinion on the available information - not seek information to back my opinion.

Not yet, just the swim. Hitting the bike now, I call it a swike. I want to be like Lancey but on a Specialized.

Not sure what the rest of that all means, I certainly think you should challenge him. If I had time I would even lend a hand to help with the research, unlike you earlier.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Not yet, just the swim. Hitting the bike now, I call it a swike. I want to be like Lancey but on a Specialized.

Not sure what the rest of that all means, I certainly think you should challenge him. If I had time I would even lend a hand to help with the research, unlike you earlier.

No research on my part is needed - TheHog made the claim that Floyd said others paid the UCI, so it is up to them to substantiate it.

If they don't I will assume it was false or made up.

Thanks, but I will decline your offer of assistance to help research - but I do hope you start doing your own and save everyone the time in correcting your position.

 

[Race Radio]

I had looked at the FCPA (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) provisions but concluded that the UCI and/or its decision makers would not be caught in the dragnet.

The UCI is the international governing body for all national federations which are, to my knowledge, all NGO's.

Comparatively, the United Nations is considered under the FCPA as a government body as member representation is comprised of national government bodies.

For the FCPA to apply there has to be a ownership/control/management nexus between the UCI and a foreign government or governments. That appears not to be present.

The second requirement is the bribe must have benefited a "foreign official" not the body in which he or she officiates.

There has been admissions that LA has made cash donations in the direction of the UCI only. However, the stumbling and inconsistent explanations by Armstrong, Verbruggen and McQuaid arouses suspicions that UCI decision makers may have also personally benefited.

After the Salt Lake City bribery scandal the FCPA was expanded to include organizations like the IOC and UCI. Armstrong has told multiple people he paid $500,000 for a positive to go away and there is evidence to support this is the case.

The harder thing to trace is the transfer of funds. Certainly some could have come in the form of a check but it also could have gone directly to Verburggen in the form of an asset....like property or an investment.

FCPA is one of the hardest points to prove, but for fans of the sport it would be a nice thing to see Verburggen go down

 

[Hugh Januss]

Bye Doc, we can catch up later. I know you clinic types hate when people use the "go ride your bike" line. So to be safe and not draw the ire of the clinic any further I'm going to quote one of the clinic regulars.

Later doc I'm going to exercise and socialize...



...only I'm actually going to do it.

Doesn't count if it's with your mom.

If a bunch of reasonably intellegent people take in a bunch of information and all but a couple of them come to the same or similar conclusion how large a cross section would you say we need to go from it being a bunch of people caught up in "group think" to a couple of guys who just don't get it?