Laff at him

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:22:15 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Jet said:

B. Lafferty said:

Armstrong would not be able
to play the games he plays elsewhere as he discovered when suing Walsh,
Ballestier and their publisher in France. And his lawyers, as officers of
the court, would be required to help the investigating judge discover the
truth, even if it hurt their client.

Uh, just a further comment. I find it strange that an American trained
lawyer would describe the way lawyers 'use' or 'manipulate' the legal
system as 'playing games'.

The legal system is a juggernaut. The client is alone, almost powerless. In
addition the 'other side' often lies.

We had a small case where a woman failed to yield and drove into the side
of my wife's car. I was worried that her glibness and strident nature and
the charts and stuff she brought to court would cause us to lose the case.
By our lawyer was not worried. He knew the system and everytime she tried
to introduce her bogus 'evidence' he objected and she was not allowed to
admit any of it. Thus we got justice because of our lawyer knowing how to
play the game. The 'game' is set up that way for a reason - to protect the
innocent from the juggernaut of "justice" that all too easily rolls over
you.

So...I'm just sayin'... ;-)

jj

Why would your lawyer have to object to introducing evidence in
municipal court where the judge is the only arbiter of facts - couldn't
the judge have seen the evidence and ruled it inadmissibile on his own?
After all, you conceded the judge agreed it was inadmissible.

So your lawyer's objection was really irrelevant after all.

Thanks,

Magilla

I think it was something like 'the other party made an illegal left turn,
and admitted that, so we don't need to see their stinkin' charts and
photos'.

HTH,

-jet

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

Curtis L. Russell said:

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:03:49 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Donald Munro" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> So the blue cooler actually contained genetically engineered alien/human
> embryos whose stem cells could be used to increase endurance by 150%.
>
The NY Times is putting Judith Miller on the story.

Put Judy Miller on it - at least she can tell you more about whether
or not the moto could carry the cooler.

There's the danger the story will come out
headlined "Mobile Bioweapons Lab Found."

Does Ahmad Chalabi work for WADA, or the UCI?

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:24:42 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because L'Equipe reported he did. And if that weren't true, than you
know Lance would have sued them for $20 million.

But since Lance didn't, that kind of says something.

Magilla

Bullcrap. Let's say for the sake of argument that the lab did spike one or
more of the samples. This is France we're talking about with different
laws, and justice.

<snip>

A WADA lab spiking the sample against Lance? You're a lunatic. Do you
think the police framed OJ too?

Thanks,

Magilla

WADA has done all sorts of unethical things, such as making press releases
on riders who were found innocent shortly afterwards. They've shown that
they could care less about the impact of their questionable behavior.

However, I'm suggesting only for the sake of argument that Lance's test was
spiked. I'm not suggesting that it's a systemic problem necessarily. A lab
tech may have taken a payoff to suppliment his low-paying job. A lab tech
could have left the room with the samples sitting out on the bench and
unspecified persons could have entered the room and done something. I have
no idea.

It could even have occured accidently, but when nobody in Lab
Administration jumped up and said 'whoa, we forgot to re-anonymize the
sample - we left them in 'stage result' order, I started having doubts
about their credibility. I think the lab director should be fired. If
result patient results got out of the lab to the newspapers that would be
the default action in any other venue.

So that gives credence to some kind of systemic 'low standard of care' at
the lab.

I'm not sure why you're bringing in OJ. It's not unheard of that
individuals on the police force might decide to 'improve' the evidence on a
suspect. That may not be strictly the same as 'framing' someone.

HTH,

-jet

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:34:06 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the french are out to get Lance then the last thing he should do is go
over there and be sucked into the French judicial system, because in this
hypothetical they would find another way to lie and screw with him. I'd be
worried someone would plant narcotics in his room or luggage or something.

-jet

Yeah, the entire country of France is out to get Lance. When were you
diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia?

95% of French people could care less about Lance.

You might want to think before you post these little Oliver Stone
screenplays.

Thanks,

Magilla

Did you see the documentary about Greg Lemond and his fear that his doping
control samples would be tampered with? Is he a paranoid also?

Try harder.

HTH,

-jet

Jet said:

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:24:42 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Because L'Equipe reported he did. And if that weren't true, than you
>know Lance would have sued them for $20 million.
>
>But since Lance didn't, that kind of says something.
>
>Magilla

Bullcrap. Let's say for the sake of argument that the lab did spike one or
more of the samples. This is France we're talking about with different
laws, and justice.

<snip>

A WADA lab spiking the sample against Lance? You're a lunatic. Do you
think the police framed OJ too?

Thanks,

Magilla

WADA has done all sorts of unethical things, such as making press releases
on riders who were found innocent shortly afterwards. They've shown that
they could care less about the impact of their questionable behavior.

<snip>

I agree that [censored] Pound is a crank. But what does that have to do with
labs framing athletes? That's quite a stretch - care to share your evidence?

Magilla

Jet said:

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:24:42 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Because L'Equipe reported he did. And if that weren't true, than you
>know Lance would have sued them for $20 million.
>
>But since Lance didn't, that kind of says something.
>
>Magilla

Bullcrap. Let's say for the sake of argument that the lab did spike one or
more of the samples. This is France we're talking about with different
laws, and justice.

<snip>

A WADA lab spiking the sample against Lance? You're a lunatic. Do you
think the police framed OJ too?

Thanks,

Magilla

WADA has done all sorts of unethical things, such as making press releases
on riders who were found innocent shortly afterwards. They've shown that
they could care less about the impact of their questionable behavior.

However, I'm suggesting only for the sake of argument that Lance's test was
spiked. I'm not suggesting that it's a systemic problem necessarily. A lab
tech may have taken a payoff to suppliment his low-paying job. A lab tech
could have left the room with the samples sitting out on the bench and
unspecified persons could have entered the room and done something. I have
no idea.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

-jet

Ahhhh...no. The lab had no idea they were even testing LA's samples when
they ran the tests - all they had was a number. L'Equipe made the link
months later.

Don't ever allege such a thing again unless you have proof. Step back
from the bench, counselor.

Judge Magilla

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:25:24 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

WADA has done all sorts of unethical things, such as making press releases
on riders who were found innocent shortly afterwards. They've shown that
they could care less about the impact of their questionable behavior.

However, I'm suggesting only for the sake of argument that Lance's test was
spiked. I'm not suggesting that it's a systemic problem necessarily. A lab
tech may have taken a payoff to suppliment his low-paying job. A lab tech
could have left the room with the samples sitting out on the bench and
unspecified persons could have entered the room and done something. I have
no idea.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

-jet

Ahhhh...no. The lab had no idea they were even testing LA's samples when
they ran the tests - all they had was a number. L'Equipe made the link
months later.

Don't ever allege such a thing again unless you have proof. Step back
from the bench, counselor.

Judge Magilla

The samples were not re-anonymized, but stored in the lab freezer in the
same order and sequence as they were from the Tour. It would not be a feat
to guess their owners.

Posing a hypothetical is not the same as alleging. Back to law school for
you, Knuckle-walker. ;-)

-jet

In article <[email hidden]>,

MagillaGorilla said:

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

MagillaGorilla said:

DepartFictif wrote:

>>Lance's biggest problem is the positive test for EPO on his B-sample
>
>>from the '99 Tour
>
>Woh woh woh.. what positive test for EPO? Back up here a bit? When did
>LA test +ve for EPO?

No need to be careful. Lance tested positive for EPO in 1999 Tour.
Haven't you read about it?

OK, you know that Armstrong was doping. But how do you
know that he tested positive?

Because L'Equipe reported he did. And if that weren't true, than you
know Lance would have sued them for $20 million.

But since Lance didn't, that kind of says something.

So if she floats she is a witch and we burn her; if she
sinks she is not a witch and exonerated.

--
Michael Press

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because L'Equipe reported he did. And if that weren't true, than you
know Lance would have sued them for $20 million.

But since Lance didn't, that kind of says something.

So if she floats she is a witch and we burn her; if she
sinks she is not a witch and exonerated.

BEDEVERE
Wait. Wait ... tell me, what also floats on water?

ALL
Bread? No, no, no. Apples .... gravy ... very small rocks ...

ARTHUR
A duck.

They all turn and look at ARTHUR. BEDEVERE looks up very impressed.

BEDEVERE
Exactly. So... logically ...

FIRST VILLAGER (beginning to pick up the thread)
If she ... weighs the same as a duck ... she's made of wood.

BEDEVERE
And therefore?

ALL
A witch! ... A duck! A duck! Fetch a duck.

FOURTH VILLAGER
Here is a duck, Sir Bedevere.

BEDEVERE
We shall use my largest scales.

He leads them a few yards to a very strange contraption indeed, made
of wood and rope and leather. They put the GIRL in one pan and the
duck in another. Each pan is supported by a wooden stave. BEDEVERE
checks each pan then ... ARTHUR looks on with interest.

BEDEVERE
Remove the supports.

Two PEASANTS knock them away with sledge hammers. The GIRL and the
duck swing slightly but balance perfectly.

ALL
A witch! A witch!

WITCH
It's a fair cop.

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:18:58 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I may come as a shock to your belief system, but France, other First World
countries and a few others have functional judicial systems.

France, first world? I don't think so. Second world at best and
sinking towards third world. My prediction is that in 25 years you'll
find more affluence in India and China than France. The country is on
the verge of economic disaster.

Jet said:

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:25:24 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

WADA has done all sorts of unethical things, such as making press releases
on riders who were found innocent shortly afterwards. They've shown that
they could care less about the impact of their questionable behavior.

However, I'm suggesting only for the sake of argument that Lance's test was
spiked. I'm not suggesting that it's a systemic problem necessarily. A lab
tech may have taken a payoff to suppliment his low-paying job. A lab tech
could have left the room with the samples sitting out on the bench and
unspecified persons could have entered the room and done something. I have
no idea.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

-jet

Ahhhh...no. The lab had no idea they were even testing LA's samples when
they ran the tests - all they had was a number. L'Equipe made the link
months later.

Don't ever allege such a thing again unless you have proof. Step back

Quoted message said:

from the bench, counselor.

Quoted message said:

Judge Magilla

The samples were not re-anonymized, but stored in the lab freezer in the
same order and sequence as they were from the Tour. It would not be a feat
to guess their owners.

Posing a hypothetical is not the same as alleging. Back to law school for
you, Knuckle-walker. ;-)

-jet

You know what...you are right. Lance was framed after all. Thanks for
showing me such compelling evidence. Let me know when you share your
compelling evidence with the Parisian police so they can prosecute the
lab worker who did it.

Are you going to sell this information to L'Equipe or the National Enquirer?

Thanks,

Magilla

Jet said:

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:34:06 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the french are out to get Lance then the last thing he should do is go
over there and be sucked into the French judicial system, because in this
hypothetical they would find another way to lie and screw with him. I'd be
worried someone would plant narcotics in his room or luggage or something.

-jet

Yeah, the entire country of France is out to get Lance. When were you
diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia?

95% of French people could care less about Lance.

You might want to think before you post these little Oliver Stone
screenplays.

Thanks,

Magilla

Did you see the documentary about Greg Lemond and his fear that his doping
control samples would be tampered with? Is he a paranoid also?

Try harder.

HTH,

-jet

Did you see the Discovery Channel special on the assasination of JFK
where they concluded that the magic bullet didn't do anything unusual at
all and that the only shooter was Lee Harvery Oswald?

Is the Discovery Channel not paranoid enough?

To answer your question though, LeMond's fear has little or no basis in
reality. Actually it does....his samples never were tampered with.

Let me know if you have any more hypothetical theories that can be
easily refuted by reality.

Thanks,

Magilla

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 11:05:07 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Jet said:

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:25:24 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

>WADA has done all sorts of unethical things, such as making press releases
>on riders who were found innocent shortly afterwards. They've shown that
>they could care less about the impact of their questionable behavior.
>
>However, I'm suggesting only for the sake of argument that Lance's test was
>spiked. I'm not suggesting that it's a systemic problem necessarily. A lab
>tech may have taken a payoff to suppliment his low-paying job. A lab tech
>could have left the room with the samples sitting out on the bench and
>unspecified persons could have entered the room and done something. I have
>no idea.
>

<snip>

>-jet

Ahhhh...no. The lab had no idea they were even testing LA's samples when
they ran the tests - all they had was a number. L'Equipe made the link
months later.

Don't ever allege such a thing again unless you have proof. Step back

Quoted message said:

from the bench, counselor.

Quoted message said:

Judge Magilla

The samples were not re-anonymized, but stored in the lab freezer in the
same order and sequence as they were from the Tour. It would not be a feat
to guess their owners.

Posing a hypothetical is not the same as alleging. Back to law school for
you, Knuckle-walker. ;-)

-jet

You know what...you are right. Lance was framed after all. Thanks for
showing me such compelling evidence. Let me know when you share your
compelling evidence with the Parisian police so they can prosecute the
lab worker who did it.

The gendarmes should have more important things to do than obsess about
bicycle riders. Sadly, they waste valuable time staking out hotels and
soforth, being the brainiacs that they are.

Quoted message said:

Are you going to sell this information to L'Equipe or the National Enquirer?

Hypothetical. Look it up.

HTH,

-jet

Quoted message said:

Thanks,

Magilla

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

MagillaGorilla said:

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]> wrote:

>DepartFictif wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Lance's biggest problem is the positive test for EPO on his B-sample
>>
>>>from the '99 Tour
>>
>>Woh woh woh.. what positive test for EPO? Back up here a bit? When did
>>LA test +ve for EPO?
>
>
>No need to be careful. Lance tested positive for EPO in 1999 Tour.
>Haven't you read about it?

OK, you know that Armstrong was doping. But how do you
know that he tested positive?

Because L'Equipe reported he did. And if that weren't true, than you
know Lance would have sued them for $20 million.

But since Lance didn't, that kind of says something.

So if she floats she is a witch and we burn her; if she
sinks she is not a witch and exonerated.

Nice try. What I said is, Lance sues anyone who questions his integrity
publicly (you do know his people were behind Prentice Steffan's
resignation). Even soigneurs with 20 Euros in their bank acounts who
gave 2-sentence quotes get served with lawsuits.

So, why...why would Lance not sue a deep-pocket newspaper which STATED
IN NO QUESTIONABLE TERMS THAT THE GUY TOOK EPO AND TESTED POSITIVE FOR EPO?

Why sue the people who merely made vague insinuations, and not the rich
newspaper who wrote the most-damaging headline?

Lance says such a lawsuit would cost him $1.5 million....but didn't he
forget to factor in that he could recover attorney's fees and win $10
million if he prevails?

Of course, one reason not to sue for libel is the person you're suing
isn't lying and can prove they aren't.

The failure of Lance to sue L'Equipe who [allegedly] made the most
libelous statement and got the biggest headlines says something in light
of LA's litigious predilection, don't you think?

Thanks,

Magilla

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 11:10:51 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Jet wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Did you see the documentary about Greg Lemond and his fear that his doping
control samples would be tampered with? Is he a paranoid also?

Try harder.

HTH,

-jet

Did you see the Discovery Channel special on the assasination of JFK
where they concluded that the magic bullet didn't do anything unusual at
all and that the only shooter was Lee Harvery Oswald?

Actually I'm very familiar with it and have spoken to Paul Burke
personally. His methods are suspect, and disputed by many fans, though he
did make some contributions wrt to positioning in the Lincoln and actions
aboard the Queen Mary. I don't bother much with the JFK thing these days,
too much internal bickering.

Quoted message said:

Is the Discovery Channel not paranoid enough?

They are too superficial, and sensationalistic - much like l'Equipe. In
addition, you should research the meaning of paranoia. You aren't paranoid
if you suspect possible foul play against someone else. The term paranoia
is usually used to describe excessive concern about one's own well-being.

Quoted message said:

To answer your question though, LeMond's fear has little or no basis in
reality. Actually it does....his samples never were tampered with.

Gee all these bike racers concerned about their well-being at the hands of
the French press and the testing labs, and guys like [censored] Pound. Maybe it's
the mineral water causing it?

Quoted message said:

Let me know if you have any more hypothetical theories that can be
easily refuted by reality.

Dumbass, a theory -is- hypothetical. Didn't they teach you anything at
zoo-college? ;-p

HTH,

-jet

Quoted message said:

Thanks,

Magilla

Any questions why Lafferty can't stay as an employed lawyer?

I know that I REALLY want to have my lawyer fighting for the
prosecution.

The fact is that in Lafferty's glorious European legal system the
Judges set the agenda and if they want to get someone for political
purposes it's a done deal.

We have the same problem in the USA but it is with the Prosecuting
Attorneys and they can be thwarted by a good judge.

What method would you prefer? The man in power working to his own
agenda or the DA?

In traffic court things are generally run just as Lafferty envisions
the European legal system. I watched as a traffic court judge heard a
case: It was very simple - a minor was driving his car down the street
and another minor with his mother in the car drove through a stop sign
and into the side of the other car.

Pretty straight forward huh? The judge found that the kid who didn't
have his mother in the car had broken some law or other and that the
kid who (admitted) drove through the stop sign was blameless. I forget
the exact circumstances but I remember everyone in the courtrooms eyes
got really big and about half of them got up and went out and simply
paid a fine rather than face that Lafferty-esque fool.

"MagillaGorilla" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

MagillaGorilla said:

Michael Press wrote:

>In article <[email hidden]>,
> MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>DepartFictif wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Lance's biggest problem is the positive test for EPO on his B-sample
>>>
>>>>from the '99 Tour
>>>
>>>Woh woh woh.. what positive test for EPO? Back up here a bit? When
>>>did
>>>LA test +ve for EPO?
>>
>>
>>No need to be careful. Lance tested positive for EPO in 1999 Tour.
>>Haven't you read about it?
>
>
>OK, you know that Armstrong was doping. But how do you know that he
>tested positive?
>

Because L'Equipe reported he did. And if that weren't true, than you
know Lance would have sued them for $20 million.

But since Lance didn't, that kind of says something.

So if she floats she is a witch and we burn her; if she sinks she is not
a witch and exonerated.

Nice try. What I said is, Lance sues anyone who questions his integrity
publicly (you do know his people were behind Prentice Steffan's
resignation). Even soigneurs with 20 Euros in their bank acounts who gave
2-sentence quotes get served with lawsuits.

So, why...why would Lance not sue a deep-pocket newspaper which STATED IN
NO QUESTIONABLE TERMS THAT THE GUY TOOK EPO AND TESTED POSITIVE FOR EPO?

Why sue the people who merely made vague insinuations, and not the rich
newspaper who wrote the most-damaging headline?

Lance says such a lawsuit would cost him $1.5 million....but didn't he
forget to factor in that he could recover attorney's fees and win $10
million if he prevails?

Of course, one reason not to sue for libel is the person you're suing
isn't lying and can prove they aren't.

The failure of Lance to sue L'Equipe who [allegedly] made the most
libelous statement and got the biggest headlines says something in light
of LA's litigious predilection, don't you think?

Thanks,

Magilla

On the money.

B. Lafferty said:

Quoted message said:

The failure of Lance to sue L'Equipe who [allegedly] made the most
libelous statement and got the biggest headlines says something in light
of LA's litigious predilection, don't you think?

Thanks,

Magilla

On the money.

Guys, -of course- that's true. I have no doubt that the headstrong
Armstrong would have gone after l'Equipe with a vengeance given slightly
different circumstances. Hell, he'd have probably gone into their offices
with a baseball bat, lol. (what movie was that?)

I'm talking about the side-issues - that it's not safe for him to go
litigate in France; that he's retired and could care less; that the more he
reacts the more credence he gives the to 'findings'.

I know I'm musing about conspiracy with little to go on, being devil's
advocate and soforth. It's speculation. We all know that the pros dope. I
for one, don't care that much; my attitude is close to benjo's. OK?

OK. ;-)

-jet