Lance on Jim Rome

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by psycholist, Apr 1, 2005.

  1. Tim Lines

    Tim Lines Guest

    B. Lafferty wrote:
    > "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >>Hmmm... anyone out there have any doubts that Lafferty would've
    >>responded any other way that he did to my note or to Bob C.'s ?

    >
    >
    > Personal attacks prove nothing.


    I don't think this is a personal attack, just an observation.

    I don't know what kind of law you practice, but I'll bet you're pretty
    damned good at it. If I needed a lawyer, I'd want one that was so
    one-sided he couldn't understand any point of view other than my own and
    would just hammer on it, and beat the other side to a bloody pulp with
    single-minded claptrap. One like you.
     


  2. Tim Lines wrote:
    > B. Lafferty wrote:
    > > "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > >>Hmmm... anyone out there have any doubts that Lafferty would've
    > >>responded any other way that he did to my note or to Bob C.'s ?

    > >
    > >
    > > Personal attacks prove nothing.

    >
    > I don't think this is a personal attack, just an observation.
    >
    > I don't know what kind of law you practice, but I'll bet you're

    pretty
    > damned good at it. If I needed a lawyer, I'd want one that was so
    > one-sided he couldn't understand any point of view other than my own

    and
    > would just hammer on it, and beat the other side to a bloody pulp

    with
    > single-minded claptrap. One like you.





    Dumbass -

    I'll bet Lafferty sucks at it.

    If I was on a jury, I'd vote against his client just because his
    counsel was so goddamm annoying.



    thanks,

    K. Gringioni.
     
  3. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

    Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
    >
    > If I was on a jury, I'd vote against his client just because his
    > counsel was so goddamm annoying.


    But it might be pretty entertaining when he called a gym teacher as his
    star witness.
     
  4. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "MagillaGorilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > psycholist wrote:
    >> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >>
    >>
    >>>Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very credible.

    >>
    >>
    >> You're the only person I've heard who saw it and thought so. It doesn't
    >> sound to me like there's much of anything in what Anderson is saying or
    >> doing that has much credibility. He says he saw something. He says he's
    >> not sure what it was, but he looked it up on WADA.com and it was banned.
    >> He never saw Lance taking it. And, oh by the way, he's in a legal
    >> pissing contest with Lance.
    >>
    >> There's nothing concrete here. There's only the word of a disgruntled
    >> former employee vs. Lance. HA! This guy wasn't even smart enough to
    >> wait until a week before the Tour to heighten interest in his story.

    >
    >
    > What Brian really means is this:
    >
    > 1. Anderson finds Andro in Girona apartment.
    > 2. Anderson asks for $500/month raise.
    > 3. Armstrong interprets this as a form of legal extortion related to the
    > Andro DISCOVERY.
    > 4. Armstrong gives Anderson the raise.
    > 5. Armstrong asks Anderson to sign a confidentiality agreement to preempt
    > disclosure of the Andro DISCOVERY.
    > 6. Anderson says no way, Lancé.
    > 7. Anderson asks for $500,000, signed yellow jersey, and endorsement to
    > set up a bike shop to buy his hush-up (but doesn't come ut and say he
    > knows about the Andro)
    > 8. Armstrong sees the writing on the wall and sues Anderson, knowing full
    > well that a claim of finding Andro in a countersuit will look like
    > retaliation for the lawsuit. Armstrong gains the upper hand in the PR war.
    >
    > Magilla


    Possible. It will be interesting to learn if the details of any post-firing
    communication between them.
     
  5. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > B. Lafferty wrote:
    >>
    >> Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very

    > credible.
    >
    > So you're buying real estate from him.
    >
    > ray


    Funny. There are at least three possibilities:
    1. He's credible and telling the truth.
    2. He appears credible but would/will not under cross-examination.
    3. He's a true grifter, appears credible, will not fold under
    cross-examination.
     
  6. Tim Lines

    Tim Lines Guest

    Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
    > Tim Lines wrote:
    >
    >>B. Lafferty wrote:
    >>
    >>>"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>news:[email protected]
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Hmmm... anyone out there have any doubts that Lafferty would've
    >>>>responded any other way that he did to my note or to Bob C.'s ?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Personal attacks prove nothing.

    >>
    >>I don't think this is a personal attack, just an observation.
    >>
    >>I don't know what kind of law you practice, but I'll bet you're

    >
    > pretty
    >
    >>damned good at it. If I needed a lawyer, I'd want one that was so
    >>one-sided he couldn't understand any point of view other than my own

    >
    > and
    >
    >>would just hammer on it, and beat the other side to a bloody pulp

    >
    > with
    >
    >>single-minded claptrap. One like you.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Dumbass -
    >
    > I'll bet Lafferty sucks at it.
    >
    > If I was on a jury, I'd vote against his client just because his
    > counsel was so goddamm annoying.
    >


    But lawyers are sometimes paid to be annoying and tenacious. At least
    partly. They should also choose the ground they defend carefully enough
    to be persuasive in the end. Without that last bit, they are just
    tenaciously annoying. Which is a reasonable basis for a series of rbr
    posts, but not a law career.
     
  7. psycholist wrote:

    > www.jimrome.com
    >
    > Lance denied ever taking anything and said they can keep his samples and
    > test them 15 or 20 years from now.
    >
    > Not the usual, "I've never tested positive" stuff.


    Lance went from cycling nobody to winning the TDF 6 times in a row right
    after having a brain tumor and a testicle removed.

    The guy is ON something.
     
  8. On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 17:23:43 -0800, David Goldberg
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Lance went from cycling nobody to
    >winning the TDF 6 times in a row right
    >after having a brain tumor and a testicle removed.


    Two Tour of France stage wins, a pro world road championship, two
    classics and a couple top fives in a monumental classic is a "nobody"?

    Your ignorance is remarkable.

    JT


    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************
     
  9. gwhite

    gwhite Guest

    Tim Lines wrote:
    >
    > Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
    > > Tim Lines wrote:
    > >
    > >>B. Lafferty wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >>>news:[email protected]
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>Hmmm... anyone out there have any doubts that Lafferty would've
    > >>>>responded any other way that he did to my note or to Bob C.'s ?
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>Personal attacks prove nothing.
    > >>
    > >>I don't think this is a personal attack, just an observation.
    > >>
    > >>I don't know what kind of law you practice, but I'll bet you're

    > >
    > > pretty
    > >
    > >>damned good at it. If I needed a lawyer, I'd want one that was so
    > >>one-sided he couldn't understand any point of view other than my own

    > >
    > > and
    > >
    > >>would just hammer on it, and beat the other side to a bloody pulp

    > >
    > > with
    > >
    > >>single-minded claptrap. One like you.

    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Dumbass -
    > >
    > > I'll bet Lafferty sucks at it.
    > >
    > > If I was on a jury, I'd vote against his client just because his
    > > counsel was so goddamm annoying.
    > >

    >
    > But lawyers are sometimes paid to be annoying and tenacious. At least
    > partly. They should also choose the ground they defend carefully enough
    > to be persuasive in the end. Without that last bit, they are just
    > tenaciously annoying. Which is a reasonable basis for a series of rbr
    > posts, but not a law career.


    I was going to say that lawyers put their pants on the same way as everyone else
    but realized Phil Moore must think his underwear is a hat.
     
  10. I amazed that the rest of world seems to operate on the guilt by
    inuendo theory of justice. This just goes to show how lucky that the US
    does not utilize the Napoleonic code.


    psycholist wrote:
    > www.jimrome.com
    >
    > Lance denied ever taking anything and said they can keep his samples

    and
    > test them 15 or 20 years from now.
    >
    > Not the usual, "I've never tested positive" stuff.
    > --
    > Bob C.
    >
    > "Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
    > T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)
     
  11. On 3 Apr 2005 22:10:54 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

    >I amazed that the rest of world seems to operate on the guilt by
    >inuendo theory of justice. This just goes to show how lucky that the US
    >does not utilize the Napoleonic code.


    Do you apply a courtroom standard of justice in your daily life? If
    you do, you're in idiot. If you don't, you're a hypocrite.

    JT

    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************
     
  12. John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

    > On 3 Apr 2005 22:10:54 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I amazed that the rest of world seems to operate on the guilt by
    >>inuendo theory of justice. This just goes to show how lucky that the US
    >>does not utilize the Napoleonic code.

    >
    >
    > Do you apply a courtroom standard of justice in your daily life? If
    > you do, you're in idiot. If you don't, you're a hypocrite.
    >
    > JT
    >



    Well, most people don't..but only because the penalty isn't
    incarceration or a huge monetary fine and a criminal record. So there's
    no need to do so in a practical sense, or out of expediency.

    Magilla
     
  13. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On 3 Apr 2005 22:10:54 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
    >
    >>I amazed that the rest of world seems to operate on the guilt by
    >>inuendo theory of justice. This just goes to show how lucky that the US
    >>does not utilize the Napoleonic code.

    >
    > Do you apply a courtroom standard of justice in your daily life? If
    > you do, you're in idiot. If you don't, you're a hypocrite.


    I try to not reach conclusions on someone's private life without a whole lot
    of proof that he's doing something wrong. That's why I give most everyone
    but Lafferty a lot of leeway. And Lafferty has convicted himself.
     
  14. B. Lafferty wrote:
    > <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > > B. Lafferty wrote:
    > >>
    > >> Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very

    > > credible.
    > >
    > > So you're buying real estate from him.
    > >
    > > ray

    >
    > Funny. There are at least three possibilities:
    > 1. He's credible and telling the truth.
    > 2. He appears credible but would/will not under cross-examination.
    > 3. He's a true grifter, appears credible, will not fold under
    > cross-examination.


    No wonder, its your joke.
     
Loading...
Loading...