Re: you people are idiots



D

dbrower

Guest
MagillaGorilla wrote:

>
> The delays in the Landis annd Hamilton cases were caused by Hamilton and
> Landis.
>


Other than not accepting a sanction nolo-contendre, what exactly has
Landis done to delay his case? I'm unaware of anything procedural
that he's done that constitutes a delay. Perhaps you are thinking
that wanting a public hearing is a delaying tactic?

To what advantage do you believe delay would be for Landis that he'd be
pursuing it as a strategy?

Please advise,

-dB http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research, and
comment.
 
M

MagillaGorilla

Guest
dbrower wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>
>>The delays in the Landis annd Hamilton cases were caused by Hamilton and
>>Landis.
>>

>
>
> Other than not accepting a sanction nolo-contendre, what exactly has
> Landis done to delay his case? I'm unaware of anything procedural
> that he's done that constitutes a delay. Perhaps you are thinking
> that wanting a public hearing is a delaying tactic?
>
> To what advantage do you believe delay would be for Landis that he'd be
> pursuing it as a strategy?
>
> Please advise,
>
> -dB http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research, and
> comment.
>



Landis doesn't dictate the pace personally. However his legal team
does. The motive to delay a case is done by Landis's attorney (read:
billable hours).


Thanks,

Magilla
 
D

dbrower

Guest
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> dbrower wrote:
>
> > MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The delays in the Landis annd Hamilton cases were caused by Hamilton and
> >>Landis.
> >>

> >
> >
> > Other than not accepting a sanction nolo-contendre, what exactly has
> > Landis done to delay his case? I'm unaware of anything procedural
> > that he's done that constitutes a delay. Perhaps you are thinking
> > that wanting a public hearing is a delaying tactic?
> >
> > To what advantage do you believe delay would be for Landis that he'd be
> > pursuing it as a strategy?
> >
> > Please advise,
> >
> > -dB http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research, and
> > comment.
> >

>
>
> Landis doesn't dictate the pace personally. However his legal team
> does. The motive to delay a case is done by Landis's attorney (read:
> billable hours).


You refute yourself, then, since you originally said it was Hamilton
and Landis; now it's not them, but the attorneys? And the client has
no say? And puts up with it?

What is the attorney doing procedurally that is dragging Landis out?

I just want to understand what you think someone on the Landis side of
the case is doing specifically to drag the case out.

The original statement made it seem that Landis had no interest in a
resolution. If that is not what you intended to say, please explain
what you did mean.

thanks,

-dB
 
M

MagillaGorilla

Guest
dbrower wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>dbrower wrote:
>>
>>
>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The delays in the Landis annd Hamilton cases were caused by Hamilton and
>>>>Landis.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Other than not accepting a sanction nolo-contendre, what exactly has
>>>Landis done to delay his case? I'm unaware of anything procedural
>>>that he's done that constitutes a delay. Perhaps you are thinking
>>>that wanting a public hearing is a delaying tactic?
>>>
>>>To what advantage do you believe delay would be for Landis that he'd be
>>>pursuing it as a strategy?
>>>
>>>Please advise,
>>>
>>>-dB http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research, and
>>>comment.
>>>

>>
>>
>>Landis doesn't dictate the pace personally. However his legal team
>>does. The motive to delay a case is done by Landis's attorney (read:
>>billable hours).

>
>
> You refute yourself, then, since you originally said it was Hamilton
> and Landis; now it's not them, but the attorneys? And the client has
> no say? And puts up with it?


Hey dumbass - their atorneys represent them so it's fair-game to
attribute their conduct to their clients approval/endorsement.
Attorneys and clients are one of the same entity for the purposes of a
legal process (according to both attorney and athlete client, the
attorney represents ALL legal interests, strategies, and tactics of the
athlete). My point however was much more germane: the delay isn't being
caused by USADA.


>
> What is the attorney doing procedurally that is dragging Landis out?


Why don't you go out to lunch with some attorney sometime, buy him a
scotch, and ask him to tell you about the concept of billable hours as
it relates to how law firms operate. Better yet, go rent The Firm with
Tom Cruise if you need it reduced to a 9th grade homework assignment.


> I just want to understand what you think someone on the Landis side of
> the case is doing specifically to drag the case out.


I don't think, I know. They're doing the exact same thing every defense
attorney does to their client. Do you really think a guy like Johnny
Cochran is worth $30 million just because he gets minority juries to
turn every case into a re-enactment of the Civil War?

>
> The original statement made it seem that Landis had no interest in a
> resolution. If that is not what you intended to say, please explain
> what you did mean.
>
> thanks,
>
> -dB
>


I meant what I said in that statment, and I did not use, nor did I
intimate the word "resolution."

Thanks,

Magilla
 
D

dbrower

Guest
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> dbrower wrote:
>
> > MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >
> >>dbrower wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The delays in the Landis annd Hamilton cases were caused by Hamilton and
> >>>>Landis.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Other than not accepting a sanction nolo-contendre, what exactly has
> >>>Landis done to delay his case? I'm unaware of anything procedural
> >>>that he's done that constitutes a delay. Perhaps you are thinking
> >>>that wanting a public hearing is a delaying tactic?
> >>>
> >>>To what advantage do you believe delay would be for Landis that he'd be
> >>>pursuing it as a strategy?
> >>>
> >>>Please advise,
> >>>
> >>>-dB http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research, and
> >>>comment.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>Landis doesn't dictate the pace personally. However his legal team
> >>does. The motive to delay a case is done by Landis's attorney (read:
> >>billable hours).

> >
> >
> > You refute yourself, then, since you originally said it was Hamilton
> > and Landis; now it's not them, but the attorneys? And the client has
> > no say? And puts up with it?

>
> Hey dumbass - their atorneys represent them so it's fair-game to
> attribute their conduct to their clients approval/endorsement.
> Attorneys and clients are one of the same entity for the purposes of a
> legal process (according to both attorney and athlete client, the
> attorney represents ALL legal interests, strategies, and tactics of the
> athlete). My point however was much more germane: the delay isn't being
> caused by USADA.
>
>
> >
> > What is the attorney doing procedurally that is dragging Landis out?

>
> Why don't you go out to lunch with some attorney sometime, buy him a
> scotch, and ask him to tell you about the concept of billable hours as
> it relates to how law firms operate. Better yet, go rent The Firm with
> Tom Cruise if you need it reduced to a 9th grade homework assignment.
>
>
> > I just want to understand what you think someone on the Landis side of
> > the case is doing specifically to drag the case out.

>
> I don't think, I know. They're doing the exact same thing every defense
> attorney does to their client. Do you really think a guy like Johnny
> Cochran is worth $30 million just because he gets minority juries to
> turn every case into a re-enactment of the Civil War?
>
> >
> > The original statement made it seem that Landis had no interest in a
> > resolution. If that is not what you intended to say, please explain
> > what you did mean.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > -dB
> >

>
> I meant what I said in that statment, and I did not use, nor did I
> intimate the word "resolution."
>


Dumbass,

First you said Landis was dragging his case out.

Then you said it was his lawyers.

Then you said he was approving of it.

Then you said his lawyers were playing games on him to rack up hours.

Then when asked what the lawyers were doing, you didn't offer a
specific example.

When asked if you think Landis is trying to delay resolution, you say
you never mentioned resolution, and didn't really answer the question,
pulling a Tony Snow/Scott McLellan and claiming you've already
addressed the point and stand by your previously (confusing) statement.

I don't know what the hell you are trying to say, because you seem to
mostly be making outrageous statements to get a reaction, then denying
what you seem to be implying when called on it, evading, and changing
the subject.

Yes, I am a simpleton, and I'm trying to understand the plot, but you
are too complicated for me to follow. It will help if I can get you
to directly answer two simple questions.

1. Is Landis personally trying to drag it out?

2. What procedurally has the Landis side done to draw it out?

thanks!

-dB
 
M

MagillaGorilla

Guest
dbrower wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>dbrower wrote:
>>
>>
>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>


SNIP

>
> Dumbass,
>
> First you said Landis was dragging his case out.
>
> Then you said it was his lawyers.


They're one of the same. Landis's lawyers are Landis's chosen
representatives and as such, they do speak for him officially.


>
> Then you said he was approving of it.


Since he didn't fire them, it must be interpreted to mean that Landis
approves of their conduct. If he didn't, he would have fired them.


>
> Then you said his lawyers were playing games on him to rack up hours.



Correct.



> Then when asked what the lawyers were doing, you didn't offer a
> specific example.


Okay, here is an example of wasting time:

1. Howard Jacobs asking for evidence that he knows he can't get and he
knows has been denied to him in numerous CAS cases. This request for
additional evidence was a rather large document and probably cost Floyd
$15,000 in legal fees to prepare. It never should have been filed.
However, what it does is generate money for Jacobs.

This wasted about a month.

But I have no idea why his defense costs are around $150,000 at this
point given that Arnie Baker said he was working pro bono. All I know
is it's a waste of money.

Floyd's solution to this is to let his attorney and experts run up the
bill and then ask the public to pay. This is pathetic and comes across
as arrogant.



>
> When asked if you think Landis is trying to delay resolution, you say
> you never mentioned resolution, and didn't really answer the question,
> pulling a Tony Snow/Scott McLellan and claiming you've already
> addressed the point and stand by your previously (confusing) statement.


Landis and his attorneys are delaying the case by filing frivolous
requests for evidence they know they cannot get under the rules and by
asking for dismissals they know they will not get. These requests takes
weeks to resolve and cost Landis thousands of dollars in billable hour
fees. Jacobs knows they are all going to be denied, but he files them
anyway to run up the bill.

Landis then asks the public to pick up the tab even though it is he, his
team, USAC, and the UCI that is collectively reponsible for signing onto
the WADA code. All these athlete groups, committees, trustees, UCI
councils, Pro Tour this and Pro Tour that..and then athletes want the
public to pay for their governmental ineptitude?



>
> I don't know what the hell you are trying to say, because you seem to
> mostly be making outrageous statements to get a reaction, then denying
> what you seem to be implying when called on it, evading, and changing
> the subject.
>
> Yes, I am a simpleton, and I'm trying to understand the plot, but you
> are too complicated for me to follow. It will help if I can get you
> to directly answer two simple questions.
>
> 1. Is Landis personally trying to drag it out?


He is. Landis is responsible for not exerting the proper oversight over
his attorney.


Magilla