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