Sorry, this is a subscription site. I've read some reports about what was said over on slowtwitch.com in the forums. Sounds like Lance asked to be on the show for some damage control and made some very emphatic statements/denials of ever using banned PEDs.
Didn't hear it for myself, but sounds interesting. Oh ... and I'm too cheap to pay Rome to hear Lance spew. -- Bob C.
"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts." T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia) "psycholist" <technico@wctel.net> wrote in message news:d2k8hu$8je2$1@news3.infoave.net...> 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)>
"psycholist" <technico@wctel.net> wrote in message news:d2k96d$8j92$1@news3.infoave.net...> Sorry, this is a subscription site. I've read some reports about what was > said over on slowtwitch.com in the forums. Sounds like Lance asked to be > on the show for some damage control and made some very emphatic > statements/denials of ever using banned PEDs.>
Didn't hear it for myself, but sounds interesting. Oh ... and I'm too > cheap to pay Rome to hear Lance spew.> -- > Bob C.>
"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."> T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)> "psycholist" <technico@wctel.net> wrote in message > news:d2k8hu$8je2$1@news3.infoave.net...>> 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)
Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very credible.
"Scott" <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1112387207.911411.18400@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...> Unlike the throng of r.b.r. loonies who want to attack Lance at every> opportunity, 100% of the callers (at least 100% of the one's they put> through on the show) were completely behind Lance.
Interesting. Which rbr are you tuning in to? Rome and Armstrong go back several years together. Rome essentially worships the ground Armstrong walks on; water too for that matter. Do you really think they'd let anyone calling in question Armstrong's veracity? If you do, I have real estate for you.
Seems his> reputation in the general public (US, at least) has NOT been tarnished> by any of these allegations. If anything, he's apparently developing> quite a bit of sympathy out there. The US non-cycling public loves the> guy.>
"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.org> wrote in message news:S9i3e.1972$44.1715@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very credible.
You're the only person I've heard who saw it and thought so. It doesn't sound to me like there's much of anything in what Anderson is saying or doing that has much credibility. He says he saw something. He says he's not sure what it was, but he looked it up on WADA.com and it was banned. He never saw Lance taking it. And, oh by the way, he's in a legal pissing contest with Lance.
There's nothing concrete here. There's only the word of a disgruntled former employee vs. Lance. HA! This guy wasn't even smart enough to wait until a week before the Tour to heighten interest in his story. -- Bob C.
"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts." T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)
"Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:dti3e.491$N13.206@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.org> wrote in message > news:S9i3e.1972$44.1715@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...>>
Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very credible.>
Let me see, who would I believe........Lance Armstrong or a lawyer? Hard > one that.>
That'd be a hard one even if Lance were caught doping red-handed! -- Bob C.
"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts." T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)
"Scott" <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1112388011.154643.42320@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> 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.
Anderson was anything but credible.
Your opinion and that's ok. I ran into two people I don't know at my LBS today who saw Anderson on ESPN and found him believable. Credibility is for the trier of fact, be that judge or jury, to determine in context with the totality of the evidence.
He's an extortionist, nothing> more. You see, employers don't fire folks they're afraid of. They> promote them, pay them off, whatever.
You must live in a very interesting business world. And, you're making quite a few assumptions about Armstrong as an employer (as opposed to Tailwind) that may or may not be valid.
If Lance really thought Anderson> had the goods on him, as Anderson alleges, would Lance really send him> packing without a sufficient buyout and confidentiality agreement? No.
My understanding is that Armstrong did try to get Anderson to sign a confidentiality agreement and that he apparently refused. As a strategy, commencing an action against someone with a strong case is often best, especially when you can afford to pay hefty legal fees as Armstrong can.
Too bad he didn't work for M. Jackson. He might have gotten paid off.
Does Michael race bicycles?
For what it's worth, I'm fully aware of Rome's love for Lance, and I> took that into consideration as I listened to his show.
It's not worth very much because you don't know how many non-positive calls were received by the Rome show.
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 14:59:05 -0500, "psycholist" <technico@wctel.net> wrote:
Sorry, this is a subscription site. I've read some reports about what was >said over on slowtwitch.com in the forums. Sounds like Lance asked to be on >the show for some damage control and made some very emphatic >statements/denials of ever using banned PEDs.
I'm a little surprised. Don't PR people counsel not to give these obviously dumbass comments wings by replying to them? Seems to me the typical LA thing to do would be to say nothing and file additional lawsuits? Since the guy has no proof and can't even remember the name of this alleged stuff you'd think his lawyer would be cringing.
jj
Didn't hear it for myself, but sounds interesting. Oh ... and I'm too cheap >to pay Rome to hear Lance spew.
"Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:73j3e.1851$EE2.1209@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.org> wrote in message > news:dUi3e.12719$S46.9011@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...>>
I ran into two people I don't know at my LBS today who saw Anderson on >> ESPN and found him believable.>
Were they anonymous rbr posters as well?
If I run into them again, I'll be certain to ask them.
"psycholist" <technico@wctel.net> wrote in message news:d2kc7g$8ie5$1@news3.infoave.net...> "Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:dti3e.491$N13.206@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...>> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.org> wrote in message >> news:S9i3e.1972$44.1715@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...>>>
Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very credible.>>
Let me see, who would I believe........Lance Armstrong or a lawyer? Hard >> one that.>>
That'd be a hard one even if Lance were caught doping red-handed!
"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.org> wrote in message news:umj3e.10184$z.9585@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...>
"psycholist" <technico@wctel.net> wrote in message > news:d2kc7g$8ie5$1@news3.infoave.net...>> "Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:dti3e.491$N13.206@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...>>> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.org> wrote in message >>> news:S9i3e.1972$44.1715@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...>>>>
Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very credible.>>>
Let me see, who would I believe........Lance Armstrong or a lawyer? Hard >>> one that.>>>
That'd be a hard one even if Lance were caught doping red-handed!>
Would you believe Lance Armstrong's lawyer?
Ha ... I couldn't say. I'm in dangerous territory here. I'm married to a lawyer and right now she's in the room using my fax machine. Gotta lay low.
"psycholist" <technico@wctel.net> wrote in message news:d2kft2$8lhk$1@news3.infoave.net...> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.org> wrote in message > news:umj3e.10184$z.9585@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...>>
"psycholist" <technico@wctel.net> wrote in message >> news:d2kc7g$8ie5$1@news3.infoave.net...>>> "Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>> news:dti3e.491$N13.206@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...>>>> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.org> wrote in message >>>> news:S9i3e.1972$44.1715@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...>>>>>
Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very credible.>>>>
Let me see, who would I believe........Lance Armstrong or a lawyer? >>>> Hard one that.>>>>
That'd be a hard one even if Lance were caught doping red-handed!>>
Would you believe Lance Armstrong's lawyer?>
Ha ... I couldn't say. I'm in dangerous territory here. I'm married to a > lawyer and right now she's in the room using my fax machine. Gotta lay > low.>
psycholist wrote:> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.org> wrote in message > news:S9i3e.1972$44.1715@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...>
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.
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:> 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, Lanc?.> 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
Wow! That actually made sense. I'm astounded to be in agreement!
"psycholist" <technico@wctel.net> wrote in message news:d2kft2$8lhk$1@news3.infoave.net...>
Ha ... I couldn't say. I'm in dangerous territory here. I'm married to a > lawyer and right now she's in the room using my fax machine. Gotta lay > low.
So THAT'S the way you used to cover all your legal costs!
B. Lafferty wrote:> "Scott" <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1112388011.154643.42320@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>
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.
<Ray_Manor@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1112400454.909747.239640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...>
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.
"Scott" <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com> wrote in message>>>news:1112388011.154643.42320@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>>>
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>
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.
"Scott" <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com> wrote in message> >>>news:1112388011.154643.42320@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> >>>
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> >
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.
John Forrest Tomlinson 4 April 2005 14:34:37 [ permanent link ]
On 3 Apr 2005 22:10:54 -0700, hizark21@yahoo.com 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 ****************************
On 3 Apr 2005 22:10:54 -0700, hizark21@yahoo.com 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.>
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.
