# Feud repercussions for Lance?



## AJS (Aug 7, 2003)

From http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=352



> 7/25/2004
> An Italian magistrate is looking into incidents during Friday's stage to assess whether action might be taken against Armstrong.
> 
> In a sensational postscript to his history-making sixth Tour de France triumph, procycling has learned Lance Armstrong may soon be summoned by the Italian police to answer questions about his dispute with Filippo Simeoni.
> ...


----------



## spankdoggie (Feb 13, 2004)

Simeoni is a little girl. 

This will blow over. Just some nerd Italian cop or lawyer trying to advance a career. 

Simeoni is a little girl.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

Thanks for the article AJS. Interesting to say the least. Intimidating a witness to change his testimony is a felony in the United States. Not sure how the Italian courts view this, but according to the article it looks like legal officials in Italy where Simeoni testified against Dr. Ferrari will investigate whether Armstrong may have been attempting to intimidate a witness to alter his testimony.


----------



## seeborough (Feb 3, 2004)

*Yes, he is ...*



spankdoggie said:


> Simeoni is a little girl.
> 
> This will blow over. Just some nerd Italian cop or lawyer trying to advance a career.
> 
> Simeoni is a little girl.



...and that's why Ol' Lance should have left Simeoni alone. No reason for a beat down. Other than acting like a bully with a grudge, that is. 

"Was stört es die stolze deutsche Eiche, wenn sich ein Schwein an ihr kratzt!"


----------



## excitebike02 (Jul 27, 2004)

Simeoni = IROC


----------



## Jdub (May 5, 2004)

*Yeah but*



Ricky2 said:


> Thanks for the article AJS. Interesting to say the least. Intimidating a witness to change his testimony is a felony in the United States. Not sure how the Italian courts view this, but according to the article it looks like legal officials in Italy where Simeoni testified against Dr. Ferrari will investigate whether Armstrong may have been attempting to intimidate a witness to alter his testimony.



Competing in a sporting event against other athletes is not a felony anywhere in the world. Intimidating a witness!!!? So in order to not be intimidating LA should have just let him win a stage or even worse over turn years of TDF tradition by being an obnoxious little twerp during the last stage. Talk about making it personal. Why the double standard for Simeoni? Fine, if you want to make the argument that the personal affront by LA during 18 was over the top and made things personal I can see your argument. However, you can be a hypocrit and turn around and say it's ok for Simeoni to thumb his nose at the whole race and try to attack on multiple occasions during the last stage. All he was trying to do is force the point and make LA look by by having to chase him down. 

Whatever, if you guys could make one unbiased non-hypocritical statement I might be able to take you seriously.


----------



## weiwentg (Feb 3, 2004)

Jdub said:


> However, you can be a hypocrit and turn around and say it's ok for Simeoni to thumb his nose at the whole race and try to attack on multiple occasions during the last stage. All he was trying to do is force the point and make LA look by by having to chase him down.


I don't think a lot of people will be saying it's OK, but you have to admit LA started it. now, me, I'd (probably) have been the bigger person and settled it off the bike.


----------



## Jdub (May 5, 2004)

*Fair enough*



weiwentg said:


> I don't think a lot of people will be saying it's OK, but you have to admit LA started it. now, me, I'd (probably) have been the bigger person and settled it off the bike.


I probably would as well... In fact I can think of at least a half dozen times just sitting here when someone pissed me off and I just grumbled about it to myself without taking any action.

But then again I'm not a 6 time TDF winner, cancer survivor, blah, blah, blah.

It's hard for me to imagine what it is like to have my character attacked in public. There's a good chance I'll go my whole life without anyone ever questioning my integrity in the mass media. We're all armchair analysts in this game whether we like it or not.


----------



## AJS (Aug 7, 2003)

> So in order to not be intimidating LA should have just let him win a stage


Why not? Other non-GC's were "allowed" to win stages. If it wasn't intimidation, why didn't Postal immediately jump on other breakaway attempts, except perhaps only those by GC contenders?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

AJS said:


> From http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=352


Oh please! Maybe Ullrich should have sued Armstrong before the Tour, so every time he got left behind, he could claim Armstrong was trying to intimidate him.


----------



## AJS (Aug 7, 2003)

But you're forgetting some things:

#1 - Ullrich was a GC contender. Simeoni was not.

#2 - Getting dropped by the rest of the peloton is a bit different than getting ganged-up on by a single team.


----------



## commuterguy2 (Feb 23, 2004)

*Appearances matter and for Lance this doesn't look good*

Consider the basic fact pattern here without using actual names: Mr. A is under investigation for facilitating illegal actions. In connection with that investigation, Mr. B is called to testify, and implicates Mr. A. (Mr. B was presumably under oath, and faced legal repercussions for testimony that wasn't truthful.) Mr. C, who couldn't have had first-hand knowledge of Mr. A and B's relationship, goes on the record in the mass media saying that Mr. B is a liar. Mr. B then initiates legal proceedings to restore his reputation.

In retaliation, Mr. C takes steps to ruin Mr. B's career, which Mr. C is uniquely capable of doing, as he is the head mo fo of the most powerful entity in Mr. B and C's shared profession. Mr. C, who historically has dominated only one niche, albeit an important one, in this profession also states that he may expand his operations into several other important markets. This could be a way of intimidating anyone else who is called to testify against Mr. A who still attempts to make a living in this profession.

Does this describe the reality of the situation if A, B and C are Dr. Ferrari, Simeoni and Armstrong, respectively? I don't know, and neither does anyone else besides Lance. I would like to think that it doesn't. But Lance has done himself no favors here. And if this fact pattern accurately described a real situation in the medical profession, or the steel industry, or any other sector save professional wrestling, I would expect that Mr C would be in bit of trouble, and would have only himself to blame.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

*Other way around*



Jdub said:


> I probably would as well... In fact I can think of at least a half dozen times just sitting here when someone pissed me off and I just grumbled about it to myself without taking any action.
> 
> But then again I'm not a 6 time TDF winner, cancer survivor, blah, blah, blah.
> 
> It's hard for me to imagine what it is like to have my character attacked in public. There's a good chance I'll go my whole life without anyone ever questioning my integrity in the mass media. We're all armchair analysts in this game whether we like it or not.



Simeoni testified against Dr. Ferrari. He didn't say anything about Armstrong's character. He made NO mention of Armstrong in his testimony. Armstrong got his panties all in a wad and attacked Simeoni's character. And that's how the story begins.

About intimidating a witness. Read the article that AJS linked to. I didn't say that Armstrong tried to intimidate Simeoni to alter his testimony. The article said so. And character attacks by Armstrong after Simeoni's testimony against Dr. Ferrari may also be looked at by the Italian courts on whether an individual is trying to coerce a person's testimony.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

AJS said:


> But you're forgetting some things:
> 
> #1 - Ullrich was a GC contender. Simeoni was not.
> 
> #2 - Getting dropped by the rest of the peloton is a bit different than getting ganged-up on by a single team.


Actually, it's YOU who is forgetting things. It's a race. It's the Tour de France. It's no place for crybabies. There are lots of reasons for the peloton to chase down a rider, and it's not always about GC. The fact remains that if Simeoni really thought he was good enough to win, he should have stayed in the break on stage 18 and taken his chances like the other six guys (plus Lance) did. He didn't, and that proves he's nothing but a chump. Now he's a crybaby, too. I hope he gets stuffed in every race he does from now on.


----------



## Jdub (May 5, 2004)

AJS said:


> Why not? Other non-GC's were "allowed" to win stages. If it wasn't intimidation, why didn't Postal immediately jump on other breakaway attempts, except perhaps only those by GC contenders?



That seems like a slippery slope to me. Hypothetically let's say LA does get charge and convicted of intimidation. Does that mean that every time two people have a dispute outside cycling and one persons team or even the individual decides to compete exceptionally hard against that other individual it will be classified as intimidation? Laws can only be effective if they can be applied blindly to all individuals. These guys are athletes at the top level of the sport. OK so he chose to compete against one person and not another and they happen to have a issue outside cycling between them. 

This happens in every professional sport. Take a look at what happens to football players if they piss off somone on an opposing team. They get their clock cleaned the next time they aren't paying attention. Penalty or not they make the guy pay. In cycling we're not even talking bodily harm here either. Maybe they shouldn't do this but it's hard to say to someone at that level they can't compete against one person and not another. 

On the flip side Simeoni was only trying to make a childish point by being obnoxious. If children aren't reprimanded they continue to act like children and often take things a step furthur. 

I don't know ... I have a feeling that similar to politics we all took sides on this one a long time ago and this discussion is becoming futile.


----------



## Jdub (May 5, 2004)

*Broken Record*



Ricky2 said:


> Simeoni testified against Dr. Ferrari. He didn't say anything about Armstrong's character. He made NO mention of Armstrong in his testimony. Armstrong got his panties all in a wad and attacked Simeoni's character. And that's how the story begins.
> 
> About intimidating a witness. Read the article that AJS linked to. I didn't say that Armstrong tried to intimidate Simeoni to alter his testimony. The article said so. And character attacks by Armstrong after Simeoni's testimony against Dr. Ferrari may also be looked at by the Italian courts on whether an individual is trying to coerce a person's testimony.



You keep leaving out the all too important fact that LA was asked by the press specifically what his opinion on the Simeoni testimony. He did not offer up this opinion out of the blue. 

Then it was Simeoni that got his "panties in a wad" about LA's response and decided to sue him. It's crazy you would swear Simeoni was an American as ready to sue as he is. I thought Europeans weren't as litigious as Americans. Sticks and stones ... 

I honestly don't think any of us have a perspective for what it's like to be asked about this subject over and over and over again to the point where you feel like no one is listening and they are all just waiting until you change your answer. I can not think of a way he could have answered this question from the media without getting beaten up for it by folks like you. "No comment" doesn't work ... what does? The only answer that would satisfy you would be if he said "yes I did it too". Just imagine for a moment as hard as it might be that he actually didn't do it, how do you defend against this affront?


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

*notsofast*



Jdub said:


> You keep leaving out the all too important fact that LA was asked by the press specifically what his opinion on the Simeoni testimony. He did not offer up this opinion out of the blue.
> 
> Then it was Simeoni that got his "panties in a wad" about LA's response and decided to sue him. It's crazy you would swear Simeoni was an American as ready to sue as he is. I thought Europeans weren't as litigious as Americans. Sticks and stones ...



You keep leaving out the all too important fact that Simeoni testified in the Italian courts. He made zero references to Armstrong in the courts or in the press. Armstrong was asked about his connection with Ferrari and DID voluntarily offer up his opinion of Simeoni... aka Armstrong got his panties in a wad and tried to bring down the career of a guy who makes less than 50k a year.


----------



## treebound (Oct 16, 2003)

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz


----------



## Jdub (May 5, 2004)

*More lies*



Ricky2 said:


> You keep leaving out the all too important fact that Simeoni testified in the Italian courts. He made zero references to Armstrong in the courts or in the press. Armstrong was asked about his connection with Ferrari and DID voluntarily offer up his opinion of Simeoni... aka Armstrong got his panties in a wad and tried to bring down the career of a guy who makes less than 50k a year.



Ok now you are distorting the facts.

Armstrong was asked by the media what he thought of Simeoni's statements that Ferrari taught him (Simeoni) how to use EPO (thereby making a direct connection between Ferrrari and EPO). Armstrong was asked time and time again if he (Armstrong) had used EPO under Dr. Ferrari's guidance thus the connection of Ferrari to Armstrong and implication of EPO use by Armstrong. Upon being asked about what he thought of Simeoni's statements about Ferrari (EPO connection established), Armstrong said Simeoni was a liar and pointed out that he had changed his story several times in the past. 

I wish I could find the exact quotes for all of this, but the media has done a good job of retaining only bits, pieces, and paraphrases.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

*Easy to read version*



commuterguy2 said:


> Consider the basic fact pattern here without using actual names: Mr. A is under investigation for facilitating illegal actions. In connection with that investigation, Mr. B is called to testify, and implicates Mr. A. (Mr. B was presumably under oath, and faced legal repercussions for testimony that wasn't truthful.) Mr. C, who couldn't have had first-hand knowledge of Mr. A and B's relationship, goes on the record in the mass media saying that Mr. B is a liar. Mr. B then initiates legal proceedings to restore his reputation.
> 
> In retaliation, Mr. C takes steps to ruin Mr. B's career, which Mr. C is uniquely capable of doing, as he is the head mo fo of the most powerful entity in Mr. B and C's shared profession. Mr. C, who historically has dominated only one niche, albeit an important one, in this profession also states that he may expand his operations into several other important markets. This could be a way of intimidating anyone else who is called to testify against Mr. A who still attempts to make a living in this profession.
> 
> Does this describe the reality of the situation if A, B and C are Dr. Ferrari, Simeoni and Armstrong, respectively? I don't know, and neither does anyone else besides Lance. I would like to think that it doesn't. But Lance has done himself no favors here. And if this fact pattern accurately described a real situation in the medical profession, or the steel industry, or any other sector save professional wrestling, I would expect that Mr C would be in bit of trouble, and would have only himself to blame.



In your posted article:
_Mr. A = Dr. Ferrari
Mr. B = Simeoni
Mr. C = Armstrong_.....
so, using the Word find and replace feature, the article becomes the following, which is much easier to read...


Consider the basic fact pattern here without using actual names: *DR. FERRARI* is under investigation for facilitating illegal actions. In connection with that investigation, *SIMEONI* is called to testify, and implicates *DR. FERRARI*. (*SIMEONI* was presumably under oath, and faced legal repercussions for testimony that wasn't truthful.) *ARMSTRONG*, who couldn't have had first-hand knowledge of *DR. FERRARI and SIMEONI’S* relationship, goes on the record in the mass media saying that *SIMEONI* is a liar. *SIMEONI* then initiates legal proceedings to restore his reputation.

In retaliation, *ARMSTRONG* takes steps to ruin *SIMEONI's* career, which *ARMSTRONG* is uniquely capable of doing, as he is the head mofo of the most powerful entity in *SIMEONI and ARMSTRONG’S* shared profession. *ARMSTRONG*, who historically has dominated only one niche, albeit an important one, in this profession also states that he may expand his operations into several other important markets. This could be a way of intimidating anyone else who is called to testify against *DR. FERRARI* who still attempts to make a living in this profession.

Does this describe the reality of the situation if *A, B and C are Dr. Ferrari, Simeoni and Armstrong*, respectively? I don't know, and neither does anyone else besides Lance. I would like to think that it doesn't. But Lance has done himself no favors here. And if this fact pattern accurately described a real situation in the medical profession, or the steel industry, or any other sector save professional wrestling, I would expect that *ARMSTRONG* would be in bit of trouble, and would have only himself to blame.


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

Geez guys, does anyone honestly think anything is going to come from Postal shutting down some guy on a dopey, hopeless, political-point-making breakaway in a bike race?

Witness intimidation takes certain forms. One of which might be LA sending GH (big guy and all) to tell FS that he's best shut up or they were going to kill/beat/hurt him in some way. I didn't see that happening, I saw him being chased down. Now, one might construe this in the most distorted sense to say that LA was telling him he would never be successful again given his testimony, and perhaps that is what he said. However, the testimony _has been given already_ and this storm has been brewing for more than a year. Now, I don't claim to be an expert in Italian law, but it seems pretty obvious to me that you cannot intimidate someone in past tense.

I suspect this is nothing more than some Magistrate defending the honor of the Italian Sportstman from the Big, Bad, Skinny American Bully and ideally getting his name in the press at the same time.

Rather, the press coverage is aimed at getting the Lance-o-phobes all riled up again (and funny how effective that can be) by reporting on yet another example of LA's complete lack of character and moral restraint. I'm wondering though if the resident Lance-o-phobes can see for a moment through their blind hatred and realize this is just another flash in the pan. It's going nowhere and no, LA isn't going to do time in the Italian Big House, as much as you might wish he would.

Honestly, what is it about the guy that you hate so much that you're willing to see every single dumb-ass little media turd as some monumental example of his evilness? I really don't get it. In this particular instance, he is the Boss of the peloton, he feels he speaks for the peloton, and it appears that they agree with his stance (Extebarria notwithstanding.) Now I know, that many of you do not understand the culture of the Tour and you're trying to view this through the lens of American sportsmanship and fair play. Unfortunately, that is not the way bicycle racing works in Europe. I understand that not everyone likes every star, but really, this is so damn silly. You'd think he was Bill Clinton.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

*don't think so*



Jdub said:


> Ok now you are distorting the facts.
> 
> Armstrong was asked by the media what he thought of Simeoni's statements that Ferrari taught him (Simeoni) how to use EPO (thereby making a direct connection between Ferrrari and EPO). Armstrong was asked time and time again if he (Armstrong) had used EPO under Dr. Ferrari's guidance thus the connection of Ferrari to Armstrong and implication of EPO use by Armstrong. Upon being asked about what he thought of Simeoni's statements about Ferrari (EPO connection established), Armstrong said Simeoni was a liar and pointed out that he had changed his story several times in the past.
> 
> I wish I could find the exact quotes for all of this, but the media has done a good job of retaining only bits, pieces, and paraphrases.



Armstrong trying to ruin the career of a person (Simeoni) who testified under oath about his own relations with Dr. Ferrari. Nowhere in any of what has been printed has indicated otherwise, so in effect Armstrong is the person with his "panties in a wad". Could Armstrong be lieing? Perhaps. One man who may know though is Dr. Ferrari.


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

*legal*



AJS said:


> From http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=352


Everything Lance/Postal did was perfectly legal and part of the sport. They chased down breaks. Newsflash, that's part of racing. It's not like they stuck a pump in his spokes.


----------



## Jdub (May 5, 2004)

*politics*



Ricky2 said:


> Armstrong trying to ruin the career of a person (Simeoni) who testified under oath about his own relations with Dr. Ferrari. Nowhere in any of what has been printed has indicated otherwise, so in effect Armstrong is the person with his "panties in a wad". Could Armstrong be lieing? Perhaps. One man who may know though is Dr. Ferrari.



Like I said we all chose sides a long time ago and refuse to discuss this logically. 

I'm done ...


----------



## commuterguy2 (Feb 23, 2004)

With all due respect, I think the potential witness intimidation is prospective (for anyone yet to be called). Simeoni has already testified, and his contradictory statements presumbably haven't helped the case against Dr. Ferrari.

Sorry you were only confused by my attempt to streamline and clarify the story, treebound.

A question, to which I will openly admit that I don't know the answer: wouldn't the more humiliating response to Simeoni's attack on the last stage have been to simply ignore it?


----------



## treebound (Oct 16, 2003)

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz


----------



## Lifelover (Jul 8, 2004)

*2 things!*

1. I will wager $10K that LA never testifies in an Italian court in relation to intimatating Simeoni in the 2004 TDF.

2. The cycling community will decide weather they are on the side of LA or Simeoni. If they side with Simeoni he will be on a team in the next TDF. If they side with LA he will not!


----------



## daveIT (Mar 12, 2004)

*Italians are a bunch of whiny *$^%#^$*

I've lived in Italy for 3.5 years and I can say that they are a bunch of whiners. They can never admit when they are wrong and they make a huge deal out of everything. 

This doesn't really relate to cycling, but over 4th of July weekend I had some Italian idiot back into my parked car while I was sitting in it in a parking lot. I got out to look at the damage and the moron starts screaming at me like it was my fault. After I told him all the bad words and talked about his mom a little in Italian I told him to piss off before I called the polizia. 

I just got out to look at the damage - it wasn't that bad but he freaked out on me. I almost punched him in his big stupid fashion model sunglasses but I figured that would put a damper on my holiday at Lake Como.

Anyway, all is far in love and war and the Tour de France. Simeoni should quit being a wanker and get some cycling skills. 

I'll make sure I dress in red, white and blue and spit on him & get a picture of myself giving his the double bird during the next Giro d'Italia!


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*as I said "Macho Babies"*

similar to Bartali's 'it's not going my way, I quit" retirement from the tour. these latin/roman tough guys turn into a bunch of whining babies when they get punked. sheesh they lay down quicker than a TJ 'date'. Look no further than WW2 and them getting their backsides handed to them by the Ethiopians.


----------



## russw19 (Nov 27, 2002)

DougSloan said:


> Everything Lance/Postal did was perfectly legal and part of the sport. They chased down breaks. Newsflash, that's part of racing. It's not like they stuck a pump in his spokes.



Hey Doug, serious question I am curious about, and not to really push this debate any more... but would it make any difference what was said? Remember that there were a whole peloton that were within earshot of this whole incident. Would it make any difference if Lance were to have threatened Simeoni or not? 

Just wondering....


----------



## Bocephus Jones (Feb 3, 2004)

russw19 said:


> Hey Doug, serious question I am curious about, and not to really push this debate any more... but would it make any difference what was said? Remember that there were a whole peloton that were within earshot of this whole incident. Would it make any difference if Lance were to have threatened Simeoni or not?
> 
> Just wondering....


I would guess it is dependent on French law and their definition of assault.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*watch the last stage when they reel him in*

as the postal train passes him, Eki does an 'Okie Blow', Arkansas Handkerchief, whatever you call it in his direction. Maybe hit him. Anyhow as far as legality it was all legal and if anyone was breaking protocol of the peloton it was Simeoni, breaking ahead before Paris. This is a big No-no as the GC leader and team are supposed to lead the 'parade' until the Champs (and usually a lap or 2). so as far as actions deemed 'less about racing' and more about the 'grudge', Simeoni is carrying greater liability. Lance's bridge and deal making with the break was an act of a 'padrone' where the dominant GC rider dictates what is going to happen and has been done by the greats throughout cycling. So in court LA has a precedent in his favor while Simeoni does not. Unless Lance is recorded as 'threatening' in this country, I'm not sure about Italy it's heresay and inadmissable. The best part is he could have said "I'm going to tear your freakin' legs off" meant it, but could always say it's just a figure of speech in cycling.


----------



## ScottS (Jul 27, 2004)

No matter who got "their panties in a bunch" first, suing for defamation because someone called you a liar seems over the top to me. I'm just speculating, but a retaliatory lawsuit like this could have well been the straw that broke the camels back. Again, it's pure speculation, but would Lance have even cared about Simeoni or just blown him off had the lawsuit not been filed? A $100,000 lawsuit over name calling would rub me the wrong way too.


----------



## cjwill (Apr 2, 2003)

*IT"S ONLY A GAME !*

A big multi-national game, team A vs. team B , this country vs. LANCE ARMSTRONG



OOOUUUTT !!!


----------



## AJS (Aug 7, 2003)

Welp, according to the article, Eki gives Simeoni the finger and launches a snot rocket as they pass. Could be construed as a form of intimidation.





> Look no further than WW2 and them getting their backsides handed to them by the Ethiopians.


Yeah, those darned Eye-tai-yuns:

Q: "Wanna buy a WWII Italian Army rifle? Never been fired and only dropped once!"

A: "Nah. I like their bikes though."


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

So, if Armstrong violently threatens Simeoni, then that's ok?! And, if Simeoni withdraws his testimony due to coercion from Armstrong, then that's ok too?


----------



## Djudd (Jan 29, 2004)

*This Is Stupid!!!!*

I can't believe this thing is being investigated by the cops...The Posties are supposed to intimidate...they are the best team in the Tour with the tour champion on board. For whatever reason the "bike game" is based on strategic intimidation. Sean Kelly used to talk about chasing down someone in a useless breakway (he didn't like) and spraying them with something sticky from his water bottle. I hope we don't have riders suing one another over this kind of thing. Additionally, I hope Armstrong doesn't plan to use his team to settle personal accounts all the time. Once or twice is keeps the peloton in line but much more than that is petty


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*no it is not*

"So, if Armstrong violently threatens Simeoni, then that's ok?! And, if Simeoni withdraws his testimony due to coercion from Armstrong, then that's ok too?"
but like proving he 'slandered him' by calling him a liar. (in actuality he said, {paraphrase} "he's changed his testimony so many times I don't know what to believe he says is true"
which is far les than calling him an outright LIAR and in actuality his testimony has changed so in a US court Lance's statement would actually not be slander but bear as an opinion based on facts. there's no intent to harm so this would rule as frivolous. 
as for violently threatening him...what you had a parabolic mic picking up the conversation?
Ricky every thing you've brought up in the last 3 weeks against LA has been far more slanderous and libelous than anything LA said about Simeoni. You've made massive speculations and reported rumors as cold hard truths. So before you start another one 
( threaten his life rumor) may I remind you, when you point your finger at somebody, you have 3 others pointing back at yourself.
so if you are an American in all reality as these posts are RECORDED and read and therefore could be used as evidence, you are far more at risk of losing a libel / slander suit from LA than LA is from Simeoni. or as another poster so eloquently put it
POT MEET KETTLE


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*in short*

Simeoni doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. maybe in Italy, not in the US


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Ricky2 said:


> Thanks for the article AJS. Interesting to say the least. Intimidating a witness to change his testimony is a felony in the United States. Not sure how the Italian courts view this, but according to the article it looks like legal officials in Italy where Simeoni testified against Dr. Ferrari will investigate whether Armstrong may have been attempting to intimidate a witness to alter his testimony.


Ricky2...... you never cease to amaze me with your genius. <sarcasm off>


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

AJS said:


> But you're forgetting some things:
> 
> #1 - Ullrich was a GC contender. Simeoni was not.
> 
> #2 - Getting dropped by the rest of the peloton is a bit different than getting ganged-up on by a single team.



People get "ganged up on" by a whole team all the time. It's called "racing".


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

*Slap and slug*

Why don't they just slap & slug it out with their hand bags after the stage, like the rest of us real cyclists do? They can pull hair too, since they were in France at the time....


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Jdub said:


> Ok now you are distorting the facts.
> 
> Armstrong was asked by the media what he thought of Simeoni's statements that Ferrari taught him (Simeoni) how to use EPO (thereby making a direct connection between Ferrrari and EPO). Armstrong was asked time and time again if he (Armstrong) had used EPO under Dr. Ferrari's guidance thus the connection of Ferrari to Armstrong and implication of EPO use by Armstrong. Upon being asked about what he thought of Simeoni's statements about Ferrari (EPO connection established), Armstrong said Simeoni was a liar and pointed out that he had changed his story several times in the past.
> 
> I wish I could find the exact quotes for all of this, but the media has done a good job of retaining only bits, pieces, and paraphrases.


The fact is that LA called Simeoni a liar. Court records indicate this label to be the truth if you consider that the definition of a liar is someone who distorts the facts and doesn't tell the truth. Hmmmm. So court records PROVE Simeoni to be a liar. Armstrong might as well have said that the sky is blue. It's equally true as Simeoni being called a liar. If something is an established fact are you not allow to simply repeat the fact? Further, is Simeoni not calling Lance a liar? Isn't he saying that Lance lied about calling him a liar? How far can this slippery slope go and just how freakin' absurd is it to sue someone for 100,000 euros just because, when asked, they said you lied. Stupidity.


----------



## Djudd (Jan 29, 2004)

*or they can have a sandal fight!!!!*



Fogdweller said:


> Why don't they just slap & slug it out with their hand bags after the stage, like the rest of us real cyclists do? They can pull hair too, since they were in France at the time....


where they hike up their skirts take off thier sandals and go at it


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Ricky2 said:


> Armstrong trying to ruin the career of a person (Simeoni) who testified under oath about his own relations with Dr. Ferrari. Nowhere in any of what has been printed has indicated otherwise, so in effect Armstrong is the person with his "panties in a wad". Could Armstrong be lieing? Perhaps. One man who may know though is Dr. Ferrari.


The only person who has the power to ruin Simeoni's career is Simeoni and he's already exercised that option all by himself.


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

[<Welp, according to the article, Eki gives Simeoni the finger and launches a snot rocket as they pass. Could be construed as a form of intimidation.>

So what. Do you think there's anything that could possibly be construed as "intimidation" on a football field or in a hockey rink? Get over it. Do you think that when a hockey player gets slammed into the boards that maybe someone is intimidated? How about when a linebacker sacks the quarterback and smashes his face into the groud? I'd have to say that spitting in someone's general direction is pretty tame in the grand scheme of things, wouldn't you? In fact, I'd say that the way Armstrong is able to ride away from Simeoni at will on almost any stage is much more intimidating then anything Eki did.


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Ricky2 said:


> So, if Armstrong violently threatens Simeoni, then that's ok?! And, if Simeoni withdraws his testimony due to coercion from Armstrong, then that's ok too?


If Armstrong threatens Simeoni then BFD. If Simeoni withdraws his testimony because of anything Armstrong says to him then he's not only an arsehole, he's also spineless. Do you even remember what Robbie McEwan said to Armstrong a few years back when he threatened to kick his ass? He didn't mince words as the threat was right there for anyone and everyone to see. Everyone just laughed about it as well they should. This is sport. If you don't like it then go watch ice skating. Whoops, can't do that either (see: Tanya Harding).


----------



## Wayne77 (Oct 17, 2003)

Ricky2 said:


> Simeoni testified against Dr. Ferrari. He didn't say anything about Armstrong's character. He made NO mention of Armstrong in his testimony. Armstrong got his panties all in a wad and attacked Simeoni's character. And that's how the story begins.
> 
> About intimidating a witness. Read the article that AJS linked to. I didn't say that Armstrong tried to intimidate Simeoni to alter his testimony. The article said so. And character attacks by Armstrong after Simeoni's testimony against Dr. Ferrari may also be looked at by the Italian courts on whether an individual is trying to coerce a person's testimony.


"The article said so"?? No it didn't. It merely reported on the intentions of some Florence Officials. Maybe you need to re-read the article. So If it's in the article it must be true huh? I hope you don't read the National Enquirer.

From the article:

"Legal officials in Florence are keen to investigate whether Armstrong may have been attempting to intimidate a witness."

The report states that some officials in Florence WANT to investigate WHETHER Armstrong intimidated a witness. Ruling that a team "ganging up" on another individual (even if said individual is involved in legal proceedings), within clearly established rules of the sport, consitutes witness intimidation establishes a disturbing legal precendent. Is any team now liable for any actions it takes to limit the performance of another single individual? Your next response might be to insist that Simeoni was not a GC contender. It is impossible to link any legal penalty with the rules and common etiquette of a sport. To do so would allow for the modification of law simply by changing the rules of the sport. That, my friend, will never happen. Suppose Simeoni was a GC contender. Is it still witness intimidation? You might still think so, but then the argument falls apart since USPS would have been acting within its strategic aim to get Lance in Yellow. But it has to be one way or the other. The penalty of law will NEVER be contingent upon changing rules of sport. This whole thing is laughable and will never see its day in court.

Enough with these Florence officials. At least they have only expressed a desire to investigate. You have already convicted Armstrong - based on little tidbits of heresy, gossip, and your personal hatred for the man. Are you ready to convict Tyler Hamilton too? You should read his latest journal entry refuting the claims of the notrious ex-usps physician on Velonews.com. How about other past greats? Where are you going to draw the line? Mind you, I am objective enough to accept the possibility of Lance and others being involved in doping, but at least most of us are willing to give him and Tyler the benefit of the doubt until the facts are known. That is called objectivity. What you are displaying is an emotional bias and all-out personal hatred for the man. You lost your credibility with regards to this matter a long time ago.

About the silly claim you keep making that Armstrong should have kept silent since Simeoni didn't name Armstrong. Everyone has a right to speak up publicly and defend someone else, whether or not the defendant is friend or foe, guilty or not guilty. People get called liars publicly all the time in the media. Where are all the lawsuits? Try this logic out: Simeoni changed is his testimony in court, Ergo, Simeoni lied. Armstrong said Simeoni is a liar. Therefore he simply stated the truth.


----------



## Wayne77 (Oct 17, 2003)

Ricky2 said:


> Thanks for the article AJS. Interesting to say the least. Intimidating a witness to change his testimony is a felony in the United States. Not sure how the Italian courts view this, but according to the article it looks like legal officials in Italy where Simeoni testified against Dr. Ferrari will investigate whether Armstrong may have been attempting to intimidate a witness to alter his testimony.


Wow, thanks for sumamrizing the article for us. You amaze me.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

*Who threatened who?*



The Human G-Nome said:


> If Armstrong threatens Simeoni then BFD. If Simeoni withdraws his testimony because of anything Armstrong says to him then he's not only an arsehole, he's also spineless. Do you even remember what Robbie McEwan said to Armstrong a few years back when he threatened to kick his ass? He didn't mince words as the threat was right there for anyone and everyone to see. Everyone just laughed about it as well they should. This is sport. If you don't like it then go watch ice skating. Whoops, can't do that either (see: Tanya Harding).



I don't recall that incident. Did Armstrong threaten McEwan or did McEwan threaten Armstrong?


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

*McEwan threatened Armstrong*



Ricky2 said:


> I don't recall that incident. Did Armstrong threaten McEwan or did McEwan threaten Armstrong?


McEwan threatened him. I think it was in last year's tour or the year before. Armstrong *****ed out McEwan after a stage claiming he had attacked while Armstrong was on a bathroom break. The reality is that Armstrong created his own stop instead of going with the customary group stop at around 50km. McEwan said that it was nonsense and besides, Armstrong had a strong enough team and didn't have any trouble joining up. Armstrong persisted and McEwan finally told him to shut his "forking mouth" or he would fill it with his fist. And those were his exact words to the media. Them Aussies like their fighting...


----------



## AJS (Aug 7, 2003)

*G-Nome* - 



> People get "ganged up on" by a whole team all the time. It's called "racing".


Gee, no kidding? 

I brought that up as something that could probably be considered by the court as evidence supporting a witness intimidation charge. Whether it holds water or not is another thing.


----------



## Prologue (Jul 4, 2004)

terry b said:


> Geez guys, does anyone honestly think anything is going to come from Postal shutting down some guy on a dopey, hopeless, political-point-making breakaway in a bike race?
> 
> Never underestimate the lunacy of the Italian court system when it comes to sports. Sir Frank Williams and Patrick Head were charged with manslaughter after Ayrton Senna died in the '94 San Marino Grand Prix. It was claimed that they had designed and installed a super secret, and faulty, steering column in the Williams F1 car that Senna was driving when he crashed. Right. F1 threatened to pull out of Italy entirely.


----------



## coldplay (Jul 25, 2004)

*Hey Ricky...*

I'm sure you'll come up with some CRAZY logic to defend yourself, but I thought that the following quote from the beginning of this thread would be enlightening to you from our conversations under Simeoni tries again... that I started the other day. It clearly states exactly what I was saying, and that is that Simeoni was being a CHUMP!!!!!

On today’s final stage of the Tour between Montereau and Paris, hostilities between the pair were renewed when *Simeoni attacked three times - once right from the starting gun * - before the peloton even reached the Champs Elysées. *This constituted a clear – and no doubt deliberate – infringement of the unwritten rule that the approach to Paris is a form of rolling champagne reception for the incoming champion, on this occasion Armstrong. *


----------



## Wayne77 (Oct 17, 2003)

*Say Hi to the Sugar Plum fairy for me*



Ricky2 said:


> So, if Armstrong violently threatens Simeoni, then that's ok?! And, if Simeoni withdraws his testimony due to coercion from Armstrong, then that's ok too?


What was violent about it? Where you in the break?

I shudder to think what the Tour would be like with you in charge. No impolite or aggressive manuevers allowed. Riders must say "Excuse Me" when passing another. Everyone gets a yellow jersey. No manuevers that are in the least bit personally motivated are tolerated. If an aggressive manuever, such as chasing a break that doesn't contain a GC threat, is used, the guilty party is hauled of the the Miss Manners prison for insufferably rude people.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

Wayne77 said:


> What was violent about it? Where you in the break?




Try again. I asked "what if" in response to another person asking "if such and such happened". IF is the key word.


----------



## Sao (Jul 31, 2003)

*Please......*



weiwentg said:


> I don't think a lot of people will be saying it's OK, but you have to admit LA started it. now, me, I'd (probably) have been the bigger person and settled it off the bike.


What did he start? No, we don't have to admit it.

Look -- Simeoni got caught doping, period. Armstrong has not been "caught", however, and now it seems Simeoni is trying to take others in pro cycling down with him, evidence be damned. There is nothing "big" about getting caught and immediately turning into a crusader for the sport in an attempt to clear your name. In fact, he received nothing but insults from the rest of the peloton when he was reeled in, so that tells you how highly he and his unsubstantiated opinions are regarded by the others. 

If USPS spat on or snot-rocketed the guy, that's just poor sportsmanship, although the guy did blow by them at the end in an attempt at.....err......something. 

On the other hand, most of this is beyond the lot of us fans, so all we can do is make a judgment based on what we know. And what we know is that Simeoni is a doper, and not a very good one at that. People treat him as if he were Gandhi.


----------

