Floyd can't be let off the hook because...

.... he totally wrecked the sport of bike racing.

Joe King wrote:
... he totally wrecked the sport of bike racing.

You're "joking", right?
Its tough to take you seriously.
Was the phoenetic approximation intentional?

-bdbafh

in message .com,
') wrote:

Joe King wrote:
... he totally wrecked the sport of bike racing.

You're "joking", right?
Its tough to take you seriously.
Was the phoenetic approximation intentional?

The BBC have a hard working radio producer of that name[1]; consequently
a remarkable number of British radio programmes end with the line 'the
producer was joking'. I keep looking forward to the day when the
announcer will say 'the producer was not joking'.

[1] Jo King, actually.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

IMHO, there aren't enough committed Christians, but that's care
in the community for you. -- Ben Evans

Simon Brooke wrote:
in message .com,
') wrote:

Joe King wrote:
... he totally wrecked the sport of bike racing.
You're "joking", right?
Its tough to take you seriously.
Was the phoenetic approximation intentional?

The BBC have a hard working radio producer of that name[1]; consequently
a remarkable number of British radio programmes end with the line 'the
producer was joking'. I keep looking forward to the day when the
announcer will say 'the producer was not joking'.

[1] Jo King, actually.


So then, for some, the reason for the "Joe King" moniker may not be
obvious. Thanks for pointing that out. It hadn't occurred to me.

Recently, Joe King's name has been questioned sincerely enough that I've
been curiously awaiting the response to Hugh G. Rection's next post.

"Fred Fredburger" wrote in message

[1] Jo King, actually.

So then, for some, the reason for the "Joe King" moniker may not be
obvious. Thanks for pointing that out. It hadn't occurred to me.

Recently, Joe King's name has been questioned sincerely enough that I've
been curiously awaiting the response to Hugh G. Rection's next post.


Or Sharon Peters.

The UCI can't let him win as that would cast doubt on the whole testing
process, so expect a smear campaign to be launched both in the press and
behind the scenes as this will a fight for the life of the UCI and WADA,
which are bigger than Landis. At best, that is he is clean, he will be a
casualty of fixing the anti-doping (after the fact, that is) machine.


"Joe King" wrote in message
...
... he totally wrecked the sport of bike racing.

Smokey wrote:
Carl Sundquist wrote:
"Fred Fredburger" wrote in message

[1] Jo King, actually.

So then, for some, the reason for the "Joe King" moniker may not be
obvious. Thanks for pointing that out. It hadn't occurred to me.

Recently, Joe King's name has been questioned sincerely enough that I've
been curiously awaiting the response to Hugh G. Rection's next post.


Or Sharon Peters.

One of my biker friends swears he used to have a girlfriend named Fonda
Peters.

And then there's the person who determines whether the test results are
in bounds:

Margie Noverror

[with credit to "Car Talk", although this joke maybe much older than
their use of it]

You mean the smearing can get worse than it has already been?

-dB

Chris wrote:
The UCI can't let him win as that would cast doubt on the whole testing
process, so expect a smear campaign to be launched both in the press and
behind the scenes as this will a fight for the life of the UCI and WADA,
which are bigger than Landis. At best, that is he is clean, he will be a
casualty of fixing the anti-doping (after the fact, that is) machine.

It's nothing compared to what it's going to be as the UCI and WADA boys will
be fighting for their livelihood and position in life; cause should some of
the issues with their machines be exposed, there will be a replacement of
those organizations with new and improved, which means new leaders and
staff. So in survival mode means everyone is expendable but Me; therefore
you elevate yourself by making sure everyone else looks worse than you do by
tearing the down. This works to galvinized a mob effect on the other guy.
The target here will be Landis as it was Hamilton before him. This is
rationalized as politics and for the long term good of the sport.

You can see hints already in that Landis recognizes this has started looking
for ways to loose gracefully, starting with his choice of attorneys; maybe I
ingested something in what I was given (Tonight Show), etc.


wrote in message
oups.com...
You mean the smearing can get worse than it has already been?

-dB

Chris wrote:
The UCI can't let him win as that would cast doubt on the whole testing
process, so expect a smear campaign to be launched both in the press and
behind the scenes as this will a fight for the life of the UCI and WADA,
which are bigger than Landis. At best, that is he is clean, he will be a
casualty of fixing the anti-doping (after the fact, that is) machine.

Chris wrote:
It's nothing compared to what it's going to be as the UCI and WADA boys will
be fighting for their livelihood and position in life; cause should some of
the issues with their machines be exposed, there will be a replacement of
those organizations with new and improved, which means new leaders and
staff. So in survival mode means everyone is expendable but Me; therefore
you elevate yourself by making sure everyone else looks worse than you do by
tearing the down. This works to galvinized a mob effect on the other guy.
The target here will be Landis as it was Hamilton before him. This is
rationalized as politics and for the long term good of the sport.

You can see hints already in that Landis recognizes this has started looking
for ways to loose gracefully, starting with his choice of attorneys; maybe I
ingested something in what I was given (Tonight Show), etc.

I am more concerned that he won't have the money available to do his
own tests or that he allows himself to be distracted from disproving
the facts of the positive tests by bitching about leaks and side-show
process issues.

Yes, they are out to get him, and he needs to beat them at the USADA
hearing, or later as the CAS appeal. No smear is going to affect
those results, onlythe evidence he brings in. Hamilton's evidence
seemed wantonly lacking. Annoyingly, his site has further assertions
that might have been exculpatory had they been presented at the time of
the appeal, but they were not. This suggests either the defense was
incapable of getting that before the appear either because of their own
constraints, or on hide-the-ball maneuvering, or that Hamilton really
was guilty.

IThere's an argument to be made that the smears and the leaks are
intentional bait set but to mislead the defense down dead-ends.
Attacking the process in any way but the technical correctness of the
analytic protocol (or chain of custody) will not help in the appeal.
They'll only care about the test results.

-dB