show of hands or pointing fingers:

Who here had their heads in the sand?

Who here still have their heads in the sand?

"gym.gravity" wrote in message
oups.com...
Who here had their heads in the sand?

Who here still have their heads in the sand?



http://makeashorterlink.com/?J18225A5D

gym.gravity wrote:
Who here had their heads in the sand?

Who here still have their heads in the sand?

Dumbass,

You forgot:

Who here has their head up their ass?

The list of answers to that question is longer the #1 and #2 combined.

gym.gravity wrote:
Who here had their heads in the sand?

Who here still have their heads in the sand?

It's not as black and white as that. You can have a good handle on the
probabilities and at the same time have a part of yourself hoping that
there is some other explanation. Not everyone is as eager as some here
to rush to judgement. The Tyler Hamilton situation was especially
conflicting. The evidence was solid, but then the irregularities and
his charisma and the bold faced denials made you search for some other
reality. Not so much now.

Bret

gym.gravity wrote:
Who here had their heads in the sand?

Who here still have their heads in the sand?

OTOH, I'm awfully surprised that Vino has escaped implication. All the
support riders were doping but the team leader was clean? That's ...
incredible.

"Bret" wrote:

The Tyler Hamilton situation was especially conflicting.

Really?

The evidence was solid, but then the irregularities and
his charisma and the bold faced denials made you search
for some other reality.

Only if you were an unbelievably naive dumbass.

mC mAsTeR fAtT fReD wrote:
"Bret" wrote:

The Tyler Hamilton situation was especially conflicting.

Really?

The evidence was solid, but then the irregularities and
his charisma and the bold faced denials made you search
for some other reality.

Only if you were an unbelievably naive dumbass.

I didn't say that I believed Tyler. Just that a part of me was still
hoping it would somehow turn out right against logic. I'm an engineer,
so logic wins out in the end, but that won't be the case with everyone.
Call me dumbass again and I won't respond. Only Henry gets away with
that.

Bret

in message om, Tim
Lines ') wrote:

gym.gravity wrote:
Who here had their heads in the sand?

Who here still have their heads in the sand?

OTOH, I'm awfully surprised that Vino has escaped implication. All the
support riders were doping but the team leader was clean? That's ...
incredible.

He was a new boy - he hadn't been with the team long. Remember that this
story broke in May, and the Fuentes operation stopped there. If Vino had
been a client of another clinic prior to signing with Liberty
Securos/Astana Wurth/Astana he might not have had time to have his,
errm, case notes transferred. And of course he may have ridden on
nothing but purest untreated Khazak pride.

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

The Conservative Party now has the support of a smaller proportion of
the electorate in Scotland than Sinn Fein have in Northern Ireland.

In article .com,
says...
Who here had their heads in the sand?
Who here still have their heads in the sand?

Some of us are waiting for _SOLID_ proof. No sand involved.
-----------------
Alex

"Alex Rodriguez" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
says...
Who here had their heads in the sand?
Who here still have their heads in the sand?

Some of us are waiting for _SOLID_ proof. No sand involved.
-----------------
Alex


Other than a positive doping test result, what would you consider "solid"
proof? Just curious.