|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
Federal Investigation widened...
On 6/2/2010 9:00 AM, DA74 wrote:
On Jun 2, 4:40 am, Andy wrote: On Jun 1, 4:20 pm, wrote: On Jun 1, 10:30 am, Andy wrote: On Jun 1, 11:21 am, wrote: On Jun 1, 8:26 am, Andy wrote: On Jun 1, 10:06 am, wrote: On Jun 1, 4:09 am, Andy wrote: On May 29, 1:44 pm, wrote: On May 29, 6:22 am, Andy wrote: On May 28, 6:15 pm, wrote: On May 28, 2:24 pm, Andy wrote: On May 28, 3:34 pm, wrote: On May 28, 9:31 am, Andy wrote: On May 28, 11:20 am, wrote: On May 28, 9:12 am, Andy wrote: On May 28, 10:33 am, wrote: On May 28, 8:24 am, Andy wrote: On May 28, 9:55 am, wrote: On May 28, 3:50 am, Andy wrote: Focksticks, I swear, I am not responsible for the 'N+1 Responses to N Posts' trolling algorithm. I just downloaded the code I didn't write it. Don't blame me. I am not responsible for this. Fred Flintstein |
Ads |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
Federal Investigation widened...
On Jun 2, 2:13*pm, DA74 wrote:
On Jun 2, 10:56*am, Andy Coggan wrote: On Jun 2, 9:00*am, DA74 wrote: I think the first step for you would be to simply state that you don't know - because you don't. I have never claimed to know anything that others don't know (although they may not have been paying enough attention, e.g., whomever it was that opined that Baker would be motivated to avoid losing his medical license, when in fact he hasn't held one in many years). I have never accused you of claiming to know anything that others didn't know. I have simply been trying to illustrate to you that your opinion on this matter seems to have been formed by a reliance on what you call *facts* which to a large degree are just your opinions. No one except the players involved *know* anything at this point. Agreed. An investigation will bring facts to light. Not your omnipresent *facts* and *knowledge*. I have just stated my opinion based on the information availabe to me - are you saying that I am not entitled to share my opinion? Not only are you entitled but I actually welcome your opinion. Over the years I have found your posts and articles quite informative. In this case I truly believe you are confusing opinion and fact. But again you and I kicking this around means little in the grand scheme. The powers that be will have their look. And as I posted in another thread after the story first broke, I'd be surprised if this whole thing went anywhere. The only one who will go anywhere will be Floyd who will crawl under some rock as there probably aren't many options for him at this point. Please state what opinions I have presented as actual facts. Andy Coggan |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
Federal Investigation widened...
Fred Flintstein wrote:
I swear, I am not responsible for the 'N+1 Responses to N Posts' trolling algorithm. I just downloaded the code I didn't write it. Don't blame me. I am not responsible for this. On the interwebs you can prove anything by induction. |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
Federal Investigation widened...
On Jun 2, 12:25*pm, Fred Flintstein
wrote: On 6/2/2010 9:00 AM, DA74 wrote: On Jun 2, 4:40 am, Andy *wrote: On Jun 1, 4:20 pm, *wrote: On Jun 1, 10:30 am, Andy *wrote: On Jun 1, 11:21 am, *wrote: On Jun 1, 8:26 am, Andy *wrote: On Jun 1, 10:06 am, *wrote: On Jun 1, 4:09 am, Andy *wrote: On May 29, 1:44 pm, *wrote: On May 29, 6:22 am, Andy *wrote: On May 28, 6:15 pm, *wrote: On May 28, 2:24 pm, Andy *wrote: On May 28, 3:34 pm, *wrote: On May 28, 9:31 am, Andy *wrote: On May 28, 11:20 am, *wrote: On May 28, 9:12 am, Andy *wrote: On May 28, 10:33 am, *wrote: On May 28, 8:24 am, Andy *wrote: On May 28, 9:55 am, *wrote: On May 28, 3:50 am, Andy *wrote: Focksticks, I swear, I am not responsible for the 'N+1 Responses to N Posts' trolling algorithm. I just downloaded the code I didn't write it. Don't blame me. I am not responsible for this. Fred Flintstein- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - But you were resposible for this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...3344348433736# |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
Federal Investigation widened...
Andy Coggan wrote:
On Jun 1, 4:44 pm, "K. Fred Gauss" wrote: On 06/01/2010 10:30 AM, Andy Coggan wrote: Au contrai my opinions are based entirely upon the *known* facts. The known facts don't look very reliable here, and not just because of Landis. Almost everyone involved is motivated to lie. It is a fact that Leipheimer and Landis were on different teams at the time of supposed blood doping incident. It is a fact that Lim was still working on his PhD at the time. It is a fact that Lim went to the University of Colorado-Boulder, not a place known for "blood and guts" human exercise physiology (although they've got excellent faculty working in other areas). It is a fact that Lim has not done post-doctoral work at a medical school (a common career path for exercise physiologists in the US). It is a fact that Lim has never published any studies involving sampling of blood, It is a fact that Lim had access to Landis's power data, and discussed it widely. It is a fact that Lim has never mentioned anything other than power data in defending Landis after he was stripped of his Tour de France title. It is a fact that Landis was stripped of his Tour defense title, even though he vigorously denied (and continues to deny) using testosterone during that race. It is a fact that Landis either lied when he claimed to have never used drugs during his cycling career, or is lying now. Etc. Andy Coggan Point made. |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
Federal Investigation widened...
On Jun 2, 12:32*pm, Andy Coggan wrote:
On Jun 2, 2:13*pm, DA74 wrote: On Jun 2, 10:56*am, Andy Coggan wrote: On Jun 2, 9:00*am, DA74 wrote: I think the first step for you would be to simply state that you don't know - because you don't. I have never claimed to know anything that others don't know (although they may not have been paying enough attention, e.g., whomever it was that opined that Baker would be motivated to avoid losing his medical license, when in fact he hasn't held one in many years). I have never accused you of claiming to know anything that others didn't know. I have simply been trying to illustrate to you that your opinion on this matter seems to have been formed by a reliance on what you call *facts* which to a large degree are just your opinions. No one except the players involved *know* anything at this point. Agreed. An investigation will bring facts to light. Not your omnipresent *facts* and *knowledge*. I have just stated my opinion based on the information availabe to me - are you saying that I am not entitled to share my opinion? Not only are you entitled but I actually welcome your opinion. Over the years I have found your posts and articles quite informative. In this case I truly believe you are confusing opinion and fact. But again you and I kicking this around means little in the grand scheme. The powers that be will have their look. And as I posted in another thread after the story first broke, I'd be surprised if this whole thing went anywhere. The only one who will go anywhere will be Floyd who will crawl under some rock as there probably aren't many options for him at this point. Please state what opinions I have presented as actual facts. Andy Coggan- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...921271a7?hl=en |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
Federal Investigation widened...
On Jun 2, 8:56*pm, DA74 wrote:
On Jun 2, 12:32*pm, Andy Coggan wrote: Please state what opinions I have presented as actual facts. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...d64b58cc921271... It is hard to tell in that mess to what particular comment you might be referring. If, however, you mean my statements "Lim would not/could not..." I thought it was clear from the phrasing that that was my deduction, not a statement of fact. Andy Coggan |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
Federal Investigation widened...
On Jun 3, 7:29*am, Andy Coggan wrote:
On Jun 2, 8:56*pm, DA74 wrote: On Jun 2, 12:32*pm, Andy Coggan wrote: Please state what opinions I have presented as actual facts. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...d64b58cc921271... It is hard to tell in that mess to what particular comment you might be referring. If, however, you mean my statements "Lim would not/could not..." I thought it was clear from the phrasing that that was my deduction, not a statement of fact. Andy Coggan Nice try. It was actually "would not/did not" - big difference. That is a statement of fact. Not a deduction. -DA74 |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
Federal Investigation widened...
Fred Flintstein wrote in
: Focksticks, I swear, I am not responsible for the 'N+1 Responses to N Posts' trolling algorithm. I just downloaded the code I didn't write it. Don't blame me. I am not responsible for this. Fred Flintstein What is amusing is that, apparently, nobody here understands any of the definitions of the word "trim." -- Bill Fred |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UCI investigation of Cox's death | datakoll | Racing | 8 | August 7th 07 10:04 PM |
ATB Death Investigation | coowoowoo | Australia | 7 | November 1st 06 12:25 PM |
Independent Investigation Mr. Armstrong? | B. Lafferty | Racing | 43 | June 22nd 06 09:33 PM |
Accident investigation? | NJF | UK | 0 | September 14th 05 03:20 PM |
Armstrong Investigation Expands | B. Lafferty | Racing | 22 | October 4th 04 05:06 PM |