Laff also bad for cycling

"Jim Flom " wrote in

Take Museeuw out of it, and put it back into its correct context.

I think Museeuw is a good example. I really admire him as a cyclist. That
doesn't stop me from seeing that he has weaknesses that led him to an
unfortunate hair transplant and to use performance enhancing drugs. I think
many can't make that distintion with LA.

You have the tests such as they are, the documented conflict of interest of
L'Equipe, the breach of scientific protocols, the violation of athlete's
rights all over the place... oh, don't get me started.

We could waste a ton of time knocking that stuff back and forth and not
change one another's mind. I am comfortable with the test results and think
those objections to the results don't hold water. What do they say? The
first reaction to disturbing news is denial... I'd say we have a lot of
Lance fans in denial right now and the list above is their litany.

The whole thing stinks... which
is where, well, nevermind.


The whole thing doesn't match what you think is true... but that doesn't
mean it isn't.

I've always defended LA when the facts backed him up, but now that they
don't I can't help but feel those that do are either star struck or
foolish... like me arguing that Museeuw has his own hair.

B. Lafferty wrote:
Which "scientific protocols" were breached by the Maybray lab's research?

Dude, at your age you really ought to be able to find your own
asshole. You really shouldn't have to ask other people to point
it out for you.

Bob 'Hug for Bri' Schwartz

"Bob Schwartz" wrote in message
...
B. Lafferty wrote:
Which "scientific protocols" were breached by the Maybray lab's research?

Dude, at your age you really ought to be able to find your own
asshole. You really shouldn't have to ask other people to point
it out for you.

Bob 'Hug for Bri' Schwartz

Big hug to you, too.

So those of you who think the case against Lance is misplaced, how do
you feel about Deep Throat revealing the Watergate conspiracy to
Woodward and Bernstein while presumably under a confidentiality
agreement as a government employee? Was that illegal and irrelevant?
Most seem to think they were heroes, not crooks.

"TM" wrote ...

I think Museeuw is a good example. I really admire him as a cyclist.
That doesn't stop me from seeing that he has weaknesses that led him to an
unfortunate hair transplant and to use performance enhancing drugs. I
think many can't make that distintion with LA.

Lance has never tested positive for a hair transplant!

We could waste a ton of time knocking that stuff back and forth and not
change one another's mind. I am comfortable with the test results and
think those objections to the results don't hold water.

I wonder how comfortable you'd be if the test results pointed at you.

The whole thing doesn't match what you think is true... but that doesn't
mean it isn't.

Be careful about what you suppose I believe or think. I haven't taken a
position on whether Lance doped. For example, I asked Tom Kunich, "How do
we know Lance didn't dope in 2000 too?" in the thread "The Fallback
Position," and in the same thread, to Bill C., "I put Robert Blake in there
with O.J. Lance IMHO is harder to pigeon-hole. Do I care much one way or
another? Not really. It would be great if he won them all clean -- we
all -- well, most of us -- want to believe we watched honest history in the
making. If he doped, oh well."

I have, on the other hand, taken a position on the logic of one of the
naysayers, while others have dealt more than adequately with the UCI, WADA
and science-based issues.

My problem is with gratuitous trashing, just for the sake of raking muck.
There's a way to do it and a way not to do it. What we've been watching (in
the press and in rbr) has been textbook, "how not to address the question of
whether Lance Armstrong doped in 1999."

JF

I don't mind one bit that a rogue lab employee leaked Armstrong's test
results. But I have a huge problem with the chairman of WADA making
comments that show his OWN lack of concern for such events. It makes
you think that WADA is of the opinion that the ends justify the means.
To be quite honest, if I were a pro cyclist, I can not imagine
competing next year and agreeing to stake my career on test results
governed by such an individual. I am amazed that the riders have not
taken a stronger stance yet.

wrote in message
oups.com...
I don't mind one bit that a rogue lab employee leaked Armstrong's test
results. But I have a huge problem with the chairman of WADA making
comments that show his OWN lack of concern for such events. It makes
you think that WADA is of the opinion that the ends justify the means.
To be quite honest, if I were a pro cyclist, I can not imagine
competing next year and agreeing to stake my career on test results
governed by such an individual. I am amazed that the riders have not
taken a stronger stance yet.

The results aren't governed by Dick Pound or any other individual, unless a
positive result is somehow buried or a rider is told in advance of an out of
competition test. Results that lead to UCI imposed sanctions are set by the
WADA drug code to which the UCI subscribes.

"Jim Flom " wrote in

Lance has never tested positive for a hair transplant!

Poor Johan looks like he got his on sale.

I wonder how comfortable you'd be if the test results pointed at you.

Live by the sword...

Be careful about what you suppose I believe or think. I haven't taken a
position on whether Lance doped.

I don't want to put words in your mouth.


I have, on the other hand, taken a position on the logic of one of the
naysayers, while others have dealt more than adequately with the UCI, WADA
and science-based issues.


There is getting to be less room on that fence!

My problem is with gratuitous trashing, just for the sake of raking muck.
There's a way to do it and a way not to do it. What we've been watching
(in the press and in rbr) has been textbook, "how not to address the
question of whether Lance Armstrong doped in 1999."

I see that problem starting with people who are huge Lance fans and start
with the premise that he must be clean and then look for the problem.

I think the system has worked pretty well with one exception - the
triathlete. The triathlete has a condition where he can recreate the
proteins that trip up the test in a lab. That is something Lance has never
claimed or demonstrated.

Plus, his test results are consistent with what one would expect from
someone having a dose at key points in the race - yet he goes on larry king
and says that he is innocent because he didn't test positive every time.
You and I both know that he knows better and is bull****ting those who don't
know better. I don't blame him, once he owns up to it, his deals will drop
faster than Kate Moss's. Deny it and the checks keep getting cashed.

The rest of it is so much crazy talk.

photoshopp,
you don't even care what you yourself thinks, just another anonymous
idiot rippin' out white noise from their cake hole.
Thanks, Ken

"Muy egotistical of you to place a quote of your own next to that of
Eddy. "
Photoshopper, nice of you to notice. I think you are the only one to
confuse the issue of me, Lance, Eddy, and Laff.

Cheers man/gal,
Ken

P.S
http://www.eddymerckx.be/

Every shopped for any photos on that site, put your money with yuor big
mouth is?