"Größter Schwindel der Sportgeschichte"

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:47:42 +0200, Morten Reippuert
wrote:

wrote:

I'm not under illusions that Contador is as pure
as the driven snow and his white jersey, but Franke
is a publicity hound. It was Franke who _lost_ a
libel suit that Jan Ullrich filed, after Franke
said Puerto documents showed Jan paid Fuentes
Eur 35,000. Now, it's true that the documents said
all sorts of bad things about Jan, but they didn't
support the claim Franke made:

He lost the lawsuit because there was no way he could esitmate the
cost of Ulrichs program with fuentes. The 35000 euro/year was a wild
guess.

in other words: a technicality. Since then he has not stopped his
accusations against Ulrich and Ulrich hasn't countered with additional
lawsuits.

Just one more sign that the people involved in anti-doping will get further by a
careful prudent approach than by running their mouths and making wild
accusations to see which stick.

These people have got to start acting like grown-ups.

Ron

In article ,
Morten Reippuert wrote:

wrote:

I'm not under illusions that Contador is as pure
as the driven snow and his white jersey, but Franke
is a publicity hound. It was Franke who _lost_ a
libel suit that Jan Ullrich filed, after Franke
said Puerto documents showed Jan paid Fuentes
Eur 35,000. Now, it's true that the documents said
all sorts of bad things about Jan, but they didn't
support the claim Franke made:

He lost the lawsuit because there was no way he could esitmate the
cost of Ulrichs program with fuentes. The 35000 euro/year was a wild
guess.

in other words: a technicality. Since then he has not stopped his
accusations against Ulrich and Ulrich hasn't countered with additional
lawsuits.

The torch wielders and manure fork brandishers love to
spit on technicalities, never knowing that only through
technical rulings are their liberties preserved.

--
Michael Press

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 30, 5:35 pm, "B. Lafferty"
wrote:

Franke's statement "just went a little too far," the judge said, noting
that
"This deals with the way it was said, not the content," according to the
German press agency dpa."

And we do know that Jan's blood was with Dr. Fuentes.

Right. So there were a jillion bad things about
Jan in the documents, but Franke _still_ either made
something up, or (more charitably) misinterpreted a
language that he couldn't read, which he only later
grudgingly admitted! And now he's calling Contador
the "greatest swindle"? The man has gall. He's on
a quest for the greatest PR.

Ben

Let me add this link again and see how Mr. Franke exaggerates on the facts
to weaken his point.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1873402/posts


I take the following relevant extract:

[ Extract]

The initials of what appear to be all members of the Liberty Seguros team
are listed, including one identified as 'AC'. The programme for AC is
listed,in Spanish, as 'nothing or the same as JJ'. And JJ's plans for 2005
were to 'always have I-2'.

It is, of course, possible that AC was given 'nothing' throughout his
programme and so breached no rules. But Professor Werner Franke, a hugely
respected anti-doping expert who has advised the German authorities in their
current investigations and who is familiar with the Operation Puerto
documents, said: "The team had different programmes at different times. So
at certain times AC had to be given the same programme as JJ - and at other
times he was to be given nothing."

[ End Extract]

That sounds quite reasonable. But then he goes to the german public TV and
says something slighty different as reported in many channels (including in
spain - so much for the coverup)

1) From all this we NOW have only heard from Mr. Fanke an from Morten the
part "same as JJ". But they conveniently ommit the very important "nothing
or...".

2) The document mentioned (assuming it is authentic) relates JJ to I2
(Insuline?). But Mr. Franke now reasons "if JJ has self-admitedly takex A,
B, C then AC must have also taken A, B, C. Because this papers says "...same
as JJ".

3) AC was probably not even a direct client of Fuentes (he was too
unimportant). His team was! JJ had an individualized program and it seems
that AC did not (otherwise he would not be referred thru others).

Now you could say: From this document Franke could deduce that AC may have
been recomended by someone in his team to take I2 at some pont (it seems
there are not blood bags for him, right?) following Fuentes's genral
recomendations. But Franke says AC has taken A,B,C because he has taken the
same stuff as JJ He knows!

To this JJ has said he does not know whether AC has takan stuff, only that
he assumes he has based on this documents -as the information was correct
about himself. Sumarizing, no proof.

That was 2005. Contador already missed the TdF 2006 because of this stuff.
Is it possible he may have been clean this year?

On Jul 30, 11:47 pm, Morten Reippuert
wrote:
wrote:
I'm not under illusions that Contador is as pure
as the driven snow and his white jersey, but Franke
is a publicity hound. It was Franke who _lost_ a
libel suit that Jan Ullrich filed, after Franke
said Puerto documents showed Jan paid Fuentes
Eur 35,000. Now, it's true that the documents said
all sorts of bad things about Jan, but they didn't
support the claim Franke made:

He lost the lawsuit because there was no way he could esitmate the
cost of Ulrichs program with fuentes. The 35000 euro/year was a wild
guess.

in other words: a technicality. Since then he has not stopped his
accusations against Ulrich and Ulrich hasn't countered with additional
lawsuits.

It's not a technicality! He lost the lawsuit
because he said something that he MADE UP.
Even though there was plenty of _real_ dirt
on Jan that he could have used. I guess that
dirt didn't sound as good as the MADE UP dirt.

You can't go on a crusade behind people who lie.
Well, you can, and it's done quite often, like
in the original Crusades, or our current attempt
to re-invent the Middle East. But it's a
_****ing lousy idea_. Sometimes, even though there
really are witches, you still have to follow the
rules before burning them.

Ben

In article ,
Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
Morten Reippuert wrote:

wrote:

I'm not under illusions that Contador is as pure
as the driven snow and his white jersey, but Franke
is a publicity hound. It was Franke who _lost_ a
libel suit that Jan Ullrich filed, after Franke
said Puerto documents showed Jan paid Fuentes
Eur 35,000. Now, it's true that the documents said
all sorts of bad things about Jan, but they didn't
support the claim Franke made:

He lost the lawsuit because there was no way he could esitmate the
cost of Ulrichs program with fuentes. The 35000 euro/year was a wild
guess.

in other words: a technicality. Since then he has not stopped his
accusations against Ulrich and Ulrich hasn't countered with additional
lawsuits.

The torch wielders and manure fork brandishers love to
spit on technicalities, never knowing that only through
technical rulings are their liberties preserved.

The word "technicality" being used in the derisive manner we always see is defined
as "the thing that made my position lose." Like when the defendants are kicked loose
after the Nifong prosecutor witholds exculpatory evidence from the defense. Or when
Franke makes **** up.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Dans le message de
,
Howard Kveck a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
In article
,
Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
Morten Reippuert wrote:

wrote:

I'm not under illusions that Contador is as pure
as the driven snow and his white jersey, but Franke
is a publicity hound. It was Franke who _lost_ a
libel suit that Jan Ullrich filed, after Franke
said Puerto documents showed Jan paid Fuentes
Eur 35,000. Now, it's true that the documents said
all sorts of bad things about Jan, but they didn't
support the claim Franke made:

He lost the lawsuit because there was no way he could esitmate the
cost of Ulrichs program with fuentes. The 35000 euro/year was a wild
guess.

in other words: a technicality. Since then he has not stopped his
accusations against Ulrich and Ulrich hasn't countered with
additional lawsuits.

The torch wielders and manure fork brandishers love to
spit on technicalities, never knowing that only through
technical rulings are their liberties preserved.

The word "technicality" being used in the derisive manner we always
see is defined as "the thing that made my position lose." Like when
the defendants are kicked loose after the Nifong prosecutor witholds
exculpatory evidence from the defense. Or when Franke makes **** up.

"Technicalities" are always for other folks, the dirty *******s. Then it
comes your turn, and the technicalities become your FUNDAMENTEAL RIGHTS.

alex beascoechea wrote:
It is, of course, possible that AC was given 'nothing' throughout his
programme and so breached no rules.

Apparently you aren't aware that the placebo effect has been banned by
WADA and the UCI. 'Nothing' is now illegal.