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

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

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.

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#

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.

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

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

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

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