Laff also bad for cycling

Cyclingnews: What are your thoughts on the latest in the EPO
allegations, particularly involving Lance Armstrong?

E. Merckx: I cannot understand it. How can you attack somebody that
cannot defend himself? It's not normal too... the testing [procedure.]
If you have something, you go to the UCI or WADA - but not after five
or six years. That is not correct. It's a bad thing for cycling. It's
not true and not just - attacking someone who cannot defend...

Ken: Maybe this was already posted in RBR but one would have to wonder,
as it has ALWAYS been my argument, that lafferti, esq. is very bad for
cycling too (what good has he done? and all his negative energy?).

-Ken

And I have always agreed on that subject. Lafferty has a mental
condition concerning doping. I don't know what it is but certainly he
has about as much perspective on it as Charles Mason had on Sharon
Tate.

That's one of the reasons I want the group moderated. Cut all of the
crap which would make one of Lafferties postings per month relevent.

Of coruse now were can watch the comments like - "How DARE you answer
an off-suject posting". Like there's so many bicycle racing fans left
here after the likes of Palachick, Henry and Lafferty.

Remember when even Owen used to check in once in awhile?

And I have always agreed on that subject. Lafferty has a mental
condition concerning doping. I don't know what it is but certainly he
has about as much perspective on it as Charles Mason had on Sharon
Tate.

That's one of the reasons I want the group moderated. Cut all of the
crap which would make one of Lafferties postings per month relevent.

Of coruse now were can watch the comments like - "How DARE you answer
an off-subject posting". Like there's so many bicycle racing fans left
here after the likes of Palachick, Henry and Lafferty.

Remember when even Owen used to check in once in awhile?

"k.papai" wrote in message
ups.com...
Cyclingnews: What are your thoughts on the latest in the EPO
allegations, particularly involving Lance Armstrong?

E. Merckx: I cannot understand it. How can you attack somebody that
cannot defend himself? It's not normal too... the testing [procedure.]
If you have something, you go to the UCI or WADA - but not after five
or six years. That is not correct. It's a bad thing for cycling.

Of course Eddy was the person who introduced Armstrong to Dr. Ferrari.

Not everyone agrees with Eddy:
"We have to respect the assumption of innocence. It's not up to the athlete
to prove he's not guilty, it is up to the sporting bodies to prove that he
is. I'm in favour of a thorough independent investigation, accepted by all
parties. The IOC wants to retro-actively have the urine samples examined but
first WADA has to determine the procedures to do this. Only then the
discussion will stop."--Jacques Rogge, IOC Chairman.

Lance Armstrong has stated that he had no objection to having his urine
stored and tested as new testing technologies were developed. Mon Dieu!
That was before his urine came up positive six times.

The French Minister for Sport has stated that Armstrong can have another
test on the B samples any time he wants.

It's not true and not just - attacking someone who cannot defend...

Not that that has stopped Armstrong from employing an estimated eleven
lawyers in eight legal actions in three countries. Recall if you will, that
most of those cases were initiated by Armstrong. Hey Ken, why don't you
contact Lance and try to get in on the legal gravy train?


Ken: Maybe this was already posted in RBR but one would have to wonder,
as it has ALWAYS been my argument, that lafferti, esq. is very bad for
cycling too (what good has he done? and all his negative energy?).

-Ken

Big hug.

"Tom Kunich" wrote in message
oups.com...
And I have always agreed on that subject. Lafferty has a mental
condition

My concern is that this is actually a true statement. There also seems to
be some kind of penis envy going on. Note the following:
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
thlink.net...

What if it was a clerk in the lab who saw the results and figured out

that a number of the positives had to be Armstrong's? Let's say that

he dislikes Armstrong and simply gives them (free or for some money)

to L'Equipe. This is how many powerful people are done in--by the

peons. And Armstrong clearly has a significant number of ****ed off

peons directly in his life as well as fans who would turn him in if

they stumbled across the evidence. I'd do it for free if the

information fell into my lap. Then again, maybe owning a bike shop

would be nice, or a Chewes (sp?) franchise.......... ;-)

Brian ID's with the peons who would take the powerful down, just because
they can. Does Brian the Ex-this-and-that want to make others having any
kind of prestige an ex-Something too? Would YOU shop at Brian's bike shop,
bought with Lance blood money?

JF
--
http://spaces.msn.com/members/flomblog/

On 3 Oct 2005 12:47:34 -0700, "Tom Kunich"
wrote:

And I have always agreed on that subject. Lafferty has a mental
condition concerning doping. I don't know what it is but certainly he
has about as much perspective on it as Charles Mason had on Sharon
Tate.

That's one of the reasons I want the group moderated. Cut all of the
crap which would make one of Lafferties postings per month relevent.

Of coruse now were can watch the comments like - "How DARE you answer
an off-subject posting". Like there's so many bicycle racing fans left
here after the likes of Palachick, Henry and Lafferty.

Remember when even Owen used to check in once in awhile?


I'm good friends with a fella by the name of Charles Mason. I think
you're looking for Charles Manson.

Easy now, Tom, easy, don't hit me.

"Jim Flom " wrote in message
news:UEg0f.200245$wr.14656@clgrps12...
"Tom Kunich" wrote in message
oups.com...
And I have always agreed on that subject. Lafferty has a mental
condition

My concern is that this is actually a true statement. There also seems to
be some kind of penis envy going on. Note the following:
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
thlink.net...

What if it was a clerk in the lab who saw the results and figured out

that a number of the positives had to be Armstrong's? Let's say that

he dislikes Armstrong and simply gives them (free or for some money)

to L'Equipe. This is how many powerful people are done in--by the

peons. And Armstrong clearly has a significant number of ****ed off

peons directly in his life as well as fans who would turn him in if

they stumbled across the evidence. I'd do it for free if the

information fell into my lap. Then again, maybe owning a bike shop

would be nice, or a Chewes (sp?) franchise.......... ;-)

Brian ID's with the peons who would take the powerful down, just because
they can. Does Brian the Ex-this-and-that want to make others having any
kind of prestige an ex-Something too? Would YOU shop at Brian's bike
shop, bought with Lance blood money?

JF

That's funny coming from an Ex-Outward Bound leader who didn't hack it in
the real world and fled back to the ministry. Right, Rev.?

"D. Ferguson" wrote in message
news
On 3 Oct 2005 12:47:34 -0700, "Tom Kunich"
wrote:

And I have always agreed on that subject. Lafferty has a mental
condition concerning doping. I don't know what it is but certainly he
has about as much perspective on it as Charles Mason had on Sharon
Tate.

That's one of the reasons I want the group moderated. Cut all of the
crap which would make one of Lafferties postings per month relevent.

Of coruse now were can watch the comments like - "How DARE you answer
an off-subject posting". Like there's so many bicycle racing fans left
here after the likes of Palachick, Henry and Lafferty.

Remember when even Owen used to check in once in awhile?


I'm good friends with a fella by the name of Charles Mason. I think
you're looking for Charles Manson.

Easy now, Tom, easy, don't hit me.

I only get vicarious thrill from Tom since I kill filed him. But even he
knows that I was here long before Albright, Henry and the Palachuck and I'm
here long after. Now you'll have to excuse me while I go out for my second
ride of the day on this beautiful fall day in New England.

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
ink.net...

"k.papai" wrote in message
ups.com...
Cyclingnews: What are your thoughts on the latest in the EPO
allegations, particularly involving Lance Armstrong?

E. Merckx: I cannot understand it. How can you attack somebody that
cannot defend himself? It's not normal too... the testing
[procedure.]
If you have something, you go to the UCI or WADA - but not after five
or six years. That is not correct. It's a bad thing for cycling.

Of course Eddy was the person who introduced Armstrong to Dr. Ferrari.

Not everyone agrees with Eddy:
"We have to respect the assumption of innocence. It's not up to the
athlete to prove he's not guilty, it is up to the sporting bodies to
prove that he is. I'm in favour of a thorough independent
investigation, accepted by all parties. The IOC wants to
retro-actively have the urine samples examined but first WADA has to
determine the procedures to do this. Only then the discussion will
stop."--Jacques Rogge, IOC Chairman.

Lance Armstrong has stated that he had no objection to having his
urine stored and tested as new testing technologies were developed.
Mon Dieu! That was before his urine came up positive six times.

New technologies doesn't mean abandoning scientific checks and balances.
You argue around Armstrong's guilt purely on the basis of speculation
and your own lopsided suspicions. Get back to us when the hard evidence
shows up (seriously).

Phil H

"Phil Holman" wrote in message
...

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
ink.net...

"k.papai" wrote in message
ups.com...
Cyclingnews: What are your thoughts on the latest in the EPO
allegations, particularly involving Lance Armstrong?

E. Merckx: I cannot understand it. How can you attack somebody that
cannot defend himself? It's not normal too... the testing [procedure.]
If you have something, you go to the UCI or WADA - but not after five
or six years. That is not correct. It's a bad thing for cycling.

Of course Eddy was the person who introduced Armstrong to Dr. Ferrari.

Not everyone agrees with Eddy:
"We have to respect the assumption of innocence. It's not up to the
athlete to prove he's not guilty, it is up to the sporting bodies to
prove that he is. I'm in favour of a thorough independent investigation,
accepted by all parties. The IOC wants to retro-actively have the urine
samples examined but first WADA has to determine the procedures to do
this. Only then the discussion will stop."--Jacques Rogge, IOC Chairman.

Lance Armstrong has stated that he had no objection to having his urine
stored and tested as new testing technologies were developed. Mon Dieu!
That was before his urine came up positive six times.

New technologies doesn't mean abandoning scientific checks and balances.
You argue around Armstrong's guilt purely on the basis of speculation and
your own lopsided suspicions. Get back to us when the hard evidence shows
up (seriously).

Phil H

Six positive epo finding for Armstrong in 1999 out of 12 overall and 40+
positive findings for 1998. No one in the scientific community has
addressed the research that the Mabray lab was doing and declared the
findings to be incorrect. The research being done was itself a check and
balance on the test in use under the WADA code.

There is far more than "speculation" with regard to Armstrong and the others
(seriously).