Swearing On Lives of Others

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message link.net...
"OMC" wrote in message
om...
Not true. I've emailed Hein Verbruggen on many occasions about the drug
problem with no response. :-)

Now there's your proof.........Verbruggen is smarter than all of us
that respond to your tireless crap.

"OMC"

Just remember, the "tireless crap" is only made possible by riders
continuing to use illegal, performance enhancing drugs. Of course, the
hypocrisy of riders, like Millar, denying and trashing those who admit to
doping adds to the never ending, "tireless crap." ;-)


I'm curious Lafferty, have you ever not admitted evidence to a trial
that would hurt your client?

In article , TritonRider
wrote:

From: warren

I won't divulge the prices paid to Max for his advice but I will say
that pro riders in Europe pay him a significant amount for each month.
Just because Ferrari is higher profile to you says nothing about what
each guy is worth, or paid. Remember that Max is paid by one of the top
riders (Cioni) on a top team, and was paid well by Mapei before that.

The thing with Lance and Ferrari is relatively simple and there are
several reasons why Lance would work with Ferrari.

There are not an abundance of guys like Ferrari that are available to
coach individual riders like Lance because most of the other
well-qualified guys are working full time for a European pro team, or
in Max's case, he is a full-time MD at UC Davis Sports Medicine, and if
he stopped doing that he'd accept one of the several standing offers he
has to coach a top pro team. So basically, Lance can only work with who
is available.

Second, Lance and Ferrari know each other well, and for a long time and
this makes their whole process more effective.

Finally, Ferrari has a relatively high interest in pushing the envelope
for what is legal or ethical means for an athlete and this approach is
probably attractive to Lance, even if Lance draws a line below that for
himself that most of us would agree with.

-WG





I can't dipute any of this and generally agree, but it also doesn't reduce my
feeling that Lance would go to the mat for Ferrari based on their
realtionship.
I think that there are a ton of reasons for Lance to continue the
realtionship
that has nothing to do with doping, as he has stated.

I agree with that too. It also wouldn't surpise me to learn that
Ferrari was helping CC with his "coaching" and that was all wrapped
into the business of CTS, of which Lance has an interest in too.

-WG

warren wrote:
There are not an abundance of guys like Ferrari that are available to
coach individual riders like Lance because most of the other
well-qualified guys are working full time for a European pro team, or
in Max's case, he is a full-time MD at UC Davis Sports Medicine, and if
he stopped doing that he'd accept one of the several standing offers he
has to coach a top pro team. So basically, Lance can only work with who
is available.

At the time Lance started working with Ferrari both Lance and Max
were working for Motorola. When he went to Ferrari he was looking for
something he wasn't going to get from Max.

Bob Schwartz

TritonRider wrote:
I agree with almost everything except your conclusion that it's based on
money. From everything I've read about Lance it seems he is VERY stubborn once
he makes up his mind, and considers loyalty to be HUGE. So I have no problem
seeing him standing up for, and defending Ferrari even if he isn't getting much
out of it at this point. I think the fact that a huge portion of cycling wants
him to dump Ferrari probably makes him even more determined to stand by him, at
least until the roof falls in.

Indeed, if there is one personality characteristic about him it is
loyalty to the people that stood by him when he had cancer. It would
appear that Ferrari was one of those people.

But you have to admit, a statement that he's never even talked with
him about dope is the whopper to end all whoppers. He first goes to
see the guy in 1995 at a time when EPO is changing the face of the
sport, with much of that change coming under Ferrari's direction.
And they never even talked about dope?

Bob Schwartz

In article , Bob Schwartz
wrote:

warren wrote:
There are not an abundance of guys like Ferrari that are available to
coach individual riders like Lance because most of the other
well-qualified guys are working full time for a European pro team, or
in Max's case, he is a full-time MD at UC Davis Sports Medicine, and if
he stopped doing that he'd accept one of the several standing offers he
has to coach a top pro team. So basically, Lance can only work with who
is available.

At the time Lance started working with Ferrari both Lance and Max
were working for Motorola. When he went to Ferrari he was looking for
something he wasn't going to get from Max.

Lance won his World Championship while working with Max. Max went to
work for another team right after Motorola so he was no longer
available for Lance then. What do you think Lance wanted to get from
Ferrari?

-WG

In article , Bob Schwartz
wrote:

TritonRider wrote:
I agree with almost everything except your conclusion that it's based on
money. From everything I've read about Lance it seems he is VERY stubborn
once
he makes up his mind, and considers loyalty to be HUGE. So I have no problem
seeing him standing up for, and defending Ferrari even if he isn't getting
much
out of it at this point. I think the fact that a huge portion of cycling
wants
him to dump Ferrari probably makes him even more determined to stand by
him, at
least until the roof falls in.

Indeed, if there is one personality characteristic about him it is
loyalty to the people that stood by him when he had cancer. It would
appear that Ferrari was one of those people.

But you have to admit, a statement that he's never even talked with
him about dope is the whopper to end all whoppers. He first goes to
see the guy in 1995 at a time when EPO is changing the face of the
sport, with much of that change coming under Ferrari's direction.
And they never even talked about dope?

Reminds me of a guy who said he didn't inhale. Just fess up to the
little stuff that we all know anyway so the big stuff is more
believeable.

Remember though, "doping" is a term meant to describe something that is
illegal or on the banned list. It does not describe the ethics of using
artificial means (that may not yet be on the banned list) that none of,
or very few of his competitors have access to.

-WG

Bob Schwartz wrote :

But you have to admit, a statement that he's never even talked with
him about dope is the whopper to end all whoppers. He first goes to
see the guy in 1995 at a time when EPO is changing the face of the
sport, with much of that change coming under Ferrari's direction.
And they never even talked about dope?

Hey, it worked for Clarence Thomas ...

I bet there is more than one way to discuss training programs,
or "training programs," or to talk about them without talking
about them, so to speak.

Compare these two anecdotes from scottsmack:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...1.news.aol.com

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com

(unless I'm being really naive, he's talking about two different
doctors)

warren wrote:
In article , Bob Schwartz wrote:

But you have to admit, a statement that he's never even talked with
him about dope is the whopper to end all whoppers. He first goes to
see the guy in 1995 at a time when EPO is changing the face of the
sport, with much of that change coming under Ferrari's direction.
And they never even talked about dope?

Reminds me of a guy who said he didn't inhale. Just fess up to the
little stuff that we all know anyway so the big stuff is more
believeable.

Remember though, "doping" is a term meant to describe something that is
illegal or on the banned list. It does not describe the ethics of using
artificial means (that may not yet be on the banned list) that none of,
or very few of his competitors have access to.

You know, I am going to pick my own nit here. EPO was not a banned
substance in 1995. So my statement above doesn't mean anything with
respect to a statement that they never discussed illegal doping
products.

So yes, you are correct.

Bob Schwartz

In article , Benjamin
Weiner wrote:

Bob Schwartz wrote :

But you have to admit, a statement that he's never even talked with
him about dope is the whopper to end all whoppers. He first goes to
see the guy in 1995 at a time when EPO is changing the face of the
sport, with much of that change coming under Ferrari's direction.
And they never even talked about dope?

Hey, it worked for Clarence Thomas ...

I bet there is more than one way to discuss training programs,
or "training programs," or to talk about them without talking
about them, so to speak.

Compare these two anecdotes from scottsmack:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...1.news.aol.com


http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...40posting .go
ogle.com

(unless I'm being really naive, he's talking about two different
doctors)

In the 1994 post he says he went to an Italian Doc "last year" (that
would be 1993) and in the 2001 post he says he went to Ferrari in 1993.


-WG

warren wrote:
Benjamin Weiner wrote:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...1.news.aol.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com

(unless I'm being really naive, he's talking about two different
doctors)

In the 1994 post he says he went to an Italian Doc "last year" (that
would be 1993) and in the 2001 post he says he went to Ferrari in 1993.

Yes, but the anecdotes about what the doctor(s) offered are quite different.
That's what I meant about there being different ways to talk about a
"training program." It's possible that some of those doctors are much more
explicit than others, depending on what the audience hints it wants.