Armstrong hits the wall in Cali ITT

....looks like the party's over, pretty pathetic to see him ITT like
that, even worse than when Ulle trounced him in 2003 and we had the
"brake was rubbing", "I lost 10 pounds" excuses. This time we know the
answer, no more dope !

Back to the pre-1996 LA it seems...

On Feb 20, 4:18*pm, Keith wrote:
...looks like the party's over, pretty pathetic to see him ITT like
that, even worse than when Ulle trounced him in 2003 and we had the
"brake was rubbing", "I lost 10 pounds" excuses. This time we know the
answer, no more dope !

Back to the pre-1996 LA it seems...

Either you're a complete idiot, or that was an excellently constructed
troll. I'm betting on a bit of both.

On Feb 20, 3:24*pm, Scott wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:18*pm, Keith wrote:

...looks like the party's over, pretty pathetic to see him ITT like
that, even worse than when Ulle trounced him in 2003 and we had the
"brake was rubbing", "I lost 10 pounds" excuses. This time we know the
answer, no more dope !

Back to the pre-1996 LA it seems...

Either you're a complete idiot, or that was an excellently constructed
troll. *I'm betting on a bit of both.

Sorry but these are mutually exclusive. You have to pick one.

Scott wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:18 pm, Keith wrote:
...looks like the party's over, pretty pathetic to see him ITT like
that, even worse than when Ulle trounced him in 2003 and we had the
"brake was rubbing", "I lost 10 pounds" excuses. This time we know the
answer, no more dope !

Back to the pre-1996 LA it seems...

Either you're a complete idiot, or that was an excellently constructed
troll. I'm betting on a bit of both.

Consider the possibility that you're typing at a sock puppet.

On Feb 20, 3:46*pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Scott wrote:


Either you're a complete idiot, or that was an excellently constructed
troll. *I'm betting on a bit of both.

Consider the possibility that you're typing at a sock puppet.

Odds are 50 50

Scott wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:18 pm, Keith wrote:
...looks like the party's over, pretty pathetic to see him ITT like
that, even worse than when Ulle trounced him in 2003 and we had the
"brake was rubbing", "I lost 10 pounds" excuses. This time we know the
answer, no more dope !

Back to the pre-1996 LA it seems...

Either you're a complete idiot, or that was an excellently constructed
troll. I'm betting on a bit of both.

Candyass.

Bob Schwartz

In article
,
wrote:

On Feb 20, 3:24*pm, Scott wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:18*pm, Keith wrote:

...looks like the party's over, pretty pathetic to see him ITT like
that, even worse than when Ulle trounced him in 2003 and we had the
"brake was rubbing", "I lost 10 pounds" excuses. This time we know the
answer, no more dope !

Back to the pre-1996 LA it seems...

Either you're a complete idiot, or that was an excellently constructed
troll. *I'm betting on a bit of both.

Sorry but these are mutually exclusive. You have to pick one.

Step 1: acquire an infinite number of monkeys
Step 2: let them post to Usenet

There is no step 3. Nor any mutual exclusivity.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

On Feb 20, 7:10*pm, Bob Schwartz wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:18 pm, Keith wrote:
...looks like the party's over, pretty pathetic to see him ITT like
that, even worse than when Ulle trounced him in 2003 and we had the
"brake was rubbing", "I lost 10 pounds" excuses. This time we know the
answer, no more dope !

Back to the pre-1996 LA it seems...

Either you're a complete idiot, or that was an excellently constructed
troll. *I'm betting on a bit of both.

Candyass.

Bob Schwartz

You're right. Guilty as charged. Therefore, I'm changing my
assessment to idiot.

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:24:03 -0800 (PST), Scott
wrote:

On Feb 20, 4:18Â*pm, Keith wrote:
...looks like the party's over, pretty pathetic to see him ITT like
that, even worse than when Ulle trounced him in 2003 and we had the
"brake was rubbing", "I lost 10 pounds" excuses. This time we know the
answer, no more dope !

Back to the pre-1996 LA it seems...

Either you're a complete idiot, or that was an excellently constructed
troll. I'm betting on a bit of both.

Care to give any reasons for your hasy judgement ?

On Feb 22, 4:37*pm, Keith wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:24:03 -0800 (PST), Scott

wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:18*pm, Keith wrote:
...looks like the party's over, pretty pathetic to see him ITT like
that, even worse than when Ulle trounced him in 2003 and we had the
"brake was rubbing", "I lost 10 pounds" excuses. This time we know the
answer, no more dope !

Back to the pre-1996 LA it seems...

Either you're a complete idiot, or that was an excellently constructed
troll. *I'm betting on a bit of both.

Care to give any reasons for your hasy judgement ?

My hasty judgment??? My hasty judgment??? Are you ****in' kidding?
It's his second road race back after a three year layoff, a race that
he's not targeting in the first place other than to be fit enough to
play the teammate role, he turns in a TT performance that was exactly
where he thought he'd be, and YOU judge him to have been on drugs
before because his current non-drugged state is so bad.

Really, who's the hasty one???

You are an idiot.