First of a VeloNews Series

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/...andfelt_175962

On 5/30/2011 1:38 PM, BL wrote:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/...andfelt_175962

When he gets a chance, tha author should ask Lemond about
that one stage of the 1985 Tour. Lemond has a record of
not being 100% truthful about that stage, and much of
what he writes about Armstrong would apply there.

F

Brian: I didn't appreciate your talents as a ghost-writer! Very well
done!

It's not a bad piece, but it falls into the same trap. Why must people
continue to seize upon any and all information supporting
Lance-is-a-doping-fraud as being truthful? Why does this author
essentially discredit Greg LeMond by lumping him in with Floyd and
Tyler, both of whom have provided information that has proven to be
either an outright lie (Floyd) or misleading (the TdS story)? Why not
expose the weaknesses in some of the players and ask for, no, DEMAND the
unvarnished truth from the supposedly-repentent? Why do we hold people
to such low standard, on both sides?

If the goal is to convince me that people on both sides of the argument
have far more emotion than intelligence, OK, I'm convinced.

I don't care if your hero is Greg LeMond or Lance Armstrong or David
Walsh or Frankie. Ask the tough questions of them. Look at what they're
saying and scrutinize it. Don't just believe it's true because it's an
argument in your hero's favor. Force people to a higher standard. If
you're looking for a credible case to discredit Lance, don't get
distracted by that which can be easily shown to be a misunderstanding,
because of interpretation based upon someone's assumptions. Go to the
root. Otherwise you're just perpetuating a PR war, prolonging the
ordeal.

At this point, I think we're beyond the whole "fear of Lance
retribution" thing. There is no longer any good reason to fear that
telling the truth, at this point, is going to destroy anybody's future
but Lance's. The only reason to embellish the facts is to get more media
coverage, and that's the real problem with these "heroes" that the
author refers to. They are used to being the center of attention. That
fuels them. I'm really looking for someone who is fueled by something
else, fueled by a desire to truly cleanse their conscience, fueled by a
desire to tell the truth and not be the center of attention or get rich
from doing so. I will accept the truth from others, but only with the
most-severe scrutiny, and so far, that scrutiny has turned up some real
flaws in their stories.

Waiting on George! Please, George, help put this thing to rest. Once and
for all. I believe you are the guy who can do this. It's not going to
come from anybody who places Greg LeMond in the same camp with Tyler and
Floyd without pointing out their continuing problems as story tellers.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"BL" wrote in message
...
http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/...andfelt_175962

On May 30, 1:38*pm, BL wrote:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/...s-1-on-heroes-...

Boy, what a bunch of hogwash.

But you can help him, BL. With the same vigor you've shown when
speaking out against "the juggernaut", show this poor deluded,
fantasizing soul the liklihood that Greg Lemond doped, too.

Get the father in law in front of a grand jury, get the medical
records, explain the linkage between steroid use and the onset of
mitochondrial myopathy, the implausibility of the miraculous return to
form via "iron shots", and otherwise show the apparent lies behind
Lemond's incredible recovery. Indeed, the true story lies with the
handlers and hangers-on, and the willing helpers-- which is a nod to
the concept that Lemond might not have even known what he was being
doped to the gills with. And, sadly, he may not know, to this day, how
people who doubt his probity IRT doping may be only employing him as a
tool in service of taking down Lance Armstrong, a man many have long
hated, going back to an era that existed well before LA turned in any
good rides in the Tour de France.

Too many fist pumps at the '93 Worlds RR? Whatever...

BTW, I hate to nitpick, but "continence" means not having to wear a
diaper-- or a plurality of differentiated global land mass areas.
"Countenance" means, among other, to admit as acceptable or possible,
or more specifically in this attempted usage, to tolerate (best IMHO)
support, sanction, approve, patronize.
--D-y

On May 30, 3:25*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

I don't care if your hero is Greg LeMond or Lance Armstrong or David
Walsh or Frankie. Ask the tough questions of them. Look at what they're
saying and scrutinize it. Don't just believe it's true because it's an
argument in your hero's favor.

Are you going on record as being one of those anti-confirmation bias
nutcases? If so, please reconsider. Think of the state of political
and interpersonal affairs if people had to actually think before
acting. The repercussions would be devastating to the media and the
clothing industry, not to mention our next president would most likely
be ugly. Don't do it.

R

On May 30, 8:38*pm, BL wrote:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/...s-1-on-heroes-...

I prefer this fitness to Lemond Fitness http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK5shRZOCBg

-ilan

On 5/30/2011 12:25 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
Brian: I didn't appreciate your talents as a ghost-writer! Very well
done!

Why does this author
essentially discredit Greg LeMond by lumping him in with Floyd and
Tyler,

He keeps lumping Floyd and Greg together because he's worked for them
both. Hell, he works for "LeMond Fitness" now.

It's not the greatest article, but it'd make an above average RBR posting.

On May 30, 9:37*pm, --D-y wrote:.

BTW, I hate to nitpick, but "continence" means not having to wear a
diaper-- or a plurality of differentiated global land mass areas.
"Countenance" means, among other, to admit as acceptable or possible,
or more specifically in this attempted usage, to tolerate (best IMHO)
support, sanction, approve, patronize.
--D-y

"Continence" more generally means self-restraint or reserve.

-ilan

On May 30, 5:54*pm, ilan wrote:
On May 30, 9:37*pm, --D-y wrote:.



BTW, I hate to nitpick, but "continence" means not having to wear a
diaper-- or a plurality of differentiated global land mass areas.
"Countenance" means, among other, to admit as acceptable or possible,
or more specifically in this attempted usage, to tolerate (best IMHO)
support, sanction, approve, patronize.
--D-y

"Continence" more generally means self-restraint or reserve.

-ilan

Well, in the first place, what fun is that? Geeze...

I found it interesting that a few "name" online dictionaries give self-
restraint (etc.) as a first meaning, with control over excretion as a
second allowable usage, while some online sources, including notably
Wiki, give involuntary-- and perhaps voluntary!-- control of those
usually less-entertaining bodily functions as a first meaning for
"continence". Which, since Wiki is written by contemporary, voluntary
contribution, corresponds to my sense (as a retired plumber) that
"continence" is a word whose usage, and therefore meaning, is changing
from the old "restraint" to a somewhat different, but still
significant form of control, if you will.

But then, my bias is toward descriptive function over the
prescriptive; you may have a different opinion on the weighting of the
matter, but I hear "diaper" in relation to "continence". Especially
when the old-line established dictionary quotes some old dead Greek
guy to put "continence" in sentence context to show a primary usage/
meaning of "self-restraint", while "continence", as in relation to
diapers, etc., has become a usefully polite popular expression in
these times of great masses of aging Baby Boomers, when anything and
everything is advertised on TV. For instance, assuming you spend part
of your time in the USA and watch, say, no more than an average of 15
minutes a day watching TV, what do you think of (honest, now!) when
you hear the word "erection"?

Speaking of old dead Greek guys, and for that matter, ancient learned
Romans long departed, since when lawyers not know their Greek/Latin
word roots?

I mean, even though it's not in the code book, I know where "plumber"
came from... and I usually look stuff up before I publish, too., use
the spell checker, etc. etc.. since my own knowledge is quite limited
and if I'm speaking seriously I hate to put my foot in my mouth with
an ignorant mistake, as that just blows any credibility I might have
all to hell, fair or not!

Speaking of Hell, I used to occasionally opine to Jobst (IMHO a
prescriptionist if there ever was one) that we've been going to Hell
in a handbasket for a long time without seeming to actually arrive,
but hold on there-- maybe we've reached the suburbs? IOW, is it kinda
warm in here, or is it just me?

Orange you glad you posted?
(I hope you can humor me, Ilan, there is no offense intended!)
--D-y

On May 31, 2:33*am, --D-y wrote:
On May 30, 5:54*pm, ilan wrote:

On May 30, 9:37*pm, --D-y wrote:.

BTW, I hate to nitpick, but "continence" means not having to wear a
diaper-- or a plurality of differentiated global land mass areas.
"Countenance" means, among other, to admit as acceptable or possible,
or more specifically in this attempted usage, to tolerate (best IMHO)
support, sanction, approve, patronize.
--D-y

"Continence" more generally means self-restraint or reserve.

-ilan

Well, in the first place, what fun is that? Geeze...

I found it interesting that a few "name" online dictionaries give self-
restraint (etc.) as a first meaning, with control over excretion as a
second allowable usage, while some online sources, including notably
Wiki, give involuntary-- and perhaps voluntary!-- control of those
usually less-entertaining bodily functions as a first meaning for
"continence". Which, since Wiki is written by contemporary, voluntary
contribution, corresponds to my sense (as a retired plumber) that
"continence" is a word whose usage, and therefore meaning, is changing
from the old "restraint" to a somewhat different, but still
significant form of control, if you will.

But then, my bias is toward descriptive function over the
prescriptive; you may have a different opinion on the weighting of the
matter, but I hear "diaper" in relation to "continence". Especially
when the old-line established dictionary quotes some old dead Greek
guy to put "continence" in sentence context to show a primary usage/
meaning of "self-restraint", while "continence", as in relation to
diapers, etc., has become a usefully polite popular expression in
these times of great masses of aging Baby Boomers, when anything and
everything is advertised on TV. For instance, assuming you spend part
of your time in the USA and watch, say, no more than an average of 15
minutes a day watching TV, what do you think of (honest, now!) when
you hear the word "erection"?

Speaking of old dead Greek guys, and for that matter, ancient learned
Romans long departed, since when lawyers not know their Greek/Latin
word roots?

I mean, even though it's not in the code book, I know where "plumber"
came from... and I usually look stuff up before I publish, too., use
the spell checker, etc. etc.. since my own knowledge is quite limited
and if I'm speaking seriously I hate to put my foot in my mouth with
an ignorant mistake, as that just blows any credibility I might have
all to hell, fair or not!

Speaking of Hell, I used to occasionally opine to Jobst (IMHO a
prescriptionist if there ever was one) that we've been going to Hell
in a handbasket for a long time without seeming to actually arrive,
but hold on there-- *maybe we've reached the suburbs? IOW, is it kinda
warm in here, or is it just me?

Orange you glad you posted?
(I hope you can humor me, Ilan, there is no offense intended!)
--D-y

Amazingly, perhaps the only time I used the word "continence" IRL was
in relation to cycling at a talk Katrin Tobin and Andy Paulin gave,
where I asked them if it was enforced at the US Olympic Training
Center.

-ilan