| |
Main
Date: 07 May 2007 08:06:17
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
Eventually someone was going to cave under the weight of the evidence.
I can't wait for all the jock sniffers to come out saying how "brave"
he is.
|
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2007 14:16:08
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
On May 11, 4:38 pm, need more sun <recbikegr...@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
> On May 11, 12:08 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <1178827746.660437.161...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 10, 12:10 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > > cheating me. Cyclists have always doped. Now we have a pogrom.
> > > > Crusaders annoy me, mostly because they act like they are better
> > > > than everybody else, even other crusaders.
>
> > > Dumbass -
>
> > > Which crusader annoys you the most: Dick Pound, W. Bush or Queen
> > > Isabella?
>
> > Currently, need more sun, but that could change.
>
> > --
> > Michael Press
>
> Glad I piss you off, so... Anyone who thinks it is ok for the sport to
> continue to self-destruct is not someone I want to please. You
> wouldn't know ethics if they came up and savaged you.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
We had this little thing out here in Mass. called the Salem Witch
Trials, which is still infamous 300+ years later because everyone got
hysterical and the way out was to accuse others. They wanted to
believe the worst, so everything counted as valid evidence. They used
cooercion as a standard tactic. People were guilty until proven
innocent.
All the things you continue to support as principles today.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 12 May 2007 01:14:51
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1178918168.162106.93290@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> We had this little thing out here in Mass. called the Salem Witch
> Trials, which is still infamous 300+ years later because everyone got
> hysterical and the way out was to accuse others. They wanted to
> believe the worst, so everything counted as valid evidence. They used
> cooercion as a standard tactic. People were guilty until proven
> innocent.
> All the things you continue to support as principles today.
Funny thing - those who confessed to being witches were released while those
who insisted they were innocent were tortured and murdered. Seems like the
sort of justice Pound wants.
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2007 13:58:43
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
On May 11, 4:38 pm, need more sun <recbikegr...@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
> On May 11, 12:08 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <1178827746.660437.161...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 10, 12:10 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > > cheating me. Cyclists have always doped. Now we have a pogrom.
> > > > Crusaders annoy me, mostly because they act like they are better
> > > > than everybody else, even other crusaders.
>
> > > Dumbass -
>
> > > Which crusader annoys you the most: Dick Pound, W. Bush or Queen
> > > Isabella?
>
> > Currently, need more sun, but that could change.
>
> > --
> > Michael Press
>
> Glad I piss you off, so... Anyone who thinks it is ok for the sport to
> continue to self-destruct is not someone I want to please. You
> wouldn't know ethics if they came up and savaged you.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Near as I can tell you are citing Pound as a paragon of ethics. That
disqualifies you, as quick as Scumsfeld supporters, from any right to
be taken seriously on ethics.
Torture the bastards until they confess because we KNOW they're all
guilty!
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2007 13:38:37
From: need more sun
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
On May 11, 12:08 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> In article
> <1178827746.660437.161...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 10, 12:10 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > cheating me. Cyclists have always doped. Now we have a pogrom.
> > > Crusaders annoy me, mostly because they act like they are better
> > > than everybody else, even other crusaders.
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > Which crusader annoys you the most: Dick Pound, W. Bush or Queen
> > Isabella?
>
> Currently, need more sun, but that could change.
>
> --
> Michael Press
Glad I piss you off, so... Anyone who thinks it is ok for the sport to
continue to self-destruct is not someone I want to please. You
wouldn't know ethics if they came up and savaged you.
|
| | |
Date: 13 May 2007 08:13:27
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
On 11 May 2007 13:38:37 -0700, need more sun <recbikegroup@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
>On May 11, 12:08 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> In article
>> <1178827746.660437.161...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>> Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 10, 12:10 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > cheating me. Cyclists have always doped. Now we have a pogrom.
>> > > Crusaders annoy me, mostly because they act like they are better
>> > > than everybody else, even other crusaders.
>>
>> > Dumbass -
>>
>> > Which crusader annoys you the most: Dick Pound, W. Bush or Queen
>> > Isabella?
>>
>> Currently, need more sun, but that could change.
>>
>> --
>> Michael Press
>
>Glad I piss you off, so... Anyone who thinks it is ok for the sport to
>continue to self-destruct is not someone I want to please. You
>wouldn't know ethics if they came up and savaged you.
Neither does Dick Pound, WADA, LNDD, USADA or anybody else involved in the
antidoping campaign. That's the problem that is damaging the sport.
Ron
Ron
Effect pedal demo's up at http://www.soundclick.com/ronsonicpedalry
|
| | |
Date: 11 May 2007 16:06:12
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
In article
<1178915917.085717.234090@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
need more sun <recbikegroup@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
> On May 11, 12:08 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <1178827746.660437.161...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On May 10, 12:10 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > cheating me. Cyclists have always doped. Now we have a pogrom.
> > > > Crusaders annoy me, mostly because they act like they are better
> > > > than everybody else, even other crusaders.
> >
> > > Dumbass -
> >
> > > Which crusader annoys you the most: Dick Pound, W. Bush or Queen
> > > Isabella?
> >
> > Currently, need more sun, but that could change.
>
> Glad I piss you off, so... Anyone who thinks it is ok for the sport to
> continue to self-destruct is not someone I want to please. You
> wouldn't know ethics if they came up and savaged you.
Annoyed; you know, like a blowfly. Ethics are for weenies.
As for destroying cycling, Bob Schwartz presents an alternative
assessment.
You are enjoying this. Next week cycling wlll serve you up another
shit sandwich. Bon appétit.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | |
Date: 12 May 2007 08:52:08
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
Michael Press wrote:
> You are enjoying this. Next week cycling wlll serve you up another
> shit sandwich. Bon appétit.
Yummy, andoulette sandwich.
|
| | |
Date: 11 May 2007 23:45:44
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
need more sun wrote:
> On May 11, 12:08 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> In article
>> <1178827746.660437.161...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>> Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 10, 12:10 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> cheating me. Cyclists have always doped. Now we have a pogrom.
>>>> Crusaders annoy me, mostly because they act like they are better
>>>> than everybody else, even other crusaders.
>>> Dumbass -
>>> Which crusader annoys you the most: Dick Pound, W. Bush or Queen
>>> Isabella?
>> Currently, need more sun, but that could change.
>>
>> --
>> Michael Press
>
> Glad I piss you off, so... Anyone who thinks it is ok for the sport to
> continue to self-destruct is not someone I want to please. You
> wouldn't know ethics if they came up and savaged you.
>
You're operating from the point of view that the sport is
self-destructing. Many people here disagree.
|
| |
Date: 10 May 2007 13:09:06
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
On May 10, 12:10 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> cheating me. Cyclists have always doped. Now we have a pogrom.
> Crusaders annoy me, mostly because they act like they are better
> than everybody else, even other crusaders.
Dumbass -
Which crusader annoys you the most: Dick Pound, W. Bush or Queen
Isabella?
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
|
| | |
Date: 10 May 2007 15:08:18
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
In article
<1178827746.660437.161630@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >,
Kurgan Gringioni <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On May 10, 12:10 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
> > cheating me. Cyclists have always doped. Now we have a pogrom.
> > Crusaders annoy me, mostly because they act like they are better
> > than everybody else, even other crusaders.
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> Which crusader annoys you the most: Dick Pound, W. Bush or Queen
> Isabella?
Currently, need more sun, but that could change.
--
Michael Press
|
| | |
Date: 10 May 2007 22:14:42
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
Michael Press wrote:
>> cheating me. Cyclists have always doped. Now we have a pogrom.
>> Crusaders annoy me, mostly because they act like they are better
>> than everybody else, even other crusaders.
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> Which crusader annoys you the most: Dick Pound, W. Bush or Queen
> Isabella?
What about Monty Python ?
|
| |
Date: 10 May 2007 00:56:28
From: need more sun
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
On May 9, 2:00 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
>
> I will go out on a limb here, and agree with you. Agree
> whole-heartedly. The logical disconnect is maddening to me.
> Furthermore I am in a position to condemn drug use with impunity,
> since I do not take any, even with eye watering pollen reactions.
>
> We compete to whatever degree, on our jobs or however we earn a
> livelihood. It pays to take stimulants, soporifics, analgesics,
> anti-histamines, and the rest of the apothecary to keep going.
>
> --
> Michael Press
So, to clarify, you believe use of banned substances is okay
(presuming you pass the test)? Sorry if I've misunderstood your point,
but this seems to be what you are saying. Maybe you can clarify.
|
| | |
Date: 10 May 2007 12:10:12
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
In article
<1178783788.087029.164040@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com >,
need more sun <recbikegroup@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
> On May 9, 2:00 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > I will go out on a limb here, and agree with you. Agree
> > whole-heartedly. The logical disconnect is maddening to me.
> > Furthermore I am in a position to condemn drug use with impunity,
> > since I do not take any, even with eye watering pollen reactions.
> >
> > We compete to whatever degree, on our jobs or however we earn a
> > livelihood. It pays to take stimulants, soporifics, analgesics,
> > anti-histamines, and the rest of the apothecary to keep going.
>
> So, to clarify, you believe use of banned substances is okay
> (presuming you pass the test)? Sorry if I've misunderstood your point,
> but this seems to be what you are saying. Maybe you can clarify.
I will go further. Use of banned substances is okay with me even
if the competitor gets caught. I do not share your outrage at
riders who are accused of doping, and at riders who have been
shown or admitted to doping. As I said before they are not
cheating me. Cyclists have always doped. Now we have a pogrom.
Crusaders annoy me, mostly because they act like they are better
than everybody else, even other crusaders.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 10 May 2007 00:54:11
From: need more sun
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
On May 8, 4:57 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> That's the point isn't it? The only performance drugs available to
> Eddy would have made him look like Schwartzenneger with a split chin
> and deep cheekbones. He didn't have those so if he was doping it could
> only have been painkillers and amphetamines which don't make you go
> faster, only make you less miserable.
WTF? That's bull. Absolute bull. Amphetamines make you go faster, full
stop. This has been conclusively proven. And pain killers do too. Ever
hear talk of champions having a high pain tolerance? Being able to
keep pushing yourself is a big part of the sport.
|
| |
Date: 08 May 2007 07:57:34
From:
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
On May 8, 5:26 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On May 8, 1:31 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 3:56 pm, "Tom Grosman" <gros...@aonix.fr> wrote:
>
> > > "paolo" <psenat...@gmail.com> a =E9crit dans le message de news:
> > >
|
| | |
Date: 09 May 2007 00:00:27
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
In article
<1178636254.811058.28010@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
> My guess is that none of the complainers here (Lafferty especially)
> think one second about using cold medicine when they have a cold. They
> don't think about using allergy medicine if they have an allergy. They
> don't think about using any sort of medicine that will make their
> live's a little better. And yet they want to condemn someone else for
> doing the same thing.
I will go out on a limb here, and agree with you. Agree
whole-heartedly. The logical disconnect is maddening to me.
Furthermore I am in a position to condemn drug use with impunity,
since I do not take any, even with eye watering pollen reactions.
We compete to whatever degree, on our jobs or however we earn a
livelihood. It pays to take stimulants, soporifics, analgesics,
anti-histamines, and the rest of the apothecary to keep going.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | |
Date: 09 May 2007 08:02:55
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <1178636254.811058.28010@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> My guess is that none of the complainers here (Lafferty especially)
>> think one second about using cold medicine when they have a cold. They
>> don't think about using allergy medicine if they have an allergy. They
>> don't think about using any sort of medicine that will make their
>> live's a little better. And yet they want to condemn someone else for
>> doing the same thing.
>
> I will go out on a limb here, and agree with you. Agree
> whole-heartedly. The logical disconnect is maddening to me.
>
There is no logical disconnect. Cyclists work in a job that requires
them to steer clear of many medicinal compounds, and declare any other
compounds which are necessary but fall under shady categories. None of
us regular folk do. If the cyclist doesn't want to do this, he can get a
job which doesn't require medical transparency.
|
| |
Date: 08 May 2007 05:26:46
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
On May 8, 1:31 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> On May 7, 3:56 pm, "Tom Grosman" <gros...@aonix.fr> wrote:
>
> > "paolo" <psenat...@gmail.com> a =E9crit dans le message de news:
> >
|
| |
Date: 08 May 2007 05:23:16
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
On May 7, 12:41 pm, "derFah...@gmail.com" <derFah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> <snipped>
> Has anyone confessed while under no suspicion (not counting guys who
> had quit, were retired, or were going to retire anyway)?
>
> Justin Spinelli? Don't think he was ever caught with anything as I
> recall.
>
<snipped >
> As much as I despise Pound ... he does have a point in the "deny,
> deny, deny" statement.
> B.
I'm gonna stick up for Justin. Not for the fact that he did dope, but
for the fact that he knew it was a mistake, and despite the evidence
of doping being widespread, he didn't just go with the flow.
He had a conscience, and admitted it, and told his story. He was
treated like shit compared to those who went the "deny, deny, deny"
route, were busted, and treated like nothing ever happened.
People make mistakes. It's how they handle them that's important, and
the way Justin handled his said to me he's a good, solid person. I'd
bet the house that at least some of the people shitting all over him
publicly, and at races, were, and still are doped to the gills.
He's not a saint, but he sure as hell didn't deserve the shit he
caught either.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 08 May 2007 00:58:20
From: Leo, from Europe
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
On May 8, 3:12 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
> In fairness to Floyd, he is attempting, with whatever motive, to
> fundraise for his rather expensive defence.
This is why I like him less than others. I wonder if other cyclists
have had so expensive lawyers. And I wonder if other cyclists (apart
Tyler?) have created such a massive media campaign - fully knowing
that the counterpart can't object to their claims to the media.
But then I fully recognize my eurocentric prejudice against some
aspects of US society.
|
| | |
Date: 08 May 2007 16:29:41
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
In article <1178611100.206193.11600@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com >,
"Leo, from Europe" <leopejo@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On May 8, 3:12 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > In fairness to Floyd, he is attempting, with whatever motive, to
> > fundraise for his rather expensive defence.
>
> This is why I like him less than others. I wonder if other cyclists
> have had so expensive lawyers. And I wonder if other cyclists (apart
> Tyler?) have created such a massive media campaign - fully knowing
> that the counterpart can't object to their claims to the media.
The other riders were guilty. The counterparts get to object in the
hearing, which is all that really matters anyways. No matter how many
"we believe" t-shirts have been sold, you'll notice that Mr. Hamilton
continues to be absent from the ProTour.
> But then I fully recognize my eurocentric prejudice against some
> aspects of US society.
The US (and for that matter, most Commonwealth countries) have an
adversarial judicial system as a pretty fundamental element of their
society. Even where it isn't directly involved, it tends to be the
default model for other forms of adjudication.
Here's the deal: despite what most people may think, I doubt the court
of public opinion matters a whole bunch in what is about to come. More
importantly, consider the reputational damage each way: Floyd says this
and Floyd says that, but in the end if the hearing goes against him,
he's busted, the end. If the hearing goes his way, well, then he was
justified in saying all those things.
On the other hand, the prosecutors have already made a public accusation
of the defendant: no matter how little they say from then on, the
implication is that they wouldn't have accused him without
justification. It's decorous for them to say no further, and let the
hearing work.
A similar situation applies to criminal prosecutions: the mere act of
arrest and charge is a huge burden for almost any person, innocent or
guilty. If they are eventually found guilty, then that's part of the
punishment. If not, then you've put that person through the wringer
already, and they've suffered mightily for no reason. At least they were
able to proclaim their innocence
This is why I think it disreputable for police and prosecutors to
publicly discuss cases, but not so for defendants. The reputational
damage that prosecutors (either as a profession or personally) suffer
for a failure to convict is pretty minimal, While a charge alone, even
if later dropped entirely, can continue to define the chargee's public
reputation for the rest of their life.
The one "advantage" to prosecutors and such talking big is that if they
really are riding a bad prosecution over a cliff, the bigger they talk,
the harder they fall (cf. Mr. Ray Nifong, who had to resign his position
mainly because he was an idiot in public).
In Canada, the tradition of cops and Crown prosecutors not talking smack
about the defendant in public is much stronger, and I think justice is
well-served by this tradition.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 22:31:05
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
On May 7, 3:56 pm, "Tom Grosman" <gros...@aonix.fr > wrote:
> "paolo" <psenat...@gmail.com> a =E9crit dans le message de news:
>
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 12:54:52
From: Leo, from Europe
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
On May 7, 8:18 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> The brass of the man, defending himself. That's grounds for
> conviction on the face of it.
No, don't convict him for that, convict him for the evidence.
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 12:54:07
From: paolo
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
On May 7, 8:06 am, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> Eventually someone was going to cave under the weight of the evidence.
>
> I can't wait for all the jock sniffers to come out saying how "brave"
> he is.
This was all somewhat predictable in light of his recent departure
from Discovery and the pending hearing with the italian olympic review
group. Either he did the right thing and saved Discovery some
embarrasment, or Discovery got some smarts and wrote something into
his contract linking his salary to the outcome of any futrue OP
results ...i.e. where he couldn't afford to get caught in a lie, and
stepped up and admitted his involvement (unlikely).
Mostlikely scenario is the authorities told his lawyer that he had a
better chance at a 1 year suspension if he "cooperated". Combined
with saving Discovery some angst, the least painful (and costly)
option was cooperate. 2007 is over for Basso....probably 2008.
My question now is, can he be stripped of any titles he picked-up last
year, i.e. the 2006 Giro! Or is this all just "implication" stuff and
we're now moving into 12 months of legal maneuvering. Speaking of
which, all these OP riders are probably watching how much Landis is
having to fork over to prove his case, and they're caving and asking
for leniency (1 vs 2 year suspensions).
It's all rather disheartening. Herera (Vuelta), Landis (TdF) and now
Basso (Giro). I find it funny that Armstrong blessed both Landis and
Basso over the last 12 months.
|
| | |
Date: 08 May 2007 06:22:59
From: Jason Spaceman
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
On 7 May 2007 12:54:07 -0700, paolo <psenatori@gmail.com > wrote:
>My question now is, can he be stripped of any titles he picked-up last
>year, i.e. the 2006 Giro!
According to
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may08news2
Basso is denying that he doped during last year's Giro. He claims the
blood was being saved for the 2006 Tour.
J. Spaceman
|
| | | |
Date: 08 May 2007 11:52:16
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
> On 7 May 2007 12:54:07 -0700, paolo <psenatori@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> My question now is, can he be stripped of any titles he picked-up last
>> year, i.e. the 2006 Giro!
>
> According to
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may08news2
> Basso is denying that he doped during last year's Giro. He claims the
> blood was being saved for the 2006 Tour.
The Giro blood was already injected :).
Dan
|
| | |
Date: 08 May 2007 00:56:57
From: Tom Grosman
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
Herrera won the Vuelta in 1987. I think he's safe.
Heras on the other hand ...
"paolo" <psenatori@gmail.com > a écrit dans le message de news:
1178567647.023906.326380@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 10:47:13
From: derFahrer@gmail.com
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
On May 7, 1:18 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> The brass of the man, defending himself. That's grounds for
> conviction on the face of it.
It's not ... but on the other hand, I don't see how one can make any
decent conclusions based on what guys are saying, or whether we think
their doping wouldn't have made sense (Floyd taking T then winning),
or whether something is logical (Discovery wouldn't have signed Basso
if there wasn't a problem). Well, I suppose you can make a pretty
good conclusion when someone says it was for their dog.
B.
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 10:40:42
From: derFahrer@gmail.com
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
On May 7, 1:01 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Floyd, if cleared, will make up lot's of money, if he can show that
> there was any sort of deliberate effort to convict him in the absence
> of evidence. He'll likely follow with a civil suit against Pound,
> WADA, the French lab, etc... for lost wages, earning power, etc...
possibly ... seems like quite a gamble though, and any sort of lawsuit
would take years.
> Plus, if he prevails, his book sales and speaking fees will bring in
> mucho deniro
DeNiro will play him in a movie? :-)
|
| | |
Date: 08 May 2007 01:53:39
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
In article <1178559642.703322.140920@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com >,
"derFahrer@gmail.com" <derFahrer@gmail.com > wrote:
> On May 7, 1:01 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Floyd, if cleared, will make up lot's of money, if he can show that
> > there was any sort of deliberate effort to convict him in the absence
> > of evidence. He'll likely follow with a civil suit against Pound,
> > WADA, the French lab, etc... for lost wages, earning power, etc...
>
> possibly ... seems like quite a gamble though, and any sort of lawsuit
> would take years.
Well, if he's properly exonerated, he's at least going to start back on
the path of making a couple million a year. If his new hip works.
> > Plus, if he prevails, his book sales and speaking fees will bring in
> > mucho deniro
>
> DeNiro will play him in a movie? :-)
It's the role he was born to play!
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 10:09:27
From: need more sun
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
On May 7, 7:01 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On May 7, 10:41 am, "derFah...@gmail.com" <derFah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 11:22 am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > For me, admiration for Basso's confession would only be warranted if
> > > he'd confessed while under no suspicion whatsoever. Then I'd know
> > > that it was his conscience that got to him, not a sense of impending
> > > doom. It's not that hard to confess when you know you're about to be
> > > found guilty, anyway. Criminals do it all the time.
>
> > Has anyone confessed while under no suspicion (not counting guys who
> > had quit, were retired, or were going to retire anyway)?
>
> > Justin Spinelli? Don't think he was ever caught with anything as I
> > recall.
>
> > Guys seem to do what they best for their situation. If you're at the
> > end of your career ... a suspension is the end, so you might as well
> > deny. Basso could take the suspension and race again. The Landis
> > thing is puzzling ... why would you blow through so much $ on legal
> > expenses fighting it ... when even if he wins it's doubtful he would
> > race again. And even if cleared would he ever make it up?
>
> > As much as I despise Pound ... he does have a point in the "deny,
> > deny, deny" statement.
> > B.
>
> Floyd, if cleared, will make up lot's of money, if he can show that
> there was any sort of deliberate effort to convict him in the absence
> of evidence. He'll likely follow with a civil suit against Pound,
> WADA, the French lab, etc... for lost wages, earning power, etc...
>
> Plus, if he prevails, his book sales and speaking fees will bring in
> mucho deniro.
Without jumping to conclusions, let's look at the other possibility.
If he is guilty, he is a liar who cheated, caused his team to
collapse, has damaged cycling by being the only Tour winner to be
found positive, then has caused further damage to the sport by draging
the anti-doping processes through the mud. As well as having the cheek
to ask fans to pay for his defense.
I stress that I'm not saying he is guilty, (although I certainly
believe he doped in the past), but am laying out the facts as they
stand if he did indeed do it. In which case, I don't know how he
sleeps at night.
Only Floyd and a few others know the full truth. But, Floyd, if you
did do it, own the hell up. Because if you are lying, you are helping
to kill the sport you proport to love. Not just once, but many times
over.
If he is innocent, then all the above is irrelevant.
|
| | |
Date: 07 May 2007 19:02:23
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
In article <1178557767.079147.296450@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com >,
need more sun <recbikegroup@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
(snipper)
> then has caused further damage to the sport by draging
> the anti-doping processes through the mud.
If you've been paying atention, the anti-doping process was already
in the mud. Leaked results, allegedly infallible testing methods,
Pound's pronouncements, etc.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | |
Date: 07 May 2007 17:48:39
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
In article
<1178557767.079147.296450@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com >,
need more sun <recbikegroup@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
> On May 7, 7:01 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 7, 10:41 am, "derFah...@gmail.com" <derFah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 7, 11:22 am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > For me, admiration for Basso's confession would only be warranted if
> > > > he'd confessed while under no suspicion whatsoever. Then I'd know
> > > > that it was his conscience that got to him, not a sense of impending
> > > > doom. It's not that hard to confess when you know you're about to be
> > > > found guilty, anyway. Criminals do it all the time.
> >
> > > Has anyone confessed while under no suspicion (not counting guys who
> > > had quit, were retired, or were going to retire anyway)?
> >
> > > Justin Spinelli? Don't think he was ever caught with anything as I
> > > recall.
> >
> > > Guys seem to do what they best for their situation. If you're at the
> > > end of your career ... a suspension is the end, so you might as well
> > > deny. Basso could take the suspension and race again. The Landis
> > > thing is puzzling ... why would you blow through so much $ on legal
> > > expenses fighting it ... when even if he wins it's doubtful he would
> > > race again. And even if cleared would he ever make it up?
> >
> > > As much as I despise Pound ... he does have a point in the "deny,
> > > deny, deny" statement.
> > > B.
> >
> > Floyd, if cleared, will make up lot's of money, if he can show that
> > there was any sort of deliberate effort to convict him in the absence
> > of evidence. He'll likely follow with a civil suit against Pound,
> > WADA, the French lab, etc... for lost wages, earning power, etc...
> >
> > Plus, if he prevails, his book sales and speaking fees will bring in
> > mucho deniro.
>
> Without jumping to conclusions,
Nice.
> let's look at the other possibility.
> If he is guilty, he is a liar who cheated, caused his team to
> collapse, has damaged cycling by being the only Tour winner to be
> found positive, then has caused further damage to the sport by draging
> the anti-doping processes through the mud. As well as having the cheek
> to ask fans to pay for his defense.
ASO, WADA, and UCI decided they wanted to find their
own champion guilty. They're idiots. There are better
ways to clean up the sport. Now they are in scrap with
somebody who will take the fight to them. Floyd knows
they can keep him out of cycling, but he will make them hurt.
> I stress that I'm not saying he is guilty, (although I certainly
> believe he doped in the past), but am laying out the facts as they
> stand if he did indeed do it. In which case, I don't know how he
> sleeps at night.
Nice.
> Only Floyd and a few others know the full truth. But, Floyd, if you
> did do it, own the hell up. Because if you are lying, you are helping
> to kill the sport you proport to love. Not just once, but many times
> over.
>
> If he is innocent, then all the above is irrelevant.
Nice squared.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 10:01:26
From: Scott
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
On May 7, 10:41 am, "derFah...@gmail.com" <derFah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On May 7, 11:22 am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > For me, admiration for Basso's confession would only be warranted if
> > he'd confessed while under no suspicion whatsoever. Then I'd know
> > that it was his conscience that got to him, not a sense of impending
> > doom. It's not that hard to confess when you know you're about to be
> > found guilty, anyway. Criminals do it all the time.
>
> Has anyone confessed while under no suspicion (not counting guys who
> had quit, were retired, or were going to retire anyway)?
>
> Justin Spinelli? Don't think he was ever caught with anything as I
> recall.
>
> Guys seem to do what they best for their situation. If you're at the
> end of your career ... a suspension is the end, so you might as well
> deny. Basso could take the suspension and race again. The Landis
> thing is puzzling ... why would you blow through so much $ on legal
> expenses fighting it ... when even if he wins it's doubtful he would
> race again. And even if cleared would he ever make it up?
>
> As much as I despise Pound ... he does have a point in the "deny,
> deny, deny" statement.
> B.
Floyd, if cleared, will make up lot's of money, if he can show that
there was any sort of deliberate effort to convict him in the absence
of evidence. He'll likely follow with a civil suit against Pound,
WADA, the French lab, etc... for lost wages, earning power, etc...
Plus, if he prevails, his book sales and speaking fees will bring in
mucho deniro.
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 09:41:26
From: derFahrer@gmail.com
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
On May 7, 11:22 am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> For me, admiration for Basso's confession would only be warranted if
> he'd confessed while under no suspicion whatsoever. Then I'd know
> that it was his conscience that got to him, not a sense of impending
> doom. It's not that hard to confess when you know you're about to be
> found guilty, anyway. Criminals do it all the time.
Has anyone confessed while under no suspicion (not counting guys who
had quit, were retired, or were going to retire anyway)?
Justin Spinelli? Don't think he was ever caught with anything as I
recall.
Guys seem to do what they best for their situation. If you're at the
end of your career ... a suspension is the end, so you might as well
deny. Basso could take the suspension and race again. The Landis
thing is puzzling ... why would you blow through so much $ on legal
expenses fighting it ... when even if he wins it's doubtful he would
race again. And even if cleared would he ever make it up?
As much as I despise Pound ... he does have a point in the "deny,
deny, deny" statement.
B.
|
| | |
Date: 07 May 2007 15:04:07
From: Jim Boyer
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
<derFahrer@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1178556086.042204.80740@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 7, 11:22 am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For me, admiration for Basso's confession would only be warranted if
>> he'd confessed while under no suspicion whatsoever. Then I'd know
>> that it was his conscience that got to him, not a sense of impending
>> doom. It's not that hard to confess when you know you're about to be
>> found guilty, anyway. Criminals do it all the time.
>
> Has anyone confessed while under no suspicion (not counting guys who
> had quit, were retired, or were going to retire anyway)?
>
> Justin Spinelli? Don't think he was ever caught with anything as I
> recall.
>
> Guys seem to do what they best for their situation. If you're at the
> end of your career ... a suspension is the end, so you might as well
> deny. Basso could take the suspension and race again. The Landis
> thing is puzzling ... why would you blow through so much $ on legal
> expenses fighting it ...
Amish Honor?? Having grown up near Floyd's part of PA and being familiar
with the community standards I'd be unbearably devastated if caught.
jim
|
| | |
Date: 07 May 2007 14:25:30
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
On 7 May 2007 09:41:26 -0700, "derFahrer@gmail.com"
<derFahrer@gmail.com > wrote:
>Has anyone confessed while under no suspicion (not counting guys who
>had quit, were retired, or were going to retire anyway)?
Sure. Guy wrote a letter to the IRS, enclosed with a money order for $
150. The letter said, " I underpaid my taxes and feel so guilty, have
had trouble sleeping at night ever since. If I find I still can't get
to sleep, I'll send the rest."
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | |
Date: 07 May 2007 19:00:10
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
derFahrer@gmail.com wrote:
> Has anyone confessed while under no suspicion (not counting guys who
> had quit, were retired, or were going to retire anyway)?
Close: Marc Lotz confessed to using EPO and showed the authorities the
ampoules in his freezer where they didn't find them during a house
search the day before. They weren't actually looking for EPO, "just"
steroids and pills.
Also see
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/jan07/jan24news (search
for Lotz) for a nice theory/allegation (not consistent with what Lotz
said, that his downstairs neighbour, a bodybuilder, ratted him out).
--
E. Dronkert
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 09:29:11
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
Leo, from Europe wrote:
> On May 7, 7:08 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Those little flaps on the sides of your glasses are called blinders.
>
> Not wearing glasses, thank you. Maybe I am getting blind.
Uh oh. It's happening to me, too. See what our parents told us when
we were kids is true! "Stop that or you'll go blind!" ;)
> > I think yours are adjusted far too narrowly. Leaking lab results and
> > DickPounding Landis to any camera or reporter with a recorder is
> > hardly keeping your mouth shut.
>
> Not talking about Pound & McQuaid.
See? Blinders. If they'd kept their mouths shut and not tried to
convict through influencing public opinion, Floyd probably wouldn't
have tried to defend through public opinion.
> > You don't have to like Floyd to admit that he has a right to voice his
> > side of the story and defend himself anyway he sees fit. Whether he's
> > guilty or not, whether you like it or not.
>
> You are perfectly right. And I am just saying I like Basso more than
> Floyd.
I'm right? It was bound to happen sooner or later - wish I'd been
paying attention to what I was saying!
R
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 09:16:18
From: Leo, from Europe
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
On May 7, 7:08 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com > wrote:
> Those little flaps on the sides of your glasses are called blinders.
Not wearing glasses, thank you. Maybe I am getting blind.
> I think yours are adjusted far too narrowly. Leaking lab results and
> DickPounding Landis to any camera or reporter with a recorder is
> hardly keeping your mouth shut.
Not talking about Pound & McQuaid.
> You don't have to like Floyd to admit that he has a right to voice his
> side of the story and defend himself anyway he sees fit. Whether he's
> guilty or not, whether you like it or not.
You are perfectly right. And I am just saying I like Basso more than
Floyd.
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 09:12:01
From: Leo, from Europe
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
On May 7, 7:07 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
> Excuse me? It was McQuaid, a couple days after the TdF, who announced that
> the "worst case scenario" was upon us. Well before testing of the B samples.
> And in violation of protocol. Hardly an indication of the other side keeping
> their mouth shut. Floyd was being tried in the court of public opinion long
> before he had a chance to begin to defend himself.
Well, technically it was Floyd and his team.
But I am talking about now-a-days. He and his lawyers are pointing to
all sort of technical mistakes, procedure faults, unreliability of
methods, while his 'opponents' can't reply.
|
| | |
Date: 08 May 2007 00:12:28
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
In article <1178554321.863800.29450@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
"Leo, from Europe" <leopejo@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On May 7, 7:07 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Excuse me? It was McQuaid, a couple days after the TdF, who announced that
> > the "worst case scenario" was upon us. Well before testing of the B samples.
> > And in violation of protocol. Hardly an indication of the other side keeping
> > their mouth shut. Floyd was being tried in the court of public opinion long
> > before he had a chance to begin to defend himself.
>
> Well, technically it was Floyd and his team.
>
> But I am talking about now-a-days. He and his lawyers are pointing to
> all sort of technical mistakes, procedure faults, unreliability of
> methods, while his 'opponents' can't reply.
In fairness to Floyd, he is attempting, with whatever motive, to
fundraise for his rather expensive defence.
I have no reason to believe, given what a pro with Floyd's palmares
earns, that he hasn't exhausted much of his personal resources fighting
this.
Given that, when he does his talk-and-beg show, it would be a rather
thin thing if he couldn't say why his cause was just, and demonstrate
some hope that his case will be overturned on the evidence.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 09:09:05
From: Scott
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
On May 7, 10:03 am, "Leo, from Europe" <leop...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On May 7, 6:22 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why do you admire him more than Floyd? Assuming for even a moment
> > that Floyd's not the stupidest man alive and spending millions on a
>
> A big assumption.
>
> > doom. It's not that hard to confess when you know you're about to be
> > found guilty, anyway. Criminals do it all the time.
>
> Well Basso hasn't been found guilty yet. Floyd has, and hasn't
> confessed.
>
> What I don't like about Floyd is the fundraising, the hiring of top
> notch lawyers, the massive media campaign. This while the other side
> is obliged to keep the mouth shut (for now, they are removing this
> requirement).
Floyd hasn't been found guilty. He's been charged. His hearing isn't
until next week. Time will tell if he's found guilty. We'll never
really know if he is in fact guilty, unless he confesses.
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 09:08:28
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
Leo, from Europe wrote:
> On May 7, 6:22 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why do you admire him more than Floyd? Assuming for even a moment
> > that Floyd's not the stupidest man alive and spending millions on a
>
> A big assumption.
>
> > doom. It's not that hard to confess when you know you're about to be
> > found guilty, anyway. Criminals do it all the time.
>
> Well Basso hasn't been found guilty yet. Floyd has, and hasn't
> confessed.
>
> What I don't like about Floyd is the fundraising, the hiring of top
> notch lawyers, the massive media campaign. This while the other side
> is obliged to keep the mouth shut (for now, they are removing this
> requirement).
Those little flaps on the sides of your glasses are called blinders.
I think yours are adjusted far too narrowly. Leaking lab results and
DickPounding Landis to any camera or reporter with a recorder is
hardly keeping your mouth shut.
You don't have to like Floyd to admit that he has a right to voice his
side of the story and defend himself anyway he sees fit. Whether he's
guilty or not, whether you like it or not.
R
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 09:03:09
From: Leo, from Europe
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
On May 7, 6:22 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Why do you admire him more than Floyd? Assuming for even a moment
> that Floyd's not the stupidest man alive and spending millions on a
A big assumption.
> doom. It's not that hard to confess when you know you're about to be
> found guilty, anyway. Criminals do it all the time.
Well Basso hasn't been found guilty yet. Floyd has, and hasn't
confessed.
What I don't like about Floyd is the fundraising, the hiring of top
notch lawyers, the massive media campaign. This while the other side
is obliged to keep the mouth shut (for now, they are removing this
requirement).
|
| | |
Date: 07 May 2007 10:18:16
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
In article
<1178553789.260059.158160@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
"Leo, from Europe" <leopejo@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On May 7, 6:22 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why do you admire him more than Floyd? Assuming for even a moment
> > that Floyd's not the stupidest man alive and spending millions on a
>
> A big assumption.
>
> > doom. It's not that hard to confess when you know you're about to be
> > found guilty, anyway. Criminals do it all the time.
>
> Well Basso hasn't been found guilty yet. Floyd has, and hasn't
> confessed.
>
> What I don't like about Floyd is the fundraising, the hiring of top
> notch lawyers, the massive media campaign. This while the other side
> is obliged to keep the mouth shut (for now, they are removing this
> requirement).
The brass of the man, defending himself. That's grounds for
conviction on the face of it.
--
Michael Press
|
| | |
Date: 07 May 2007 09:07:55
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
>> Why do you admire him more than Floyd? Assuming for even a moment
>> that Floyd's not the stupidest man alive and spending millions on a
>
> A big assumption.
>
>> doom. It's not that hard to confess when you know you're about to be
>> found guilty, anyway. Criminals do it all the time.
>
> Well Basso hasn't been found guilty yet. Floyd has, and hasn't
> confessed.
>
> What I don't like about Floyd is the fundraising, the hiring of top
> notch lawyers, the massive media campaign. This while the other side
> is obliged to keep the mouth shut (for now, they are removing this
> requirement).
Excuse me? It was McQuaid, a couple days after the TdF, who announced that
the "worst case scenario" was upon us. Well before testing of the B samples.
And in violation of protocol. Hardly an indication of the other side keeping
their mouth shut. Floyd was being tried in the court of public opinion long
before he had a chance to begin to defend himself.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 08:22:18
From: Scott
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
On May 7, 9:14 am, "Leo, from Europe" <leop...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On May 7, 6:06 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I can't wait for all the jock sniffers to come out saying how "brave"
> > he is.
>
> I guess I am a 'jock sniffer' then, since I admire him more than, say,
> a Floyd or Tyler.
>
> Could you please explain which kind of jock sniffer I am?
>
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jock+sniffer
>
> Thanks!
Why do you admire him more than Floyd? Assuming for even a moment
that Floyd's not the stupidest man alive and spending millions on a
futile defense, all the while knowing he's guilty, when in fact he is
innocent and being railroaded by a corrupt system, why would you
admire a newly confessed doper more than him?
Maybe Floyd hasn't confessed because he knows he didn't do anything,
and perhaps Basso did confess 'cause he knows he's guilty as hell and
didn't have a chance in hell of salvaging his reputation or career any
other way than by confessing?
For me, admiration for Basso's confession would only be warranted if
he'd confessed while under no suspicion whatsoever. Then I'd know
that it was his conscience that got to him, not a sense of impending
doom. It's not that hard to confess when you know you're about to be
found guilty, anyway. Criminals do it all the time.
S.
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 08:14:19
From: Leo, from Europe
Subject: Re: All you apologists can shut up now.
|
On May 7, 6:06 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> I can't wait for all the jock sniffers to come out saying how "brave"
> he is.
I guess I am a 'jock sniffer' then, since I admire him more than, say,
a Floyd or Tyler.
Could you please explain which kind of jock sniffer I am?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jock+sniffer
Thanks!
|
|
