Don't Ask Lance's Team

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 29 Jul 2007 18:59:06
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Don't Ask Lance's Team

.......Despite the massive fallout from doping at this year's Tour, some
teams still clam up when it comes to talking about drug use in the sport.

Discovery Channel spokesman P.J. Rabice said Friday that team officials
would not answer any more questions from one reporter who, he said, asked
only "negative" questions -- about doping........

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/more/07/28/bc.cyc.tourdefrance.dop.ap/index.html

Date: 02 Aug 2007 05:21:35
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Aug 2, 2:09 am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

>
> You know, why does it matter to anyone what I look like? Does it prove anything?
> Of course not. What's funny is that when I point out how foolish Tom's constant macho
> posturing is, his response is more macho posturing. Tom trying to critique someone
> for using "this group to try to find some manliness that he lacked in spades in
> person" is further evidence that he is quite hung up on machismo. Oh well, party like
> it's 1699...
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I have no idea why it matters to Tom unless he plans on finding you.
I thought the bit about reading what a person was like by their facial/
cranial structure went out with gaslights.
I'm not sure what Tom thinks you should look like but, I think, you'd
have to start with the antichrist, add some Stalin, every dirty hippie/
junkie/homeless stereotype you've ever seen and heard and roll them
all together, but uglier.
Didn't you know that every male with long hair is scum, and all guys
with "parts on the left" or buzzcuts are great humans?
Bill C

Date: 03 Aug 2007 01:55:26
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1186057295.045093.52930@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> I'm not sure what Tom thinks you should look like

If Howard wasn't trying to hide something why is he afraid to identify
himself?

Date: 02 Aug 2007 21:42:55
From: Carl Sundquist
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote in message
news:iWvsi.14522$zA4.3235@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:1186057295.045093.52930@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> I'm not sure what Tom thinks you should look like
>
> If Howard wasn't trying to hide something why is he afraid to identify
> himself?

I could be wrong, but I don't think he cares.

Date: 03 Aug 2007 02:59:12
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

"Carl Sundquist" <carlsun@cox.net > wrote in message
news:5Dwsi.17330$lZ7.13330@newsfe20.lga...
>
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> news:iWvsi.14522$zA4.3235@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:1186057295.045093.52930@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what Tom thinks you should look like
>>
>> If Howard wasn't trying to hide something why is he afraid to identify
>> himself?
>
> I could be wrong, but I don't think he cares.

I believe you're wrong. My guess is that he has such a low opinion of
himself that he wouldn't show his face here again if people knew what he
looked like. I believe that his low self esteem is what drives his dipshit
postings.

Date: 02 Aug 2007 23:51:13
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

In article <4Swsi.14536$zA4.8534@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "Carl Sundquist" <carlsun@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:5Dwsi.17330$lZ7.13330@newsfe20.lga...

> > I could be wrong, but I don't think he cares.
>
> I believe you're wrong. My guess is that he has such a low opinion of
> himself that he wouldn't show his face here again if people knew what he
> looked like. I believe that his low self esteem is what drives his dipshit
> postings.

Oh, so now Tom's a psychiatrist. Well, your skills as a shrink are as sadly
lacking as your skills as most anything else you claim to be. You seem to think that
I need to prove something - you're mistaken. You, on the other hand sure work hard at
proving something,namely how big and important you are. The repeated references to
your physical size and the high school you attended (what, 45 years ago?), regular
menacing others in this forum, listing the bikes you own and a multitude of other
behaviors all point toward someone who has a serious need to prove to others that
he's important. Thanks for walking right into that one, by the way.

Ewoud posted a link and you pretty much denied that anyone in the picture matched
what you *expect* me to look like. Pictures have been posted but, you know, what I
look like *still doesn't matter* - based on the above bloviating you did, you have
some standard of "manliness" that you believe I don't live up to. That's the
important issue here: "manliness" and your obsession with it.

You want macho? Here ya go, big boy:

http://tinyurl.com/26qhzn

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 03 Aug 2007 14:15:42
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-50AD8C.23511302082007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> The repeated references to
> your physical size and the high school you attended (what, 45 years ago?),
> regular
> menacing others in this forum, listing the bikes you own and a multitude
> of other
> behaviors all point toward someone who has a serious need to prove to
> others that
> he's important. Thanks for walking right into that one, by the way.

I noticed that you still haven't posted a picture and you seem to know where
the pictures of queers are. Does that carry meaning?

Date: 03 Aug 2007 20:41:34
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

In article <iMGsi.13151$tj6.2392@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> news:YOURhoward-50AD8C.23511302082007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > The repeated references toyour physical size and the high school you attended
> > (what, 45 years ago?), regular menacing others in this forum, listing the
> > bikes you own and a multitude of other behaviors all point toward someone who
> > has a serious need to prove to others that he's important. Thanks for walking
> > right into that one, by the way.
>
> I noticed that you still haven't posted a picture and you seem to know where
> the pictures of queers are. Does that carry meaning?

You're quite slow on the uptake, aren't you, T? Links to pics of me have been
posted several times over the years, including in this thread. You, Tom, stated that
the H in one didn't look like what you think I do. Reality doesn't fit your agenda?
Dismiss it! By the way, your theory that I'd run away sobbing if the readers of this
forum saw me seems to not be holding water. You claim you saw me riding but won't
say where (then you contradict yourself and speculate: "My guess is that he doesn't
ride" - you're one confused dude). Oh well, what can you say about someone who thinks
putting a photo of themself up on Ken's page is a measure of their manliness and
courage...

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 04 Aug 2007 09:12:10
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <iMGsi.13151$tj6.2392@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
>> news:YOURhoward-50AD8C.23511302082007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>>> The repeated references toyour physical size and the high school you attended
>>> (what, 45 years ago?), regular menacing others in this forum, listing the
>>> bikes you own and a multitude of other behaviors all point toward someone who
>>> has a serious need to prove to others that he's important. Thanks for walking
>>> right into that one, by the way.
>> I noticed that you still haven't posted a picture and you seem to know where
>> the pictures of queers are. Does that carry meaning?
>
> You're quite slow on the uptake, aren't you, T? Links to pics of me have been
> posted several times over the years, including in this thread. You, Tom, stated that
> the H in one didn't look like what you think I do. Reality doesn't fit your agenda?
> Dismiss it! By the way, your theory that I'd run away sobbing if the readers of this
> forum saw me seems to not be holding water. You claim you saw me riding but won't
> say where (then you contradict yourself and speculate: "My guess is that he doesn't
> ride" - you're one confused dude). Oh well, what can you say about someone who thinks
> putting a photo of themself up on Ken's page is a measure of their manliness and
> courage...
>
Howard looks quite dashing while Kunich looks like a clown.

Some people shouldn't post their photos.

Date: 04 Aug 2007 17:23:45
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

Kyle Legate schreef:
> Some people shouldn't post their photos.

Sorry.

--
E. Dronkert

Date: 04 Aug 2007 23:18:36
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> Kyle Legate schreef:
>> Some people shouldn't post their photos.
>
> Sorry.
>
>
No no, you misunderstand. If Kunich didn't post his photo people
wouldn't know he looks like a clown and maybe he would have some respect
around here. By posting Howard's photo you may have inadvertently given
Heather some fresh fantasy material which can only be thought of as a
good thing for all involved.

Date: 05 Aug 2007 17:14:57
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

Kyle Legate schreef:
> Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
>> Kyle Legate schreef:
>>> Some people shouldn't post their photos.
>>
>> Sorry.
>>
> No no, you misunderstand.

I was kidding. I know people want to see my photos. Or perhaps those of
Ilan even more.

--
E. Dronkert

Date: 05 Aug 2007 21:31:52
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

"Ewoud Dronkert" <firstname@lastname.net.invalid > wrote in message
news:46b5e982$0$228$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> I was kidding. I know people want to see my photos. Or perhaps those of
> Ilan even more.

At least your photos (and those of Ilan) don't interfere with the process of
digestion.

Date: 06 Aug 2007 00:54:21
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote in
news:clrti.13286$tj6.12939@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> "Ewoud Dronkert" <firstname@lastname.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:46b5e982$0$228$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>>
>> I was kidding. I know people want to see my photos. Or perhaps those
>> of Ilan even more.
>
> At least your photos (and those of Ilan) don't interfere with the
> process of digestion.
>
>

I would just like to get a word in here and make the point that it is
threads like this that get me through the August doldrums.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 05 Aug 2007 18:50:15
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

In article <Xns9983B62624AADFkldeltaC@130.133.1.4 >, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
> news:clrti.13286$tj6.12939@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> > "Ewoud Dronkert" <firstname@lastname.net.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:46b5e982$0$228$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> >>
> >> I was kidding. I know people want to see my photos. Or perhaps those
> >> of Ilan even more.
> >
> > At least your photos (and those of Ilan) don't interfere with the
> > process of digestion.
> >
> >
>
> I would just like to get a word in here and make the point that it is
> threads like this that get me through the August doldrums.

Oh, so you're done with the drum circle out in the woods.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 06 Aug 2007 03:19:15
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in
news:YOURhoward-0C1EBC.18501505082007@comcast.dca.giganews.com:

> In article <Xns9983B62624AADFkldeltaC@130.133.1.4>, William Asher
> <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
>> news:clrti.13286$tj6.12939@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>>
>> > "Ewoud Dronkert" <firstname@lastname.net.invalid> wrote in message
>> > news:46b5e982$0$228$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>> >>
>> >> I was kidding. I know people want to see my photos. Or perhaps
>> >> those of Ilan even more.
>> >
>> > At least your photos (and those of Ilan) don't interfere with the
>> > process of digestion.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I would just like to get a word in here and make the point that it is
>> threads like this that get me through the August doldrums.
>
> Oh, so you're done with the drum circle out in the woods.
>

Yeah, the drum thing didn't work out. The mosquitos were fierce, nobody
remembered to bring a corkscrew for the chablis, and you could barely
hear the drums over all the goddamned cell phones and blackberries
buzzing and beeping. (If John Cage were alive he would write a symphony
for cell phone ring tones.) To top it off, somebody ran the battery down
in my Saab playing Yanni cds.

Next time I want to get in touch with my masculinity I'll just send a
picture of somebody I don't know to Ken Papai.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 05 Aug 2007 22:42:52
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

In article <Xns9983CEB8AEDF8FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4 >, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in
> news:YOURhoward-0C1EBC.18501505082007@comcast.dca.giganews.com:
>
> > In article <Xns9983B62624AADFkldeltaC@130.133.1.4>, William Asher
> > <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
> >> news:clrti.13286$tj6.12939@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> >>
> >> > "Ewoud Dronkert" <firstname@lastname.net.invalid> wrote in message
> >> > news:46b5e982$0$228$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> >> >>
> >> >> I was kidding. I know people want to see my photos. Or perhaps
> >> >> those of Ilan even more.
> >> >
> >> > At least your photos (and those of Ilan) don't interfere with the
> >> > process of digestion.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> I would just like to get a word in here and make the point that it is
> >> threads like this that get me through the August doldrums.
> >
> > Oh, so you're done with the drum circle out in the woods.
> >
>
> Yeah, the drum thing didn't work out. The mosquitos were fierce, nobody
> remembered to bring a corkscrew for the chablis, and you could barely
> hear the drums over all the goddamned cell phones and blackberries
> buzzing and beeping. (If John Cage were alive he would write a symphony
> for cell phone ring tones.) To top it off, somebody ran the battery down
> in my Saab playing Yanni cds.

Hmm, I'm wondering what you do with your Blackberry and cell phone when you're
wearing a loincloth. I'm also wondering where you all get your loincloths drycleaned.

> Next time I want to get in touch with my masculinity I'll just send a
> picture of somebody I don't know to Ken Papai.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/1239875f48488bb2?hl

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 05 Aug 2007 18:56:52
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> I was kidding. I know people want to see my photos. Or perhaps those of
> Ilan even more.

Not to mention your road rash.

Date: 04 Aug 2007 23:25:25
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

Kyle Legate wrote:
> No no, you misunderstand. If Kunich didn't post his photo people
> wouldn't know he looks like a clown and maybe he would have some respect
> around here. By posting Howard's photo you may have inadvertently given
> Heather some fresh fantasy material which can only be thought of as a
> good thing for all involved.

heathers been away so long I'm beginning to think she was just another
SchwartzSoft bot (I hope Schwartz changed his underwear after debugging
her).

Date: 05 Aug 2007 08:30:32
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

Donald Munro wrote:
> Kyle Legate wrote:
>> No no, you misunderstand. If Kunich didn't post his photo people
>> wouldn't know he looks like a clown and maybe he would have some respect
>> around here. By posting Howard's photo you may have inadvertently given
>> Heather some fresh fantasy material which can only be thought of as a
>> good thing for all involved.
>
> heathers been away so long I'm beginning to think she was just another
> SchwartzSoft bot (I hope Schwartz changed his underwear after debugging
> her).
>
I was hoping that mentioning her name would start heather.exe.

Date: 01 Aug 2007 12:25:06
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Aug 1, 8:29 am, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote:

<snip >

> Even Kunick is not always wrong.

Dumbass -

Oh, the irony.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 01 Aug 2007 08:39:49
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Aug 1, 10:19 am, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:

>
> The UCI/WADA association is silly and is only necessary because of the Olympics.
> Start running bike racing like a professional sport with pro dope rules and pro
> enforcement.
>
> Ron- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You're making sense. They could very happily help the riders establish
a real union, work together on an agreed framework, and make tons of
money, just like the other pro sports do.
Never gonna happen as long as politicians and bureaucrats who
contribute nothing can make use of the sport for their own gain.
Bill C

Date: 01 Aug 2007 06:06:38
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Jul 31, 9:25 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1185926943.254505.119930@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 31, 6:50 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >> I hope to meet you someday Howard.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Hey Tom
> > Real tough guys don't need to posture and threaten anyone.
>
> I'm not threatening him. I want a picture of Howard to post so that everyone
> can see who has been posting his stuff. It's amazing to meet some of the
> people who post here the way they do. Sheffield is actually a pretty nice
> guy in person. Too bad his postings are braindead. Mike Jacoubowsky is just
> as straight up in person as he is here. But the loudest mouth from a couple
> of years back is a little weasel who used this group to try to find some
> manliness that he lacked in spades in person.
>
> That's mostly why they are the faces that never made it to Ken's site.

I've seen a picture of Howard. Don't have it, or remember exactly why
I did see it. Looks pretty average for a bike racer if I remember
correctly.
If he was riding here, or walking around downtown here he'd blend
right in.
Bill C

Date: 05 Aug 2007 19:21:24
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Aug 5, 9:50 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> In article <Xns9983B62624AADFkldel...@130.133.1.4>, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
> >news:clrti.13286$tj6.12939@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> > > "Ewoud Dronkert" <firstn...@lastname.net.invalid> wrote in message
> > >news:46b5e982$0$228$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> > >> I was kidding. I know people want to see my photos. Or perhaps those
> > >> of Ilan even more.
>
> > > At least your photos (and those of Ilan) don't interfere with the
> > > process of digestion.
>
> > I would just like to get a word in here and make the point that it is
> > threads like this that get me through the August doldrums.
>
> Oh, so you're done with the drum circle out in the woods.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm amused. My daughter is sitting here in her "Rites of Spring" t-
shirt from this spring's Wiccan/Pagan observances.
Bill C

Date: 06 Aug 2007 03:13:22
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in
news:1186366884.205030.117910@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

>
> I'm amused. My daughter is sitting here in her "Rites of Spring" t-
> shirt from this spring's Wiccan/Pagan observances.

You're only going to have yourself to blame when she brings home some guy
named Earthsong Melody to meet you.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 01 Aug 2007 23:09:21
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

In article <1185973598.927939.111310@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com >,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:

> On Jul 31, 9:25 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1185926943.254505.119930@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > On Jul 31, 6:50 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >
> > >> I hope to meet you someday Howard.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > Hey Tom
> > > Real tough guys don't need to posture and threaten anyone.
> >
> > I'm not threatening him. I want a picture of Howard to post so that everyone
> > can see who has been posting his stuff. It's amazing to meet some of the
> > people who post here the way they do. Sheffield is actually a pretty nice
> > guy in person. Too bad his postings are braindead. Mike Jacoubowsky is just
> > as straight up in person as he is here. But the loudest mouth from a couple
> > of years back is a little weasel who used this group to try to find some
> > manliness that he lacked in spades in person.
> >
> > That's mostly why they are the faces that never made it to Ken's site.
>
> I've seen a picture of Howard. Don't have it, or remember exactly why
> I did see it. Looks pretty average for a bike racer if I remember
> correctly.
> If he was riding here, or walking around downtown here he'd blend
> right in.

You know, why does it matter to anyone what I look like? Does it prove anything?
Of course not. What's funny is that when I point out how foolish Tom's constant macho
posturing is, his response is more macho posturing. Tom trying to critique someone
for using "this group to try to find some manliness that he lacked in spades in
person" is further evidence that he is quite hung up on machismo. Oh well, party like
it's 1699...

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 01 Aug 2007 15:32:48
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

Bill C wrote:
> I've seen a picture of Howard.

I have a picture of Howard.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ewoud/cycling/edhk.jpg

--
E. Dronkert

Date: 02 Aug 2007 00:59:34
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

"Ewoud Dronkert" <firstname@lastname.net.invalid > wrote in message
news:7q21b3pfi58et9sj14fa6i3nnp9ffht9gk@4ax.com...
> Bill C wrote:
>> I've seen a picture of Howard.
>
> I have a picture of Howard.
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~ewoud/cycling/edhk.jpg

Well, unless he gained a lot of weight he isn't the guy I saw riding. My
guess is that he never raced, and doesn't ride. Instead he posts here and on
the motorcycle sites.

Date: 01 Aug 2007 23:09:18
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

In article <W%9si.14483$zA4.13980@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "Ewoud Dronkert" <firstname@lastname.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:7q21b3pfi58et9sj14fa6i3nnp9ffht9gk@4ax.com...
> > Bill C wrote:
> >> I've seen a picture of Howard.
> >
> > I have a picture of Howard.
> > http://www.xs4all.nl/~ewoud/cycling/edhk.jpg
>
> Well, unless he gained a lot of weight he isn't the guy I saw riding. My
> guess is that he never raced, and doesn't ride. Instead he posts here and on
> the motorcycle sites.

What, are you saying the two in that photo are fatties? Where do you think you've
seen me ride? And if you think you've seen me ride, why do you then try to claim that
I don't ride? "Your guess"? That's silly.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 01 Aug 2007 00:32:07
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Jul 31, 10:38 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> > > Hell, even innocent people
> > > could benefit from discretion, if there were any.
>
> > Discretion is an expensive commodity these days.
>
> Nobody is front loading cash in my yard.
> Who's buying?

Sorry - I promised not to say.

Ben

Date: 31 Jul 2007 17:09:03
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Jul 31, 6:50 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
>
> news:YOURhoward-F4E293.23292630072007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <Kmuri.14160$zA4.1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >> "Doug Taylor" <dtay...@dreamscape.com> wrote in message
> >>news:3ijra3loe51njqjt6qt0ii0sdmdo9ckgvv@4ax.com...
>
> >> > Did anyone ever tell you what a lame tool you are?
>
> >> Yeah, lots of people here but none brave enough to say it to my face.
> >> Guess
> >> that puts your in a general catagory of whimps.
>
> > Tom, aren't you old enough to realize how lame the macho posturing thing
> > you
> > constantly do is? The only thing more pitiful than some guy acting all
> > badass and
> > tough is a guy acting all badass and tough on usenet. Yeah, you're 6'4",
> > 200 pounds
> > of rippling muscle and you went to Castlemont High in Oakland. Big fucking
> > deal. I
> > guess you don't understand that's one of the reasons why so many people
> > think of you
> > as a class A putz.
>
> I hope to meet you someday Howard.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hey Tom
Real tough guys don't need to posture and threaten anyone.

Chuck Liddell is obviously a gay, man hugging pansy according to some
of the clowns here, and he paints his toenails.
I'd take Chuck against anyone I know since the one person who
might've taken him down had a massive heart attack at 45 a few years
ago.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=glock/070514

Bill C

Date: 01 Aug 2007 01:25:38
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1185926943.254505.119930@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 31, 6:50 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> I hope to meet you someday Howard.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Hey Tom
> Real tough guys don't need to posture and threaten anyone.

I'm not threatening him. I want a picture of Howard to post so that everyone
can see who has been posting his stuff. It's amazing to meet some of the
people who post here the way they do. Sheffield is actually a pretty nice
guy in person. Too bad his postings are braindead. Mike Jacoubowsky is just
as straight up in person as he is here. But the loudest mouth from a couple
of years back is a little weasel who used this group to try to find some
manliness that he lacked in spades in person.

That's mostly why they are the faces that never made it to Ken's site.

Date: 01 Aug 2007 16:51:33
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:1185926943.254505.119930@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 31, 6:50 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I hope to meet you someday Howard.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> Hey Tom
>> Real tough guys don't need to posture and threaten anyone.
>
> I'm not threatening him. I want a picture of Howard to post so that
> everyone can see who has been posting his stuff. It's amazing to meet
> some of the people who post here the way they do. Sheffield is
> actually a pretty nice guy in person. Too bad his postings are
> braindead. Mike Jacoubowsky is just as straight up in person as he is
> here. But the loudest mouth from a couple of years back is a little
> weasel who used this group to try to find some manliness that he
> lacked in spades in person.
>
> That's mostly why they are the faces that never made it to Ken's site.

You honestly believe that sending a picture to Ken for posting to a website
is a sign of courage and manliness? I would write more, but I have to go
my drum circle in the woods now.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 31 Jul 2007 08:14:14
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Jul 31, 12:05 am, Morten Reippuert Knudsen<s...@reippuert.dk >
wrote:
> b...@mambo.ucolick.org <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
> > However, catching dumb dopers - or guys dumb enough
> > to use a doctor who goes too far, like Fuentes
>
> To me it doesn't seem that Fuentes wen't too far, his little buisness
> was just uncovered. Very few of his clients ever tested positive except
> from two who mixed op their blogbags. Fuentes clients passed EPO tests
> for years.
>

That's the point, he was uncovered because he went too far.
It may seem like a circular definition, but his operation
was likely to get caught eventually - too many cyclists
making trips to a certain apartment, bags full of blood
all in one location, dopey codenames.

For example, Ferrari got busted with his little codebook
full of asterisks, but everything was circumstantial
(I mean, I don't believe he was innocent, but the evidence
wasn't going to send him to prison). You don't see
Ferrari getting oopsed in an apartment full of blood bags.
That is probably one reason LANCE was paying him the
big bucks - discretion. Hell, even innocent people
could benefit from discretion, if there were any.

Ben
Tony Soprano sez, don't shit where you eat.

Date: 31 Jul 2007 11:30:01
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> For example, Ferrari got busted with his little codebook
> full of asterisks, but everything was circumstantial
> (I mean, I don't believe he was innocent, but the evidence
> wasn't going to send him to prison). You don't see
> Ferrari getting oopsed in an apartment full of blood bags.
> That is probably one reason LANCE was paying him the
> big bucks - discretion. Hell, even innocent people
> could benefit from discretion, if there were any.

Discretion is an expensive commodity these days.

Date: 01 Aug 2007 05:38:00
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

In article
<46af00ca$0$4364$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com >,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:

> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> > For example, Ferrari got busted with his little codebook
> > full of asterisks, but everything was circumstantial
> > (I mean, I don't believe he was innocent, but the evidence
> > wasn't going to send him to prison). You don't see
> > Ferrari getting oopsed in an apartment full of blood bags.
> > That is probably one reason LANCE was paying him the
> > big bucks - discretion. Hell, even innocent people
> > could benefit from discretion, if there were any.
>
> Discretion is an expensive commodity these days.

Nobody is front loading cash in my yard.
Who's buying?

--
Michael Press

Date: 30 Jul 2007 17:42:41
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Jul 30, 10:47 am, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:28:49 -0700, Kurgan Gringioni

>
> >Does it ever occur to you that not everyone has the same worldview as
> >yourself?
>
> Yeah, it did. I thought it sucked. I seriously doubt I am alone in
> that world view.

Dumbass -

That wasn't your point.

You said that if I said I really didn't care, you would doubt me.
Basically you were saying that you couldn't believe that someone could
have that opinion.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 31 Jul 2007 00:22:38
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Jul 30, 3:06 pm, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote:

> Currently, they are enforced in an inconsistent, half assed, and
> unfair manner. What I think is unfair is while the entire peloton now
> dopes, smart dopers are rewarded while stupid ones are punished.
> E.g.: Lance was a smart doper: he was never caught and won 7 TdF's.
> Vino was a stupid doper: he got caught using an easily detectable
> blood transfusion, and a great rider is now toast.
>
> So what is needed is a consistent and fair enforcement of the rules.
> In a perfect world, there would be perfect and easily administered
> tests that would catch every possible banned drug. But the world is
> not perfect, and so we are stuck in a dilemma.

Why is it unfair that smart dopers are not caught and
stupid ones are? It doesn't achieve the goal of a
dope-free sport, but since we don't live in a perfect
world, a dope-free sport is unattainable. Catching
the dumb or obvious dopers makes doping harder and
means that people have to resort to less effective
methods. That's not a bad thing.

I think dope becomes a major sporting problem when it
becomes so effective that it turns the event into a
farce. The usual rbr example of this is the Gewiss-Ballan
1-2-3. It is likely that before the 50% hematocrit
criterion, EPO was so effective that the only limit
was doctoring expertise and riders' regard for their
health, or lack thereof. That was a bad situation.
That approached the level of actual donkeys being
turned into racehorses, and it meant athletes were
risking their health.

The 50% crit limit and later the EPO test reduced
the advantage that anyone could gain from dope, so
that the sport was not clean, but it was a more
even sporting competition - donkeys couldn't any
longer beat racehorses. It's true that a smart doper
could still dope, and that a rider with the cash
to pay Ferrari had an advantage. (OTOH, a rider
with the cash for wind tunnel tests and altitude
tents also has an advantage, legally.) But in
order to stay under the radar, the dope had to be
more subtle, which means less effective, which means
more of a race.

However, catching dumb dopers - or guys dumb enough
to use a doctor who goes too far, like Fuentes - has
legitimate effects. It means they can't take easy
but very effective short cuts, like blood packing that
is easily detectable.

I agree that consistent enforcement of the rules is
desirable, but that means treating everybody who gets
caught consistently. The fact that V got caught and
A did not is not inconsistent, unless you have
evidence that they were actually doing the same thing.
It might be unfair that A is smarter than V, but V
violated the Don't Do Stupid Shit rule. Life is
unfair, but that rule is actually pretty consistent.

Ben

Date: 31 Jul 2007 09:05:13
From: Morten Reippuert Knudsen
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:

> However, catching dumb dopers - or guys dumb enough
> to use a doctor who goes too far, like Fuentes

To me it doesn't seem that Fuentes wen't too far, his little buisness
was just uncovered. Very few of his clients ever tested positive except
from two who mixed op their blogbags. Fuentes clients passed EPO tests
for years.

--
Morten Reippuert Knudsen :-) <http://blog.reippuert.dk >

Merlin Works CR-3/2.5 & Campagnolo Chorus 2007.

Date: 30 Jul 2007 13:42:55
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Jul 30, 11:50 am, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote:
> The sport will never go back to the good old days when nobody cared.

That's admitting that Omerta worked, Doug. (<g >)
>
> So what has to be figured out if there is anyway of effectively and
> fairly enforcing the rules.

I think we need different rules.

If you've really been a fugitive from justice for 40 years (ouch?),
I'd guess you'd be sympathetic to that line of reasoning.

--D-y

Date: 31 Jul 2007 00:21:44
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

In article <1185828175.196087.22600@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com >,
"dustoyevsky@mac.com" <dustoyevsky@mac.com > wrote:

> On Jul 30, 11:50 am, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com> wrote:
> > The sport will never go back to the good old days when nobody cared.
>
> That's admitting that Omerta worked, Doug. (<g>)

Allow me to sing my tedious refrain: quite a few promising cyclists died
in their sleep during the blissful Omerta Years. Some take this as an
argument in favour of medically-supervised doping (the Fuentes Gambit),
but I suspect that the dose-response effect may be intractable, and
quite different from how straight training (or a training diet) works.

> > So what has to be figured out if there is anyway of effectively and
> > fairly enforcing the rules.
>
> I think we need different rules.
>
> If you've really been a fugitive from justice for 40 years (ouch?),
> I'd guess you'd be sympathetic to that line of reasoning.

I am suspicious that we are experiencing the storm before the calm. That
is, there are a lot of riders suddenly getting busted, but we're also
hearing much less equivocation or "it's bad he got caught" type of
comments from the non-caught riders. Instead, we get expressions of
outright disgust for caught teammates (cf. Rabobank and the "I guess he
was chicken" quote from Boogerd).

I made a bad, and unintentional joke about "new blood" in the peloton,
but the metaphor may be more true than the literalism. This may be the
last gasp before a lot more riders make the calculation that the odds no
longer favour the doper.

--
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: 30 Jul 2007 11:32:44
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Jul 30, 12:50 pm, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote:

>
> So what has to be figured out if there is anyway of effectively and
> fairly enforcing the rules.
>
> Good luck.

That's what most of us are looking for. I wouldn't have included you
in that group. Fair, honoring the contracts, verifiable, transparent,
due process, aren't things I would associate with what you've had to
say.
Same problem, same cops, worse jurisprudence. I assume you advocate
at least 5 year bans for spitballs, corked bats, chop blocks, out of
spec race cars, etc???
Bill C

Date: 30 Jul 2007 19:01:40
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

Date: 30 Jul 2007 18:06:40
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:32:44 -0700, Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net >
wrote:

>On Jul 30, 12:50 pm, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> So what has to be figured out if there is anyway of effectively and
>> fairly enforcing the rules.
>>
>> Good luck.
>
>That's what most of us are looking for. I wouldn't have included you
>in that group. Fair, honoring the contracts, verifiable, transparent,
>due process, aren't things I would associate with what you've had to
>say.

Let me summarize:

Sports cannot operate without rules (unless you want a "Chinese
Downhill" http://www.tahoe-world.com/content/view/6319/37/)

Bicycle racing has many rules, equipment related as well as athlete
related, etc.

It's too late to go back to not enforcing rules against the use of
performance enhancing drugs: WADA is now embedded in the sport; most
of the public is against it; some European countries have outlawed it;
the press is all over it like flies on shit.

Consequently, it follows that the rules must be enforced.

Currently, they are enforced in an inconsistent, half assed, and
unfair manner. What I think is unfair is while the entire peloton now
dopes, smart dopers are rewarded while stupid ones are punished.
E.g.: Lance was a smart doper: he was never caught and won 7 TdF's.
Vino was a stupid doper: he got caught using an easily detectable
blood transfusion, and a great rider is now toast.

So what is needed is a consistent and fair enforcement of the rules.
In a perfect world, there would be perfect and easily administered
tests that would catch every possible banned drug. But the world is
not perfect, and so we are stuck in a dilemma.

It is very difficult to conceive how the rules could be enforced in a
manner that even a majority could agree with. You would have to
appease the two extremes of the "due process bleeding hearts" (who
have no problem with cyclists lawyering up and pulling Floyd
Landis-like circus trials) and the zero tolerance nazis (who would
punish even inadvertent use of over the counter medications which have
nothing to do with performance enhancement).

That's the "good luck" part.

Somebody came up with amnesty now, and lifetime ban later as a policy.
So far, that is the best I've heard.

You got something better?

Date: 30 Jul 2007 19:41:43
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:06:40 -0400, Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote:

>On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:32:44 -0700, Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Jul 30, 12:50 pm, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So what has to be figured out if there is anyway of effectively and
>>> fairly enforcing the rules.
>>>
>>> Good luck.
>>
>>That's what most of us are looking for. I wouldn't have included you
>>in that group. Fair, honoring the contracts, verifiable, transparent,
>>due process, aren't things I would associate with what you've had to
>>say.
>
>Let me summarize:
>
>Sports cannot operate without rules (unless you want a "Chinese
>Downhill" http://www.tahoe-world.com/content/view/6319/37/)

Make a pretty fair replacement for WADA and the CAS, dope testing by combat.

>It is very difficult to conceive how the rules could be enforced in a
>manner that even a majority could agree with. You would have to
>appease the two extremes of the "due process bleeding hearts" (who
>have no problem with cyclists lawyering up and pulling Floyd
>Landis-like circus trials) and the zero tolerance nazis (who would
>punish even inadvertent use of over the counter medications which have
>nothing to do with performance enhancement).

The first thing about the rules is that they be seen to be enforced consistently
upon all parties. Some variables are hard to control, like the varying response
to doping by the different national bodies. Others are essential to credibility.
Lab and other leaks to the press have to stop That's the first thing. The lab
work and its administration have to be a hell of a lot better than what the
Landis case showed. Penalties have to be realistic in comparison to the offense
and other professional sports. Directors of WADA, UCI and the major promoters
have to start thinking things through and acting like businessmen with a trust
instead of a pack of squabbling princelings. Apparently even Dick Pound has seen
the need to moderate his mouth.
>
>That's the "good luck" part.
>
>Somebody came up with amnesty now, and lifetime ban later as a policy.
>So far, that is the best I've heard.
>
>You got something better?

Why life? The four year protour ban is about the same thing and it isn't
working. Like law enforcement a high likelihood of being caught is more
deterence than a draconian penalty. All the career ending penalties do is give
the rider an incentive to lawyer up and deny everything. The retroactive
penalties have a similar problem.

I say demand something reasonable and get it rather than insist on perfection
and being disappointed.

Ron

Date: 31 Jul 2007 01:36:54
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

"RonSonic" <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote in message
news:4essa3l0v6gpuag1s1vk4j8hop3a09uu62@4ax.com...
>
> The first thing about the rules is that they be seen to be enforced
> consistently
> upon all parties. Some variables are hard to control, like the varying
> response
> to doping by the different national bodies. Others are essential to
> credibility.
> Lab and other leaks to the press have to stop That's the first thing.

There would be no problem whatsoever if all of the B-samples had been
shipped off to an independent and DIFFERENT lab to be tested. Instead what
we've seen is that ASO provides the result they want.

> The lab work and its administration have to be a hell of a lot better than
> what the Landis case showed.

It is my theory that they have the sort of staff that they require for the
results they want to obtain.

> Penalties have to be realistic in comparison to the offense
> and other professional sports.

The UCI, WADA and ASO are all seriously mentally deranged along these lines.

> Apparently even Dick Pound has seen the need to moderate his mouth.

I doubt that. I think that his lawyer advised him that he is about to become
a serious target for the legal profession.

> Why life? The four year protour ban is about the same thing and it isn't
> working. Like law enforcement a high likelihood of being caught is more
> deterence than a draconian penalty. All the career ending penalties do is
> give
> the rider an incentive to lawyer up and deny everything. The retroactive
> penalties have a similar problem.
>
> I say demand something reasonable and get it rather than insist on
> perfection
> and being disappointed.

Very good analysis Ron.

Another thing - leaking information should net a lifetime ban from any
office in the sport whatsoever including sweeping up the GU packets.

Date: 31 Jul 2007 10:01:03
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Another thing - leaking information should net a lifetime ban from any
> office in the sport whatsoever including sweeping up the GU packets.

Its good to hear the UCI has such influence on EU labour lawmakers.

Date: 31 Jul 2007 08:13:04
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:01:03 +0200, Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com >
wrote:

>Tom Kunich wrote:
>> Another thing - leaking information should net a lifetime ban from any
>> office in the sport whatsoever including sweeping up the GU packets.
>
>Its good to hear the UCI has such influence on EU labour lawmakers.

Well, we are talking about a sensible enforceable drug policy that tries to keep
competition more dramatic than the court cases. So why not throw in an easter
bunny also while we're at it.

Ron

Date: 30 Jul 2007 10:28:49
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Jul 30, 5:06 am, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:56:49 -0700, Kurgan Gringioni
>
> <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Drug use in western culture is a part of everyday life. I choose not
> >to get outraged about it. I wouldn't wnat to change it even if I was
> >suddenly omnipotent. Your mileage may vary.
>
> It's also a part of virtually all athletic competition and that is so
> obvious that "outrage" would be a naive and hypocritical response.
> Annoyance is more apt.
>
> You weren't annoyed when three or four crucial riders (including the
> yellow jersey), and one important team, left in the middle of the
> race? If you say no, I seriously doubt you.

<snip >

Dumbass -

No, I wasn't annoyed.

Since I don't have illusions about drug use in professional athletics
or society at large why would I? I accept the reality.

Does it ever occur to you that not everyone has the same worldview as
yourself?

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 30 Jul 2007 13:47:31
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:28:49 -0700, Kurgan Gringioni
<kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

>> You weren't annoyed when three or four crucial riders (including the
>> yellow jersey), and one important team, left in the middle of the
>> race? If you say no, I seriously doubt you.

>Dumbass -
>
>
>No, I wasn't annoyed.
>
>Since I don't have illusions about drug use in professional athletics
>or society at large why would I? I accept the reality.

You have nerves of steel and balls of brass, dude, ready and able to
take in stride life in all its absurdity and insanity. Either that or
you're another rbr bodhisattva. Good for you. Pat yourself on the
back. You da man.

>Does it ever occur to you that not everyone has the same worldview as
>yourself?

Yeah, it did. I thought it sucked. I seriously doubt I am alone in
that world view.

Date: 30 Jul 2007 09:24:29
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Jul 29, 11:12 pm, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 16:56:39 -0700, Kurgan Gringioni
>
> <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Dumbass -
>
> >It's not ignorance. Few of us rbr regulars have illusions about the
> >"cleanliness" of any professional sport.
>
> >What any of us take from the spectacle is a choice. You can enjoy it
> >for what it is or you can be frustrated at reality not being the way
> >you want it to be.
>
> Dumbass -
>
> You are correct; your characterization of the attitude of rbr regulars
> is not ignorance; it is worse: it is cynicism, as well as apathy, and
> finally denial.
>
> First: let me say I am not too much of a wanker to deny that I would
> have MUCH preferred, for pure entertainment value, to watch a showdown
> among Discovery, Rabobank, Astana, and Lotto and a battle among
> Contador, Skeletor, Kloden, Evans and Levi for the yellow and the
> podium. Dope or no dope. After too many years of no true podium
> competition, it's not hard to be cynical. I was really waiting for a
> Discovery/Astana two prong assault on Rabobank, so screw the tests and
> the politics.
>
> And so, it follows that you are apathetic if the withdrawal of Astana
> for Vino's bust, and the booting of (come on, be honest) a
> suspiciously strong Skeletor, didn't either piss you off or bum you
> out.
>
> Finally, you are in denial if you just piss on the point of the Boston
> Globe article Lafferty posted. Is it really impossible that the
> ridicule and scorn of the popular press might result in enough sponsor
> withdrawal to seriously hurt the sport if cycling? How many more
> years of half assed dope policing, where only a few riders here and
> there out of the entire doped peloton get busted and their careers
> wrecked, while others are current or retired millionaires with clean
> reputations (e.g. LANCE), can the sport take without imploding?
>
> How above it all are you rbr regulars, really?

Go do a search at the Boston Globe for the author Hohler and read the
puff pieces he's written recently celbrating Barry Bonds chase for the
HR record.
Yep that makes him credible in his anti-doping stance.
The Globe in general has real problems in it's sports dept. After
Jackie MacMullan who's is a fantastic journalist, not just sports
journalist, and Bob Ryan who is decent they are a cesspool.
Bill C

Date: 30 Jul 2007 09:09:43
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Jul 29, 11:12 pm, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 16:56:39 -0700, Kurgan Gringioni
>
> <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Dumbass -
>
> >It's not ignorance. Few of us rbr regulars have illusions about the
> >"cleanliness" of any professional sport.
>
> >What any of us take from the spectacle is a choice. You can enjoy it
> >for what it is or you can be frustrated at reality not being the way
> >you want it to be.
>
> Dumbass -
>
> You are correct; your characterization of the attitude of rbr regulars
> is not ignorance; it is worse: it is cynicism, as well as apathy, and
> finally denial.
>
> First: let me say I am not too much of a wanker to deny that I would
> have MUCH preferred, for pure entertainment value, to watch a showdown
> among Discovery, Rabobank, Astana, and Lotto and a battle among
> Contador, Skeletor, Kloden, Evans and Levi for the yellow and the
> podium. Dope or no dope. After too many years of no true podium
> competition, it's not hard to be cynical. I was really waiting for a
> Discovery/Astana two prong assault on Rabobank, so screw the tests and
> the politics.
>
> And so, it follows that you are apathetic if the withdrawal of Astana
> for Vino's bust, and the booting of (come on, be honest) a
> suspiciously strong Skeletor, didn't either piss you off or bum you
> out.
>
> Finally, you are in denial if you just piss on the point of the Boston
> Globe article Lafferty posted. Is it really impossible that the
> ridicule and scorn of the popular press might result in enough sponsor
> withdrawal to seriously hurt the sport if cycling? How many more
> years of half assed dope policing, where only a few riders here and
> there out of the entire doped peloton get busted and their careers
> wrecked, while others are current or retired millionaires with clean
> reputations (e.g. LANCE), can the sport take without imploding?
>
> How above it all are you rbr regulars, really?

Please show me ANY "war on drugs" that has been won? Lots of
collateral damage, lots of people's rights violated, lots of people
jailed and there are more users now than ever.
Good business model.
Bill C

Date: 30 Jul 2007 12:50:04
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:09:43 -0700, Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net >
wrote:

>Please show me ANY "war on drugs" that has been won? Lots of
>collateral damage, lots of people's rights violated, lots of people
>jailed and there are more users now than ever.
> Good business model.

As a pot smoker for approximately 40 years, I have no sympathy for
anybody's "War on Drugs."

I wonder what that has to do with performance enhancement cheating in
sports? Sorry, but I don't think that cheating is "victimless" -
even if everybody does it. But my opinion is beside the point.

The point is that WADA has inserted itself into professional cycling
and they are not going away. It wasn't my idea - but it's a fact.

So you can whine complain bitch moan and flame away, but you're stuck
with them, and a current system of enforcement in cycling that is
inconsistent, arbitrary, capricious, and unfair.

The sport will never go back to the good old days when nobody cared.

So what has to be figured out if there is anyway of effectively and
fairly enforcing the rules.

Good luck.

Date: 31 Jul 2007 07:44:35
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

In article
<0u4sa3dev9t5ii47gn0dunvpgefmndru8q@4ax.com >,
Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:09:43 -0700, Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Please show me ANY "war on drugs" that has been won? Lots of
> >collateral damage, lots of people's rights violated, lots of people
> >jailed and there are more users now than ever.
> > Good business model.
>
> As a pot smoker for approximately 40 years, I have no sympathy for
> anybody's "War on Drugs."
>
> I wonder what that has to do with performance enhancement cheating in
> sports? Sorry, but I don't think that cheating is "victimless" -
> even if everybody does it. But my opinion is beside the point.
>
> The point is that WADA has inserted itself into professional cycling
> and they are not going away. It wasn't my idea - but it's a fact.
>
> So you can whine complain bitch moan and flame away, but you're stuck
> with them, and a current system of enforcement in cycling that is
> inconsistent, arbitrary, capricious, and unfair.

You are whining, complaining, bitching, moaning and
flaming right here. Furthermore you are extremely
judgmental.

Look at this thread. Look at other threads you entered
or initiated. Even when folks respond equably you
castigate them for their plain expressions of their
opinions.

--
Michael Press

Date: 31 Jul 2007 23:09:35
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 07:44:35 GMT, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net >
wrote:

>You are whining, complaining, bitching, moaning and
>flaming right here. Furthermore you are extremely
>judgmental.
>
>Look at this thread. Look at other threads you entered
>or initiated. Even when folks respond equably you
>castigate them for their plain expressions of their
>opinions.

Goading people on usenet is how I, like many other closet psychopaths,
get my jollies. So you busted me. Good work, Sherlock. Just call me
Doug Kunick.

Anyhow, back to the topic : my point is that your solution of "let
them all dope" is passe, and is not going to work in the future,
Michael. WADA is here to stay. The question that must addressed now
is how to fairly implement the testing, the enforcement, the
sanctions, etc., for doping. I see huge conflicts; I don't see how a
popularly accepted as fair solution can be devised. I fear for the
future of the sport for professional competition. I see, for example,
a distinct possibility that cycling will be dumped from the Olympics,
which would at the least be another public relations black eye.

So, personalities aside, what is YOUR constructive suggestion,
accepting that Omerta is dead?

Date: 01 Aug 2007 10:19:25
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:09:35 -0400, Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote:

>On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 07:44:35 GMT, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>
>wrote:
>
>>You are whining, complaining, bitching, moaning and
>>flaming right here. Furthermore you are extremely
>>judgmental.
>>
>>Look at this thread. Look at other threads you entered
>>or initiated. Even when folks respond equably you
>>castigate them for their plain expressions of their
>>opinions.
>
>Goading people on usenet is how I, like many other closet psychopaths,
>get my jollies. So you busted me. Good work, Sherlock. Just call me
>Doug Kunick.
>
>Anyhow, back to the topic : my point is that your solution of "let
>them all dope" is passe, and is not going to work in the future,
>Michael. WADA is here to stay. The question that must addressed now
>is how to fairly implement the testing, the enforcement, the
>sanctions, etc., for doping. I see huge conflicts; I don't see how a
>popularly accepted as fair solution can be devised. I fear for the
>future of the sport for professional competition. I see, for example,
>a distinct possibility that cycling will be dumped from the Olympics,
>which would at the least be another public relations black eye.

You're right it would look bad for the Olympics to dump cycling. Cycling should
just dump the Olympics. Or at least professional road cycling should drop out.
Paolo Bettini's enthusiasm aside, that race is not more significant than any one
of a large number of classics.

>So, personalities aside, what is YOUR constructive suggestion,
>accepting that Omerta is dead?

The UCI/WADA association is silly and is only necessary because of the Olympics.
Start running bike racing like a professional sport with pro dope rules and pro
enforcement.

Ron

Date: 01 Aug 2007 11:32:13
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:19:25 -0400, RonSonic
<ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:

>
>The UCI/WADA association is silly and is only necessary because of the Olympics.
>Start running bike racing like a professional sport with pro dope rules and pro
>enforcement.

Too late. The genie is out of the bottle and for all practical
purposes, UCI is stuck with WADA for good.

Date: 01 Aug 2007 15:13:21
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 11:32:13 -0400, Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:19:25 -0400, RonSonic
><ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>The UCI/WADA association is silly and is only necessary because of the Olympics.
>>Start running bike racing like a professional sport with pro dope rules and pro
>>enforcement.
>
>Too late. The genie is out of the bottle and for all practical
>purposes, UCI is stuck with WADA for good.

But is professional road cycling stuck with UCI. I don't see it.

Ron

Date: 01 Aug 2007 05:13:54
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

In article
<amtva35qtokj0daop7auenfs4hhf0a4m57@4ax.com >,
Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 07:44:35 GMT, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >You are whining, complaining, bitching, moaning and
> >flaming right here. Furthermore you are extremely
> >judgmental.
> >
> >Look at this thread. Look at other threads you entered
> >or initiated. Even when folks respond equably you
> >castigate them for their plain expressions of their
> >opinions.
>
> Goading people on usenet is how I, like many other closet psychopaths,
> get my jollies. So you busted me. Good work, Sherlock. Just call me
> Doug Kunick.
>
> Anyhow, back to the topic : my point is that your solution of "let
> them all dope" is passe, and is not going to work in the future,
> Michael. WADA is here to stay. The question that must addressed now
> is how to fairly implement the testing, the enforcement, the
> sanctions, etc., for doping. I see huge conflicts; I don't see how a
> popularly accepted as fair solution can be devised. I fear for the
> future of the sport for professional competition. I see, for example,
> a distinct possibility that cycling will be dumped from the Olympics,
> which would at the least be another public relations black eye.
>
> So, personalities aside, what is YOUR constructive suggestion,
> accepting that Omerta is dead?

I do not have power to implement a constructive
approach to the perceived problems; so I do not devote
any effort to constructing them.

As for personalities, now you want to set them aside
after weeks of sniping and abuse? I'll think about it.

--
Michael Press

Date: 01 Aug 2007 11:29:59
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 05:13:54 GMT, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net >
wrote:

>As for personalities, now you want to set them aside
>after weeks of sniping and abuse? I'll think about it.

If somebody is obnoxious, then they deserve to be called on it. Mea
culpa.

If somebody posts something constructive or sensible, then respond
accordingly. Even Kunick is not always wrong.

Date: 31 Jul 2007 10:03:10
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

Michael Press wrote:
> Look at this thread. Look at other threads you entered
> or initiated. Even when folks respond equably you
> castigate them for their plain expressions of their
> opinions.

But he's right and we're wrong. I hear witch dunking may replace cycling
as an official Olympic sport in Beijing.

Date: 30 Jul 2007 08:16:36
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Jul 30, 7:06 am, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote:
> You weren't annoyed when three or four crucial riders (including the
> yellow jersey), and one important team, left in the middle of the
> race? If you say no, I seriously doubt you. It fucked it up big
> time, and that is also obvious.

I was annoyed (if you like) when bad rules were applied so stupidly.
Stupidity test = losing sponsors and news coverage.

> The point is that when is comes to athletics, it is cheating. Yes,
> cheating is also a part of every day life in western culture, but
> western culture is still governed by the rule of law.

Only if you get caught. Enron.

>The rule of law
> often is inconsistent, haphazard, even arbitrary in its enforcement,
> but it is nowhere near as lame as drug enforcement in sports in
> general, and cycling in particular.

American football and baseball have incredibly lamer drug enforcement
than does cycling.

> In cycling, although the vast majority clearly are guilty (just as
> everyone cheats on their taxes and drives over the speed limit), but
> only a few are busted. So cheaters win, and riders who get busted
> have their careers ruined. That's annoying. Riders get booted in the
> middle of a race. That's annoying. The 2006 yellow jersey is STILL
> not settled a year later. That's annoying. Etc.

Bad rules and fuckups running the show. It is worse than annoying.

> When riders get busted left and right in the most visible cycling
> competition in the world, the press goes apeshit, and the sponsors
> (who probably are the root cause of the whole mess, since they pay the
> salaries for riders who must succeed in order to advertise the
> product, and in order to succeed, they must dope) get squeamish, and
> the whole house of cards gets shakier.

There are many among the critics who want the punishment to be
complete.

> It is clear that press coverage and public disdain of drug use and
> cheating is not going away anytime soon. So if the sponsors really do
> start withdrawing, then the professional aspect of the sport is in
> jeopardy.

I think you need to look at the crowds of spectators lining the route
of the Tour for a better perspective on "public disdain".

The case could be made that the panty-yankers are the problem.

The case could be made that we were better off with Omerta.

> So some consistent and effective drug enforcement system must be
> adopted, because the alternative of "anything goes" will not fly much
> longer.

It's not "anything goes" and hasn't been for a long time. It's an
unsolvable problem that those in positions of power and authority have
done a mighty lame job of handling. --D-y

Date: 30 Jul 2007 11:53:33
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:16:36 -0700, "dustoyevsky@mac.com"
<dustoyevsky@mac.com > wrote:

>The case could be made that the panty-yankers are the problem.
>
>The case could be made that we were better off with Omerta.

In the USA that is called "don't ask, don't tell." Works just great.

Gimme a break.

>> So some consistent and effective drug enforcement system must be
>> adopted, because the alternative of "anything goes" will not fly much
>> longer.

>It's not "anything goes" and hasn't been for a long time. It's an
>unsolvable problem that those in positions of power and authority have
>done a mighty lame job of handling.

And YOUR solution is Omerta? I call that "anything goes." It won't
work as long as riders are dumb enough to get busted a la Vino. You're
back to inconsistent arbitrary and enforcement of universal drug use.
I call that annoying.

So, the crux of the matter still remains: how to you fix the lame job
the authorities are doing?

Your way would be don't enforce doping rules at all. Everything
worked fine before WADA got into the act, so turn the clock back and
dump WADA.

Sorry, but it's too late and the genie is out of the bottle or
Pandora's box is open, or whatever the metaphor is. Even your huge
attendance at the TdF or any bike race won't justify "just letting
them ride" anymore. WADA is in, the press is in, the vultures are
circling.

If the solution to lame enforcement is not no enforcement, you're
stuck with strict enforcement. Then you have to contend with b.s.
like "zero tolerance" - where athletes have lost Olympic medals for
using their asthma inhalers and that sort of crap.

Gotta be some middle ground, but what?

Date: 29 Jul 2007 23:56:49
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Jul 29, 8:12 pm, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote:

> out.
>
> Finally, you are in denial if you just piss on the point of the Boston
> Globe article Lafferty posted. Is it really impossible that the
> ridicule and scorn of the popular press might result in enough sponsor
> withdrawal to seriously hurt the sport if cycling? How many more
> years of half assed dope policing, where only a few riders here and
> there out of the entire doped peloton get busted and their careers
> wrecked, while others are current or retired millionaires with clean
> reputations (e.g. LANCE), can the sport take without imploding?
>
> How above it all are you rbr regulars, really?

Dumbass -

Like any spectator sport, it's just entertainment.

Like any spectator sport, it mirrors the values of the culture in
which it resides.

People on various forms of medication - they are everywhere. Our
friends, families and neighbors. Caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, birth
control hormones (and yes, they are hormones), ritalin, viagra,
cialis, zoloft, marijuana, prozac, ibuprofen, phenophthalein,
immodium, cocaine, aspirin, ginsing, valium, opiates, you name it.

Drug use in western culture is a part of everyday life. I choose not
to get outraged about it. I wouldn't wnat to change it even if I was
suddenly omnipotent. Your mileage may vary.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 30 Jul 2007 08:06:27
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:56:49 -0700, Kurgan Gringioni
<kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

>Drug use in western culture is a part of everyday life. I choose not
>to get outraged about it. I wouldn't wnat to change it even if I was
>suddenly omnipotent. Your mileage may vary.

It's also a part of virtually all athletic competition and that is so
obvious that "outrage" would be a naive and hypocritical response.
Annoyance is more apt.

You weren't annoyed when three or four crucial riders (including the
yellow jersey), and one important team, left in the middle of the
race? If you say no, I seriously doubt you. It fucked it up big
time, and that is also obvious.

The point is that when is comes to athletics, it is cheating. Yes,
cheating is also a part of every day life in western culture, but
western culture is still governed by the rule of law. The rule of law
often is inconsistent, haphazard, even arbitrary in its enforcement,
but it is nowhere near as lame as drug enforcement in sports in
general, and cycling in particular.

In cycling, although the vast majority clearly are guilty (just as
everyone cheats on their taxes and drives over the speed limit), but
only a few are busted. So cheaters win, and riders who get busted
have their careers ruined. That's annoying. Riders get booted in the
middle of a race. That's annoying. The 2006 yellow jersey is STILL
not settled a year later. That's annoying. Etc.

When riders get busted left and right in the most visible cycling
competition in the world, the press goes apeshit, and the sponsors
(who probably are the root cause of the whole mess, since they pay the
salaries for riders who must succeed in order to advertise the
product, and in order to succeed, they must dope) get squeamish, and
the whole house of cards gets shakier.

It is clear that press coverage and public disdain of drug use and
cheating is not going away anytime soon. So if the sponsors really do
start withdrawing, then the professional aspect of the sport is in
jeopardy.

So some consistent and effective drug enforcement system must be
adopted, because the alternative of "anything goes" will not fly much
longer.

Date: 30 Jul 2007 01:15:09
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

"B. Lafferty" <blafferty1@verizon.nospam.net > wrote in message
news:_r5ri.749$Kk4.163@trndny09...
> .......Despite the massive fallout from doping at this year's Tour, some
> teams still clam up when it comes to talking about drug use in the sport.

It sure must turn you on to be so frightened of the truth.

Date: 30 Jul 2007 07:24:29
From: mal
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote in message
news:xYari.13896$zA4.6542@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "B. Lafferty" <blafferty1@verizon.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:_r5ri.749$Kk4.163@trndny09...
>> .......Despite the massive fallout from doping at this year's Tour, some
>> teams still clam up when it comes to talking about drug use in the sport.
>
> It sure must turn you on to be so frightened of the truth.

Who's truth and what truth?

Truth defined by the Boston Globe, Dick Pound?

If this wasn't about sponsorship money, it'd be a non issue.

The mistake here is that the revisionist history is coming from the outside
not the inside.

As soon as they realize that DP and others are not about cycling, but about
a personal agenda, they can try to get on top of the sport.

And where is David Millar coming from? No one likes a hematocrit hypocrite.

Date: 30 Jul 2007 23:21:42
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

"mal" <malcolm1009@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:8OednWu1ovfwVzDbnZ2dnUVZ_rqlnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> news:xYari.13896$zA4.6542@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "B. Lafferty" <blafferty1@verizon.nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:_r5ri.749$Kk4.163@trndny09...
>>> .......Despite the massive fallout from doping at this year's Tour, some
>>> teams still clam up when it comes to talking about drug use in the
>>> sport.
>>
>> It sure must turn you on to be so frightened of the truth.
>
>
> Who's truth and what truth?
>
> Truth defined by the Boston Globe, Dick Pound?
>
> If this wasn't about sponsorship money, it'd be a non issue.
>
> The mistake here is that the revisionist history is coming from the
> outside not the inside.
>
> As soon as they realize that DP and others are not about cycling, but
> about a personal agenda, they can try to get on top of the sport.

I'm afraid that you're right.

> And where is David Millar coming from? No one likes a hematocrit
> hypocrite.

well, you have to remember that there are no critics as harsh as past
offenders.

Date: 29 Jul 2007 16:56:39
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Jul 29, 3:40 pm, "B. Lafferty" <blaffer...@verizon.nospam.net >
wrote:
> "RonSonic" <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fp1qa35cu9hs7bif4f3euevmd5p2pc1rkl@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:59:06 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
> > <blaffer...@verizon.nospam.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >>.......Despite the massive fallout from doping at this year's Tour, some
> >>teams still clam up when it comes to talking about drug use in the sport.
>
> >>Discovery Channel spokesman P.J. Rabice said Friday that team officials
> >>would not answer any more questions from one reporter who, he said, asked
> >>only "negative" questions -- about doping........
>
> > It is only a small handful of people who enjoy wallowing in the subject.
> > The
> > rest of us are glad when such people shut up. I know that's probably not
> > easy to
> > see from your perspective. Really, watching Contador and Rasmussen punish
> > each
> > other going up a mountain is far more entertaining than wondering whether
> > either
> > of them has a T-Patch on his balls.
>
> > Ron
>
> Your ignorance is your bliss, Grasshopper.

Dumbass -

It's not ignorance. Few of us rbr regulars have illusions about the
"cleanliness" of any professional sport.

What any of us take from the spectacle is a choice. You can enjoy it
for what it is or you can be frustrated at reality not being the way
you want it to be.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 29 Jul 2007 23:12:37
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 16:56:39 -0700, Kurgan Gringioni
<kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

>Dumbass -
>
>
>It's not ignorance. Few of us rbr regulars have illusions about the
>"cleanliness" of any professional sport.
>
>What any of us take from the spectacle is a choice. You can enjoy it
>for what it is or you can be frustrated at reality not being the way
>you want it to be.

Dumbass -

You are correct; your characterization of the attitude of rbr regulars
is not ignorance; it is worse: it is cynicism, as well as apathy, and
finally denial.

First: let me say I am not too much of a wanker to deny that I would
have MUCH preferred, for pure entertainment value, to watch a showdown
among Discovery, Rabobank, Astana, and Lotto and a battle among
Contador, Skeletor, Kloden, Evans and Levi for the yellow and the
podium. Dope or no dope. After too many years of no true podium
competition, it's not hard to be cynical. I was really waiting for a
Discovery/Astana two prong assault on Rabobank, so screw the tests and
the politics.

And so, it follows that you are apathetic if the withdrawal of Astana
for Vino's bust, and the booting of (come on, be honest) a
suspiciously strong Skeletor, didn't either piss you off or bum you
out.

Finally, you are in denial if you just piss on the point of the Boston
Globe article Lafferty posted. Is it really impossible that the
ridicule and scorn of the popular press might result in enough sponsor
withdrawal to seriously hurt the sport if cycling? How many more
years of half assed dope policing, where only a few riders here and
there out of the entire doped peloton get busted and their careers
wrecked, while others are current or retired millionaires with clean
reputations (e.g. LANCE), can the sport take without imploding?

How above it all are you rbr regulars, really?

Date: 30 Jul 2007 03:23:11
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

"Doug Taylor" <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote in message
news:43kqa3tbpet9ui9p2lh2i373lp3eauofdn@4ax.com...
>
> Finally, you are in denial if you just piss on the point of the Boston
> Globe article Lafferty posted.

You mean like Dan Rather's claim that although those so-called memos about
Bush were fraudulent they were really true?

Yeah, if there's one group of people that have shown themselves to be
honest, trustworthy and reliable it's the news media - especially when we're
learning about how Linsey Lohan is getting an abortion.

Date: 01 Aug 2007 18:14:16
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Aug 1, 8:59 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Ewoud Dronkert" <firstn...@lastname.net.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:7q21b3pfi58et9sj14fa6i3nnp9ffht9gk@4ax.com...
>
> > Bill C wrote:
> >> I've seen a picture of Howard.
>
> > I have a picture of Howard.
> >http://www.xs4all.nl/~ewoud/cycling/edhk.jpg
>
> Well, unless he gained a lot of weight he isn't the guy I saw riding. My
> guess is that he never raced, and doesn't ride. Instead he posts here and on
> the motorcycle sites.

Well we've talked some music, and while I don't know that much my
business partner does and He and Howard sure tell a lot of really
similar stories about the business. I'm pretty sure that Howard is
Howard. Except on the days he's a duck.
Bill C

Date: 01 Aug 2007 13:35:02
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Aug 1, 2:40 pm, Ewoud Dronkert <firstn...@lastname.net.invalid >
wrote:
> dustoyev...@mac.com schreef:
>
> > On Aug 1, 8:32 am, Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> >> I have a picture of Howard.
> >>http://www.xs4all.nl/~ewoud/cycling/edhk.jpg
>
> > Which one is Howard?
>
> http://images.google.com/images?q=kveck
>
> --
> E. Dronkert

Sorry, I forgot to <g >. --D-y

Date: 01 Aug 2007 11:11:52
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Aug 1, 8:32 am, Ewoud Dronkert <firstn...@lastname.net.invalid >
wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > I've seen a picture of Howard.
>
> I have a picture of Howard.http://www.xs4all.nl/~ewoud/cycling/edhk.jpg

Which one is Howard?

--D-y

Date: 01 Aug 2007 16:33:21
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

In article <1185991912.322811.151640@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
"dustoyevsky@mac.com" <dustoyevsky@mac.com > wrote:

> On Aug 1, 8:32 am, Ewoud Dronkert <firstn...@lastname.net.invalid>
> wrote:
> > Bill C wrote:
> > > I've seen a picture of Howard.
> >
> > I have a picture of Howard.http://www.xs4all.nl/~ewoud/cycling/edhk.jpg
>
> Which one is Howard?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1292/616599552_f36b10bb51.jpg

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 02 Aug 2007 00:05:32
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

Howard Kveck wrote:

<snip >
>
> http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1292/616599552_f36b10bb51.jpg
>

Why the long face?

--
Bill Asher

Date: 01 Aug 2007 21:40:11
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

dustoyevsky@mac.com schreef:
> On Aug 1, 8:32 am, Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
>> I have a picture of Howard.
>> http://www.xs4all.nl/~ewoud/cycling/edhk.jpg
>
> Which one is Howard?

http://images.google.com/images?q=kveck

--
E. Dronkert

Date: 30 Jul 2007 07:41:43
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 03:23:11 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com >
wrote:

>> Finally, you are in denial if you just piss on the point of the Boston
>> Globe article Lafferty posted.
>
>You mean like Dan Rather's claim that although those so-called memos about
>Bush were fraudulent they were really true?
>
>Yeah, if there's one group of people that have shown themselves to be
>honest, trustworthy and reliable it's the news media - especially when we're
>learning about how Linsey Lohan is getting an abortion.

Can you say "non-sequitur"?

Did anyone ever tell you what a lame tool you are?

Date: 30 Jul 2007 23:20:10
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

"Doug Taylor" <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote in message
news:3ijra3loe51njqjt6qt0ii0sdmdo9ckgvv@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 03:23:11 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Finally, you are in denial if you just piss on the point of the Boston
>>> Globe article Lafferty posted.
>>
>>You mean like Dan Rather's claim that although those so-called memos about
>>Bush were fraudulent they were really true?
>>
>>Yeah, if there's one group of people that have shown themselves to be
>>honest, trustworthy and reliable it's the news media - especially when
>>we're
>>learning about how Linsey Lohan is getting an abortion.
>
> Can you say "non-sequitur"?

What's the matter? Can't decifer the posting letting you know that only
animals get led around by the nose like you're allowing yourself?

> Did anyone ever tell you what a lame tool you are?

Yeah, lots of people here but none brave enough to say it to my face. Guess
that puts your in a general catagory of whimps.

Date: 31 Jul 2007 11:26:57
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

Tom Kunich wrote:
> What's the matter? Can't decifer the posting letting you know that only
> animals get led around by the nose like you're allowing yourself?

There's too many decibals for me to decifer.

Date: 30 Jul 2007 23:29:26
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

In article <Kmuri.14160$zA4.1557@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "Doug Taylor" <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote in message
> news:3ijra3loe51njqjt6qt0ii0sdmdo9ckgvv@4ax.com...

> > Did anyone ever tell you what a lame tool you are?
>
> Yeah, lots of people here but none brave enough to say it to my face. Guess
> that puts your in a general catagory of whimps.

Tom, aren't you old enough to realize how lame the macho posturing thing you
constantly do is? The only thing more pitiful than some guy acting all badass and
tough is a guy acting all badass and tough on usenet. Yeah, you're 6'4", 200 pounds
of rippling muscle and you went to Castlemont High in Oakland. Big fucking deal. I
guess you don't understand that's one of the reasons why so many people think of you
as a class A putz.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 31 Jul 2007 22:50:38
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-F4E293.23292630072007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <Kmuri.14160$zA4.1557@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> "Doug Taylor" <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote in message
>> news:3ijra3loe51njqjt6qt0ii0sdmdo9ckgvv@4ax.com...
>
>> > Did anyone ever tell you what a lame tool you are?
>>
>> Yeah, lots of people here but none brave enough to say it to my face.
>> Guess
>> that puts your in a general catagory of whimps.
>
> Tom, aren't you old enough to realize how lame the macho posturing thing
> you
> constantly do is? The only thing more pitiful than some guy acting all
> badass and
> tough is a guy acting all badass and tough on usenet. Yeah, you're 6'4",
> 200 pounds
> of rippling muscle and you went to Castlemont High in Oakland. Big fucking
> deal. I
> guess you don't understand that's one of the reasons why so many people
> think of you
> as a class A putz.

And I hope to meet you sometime Howard.

Date: 31 Jul 2007 22:50:38
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

Date: 30 Jul 2007 00:31:04
From: Jim Flom
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote...
>
> It's not ignorance. Few of us rbr regulars have illusions about the
> "cleanliness" of any professional sport.
>
> What any of us take from the spectacle is a choice. You can enjoy it
> for what it is or you can be frustrated at reality not being the way
> you want it to be.

But then he wouldn't be our Man of La Mancha, now would he?

Date: 29 Jul 2007 16:44:23
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Jul 29, 6:40 pm, "B. Lafferty" <blaffer...@verizon.nospam.net >
wrote:
> "RonSonic" <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fp1qa35cu9hs7bif4f3euevmd5p2pc1rkl@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:59:06 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
> > <blaffer...@verizon.nospam.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >>.......Despite the massive fallout from doping at this year's Tour, some
> >>teams still clam up when it comes to talking about drug use in the sport.
>
> >>Discovery Channel spokesman P.J. Rabice said Friday that team officials
> >>would not answer any more questions from one reporter who, he said, asked
> >>only "negative" questions -- about doping........
>
> > It is only a small handful of people who enjoy wallowing in the subject.
> > The
> > rest of us are glad when such people shut up. I know that's probably not
> > easy to
> > see from your perspective. Really, watching Contador and Rasmussen punish
> > each
> > other going up a mountain is far more entertaining than wondering whether
> > either
> > of them has a T-Patch on his balls.
>
> > Ron
>
> Your ignorance is your bliss, Grasshopper.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And paranoia makes the world a private hell.
Bill C

Date: 30 Jul 2007 00:49:43
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1185752663.527499.320680@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 29, 6:40 pm, "B. Lafferty" <blaffer...@verizon.nospam.net>
> wrote:
>> "RonSonic" <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:fp1qa35cu9hs7bif4f3euevmd5p2pc1rkl@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:59:06 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
>> > <blaffer...@verizon.nospam.net>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>.......Despite the massive fallout from doping at this year's Tour,
>> >>some
>> >>teams still clam up when it comes to talking about drug use in the
>> >>sport.
>>
>> >>Discovery Channel spokesman P.J. Rabice said Friday that team officials
>> >>would not answer any more questions from one reporter who, he said,
>> >>asked
>> >>only "negative" questions -- about doping........
>>
>> > It is only a small handful of people who enjoy wallowing in the
>> > subject.
>> > The
>> > rest of us are glad when such people shut up. I know that's probably
>> > not
>> > easy to
>> > see from your perspective. Really, watching Contador and Rasmussen
>> > punish
>> > each
>> > other going up a mountain is far more entertaining than wondering
>> > whether
>> > either
>> > of them has a T-Patch on his balls.
>>
>> > Ron
>>
>> Your ignorance is your bliss, Grasshopper.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> And paranoia makes the world a private hell.
> Bill C
>

Date: 29 Jul 2007 17:36:26
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:59:06 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <blafferty1@verizon.nospam.net >
wrote:

>.......Despite the massive fallout from doping at this year's Tour, some
>teams still clam up when it comes to talking about drug use in the sport.
>
>Discovery Channel spokesman P.J. Rabice said Friday that team officials
>would not answer any more questions from one reporter who, he said, asked
>only "negative" questions -- about doping........

It is only a small handful of people who enjoy wallowing in the subject. The
rest of us are glad when such people shut up. I know that's probably not easy to
see from your perspective. Really, watching Contador and Rasmussen punish each
other going up a mountain is far more entertaining than wondering whether either
of them has a T-Patch on his balls.

Ron

Date: 29 Jul 2007 22:40:27
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

"RonSonic" <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote in message
news:fp1qa35cu9hs7bif4f3euevmd5p2pc1rkl@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:59:06 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
> <blafferty1@verizon.nospam.net>
> wrote:
>
>>.......Despite the massive fallout from doping at this year's Tour, some
>>teams still clam up when it comes to talking about drug use in the sport.
>>
>>Discovery Channel spokesman P.J. Rabice said Friday that team officials
>>would not answer any more questions from one reporter who, he said, asked
>>only "negative" questions -- about doping........
>
> It is only a small handful of people who enjoy wallowing in the subject.
> The
> rest of us are glad when such people shut up. I know that's probably not
> easy to
> see from your perspective. Really, watching Contador and Rasmussen punish
> each
> other going up a mountain is far more entertaining than wondering whether
> either
> of them has a T-Patch on his balls.
>
> Ron

Your ignorance is your bliss, Grasshopper.

Date: 02 Aug 2007 21:58:00
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Aug 2, 9:59 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> I believe you're wrong. My guess is that he has such a low opinion of
> himself that he wouldn't show his face here again if people knew what he
> looked like.

He did show his face. You have a mighty short memory sometimes, TK:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1292/616599552_f36b10bb51.jpg

Here's Tom, ready for that Halloween ride (now don't get all upset,
TK, just funnin'), as usual:

http://www.kenpapai.com/cycling/rbr/Tomk.JPG

--D-y

Date: 30 Jul 2007 08:49:56
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 22:40:27 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <blafferty1@verizon.nospam.net >
wrote:

>
>"RonSonic" <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:fp1qa35cu9hs7bif4f3euevmd5p2pc1rkl@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:59:06 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
>> <blafferty1@verizon.nospam.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>.......Despite the massive fallout from doping at this year's Tour, some
>>>teams still clam up when it comes to talking about drug use in the sport.
>>>
>>>Discovery Channel spokesman P.J. Rabice said Friday that team officials
>>>would not answer any more questions from one reporter who, he said, asked
>>>only "negative" questions -- about doping........
>>
>> It is only a small handful of people who enjoy wallowing in the subject.
>> The
>> rest of us are glad when such people shut up. I know that's probably not
>> easy to
>> see from your perspective. Really, watching Contador and Rasmussen punish
>> each
>> other going up a mountain is far more entertaining than wondering whether
>> either
>> of them has a T-Patch on his balls.
>>
>> Ron
>
>Your ignorance is your bliss, Grasshopper.

Do speculations on the ball-patch status of shaved-leg men in spandex increase
your enjoyment of the sport? Then please enjoy to your hearts content.

I just think that bike racing is more interesting than that.

Ron

Date: 29 Jul 2007 12:12:20
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Don't Ask Lance's Team

On Jul 29, 1:59 pm, "B. Lafferty" <blaffer...@verizon.nospam.net >
wrote:
> .......Despite the massive fallout from doping at this year's Tour, some
> teams still clam up when it comes to talking about drug use in the sport.
>
> Discovery Channel spokesman P.J. Rabice said Friday that team officials
> would not answer any more questions from one reporter who, he said, asked
> only "negative" questions -- about doping........
>
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/more/07/28/bc.cyc.tourdefrance....

(from the above link):
"We've lost sight of the true purpose of sports," said JoAnn
Dahlkoetter of Stanford University. "Instead of building character,
self-discipline and determination, we've developed a win-at-all-costs
attitude."

"It's a downward spiral. Once you start taking drugs ... you have to
come up with some story, or lie about it. Then you have to remember
the lie, which takes a lot of effort," said Dahlkoetter, author of the
book Your Performing Edge.

Maybe her book should be made mandatory reading for all athletes.

Once they understand the true meaning of sports, the doping problem
will surely be history.

Say what, thirty bucks a copy? That's a whole lot cheaper than
universal mandatory testing, testing testing. And JoAnn could share in
one of the other True Meanings of Sport. I'm sure she wouldn't mind.
--D-y