| |
Main
Date: 19 May 2007 19:45:52
From: Sandy
Subject: I'm going to be pretty impolite here.
|
While I have commented regularly on the doping issue, and disclosed long ago
that I am a lawyer, I think I have tried to maintain my opinions unformed as
to the Landis matter. And I plan to do so, still.
However, I want to point out one thing, which I find 125% offensive, and I
am not going to avoid potential backlash from the persons I identify.
In Velo News (which I subscribed to, long ago, while it was in the East, and
I was in the USA), they have engaged a lawyer to write daily commentary on
the Landis arbitration. I cite here the headers for his page :
===
The Landis hearing: Day 5 - A lawyer's view
By Antonio Gallegos
for VeloNews.com
This report filed May 18, 2007
===
Editor's Note: Denver-based attorney Antonio Gallegos is in Malibu,
California, this week to observe the Floyd Landis arbitration hearing.
Gallegos works for the firm of Holland and Hart, concentrating in commercial
litigation and government investigation. He is also an avid cyclist and is
developing a sports law practice.
===
My comment is that Mr Gallegos, in his writing, makes a specific effort to
display and realize his personal desire to develop a sports law practice -
evidently one which would defend athletes - by reporting the proceedings in
a slanted manner, one which is designed to attract his potential clients.
None of that is improper under ethical codes for lawyers. None of what he
writes is patently untrue. The publication of his articles, as they appear,
is exceptionally bad journalism, in my view, and his presentation of the day
is not a fair representation of the arbitration. My opinion.
Perhaps some reading this post recall that I doggedly refused to let Mark
Hickey get away with believing just one side of the dispute. You probably
don't know that I have always hoped that Landis would prevail. You should
already know that I think there are significant and fundamental violations
of many laws in the UCI enveloped world.
I write this to make a personal recommendation that you not use these
articles as a good basis of reporting. That's it. Fallout is expected.
--
Bonne route !
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
|
|
| |
Date: 20 May 2007 01:30:47
From:
Subject: Re: I'm going to be pretty impolite here.
|
On May 19, 10:12 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote:
> Ewoud Dronkert <firstn...@lastname.net.invalid> a r=E9fl=E9chi, et puis a
> d=E9clar=E9 :
>
> > Sandy schreef:
> >> You probably
> >> don't know that I have always hoped that Landis would prevail.
>
> > You've given me that impression before.
>
> That being, of course, a subset of my desire to see ALL of them win ALL of
> the time.
One can root for Landis without blinding oneself to reality. IOW, root
for the underdog but bet on the overdog.
|
| | |
Date: 20 May 2007 10:33:48
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: I'm going to be pretty impolite here.
|
rechungREMOVETHIS wrote:
> One can root for Landis without blinding oneself to reality. IOW, root
> for the underdog but bet on the overdog.
But whatever you do, don't root for Tugboat.
|
| | | |
Date: 20 May 2007 22:17:39
From: Stu Fleming
Subject: Re: I'm going to be pretty impolite here.
|
Donald Munro wrote:
> rechungREMOVETHIS wrote:
>> One can root for Landis without blinding oneself to reality. IOW, root
>> for the underdog but bet on the overdog.
>
> But whatever you do, don't root for Tugboat.
>
http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=436
|
| |
Date: 20 May 2007 00:47:31
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: I'm going to be pretty impolite here.
|
On May 19, 8:49 pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2007 19:21:50 -0700, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com>
> wrote:
> > By the way, Bush isn't California's
> >fault. Just sayin'.
>
> Yeah, but they voted for the Austrian. I love the guy, he's Ahnold, but never
> vote for the Austrian. It doesn't go bad all that often, but when it does it's
> really bad.
Besides, would you trust an Austrian to make cabernet,
syrah, pinot noir, or chardonnay? Let's face it,
California does not have Austrian-wine micro climates.
("Micro climate" is a fancy way of saying that it can
be sunny at Coyote Point while a cyclocross race in
Felton degenerates into a complete mud bath, or vice
versa.)
Ben
|
| |
Date: 19 May 2007 19:08:11
From:
Subject: Re: I'm going to be pretty impolite here.
|
On May 19, 4:56 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
> In article <464f6743$0$32485$426a7...@news.free.fr>,
>
> "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
> > Dans le message denews:rcousine-579866.13483919052007@news.telus.net,
> > Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> a r=E9fl=E9chi, et puis a d=E9clar=E9 :
> > > In article <1179599257.350809.24...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> > > RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
> (Velonews has commentary by Gallegos)
>
>
>
> > >>> My comment is that Mr Gallegos, in his writing, makes a specific
> > >>> effort to display and realize his personal desire to develop a
> > >>> sports law practice - evidently one which would defend athletes -
> > >>> by reporting the proceedings in a slanted manner, one which is
> > >>> designed to attract his potential clients. None of that is improper
> > >>> under ethical codes for lawyers. None of what he writes is
> > >>> patently untrue. The publication of his articles, as they appear,
> > >>> is exceptionally bad journalism, in my view, and his presentation
> > >>> of the day is not a fair representation of the arbitration. My
> > >>> opinion.
>
> > >>> Perhaps some reading this post recall that I doggedly refused to
> > >>> let Mark Hickey get away with believing just one side of the
> > >>> dispute. You probably don't know that I have always hoped that
> > >>> Landis would prevail. You should already know that I think there
> > >>> are significant and fundamental violations of many laws in the UCI
> > >>> enveloped world.
>
> > >>> I write this to make a personal recommendation that you not use
> > >>> these articles as a good basis of reporting. That's it. Fallout
> > >>> is expected. --
> > >>> Bonne route !
>
> > >>> Sandy
> > >>> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
>
> > >> That's you getting worked up? Sheesh. Kindergarten kids talk smack
> > >> better than you do! ;)
>
> > >> R
>
> > > Well, he is French. He probably think your comment and my comment are
> > > fallout.
>
> > Vairie clayvayre ! Chiche !
>
> Actually, embarrassingly true: I ran Sandy's lines through Google's
> translator before I figured out it was Monty Python Franglish.
>
> Hey, that Sarkozy, good times, good times...
I've been buying wine based on politics since the invasion of Iraq.
Now that France has elected a rightwing asshole I'll have to boycott
them, too, along with California and Australia. (Lucky thing for me
that Spain and Italy came around.) With my drinking habits I was
personally offsetting the French wine boycotts of many thousands of
rightwing US fundamentalist Christians. The French winemakers are on
their own now, though.
|
| | |
Date: 19 May 2007 19:21:50
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: I'm going to be pretty impolite here.
|
In article <1179626891.842223.320680@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com >,
SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net wrote:
> I've been buying wine based on politics since the invasion of Iraq.
> Now that France has elected a rightwing asshole I'll have to boycott
> them, too, along with California and Australia. (Lucky thing for me
> that Spain and Italy came around.) With my drinking habits I was
> personally offsetting the French wine boycotts of many thousands of
> rightwing US fundamentalist Christians. The French winemakers are on
> their own now, though.
I doubt that many boycott-happy wingnuts were buying good French wine in the first
place. Yeah, that's painting broadly but whatever. Anyway, there are some pretty damn
good Chilean wines you could check out too. By the way, Bush isn't California's
fault. Just sayin'.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | |
Date: 19 May 2007 23:49:47
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: I'm going to be pretty impolite here.
|
On Sat, 19 May 2007 19:21:50 -0700, Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com >
wrote:
>In article <1179626891.842223.320680@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>> I've been buying wine based on politics since the invasion of Iraq.
>> Now that France has elected a rightwing asshole I'll have to boycott
>> them, too, along with California and Australia. (Lucky thing for me
>> that Spain and Italy came around.) With my drinking habits I was
>> personally offsetting the French wine boycotts of many thousands of
>> rightwing US fundamentalist Christians. The French winemakers are on
>> their own now, though.
>
> I doubt that many boycott-happy wingnuts were buying good French wine in the first
>place. Yeah, that's painting broadly but whatever. Anyway, there are some pretty damn
>good Chilean wines you could check out too. By the way, Bush isn't California's
>fault. Just sayin'.
Yeah, but they voted for the Austrian. I love the guy, he's Ahnold, but never
vote for the Austrian. It doesn't go bad all that often, but when it does it's
really bad.
Ron
|
| |
Date: 19 May 2007 14:21:15
From:
Subject: Re: I'm going to be pretty impolite here.
|
On May 19, 1:45 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote:
> While I have commented regularly on the doping issue, and disclosed long ago
> that I am a lawyer, I think I have tried to maintain my opinions unformed as
> to the Landis matter. And I plan to do so, still.
>
> However, I want to point out one thing, which I find 125% offensive, and I
> am not going to avoid potential backlash from the persons I identify.
>
> In Velo News (which I subscribed to, long ago, while it was in the East, and
> I was in the USA), they have engaged a lawyer to write daily commentary on
> the Landis arbitration. I cite here the headers for his page :
> ===
> The Landis hearing: Day 5 - A lawyer's view
> By Antonio Gallegos
> for VeloNews.com
> This report filed May 18, 2007
> ===
>
> Editor's Note: Denver-based attorney Antonio Gallegos is in Malibu,
> California, this week to observe the Floyd Landis arbitration hearing.
> Gallegos works for the firm of Holland and Hart, concentrating in commercial
> litigation and government investigation. He is also an avid cyclist and is
> developing a sports law practice.
>
> ===
>
> My comment is that Mr Gallegos, in his writing, makes a specific effort to
> display and realize his personal desire to develop a sports law practice -
> evidently one which would defend athletes - by reporting the proceedings in
> a slanted manner, one which is designed to attract his potential clients.
> None of that is improper under ethical codes for lawyers. None of what he
> writes is patently untrue. The publication of his articles, as they appear,
> is exceptionally bad journalism, in my view, and his presentation of the day
> is not a fair representation of the arbitration. My opinion.
>
> Perhaps some reading this post recall that I doggedly refused to let Mark
> Hickey get away with believing just one side of the dispute. You probably
> don't know that I have always hoped that Landis would prevail. You should
> already know that I think there are significant and fundamental violations
> of many laws in the UCI enveloped world.
>
> I write this to make a personal recommendation that you not use these
> articles as a good basis of reporting. That's it. Fallout is expected.
> --
> Bonne route !
>
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
On an entirely unrelated note, I believe the "Hart" in "Holland and
Hart" is one Gary Hart, an individual of some political note in
America. Other than that, you're a hopeful man, thinking to find any
good reporting here at this time in our history. The talking heads are
all party dolls now so it's easy to threaten those inside the beltway
with removal from the "A" list. Just like in Hollywood. They'll heel,
and damn fast too.
r
|
| |
Date: 19 May 2007 20:54:45
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: I'm going to be pretty impolite here.
|
"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote in message
news:464f37cf$0$6969$426a74cc@news.free.fr...
> While I have commented regularly on the doping issue, and disclosed long
> ago that I am a lawyer, I think I have tried to maintain my opinions
> unformed as to the Landis matter. And I plan to do so, still.
>
> However, I want to point out one thing, which I find 125% offensive, and I
> am not going to avoid potential backlash from the persons I identify.
I don't know what the heck to make of all this stuff anymore. So few people
desire to know the truth and everyone forms their opinions on accusations
alone that I'm overwhelmed with the idea that justice simply can no longer
be served by the likes of the USADA, UCI, WADA and the others.
I was riding today with a judge who had been reading stuff in Velonews and
who believed that Landis is guilty without even ever having actually heard
the real evidence. If that's the case what the hell does someone who cannot
afford big time lawyers do to obtain any justice?
|
| |
Date: 19 May 2007 21:42:11
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: I'm going to be pretty impolite here.
|
Sandy schreef:
> You probably
> don't know that I have always hoped that Landis would prevail.
You've given me that impression before.
--
E. Dronkert
|
| | |
Date: 19 May 2007 22:12:57
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: I'm going to be pretty impolite here.
|
Dans le message de news:464f5314$0$326$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl,
Ewoud Dronkert <firstname@lastname.net.invalid > a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :
> Sandy schreef:
>> You probably
>> don't know that I have always hoped that Landis would prevail.
>
> You've given me that impression before.
That being, of course, a subset of my desire to see ALL of them win ALL of
the time.
Well, almost all ...
|
| |
Date: 19 May 2007 12:34:25
From: bar
Subject: Re: I'm going to be pretty impolite here.
|
On May 19, 2:27 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com > wrote:
> On May 19, 1:45 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
> > While I have commented regularly on the doping issue, and disclosed long ago
> > that I am a lawyer, I think I have tried to maintain my opinions unformed as
> > to the Landis matter. And I plan to do so, still.
>
> > However, I want to point out one thing, which I find 125% offensive, and I
> > am not going to avoid potential backlash from the persons I identify.
>
> > In Velo News (which I subscribed to, long ago, while it was in the East, and
> > I was in the USA), they have engaged a lawyer to write daily commentary on
> > the Landis arbitration. I cite here the headers for his page :
> > ===
> > The Landis hearing: Day 5 - A lawyer's view
> > By Antonio Gallegos
> > for VeloNews.com
> > This report filed May 18, 2007
> > ===
>
> > Editor's Note: Denver-based attorney Antonio Gallegos is in Malibu,
> > California, this week to observe the Floyd Landis arbitration hearing.
> > Gallegos works for the firm of Holland and Hart, concentrating in commercial
> > litigation and government investigation. He is also an avid cyclist and is
> > developing a sports law practice.
>
> > ===
>
> > My comment is that Mr Gallegos, in his writing, makes a specific effort to
> > display and realize his personal desire to develop a sports law practice -
> > evidently one which would defend athletes - by reporting the proceedings in
> > a slanted manner, one which is designed to attract his potential clients.
> > None of that is improper under ethical codes for lawyers. None of what he
> > writes is patently untrue. The publication of his articles, as they appear,
> > is exceptionally bad journalism, in my view, and his presentation of the day
> > is not a fair representation of the arbitration. My opinion.
>
> > Perhaps some reading this post recall that I doggedly refused to let Mark
> > Hickey get away with believing just one side of the dispute. You probably
> > don't know that I have always hoped that Landis would prevail. You should
> > already know that I think there are significant and fundamental violations
> > of many laws in the UCI enveloped world.
>
> > I write this to make a personal recommendation that you not use these
> > articles as a good basis of reporting. That's it. Fallout is expected.
> > --
> > Bonne route !
>
> > Sandy
> > Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
>
> That's you getting worked up? Sheesh. Kindergarten kids talk smack
> better than you do! ;)
>
> R
A couple of things occur to me on reading this:
1. Velo news is, and has generally always been, poo;
2. Landis is a guilty redneck mofo -- the kind of guy whose pals
get drunk and then make pranks phone calls to sexual assault victims
FROM THEIR OWN FUCKING PHONE NUMBERS; and
3. Being surprised that ANY attorney is out pimping his or her own
work or promoting themselves in any and all venues is a bit naive --
"pimping" and "self-promotion" are, after all, integral parts of the
profession.
That is all.
|
| |
Date: 19 May 2007 11:27:37
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: I'm going to be pretty impolite here.
|
On May 19, 1:45 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote:
> While I have commented regularly on the doping issue, and disclosed long ago
> that I am a lawyer, I think I have tried to maintain my opinions unformed as
> to the Landis matter. And I plan to do so, still.
>
> However, I want to point out one thing, which I find 125% offensive, and I
> am not going to avoid potential backlash from the persons I identify.
>
> In Velo News (which I subscribed to, long ago, while it was in the East, and
> I was in the USA), they have engaged a lawyer to write daily commentary on
> the Landis arbitration. I cite here the headers for his page :
> ===
> The Landis hearing: Day 5 - A lawyer's view
> By Antonio Gallegos
> for VeloNews.com
> This report filed May 18, 2007
> ===
>
> Editor's Note: Denver-based attorney Antonio Gallegos is in Malibu,
> California, this week to observe the Floyd Landis arbitration hearing.
> Gallegos works for the firm of Holland and Hart, concentrating in commercial
> litigation and government investigation. He is also an avid cyclist and is
> developing a sports law practice.
>
> ===
>
> My comment is that Mr Gallegos, in his writing, makes a specific effort to
> display and realize his personal desire to develop a sports law practice -
> evidently one which would defend athletes - by reporting the proceedings in
> a slanted manner, one which is designed to attract his potential clients.
> None of that is improper under ethical codes for lawyers. None of what he
> writes is patently untrue. The publication of his articles, as they appear,
> is exceptionally bad journalism, in my view, and his presentation of the day
> is not a fair representation of the arbitration. My opinion.
>
> Perhaps some reading this post recall that I doggedly refused to let Mark
> Hickey get away with believing just one side of the dispute. You probably
> don't know that I have always hoped that Landis would prevail. You should
> already know that I think there are significant and fundamental violations
> of many laws in the UCI enveloped world.
>
> I write this to make a personal recommendation that you not use these
> articles as a good basis of reporting. That's it. Fallout is expected.
> --
> Bonne route !
>
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
That's you getting worked up? Sheesh. Kindergarten kids talk smack
better than you do! ;)
R
|
| | |
Date: 19 May 2007 20:52:56
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: I'm going to be pretty impolite here.
|
In article <1179599257.350809.24260@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com > wrote:
> On May 19, 1:45 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
> > While I have commented regularly on the doping issue, and disclosed long ago
> > that I am a lawyer, I think I have tried to maintain my opinions unformed as
> > to the Landis matter. And I plan to do so, still.
> >
> > However, I want to point out one thing, which I find 125% offensive, and I
> > am not going to avoid potential backlash from the persons I identify.
> >
> > In Velo News (which I subscribed to, long ago, while it was in the East, and
> > I was in the USA), they have engaged a lawyer to write daily commentary on
> > the Landis arbitration. I cite here the headers for his page :
> > ===
> > The Landis hearing: Day 5 - A lawyer's view
> > By Antonio Gallegos
> > for VeloNews.com
> > This report filed May 18, 2007
> > ===
> >
> > Editor's Note: Denver-based attorney Antonio Gallegos is in Malibu,
> > California, this week to observe the Floyd Landis arbitration hearing.
> > Gallegos works for the firm of Holland and Hart, concentrating in commercial
> > litigation and government investigation. He is also an avid cyclist and is
> > developing a sports law practice.
> >
> > ===
> >
> > My comment is that Mr Gallegos, in his writing, makes a specific effort to
> > display and realize his personal desire to develop a sports law practice -
> > evidently one which would defend athletes - by reporting the proceedings in
> > a slanted manner, one which is designed to attract his potential clients.
> > None of that is improper under ethical codes for lawyers. None of what he
> > writes is patently untrue. The publication of his articles, as they appear,
> > is exceptionally bad journalism, in my view, and his presentation of the day
> > is not a fair representation of the arbitration. My opinion.
> >
> > Perhaps some reading this post recall that I doggedly refused to let Mark
> > Hickey get away with believing just one side of the dispute. You probably
> > don't know that I have always hoped that Landis would prevail. You should
> > already know that I think there are significant and fundamental violations
> > of many laws in the UCI enveloped world.
> >
> > I write this to make a personal recommendation that you not use these
> > articles as a good basis of reporting. That's it. Fallout is expected.
> > --
> > Bonne route !
> >
> > Sandy
> > Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
>
> That's you getting worked up? Sheesh. Kindergarten kids talk smack
> better than you do! ;)
>
> R
Well, he is French. He probably think your comment and my comment are
fallout.
Have I mentioned my enduring dedication to the cause of drunkeness?
Because in the variable world of cycling, one thing you can count on is
ABV.
--
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: 19 May 2007 23:08:20
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: I'm going to be pretty impolite here.
|
Dans le message de news:rcousine-579866.13483919052007@news.telus.net,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> In article <1179599257.350809.24260@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 19, 1:45 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
>>> While I have commented regularly on the doping issue, and disclosed
>>> long ago that I am a lawyer, I think I have tried to maintain my
>>> opinions unformed as to the Landis matter. And I plan to do so,
>>> still.
>>>
>>> However, I want to point out one thing, which I find 125%
>>> offensive, and I am not going to avoid potential backlash from the
>>> persons I identify.
>>>
>>> In Velo News (which I subscribed to, long ago, while it was in the
>>> East, and I was in the USA), they have engaged a lawyer to write
>>> daily commentary on the Landis arbitration. I cite here the
>>> headers for his page : ===
>>> The Landis hearing: Day 5 - A lawyer's view
>>> By Antonio Gallegos
>>> for VeloNews.com
>>> This report filed May 18, 2007
>>> ===
>>>
>>> Editor's Note: Denver-based attorney Antonio Gallegos is in Malibu,
>>> California, this week to observe the Floyd Landis arbitration
>>> hearing. Gallegos works for the firm of Holland and Hart,
>>> concentrating in commercial litigation and government
>>> investigation. He is also an avid cyclist and is developing a
>>> sports law practice.
>>>
>>> ===
>>>
>>> My comment is that Mr Gallegos, in his writing, makes a specific
>>> effort to display and realize his personal desire to develop a
>>> sports law practice - evidently one which would defend athletes -
>>> by reporting the proceedings in a slanted manner, one which is
>>> designed to attract his potential clients. None of that is improper
>>> under ethical codes for lawyers. None of what he writes is
>>> patently untrue. The publication of his articles, as they appear,
>>> is exceptionally bad journalism, in my view, and his presentation
>>> of the day is not a fair representation of the arbitration. My
>>> opinion.
>>>
>>> Perhaps some reading this post recall that I doggedly refused to
>>> let Mark Hickey get away with believing just one side of the
>>> dispute. You probably don't know that I have always hoped that
>>> Landis would prevail. You should already know that I think there
>>> are significant and fundamental violations of many laws in the UCI
>>> enveloped world.
>>>
>>> I write this to make a personal recommendation that you not use
>>> these articles as a good basis of reporting. That's it. Fallout
>>> is expected. --
>>> Bonne route !
>>>
>>> Sandy
>>> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
>>
>> That's you getting worked up? Sheesh. Kindergarten kids talk smack
>> better than you do! ;)
>>
>> R
>
> Well, he is French. He probably think your comment and my comment are
> fallout.
>
Vairie clayvayre ! Chiche !
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 May 2007 21:56:59
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: I'm going to be pretty impolite here.
|
In article <464f6743$0$32485$426a74cc@news.free.fr >,
"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote:
> Dans le message de news:rcousine-579866.13483919052007@news.telus.net,
> Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> > In article <1179599257.350809.24260@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> > RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote:
(Velonews has commentary by Gallegos)
> >>> My comment is that Mr Gallegos, in his writing, makes a specific
> >>> effort to display and realize his personal desire to develop a
> >>> sports law practice - evidently one which would defend athletes -
> >>> by reporting the proceedings in a slanted manner, one which is
> >>> designed to attract his potential clients. None of that is improper
> >>> under ethical codes for lawyers. None of what he writes is
> >>> patently untrue. The publication of his articles, as they appear,
> >>> is exceptionally bad journalism, in my view, and his presentation
> >>> of the day is not a fair representation of the arbitration. My
> >>> opinion.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps some reading this post recall that I doggedly refused to
> >>> let Mark Hickey get away with believing just one side of the
> >>> dispute. You probably don't know that I have always hoped that
> >>> Landis would prevail. You should already know that I think there
> >>> are significant and fundamental violations of many laws in the UCI
> >>> enveloped world.
> >>>
> >>> I write this to make a personal recommendation that you not use
> >>> these articles as a good basis of reporting. That's it. Fallout
> >>> is expected. --
> >>> Bonne route !
> >>>
> >>> Sandy
> >>> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
> >>
> >> That's you getting worked up? Sheesh. Kindergarten kids talk smack
> >> better than you do! ;)
> >>
> >> R
> >
> > Well, he is French. He probably think your comment and my comment are
> > fallout.
> >
> Vairie clayvayre ! Chiche !
Actually, embarrassingly true: I ran Sandy's lines through Google's
translator before I figured out it was Monty Python Franglish.
Hey, that Sarkozy, good times, good times...
Your father smelled of elderberries,
--
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
|
|
