| |
Main
Date: 18 May 2007 09:02:05
From: Preston Crawford
Subject: It's funny to watch all the vitriol directed at Lemond
|
I keep opening threads, thinking that I will find someone talking about
the possibility that the Landis camp did something really dirty and
stupid, but instead everyone assumes that Lemond is a liar.
Here we have a sport where nearly everyone dopes, yet the benefit of the
doubt should go to the person being accused of cheating. Always. Be it
Lance, Ulrich, now Landis. The labs are bad. The French are out to get
them. The police are dirty. WADA and the USADA are out to get them. All
of these are highly likely, of course...
Or, doesn't Ockham's Razor kick in at some point and you just realize
that yeah, most of them are cheating?
Preston
|
|
| |
Date: 19 May 2007 11:08:15
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: It's funny to watch all the vitriol directed at Lemond
|
in message <slrnf4rce6.f9.me@serpentor.cobrala >, Preston Crawford
('me@prestoncrawford.com') wrote:
> Here we have a sport where nearly everyone dopes, yet the benefit of the
> doubt should go to the person being accused of cheating. Always. Be it
> Lance, Ulrich, now Landis. The labs are bad. The French are out to get
> them. The police are dirty. WADA and the USADA are out to get them. All
> of these are highly likely, of course...
A lot of them - including many not yet facing disciplinary proceedings -
are cheating. However, the behaviour of WADA does not smell of roses.
Justice, this ain't; it's more a lynch mob. My bet is that there would be
far less sympathy for the accused riders if we didn't have the
present 'guilty until proven innocent' system.
And, of course, I'm still an Ivan Basso fan, even if I now acknowledge he's
a cheat. I'd give anything for a CSC maglie rosa which I was too stingy to
buy off the Team CSC website last June while it was still being offered.
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Age equals angst multiplied by the speed of fright squared.
;; the Worlock
|
| |
Date: 18 May 2007 16:21:23
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: It's funny to watch all the vitriol directed at Lemond
|
On May 18, 4:24 pm, "preston.crawf...@gmail.com"
<preston.crawf...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On May 18, 12:55 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 18, 3:00 pm, need more sun <recbikegr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > This kind of response is exactly what I'm talking about. "Make you a
> > > > better person"? What are we in grade school or something? I don't care
> > > > about "winning" the argument or being a better person. I just want the
> > > > sport to be clean and I'm thoroughly confused about why others
> > > > wouldn't want the same. Simple.
>
> > > bravo...
>
> > Yep, and the Patriot Act has never been used for abuse, and our
> > Constitutional protections have never been violated by government
> > agencies and labs.
> > Long live The Inquisition! Torture 'em all until they confess.
> > Bill C
>
> I think you just invoked the post-9/11 version of Godwin's Law.
>
> Preston
Nice try to dismiss someone who has a problem with the system, and
points out that, contrary to your putting the system on a pedestal,
systems aren't always done legally, or properly, or objectively.
Only a complete idiot doesn't look long and hard at any system that
has the ability to penalize and punish people.
Then again for Democracy to work more people who vote have to be
educated and responsible than the others who vote.
Glad you live in a world where the system is always perfect. You need
to stop trying to apply it to us real people out here.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 18 May 2007 23:05:45
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: It's funny to watch all the vitriol directed at Lemond
|
In article <slrnf4rce6.f9.me@serpentor.cobrala >,
Preston Crawford <me@prestoncrawford.com > wrote:
> I keep opening threads, thinking that I will find someone talking about
> the possibility that the Landis camp did something really dirty and
> stupid, but instead everyone assumes that Lemond is a liar.
>
> Here we have a sport where nearly everyone dopes, yet the benefit of the
> doubt should go to the person being accused of cheating. Always. Be it
> Lance, Ulrich, now Landis. The labs are bad. The French are out to get
> them. The police are dirty. WADA and the USADA are out to get them. All
> of these are highly likely, of course...
>
> Or, doesn't Ockham's Razor kick in at some point and you just realize
> that yeah, most of them are cheating?
You see an attempt to achieve balance. You and
everybody else who beats the drum blaming the riders
for doping do not get it. Most of the apparatus is
sleazy, and the apparatus lives on the proceeds of
races they _knew_ were run an won by doped riders. The
power structure is top-heavy and can get away with
making the riders into scape goats. You are just
another dupe of the apparatus, unless you are a shill.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 18 May 2007 15:08:09
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: It's funny to watch all the vitriol directed at Lemond
|
On May 18, 10:54 am, "preston.crawf...@gmail.com"
<preston.crawf...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On May 18, 9:35 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Your righteous indignation doesn't make you a
> > better person, even if it is the only mode you
> > use when posting to RBR.
>
> This kind of response is exactly what I'm talking about. "Make you a
> better person"? What are we in grade school or something? I don't care
> about "winning" the argument or being a better person. I just want the
> sport to be clean and I'm thoroughly confused about why others
> wouldn't want the same. Simple.
>
> If that's righteous indignation, then guilty, I suppose.
See, there you go again. You didn't respond to what
I wrote about the (questionable) value of Lemond's
testimony, and how it doesn't bear on whether Landis
is clean/not-clean or guilty/not-guilty (which
are two different things). You again moved the argument
to how you want a clean sport and others supposedly
don't, which is what I'm referring to with my comment
about righteous indignation and better people. If you
want to persuade people, don't start by publicly fretting
that they aren't living up to your standards. Maybe
they just don't agree with you.
If you read what I've posted on the subject, it's hardly
an exoneration of Landis. However, it's not whether I
want a clean or not-clean sport. If you want a clean
sport, you could start by banning everyone who ever
comes under any suspicion of doping or has spoken to
a known doper. However, if you want a _fair_ sport,
you have to give even the possible dopers a fair shake.
Ben
|
| |
Date: 18 May 2007 13:24:34
From: preston.crawford@gmail.com
Subject: Re: It's funny to watch all the vitriol directed at Lemond
|
On May 18, 12:55 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On May 18, 3:00 pm, need more sun <recbikegr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > This kind of response is exactly what I'm talking about. "Make you a
> > > better person"? What are we in grade school or something? I don't care
> > > about "winning" the argument or being a better person. I just want the
> > > sport to be clean and I'm thoroughly confused about why others
> > > wouldn't want the same. Simple.
>
> > bravo...
>
> Yep, and the Patriot Act has never been used for abuse, and our
> Constitutional protections have never been violated by government
> agencies and labs.
> Long live The Inquisition! Torture 'em all until they confess.
> Bill C
I think you just invoked the post-9/11 version of Godwin's Law.
Preston
|
| |
Date: 18 May 2007 12:55:42
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: It's funny to watch all the vitriol directed at Lemond
|
On May 18, 3:00 pm, need more sun <recbikegr...@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
> > This kind of response is exactly what I'm talking about. "Make you a
> > better person"? What are we in grade school or something? I don't care
> > about "winning" the argument or being a better person. I just want the
> > sport to be clean and I'm thoroughly confused about why others
> > wouldn't want the same. Simple.
>
> bravo...
Yep, and the Patriot Act has never been used for abuse, and our
Constitutional protections have never been violated by government
agencies and labs.
Long live The Inquisition! Torture 'em all until they confess.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 18 May 2007 12:00:06
From: need more sun
Subject: Re: It's funny to watch all the vitriol directed at Lemond
|
> This kind of response is exactly what I'm talking about. "Make you a
> better person"? What are we in grade school or something? I don't care
> about "winning" the argument or being a better person. I just want the
> sport to be clean and I'm thoroughly confused about why others
> wouldn't want the same. Simple.
bravo...
|
| |
Date: 18 May 2007 11:55:17
From: need more sun
Subject: Re: It's funny to watch all the vitriol directed at Lemond
|
On May 18, 3:02 pm, Preston Crawford <m...@prestoncrawford.com > wrote:
> I keep opening threads, thinking that I will find someone talking about
> the possibility that the Landis camp did something really dirty and
> stupid, but instead everyone assumes that Lemond is a liar.
>
> Here we have a sport where nearly everyone dopes, yet the benefit of the
> doubt should go to the person being accused of cheating. Always. Be it
> Lance, Ulrich, now Landis. The labs are bad. The French are out to get
> them. The police are dirty. WADA and the USADA are out to get them. All
> of these are highly likely, of course...
>
> Or, doesn't Ockham's Razor kick in at some point and you just realize
> that yeah, most of them are cheating?
>
> Preston
Well said.
What's the old saying - ah yes, 'there are none so blind as those who
cannot see.'
Which doesn't mean that people should give up on the sport. But some
anger at the behaviour of dirty riders is absolutely justified.
|
| |
Date: 18 May 2007 10:54:44
From: preston.crawford@gmail.com
Subject: Re: It's funny to watch all the vitriol directed at Lemond
|
On May 18, 9:35 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> Your righteous indignation doesn't make you a
> better person, even if it is the only mode you
> use when posting to RBR.
This kind of response is exactly what I'm talking about. "Make you a
better person"? What are we in grade school or something? I don't care
about "winning" the argument or being a better person. I just want the
sport to be clean and I'm thoroughly confused about why others
wouldn't want the same. Simple.
If that's righteous indignation, then guilty, I suppose.
Preston
|
| | |
Date: 19 May 2007 11:30:15
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: It's funny to watch all the vitriol directed at Lemond
|
in message <1179510884.258048.16270@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >,
preston.crawford@gmail.com ('preston.crawford@gmail.com') wrote:
> I just want the
> sport to be clean and I'm thoroughly confused about why others
> wouldn't want the same. Simple.
I think we all wish the sport were clean.
The problem is that it isn't simple.
Firstly, there will always be new substances; there will always be
pharmacists and doctors trying to find new ways to use and administer
substances to avoid detection. The analysis side can never win this war.
The only thing that will change cycling is a change in culture.
But secondly, the people who run cycling, for the most part, are people who
grew up in cycling culture. They grew up in the culture of widespread,
winked at, drug use. The riders - typically young men, trained, influenced
and led by their managers and directuers sportif - get publicly
humiliated, fined, banned from earning their living. But the soigneurs,
the managers, the directeurs sportif get away pretty much unscathed, to
train and influence a new generation of cyclists.
So the culture's still there; we aren't breaking the culture. What we're
doing is pillorying people who are at least in part victims. And, frankly,
it stinks.
I'm not saying I've got a solution, because I don't. I don't /know/ Bjarne
Riis influenced or even knew about Basso's blood doping (indeed, he gave a
very good performance of being shocked and angry - which I hope was
honest, but don't entirely trust). I don't /know/ Adriano Baffi or Jacques
Michaud influenced or even knew about Tyler Hamilton, Santiago Pérez,
Oscar Camenzind, Sascha Urweider and Floyd Landis' doping. But...
Something is rotten, and not only in the state of Denmark.
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; I can't work yanks out......
;; Why do they frown upon sex yet relish violence?
;; Deep Fried Lettuce
|
| | | |
Date: 19 May 2007 19:30:56
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: It's funny to watch all the vitriol directed at Lemond
|
Simon Brooke wrote:
> So the culture's still there; we aren't breaking the culture. What we're
> doing is pillorying people who are at least in part victims. And, frankly,
> it stinks.
The culture is just a subset of the culture of the larger western society.
On the whole I'd rather take Viagra than live in Iran.
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 May 2007 16:15:13
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: It's funny to watch all the vitriol directed at Lemond
|
On Sat, 19 May 2007 19:30:56 +0200, Donald Munro
<fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:
>The culture is just a subset of the culture of the larger western society.
And then there's the center of Western society, America: Full of
self-centered, selfish, boorish, and litigious people, who, when
caught red handed doing something such as doping in the TdF, don't
just buck up, take responsibility, and admit it, but rather turn the
process on it's head, make it into a full fledged three ring circus,
lawyer up with hired gun attorneys paid millions to obfuscate the
facts, destroy the reputations of innocent people, assassinate the
character of witnesses, etc..
Yes, I'm jumping the gun, the hearing is not over. O.J. Simpson was
guilty as hell and got off, so I could end up with egg on my face. But
I doubt it.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 19 May 2007 23:32:02
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: It's funny to watch all the vitriol directed at Lemond
|
On Sat, 19 May 2007 16:15:13 -0400, Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote:
>On Sat, 19 May 2007 19:30:56 +0200, Donald Munro
><fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The culture is just a subset of the culture of the larger western society.
>
>And then there's the center of Western society, America: Full of
>self-centered, selfish, boorish, and litigious people, who, when
>caught red handed doing something such as doping in the TdF, don't
>just buck up, take responsibility, and admit it, but rather turn the
>process on it's head, make it into a full fledged three ring circus,
>lawyer up with hired gun attorneys paid millions to obfuscate the
>facts, destroy the reputations of innocent people, assassinate the
>character of witnesses, etc..
WIth a four year suspension there's no reason to not fight it. A guy could man
up and deal with being suspended for a season, or some number of races or what
not. But to be completely out for two years and then back in the minors for
another two is impossible to accept without a fight. A guy might also drop a
dime on someone he knew was cheating if it wasn't going to destroy the guy's
career. Since it is a career ending penalty nobody's going to sing. But, since
the penalties are so excessive there's no incentive to report, confess or admit
to anything.
Professional sports that have real governing bodies don't have silly penalties
like cycling.
Ron
|
| |
Date: 18 May 2007 09:35:57
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: It's funny to watch all the vitriol directed at Lemond
|
On May 18, 7:52 am, Preston Crawford <m...@prestoncrawford.com > wrote:
> On 2007-05-18, Fred Fredburger <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
>
> > Preston Crawford wrote:
> >> I keep opening threads, thinking that I will find someone talking about
> >> the possibility that the Landis camp did something really dirty and
> >> stupid, but instead everyone assumes that Lemond is a liar.
>
> > Why do you believe these two possibilities to be mutually exclusive?
>
> Actually you're quite correct that both Landis and Lemond could be
> liars. Of course. I suppose what matters to me in the end is that the
> source of the vitriol seems to be that most people here assume Lemond is
> a liar and Landis and everyone else is clean.
Your righteous indignation doesn't make you a
better person, even if it is the only mode you
use when posting to RBR.
Lemond could be telling the whole truth (and probably is)
and it still wouldn't tell us whether Landis is a liar,
or whether he doped, which is what this proceeding used
to be about and what it still is about when Lemond is not
on the stand. That is one reason I am not impressed,
just depressed.
Ben
|
| |
Date: 18 May 2007 11:26:20
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: It's funny to watch all the vitriol directed at Lemond
|
On Fri, 18 May 2007 09:02:05 -0500, Preston Crawford
<me@prestoncrawford.com > wrote:
>I keep opening threads, thinking that I will find someone talking about
>the possibility that the Landis camp did something really dirty and
>stupid, but instead everyone assumes that Lemond is a liar.
>
>Here we have a sport where nearly everyone dopes, yet the benefit of the
>doubt should go to the person being accused of cheating. Always. Be it
>Lance, Ulrich, now Landis. The labs are bad. The French are out to get
>them. The police are dirty. WADA and the USADA are out to get them. All
>of these are highly likely, of course...
>
>Or, doesn't Ockham's Razor kick in at some point and you just realize
>that yeah, most of them are cheating?
You are so right on, but you sadly you will be flamed in this forum.
Parallels to Landis case and O.J. Simpson:
1) High statistical probability of guilt (most world class cyclists
dope / husband most likely perp. in murder of married woman)
2) High paid lawyers using crafty sleight of hand to divert the
attention of the credible public from the facts: a) Making accepted
science sound like voodoo; b) Making accepted methods collection and
testing of evidence sound like the keystone cops; c) character
assassination of witnesses; etc.
3) Perp. whose personal explanations of what "really" happened
absurd, lame, stupid, incredible, far fetched, wacky, self-serving.
4) Smug, self-absorbed perp. so in denial that he actually has come to
truly believe he never did it and that the b.s his lawyers are
slinging is true.
5) biased and partisan supporters so in denial that they actually
believe the b.s his lawyers are slinging is true.
While everyone with half a brain says: "I think I'll believe my lying
eyes and not the hard sell tactics and diversion of a legal team being
paid MILLIONS to get a jack-ass off the hook."
But I live in a country which elected a village idiot President TWICE,
and it took the moronic voting public SIX YEARS to figure out they
fucked up.
So I never underestimate the stupidity of the masses.
|
| | |
Date: 18 May 2007 11:40:26
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: It's funny to watch all the vitriol directed at Lemond
|
On Fri, 18 May 2007 11:26:20 -0400, Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote:
>On Fri, 18 May 2007 09:02:05 -0500, Preston Crawford
><me@prestoncrawford.com> wrote:
>
>>I keep opening threads, thinking that I will find someone talking about
>>the possibility that the Landis camp did something really dirty and
>>stupid, but instead everyone assumes that Lemond is a liar.
>>
>>Here we have a sport where nearly everyone dopes, yet the benefit of the
>>doubt should go to the person being accused of cheating. Always. Be it
>>Lance, Ulrich, now Landis. The labs are bad. The French are out to get
>>them. The police are dirty. WADA and the USADA are out to get them. All
>>of these are highly likely, of course...
>>
>>Or, doesn't Ockham's Razor kick in at some point and you just realize
>>that yeah, most of them are cheating?
>
>You are so right on, but you sadly you will be flamed in this forum.
>
>Parallels to Landis case and O.J. Simpson:
>
>1) High statistical probability of guilt (most world class cyclists
>dope / husband most likely perp. in murder of married woman)
>
>2) High paid lawyers using crafty sleight of hand to divert the
>attention of the credible public from the facts: a) Making accepted
>science sound like voodoo; b) Making accepted methods collection and
>testing of evidence sound like the keystone cops; c) character
>assassination of witnesses; etc.
Ya want voodoo, I'll give you voodoo: "With isotope testing, no error is
possible." How can you accept scientific evidence from someone who says things
like that.
Ron
|
| | | |
Date: 18 May 2007 17:48:43
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: It's funny to watch all the vitriol directed at Lemond
|
Dans le message de news:91ir43l125asecksllu325oet1415r4ap1@4ax.com,
RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Fri, 18 May 2007 11:26:20 -0400, Doug Taylor
> <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 18 May 2007 09:02:05 -0500, Preston Crawford
>> <me@prestoncrawford.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I keep opening threads, thinking that I will find someone talking
>>> about the possibility that the Landis camp did something really
>>> dirty and stupid, but instead everyone assumes that Lemond is a
>>> liar.
>>>
>>> Here we have a sport where nearly everyone dopes, yet the benefit
>>> of the doubt should go to the person being accused of cheating.
>>> Always. Be it Lance, Ulrich, now Landis. The labs are bad. The
>>> French are out to get them. The police are dirty. WADA and the
>>> USADA are out to get them. All of these are highly likely, of
>>> course...
>>>
>>> Or, doesn't Ockham's Razor kick in at some point and you just
>>> realize that yeah, most of them are cheating?
>>
>> You are so right on, but you sadly you will be flamed in this forum.
>>
>> Parallels to Landis case and O.J. Simpson:
>>
>> 1) High statistical probability of guilt (most world class cyclists
>> dope / husband most likely perp. in murder of married woman)
>>
>> 2) High paid lawyers using crafty sleight of hand to divert the
>> attention of the credible public from the facts: a) Making accepted
>> science sound like voodoo; b) Making accepted methods collection and
>> testing of evidence sound like the keystone cops; c) character
>> assassination of witnesses; etc.
>
> Ya want voodoo, I'll give you voodoo: "With isotope testing, no error
> is possible." How can you accept scientific evidence from someone who
> says things like that.
>
> Ron
Don't try to trick me by agreeing with me!
|
| |
Date: 18 May 2007 07:47:33
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: It's funny to watch all the vitriol directed at Lemond
|
Preston Crawford wrote:
> I keep opening threads, thinking that I will find someone talking about
> the possibility that the Landis camp did something really dirty and
> stupid, but instead everyone assumes that Lemond is a liar.
Why do you believe these two possibilities to be mutually exclusive?
|
| | |
Date: 18 May 2007 09:52:54
From: Preston Crawford
Subject: Re: It's funny to watch all the vitriol directed at Lemond
|
On 2007-05-18, Fred Fredburger <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote:
> Preston Crawford wrote:
>> I keep opening threads, thinking that I will find someone talking about
>> the possibility that the Landis camp did something really dirty and
>> stupid, but instead everyone assumes that Lemond is a liar.
>
> Why do you believe these two possibilities to be mutually exclusive?
Actually you're quite correct that both Landis and Lemond could be
liars. Of course. I suppose what matters to me in the end is that the
source of the vitriol seems to be that most people here assume Lemond is
a liar and Landis and everyone else is clean.
Preston
|
| | | |
Date: 18 May 2007 08:56:13
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: It's funny to watch all the vitriol directed at Lemond
|
Preston Crawford wrote:
> On 2007-05-18, Fred Fredburger <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
>> Preston Crawford wrote:
>>> I keep opening threads, thinking that I will find someone talking about
>>> the possibility that the Landis camp did something really dirty and
>>> stupid, but instead everyone assumes that Lemond is a liar.
>> Why do you believe these two possibilities to be mutually exclusive?
>
> Actually you're quite correct that both Landis and Lemond could be
> liars. Of course. I suppose what matters to me in the end is that the
> source of the vitriol seems to be that most people here assume Lemond is
> a liar and Landis and everyone else is clean.
Here's a simple explanation: the Landis doping story is old news but
Lemond's sideshow-esque performance is NEW.
To me, Lemond's credibility was blown long ago with his claim of virtual
tour victories. Everything he's done since then just fits the pattern.
Rewinding about 8 months, yeah, Landis probably doped too.
|
| |
Date: 18 May 2007 09:32:31
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: It's funny to watch all the vitriol directed at Lemond
|
Preston Crawford wrote:
> I keep opening threads, thinking that I will find someone talking about
> the possibility that the Landis camp did something really dirty and
> stupid, but instead everyone assumes that Lemond is a liar.
Dumbass,
Who is the everyone you referring to here?
Most, if not all of the people slinging crap at Lemond are
doing so because he brought a 'he said - he said' circus
sideshow to the hearing. Even if it's all 100% true it
can't be verified. So what's the fucking point.
Some of us think he's telling the truth but that he's still
a douche bag.
I was bitching about how this is supposed to be about
analytical chemistry and chains of custody and proper
operation of instruments and my wife pointed out that no
one understands that shit. The Oprah Winfrey shit, *that*
everyone understands.
If I were an arbitrator and saw my hearing being turned
into a circus I'd be pretty irritated with the ringmaster.
Bob Schwartz
|
| | |
Date: 18 May 2007 17:05:09
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: It's funny to watch all the vitriol directed at Lemond
|
Dans le message de news:4Oi3i.812$C96.756@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net,
Bob Schwartz <bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net > a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :
> I was bitching about how this is supposed to be about
> analytical chemistry and chains of custody and proper
> operation of instruments
Another one who doesn't get it.
That is NOT the subject.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 May 2007 15:12:11
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: It's funny to watch all the vitriol directed at Lemond
|
Sandy wrote:
> Dans le message de news:4Oi3i.812$C96.756@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net,
> Bob Schwartz <bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> a réfléchi, et puis a
> déclaré :
>
>> I was bitching about how this is supposed to be about
>> analytical chemistry and chains of custody and proper
>> operation of instruments
>
> Another one who doesn't get it.
> That is NOT the subject.
Dumbass,
This guy doesn't get it either:
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12272.0.html
Bob Schwartz
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 May 2007 17:38:52
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: It's funny to watch all the vitriol directed at Lemond
|
Dans le message de news:fnj3i.22446$JZ3.21233@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net,
Bob Schwartz <bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net > a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :
> Sandy wrote:
>> Dans le message de news:4Oi3i.812$C96.756@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net,
>> Bob Schwartz <bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> a réfléchi, et puis a
>> déclaré :
>>
>>> I was bitching about how this is supposed to be about
>>> analytical chemistry and chains of custody and proper
>>> operation of instruments
>>
>> Another one who doesn't get it.
>> That is NOT the subject.
>
> Dumbass,
>
> This guy doesn't get it either:
>
> http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12272.0.html
>
> Bob Schwartz
If he gets it, it's because he was side-swiped. Quoting this author ...
"If the arbitrators are inclined to believe that Landis's test results are
scientifically valid, Landis's alleged response to LeMond, "What good would
it do?" gives the arbitrators some indirect evidence to support their
position. "
Except one small tiny thing. The arbitrators _don't_ have in evidence that
"alleged response" as it never came in during Lemond's testimony, although
VeloNews may have convinced this eminent barrister that it is there. Funny,
we look for enclosed procedures to allow controlled decision making, yet
rely on People for our truth. Oh, well .....
|
|
