| |
Main
Date: 27 Feb 2007 09:24:34
From: Scott
Subject: Liggett's take on it
|
Bob Roll and Phil Liggett are in Denver today, appearing later at
Wheat Ridge Cyclery. On a local news show this morning, they were
interviewed briefly, and during that interview Phil was asked
specifically what he thought about the Landis affair.
His response was interesting. In essence he said, 'from what I know
NOW, Landis WILL be found innocent of the charges and I do not believe
WADA will appeal the decision' (his emphasis, not mine). He went on
to say that he bumped into him in a hotel in California last week and
they talked for about an hour. His conclusion "He did not cheat."
I'm guessing Phil must be in on certain info that perhaps we're not
yet privvy to.
|
|
| |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 20:35:40
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
On 1, 2:10 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> Note today's Iraq which could probably
> benefit from a completely honest authoritarian government.
Dumbass -
Such a thing has never known existence.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
|
| |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 09:45:24
From: need more sun
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
On 1, 3:48 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "need more sun" <recbikegr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:1172744916.024425.27400@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 11:43 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> "Bob tin" <bob....@excite.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:p5mFh.42676$Da4.32694@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>
> >> > in 537562 20070228 165907 "Steve Freides" <s...@fridayscomputer.com>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >>And, IMHO, the founding fathers of the US did the right thing when they
> >> >>suggested a person is innocent until proven guilty, and that's how I
> >> >>choose to look at this one.
>
> >> > That was taken directly from English law - which had operated in the
> >> > colonies
> >> > for hundreds of years.
>
> >> And if memory serves that came from Oliver Cromwell's morals. Before that
> >> you were guilty when proclaimed so by anyone with money.
>
> > Cromwell was a scumbag - I wouldn't reference him!!
>
> You must be one of those Liberals.
You must be one of those fascists... Cromwell massacred people in the
interests of expanding his empire...hey, that sounds familiar! I guess
he is just your kind of guy, politically...
A quick search online for 'Cromwell and Drogheda' turned this up:
Cromwell set sail for Ireland on August 13, 1649. He arrived in Dublin
on the 15th and was greeted by the roar of cannons from the walls and
a great, enthusiastic crowd. Cromwell was received so favorably
because Dublin was the second city of the English empire and Colonel
Jones had expelled all Catholics from the city.
The Duke of Ormonde left Sir Arthur Aston, an English Catholic, at
Drogheda with 2,200 infantry and 20 cavalry to delay Cromwell from
auding farther north. Aston was well aware of Cromwell's superior
numbers--8,000 infantry and 4,000 cavalry--but he was confident that
Drogheda's superior position would enable him to survive the
Cromwellian onslaught even if he could not hope to take the Lord
Lieutenant in the field--or, as he put it, "He who could take Drogheda
could take Hell." He also expected war's partners, disease and famine,
to weaken the (Protestant) Parliamentary army.
The geography of Drogheda was crucial to the siege. The town was
totally contained within a formidable wall one and a half miles long,
20 feet high, and 6 feet wide at the base, narrowing to 2 feet on top.
The main town lay north of the River Boyne. To the south, still within
the impressive fortifications, was an additional urban area situated
on a hill that had to be tackled first by any army coming from the
south. In the extreme southeast corner, virtually embedded in the city
wall, stood St. y's Church. From its lofty steeple the defenders
not only had a fine view of the city but were in a good position to
fire upon their Protestant attackers.
Flanking the church on the town side was a steep ravine called the
Dale, then the heavily guarded Duleek Gate, the entrance to this
southern outpost, and behind that an imposing artificial mound called
the Mill Mount.
On September 10, Cromwell issued his first official summons to Sir
Arthur Aston:
"Having brought the army belonging to the Parliament of England before
this place, to reduce it to obedience, to the end the effusion of
blood may be prevented, I thought it fit to summon you to deliver the
same into my hands to their use. If this be refused you will have no
cause to blame me."
Aston refused to surrender, and Cromwell's cannons opened fire. The
walls of the city began to crumble. Aston quickly realized that he was
in danger. The (Protestant) Parliamentary fleet blockaded the harbor.
The Duke of Ormonde could send no more reinforcements, his arms and
provisions were running short. Worst of all, like all of Ireland,
Drogheda was not united. Some of those inside the walls preferred the
English Parliamentary force.
Knowing that there could be "no quarter" (no mercy) if he refused to
surrender, Aston decided to fight on, writing to the Duke of Ormonde
that his soldiers, at least, "were unanimous in their resolution to
perish rather than to deliver up the place."
The (Catholic) defenders fought bravely, at first turning back the
attackers, but eventually the Parliamentarians crashed through the
walls and seized St. y's Church. Aston and some defenders fled to
Mill Mount. Possessed by bloodlust, the Parliamentarians rushed up the
hill, and all defenders, including Aston, were killed by order of
Cromwell. The Parliamentarians swept through the streets with orders
to kill anyone in arms. Against orders, civilians also were killed in
the rush. Priests and friars were treated as combatants by Cromwell's
Puritans and executed. Even more horrible was the fate of the
defenders of St. Peter's Church in the northern part of the town; the
church was burned down around them. By nightfall, only small pockets
of resistance on the walls remained. When they managed to kill some
(Protestant) Parliamentarians, Cromwell ordered the captured
(Catholic) officers to be "knocked on the head" and every 10th soldier
(Catholic) executed. Nearly 4,000 (Catholic) Confederates died at
Drogheda.
Drogheda's being divided by the river caused some confusion and may
have led to the massacre. When forces on one side of the river
surrendered, it is alleged that Cromwell, still meeting resistance on
the other side, ordered the annihilation of the entire population. "I
do not think that thirty of the whole number escaped with their
lives," Cromwell later wrote. The survivors were sold as slaves to the
sugar plantations at Barbados.
After the massacre, Cromwell sought to explain his actions in a letter
to William Lenthall, speaker of the English Parliament:
"...I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgement of God upon
these barbarous wretches, who have imbued their hands in so much
innocent blood, and it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for
the future, which are satisfactory grounds to such actions, which
otherwise cannot but work remourse and regret...."
Nice guy, all right....
|
| | |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 22:10:13
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
"need more sun" <recbikegroup@yahoo.co.uk > wrote in message
news:1172771124.106696.131400@31g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> On 1, 3:48 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> > On Feb 28, 11:43 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> >> "Bob tin" <bob....@excite.com> wrote in message
>> >> > in 537562 20070228 165907 "Steve Freides" <s...@fridayscomputer.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>And, IMHO, the founding fathers of the US did the right thing when
>> >> >>they
>> >> >>suggested a person is innocent until proven guilty, and that's how I
>> >> >>choose to look at this one.
>>
>> >> > That was taken directly from English law - which had operated in the
>> >> > colonies for hundreds of years.
>>
>> >> And if memory serves that came from Oliver Cromwell's morals. Before
>> >> that
>> >> you were guilty when proclaimed so by anyone with money.
>>
>> > Cromwell was a scumbag - I wouldn't reference him!!
>>
>> You must be one of those Liberals.
>
> You must be one of those fascists.
You must be one of those guys who needs smilies added to every posting to
clue you into sarcasm.
> Cromwell massacred people in the interests of expanding
> his empire...hey, that sounds familiar! I guess he is just
> your kind of guy, politically.
Pretending that wasn't the situation normal of the time? Maybe you'd like to
quote a single head of government that wasn't doing the same thing? Not to
forgive Cromwell but we have to appreciate the good things he did at the
same time as deplore the awful things. After all, pretending that King
Charles wouldn't have done precisely the same thing had he not been
dethroned by the Parlimentarians is probably a false hope.
Remember that Cromwell was savagely attacked in the press of the time and
looked the other way. Cromwell was a General and hence had a General's view
of death at that time - a necessary evil. He was considered an authortarian
but in those times that was needed. Note today's Iraq which could probably
benefit from a completely honest authoritarian government.
|
| |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 07:21:16
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
On 1, 7:52 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com> wrote in messagenews:1172756713.997803.78560@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > NOT saying Landis is guilty or innocent, cuz I and nobody else on the
> > NG knows
>
> Peter, Peter, Peter... surely you know by now that there are at least a
> dozen people on this group that know the absolute truth of the universe and
> they say that Floyd is guilty. After all, most of them ride one or two
> hundred miles a year on recumbents and they know for a fact that no one
> could ride the Tour de France without "help".
teehee...are you going to answer the poll about 'bents'
on .ketplace?
|
| | |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 12:00:48
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
On 1 2007 07:21:16 -0800, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
<peter@vecchios.com > wrote:
>teehee...are you going to answer the poll about 'bents'
>on .ketplace?
Best that I know, I am about the only publically admitted recumbent
rider on this list, at least as a regular, and I never took a position
on whether Floyd was guilty or not. Kunich simply makes up things as
he goes along. Back in Kansas, we would call him a liar, but I guess
rbr is more civilized than Kansas.
Hell, no we're not. Kunich is a liar.
And no, Kunich won't quote anywhere that I made any such statement -
he can't. But he will quote something that is somewhat remotely like
it, if you squint and ignore context and content simultaneously, and
then he will say that was what he meant all along, given that what he
claims is what I meant all along.
I know - confusing, but it is the price of admission to the Kunich
bot's alternate universe.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 05:45:14
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
On Feb 27, 2:29 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <M...@ChainReaction.com > wrote:
> > Bob Roll and Phil Liggett are in Denver today, appearing later at
> > Wheat Ridge Cyclery. On a local news show this morning, they were
> > interviewed briefly, and during that interview Phil was asked
> > specifically what he thought about the Landis affair.
>
> > His response was interesting. In essence he said, 'from what I know
> > NOW, Landis WILL be found innocent of the charges and I do not believe
> > WADA will appeal the decision' (his emphasis, not mine). He went on
> > to say that he bumped into him in a hotel in California last week and
> > they talked for about an hour. His conclusion "He did not cheat."
>
> > I'm guessing Phil must be in on certain info that perhaps we're not
> > yet privvy to.
>
> Phil has the advantage of having spent an hour with Landis, plus a good deal
> of insight into the people who run things (be it WADA, USADA, UCI, ASO etc).
> And he, like the rest of us, is probably getting a sense that, over the last
> couple of weeks, the tide had changed dramatically. It probably started with
> Dick Pound's ridiculous comment about Landis violating every virgin within
> 100 miles because of the amount of testosterone he supposedly had. At that
> point things jumped from the merely scientific finding of fact to such an
> obvious vendetta that reasonable people could no longer ignore it.
>
> --Mike--
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
NOT saying Landis is guilty or innocent, cuz I and nobody else on the
NG knows, BUT..when I was in the USN one of our LCDRs popped for
cocaine...got off on a technicality, about the chain of custody, but
he was guilty as all holy hell. If Landis gets off, well, he will
always be suspected by the Euros if he races again, because of this
fiasco and because he is an American. I wouldn't be surprised if Floyd
or Tyler get popped again, whether they doped or not.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 14:52:02
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote in message
news:1172756713.997803.78560@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> NOT saying Landis is guilty or innocent, cuz I and nobody else on the
> NG knows
Peter, Peter, Peter... surely you know by now that there are at least a
dozen people on this group that know the absolute truth of the universe and
they say that Floyd is guilty. After all, most of them ride one or two
hundred miles a year on recumbents and they know for a fact that no one
could ride the Tour de France without "help".
|
| |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 02:28:36
From: need more sun
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
On Feb 28, 11:43 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Bob tin" <bob....@excite.com> wrote in message
>
> news:p5mFh.42676$Da4.32694@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>
> > in 537562 20070228 165907 "Steve Freides" <s...@fridayscomputer.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>And, IMHO, the founding fathers of the US did the right thing when they
> >>suggested a person is innocent until proven guilty, and that's how I
> >>choose to look at this one.
>
> > That was taken directly from English law - which had operated in the
> > colonies
> > for hundreds of years.
>
> And if memory serves that came from Oliver Cromwell's morals. Before that
> you were guilty when proclaimed so by anyone with money.
Cromwell was a scumbag - I wouldn't reference him!!
|
| | |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 14:48:54
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
"need more sun" <recbikegroup@yahoo.co.uk > wrote in message
news:1172744916.024425.27400@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 28, 11:43 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "Bob tin" <bob....@excite.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:p5mFh.42676$Da4.32694@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> > in 537562 20070228 165907 "Steve Freides" <s...@fridayscomputer.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>And, IMHO, the founding fathers of the US did the right thing when they
>> >>suggested a person is innocent until proven guilty, and that's how I
>> >>choose to look at this one.
>>
>> > That was taken directly from English law - which had operated in the
>> > colonies
>> > for hundreds of years.
>>
>> And if memory serves that came from Oliver Cromwell's morals. Before that
>> you were guilty when proclaimed so by anyone with money.
>
> Cromwell was a scumbag - I wouldn't reference him!!
You must be one of those Liberals.
|
| |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 15:28:53
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
On Feb 28, 5:34 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com >
wrote:
> WEll, even if he is found guilty or innocent,..
Only in Scottish law was there the triad of judgement: 1- guilty, 2-
not guilty, and 3- innocent. I think. Bob tin, get off your ass
and confirm or deny.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 08:43:29
From: Bob Martin
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
in 537598 20070228 232853 "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com > wrote:
>On Feb 28, 5:34 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
>wrote:
>
>> WEll, even if he is found guilty or innocent,..
>
>Only in Scottish law was there the triad of judgement: 1- guilty, 2-
>not guilty, and 3- innocent. I think. Bob tin, get off your ass
>and confirm or deny.
Not was - IS. Scotland has 1-guilty, 2-not guilty and 3-not proven.
England and Wales do not have option 3 (which is not a presumption
of innocence btw - only that innocence or guilt could not be established).
|
| |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 12:28:12
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
> WEll, even if he is found guilty or innocent, nobody but one will know
> the real truth. We will see the 'results', and he may be exonerated or
> sanctioned, but none of us will really know.
I knew you were going to say I wasn't omniscient, but I choose to
ignore the slight. Omnipotent beings are magnanimous. ;)
If we knew it all there'd be no point in watching the race...or racing
for that matter. The interesting stuff is always in the gray area.
R
|
| |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 09:12:26
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
On Feb 28, 8:59 am, "Steve Freides" <s...@fridayscomputer.com > wrote:
> There is a great deal, cycling related and otherwise,
> about which none of us will really know.
> ...
> Not really knowing is the norm and, as such, isn't
> something we can rightly complain about, IMHO.
> To think we "really know" about much of anything
> is to delude ourselves in most cases.
This place is loaded up with demopublicans. Which means what you said
there will fall on deaf ears.
> And, IMHO, the founding fathers of the US did the right thing when they
> suggested a person is innocent until proven guilty, and that's how I
> choose to look at this one.
A "suggestion?" They were talking about crime, where here it is a
private club alleged rule violation, or perhaps even a tort. Um...,
but in essential practice, I think I agree.
|
| |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 05:34:30
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
On Feb 27, 10:47 am, "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 27, 10:40 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 10:24 am, "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Bob Roll and Phil Liggett are in Denver today, appearing later at
> > > Wheat Ridge Cyclery. On a local news show this morning, they were
> > > interviewed briefly, and during that interview Phil was asked
> > > specifically what he thought about the Landis affair.
>
> > > His response was interesting. In essence he said, 'from what I know
> > > NOW, Landis WILL be found innocent of the charges and I do not believe
> > > WADA will appeal the decision' (his emphasis, not mine). He went on
> > > to say that he bumped into him in a hotel in California last week and
> > > they talked for about an hour. His conclusion "He did not cheat."
>
> > > I'm guessing Phil must be in on certain info that perhaps we're not
> > > yet privvy to.
>
> > yep, an hour in front of Landis.
>
> You sound skeptical, Peter.
WEll, even if he is found guilty or innocent, nobody but one will know
the real truth. We will see the 'results', and he may be exonerated or
sanctioned, but none of us will really know.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 11:59:07
From: Steve Freides
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote in message
news:1172669670.442623.319480@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 27, 10:47 am, "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 10:40 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 27, 10:24 am, "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Bob Roll and Phil Liggett are in Denver today, appearing later at
>> > > Wheat Ridge Cyclery. On a local news show this morning, they
>> > > were
>> > > interviewed briefly, and during that interview Phil was asked
>> > > specifically what he thought about the Landis affair.
>>
>> > > His response was interesting. In essence he said, 'from what I
>> > > know
>> > > NOW, Landis WILL be found innocent of the charges and I do not
>> > > believe
>> > > WADA will appeal the decision' (his emphasis, not mine). He went
>> > > on
>> > > to say that he bumped into him in a hotel in California last week
>> > > and
>> > > they talked for about an hour. His conclusion "He did not
>> > > cheat."
>>
>> > > I'm guessing Phil must be in on certain info that perhaps we're
>> > > not
>> > > yet privvy to.
>>
>> > yep, an hour in front of Landis.
>>
>> You sound skeptical, Peter.
>
> WEll, even if he is found guilty or innocent, nobody but one will know
> the real truth. We will see the 'results', and he may be exonerated or
> sanctioned, but none of us will really know.
There is a great deal, cycling related and otherwise, about which none
of us will really know. This incident got a lot of publicity but I
don't see how we will ever really know, e.g., whether some/most/none/all
cyclists use performance enhancing drugs, or for that matter, whether or
not the same is true of other professional athletes or, for that matter,
whether or not the same is true for that really cut, muscular 15 year
old that knocked my son down on the soccer field the other day. Not
really knowing is the norm and, as such, isn't something we can rightly
complain about, IMHO. To think we "really know" about much of anything
is to delude ourselves in most cases.
And, IMHO, the founding fathers of the US did the right thing when they
suggested a person is innocent until proven guilty, and that's how I
choose to look at this one.
Just my opinion.
-S-
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 21:02:13
From: Bob Martin
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
in 537562 20070228 165907 "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com > wrote:
>And, IMHO, the founding fathers of the US did the right thing when they
>suggested a person is innocent until proven guilty, and that's how I
>choose to look at this one.
That was taken directly from English law - which had operated in the colonies
for hundreds of years.
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 22:43:28
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
"Bob tin" <bob.tin@excite.com > wrote in message
news:p5mFh.42676$Da4.32694@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> in 537562 20070228 165907 "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com>
> wrote:
>
>>And, IMHO, the founding fathers of the US did the right thing when they
>>suggested a person is innocent until proven guilty, and that's how I
>>choose to look at this one.
>
> That was taken directly from English law - which had operated in the
> colonies
> for hundreds of years.
And if memory serves that came from Oliver Cromwell's morals. Before that
you were guilty when proclaimed so by anyone with money.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 13:55:51
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> WEll, even if he is found guilty or innocent, nobody but one will know
> the real truth. We will see the 'results', and he may be exonerated or
> sanctioned, but none of us will really know.
>
Anyone who thinks he "knows" about any rider is lying to himself, or is totally
ignorant about the history of sport. Performance is probably as good of an
indicator as a test with proven flaws.
Dan
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 22:40:18
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m > wrote in message
news:HRfFh.2518$M65.432@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
>> WEll, even if he is found guilty or innocent, nobody but one will know
>> the real truth. We will see the 'results', and he may be exonerated or
>> sanctioned, but none of us will really know.
>
> Anyone who thinks he "knows" about any rider is lying to himself, or is
> totally ignorant about the history of sport. Performance is probably as
> good of an indicator as a test with proven flaws.
Here's my take - even if he did use testosterone, the studies have shown
that it has NO effect short term and so isn't a performance enhancing drug
overnight.
I don't believe that he took it because he is anything but stupid. No one is
going to take a drug that is so easily ID'd in a urine or blood test.
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 06:11:35
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> (studies show testosterone has no short-term effect)
>
Can you post an example?
Dan
|
| | | | | |
Date: 02 Mar 2007 04:48:43
From: Ken Prager
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
In article <raBFh.822$iw4.414@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net >,
Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m > wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > (studies show testosterone has no short-term effect)
> >
>
>
> Can you post an example?
>
> Dan
<crickets >
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 17:47:54
From: KC
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote in message
> news:HRfFh.2518$M65.432@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>>
>>> WEll, even if he is found guilty or innocent, nobody but one will know
>>> the real truth. We will see the 'results', and he may be exonerated or
>>> sanctioned, but none of us will really know.
>> Anyone who thinks he "knows" about any rider is lying to himself, or is
>> totally ignorant about the history of sport. Performance is probably as
>> good of an indicator as a test with proven flaws.
>
> Here's my take - even if he did use testosterone, the studies have shown
> that it has NO effect short term and so isn't a performance enhancing drug
> overnight.
>
> I don't believe that he took it because he is anything but stupid. No one is
> going to take a drug that is so easily ID'd in a urine or blood test.
>
>
... and one that doesn't do you much good.
This is basically what I've thought from the beginning, too.
There are SOME benefits to be gained from taking testosterone though (or
so I've been told) including an immediate boost in general feeling of
well-being, as well as aggressiveness. Basically, doping with T. makes
you have a "good day" but on the day you need it.
But mainly, you'd have to be really f'ing stupid to take it because it'd
be so easy to find. Not that he wasn't desperate after that bonk of a
day before... but I still don't think he's that dumb.
-KC
|
| | | | | |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 01:07:12
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
> But mainly, you'd have to be really f'ing stupid to take it because it'd
> be so easy to find. Not that he wasn't desperate after that bonk of a day
> before... but I still don't think he's that dumb.
But, as I mentioned before, the "stupidity" defense (as in, who would be
stupid enough to do that, therefor I didn't) is very weak. The people trying
to convict you believe you're stupid because you're doping in the first
place. They already believe in the superiority of their mentality to that of
the accused. Yes, they believe you *are* that stupid, so a denial based on
that logic is very weak.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 02:18:40
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > wrote in message
news:4HpFh.2646$M65.1366@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>> But mainly, you'd have to be really f'ing stupid to take it because it'd
>> be so easy to find. Not that he wasn't desperate after that bonk of a
>> day before... but I still don't think he's that dumb.
>
> But, as I mentioned before, the "stupidity" defense (as in, who would be
> stupid enough to do that, therefor I didn't) is very weak. The people
> trying to convict you believe you're stupid because you're doping in the
> first place. They already believe in the superiority of their mentality to
> that of the accused. Yes, they believe you *are* that stupid, so a denial
> based on that logic is very weak.
I wonder how you can be so discerning here and such a sucker elsewhere.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 04:11:33
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
>>> But mainly, you'd have to be really f'ing stupid to take it because it'd
>>> be so easy to find. Not that he wasn't desperate after that bonk of a
>>> day before... but I still don't think he's that dumb.
>>
>> But, as I mentioned before, the "stupidity" defense (as in, who would be
>> stupid enough to do that, therefor I didn't) is very weak. The people
>> trying to convict you believe you're stupid because you're doping in the
>> first place. They already believe in the superiority of their mentality
>> to that of the accused. Yes, they believe you *are* that stupid, so a
>> denial based on that logic is very weak.
>
> I wonder how you can be so discerning here and such a sucker elsewhere.
Hey, it's not *me* who references Ann Coulter! : >)
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
|
| |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 21:29:44
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
> Bob Roll and Phil Liggett are in Denver today, appearing later at
> Wheat Ridge Cyclery. On a local news show this morning, they were
> interviewed briefly, and during that interview Phil was asked
> specifically what he thought about the Landis affair.
>
> His response was interesting. In essence he said, 'from what I know
> NOW, Landis WILL be found innocent of the charges and I do not believe
> WADA will appeal the decision' (his emphasis, not mine). He went on
> to say that he bumped into him in a hotel in California last week and
> they talked for about an hour. His conclusion "He did not cheat."
>
> I'm guessing Phil must be in on certain info that perhaps we're not
> yet privvy to.
Phil has the advantage of having spent an hour with Landis, plus a good deal
of insight into the people who run things (be it WADA, USADA, UCI, ASO etc).
And he, like the rest of us, is probably getting a sense that, over the last
couple of weeks, the tide had changed dramatically. It probably started with
Dick Pound's ridiculous comment about Landis violating every virgin within
100 miles because of the amount of testosterone he supposedly had. At that
point things jumped from the merely scientific finding of fact to such an
obvious vendetta that reasonable people could no longer ignore it.
--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
|
| |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 09:47:54
From: Scott
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
On Feb 27, 10:40 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com >
wrote:
> On Feb 27, 10:24 am, "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Bob Roll and Phil Liggett are in Denver today, appearing later at
> > Wheat Ridge Cyclery. On a local news show this morning, they were
> > interviewed briefly, and during that interview Phil was asked
> > specifically what he thought about the Landis affair.
>
> > His response was interesting. In essence he said, 'from what I know
> > NOW, Landis WILL be found innocent of the charges and I do not believe
> > WADA will appeal the decision' (his emphasis, not mine). He went on
> > to say that he bumped into him in a hotel in California last week and
> > they talked for about an hour. His conclusion "He did not cheat."
>
> > I'm guessing Phil must be in on certain info that perhaps we're not
> > yet privvy to.
>
> yep, an hour in front of Landis.
You sound skeptical, Peter.
|
| |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 09:40:58
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Liggett's take on it
|
On Feb 27, 10:24 am, "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Bob Roll and Phil Liggett are in Denver today, appearing later at
> Wheat Ridge Cyclery. On a local news show this morning, they were
> interviewed briefly, and during that interview Phil was asked
> specifically what he thought about the Landis affair.
>
> His response was interesting. In essence he said, 'from what I know
> NOW, Landis WILL be found innocent of the charges and I do not believe
> WADA will appeal the decision' (his emphasis, not mine). He went on
> to say that he bumped into him in a hotel in California last week and
> they talked for about an hour. His conclusion "He did not cheat."
>
> I'm guessing Phil must be in on certain info that perhaps we're not
> yet privvy to.
yep, an hour in front of Landis.
|
|
