The Diningenuous Mr. Armstrong
View Full Version : The Diningenuous Mr. Armstrong
.......In a further e-mail from WADA to procycling, a spokesperson for Pound reiterated that "He
(Pound) also believes it is disingenuous for Mr. Armstrong to permit his people to resort to a
personal attack. Mr. Pound has never identified Mr. Armstrong personally in any comments he has made
about doping in cycling and is surprised that Mr. Armstrong would resort to such a strongly worded
personal attack."
http://www.procycling.com/news_main.asp?newsId=4994
------------------------------------------------------------
Then again, maybe Armstrong doesn't reason very well. What **** Pound said as quoted in Velonews:
"They know Tour de France cyclists and others have been taking prohibited substances. It's the same
thing in the United States with American football." http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/5485.0.html
I seem to recall that one rider from the 2003 Tour de France tested positive for EPO and that the
blood profiles of riders taken during the Tour indicated sufficiently that riders were probably
resorting to the older technique of blood doping. Rider (Gaumont) have spoke openly about this being
done. The UCI will be testing for blood doping with an Aussi test at this year's Tour.
So Mr. Armstrong's protests are somewhat misplaced. Perhaps he should sit down with Bassons,
Voet, Rumsas and some of the former Cofidis riders for a chat over some Bass Ale and get to the
bottom of it.
You know Brian, this gets really old sometimes. The results from that latest testing showed signs of
EPO in only 1/3rd of the Peloton. You don't have the slightest compunction to slander the entire
group of riders to feed your ego. Why don't you get a life. I'd be willing to bet that cycling is
only in the middle range of dopers in sports.
"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
news:Ir52c.33849$hm4.17210@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> .......In a further e-mail from WADA to procycling, a spokesperson for
Pound
> reiterated that "He (Pound) also believes it is disingenuous for Mr. Armstrong to permit his
> people to resort to a personal attack. Mr. Pound
has
> never identified Mr. Armstrong personally in any comments he has made
about
> doping in cycling and is surprised that Mr. Armstrong would resort to such
a
> strongly worded personal attack."
>
> http://www.procycling.com/news_main.asp?newsId=4994
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Then again, maybe Armstrong doesn't reason very well. What **** Pound
said
> as quoted in Velonews:
>
> "They know Tour de France cyclists and others have been taking prohibited substances. It's the
> same thing in the United States with American football."
> http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/5485.0.html
>
> I seem to recall that one rider from the 2003 Tour de France tested
positive
> for EPO and that the blood profiles of riders taken during the Tour indicated sufficiently that
> riders were probably resorting to the older technique of blood doping. Rider (Gaumont) have spoke
> openly about this being done. The UCI will be testing for blood doping with an Aussi test
at
> this year's Tour.
>
> So Mr. Armstrong's protests are somewhat misplaced. Perhaps he should sit down with Bassons, Voet,
> Rumsas and some of the former Cofidis riders for
a
> chat over some Bass Ale and get to the bottom of it.
>
OK, I ain't a lawyer - libel.
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Vja2c.21003$yZ1.2187@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> You know Brian, this gets really old sometimes. The results from that
latest
> testing showed signs of EPO in only 1/3rd of the Peloton. You don't have
the
> slightest compunction to slander the entire group of riders to feed your ego. Why don't you get a
> life. I'd be willing to bet that cycling is only
in
> the middle range of dopers in sports.
>
>
> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
> news:Ir52c.33849$hm4.17210@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > .......In a further e-mail from WADA to procycling, a spokesperson for
> Pound
> > reiterated that "He (Pound) also believes it is disingenuous for Mr. Armstrong to permit his
> > people to resort to a personal attack. Mr. Pound
> has
> > never identified Mr. Armstrong personally in any comments he has made
> about
> > doping in cycling and is surprised that Mr. Armstrong would resort to
such
> a
> > strongly worded personal attack."
> >
> > http://www.procycling.com/news_main.asp?newsId=4994
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Then again, maybe Armstrong doesn't reason very well. What **** Pound
> said
> > as quoted in Velonews:
> >
> > "They know Tour de France cyclists and others have been taking
prohibited
> > substances. It's the same thing in the United States with American football."
> > http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/5485.0.html
> >
> > I seem to recall that one rider from the 2003 Tour de France tested
> positive
> > for EPO and that the blood profiles of riders taken during the Tour indicated sufficiently that
> > riders were probably resorting to the older technique of blood doping. Rider (Gaumont) have
> > spoke openly about this being done. The UCI will be testing for blood doping with an Aussi test
> at
> > this year's Tour.
> >
> > So Mr. Armstrong's protests are somewhat misplaced. Perhaps he should
sit
> > down with Bassons, Voet, Rumsas and some of the former Cofidis riders
for
> a
> > chat over some Bass Ale and get to the bottom of it.
> >
> >
> >
>
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 02:03:33 GMT in rec.bicycles.racing, "Tom
Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You know Brian, this gets really old sometimes.
just killfile the troll. once everyone does, he'll go away.
a smear troll like him deserves no audience whatsoever.
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Vja2c.21003$yZ1.2187@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> You know Brian, this gets really old sometimes. The
> results from that
latest
> testing showed signs of EPO in only 1/3rd of the Peloton.
> You don't have
the
> slightest compunction to slander the entire group of
> riders to feed your ego. Why don't you get a life. I'd be
> willing to bet that cycling is only
in
> the middle range of dopers in sports.
Pound did not say that ALL riders in the Tour were using
drugs. The 30% figure is hardly insignificant. Perhaps
Armstrong would like to address the 30% find that you note
and its implications for pro cycling and the Tour?
And remember Tom, truth is an absolute defense to libel
and slander.
B. Lafferty wrote:
>
> Pound did not say that ALL riders in the Tour were
> using drugs.
He didn't, but when I originally read the article in Le
Monde, my immediate reaction was that what he said could be
misinterpreted that way. My French isn't good enough to pick
up all of the subtleties of the language so I asked my wife
to read the paragraph and translate it for me without
telling her what I thought it said. Her translation was even
less equivocal than mine; she said, "he's saying everyone
knows Tour riders dope."
What he said to Le Monde is here: http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3242,36-
350687,0.html
The section was here:
Le Monde: "L'annee 2004 s'ouvre par une nouvelle affaire de
dopage dans le cyclisme."
Pound: "Meme le president de l'UCI, Hein Verbruggen, va
devoir admettre qu'il y a un probleme dans le cyclisme et
que cela dure depuis cent ans. Eliminer le dopage est un
defi. Et le cyclisme est un sport ou ce defi est
particulierement difficile a relever. Le public n'est pas
dupe, il sait bien que les cyclistes du Tour de France et
les autres prennent des substances interdites. C'est la meme
chose, aux Etats-Unis, avec le football americain: les
joueurs qui pesent 200 kilos, on sait bien que ce n'est pas
a cause de la viande qu'ils mangent."
I understand your point. However, it is accurate to say that
Tour riders dope. They do. Would it have been different if
Pound had said "tout les cyclistes du Tour de France?"
Given that more than a month passed between Pound's
statement and Armstrong's letter, might it have been better
for him to have one of his minions seek clarification from
Pound/WADA before attacking Pound personally?
FWIW, maybe this is just some displaced anger from an
increasingly messy divorce process (as reported by
ProCycling).
"Robert Chung" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message news:c2crg9$1qe43d$1@ID-226327.news.uni-
berlin.de...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
> >
> > Pound did not say that ALL riders in the Tour were using
> > drugs.
>
> He didn't, but when I originally read the article in Le
> Monde, my immediate reaction was that what he said could
> be misinterpreted that way. My French isn't good enough to
> pick up all of the subtleties of the language so I asked
> my wife to read the paragraph and translate it for me
> without telling her what I thought it said. Her
> translation was even less equivocal than mine; she said,
> "he's saying everyone knows Tour riders dope."
>
> What he said to Le Monde is here: http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3242,36-
> 350687,0.html
>
> The section was here:
>
> Le Monde: "L'annee 2004 s'ouvre par une nouvelle affaire
> de dopage dans le cyclisme."
>
> Pound: "Meme le president de l'UCI, Hein Verbruggen, va
> devoir admettre qu'il y a un probleme dans le cyclisme et
> que cela dure depuis cent ans. Eliminer le dopage est un
> defi. Et le cyclisme est un sport ou ce defi est
> particulierement difficile a relever. Le public n'est pas
> dupe, il sait bien que les cyclistes du Tour de France et
> les autres prennent des substances interdites. C'est la
> meme chose, aux Etats-Unis, avec le football americain:
> les joueurs qui pesent 200 kilos, on sait bien que ce
> n'est pas a cause de la viande qu'ils mangent."
B. Lafferty wrote:
> I understand your point. However, it is accurate to say
> that Tour riders dope. They do. Would it have been
> different if Pound had said "tout les cyclistes du Tour de
> France?"
Because of where I used to work I have, in the past, had to
parse words pretty carefully and my reaction was that
Pound's words were ambiguous enough to fall into the realm
of "able to be misinterpreted." It would be sort of like
being a US attorney asked about the Trafficant trial and
replying, "everyone knows that Congress members are
criminals." After being called to task on it, you could
legitimately say, "I didn't say *all* members of Congress
are criminals, so I was shocked, *shocked* I tell you, when
my Congressman complained."
To clarify further, when I read the original Le Monde
article I thought it odd enough to ask my wife about it,
but then I forgot it. I figured it was ambiguous and
incautious, but I never expected this response with a time
lag of a month.
"Robert Chung" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:c2cudn$1qakud$1@ID-226327.news.uni-berlin.de...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
> > I understand your point. However, it is accurate to say
> > that Tour riders dope. They do. Would it have been
> > different if Pound had said "tout les cyclistes du Tour
> > de France?"
>
> Because of where I used to work I have, in the past, had
> to parse words pretty carefully and my reaction was that
> Pound's words were ambiguous enough to fall into the realm
> of "able to be misinterpreted." It would be sort of like
> being a US attorney asked about the Trafficant trial and
> replying, "everyone knows that Congress members are
> criminals." After being called to task on it, you could
> legitimately say, "I didn't say *all* members of Congress
> are criminals, so I was shocked, *shocked* I tell you,
> when my Congressman complained."
I have a friend who keeps telling me that all Congresspeople
are criminals. Who does one believe??
>
> To clarify further, when I read the original Le Monde
> article I thought it odd enough to ask my wife about it,
> but then I forgot it. I figured it was ambiguous and
> incautious, but I never expected this response with a time
> lag of a month.
It does seem strange. Perhaps Armstrong has combined with
Hein to raise the heat in the negotiations between the UCI
and WADA over the UCI's non-signinging of the WADA
protocols. If you look at Armstrong's letter as high profile
UCI propaganda, it makes more sense.
In any event, Armstrong is becoming increasingly grandiose
and amusing. Take this comment from today's CyclingNews:
"The most important reaction to my open letter is that I
have complete support on this from my peers, from the teams,
from the race organizers, from the fans." Complete support
from everyone!!!! The guys who are juicing must love him.
Send the man a bakers dozen of fritters.
"Mr. Pound, in his response to my open letter said "Lance,
I don't know where I ever mentioned you." But the truth of
the matter was that he did something a lot worse than that;
he did something two hundred times worse than that. Because
he mentioned all of the [Tour de France] riders."
Interesting that He knows what Pound meant. A less
grandiose person would have sought clarification.
This is going to be a fun season!
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 17:04:34 GMT, B. Lafferty wrote:
> It does seem strange. Perhaps Armstrong has combined with
> Hein to raise the heat
Hein has been known to make Lance rise on occasion. http-
://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2001/sep01/trackworlds/MGl-
ance1.shtml
"Ewoud Dronkert" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1i1k40h8v5k46gb4u8t0f56bl01311iesb@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 17:04:34 GMT, B. Lafferty wrote:
> > It does seem strange. Perhaps Armstrong has combined
> > with Hein to raise the heat
>
> Hein has been known to make Lance rise on occasion. http:-
> //www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2001/sep01/trackworlds/MGlan-
> ce1.shtml
Thank you!!! :-)
B. Lafferty wrote:
>> It would be sort of like being a US attorney asked about
>> the Trafficant trial and replying, "everyone knows that
>> Congress members are criminals." After being called to
>> task on it, you could legitimately say, "I didn't say
>> *all* members of Congress are criminals, so I was
>> shocked, *shocked* I tell you, when my Congressman
>> complained."
>
> I have a friend who keeps telling me that all
> Congresspeople are criminals. Who does one believe??
Is your friend a US Attorney? Things said in private among
friends don't carry the same weight as things said by
someone who is in a position of authority to a newspaper.
That's why it struck me as odd, and incautious.
>> I never expected this response with a time lag of a
>> month.
>
> It does seem strange. Perhaps Armstrong has combined with
> Hein to raise the heat in the negotiations between the UCI
> and WADA over the UCI's non-signinging of the WADA
> protocols. If you look at Armstrong's letter as high
> profile UCI propaganda, it makes more sense.
Exactly. This is how I interpret this letter. I think there
is disingenuousness on all sides and the players are working
on spin and positioning. Sort of like a junior league
version of the November election.
"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
news:WXl2c.21768$yZ1.10419@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:-
> Vja2c.21003$yZ1.2187@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > You know Brian, this gets really old sometimes. The
> > results from that
> latest
> > testing showed signs of EPO in only 1/3rd of the
> > Peloton. You don't have
> the
> > slightest compunction to slander the entire group of
> > riders to feed your ego. Why don't you get a life. I'd
> > be willing to bet that cycling is
only
> in
> > the middle range of dopers in sports.
>
> Pound did not say that ALL riders in the Tour were using
> drugs. The 30% figure is hardly insignificant. Perhaps
> Armstrong would like to address
the
> 30% find that you note and its implications for pro
> cycling and the Tour?
Look Brian, Pound and Armstrong are both right to say what
they do. But you aren't. The words of Lafferty are: "No one
can do better than me unless they use drugs. And since any
Cat 5 can do better than me, anyone that races is a doper."
In article <p6w2c.22691$yZ1.21936@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote:
> "TritonRider" <tritonrider@aol.com> wrote in message
> > He's a political whore despite what Brian thinks.
> > Bill C
>
> They're all businessmen. Does that make them whores?
Maybe. As the song goes, "We're all prostitutes, Everyone
has his price..."
--
tanx, Howard
"Food plus heat equals cooking"
Alton Brown
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-77B1A5.19251906032004@netnews.comcast.net...
> In article
> <p6w2c.22691$yZ1.21936@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote:
>
> > "TritonRider" <tritonrider@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > > He's a political whore despite what Brian thinks.
> > > Bill C
> >
> > They're all businessmen. Does that make them whores?
>
> Maybe. As the song goes, "We're all prostitutes,
> Everyone has his price..."
>
> --
> tanx, Howard
>
> "Food plus heat equals cooking"
> Alton Brown
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
And, "The whores hustle and the hustlers whore......"
P.J. Harvey
In article <3hF2c.46$%06.29@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote:
> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in
> message news:YOURhoward-
> 77B1A5.19251906032004@netnews.comcast.net...
> > In article <p6w2c.22691$yZ1.21936@newsread2.news.pas.ea-
> > rthlink.net>, "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "TritonRider" <tritonrider@aol.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > > He's a political whore despite what Brian thinks.
> > > > Bill C
> > >
> > > They're all businessmen. Does that make them whores?
> >
> > Maybe. As the song goes, "We're all prostitutes,
> > Everyone has his price..."
I forgot - that's the Pop Group. Credit where it's due.
> And, "The whores hustle and the hustlers whore......"
> P.J. Harvey
Hey, see how that works?
--
tanx, Howard
Q: Why did the metalhead cross the road?
R: Because he's a gullible moron who'll buy
anything with a skull on it.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
What does any of this have to do with dining or Armstrong being a genius at it? Or was that supposed to be dining eunuch?
"pedalchick" wrote ...
> Or was that supposed to be dining eunuch?
Or worse, dining Kunich?
In article <3Wd3c.171706$Hy3.167446@edtnps89>,
"Jim Flom" <jimflom@telusREMOVE.net> wrote:
> "pedalchick" wrote ...
> > Or was that supposed to be dining eunuch?
>
> Or worse, dining Kunich?
Even the most committed advocate for the legalization of
cannibalism would say that goes far beyond the pale...
--
tanx, Howard
Q: Why did the metalhead cross the road?
R: Because he's a gullible moron who'll buy
anything with a skull on it.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
