Verbruggen: Simeoni stopping Armstrong riding Giro

Jason Spaceman said:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/mar05/mar10news2
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=953

We read the news too, please add your opinion. Mine: as UCI president,
Verbruggen should not have said this. Without further qualifications
such as "but he brought it on himself", this clearly shows that he takes
sides with Armstrong. That may be his personal point of view (also in
error IMO), but publicly he should keep up the appearance of being
impartial. Everyone, fans and others, want to see Armstrong ride the
Giro, so this might even influence public opinion on (and thus further
investigations in) the Simeoni case.

--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

Ewoud Dronkert schreef:

Quoted message said:

Verbruggen should not have said this. Without further qualifications
such as "but he brought it on himself", this clearly shows that he takes
sides with Armstrong. That may be his personal point of view (also in
error IMO), but publicly he should keep up the appearance of being
impartial. Everyone, fans and others, want to see Armstrong ride the
Giro, so this might even influence public opinion on (and thus further
investigations in) the Simeoni case.

Yes, but that also means the Italian judiciary might consider Verbruggen to
be , like Lance, impeding a judicial investigation by his acts and their
impact on eventual witnesses.

Quoted message said:

--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

--
Met vriendelijke groeten,

Bart Van Hoorebeeck
socioloog - beleidsmedewerker preventie
Afdeling Bijzondere Jeugdbijstand
Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap

Markiesstraat 1 - 1000 Brussel
Tel 02 553 34 23 Fax 02 553 34 15
[email hidden]

Ewoud Dronkert schreef:

Quoted message said:

Verbruggen should not have said this. Without further qualifications
such as "but he brought it on himself", this clearly shows that he takes
sides with Armstrong. That may be his personal point of view (also in
error IMO), but publicly he should keep up the appearance of being
impartial. Everyone, fans and others, want to see Armstrong ride the
Giro, so this might even influence public opinion on (and thus further
investigations in) the Simeoni case.

Yes, but that also means the Italian judiciary might consider Verbruggen to
be , like Lance, impeding a judicial investigation by his acts and their
impact on eventual witnesses.

Van Hoorebeeck Bart said:

Yes, but that also means the Italian judiciary might consider Verbruggen to
be , like Lance, impeding a judicial investigation by his acts and their
impact on eventual witnesses.

Indeed. "But", meaning you think this is a good thing?

--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Van Hoorebeeck Bart said:

Yes, but that also means the Italian judiciary might consider
Verbruggen to be , like Lance, impeding a judicial investigation by
his acts and their impact on eventual witnesses.

Indeed. "But", meaning you think this is a good thing?

I'd have some difficulty deciding who to root for.

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Quoted message said:

Indeed. "But", meaning you think this is a good thing?

Robert Chung said:

I'd have some difficulty deciding who to root for.

If on rbr in July you should root for god, especially when he has a
tailwind.

Ewoud Dronkert schreef:

Quoted message said:

Van Hoorebeeck Bart said:

Yes, but that also means the Italian judiciary might consider Verbruggen to
be , like Lance, impeding a judicial investigation by his acts and their
impact on eventual witnesses.

Indeed. "But", meaning you think this is a good thing?

I don't think it's a good thing as I dislike the doping obsession by Belgian and
Italian authorities in recent years.

But there's something else.
In my country, as in yours, there are currently many people hot on the issue of
'freedom of opinion'.
I dislike this current trend, where people claim an absolute freedom without
acknowledging the consequences of their opinions. Or without acknowledging the
broader whole and their part or role in it.
So yes, maybe it's good Hein would be confronted.

Donald Munro said:

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Quoted message said:

Indeed. "But", meaning you think this is a good thing?

Robert Chung said:

I'd have some difficulty deciding who to root for.

If on rbr in July you should root for god, especially when he has a
tailwind.

I credit rbr with providing an answer to the age old question: "If God
can do anything, can he create a rock that's so large that even he can't
move it?" The RBR answer: God can move anything if he's shot up with
enough EPO.

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:06:57 -0800, Tim Lines <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I credit rbr with providing an answer to the age old question: "If God
can do anything, can he create a rock that's so large that even he can't
move it?" The RBR answer: God can move anything if he's shot up with
enough EPO.

God's answer is that our universe and all them rocks is just
entertainment. We're taking it all way too seriously.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell said:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:06:57 -0800, Tim Lines <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I credit rbr with providing an answer to the age old question: "If God
can do anything, can he create a rock that's so large that even he can't
move it?" The RBR answer: God can move anything if he's shot up with
enough EPO.

God's answer is that our universe and all them rocks is just
entertainment. We're taking it all way too seriously.

I like that answer. It fits the "facts". OK, glad we've got that
settled. One less thing for me to worry about.

Now I can focus on worrying about the strange sex habits of the
President of the United States:
http://tinyurl.com/444eh

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:30:25 -0800, Tim Lines <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Now I can focus on worrying about the strange sex habits of the
President of the United States:
http://tinyurl.com/444eh

Or why he felt the need to deny it. Probably a red state thing.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Van Hoorebeeck Bart said:

Ewoud Dronkert schreef:

Quoted message said:

Van Hoorebeeck Bart said:

Yes, but that also means the Italian judiciary might consider

Verbruggen to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be , like Lance, impeding a judicial investigation by his acts

and their

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

impact on eventual witnesses.

Indeed. "But", meaning you think this is a good thing?

I don't think it's a good thing as I dislike the doping obsession by

Belgian and

Quoted message said:

Italian authorities in recent years.

But there's something else.
In my country, as in yours, there are currently many people hot on

the issue of

Quoted message said:

'freedom of opinion'.
I dislike this current trend, where people claim an absolute freedom

without

Quoted message said:

acknowledging the consequences of their opinions. Or without

acknowledging the

Quoted message said:

broader whole and their part or role in it.
So yes, maybe it's good Hein would be confronted.

Damn Bart
That's a pretty right wing opinion. I bet Kunich would agree with this
one, I know I do. When people in a position of power, including the
press, purposely distort an issue for their own gain, or for others
gain, they need to be held responsible. There should be no right for
propaganda campaigns where the people aren't held responsible for what
they are saying.
Bill C

Curtis L. Russell said:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:06:57 -0800, Tim Lines <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I credit rbr with providing an answer to the age old question: "If

God

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

can do anything, can he create a rock that's so large that even he

can't

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

move it?" The RBR answer: God can move anything if he's shot up

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

enough EPO.

God's answer is that our universe and all them rocks is just
entertainment. We're taking it all way too seriously.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

When did Henry get promoted? I thought that he was only convinced he is
god, not actually ordained.
Bill C

Quoted message said:

Curtis L. Russell said:

God's answer is that our universe and all them rocks is just
entertainment. We're taking it all way too seriously.

Bill C said:

When did Henry get promoted? I thought that he was only convinced he is
god, not actually ordained.

Now all fatty masters will be heading to a very warm place for their final
winter training and the human race will be re-engineered to situate the
brain in the posterior.

"Tim Lines" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Donald Munro said:

Ewoud Dronkert said:

>Indeed. "But", meaning you think this is a good thing?

Robert Chung said:

I'd have some difficulty deciding who to root for.

If on rbr in July you should root for god, especially when he has a
tailwind.

I credit rbr with providing an answer to the age old question: "If God
can do anything, can he create a rock that's so large that even he can't
move it?" The RBR answer: God can move anything if he's shot up with
enough EPO.

Or you could try and solve the problem through the idea of 'basic beliefs',
meaning the notion that faith of one kind or another forms the foundation of
everything we think we know. The christian basic belief would be faith in
God, realted to which is the belief that God is the source of all things.
Naturally He would also be the foundation (and justification) of logic.
Logic cannot be proven from an independent source, it's not really based on
anything, but you can believe (as a leap of faith) that God made sure it
works. This implies that He is also able to make 'non-logic' work.

The question 'can an almighty God create a rock that is too heavy for Him to
move?' is a paradox. Through the basic belief of God as the ultimate
foundation of everything, we should entertain the possibility that God can
exist as a paradox. So the answer would be: yes, He can create such a rock,
but He can also move it.

I'm an atheist, by the way.

Jonathan.

Bill C said:

Van Hoorebeeck Bart said:

In my country, as in yours, there are currently many people hot on
the issue of 'freedom of opinion'.
I dislike this current trend, where people claim an absolute freedom
without acknowledging the consequences of their opinions. Or without
acknowledging the broader whole and their part or role in it.

That's a pretty right wing opinion.

Actually, in this case the freedom of opinion is abused by people who
are (extreme) right-wing and/or anti-immigration.

--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

Jonathan v.d. Sluis said:

Naturally He would also be the foundation (and justification) of logic.
Logic cannot be proven from an independent source, it's not really based on
anything, but you can believe (as a leap of faith) that God made sure it
works.

You can expect a visit from Wittgenstein's ghost tonight. If logic
isn't entertainment, it's just words...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

"Curtis L. Russell" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jonathan v.d. Sluis said:

Naturally He would also be the foundation (and justification) of logic.
Logic cannot be proven from an independent source, it's not really based

on

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

anything, but you can believe (as a leap of faith) that God made sure it
works.

You can expect a visit from Wittgenstein's ghost tonight. If logic
isn't entertainment, it's just words...

Occasionally I enjoy playing the game by someone else's rules (like those of
Alvin Plantinga or Dooyeweerd).

Quoted message said:

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell said:

Jonathan v.d. Sluis said:

Naturally He would also be the foundation (and justification) of logic.
Logic cannot be proven from an independent source, it's not really based on
anything, but you can believe (as a leap of faith) that God made sure it
works.

You can expect a visit from Wittgenstein's ghost tonight. If logic
isn't entertainment, it's just words...

If it's really all about entertainment then maybe God can only move the
rock if someone's watching...