Road Cycling · Public discussion

Love It Or Leave It--Hein

Brian Lafferty · 2003-01-23T14:33:59+00:00

Dopey Hein as quoted in today's CyclingNews: If Fanini is convinced of what he is saying, he must accept the consequences and leave cycling," said Verbruggen to AFP. "It's rare to hear stupid declarations such as this. It's sad to have people like this in our sport. I don't understand why he said that, but it's in line with what I know of Fanini [ and Squinzi?}. It isn't strange." Repeat after me, "There is no problem, there is no problem, there is no problem......Fanini is an Italian Bessons, an Italian Bessons, an Italian Bessons......" And then we have Mr Texas taking the view that this isn't the right time to bring up doping (Shall we wait the Emily Post period of a year for the mourning to be over?) and that he will continue his association with Ferrari. And if Dr. F is convicted after his trial in Italy resumes in February, will Tex continue to use his services? This could all be avoided by allowing any and all doping, with a fund set up for widows and orphans. Note to Hein--Same [censored], another year. Brian Lafferty --

Started by Brian Lafferty · 23 January 2003 · Last activity 23 January 2003 · 22 posts · 2,248 views

← Back to Road Cycling

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postLove It Or Leave It--HeinBrian Lafferty · 23 Jan 2003 02 / This pagePosts 1–20Page 1 of 2 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #22Ronaldo Jeremia · 23 Jan 2003

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section: Road Cycling
Published: 23 January 2003
Last activity: 23 January 2003
Original author: Brian Lafferty
Posts: 22
Discussion status: Public discussion
Total views: 2,248
Views / 30 days: 0
Topics: Lance Armstrong

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Original post
Brian Lafferty
Archived post

23 January 2003, 14:33 UTC #1

Dopey Hein as quoted in today's CyclingNews:
If Fanini is convinced of what he is saying, he must accept the consequences and leave cycling,"
said Verbruggen to AFP. "It's rare to hear stupid declarations such as this. It's sad to have
people like this in our sport. I don't understand why he said that, but it's in line with what I
know of Fanini [ and Squinzi?}. It isn't strange."
Repeat after me, "There is no problem, there is no problem, there is no problem......Fanini is an
Italian Bessons, an Italian Bessons, an Italian Bessons......"
And then we have Mr Texas taking the view that this isn't the right time to bring up doping (Shall
we wait the Emily Post period of a year for the mourning to be over?) and that he will continue his
association with Ferrari. And if Dr. F is convicted after his trial in Italy resumes in February,
will Tex continue to use his services?
This could all be avoided by allowing any and all doping, with a fund set up for widows and
orphans. Note to Hein--Same [censored], another year.
Brian Lafferty
--

Report
Tritonrider
Archived post

23 January 2003, 14:34 UTC #2

Quoted message said:
From: "Brian Lafferty
And then we have Mr Texas taking the view that this isn't the right time to
Quoted message said:
bring up doping (Shall we wait the Emily Post period of a year for the mourning to be over?) and
that he will continue his association with Ferrari. And if Dr. F is convicted after his trial in
Italy resumes in February, will Tex continue to use his services?

Is it just the lawyer in you talking or what? How is this wrong?
"I didn't read this statement, but what can you say about this? I'm thinking about (Zanette's)
family and the pain that they are feeling. Is it really the right time to bring this up? There is a
lack of discretion here that's shocking. In any case, to die so young is tragic," said Armstrong.
It's called compassion.
Bill C.

Report
Steve Gaylor
Archived post

23 January 2003, 14:34 UTC #3

"Brian Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:

It's not wrong from a legal standpoint. From a PR standpoint it's another bullet in the foot.
Not in my opinion.

Report
Tom Kunich
Archived post

23 January 2003, 14:48 UTC #4

Give that you are probably correct it then makes it easy to scan Brian's postings and just respond
to the things he has to say that aren't obviously biased by his belief that anyone that ever rode a
bike anywhere at any time has used performance enhancing drugs - except for himself of course.
"Amit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
[email hidden] (TritonRider) wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
From: "Brian Lafferty
And then we have Mr Texas taking the view that this isn't the right time

to
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
bring up doping (Shall we wait the Emily Post period of a year for the mourning to be over?)
and that he will continue his association with Ferrari. And if Dr. F is convicted after his
trial in Italy resumes in February, will Tex continue to use his services?

Is it just the lawyer in you talking or what? How is this wrong?
"I didn't read this statement, but what can you say about this? I'm

thinking
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
about (Zanette's) family and the pain that they are feeling. Is it

really the
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
right time to bring this up? There is a lack of discretion here that's shocking. In any case, to
die so young is tragic," said Armstrong.
It's called compassion.
Lafferty is so [censored] at cycling's power structure he will say anything given the opportunity
to take a shot at it no matter how inappropriate or tactless it is or how it fails to actually
make a point.
Laffery [censored]: USAC UCI USPS Lance Armstrong Any US Team rider Anyone who has had anything to
do with the above ever
-Amit

Report
Canuck
Archived post

23 January 2003, 14:48 UTC #5

"Amit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
[email hidden] (TritonRider) wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:

Lafferty is so [censored] at cycling's power structure he will say anything given the opportunity
to take a shot at it no matter how inappropriate or tactless it is or how it fails to actually
make a point.
Laffery [censored]: USAC UCI USPS Lance Armstrong Any US Team rider Anyone who has had anything to
do with the above ever
-Amit
Good observation.
All of us are biased to some degree, but Lafferty's utter lack of objectivity is of the
highest caliber.
He either nitpicks every little thing that someone does, or gives nothing but praise, although it's
almost always the former. There are no shades of gray in [email hidden]'s world.
If I had a killfile, The Laffed-at would be at the top of the list.

Report
Brian Lafferty
Archived post

23 January 2003, 14:49 UTC #6

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Give that you are probably correct it then makes it easy to scan Brian's postings and just respond
to the things he has to say that aren't

obviously
Quoted message said:
biased by his belief that anyone that ever rode a bike anywhere at any

time
Quoted message said:
has used performance enhancing drugs - except for himself of course.
Tom, I use drugs all the time......they're just not on the banned list. The main bias I operate with
is a cynicism that makes me question and examine what people say and do. As such, I do have a
"suspect" list that goes something like this:
US Government State Governments Rhenquist Supreme Court (Tony and Clarence in particular)
Organized Religions (How organized?--good question) UCI IOC and National OCs USAC Most rbr
Denizens (Particularly those who mis-state others' positions or ascribe to others positions they
have not taken)
Brian

Report
The Pomeranian
Archived post

23 January 2003, 14:49 UTC #7

Canuck said:
Quoted message said:
All of us are biased to some degree, but Lafferty's utter lack of objectivity is of the highest
caliber.
What does lawyering have to do with objectivity? It is often more about "winning" an argument and
creating/influencing perception. Lawyer also tends to involve understanding the law, which on the
other hand involves a good deal of objectivity and most certainly decent judgement. Did that sound
contradictory? It isn't, there are two separate contexts.
"Don't ask me about ethics. I'm a lawyer." -- Len Tillem, in a NYC drawl
kgoam810.comcomplexshowdj.asp
It's a pretty good show. Tillem is very very funny.

Report
Canuck
Archived post

23 January 2003, 14:49 UTC #8

"Brian Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Give that you are probably correct it then makes it easy to scan Brian's postings and just
respond to the things he has to say that aren't

obviously
Quoted message said:
biased by his belief that anyone that ever rode a bike anywhere at any

time
Quoted message said:
has used performance enhancing drugs - except for himself of course.
Tom, I use drugs all the time......they're just not on the banned list.

The
Quoted message said:
main bias I operate with is a cynicism that makes me question and examine what people say and do.
As such, I do have a "suspect" list that goes something like this:
US Government State Governments Rhenquist Supreme Court (Tony and Clarence in particular)
Organized Religions (How organized?--good question) UCI IOC and National OCs USAC
add "bicycle racing" to that list.

Report
The Pomeranian
Archived post

23 January 2003, 14:49 UTC #9

Brian Lafferty said:
Quoted message said:
(Particularly those who mis-state others' positions or ascribe to others positions they have
not taken)
IMO, you just roped up > 90% of the population. (That should make me more popular than I already
am.) While a lot negative seems to be said about lawyers, I do appreciate greatly the fact they are
taught to read in lawyering school.
I would add the the suspect list:
Lawyers

Report
Tom Kunich
Archived post

23 January 2003, 14:49 UTC #10

"Brian Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Give that you are probably correct it then makes it easy to scan Brian's postings and just
respond to the things he has to say that aren't

obviously
Quoted message said:
biased by his belief that anyone that ever rode a bike anywhere at any

time
Quoted message said:
has used performance enhancing drugs - except for himself of course.
Tom, I use drugs all the time......they're just not on the banned list. The main bias I operate
with is a cynicism that makes me question and examine what people say and do. As such, I do have a
"suspect" list that goes something like this:
Brian, if a pro racer is involved in a law suit with his neighbor for building his fense over the
property lines, you'll find some way of implying that it was caused by performance enhancing drugs.
That gets old pretty fast.
Quoted message said:
US Government State Governments Rhenquist Supreme Court (Tony and Clarence in particular)
Organized Religions (How organized?--good question) UCI IOC and National OCs USAC Most rbr
Denizens (Particularly those who mis-state others' positions or ascribe to others positions they
have not taken)
Suspicion is fine, but the automatic assumption that decisions are made for reasons contrary to the
good of others is generally incorrect.

Report
Kurgan Gringion
Archived post

23 January 2003, 14:49 UTC #11

"The Pomeranian" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Canuck said:
Quoted message said:
All of us are biased to some degree, but Lafferty's utter lack of objectivity is of the highest
caliber.
What does lawyering have to do with objectivity? It is often more about "winning" an argument and
creating/influencing perception. Lawyer also tends to involve understanding the law, which on the
other hand involves a good deal of objectivity and most certainly decent judgement. Did
Are you saying he's a lawyer?
Other people were insinuating that he's a child molester. Now you're saying he's a lawyer? Which one
is it? or none? or both?
kg

Report
Brian Lafferty
Archived post

23 January 2003, 14:49 UTC #12

"Canuck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:

"Brian Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Give that you are probably correct it then makes it easy to scan

Brian's
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
postings and just respond to the things he has to say that aren't

obviously
Quoted message said:
biased by his belief that anyone that ever rode a bike anywhere at any

time
Quoted message said:
has used performance enhancing drugs - except for himself of course.
Tom, I use drugs all the time......they're just not on the banned list.

The
Quoted message said:
main bias I operate with is a cynicism that makes me question and

examine
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
what people say and do. As such, I do have a "suspect" list that goes something like this:
US Government State Governments Rhenquist Supreme Court (Tony and Clarence in particular)
Organized Religions (How organized?--good question) UCI IOC and National OCs USAC
add "bicycle racing" to that list.
And what is it that the UCI and USAC do?

Report
Brian Lafferty
Archived post

23 January 2003, 14:49 UTC #13

"The Pomeranian" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Brian Lafferty said:
Quoted message said:
(Particularly those who mis-state others' positions or ascribe to others positions they have not
taken)
IMO, you just roped up > 90% of the population. (That should make me more popular than I already
am.) While a lot negative seems to be said about lawyers, I do appreciate greatly the fact they
are taught to read in lawyering school.
I would add the the suspect list:
Lawyers
Lawyers are suspect a priori. :-)
Brian

Report
Brian Lafferty
Archived post

23 January 2003, 14:49 UTC #14

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Brian Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Give that you are probably correct it then makes it easy to scan

Brian's
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
postings and just respond to the things he has to say that aren't

obviously
Quoted message said:
biased by his belief that anyone that ever rode a bike anywhere at any

time
Quoted message said:
has used performance enhancing drugs - except for himself of course.
Tom, I use drugs all the time......they're just not on the banned list.

The
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
main bias I operate with is a cynicism that makes me question and

examine
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
what people say and do. As such, I do have a "suspect" list that goes something like this:
Brian, if a pro racer is involved in a law suit with his neighbor for building his fense over the
property lines, you'll find some way of implying that it was caused by performance enhancing
drugs. That gets old pretty fast.
Tom, have you been using Sharon's recreational drugs again? I have a call in to Hein to find out
which UCI rule covers that situation. I'll get back to you.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
US Government State Governments Rhenquist Supreme Court (Tony and Clarence in particular)
Organized Religions (How organized?--good question) UCI IOC and National OCs USAC Most rbr
Denizens (Particularly those who mis-state others' positions or ascribe to others positions they
have not taken)
Suspicion is fine, but the automatic assumption that decisions are made for reasons contrary to
the good of others is generally incorrect.
And if one is suspicious of everyone and everything? Whom do you trust?
Brian

Report
Canuck
Archived post

23 January 2003, 14:49 UTC #15

"Brian Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Canuck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:

add "bicycle racing" to that list.
And what is it that the UCI and USAC do?
What I mean is, you don't like professional bike racing in and of itself. Why not be a follower of a
sport you do like?

Report
Tom Kunich
Archived post

23 January 2003, 14:49 UTC #16

"Brian Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:

And if one is suspicious of everyone and everything? Whom do you

trust?
I would say that you do like the rest of us and wait for real information instead of blind
accusations which seems to be your reaction in any situation in which performance enhancing drugs
are even a distant possibility.
Unlike others who simply don't like you, I just don't like that proclivity of yours.

Report
Brian Lafferty
Archived post

23 January 2003, 14:49 UTC #17

"Canuck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:

"Brian Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Canuck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:

add "bicycle racing" to that list.
And what is it that the UCI and USAC do?
What I mean is, you don't like professional bike racing in and of itself. Why not be a follower of
a sport you do like?
Incorrect. I love professional and amateur bicycle racing. I also love and respect honest
competition.
Brian Lafferty

Report
Amit
Archived post

23 January 2003, 14:49 UTC #18

"Brian Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<vVwV9.12811
Quoted message said:
As for doping, I've change my view. IMO, all doping should be allowed, provided the rider
signs an informed consent to the protocol and a fund is set up to support widows and orphans.
Some fans and cynical types might not care if doping is allowed, but enough people and sponsors
don't like the message doping sends that a "everything-goes" policy will kill the sport, or at least
turn it into a circus like pro-wrestling.
-Amit

Report
Canuck
Archived post

23 January 2003, 14:49 UTC #19

"Brian Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Canuck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:

"Brian Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Canuck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
>
> add "bicycle racing" to that list.
And what is it that the UCI and USAC do?
What I mean is, you don't like professional bike racing in and of

itself.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Why not be a follower of a sport you do like?
Incorrect. I love professional and amateur bicycle racing. I also

love
Quoted message said:
and respect honest competition.
There is no such thing in professional athletics because there are $$$ involved.
If you want purity, be a fan of a sport with Zero $$$ at stake.
That is reality. Seeing this complaining about reality is tiresome. It's like hearing a
Seattle-dweller complaining about the rain in the winter. You don't like it? Why not move? No one is
forcing you to live there.

Report
Brian Lafferty
Archived post

23 January 2003, 14:49 UTC #20

"Canuck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:

"Brian Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Canuck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:

"Brian Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
>
>
> "Canuck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> "]news:[email hidden]...
> >
> > add "bicycle racing" to that list.
>
> And what is it that the UCI and USAC do?
What I mean is, you don't like professional bike racing in and of

itself.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Why not be a follower of a sport you do like?
Incorrect. I love professional and amateur bicycle racing. I also

love
Quoted message said:
and respect honest competition.
There is no such thing in professional athletics because there are $$$ involved.
If you want purity, be a fan of a sport with Zero $$$ at stake.
That is reality. Seeing this complaining about reality is tiresome. It's like hearing a
Seattle-dweller complaining about the rain in the winter.

You
Quoted message said:
don't like it? Why not move? No one is forcing you to live there.
Zero dollars is not the issue. People cheat even without money being involved. That's been
discussed many times here in relation to doping with amateur riders. As Henry Kissinger said of
another area of competition, academia, "Never have some many fought so hard over so little."
As for doping, I've change my view. IMO, all doping should be allowed, provided the rider signs
an informed consent to the protocol and a fund is set up to support widows and orphans.
BTW, no one is forcing you to live here either. We're all just one big loving family.
Kiss, kiss! :-)
Brian

Report

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.

Jump through the discussion

What we know about this thread

Continue through CyclingForums

Active in this thread