I'm going to be pretty impolite here.

Sandy said:

While I have commented regularly on the doping issue, and disclosed long ago
that I am a lawyer, I think I have tried to maintain my opinions unformed as
to the Landis matter. And I plan to do so, still.

However, I want to point out one thing, which I find 125% offensive, and I
am not going to avoid potential backlash from the persons I identify.

In Velo News (which I subscribed to, long ago, while it was in the East, and
I was in the USA), they have engaged a lawyer to write daily commentary on
the Landis arbitration. I cite here the headers for his page :
===
The Landis hearing: Day 5 - A lawyer's view
By Antonio Gallegos
for VeloNews.com
This report filed May 18, 2007
===

Editor's Note: Denver-based attorney Antonio Gallegos is in Malibu,
California, this week to observe the Floyd Landis arbitration hearing.
Gallegos works for the firm of Holland and Hart, concentrating in commercial
litigation and government investigation. He is also an avid cyclist and is
developing a sports law practice.

===

My comment is that Mr Gallegos, in his writing, makes a specific effort to
display and realize his personal desire to develop a sports law practice -
evidently one which would defend athletes - by reporting the proceedings in
a slanted manner, one which is designed to attract his potential clients.
None of that is improper under ethical codes for lawyers. None of what he
writes is patently untrue. The publication of his articles, as they appear,
is exceptionally bad journalism, in my view, and his presentation of the day
is not a fair representation of the arbitration. My opinion.

Perhaps some reading this post recall that I doggedly refused to let Mark
Hickey get away with believing just one side of the dispute. You probably
don't know that I have always hoped that Landis would prevail. You should
already know that I think there are significant and fundamental violations
of many laws in the UCI enveloped world.

I write this to make a personal recommendation that you not use these
articles as a good basis of reporting. That's it. Fallout is expected.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

That's you getting worked up? Sheesh. Kindergarten kids talk smack
better than you do! 😉

R

Sandy schreef:

Quoted message said:

You probably
don't know that I have always hoped that Landis would prevail.

You've given me that impression before.

--
E. Dronkert

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
Ewoud Dronkert <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :

Quoted message said:

Sandy schreef:

Quoted message said:

You probably
don't know that I have always hoped that Landis would prevail.

You've given me that impression before.

That being, of course, a subset of my desire to see ALL of them win ALL of
the time.
Well, almost all ...

In article <[email hidden]>,

RicodJour said:

Sandy said:

While I have commented regularly on the doping issue, and disclosed long ago
that I am a lawyer, I think I have tried to maintain my opinions unformed as
to the Landis matter. And I plan to do so, still.

However, I want to point out one thing, which I find 125% offensive, and I
am not going to avoid potential backlash from the persons I identify.

In Velo News (which I subscribed to, long ago, while it was in the East, and
I was in the USA), they have engaged a lawyer to write daily commentary on
the Landis arbitration. I cite here the headers for his page :
===
The Landis hearing: Day 5 - A lawyer's view
By Antonio Gallegos
for VeloNews.com
This report filed May 18, 2007
===

Editor's Note: Denver-based attorney Antonio Gallegos is in Malibu,
California, this week to observe the Floyd Landis arbitration hearing.
Gallegos works for the firm of Holland and Hart, concentrating in commercial
litigation and government investigation. He is also an avid cyclist and is
developing a sports law practice.

===

My comment is that Mr Gallegos, in his writing, makes a specific effort to
display and realize his personal desire to develop a sports law practice -
evidently one which would defend athletes - by reporting the proceedings in
a slanted manner, one which is designed to attract his potential clients.
None of that is improper under ethical codes for lawyers. None of what he
writes is patently untrue. The publication of his articles, as they appear,
is exceptionally bad journalism, in my view, and his presentation of the day
is not a fair representation of the arbitration. My opinion.

Perhaps some reading this post recall that I doggedly refused to let Mark
Hickey get away with believing just one side of the dispute. You probably
don't know that I have always hoped that Landis would prevail. You should
already know that I think there are significant and fundamental violations
of many laws in the UCI enveloped world.

I write this to make a personal recommendation that you not use these
articles as a good basis of reporting. That's it. Fallout is expected.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

That's you getting worked up? Sheesh. Kindergarten kids talk smack
better than you do! 😉

R

Well, he is French. He probably think your comment and my comment are
fallout.

Have I mentioned my enduring dedication to the cause of drunkeness?
Because in the variable world of cycling, one thing you can count on is
ABV.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

"Sandy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

While I have commented regularly on the doping issue, and disclosed long
ago that I am a lawyer, I think I have tried to maintain my opinions
unformed as to the Landis matter. And I plan to do so, still.

However, I want to point out one thing, which I find 125% offensive, and I
am not going to avoid potential backlash from the persons I identify.

I don't know what the heck to make of all this stuff anymore. So few people
desire to know the truth and everyone forms their opinions on accusations
alone that I'm overwhelmed with the idea that justice simply can no longer
be served by the likes of the USADA, UCI, WADA and the others.

I was riding today with a judge who had been reading stuff in Velonews and
who believed that Landis is guilty without even ever having actually heard
the real evidence. If that's the case what the hell does someone who cannot
afford big time lawyers do to obtain any justice?

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

RicodJour said:

Sandy said:

While I have commented regularly on the doping issue, and disclosed
long ago that I am a lawyer, I think I have tried to maintain my
opinions unformed as to the Landis matter. And I plan to do so,
still.

However, I want to point out one thing, which I find 125%
offensive, and I am not going to avoid potential backlash from the
persons I identify.

In Velo News (which I subscribed to, long ago, while it was in the
East, and I was in the USA), they have engaged a lawyer to write
daily commentary on the Landis arbitration. I cite here the
headers for his page : ===
The Landis hearing: Day 5 - A lawyer's view
By Antonio Gallegos
for VeloNews.com
This report filed May 18, 2007
===

Editor's Note: Denver-based attorney Antonio Gallegos is in Malibu,
California, this week to observe the Floyd Landis arbitration
hearing. Gallegos works for the firm of Holland and Hart,
concentrating in commercial litigation and government
investigation. He is also an avid cyclist and is developing a
sports law practice.

===

My comment is that Mr Gallegos, in his writing, makes a specific
effort to display and realize his personal desire to develop a
sports law practice - evidently one which would defend athletes -
by reporting the proceedings in a slanted manner, one which is
designed to attract his potential clients. None of that is improper
under ethical codes for lawyers. None of what he writes is
patently untrue. The publication of his articles, as they appear,
is exceptionally bad journalism, in my view, and his presentation
of the day is not a fair representation of the arbitration. My
opinion.

Perhaps some reading this post recall that I doggedly refused to
let Mark Hickey get away with believing just one side of the
dispute. You probably don't know that I have always hoped that
Landis would prevail. You should already know that I think there
are significant and fundamental violations of many laws in the UCI
enveloped world.

I write this to make a personal recommendation that you not use
these articles as a good basis of reporting. That's it. Fallout
is expected. --
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

That's you getting worked up? Sheesh. Kindergarten kids talk smack
better than you do! 😉

R

Well, he is French. He probably think your comment and my comment are
fallout.

Vairie clayvayre ! Chiche !

Sandy said:

While I have commented regularly on the doping issue, and disclosed long ago
that I am a lawyer, I think I have tried to maintain my opinions unformed as
to the Landis matter. And I plan to do so, still.

However, I want to point out one thing, which I find 125% offensive, and I
am not going to avoid potential backlash from the persons I identify.

In Velo News (which I subscribed to, long ago, while it was in the East, and
I was in the USA), they have engaged a lawyer to write daily commentary on
the Landis arbitration. I cite here the headers for his page :
===
The Landis hearing: Day 5 - A lawyer's view
By Antonio Gallegos
for VeloNews.com
This report filed May 18, 2007
===

Editor's Note: Denver-based attorney Antonio Gallegos is in Malibu,
California, this week to observe the Floyd Landis arbitration hearing.
Gallegos works for the firm of Holland and Hart, concentrating in commercial
litigation and government investigation. He is also an avid cyclist and is
developing a sports law practice.

===

My comment is that Mr Gallegos, in his writing, makes a specific effort to
display and realize his personal desire to develop a sports law practice -
evidently one which would defend athletes - by reporting the proceedings in
a slanted manner, one which is designed to attract his potential clients.
None of that is improper under ethical codes for lawyers. None of what he
writes is patently untrue. The publication of his articles, as they appear,
is exceptionally bad journalism, in my view, and his presentation of the day
is not a fair representation of the arbitration. My opinion.

Perhaps some reading this post recall that I doggedly refused to let Mark
Hickey get away with believing just one side of the dispute. You probably
don't know that I have always hoped that Landis would prevail. You should
already know that I think there are significant and fundamental violations
of many laws in the UCI enveloped world.

I write this to make a personal recommendation that you not use these
articles as a good basis of reporting. That's it. Fallout is expected.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

On an entirely unrelated note, I believe the "Hart" in "Holland and
Hart" is one Gary Hart, an individual of some political note in
America. Other than that, you're a hopeful man, thinking to find any
good reporting here at this time in our history. The talking heads are
all party dolls now so it's easy to threaten those inside the beltway
with removal from the "A" list. Just like in Hollywood. They'll heel,
and damn fast too.

r

In article <[email hidden]>,

Sandy said:

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
RicodJour <[email hidden]> wrote:

(Velonews has commentary by Gallegos)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> My comment is that Mr Gallegos, in his writing, makes a specific
> effort to display and realize his personal desire to develop a
> sports law practice - evidently one which would defend athletes -
> by reporting the proceedings in a slanted manner, one which is
> designed to attract his potential clients. None of that is improper
> under ethical codes for lawyers. None of what he writes is
> patently untrue. The publication of his articles, as they appear,
> is exceptionally bad journalism, in my view, and his presentation
> of the day is not a fair representation of the arbitration. My
> opinion.
>
> Perhaps some reading this post recall that I doggedly refused to
> let Mark Hickey get away with believing just one side of the
> dispute. You probably don't know that I have always hoped that
> Landis would prevail. You should already know that I think there
> are significant and fundamental violations of many laws in the UCI
> enveloped world.
>
> I write this to make a personal recommendation that you not use
> these articles as a good basis of reporting. That's it. Fallout
> is expected. --
> Bonne route !
>
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

That's you getting worked up? Sheesh. Kindergarten kids talk smack
better than you do! 😉

R

Well, he is French. He probably think your comment and my comment are
fallout.

Vairie clayvayre ! Chiche !

Actually, embarrassingly true: I ran Sandy's lines through Google's
translator before I figured out it was Monty Python Franglish.

Hey, that Sarkozy, good times, good times...

Your father smelled of elderberries,

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Sandy said:

Dans le message denews:[email hidden],
Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
RicodJour <[email hidden]> wrote:

(Velonews has commentary by Gallegos)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> My comment is that Mr Gallegos, in his writing, makes a specific
>> effort to display and realize his personal desire to develop a
>> sports law practice - evidently one which would defend athletes -
>> by reporting the proceedings in a slanted manner, one which is
>> designed to attract his potential clients. None of that is improper
>> under ethical codes for lawyers. None of what he writes is
>> patently untrue. The publication of his articles, as they appear,
>> is exceptionally bad journalism, in my view, and his presentation
>> of the day is not a fair representation of the arbitration. My
>> opinion.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Perhaps some reading this post recall that I doggedly refused to
>> let Mark Hickey get away with believing just one side of the
>> dispute. You probably don't know that I have always hoped that
>> Landis would prevail. You should already know that I think there
>> are significant and fundamental violations of many laws in the UCI
>> enveloped world.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> I write this to make a personal recommendation that you not use
>> these articles as a good basis of reporting. That's it. Fallout
>> is expected. --
>> Bonne route !

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Sandy
>> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> That's you getting worked up? Sheesh. Kindergarten kids talk smack
> better than you do! 😉

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> R

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, he is French. He probably think your comment and my comment are
fallout.

Quoted message said:

Vairie clayvayre ! Chiche !

Actually, embarrassingly true: I ran Sandy's lines through Google's
translator before I figured out it was Monty Python Franglish.

Hey, that Sarkozy, good times, good times...

I've been buying wine based on politics since the invasion of Iraq.
Now that France has elected a rightwing [censored] I'll have to boycott
them, too, along with California and Australia. (Lucky thing for me
that Spain and Italy came around.) With my drinking habits I was
personally offsetting the French wine boycotts of many thousands of
rightwing US fundamentalist Christians. The French winemakers are on
their own now, though.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

I've been buying wine based on politics since the invasion of Iraq.
Now that France has elected a rightwing [censored] I'll have to boycott
them, too, along with California and Australia. (Lucky thing for me
that Spain and Italy came around.) With my drinking habits I was
personally offsetting the French wine boycotts of many thousands of
rightwing US fundamentalist Christians. The French winemakers are on
their own now, though.

I doubt that many boycott-happy wingnuts were buying good French wine in the first
place. Yeah, that's painting broadly but whatever. Anyway, there are some pretty damn
good Chilean wines you could check out too. By the way, Bush isn't California's
fault. Just sayin'.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Sat, 19 May 2007 19:21:50 -0700, Howard Kveck <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

I've been buying wine based on politics since the invasion of Iraq.
Now that France has elected a rightwing [censored] I'll have to boycott
them, too, along with California and Australia. (Lucky thing for me
that Spain and Italy came around.) With my drinking habits I was
personally offsetting the French wine boycotts of many thousands of
rightwing US fundamentalist Christians. The French winemakers are on
their own now, though.

I doubt that many boycott-happy wingnuts were buying good French wine in the first
place. Yeah, that's painting broadly but whatever. Anyway, there are some pretty damn
good Chilean wines you could check out too. By the way, Bush isn't California's
fault. Just sayin'.

Yeah, but they voted for the Austrian. I love the guy, he's Ahnold, but never
vote for the Austrian. It doesn't go bad all that often, but when it does it's
really bad.

Ron

RonSonic said:

On Sat, 19 May 2007 19:21:50 -0700, Howard Kveck <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

By the way, Bush isn't California's
fault. Just sayin'.

Yeah, but they voted for the Austrian. I love the guy, he's Ahnold, but never
vote for the Austrian. It doesn't go bad all that often, but when it does it's
really bad.

Besides, would you trust an Austrian to make cabernet,
syrah, pinot noir, or chardonnay? Let's face it,
California does not have Austrian-wine micro climates.
("Micro climate" is a fancy way of saying that it can
be sunny at Coyote Point while a cyclocross race in
Felton degenerates into a complete mud bath, or vice
versa.)

Ben

Sandy said:

Ewoud Dronkert <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :

Quoted message said:

Sandy schreef:

Quoted message said:

You probably
don't know that I have always hoped that Landis would prevail.

Quoted message said:

You've given me that impression before.

That being, of course, a subset of my desire to see ALL of them win ALL of
the time.

One can root for Landis without blinding oneself to reality. IOW, root
for the underdog but bet on the overdog.

rechungREMOVETHIS said:

One can root for Landis without blinding oneself to reality. IOW, root
for the underdog but bet on the overdog.

But whatever you do, don't root for Tugboat.

Donald Munro said:

rechungREMOVETHIS said:

One can root for Landis without blinding oneself to reality. IOW, root
for the underdog but bet on the overdog.

But whatever you do, don't root for Tugboat.

http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=436