Armstrong retirement press conference Monday?

[Tony Raven]

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=reu-armstrongdc&prov=reuters&type=lgns

PARIS, April 15 (Reuters) - For six years, the main question about
Lance Armstrong was whether he could win another Tour de France. Now the
main doubt is whether he will ride another one after this year.

The Texan will be at the start of cycling's biggest race in July, if
only to fulfil his obligations with his team Discovery. Win or lose, the
2005 Tour will almost certainly be his last.

The most successful Tour de France rider of all time has fuelled
speculation that retirement is on the cards by calling a news conference
on Monday, on the eve of the Tour of Georgia in the United States, and
making it clear that he has an important announcement to make.

The six-times Tour winner's contract with Discovery includes a clause
that he should ride at least one more Tour.

There is no doubt that the 33-year-old American will honour his contract
but only last week he told Italy's Gazzetta dello Sport newspaper: "In
four-and-a-half months it'll be over."

Armstrong told French daily Le Figaro he was finding being apart from
his five-year-old son and three-year-old twin daughters, who live in
Texas, harder and harder to bear.

"My frequent absences plus the long distances make me feel like saying
stop and returning home to be near them," he said.

 

[Jack Ouzzi]

Tony Raven wrote:
>
> The six-times Tour winner's contract with Discovery includes a clause

> that he should ride at least one more Tour.
>
> There is no doubt that the 33-year-old American will honour his
contract
> but only last week he told Italy's Gazzetta dello Sport newspaper:
"In
> four-and-a-half months it'll be over."
>
> Armstrong told French daily Le Figaro he was finding being apart from

> his five-year-old son and three-year-old twin daughters, who live in
> Texas, harder and harder to bear.
>
> "My frequent absences plus the long distances make me feel like
saying
> stop and returning home to be near them," he said.

I had posted this previously; but will again in case anyone missed it!!

The lawsuit filed in the US of A against Lance Armstrong by his former
mechanic/personal assistant/do everthing person, Mike Anderson. VERY
interesting reading

http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/stat­esman/sports/040105_lance.pdf

Note that it is in PDF format. Well worth a flick through!!

Top Up Anyone?

 

[Tony Raven]

Jack Ouzzi wrote:
>
> I had posted this previously; but will again in case anyone missed it!!
>
> The lawsuit filed in the US of A against Lance Armstrong by his former
> mechanic/personal assistant/do everthing person, Mike Anderson. VERY
> interesting reading

Correction. A defense to a lawsuit filed by Armstrong against someone
who claims he could have been a multilingual professor but instead did
everything but pedal the bike. He seems to have been more of the
general dogsbody though. Did you know that this is a response in a
lawsuit filed by Armstrong suing Anderson for demanding $500,000, an
autographed jersey, and help setting up a bike shop after he was fired?.

But what does it say? It makes two claims which are completely
unprovable that Armstrong said in a one to one conversation that
"everyone did drugs" and an evidence and witness free claim that he saw
drugs once in his apartment. He even says he never saw Armstrong take
drugs.

>
> http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/stat­esman/sports/040105_lance.pdf
>
> Note that it is in PDF format. Well worth a flick through!!
>

Have you got a reference to the first and second filings and the
original claim filed by Armstrong et al? Have you read them?

What you have here is an individual trying to defend himself against a
claim filed by the Armstrong camp. Unless you have read the original
Armstrong claim and the subsequent exchange of statements you are seeing
only an extremely biased single side of the story, and one based mainly
on hearsay, completely out of context.

Have a read of http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7365.0.html to put it in
a fuller context.

Tony

 

[Jack Ouzzi]

Tony Raven wrote:

> Have you got a reference to the first and second filings and the
> original claim filed by Armstrong et al?

No

>Have you read them?

No

> What you have here is an individual trying to defend himself against
a
> claim filed by the Armstrong camp. Unless you have read the original
> Armstrong claim and the subsequent exchange of statements you are
seeing
> only an extremely biased single side of the story, and one based
mainly
> on hearsay, completely out of context.
>
> Have a read of http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7365.0.html to put it
in
> a fuller context.

So an Associated Press article will place the matter in context will
it?? Hmm ..

All I ACTUALLY said was interesting reading ...... no more! Of course
ALL sides must be heard and read to make any judgement ....... but
still interesting (to me, and I thought maybe to others) reading.

 

[Tony Raven]

Jack Ouzzi wrote:
>
> So an Associated Press article will place the matter in context will
> it?? Hmm ..

In better context than the third round of one side's story that you have
now posted here twice. Why is only that document available on the web?
Why has no-one put up copies of the original lawsuit filed by
Armstrong against Anderson? Could there be an agenda?

>
> All I ACTUALLY said was interesting reading ...... no more! Of course
> ALL sides must be heard and read to make any judgement ....... but
> still interesting (to me, and I thought maybe to others) reading.
>

No, you've now put it forward twice, wrongly claimed it was a lawsuit
filed against Armstrong rather than the defence to a lawsuit filed by
Armstrong and called it "VERY interesting reading" nudge nudge wink wink.

Tony

 

[Jack Ouzzi]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Jack Ouzzi wrote:
> >
> > So an Associated Press article will place the matter in context
will
> > it?? Hmm ..
>
> In better context than the third round of one side's story that you
have
> now posted here twice. Why is only that document available on the
web?
> Why has no-one put up copies of the original lawsuit filed by
> Armstrong against Anderson? Could there be an agenda?
>
> >
> > All I ACTUALLY said was interesting reading ...... no more! Of
course
> > ALL sides must be heard and read to make any judgement ....... but
> > still interesting (to me, and I thought maybe to others) reading.
> >
>
> No, you've now put it forward twice, wrongly claimed it was a lawsuit

> filed against Armstrong rather than the defence to a lawsuit filed by

> Armstrong and called it "VERY interesting reading" nudge nudge wink
wink.
>

OK ok you win ...........