Armstrong/Seimoni Round 2...

limerickman said:

Why did Armstrong feel the need to defend Ferrari ?

It is not unusual for a man of honor to stand up for a friend...especially if he believes (rightly or wrongly) said friend to be innocent.

Naturally, I would not expect you to offer such an obvious probability since it does not fit into your agenda.

limerickman said:

Cosidering that your hero only races three weeks in every year - all of your points above are defunct.

So if the TDF don't mean [censored] ,after all it is only a couple of weeks , why is everyone except for Lance supporters so upset. Let just say anyone can win one race even if it is Le Tour, Armstrong is no threat, Europe rules and drop it.

limerickman said:

I think you over estimate the level of support for Armstrong's actions.

I think it was a very very foolish move by Armstrong.
Why did he do it ?
Simeoni never accused LA of any wrongdoing.
He accused Ferrari and Armstrong then waded in and called Simeoni a liar for accusing Ferrari.
Simeoni then sued Armstrong for slander.

Simeoni's testimony in respect of Ferrari has nothing to do with Armstrong.
Or has it ?
Why did Armstrong get so defensive and start calling Simeoni a liar ?
Why did Armstrong feel the need to defend Ferrari ?

There is more to this than meets the eye.

You may be right about there being more to Armstrong's defense of Ferrari than meets the eye. Whether or not anything comes of it remains to be seen however. From what I've heard so far the legal case against Ferrari is flimsy at best. I'm not saying that I think Ferrari is beyond reproach (far from it) but I don't know if they have to goods to hang him. None of us know the nature of Armstrong's relationship with Ferrari, again it's all just speculation at this point.

I think you may very well be underestimating Armstrong's influence in the peleton (whether he's present or not). I've said before that I think it was poor form for LA to chase down Simeoni in stage 18. But right or wrong I think that by making a big issue out of it, Simeoni may very well have dealt a severe blow to his own cycling career. We shall see.

limerickman said:

You make it sound like the Italian Courts are some sort of dilletantes.

The Formula 1 crash in question refers to Aryton Senna : one of the greatest
F1 drivers ever.

I think that this would constitute a judicial investigation.

The Italian courts have been pretty good at criminalizing things that should be handled in civil court over the last few years. They recently sentenced an air traffic controller and an airport manager to several years of jail time because of a crash caused by an idiot who was flying/taxiing a Lear in a totally incorrect manner. This idiot got out on the wrong runway because he was lost in the fog. They went after the controller because he "should have known where Lear was" even though the visibility was less than 100 Meters. And the manager because the signs should have been better even though the signage was compliant with ICAO standards. The whole accident was caused by the idiot Lear pilot, but he was a fatality so they couldn't get any blood out of that turnip so they went after the surviving controller and airport authority.

So, going after race car teams and cycling pros is not beyond the pale for them, even if it makes no sense to the rest of the world.

Italian authorities to me seem like a bunch of jackass's. Italian authorities are charging the guy or guys who supplied pantani with his fatal coke with murder. That's as dumb as a lot of other stuff I read about going on in Italy.

I'm suprised Pantani's mom hasn't sued Italian authorities for wrongful death. After all, they are what killed him and provoked him to do coke and whatever else he was doing.

Ted B said:

It is not unusual for a man of honor to stand up for a friend...especially if he believes (rightly or wrongly) said friend to be innocent.

Naturally, I would not expect you to offer such an obvious probability since it does not fit into your agenda.

How would you know that I am not an honourable person, eh ?
Because I cast doubt on Lance Armstrong - you conclude that I have no notion of honour ?

Look at your hero and honour.
Isn't the word, honour, part of a wedding vow ?

Honour - if you want to play dirty pal, we can.

jhuskey said:

So if the TDF don't mean [censored] ,after all it is only a couple of weeks , why is everyone except for Lance supporters so upset. Let just say anyone can win one race even if it is Le Tour, Armstrong is no threat, Europe rules and drop it.

Musette made the point that by allegedly upsetting LA, Simeoni was digging his own grave, in her view.
I stated that LA only races for a three weeks per year - meaning that it is unlikely that Armstrong will compete against Simeoni outside of the TDF :
that's the point i was trying to convey.

limerickman said:

How would you know that I am not an honourable person, eh ?
Because I cast doubt on Lance Armstrong - you conclude that I have no notion of honour ?

Look at your hero and honour.
Isn't the word, honour, part of a wedding vow ?

Honour - if you want to play dirty pal, we can.

That's lame Limerickman. How many other pro riders honor their vows? I am sure Lance is the only rider in the peloton to ever have gotten a divorce. Give me a freakin' break. His personal life and that of other riders in the peloton should have no place for discussion in these forums. Time for everyone to grow up.

limerickman said:

How would you know that I am not an honourable person, eh ?

I base my opinion on your past record of frequent, consistent Armstrong bashing in this part of the forum and others and the twisting of the obvious associated therewith. I may not be able to prove it, but this my belief based upon convincing circumstantial evidence what I derive from my research.

Sounds familiar?

😉

Ted B said:

I base my opinion on your past record of frequent, consistent Armstrong bashing in this part of the forum and others and the twisting of the obvious associated therewith. I may not be able to prove it, but this my belief based upon convincing circumstantial evidence what I derive from my research.

Sounds familiar?

😉

I have explained to you why I question LA's record.
If I questioned LA record because I disliked the fact that his is American or from Texas - that would be biased bashing and dishonourable.

I have set out to you, repeatedly, the statistical basis and the contemporaneous basis, as to why I doubt LA's authenticity.

You then decided to have a go at my honour.
YOU INTRODUCED THIS ASPECT TO THIS DISCUSSION.

If someone is honourable - it is not a mutually exclusive issue trait.
Honour applies to both personal and professional (sporting outlook) life.
So is it your contention that LA is honourable ?
If you are, I suggest, he is duplicitous : he's honourable in defending his friend
Ferrari, but he dishonoured his wife by reneging on a vow.
there !

birdman23 said:

That's lame Limerickman. How many other pro riders honor their vows? I am sure Lance is the only rider in the peloton to ever have gotten a divorce. Give me a freakin' break. His personal life and that of other riders in the peloton should have no place for discussion in these forums. Time for everyone to grow up.

Birdman - with all due respect, that clown Ted B introduced a question of my honour, I am tackling him on this.

limerickman said:

Birdman - with all due respect, that clown Ted B introduced a question of my honour, I am tackling him on this.

With all due respect how do you defend your honor by attacking Armstrong's?

limerickman said:

If you are, I suggest, he is duplicitous : he's honourable in defending his friend
Ferrari, but he dishonoured his wife by reneging on a vow.
there !

The breakup between LA and his wife was mutually amicable. There!

You never proposed the likelyhood that LA was defending Ferrari because he truly believes his friend is innocent. Somehow, that escaped your list of possibilities....hmmmm.

Now worries, I did if for you. Cheers! 😉

birdman23 said:

With all due respect how do you defend your honor by attacking Armstrong's?

not that I have to explain my direct reply to Ted B - but here goes anyway :

Ted B stated that LA was being honourable in defending Ferrari.
with the addendum quote "Naturally, I would not expect you to offer such an obvious probability since it does not fit into your agenda."

I asked Ted B "How would you know that I am not an honourable person, eh ?"

Ted B replied "I base my opinion on your past record of frequent, consistent Armstrong bashing in this part of the forum and others and the twisting of the obvious associated therewith. I may not be able to prove it, but this my belief based upon convincing circumstantial evidence what I derive from my research."

So because I attack LA's record - and base my attack not on a bias but on
statistical records and contemporaneous written accounts - Ted B concludes
that I am dishonourable and that his heros honour is in tact ?

Give me a break

Ted B said:

The breakup between LA and his wife was mutually amicable. There!

You never proposed the likelyhood that LA was defending Ferrari because he truly believes his friend is innocent. Somehow, that escaped your list of possibilities....hmmmm.

Now worries, I did if for you. Cheers! 😉

Whether it is mutually agreeable or not - he still reneged on his part of the deal.
Very honourable.

To ask a different question: what do you make of LA's "zip the lips" gesture?

Quoted post said:

Once back in the field, Armstrong spoke and laughed with numerous riders and at one point made the sign of zipping lips.

That, combined with his comment about how he was "protecting the peleton", make it seem like he was trying to shut Simeoni up.

So we have two competing views:

1) LA is angry at Simeoni for lying and saying that Ferrari offered him drugs
2) LA is trying to intimidate Simeoni from telling what he knows.

To me, the circumstances -- the public actions, the context, and the comments -- lead me to #2. It's the simplest explanation.

limerickman said:

Whether it is mutually agreeable or not - he still reneged on his part of the deal.
Very honourable.

Agreed. I don't agree with divorce but I don't live in their house nor do I know what the circumstances of the divorce were. What if his wife was unfaithful to him (this is merely hypothetical) would his "honor" still be in question?

The point is his personal life and that of any other rider in the peloton is exactly that...personal and we have no business discussing it.

antoineg said:

To ask a different question: what do you make of LA's "zip the lips" gesture?

That, combined with his comment about how he was "protecting the peleton", make it seem like he was trying to shut Simeoni up.

So we have two competing views:

1) LA is angry at Simeoni for lying and saying that Ferrari offered him drugs
2) LA is trying to intimidate Simeoni from telling what he knows.

To me, the circumstances -- the public actions, the context, and the comments -- lead me to #2. It's the simplest explanation.

Zipping the lips is a gesture of shutting some one down. Simeoni went out on the attack so that he could have some bragging rights. Lance shut the attack down and took away the bragging rights, essentially shutting him up. It had nothing to do with the pending trial. You suggesting this is just as convoluted as all the people who say Ferrari said EPO is no more dangerous than Orange juice. He never said that. His words were used out of context just as you are taking the lip gesture out of context.

limerickman said:

So because I attack LA's record - and base my attack not on a bias...

Nonsense.

Your presentation of supposed 'evidence' is more than biased, simply because you routinely fail to present the flip side of the coin and are quick to dismiss any counter argument as an impossibility. You are quick to rule out any possibility that does not fit into your slanted picture. You frequently interpret things as you want to see them...and as you want others to see them as well.

If you were truly interested in considering all sides, you would be a bit more objective in your presentation. The history of your posts shows otherwise.

Carry on.

birdman23 said:

Zipping the lips is a gesture of shutting some one down.

Not where I come from.

birdman23 said:

It had nothing to do with the pending trial.

How do you know this, especially in light of Lance's comment afterward that he was "protecting the peloton"?

birdman23 said:

You suggesting this is just as convoluted as all the people who say Ferrari said EPO is no more dangerous than Orange juice. He never said that.

sigh...

Michele Ferrari said:

I don't prescribe this stuff. But one can buy EPO in Switzerland for example without a prescription, and if a rider does, that doesn't scandalize me. EPO doesn't fundamentally change the performance of a racer.

...

EPO is not dangerous, it's the abuse that is. It's also dangerous to drink 10 liters of orange juice.