S
SH
Guest
>
>George Hincpie stats from the Discovery team site.
>
>6'3"
>175 lbs.
>
Anyone who belives that Hincapie weighs anywhere near 175 right now is
either stupid, retarded, or both.
>
>George Hincpie stats from the Discovery team site.
>
>6'3"
>175 lbs.
>
Anyone who belives that Hincapie weighs anywhere near 175 right now is
either stupid, retarded, or both.
B
B. Lafferty wrote:
> "David Ferguson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:18:29 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
> >>the Pyrenees. He tells me that on French TV Laurent Jalabert was remarking
> >>on how strange it was that the non-climber Hincapie was climbing the
> >>Galibier with such ease.
> Evidence and types of evidence were discussed here at length last year when
> LA Confidential was published and when Anderson made his allegations known
> in the press and in court pleadings. Google it and you can read about
> eyewitness and circumstantial evidence to your heart's content.
You were speaking about Hincapie. Please inform us of what
revelations "LA Confidentiel" and Mike Anderson have about
Hincapie's climbing ability (Did you and Jaja only notice
it this year??)
Citing the average speed of a Tour halfway through when it hasn't
done all the big mountains yet is vaguely meaningless. Also see:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group...a0e60/a8a018ac017d9bf7?hl=en#a8a018ac017d9bf7
> "David Ferguson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:18:29 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
> >>the Pyrenees. He tells me that on French TV Laurent Jalabert was remarking
> >>on how strange it was that the non-climber Hincapie was climbing the
> >>Galibier with such ease.
> Evidence and types of evidence were discussed here at length last year when
> LA Confidential was published and when Anderson made his allegations known
> in the press and in court pleadings. Google it and you can read about
> eyewitness and circumstantial evidence to your heart's content.
You were speaking about Hincapie. Please inform us of what
revelations "LA Confidentiel" and Mike Anderson have about
Hincapie's climbing ability (Did you and Jaja only notice
it this year??)
Citing the average speed of a Tour halfway through when it hasn't
done all the big mountains yet is vaguely meaningless. Also see:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group...a0e60/a8a018ac017d9bf7?hl=en#a8a018ac017d9bf7
B
B. Lafferty
Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> "David Ferguson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:18:29 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
>
>> >>the Pyrenees. He tells me that on French TV Laurent Jalabert was
>> >>remarking
>> >>on how strange it was that the non-climber Hincapie was climbing the
>> >>Galibier with such ease.
>
>> Evidence and types of evidence were discussed here at length last year
>> when
>> LA Confidential was published and when Anderson made his allegations
>> known
>> in the press and in court pleadings. Google it and you can read about
>> eyewitness and circumstantial evidence to your heart's content.
>
> You were speaking about Hincapie. Please inform us of what
> revelations "LA Confidentiel" and Mike Anderson have about
> Hincapie's climbing ability (Did you and Jaja only notice
> it this year??)
>
> Citing the average speed of a Tour halfway through when it hasn't
> done all the big mountains yet is vaguely meaningless. Also see:
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group...a0e60/a8a018ac017d9bf7?hl=en#a8a018ac017d9bf7
>
Re-read the post. The question related to types of evidence. That was
discussed at length here. As for Hincapie, you've no doubt read Coyles book
and know that Ferrari trained him as well as Armstrong. If you haven't
read Coyle, read that and then read LA Confidential followed by Anderson's
allegations.
Also, if you've been following rbr for any length of time, you know that
Hincapie's ever increasing climbing prowess has been discussed here a number
of times.
news:[email protected]...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> "David Ferguson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:18:29 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
>
>> >>the Pyrenees. He tells me that on French TV Laurent Jalabert was
>> >>remarking
>> >>on how strange it was that the non-climber Hincapie was climbing the
>> >>Galibier with such ease.
>
>> Evidence and types of evidence were discussed here at length last year
>> when
>> LA Confidential was published and when Anderson made his allegations
>> known
>> in the press and in court pleadings. Google it and you can read about
>> eyewitness and circumstantial evidence to your heart's content.
>
> You were speaking about Hincapie. Please inform us of what
> revelations "LA Confidentiel" and Mike Anderson have about
> Hincapie's climbing ability (Did you and Jaja only notice
> it this year??)
>
> Citing the average speed of a Tour halfway through when it hasn't
> done all the big mountains yet is vaguely meaningless. Also see:
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group...a0e60/a8a018ac017d9bf7?hl=en#a8a018ac017d9bf7
>
Re-read the post. The question related to types of evidence. That was
discussed at length here. As for Hincapie, you've no doubt read Coyles book
and know that Ferrari trained him as well as Armstrong. If you haven't
read Coyle, read that and then read LA Confidential followed by Anderson's
allegations.
Also, if you've been following rbr for any length of time, you know that
Hincapie's ever increasing climbing prowess has been discussed here a number
of times.
B
Bob Schwartz
Guest
B. Lafferty <[email protected]> wrote:
> As for Hincapie, you've no doubt read Coyles book
> and know that Ferrari trained him as well as Armstrong.
I'm waiting for it to come out in French.
Bob Schwartz
[email protected]
> As for Hincapie, you've no doubt read Coyles book
> and know that Ferrari trained him as well as Armstrong.
I'm waiting for it to come out in French.
Bob Schwartz
[email protected]
B
B. Lafferty
Guest
"Bob Schwartz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> B. Lafferty <[email protected]> wrote:
>> As for Hincapie, you've no doubt read Coyles book
>> and know that Ferrari trained him as well as Armstrong.
>
> I'm waiting for it to come out in French.
>
> Bob Schwartz
> [email protected]
>
news:[email protected]...
> B. Lafferty <[email protected]> wrote:
>> As for Hincapie, you've no doubt read Coyles book
>> and know that Ferrari trained him as well as Armstrong.
>
> I'm waiting for it to come out in French.
>
> Bob Schwartz
> [email protected]
>
B
B. Lafferty
Guest
"SH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>>George Hincpie stats from the Discovery team site.
>>
>>6'3"
>>175 lbs.
>>
>
> Anyone who belives that Hincapie weighs anywhere near 175 right now is
> either stupid, retarded, or both.
>
Knock 10 pounds off and his ratio is 2.2. Fifteen pounds and it's 2.13
news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>>George Hincpie stats from the Discovery team site.
>>
>>6'3"
>>175 lbs.
>>
>
> Anyone who belives that Hincapie weighs anywhere near 175 right now is
> either stupid, retarded, or both.
>
Knock 10 pounds off and his ratio is 2.2. Fifteen pounds and it's 2.13
T
Torched Smurf
Guest
Michael Thomas wrote:
> <snip>
> http://www.arrakis.es/~angelman/personaling.htm
> <snip>
Crappiest website ever. That music, ugh.
"The horror. The horror."
-Smurf
> <snip>
> http://www.arrakis.es/~angelman/personaling.htm
> <snip>
Crappiest website ever. That music, ugh.
"The horror. The horror."
-Smurf
M
Michael Thomas
Guest
On 14 Jul 2005 15:48:04 -0700, "Torched Smurf"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Michael Thomas wrote:
>> <snip>
>> http://www.arrakis.es/~angelman/personaling.htm
>> <snip>
>
>Crappiest website ever. That music, ugh.
>
>"The horror. The horror."
>
>-Smurf
Midi es el mejor. ¿Está usted loco?
MT
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Michael Thomas wrote:
>> <snip>
>> http://www.arrakis.es/~angelman/personaling.htm
>> <snip>
>
>Crappiest website ever. That music, ugh.
>
>"The horror. The horror."
>
>-Smurf
Midi es el mejor. ¿Está usted loco?
MT
S
Steven L. Sheffield
Guest
On 07/14/2005 10:22 AM, in article
[email protected], "Tom Kunich"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Interesting point is that after he started winning Tours, Miguel didn't
> attack on climbs (see LeMond's 1990 win) like he did in his earlier
> years. Instead he used his TT ability to pull out huge amounts of time
> and then would only stay with his competition on the climbs.
I seem to recall Indurain attacking on the climb to Lourdes Hautacam in
1994, and pulling Luc Leblanc all the way to the summit, catching Pantani in
the process.
Of course, Leblanc came around him at the end and took the win.
--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash
[email protected], "Tom Kunich"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Interesting point is that after he started winning Tours, Miguel didn't
> attack on climbs (see LeMond's 1990 win) like he did in his earlier
> years. Instead he used his TT ability to pull out huge amounts of time
> and then would only stay with his competition on the climbs.
I seem to recall Indurain attacking on the climb to Lourdes Hautacam in
1994, and pulling Luc Leblanc all the way to the summit, catching Pantani in
the process.
Of course, Leblanc came around him at the end and took the win.
--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash
F
Fred Marx
Guest
S
Stewart Fleming
Guest
Fred Marx wrote:
>
>> a winning mental attitude. ;-)
>
>
> That's an Amgen Product right? ;\
Linford Christie's sports management company was called "Positive Mental
Attitude", if I remember rightly...
>
>> a winning mental attitude. ;-)
>
>
> That's an Amgen Product right? ;\
Linford Christie's sports management company was called "Positive Mental
Attitude", if I remember rightly...
D
Donald Munro
Guest
Keith wrote:
>> Seems to me that Beltran was opengin the road for Armstrong today ?
Stewart Fleming wrote:
> Well he certainly left a pothole in it when he landed on his head.
Not another one of those Eki holes, surely ?
>> Seems to me that Beltran was opengin the road for Armstrong today ?
Stewart Fleming wrote:
> Well he certainly left a pothole in it when he landed on his head.
Not another one of those Eki holes, surely ?
J
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> "David Ferguson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:18:29 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
>
>> >>the Pyrenees. He tells me that on French TV Laurent Jalabert was
>> >>remarking
>> >>on how strange it was that the non-climber Hincapie was climbing the
>> >>Galibier with such ease.
>
>> Evidence and types of evidence were discussed here at length last year
>> when
>> LA Confidential was published and when Anderson made his allegations
>> known
>> in the press and in court pleadings. Google it and you can read about
>> eyewitness and circumstantial evidence to your heart's content.
>
> You were speaking about Hincapie. Please inform us of what
> revelations "LA Confidentiel" and Mike Anderson have about
> Hincapie's climbing ability (Did you and Jaja only notice
> it this year??)
>
> Citing the average speed of a Tour halfway through when it hasn't
> done all the big mountains yet is vaguely meaningless. Also see:
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group...a0e60/a8a018ac017d9bf7?hl=en#a8a018ac017d9bf7
>
Here's what I think: when we look now at Gewiss in the early nineties, it is
considered sufficient evidence just to point at the way they were riding
and conclude that they were doing well because of doping. Perhaps we'll need
the benefit of hindsight in a few years to really understand why Discovery
can collectively perform like they are doing, but given past experiences it
is not unreasonable to suspect something similar to the beginning of the EPO
period is happening now. But there is, indeed, no proof, and the evidence is
slim.
news:[email protected]...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> "David Ferguson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:18:29 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
>
>> >>the Pyrenees. He tells me that on French TV Laurent Jalabert was
>> >>remarking
>> >>on how strange it was that the non-climber Hincapie was climbing the
>> >>Galibier with such ease.
>
>> Evidence and types of evidence were discussed here at length last year
>> when
>> LA Confidential was published and when Anderson made his allegations
>> known
>> in the press and in court pleadings. Google it and you can read about
>> eyewitness and circumstantial evidence to your heart's content.
>
> You were speaking about Hincapie. Please inform us of what
> revelations "LA Confidentiel" and Mike Anderson have about
> Hincapie's climbing ability (Did you and Jaja only notice
> it this year??)
>
> Citing the average speed of a Tour halfway through when it hasn't
> done all the big mountains yet is vaguely meaningless. Also see:
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group...a0e60/a8a018ac017d9bf7?hl=en#a8a018ac017d9bf7
>
Here's what I think: when we look now at Gewiss in the early nineties, it is
considered sufficient evidence just to point at the way they were riding
and conclude that they were doing well because of doping. Perhaps we'll need
the benefit of hindsight in a few years to really understand why Discovery
can collectively perform like they are doing, but given past experiences it
is not unreasonable to suspect something similar to the beginning of the EPO
period is happening now. But there is, indeed, no proof, and the evidence is
slim.
B
B. Lafferty wrote:
> Re-read the post. The question related to types of evidence. That was
> discussed at length here. As for Hincapie, you've no doubt read Coyles book
> and know that Ferrari trained him as well as Armstrong. If you haven't
> read Coyle, read that and then read LA Confidential followed by Anderson's
> allegations.
Counselor Lafferty, you were babbling about Hincapie's climbing,
someone asked you about evidence, and you said "LA Confidentiel."
And Anderson. I fail to see what Anderson has to do with Hincapie.
The jury will disregard your outburst.
> Also, if you've been following rbr for any length of time, you know that
> Hincapie's ever increasing climbing prowess has been discussed here a number
> of times.
Duh. That's my point. To someone reading rbr, Hincapie's climbing
should not come as a surprise. It might require explanation
(training regimen, drugs, losing weight, helium implants) but it
ain't out of the blue.
Hincapie got a couple of fourth places in TdF bunch sprints, I think
one was on the Champs. I'm sure he couldn't do that now. Jaja of
all people might understand this.
> Re-read the post. The question related to types of evidence. That was
> discussed at length here. As for Hincapie, you've no doubt read Coyles book
> and know that Ferrari trained him as well as Armstrong. If you haven't
> read Coyle, read that and then read LA Confidential followed by Anderson's
> allegations.
Counselor Lafferty, you were babbling about Hincapie's climbing,
someone asked you about evidence, and you said "LA Confidentiel."
And Anderson. I fail to see what Anderson has to do with Hincapie.
The jury will disregard your outburst.
> Also, if you've been following rbr for any length of time, you know that
> Hincapie's ever increasing climbing prowess has been discussed here a number
> of times.
Duh. That's my point. To someone reading rbr, Hincapie's climbing
should not come as a surprise. It might require explanation
(training regimen, drugs, losing weight, helium implants) but it
ain't out of the blue.
Hincapie got a couple of fourth places in TdF bunch sprints, I think
one was on the Champs. I'm sure he couldn't do that now. Jaja of
all people might understand this.
M
Michael Press
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Here's what I think: when we look now at Gewiss in the early nineties, it is
> considered sufficient evidence just to point at the way they were riding
> and conclude that they were doing well because of doping. Perhaps we'll need
> the benefit of hindsight in a few years to really understand why Discovery
> can collectively perform like they are doing, but given past experiences it
> is not unreasonable to suspect something similar to the beginning of the EPO
> period is happening now. But there is, indeed, no proof, and the evidence is
> slim.
What is the evidence?
--
Michael Press
"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Here's what I think: when we look now at Gewiss in the early nineties, it is
> considered sufficient evidence just to point at the way they were riding
> and conclude that they were doing well because of doping. Perhaps we'll need
> the benefit of hindsight in a few years to really understand why Discovery
> can collectively perform like they are doing, but given past experiences it
> is not unreasonable to suspect something similar to the beginning of the EPO
> period is happening now. But there is, indeed, no proof, and the evidence is
> slim.
What is the evidence?
--
Michael Press
T
trg
Guest
"Michael Press" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Here's what I think: when we look now at Gewiss in the early nineties, it
>> is
>> considered sufficient evidence just to point at the way they were riding
>> and conclude that they were doing well because of doping. Perhaps we'll
>> need
>> the benefit of hindsight in a few years to really understand why
>> Discovery
>> can collectively perform like they are doing, but given past experiences
>> it
>> is not unreasonable to suspect something similar to the beginning of the
>> EPO
>> period is happening now. But there is, indeed, no proof, and the evidence
>> is
>> slim.
>
> What is the evidence?
>
Evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence.
[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Here's what I think: when we look now at Gewiss in the early nineties, it
>> is
>> considered sufficient evidence just to point at the way they were riding
>> and conclude that they were doing well because of doping. Perhaps we'll
>> need
>> the benefit of hindsight in a few years to really understand why
>> Discovery
>> can collectively perform like they are doing, but given past experiences
>> it
>> is not unreasonable to suspect something similar to the beginning of the
>> EPO
>> period is happening now. But there is, indeed, no proof, and the evidence
>> is
>> slim.
>
> What is the evidence?
>
Evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence.