Dans le message denews:[email hidden], Phil Holman <piholmanc@yourservice> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Where Lafferty failed to convince, facts have done so.
Quoted message said:
Lafferty failed to convince that LA doped (his main focus). Which facts have done so?
If he had a fixation on Armstrong, he also spent enough time trying to take off the communal blinders to the pervasiveness of the drug culture. There are some people who may have been more cunning avoiding being caught. Maybe like your hero.
Ahhm, yes, the French conviction that proof lies in the total lack of proof.
On Nov 14, 6:49 pm, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
On Nov 13, 11:21 pm, "Jim Flom" <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Interesting that no one (in RBR) is surprised at Rasmussen's news.
Quoted message said:
it's not interesting to rbr because he hasn't tested positive or admitted to doping. so he can play the plausible deniability card.
What does it matter since you convicted him the second he did well in the Tour?
dumbass,
it doesn't matter to me, but if i thought my girlfriend was cheating on me or my kid was doing drugs even though i didn't catch them red handed i would look into it.
the cycling bosses took the passive approach and by the time the proof comes to them (for instance all the doping admissions this year) it's too late - every big money sponsor has left (or will leave) the sport and formerly top riders are scrambling to get on 2nd and 3rd tier squads.
If he had a fixation on Armstrong, he also spent enough time trying to take off the communal blinders to the pervasiveness of the drug culture.
(Open to correction) (IMS) He stated he thought racers should be able to use whatever they wanted, with a "sign-off".
Armstrong's personality or something rubbed him the wrong way, apparently through to the marrow. Everything else was leftovers.
dumbass,
lafferty's obsession with armstrong started as a proxy war against USAC and the powers that control it. his crusade wasn't so much about doping as it is about his personal axe grinding.
Dans le message de news:[email hidden], Phil Holman <piholmanc@yourservice> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
Quoted message said:
"Sandy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Dans le message de news:PIu_i.18875$8S5.16367@edtnps82, Jim Flom <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : > Interesting that no one (in RBR) is surprised at Rasmussen's news. > Choose one: > > a. everyone knew he was lying > b. everyone's sick of doping [censored] > c. everyone is dumbstruck > d. everyone's a dumbf*ck > e. both a & b above
Where Lafferty failed to convince, facts have done so.
Lafferty failed to convince that LA doped (his main focus). Which facts have done so?
Phil H
If he had a fixation on Armstrong, he also spent enough time trying to take off the communal blinders to the pervasiveness of the drug culture. There are some people who may have been more cunning avoiding being caught. Maybe like your hero.
It is difficult to discuss the past. I strongly disagree with your characterization. My attitude was always "sure they use drugs, what's the problem?" Testing should be transparent, even handed, conducted without fanfare, penalties moderate, and no take backs. First across the line goes into the record books. Others seemed to share this attitute: a kind of good natured cynicism. The backlash against rabid anti-doping has always been against the implicit totalitarianism, not clinging to illusion.
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
the cycling bosses took the passive approach and by the time the proof comes to them (for instance all the doping admissions this year) it's too late - every big money sponsor has left (or will leave) the sport and formerly top riders are scrambling to get on 2nd and 3rd tier squads.
So, you don't believe that is an effective method of controlling doping?
It is difficult to discuss the past. I strongly disagree with your characterization. My attitude was always "sure they use drugs, what's the problem?" Testing should be transparent, even handed, conducted without fanfare, penalties moderate, and no take backs. First across the line goes into the record books. Others seemed to share this attitute: a kind of good natured cynicism. The backlash against rabid anti-doping has always been against the implicit totalitarianism, not clinging to illusion.
Particularly when WADA/Pound come up with absurdly overdramatic statements like: "Doping is without doubt the greatest threat ethical sport has ever known and has become so pervasive that it places public health at grave risk. It is incumbent upon the Sport Movement and Governments of the world to continue to bolster efforts to battle the scourge of doping"
Lets put terrorism, climate change, peace in the middle east and high oil prices on the backburner while we solve the scourge of drugs in an entertainment industry. And of course we all know how successful the war on recreational drugs has been.
Sounds like a good way to get the WADA government grants increased though and better pay for all those selfless WADA souls and at the same time another excuse for, as our SLAVE would say, letting the guvmints get their greasy paws into yet another area.
