Love It Or Leave It--Hein

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Brian Lafferty, Jan 23, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dopey Hein as quoted in today's CyclingNews:

    If Fanini is convinced of what he is saying, he must accept the consequences and leave cycling,"
    said Verbruggen to AFP. "It's rare to hear stupid declarations such as this. It's sad to have
    people like this in our sport. I don't understand why he said that, but it's in line with what I
    know of Fanini [ and Squinzi?}. It isn't strange."

    Repeat after me, "There is no problem, there is no problem, there is no problem......Fanini is an
    Italian Bessons, an Italian Bessons, an Italian Bessons......"

    And then we have Mr Texas taking the view that this isn't the right time to bring up doping (Shall
    we wait the Emily Post period of a year for the mourning to be over?) and that he will continue his
    association with Ferrari. And if Dr. F is convicted after his trial in Italy resumes in February,
    will Tex continue to use his services?

    This could all be avoided by allowing any and all doping, with a fund set up for widows and
    orphans. Note to Hein--Same shit, another year.

    Brian Lafferty

    --
     
    Tags:


  2. Tritonrider

    Tritonrider Guest

    >From: "Brian Lafferty

    And then we have Mr Texas taking the view that this isn't the right time to
    >bring up doping (Shall we wait the Emily Post period of a year for the mourning to be over?) and
    >that he will continue his association with Ferrari. And if Dr. F is convicted after his trial in
    >Italy resumes in February, will Tex continue to use his services?
    >
    Is it just the lawyer in you talking or what? How is this wrong?

    "I didn't read this statement, but what can you say about this? I'm thinking about (Zanette's)
    family and the pain that they are feeling. Is it really the right time to bring this up? There is a
    lack of discretion here that's shocking. In any case, to die so young is tragic," said Armstrong.

    It's called compassion.

    Bill C.
     
  3. Steve Gaylor

    Steve Gaylor Guest

  4. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    Give that you are probably correct it then makes it easy to scan Brian's postings and just respond
    to the things he has to say that aren't obviously biased by his belief that anyone that ever rode a
    bike anywhere at any time has used performance enhancing drugs - except for himself of course.

    "Amit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > [email protected] (TritonRider) wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > > >From: "Brian Lafferty
    > >
    > > And then we have Mr Texas taking the view that this isn't the right time
    to
    > > >bring up doping (Shall we wait the Emily Post period of a year for the mourning to be over?)
    > > >and that he will continue his association with Ferrari. And if Dr. F is convicted after his
    > > >trial in Italy resumes in February, will Tex continue to use his services?
    > > >
    > > Is it just the lawyer in you talking or what? How is this wrong?
    > >
    > > "I didn't read this statement, but what can you say about this? I'm
    thinking
    > > about (Zanette's) family and the pain that they are feeling. Is it
    really the
    > > right time to bring this up? There is a lack of discretion here that's shocking. In any case, to
    > > die so young is tragic," said Armstrong.
    > >
    > > It's called compassion.
    > >
    >
    > Lafferty is so pissed off at cycling's power structure he will say anything given the opportunity
    > to take a shot at it no matter how inappropriate or tactless it is or how it fails to actually
    > make a point.
    >
    > Laffery Shitlist: USAC UCI USPS Lance Armstrong Any US Team rider Anyone who has had anything to
    > do with the above ever
    >
    > -Amit
     
  5. Canuck

    Canuck Guest

    "Amit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > [email protected] (TritonRider) wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    > Lafferty is so pissed off at cycling's power structure he will say anything given the opportunity
    > to take a shot at it no matter how inappropriate or tactless it is or how it fails to actually
    > make a point.
    >
    > Laffery Shitlist: USAC UCI USPS Lance Armstrong Any US Team rider Anyone who has had anything to
    > do with the above ever
    >
    > -Amit

    Good observation.

    All of us are biased to some degree, but Lafferty's utter lack of objectivity is of the
    highest caliber.

    He either nitpicks every little thing that someone does, or gives nothing but praise, although it's
    almost always the former. There are no shades of gray in [email protected]'s world.

    If I had a killfile, The Laffed-at would be at the top of the list.
     
  6. "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Give that you are probably correct it then makes it easy to scan Brian's postings and just respond
    > to the things he has to say that aren't
    obviously
    > biased by his belief that anyone that ever rode a bike anywhere at any
    time
    > has used performance enhancing drugs - except for himself of course.

    Tom, I use drugs all the time......they're just not on the banned list. The main bias I operate with
    is a cynicism that makes me question and examine what people say and do. As such, I do have a
    "suspect" list that goes something like this:

    US Government State Governments Rhenquist Supreme Court (Tony and Clarence in particular)
    Organized Religions (How organized?--good question) UCI IOC and National OCs USAC Most rbr
    Denizens (Particularly those who mis-state others' positions or ascribe to others positions they
    have not taken)

    Brian
     
  7. Canuck wrote:
    >

    > All of us are biased to some degree, but Lafferty's utter lack of objectivity is of the highest
    > caliber.

    What does lawyering have to do with objectivity? It is often more about "winning" an argument and
    creating/influencing perception. Lawyer also tends to involve understanding the law, which on the
    other hand involves a good deal of objectivity and most certainly decent judgement. Did that sound
    contradictory? It isn't, there are two separate contexts.

    "Don't ask me about ethics. I'm a lawyer." -- Len Tillem, in a NYC drawl

    http://www.kgoam810.com/complexshowdj.asp?DJID=3556

    It's a pretty good show. Tillem is very very funny.
     
  8. Canuck

    Canuck Guest

    "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    >
    > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Give that you are probably correct it then makes it easy to scan Brian's postings and just
    > > respond to the things he has to say that aren't
    > obviously
    > > biased by his belief that anyone that ever rode a bike anywhere at any
    > time
    > > has used performance enhancing drugs - except for himself of course.
    >
    > Tom, I use drugs all the time......they're just not on the banned list.
    The
    > main bias I operate with is a cynicism that makes me question and examine what people say and do.
    > As such, I do have a "suspect" list that goes something like this:
    >
    > US Government State Governments Rhenquist Supreme Court (Tony and Clarence in particular)
    > Organized Religions (How organized?--good question) UCI IOC and National OCs USAC

    add "bicycle racing" to that list.
     
  9. Brian Lafferty wrote:
    >

    > (Particularly those who mis-state others' positions or ascribe to others positions they have
    > not taken)

    IMO, you just roped up > 90% of the population. (That should make me more popular than I already
    am.) While a lot negative seems to be said about lawyers, I do appreciate greatly the fact they are
    taught to read in lawyering school.

    I would add the the suspect list:

    Lawyers
     
  10. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Give that you are probably correct it then makes it easy to scan Brian's postings and just
    > > respond to the things he has to say that aren't
    > obviously
    > > biased by his belief that anyone that ever rode a bike anywhere at any
    > time
    > > has used performance enhancing drugs - except for himself of course.
    >
    > Tom, I use drugs all the time......they're just not on the banned list. The main bias I operate
    > with is a cynicism that makes me question and examine what people say and do. As such, I do have a
    > "suspect" list that goes something like this:

    Brian, if a pro racer is involved in a law suit with his neighbor for building his fense over the
    property lines, you'll find some way of implying that it was caused by performance enhancing drugs.
    That gets old pretty fast.

    > US Government State Governments Rhenquist Supreme Court (Tony and Clarence in particular)
    > Organized Religions (How organized?--good question) UCI IOC and National OCs USAC Most rbr
    > Denizens (Particularly those who mis-state others' positions or ascribe to others positions they
    > have not taken)

    Suspicion is fine, but the automatic assumption that decisions are made for reasons contrary to the
    good of others is generally incorrect.
     
  11. "The Pomeranian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    >
    > Canuck wrote:
    > >
    >
    > > All of us are biased to some degree, but Lafferty's utter lack of objectivity is of the highest
    > > caliber.
    >
    > What does lawyering have to do with objectivity? It is often more about "winning" an argument and
    > creating/influencing perception. Lawyer also tends to involve understanding the law, which on the
    > other hand involves a good deal of objectivity and most certainly decent judgement. Did

    Are you saying he's a lawyer?

    Other people were insinuating that he's a child molester. Now you're saying he's a lawyer? Which one
    is it? or none? or both?

    kg
     
  12. "Canuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:p%[email protected]...
    >
    > "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > >
    > > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > Give that you are probably correct it then makes it easy to scan
    Brian's
    > > > postings and just respond to the things he has to say that aren't
    > > obviously
    > > > biased by his belief that anyone that ever rode a bike anywhere at any
    > > time
    > > > has used performance enhancing drugs - except for himself of course.
    > >
    > > Tom, I use drugs all the time......they're just not on the banned list.
    > The
    > > main bias I operate with is a cynicism that makes me question and
    examine
    > > what people say and do. As such, I do have a "suspect" list that goes something like this:
    > >
    > > US Government State Governments Rhenquist Supreme Court (Tony and Clarence in particular)
    > > Organized Religions (How organized?--good question) UCI IOC and National OCs USAC
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > add "bicycle racing" to that list.

    And what is it that the UCI and USAC do?
     
  13. "The Pomeranian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    >
    > Brian Lafferty wrote:
    > >
    >
    > > (Particularly those who mis-state others' positions or ascribe to others positions they have not
    > > taken)
    >
    >
    > IMO, you just roped up > 90% of the population. (That should make me more popular than I already
    > am.) While a lot negative seems to be said about lawyers, I do appreciate greatly the fact they
    > are taught to read in lawyering school.
    >
    > I would add the the suspect list:
    >
    > Lawyers

    Lawyers are suspect a priori. :)

    Brian
     
  14. "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > Give that you are probably correct it then makes it easy to scan
    Brian's
    > > > postings and just respond to the things he has to say that aren't
    > > obviously
    > > > biased by his belief that anyone that ever rode a bike anywhere at any
    > > time
    > > > has used performance enhancing drugs - except for himself of course.
    > >
    > > Tom, I use drugs all the time......they're just not on the banned list.
    The
    > > main bias I operate with is a cynicism that makes me question and
    examine
    > > what people say and do. As such, I do have a "suspect" list that goes something like this:
    >
    > Brian, if a pro racer is involved in a law suit with his neighbor for building his fense over the
    > property lines, you'll find some way of implying that it was caused by performance enhancing
    > drugs. That gets old pretty fast.

    Tom, have you been using Sharon's recreational drugs again? I have a call in to Hein to find out
    which UCI rule covers that situation. I'll get back to you.

    > > US Government State Governments Rhenquist Supreme Court (Tony and Clarence in particular)
    > > Organized Religions (How organized?--good question) UCI IOC and National OCs USAC Most rbr
    > > Denizens (Particularly those who mis-state others' positions or ascribe to others positions they
    > > have not taken)
    >
    > Suspicion is fine, but the automatic assumption that decisions are made for reasons contrary to
    > the good of others is generally incorrect.

    And if one is suspicious of everyone and everything? Whom do you trust?

    Brian
     
  15. Canuck

    Canuck Guest

  16. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > And if one is suspicious of everyone and everything? Whom do you
    trust?

    I would say that you do like the rest of us and wait for real information instead of blind
    accusations which seems to be your reaction in any situation in which performance enhancing drugs
    are even a distant possibility.

    Unlike others who simply don't like you, I just don't like that proclivity of yours.
     
  17. "Canuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > >
    > > "Canuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:p%[email protected]...
    > > >
    > > > add "bicycle racing" to that list.
    > >
    > > And what is it that the UCI and USAC do?
    >
    >
    >
    > What I mean is, you don't like professional bike racing in and of itself. Why not be a follower of
    > a sport you do like?

    Incorrect. I love professional and amateur bicycle racing. I also love and respect honest
    competition.

    Brian Lafferty
     
  18. Amit

    Amit Guest

    "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<vVwV9.12811

    > As for doping, I've change my view. IMO, all doping should be allowed, provided the rider
    > signs an informed consent to the protocol and a fund is set up to support widows and orphans.
    >

    Some fans and cynical types might not care if doping is allowed, but enough people and sponsors
    don't like the message doping sends that a "everything-goes" policy will kill the sport, or at least
    turn it into a circus like pro-wrestling.

    -Amit
     
  19. Canuck

    Canuck Guest

    "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    >
    > "Canuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "Canuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > news:p%[email protected]...
    > > > >
    > > > > add "bicycle racing" to that list.
    > > >
    > > > And what is it that the UCI and USAC do?
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > What I mean is, you don't like professional bike racing in and of
    itself.
    > > Why not be a follower of a sport you do like?
    >
    > Incorrect. I love professional and amateur bicycle racing. I also
    love
    > and respect honest competition.

    There is no such thing in professional athletics because there are $$$ involved.

    If you want purity, be a fan of a sport with Zero $$$ at stake.

    That is reality. Seeing this complaining about reality is tiresome. It's like hearing a
    Seattle-dweller complaining about the rain in the winter. You don't like it? Why not move? No one is
    forcing you to live there.
     
  20. "Canuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > >
    > > "Canuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > >
    > > > "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > "Canuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > > news:p%[email protected]...
    > > > > >
    > > > > > add "bicycle racing" to that list.
    > > > >
    > > > > And what is it that the UCI and USAC do?
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > What I mean is, you don't like professional bike racing in and of
    > itself.
    > > > Why not be a follower of a sport you do like?
    > >
    > > Incorrect. I love professional and amateur bicycle racing. I also
    > love
    > > and respect honest competition.
    >
    >
    >
    > There is no such thing in professional athletics because there are $$$ involved.
    >
    > If you want purity, be a fan of a sport with Zero $$$ at stake.
    >
    > That is reality. Seeing this complaining about reality is tiresome. It's like hearing a
    > Seattle-dweller complaining about the rain in the winter.
    You
    > don't like it? Why not move? No one is forcing you to live there.

    Zero dollars is not the issue. People cheat even without money being involved. That's been
    discussed many times here in relation to doping with amateur riders. As Henry Kissinger said of
    another area of competition, academia, "Never have some many fought so hard over so little."

    As for doping, I've change my view. IMO, all doping should be allowed, provided the rider signs
    an informed consent to the protocol and a fund is set up to support widows and orphans.

    BTW, no one is forcing you to live here either. We're all just one big loving family.
    Kiss, kiss! :)

    Brian
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...