Love It Or Leave It--Hein

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

--

 

>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.

 

"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> It's not wrong from a legal standpoint. From a PR standpoint it's another bullet in the foot.

Not in my opinion.

 

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

 

"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.

 

"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

 

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.

 

"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.

 

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

 

"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.

 

"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

 

"Canuck" <[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:
> >
> > 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?

 

"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

 

"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

 

"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "Canuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news%[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?

 

"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.

 

"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]...
> > >
> > > 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

 

"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

 

"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%[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.

 

"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%[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