More credibility problems

All Ressiot's blathering is a smokescreen. Once he supposedly ID'ed
Lance, he quit looking. He made it pretty clear that he was
specifically going after Lance, and that it was because Ressiot felt
somehow challenged or slighted by Lance's comments. Why would he care
about ID'ing some little fish when he figures he's got the big fish
hooked?

Maybe the source that he got his info was charging him per sample
identification paper.

I have said from the beginning that this smell of a payoff for lab work.
Looking more like it all the time.

Ken

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep04news

While Ressiot admitted that his research targeted Armstrong in
particular, he also added that his information wasn't sufficient to
publish the identities of the six other riders who tested positive in
the 1999 Tour de France.

How the hell god is this [censored] if he could only "identify" one out of
seven riders from what are supposed to be a master list identifying the
riders that corroborated to sample numbers?
How the hell do you pick Lance out of that list and not the rest of
the riders?
Pretty fishy to me.
Bill C

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep04news

While Ressiot admitted that his research targeted Armstrong in
particular, he also added that his information wasn't sufficient to
publish the identities of the six other riders who tested positive in
the 1999 Tour de France.

How the hell god is this [censored] if he could only "identify" one out of
seven riders from what are supposed to be a master list identifying the
riders that corroborated to sample numbers?
How the hell do you pick Lance out of that list and not the rest of
the riders?
Pretty fishy to me.
Bill C

He admitted that he was really only looking into Armstrong. He may have
asked for and gotten only Armstrong's code numbers. What I found
interesting is this:
"But Armstrong made several declarations in the past that he would open his
medical dossier, and he never did. Of course, the information we published
are very personal, but then you shouldn't announce that you're ready to
reveal them anytime if you're not going to! While I was working on the
current revelations, I asked him to, but he didn't," the French journalist
explained.

Add to this that CSA has had to fight to obtain Armstrong's medical records
and that Walsh and Ballestier tried to get Armstrong to answer questions
related to their investigations, and you have what appears to be a less than
transparent tour champion--despite his claims and pledges to the contrary.

"Philip Holman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Philip Holman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> "Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep04news
>>
>> While Ressiot admitted that his research targeted Armstrong in
>> particular, he also added that his information wasn't sufficient to
>> publish the identities of the six other riders who tested positive in
>> the 1999 Tour de France.
>>
>>
>> How the hell god is this [censored] if he could only "identify" one out of
>> seven riders from what are supposed to be a master list identifying
>> the
>> riders that corroborated to sample numbers?
>> How the hell do you pick Lance out of that list and not the rest of
>> the riders?
>> Pretty fishy to me.
>> Bill C
>>
>
> He admitted that he was really only looking into Armstrong. He may
> have asked for and gotten only Armstrong's code numbers. What I found
> interesting is this:
> "But Armstrong made several declarations in the past that he would open
> his medical dossier, and he never did. Of course, the information we
> published are very personal, but then you shouldn't announce that
> you're ready to reveal them anytime if you're not going to! While I was
> working on the current revelations, I asked him to, but he didn't," the
> French journalist explained.
>
> Add to this that CSA has had to fight to obtain Armstrong's medical
> records and that Walsh and Ballestier tried to get Armstrong to answer
> questions related to their investigations, and you have what appears to
> be a less than transparent tour champion--despite his claims and
> pledges to the contrary.

Il n'ya que les imbeciles qui ne changent pas d'avis. Armstrong is smart
in not handing over anything to a bunch of dope sniffers. You're a
lawyer, you should realize more than anybody that both the innocent and
the guilty have to work at protecting themselves.

Phil H

Stupid one, it was Armstrong who volunteered to open his medical files on
the premise that he has nothing to hide.

That was addressed; (Il n'ya que les imbeciles qui ne changent pas d'avis)
only an imbecile doesn't change their mind.

Phil H

You are a stupid human who is too stupid to ever realize your own stupidity.
Plonk.

Philip Holman said:

"Jim Flom " <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ylISe.162926$wr.148986@clgrps12...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote ...

Quoted message said:

>
You are a stupid human who is too stupid to ever realize your own
stupidity. Plonk.

Note the ad hominem argument. In logic, this attack against a
person's character, like the appeal to authority noted elsewhere, has
no logical connection to the argument. It's a tactical distraction,
like the preacher's/teacher's/lawyer's note to himself in the margin,
"Argument weak -- shout here."

I make a point of shooting his misguided logic full of holes. Sounds
like he's dropped his pacifier again.

Phil H

Bar Association: One last question. Have you ever taken a logic
class?
New Attorney: No
Bar Association: You are free to go.