Re: For Ken, Tom, Tom, Henry and All The Lance Tifosi

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Kurgan Gringioni, Jul 26, 2004.

  1. B. Lafferty wrote:
    > As Summary of Armstrong and the doping controversy. I have endeavored

    to
    > present the allegations and responses in a neutral manner



    <snip>



    Dumbass -


    neutral manner?


    You've so got your head up your ass.


    LANCE very well may be dirty, but so may be his competitors. Ullrich is
    a product of the East German sports system. Hamilton asked for 'mineral
    water' and rode for Mr. 60%. Basso rides for Mr. 60%. etc. etc. etc.


    I am neutral because I don't play favorites (see above). You're not
    neutral because you spend your obviously very valuable and copious time
    and effort slagging Armstrong while mostly ignoring everyone else.


    It doesn't matter whether Mr. Armstrong is clean or not. You'd slag him
    anyway because you don't like him. And why do I think you're lame?
    Because you pretend to be objective.
    Take care and have a nice day, Mr. Neutral.



    K. Gringioni
     
    Tags:


  2. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > B. Lafferty wrote:
    > > As Summary of Armstrong and the doping controversy. I have endeavored

    > to
    > > present the allegations and responses in a neutral manner

    >
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >
    >
    > Dumbass -
    >
    >
    > neutral manner?
    >
    >
    > You've so got your head up your ass.


    Here's looking at you then.
    >
    >
    > LANCE very well may be dirty, but so may be his competitors. Ullrich is
    > a product of the East German sports system. Hamilton asked for 'mineral
    > water' and rode for Mr. 60%. Basso rides for Mr. 60%. etc. etc. etc.


    It is quite clear that there are many dirty riders in the peloton these
    days. I too have my doubts about Ullrich given his cycling roots. Hamilton
    now has some explaining to do, if he didn't already after his stellar
    re-emergence under Barnie.

    >
    >
    > I am neutral because I don't play favorites (see above). You're not
    > neutral because you spend your obviously very valuable and copious time
    > and effort slagging Armstrong while mostly ignoring everyone else.


    Perhaps you should change your name to reflect that neutrality. If you do a
    Google/Deja search you'll see that I've been raising doping issues as to
    specific riders, even Lemond, here at rbr since 1994. Drugs have infected
    cycling as has lying and disembling as a peloton lifestyle.
    >
    >
    > It doesn't matter whether Mr. Armstrong is clean or not. You'd slag him
    > anyway because you don't like him. And why do I think you're lame?
    > Because you pretend to be objective.


    You're entitled to your opinion. I don't like Armstrong as a person but I
    have absolutely not concluded that he's a doper. I do think there are some
    very serious allegations that need to be addressed by Armstrong and behavior
    that on his part that is difficult to reconcile with the white snow of
    innocence. There are many questions that perhaps only a defamation trial
    will get out in the open. Time will tell. The truth usually comes out
    fully in the end. What is also quite clear is that the power of corporate
    media created myth making is extremely strong in US society, which is
    reflected here at rbr for the most part.

    > Take care and have a nice day, Mr. Neutral.


    Thanks and you have a nice day too!
     
Loading...
Loading...