SFweekly article on the Armstrong Affair

[Gabe Brovedani]

Interesting article in one of the free weeklies in San Francisco.

http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2005-09-07/news/smith.html

Plenty of fodder for conspiracy nuts. I'm suprised Lafferty missed it.

Gabe

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Gabe Brovedani" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Interesting article in one of the free weeklies in San Francisco.
>
> http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2005-09-07/news/smith.html
>
> Plenty of fodder for conspiracy nuts. I'm suprised Lafferty missed it.
>
> Gabe

Well researched and written article. I had not see it. Thanks for the
link..

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Gabe Brovedani" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Interesting article in one of the free weeklies in San Francisco.
>
> http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2005-09-07/news/smith.html
>
> Plenty of fodder for conspiracy nuts. I'm suprised Lafferty missed it.
>
> Gabe

Well researched and written article. I had not see it. Thanks for the
link..

 

[Steve]

It is an interesting article. I think that the author is filling in many
blanks with theories, much like Michael Moore. Moore after all gave us a
Bush 2nd term. Middle America does not like wackos like him, especially
400lb ones.
"Gabe Brovedani" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Interesting article in one of the free weeklies in San Francisco.
>
> http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2005-09-07/news/smith.html
>
> Plenty of fodder for conspiracy nuts. I'm suprised Lafferty missed it.
>
> Gabe

 

[Phil Holman]

"Gabe Brovedani" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Interesting article in one of the free weeklies in San Francisco.
>
> http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2005-09-07/news/smith.html
>
> Plenty of fodder for conspiracy nuts. I'm suprised Lafferty missed
> it.
>

Johnson mouthed what everyone else with half a brain was saying. Notice
the kook gives massive credit to Johnson for poo pooing the L'Equipe
article. Much more interesting reading to cry conspiracy and vested
interest than to acknowledge scientific reality.

Phil H

 

[D. Ferguson]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:43:07 -0400, "Steve" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>It is an interesting article. I think that the author is filling in many
>blanks with theories, much like Michael Moore. Moore after all gave us a
>Bush 2nd term. Middle America does not like wackos like him, especially
>400lb ones.
>

Michael Moore came to mind right away. It reads like Fahrenheit 9/11
and the connection between Bush and the Bin Laden family.

Not that Johson wouldn't have incentive to poo poo the L'Equipe
article for personal reasons.

It's a good article and well done but it sorta leans to a jump from
"Johnson can't be trusted" to "Armstrong is guilty", though I don't
know for sure that this was their goal.

 

[[email protected]]

The article is good at showing how much we all gave up 5 years ago when
we let Weisel run the entire show. If you've got some spare capital
laying around, it is very easy to take advantge of a suffering
orgabization, save it, and then turn it into your own private
money-making venture. Weisel has clearly done that. And we allowed
him to do it.

I guess this is about the point at which Les Earnest re-emerges for a
comment.

 

[Bill C]

[email protected] wrote:
> The article is good at showing how much we all gave up 5 years ago when
> we let Weisel run the entire show. If you've got some spare capital
> laying around, it is very easy to take advantge of a suffering
> orgabization, save it, and then turn it into your own private
> money-making venture. Weisel has clearly done that. And we allowed
> him to do it.
>
> I guess this is about the point at which Les Earnest re-emerges for a
> comment.
Unfortunately about half the time when Les pops up here he gets
subjected to the same brutal attacks he was getting back then. Same
**** different year. I do think that in the last couple of years there
has been significant improvement at USAC though. There are always going
to be some questionable things going on, but at least there are a lot
less of them now.
Bill C

 

[Bill C]

Bill C wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > The article is good at showing how much we all gave up 5 years ago when
> > we let Weisel run the entire show. If you've got some spare capital
> > laying around, it is very easy to take advantge of a suffering
> > orgabization, save it, and then turn it into your own private
> > money-making venture. Weisel has clearly done that. And we allowed
> > him to do it.
> >
> > I guess this is about the point at which Les Earnest re-emerges for a
> > comment.
> Unfortunately about half the time when Les pops up here he gets
> subjected to the same brutal attacks he was getting back then. Same
> **** different year. I do think that in the last couple of years there
> has been significant improvement at USAC though. There are always going
> to be some questionable things going on, but at least there are a lot
> less of them now.
> Bill C

If you want to witness some really good news in cycling in progress
sign up for Casey's listserve they have some amazing things going on:
Those of you who haven't joined the new NCNCA list can do so
at http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ncnca. You can subscribe
to the new list and decide if you want to get individual messages or
digest.
They are really doing fantastic things to grow the sport.
Bill C

 

[Jim Flom]

"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote ...
>
> Unfortunately about half the time when Les pops up here he gets
> subjected to the same brutal attacks he was getting back then. Same
> **** different year.

I would've hoped Les' days of abuse would've ended with Albright's tenure.
We need guys like Les to weigh in on things.

 

[D. Ferguson]

On 13 Sep 2005 08:41:15 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>The article is good at showing how much we all gave up 5 years ago when
>we let Weisel run the entire show. If you've got some spare capital
>laying around, it is very easy to take advantge of a suffering
>orgabization, save it, and then turn it into your own private
>money-making venture. Weisel has clearly done that. And we allowed
>him to do it.
>
>I guess this is about the point at which Les Earnest re-emerges for a
>comment.


It reminds me of a conundrum we have in our town. Two candidates for
Mayor. One is a "Boss Hogg" type and the other is a greeter at the
local WalMart(little lady, about 65 years old).

She has been the mayor for two terms because everyone was tired of
Boss Hogg. And retired older women are the largest demographic of
voters got her the second term. Now even they are thinking Boss Hogg
might be a better choice.

Having power, money, connections, abition, etc.. are all things that
greedy people can bring to positions of power. But they know how to
get things done and save failing organizations.

Point being, Weisel served his purpose but we're having to take the
good and bad together.

D

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
D. Ferguson <[email protected]> wrote:

> Having power, money, connections, abition, etc.. are all things that
> greedy people can bring to positions of power. But they know how to
> get things done and save failing organizations.

Well, that doesn't always work out like you might expect: GWB.

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Gunsberg]

Steve wrote:
> It is an interesting article. I think that the author is filling in many
> blanks with theories, much like Michael Moore. Moore after all gave us a
> Bush 2nd term. Middle America does not like wackos like him, especially
> 400lb ones.

Nonsense! America loves wackos...as long as they appear to be
decisive.

Kerry gave the US another Bush term. You could tell there were too many
compromises that disquieted him. Too often, he played the triangulation
game, and avoided taking unpopular stances. However, if Kerry had
slapped Bush around during the debates, really roughed him up, then he
probably could have sealed the deal with the Swing Voters.

However, the American electorate is too stupid, greedy, shortsighted,
and irrational to elect competent leaders. The US deserves the rather
large portion of humble pie that it will be subsisting on, for quite
some time in the future.

Of course, as uninspiring as Kerry was, it was the Gays who created
that "Visceral Recoil" that pushed many to vote Republican.

A perfect storm of dumb luck for Bush.

> "Gabe Brovedani" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Interesting article in one of the free weeklies in San Francisco.
> >
> > http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2005-09-07/news/smith.html
> >
> > Plenty of fodder for conspiracy nuts. I'm suprised Lafferty missed it.
> >
> > Gabe

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"Gunsberg" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Steve wrote:
> > It is an interesting article. I think that the author is filling in many
> > blanks with theories, much like Michael Moore. Moore after all gave us a
> > Bush 2nd term. Middle America does not like wackos like him, especially
> > 400lb ones.
>
> Nonsense! America loves wackos...as long as they appear to be
> decisive.
>
> Kerry gave the US another Bush term. You could tell there were too many
> compromises that disquieted him. Too often, he played the triangulation
> game, and avoided taking unpopular stances. However, if Kerry had
> slapped Bush around during the debates, really roughed him up, then he
> probably could have sealed the deal with the Swing Voters.

if if if. And if he had, why would not GWB hammered Kerry
in return. Plenty of muscle in his camp.

Campaign manager: Tomorrow we announce that your opponent
has carnal relations with swine.

Candidate: But that's not true.

Campaign manager: I know, but I want to see him deny it.

--
Michael Press

 

[Donald Munro]

Michael Press wrote:

> Campaign manager: Tomorrow we announce that your opponent
> has carnal relations with swine.

Is that Serrano or Iberico swine ?

 

[Bob Schwartz]

Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:

>> Campaign manager: Tomorrow we announce that your opponent
>> has carnal relations with swine.

> Is that Serrano or Iberico swine ?

Don't feel obligated to take pictures.

Bob Schwartz
[email protected]

 

[Gunsberg]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "Gunsberg" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Steve wrote:
> > > It is an interesting article. I think that the author is filling in many
> > > blanks with theories, much like Michael Moore. Moore after all gave us a
> > > Bush 2nd term. Middle America does not like wackos like him, especially
> > > 400lb ones.
> >
> > Nonsense! America loves wackos...as long as they appear to be
> > decisive.
> >
> > Kerry gave the US another Bush term. You could tell there were too many
> > compromises that disquieted him. Too often, he played the triangulation
> > game, and avoided taking unpopular stances. However, if Kerry had
> > slapped Bush around during the debates, really roughed him up, then he
> > probably could have sealed the deal with the Swing Voters.
>
> if if if. And if he had, why would not GWB hammered Kerry
> in return. Plenty of muscle in his camp.

Eh, it is a fact that the Bush team DID "hammer" Kerry, both before
and after the debates. He was "Swift Boated", and the Bush campaign
commercials were much nastier in tone.

Sure, it would have been smart if Kerry's campaign had utilized ads
that were more critical of Bush's character. Also, it was a huge
mistake to get Edwards on the ticket as Vice President: Kerry needed a
real Hatchet Man

However, the point is that the debates were a widely watched event,
and they generated a lot of buzz. If Kerry had really laced in to Bush,
with robust and repeated criticism, it is likely that Bush would have
become completely flustered. The debates were a unique opportunity for
Kerry to define an image for himself. The debates were the only time in
the campaign where Bush couldn't rely on his camp, and instead had to
"perform" extemporaneously
in front of a live audience.

If Kerry humiliated Bush in the debates, it would have been quite
difficult for Bush's camp, no matter how dirty the tricks, to repair
the damage.



> Campaign manager: Tomorrow we announce that your opponent
> has carnal relations with swine.
>
> Candidate: But that's not true.
>
> Campaign manager: I know, but I want to see him deny it.
>
> --
> Michael Press

 

[Tom Kunich]

Excuse me but there's an obvious reason you aren't a political strategist.

 

[Tom]

Why because he would have been correct?

Kerry was a horrible candidate, and he actually needed to attack Bush,
and play at Rove's game of attacking and slinging mud at the other
candidates when they had nothing else left to go back to. This was how
Bush "won" the first and second elections for President.

Kerry didn't do enough of it. Now if Dean had won the election, there
would have been mud slinging galore from both sides, instead of mainly
(not saying the dems didn't do it, but not to the extent of Rove's
masterful broadstrokes of rumor and innuendo) the Republicans...

Tom