What will the Lance-haters want to happen if it's true?

[Preston Crawford]

I'm not passing judgement one way or the other. But there is obviously a
group who really hates Lance. So I'm wondering what they'd like to see
happen if it turns out that Lance were guilty. Would we need to set
aside a day to do a "redo" of all the podium ceremonies for the last 7
years. Stage wins and everything. Go back and get everyone and put them
in their team jerseys (Ulrich would have to wear his Bianchi jersey
during that year's ceremonies) and we could have a do-over.

That and Lance would have to give back all his Lions.

Preston

 

[Bill H.]

Nothing would happen, obviously.

However, when Raffy Palmeiro tested positive, I, for one, wanted him
kicked out of the game. I still do. I think the integrity of the game
is more important than any one player, and I think he should be banned,
just as Pete Rose was banned for gambling. I also don't think he
should be eligible for the Hall of Fame.

What's done is done, and nothing is going to be "done" to Lance, even
if he were 100% guilty. He's announced his retirement from the Tour,
so preventing him from competing in the future won't mean anything. I
suppose the Tour could "strip" him of his awards and jerseys (not
literally), but give awards to other bicyclists, but that'll never
happen either.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Preston Crawford wrote:
> I'm not passing judgement one way or the other. But there is
> obviously a group who really hates Lance. So I'm wondering what
> they'd like to see happen if it turns out that Lance were guilty.
> Would we need to set aside a day to do a "redo" of all the podium
> ceremonies for the last 7 years. Stage wins and everything. Go back
> and get everyone and put them in their team jerseys (Ulrich would
> have to wear his Bianchi jersey during that year's ceremonies) and we
> could have a do-over.
>
> That and Lance would have to give back all his Lions.

Lousy troll or just a silly post. He tested negative (clean) every year,
every time. You can't go back and get a 6-year-old sample and /prove/
anything without much better documentation and protocol than was exhibited
here.

It's bogus (whether accurate or not) because it's unfair and unreliable.

(Also, IF he used EPO in '99, how did he win the next 6? Surely if he
needed an unfair advantage once, he'd need it all or at least most of the
time.)

More will be revealed...

 

[Preston Crawford]

On 2005-08-26, Bill H. <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nothing would happen, obviously.
>
> However, when Raffy Palmeiro tested positive, I, for one, wanted him
> kicked out of the game. I still do. I think the integrity of the game
> is more important than any one player, and I think he should be banned,
> just as Pete Rose was banned for gambling. I also don't think he
> should be eligible for the Hall of Fame.
>
> What's done is done, and nothing is going to be "done" to Lance, even
> if he were 100% guilty. He's announced his retirement from the Tour,
> so preventing him from competing in the future won't mean anything. I
> suppose the Tour could "strip" him of his awards and jerseys (not
> literally), but give awards to other bicyclists, but that'll never
> happen either.

I agree with all of the above, actually. I was just tossing it out
there, because the sharks are circling. A German paper is even talking
about Ulrich suing Lance for all the money he would have made that Lance
made instead.

I made the post more as a joke.

Preston

 

[Preston Crawford]

On 2005-08-26, Bill Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Preston Crawford wrote:
>> I'm not passing judgement one way or the other. But there is
>> obviously a group who really hates Lance. So I'm wondering what
>> they'd like to see happen if it turns out that Lance were guilty.
>> Would we need to set aside a day to do a "redo" of all the podium
>> ceremonies for the last 7 years. Stage wins and everything. Go back
>> and get everyone and put them in their team jerseys (Ulrich would
>> have to wear his Bianchi jersey during that year's ceremonies) and we
>> could have a do-over.
>>
>> That and Lance would have to give back all his Lions.
>
> Lousy troll or just a silly post. He tested negative (clean) every year,
> every time. You can't go back and get a 6-year-old sample and /prove/
> anything without much better documentation and protocol than was exhibited
> here.
>
> It's bogus (whether accurate or not) because it's unfair and unreliable.
>
> (Also, IF he used EPO in '99, how did he win the next 6? Surely if he
> needed an unfair advantage once, he'd need it all or at least most of the
> time.)
>
> More will be revealed...

I was joking. Poking fun at the haters. It's just a train of thought I
was on after reading an article where the German press is calling for
Ulrich to sue for all the money he would have made (including
endorsements) that Lance made instead.

Preston

 

[Bill Sornson]

Preston Crawford wrote:
> On 2005-08-26, Bill Sornson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Preston Crawford wrote:
>>> I'm not passing judgement one way or the other. But there is
>>> obviously a group who really hates Lance. So I'm wondering what
>>> they'd like to see happen if it turns out that Lance were guilty.
>>> Would we need to set aside a day to do a "redo" of all the podium
>>> ceremonies for the last 7 years. Stage wins and everything. Go back
>>> and get everyone and put them in their team jerseys (Ulrich would
>>> have to wear his Bianchi jersey during that year's ceremonies) and
>>> we could have a do-over.
>>>
>>> That and Lance would have to give back all his Lions.
>>
>> Lousy troll or just a silly post. He tested negative (clean) every
>> year, every time. You can't go back and get a 6-year-old sample and
>> /prove/ anything without much better documentation and protocol than
>> was exhibited here.
>>
>> It's bogus (whether accurate or not) because it's unfair and
>> unreliable.
>>
>> (Also, IF he used EPO in '99, how did he win the next 6? Surely if
>> he needed an unfair advantage once, he'd need it all or at least
>> most of the time.)
>>
>> More will be revealed...
>
> I was joking. Poking fun at the haters. It's just a train of thought I
> was on after reading an article where the German press is calling for
> Ulrich to sue for all the money he would have made (including
> endorsements) that Lance made instead.

Maybe they're joking too

 

[Preston Crawford]

On 2005-08-26, Bill Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Preston Crawford wrote:
>> On 2005-08-26, Bill Sornson
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Preston Crawford wrote:
>>>> I'm not passing judgement one way or the other. But there is
>>>> obviously a group who really hates Lance. So I'm wondering what
>>>> they'd like to see happen if it turns out that Lance were guilty.
>>>> Would we need to set aside a day to do a "redo" of all the podium
>>>> ceremonies for the last 7 years. Stage wins and everything. Go back
>>>> and get everyone and put them in their team jerseys (Ulrich would
>>>> have to wear his Bianchi jersey during that year's ceremonies) and
>>>> we could have a do-over.
>>>>
>>>> That and Lance would have to give back all his Lions.
>>>
>>> Lousy troll or just a silly post. He tested negative (clean) every
>>> year, every time. You can't go back and get a 6-year-old sample and
>>> /prove/ anything without much better documentation and protocol than
>>> was exhibited here.
>>>
>>> It's bogus (whether accurate or not) because it's unfair and
>>> unreliable.
>>>
>>> (Also, IF he used EPO in '99, how did he win the next 6? Surely if
>>> he needed an unfair advantage once, he'd need it all or at least
>>> most of the time.)
>>>
>>> More will be revealed...
>>
>> I was joking. Poking fun at the haters. It's just a train of thought I
>> was on after reading an article where the German press is calling for
>> Ulrich to sue for all the money he would have made (including
>> endorsements) that Lance made instead.
>
> Maybe they're joking too
>
>

No, they're serious, unfortunately.

Preston

 

[Pete]

You could all start by being honest with yourselves. If the soiled champion
were from another country, say Jan Ullrich or Jalabert, and Lance had come
in second the past seven years, the same guys who support Lance no matter
what now would be screaming for the guy to be disqualified retroactively so
Lance could be declared the winner. Based on all similar circumstancial and
hard evidence, you would all be screaming bloody murder.

Poulidor said why not just go back to 1903 while they are at it. Well, 6
years ago is not the same as a century ago. Cheats have lost Olympic gold
medals retroactively. What's so special about cycling?

 

[Peeter]

Yeah, all of the above ... PLUS ...

Lance should pose for a group photo with Bobby Abreu, Andrian Beltre,
Barry Bonds, Bret Boone, Carlos DelGado, Steve Finley, Jason Giambi,
Brian Giles, Luis E. Gonzalez, Shawn Green, Todd Helton, Raffy
Palmeiro, Gary Sheffield, Sammy, Jim Thome, and other HR supermen.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Preston Crawford wrote:
> I'm not passing judgement one way or the other. But there is obviously a
> group who really hates Lance. So I'm wondering what they'd like to see
> happen if it turns out that Lance were guilty. Would we need to set
> aside a day to do a "redo" of all the podium ceremonies for the last 7
> years. Stage wins and everything. Go back and get everyone and put them
> in their team jerseys (Ulrich would have to wear his Bianchi jersey
> during that year's ceremonies) and we could have a do-over.
>
> That and Lance would have to give back all his Lions.
>
> Preston

 

[Bill Sornson]

Pete wrote:
> You could all start by being honest with yourselves. If the soiled
> champion were from another country, say Jan Ullrich or Jalabert, and
> Lance had come in second the past seven years, the same guys who
> support Lance no matter what now would be screaming for the guy to be
> disqualified retroactively so Lance could be declared the winner.

That might be true if there were solid /evidence/ and not just dark-room
frozen-sample funny biz.

Why did they wait until AFTER the Tour to dump all this? Seems like they
wanted to milk the Lance Money Machine as long as they could, and then find
another (sleazy in this case) way to keep it rolling.

> Based on all similar circumstancial and hard evidence, you would all
> be screaming bloody murder.
> Poulidor said why not just go back to 1903 while they are at it.
> Well, 6 years ago is not the same as a century ago. Cheats have lost
> Olympic gold medals retroactively. What's so special about cycling?

Give it a few more days and see what happens. This drug test itself tests
dirty IMO...

 

[Bill Sornson]

Peeter wrote:

> Yeah, all of the above ... PLUS ...

Umm, there's NOTHING above what you wrote.

HTH, BS

> Lance should pose for a group photo with Bobby Abreu, Andrian Beltre,
> Barry Bonds, Bret Boone, Carlos DelGado, Steve Finley, Jason Giambi,
> Brian Giles, Luis E. Gonzalez, Shawn Green, Todd Helton, Raffy
> Palmeiro, Gary Sheffield, Sammy, Jim Thome, and other HR supermen.
>
>
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>
> Preston Crawford wrote:
>> I'm not passing judgement one way or the other. But there is
>> obviously a group who really hates Lance. So I'm wondering what
>> they'd like to see happen if it turns out that Lance were guilty.
>> Would we need to set aside a day to do a "redo" of all the podium
>> ceremonies for the last 7 years. Stage wins and everything. Go back
>> and get everyone and put them in their team jerseys (Ulrich would
>> have to wear his Bianchi jersey during that year's ceremonies) and
>> we could have a do-over.
>>
>> That and Lance would have to give back all his Lions.
>>
>> Preston

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:

>You could all start by being honest with yourselves. If the soiled champion
>were from another country, say Jan Ullrich or Jalabert, and Lance had come
>in second the past seven years, the same guys who support Lance no matter
>what now would be screaming for the guy to be disqualified retroactively so
>Lance could be declared the winner. Based on all similar circumstancial and
>hard evidence, you would all be screaming bloody murder.

Hardly. There's a BIG difference between testing someone "real time"
and doing it six loooooooong years later.

If he had tested positive during the '99 Tour, he could have appealed,
and taken another test which would provide either vindication or
further damnation (even if it didn't prevent him from being pulled
from the race before that happened).

But to dig a six-year old sample out of a freezer, after who knows WHO
had a chance to access it, and for an "anonymous test" to just
"happen" to filter to the tabloid that has had Lance in the
cross-hairs for most of his career all speaks of "less than certain"
results (to be charitable).

I don't care who it is - that's NOT a credible scenario with which to
ruin someone's credibility.

>Poulidor said why not just go back to 1903 while they are at it. Well, 6
>years ago is not the same as a century ago. Cheats have lost Olympic gold
>medals retroactively. What's so special about cycling?

Why stop there? Why not use other experimental processes to test
every bit of stored urine everywhere. Heck, for those we can't locate
we'll just assume they're dirty. It'll turn out that there's only one
guy in 1910 who was ever clean, so we'll award him every yellow jersey
since then - will that make you feel better? ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

Preston Crawford <[email protected]> wrote:
>I'm not passing judgement one way or the other. But there is obviously a
>group who really hates Lance. So I'm wondering what they'd like to see
>happen if it turns out that Lance were guilty. Would we need to set
>aside a day to do a "redo" of all the podium ceremonies for the last 7
>years. Stage wins and everything. Go back and get everyone and put them
>in their team jerseys (Ulrich would have to wear his Bianchi jersey
>during that year's ceremonies) and we could have a do-over.
>
>That and Lance would have to give back all his Lions.

I think they should resurrect Marco Pantani before they
start considering knocking LA off the podium.

--Blair
"Should be about as easy as
actually proving the B samples
weren't stepped on."

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> Hardly. There's a BIG difference between testing someone "real time"
> and doing it six loooooooong years later.
>
> If he had tested positive during the '99 Tour, he could have appealed,
> and taken another test which would provide either vindication or
> further damnation (even if it didn't prevent him from being pulled
> from the race before that happened).
>
> But to dig a six-year old sample out of a freezer, after who knows WHO
> had a chance to access it, and for an "anonymous test" to just
> "happen" to filter to the tabloid that has had Lance in the
> cross-hairs for most of his career all speaks of "less than certain"
> results (to be charitable).
>
> I don't care who it is - that's NOT a credible scenario with which to
> ruin someone's credibility.


And this isn't just about Lance's credibility, but that of drug-testing as
well. I think **** Pound (WADA) is doing a tremendous amount of damage to
his cause (eliminating drugs from athletics) by getting involved in this. If
I were him, I would be more concerned about the present and future, not the
past.

While this is all interesting to speculate about, there is nothing that can
come from it other than creating questions about the legitimacy of drug
testing in general. It is dangerous to go back six or seven years and try to
retroactively determine guilt or innocence. The system wasn't set up at the
time to allow for that. They didn't anticipate, or plan for, this scenario.
As a result, any "results" produced from such testing will not likely pass
modern tests for storage, custody and reporting requirements. They will be
successfully challenged every step of the way, yet with no possibility that
anyone will be considered definitively villain or victim. And people won't
distinguish between modern, reliable methods that would hold up to serious
scrutiny; rather, all drug testing will be considered a joke, and every
rider suspect.

**** Pound should be concentrating on the sure thing, rather than an agenda
that says anything that might possibly be indicative of drug use needs to be
persecuted and eliminated. That would greatly strengthen his ability to deal
with the current situation, as he needs to be fighting things he can prove,
not demons of the past (which cannot be proven decisively one way or the
other, and will only serve to create fear, doubt & uncertainty about what
the WADA's doing now).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>You could all start by being honest with yourselves. If the soiled
>>champion
>>were from another country, say Jan Ullrich or Jalabert, and Lance had come
>>in second the past seven years, the same guys who support Lance no matter
>>what now would be screaming for the guy to be disqualified retroactively
>>so
>>Lance could be declared the winner. Based on all similar circumstancial
>>and
>>hard evidence, you would all be screaming bloody murder.
>
> Hardly. There's a BIG difference between testing someone "real time"
> and doing it six loooooooong years later.
>
> If he had tested positive during the '99 Tour, he could have appealed,
> and taken another test which would provide either vindication or
> further damnation (even if it didn't prevent him from being pulled
> from the race before that happened).
>
> But to dig a six-year old sample out of a freezer, after who knows WHO
> had a chance to access it, and for an "anonymous test" to just
> "happen" to filter to the tabloid that has had Lance in the
> cross-hairs for most of his career all speaks of "less than certain"
> results (to be charitable).
>
> I don't care who it is - that's NOT a credible scenario with which to
> ruin someone's credibility.
>
>>Poulidor said why not just go back to 1903 while they are at it. Well, 6
>>years ago is not the same as a century ago. Cheats have lost Olympic gold
>>medals retroactively. What's so special about cycling?
>
> Why stop there? Why not use other experimental processes to test
> every bit of stored urine everywhere. Heck, for those we can't locate
> we'll just assume they're dirty. It'll turn out that there's only one
> guy in 1910 who was ever clean, so we'll award him every yellow jersey
> since then - will that make you feel better? ;-)
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Zoot Katz]

Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:31:54 -0500,
<[email protected]>, Preston Crawford
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm not passing judgement one way or the other. But there is obviously a
>group who really hates Lance. So I'm wondering what they'd like to see
>happen if it turns out that Lance were guilty.

What happened to Carl Lewis? Squat, that's what.
The cancer conglomerate won't let its poster boy get dirtied.
--
zk

 

[Bill Sornson]

Zoot Katz wrote:
> Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:31:54 -0500,
> <[email protected]>, Preston Crawford
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I'm not passing judgement one way or the other. But there is
>> obviously a group who really hates Lance. So I'm wondering what
>> they'd like to see happen if it turns out that Lance were guilty.
>
> What happened to Carl Lewis? Squat, that's what.
> The cancer conglomerate won't let its poster boy get dirtied.

Ben Johnson was the raging 'roider -- yet another Canadian embarrassment.

(Gotta admit Carl can't sing, though!)

 

[Pete]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>>
>> What happened to Carl Lewis? Squat, that's what.
>> The cancer conglomerate won't let its poster boy get dirtied.
>
> Ben Johnson was the raging 'roider -- yet another Canadian embarrassment.
>

Yes, he certainly was, and for weeks and even months after the
disqualification at the 88 Olympics, we were hearing all the same arguments
about Ben Johnson we're hearing now about Lance Armstrong. It's like deja vu
all over again.

"The test must be faulty... The urine sample was switched... Ben was framed
by someone... The Americans (you can always substitute any other country in
this argument) don't want a Canadian to win the 100 meters...

.... ad infinitum

And this was combined with vehement denials by Johnson himself, by his
coach, by everyone, pretty much, until it could no longer be denied. Sound
familiar?

Then from the other side, we had derogatory comments from Carl Lewis and his
bunch, saying that they knew all along Ben Johnson had to be doping.
Meanwhile, Carl Lewis was doping even more than Ben Johnson, as we found out
later.

It's important to have heroes, but it's even more important that these
heroes not be lying cheats.

Pierre

 

[Jeff Starr]

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 05:03:48 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>> I don't care who it is - that's NOT a credible scenario with which to
>> ruin someone's credibility.
>
>
>And this isn't just about Lance's credibility, but that of drug-testing as
>well. I think **** Pound (WADA) is doing a tremendous amount of damage to
>his cause (eliminating drugs from athletics) by getting involved in this. If
>I were him, I would be more concerned about the present and future, not the
>past.
>
>While this is all interesting to speculate about, there is nothing that can
>come from it other than creating questions about the legitimacy of drug
>testing in general. It is dangerous to go back six or seven years and try to
>retroactively determine guilt or innocence. The system wasn't set up at the
>time to allow for that. They didn't anticipate, or plan for, this scenario.
>As a result, any "results" produced from such testing will not likely pass
>modern tests for storage, custody and reporting requirements. They will be
>successfully challenged every step of the way, yet with no possibility that
>anyone will be considered definitively villain or victim. And people won't
>distinguish between modern, reliable methods that would hold up to serious
>scrutiny; rather, all drug testing will be considered a joke, and every
>rider suspect.
>
>**** Pound should be concentrating on the sure thing, rather than an agenda
>that says anything that might possibly be indicative of drug use needs to be
>persecuted and eliminated. That would greatly strengthen his ability to deal
>with the current situation, as he needs to be fighting things he can prove,
>not demons of the past (which cannot be proven decisively one way or the
>other, and will only serve to create fear, doubt & uncertainty about what
>the WADA's doing now).
>
>--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>

What Mike has posted above makes perfect sense. Nothing good or
definitive can come out of all this. The Lance detractors will claim
this as proof and the uninformed may believe what they read.

Many of us will see this as accomplishing nothing good. As Mike said,
it hurts future testing, it hurts pro cycling, and I believe it hurts
the French. They come off as sore losers, looking for anyway to
discredit the Americans. I'm not saying that it is necessarily the
case, just the perception.

One thing I have never seen mentioned, although it may well have been.
I wonder how often, mostly before testing, that coaches, trainers, or
team physicians were doping their athletes, without the athletes
knowledge. It wouldn't be hard, for any drug that could be
administered orally. There is often a lot of money at stake and with
money, corruption is often close by.

I will continue to support Lance, until I'm given a real reason not
to.


Life is Good!
Jeff

 

[jj]

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:56:31 GMT, Jeff Starr <[email protected]> wrote:

<snip good stuff from Mike>

>What Mike has posted above makes perfect sense. Nothing good or
>definitive can come out of all this. The Lance detractors will claim
>this as proof and the uninformed may believe what they read.
>
>Many of us will see this as accomplishing nothing good. As Mike said,
>it hurts future testing, it hurts pro cycling, and I believe it hurts
>the French. They come off as sore losers, looking for anyway to
>discredit the Americans. I'm not saying that it is necessarily the
>case, just the perception.
>
>One thing I have never seen mentioned, although it may well have been.
>I wonder how often, mostly before testing, that coaches, trainers, or
>team physicians were doping their athletes, without the athletes
>knowledge. It wouldn't be hard, for any drug that could be
>administered orally. There is often a lot of money at stake and with
>money, corruption is often close by.
>
>I will continue to support Lance, until I'm given a real reason not
>to.
>
>
>Life is Good!
>Jeff

I don't know about others, but I still have a lot of respect for any pro
cyclist. What they must go through. What the non-dopers must go through.

I'd imagine that even dumbasses who are riding Cat 2 and 3 racers are
experimenting doing PEDs. I don't know if it starts out as so much wanting
to -win- races, but just wanting to ride better, deal with the pain better.

Even as a rider who largely rides alone, I do all I can to ride better,
including taking pain meds, coffee, vitamins, supplements (even somewhat
questionable supplements, anything legal is worth an experiment or two),
and I do research and I work as hard as I can every day. Do I have a goal?
Not exactly, though I want to ride some hilly centuries.

Is this unnatural? Am I the only one who tries to do everything they can to
ride better, including working hard?

jj

 

[Bill Sornson]

Pete wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>>
>>> What happened to Carl Lewis? Squat, that's what.
>>> The cancer conglomerate won't let its poster boy get dirtied.
>>
>> Ben Johnson was the raging 'roider -- yet another Canadian
>> embarrassment.
>
> Yes, he certainly was, and for weeks and even months after the
> disqualification at the 88 Olympics, we were hearing all the same
> arguments about Ben Johnson we're hearing now about Lance Armstrong.
> It's like deja vu all over again.
>
> "The test must be faulty... The urine sample was switched... Ben was
> framed by someone... The Americans (you can always substitute any
> other country in this argument) don't want a Canadian to win the 100
> meters...
> ... ad infinitum
>
> And this was combined with vehement denials by Johnson himself, by his
> coach, by everyone, pretty much, until it could no longer be denied.
> Sound familiar?

The difference, of course, was that Johnson was on steroids. It was obvious
from looking at him -- especially his wild-eyed demeanor after winning the
Olympic 100 -- that something was up. (Also, sprinters generally aren't
/ripped/ like that.)

> Then from the other side, we had derogatory comments from Carl Lewis
> and his bunch, saying that they knew all along Ben Johnson had to be
> doping. Meanwhile, Carl Lewis was doping even more than Ben Johnson,
> as we found out later.

Doping even MORE? Don't think so. (After all, he was still allowed to
compete IIRC; BJ was /banned/.)

> It's important to have heroes, but it's even more important that these
> heroes not be lying cheats.

Didn't really like either one of them.

Let's let the facts unfold re. Armstrong before throwing around terms like
lying cheats. There are LOTS of problems with the allegations so far.

Sorni