Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Re: Floyd (Tonight Show spoilers)

0 views
Skip to first unread message

G.T.

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 7:14:58 PM8/8/06
to

"G.T." <getn...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:12di56e...@corp.supernews.com...
> ...at work here today. Should I chase him down and grill him?
>
> I do have a syringe for him to autograph.
>

So far Jay introduced him in his monologue as "a man with too much
testosterone" to pretty positive applause. I didn't hear what joke preceded
that.

He also asked "wasn't Dick Pound a pornstar from the 70s?". Hahahahahahah,
yeah, you're funny Jay.

Greg


G.T.

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 7:57:56 PM8/8/06
to

"G.T." <getn...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:12di6nj...@corp.supernews.com...

Hahahahahaha, Floyd just ripped Bill Maher a good one, Floyd's definitely
funnier on his toes than Lance.

Either Floyd is one helluvan actor or he has not knowingly used
testosterone. He really seems like he has no idea how his samples showed up
positive. He brought up four possible reasons for the results and he's
leaning towards the fourth of those which is tampering.

Greg


ST

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 8:14:11 PM8/8/06
to
On 8/8/06 4:14 PM, in article 12di6nj...@corp.supernews.com, "G.T."
<getn...@dslextreme.com> wrote:

>
> He also asked "wasn't Dick Pound a pornstar from the 70s?". Hahahahahahah,
> yeah, you're funny Jay.
>
> Greg
>
>

BAH HAH HAH HAH!!!!!!
Thatąs the funniest shit I have seen on this newsgroup in a while!!

photos...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 8:31:19 PM8/8/06
to

Don't be fooled. He's hitting MANY different media opportunities this
week. This is way bigger than "aw shucks Floyd" answering the phone
and agreeing to do the talk shows. All of it is planned. My guess is
his L.A. attorney has hired a publicist for him. He's probably calling
THEM right now.

Jack Hollis

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 8:36:03 PM8/8/06
to
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 16:57:56 -0700, "G.T." <getn...@dslextreme.com>
wrote:

>Either Floyd is one helluvan actor or he has not knowingly used
>testosterone. He really seems like he has no idea how his samples showed up
>positive. He brought up four possible reasons for the results and he's
>leaning towards the fourth of those which is tampering.
>
>Greg

I read somewhere that he has proof that the testers knew who the
samples were from. If this is indeed the case (the testers knew),
then the tests are bogus, if for no other reason than the lab violated
their own protocol. What possible reason would the people doing the
actual tests have to know who the urine is from if there wasn't
something funny going on.

He should take that lie detector test that he was offered. If he
passed that it would be a big plus on his side.

Dumbass

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 8:58:17 PM8/8/06
to

If he doped, then lying is the best policy. If he fessed up then the
next question would be "Who gave you the stuff?". Landis would then
have 2 choices: 1. Answer that question and all that follow becoming a
major snitch like Willy Voet or 2. refuse to answer thereby becoming a
publicly known as someone covering up for doping in cycling.

If he doped then lying is the best policy as long as he does not find
himself under oath, subject to perjury.

Doug Taylor

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 10:42:19 PM8/8/06
to
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 16:57:56 -0700, "G.T." <getn...@dslextreme.com>
wrote:

>Either Floyd is one helluvan actor or he has not knowingly used


>testosterone. He really seems like he has no idea how his samples showed up
>positive. He brought up four possible reasons for the results and he's
>leaning towards the fourth of those which is tampering.

His reasons are of the "dog ate my homework" variety, convincing only
to the naive or gullible.

Meanwhile, on the subject of unexplained mysteries, did O.J. ever find
the "real killers?" These insoluble puzzles keep me up at night.

G.T.

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 10:49:48 PM8/8/06
to

"Doug Taylor" <dta...@dreamscape.com> wrote in message
news:ojiid2p21t6vo43sp...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 16:57:56 -0700, "G.T." <getn...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Either Floyd is one helluvan actor or he has not knowingly used
> >testosterone. He really seems like he has no idea how his samples showed
up
> >positive. He brought up four possible reasons for the results and he's
> >leaning towards the fourth of those which is tampering.
>
> His reasons are of the "dog ate my homework" variety, convincing only
> to the naive or gullible.

Well, as opposed to OJ, he knows how to play sincere.

Greg


Michael

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 11:08:52 PM8/8/06
to

"Doug Taylor" <dta...@dreamscape.com> wrote in message news:ojiid2p21t6vo43sp...@4ax.com...

Give the man a break. He's been looking very hard for those
killers on golf courses all over south Florida.


Bob Dole

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 11:43:02 PM8/8/06
to

What? You think the "real killers" are the same guys who tampered with
Floyd's urine? Great theory! How'd you like to be on Floyd's PR team?
;)

Donald Munro

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 5:30:29 AM8/9/06
to
Bob Dole wrote:
> What? You think the "real killers" are the same guys who tampered with
> Floyd's urine? Great theory! How'd you like to be on Floyd's PR team?
> ;)

Dutch mafia.

billb

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 6:33:46 AM8/9/06
to

Whaaaat??? Do they make you eat cheese and then stomp you with wooden
shoes?? The Dutch are very nice and their women are fine.

Best,
Bill Black

yeahyeah

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 8:31:35 AM8/9/06
to

photos...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Don't be fooled. He's hitting MANY different media opportunities this
> week. This is way bigger than "aw shucks Floyd" answering the phone
> and agreeing to do the talk shows. All of it is planned. My guess is
> his L.A. attorney has hired a publicist for him. He's probably calling
> THEM right now.

I'm surprised that nobody has uncovered the real reason Floyd is doing
all of these media appearances: he needs to fill his bank account now
because he won't be earning a living as a cyclist anymore. He's
cashing in on his notariety, and I would hazard a guess that he's
making more bank on the positive dope test than he would have as a
one-time Tour winner.
He knows he's not going to win his case (otherwise he'd have hired a
better lawyer) but he's hoping to win in the court of public opinion.

thoma...@yahoo.com

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 8:48:46 AM8/9/06
to


The lab definitely knows. The actual personnel doing the testing
should not know. And I agree that the lab itself should not know.

Anyone here receive a fax results from a WADA accredited lab? If
you're so anonymous...then how do they get your name on the cover
sheet? It's conceivable that the sport orgs convey identity
information after testing, but there's still a time span where the
results and the names are in the same lab facility. Also, my testing
wasn't for cycling so maybe there are different protocols for
transmitting info between UCI and WADA (I'm not going to spend the time
to look it up due to a BM).

-TP

Tere

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 10:41:22 AM8/9/06
to

G.T. wrote:
> "G.T." <getn...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
> news:12di56e...@corp.supernews.com...
> > ...at work here today. Should I chase him down and grill him?
> >
> > I do have a syringe for him to autograph.
> >
>
> So far Jay introduced him in his monologue as "a man with too much
> testosterone" to pretty positive applause. I didn't hear what joke preceded
> that.

That was his intro for Bill Mahr.

Linda Lou

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 11:09:30 AM8/9/06
to

yeahyeah wrote:

> photos...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I'm surprised that nobody has uncovered the real reason Floyd is doing
> all of these media appearances: he needs to fill his bank account now
> because he won't be earning a living as a cyclist anymore. He's
> cashing in on his notariety, and I would hazard a guess that he's
> making more bank on the positive dope test than he would have as a
> one-time Tour winner.
> He knows he's not going to win his case (otherwise he'd have hired a
> better lawyer) but he's hoping to win in the court of public opinion.

The appearances don't directly impact his bank account. Floyd doesn't
make any money for appearing on tv or radio news shows. And the Tonight
Show pays its guests less than $1000.

Linda Lou

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 11:15:46 AM8/9/06
to

> Hahahahahaha, Floyd just ripped Bill Maher a good one, Floyd's definitely
> funnier on his toes than Lance.
>
> Either Floyd is one helluvan actor or he has not knowingly used
> testosterone. He really seems like he has no idea how his samples showed up
> positive. He brought up four possible reasons for the results and he's
> leaning towards the fourth of those which is tampering.
>
> Greg

Gee, I wish I coulda seen the Floyd interview. My local Atlanta station
seemed to think that folks would be more interested in Cynthia
McKinney's concession speech. She lost, doesn't that demonstrate lack
of interest? I would think so. Local news has really gone down the tube
with the advent of cable news.

Linda

Tom Nakashima

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 11:35:37 AM8/9/06
to

"Linda Lou" <l_ba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155136546.0...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

This may sound strange, but I know a few people who don't own a TV, not
because they can't afford one, they chose not to. I ask them what they do
for entertainment, they read. They don't follow sports.
It makes me wonder what we as sports enthusiast have created in these
athletes. In a Barry Bonds interview he mentioned he was jealous of all the
attention Mark McGwire got when he hit 70 home runs in a season. I hope
this isn't the case with Floyd of Sir Lance. I would have been just as proud
of Landis if he just finished the Tour and didn't make the podium. Aside
from stage 16 and the controversial stage 17, he rode very well.
-tom


photos...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 12:15:37 PM8/9/06
to

The talk shows and news programs typically do not pay for these
appearances. Well, actually, the talk shows do, but it is just a small
"token fee" mandated by the existing union contracts. If you go on a
TV show, they pay you like $300 (or something in that range). I think
the best he can hope for right now is someone offering him movie or
book rights to his "story". He is not being paid by Phonak, and who
knows about individual sponsorships he has. Let's hope he banked a bit
of money. Sounds like he dropped a dime on his gated community
lifestyle.

trg

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 1:07:21 PM8/9/06
to
<photos...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1155140137....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
He's sure not spending it on the 700 a month apartment he shares with Dave Z
in Spain.


Stu Fleming

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 4:52:26 PM8/9/06
to
yeahyeah wrote:

> I'm surprised that nobody has uncovered the real reason Floyd is doing
> all of these media appearances: he needs to fill his bank account now
> because he won't be earning a living as a cyclist anymore. He's
> cashing in on his notariety, and I would hazard a guess that he's

And all cheques are made out to the Floyd Landis Foundation.

Keith

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 7:00:31 PM8/9/06
to
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:42:19 -0400, Doug Taylor
<dta...@dreamscape.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 16:57:56 -0700, "G.T." <getn...@dslextreme.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Either Floyd is one helluvan actor or he has not knowingly used
>>testosterone. He really seems like he has no idea how his samples showed up
>>positive. He brought up four possible reasons for the results and he's
>>leaning towards the fourth of those which is tampering.
>
>His reasons are of the "dog ate my homework" variety, convincing only
>to the naive or gullible.

Thanks for the laugh this generated.

Message has been deleted

B. Lafferty

unread,
Aug 12, 2006, 10:59:29 AM8/12/06
to

"- Bob -" <uctr...@ultranet.com> wrote in message
news:9jird2981nhnrabas...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 23:00:31 GMT, Keith <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>>Meanwhile, on the subject of unexplained mysteries, did O.J. ever find
>>>the "real killers?" These insoluble puzzles keep me up at night.
>
> OJ would have been convicted if they hadn't had a bunch of corrupt
> cops manufacturing evidence they didn't need to convict him.
>
> Come to think of it... French labs with their "stellar" reputation...
> yeah, it could turn out the same :-)

OJ was found guilty of wrongful death by a jury verdict by a preponderance
of the evidence---same standard Landis faces.


Michael Press

unread,
Aug 12, 2006, 1:33:37 PM8/12/06
to
In article <9jird2981nhnrabas...@4ax.com>,

- Bob - <uctr...@ultranet.com> wrote:

> OJ would have been convicted if they hadn't had a bunch of corrupt
> cops manufacturing evidence they didn't need to convict him.

Since we are speaking hypothetically ...

Simpson made a ~30 minute statement to police. This
statement was admissible. It was not used by the
prosecution. Vincent Bugliosi was Los Angeles District
Attorney for some time, and was very good at it. Bugliosi
asserts that basing his case on that statement alone he
could have obtained a guilty verdict against Simpson.

Bugliosi's approach to trying cases is to prepare his case
thoroughly and carefully. He assumes the other attorney is
incompetent, and is seldom wrong. He tells us that the
prosecuting attorney in the Simpson case was incompetent,
and betrayed the people of California. In his book he
devotes one whole chapter to discussing incompetence.

--
Michael Press

Howard Kveck

unread,
Aug 12, 2006, 2:25:00 PM8/12/06
to
In article <jack-68AF19.1...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
Michael Press <ja...@abc.net> wrote:

District attorney Gil Garcetti was a hack. The guy seemed to be a grandstander
extraordinaire - he micromanaged the case horribly. Besides, what convictions did he
get in any high profile case? Pretty much zero.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Message has been deleted

Michael Press

unread,
Aug 13, 2006, 1:32:07 AM8/13/06
to
In article <3u2td2la54pglp5tp...@4ax.com>,

- Bob - <uctr...@ultranet.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:33:37 GMT, Michael Press <ja...@abc.net> wrote:
>
> >Simpson made a ~30 minute statement to police. This
> >statement was admissible. It was not used by the
> >prosecution. Vincent Bugliosi was Los Angeles District
> >Attorney for some time, and was very good at it. Bugliosi
> >asserts that basing his case on that statement alone he
> >could have obtained a guilty verdict against Simpson.
>

> So he alleges. I don't think he would have gotten a conviction without
> introducing the other evidence - but it's all hypothetical and mostly
> irrelevant speculating what _could_ have happened. What did happen is
> the reason they didn'g get a conviction.
>
> When we look at what _did_ come up in testimony, we find a key drop
> off blood appearing on a key gate three weeks after the police's own
> photos show it not there on the day of the crime; we have a detective
> taking key blood samples out for a ride in his car one day; we have a
> glove allegedly found in an alley-way that was blocked by spider webs
> when the glove was found, etc. There were plenty more examples. Not to
> mention the number of things the cops did that simply tainted their
> case such as searching his place without a warrant when they could
> have gotten one by phone in 10 minutes. Very lame performance on the
> part of the LAPD. You can blame the attorney's for not being all that
> great - but it was the cops that sunk the case.
>
> There was plenty of evidence to convict OJ. What sunk them was the
> number of things the cops did to manufacture other evidence and their
> unprofessional actions.

First, you did not quote my prefacing remark where
explicitly stated that I am speaking hypothetically, so no
points for pointing out that I am.

Second, the District Attorney is responsible for making
the case, not the police. Does not matter if the police
made false statements, the DA is responsible for
presenting the case. I repeat, the Los Angeles District
Attorney was incompetent, and bungled a case that was
provable. Read the Simpson statement, and imagine a sharp
mind prosecuting on the basis of it.

--
Michael Press

41

unread,
Aug 13, 2006, 2:26:46 AM8/13/06
to

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <3u2td2la54pglp5tp...@4ax.com>,

> Second, the District Attorney is responsible for making
> the case, not the police. Does not matter if the police
> made false statements, the DA is responsible for
> presenting the case. I repeat, the Los Angeles District
> Attorney was incompetent, and bungled a case that was
> provable. Read the Simpson statement, and imagine a sharp
> mind prosecuting on the basis of it.

The most notable thing about the Simpson trial, and which is so
illustrative of the American judicial system, is the obvious fact that
NONE of the major players- prosecution, police, lead defence, judge-
were interested in getting at the truth. The prosecution was interested
in a conviction, lead defence in an aquittal, police in an arrest,
judge in a spectacle- but who stood up for the truth? I say this on the
basis of the most obvious example: the prosecution had Simpson try on
the bloody gloves. This was condemned as foolish. Why? *Because they
did not know what the answer would be before hand!*

So, with the infamous latex gloves, they did not fit, and Marcia Clark
knew it. Only now, years later and without any possibility to check
again, she says they obviously did fit. But what about the REAL fit?
There were a million ways to check if they would have fit without the
latex gloves. But NO ONE wanted to try: the prosecution, because they
were afraid they still might not fit; and the defence, because they
were afraid they might after all. So after all this time, we still
don't know whether the gloves would have really fit or not, whether
they had shrunk or not, or anything. What an incrimination of a justice
system.

As for proving a case based upon a statement: you are making the
jurist's mistake of confusing testimony with evidence. You cannot prove
anything factual upon the basis of testimony, because people lie or are
confused or are stupid or simply recall incorrectly. Evidence is what
matters, evidence. Testimony is a poor substitute, particularly if it
is that of only one witness, in this case Simpson.
»

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Tom Kunich

unread,
Aug 13, 2006, 4:16:01 PM8/13/06
to
"- Bob -" <uctr...@ultranet.com> wrote in message
news:oshud21mbgccpsle6...@4ax.com...
>
> I disagree. Outside of an outright confession, I don't think any jury
> is going to convict someone of murder without specific physical
> evidence.

I suggest you actually study some cases. There are plenty of murders that
are found guilty purely on circumstantial evidence. In fact, more are than
are solved with hard evidence.


Message has been deleted

Sandy

unread,
Aug 15, 2006, 3:48:02 AM8/15/06
to
- Bob - a écrit :

> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:16:01 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> "- Bob -" <uctr...@ultranet.com> wrote in message
>> news:oshud21mbgccpsle6...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> I disagree. Outside of an outright confession, I don't think any jury
>>> is going to convict someone of murder without specific physical
>>> evidence.
>>>
>> I suggest you actually study some cases. There are plenty of murders that
>> are found guilty purely on circumstantial evidence.
>>
>
> I didn't say anything about circumstantial evidence - I spoke about
> physical evidence. There's a difference and that's a different
> discussion.
>
>
>
>> In fact, more are than are solved with hard evidence.
>>
>
> Citation ?
>
For a citation, you would have to pay my hourly fee, so forget that. On
the other hand, a good number of murder prosecutions have succeeded in
convicting defendants without the physical proof of the death of the
named victim. Bodies never recovered, etc.

--

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Ce n'est pas que j'ai peur de la mort.
Je veux seulement ne pas être là
quand elle arrivera.

0 new messages