Hey, where's Allen Lim?
DA74
calculations going now? According to my limited brain capacity either
you knew and you were complicit which makes you as big of an asshole
as Floyd or you didn't and you're totally incompetent. Which is it?
Your Twitter account got very very quiet today.
Please Inform,
-DA74
B. Lafferty
That French gym teacher's analysis is looking better all the time. :-)
It will be interesting to see what the Feds do next. The US Attorney
who brings Armstrong down will have a major career builder for hi/her
resume. Note to Lance and Johann, testimony before a Grand Jury is under
oath and it's not good form to lie.
Landis says he's got much more to reveal. Photos of the blood in the
fridge?
B. Lafferty
".....Landis, who spent nearly two years and reportedly more than $2
million fighting the charges against him, has agreed to cooperate with
authorities in the United States and provide them with the same
information he has provided anti-doping and cycling officials, according
to two people briefed on the matter. The United States authorities are
interested in whatever information Landis has about distributors of
banned substances and new methods of doping being used by athletes.
Over the past month, Landis also has been cooperating with officials
from the United States Anti-Doping Agency, providing them with details
about the other cyclists and Armstrong, the people briefed on the matter
said.
Jeff Novitzky, a federal agent who spearheaded the investigation into
the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative steroids case, is involved in the
investigation. It is not clear whether Landis has contacted him via
e-mail or telephone......"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/sports/cycling/21landis.html?pagewanted=2&hpw
cur...@the-md-russells.org
wrote:
And yet you don't include this quote:
"Landis also did not return phone calls, but told ESPN.com that he had
no documentation to prove most of his claims against his former
teammates. �I want to clear my conscience,� said Landis, who races
with the lower level OUCH-Bahati Foundation Pro Cycling team. �I don�t
want to be part of the problem anymore.�
What was that again?
"Landis also did not return phone calls, but told ESPN.com that he had
no documentation to prove most of his claims against his former
teammates."
Floyd couldn't buy drugs now from a pusher on the street in Baltimore
unless he went incognito. His only conduits are mail order from Canada
and Mexico, so I'm guessing he has a pretty limited amount of
information to tell an attorney in the U.S. about any 'new methods of
doping'.
I'll cover your bet on whether LA gets indicted on this (no), and
double down on a conviction (no). Not rich, so I'll cover on $ 250 and
$ 500, Lafferty. Anything more than mouth on this, BL?
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
B. Lafferty
> with the lower level OUCH-Bahati Foundation Pro Cycling team. �I don�t
> want to be part of the problem anymore.�
>
> What was that again?
>
> "Landis also did not return phone calls, but told ESPN.com that he had
> no documentation to prove most of his claims against his former
> teammates."
>
> Floyd couldn't buy drugs now from a pusher on the street in Baltimore
> unless he went incognito. His only conduits are mail order from Canada
> and Mexico, so I'm guessing he has a pretty limited amount of
> information to tell an attorney in the U.S. about any 'new methods of
> doping'.
>
> I'll cover your bet on whether LA gets indicted on this (no), and
> double down on a conviction (no). Not rich, so I'll cover on $ 250 and
> $ 500, Lafferty. Anything more than mouth on this, BL?
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...
provide. Details can lead investigators to documentary evidence, and
other witnesses--perhaps the driver of the motorcycle with the blue
cooler, etc.
As much as Lance would like to spin this as my word (good) against
Landis' word (bad), it's unlikely to be that simple. To engage in the
kind of scheme that Landis is alleging, there are too many people
involved to keep the truth hidden forever. Once people are less
dependent on Lance for their living and careers, and subject to federal
investigators questioning and Grand Jury subpoenas, things tend to
unravel.
When you look at the ever lengthing list of people who have implicated
Armstrong in drug use (Andreau and wife, Irish former soigneur, Dutch
masseur, the woman Oakley sales director, Landis plus the number of
former teammates busted over the years), I think one can reasonably
conclude that Armstrong has simply been the best at keeping the lid the
Postal-Discovery story.
As Lou Reed said, "Stick a fork in em and turn em over. They're done."
--D-y
Glad to see you're still paying attention, Brian. Missed ya!
When the smoke clears, a return to the halcyon days of yore when sport
was honest and clean?
--D-y
--D-y
cur...@the-md-russells.org
wrote:
>To engage in the
>kind of scheme that Landis is alleging, there are too many people
>involved to keep the truth hidden forever. Once people are less
>dependent on Lance for their living and careers, and subject to federal
>investigators questioning and Grand Jury subpoenas, things tend to
>unravel.
Which isn't the thrust of the Federal probe discussed. Unlike you, the
feds aren't fixated on LA. Unless the details exist and are primarily
about LA and about activities in the U.S. or have a U.S. nexus and are
new enough that they haven't been covered previously in investigations
in other jurisdictions and they justify the use and expenditure of
funds, you will be disappointed once again.
I have no issue that there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that
LA used drugs to one extent or another. There is more than
circumstantial evidence that his peers were also using drugs, so it
isn't really an issue for me. The problem is that you seize on every
possible shred of new innuendo and try to announce a federal case
against LA in the near future. Very unlikely. The bet isn't that there
isn't enough 'evidence' for you to go for an appreciable portion of
the remainder of your life with this fixation on LA's drug use -
pitiful as that may be - but that there will be a U.S. Federal
indictment of Lance Armstrong and that he will be convicted of a
criminal charge, however major or minor, from the evidence, details or
connected evidence and details arising, however tenuous, from the
Floyd boy details.
And there were a lot of people involved in the shelling of the USS
Liberty 43 years ago, more than all the people that have passed
through LA's teams in his lifetime, and that still lies under a heavy
cover of bullshit. 'Once people''too many people' - what people? They
can't just go out and do a fishing expedition on an old case on
'details' - most of those that will be called have done time under
oath. Floyd will probably remain the only one going on record
voluntarily as having lied under oath.
You know, if I spent as much time as you creating a dream world, it
would NOT have LA as the center...
K. Fred Gauss
> with the lower level OUCH-Bahati Foundation Pro Cycling team. �I don�t
> want to be part of the problem anymore.�
> What was that again?
>
> "Landis also did not return phone calls, but told ESPN.com that he had
> no documentation to prove most of his claims against his former
> teammates."
>
> Floyd couldn't buy drugs now from a pusher on the street in Baltimore
> unless he went incognito. His only conduits are mail order from Canada
> and Mexico, so I'm guessing he has a pretty limited amount of
> information to tell an attorney in the U.S. about any 'new methods of
> doping'.
>
> I'll cover your bet on whether LA gets indicted on this (no), and
> double down on a conviction (no). Not rich, so I'll cover on $ 250 and
> $ 500, Lafferty. Anything more than mouth on this, BL?
Lafferty's right. Landis has evidence for everything. Landis even has a
signed confession by the shooter on the grassy knoll.
I got your back on this one, Brian.
Amit Ghosh
> When you look at the ever lengthing list of people who have implicated
> Armstrong in drug use (Andreau and wife, Irish former soigneur, Dutch
> masseur, the woman Oakley sales director, Landis plus the number of
> former teammates busted over the years), I think one can reasonably
> conclude that Armstrong has simply been the best at keeping the lid the
> Postal-Discovery story.
dumbass,
this may be true and in cycling the truth often comes out many years
later, but there will not be any sporting or criminal sanctions.
also, you still obsesses over armstrong. an implication on armstrong
is nothing new.
landis also implicated leipheimer, zabriskie, bruyneel, rihs and
hincapie - riders/directors who have been relatively free of
controversy. that to me is the bigger development.
B. Lafferty
> On Fri, 21 May 2010 07:46:58 -0400, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> To engage in the
>> kind of scheme that Landis is alleging, there are too many people
>> involved to keep the truth hidden forever. Once people are less
>> dependent on Lance for their living and careers, and subject to federal
>> investigators questioning and Grand Jury subpoenas, things tend to
>> unravel.
>
> Which isn't the thrust of the Federal probe discussed. Unlike you, the
> feds aren't fixated on LA. Unless the details exist and are primarily
> about LA and about activities in the U.S. or have a U.S. nexus and are
> new enough that they haven't been covered previously in investigations
> in other jurisdictions and they justify the use and expenditure of
> funds, you will be disappointed once again.
You have absolutely no idea what the Federal authorities are
investigating. When they tell you what the thrust is of their
investigations, post that information here.
>
> I have no issue that there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that
> LA used drugs to one extent or another. There is more than
> circumstantial evidence that his peers were also using drugs, so it
> isn't really an issue for me. The problem is that you seize on every
> possible shred of new innuendo and try to announce a federal case
> against LA in the near future. Very unlikely. The bet isn't that there
> isn't enough 'evidence' for you to go for an appreciable portion of
> the remainder of your life with this fixation on LA's drug use -
> pitiful as that may be - but that there will be a U.S. Federal
> indictment of Lance Armstrong and that he will be convicted of a
> criminal charge, however major or minor, from the evidence, details or
> connected evidence and details arising, however tenuous, from the
> Floyd boy details.
I haven't said anything about indictments being handed down against
Armstrong. I really don't care if he's indicted or not. I do think it
would be good if Armstrong and his buddies like Johann and George are
called before a Grand Jury to answer questions. That he will be
interviewed by Federal agents is fairly likely. As some rather big
sports stars have learned, it's not nice to lie to Federal
investigators. It tends to upset them and lead to bigger problems.
>
> And there were a lot of people involved in the shelling of the USS
> Liberty 43 years ago, more than all the people that have passed
> through LA's teams in his lifetime, and that still lies under a heavy
> cover of bullshit. 'Once people''too many people' - what people? They
> can't just go out and do a fishing expedition on an old case on
> 'details' - most of those that will be called have done time under
> oath. Floyd will probably remain the only one going on record
> voluntarily as having lied under oath.
>
> You know, if I spent as much time as you creating a dream world, it
> would NOT have LA as the center...
Best get yourself a mop and bucket to clean up the bile that you've
spilled before it eats away at the linoleum in your home.
As for how I spend my time, I can assure you that Armstrong not in my
thoughts at all absent a headline in the non-cycling press. But, when he
does hit the headlines, it's fun to drop in here to see you guys go nuts
with stupid, vitriolic attacks.
After all the inane denials and defenses presented here over the years
trying to distort and destroy anyone who dared to question whether what
Armstrong did was possible without preparation, it's hysterically funny
to see you guys left with nothing more that personal vitriol directed at me.
In the end, Lim, Coggan and all the other Armstrong apologists have been
providing little more than comic relief.
Carry on. :-)
Anton Berlin
> In the end, Lim, Coggan and all the other Armstrong apologists have been
> providing little more than comic relief.
>
> Carry on. :-)
Was Coggan a defender of Armstrong? You'd think he know well what is
and isn't possible.
Betty Munro
> Was Coggan a defender of Armstrong? You'd think he know well what is
> and isn't possible.
B. Lafferty
Oh yes. I remember that mountain win in the Pyrenees by George was
completely non-controversial. As for implicating the others, you must be
one of the more naive people on the planet. Do you really think that
since the early 1990s many top riders can be at the top without
preparation? That's a rhetorical question, Dumbass--or should that be
Dickhead? Never mind.
--D-y
> As for how I spend my time, I can assure you that Armstrong not in my
> thoughts at all absent a headline in the non-cycling press. But, when he
> does hit the headlines, it's fun to drop in here to see you guys go nuts
> with stupid, vitriolic attacks.
>
> After all the inane denials and defenses presented here over the years
> trying to distort and destroy anyone who dared to question whether what
> Armstrong did was possible without preparation, it's hysterically funny
> to see you guys left with nothing more that personal vitriol directed at me.
OK, Brian, I guess in your world "bring him down" isn't vitriolic. Or
is your obvious glee at "make them go before a grand jury" and "talk
to Federal investigators".
Said by a former non-believing denying defender. "Live and learn" as
they say.
I've learned, as in the Mitchell report, the real problem lies with
the owners/operators, rule makers, sanctioning bodies.
The riders are just scapegoats. This is still a personal vendetta of
sorts against someone you seem to hate for reasons unknown.
> In the end, Lim, Coggan and all the other Armstrong apologists have been
> providing little more than comic relief.
Scapegoats. Not much funny about it.
> Carry on. :-)
I've adjusted nicely, thank you Brian. Truth sets you free?
What was it about Armstrong that originally yanked your crank, again?
--D-y
F. Kurgan Gringioni
"B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:j-
>
> As Lou Reed said, "Stick a fork in em and turn em over. They're done."
I agree.
Will you please go back to the chess newsgroup now, fucktard?
We don't like you here.
F. Kurgan Gringioni
"B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:eOSdnf-
<snip>
> Oh yes. I remember that mountain win in the Pyrenees by George was
> completely non-controversial. As for implicating the others, you must be
> one of the more naive people on the planet. Do you really think that
> since the early 1990s many top riders can be at the top without
> preparation? That's a rhetorical question, Dumbass--or should that be
> Dickhead? Never mind.
Please go away.
B. Lafferty
Have a nice day, Dumbasshole. :-)
Amit Ghosh
> Oh yes. I remember that mountain win in the Pyrenees by George was
> completely non-controversial. As for implicating the others, you must be
> one of the more naive people on the planet. Do you really think that
> since the early 1990s many top riders can be at the top without
> preparation? That's a rhetorical question, Dumbass--or should that be
> Dickhead? Never mind.
dumbass,
we all have our private suspicions - which are meaningless.
being publicly implicated by a former teammate is very different.
i was surprised by landis' story he only started doping in 2002 when
he joined USPS.
B. Lafferty
> On May 21, 9:57 am, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> As for how I spend my time, I can assure you that Armstrong not in my
>> thoughts at all absent a headline in the non-cycling press. But, when he
>> does hit the headlines, it's fun to drop in here to see you guys go nuts
>> with stupid, vitriolic attacks.
>>
>> After all the inane denials and defenses presented here over the years
>> trying to distort and destroy anyone who dared to question whether what
>> Armstrong did was possible without preparation, it's hysterically funny
>> to see you guys left with nothing more that personal vitriol directed at me.
>
> OK, Brian, I guess in your world "bring him down" isn't vitriolic. Or
> is your obvious glee at "make them go before a grand jury" and "talk
> to Federal investigators".
They bring themselves down. All it takes is time.
>
> Said by a former non-believing denying defender. "Live and learn" as
> they say.
> I've learned, as in the Mitchell report, the real problem lies with
> the owners/operators, rule makers, sanctioning bodies.
> The riders are just scapegoats. This is still a personal vendetta of
> sorts against someone you seem to hate for reasons unknown.
>
>> In the end, Lim, Coggan and all the other Armstrong apologists have been
>> providing little more than comic relief.
>
> Scapegoats. Not much funny about it.
Scapegoats??!! No. Just apologists sucking off the Armstrong and Co.
teat. I find it funny. Do I care if you don't? Rhetorical question.
>
>> Carry on. :-)
>
> I've adjusted nicely, thank you Brian. Truth sets you free?
>
> What was it about Armstrong that originally yanked your crank, again?
> --D-y
Carry on. ROTFLMAO!!!!
>
>
B. Lafferty
cur...@the-md-russells.org
wrote:
>
>Since it annoys you so much, I'll stay a while, Dickhead.
Says the expert on vitriol. Jesus...
What a maroon.
B. Lafferty
B. Lafferty
Fred Flintstein
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/may/21/lance-armstrong-floyd-landis-media-doping
>
Dumbass,
If I write an email and cc: Jeff Novitzky, can I get
in on this too?
Fred Flintstein
B. Lafferty
B. Lafferty
>
Andy Coggan
> In the end, Lim, Coggan and all the other Armstrong apologists have been
> providing little more than comic relief.
I have never publically commented one way or the other on whether or
not I believe Armstrong has or has not ever doped.
Andy Coggan
Andy Coggan
> Anton Berlin wrote:
> > Was Coggan a defender of Armstrong? You'd think he know well what is
> > and isn't possible.
>
Thank you for making my point for me.
Andy Coggan
B. Lafferty
your efforts attacking others who would question Armstrong's performance
has been........interesting.
http://www.cyclebanter.com/showthread.php?t=147529&page=4
B. Lafferty
Of course, Coyle is the guy who really faces the prospect of having egg
to clean off his face.
B. Lafferty
K. Fred Gauss
Thank you for pointing out that everyone who says anything negative
about Armstrong is always correct. Those people who disagreed with me
for all those years when I said LA was a transvestite alien Nazi will
get their comeuppance now! Flandis has PROOF and the Feds are itching to
indict LA for being an illegal alien. He can't hide it forever, the
TRUTH will come out!
B. Lafferty
K. Fred Gauss
I'm not surprised by the story, but I doubt that it's true.
Andy Coggan
I have only attacked the arguments of those who don't fully understand
exercise physiology (and/or can't think logically), yet wish to use
such data to try to reach conclusions as to who has/hasn't doped. I
would do the same regardless of the rider in question (cf. my comments
last summer on Lemond's/Vayer's calculations of Contador's "unworldly"
VO2max).
Andy Coggan
Andy Coggan
Why? That is, have you ever heard/read Coyle specifically stating that
he thought that Armstrong was "clean"? (AFAIK even in court testimony
he merely concluded that Armstrong's performance improvements were
physiologically plausible.)
Andy Coggan
B. Lafferty
God.
B. Lafferty
Now don't be coy. Tell us what you think Coyle is saying is the basis of
Armstrong's success having had access to him for testing over a period
of years.
K. Fred Gauss
Gotchyer back, Bro.
Andy Coggan
> Hey doctor fucking Allen, how are those Floyd wattage plausability
> calculations going now? According to my limited brain capacity either
> you knew and you were complicit which makes you as big of an asshole
> as Floyd or you didn't and you're totally incompetent. Which is it?
I haven't been paying much attention, but did Landis say that he used
EPO in 2006, when Allen Lim was working for him? I know that he
continues to deny using testosterone during that Tour...
Actually, come to think of it didn't he (Landis) claim that he
approached Andy Ryhs (Rhys?) about paying for a drug program at
Phonak, and that Ryhs declined?
Andy Coggan
Andy Coggan
You're welcome.
Andy Coggan
Amit Ghosh
> Actually, come to think of it didn't he (Landis) claim that he
> approached Andy Ryhs (Rhys?) about paying for a drug program at
> Phonak, and that Ryhs declined?
dumbass,
no, he says rihs paid for the doping program.
Andy Coggan
Ah, thanks for the clarification - as I said, I haven't been paying
much attention.
Andy Coggan
B. Lafferty
Andy Coggan
Some things - such as the existence of doping in cycling, the
relationship between VO2 and cycling power output, or your obsession
with Armstrong - never really change. I can therefore walk away from
this newsgroup for years and yet come back to find that I haven't
missed a single thing.
Andy Coggan
B. Lafferty
B. Lafferty
from Lim? Any statement from Coyle?
Andy Coggan
> To get back to the topic of the thread, has there been any statement
> from Lim? Any statement from Coyle?
Why would you expect any statement from Coyle? That's like expecting
Armstrong's 3rd grade teacher to come forward at this juncture.
Andy Coggan
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Shh! If Lafferty gets wind of LANCE's 3rd grade teacher,
next thing you know Lemond's lawyers will be issuing
her a subpoena.
Fredmaster Ben
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Moron,
We explained this to you several times when Coyle
published the original article and you could never
understand it because you are innumerate.
Coyle measured Armstrong's efficiency, that is
power output divided by oxygen uptake. The main
reason cyclists dope with agents like EPO is that
they increase oxygen uptake (VO2). So if you have
the same efficiency, and your VO2 is boosted, you
ride with more power. What Coyle measured is
independent of that - he's measuring efficiency,
not total power. I don't know of any doping regimen
that is claimed to increase efficiency. Maybe it's
out there, but it's not understood in a simple way
like the way that EPO increases VO2.
So the results of that Coyle article don't tell me anything
about whether LANCE is or was doping.
Fredmaster Ben
B. Lafferty
counsel. While I don't expect statements from them anytime soon, I hope
people will post links here should they break the silence.
Is Lance's third grade teacher hot? Kurgan might be interested. :-)
B. Lafferty
Perhaps Coyle will tell us whether Lance's Tour wins resulted from
efficiency or doping or a combination thereof.
Thanks. :-)
z, fred
More importantly, does LANCE's third grade teacher look like his mom?
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<Fr...@fredlier.than.thou> wrote:
>Those people who disagreed with me
>for all those years when I said LA was a transvestite alien Nazi will
>get their comeuppance now!
I was only questioning the 'alien' part.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
K. Fred Gauss
>> In the end, Lim, Coggan and all the other Armstrong apologists have been
>> providing little more than comic relief.
>>
>
>
> Was Coggan a defender of Armstrong? You'd think he know well what is
> and isn't possible.
Everyone who disagrees with Lafferty is, by definition, defending Armstrong.
B. Lafferty
K. Fred Gauss
> On Fri, 21 May 2010 11:32:24 -0700, "K. Fred Gauss"
> <Fr...@fredlier.than.thou> wrote:
>
>> Those people who disagreed with me
>> for all those years when I said LA was a transvestite alien Nazi will
>> get their comeuppance now!
>
> I was only questioning the 'alien' part.
That's revisionist history, shithead. You also disagreed when I said
ATSWHATIMTALKINBOUT would win the Kentucky Derby and about LA's favorite
brand of energy drink. You'd like us all to forget about that, wouldn't
you? Just wait till the Feds get depositions from the Pakistani guy in
the 7-11 and FUNNY CIDE. Moron!
ROTFLMAO!!!
Andy Coggan
> On 5/21/2010 5:25 PM, Andy Coggan wrote:> On May 21, 4:23 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> To get back to the topic of the thread, has there been any statement
> >> from Lim? Any statement from Coyle?
>
> > Why would you expect any statement from Coyle? That's like expecting
> > Armstrong's 3rd grade teacher to come forward at this juncture.
>
> > Andy Coggan
>
> Wrong, Andy. I suspect they are both keeping quiet on advice of
> counsel. While I don't expect statements from them anytime soon, I hope
> people will post links here should they break the silence.
You didn't answer my question: why in the world would you expect Coyle
to issue any sort of a statement? You could probably count the number
of times that he and Armstrong have been in contact on your fingers
and toes, and it's not like this is the first time that anyone has
accused Armstrong of doping.
Let's take it one step further: assume that the accusations Landis has
made prove to be true...why would Coyle issue any sort of statement
even then??
Andy Coggan
Frederick the Great
<e5cc5994-8703-4b87...@a20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
Andy Coggan <aco...@earthlink.net> wrote:
You missed plenty. Lafferty was not posting, for instance.
--
Old Fritz
K. Fred Gauss
Well, DUH!!!
So that he could admit that Lafferty was right and he was wrong,
obviously. Also, that the glove that didn't fit OJ was his. I'm sure
he'd like to get THAT off his chest.
B. Lafferty
statement? I didn't. But, if either of them do issue a statement, I
hope someone gives us the link. I have better things to do than keep an
eye open for what the might say.
If what Landis says is true, why would anyone expect a meaningful
statement from them?
B. Lafferty
derf...@gmail.com
... apparently has grown bored with tilting at chess windmills. From
Armstrong to Polgar and back to Armstrong again. What, can't find a
new and different obsession?
H. Fred Kveck
"B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Best get yourself a mop and bucket to clean up the bile that you've
> spilled before it eats away at the linoleum in your home.
> (snip) it's fun to drop in here to see you guys go nuts
> with stupid, vitriolic attacks.
> In the end, Lim, Coggan and all the other Armstrong apologists have been
> providing little more than comic relief.
Project much, Brian?
derf...@gmail.com
> > In the end, Lim, Coggan and all the other Armstrong apologists have been
> > providing little more than comic relief.
>
> Project much, Brian?
Whether he recognizes it or not, Lafferty groks irony.
Andy Coggan
> On 5/21/2010 8:16 PM, Andy Coggan wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 4:53 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/21/2010 5:25 PM, Andy Coggan wrote:> On May 21, 4:23 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>> To get back to the topic of the thread, has there been any statement
> >>>> from Lim? Any statement from Coyle?
>
> >>> Why would you expect any statement from Coyle? That's like expecting
> >>> Armstrong's 3rd grade teacher to come forward at this juncture.
>
> >>> Andy Coggan
>
> >> Wrong, Andy. I suspect they are both keeping quiet on advice of
> >> counsel. While I don't expect statements from them anytime soon, I hope
> >> people will post links here should they break the silence.
>
> > You didn't answer my question: why in the world would you expect Coyle
> > to issue any sort of a statement? You could probably count the number
> > of times that he and Armstrong have been in contact on your fingers
> > and toes, and it's not like this is the first time that anyone has
> > accused Armstrong of doping.
>
> > Let's take it one step further: assume that the accusations Landis has
> > made prove to be true...why would Coyle issue any sort of statement
> > even then??
>
> > Andy Coggan
>
> Please show us where I ever said that I expected Coyle or Lim to make a
> statement?
I guess I formed that impression when when you asked whether either of
them had made a statement, as if you were expecting one:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/646093074cb2e2f2
Of course, if you *weren't* expecting one, I have absolutely zero idea
why it ever occurred to you to ask that quesion...
Andy Coggan
DA74
>
> - Show quoted text -
Listen Cogster - Quit dicking around here. The bottom line is that
"Dr." Allen Lim should absolutely make a statement. Floyd accused him
of providing blood transfusions to not only himself but Levi
Leipheimer. I think the esteemed "physiologist" who spilled copious
amounts of digital and conventional ink to defend Floyd's unbelievable
performance in the Tour with graphs and charts and mathematical
calculations would be champing at the bit to respond.
The guy he spent months or even years defending has turned around and
accused him of performing medical procedures without a medical license
and conspiring to cheat in bicycle races.
I can't imagine any scenario where an innocent person wouldn't at
least immediately deny allegations as devastatingly serious as these
especially with such a simple and easy way to communicate with the
public like Twitter, which he used so prolifically until May 18th.
Fucking wake up man.
-DA74
Fredmaster of Brainerd
>
> I haven't said anything about indictments being handed down against
> Armstrong. I really don't care if he's indicted or not. I do think it
> would be good if Armstrong and his buddies like Johann and George are
> called before a Grand Jury to answer questions.
Why? Does he have information on the big fishy
Goldman Sachs deal or something?
Grand juries can investigate whatever a prosecutor wants
to investigate, usually, but typically there is a possibility of
a crime being uncovered somewhere in the prosecutor's
jurisdiction. So I'm not sure a prosecutor will find this of
interest. I don't recall any grand juries hearing testimony
on whether or not Bill Belichick ordered the taping of
other football teams' practices.
> That he will be
> interviewed by Federal agents is fairly likely. As some rather big
> sports stars have learned, it's not nice to lie to Federal
> investigators. It tends to upset them and lead to bigger problems.
Is there a federal crime involved? Sure, you can get
practically anyone to commit a crime by having Federal
agents ask them enough questions that it would be
embarrassing to answer. The reason we aren't all in jail
is that Federal agents haven't wasted their time on us yet.
> As for how I spend my time, I can assure you that Armstrong not in my
> thoughts at all absent a headline in the non-cycling press. But, when he
> does hit the headlines, it's fun to drop in here to see you guys go nuts
> with stupid, vitriolic attacks.
http://mingus.as.arizona.edu/~bjw/misc/rbr/waitwhat.jpg
Sincerely,
Fredmaster Ben
K. Fred Gauss
Coggan's question was "Why would you expect any statement from Coyle?".
Unless I'm mistaken, Lim is not Coyle. If I am mistaken, these guys are
even trickier than I thought.
Lim wont be able to avoid answering questions unless he changes his name
and moves to Tiera del Fuego. That option is probably becoming
increasingly attractive. More likely, he hasn't had time to put out a
statement because he can't get away from Armstrong advisors trying to
keep Lim from saying something that contradicts the rest of the narrative.
F. Kurgan Gringioni
"B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> Perhaps Coyle will tell us whether Lance's Tour wins resulted from
> efficiency or doping or a combination thereof.
Idiot -
No human being knows the answer to that question. Our knowledge of the
causes of performance success and failure in sport is way too primitive.
Some evidence: the large number of busts in the first round of the NFL
draft, an enterprise which, given the large amount of resources poured into
it, would be deterministic if the science were there.
thanks,
Fred. presented by Gringioni.
F. Kurgan Gringioni
"B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> I have better things to do than keep an
> eye open for what the might say.
No you don't.
Jeff Jones
> Hey doctor fucking Allen, how are those Floyd wattage plausability
> calculations going now? According to my limited brain capacity either
> you knew and you were complicit which makes you as big of an asshole
> as Floyd or you didn't and you're totally incompetent. Which is it?
>
> Your Twitter account got very very quiet today.
>
> Please Inform,
> -DA74
http://video.bicycling.com/video/ATOC-Allen-Lim-addresses-allega
Betty Munro
> Some things - such as the existence of doping in cycling, the
> relationship between VO2 and cycling power output, or your obsession
> with Armstrong - never really change. I can therefore walk away from
> this newsgroup for years and yet come back to find that I haven't
> missed a single thing.
Well Lafferty V2.0 was unveiled with a penchant for Landis, hacking and
a chick called Susan Polger.
Betty Munro
>> You didn't answer my question: why in the world would you expect Coyle
>> to issue any sort of a statement? You could probably count the number
>> of times that he and Armstrong have been in contact on your fingers
>> and toes, and it's not like this is the first time that anyone has
>> accused Armstrong of doping.
K. Fred Gauss wrote:
> So that he could admit that Lafferty was right and he was wrong,
> obviously. Also, that the glove that didn't fit OJ was his. I'm sure
> he'd like to get THAT off his chest.
Ah so LANCE was the real murderer. That clears than one up, now all we
need do is prove HIS father was on the grassy knoll.
Betty Munro
>> Those people who disagreed with me
>> for all those years when I said LA was a transvestite alien Nazi will
>> get their comeuppance now!
cur...@the-md-russells.org wrote:
> I was only questioning the 'alien' part.
Perhaps they introduced some alien DNA when they cloned Hitler to make
LANCE.
Betty Munro
> Whether he recognizes it or not, Lafferty groks irony.
There goes the final frontier.
Betty Munro
> Is there a federal crime involved? Sure, you can get
> practically anyone to commit a crime by having Federal
> agents ask them enough questions that it would be
> embarrassing to answer. The reason we aren't all in jail
> is that Federal agents haven't wasted their time on us yet.
When they finish with Landis/Armstrong the next target will be rbr. Oops
sorry I forget they'll have to do LANCE's wife, mom and Landis's ex and
Coyle and Coggan before they get around to rbr.
Betty Munro
> Lim wont be able to avoid answering questions unless he changes his name
> and moves to Tiera del Fuego.
In Lafferties universe Tiera del Fuego could become a real cycling
mecca. Perhaps they might even open a Mellow Johnny's next to the Starbucks.
cur...@the-md-russells.org
Well, the guy in the 7-11 IS an alien. Actually, they all are.
Not that there is anything wrong with that. Except in Arizona, where
7-11s are empty glass monuments with the glass doors swinging in the
wind.
B. Lafferty
B. Lafferty
from the USCF. Lance and and the rbr denizens are the best clown show in
town.
Andy Coggan
Reading comprehension is apparently no more DA74's strong suit than
logic is Lafferty's.
Andy Coggan
B. Lafferty
when the Secret Service handcuffed him and took him away. His case is
still winding its way through the Federal criminal court system. We're
all waiting to see if he can cut a deal for a plea. :-)
B. Lafferty
B. Lafferty
Thanks for the link. :-)
B. Lafferty
Betty Munro
> Reading comprehension is apparently no more DA74's strong suit than
> logic is Lafferty's.
Bug can be undocumented feature.
DA74
Thanks for the link JJ. That was one seriously weak denial. Reporter:
"Does it surprise you, the amount of drugs he said he was taking, I
mean, how did you miss that?" Allen Lim: "I don't know. It's crazy."
Nice work "Dr."
What a fucking amateur. He'll be the first to crack. He kept referring
them to the Radio Shack statement. All he would say is that "he'd
never help an athlete use performance enhancing drugs."
He didn't mention that he was accused not of helping with drugs but
with transfusing blood. The reporters didn't follow up.
dave a
Lim seems to be at a loss for words and has that deer in the headlights
look.
K. Fred Gauss
> On Fri, 21 May 2010 17:06:09 -0700, "K. Fred Gauss"
> <Som...@Somewhere.You.Dont.Wanna.Be> wrote:
>
>> cur...@the-md-russells.org wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 11:32:24 -0700, "K. Fred Gauss"
>>> <Fr...@fredlier.than.thou> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Those people who disagreed with me
>>>> for all those years when I said LA was a transvestite alien Nazi will
>>>> get their comeuppance now!
>>> I was only questioning the 'alien' part.
>> That's revisionist history, shithead. You also disagreed when I said
>> ATSWHATIMTALKINBOUT would win the Kentucky Derby and about LA's favorite
>> brand of energy drink. You'd like us all to forget about that, wouldn't
>> you? Just wait till the Feds get depositions from the Pakistani guy in
>> the 7-11 and FUNNY CIDE. Moron!
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> Well, the guy in the 7-11 IS an alien. Actually, they all are.
>
> Not that there is anything wrong with that. Except in Arizona, where
> 7-11s are empty glass monuments with the glass doors swinging in the
> wind.
So now the LA camp is "disappearing" all the witnesses? Interesting...
K. Fred Gauss
I am ashamed that I missed that obvious connection.
Michael Press
Many first round draftee busts
are from sleight-of-hand:
college coach and agent creating an
image of more than what is there.
--
Michael Press
cur...@the-md-russells.org
wrote:
>Many first round draftee busts
>are from sleight-of-hand:
>college coach and agent creating an
>image of more than what is there.
You can win one of the annual trophies or make it to the top ten in
one of them that way, but between the sheer number of college games
being played, taped and viewed and the combines, or almost required
testing if you miss the combine, I doubt that is the case in the last
ten years. Its simply that they are still developing at 21 or 22 and
some will continue the trajectory up and others are peaking already
and the difference between those that make it and those that don't is
very small.
The other issue, especially for skill positions on both sides of the
line, is what happens when you are one of the relative few at the top
level in each particular college game and you are one of many at the
next level. Makes a big difference when the whole things boils down to
making separation or preventing it. The almost rans also have the
problem that they may be good enough, but in training camp the guy
with the same level of skill they are competing against also has two
or three more years of experience in the pros.
Michael Press
cur...@the-md-russells.org wrote:
Okay. Small differences are more difficult to resolve.
Thanks.
--
Michael Press