Still in Lance's Innocence Camp ?
Anton Berlin
contemporaries caught red handed, money paid to the governing body
(why the only cyclist ever to do this?) Floyd's confession, Strock
testimony and evidence, Carmichael and USCF settlement, the steroid
positive, the positive EPO findings on A samples, microdosing
techniques and somehow you still believe Lance Armstrong is clean?
Stand up be counted. Post your denials and delusions here.
cur...@the-md-russells.org
Actually, I'm not in that camp or any other. However, you don't have
to be in the 'LA is clean' camp to poke holes in the delusions of 'the
U.S. government will finally mount a massive investigation to prove
what we have been saying all along' camp.
And practically every GC candidate for any tour has either been
brought down or is facing equal amounts of circumstance and
speculation. Such is life in the Pro Tour.
What you and BL don't seem to realize is that we don't have delusions,
but we also don't particularly care or don't think it will lead to,
what is it you are looking for again, justice? The problem with
monomaniacally driven witch hunts is that the monomaniacs, if
successful, walk away thinking they have accomplished something and
all they have done is brought down the target of their mania. Nothing
more. The problem remains, to the extent it is a problem.
So be very clear here. Nothing you are speaking to or that BL is
speaking to works to fix any problems in the Pro Tour, perceived or
real. They serve only to bring down LA, if successful, and damage the
sport in the publicity arena. You aren't about the sport here; you're
on about LA.
You're like the hippies back in the day that went on and on about the
evil of money and how everyone was fixated on money, not realizing how
obvious they made their own fixations.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Frederick the Great
<9e4e50f7-0080-411c...@y21g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
Anton Berlin <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
How about you naming names?
When did you stop believing LANCE was clean?
--
Old Fritz
dave a
Dumbass,
Please don't lump all the hippies in with keith and bl. The hippies
weren't fixated on the evils of money per se, it was more about the
greed and avarice. Many hippies went on to make a fair amount of money. :-)
- dave a
Brad Anders
certain is not doping or has never doped in the past. You can't depend
on "clean" test results, nor does anyone's "word" mean anything. Given
this situation (which I don't see ever changing), the only way I've
found that I can remain interested in bike racing is to assume that
everyone who is racing is doing what's required to level the playing
field, and that what I'm watching is a fair game. Those that make
mistakes, or go too far in trying to gain an advantage, risk detection
and draconian sanctions. Maybe Lance is approaching that point, maybe
not.
Brad Anders
Anton Berlin
> In article
> <9e4e50f7-0080-411c-94ef-75807b9cf...@y21g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The oceans of so called 'circumstantial evidence', ex-teammates and
> > contemporaries caught red handed, money paid to the governing body
> > (why the only cyclist ever to do this?) Floyd's confession, Strock
> > testimony and evidence, Carmichael and USCF settlement, the steroid
> > positive, the positive EPO findings on A samples, microdosing
> > techniques and somehow you still believe Lance Armstrong is clean?
>
> > Stand up be counted. Post your denials and delusions here.
>
> How about you naming names?
> When did you stop believing LANCE was clean?
>
> --
> Old Fritz
Sometime in the early 90s while he was at the OTC.
Anton Berlin
Agreed. But Lance (way more than Floyd) could fix the sport - or
maybe not.
I like Henry's POV - we like to see the drama and who cares if it's
played out at 15.3 or 18.7 MPH in the cols?
But there is something most would wannabes want to know - where do I
compare to the pros? We (golf, cycling, etc) can use the same
equipment and some of us can even train to the same degree but this
bullshit doping really kills the sport because some think "it's not
worth it" and others think "what's the use?"
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
> On May 25, 1:34 pm, Brad Anders <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > IMO, it's impossible to name any current pro male cyclist that you're
> > certain is not doping or has never doped in the past. You can't depend
> > on "clean" test results, nor does anyone's "word" mean anything. Given
> > this situation (which I don't see ever changing), the only way I've
> > found that I can remain interested in bike racing is to assume that
> > everyone who is racing is doing what's required to level the playing
> > field, and that what I'm watching is a fair game. Those that make
> > mistakes, or go too far in trying to gain an advantage, risk detection
> > and draconian sanctions. Maybe Lance is approaching that point, maybe
> > not.
>
> > Brad Anders
>
> Agreed. But Lance (way more than Floyd) could fix the sport - or
> maybe not.
Dumbass -
I disagree with that.
I think it's impossible to get rid of doping in sport simply because
the society in which the sports reside is full of doping.
Alcohol, nicotine, THC, caffeine, birth control hormones, viagra,
zoloft, ritalin, adderal, valium, oxycontin, yada, yada, yada.
People like their chemicals.
thanks,
Fred. presented by Gringioni.
--D-y
People are rumored to dope with dangerous stuff in order to win
parking lot crits.
Add in lots of money, prestige, name in books, ability to mate with
whomever you want, etc.
Also, what is "fair"? Should Bernard or Eddy have had to carry
weighted panniers?
Not to mention, look at all the "better living through chemistry"
research is being kept secret because it is "illegal".
The rulemakers indirectly caused those EPO deaths among doper bike
racers.
Also mentioning that riding GT's is not good for the health. There is
a valid argument for riders "caring for themselves".
<http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/pages/articleviewer.aspx?
year=2006&issue=06000&article=00005&type=abstract>
--D-y
K. Fred Gauss
Many people believe Armstrong doped and Lemond is a bit crazy and that
Landis is vindictive. These are not mutually exclusive positions.
Brad Anders
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree, I don't see doping going away - ever. Testing can never
assure that any sport is "clean", because there are protocols that can
be used (see my other post on "EPO microdosing") that render
detectable drugs essentially undetectable, and there are likely to be
more drugs and methods that emerge that will not be detectable at all.
As you say, people like their chemicals. Worse yet, we're sitting on
the cusp of the potential for the use of genetic engineering as
applied to sport.
The other issue is that the kind of altruistic world where athletes
would compete "clean" because it's the "right thing to do" is a
fantasy. As D-y said, you've got people juicing to win parking lot
crits. Hell, I've had people pull moves on me in races that were
incredibly dangerous, just to win a fucking T-shirt. Give guys the
chance to stand on the podium in Paris if they can squeek by the
testers using juice? Plenty will take the chance and plenty already
have.
What's the solution? There isn't one. You aren't going to get rid of
drugs, and because of political and legal pressures, you can't just
turn off testing and let it be a free-for-all. I prefer to look at
testing as keeping a leash on those that are going beyond leveling the
playing field, or weeding out the idiots who can't manage their
medical program. Given this state of affairs, I'm happy to watch any
pro cycling event and assume everyone who is racing is informed of the
risks and benefits, and has made their own decisions. Can't say I'd
rather be in their place, nor do I care to compare my pathetic efforts
on the bike to them, either.
Brad Anders
Anton Berlin
1. outside agency with no vested interests to conduct all testing and
rulings,
2. some high % (80-90) of winnings and endorsements placed in a trust
for some set period ( 5-7 years) , only released after all samples are
retested with new technology and knowledge. forfeited funds go to
clean riders proportionately that raced and placed in the same period
3. retroactive tests mean forfeiture of all funds, single elimination
for lifetime but with multi-level tests on positives (a and b and at
redundant labs)
4. the elimination of all medical exclusions - doesn't allow a cheat
to get a note from the dr before or after the fact - fuck em, they
should have picked better parents
5. the return of the racing bike - no more specialty bikes for tts,
hill climbs etc - just a regular road bike and with the current
regulations.
6. lastly as a fatty master all riders have to ballast their machines
to an equal weight ( if it's good enugh for nascar it's good enough
for the tour de france. - alright schlecks lets see how you climb
that mountain now. )
DA74
> My solution -
>
> 1. outside agency with no vested interests to conduct all testing and
> rulings,
I like the idea but anyone can be independently bribed, especially if
you buy them a Sysmex.
> 2. some high % (80-90) of winnings and endorsements placed in a trust
> for some set period ( 5-7 years) , only released after all samples are
> retested with new technology and knowledge. forfeited funds go to
> clean riders proportionately that raced and placed in the same period
That is fucking retarded.
> 3. retroactive tests mean forfeiture of all funds, single elimination
> for lifetime but with multi-level tests on positives (a and b and at
> redundant labs)
It's still retarded.
> 4. the elimination of all medical exclusions - doesn't allow a cheat
> to get a note from the dr before or after the fact - fuck em, they
> should have picked better parents
This is a great idea. Do you know what will happen to the Pulmicort
market though?
> 5. the return of the racing bike - no more specialty bikes for tts,
> hill climbs etc - just a regular road bike and with the current
> regulations.
This is also a great idea. Keep the radio ban.
> 6. lastly as a fatty master all riders have to ballast their machines
> to an equal weight ( if it's good enugh for nascar it's good enough
> for the tour de france. - alright schlecks lets see how you climb
> that mountain now. )
I'd actually pay to watch that...
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<blkcatRE...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Dumbass,
>
>Please don't lump all the hippies in with keith and bl. The hippies
>weren't fixated on the evils of money per se, it was more about the
>greed and avarice. Many hippies went on to make a fair amount of money. :-)
>
>- dave a
Good point. The heir to Baskin-Robbins, who gave up his ties to his
family fortune, only to make it big in the health food craze, then
only to lose it to Bernie Madoff, wrote a couple of interesting
articles about letting it go, making it big and being humbled.
Probably made more from those articles than I'll make all year...
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
P.S. He does sound sincere, though.
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>But there is something most would wannabes want to know - where do I
>compare to the pros? We (golf, cycling, etc) can use the same
>equipment and some of us can even train to the same degree but this
>bullshit doping really kills the sport because some think "it's not
>worth it" and others think "what's the use?"
I think that those most likely to compare themselves with what they
see on the Pro Tour are also the ones most likely to realize what they
are seeing when an entire group rides up a decent hill faster than
they do on the flat set up to a sprint. Just as Sunday golfers can
pretend they are not THAT far from being Phil Mickelson, while the
true golf pro wannabe that I roomed with at MSU could go on for hours
about what it would take to move his stroke average to where he would
qualify for schools and what not, talking about just a few strokes -
and he didn't see it being easy.
He also had an annoying habit of sounding like a couple of bridge
players I knew. They could recite bridge matches from a month back,
and he would replay entire golf games vocally, stroke by stroke. Maybe
if I played bridge or golf I wouldn't killed them all and buried their
bodies next to Lake Lansing...
raamman
how many innocents sent for life or execution even in criminal court
where the rules of evidence are more strict who were later exonerated
on basis of dna or other new evidence ?
Anton Berlin
> On Tue, 25 May 2010 15:31:15 -0700 (PDT), Anton Berlin
>
We are all in debt to you for killing these bores and saving us from
the aural rape.
Anton Berlin
I support the Innocence Project with financial donations -- however
most of those cases involve a certain amount of pressure and illicit
tactics by police.
I don't think anyone is threatening to throw Betsy Andeau in jail for
not coming forward. Too many people from too diverse an area are
stepping forward for too diverse a set of reasons. It's not like a
single cop, dept or DA is forcing this to happen.
--D-y
You can't trust people, witness all the overturned convictions and
that with very limited access to the process.
Cops lie, DA's lie, lab techs lie; the fix is in, including all forms
of withholding exculpatory evidence, etc.
Even if the tests were perfect, the people aren't.
There's a pretty good book (classic lit it ain't) called The Truth
Machine. Well, maybe fair <g>.
Dude builds a truth machine, and then games it, is the point for this
discussion. Gets away with murder, at least for awhile.
Don't trust testing, don't trust "truth machines" (which are coming,
supposedly), with humans at the controls.
There is no "solution". How high do you want the bodies stacked in the
meantime?
--D-y
Fred Flintstein
> How high do you want the bodies stacked in the
> meantime?
> --D-y
I have repeatedly called for summary execution, but no
one takes me seriously. Just like Lafferty.
Fred Flintstein
F. Kurgan Gringioni
"raamman" <raa...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4cafb401-3d1f-463c-a9ba-
> how many innocents sent for life or execution even in criminal court
> where the rules of evidence are more strict who were later exonerated
> on basis of dna or other new evidence ?
Dumbass -
When our country executed the 1,000th person (since the death penalty was
reinstated in 1976), 121 people had been taken off death row during that
time due to evidence proving their innocence.
So it's at least 12%, however, that is the lowest it could possibly be since
it neglects the people who were innocent and were executed. No one attempts
to exonerate someone once they're dead.
Anton Berlin
wrote:
> "raamman" <raam...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4cafb401-3d1f-463c-a9ba-
Only 1000 ? That's a slow year in the Republik of Texas.
Anton Berlin
>
> > 2. some high % (80-90) of winnings and endorsements placed in a trust
> > for some set period ( 5-7 years) , only released after all samples are
> > retested with new technology and knowledge. forfeited funds go to
> > clean riders proportionately that raced and placed in the same period
>
> That is fucking retarded.
>
> > 3. retroactive tests mean forfeiture of all funds, single elimination
> > for lifetime but with multi-level tests on positives (a and b and at
> > redundant labs)
>
> It's still retarded.
Eliminate the financial advantages of doping then you might eliminate
doping and the sport will be owned by people that like bike racing for
the sport itself.
Look at Lance as an example - more than likely he got away with it
because he knew what the system could and couldn't do at the time.
But if you suspected that in 5 years your advantage (and profits)
would be negated then you wouldn't risk the waste of time and
effort.
We know already the labs are 3-5 years behind at least.
DA74
First of all the prize money is not an incentive to any Pro Tour
rider, with the exception of the low level domestiques and the
soigneurs/staff. All teams put the prize money in a pot and divide it
up equally at the end of the season between all the riders and staff.
This turns out to be peanuts to the top riders but a decent chunk of
change to the low level riders and staff. You wouldn't be really
targeting the dopers.
Second of all endorsements are not under the domain of the UCI or
national federations or otherwise. They are between the riders and the
companies. There is no way to enforce this endorsement clause.
I like your enthusiasm bro but the idea is still retarded.
-DA74
Anton Berlin
>
> - Show quoted text -
If they want a license, if they want to race they sign a contract
agreeing to the terms. All of these things can be done and are done
in other sports. I believe rugby salaries and endorsements go to
support the grass roots and u23 u17 rugby efforts in New Zealand as an
example.
Betty Munro
> while the true golf pro wannabe that I roomed with at MSU could go on for hours
> about what it would take to move his stroke average to where he would
> qualify for schools and what not, talking about just a few strokes -
> and he didn't see it being easy.
>
> He also had an annoying habit of sounding like a couple of bridge
> players I knew. They could recite bridge matches from a month back,
> and he would replay entire golf games vocally, stroke by stroke. Maybe
> if I played bridge or golf I wouldn't killed them all and buried their
> bodies next to Lake Lansing...
Now just imagine a triathlete replaying a whole iron man vocally stroke
by stride.
Betty Munro
>> When our country executed the 1,000th person (since the death penalty was
>> reinstated in 1976), 121 people had been taken off death row during that
>> time due to evidence proving their innocence.
Anton Berlin wrote:
> Only 1000 ? That's a slow year in the Republik of Texas.
The islamic republic of texas.
Michael Press
cur...@the-md-russells.org wrote:
> You're like the hippies back in the day that went on and on about the
> evil of money and how everyone was fixated on money, not realizing how
> obvious they made their own fixations.
Which was shown by their actions to be money.
--Let's live together, wear the same clothes,
do the same things, think alike, and eat the same food.
--You mean join the army?
--
Michael Press
Frederick the Great
<5ba647b4-12b8-45cc...@q33g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
Anton Berlin <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sometime in the early 90s while he was at the OTC.
Okay. Now name names.
--
Old Fritz
Michael Press
<e1fc2304-d015-4983...@11g2000prw.googlegroups.com>,
Brad Anders <pban...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don not care even if the playing field is level.
If somebody can get a competitive advantage it is
good wholesome entertainment for me.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<6b0eee3d-3a43-4f93...@e21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
--D-y <dusto...@mac.com> wrote:
> Don't trust testing, don't trust "truth machines" (which are coming,
> supposedly), with humans at the controls.
Truth machines exist. Some brain scans resolve
brain activity well enough to detect when the
subject is lying.
--
Michael Press
Brad Anders
> In article
> <e1fc2304-d015-4983-bd6e-7551aa70f...@11g2000prw.googlegroups.com>,
> Brad Anders <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > IMO, it's impossible to name any current pro male cyclist that you're
> > certain is not doping or has never doped in the past. You can't depend
> > on "clean" test results, nor does anyone's "word" mean anything. Given
> > this situation (which I don't see ever changing), the only way I've
> > found that I can remain interested in bike racing is to assume that
> > everyone who is racing is doing what's required to level the playing
> > field, and that what I'm watching is a fair game. Those that make
> > mistakes, or go too far in trying to gain an advantage, risk detection
> > and draconian sanctions. Maybe Lance is approaching that point, maybe
> > not.
>
> I don not care even if the playing field is level.
> If somebody can get a competitive advantage it is
> good wholesome entertainment for me.
I agree with you that gaining a competitive advantages is really what
sport is all about. I view today's level of drug control as doing a
decent job of making drugs more of a non-factor in gaining competitive
advantage for the reasons I've stated. I'm totally against the
Ashenden view that there is no tolerable level of drugs in sport and
that any drugs at all makes sport "unfair", as I think this is
unattainable, unrealizable, and not needed for sport to survive.
Brad Anders
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Dumbass -
My math is off. It's 121/1121, so it's something like 9%, not 12%.
It's still 9% too many.
raamman
so if there are no penalities, why wouldn't more folk have come
forward with stories on Lance ? I think Floyd is still lying, and I
hope if he is embellishing hearsay and making false statements to
investigators I hope he gets suitably charged.
raamman
>
> --D-y <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> > Don't trust testing, don't trust "truth machines" (which are coming,
> > supposedly), with humans at the controls.
>
> Truth machines exist. Some brain scans resolve
> brain activity well enough to detect when the
> subject is lying.
>
> --
> Michael Press
who interprets the scans and determines who or what is lying ?
cur...@the-md-russells.org
wrote:
This would not require weeks to perform a perfectly justifiable
homicide.
Anton Berlin
> In article <va3ov5d3183rpd54vtd5mcmgcbg9ecv...@4ax.com>,
Michael - to express individualism today you get a tribal tattoo on
your arm, a tramp stamp on your back and some japanesse symbols that
usually say "poser" or "douchebag" in reality.
In this way you can stand out from the tens of millions that have the
indentical tattoos.
Betty Munro
> Michael - to express individualism today you get a tribal tattoo on
> your arm, a tramp stamp on your back and some japanesse symbols that
> usually say "poser" or "douchebag" in reality.
>
> In this way you can stand out from the tens of millions that have the
> indentical tattoos.
And in related news the perfect woman for Clinger, Magilla and Bruce:
<http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/2479794-worlds-most-tattooed-woman>
Michael Press
<0dff1f72-8f85-4fc3...@d12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
raamman <raa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 4:32 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <6b0eee3d-3a43-4f93-b797-94173d071...@e21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > --D-y <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > Don't trust testing, don't trust "truth machines" (which are coming,
> > > supposedly), with humans at the controls.
> >
> > Truth machines exist. Some brain scans resolve
> > brain activity well enough to detect when the
> > subject is lying.
>
> who interprets the scans and determines who or what is lying ?
Do you suppose I argue that the human element is not
present, or not corruptible?
People in general have the capacity to know when
somebody is lying. Why they do not exercise their
capacity is a good question.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
cur...@the-md-russells.org wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Allow me to play an audio recording
my client made.
--
Michael Press
--D-y
>
> raamman <raam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 26, 4:32 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <6b0eee3d-3a43-4f93-b797-94173d071...@e21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > --D-y <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > Don't trust testing, don't trust "truth machines" (which are coming,
> > > > supposedly), with humans at the controls.
>
> > > Truth machines exist. Some brain scans resolve
> > > brain activity well enough to detect when the
> > > subject is lying.
>
> > who interprets the scans and determines who or what is lying ?
>
> Do you suppose I argue that the human element is not
> present, or not corruptible?
>
> People in general have the capacity to know when
> somebody is lying. Why they do not exercise their
> capacity is a good question.
Years ago on the Carson Tonight show, an expert did a segment on
"knowing" when people were lying, by facial expressions, perhaps other
physical giveaways.
At that time, the "expertise" (according to this expert anyhow) was
that a few people can totally fake it, at least as far as facial
expressions, and maybe other mannerisms or "tells".
I've also seen reference to machines someday being able to read human
memory.
We're not there yet <g>.
Whatever, DNA was supposed to be the ultimate truther. Lying cops,
prosecutors, lab techs soon screwed that up. Expect more of the same
<g>.
--D-y
raamman
I don't mean to sound curt, but
yes, you can tell that to the innocents in jail.
Michael Press
<9925bed5-eeb5-4f6b...@s41g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
raamman <raa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't mean to sound curt, but
>
> yes, you can tell that to the innocents in jail.
Did you tell that to the innocents in jail?
You sound curt, you are gratuitously curt,
you meant to sound curt, and you want to be curt.
I laugh at your pretensions of caring.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
--
Michael Press
B. Lafferty
RicodJour
Google 'facial action coding'.
R
raamman
>
> - Show quoted text -
Is that your lie detector not working or are you just happy to hear
from me ?
Michael Press
<35ec7a8a-9e75-4b13...@q23g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
raamman <raa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is that your lie detector not working or are you just happy to hear
> from me ?
I asked first.
--
Michael Press
Henry
> The oceans of so called 'circumstantial evidence', ex-teammates and
> contemporaries caught red handed, money paid to the governing body
> (why the only cyclist ever to do this?) Floyd's confession, Strock
> testimony and evidence, Carmichael and USCF settlement, the steroid
> positive, the positive EPO findings on A samples, microdosing
> techniques and somehow you still believe Lance Armstrong is clean?
>
> Stand up be counted. Post your denials and delusions here.
this is not e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e - except maybe in China, or France.
Look. If I say you are a raving lunatic, and I can find others that
agree, and maybe say you have some problems with substance abuse, does
not make it true.
Show me the evidence. Go on.
You can't.
Just like I can't prove my allegations about you.
Why don't you track Lance down and put it to him? Face to face. Or put
your money where you mouth is?
Because it's all heresay. That might be enough in the land of lawyers
but some place like to have some actual facts.
Zeno
> The oceans of so called 'circumstantial evidence', ex-teammates and
> contemporaries caught red handed, money paid to the governing body
> (why the only cyclist ever to do this?) Floyd's confession, Strock
> testimony and evidence, Carmichael and USCF settlement, the steroid
> positive, the positive EPO findings on A samples, microdosing
> techniques and somehow you still believe Lance Armstrong is clean?
>
> Stand up be counted. Post your denials and delusions here.
I enjoy speculating about doping as much as the next guy. It's fun
and unproven conjecture about the guilt of others is a revered USENET
tradition.
But as far as saying "that guy is a doper," that's very different and
my criteria is simple: "Innocent until proven guilty" either by the
governing body, a court of law or in an impartial outside
investigation that would stand up in court. The defendant should have
the right to review all evidence against them and present their own
case on appeal to a presumably impartial arbiter. If that criteria is
met, yeah, then they are a "doper." Prosecute them, revile them,
suspend them or give them a life time ban. (My personal preference is
two strikes and you're out.)
That's the same criteria I applied to Landis. I thought he deserved
his appeal. That is the same criteria I apply to LA and every other
athlete. Unsupported anecdotal evidence, especially when given by
known liars on a grand scale, does not meet that test, nor do so
called test results that are totally compromised, nor do media
lynchings by so called journalists who just pile unproven innuendo on
top of innuendo and say "gee, look at all that innuendo, he must be
guilty." That is the kind of kind of "justice" meted out by
dictatorships and in newsgroups where conspiracy nuts can find
metaphysical certitude because six other wackos parrot the same crap.
Zeno