- Aug 6, 2010
- 6,884
- 6,216
- 23,180
hfer07 said:
Yeah this is most likely true. It was simply hope. He will turn Frank into the last man of the "mountain train". Paulhino, Zubeldia, Popovich, Kloden, Brajkovic, Horner, Frank, Andy
. I wonder how Klodi, Horner, and Brajkovic feel about this.
- Aug 9, 2009
- 640
- 0
- 0
Race Radio said:
Obviously some riders have issues with Bruyneel
Can't believe anyone is defending UCI about anything, but if you think UCI has somehow acquired some aspects of moral superiority over the antics of JB, well I would have to disagree.
I previously requested links to investigations - this appears to be speculation. Any links?
The link you posted discusses JB as a named defendant in the Flandis whistleblower lawsuit; the article does not discuss investigations. Are there any other links to investigations in the US?
The link you provided does not have anything to say about the French waiting for anything - the linked article is from December 2009. Can you provide a more current link about the French awaiting the outcome of US procedures?
The link you provided indicates JB left the day before the search and seems to be lacking any discussion of his luggage. Can you provide the proper link?
I have no reason to doubt that some people are unhappy, but the linked article barely mentions JB, and focuses on Tailwind and LA. Do you have other links to the Ponzi scheme? Hate to quote your post but - You may want to look up the definition of Ponzi.
No direct knowledge of this, but sounds like Savodelli is ****ed.
Not going to find an argument from me on that last part. As other posters have commented, it appears that there is some ax grinding going on here. Posting speculation/opinions with links that do not seem to back them up does not do anybody a great service.
- Aug 13, 2009
- 12,854
- 2
- 0
Cal_Joe said:
Before I waste time with your weak attempt at obfuscation take some time to read posts in this thread and the links I gave. Your post shows you did neither
- Aug 9, 2009
- 640
- 0
- 0
Race Radio said:
Wrong - read them all and as I pointed out, your links do not match your speculations/opinions. If you want to dispel any doubts readers may have here I would encourage you to actually respond to my post instead of the lazy "babble" response. There are numerous issues with your post that I quoted - it is up to you to back up your "facts" and provide links, or if you do not feel so inclined, the readers of this thread are free to draw their own conclusions as to what is ax grinding and what is not.
- Jun 16, 2009
- 3,035
- 0
- 0
- Aug 13, 2009
- 12,854
- 2
- 0
Cal_Joe said:
You did not point out anything, you post was only an attempt to bait me into responding
I never gave the UCI "moral superiority" I said he was fighting with them all year. The links I gave reflect that
The transfusion kits were criminal, the French police have interviewed Johan and members of his team. Do you have any evidence the investigation has been dropped?
I gave you links to investigations. You ignored them. I, and others, gave you links to multiple riders and people in the sport who have a negative view of Johan, your response was we had an ax to grind.
Give that most of your posts are blanket insults directed at people whose opinion you do not share do not be surprised if you are put on ignore
- May 14, 2010
- 5,303
- 4
- 0
Part 1
I don't need to look up a definition of ad hominem (by the way, it's not a term that needs to be capitalized), but for your sake:
ad hom·i·nem (hm-nm, -nm)
adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.
[Latin : ad, to + hominem, accusative of hom, man.]
ad homi·nem adv.
Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans' evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage appears to be waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel. · Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together" (Washington Post). This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style. · A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem is ad feminam, as in "Its treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on his wife Vera often border on character assassination" (Simon Karlinsky). Though some would argue that this neologism is unnecessary because the Latin word homo refers to humans generically, rather than to the male sex, in some contexts ad feminam has a more specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to describe attacks on women as women or because they are women, as in "Their recourse ... to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly climate for women's leadership on campus" (Donna M. Riley). From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ad+hominem
That's right, I used the term in its contemporary, colloquial sense, which admittedly is not entirely in keeping with the strict, didactic sense found by those who are unfamiliar with the term when they seek it out in most dictionaries (the above being, along with the O.E.D., among the blessed exceptions).
You began this thread as ostensibly concerning a possible merger between Leopard-Trek and Radio Shack. It didn't take long at all, however, for you to commence attacking Bruyneel, by claiming the merger (which you had just started a thread about) wouldn't happen, it being "an attempt by Johan to pretend he is still relevant in the sport."
Thus the reader is left with the impression that you began the thread merely as a pretext for beating Bruyneel. Lest we be left in doubt, however, you then proceed with ~24 additional posts in that vein, a somewhat lengthy sample of which follows.
Race Radio said:
I don't need to look up a definition of ad hominem (by the way, it's not a term that needs to be capitalized), but for your sake:
ad hom·i·nem (hm-nm, -nm)
adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.
[Latin : ad, to + hominem, accusative of hom, man.]
ad homi·nem adv.
Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans' evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage appears to be waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel. · Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together" (Washington Post). This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style. · A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem is ad feminam, as in "Its treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on his wife Vera often border on character assassination" (Simon Karlinsky). Though some would argue that this neologism is unnecessary because the Latin word homo refers to humans generically, rather than to the male sex, in some contexts ad feminam has a more specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to describe attacks on women as women or because they are women, as in "Their recourse ... to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly climate for women's leadership on campus" (Donna M. Riley). From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ad+hominem
That's right, I used the term in its contemporary, colloquial sense, which admittedly is not entirely in keeping with the strict, didactic sense found by those who are unfamiliar with the term when they seek it out in most dictionaries (the above being, along with the O.E.D., among the blessed exceptions).
You began this thread as ostensibly concerning a possible merger between Leopard-Trek and Radio Shack. It didn't take long at all, however, for you to commence attacking Bruyneel, by claiming the merger (which you had just started a thread about) wouldn't happen, it being "an attempt by Johan to pretend he is still relevant in the sport."
Race Radio said:
Thus the reader is left with the impression that you began the thread merely as a pretext for beating Bruyneel. Lest we be left in doubt, however, you then proceed with ~24 additional posts in that vein, a somewhat lengthy sample of which follows.
Race Radio said:
Race Radio said:
Race Radio said:
Race Radio said:
Race Radio said:
Race Radio said:
- May 14, 2010
- 5,303
- 4
- 0
Part 2
It isn't until your final post directed at me (and with which I began this answer, above) that you actually attempt to provide any back up of your assertions or provide citations. Unfortunately for your argument the citations you provide are mostly lame and not germane to the aspersions at hand. (This is made all the more unfortunate by the fact that you probably could have found germane and convincing sources if only your passion for discussion were half as great as your evident passion for Bruyneel and Armstrong.)
Did it ever occur to you that Bruyneel's two-month (mostly off-season) suspension (for illegal jerseys!) is a tempest in a teapot - and very possibly even a smokescreen meant to cover for the inappropriate coziness / payoffs between Armstrong et al. and UCI (stories of which were coming to light around the time of the infraction and suspension)?
Has it occurred to you that, rather than this merger, Bruyneel's attempt to remain relevant consisted of his associating himself with Vaughters and the talk of breaking from the UCI? (This would also serve the purpose of distancing Bruyneel and UCI from each other in the eyes of everyone.)
Bruyneel, Armstrong, Tailwind, McQuaid and UCI are thick as thieves, as you well know. Their mutual corruption and complicity don't brook any independence on the part of the actors, nor do they likely have any real reason to change their winning game. Not yet anyway. Like it or not they are still power brokers in the cycling world and seen as such. Thus they are very relevant to Mr. Becca and his desire to succeed with his sponsorship.
As to the riders who are dissatified with Bruyneel: I'm sure they are legion. But then you could probably make the case that many DSes are snakes and are justifiably hated. And as VeloFidelis said
If you've read this response carefully, you've noticed that none of it is an attack on you, or a defense of Bruyneel. It is really just friendly advice.
Perhaps you have heard the aphorism "Revenge is best served cold"? Permit me to suggest that you would be further ahead if you take it to heart, and then proceed accordingly.
It isn't until your final post directed at me (and with which I began this answer, above) that you actually attempt to provide any back up of your assertions or provide citations. Unfortunately for your argument the citations you provide are mostly lame and not germane to the aspersions at hand. (This is made all the more unfortunate by the fact that you probably could have found germane and convincing sources if only your passion for discussion were half as great as your evident passion for Bruyneel and Armstrong.)
Did it ever occur to you that Bruyneel's two-month (mostly off-season) suspension (for illegal jerseys!) is a tempest in a teapot - and very possibly even a smokescreen meant to cover for the inappropriate coziness / payoffs between Armstrong et al. and UCI (stories of which were coming to light around the time of the infraction and suspension)?
Has it occurred to you that, rather than this merger, Bruyneel's attempt to remain relevant consisted of his associating himself with Vaughters and the talk of breaking from the UCI? (This would also serve the purpose of distancing Bruyneel and UCI from each other in the eyes of everyone.)
Bruyneel, Armstrong, Tailwind, McQuaid and UCI are thick as thieves, as you well know. Their mutual corruption and complicity don't brook any independence on the part of the actors, nor do they likely have any real reason to change their winning game. Not yet anyway. Like it or not they are still power brokers in the cycling world and seen as such. Thus they are very relevant to Mr. Becca and his desire to succeed with his sponsorship.
As to the riders who are dissatified with Bruyneel: I'm sure they are legion. But then you could probably make the case that many DSes are snakes and are justifiably hated. And as VeloFidelis said
VeloFidelis said:
If you've read this response carefully, you've noticed that none of it is an attack on you, or a defense of Bruyneel. It is really just friendly advice.
Perhaps you have heard the aphorism "Revenge is best served cold"? Permit me to suggest that you would be further ahead if you take it to heart, and then proceed accordingly.
- Aug 9, 2009
- 640
- 0
- 0
Race Radio said:
Wow. Total disconnect here. I was not "baiting" you in responding - I was asking you for a response. You post stuff in a forum, people respond, you respond back. Fairly simple.
I feel you did not read all of my post; I was agreeing with you that regarding JB "many would not embrace this merger".
My beef is that the links you posted to back up your facts seemed to be disconnected from the descriptions you couched the links in. That is what appears to be ax grinding on your part. Again, per my previous post, if you want to clarify those facts with more pertinent links I think that would benefit all.
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
- Jun 19, 2009
- 13,250
- 1
- 0
For someone who is giving lectures on ad-hominen, you use the word "you" a lot.Maxiton said:
RR started this thread - he did not post again until page 6, which was just an update on an ongoing subject.
When Bruyneel put out his statement (which is at odds with other statements) others started bringing in the discussion solely about Bruyneel.Maxiton said:
If you wish to discuss people with agendas or axe's to grind - then you could ask Cal_Joe why he dismisses the information presented after they requested it?
Cal_Joe said:
...obviously
Cal_Joe said:
When an organization with a reputation like the UCI (who may have taken payments for covering positives) starts to question you, it is a sad say indeed.
Cal_Joe said:
Riddle me this, based on the fact that we know AT LEAST Hamilton and Landis have alleged SYSTEMATIC doping, to suggest that Bruyneel has not been part of the investigation (knowing that several other riders from the team were called in front of the GJ) is a bit unrealistic? You can pretend that his participation has not been INVESTIGATED, but I think we can all agree that proposition is quite unlikely. Sure it is SPECULATION, but to SPECULATE the other way is much more ridiculous. But then again, you're au fait with such things, no?
Cal_Joe said:
Fair enough, answer the question above .
Cal_Joe said:
You didn't read the second link, it was from....let me see.......Tuesday, March 08, 2011..."The issue was being investigated by the French OCASLESP (Central Office for the fight against environmental damage and for public health). Johan Bruyneel and Alain Gallopin were questioned by officers last May and April, respectively. Both denied any knowledge of the matter. No conclusion has yet been announced in relation to that investigation." (you will split hairs here and say that they say nothing about waiting for the outcome, but this is obfuscation considering the impetus for The Hog's questioning by the French.)
Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/7...the-culture-of-the-syringe.aspx#ixzz1WnXJjKVJ
Cal_Joe said:
I can.
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/8...s-been-disappointing-for-Team-RadioShack.aspx
"The ongoing Lance Armstrong saga has also affected the team’s time at the Giro. There were earlier reports of the team hotel being searched and that Bruyneel fled the day before without packing his luggage."
Cal_Joe said:
Again, you seem to want to separate The Hog from the systematic doping and lack of investor return, but in REALITY, that seems ridiculous, no?
Cal_Joe said:
Ya think?
You don't have direct knowledge of much of anything.
Cal_Joe said:
One man's "ax grinding" is another man's realistic consideration of the affects of associating yourself with a man who's reputation and accomplishments are under investigation...unless you believe in the silly idea that SYSTEMATIC doping on his teams would somehow lead investigators to leave him off the list of people whose actions are being investigated...because he was ONLY the DS of the team, and we know that those guys are just above the soigneur in terms of team importance...wait, there is evidence those guys are pretty important too...
Yet again, you prove just how dispassioned you are about the subject...
- Jul 10, 2011
- 512
- 0
- 0
RaceRadio, thanks for the informations in this thread!
I can see that some guys here are trying to do the same thing with you that they claim that you are doing with JB... hilarius!
I can see that some guys here are trying to do the same thing with you that they claim that you are doing with JB... hilarius!
- Mar 8, 2010
- 3,263
- 1
- 0
Dr. Maserati said:
Cobblestoned please.
Dont't want to damage Cobblestones's reputation any further. Guy has a hard life since my arrival, even when he always uses to wear the same avatar.
Nice to see that we can have a good cooperation, but your last line implies that Johan would take all the leftover money.
Don't think so. I just can say that Johan personally helped out and took care about stuff and even riders for a short but hard period, when Astana's money was stuck. A DirecteurSportive !
And it was no "here, buy yourself an icecream".
No, I have no link for that. Of course you have your internetlinks to some riders or people, out of hundreds of people who Johan worked with, who have an issue with Bruyneel and say that Johan is a very bad man who also keeps their money.
Well, just keep them for yourselfs. Whatever someone does, there are always people out there who complain then, or feel disadvantaged.
No matter WHAT you do.
The clinic crew is an even better example.
Johan and Lance can't do ANYTHING right. No matter what. Even when Lance brings out the trash and cuts his lawn - it is wrong.
No surprise that the clinic-crew now spends their time here (again) in big care for the RS riders and stuff. But all those doublestandarding is so obvious that I think I no more have to point this out.
Wonder what is wrong about the WBR. Did you guys find nothing there ?
Does Johan hide all the bikes for the very poor African kids in his garage to sell them for dope ?
Did he send doubles to Africa ?
Whatever, we might always disagree when its about Johans character, skills and style.
And there is a reason for that, which also makes your statement about your relationship to RS, LEO etc. a wonderful joke.
But I agree that you are one of the more moderate guys.
Anyway, it's heartbreaking to see how you care now.
You guys even care about poor Mercedes now. Well, thank you. lol
- Aug 13, 2009
- 12,854
- 2
- 0
Maxiton said:
Yes, in fact this is exactly what I thought at the time. I was wrong. The UCI and Armstrong/Brunyeel are no longer close, they are at war. The UCI has been trying to extract themselves from the relationship for most of the year. You have seen some examples of this already this year but I can assure you it is far worse then what is public.
While your explanation of ad hominem is long it is incorrect. It does not apply to anything I have written in this thread. Bruyneel's questionable character is well know in the sport and is important to this topic. Pointing this obvious issue is not ad hominem.
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
- Jun 19, 2009
- 13,250
- 1
- 0
Cobblestoned said:
So in short you made up a claim about me and now you want to bring in something else that is irrelevant to continue to bait.
If you wish to discuss either Leopard or Radioshack - the merger, or the rumors I am quite happy to read it.
But if your goal is only to make stuff up, then I have no interest in you - troll someone else.
- Mar 8, 2010
- 3,263
- 1
- 0
Christian said:
Many people leading and riding for L-T were too optimistic and thought it was an easy move to just leave Riis (with everything he has) and do your own thing.
Some people did really overrate themselfes and I guess Becca is a little bit disappointed about how things are flowing.
For sponsors, this team was "dangerous" ground from beginning, because it's mainly or just built around the Schlecks (who also mean Luxemburg).
Things can go really fast, you know...
- Mar 8, 2010
- 3,263
- 1
- 0
Dr. Maserati said:
This claim, I claimed, really doesn't have to be made up.
Look who is mainly posting here. Rare guests in the PRR-forum.
I was trying to talk about and find the real interesting things regarding this possible merger from beginning.
But for whatever reason, don't really know why, it doesn't work around here.
Works quiet good in other places.
Polish
BANNED
- Mar 11, 2009
- 3,853
- 1
- 0
Cobblestoned said:
Clinic fact - Lance does not recycle and waters his lawn too much.
And I can understand the FRUSTRATION with the RadioShack/LeopardTrek potential SuperTeam.
After all, RadioShack was supposed to pull their sponsorship in disgrace pre-Tour 2010.
Didn't happen.
Well, they certainly would not renew their sponsorship past 2011 fcol.
Crap, they did. Along with Nissan.
But at least Bruyneel will not add to his record of 10+ GT Wins.
He won't, will he? Please please please, he won't will he?
- Aug 13, 2009
- 12,854
- 2
- 0
virandociclista said:
It certainly can be entertaining
*** edited by mod ***
The ease with which some ignore Johan's well documented toxic past, serious legal entanglements, and applaud the potential for lost employment and burned sponsors is disturbing.
Are there any more rumors about this merge and if its actually going to happen? or just those 2 newspaper articles
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s ITT, September 21- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 942
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram