Dear Wiggo said:Furtive and dirty?
And perhaps it shows yours is completely trusting.
How about this? Does this sound like another "so what" article?
I have worked hard to have a without evidence there is no offence mindset and I would rather miss convicting any doper if it meant we would convict 1 innocent person. I also despise trials by innuendo. It is the act of a bully and is Lynch mob justice. So if you think this is trusting than I will wear that lable with pride.
I generally avoid clinic subjects but two get under my skin. Articles about people I know and subject about the UCI which I find continually offensive and if they apply to the UCI it is in the clinic? So generally I prefer to read and react to articles on technical subjects, bikes, race tactics, race radios, racing, and rules when I can provide the answer. I have opinions on subjects on doping but I prefer to keep most to myself since these discussions are seldom accompanied with proof.
My inside voice believed LA was a Cheater and a bully. It believed he doped and it believed most of the stories but until I read the reasoned decision I would not call him a cheat out loud so again maybe that is trusting but I prefer to think I am trying to stand up for my principles by example instead of engaging in libellous speculation including those things that pan out true.
In this thread I am sticking to the subject of Ryder and you can have all the fun in the world playing connect the dots but I don't see the connections. Do you have spiders running around in your head to make all these connections or how is it done? you read about lactate testing and the article had a needle in it and off you go?
Later