Slowtwitch and the reasoned decision?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 8, 2012
237
1
0
Empfield is way too arrogant to admit he was ever wrong, but I don't know how long he is gonna keep hiding out like this.
 
Fatclimber said:
I went over there and read a few pages to see if ignoramuses were still standing by armstrong, didn't come across much of that. Did find this little gem though:
This is typical behavior for Empfield: Defend until it is indefensible. Now that he is not banning people left and right for pointing out the obvious (that Armstrong is a doper), the rational points of view come to the fore.
 
Aug 17, 2009
125
0
0
Yes the tide has turned, and boy it is turning fast! A tsunami of fanboy tears for Lance rushes back out to sea even faster... it is going to get ugly!

But when will Empfield finally editorialize about the reasoned decision? Will he abandon his veiled attacks on USADA? Will he admit that judge Sparky was right on USADA process being robust (even though Lance skipped it)? Will he comment on the reasoned decision? Will he come clean and admit he was blinded by his bromance with Lance and that his attack of USADA was based on a bromance rather than any real concern about USADA process? Will he take a mea culpa?

I note Empfield today recently threatened to lock a thread on Trek, instead of having moderators issue warnings and removing off-topic and unpleasantries. If Empfield ran this forum it would never have got off the ground, all the threads would be locked. And look how much this forum has revealed when exploration is left free of interference.
 
Sep 29, 2012
422
0
0
Empfield is a tool. Don't hold your breath.

You also have Coolhand who is at least as big a tool and shows no sign of coming off the bandwagon.
 
May 21, 2010
581
0
0
Over on their Lance thread they seem to believe that Lance might be making some sort of speech tonight and possibly a mea culpa. Have we been upstaged?
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Lance must realize that he needs to tell the Livestrongs what to think, or else they will start thinking at the direction of somebody else.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
BroDeal said:
I think they are getting that info from The Clinic.
And both camps are wrong. All he will say (if he even addresses it) will be the same old drivel we have heard all along. Armstrong will never admit it. He is Pete Rose on steroids...
 
Aug 17, 2009
125
0
0
From the twit

"Nike’s massaging of the Armstrong affair is not likely to please anyone (see Deadspin’s take), as the anti-Armstrong forces believe Nike stood loyally by Armstrong for too long, while the pro-Armstrong forces won’t be happy that Nike has chosen to sever ties, even at this late date."

Empfield, there are no "pro-Armstrong forces", there are just folks that are realizing they have been duped, folks coming to terms with having the rug pulled out from under them. They just need time. You are one of the last of your so called "pro-Armstrong forces" standing and god knows why. There isn't an army of you LOL. How can Empfield write that clap-trap?

"Pro-Armstrong forces" is a figment of Empfield's imagination.
 
Jul 7, 2009
583
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Hell, the asswipe who works in Sensenbrenner's office who wrote the letter Sensenbrenner signed a couple of months ago posts there regularly. That place is a cesspool of stupidity.

Still got those Honey stinger ads up though...
That site's new to me. What a hoot !
Cesspool of stupidity, ha hah ha !
Old clapped out guys using mirrors and dope to relive their glory days.
The older I get, the better I was.
Just too much!
 
Dan Empfield's latest idiocy:


i have absolutely no knowledge of texas law, and of what was in the agreement, what stipulations were made, and what outs were available. i'm only using my intuition, which flows from the fact that SCA and armstrong reached a settlement. i think what's typical in such cases is that each side stipulates that this is it, this is all, all claims are satisfied, end of story. mutual releases. done.

if this is the case, i think it's hard to go back and relitigate this. even if it turns out lance didn't win those tours because of retroactive stripping of the titles.

this is one of the few elements remaining that is still of interest to me, not because it's lance-related, but because i think it's an interesting legal question. if SCA can and does prevail, i think this does open the door for one more possible next step, which is a civil case armstrong could bring against USADA that might actually be heard in state or federal court. while the federal court had no jurisdiction in the doping case, it might in a civil case, because of the loss of property suffered. that would get armstrong what he wanted, which was to hear the case in civil court, where he has much more liberal discovery rules, and greater access to depositions and the like.

realize this is me, the guy who has no training beyond high school civics class. so, take that for what it's worth.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman


Yup. Armstrong losing a suit to SCA would be a good thing because it will allow Armstrong to sue the USADA and get his day in court. I guess Slowman forgot that Armstrong would have to testify under oath in any such trial. Empfield will say anything to pretend that his concerns about the system's fairness was not him parroting Armstrong's defense's talking points.
 
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
BroDeal said:
Dan Empfield's latest idiocy:


i have absolutely no knowledge of texas law, and of what was in the agreement, what stipulations were made, and what outs were available. i'm only using my intuition, which flows from the fact that SCA and armstrong reached a settlement. i think what's typical in such cases is that each side stipulates that this is it, this is all, all claims are satisfied, end of story. mutual releases*. done.

if this is the case, i think it's hard to go back and relitigate this. even if it turns out lance didn't win those tours because of retroactive stripping of the titles.

this is one of the few elements remaining that is still of interest to me, not because it's lance-related, but because i think it's an interesting legal question. if SCA can and does prevail, i think this does open the door for one more possible next step, which is a civil case armstrong could bring against USADA that might actually be heard in state or federal court. while the federal court had no jurisdiction in the doping case, it might in a civil case, because of the loss of property suffered. that would get armstrong what he wanted, which was to hear the case in civil court, where he has much more liberal discovery rules, and greater access to depositions and the like.

realize this is me, the guy who has no training beyond high school civics class. so, take that for what it's worth.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman


Yup. Armstrong losing a suit to SCA would be a good thing because it will allow Armstrong to sue the USADA and get his day in court. I guess Slowman forgot that Armstrong would have to testify under oath in any such trial. Empfield will say anything to pretend that his concerns about the system's fairness was not him parroting Armstrong's defense's talking points.
Many thanks for sharing this. This way we can read the claptrap here instead of giving more hits to slowtwitch and hence more money.
This guy is a piece of work, I only made it through high school civics but here is how you sue the US government and win! I would imagine he is of the ilk who paid money to go to the seminars where guys brag that they get rich not paying their taxes...

* Major Freudian slip by an Armstrong adoring Empfield :eek:
 
http://www.slowtwitch.com/Opinion/The_Entire_Lance_Armstrong_3193.html

I don't know who introduced Lance Armstrong to performance enhancers. There are two likely suspects who come to mind, but they're my private guesses. I did not ask Lance when I visited him earlier this year at his home. It's not my business to know. He's not admitted to me that he doped. He is not happy with me that I no longer accept that he didn't dope. Now we don't talk.
 
thehog said:
http://www.slowtwitch.com/Opinion/The_Entire_Lance_Armstrong_3193.html

I don't know who introduced Lance Armstrong to performance enhancers. There are two likely suspects who come to mind, but they're my private guesses. I did not ask Lance when I visited him earlier this year at his home. It's not my business to know. He's not admitted to me that he doped. He is not happy with me that I no longer accept that he didn't dope. Now we don't talk.
Rejection hurts.

Where is the picture of that bawling kid?

Dave.
 
thehog said:
He’d driven it from Plano, Texas, to join a new cycling team just forming, backed by Tom Weisel of Montgomery Securities, coached and managed by Eddy Borysewicz

Oh yeah... No doping on THAT team:rolleyes:

Would the chief executive of Trek Bicycle Corporation prefer to lead the $350 million company he ran when his business first contracted with Lance in 1996? Or does he prefer the $700 million company he now runs, after Lance, 15 years later?

With or without Wonderboy, Trek would be in the same place. There's no way this Wonderboy-lover could possibly see that though...
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
So many people couldn't see the obvious and still dont want to see it.

Slowtwitch is their intelligence level!
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
He’d driven it from Plano, Texas, to join a new cycling team just forming, backed by Tom Weisel of Montgomery Securities, coached and managed by Eddy Borysewicz

Oh yeah... No doping on THAT team:rolleyes:

Would the chief executive of Trek Bicycle Corporation prefer to lead the $350 million company he ran when his business first contracted with Lance in 1996? Or does he prefer the $700 million company he now runs, after Lance, 15 years later?

With or without Wonderboy, Trek would be in the same place. There's no way this Wonderboy-lover could possibly see that though...
Incorporate adjustments for 15 years of bicycle manufacturer purchases that added to revenue growth and 15 years CPI adjustment to compare apples with apples and the Lance effect does not look so spectacular.

Love the comment

Do you remember the mountain stage when, on those tires three-quarters of an inch wide, he took the fall line through the dirt to get from one patch of pavement to the next after having been run off the road by a cyclist falling in front of him?
Poor Lance. Even riders are deliberately crashing in front of him.
 
SlowtwitchLeaks said:
Yep, in Empfield's mind Beloki hit the pavement and ended his career that day... JUST TO RUN LANCE OFF THE ROAD!!!
IIRC at the time the race jury had to decide whether to DQ Armstrong because he cut the course instead of re-entering at the spot he left it. It was determined that he did not gain any advantage by doing so and therefore no DQ or penalty. Sure, it was bad luck getting caught up in Beloki's spill but there have been countless instances over the history of cycling of time lost in critical moments by key contenders. Maybe other riders would have received the same favourable judgement also, but we know that Armstrong certainly did receive a positive outcome, waiving the normal rules for his benefit. With what we know now, if Beloki had gone off and cut the corner rejoining with Armstrong below, would he have received the same? Beloki was pushing Armstrong hard that year. Maybe a quick phone call to his UCI friends would have solved that issue for him? :rolleyes:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts