So what's the new scandal?

[Race Radio]

anyone who has a clue realizes that in the legal world such speculation is basically bar talk.

Which is essentially what a online forum is, bar talk.

 

[sublimit]

I think the expectations of Armstrong landing in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison are unlikely. The real damage will be done in the court of public opinion, and that does not require a conviction or even an indictment. The media can tear him down on its own.

I think that scenario would do him some good - *** edited by mod ****

But i agree its unlikely to happen. Hopefully he will disappear into oblivion and be forgotten eventually.

 

[JPM London]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Zoncolan]

You do realise the Hogs vacation is all a cover up dont you? He's been approached by the Feds for evidence and had to be kept quiet. Susan works for the feds, and just silenced him for a few weeks in case he gave away too much.

Lances Closet anyone?

As for LA finally being exposed to everyone a liar and a cheat that he is, I don't think they'll throw him in a "pound me in the *** federal prison".
Where did Marion Jones serve her sentence for perjury? Was it a supermax, or some sort of summer camp?

 

[Polish]

Lances Closet anyone?

As for LA finally being exposed to everyone a liar and a cheat that he is, I don't think they'll throw him in a "pound me in the *** federal prison".
Where did Marion Jones serve her sentence for perjury? Was it a supermax, or some sort of summer camp?

Marion was forced to share "cell" with Martha Stewart.
Cruel and unusual punishment - Violation of the Constitution.

 

[Cobblestones]

Marion was forced to share "cell" with Martha Stewart.
Cruel and unusual punishment - Violation of the Constitution.

Tastefully decorated?

 

[Anonymous]

Tastefully decorated?

With killer Blueberry Muffins.

 

[buckwheat]

In a previous life I was a member of the legal profession. Many of the posts in this forum since Flandis resurfaced concern legal issues. In my humble opinion, there appear to be two to three posters here who may have the same background, and anyone who has a clue realizes that in the legal world such speculation is basically bar talk. As I have posted somewhere here on some thread, speculation regarding possible outcome of a (potential) case without being fully grounded in all aspects of persons, depositions, case law, jurisdiction, and many other aspects is a major waste of time (unless you are at a good pub that has some decent Irish).



I post infrequently on the racing threads. I read them frequently. As far as "opinions" I don't like, many of those are stated as fact, which I find to be different than opinions.



What I think may happen is not worth the electrons. I have no clue. I am more interested in what will happen, and that is something we will all find out as events unfold, not through wishful thinking.



I promise not to flame if you will do the same.

Major waste of time?

We are talking about racing and riding bicycles here you know.

We were also talking about golf/ Tiger Woods on some of these threads.

Do you realize that in their totality they are fairly inconsequential topics?

When you mention time, what time are you referring to?

cosmological time?

quantum time?

Time as experienced by humans on a calender or clock?

To quote Johnny Cougar, "nothing matters and what if it did?"

 

[red_flanders]

Ah, "It doesn't matter", the last refuge of the fanboy.

After "He trains harder", "he's got a higher cadence", "the French are out to get him", "Lemond is just jealous", "no, really, Dr. Ferrari is just advising him on his interval training", "those samples were spiked", "the TUE wasn't backdated", "Emma is a hater", "Stephanie was entrapped", "those guys deny that IM", "Betsy is a hater", "some people hate winners", "the doctors have said it didn't happen in that room", "so what if he donated a wing to the hospital", "you can't prove those blood values mean he doped", "sure, the logistics were the reason he dropped Caitlin", "sure, it makes sense that he's stronger on Ventoux than the rest of the Tour", "Floyd is a hater", "Floyd is lying", "Floyd is desperate", and many, many more fanboy quotes I've seen on the forums....

We have arrived. "It doesn't matter."

My only complaint is that it's too early. I'd have waited until someone corroborated Floyd's story. Maybe this is just an early test run? Anyway, I'm pleased we've arrived.

 

[Anonymous]

Ah, "It doesn't matter", the last refuge of the fanboy.

After "He trains harder", "he's got a higher cadence", "the French are out to get him", "Lemond is just jealous", "no, really, Dr. Ferrari is just advising him on his interval training", "those samples were spiked", "the TUE wasn't backdated", "Emma is a hater", "Stephanie was entrapped", "those guys deny that IM", "Betsy is a hater", "some people hate winners", "the doctors have said it didn't happen in that room", "so what if he donated a wing to the hospital", "you can't prove those blood values mean he doped", "sure, the logistics were the reason he dropped Caitlin", "sure, it makes sense that he's stronger on Ventoux than the rest of the Tour", "Floyd is a hater", "Floyd is lying", "Floyd is desperate", and many, many more fanboy quotes I've seen on the forums....

We have arrived. "It doesn't matter."

My only complaint is that it's too early. I'd have waited until someone corroborated Floyd's story. Maybe this is just an early test run? Anyway, I'm pleased we've arrived.

+1

Great post.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You guys must not have got the updated handbook:

 

[peloton]

Ah, "It doesn't matter", the last refuge of the fanboy.

After "He trains harder", "he's got a higher cadence", "the French are out to get him", "Lemond is just jealous", "no, really, Dr. Ferrari is just advising him on his interval training", "those samples were spiked", "the TUE wasn't backdated", "Emma is a hater", "Stephanie was entrapped", "those guys deny that IM", "Betsy is a hater", "some people hate winners", "the doctors have said it didn't happen in that room", "so what if he donated a wing to the hospital", "you can't prove those blood values mean he doped", "sure, the logistics were the reason he dropped Caitlin", "sure, it makes sense that he's stronger on Ventoux than the rest of the Tour", "Floyd is a hater", "Floyd is lying", "Floyd is desperate", and many, many more fanboy quotes I've seen on the forums....

We have arrived. "It doesn't matter."

My only complaint is that it's too early. I'd have waited until someone corroborated Floyd's story. Maybe this is just an early test run? Anyway, I'm pleased we've arrived.

chapeau sir, well put.

 

[Oldman]

Ah, "It doesn't matter", the last refuge of the fanboy.

After "He trains harder", "he's got a higher cadence", "the French are out to get him", "Lemond is just jealous", "no, really, Dr. Ferrari is just advising him on his interval training", "those samples were spiked", "the TUE wasn't backdated", "Emma is a hater", "Stephanie was entrapped", "those guys deny that IM", "Betsy is a hater", "some people hate winners", "the doctors have said it didn't happen in that room", "so what if he donated a wing to the hospital", "you can't prove those blood values mean he doped", "sure, the logistics were the reason he dropped Caitlin", "sure, it makes sense that he's stronger on Ventoux than the rest of the Tour", "Floyd is a hater", "Floyd is lying", "Floyd is desperate", and many, many more fanboy quotes I've seen on the forums....

We have arrived. "It doesn't matter."

My only complaint is that it's too early. I'd have waited until someone corroborated Floyd's story. Maybe this is just an early test run? Anyway, I'm pleased we've arrived.

It's not hard to appreciate a defining moment in sports. This should be a thread title and repository for every similar argument we'll see over the next month....oh wait, there's that pesky open issue...so maybe weeks, days.

 

[goggalor]

You guys must not have got the updated handbook:

 

[oldschoolnik]

You guys must not have got the updated handbook:

This is great. Nice work.

 

[Lances_Closet]

This is great. Nice work.

It is very good

You should have had: Every $88,000 raised from this book goes to buying sysmex blood machines for poor African nations.

and

Phils corner - 10 ways to love Lance even more.

 

[Cal_Joe]

Funny, I am on the cusp of beginning law school. However, to discuss Landis' accusations, and what might happen because of them is merely a topic on a forum. I think everyone knows that their predictions are only that. I don't think anyone seriously believes they know how this will play out......

Remainder of post not quoted.

Thanks for your reasoned response. I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

Again, thanks for your response.

Joe

 

[Cal_Joe]

Which is essentially what a online forum is, bar talk.

I would agree that the content may be the same as bar talk, but the demeanor is not.

Bar talk involves people/groups face to face. An internet forum provides that element of anonymity that sometimes allows or encourages people to say things they would rarely say to someone in person. The amount of personal insults that fly in this forum most likely would involve huge amounts of blood on the floor of most drinking establishments. Which could result in an such an establishment being closed for a period of time.

I hate to see such establishments closed, even for a short period of time.

Thanks for your response.

Joe

 

[Colm.Murphy]

I would agree that the content may be the same as bar talk, but the demeanor is not.

Bar talk involves people/groups face to face. An internet forum provides that element of anonymity that sometimes allows or encourages people to say things they would rarely say to someone in person. The amount of personal insults that fly in this forum most likely would involve huge amounts of blood on the floor of most drinking establishments. Which could result in an such an establishment being closed for a period of time.

I hate to see such establishments closed, even for a short period of time.

Thanks for your response.

Joe

I agree as well.

I have joined and post under me true name, hoping that will present myself in the tone of a face-to-face discussion. It is harder to flame someone you think you know, or who may know you. Sort of defuses the issue.

Anonymity may have value, but I value the insights of true discussion, whether discourse or concurrence.

Despite a distaste for the LinkedIn's and Facebook's of the world, perhaps members here can reveal as they are comfortable and start a group on one of the public sites? This may open us to better, more civilized commentary, and create more of a community, IMHO. Not forcing anyone to "out" themselves, just thinking aloud (or in type).

 

[Cal_Joe]

I pick none of the above, because the choices you offer are trolling in nature.

You present yourself as just another bemused outsider, above the fray, coming on an internet forum where speculation, opinion and innuendo are par for the course to offer...what exactly? Nothing but baiting remarks.

Unfortunately for you your knowledge of the law has no bearing on an internet forum where opinions are tossed about like salads.

So here are YOUR choices-

A) STFU if you have nothing to add. If you don't have the aptitude to post a point/counterpoint to the discussion at hand (something I'm sure you must have learned in law school if you even attended), spare me your idiotic attacks. They are transparent, trite and serve to obfuscate from the original points being discussed. But that is typical troll behavior-make the discussion personal and muddy the waters to cause confusion.

B) Don't patronize. State your obvious stance on the subject which is, "I exist on this forum for one purpose only-to defend my man-crush of Lance Armstrong".

C) Try engaging in the conversation. As was stated by someone who responded with a bit more eloquence than you deserve, you have an opinion? You don't need all the facts at hand to have one. That's why it's called AN OPINION. State it. Or...

D) Refer to point A.

Would you like duck sauce or soy sauce with that turd eggroll you're about to stuff in your mouth?

The slate of international judges has, after long deliberation, awarded a score of 5.2 out of 10.

Three of the four judges had similar comments, as follows -

Points for the obligatory man-crush reference, but the poster did not stick the landing. There was no "fanboy" reference, nor was there an attempt to call out the person as BPC or Arbiter.
"STFU" - major points taken away for using an old tired acronym, and for not being polite.

Points deducted for a circular reference that indicts your post - "your knowledge... has no bearing on an internet forum where opinions are tossed about like salads."

Major points for the flame aspect of the post. We the judges always love a feisty attitude.

Points deducted for "idiotic attacks.... (T)hey are transparent, trite and serve to obfuscate from the original points being discussed." Judges have ruled that this thread has no valid points, therefore a reference to discussion points is rather bizarre.

Points deducted for the assertion that a person must have an opinion when there are no facts to base an opinion on.

The fourth judge was North Korean and awarded you 0 (zero) out of 10 possible points, but they always do that so I wouldn't let that discourage you. The North Korean judge did comment on the "turd" reference - translation of his comment was "Anger much?".

 

[Colm.Murphy]

you guys must not have got the updated handbook:

b-r-a-v-o!!!!

 

[progressor]

The slate of international judges has, after long deliberation, awarded a score of 5.2 out of 10.

Three of the four judges had similar comments, as follows -

Points for the obligatory man-crush reference, but the poster did not stick the landing. There was no "fanboy" reference, nor was there an attempt to call out the person as BPC or Arbiter.
"STFU" - major points taken away for using an old tired acronym, and for not being polite.

Points deducted for a circular reference that indicts your post - "your knowledge... has no bearing on an internet forum where opinions are tossed about like salads."

Major points for the flame aspect of the post. We the judges always love a feisty attitude.

Points deducted for "idiotic attacks.... (T)hey are transparent, trite and serve to obfuscate from the original points being discussed." Judges have ruled that this thread has no valid points, therefore a reference to discussion points is rather bizarre.

Points deducted for the assertion that a person must have an opinion when there are no facts to base an opinion on.

The fourth judge was North Korean and awarded you 0 (zero) out of 10 possible points, but they always do that so I wouldn't let that discourage you. The North Korean judge did comment on the "turd" reference - translation of his comment was "Anger much?".

That's good

Of course you're going to have a hard time getting a point across to people who think that anyone who doesn't agree with them is automatically stupid. But you made me laugh.

 

[Rip:30]

You guys must not have got the updated handbook:

+1x10^6

Where can I order a copy?

 

[patricknd]

The slate of international judges has, after long deliberation, awarded a score of 5.2 out of 10.

Three of the four judges had similar comments, as follows -

Points for the obligatory man-crush reference, but the poster did not stick the landing. There was no "fanboy" reference, nor was there an attempt to call out the person as BPC or Arbiter.
"STFU" - major points taken away for using an old tired acronym, and for not being polite.

Points deducted for a circular reference that indicts your post - "your knowledge... has no bearing on an internet forum where opinions are tossed about like salads."

Major points for the flame aspect of the post. We the judges always love a feisty attitude.

Points deducted for "idiotic attacks.... (T)hey are transparent, trite and serve to obfuscate from the original points being discussed." Judges have ruled that this thread has no valid points, therefore a reference to discussion points is rather bizarre.

Points deducted for the assertion that a person must have an opinion when there are no facts to base an opinion on.

The fourth judge was North Korean and awarded you 0 (zero) out of 10 possible points, but they always do that so I wouldn't let that discourage you. The North Korean judge did comment on the "turd" reference - translation of his comment was "Anger much?".

one of the funniest replies i've seen.

 

[Race Radio]

The slate of international judges has, after long deliberation, awarded a score of 5.2 out of 10.

Three of the four judges had similar comments, as follows -

Points for the obligatory man-crush reference, but the poster did not stick the landing. There was no "fanboy" reference, nor was there an attempt to call out the person as BPC or Arbiter.
"STFU" - major points taken away for using an old tired acronym, and for not being polite.

Points deducted for a circular reference that indicts your post - "your knowledge... has no bearing on an internet forum where opinions are tossed about like salads."

Major points for the flame aspect of the post. We the judges always love a feisty attitude.

Points deducted for "idiotic attacks.... (T)hey are transparent, trite and serve to obfuscate from the original points being discussed." Judges have ruled that this thread has no valid points, therefore a reference to discussion points is rather bizarre.

Points deducted for the assertion that a person must have an opinion when there are no facts to base an opinion on.

The fourth judge was North Korean and awarded you 0 (zero) out of 10 possible points, but they always do that so I wouldn't let that discourage you. The North Korean judge did comment on the "turd" reference - translation of his comment was "Anger much?".

I knew you had it in you Joe