The Article: WSJ - reopened!

[Berzin]

Another victim of apparent media hype. Let me "tell you of my past involvement in doping" - answer: I have not been involved. Apparently I still question the supposition.

Ah, more trolling.

If these were the answers given by the riders in question, then why would they request not to have their names revealed?

Don't bother answering, I already know what you're going to say.

It's what makes trolls so boring-the predictability of their responses.

 

[Anonymous]

I think his "attack" (pretty strong word) is on people making statements not asking questions.

I'm sorry, where was the question in your posts?

 

[goober]

I'm sorry, where was the question in your posts?

There was no question in my post. FYI - My posts are typically observations of illogical statements not questions. These statements sometimes get categorized as trolling since they contradict their illogical thoughts.

 

[Barrus]

There was no question in my post. FYI - My posts are typically observations of illogical statements not questions. These statements sometimes get categorized as trolling since they contradict their illogical thoughts.

Or perhaps due to the fact that you bring nothing yourself to the discussion.

Does anyone around here know at what time the WSJ comes out?

 

[Berzin]

There was no question in my post. FYI - My posts are typically observations of illogical statements not questions. These statements sometimes get categorized as trolling since they contradict their illogical thoughts.

Unlike in your make-believe world, where the shyte in Da-Nile runs south to north, the facts are going to hit you straight in the face this time.

Have fun watching this year's Tour.

 

[Anonymous]

There was no question in my post. FYI - My posts are typically observations of illogical statements not questions. These statements sometimes get categorized as trolling since they contradict their illogical thoughts.

So, you find it logical to believe that two riders named by Landis told the Feds nothing and wanted their names protected for fear of reprisal for having said they knew nothing? That is what passes for logic inyour world? Mmmkay

 

[goober]

Wait, so it is the opinion of the Armstrong apologists that 2 people named by Landis have spoken to the Feds honestly regarding the questions asked by investigators, and do not want their names released for fear of reprisal during the Tour, and that means they could have just said they didn't dope? Okay, blind denial seems to once again rule the day in your lollipop world of candy and cream soda. Ask yourself this: what would they have to hide if they had said they knew nothing?

I don't have to ask those questions - I refuse to become a media puppet and read into that whole paragraph as the author's want. When there is true substance to anything stated in that paragraph I will pay attention.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Ah, more trolling.

If these were the answers given by the riders in question, then why would they request not to have their names revealed?

Don't bother answering, I already know what you're going to say.

It's what makes trolls so boring-the predictability of their responses.

No, let him answer, please. I am really curious to see where he is gonna go for a come back this time.
Hincapie says:" Maybe if nobody knows I went there nobody will know I lied and said I didn't know anything about doping. Whew, I'm in the clear then."

 

[Anonymous]

There was no question in my post. FYI - My posts are typically observations of illogical statements not questions. These statements sometimes get categorized as trolling since they contradict their illogical thoughts.

Your first post makes it clear that you didn't even read the article before posting something critical about what was being discussed. It appears now that you didn't actually understand the implications of what was written. I would suggest maybe being a bit more informed before you fly off the top rope next time.

 

[goober]

So, you find it logical to believe that two riders named by Landis told the Feds nothing and wanted their names protected for fear of reprisal for having said they knew nothing? That is what passes for logic inyour world? Mmmkay

You are a media puppet. Once there is substance I will pay attention to such a statement by the author's of that article.

 

[goober]

Your first post makes it clear that you didn't even read the article before posting something critical about what was being discussed. It appears now that you didn't actually understand the implications of what was written. I would suggest maybe being a bit more informed before you fly off the top rope next time.

You are a very confused individual. As I have tried to show you come to conclusions with little understanding or no facts.

 

[Berzin]

Does anyone around here know at what time the WSJ comes out?

It hits the stands around 5 in the morning EST.

I got an advance e-copy and printed the front page for the benefit of everyone on this site-

 

[Hugh Januss]

I don't have to ask those questions - I refuse to become a media puppet and read into that whole paragraph as the author's want. When there is true substance to anything stated in that paragraph I will pay attention.

OK, didn't see that coming. If you try to think for yourself and try to figure out the real meaning of 'media speak', that is what makes you a media puppet.
Good job, you even fail at failing.

 

[Publicus]

Another victim of apparent media hype. Let me "tell you of my past involvement in doping" - answer: I have not been involved. Apparently I still question the supposition.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but I think the plain meaning of the below paragraph is clear:

At least two of the people Landis implicated said they had met with investigators to tell of their past involvement with doping. They did not provide details of those meetings, but both said they were honest in responding to the investigators’ questions. Those men, long followers of cycling’s code of silence that kept doping a secret, did not want their names published for fear of retribution during racing at the Tour.

If you have nothing to say (i.e, no past doping involvement), you have no reason to fear retribution for saying so. At least in the reality based world.

EDIT: Just read the subsequent posts after the response I replied to.... You are either being wilfully ignorant of the plain meaning of words, or you have a serious reading comprehension deficiency. In either event, let's just agree to disagree about the meaning of the above-referenced paragraph and we can go about our collective business.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Apparently now there is a loaded word. On this forum it generally means: "I really have no idea but I think I heard someone mention it somewhere"

Eaxamples of 'apparently' include:

Apparently LA is going to be called home by the Feds this week, or was it last week or the week before (apparently not as it turned out)
Apparently LA will not ride the TdS (but apparently he did)
Apparently LA will look for an excuse not to ride the Tour (one of Colm's favourite 'apparently's') but apparently he is.

It is apparent that apparently is used with a great degree of freedom around here.

I think Mr. Armstrong will be looking for quite a many excuses come the weeks end.

Speculation is part of the game. I did not realize how being wrong was such an issue. I guess I apologize for guessing 'wrong' >shrug<.

What will you do this weekend, when you are faced with having been wrong? I suggest a stout bike ride, because it really does not matter, though if you do want to concede to the points of whatever is revealed, I will be all ears.

 

[Hugh Januss]

You are entitled to your own opinion, but I think the plain meaning of the below paragraph is clear:



If you have nothing to say (i.e, no past doping involvement), you have no reason to fear retribution for saying so. At least in the reality based world.

Fortunately Goober lives in Mayberry and is not tied down by the petty constraints of the 'reality based world'.

 

[goober]

OK, didn't see that coming. If you try to think for yourself and try to figure out the real meaning of 'media speak', that is what makes you a media puppet.
Good job, you even fail at failing.

Illogical as usual.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Illogical as usual.

That's all, just

 

[Anonymous]

I don't have to ask those questions - I refuse to become a media puppet and read into that whole paragraph as the author's want. When there is true substance to anything stated in that paragraph I will pay attention.

Then why come here and make comments...I mean, do you just need to get your "I feel superior" fix by climbing onto the ring a swinging wildly in a show of defiance against something you claim not to care about all that much? You are so much more transparent than you realize. It's quite funny. But hey, if you would rather play that game than actulally providing opinion and commentary, be my guest.

Me, I think what we can say is that the cracks are starting to appear, and that the credibility of Landis' revelations as questioned by The Hog, The Uniballer, and Fat McQuaid is looking better. I doubt that means that the Feds have even 10% of the evidence they need, but it does look like they are gaining some traction. I think it quite logical to believe that the days of dismissing this as some unethical vendetta are quickly coming to a close.

 

[Hugh Januss]

That's all, just

hhhhhhhhh////

 

[Barrus]

It hits the stands around 5 in the morning EST.

so another two hour wait, damn this is getting hard. Should probably try to get some work done prior to that time

 

[Publicus]

Well there was at least a bit of good news for Armstrong:

Officials involved in the investigation said the inquiry was not likely to disrupt the Tour. It’s much too early for any arrests to be made, they said, particularly when the case is focusing on those who bankrolled the operation. Fraud investigations are prone to move slowly because of the paperwork involved and the amount of detailed evidence that is necessary for a conviction.

So he can ride his final Tour in relative peace.

 

[Anonymous]

You are a very confused individual. As I have tried to show you come to conclusions with little understanding or no facts.

Shhh..."tried" being the operative word Grasshopper...

As for the rest, you seem only to have insult in your arsenal now. The rest of your powder is wet. Well, might as well use the weakest form of rhetoric you have. The mocking laugh you cannot hear is filled with delicious amounts of amusement.

I look forward to the next article.

 

[MacRoadie]

You are a media puppet. Once there is substance I will pay attention to such a statement by the author's of that article.

Hmmmm, this sounds vaguely familiar.... Where have I heard it before?

"I blame Al-Jazeera - they are marketing for the Americans!"

"The Americans, they always depend on a method what I call ... stupid, silly. All I ask is check yourself. Do not in fact repeat their lies."

"I can assure you that those villains will recognize, will discover in appropriate time in the future how stupid they are and how they are pretending things which have never taken place."

"The American press is all about lies! All they tell is lies, lies and more lies!"

"I have detailed information about the situation...which completely proves that what they allege are illusions . . . They lie every day."

"Lying is forbidden in Iraq. President Saddam Hussein will tolerate nothing but truthfulness as he is a man of great honor and integrity. Everyone is encouraged to speak freely of the truths evidenced in their eyes and hearts."

Ah, yes. Now I remember...

 

[Hugh Januss]

Well there was at least a bit of good news for Armstrong:



So he can ride his final Tour in relative peace.

Possibly why he announced it to be his last?
I am wondering, if fraud is the angle the gov. is going for, can LA argue it was not fraud if everyone was doing it. And will he name names to back that up.