jimmypop said:Uh-oh, I took the bait. Nice to see you, back, ______ !
Pssst. Yo jimmy, he's not _ _ _ , he's just independently obtuse.
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
jimmypop said:Uh-oh, I took the bait. Nice to see you, back, ______ !
Hugh Januss said:Pssst. Yo jimmy, he's not _ _ _ , he's just independently obtuse.
jimmypop said:Unpossible! Has to at least be a close blood relative!
Dallas_ said:No, you are wrong eleven. It passed legal muster at SI as stated previously
No, it's not fact. That's the point. SI is sometimes wrong. On most of the Armstrong story, they are probably right. On the Hemassist portion, they are wrong. Time will bear that out.Plus SI check all sources. There are no grey areas here - that is all facts in the article.
Colm.Murphy said:...possession is a doping violation, and a violation of their USPS contract.
...who in turn review the legal implications, and then forward over for fact checking and legal review, so, yes, the story HAD to go through a legal review. Only items that could be fact-checked, substantiated and prevent a lawsuit made it in the (any) credible article.
Oh, how wrong you are. Filing an lawsuit for injunctive relief would most certainly been their route to getting the article frozen in its tracks. The fact that they did no such thing is enough indication that their claim would have failed and they'd be looking even more foolish. Please recall that Lance pulled the same maneuver to prevent the Walsh/Ballister book from being printed in English. Only the French version got printed.
If you'd like to go round and round, fine. Maybe a bit of fact checking of your own would help you overcome these ill-informed positions you seem to be taking?
You people are hilarious. The least bit of dissent in the tinfoil brigade and you go about accusing people of being trolls etc... You must be a pleasure at cocktail parties.jimmypop said:But, since you're actually _______, you're not here to debate, only to troll.
eleven said:I'm not sure which newspaper you are confusing with SI. SI is under no obligation, nor did they take heed of any warning to, run any story through a legal process.
eleven said:Look, this isn't my first post on this board. I realize fully that any post that even hints at the slightest notion that the poster might not believe hook-line-sinker in every anti-Armstrong conspiracy will be dismissed and face ad hominem attacks. The hilarious part is that I'm just as certain as everyone else that he's guilty of certain charges - I just don't buy into the one that are false just to stroke egos of forum participants and sycophants.
sniper said:+1 for the claritiy and information density of this post.
Hadn't heard before about the Walsh/Ballister English version being prohibited due to Lance taking legal action. Interesting.
Susan Westemeyer said:And you know this how? Source?
Susan
eleven said:In a thread (and a forum) chock full of a wide range of unsubstantiated innuendo and claims, why would my above quote be the one requiring a "source"? If there's a source, it's obviously not a public one. No different than CN running "people aware of the investigation" etc...claims.
The facts will surely come to light in due time.
Susan Westemeyer said:Because you stated it as an absolute fact, no "sources say" or whatever.
eleven said:"Sources" have told me the above information. I'll edit the post appropriately. I apologize for any confusion.
Race Radio said:I first heard about Baxter almost 10 years ago from an Armstrong teammate.
eleven said:That's convenient. In 2011.
eleven said:that's because the hemassist story can not be confirmed..because it's simply not true.
eleven said:"Sources" have told me the above information. I'll edit the post appropriately. I apologize for any confusion.
Race Radio said:I have written about here, and other forums for years. The story has been know for years. Wonderboy was a bit too vocal about getting a hold of the killer new stuff.
It is not surprising that what he tells people today is much different then what he said 13 years ago when he wasn't the subject of a Federal investigation.
it is quite funny that people suddenly want one to divulge "credible sources" after all of the myriad claims, charges etc...levied here every day that go without source.DirtyWorks said:Still waiting for your credible source on this claim.
jimmypop said:So, why are posters like this allowed to continue to stir the pot for the sake of stirring the pot?
I'm inclined to put more weight behind the SI story than, say, a random Internet fanboy who's asserting that the target of a federal investigation is indeed innocent of one of the main charges likely to be brought against said target.
It must really kill people like you that your mancrush is in legal trouble. I actually don't understand this position: since you're willing to explain away any data, you'll also be able to rationalize any potential conviction in the future just as easily.
It's tough, I know, since Armstrong cured your cancer or something. It's why he bed so many women: one touch of that remaining testicle and you're immortal. Dude can't shower anywhere.
eleven said:^This is a new level of sand in which ones head must be buried. Let me try this one more time: I agree with most posters here that Armstrong is in jeopardy on several fronts, and an "un-named source" agrees. No one seems to bother with that. According to an "un-named source," he is in no jeopardy related to the charge of "access to" Hemassist because that portion of the story is incorrect.
eleven said:^This is a new level of sand in which ones head must be buried. Let me try this one more time: I agree with most posters here that Armstrong is in jeopardy on several fronts, and an "un-named source" agrees. No one seems to bother with that. According to an "un-named source," he is in no jeopardy related to the charge of "access to" Hemassist because that portion of the story is incorrect.
eleven said:it is quite funny that people suddenly want one to divulge "credible sources" after all of the myriad claims, charges etc...levied here every day that go without source.
Heck, even the article being discussed relies on "unnamed sources".
So, I have an un-named source. Thanks.