The Mike Anderson story

[the big ring]

I'm thinking it's willful.

None of my socks or puppets can read either...

 

[QuickStepper]

I stand corrected. Mike says in post #129 above, the following in response to Webster:

I'll add that his attorneys challenged us to spend the money to find the email using forensic computer analysis, which we did successfully. Somewhere out there is a copy.

You are right Elagabalus. My apologies. I missed that in my first reading of his response.

Still, it sure would be interesting if Mike could tell us specifically what he recalls of the details, other than just referring to the fact that they discussed the concept of his ideas for a shop.

The rest of you crack me up though. If I were truly in on Armstrong's camp, I'd already know all the details and wouldn't need to be asking Mike directly about them, would I?

 

[the big ring]

I stand corrected. Mike says in post #129 above, the following in response to Webster:



You are right Elagabalus. My apologies. I missed that in my first reading of his response.

You highlighted the wrong bit.

The first is addressed by the above. However, I'll add that his attorneys challenged us to spend the money to find the email using forensic computer analysis, which we did successfully. Somewhere out there is a copy.

 

[QuickStepper]

You highlighted the wrong bit.

Do you need to make the type big and red? Does that change the fact that I acknowledged Elagabalus was correct, that Mike said they had found the e-mail?

Sock-puppetry, indeed. You guys should just get a room.

 

[the big ring]

The rest of you crack me up though. If I were truly in on Armstrong's camp, I'd already know all the details and wouldn't need to be asking Mike directly about them, would I?

You are essentially challenging Mike to prove his claims. Misrepresenting what he has said, or flat out denying he has said it. When the words are right there on these pages.

It is tantamount to intimidation.

A very standard LA MO.

Whether you know the details or not is irrelevant.

 

[the big ring]

Do you need to make the type big and red? Does that change the fact that I acknowledged Elagabalus was correct, that Mike said they had found the e-mail?

Explain why you highlighted the section you did?

The fact you acknowledged Elagabalus is irrelevant, given you started with the premise he was incorrect, after reading numerous posts at least twice. Everyone else already knew he was correct.

Methinks you are reading with a special yellow filter.

I highlighted in red because black doesn't appear to be getting through.

You remind me of Krebs Cycle and his constant inabilty to string meaninful research and analysis together, claiming all the while to have a PhD in exercise physiology, basing his arguments on "research and analysis".

Lawyers are either reading or writing, and you appear to fail at both, often.

 

[LauraLyn]

You are essentially challenging Mike to prove his claims. Misrepresenting what he has said, or flat out denying he has said it. When the words are right there on these pages.

It is tantamount to intimidation.

A very standard LA MO.

Whether you know the details or not is irrelevant.

Apologies. It has been my fault. I challenged RaceRadio and I should not have. RaceRadio stated that there were written plans contained in Mike's deposition and I stated that this was not the case. I was wrong and I should not have challenged RaceRadio on this point.

I also challenged RaceRadio's claim that he chatted with Sheryl Crow and she told him the content of her testimony to the Federal prosecutor and grand jury. I should not have challenged RaceRadio on this either.

There are some people we are not allowed to challenge here, and I should be more respectful of that.

Sincere apologies.

 

[LauraLyn]

Explain why you highlighted the section you did?

The fact you acknowledged Elagabalus is irrelevant, given you started with the premise he was incorrect, after reading numerous posts at least twice. Everyone else already knew he was correct.

Methinks you are reading with a special yellow filter.

I highlighted in red because black doesn't appear to be getting through.

You remind me of Krebs Cycle and his constant inabilty to string meaninful research and analysis together, claiming all the while to have a PhD in exercise physiology, basing his arguments on "research and analysis".

Lawyers are either reading or writing, and you appear to fail at both, often.

Big Ring: Is it a 55 or a 56 you ride with?

Remind me of how Lance Armstrong addressed those with whom he disagreed. I think we all need to take a lesson from Mike.

 

[JRTinMA]

troll babble

Keep it on topic please. Take your rediculous issues with the poster to PM.

 

[Velodude]

Apologies. It has been my fault. I challenged RaceRadio and I should not have. RaceRadio stated that there were written plans contained in Mike's deposition and I stated that this was not the case. I was wrong and I should not have challenged RaceRadio on this point.

I also challenged RaceRadio's claim that he chatted with Sheryl Crow and she told him the content of her testimony to the Federal prosecutor and grand jury. I should not have challenged RaceRadio on this either.

There are some people we are not allowed to challenge here, and I should be more respectful of that.

Sincere apologies.

Someone should design a tongue-in-cheek emoticon for this forum!

:-J

 

[sittingbison]

if anyone is in any doubt as to the pressures brought to bare on Mike, Betsy, Frankie, Emma et al, all has been revealed by Quickstepper, LauraLyn, KayLow and Webster. I struggle to recall reading such insincere innuendo.

Mike Anderson has not claimed to be a paladin, he is not whining and complaining at his lot. He is telling the story of Armstrong behaviour to friends, employees and colleaugues from a personal perspective. A story repeated endlessly, because Armstrong is incapable of acting otherwise.

 

[LauraLyn]

. . . .
Mike Anderson has not claimed to be a paladin, he is not whining and complaining at his lot. He is telling the story of Armstrong behaviour to friends, employees and colleagues from a personal perspective. A story repeated endlessly, because Armstrong is incapable of acting otherwise.

Really agree. But I think you sell Mike a bit short. He is not only telling the story of Lance's behavior toward people, a story that needs to be told and retold, but he is also providing us with an example of how to react to Lance and how to move on from the injustices. I find it admirable.

Anna Zimmerman's blog, also from Austin, also helps us to understand how to deal with Lance's irrational behavior. Anna is a gifted writer and an excellent legal scholar.

 

[sittingbison]

Really agree. But I think you sell Mike a bit short. He is not only telling the story of Lance's behavior toward people, a story that needs to be told and retold, but he is also providing us with an example of how to react to Lance and how to move on from the injustices. I find it admirable.

Anna Zimmerman's blog, also from Austin, also helps us to understand how to deal with Lance's irrational behavior. Anna is a gifted writer and an excellent legal scholar.

Taking the expression "damned with faint praise" to another level

 

[LauraLyn]

Taking the expression "damned with faint praise" to another level

Probably the word you were looking for was "feigned".

Making "feigned" personal attacks on contributors does not contribute to the discussion, nor do they contribute to your own character. Again, I think some people here could take a lesson from Mike and Anna.

 

[ChrisE]

Taking the expression "damned with faint praise" to another level

I've read this thread today with interest, and I still can't find what Laura did to stir you guys up. Can you specifically boil it down for me? Thanks.

I can understand the venom towards QS and Webster because I know how the clinic is, though obviously I don't have a problem with people asking hard questions. Keep up the good work webster and QS.

I find texpat a sympathetic figure, and I have actually started looking at this on a more personal level. Even so, I will never get the cultish activities of the mob in here with the pathetic groupthink and attack on those that are not as rabid.

 

[trailrunner]

Making "feigned" personal attacks on contributors does not contribute to the discussion, nor do they contribute to your own character. Again, I think some people here could take a lesson from Mike and Anna.

Gotta love an altruistic poster who joins the forum six or seven weeks ago and now feels like she can tell everyone how to behave.

Quit whining about personal attacks (which the post about damned with faint praise was NOT), quit whining about how people on these boards behave, quit with your insecure apologies, and stick to the topic, which I thought was about cycling.

 

[LauraLyn]

I've read this thread today with interest, and I still can't find what Laura did to stir you guys up. Can you specifically boil it down for me? Thanks.

I can understand the venom towards QS and Webster because I know how the clinic is, though obviously I don't have a problem with people asking hard questions. Keep up the good work webster and QS.

I find texpat a sympathetic figure, and I have actually started looking at this on a more personal level. Even so, I will never get the cultish activities of the mob in here with the pathetic groupthink and attack on those that are not as rabid.

Thank you, ChrisE. I do think, with regard to me, it was my fault. I disagreed with RaceRadio regarding Mike and Lance having drawn up written plans for a bike shop. I said that was not the case, and I should not have said that. I also made light of RaceRadio's claim that he chatted with Sheryl Crow and she disclosed to him the content of her testimony to the federal prosecutor and the grand jury. Again, I should not have done that.

Lance Armstrong has hurt a lot of people. I can understand that feelings run high and suspicions easily surface. We need to be patient in the discussion, but also we should try to be correct and sympathetic to other points of view, as you suggest.

 

[Ferminal]

Where did Race Radio say Sheryl Crow disclosed the content of any testimonies she made? How is this relevant to Mike Anderson?

 

[ChrisE]

Thank you, ChrisE. I do think, with regard to me, it was my fault. I disagreed with RaceRadio regarding Mike and Lance having drawn up written plans for a bike shop. I said that was not the case, and I should not have said that. I also made light of RaceRadio's claim that he chatted with Sheryl Crow and she disclosed to him the content of her testimony to the federal prosecutor and the grand jury. Again, I should not have done that.

Lance Armstrong has hurt a lot of people. I can understand that feelings run high and suspicions easily surface. We need to be patient in the discussion, but also we should try to be correct and sympathetic to other points of view, as you suggest.

I questioned the MJ story as well, and texpat specifically replied to my post with an explanation. Apparently texpat didn't take as much offense to our questioning as much as the forum mob did. QS then asked a follow up to his explanation. Whatever.

You are a strange person, though. Your concilliatory tone seems odd. No offense. I don't follow why you feel like you should question something. Perhaps you are being sarcastic.

RR was joking about Sheryl Crow btw. RR needs to be questioned; he tends to embellish to put LA in the worst possible light, outside of reality. He is chest pumping right now, and his galactic miscalculation on the federal investigation is a long gone memory so let him have his fun.

And, while we are tossing around advice at least try to act like something ****es you off.

 

[sittingbison]

I've read this thread today with interest, and I still can't find what Laura did to stir you guys up. Can you specifically boil it down for me?...

Sure ChrisE

INSINCERITY

That boiled down enough?

BTW insincere people, this thread is about Mike Anderson's article. Please stop derailling by dropping names completely irrelevant to this thread. You know who you are.

 

[ChrisE]

Where did Race Radio say Sheryl Crow disclosed the content of any testimonies she made? How is this relevant to Mike Anderson?

In post 133. I don't believe him.

 

[ChrisE]

Sure ChrisE

INSINCERITY

That boiled down enough?

BTW insincere people, this thread is about Mike Anderson's article. Please stop derailling by dropping names completely irrelevant to this thread. You know who you are.

LOL. You get that from reading a post? You don't even know her. I agree as I stated upthread it's odd she is so difficult to rile up and her apologies toward RR should have some emoticons if she is not serious.

Don't know WTH you are talking about in the last paragraph. Is this some type of code talk?

 

[Neworld]

I know of two recent hero's

M. Anderson

Dr. Ashendon

Thank you for your the tenacity to endure all that spite and vitriol, and the morality to make hard but solid decisions even when it seems like the outcomes are futile and even destroys your future.

You two men are true heros.

PS: The other recent article in Outside magazine by Bill Strickland is as close to nonsense and propelling the Omerta as the usefulness in allowing Lance to autologously blood dope in public before a race. Mr. Strickland you are amoral and a sad sad sports journalist. Shame on you.

NW

 

[LauraLyn]

Where did Race Radio say Sheryl Crow disclosed the content of any testimonies she made? How is this relevant to Mike Anderson?

Page 13, #123 of this thread on Mike Anderson. You will have to ask RaceRadio how it is related to Mike Anderson. I could not understand it either.

At first I found it difficult to believe. But I have since been informed that RaceRadio has an inside line on many things. I respect his statements.

 

[LauraLyn]

I know of two recent hero's

M. Anderson

Dr. Ashendon

Thank you for your the tenacity to endure all that spite and vitriol, and the morality to make hard but solid decisions even when it seems like the outcomes is futile and even destroys your future.

You two men are true heros.

PS: The other recent article in Outside magazine by Bill Strickland is as close to nonsense and propelling the Omerta as the usefulness in allowing Lance to autologously blood dope in public before a race. Mr. Strickland you are amoral and a sad sad sports journalist. Shame on you.

NW

Perpetuating the omerta p***es me off, unabashedly and unapologetically.