US prosecutors drop case against Armstrong/USPS

[aphronesis]

I don't know if he/she/they are paid or not but something is up.

Referencing Dr Ms post well before the poster joined and the posting style if very different from when they first started posting.

I suggest its not one person but many.

The references to FLoyd and attacking BA is a cliche these days and worn out and the poster only began attacking those yesterday.

If someone had the time to review the posts from start to now you'd see they're not the same person.

Very sad methinks. The lengths the legion will go to.

Long live the forum!!

I made references to Floyd well before yesterday. Nor did I, or have I ever, attacked BA. Referencing a person is not an attack--something that gets lost in here. She's not a sacred being whose name must be invoked with reference by the pagans if it is invoked at all.

Stephens made the entirely reasonable and supported proposal that BA's personal circumstances in 1996 were one thing and her individual stand on the subject completely above reproach.

From there he went on to suggest, however, that if BA best wanted to fight doping and oppressive hierarchies in cycling that fanning the media fight and/or testifying in a case against one individual might not be the best way to do it. There is a difference between the situation in which one finds oneself and the causes that they take on in life.

Immediately, of course, Dr. M caricatured his position as more or less"letting LA's lies live." That was a new perspective on the matter which was, of course, shot down. It tried to make the situation less personal--not more as was typically interpreted.

As to the cliched aspect of FLoyd and BA in this situation as it now stands: that was entirely my point. Glad you got it.

What is sad is that your posts (and a few others in this part of the forum) seem incapable of handling arguments that have more than one aspect and dimension and which do not state, repeat and accord absolutely with the most simplistic and redundant values imaginable in regard to a much more elaborate situation. It might be suggested that a few on here try reading for discursive exposition rather than fixating on name recognition and binary like/don't like reactions.

What a shock that many were taken by the myth in the first place.....

If the posting style seems different, it's because there are fewer people arguing the same 20 moth-eaten facts with me simultaneously and because Susan asked me to take the aggression down a notch.

It can't be said that my remaining interlocutors returned the favor.

 

[ChrisE]

....

What is sad is that your posts (and a few on this forum) seem incapable of handling arguments that have more than one aspect and dimension and which do not state, repeat and accord absolutely with the most simplistic and redundant values imaginable in regard to a much more elaborate situation. It might be suggested that a few on here try reading for discursive exposition rather than fixating on name recognition and binary like/don't like reactions.

If the posting style seems different, it's because there are fewer people arguing the same 20 moth-eaten facts with me simultaneously and because Susan asked me to take the aggression down a notch.

It can't be said that my remaining interlocutors returned the favor.

Ouch. Now that is game, set, match. Nail meet hammer. Too bad your foes have zero self awareness; your accurate assessment of the situation will fall on deaf ears.

BTW, there are even fewer to argue with you now.....buckwheat errrrrrrrrrr Larry Bud Melman just got banned lol.

 

[thehog]

I made references to Floyd well before yesterday. Nor did I, or have I ever, attacked BA. Referencing a person is not an attack--something that gets lost in here. She's not a sacred being whose name must be invoked with reference by the pagans if it is invoked at all.

Stephens made the entirely reasonable and supported proposal that BA's personal circumstances in 1996 were one thing and her individual stand on the subject completely above reproach.

From there he went on to suggest, however, that if BA best wanted to fight doping and oppressive hierarchies in cycling that fanning the media fight and/or testifying in a case against one individual might not be the best way to do it. There is a difference between the situation in which one finds oneself and the causes that they take on in life.

Immediately, of course, Dr. M caricatured his position as more or less"letting LA's lies live." That was a new perspective on the matter which was, of course, shot down inmmediately. It tried to make the situation less personal--not more as was typically interpreted.

As to the cliched aspect of FLoyd and BA in this situation as it now stands: that was entirely my point. Glad you got it.

What is sad is that your posts (and a few others in this part of the forum) seem incapable of handling arguments that have more than one aspect and dimension and which do not state, repeat and accord absolutely with the most simplistic and redundant values imaginable in regard to a much more elaborate situation. It might be suggested that a few on here try reading for discursive exposition rather than fixating on name recognition and binary like/don't like reactions.

What a shock that many were taken by the myth in the first place.....

If the posting style seems different, it's because there are fewer people arguing the same 20 moth-eaten facts with me simultaneously and because Susan asked me to take the aggression down a notch.

It can't be said that my remaining interlocutors returned the favor.

Hmmmmm, nerve, raw, hit.

The knife does indeed cut deep.

You showed your true colours today. You're a Floyd dis-liker pure and simple. You don't like the fact that he manned up and told the truth.

You're an agitator. You like arguing for arguments sake. I think you should go away for a short time and think about what is you're looking for or trying to achieve. Come back when you've resolved some of the personal conflicts within.

I'm disappointed to be honest. Very disappointed.

 

[aphronesis]

Hmmmmm, nerve, raw, hit.

The knife does indeed cut deep.

You showed your true colours today. You're a Floyd dis-liker pure and simple. You don't like the fact that he manned up and told the truth.

You're an agitator. You like arguing for arguments sake. I think you should go away for a short time and think about what is you're looking for or trying to achieve. Come back when you've resolved some of the personal conflicts within.

I'm disappointed to be honest. Very disappointed.

Don't be ridiculous. I have said nothing against Floyd, ever. I have more sympathy for his situation and bind than you could possibly imagine.

And no, I don't like argument for arguments sake. Yesterday I was advancing a fairly simple proposition about several possible factors in play around the ending and explanation of the case. That got lost in the flak. No help from you.

I am equally disappointed. Once you couldn't get Maserati to back out of his rabbit hole you began to question my integrity instead--in the name of keeping the thread open I suppose.

You might take your own advice. Are your posts here advancing discussion or is it merely comfortable after several years of the same?

 

[Race Radio]

Somebody needs to call a plumber

 

[Anonymous]

Somebody needs to call a plumber

I particularly like the trolls calling others trolls.

 

[Cloxxki]

I don't know if he/she/they are paid or not but something is up.

Referencing Dr Ms post well before the poster joined and the posting style if very different from when they first started posting.

I suggest its not one person but many.

The references to FLoyd and attacking BA is a cliche these days and worn out and the poster only began attacking those yesterday.

If someone had the time to review the posts from start to now you'd see they're not the same person.

Very sad methinks. The lengths the legion will go to.

Long live the forum!!

Does Cyclingnews not have a journalistic duty (and mandate as web service) to investigate such posters? Compare IP's with current and former users, note any variety in login IPs etc?
This forum is not only a watercooler thing, it's used as PR in legal matters.

 

[thehog]

Don't be ridiculous. I have said nothing against Floyd, ever. I have more sympathy for his situation and bind than you could possibly imagine.

And no, I don't like argument for arguments sake. Yesterday I was advancing a fairly simple proposition about several possible factors in play around the ending and explanation of the case. That got lost in the flak. No help from you.

I am equally disappointed. Once you couldn't get Maserati to back out of his rabbit hole you began to question my integrity instead--in the name of keeping the thread open I suppose.

You might take your own advice. Are your posts here advancing discussion or is it merely comfortable after several years of the same?

Its ok. I'm not the problem here.

Take a look at the picture below. Look hard. Look deep. You might find what you're truly fighting inside.

 

[thehog]

Don't be ridiculous. I have said nothing against Floyd, ever. I have more sympathy for his situation and bind than you could possibly imagine.

And no, I don't like argument for arguments sake. Yesterday I was advancing a fairly simple proposition about several possible factors in play around the ending and explanation of the case. That got lost in the flak. No help from you.

I am equally disappointed. Once you couldn't get Maserati to back out of his rabbit hole you began to question my integrity instead--in the name of keeping the thread open I suppose.

You might take your own advice. Are your posts here advancing discussion or is it merely comfortable after several years of the same?

I rest my case.

Take some time. Seriously it will do you some good.

Look at the picture below. You might find what it is you're truly looking for.

Good luck. Keep us posted on how you go. I wish you well on your journey.

 

[aphronesis]

I rest my case.

Take some time. Seriously it will do you some good.

Look at the picture below. You might find what it is you're truly looking for.

Good luck. Keep us posted on how you go. I wish you well on your journey.

Post not poster brother.

Can't find one of yours referencing mine in the last several pages that actually discussed the substance of the post. I'd say that bad day at the office does cut deep.

 

[thehog]

The journey begins here.

 

[function]

Ouch. Now that is game, set, match. Nail meet hammer. Too bad your foes have zero self awareness; your accurate assessment of the situation will fall on deaf ears.

BTW, there are even fewer to argue with you now.....buckwheat errrrrrrrrrr Larry Bud Melman just got banned lol.

Nothing new, lack of objectivity is par for the course in the clinic. Disagree with "the few" and you'll immediately get called a troll or paid shill.

 

[Race Radio]

Nothing new, lack of objectivity is par for the course in the clinic. Disagree with "the few" and you'll immediately get called a troll or paid shill.

.....Or flood the board with rambling, unintelligible, babble

 

[Velodude]

.....Or flood the board with rambling, unintelligible, babble

By that I presume aphronesis' 54 posts over 2 days (+ posts lodged while I am putting this contribution together).

Must have difficulty in expressing in writing a fluent and coherent argument.

 

[Race Radio]

By that I presume aphronesis' 54 posts over 2 days (+ posts lodged while I am putting this contribution together).

Must have difficulty in expressing in writing a fluent and coherent argument.

Add to this a clearly unbalanced guy who has been banned 300+ times yet continues to return with the same garbage to clog the board.

Some would prefer to ignore this intentional disruption and pretend that it is just a bias. What alternative point of view is missing?

 

[AcademyCC]

.....Or flood the board with rambling, unintelligible, babble

Like all your insider knowledge?

 

[Velodude]

I rest my case.

Take some time. Seriously it will do you some good.

Look at the picture below. You might find what it is you're truly looking for.

Good luck. Keep us posted on how you go. I wish you well on your journey.

Or possibly the reflection could be:

 

[BotanyBay]

Wallace, I'm going to assume that you meant to quote someone else (who, I can't imagine) and quoted BotanyBay by mistake. Isn't his post pretty much the ANTI-tin foil hat perspective? (...etc)

Thank you Granville57. I got a good chuckle out of Wallace's post. Either he copied the wrong blurb or he hasn't read many of my past posts.

LarryBudMelman mentioned that the evidence was overwhelming. Perhaps. Or perhaps not. We only know what WE know. Not what the prosecutors were planning to use. But a prosecutor has to stitch a case together (out of many pieces of evidence), combined with testimony from people who BACK that evidence.

I don't think enough of you have a proper appreciation for how much work it is to be an attorney playing this level of the legal game. It's one thing to prosecute a drug mule who was caught on interstate 8 by the border patrol with a trunk full of smack (those defendants usually having almost no resources), and it is quite another to prosecute a very popular individual with intense media scrutiny attached to it. In those situations, your bosses tend to want to WIN the case. As in a guaranteed win. You don't prosecute Santa Claus during the 2012 election unless you KNOW you'll win. Simple as that.

 

[Race Radio]

Like all your insider knowledge?

Example?

I assume you are referring to when I wrote about Hincapie and Tyler talking months before it was public? Or Tylers book deal? Or the SI, WSJ, and 60 Minutes pieces far before they were public? Or the bags of cash and large money transfers to Ferrari? Or when I wrote about USADA investigating and Non-Analytical positive 18 months ago? Or that many people connected to the case were furious that it was dropped by one guy? I could go on, but you get the idea

So far the only thing I got wrong was underestimating the influence of politics over good investigating.

 

[BotanyBay]

So far the only thing I got wrong was underestimating the influence of politics over good investigating.

It might not even be the actual politics. It might just be the weather.

And just because I have adopted a different perspective of the possible reasons for Birotte's decision, does not mean I'm a turncoat. I think I've towed the line very respectfully in years past. And I still do.

 

[aphronesis]

By that I presume aphronesis' 54 posts over 2 days (+ posts lodged while I am putting this contribution together).

Must have difficulty in expressing in writing a fluent and coherent argument.

No problem. Not more than a handful here want to entertain it. Regardless of how the emphasis shifts and how many times it's reiterated.

If it's not written in flat declarative sentences in papers of record, it must not have happened. The posts here display a remarkable unawareness of irony in their own recent argumentation.

Nice of you to count though--let's not go back over your gaffes shall we?

 

[Velodude]

No problem. Not more than a handful here want to entertain it. Regardless of how the emphasis shifts and how many times it's reiterated.

If it's not written in flat declarative sentences in papers of record, it must not have happened. The posts here display a remarkable unawareness of irony in their own recent argumentation.

Nice of you to count though--let's not go back over your gaffes shall we?

I must have pre senile dementia. In my present state of mind I have no recollection of a single or a multiplicity of gaffes.

If you can refresh the void then I will seek medical attention

 

[Race Radio]

It might not even be the actual politics. It might just be the weather.

And just because I have adopted a different perspective of the possible reasons for Birotte's decision, does not mean I'm a turncoat. I think I've towed the line very respectfully in years past. And I still do.

I actually thing you are correct when you mention that Borat is looking forward to that judgeship that he wants. Exposing the myth would not help that

 

[BotanyBay]

I actually thing you are correct when you mention that Borat is looking forward to that judgeship that he wants. Exposing the myth would not help that

And I'm totally cool with exposing the myths. We just have to be open to the possibility that this case didn't go as expected for a wide variety of potential reasons that may have had nothing to do with direct influence peddling. As I said earlier, Fabiani might have worked his magic strictly as a publicist rather than a lobbyist. Perhaps "who he knew" got him an audience with people that "commoners" don't get the same access to. I wish they kept logs of their visitors, etc.

 

[patricknd]

Ouch. Now that is game, set, match. Nail meet hammer. Too bad your foes have zero self awareness; your accurate assessment of the situation will fall on deaf ears.

BTW, there are even fewer to argue with you now.....buckwheat errrrrrrrrrr Larry Bud Melman just got banned lol.

i was wondering if i was the only one who knew, guess not