While Ressiot admitted that his research targeted Armstrong in particular, he also added that his information wasn't sufficient to publish the identities of the six other riders who tested positive in the 1999 Tour de France.
How the hell god is this [censored] if he could only "identify" one out of seven riders from what are supposed to be a master list identifying the riders that corroborated to sample numbers? How the hell do you pick Lance out of that list and not the rest of the riders? Pretty fishy to me. Bill C
All Ressiot's blathering is a smokescreen. Once he supposedly ID'ed Lance, he quit looking. He made it pretty clear that he was specifically going after Lance, and that it was because Ressiot felt somehow challenged or slighted by Lance's comments. Why would he care about ID'ing some little fish when he figures he's got the big fish hooked?
While Ressiot admitted that his research targeted Armstrong in particular, he also added that his information wasn't sufficient to publish the identities of the six other riders who tested positive in the 1999 Tour de France.
How the hell god is this [censored] if he could only "identify" one out of seven riders from what are supposed to be a master list identifying the riders that corroborated to sample numbers? How the hell do you pick Lance out of that list and not the rest of the riders? Pretty fishy to me. Bill C
While Ressiot admitted that his research targeted Armstrong in particular, he also added that his information wasn't sufficient to publish the identities of the six other riders who tested positive in the 1999 Tour de France.
How the hell god is this [censored] if he could only "identify" one out of seven riders from what are supposed to be a master list identifying the riders that corroborated to sample numbers? How the hell do you pick Lance out of that list and not the rest of the riders? Pretty fishy to me. Bill C
He admitted that he was really only looking into Armstrong. He may have asked for and gotten only Armstrong's code numbers. What I found interesting is this: "But Armstrong made several declarations in the past that he would open his medical dossier, and he never did. Of course, the information we published are very personal, but then you shouldn't announce that you're ready to reveal them anytime if you're not going to! While I was working on the current revelations, I asked him to, but he didn't," the French journalist explained.
Add to this that CSA has had to fight to obtain Armstrong's medical records and that Walsh and Ballestier tried to get Armstrong to answer questions related to their investigations, and you have what appears to be a less than transparent tour champion--despite his claims and pledges to the contrary.
"Philip Holman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Philip Holman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > "Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep04news >> >> While Ressiot admitted that his research targeted Armstrong in >> particular, he also added that his information wasn't sufficient to >> publish the identities of the six other riders who tested positive in >> the 1999 Tour de France. >> >> >> How the hell god is this [censored] if he could only "identify" one out of >> seven riders from what are supposed to be a master list identifying >> the >> riders that corroborated to sample numbers? >> How the hell do you pick Lance out of that list and not the rest of >> the riders? >> Pretty fishy to me. >> Bill C >> > > He admitted that he was really only looking into Armstrong. He may > have asked for and gotten only Armstrong's code numbers. What I found > interesting is this: > "But Armstrong made several declarations in the past that he would open > his medical dossier, and he never did. Of course, the information we > published are very personal, but then you shouldn't announce that > you're ready to reveal them anytime if you're not going to! While I was > working on the current revelations, I asked him to, but he didn't," the > French journalist explained. > > Add to this that CSA has had to fight to obtain Armstrong's medical > records and that Walsh and Ballestier tried to get Armstrong to answer > questions related to their investigations, and you have what appears to > be a less than transparent tour champion--despite his claims and > pledges to the contrary.
Il n'ya que les imbeciles qui ne changent pas d'avis. Armstrong is smart in not handing over anything to a bunch of dope sniffers. You're a lawyer, you should realize more than anybody that both the innocent and the guilty have to work at protecting themselves.
Phil H
Stupid one, it was Armstrong who volunteered to open his medical files on the premise that he has nothing to hide.
That was addressed; (Il n'ya que les imbeciles qui ne changent pas d'avis) only an imbecile doesn't change their mind.
Phil H
You are a stupid human who is too stupid to ever realize your own stupidity. Plonk.
"Jim Flom " <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ylISe.162926$wr.148986@clgrps12...
Quoted message said:
"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote ...
Quoted message said:
> You are a stupid human who is too stupid to ever realize your own stupidity. Plonk.
Note the ad hominem argument. In logic, this attack against a person's character, like the appeal to authority noted elsewhere, has no logical connection to the argument. It's a tactical distraction, like the preacher's/teacher's/lawyer's note to himself in the margin, "Argument weak -- shout here."
I make a point of shooting his misguided logic full of holes. Sounds like he's dropped his pacifier again.
Phil H
Bar Association: One last question. Have you ever taken a logic class? New Attorney: No Bar Association: You are free to go.
