Laff at him

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Like I said, Lafferty is/was wrong:
courtesy of CyclingNews.com
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/oct05/oct09news
Steffen retracts
The now former TIAA-CREF team physician Prentice Steffen has retracted the
comments he made recently in L'Equipe concerning Lance Armstrong and other
athletes, and doping. As a one-time doctor with the US Postal Service team
in the 1990s, Steffen's comments reverberated around the world as part of
the ongoing allegations that Armstrong used EPO in the 1999 Tour.

In a statement, Dr Steffen apologised for any personal comments he made
about Armstrong and others: "It was inappropriate for me to suggest that
'the bad guys, like Armstrong, dope, and the good guys, like Hamilton,
dope
too.' I do not know Lance Armstrong personally and have I never witnessed
him taking banned substances. I based my assumptions about Mr. Armstrong
on
rumours I had heard, instead of on anything remotely factual and I want to
issue this public retraction of comments.

"Second, my intentions in participating in the L'Equipe interview were not
to impugn anyone's character. I understood the purpose of the interview to
be a discussion of the great strides being made by anti-doping agencies
around the globe and the opportunity to improve testing for banned
substances. As a Board Certified Emergency Room and Sports Medicine
physician, I feel it is my duty to help USADA, WADA, and the UCI when I
see
a potential problem with testing protocols or methods. Unfortunately, the
L'Equipe article overshadowed these issues and focused, instead, on my
comments relating to specific athletes.

"Third, it is true that some athletes in the professional peloton, accused
of doping, have willingly confessed that it is prevalent in the
professional
cycling. Just as many athletes, however, have done exceedingly well in the
sport and have never been implicated in any way. It is an unfair assertion
that the only way to achieve success in cycling is through doping. Many
other factors such as hard work, dedication, and natural ability play
crucial roles in any athlete's success.

"Fourth, I am extremely sorry for any negative impact my comments may have
had on Team TIAA-CREF, its sponsors, or staff. My personal comments were
not
intended to reflect their views. My comments were not approved by Team
TIAA-CREF, its sponsors, or staff. I am gravely sorry that Team TIAA-CREF
was even mentioned in association with my personal comments."

Dr Steffen finished by announcing his resignation from TIAA-CREF. "I
should
permanently remove myself from the role of team physician at Team
TIAA-CREF,
as my comments have damaged and dampened the spirits of these young
athletes," he concluded.

I am shocked that L'Equipe could have been less than objective and balanced
in its reporting. I've always thought so highly of them. This is a blow.

JF

"Jim Flom " <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:vSZ1f.19255$ir4.10173@edtnps90...

Quoted message said:

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Like I said, Lafferty is/was wrong:
courtesy of CyclingNews.com
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/oct05/oct09news
Steffen retracts
The now former TIAA-CREF team physician Prentice Steffen has retracted
the
comments he made recently in L'Equipe concerning Lance Armstrong and
other
athletes, and doping. As a one-time doctor with the US Postal Service
team
in the 1990s, Steffen's comments reverberated around the world as part of
the ongoing allegations that Armstrong used EPO in the 1999 Tour.

In a statement, Dr Steffen apologised for any personal comments he made
about Armstrong and others: "It was inappropriate for me to suggest that
'the bad guys, like Armstrong, dope, and the good guys, like Hamilton,
dope
too.' I do not know Lance Armstrong personally and have I never witnessed
him taking banned substances. I based my assumptions about Mr. Armstrong
on
rumours I had heard, instead of on anything remotely factual and I want
to
issue this public retraction of comments.

"Second, my intentions in participating in the L'Equipe interview were
not
to impugn anyone's character. I understood the purpose of the interview
to
be a discussion of the great strides being made by anti-doping agencies
around the globe and the opportunity to improve testing for banned
substances. As a Board Certified Emergency Room and Sports Medicine
physician, I feel it is my duty to help USADA, WADA, and the UCI when I
see
a potential problem with testing protocols or methods. Unfortunately, the
L'Equipe article overshadowed these issues and focused, instead, on my
comments relating to specific athletes.

"Third, it is true that some athletes in the professional peloton,
accused
of doping, have willingly confessed that it is prevalent in the
professional
cycling. Just as many athletes, however, have done exceedingly well in
the
sport and have never been implicated in any way. It is an unfair
assertion
that the only way to achieve success in cycling is through doping. Many
other factors such as hard work, dedication, and natural ability play
crucial roles in any athlete's success.

"Fourth, I am extremely sorry for any negative impact my comments may
have
had on Team TIAA-CREF, its sponsors, or staff. My personal comments were
not
intended to reflect their views. My comments were not approved by Team
TIAA-CREF, its sponsors, or staff. I am gravely sorry that Team TIAA-CREF
was even mentioned in association with my personal comments."

Dr Steffen finished by announcing his resignation from TIAA-CREF. "I
should
permanently remove myself from the role of team physician at Team
TIAA-CREF,
as my comments have damaged and dampened the spirits of these young
athletes," he concluded.

I am shocked that L'Equipe could have been less than objective and
balanced in its reporting. I've always thought so highly of them. This is
a blow.

JF

Sorry to burst your little bubble of happiness, but L'Equipe accurately
reported what he said. Steffen has only retracted his comments made
directly about Armstrong. Whether the retraction was a legal necessity is
open to debate in light of the Mabry positives. The remainder of his quotes
had to do with how the Vampires are routinely beaten. That's the part
that's of real interest. I does put the Discovery blue cooler delivery by
moto in an interesting new light.

Steve said:

Like I said, Lafferty is/was wrong:
courtesy of CyclingNews.com
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/oct05/oct09news
Steffen retracts
The now former TIAA-CREF team physician Prentice Steffen has retracted the
comments he made recently in L'Equipe concerning Lance Armstrong and other
athletes, and doping. As a one-time doctor with the US Postal Service team
in the 1990s, Steffen's comments reverberated around the world as part of
the ongoing allegations that Armstrong used EPO in the 1999 Tour.

One wonders which law firm sent him the letter that prompted the
retraction...

B. Lafferty said:

Sorry to burst your little bubble of happiness, but L'Equipe accurately
reported what he said.

How could you possibly know that? All that we learned is that a
dumbass spewed based on rumors, retracted it and lost his job. Which
means exactly nothing.

Your assumptions in the face of non-information are truly staggering.
Your blind faith in L'Equipe is no better than blind faith in Armstrong
or anyone/thing else. You can do better. Do try.

R

Stu Fleming said:

Steve said:

Like I said, Lafferty is/was wrong:
courtesy of CyclingNews.com
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/oct05/oct09news
Steffen retracts
The now former TIAA-CREF team physician Prentice Steffen has retracted the
comments he made recently in L'Equipe concerning Lance Armstrong and other
athletes, and doping. As a one-time doctor with the US Postal Service team
in the 1990s, Steffen's comments reverberated around the world as part of
the ongoing allegations that Armstrong used EPO in the 1999 Tour.

One wonders which law firm sent him the letter that prompted the
retraction...

You mean, which law firm's registered letter got to him first. Maybe
it was the outlook of multiple ass whuppings from the riders on his own
ex-team?

R

In article <vSZ1f.19255$ir4.10173@edtnps90>,
"Jim Flom " <[email hidden]> wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

I am shocked that L'Equipe could have been less than objective and balanced
in its reporting. I've always thought so highly of them. This is a blow.

Your winnings, sir.

--
Michael Press

B. Lafferty said:

Sorry to burst your little bubble of happiness, but L'Equipe accurately
reported what he said. Steffen has only retracted his comments made
directly about Armstrong. Whether the retraction was a legal necessity is
open to debate in light of the Mabry positives.

Classic. This time you say he's lying. It's only when people agree
with you that you accept their credibility.

"Stu Fleming" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Steve said:

Like I said, Lafferty is/was wrong:
courtesy of CyclingNews.com
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/oct05/oct09news
Steffen retracts
The now former TIAA-CREF team physician Prentice Steffen has retracted
the
comments he made recently in L'Equipe concerning Lance Armstrong and
other
athletes, and doping. As a one-time doctor with the US Postal Service
team
in the 1990s, Steffen's comments reverberated around the world as part of
the ongoing allegations that Armstrong used EPO in the 1999 Tour.

One wonders which law firm sent him the letter that prompted the
retraction...

or how many goons came to his door...

"RicodJour" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

Sorry to burst your little bubble of happiness, but L'Equipe accurately
reported what he said.

How could you possibly know that?

Because the letter is an admission by him of the accuracy of L'Equipe's
reporting of what he said.

Quoted message said:

All that we learned is that a
dumbass spewed based on rumors, retracted it and lost his job. Which
means exactly nothing.

Your assumptions in the face of non-information are truly staggering.
Your blind faith in L'Equipe is no better than blind faith in Armstrong
or anyone/thing else. You can do better. Do try.

If you bother to go back and read my postings, you will see that the only
aspect of his comments that I responded to had to do with the autologous
blood doping scenario that he presented. The observed delivery by moto of a
cooler to the Discovery hotel raises questions in light of the autologous
doping scenario presented. It's just another piece in the puzzle. Make of
it what you like.

Quoted message said:

R

Steve said:

Like I said, Lafferty is/was wrong:
courtesy of CyclingNews.com
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/oct05/oct09news
Steffen retracts
The now former TIAA-CREF team physician Prentice Steffen has retracted the
comments he made recently in L'Equipe concerning Lance Armstrong and other
athletes, and doping. As a one-time doctor with the US Postal Service team
in the 1990s, Steffen's comments reverberated around the world as part of
the ongoing allegations that Armstrong used EPO in the 1999 Tour.

In a statement, Dr Steffen apologised for any personal comments he made
about Armstrong and others: "It was inappropriate for me to suggest that
'the bad guys, like Armstrong, dope, and the good guys, like Hamilton, dope
too.' I do not know Lance Armstrong personally and have I never witnessed
him taking banned substances. I based my assumptions about Mr. Armstrong on
rumours I had heard, instead of on anything remotely factual and I want to
issue this public retraction of comments.

"Second, my intentions in participating in the L'Equipe interview were not
to impugn anyone's character. I understood the purpose of the interview to
be a discussion of the great strides being made by anti-doping agencies
around the globe and the opportunity to improve testing for banned
substances. As a Board Certified Emergency Room and Sports Medicine
physician, I feel it is my duty to help USADA, WADA, and the UCI when I see
a potential problem with testing protocols or methods. Unfortunately, the
L'Equipe article overshadowed these issues and focused, instead, on my
comments relating to specific athletes.

"Third, it is true that some athletes in the professional peloton, accused
of doping, have willingly confessed that it is prevalent in the professional
cycling. Just as many athletes, however, have done exceedingly well in the
sport and have never been implicated in any way. It is an unfair assertion
that the only way to achieve success in cycling is through doping. Many
other factors such as hard work, dedication, and natural ability play
crucial roles in any athlete's success.

"Fourth, I am extremely sorry for any negative impact my comments may have
had on Team TIAA-CREF, its sponsors, or staff. My personal comments were not
intended to reflect their views. My comments were not approved by Team
TIAA-CREF, its sponsors, or staff. I am gravely sorry that Team TIAA-CREF
was even mentioned in association with my personal comments."

Dr Steffen finished by announcing his resignation from TIAA-CREF. "I should
permanently remove myself from the role of team physician at Team TIAA-CREF,
as my comments have damaged and dampened the spirits of these young
athletes," he concluded.

It is unclear what Steffan retracted. He never said he saw Armstrong
dope at any time, so he is retracting merely an insinuation.

Lance's biggest problem is the positive test for EPO on his B-sample
from the '99 Tour, and not vague insinuations by a guy who left the team
3 years earlier.

Steffan's comments related to Lance are neither here nor there. His
retraction is a red herring.

Magilla

"RicodJour" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:1128825915.979122.81150
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

Sorry to burst your little bubble of happiness, but L'Equipe accurately
reported what he said.

How could you possibly know that? All that we learned is that a
dumbass spewed based on rumors, retracted it and lost his job. Which
means exactly nothing.

Your assumptions in the face of non-information are truly staggering.
Your blind faith in L'Equipe is no better than blind faith in Armstrong
or anyone/thing else. You can do better. Do try.

R

Not to mention that Steffen says in the article that L'Equipe misrepresented
what the focus of the interview was supposed to be:

"I understood the purpose of the interview to be a discussion of the great
strides being made by anti-doping agencies around the globe and the
opportunity to improve testing for banned substances...Unfortunately, the
L'Equipe article overshadowed these issues and focused, instead, on my
comments relating to specific athletes."

It's also interesting that he said that his comments were not based on
"anything remotely factual":

"I based my assumptions about Mr. Armstrong on rumors I had heard, instead
of on anything remotely factual and I want to issue this public retraction
of comments."

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
DC <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

"RicodJour" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:1128825915.979122.81150 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

Sorry to burst your little bubble of happiness, but L'Equipe
accurately reported what he said.

How could you possibly know that? All that we learned is that a
dumbass spewed based on rumors, retracted it and lost his job. Which
means exactly nothing.

Your assumptions in the face of non-information are truly staggering.
Your blind faith in L'Equipe is no better than blind faith in
Armstrong or anyone/thing else. You can do better. Do try.

R

Not to mention that Steffen says in the article that L'Equipe
misrepresented what the focus of the interview was supposed to be:

"I understood the purpose of the interview to be a discussion of the
great strides being made by anti-doping agencies around the globe and
the opportunity to improve testing for banned
substances...Unfortunately, the L'Equipe article overshadowed these
issues and focused, instead, on my comments relating to specific
athletes."

It's also interesting that he said that his comments were not based on
"anything remotely factual":

"I based my assumptions about Mr. Armstrong on rumors I had heard,
instead of on anything remotely factual and I want to issue this
public retraction of comments."

You don't *retract* what you didn't say. He said those words, he wants to
take them back. If the report went in a certain way, it seems it did not
fail to report the words he used, does it ? Same for the original Équipe
investigation. If the information they requested Armstrong to disclose
didn't lead to anything newsworthy, but along the way, they found something
juicier, did you mean to say they should have shut up ? Omerta is not a
journalistic phenomenon, generally.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

B. Lafferty said:

If you bother to go back and read my postings, you will see that the only
aspect of his comments that I responded to had to do with the autologous
blood doping scenario that he presented. The observed delivery by moto of a
cooler to the Discovery hotel raises questions in light of the autologous
doping scenario presented. It's just another piece in the puzzle. ...

I went back and read the procycling article about
Blue Cooler Man and it didn't say anything about a moto.
Is that a detail you got from somewhere else or are
you just filling in the missing pieces of the puzzle?

-Ben
Lone Gunman

p.s. Did Steffen say what color the coolers were? Details
are important in conspiracies.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

If you bother to go back and read my postings, you will see that the only
aspect of his comments that I responded to had to do with the autologous
blood doping scenario that he presented. The observed delivery by moto
of a
cooler to the Discovery hotel raises questions in light of the autologous
doping scenario presented. It's just another piece in the puzzle. ...

I went back and read the procycling article about
Blue Cooler Man and it didn't say anything about a moto.
Is that a detail you got from somewhere else or are
you just filling in the missing pieces of the puzzle?

-Ben
Lone Gunman

p.s. Did Steffen say what color the coolers were? Details
are important in conspiracies.

IIRC, the moto was in reports by L'Equipe, AFP, Le Monde and L' Humanite.
It may have been in VeloNews as they subscribe to AFP.

"Sandy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
DC <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

"RicodJour" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:1128825915.979122.81150 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty wrote:
>
> Sorry to burst your little bubble of happiness, but L'Equipe
> accurately reported what he said.

How could you possibly know that? All that we learned is that a
dumbass spewed based on rumors, retracted it and lost his job. Which
means exactly nothing.

Your assumptions in the face of non-information are truly staggering.
Your blind faith in L'Equipe is no better than blind faith in
Armstrong or anyone/thing else. You can do better. Do try.

R

Not to mention that Steffen says in the article that L'Equipe
misrepresented what the focus of the interview was supposed to be:

"I understood the purpose of the interview to be a discussion of the
great strides being made by anti-doping agencies around the globe and
the opportunity to improve testing for banned
substances...Unfortunately, the L'Equipe article overshadowed these
issues and focused, instead, on my comments relating to specific
athletes."

It's also interesting that he said that his comments were not based on
"anything remotely factual":

"I based my assumptions about Mr. Armstrong on rumors I had heard,
instead of on anything remotely factual and I want to issue this
public retraction of comments."

You don't *retract* what you didn't say. He said those words, he wants to
take them back. If the report went in a certain way, it seems it did not
fail to report the words he used, does it ? Same for the original Équipe
investigation. If the information they requested Armstrong to disclose
didn't lead to anything newsworthy, but along the way, they found
something juicier, did you mean to say they should have shut up ? Omerta
is not a journalistic phenomenon, generally.

Fox "News" being the exception.

B. Lafferty said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The observed delivery by moto of a cooler to the Discovery hotel...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I went back and read the procycling article about
Blue Cooler Man and it didn't say anything about a moto.
Is that a detail you got from somewhere else or are
you just filling in the missing pieces of the puzzle?

-Ben
Lone Gunman

p.s. Did Steffen say what color the coolers were? Details
are important in conspiracies.

IIRC, the moto was in reports by L'Equipe, AFP, Le Monde and L' Humanite.
It may have been in VeloNews as they subscribe to AFP.

http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=1570

No moto. I can't find anywhere this story was carried by
Velonews or cyclingnews. Perhaps you could point out the
Le Monde story to us. It appears to have been Le Monde's
scoop, overshadowed by the L'Equipe story. As a Le Monde
exclusive, I'm not sure AFP, L'Equipe or L'Humanite would
have run it.

It occurs to me that if you read the procycling report closely,
it only says Blue Cooler Man entered the Discovery hotel, it
doesn't say they actually saw him hand the Blue Cooler to
Johan or the Discovery chef or anybody. And he didn't show
up the next time. This is where Scully tells Mulder not to
get ahead of himself. Of course, Mulder is right sometimes
anyway. But are you sure you read about a moto?

Incidentally, if it really was "a large blue ice-box" as
the procycling item says, it might not fit easily on a moto.
Of course, this is a translation anyway. And perhaps a
cooler that is large to a Frenchman would be small by our
supersized American standards.

Goddamn, this X-Files FBI stuff is hard sometimes.

Ben
Anyone think the X-Files Cigarette Smoking Man is
actually Hein Verbruggen?

Quoted message said:

Lance's biggest problem is the positive test for EPO on his B-sample
from the '99 Tour

Woh woh woh.. what positive test for EPO? Back up here a bit? When did
LA test +ve for EPO? Carefull.. think about your reply.

TIAA Doc siad things he probably shouldn't have considering his current
(now ex) job, it's fairly simple... why all the fuss?

DepartFictif said:

Quoted message said:

Lance's biggest problem is the positive test for EPO on his B-sample

Quoted message said:

from the '99 Tour

Woh woh woh.. what positive test for EPO? Back up here a bit? When did
LA test +ve for EPO?

No need to be careful. Lance tested positive for EPO in 1999 Tour.
Haven't you read about it?

Magilla

B. Lafferty said:

"RicodJour" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

Sorry to burst your little bubble of happiness, but L'Equipe accurately
reported what he said.

How could you possibly know that?

Because the letter is an admission by him of the accuracy of L'Equipe's
reporting of what he said.

Maybe not:
"Unfortunately, the L'Equipe article overshadowed these issues and
focused, instead, on my comments relating to specific athletes."

Reads to me as though he believes his comments were taken out of
context. Then he uses the word "retraction", which contradicts that.

So you can take what he has to say in any way you want. Which bits
would you like to believe and which would you like to ignore? It's just
like reality. Make any story you like.