Road Cycling · Public discussion

lance's mistake

Started by Rik Van Diesel · · Last activity · 4 posts · 375 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
26 August 2005
Last activity
26 August 2005
Original author
Rik Van Diesel
Posts
4
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
375
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–4 of 4
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Lance should have simple ignored equipe. I think he has just given
    credibility to the whole story and drew attention.

    Yahoo buzz post Larry King...........
    Sports
    Rank Subject 1-Day Move
    1 Newcastle United +215.54%
    2 Bolton Wanderers +90.23%
    3 X Games +87.53%
    4 Michael Owen +74.66%
    5 U.S. Open +73.69%
    6 Canadian Football League +59.45%
    7 Everton FC +58.38%
    8 Ben Wallace +57.72%
    9 Lance Armstrong +56.94%
    10 Beach Volleyball +51.56%
    11 Wimbledon +36.73%
    12 Nfl Injury Report +36.64%
    13 Juventus FC +36.31%
    14 Tour de France +33.43%
    15 O.J. Simpson +31.57%

  2. Rik Van Diesel said:

    Lance should have simple ignored equipe. I think he has just given
    credibility to the whole story and drew attention.

    Isn't it a pretty well-known phenomena that when a person 'talks too much'
    discussing guilt, or a troubling case, etc. that it causes suspicion?

    If you think about something you didn't do, say being asked if you took the
    last beer, for example, you'd just say 'no'. Even if you weren't even a
    beer drinker, you wouldn't start talking about your beer drinking habits,
    istm.

    But think about someone who may launch into a blizzard of commentary: "Well
    Billy drinks a lot of beer, plus ask anyone, I wasn't even in the house
    that day, and I don't like that kind of beer, and even if I did take it,
    which I didn't, I'd have replaced it, and .....ad nauseum."

    The individual is answering questions they weren't even asked, (and
    volunteering information that can be checked!) and sounding quite bothered.
    Not to say innocent persons might not get excited and go on and on. ;-)

    So I agree, he should have ignored it past a simple "I've said all along,
    I've never taken illegal doping products; I've never tested positive for
    performance enhancing drugs", and left it at that. Both those statements
    could be interpreted as true, and he could probably pass a polygraph if
    those were the only questions.

    -jj

    Quoted message said:

    Yahoo buzz post Larry King...........
    Sports
    Rank Subject 1-Day Move
    1 Newcastle United +215.54%
    2 Bolton Wanderers +90.23%
    3 X Games +87.53%
    4 Michael Owen +74.66%
    5 U.S. Open +73.69%
    6 Canadian Football League +59.45%
    7 Everton FC +58.38%
    8 Ben Wallace +57.72%
    9 Lance Armstrong +56.94%
    10 Beach Volleyball +51.56%
    11 Wimbledon +36.73%
    12 Nfl Injury Report +36.64%
    13 Juventus FC +36.31%
    14 Tour de France +33.43%
    15 O.J. Simpson +31.57%

  3. Jet said:


    Isn't it a pretty well-known phenomena that when a person 'talks too much'
    discussing guilt, or a troubling case, etc. that it causes suspicion?

    If you think about something you didn't do, say being asked if you took the
    last beer, for example, you'd just say 'no'. Even if you weren't even a
    beer drinker, you wouldn't start talking about your beer drinking habits,
    istm.

    But think about someone who may launch into a blizzard of commentary: "Well
    Billy drinks a lot of beer, plus ask anyone, I wasn't even in the house
    that day, and I don't like that kind of beer, and even if I did take it,
    which I didn't, I'd have replaced it, and .....ad nauseum."

    The individual is answering questions they weren't even asked, (and
    volunteering information that can be checked!) and sounding quite bothered.
    Not to say innocent persons might not get excited and go on and on. ;-)

    So I agree, he should have ignored it past a simple "I've said all along,
    I've never taken illegal doping products; I've never tested positive for
    performance enhancing drugs", and left it at that. Both those statements
    could be interpreted as true, and he could probably pass a polygraph if
    those were the only questions.

    That'd be fine if it was only about his personal interests. As it
    stands there are a lot of people out there who admire him for reasons
    beyond the bike. In a way he has to protect their interests as well.

    There's no one even remotely close to Lance's stature in the
    cancer-survivor-role-model category. Regardless of whether someone
    thinks he doped or not, no one would say that he doesn't take the
    cancer fighting role seriously. Having even one person struggling with
    cancer give up hope because his idol was discredited would be a major
    blow to someone who actually cared.

    Sometimes you have to stop and sign autographs whether you want to or
    not.

    He also may have seen how the Tyler thing worked out after Tyler
    refused to comment for so long.

    R

  4. "Rik Van Diesel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Lance should have simple ignored equipe. I think he has just given
    credibility to the whole story and drew attention.

    I don't think it's that simple. Lance has many people thinking about him
    that are fighting cancer. They expect to hear his side of it. To ignore
    would be a mistake.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.