Lemond, Heiden, Cruz to appear at LA Track WC

[jean-yves hervé]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Phil <phil@" <"no spam>.net"> wrote:

> As usual, your response is a diversion to answering why LeMond never outted
> anyone in his 10-year career as a pro, but now he's on some kind of crusade
> against Lance. Apparently, LeMond only gets passionate about doping when his
> records and fame and endorsement value are surpassed.

Or maybe it is just that all the dopers Lemond knew about in his time
were small fry and not worth making a fuss about. Maybe he did not care
that the guys winning or placing in minor races were on the juice but it
bothers him that a cheater would be considered an all-time great.

I am not claiming that the above is true. Neither do I say that LA is a
cheater. But you asked for an explanation of Lemond's behavior other
than envy for LA's fame and endorsements...

jyh.

--
=====================================================================
jean-yves herve' /\
Department of Computer Science \/ e-mail --> [email protected]
and Statistics /\
University of Rhode Island \/ Tel. --> (401) 874-4400
Kingston, RI 02881-0816 /\ Fax. --> (401) 874-4617
USA \/
=====================================================================

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <Bzkud.7687$Ae.609@fed1read05>,
"Mark Fennell" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Tom Paterson" wrote:
> > Eric brought a lot of visibility and credibility to cycling. National Road
> > champ in '85. Became an ortho surgeon. General credit to humanity from
> anything
> > I've ever heard/read (not being any kind of "insider" of course). --TP
> >
>
> I know I'm getting old when I tell stories like this but...
>
> Way back in 1981 there was a week-long series of big-time races in so. cal.
> and Eric Heiden showed up at the night-time crit in San Luis Obispo. I
> remember lining up next to him and being in total awe of his muscles. I'm
> talking about muscles in his arms in places where no real bike racer has
> muscles. Anyway, by the end of the race, there were probably 100 Cal Poly
> coeds yelling and screaming at him and they completely swarmed him after the
> finish. No doubt, he was the first rock-star bike racer in the US (in the
> modern era anyway).
>
> Mark

And deservedly so. I always wonder how far he would have gone as a
cyclist if he'd *really* focused on it.

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Phil]

Sandy wrote:

> (Tempted to use the universal, but weak, "dumbass" salutation ...)
>
> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> a écrit dans le message de :
> news:[email protected]...
> > Sandy wrote:
> >
> >> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> a écrit dans le message de :
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > Even if the CAS decides Hamilton is guilty, the question you have to
> >> > ask
> >> > is: is
> >> > the CAS qualified to adjudicate a scientific test that has never been
> >> > cofirmed
> >> > by another scientific group? I think the answer is no. It's not really
> >> > even
> >> > debatable.
> >>
> >> > Phil
> >>
> >> I can't imagine where you get your law from. Marvel comics ?
> >> They are qualified to adjudicate, as they are the agreed forum.
> >> If it is capable of adjudication, then their competence relies on the
> >> fact
> >> that the two sides agreed that they were competent !
> >> Please venture not where wise men fear to tread.
> >> --
> >> Bonne route,
> >>
> >> Sandy
> >> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
> >
> > I said qualified, not designated. Your argument is bizarre, Sandy. The
> > two
> > sides agree to go to arbitration has NOTHING to do with whether or not the
> > CAS is in fact scientifically qualified to determine the validity of what
> > is
> > a highly-contested scientific test. That's something that scientists need
> > to
> > do, not attorneys.
> >
> > It's like asking attorneys if they think a Boeing design is better than an
> > Airbus design. You seem to think their opinion is some definitive opinion
> > on
> > such subject matters; I do not.
>
> Guess what - still wrong, Phil. There ain't (continuing to address you at a
> level you will understand) no decision that any lame lab-geek (with
> apologies, but, after this is to Phil) can make that will keep a racer from
> riding. On the other hand, if the UCI rules were like the traffic cop rules
> in Russia, they could just sniff your breath and put you in jail. None of
> your tripe has anything to do with enforceable sanctions which are possible
> only after a determination of a violation. If we really faced up to it, all
> these efforts to delay the enforcement - if the riders actually didn't all
> try at least to run up against the cutting edge of cheating - we could just
> get back to thinking of cycling as a sport.
>

Your response has nothing to do with the issue we were discussing. I don't really understand its
relevance. Please re-read what I wrote and respond accordingly.

Phil

 

[Phil]

"B. Lafferty" wrote:

> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "B. Lafferty" wrote:
> >
> >> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> >> Even if the CAS decides Hamilton is guilty, the question you have to
> >> >> ask
> >> >> is: is
> >> > the CAS qualified to adjudicate a scientific test that has never been
> >> > cofirmed
> >> > by another scientific group? I think the answer is no. It's not really
> >> > even
> >> > debatable.
> >>
> >> The parties to the dispute have agree that CAS is competent and the
> >> appropriate forum for resolving any disputes as to the homologus blood
> >> doping test.
> >> >
> >> > If you look back to court cases and the level of science that it took
> >> > to
> >> > get
> >> > DNA evidence validated by courts, it's nothing like the scrutiny this
> >> > blood
> >> > transfusion test has withstood, which is basically nothing.
> >>
> >> Given the lengthy clinical history of the technique used in the homolugus
> >> blood test, your assertion is absurd.
> >
> > The parties only agreed to go to arbitration. The parties made no such
> > declaration that such particpation should be interpeted as anything more
> > than
> > that - an agreement to go through arbitration.
> >
> > Can you show me where the parties agreed that the CAS was competent on all
> > scientific issues before them? That's like saying because we agree to go
> > to
> > court to have a case decided, that both parties agree with the court's
> > decision.
> >
> > Given the fact that trial courts are routinely appealed and overturned,
> > and
> > federal judges often overturn state courts, your statement doesn't hold
> > water. Courts and arbitration panels can be wrong, and routinely are.
> > And
> > simply by participating in that process does not mean nor imply you agree
> > that
> > they are always competent.
> >
> > You only agree to participate in that process - any other extrapolation to
> > that mere participation is neither implied nor expressed.
> >
>
> If either party considers the arbitration panel to not be competent that
> objection can and should be made on the record and preserved for possible
> civil court review on the issue of fairness. I'm not aware of that issue in
> Neben's case or a successful review in any other cases involving CAS.
>
> Yes, trial error does occur, very often regarding the admissibility of
> evidence. Those types of objections are for the most part mooted by the
> broader evidentiary rules under arbitrations.
>
> BTW, virtually every court or arbitration decision is wrong. Just ask the
> losing side. ;-)

Brian,

CAS opinions are generally not appealed not because both parties agree with the
Panel's competency, but rather because the athlete usually doesn't want to
spend another $20k to appeal.

Phil

 

[Phil]

B. Lafferty" wrote:

> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "B. Lafferty" wrote:
> >
> >> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> >> Even if the CAS decides Hamilton is guilty, the question you have to
> >> >> ask
> >> >> is: is
> >> > the CAS qualified to adjudicate a scientific test that has never been
> >> > cofirmed
> >> > by another scientific group? I think the answer is no. It's not really
> >> > even
> >> > debatable.
> >>
> >> The parties to the dispute have agree that CAS is competent and the
> >> appropriate forum for resolving any disputes as to the homologus blood
> >> doping test.
> >> >
> >> > If you look back to court cases and the level of science that it took
> >> > to
> >> > get
> >> > DNA evidence validated by courts, it's nothing like the scrutiny this
> >> > blood
> >> > transfusion test has withstood, which is basically nothing.
> >>
> >> Given the lengthy clinical history of the technique used in the homolugus
> >> blood test, your assertion is absurd.
> >
> > The application of the test is new and your reference to its 'clinical
> > history' lacks any scientific expertise. Sure flow cytomtery is not a new
> > technique and neither is blood agglutination tests for various antigens.
>
> Thank you for that admission.
>
> > But
> > the actual use of the test for detecting homologous blood transfusions is
> > entirely new and unproven. It's use for this purpose intriduces new
> > pitfalls
> > that its previous use had not encountered. Specifically the test was
> > originally designed to never give a false negative. This technique is now
> > being applied in a way that mandates it never give a false positive. The
> > latter constraints are much higher and completely unquantifed in this
> > test.
> >
> > For one, how do you assess that a weak display of a homozygous expression
> > on
> > one of the antigens is not misidentified by the test as a donor's blood
> > when
> > in fact it's simply a weak affinity binding? You can't and the testers
> > itself
> > would likely concede on this point if cross-examined in an adversarial
> > way.
> >
> > By the way, contrary to popular belief, many pregnant women have been
> > mis-typed in hospitals using the antigens this test uses. Many have been
> > mislabeled as false negatives for the Rh (D) weak antigen.
> >
> > The actual test method itself seems relative sound. But nobody has
> > convinced
> > me that Tyler's case is not a false positive yet. This test is not a mass
> > spec test.
>
> No one has to convince you of anything. But the arguments will be made at
> the CAS hearing by experts who will guide the arbitrators. They will have a
> record of the testimony and exhibits for you and all the other ex-parte
> experts to pick over to your hearts content after the hearing and decision.
>
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> >
> >

Here you are incorrect. The arbitration panel will release no evidence
whatsoever in their opinion. All they will release is the CAS Panel's final
opinion, less any evidence. So unless Tyler or his attorney allow us to
scrutinize evidence and exhibitis, we will have nothing to pick over.

Unlike a court trial, arbitration hearings are secret processions that are
closed to the public. I'm surprised you didn't know this.

Phil

 

[Phil]

"B. Lafferty" wrote:

> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Sandy wrote:
> >
> >> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> a écrit dans le message de :
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> > LeMond's accusations are really nothing that would have any relevance
> >> > in a
> >> > courtroom proceeding and are indistinguishable from heresay.
> >>
> >> > Phil
> >>
> >> I get infuriated when I read this. If you think you are a lawyer,
> >> consider
> >> re-reading distinctions between "hearsay" and "admissions against
> >> interest".
> >> Most of us who practice in real life know that difference instinctively,
> >> at
> >> an early stage of career.
> >>
> >> And, you may like to know that in non-US court settings, and in
> >> arbitration
> >> settings, "hearsay" is regularly heard and evaluated, with the sensible
> >> weighting it deserves. And ususally, the relevance is quite direct, even
> >> if
> >> colored or tainted.
> >>
> >> What you could have said is that virtually everything people write in
> >> this
> >> newsgroup is unreliable hearsay, and worth nothing. That's more
> >> acceptable.
> >> --
> >> Bonne route,
> >>
> >> Sandy
> >> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
> >
> > Sandy,
> >
> > Your response is a lot of unnecessary legalese. So tell everyone on RBR:
> > what
> > evidence does LeMond have to say about Lance that isn't common knowledge
> > already? Please tell us.
> >
> > You forgot to answer the pertinent question in your zeal to lambast me.
> > So
> > far, all of your criticisms are these vague philosophical dissertations
> > that I
> > have a difficult time in sieving for relevance.
> >
> > Don't forget to answer the question I posed in the first paragraph when
> > you
> > respond with your philosophical thesis.
> >
> > Phil
>
> I think it's only "unnecessary legalese" because it refutes your position
> and/or you simply don't understand it. But to answer your question, one
> thing Lemond had to say that wasn't common knowledge involved the details of
> his phone conversation with Armstrong as recounted in L. A. Confidential and
> on ESPN. Interestingly, Prentis Steffen's description of Armstrong's
> threats were quite similar to those conveyed by Armstrong to Simoni---deep
> pockets and the threat of lengthy, costly litigation.

Here you are incorrect once again. All the accounts of that phone conversation
in LA Confidential are from Kathy LeMond who did not hear Lance say a single
thing. The book LA Confidential specifically points this out - the authros
never spoke to Greg LeMond. So you are incorrect to say "one thing Lemond had
to say that wasn't common knowledge involved the details of his phone
conversation with Armstrong as recounted in L. A. Confidential ....

This fact is not contested by anybody, including the authors of LA
Confidential.

And what did those details he discussed on ESPN state about Lance's drug use?
Apparently not a whole lot. If it is such powerful "evidence" as you and Sandy
falsely claim, how come USADA doesn't think so? You just posted a link that
shows USADA banned a track athlete for 6 years based on non-testing evidence:

http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s6/e5761/sport_lng0_spo6_evt5761_sto665805.shtml

So how come USADA doesn't go after Lance like they did this track athlete? I
think we all know the answer to that. It's because LeMond presented no
evidence whatsoever that Lance has taken illegal substances.

Also, you didn't answer my question despite saying you did. I asked you to
tell us what this specific evidence was. Alleged threats are not evidence of
doping. That is evidence of alleged threats that has nothing to do with Lance
taking illegal substances.

Has Armstrong been convicted of threats either? No.

Where's all this evidence, and what is it? Name the banned methods and
substances Lance took, Brian. It's really a very simple question.

Phil

 

[Sandy]

"Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> a écrit dans le message de :
news:[email protected]...
>
> And what did those details he discussed on ESPN state about Lance's drug
> use?
> Apparently not a whole lot. If it is such powerful "evidence" as you and
> Sandy
> falsely claim, how come USADA doesn't think so?

Hey schmuck - I have never heard any evidence, nor claimed to. Still not
out on the bike - shame.

> Phil

--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

 

[Phil]

"jean-yves hervé" wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Phil <phil@" <"no spam>.net"> wrote:
>
> > As usual, your response is a diversion to answering why LeMond never outted
> > anyone in his 10-year career as a pro, but now he's on some kind of crusade
> > against Lance. Apparently, LeMond only gets passionate about doping when his
> > records and fame and endorsement value are surpassed.
>
> Or maybe it is just that all the dopers Lemond knew about in his time
> were small fry and not worth making a fuss about. Maybe he did not care
> that the guys winning or placing in minor races were on the juice but it
> bothers him that a cheater would be considered an all-time great.
>
> I am not claiming that the above is true. Neither do I say that LA is a
> cheater. But you asked for an explanation of Lemond's behavior other
> than envy for LA's fame and endorsements...
>
> jyh.

That can't be Greg's reason because if you read his quotes he will tell you that
he's tired of guys who took drugs who had their careers ruined and of "riders who
died." Those kind of reasons would be irrelevant to the small-fry reasons you
give, as their health would be harmed just the same as someone winning races.

What I'm saying is LeMond's claimed reasons are not credible because if you were
to sift through all the Velonews and L'Equipes from 1981-1991, you would never see
LeMond make so much as single quote about doping in cycling. LeMond must have been
hiding a little secret.

So when does he decide to make these quotes? After Lance eclipses him as the best
US cyclist of all-time and is stealing the spotlight and raking in the endorsement
deals that Greg never got, which led to his big falling out with his dad.

It is so obvious that LeMond is simply jealous and is lashing out. If you ask
Lance about his take on LeMond's comments, he will tell you what I just told you.
But he won't say it in public because he doesn't feel he needs to attack Greg in
the press like Greg has done to him.

Again, if LeMond had any real evidence of Lance doping, he should present it to
USADA. Even Brian concedes that USADA will take action against an athlete if
there is compelling evidence of doping. That's why Brian posted this link:

http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s6/e5761/sport_lng0_spo6_evt5761_sto665805.shtml

But now Brian doesn't want to admit that the reason why USADA isn't taking any
action against Lance is because LeMond really had no credible evidence to offer.

Phil

 

[Sandy]

"Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> a écrit dans le message de :
news:[email protected]...

> Brian,
>
> CAS opinions are generally not appealed not because both parties agree
> with the
> Panel's competency, but rather because the athlete usually doesn't want to
> spend another $20k to appeal.

Another FACT you know that no one else does.
Keep up the good work.
--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

 

[Sandy]

This is getting tiring, but as a favor to those who could be misled by Phil
=

"Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> a écrit dans le message de :
news:[email protected]...

> Here you are incorrect. The arbitration panel will release no evidence
> whatsoever in their opinion. All they will release is the CAS Panel's
> final
> opinion, less any evidence. So unless Tyler or his attorney allow us to
> scrutinize evidence and exhibitis, we will have nothing to pick over.

There is no legal requirement that private arbs be disclosed to anyone.
However, if brought for confirmation or annulment, they will be part of the
public record.

> Unlike a court trial, arbitration hearings are secret processions that are
> closed to the public. I'm surprised you didn't know this.

"Processions" ?? Dictionary available to you ?

> Phil
>

--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

 

[Sandy]

"Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sandy wrote:
>
>> (Tempted to use the universal, but weak, "dumbass" salutation ...)


> Your response has nothing to do with the issue we were discussing. I don't
> really understand its
> relevance. Please re-read what I wrote and respond accordingly.

My dog ate my homework.

> Phil
>

 

[Sandy]

End of this for me - Phil will no longer be taking up my screen. It was
like climbing in winter ; can do it ; don't like it ; will do it ; nah,
won't.

"Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


> Well then give us your legal opinion since you claim to be qualified. And
> then I will give you
> mine, and let others decide who is the legal expert.
>
> But I think your strange responses to very simple questions are indicative
> of your true expertise.

Said OWH - the law is a strange thing. No, of course he didn't, but it
would not help you. Bye. No kind ending words. Nothing. Void. Your
reflection in the mirror.

BTW, you have no legal opinon.

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> a écrit dans le message de :
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Brian,
>>
>> CAS opinions are generally not appealed not because both parties agree
>> with the
>> Panel's competency, but rather because the athlete usually doesn't want
>> to
>> spend another $20k to appeal.
>
> Another FACT you know that no one else does.
> Keep up the good work.
> --
> Bonne route,
>
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

I decided to un-plnk Phil. He's really becoming so factually incorrect that
it's funny.
BTW, how are your language lessons coming. Keep working at the English and
you'll be speaking like a native in no time at all. ;-)

 

[Phil]

"B. Lafferty" wrote:

> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Could you tell us what those specific drugs were that he prescribed? You
> > are
> > aware there are almost never medical exemptions granted by the UCI for EPO
> > and
> > most steroids. And those are the drugs you seem to be implying he gave,
> > no?
>
> Dumbass,
>
> Get your self a copy of the Italian proceedings and discover the drugs
> for yourself.
> >
> > So what good would it do to get such a prescription? It would still be
> > illegal
> > to take and the mere possesion of the prescription itself would be good
> > enough
> > for a federation to ban a rider.
>
> You may be able to answer your own question when you have the drug list.
> Seek and ye shall find.
>

But if you don't know the drugs he prescribed, how come you say he did? He
didn't prescribe drugs, Brian. He only told people how to use them. So there
would be no prescriptions to find and that's why I asked you to tell me what
they are - because I know there are no such prescriptions you claim.

And now you do too.

Phil

 

[Phil]

"B. Lafferty" wrote:

> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > "B. Lafferty" wrote:
> >
> >> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> > Dr. Ferarri was only convicted of telling athletes how to use EPO. He
> >> > was
> >> > NOT
> >> > convicted of providing them drugs nor administering them drugs. In
> >> > other
> >> > words, he was convicted of reciting what the EPO package insert says.
> >> > This
> >> > qualified as sporting fraud in Italy.
> >>
> >> Wrong. Dr. Ferrari was convicted of sporting fraud and writing too many
> >> (that is to say, bogus) prescriptions for doping products. He may or may
> >> not have done the injection, but giving a rider a prescription for a drug
> >> for which there was no medical need and telling the rider how to dope
> >> with
> >> the drug is criminal and unethical.
> >> >
> >> > I wouldn't rule out an appeal or it being overturned. But even if it's
> >> > not
> >> > overturned, 'associating with Ferrari' is hardly a scandal given his
> >> > vast
> >> > knowledge of the sport.
> >>
> >> Most people have a different definiton of scandal. When you spend the
> >> night
> >> with a prostitute, don't be surprised if your significant other doesn't
> >> believe that you just sat up all night talking ---unless you're Gianni
> >> Bugno.
> >>
> >> > I myself have consulted with him from time to time
> >> > about his vertical ascent calculations as they relate to fitness. Am I
> >> > now
> >> > under suspicion of purveying drugs?
> >>
> >> My how similar to Armstrong you really are. Try Peter Keene next time.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > LeMond's accusations are really nothing that would have any relevance
> >> > in a
> >> > courtroom proceeding and are indistinguishable from heresay.
> >>
> >> Hearsay is admissable in administrative hearings if it is relevant and to
> >> the extent that it is deemed reliable. That goes for double, and triple
> >> +
> >> hearsay.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > What drugs does LeMond think Lance took to win his sixth Tour? Answer:
> >> > none.
> >>
> >> Perhaps. Perhaps autologus transfusions.
> >>
> >> > LeMond's not big on details and facts, I guess.
> >>
> >> Time will tell. Lemond is still quite close to a number of well
> >> connected
> >> Belgians, some of whom are long time Postal employees. He may know a
> >> good
> >> deal more than he has stated .
> >>
> >
> > It's all hearsay - none of it could be presented as evidence.
>
> Hearsay is admissible in arbitration procedings. Try to get that concpet
> into your head.
>
> > If the
> > accusations against Lance were so convincing, than USADA would do to him
> > what
> > they did to that track athlete, Michelle Collins, whose link you posted
> > earlier.
>
> If the UCI had similar evidence thay would no doubt do the same to
> Armstrong. They don't. Therefore, they haven't.
>
> >
> > But since they are not even investigating Lance, what does that say about
> > LeMond's accusations? It says a lot.
>
> It says nothing.
>

Really. How much do you want to bet if I ask USADA counsel for a formal
comment on why they are not investigating Lance because of LeMond's comments,
he will say to me, "There is no credible evidence of doping in that
information."

So I think the lack of investigation of LeMond's "evidence" says quite a bit.
It says LeMond's allegations are not evidence of anything.


Phil

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This is getting tiring, but as a favor to those who could be misled by
> Phil =
>
> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> a écrit dans le message de :
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Unlike a court trial, arbitration hearings are secret processions that
>> are
>> closed to the public. I'm surprised you didn't know this.
>
> "Processions" ?? Dictionary available to you ?

Sandy, it's now obvious that you've never done an arbitration. If you had,
you would know that the arbitrators enter the room in a procession, wearing
robes and feathered headpieces. In certain countries they also wear butt
plugs adorned with feathers--the color of the feathers corresponds to the
seniority of the respective arbitrators.

 

[Sandy]

"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de :
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> a écrit dans le message de :
>> news:[email protected]...

>> Bonne route,
>>
>> Sandy
>> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
>
> I decided to un-plnk Phil. He's really becoming so factually incorrect
> that it's funny.
> BTW, how are your language lessons coming. Keep working at the English
> and you'll be speaking like a native in no time at all. ;-)

Then it's up to you to break this ninny ! That's word in English, right.
Vel ov kohrsss !
--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

 

[Phil]

"B. Lafferty" wrote:

> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "B. Lafferty" wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > What drugs does LeMond think Lance took to win his sixth Tour? Answer:
> >> > none.
> >>
> >> Perhaps. Perhaps autologus transfusions.
> >>
> >
> > Well....that's quite an accusation to make with no direct or even indirect
> > evidence.
> >
> > Phil
>
> There was no accusation, Phil. Try reading for comprehension.
> >

If it's not an accusation/implication against Lance, then why did you say
"autologous transfusions?" Why not just say nothing if you meant to imply
nothing.

If I meant to imply a rider wasn't doing anything, I certainly wouldn't say
"autotlogous transfusions" in response to a question of "What drugs does LeMond
think Lance took to win his sixth Tour?"


Phil

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de :
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> a écrit dans le message de :
>>> news:[email protected]...
>
>>> Bonne route,
>>>
>>> Sandy
>>> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
>>
>> I decided to un-plnk Phil. He's really becoming so factually incorrect
>> that it's funny.
>> BTW, how are your language lessons coming. Keep working at the English
>> and you'll be speaking like a native in no time at all. ;-)
>
> Then it's up to you to break this ninny ! That's word in English, right.
> Vel ov kohrsss !
> --
> Bonne route,
>
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

It's really not possible to break the patients in this ward. It's just fun
to witness the absurd stream of consciousness. At times, it makes one yearn
for Gertrude Stein. Now she would be able to break Phil.

 

[Phil]

B. Lafferty" wrote:

> "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > This is getting tiring, but as a favor to those who could be misled by
> > Phil =
> >
> > "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> a écrit dans le message de :
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >> Unlike a court trial, arbitration hearings are secret processions that
> >> are
> >> closed to the public. I'm surprised you didn't know this.
> >
> > "Processions" ?? Dictionary available to you ?
>
> Sandy, it's now obvious that you've never done an arbitration. If you had,
> you would know that the arbitrators enter the room in a procession, wearing
> robes and feathered headpieces. In certain countries they also wear butt
> plugs adorned with feathers--the color of the feathers corresponds to the
> seniority of the respective arbitrators.

It's funny how you attack my use of the word procession when in fact it's
simply your way of trying to distract readers from the fact that you didn't
know arbitration process is secret and that no evidence is disclosed to
anyone.

You're quite some legal scholar.

Phil