Road Cycling · Public discussion

TRUE or FALSE

Started by MagillaGorilla · · Last activity · 6 posts · 537 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
13 January 2007
Last activity
14 January 2007
Original author
MagillaGorilla
Posts
6
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
537
Views / 30 days
0

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

Showing posts 1–6 of 6
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. True or False:

    If [censored] Pound died 5 years ago, Floyd Landis would still be stuck in the
    EXACT SAME predicament he is in right now (scroll down for the correct
    answer).

    Magilla

    TRUE.

    [censored] Pound is merely a scapegoat for superficial people. In fact, he
    has nothing to do with the Landis case (or its outcome) and his quotes
    are neither here nor there in the whole scheme of things.

  2. MagillaGorilla said:

    True or False:

    If [censored] Pound died 5 years ago, Floyd Landis would still be stuck in the
    EXACT SAME predicament he is in right now (scroll down for the correct
    answer).

    dumbass,

    the landis case is a cut and dry doping case (unlike puerto). the only
    thing that makes makes it different is the importance of the tour.

    if it had been some 180 lb. belgie at the wafflehaus groteprijs who got
    popped it would've been a footnote to a footnote on cyclingnews. no
    wikipedia defense, no powerpoint slides, no dedicated blogs, no cbc
    specials.

  3. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Quoted post said:
    MagillaGorilla said:

    True or False:

    If [censored] Pound died 5 years ago, Floyd Landis would still be stuck in the
    EXACT SAME predicament he is in right now (scroll down for the correct
    answer).

    dumbass,

    the landis case is a cut and dry doping case (unlike puerto). the only
    thing that makes makes it different is the importance of the tour.

    if it had been some 180 lb. belgie at the wafflehaus groteprijs who got
    popped it would've been a footnote to a footnote on cyclingnews. no
    wikipedia defense, no powerpoint slides, no dedicated blogs, no cbc
    specials.

    Sure, that's a way of looking at it. But when I hear stuff about T-E
    ratios, and read that Landis' T-count was well below normal levels, and
    read that even Pound doesn't seem to quite understand the nature of
    Landis' positive, well, I start to wonder if Landis is positive but
    innocent*.

    The problem with Pound is he has both the strengths and failings of
    Eugene McCarthy: a man fighting a legitimate problem but overplaying his
    hand. It's one thing to know Alger Hiss really was a doper, it's quite
    another to randomly accuse a third of all pro hockey players of being
    Communist spies.

    http://www.101-280.com/archives/000600.html

    Best "Good Night and Good Luck" review ever.

    *cf. fake but accurate.

    --
    Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
    "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
    to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

  4. Quoted message said:

    I have a list of 57 dopers ...

    The Spanish have a list of 58 dopers pets.

  5. Ryan Cousineau said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Quoted post said:
    MagillaGorilla said:

    True or False:

    If [censored] Pound died 5 years ago, Floyd Landis would still be stuck in the
    EXACT SAME predicament he is in right now (scroll down for the correct
    answer).

    dumbass,

    the landis case is a cut and dry doping case (unlike puerto). the only
    thing that makes makes it different is the importance of the tour.

    if it had been some 180 lb. belgie at the wafflehaus groteprijs who got
    popped it would've been a footnote to a footnote on cyclingnews. no
    wikipedia defense, no powerpoint slides, no dedicated blogs, no cbc
    specials.

    Sure, that's a way of looking at it. But when I hear stuff about T-E
    ratios, and read that Landis' T-count was well below normal levels, and
    read that even Pound doesn't seem to quite understand the nature of
    Landis' positive, well, I start to wonder if Landis is positive but
    innocent*.

    What does Pound's understanding of a doping case have to do with its
    accuracy? Pound has no involvement whatsoever in the laboratory testing
    or its adjudication. His proficiency on the science of any test is
    irrelevant. This will be proven in that Pound will not be called as a
    witness by either USADA or Landis in the CAS hearing.

    Quoted message said:


    The problem with Pound is he has both the strengths and failings of
    Eugene McCarthy: a man fighting a legitimate problem but overplaying his
    hand. It's one thing to know Alger Hiss really was a doper, it's quite
    another to randomly accuse a third of all pro hockey players of being
    Communist spies.

    What most of you dumbasses don't seem to understand is Pound is not
    suppose to be objective. He's the head of the prosecutor's office. It
    would be totally different if the arbitrators who were going to preside
    over the Landis case said this, but they're not.

    Thanks,

    Magilla

  6. In article <[email hidden]>,

    MagillaGorilla said:
    Ryan Cousineau said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Quoted post said:

    MagillaGorilla wrote:

    >True or False:
    >
    >
    >If [censored] Pound died 5 years ago, Floyd Landis would still be stuck in the
    >EXACT SAME predicament he is in right now (scroll down for the correct
    >answer).

    dumbass,

    the landis case is a cut and dry doping case (unlike puerto). the only
    thing that makes makes it different is the importance of the tour.

    if it had been some 180 lb. belgie at the wafflehaus groteprijs who got
    popped it would've been a footnote to a footnote on cyclingnews. no
    wikipedia defense, no powerpoint slides, no dedicated blogs, no cbc
    specials.

    Sure, that's a way of looking at it. But when I hear stuff about T-E
    ratios, and read that Landis' T-count was well below normal levels, and
    read that even Pound doesn't seem to quite understand the nature of
    Landis' positive, well, I start to wonder if Landis is positive but
    innocent*.

    What does Pound's understanding of a doping case have to do with its
    accuracy? Pound has no involvement whatsoever in the laboratory testing
    or its adjudication. His proficiency on the science of any test is
    irrelevant. This will be proven in that Pound will not be called as a
    witness by either USADA or Landis in the CAS hearing.

    Certainly. But if [censored] Pound, a smart, deeply involved lawyer who is,
    you know, essentially in charge of the process, can't properly keep in
    his head the difference between high T and T-E ratio, then something's
    wrong. He is, after all, the public (the very public!) face of this
    prosecution. If he says things that make me think he doesn't really
    understand the case at all, I begin to worry whether he's been paying
    any attention.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The problem with Pound is he has both the strengths and failings of
    Eugene McCarthy: a man fighting a legitimate problem but overplaying his
    hand. It's one thing to know Alger Hiss really was a doper, it's quite
    another to randomly accuse a third of all pro hockey players of being
    Communist spies.

    What most of you dumbasses don't seem to understand is Pound is not
    suppose to be objective. He's the head of the prosecutor's office. It
    would be totally different if the arbitrators who were going to preside
    over the Landis case said this, but they're not.

    Which is curious indeed. Because in Canada the tradition is that
    prosecutors generally shut up and let cases be prosecuted before the
    courts. They are usually loath to say anything outside of court other
    than the blandest descriptions of the case.

    I know the US tradition often has the prosecutor standing in front of
    the courthouse, declaring the defendants incredibly guilty before the
    trial, and so forth. I'm not sure that in any way improves the course of
    justice.

    Moreover, Pound's tendency to make stuff up is unseemly in a prosecutor.
    One sees such behaviour as more characteristic of a witchfinder.

    --
    Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
    "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
    to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

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.