oh oh , did Horner just call out USPS/Disco for doping?

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2007/interviews/?id=chris_horner_aug07

"You can see the differences," he said. "As a rider it is easily
perceptible, or as a well-educated fan sitting at home. You get to a
climb and everyone has maybe one or two team-mates with him -- that is
doable. You can't have a leader's team getting to the final climb with
five guys on the front, like every year from three years back all the
way back. It is impossible to ride the front with your whole team and
get to the final climb with most of your team still on the front --
and be ready to come back and do it day in and day out."
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[Bill C]

On Aug 16, 4:16 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2007/interviews/?id=chris_horner_aug07
>
> "You can see the differences," he said. "As a rider it is easily
> perceptible, or as a well-educated fan sitting at home. You get to a
> climb and everyone has maybe one or two team-mates with him -- that is
> doable. You can't have a leader's team getting to the final climb with
> five guys on the front, like every year from three years back all the
> way back. It is impossible to ride the front with your whole team and
> get to the final climb with most of your team still on the front --
> and be ready to come back and do it day in and day out."
> --
> JT
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************

I like Chris, but this "I can't beat them so they are all doping, and
YOU know it" **** is sad. **** him. I hope they sue his ass and then
he can produce solid proof in a US court.
Bill C

[Tom Kunich]

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message
news:v0c9c31mmiv4d94vc1u8kc60j2ef3dt4e7@4ax.com...
>
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2007/interviews/?id=chris_horner_aug07
>
> "You can see the differences," he said. "As a rider it is easily
> perceptible, or as a well-educated fan sitting at home. You get to a
> climb and everyone has maybe one or two team-mates with him -- that is
> doable. You can't have a leader's team getting to the final climb with
> five guys on the front, like every year from three years back all the
> way back. It is impossible to ride the front with your whole team and
> get to the final climb with most of your team still on the front --
> and be ready to come back and do it day in and day out."

Unless you have the money to buy the people who have been reaching the last
climb with the front group.

Try looking at the results from the previous year before saying something
stupid.

[RicodJour]

On Aug 16, 4:16 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2007/interviews/?id=chris_horner_aug07
>
> "You can see the differences," he said. "As a rider it is easily
> perceptible, or as a well-educated fan sitting at home. You get to a
> climb and everyone has maybe one or two team-mates with him -- that is
> doable. You can't have a leader's team getting to the final climb with
> five guys on the front, like every year from three years back all the
> way back. It is impossible to ride the front with your whole team and
> get to the final climb with most of your team still on the front --
> and be ready to come back and do it day in and day out."

Seems bitter. The sidebar article reads like a no-major-palmares
Lemond in the making. Any bets on whether he'll take Frankie Andreu's
place in the on the spot race coverage? He definitely likes to talk.

R

[benn.trovato@hotmail.com]

On Aug 16, 1:16 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2007/interviews/?id=chris_horner_aug07
>
> "You can see the differences," he said. "As a rider it is easily
> perceptible, or as a well-educated fan sitting at home. You get to a
> climb and everyone has maybe one or two team-mates with him -- that is
> doable. You can't have a leader's team getting to the final climb with
> five guys on the front, like every year from three years back all the
> way back. It is impossible to ride the front with your whole team and
> get to the final climb with most of your team still on the front --
> and be ready to come back and do it day in and day out."
> --
> JT
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************

I like the way he called Predictor a buncha cheap pikers as he's
renegotiating a contract in a shrinking market into which riders like
Leipheimer have suddenly become available. Back to the Valley of the
Sun race with you...

[wimpyVO2]

On Aug 16, 1:16 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2007/interviews/?id=chris_horner_aug07
>
> "You can see the differences," he said. "As a rider it is easily
> perceptible, or as a well-educated fan sitting at home. ...
> It is impossible to ride the front with your whole team and
> get to the final climb with most of your team still on the front --
> and be ready to come back and do it day in and day out."
> --
> JT

Chris has a valid point -- the performances do make you wonder.
Consider the 2004 TdF, Stage 4, the team time trial. The Blue Train
demolished the competition that day. A remarkable performance by all
five riders. They came in over a minute ahead of... Phonak.

[Dan Connelly]

Bill C wrote:

> I like Chris, but this "I can't beat them so they are all doping, and
> YOU know it" **** is sad. **** him. I hope they sue his ass and then
> he can produce solid proof in a US court.
> Bill C
>

You already have a quantitative assessment that blood values are more normal than they were 3 years ago, an entire team was riding at the front in particular at the most important race of the year three years ago, it is established that blood engineering is correlated positively with performance. That particular team withdraws, coincident with an unprecedented clamp-down on blood engineering.

What sort of evidence were you after?

Dan

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On Aug 16, 2:53 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Aug 16, 4:16 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2007/interviews/?id=chris_horner_aug07
>
> > "You can see the differences," he said. "As a rider it is easily
> > perceptible, or as a well-educated fan sitting at home. You get to a
> > climb and everyone has maybe one or two team-mates with him -- that is
> > doable. You can't have a leader's team getting to the final climb with
> > five guys on the front, like every year from three years back all the
> > way back. It is impossible to ride the front with your whole team and
> > get to the final climb with most of your team still on the front --
> > and be ready to come back and do it day in and day out."
>
> I like Chris, but this "I can't beat them so they are all doping, and
> YOU know it" **** is sad. **** him. I hope they sue his ass and then
> he can produce solid proof in a US court.

Dude,

Drop it with the libel suit crap. Libel or slander suits against
individuals are generally lame; frequently an attempt to silence
people rather than any actual debate over the issue. Even
Simeoni's suit against LANCE was lame. There is a place for
libel suits, more properly as a way for an individual to defend
themselves against being slandered by institutions (newspapers,
public officials). What Horner said isn't remotely actionable
anyway.

Horner isn't even saying "I can't beat them so they are doping."
He isn't a TdF podium contender and knows it.

However, I disagree with Dan that we have an unprecedented
clampdown on blood engineering - surely the introduction of
EPO testing forced larger changes in the methodology of doping?
Or that this is the direct reason why the Disco/Bruyneel bunch are
hanging up their coolers. Disco probably wants out because
without an American as the next LANCE, it doesn't pay. I hardly
believe that Bruyneel is quitting because he's afraid he'll finally
get busted next year.

Ben

[Bob Schwartz]

Dan Connelly wrote:
> You already have a quantitative assessment that blood values are more
> normal than they were 3 years ago, an entire team was riding at the
> front in particular at the most important race of the year three years
> ago, it is established that blood engineering is correlated positively
> with performance. That particular team withdraws, coincident with an
> unprecedented clamp-down on blood engineering.
>
> What sort of evidence were you after?

What is missing is evidence that Discovery was doing something unique.
Given that there are lots of riders and only a few top-level medical
advisers it seems unlikely that they are doing something other riders,
including riders on Horner's team, are not.

Bob Schwartz

[Bill C]

On Aug 16, 6:17 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > I like Chris, but this "I can't beat them so they are all doping, and
> > YOU know it" **** is sad. **** him. I hope they sue his ass and then
> > he can produce solid proof in a US court.
> > Bill C
>
> You already have a quantitative assessment that blood values are more normal than they were 3 years ago, an entire team was riding at the front in particular at the most important race of the year three years ago, it is established that blood engineering is correlated positively with performance. That particular team withdraws, coincident with an unprecedented clamp-down on blood engineering.
>
> What sort of evidence were you after?
>
> Dan

You don't think a Disco lawyer could easily, and much more plausibly
make the case they withdrew because the cluster**** that is the UCI,
ASO, and such is an incredibly risky environment and not one they
could, in good conscience, expose a sponsor to?
You are making an assumption, possibly slanderous, on their behavior.
They can point to the turmoil in sponsorship, and Unibet getting
screwed despite being a Protour team.
You lose.
I think there's a good possibility that you are a wife beating scum
based on the national statistics, and my imagination.
That's as valid as your accusation. Brian makes better arguments than
you are.
Bill C

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> I like Chris, but this "I can't beat them so they are all doping, and
>> YOU know it" **** is sad. **** him. I hope they sue his ass and then
>> he can produce solid proof in a US court.
>> Bill C
>>
>
> You already have a quantitative assessment that blood values are more
> normal than they were 3 years ago, an entire team was riding at the front
> in particular at the most important race of the year three years ago, it
> is established that blood engineering is correlated positively with
> performance. That particular team withdraws, coincident with an
> unprecedented clamp-down on blood engineering.
>
> What sort of evidence were you after?

Chris failed to acknowledge that Disco was also recognized as a
one-trick-pony team, focusing almost entirely on the Tour de France. If
you've got a team of mercenaries sacrificing their own ambitions and the
rest of the season for one guy, one race, that makes a difference as well.
The extent to which you can legally optimize "blood engineering" for such
efforts is something I can't speak to, but I'm sure others can.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

[Dan Connelly]

Bob Schwartz wrote:
> Dan Connelly wrote:
>> You already have a quantitative assessment that blood values are more
>> normal than they were 3 years ago, an entire team was riding at the
>> front in particular at the most important race of the year three years
>> ago, it is established that blood engineering is correlated positively
>> with performance. That particular team withdraws, coincident with an
>> unprecedented clamp-down on blood engineering.
>>
>> What sort of evidence were you after?
>
> What is missing is evidence that Discovery was doing something unique.
> Given that there are lots of riders and only a few top-level medical
> advisers it seems unlikely that they are doing something other riders,
> including riders on Horner's team, are not.
>
> Bob Schwartz

I was responding to Bill's claim that Horner lacks evidence to claim or imply Discovery/Postal were systematically doping. While it is conceivable that they were not, there is certainly substantial evidence that they were: there is evidence doping was pervasive, and that it helps performance, and so while you can claim an exceptional individual might be able to excel without it, when a whole team simultaneously excels, the plausibility is strained. Maybe Treks are just that good, particularly in July. Whether members of Lotto or whoever have also done so is not relevant to his point. The issue is Discovery and Horner.

Dan

[Bill C]

On Aug 16, 6:32 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> Dan Connelly wrote:
> > You already have a quantitative assessment that blood values are more
> > normal than they were 3 years ago, an entire team was riding at the
> > front in particular at the most important race of the year three years
> > ago, it is established that blood engineering is correlated positively
> > with performance. That particular team withdraws, coincident with an
> > unprecedented clamp-down on blood engineering.
>
> > What sort of evidence were you after?
>
> What is missing is evidence that Discovery was doing something unique.
> Given that there are lots of riders and only a few top-level medical
> advisers it seems unlikely that they are doing something other riders,
> including riders on Horner's team, are not.
>
> Bob Schwartz

Doesn't matter who was doing what. Noone has proven that they were
doping in a court. The insurance company lost.
He made a direct accusation that Disco was doping. I hope he can
provide proof that will stand up in court. Noone else has been able to
yet, and if you don't think that lot's of people wanted to prove
exactly that you're sadly mistaken.
Bill C

[Dan Becker]

In article <tx4xi.2542$3x.301@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, Dan Connelly
<d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote:

> Bob Schwartz wrote:
> > Dan Connelly wrote:
> >>
> >> What sort of evidence were you after?
> >
> > What is missing is evidence that Discovery was doing something unique.
>
> I was responding to Bill's claim that Horner lacks evidence to claim or imply
> Discovery/Postal were systematically doping. While it is conceivable that
> they were not, there is certainly substantial evidence that they were: there
> is evidence doping was pervasive, and that it helps performance, and so while
> you can claim an exceptional individual might be able to excel without it,
> when a whole team simultaneously excels, the plausibility is strained.

"Plausibility" is not "substantial evidence." It is no evidence at all:
it is conjecture.

Dan

[Tom Kunich]

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote in message
news:tx4xi.2542$3x.301@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net. ..
>
> I was responding to Bill's claim that Horner lacks evidence to claim or
> imply Discovery/Postal were systematically doping. While it is
> conceivable that they were not, there is certainly substantial evidence
> that they were:

What is this evidence again? That riders from other teams who rode on the
front were purchased the following year by US Postal and rode on the front
again?

[Dan Connelly]

Bill C wrote:

> I think there's a good possibility that you are a wife beating scum
> based on the national statistics, and my imagination.

I'm not sure about the scum part, but since I've never been married, you probability estimate is optimistic.

Dan

[RicodJour]

On Aug 16, 7:09 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > I think there's a good possibility that you are a wife beating scum
> > based on the national statistics, and my imagination.
>
> I'm not sure about the scum part, but since I've never been married, you probability estimate is optimistic.

He didn't say it was your wife that you were beating. Personally, I
think you're beating something else.

R

[Bill C]

On Aug 16, 7:09 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > I think there's a good possibility that you are a wife beating scum
> > based on the national statistics, and my imagination.
>
> I'm not sure about the scum part, but since I've never been married, you probability estimate is optimistic.
>
> Dan

OK that allows for date rape, and other abuse, especially if we use
N.O.W'.s figures.
The point is it's ridiculous, and irresponsible to make actionable
accusations without solid proof. Harley-Davidson is one entity that
I'm incredibly familiar with who has a huge team of lawyers that sue
anyone and everyone to protect their "brand image". They don't lose
many of them. Maybe since Disco is going out they wont bother, but if
they re planning on returning at some point this might be exactly the
right case to serve, and make Chris recant and apologize the way
Schilling backpeddled on steroids when he was under oath in front of
Congress.
Bill C

[Doug Smith]

Bill C wrote:
> On Aug 16, 7:09 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
> wrote:
>> Bill C wrote:
>>> I think there's a good possibility that you are a wife beating scum
>>> based on the national statistics, and my imagination.
>> I'm not sure about the scum part, but since I've never been married, you probability estimate is optimistic.
>>
>> Dan
>
> OK that allows for date rape, and other abuse, especially if we use
> N.O.W'.s figures.
> The point is it's ridiculous, and irresponsible to make actionable
> accusations without solid proof. Harley-Davidson is one entity that
> I'm incredibly familiar with who has a huge team of lawyers that sue
> anyone and everyone to protect their "brand image". They don't lose
> many of them. Maybe since Disco is going out they wont bother, but if
> they re planning on returning at some point this might be exactly the
> right case to serve, and make Chris recant and apologize the way
> Schilling backpeddled on steroids when he was under oath in front of
> Congress.
> Bill C
>


What's so ridiculous? That someone (Horner) can't say something without
a bunch of people jumping up and down talking lawyerese and thinking
about slander? That someone can't say some **** and have a bunch of
people hold their statements to burdens of proof as dictated by US Laws?
Give me a break, the man said something that makes sense to a lot of
people. I make conjectures all the time about all things in life. I
think most people do. I don't see why I, or anyone else, cannot make
statements based on observations and what we think are reasonable causes
and effects of the observations.

There are a lot of things sick in this world. Doping in cycling isn't
too bad in the scheme of things. Some things jump out at me as being
waay sicker. Say, a company that keeps a huge team of lawyer that sue
anyone and everyone to protect their "brand image." That, in my mind
and probably a lot of other people, is just plain sick. Sicker than
making dubiously slanderous statements with regards to doping in
cycling. I have no idea if you actually support the mentality of a mob
of lawyers; I hope that you don't. The world needs a hell of a lot less
of that kind of thinking.

[donbludge@hotmail.com]

>
> Unless you have the money to buy the people who have been reaching the last
> climb with the front group.
>
> Try looking at the results from the previous year before saying something
> stupid.


....And then when they leave to race for themselves, having been given
an insight in to the preparation needed, they get busted for doping.

[optional@telus.net]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:50:03 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
com> wrote:


>Unless you have the money to buy the people who have been reaching the last
>climb with the front group.
>
>Try looking at the results from the previous year before saying something
>stupid.

Hmmm... The point is that Discovery did not buy 5-8 of the top 20
riders. They got mediocre riders such as Hincapie or Landis or
Rubiera and solely through training, nutrition, superior bicycles, and
the sheer exhilaration of riding for "...the best team in the history
of sport", made them into people who could ride all but the top 20 off
their wheels.

Armstrong had better nutrition and technology than even his teammates
(he probably kept the tastiest powerbars for himself, and his helmet
was way cooler), that is why he kept winning instead of one of those
others (who were of inferior breeding anyway, not being from Texas).

[Colin Campbell]

optional@telus.net wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:50:03 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
> com> wrote:
>
>
>> Unless you have the money to buy the people who have been reaching the last
>> climb with the front group.
>>
>> Try looking at the results from the previous year before saying something
>> stupid.
>
> Hmmm... The point is that Discovery did not buy 5-8 of the top 20
> riders. They got mediocre riders such as Hincapie or Landis or
> Rubiera and solely through training, nutrition, superior bicycles, and
> the sheer exhilaration of riding for "...the best team in the history
> of sport", made them into people who could ride all but the top 20 off
> their wheels.
>
> Armstrong had better nutrition and technology than even his teammates
> (he probably kept the tastiest powerbars for himself, and his helmet
> was way cooler), that is why he kept winning instead of one of those
> others (who were of inferior breeding anyway, not being from Texas).
>
At least you understand the desirability of being born a Texan!
Signed,
Native Texan

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:54:19 -0700, optional@telus.net wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:50:03 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
>com> wrote:
>
>
>>Unless you have the money to buy the people who have been reaching the last
>>climb with the front group.
>>
>>Try looking at the results from the previous year before saying something
>>stupid.
>
>Hmmm... The point is that Discovery did not buy 5-8 of the top 20
>riders. They got mediocre riders such as Hincapie or Landis

Mediocre is a strong word. Landis hit international pro racing very
hard from the get-go on different team than USPS/Discovery, contending
(I believe) in both the Tour of the the Future and the Tour of
Langkawi for the overall in his first two years as an international
pro. The former in particular is a sign that the rider has great
potential for grand tours.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[Michael Press]

In article <329xi.111038$xk5.50666@edtnps82>,
Doug Smith <sluggo@telus.net> wrote:

> Bill C wrote:
> > On Aug 16, 7:09 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
> > wrote:
> >> Bill C wrote:
> >>> I think there's a good possibility that you are a wife beating scum
> >>> based on the national statistics, and my imagination.
> >> I'm not sure about the scum part, but since I've never been married, you probability estimate is optimistic.
> >>
> >> Dan
> >
> > OK that allows for date rape, and other abuse, especially if we use
> > N.O.W'.s figures.
> > The point is it's ridiculous, and irresponsible to make actionable
> > accusations without solid proof. Harley-Davidson is one entity that
> > I'm incredibly familiar with who has a huge team of lawyers that sue
> > anyone and everyone to protect their "brand image". They don't lose
> > many of them. Maybe since Disco is going out they wont bother, but if
> > they re planning on returning at some point this might be exactly the
> > right case to serve, and make Chris recant and apologize the way
> > Schilling backpeddled on steroids when he was under oath in front of
> > Congress.
> > Bill C
> >
>
>
> What's so ridiculous? That someone (Horner) can't say something without
> a bunch of people jumping up and down talking lawyerese and thinking
> about slander? That someone can't say some **** and have a bunch of
> people hold their statements to burdens of proof as dictated by US Laws?
> Give me a break, the man said something that makes sense to a lot of
> people. I make conjectures all the time about all things in life. I
> think most people do. I don't see why I, or anyone else, cannot make
> statements based on observations and what we think are reasonable causes
> and effects of the observations.

That it makes sense to a lot of people is no defense.
It is mud slinging, at a team that never tested
positive. National Socialism made a lot of sense to a
lot of people.

--
Michael Press

[Bill C]

On Aug 16, 11:58 pm, Doug Smith <slu...@telus.net> wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > On Aug 16, 7:09 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
> > wrote:
> >> Bill C wrote:
> >>> I think there's a good possibility that you are a wife beating scum
> >>> based on the national statistics, and my imagination.
> >> I'm not sure about the scum part, but since I've never been married, you probability estimate is optimistic.
>
> >> Dan
>
> > OK that allows for date rape, and other abuse, especially if we use
> > N.O.W'.s figures.
> > The point is it's ridiculous, and irresponsible to make actionable
> > accusations without solid proof. Harley-Davidson is one entity that
> > I'm incredibly familiar with who has a huge team of lawyers that sue
> > anyone and everyone to protect their "brand image". They don't lose
> > many of them. Maybe since Disco is going out they wont bother, but if
> > they re planning on returning at some point this might be exactly the
> > right case to serve, and make Chris recant and apologize the way
> > Schilling backpeddled on steroids when he was under oath in front of
> > Congress.
> > Bill C
>
> What's so ridiculous? That someone (Horner) can't say something without
> a bunch of people jumping up and down talking lawyerese and thinking
> about slander? That someone can't say some **** and have a bunch of
> people hold their statements to burdens of proof as dictated by US Laws?
> Give me a break, the man said something that makes sense to a lot of
> people. I make conjectures all the time about all things in life. I
> think most people do. I don't see why I, or anyone else, cannot make
> statements based on observations and what we think are reasonable causes
> and effects of the observations.
>
> There are a lot of things sick in this world. Doping in cycling isn't
> too bad in the scheme of things. Some things jump out at me as being
> waay sicker. Say, a company that keeps a huge team of lawyer that sue
> anyone and everyone to protect their "brand image." That, in my mind
> and probably a lot of other people, is just plain sick. Sicker than
> making dubiously slanderous statements with regards to doping in
> cycling. I have no idea if you actually support the mentality of a mob
> of lawyers; I hope that you don't. The world needs a hell of a lot less
> of that kind of thinking.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Horner isn't Joe Blow on the outside. He's in a position as a member
of a small group, at the highest level, where he has knowledge we
don't, and could rightfully be considered, at least, a professional
opinion on it. That changes the status of anything he has to say and
gives it more credibility. Therefore anything he says carries more
weight and is potentially more damaging. TYhere's a responsibility
that goes with being in a select position, and courts have found this
over the years. They hold insiders and experts to different standards
due to their superior knowledge and credibility in their subject.
To answer Ben, that's why it's OK for most of us to blather, and I'm
careful about this due to being an infrequently working official, but
not for insiders to make claims they can't prove, which others will
judge to be credible just based on their position.
Disco, and others can afford to ignore Joe Blow with no damage, not
sure if they will ignore Chris Horner. Lot's of companies wouldn't and
don't when their brand image is at stake.
Bill C

[Doug Smith]

Bill C wrote:
> On Aug 16, 11:58 pm, Doug Smith <slu...@telus.net> wrote:
>> Bill C wrote:
>>> On Aug 16, 7:09 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Bill C wrote:
>>>>> I think there's a good possibility that you are a wife beating scum
>>>>> based on the national statistics, and my imagination.
>>>> I'm not sure about the scum part, but since I've never been married, you probability estimate is optimistic.
>>>> Dan
>>> OK that allows for date rape, and other abuse, especially if we use
>>> N.O.W'.s figures.
>>> The point is it's ridiculous, and irresponsible to make actionable
>>> accusations without solid proof. Harley-Davidson is one entity that
>>> I'm incredibly familiar with who has a huge team of lawyers that sue
>>> anyone and everyone to protect their "brand image". They don't lose
>>> many of them. Maybe since Disco is going out they wont bother, but if
>>> they re planning on returning at some point this might be exactly the
>>> right case to serve, and make Chris recant and apologize the way
>>> Schilling backpeddled on steroids when he was under oath in front of
>>> Congress.
>>> Bill C
>> What's so ridiculous? That someone (Horner) can't say something without
>> a bunch of people jumping up and down talking lawyerese and thinking
>> about slander? That someone can't say some **** and have a bunch of
>> people hold their statements to burdens of proof as dictated by US Laws?
>> Give me a break, the man said something that makes sense to a lot of
>> people. I make conjectures all the time about all things in life. I
>> think most people do. I don't see why I, or anyone else, cannot make
>> statements based on observations and what we think are reasonable causes
>> and effects of the observations.
>>
>> There are a lot of things sick in this world. Doping in cycling isn't
>> too bad in the scheme of things. Some things jump out at me as being
>> waay sicker. Say, a company that keeps a huge team of lawyer that sue
>> anyone and everyone to protect their "brand image." That, in my mind
>> and probably a lot of other people, is just plain sick. Sicker than
>> making dubiously slanderous statements with regards to doping in
>> cycling. I have no idea if you actually support the mentality of a mob
>> of lawyers; I hope that you don't. The world needs a hell of a lot less
>> of that kind of thinking.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Horner isn't Joe Blow on the outside. He's in a position as a member
> of a small group, at the highest level, where he has knowledge we
> don't, and could rightfully be considered, at least, a professional
> opinion on it. That changes the status of anything he has to say and
> gives it more credibility. Therefore anything he says carries more
> weight and is potentially more damaging. TYhere's a responsibility
> that goes with being in a select position, and courts have found this
> over the years. They hold insiders and experts to different standards
> due to their superior knowledge and credibility in their subject.
> To answer Ben, that's why it's OK for most of us to blather, and I'm
> careful about this due to being an infrequently working official, but
> not for insiders to make claims they can't prove, which others will
> judge to be credible just based on their position.
> Disco, and others can afford to ignore Joe Blow with no damage, not
> sure if they will ignore Chris Horner. Lot's of companies wouldn't and
> don't when their brand image is at stake.
> Bill C
>


Fair enough, I see where you're coming from.

I'm not sure how professional opinions are viewed though. Let's suppose
everyone agrees that Horner has a professional and expert opinion.
Ethically should he be making statements that he believes are true even
if he can't prove it? It's my understanding that if Horner really does
believe in what he is saying, then in fact he is making a true
statement. Which is a lot different from someone saying someone else is
a dog ****er when in fact he knows that's not true...

[Geraard Spergen]

benn.trovato@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 16, 1:16 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> wrote:
>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2007/interviews/?id=chris_horner_aug07
>>
>> "You can see the differences," he said. "As a rider it is easily
>> perceptible, or as a well-educated fan sitting at home. You get to a
>> climb and everyone has maybe one or two team-mates with him -- that is
>> doable. You can't have a leader's team getting to the final climb with
>> five guys on the front, like every year from three years back all the
>> way back. It is impossible to ride the front with your whole team and
>> get to the final climb with most of your team still on the front --
>> and be ready to come back and do it day in and day out."
>> --
>> JT
>> ****************************
>> Remove "remove" to reply
>> Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
>> ****************************
>
> I like the way he called Predictor a buncha cheap pikers as he's
> renegotiating a contract in a shrinking market into which riders like
> Leipheimer have suddenly become available. Back to the Valley of the
> Sun race with you...
>

He may eventually regret saying this, but it seems he was pretty careful
not to mention Discovery/USPS by name so I don't think there's any libel
case to pursue.

[Donald Munro]

Geraard Spergen wrote:
> He may eventually regret saying this, but it seems he was pretty careful
> not to mention Discovery/USPS by name so I don't think there's any libel
> case to pursue.

That's what I thought as well. After all there were other
teams who often had a fair number of riders in contention
on the last climb. The team in pink comes to mind, that is
when they weren't attacking each other.

[Bill C]

On Aug 17, 4:52 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
> Seems bitter. The sidebar article reads like a no-major-palmares
> Lemond in the making. Any bets on whether he'll take Frankie Andreu's
> place in the on the spot race coverage? He definitely likes to talk.
>
> R

My thought was that for years Frankie was one of those riders with the
leader. Does that mean he's calling Frankie a doper?
I'd love to hear that discussion.
Bill C

[Mark Fennell]

RicodJour wrote:
>> Seems bitter. The sidebar article reads like a no-major-palmares
>> Lemond in the making. Any bets on whether he'll take Frankie Andreu's
>> place in the on the spot race coverage? He definitely likes to talk.

Bill C. wrote:
> My thought was that for years Frankie was one of those riders with the
> leader. Does that mean he's calling Frankie a doper?
> I'd love to hear that discussion.

Bill, you do know that Frankie confessed, don't you?

As time goes on, there are more and more ex-USPS and ex-Disco riders who
have started talking off-the-record about their experiences on the team. It
seems highly likely that some will step forward on-the-record within the
next year or two. IMHO.

[Mark Fennell]

RicodJour wrote:
>> Seems bitter. The sidebar article reads like a no-major-palmares
>> Lemond in the making. Any bets on whether he'll take Frankie Andreu's
>> place in the on the spot race coverage? He definitely likes to talk.

Bill C. wrote:
> My thought was that for years Frankie was one of those riders with the
> leader. Does that mean he's calling Frankie a doper?
> I'd love to hear that discussion.

Bill, you do know that Frankie confessed, don't you?

As time goes on, there are more and more ex-USPS and ex-Disco riders who
have started talking off-the-record about their experiences on the team. It
seems highly likely that some will step forward on-the-record within the
next year or two. IMHO.

[Hunter]

On Aug 17, 3:07 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:

> My thought was that for years Frankie was one of those riders with the
> leader. Does that mean he's calling Frankie a doper?
> I'd love to hear that discussion.
> Bill C


BAAHAHA. Not quite as good as explaining fixed gear riding to Shaun
Wallace, but you're getting closer.

[Stu Fleming]

Bill C wrote:
> On Aug 17, 4:52 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>> Seems bitter. The sidebar article reads like a no-major-palmares
>> Lemond in the making. Any bets on whether he'll take Frankie Andreu's
>> place in the on the spot race coverage? He definitely likes to talk.
>>
>> R
>
> My thought was that for years Frankie was one of those riders with the
> leader. Does that mean he's calling Frankie a doper?
> I'd love to hear that discussion.

Pay attention.
http://groups.google.com/group/Tidalforce/browse_thread/thread/878255bddec3b87c/7e4b8023f49d0ac2?lnk=st&q=Andreu&rnum=9#7e4b8023f49d0ac2

[Tom Kunich]

"Mark Fennell" <marco_fennelli@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Qooxi.84810$TW6.3620@newsfe06.phx...
> RicodJour wrote:
>>> Seems bitter. The sidebar article reads like a no-major-palmares
>>> Lemond in the making. Any bets on whether he'll take Frankie Andreu's
>>> place in the on the spot race coverage? He definitely likes to talk.
>
> Bill C. wrote:
>> My thought was that for years Frankie was one of those riders with the
>> leader. Does that mean he's calling Frankie a doper?
>> I'd love to hear that discussion.
>
> Bill, you do know that Frankie confessed, don't you?

Citations please. Sounds to me like you're implying that he called Postal a
doping team.

> As time goes on, there are more and more ex-USPS and ex-Disco riders who
> have started talking off-the-record about their experiences on the team.
> It seems highly likely that some will step forward on-the-record within
> the next year or two. IMHO.

My guess is that it's a great deal more likely that you'll be assassinated.

[Michael Press]

In article <Qooxi.84810$TW6.3620@newsfe06.phx>,
"Mark Fennell" <marco_fennelli@yahoo.com> wrote:

> RicodJour wrote:
> >> Seems bitter. The sidebar article reads like a no-major-palmares
> >> Lemond in the making. Any bets on whether he'll take Frankie Andreu's
> >> place in the on the spot race coverage? He definitely likes to talk.
>
> Bill C. wrote:
> > My thought was that for years Frankie was one of those riders with the
> > leader. Does that mean he's calling Frankie a doper?
> > I'd love to hear that discussion.
>
> Bill, you do know that Frankie confessed, don't you?
>
> As time goes on, there are more and more ex-USPS and ex-Disco riders who
> have started talking off-the-record about their experiences on the team. It
> seems highly likely that some will step forward on-the-record within the
> next year or two. IMHO.

What is the point: telling tales out of school? I have
never had the least interest in blackguarding folks I
did work for, except that one guy we replaced a rotted
out cast iron sanitary drain while the tenants
continued to flush and balked at paying us the agreed
monies when we finished in one morning, cleaned up and
were on time for lunch. I do my job and know it; let
them know that I think so. Best to leave it at that.

--
Michael Press

[Bill C]

On Aug 17, 6:26 pm, Stu Fleming <stew...@wic.co.nz> wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > On Aug 17, 4:52 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> >> Seems bitter. The sidebar article reads like a no-major-palmares
> >> Lemond in the making. Any bets on whether he'll take Frankie Andreu's
> >> place in the on the spot race coverage? He definitely likes to talk.
>
> >> R
>
> > My thought was that for years Frankie was one of those riders with the
> > leader. Does that mean he's calling Frankie a doper?
> > I'd love to hear that discussion.
>
> Pay attention.http://groups.google.com/group/Tidalforce/browse_thread/thread/878255...

Reads like Zabel's "confession" and obviously Chris had something more
systematic than that in mind. Yes I did forget that, not the first or
last brain fart by any stretch of the imagination. I'm lucky that I
can remember my own damn birthday without looking at the calendar most
days.
Thanks for reminding me of that.
Bill C

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1187393808.255427.274480@g4g2000hsf.googlegro ups.com...
> On Aug 17, 6:26 pm, Stu Fleming <stew...@wic.co.nz> wrote:
>> Bill C wrote:
>> > On Aug 17, 4:52 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>> >> Seems bitter. The sidebar article reads like a no-major-palmares
>> >> Lemond in the making. Any bets on whether he'll take Frankie Andreu's
>> >> place in the on the spot race coverage? He definitely likes to talk.
>>
>> >> R
>>
>> > My thought was that for years Frankie was one of those riders with the
>> > leader. Does that mean he's calling Frankie a doper?
>> > I'd love to hear that discussion.
>>
>> Pay
>> attention.http://groups.google.com/group/Tidalforce/browse_thread/thread/878255...
>
> Reads like Zabel's "confession" and obviously Chris had something more
> systematic than that in mind. Yes I did forget that, not the first or
> last brain fart by any stretch of the imagination. I'm lucky that I
> can remember my own damn birthday without looking at the calendar most
> days.
> Thanks for reminding me of that.

Consider this - why would Lance say something like that in front of
witnesses? Does Lance seem to you to be stupid?

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 02:02:58 GMT, Doug Smith <sluggo@telus.net> wrote:

>Bill C wrote:
>> On Aug 16, 11:58 pm, Doug Smith <slu...@telus.net> wrote:
>>> Bill C wrote:
>>>> On Aug 16, 7:09 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Bill C wrote:
>>>>>> I think there's a good possibility that you are a wife beating scum
>>>>>> based on the national statistics, and my imagination.
>>>>> I'm not sure about the scum part, but since I've never been married, you probability estimate is optimistic.
>>>>> Dan
>>>> OK that allows for date rape, and other abuse, especially if we use
>>>> N.O.W'.s figures.
>>>> The point is it's ridiculous, and irresponsible to make actionable
>>>> accusations without solid proof. Harley-Davidson is one entity that
>>>> I'm incredibly familiar with who has a huge team of lawyers that sue
>>>> anyone and everyone to protect their "brand image". They don't lose
>>>> many of them. Maybe since Disco is going out they wont bother, but if
>>>> they re planning on returning at some point this might be exactly the
>>>> right case to serve, and make Chris recant and apologize the way
>>>> Schilling backpeddled on steroids when he was under oath in front of
>>>> Congress.
>>>> Bill C
>>> What's so ridiculous? That someone (Horner) can't say something without
>>> a bunch of people jumping up and down talking lawyerese and thinking
>>> about slander? That someone can't say some **** and have a bunch of
>>> people hold their statements to burdens of proof as dictated by US Laws?
>>> Give me a break, the man said something that makes sense to a lot of
>>> people. I make conjectures all the time about all things in life. I
>>> think most people do. I don't see why I, or anyone else, cannot make
>>> statements based on observations and what we think are reasonable causes
>>> and effects of the observations.
>>>
>>> There are a lot of things sick in this world. Doping in cycling isn't
>>> too bad in the scheme of things. Some things jump out at me as being
>>> waay sicker. Say, a company that keeps a huge team of lawyer that sue
>>> anyone and everyone to protect their "brand image." That, in my mind
>>> and probably a lot of other people, is just plain sick. Sicker than
>>> making dubiously slanderous statements with regards to doping in
>>> cycling. I have no idea if you actually support the mentality of a mob
>>> of lawyers; I hope that you don't. The world needs a hell of a lot less
>>> of that kind of thinking.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Horner isn't Joe Blow on the outside. He's in a position as a member
>> of a small group, at the highest level, where he has knowledge we
>> don't, and could rightfully be considered, at least, a professional
>> opinion on it. That changes the status of anything he has to say and
>> gives it more credibility. Therefore anything he says carries more
>> weight and is potentially more damaging. TYhere's a responsibility
>> that goes with being in a select position, and courts have found this
>> over the years. They hold insiders and experts to different standards
>> due to their superior knowledge and credibility in their subject.
>> To answer Ben, that's why it's OK for most of us to blather, and I'm
>> careful about this due to being an infrequently working official, but
>> not for insiders to make claims they can't prove, which others will
>> judge to be credible just based on their position.
>> Disco, and others can afford to ignore Joe Blow with no damage, not
>> sure if they will ignore Chris Horner. Lot's of companies wouldn't and
>> don't when their brand image is at stake.
>> Bill C
>>
>
>
>Fair enough, I see where you're coming from.
>
>I'm not sure how professional opinions are viewed though. Let's suppose
>everyone agrees that Horner has a professional and expert opinion.
>Ethically should he be making statements that he believes are true even
>if he can't prove it? It's my understanding that if Horner really does
>believe in what he is saying, then in fact he is making a true
>statement. Which is a lot different from someone saying someone else is
>a dog ****er when in fact he knows that's not true...

I think the fact that he lays out his rationale for thinking they are
doping protects him. If he just said "I have inside info, and they're
doping" he'd be in trouble.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 08:51:55 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Chris failed to acknowledge that Disco was also recognized as a
>one-trick-pony team, focusing almost entirely on the Tour de France.

Yeah, it's not like that team (USPS/Disco) ever won the Vuelta or got
someone on the podium, or ever won the Giro, or ever placed anyone in
the top 5 in spring classics. Right?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>>Chris failed to acknowledge that Disco was also recognized as a
>>one-trick-pony team, focusing almost entirely on the Tour de France.
>
> Yeah, it's not like that team (USPS/Disco) ever won the Vuelta or got
> someone on the podium, or ever won the Giro, or ever placed anyone in
> the top 5 in spring classics. Right?

Right. You're making the arguments I made back then and got pretty
universally trashed for. So now I take the other side and get trashed once
again.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message
news:onkec3prdvh93s3qmmotm97tn7pff7tmqr@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 08:51:55 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
> <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Chris failed to acknowledge that Disco was also recognized as a
>>one-trick-pony team, focusing almost entirely on the Tour de France.
>
> Yeah, it's not like that team (USPS/Disco) ever won the Vuelta or got
> someone on the podium, or ever won the Giro, or ever placed anyone in
> the top 5 in spring classics. Right?
> --
> JT
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************

[Michael Press]

In article
<h8Kxi.4115$i75.1132@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote:

> >>Chris failed to acknowledge that Disco was also recognized as a
> >>one-trick-pony team, focusing almost entirely on the Tour de France.
> >
> > Yeah, it's not like that team (USPS/Disco) ever won the Vuelta or got
> > someone on the podium, or ever won the Giro, or ever placed anyone in
> > the top 5 in spring classics. Right?
>
> Right. You're making the arguments I made back then and got pretty
> universally trashed for. So now I take the other side and get trashed once
> again.

Always best to stick to your story.
You will get trashed but you have more time to shore it up.

> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message
> news:onkec3prdvh93s3qmmotm97tn7pff7tmqr@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 08:51:55 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
> > <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Chris failed to acknowledge that Disco was also recognized as a
> >>one-trick-pony team, focusing almost entirely on the Tour de France.
> >
> > Yeah, it's not like that team (USPS/Disco) ever won the Vuelta or got
> > someone on the podium, or ever won the Giro, or ever placed anyone in
> > the top 5 in spring classics. Right?

--
Michael Press

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:11:24 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote:

>>>Chris failed to acknowledge that Disco was also recognized as a
>>>one-trick-pony team, focusing almost entirely on the Tour de France.
>>
>> Yeah, it's not like that team (USPS/Disco) ever won the Vuelta or got
>> someone on the podium, or ever won the Giro, or ever placed anyone in
>> the top 5 in spring classics. Right?
>
>Right. You're making the arguments I made back then and got pretty
>universally trashed for. So now I take the other side and get trashed once
>again.

I'm not making an argument, I'm stating a fact -- they've won a bunch
of different races.

Did you say they won the Vuelta and the Giro and were trashed for
saying it? I wouldn't put up with that - if what you said was true
then defend it.


--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[RonSonic]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:18:08 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:11:24 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
><MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Chris failed to acknowledge that Disco was also recognized as a
>>>>one-trick-pony team, focusing almost entirely on the Tour de France.
>>>
>>> Yeah, it's not like that team (USPS/Disco) ever won the Vuelta or got
>>> someone on the podium, or ever won the Giro, or ever placed anyone in
>>> the top 5 in spring classics. Right?
>>
>>Right. You're making the arguments I made back then and got pretty
>>universally trashed for. So now I take the other side and get trashed once
>>again.
>
>I'm not making an argument, I'm stating a fact -- they've won a bunch
>of different races.

Eddie Merckx won 5 tours in his career. In that time he also won 500 other
races. You cannot say that of the entire USPS / Disco team combined.

Ron

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> Always best to stick to your story.
> You will get trashed but you have more time to shore it up.

Word.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:rubrum-C018F6.17034818082007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com ...
> In article
> <h8Kxi.4115$i75.1132@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>
>> >>Chris failed to acknowledge that Disco was also recognized as a
>> >>one-trick-pony team, focusing almost entirely on the Tour de France.
>> >
>> > Yeah, it's not like that team (USPS/Disco) ever won the Vuelta or got
>> > someone on the podium, or ever won the Giro, or ever placed anyone in
>> > the top 5 in spring classics. Right?
>>
>> Right. You're making the arguments I made back then and got pretty
>> universally trashed for. So now I take the other side and get trashed
>> once
>> again.
>
> Always best to stick to your story.
> You will get trashed but you have more time to shore it up.
>
>> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message
>> news:onkec3prdvh93s3qmmotm97tn7pff7tmqr@4ax.com...
>> > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 08:51:55 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
>> > <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Chris failed to acknowledge that Disco was also recognized as a
>> >>one-trick-pony team, focusing almost entirely on the Tour de France.
>> >
>> > Yeah, it's not like that team (USPS/Disco) ever won the Vuelta or got
>> > someone on the podium, or ever won the Giro, or ever placed anyone in
>> > the top 5 in spring classics. Right?
>
> --
> Michael Press

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 11:14:07 -0400, RonSonic
<ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:18:08 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
><usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:11:24 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
>><MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Chris failed to acknowledge that Disco was also recognized as a
>>>>>one-trick-pony team, focusing almost entirely on the Tour de France.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, it's not like that team (USPS/Disco) ever won the Vuelta or got
>>>> someone on the podium, or ever won the Giro, or ever placed anyone in
>>>> the top 5 in spring classics. Right?
>>>
>>>Right. You're making the arguments I made back then and got pretty
>>>universally trashed for. So now I take the other side and get trashed once
>>>again.
>>
>>I'm not making an argument, I'm stating a fact -- they've won a bunch
>>of different races.
>
>Eddie Merckx won 5 tours in his career. In that time he also won 500 other
>races. You cannot say that of the entire USPS / Disco team combined.

Eddie Merck didn't win the 2004 Tour of France and wasn't able to even
start any classics that year.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[Bill C]

On Aug 19, 6:41 pm, wimpyVO2 <wimpyVO2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 16, 1:16 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2007/interviews/?id=chris_horner_aug07
>
> > "You can see the differences," he said. "As a rider it is easily
> > perceptible, or as a well-educated fan sitting at home. ...
> > It is impossible to ride the front with your whole team and
> > get to the final climb with most of your team still on the front --
> > and be ready to come back and do it day in and day out."
> > --
> > JT
>
> Chris has a valid point -- the performances do make you wonder.
> Consider the 2004 TdF, Stage 4, the team time trial. The Blue Train
> demolished the competition that day. A remarkable performance by all
> five riders. They came in over a minute ahead of... Phonak.

So we're back to everyone who has a good performance is suspect and
should be banned until they can conclusively prove a negative?
This whole thing is ridiculous at this point and they need to shut the
sport down, bacause by the current definition and procedures, every
podium is suspect for doping and therefore should be suspended.
Bill C

[Victor Kan]

On Aug 19, 6:41 pm, wimpyVO2 <wimpyVO2...@gmail.com> wrote:
....
> Chris has a valid point -- the performances do make you wonder.
> Consider the 2004 TdF, Stage 4, the team time trial. The Blue Train
> demolished the competition that day. A remarkable performance by all
> five riders. They came in over a minute ahead of... Phonak.

You mean the very rainy time trial where Phonak had multiple crashes
and punctures, with the team waiting around for guys to get back on,
while Postal had no crashes or punctures, if I recall correctly?

[Dan Connelly]

Bill C wrote:

> So we're back to everyone who has a good performance is suspect

That's correct, and always will be.

> and
> should be banned until they can conclusively prove a negative?

Of course not.

[wimpyVO2]

On Aug 20, 6:11 am, Victor Kan <victor....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 6:41 pm, wimpyVO2 <wimpyVO2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > Chris has a valid point -- the performances do make you wonder.
> > Consider the 2004 TdF, Stage 4, the team time trial. The Blue Train
> > demolished the competition that day. A remarkable performance by all
> > five riders. They came in over a minute ahead of... Phonak.
>
> You mean the very rainy time trial where Phonak had multiple crashes
> and punctures, with the team waiting around for guys to get back on,
> while Postal had no crashes or punctures, if I recall correctly?

OK, maybe I gave a bad example. Let's use what perhaps Chris Horner
was referring to: something like Stage 13 of the same race, where the
domestiques of Postal rides in front for 4 out of 5 climbs and they
wear down people like Heras, Mancebo and Ullrich. When domestiques
drop name riders that have been accused or implicated in possible
doping, people are going to wonder ... gee, how could it be that
Lance's domestiques outperformed "enhanced" riders from other teams?

I'm not accusing Postal of anything. I agree with what another poster
implied: the sad thing about doping is that it tarnishes any top
performance put in by a clean team or clean rider.

" If X dopes and Y beats X, then Y must be doping too ... how else can
you explain it?" It's false logic buts that's how people think.

[RicodJour]

On Aug 20, 9:11 am, Victor Kan <victor....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 6:41 pm, wimpyVO2 <wimpyVO2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > Chris has a valid point -- the performances do make you wonder.
> > Consider the 2004 TdF, Stage 4, the team time trial. The Blue Train
> > demolished the competition that day. A remarkable performance by all
> > five riders. They came in over a minute ahead of... Phonak.
>
> You mean the very rainy time trial where Phonak had multiple crashes
> and punctures, with the team waiting around for guys to get back on,
> while Postal had no crashes or punctures, if I recall correctly?

Yes, that's the one. From Cycling News:
"Hamilton was happy with his team's runner-up spot, but a bit bemused
by all the time lost from four flats and a broken handlebar for Santi
Gonzalez that needed a bike change. "I'm happy with the way the team
rode today - they were very strong and we wanted to win. So I'm
disappointed for them we had so many problems," explained the Man from
Marblehead after Stage 4."

Selective memory is a wonderful thing. It allows someone to determine
a "valid point" from invalid data. It's an art form - really.

R

[Donald Munro]

Bill C wrote:
>> and should be banned until they can conclusively prove a negative?

Dan Connelly wrote:
> Of course not.

Wasn't there some Iraqi rider who got banned for life for not
being able to prove a negative.

[Donald Munro]

RicodJour wrote:
> Selective memory is a wonderful thing. It allows someone to determine
> a "valid point" from invalid data. It's an art form - really.

Outlying, not invalid please, we're talking damned statistics.

[RicodJour]

On Aug 20, 11:49 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
> > Selective memory is a wonderful thing. It allows someone to determine
> > a "valid point" from invalid data. It's an art form - really.
>
> Outlying, not invalid please, we're talking damned statistics.

Outlying or out-right-lying data?

R

[Donald Munro]

Donald Munro wrote:
>> Outlying, not invalid please, we're talking damned statistics.

RicodJour wrote:
> Outlying or out-right-lying data?

I didn't know Rove was involved.

[Howard Kveck]

In article <1187636270.990015.173100@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups. com>,
RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 20, 11:49 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > RicodJour wrote:
> > > Selective memory is a wonderful thing. It allows someone to determine
> > > a "valid point" from invalid data. It's an art form - really.
> >
> > Outlying, not invalid please, we're talking damned statistics.
>
> Outlying or out-right-lying data?

Isn't that the sum of all stats (depending on how cynical you are, of course)?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Donald Munro]

wimpyVO2 wrote:
> " If X dopes and Y beats X, then Y must be doping too ... how else can
> you explain it?" It's false logic buts that's how people think.

Cyclists must be transitive, after all they wear lycra.

[wimpyVO2]

On Aug 21, 12:43 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> wimpyVO2 wrote:
> > " If X dopes and Y beats X, then Y must be doping too ... how else can
> > you explain it?" It's false logic buts that's how people think.
>
> Cyclists must be transitive, after all they wear lycra.

LOL... especially ones who wear lycra in colors other than black