How to take part in discussions on other sites? (e.g. the LiveJournal)
Lance on Jim Rome
Hello Guest
  
  • Login
• Register…
• Start blog
  • Who, Where, When
• What can I do?
• What to Read?
  • Polls
• Avatars
• Interests
  • Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search
  • Search
• Games
• Tests
• GYXU
  • Сообщества
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online
 
Зарегистрируйся!

GYXU > Cycling > Lance on Jim Rome 7 April 2005 02:03:39

  Recent blog posts: 
  Forums:   
  Discuss: 
  Recent forum topics: 
  Recent forum comments:
  Moderators:

Lance on Jim Rome

Psycholist 7 April 2005 02:03:39
 www.jimrome.com

Lance denied ever taking anything and said they can keep his samples and
test them 15 or 20 years from now.

Not the usual, "I've never tested positive" stuff.
--
Bob C.

"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)


Add comment
Psycholist 1 April 2005 23:59:05 permanent link ]
 Sorry, this is a subscription site. I've read some reports about what was
said over on slowtwitch.com in the forums. Sounds like Lance asked to be on
the show for some damage control and made some very emphatic
statements/denials of ever using banned PEDs.

Didn't hear it for myself, but sounds interesting. Oh ... and I'm too cheap
to pay Rome to hear Lance spew.
--
Bob C.

"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)
"psycholist" <technico@wctel.net­> wrote in message
news:d2k8hu$8je2$1@­news3.infoave.net...­> www.jimrome.com>
Lance denied ever taking anything and said they can keep his samples and > test them 15 or 20 years from now.>
Not the usual, "I've never tested positive" stuff.> -- > Bob C.>
"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."> T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)>


Add comment
B. Lafferty 2 April 2005 00:28:34 permanent link ]
 
"psycholist" <technico@wctel.net­> wrote in message
news:d2k96d$8j92$1@­news3.infoave.net...­> Sorry, this is a subscription site. I've read some reports about what was > said over on slowtwitch.com in the forums. Sounds like Lance asked to be > on the show for some damage control and made some very emphatic > statements/denials of ever using banned PEDs.>
Didn't hear it for myself, but sounds interesting. Oh ... and I'm too > cheap to pay Rome to hear Lance spew.> -- > Bob C.>
"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."> T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)> "psycholist" <technico@wctel.net­> wrote in message > news:d2k8hu$8je2$1@­news3.infoave.net...­>> www.jimrome.com>>
Lance denied ever taking anything and said they can keep his samples and >> test them 15 or 20 years from now.>>
Not the usual, "I've never tested positive" stuff.>> -- >> Bob C.>>
"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts.">> T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)

Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very credible.


Add comment
B. Lafferty 2 April 2005 00:32:08 permanent link ]
 
"Scott" <hendricks_scott@ho­tmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112387207.911­411.18400@l41g2000cw­c.googlegroups.com..­.> Unlike the throng of r.b.r. loonies who want to attack Lance at every> opportunity, 100% of the callers (at least 100% of the one's they put> through on the show) were completely behind Lance.

Interesting. Which rbr are you tuning in to? Rome and Armstrong go back
several years together. Rome essentially worships the ground Armstrong
walks on; water too for that matter. Do you really think they'd let anyone
calling in question Armstrong's veracity? If you do, I have real estate for
you.

Seems his> reputation in the general public (US, at least) has NOT been tarnished> by any of these allegations. If anything, he's apparently developing> quite a bit of sympathy out there. The US non-cycling public loves the> guy.>
S.>


Add comment
Psycholist 2 April 2005 00:44:49 permanent link ]
 "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.org> wrote in message
news:S9i3e.1972$44.­1715@newsread1.news.­atl.earthlink.net...­
Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very credible.

You're the only person I've heard who saw it and thought so. It doesn't
sound to me like there's much of anything in what Anderson is saying or
doing that has much credibility. He says he saw something. He says he's
not sure what it was, but he looked it up on WADA.com and it was banned. He
never saw Lance taking it. And, oh by the way, he's in a legal pissing
contest with Lance.

There's nothing concrete here. There's only the word of a disgruntled
former employee vs. Lance. HA! This guy wasn't even smart enough to wait
until a week before the Tour to heighten interest in his story.
--
Bob C.

"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)


Add comment
Tom Kunich 2 April 2005 00:49:13 permanent link ]
 "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.org> wrote in message
news:S9i3e.1972$44.­1715@newsread1.news.­atl.earthlink.net...­>
Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very credible.

Let me see, who would I believe........Lanc­e Armstrong or a lawyer? Hard one
that.


Add comment
Psycholist 2 April 2005 00:50:52 permanent link ]
 "Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.­net> wrote in message
news:dti3e.491$N13.­206@newsread3.news.p­as.earthlink.net...>­ "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.org> wrote in message > news:S9i3e.1972$44.­1715@newsread1.news.­atl.earthlink.net...­>>
Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very credible.>
Let me see, who would I believe........Lanc­e Armstrong or a lawyer? Hard > one that.>

That'd be a hard one even if Lance were caught doping red-handed!
--
Bob C.

"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)


Add comment
B. Lafferty 2 April 2005 01:18:01 permanent link ]
 
"Scott" <hendricks_scott@ho­tmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112388011.154­643.42320@g14g2000cw­a.googlegroups.com..­.> Hmmm... anyone out there have any doubts that Lafferty would've> responded any other way that he did to my note or to Bob C.'s ?

Personal attacks prove nothing.
Anderson was anything but credible.

Your opinion and that's ok. I ran into two people I don't know at my LBS
today who saw Anderson on ESPN and found him believable. Credibility is for
the trier of fact, be that judge or jury, to determine in context with the
totality of the evidence.
He's an extortionist, nothing> more. You see, employers don't fire folks they're afraid of. They> promote them, pay them off, whatever.

You must live in a very interesting business world. And, you're making
quite a few assumptions about Armstrong as an employer (as opposed to
Tailwind) that may or may not be valid.
If Lance really thought Anderson> had the goods on him, as Anderson alleges, would Lance really send him> packing without a sufficient buyout and confidentiality agreement? No.

My understanding is that Armstrong did try to get Anderson to sign a
confidentiality agreement and that he apparently refused. As a strategy,
commencing an action against someone with a strong case is often best,
especially when you can afford to pay hefty legal fees as Armstrong can.
Too bad he didn't work for M. Jackson. He might have gotten paid off.

Does Michael race bicycles?
For what it's worth, I'm fully aware of Rome's love for Lance, and I> took that into consideration as I listened to his show.

It's not worth very much because you don't know how many non-positive calls
were received by the Rome show.


Add comment
Tom Kunich 2 April 2005 01:29:39 permanent link ]
 "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.org> wrote in message
news:dUi3e.12719$S4­6.9011@newsread3.new­s.atl.earthlink.net.­..>
I ran into two people I don't know at my LBS today who saw Anderson on > ESPN and found him believable.

Were they anonymous rbr posters as well?


Add comment
Jet 2 April 2005 01:39:26 permanent link ]
 On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 14:59:05 -0500, "psycholist" <technico@wctel.net­> wrote:
Sorry, this is a subscription site. I've read some reports about what was >said over on slowtwitch.com in the forums. Sounds like Lance asked to be on >the show for some damage control and made some very emphatic >statements/denials­ of ever using banned PEDs.

I'm a little surprised. Don't PR people counsel not to give these obviously
dumbass comments wings by replying to them? Seems to me the typical LA
thing to do would be to say nothing and file additional lawsuits? Since the
guy has no proof and can't even remember the name of this alleged stuff
you'd think his lawyer would be cringing.

jj
Didn't hear it for myself, but sounds interesting. Oh ... and I'm too cheap >to pay Rome to hear Lance spew.

Add comment
B. Lafferty 2 April 2005 01:48:21 permanent link ]
 
"Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.­net> wrote in message
news:73j3e.1851$EE2­.1209@newsread2.news­.pas.earthlink.net..­.> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.org> wrote in message > news:dUi3e.12719$S4­6.9011@newsread3.new­s.atl.earthlink.net.­..>>
I ran into two people I don't know at my LBS today who saw Anderson on >> ESPN and found him believable.>
Were they anonymous rbr posters as well?

If I run into them again, I'll be certain to ask them.


Add comment
B. Lafferty 2 April 2005 01:50:18 permanent link ]
 
"psycholist" <technico@wctel.net­> wrote in message
news:d2kc7g$8ie5$1@­news3.infoave.net...­> "Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.­net> wrote in message > news:dti3e.491$N13.­206@newsread3.news.p­as.earthlink.net...>­> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.org> wrote in message >> news:S9i3e.1972$44.­1715@newsread1.news.­atl.earthlink.net...­>>>
Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very credible.>>
Let me see, who would I believe........Lanc­e Armstrong or a lawyer? Hard >> one that.>>
That'd be a hard one even if Lance were caught doping red-handed!

Would you believe Lance Armstrong's lawyer?


Add comment
Psycholist 2 April 2005 01:53:33 permanent link ]
 "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.org> wrote in message
news:umj3e.10184$z.­9585@newsread2.news.­atl.earthlink.net...­>
"psycholist" <technico@wctel.net­> wrote in message > news:d2kc7g$8ie5$1@­news3.infoave.net...­>> "Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.­net> wrote in message >> news:dti3e.491$N13.­206@newsread3.news.p­as.earthlink.net...>­>> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.org> wrote in message >>> news:S9i3e.1972$44.­1715@newsread1.news.­atl.earthlink.net...­>>>>
Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very credible.>>>
Let me see, who would I believe........Lanc­e Armstrong or a lawyer? Hard >>> one that.>>>
That'd be a hard one even if Lance were caught doping red-handed!>
Would you believe Lance Armstrong's lawyer?

Ha ... I couldn't say. I'm in dangerous territory here. I'm married to a
lawyer and right now she's in the room using my fax machine. Gotta lay low.

Bob C.


Add comment
B. Lafferty 2 April 2005 01:55:21 permanent link ]
 
"psycholist" <technico@wctel.net­> wrote in message
news:d2kft2$8lhk$1@­news3.infoave.net...­> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.org> wrote in message > news:umj3e.10184$z.­9585@newsread2.news.­atl.earthlink.net...­>>
"psycholist" <technico@wctel.net­> wrote in message >> news:d2kc7g$8ie5$1@­news3.infoave.net...­>>> "Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.­net> wrote in message >>> news:dti3e.491$N13.­206@newsread3.news.p­as.earthlink.net...>­>>> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.org> wrote in message >>>> news:S9i3e.1972$44.­1715@newsread1.news.­atl.earthlink.net...­>>>>>
Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very credible.>>>>
Let me see, who would I believe........Lanc­e Armstrong or a lawyer? >>>> Hard one that.>>>>
That'd be a hard one even if Lance were caught doping red-handed!>>
Would you believe Lance Armstrong's lawyer?>
Ha ... I couldn't say. I'm in dangerous territory here. I'm married to a > lawyer and right now she's in the room using my fax machine. Gotta lay > low.>
Bob C.
Good luck. :-)­


Add comment
MagillaGorilla 2 April 2005 06:06:39 permanent link ]
 psycholist wrote:> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.org> wrote in message > news:S9i3e.1972$44.­1715@newsread1.news.­atl.earthlink.net...­>
Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very credible.>
You're the only person I've heard who saw it and thought so. It doesn't > sound to me like there's much of anything in what Anderson is saying or > doing that has much credibility. He says he saw something. He says he's > not sure what it was, but he looked it up on WADA.com and it was banned. He > never saw Lance taking it. And, oh by the way, he's in a legal pissing > contest with Lance.>
There's nothing concrete here. There's only the word of a disgruntled > former employee vs. Lance. HA! This guy wasn't even smart enough to wait > until a week before the Tour to heighten interest in his story.


What Brian really means is this:

1. Anderson finds Andro in Girona apartment.
2. Anderson asks for $500/month raise.
3. Armstrong interprets this as a form of legal extortion related to the
Andro DISCOVERY.
4. Armstrong gives Anderson the raise.
5. Armstrong asks Anderson to sign a confidentiality agreement to
preempt disclosure of the Andro DISCOVERY.
6. Anderson says no way, LancГ©.
7. Anderson asks for $500,000, signed yellow jersey, and endorsement to
set up a bike shop to buy his hush-up (but doesn't come ut and say he
knows about the Andro)
8. Armstrong sees the writing on the wall and sues Anderson, knowing
full well that a claim of finding Andro in a countersuit will look like
retaliation for the lawsuit. Armstrong gains the upper hand in the PR war.

Magilla
Add comment
Bob Schwartz 2 April 2005 06:29:11 permanent link ]
 MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo­.com> wrote:> What Brian really means is this:
1. Anderson finds Andro in Girona apartment.> 2. Anderson asks for $500/month raise.> 3. Armstrong interprets this as a form of legal extortion related to the > Andro DISCOVERY.> 4. Armstrong gives Anderson the raise.> 5. Armstrong asks Anderson to sign a confidentiality agreement to > preempt disclosure of the Andro DISCOVERY.> 6. Anderson says no way, Lanc?.> 7. Anderson asks for $500,000, signed yellow jersey, and endorsement to > set up a bike shop to buy his hush-up (but doesn't come ut and say he > knows about the Andro)> 8. Armstrong sees the writing on the wall and sues Anderson, knowing > full well that a claim of finding Andro in a countersuit will look like > retaliation for the lawsuit. Armstrong gains the upper hand in the PR war.
Magilla

Wow! That actually made sense. I'm astounded to be in agreement!

Bob Schwartz
cvcc@execpc.com
Add comment
Tom Kunich 2 April 2005 07:43:12 permanent link ]
 "psycholist" <technico@wctel.net­> wrote in message
news:d2kft2$8lhk$1@­news3.infoave.net...­>
Ha ... I couldn't say. I'm in dangerous territory here. I'm married to a > lawyer and right now she's in the room using my fax machine. Gotta lay > low.

So THAT'S the way you used to cover all your legal costs!


Add comment
Tim Lines 2 April 2005 12:17:03 permanent link ]
 B. Lafferty wrote:> "Scott" <hendricks_scott@ho­tmail.com> wrote in message > news:1112388011.154­643.42320@g14g2000cw­a.googlegroups.com..­.>
Hmmm... anyone out there have any doubts that Lafferty would've>>responded­ any other way that he did to my note or to Bob C.'s ?>
Personal attacks prove nothing.

I don't think this is a personal attack, just an observation.

I don't know what kind of law you practice, but I'll bet you're pretty
damned good at it. If I needed a lawyer, I'd want one that was so
one-sided he couldn't understand any point of view other than my own and
would just hammer on it, and beat the other side to a bloody pulp with
single-minded claptrap. One like you.
Add comment
Robert Chung 2 April 2005 13:00:03 permanent link ]
 Kurgan Gringioni wrote:>
If I was on a jury, I'd vote against his client just because his> counsel was so goddamm annoying.

But it might be pretty entertaining when he called a gym teacher as his
star witness.


Add comment
B. Lafferty 2 April 2005 15:29:57 permanent link ]
 
<Ray_Manor@hotmail.­com> wrote in message
news:1112400454.909­747.239640@o13g2000c­wo.googlegroups.com.­..>
B. Lafferty wrote:>>
Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very> credible.>
So you're buying real estate from him.>
ray

Funny. There are at least three possibilities:
1. He's credible and telling the truth.
2. He appears credible but would/will not under cross-examination.
3. He's a true grifter, appears credible, will not fold under
cross-examination.


Add comment
Tim Lines 2 April 2005 23:39:15 permanent link ]
 Kurgan Gringioni wrote:> Tim Lines wrote:>
B. Lafferty wrote:>>
"Scott" <hendricks_scott@ho­tmail.com> wrote in message>>>news:1112­388011.154643.42320@­g14g2000cwa.googlegr­oups.com...>>>
Hmmm... anyone out there have any doubts that Lafferty would've>>>>respond­ed any other way that he did to my note or to Bob C.'s ?>>>
Personal attacks prove nothing.>>
I don't think this is a personal attack, just an observation.>>
I don't know what kind of law you practice, but I'll bet you're>
pretty>
damned good at it. If I needed a lawyer, I'd want one that was so>>one-sided he couldn't understand any point of view other than my own>
would just hammer on it, and beat the other side to a bloody pulp>
with>
single-minded claptrap. One like you.>
Dumbass ->
I'll bet Lafferty sucks at it.>
If I was on a jury, I'd vote against his client just because his> counsel was so goddamm annoying.>

But lawyers are sometimes paid to be annoying and tenacious. At least
partly. They should also choose the ground they defend carefully enough
to be persuasive in the end. Without that last bit, they are just
tenaciously annoying. Which is a reasonable basis for a series of rbr
posts, but not a law career.
Add comment


David Goldberg 3 April 2005 05:23:43 permanent link ]
 

psycholist wrote:
Lance denied ever taking anything and said they can keep his samples and> test them 15 or 20 years from now.>
Not the usual, "I've never tested positive" stuff.

Lance went from cycling nobody to winning the TDF 6 times in a row right
after having a brain tumor and a testicle removed.

The guy is ON something.

Add comment
John Forrest Tomlinson 3 April 2005 05:41:37 permanent link ]
 On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 17:23:43 -0800, David Goldberg
<nobody@nowhere.com­> wrote:
Lance went from cycling nobody to >winning the TDF 6 times in a row right>after having a brain tumor and a testicle removed.

Two Tour of France stage wins, a pro world road championship, two
classics and a couple top fives in a monumental classic is a "nobody"?

Your ignorance is remarkable.

JT


*******************­*********
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.­com
*******************­*********
Add comment


Gwhite 3 April 2005 07:42:23 permanent link ]
 Tim Lines wrote:>
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:> > Tim Lines wrote:> >
B. Lafferty wrote:> >>
"Scott" <hendricks_scott@ho­tmail.com> wrote in message> >>>news:1112388011.­154643.42320@g14g200­0cwa.googlegroups.co­m...> >>>
Hmmm... anyone out there have any doubts that Lafferty would've> >>>>responded any other way that he did to my note or to Bob C.'s ?> >>>
Personal attacks prove nothing.> >>
I don't think this is a personal attack, just an observation.> >>
I don't know what kind of law you practice, but I'll bet you're> >
pretty> >
damned good at it. If I needed a lawyer, I'd want one that was so> >>one-sided he couldn't understand any point of view other than my own> >
would just hammer on it, and beat the other side to a bloody pulp> >
with> >
single-minded claptrap. One like you.> >
Dumbass -> >
I'll bet Lafferty sucks at it.> >
If I was on a jury, I'd vote against his client just because his> > counsel was so goddamm annoying.> >
But lawyers are sometimes paid to be annoying and tenacious. At least> partly. They should also choose the ground they defend carefully enough> to be persuasive in the end. Without that last bit, they are just> tenaciously annoying. Which is a reasonable basis for a series of rbr> posts, but not a law career.

I was going to say that lawyers put their pants on the same way as everyone else
but realized Phil Moore must think his underwear is a hat.
Add comment
John Forrest Tomlinson 4 April 2005 14:34:37 permanent link ]
 On 3 Apr 2005 22:10:54 -0700, hizark21@yahoo.com wrote:
I amazed that the rest of world seems to operate on the guilt by>inuendo theory of justice. This just goes to show how lucky that the US>does not utilize the Napoleonic code.

Do you apply a courtroom standard of justice in your daily life? If
you do, you're in idiot. If you don't, you're a hypocrite.

JT

*******************­*********
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.­com
*******************­*********
Add comment


MagillaGorilla 4 April 2005 17:53:22 permanent link ]
 John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On 3 Apr 2005 22:10:54 -0700, hizark21@yahoo.com wrote:>
I amazed that the rest of world seems to operate on the guilt by>>inuendo theory of justice. This just goes to show how lucky that the US>>does not utilize the Napoleonic code.>
Do you apply a courtroom standard of justice in your daily life? If> you do, you're in idiot. If you don't, you're a hypocrite.>


Well, most people don't..but only because the penalty isn't
incarceration or a huge monetary fine and a criminal record. So there's
no need to do so in a practical sense, or out of expediency.

Magilla
Add comment
 

Add new comment

As:
Login:  Password:  
 
 
  
 
Пожалуйста, относитесь к собеседникам уважительно, не используйте нецензурные слова, не злоупотребляйте заглавными буквами, не публикуйте рекламу и объявления о купле/продаже, а также материалы нарушающие сетевой этикет или УК РФ.


GYXU > Cycling > Lance on Jim Rome 7 April 2005 02:03:39

see also:
07 Yamaha Phazer FX.
Re: Lothar Matthus to coach Atltico…
2006 FA Vase Fourth Round Proper…
пройди тесты:
see also:
...

  Copyright © 2001—2008 GYXU
Idea: Miсhael Monashev
Помощь и задать вопросы можно в сообществе support.gyxu.com.
Сообщения об ошибках оставляем в сообществе bugs.gyxu.com.
Предложения и комментарии пишем в сообществе suggest.gyxu.com.
Информация для родителей.
Write us at:
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .