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)>
"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$1@news3.infoave.net...>> www.jimrome.com>>
Lance denied ever taking anything and said they can keep his samples and >> test them 15 or 20 years from now.>>
Not the usual, "I've never tested positive" stuff.>> -- >> Bob C.>>
"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts.">> T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)
Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very credible.
"Scott" <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1112387207.911411.18400@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...> Unlike the throng of r.b.r. loonies who want to attack Lance at every> opportunity, 100% of the callers (at least 100% of the one's they put> through on the show) were completely behind Lance.
Interesting. Which rbr are you tuning in to? Rome and Armstrong go back several years together. Rome essentially worships the ground Armstrong walks on; water too for that matter. Do you really think they'd let anyone calling in question Armstrong's veracity? If you do, I have real estate for you.
Seems his> reputation in the general public (US, at least) has NOT been tarnished> by any of these allegations. If anything, he's apparently developing> quite a bit of sympathy out there. The US non-cycling public loves the> guy.>
"Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:dti3e.491$N13.206@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.org> wrote in message > news:S9i3e.1972$44.1715@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...>>
Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very credible.>
Let me see, who would I believe........Lance Armstrong or a lawyer? Hard > one that.>
That'd be a hard one even if Lance were caught doping red-handed! -- Bob C.
"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts." T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 14:59:05 -0500, "psycholist" <technico@wctel.net> wrote:
Sorry, this is a subscription site. I've read some reports about what was >said over on slowtwitch.com in the forums. Sounds like Lance asked to be on >the show for some damage control and made some very emphatic >statements/denials of ever using banned PEDs.
I'm a little surprised. Don't PR people counsel not to give these obviously dumbass comments wings by replying to them? Seems to me the typical LA thing to do would be to say nothing and file additional lawsuits? Since the guy has no proof and can't even remember the name of this alleged stuff you'd think his lawyer would be cringing.
jj
Didn't hear it for myself, but sounds interesting. Oh ... and I'm too cheap >to pay Rome to hear Lance spew.
"Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:73j3e.1851$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.
"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$44.1715@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...>>>
Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very credible.>>
Let me see, who would I believe........Lance Armstrong or a lawyer? Hard >> one that.>>
That'd be a hard one even if Lance were caught doping red-handed!
"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.org> wrote in message news:umj3e.10184$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.
"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.>
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!
"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!
<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.
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 ****************************
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.
