The TDF is a UCI race , so ASO cannot take away his TDF wins untill UCI says so .
Don't the Swiss hate the Americans even more than the French hate the Americans though?
More words and letters than ad hominem
well, "ad hominem attack" generally
granted, 9 more characters but probably fewer unneccessary googlings and a bit less pompous feel to it IMO
ASO is far more powerful than the UCI they can choose what they want to do - they don't need the UCI, as the UCI discovered when they tried to take control of the calendar and if anything ASO are stronger now as they have a stake in the Vuelta. That doesn't mean they will do anything different, they will do what it is commercially expedient and allows the tour to grow.
The battle between the UCI and the organisers of the big races is the context in which this whole farrago should be viewed. Armstrong who gave the UCI the opportunity to spread cycling to big money new territories perhaps proved too valuable an ally for their integrity.
well, "ad hominem attack" generally
granted, 9 more characters but probably fewer unneccessary googlings and a bit less pompous feel to it IMO
So you want me to use dumbed down but less efficient language, because you don't like using google to learn about stuff, and insult other people when they know (fairly common) stuff you don't? 😛
Anyway, it's a totally bona fide term. 😉
I'm aware of the term, grum but unlikely ever to use it - even if it is Kosher (1 word and 3 characters to me, I believe ! 😆 )
ASO have not commented yet , according to L Equipe ( same company as ASO ) they are waiting for UCI .
Are you lot going to argue ad nauseum about the correct term to use for a personal attack? i.e. get upset about the use of latin phrases etc.? Well they're in the dictionary, QED.
nauseam 😉
(or have I been hoist with my own petard ?)
yes but I got away with ad hoc ..that is all i cared about 😳
Wanders off to find a life
carpe diem
et cetera ?
Let's just nip this in the bud now or it could go on ad infinitum.
ASO have not commented yet , according to L Equipe ( same company as ASO ) they are waiting for UCI .
It is the same group to be precise, management has been split, my guess is that they will follow what the UCI does as it is ancient history and they have not been crusading about drugs since they got rid of Patrice Clerc. If he was still around they would have stripped Armstong like they did Riis.
Tour Director Christian Prudhomme has erased Bjarne Riis' name from the Tour de France record books in light of the Dane's confession that he won the 1996 Tour while using doping products."Formally it's down to the International Cycling Union [UCI] to disqualify him but for us he can no longer be the winner and he has already been wiped from the road book [the official press guide] you will see at the start of the Tour," Prudhomme told the Manchester Guardian. "His name will not be at the top of the page, and below we will put that following his confession he cannot be considered the winner of that Tour."
At a press conference last month, Riis confessed to having used EPO, growth hormones and cortisone. He also said, "My yellow jersey is in box at home, you can come and collect it." Prudhomme confirmed that negotiations to pick up the jersey are underway.
He would not comment as to whether Erik Zabel's name would be removed as winner of the sprinter's green jersey that same year. The German confessed to having used EPO in the Tour that year.
Junkyard - Memberhe is as guilty as anyone else who chooses to not defend themselves from lawfull charges
Interesting... Because [i]I[/i] chose not to defend myself from lawful charges, despite being innocent of them.
So, is he as guilty as me? Or, is your black and white a bit too black and white?
so at page 20 we have made no progress.....
time for a humane end to this thread please
[img] 
[/img]
[img] http://moni.typepad.com/images/misc/bay-bridge-falling-truck-sign-400.pn g" target="_blank">
http://moni.typepad.com/images/misc/bay-bridge-falling-truck-sign-400.pn g"/> [/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Well my black and white will look different from yours but I could borrow your rose tinted glasses 😉
So no comeback huh? You want to make things simple, and I can understand that, but this "Innocent people would defend themselves, therefore if you don't defend yourself you must be guilty" schtick is just plain wrong.
There's lots of other arguments that are more convincing tbh.. But you don't need rose tinted glasses to see a poor argument and get narked by it.
cacoethes carpendi cacoethes scribendi
EXPECTO PATRONUS!
😆 😀
arms, EXTENDO..!!
Interesting... Because I chose not to defend myself from lawful charges, despite being innocent of them.So, is he as guilty as me? Or, is your black and white a bit too black and white?
Come on then. Details please. You can't really throw that in there without explaining the circumstances.
There's lots of other arguments that are more convincing tbh
yes serial litigator LA who sues for defamation at any drug story, battler against cancer, never quits just gave in because he is innocent and tired.
As has been covered on her eyes you could argue the case if you want and of course LA chooses the route with plausible deniability when compared to an actual guilty verdict he contested. The fact remains he is now seen, like every other person who did this as guilty as charged
All i have learned from this is that LA will never admit it and some will never believe it.
Because I chose not to defend myself from lawful charges, despite being innocent of them.
Except that unless the circumstances were completely different from Lance's case, you're not innocent of them, whatever you like to think.
Junkyard - Memberyes serial litigator LA who sues for defamation at any drug story, battler against cancer, never quits just gave in because he is innocent and tired.
Well- it [i]is[/i] more plausible than the absurd "everyone who doesn't defend themselves must be guilty". Though, IMO not by much.
The point i'm making to you here is that by making bad arguments you weaken the whole of the argument- people will see errors and then say "Well, if[i] this [/i]part's wrong...". Take it or leave it...
Northwind it's the legal Silence gives assent (can't be bothered with the Latin). Fail to defend and you as good as plead guilty. (A proper lawyer could explain it better).
[url= 
]Hora. Yesterday......[/url]
Anyone cares to resume me the last 20 pages?
LA took drugs. Probably. Some agree. Some don't.
Did he?
Didn't he?
Who knows?
There are arguments for both sides. How much has he spent on litigation against stories posted against him over the years? Must be a pretty penny.
That'd grind anyone down.
Still, he refused to fight.
So who knows? He did win against the best who were doping though so at least he isn't a Ben Johnson if he did dope. He is also genetically odd IMO- a very very fit fella, even now. Thats got to go someway into explaining why he was dominant when he was in his prime.
The sad thing is it overshadows his Cancer work and the punishment was over-drastic and almost vindictive. It just leaves a bitter taste allround.
A sad time for cycling IMO.
Jesus f%&king wept
Wish I'd not reviewed this thread
[i]Anyone cares to resume me the last 20 pages?[/i]
LA Times article...
[url= http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120825,0,2080853.column ]not biased what so ever..[/url]
Good article. Much more informative than the threads on here, that's for sure.
The comments are quite interesting (if you ignore the fanboi/hater ones)
This one in particular
"The piece is too slanted to be taken seriously, but the author does make one good point. The practice of mandatory arbitration should be abolished. It amounts to nothing more than wielding monopoly power to strip citizens of their right to due process"
... at least he isn't a Ben Johnson ...
In what way?
edit: added reference
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2003/apr/18/athletics.comment
If this is a massive injustice, ****.
If he is lying I wish he'd just fess up.
DezB - it's a ludicrously one-sided article, but because you agree with it you think it's good? No attempt at any kind of balance whatsoever.
hora - Member
So who knows? He did win against the best who were doping though so at least he isn't a Ben Johnson if he did dope.
So if he did cheat he's not as bad as some cheats?
He is also genetically odd IMO- a very very fit fella, even now. Thats got to go someway into explaining why he was dominant when he was in his prime.
But he didn't cheat, he's just genetically 'odd'.
The logical gymnastics that have kept you in this thread really are something to behold.
grum - Member
DezB - it's a ludicrously one-sided article, but because you agree with it you think it's good? No attempt at any kind of balance whatsoever.
+1
Read like "WADA are hunting down all sportsmen!"
I like the way he links to more of his own articles as if that's proof he is right.
This just CANT still be going on! 🙂
So if he did cheat he's not as bad as some cheats?
I know but say in Ben's final heat all of the runners were chemical - who is he cheating? He was the only one though.
I like the idea, asking cheats if they agree to be caught just seems so very sociable and polite.
[i]it's a ludicrously one-sided article, but because you agree with it you think it's good?[/i]
Just thought it was interesting. 🙂 Unlike this thread 😆
