Re: Landis Hearing Closed
- From: Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:01:40 -0700
In article <13eonusse5aq2d2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:
"billb" <wrbmaine@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1189886652.136021.87300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
My initial response was regarding your suggesting that organizations
be sued out of existence if FL were exonerated -- I did not take a
position on the merits of the FL situation.
I see. Apparently you agree that the UCI should be able to stop Valverde
from racing at the Worlds after his own national organization looked
carefully over the presented evidence WHICH WAS GATHERED IN THEIR OWN
COUNTRY and decided that the evidence wasn't complete enough to warrant any
movement against him.
You must think that ASO and WADA are perfectly justified in kicking out
teams for transgressions by a single rider outside of the team's control.
If the evidence presented to us as true in the Landis case is factual the
UCI should be up on criminal charges and not just sued out of existence.
Have you ever considered responding to what the other person has said, rather than
the things you've assigned him? I know, that makes it harder to have a "successful"
argument.
--
tanx,
Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
.
- References:
- Landis Hearing Closed
- From: DirtRoadie
- Re: Landis Hearing Closed
- From: Tom Kunich
- Re: Landis Hearing Closed
- From: billb
- Re: Landis Hearing Closed
- From: Tom Kunich
- Re: Landis Hearing Closed
- From: billb
- Re: Landis Hearing Closed
- From: Tom Kunich
- Re: Landis Hearing Closed
- From: billb
- Re: Landis Hearing Closed
- From: Tom Kunich
- Landis Hearing Closed
- Prev by Date: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
- Next by Date: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
- Previous by thread: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
- Next by thread: Re: Landis Hearing Closed
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading