Page 3 of 3
Re: Lance Armstrong
Posted: 29 Aug 2012, 13:14
by DaveB
It beggers belief Ian but makes compelling reading. Tks for taking the time and trouble to get it to us
ATB
DaveB

Re: Lance Armstrong
Posted: 29 Aug 2012, 14:54
by airboatr
Re: Lance Armstrong
Posted: 29 Aug 2012, 15:07
by cstorey
Strong on prediction and speculation, but notably short on facts . He'd better hope he is right
Re: Lance Armstrong
Posted: 29 Aug 2012, 15:33
by DaveB
Indeed but I think that was what Ian was getting at. Were it a more run of the mill reporter, one might expect a little sensationalism but this chap comes with a good pedigree so one would hope he's responsible enough not to dig himself into a VERY big hole
That's a nice 'team' shot isn't it Joe. Note how the leaders team mates are supporting him

There was only one team though so it was a tad one-sided

Oh.. and they're 'allies' now Joe.. not baddies
ATB
DaveB

Re: Lance Armstrong
Posted: 29 Aug 2012, 15:43
by airboatr
It would be much appreciated if you wouldn't punch holes in my diversion Dave.
But yes. I agree with your comment.

Re: Lance Armstrong
Posted: 29 Aug 2012, 17:00
by DaveB
Re: Lance Armstrong
Posted: 29 Aug 2012, 17:59
by airboatr
Re: Lance Armstrong
Posted: 29 Aug 2012, 22:29
by nigelb
DaveB wrote: 
Oh.. and they're 'allies' now Joe.. not baddies
ATB
DaveB

"Bunch of Krauts, that's what they are. All of them - bad eggs!"
Nigel²