Lauren Fleshman's great letter to Lance

Hats too bee axed wrote:

hoop de doo dum. wrote:

No one mentioned her race dillhole. Lauren hasn't done anything lately except spread her legs for babymaking.

Do you have a non-zero IQ?

At lest they know the difference between sexism and racism.

We be ham jammin wrote:

Hats too bee axed wrote:

Do you have a non-zero IQ?

At lest they know the difference between sexism and racism.

Of course, if you knew how to read you would recognize that the OP was contrasting her own expectations regarding racism (which she has apparently come to expect on these boards) and sexism (a "level of outright scorn toward women" that he/she is still surprised by).

So, at lest the OP knows how to spell and presumably how to read as well.

Good day, Lauren.

You ANTI-SEMITIC haters really suck on it. Slamming a great former Los Angeles prep, Stanford educated runner like Lauren, over and over in such a cowardly manner. Tell us about your Nazi Parephenalia collection too, why not!

paraphernalia

Pan-Semitism in the Rage wrote:

You ANTI-SEMITIC haters really suck on it. Slamming a great former Los Angeles prep, Stanford educated runner like Lauren, over and over in such a cowardly manner. Tell us about your Nazi Parephenalia collection too, why not!

I may not have a Stanford edumacation, but I'm pretty sure that it's PLEA, not PLEE. I haven't read her blog - not because she's a woman - but because blogs are generally written by egotists. I'm also quite familiar with the Armstrong situation and I doubt that her writing is going to shed any new light on the matter.

Huh? I'm lost. I mentioned how I look like a Dementor and then you got mad. Why?

to mock a killingbird wrote:

I may not have a Stanford edumacation, but I'm pretty sure that it's PLEA, not PLEE.

"Plea" is the word that appears in Lauren's post title, so I'm pretty sure she knows this, too. If you are basing her spelling ability on what appears in a URL text string, your intellectual deficits extend far beyond not merely holding a degree from a prestigious West Coast university.

Trollist wrote:

I saw it last week. I stopped reading when she said 99% of professional athletes are clean.

BINGO.

long sox wrote:

Swooshed wrote:

Q: Why didn't she write a critcal letter to Lance when she was employed by Nike?

She made some very critical tweets about Lance while Lauren was employed by Nike, unlike the majority of Nike athletes who have been completely silent.

Yes I'm torn on this subject. Love her, but the PR offensivethese past months while she planned pregnancy and post Nike life has been a bit over the top. (blog, FB, Tweet the same message, multiple times...). On the other hand, the silence sbout Lance from other athletes has been pathetic.

Pan-Semitism in the Rage wrote:

You ANTI-SEMITIC haters really suck on it. Slamming a great former Los Angeles prep, Stanford educated runner like Lauren, over and over in such a cowardly manner. Tell us about your Nazi Parephenalia collection too, why not!

She's not Jewish.

Uncle Pervy unlogged wrote:

Love her, but the PR offensive these past months while she planned pregnancy and post Nike life has been a bit over the top. (blog, FB, Tweet the same message, multiple times...).

May I ask you why you follow her in three different online venues, yet complain that she posts the same content in each?

Would it be unreasonable to suggest that you maybe follow her only on Facebook, or only on Twitter, or only via her blog? Or are you compelled by some bizarre mandate to track her by every Internet means possible?

Bobblehead doll wrote:

For the same reason Paula Radcliffe kept her lips zipped when Mary Slaney got busted. She knew if she spoke out the Nike mafia would have buried her in a shallow grave. Paula has transient doping ethics. She'll make exceptions who she calls out if the money's right.

This is a load of horseshit. Slaney was suspended by the IAAF in 1997. At that point, Radcliffe was a successful cross-country runner but a relative unknown, certainly not someone who would have been expected to make any noise at the positive drug test of an American athlete in the twilight of her career. It wasn't until 2002 that Radcliffe moved up to the marathon and became a household name in running.

He is absolutely a despicable character, but this girl has effectively nothing to hold against him. She has no business writing a letter demonizing him, especially given that she stands to gain attention from it.

Actually, she does. Armstrong, et al commited fraud against the US Postal Service which receives tax payer money. Assuming she pays taxes, she has a legit beef against the guy since she was taken for a ride as well. So were you.

Swooshed wrote:

Q: Why didn't she write a critcal letter to Lance when she was employed by Nike?

Good one.

A Duck wrote:

Swooshed wrote:

Q: Why didn't she write a critcal letter to Lance when she was employed by Nike?

Good one.

How hard is it for you twits to understand that virtually 100 percent of her open letter to Armstrong concerned his interview with Oprah? How could she address something during her only very-recently-ended Nike days that had yet to even occur? Why not rip her for not praising Mary Cain's 9:02 3,000 a year ago while you're at it?

It boggles the mind -- sort of -- that the owners of this dungheap linked to a score of garbage articles about Armstrong on the front page under "More Post-Oprah Armstrong News/Reactions," yet omitted this one, easily the most on-point and articulate, from the list. Their brazen cluelessness sets the tone for others to behave just as moronically, and you're all doing a bang-up job of that.

Semites are a race and not a religion you idiot. She could be a Moonie, a Moron, or a Scientologist and still be Semitic.

"West Coast university"

Thats why...

Wounded Buffalo soldier wrote:

Also, even if she had quit, let me ask you this: When is the last time Wejo or Rojo ran a race? Does their not competing in maybe 10 years render what they have to say irrelevant?

This is one of the many reasons that Wejo and Rojo are irrelevant.