Anyone going to comment on the blog?
Comments
-
Do it iainf72, resistance is futile
0 -
I had formed the opinion from another thread that it wasn't for cycling jounalists to hold opinions on drug-related matters. I'm even more confused than normal, now. :?'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0
-
What's a blog?
Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.0 -
Blog: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog
Blog in question:
http://www.bikeradar.com/blogs/article/ ... lies-130530 -
:roll: Talk of sanctimonious clap-trap! What of ProCycling employing an ex-druggie to review their bike testing features. Or doesn't Friebe know anything about him being on the payroll.
They lost the moral high ground as soon as they became involved with Frankie-boy. :oops:I say what I like and I like what I say!0 -
Funny you should mention Frankie: http://www.bikeradar.com/blogs/article/ ... dreu-13021
Seriously, though, girofan, I think we are at least consistent in calling for honesty. OK, Frankie wasn't honest back then, but then which pro cyclist was in the late 1990s? Only by clearing the decks now can this sport move out the crisis currently overwhelming it...
You have every right to call us sanctimonious, but I hope you also realise how difficult it is to deal with this issue without inviting accusations of hypocrisy. In the past few months, we've gradually tried to distance the magazine from riders of dubious reputation, but carry that policy through to the Nth degree and we'd have nothing to fill the magazine. The simple and sad fact is that the majority of people in professional cycling are at least guilty by association to a varying degree. There are riders in the top ten or twenty of the ProTour who have never been implicated in a scandal, but who I would stake good money have cheated for much longer and much more lucratively than Frankie Andreu, but are we supposed to give them a platform and not Andreu?
What I'm trying to convey is that covering professional cycling at the moment is an absolute minefield. A great job, but a minefield nonetheless.0 -
DanielFriebe wrote:Funny you should mention Frankie: http://www.bikeradar.com/blogs/article/ ... dreu-13021
Seriously, though, girofan, I think we are at least consistent in calling for honesty. OK, Frankie wasn't honest back then, but then which pro cyclist was in the late 1990s? Only by clearing the decks now can this sport move out the crisis currently overwhelming it...
You have every right to call us sanctimonious, but I hope you also realise how difficult it is to deal with this issue without inviting accusations of hypocrisy. In the past few months, we've gradually tried to distance the magazine from riders of dubious reputation, but carry that policy through to the Nth degree and we'd have nothing to fill the magazine. The simple and sad fact is that the majority of people in professional cycling are at least guilty by association to a varying degree. There are riders in the top ten or twenty of the ProTour who have never been implicated in a scandal, but who I would stake good money have cheated for much longer and much more lucratively than Frankie Andreu, but are we supposed to give them a platform and not Andreu?
What I'm trying to convey is that covering professional cycling at the moment is an absolute minefield. A great job, but a minefield nonetheless.
Christophe Bassons?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophe_BassonsLe Blaireau (1)0 -
Oooh! Now you've done it - nobody mentions Bassons. You'll have a horses head in your bed you know.0
-
So the only 90s rider anyone can talk about or employ without having mud slung at them is Bassons? If you really want to hear that man talk ad nauseum, you surely don't understand French, as he is mighty boring after a while. If you really can't give pardon to someone who admitted wrongdoings that had absolutely zero effect on your personal life, if you can't find the good in this mess, then by all means become a curling fan. Not much controversy there.
This "holier than thou" attitude has had its time. Time to get over it, now.0 -
DanielFriebe wrote:What I'm trying to convey is that covering professional cycling at the moment is an absolute minefield. A great job, but a minefield nonetheless.
I hope you are not trying to suggest journalists have a responsibility, as Mr Stevenson will not be sending you a Christmas card: http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... c&start=150 -
Bassons is a hero, one of a few who stood against the doping tide. Frankie is no hero (his wife is a bit of a legend), but is a guy who knows he did wrong and is contrite. Cut him some slack. Its the unflinching cheats who make the big bucks from the sport that should be the subject of your ire, not a penitant sinner.
Might I suggest aiming vitriol at people like Verbruggen, McQuaid, LeBlanc, Saiz, Lefevre, Bruyneel, Ferreti, Ferrari, Chechini, Rominger, Jalabert, Armstrong, Ullrich, the cycling press and all the other unapologetic feckers that have combined to drag a great sport into the shitter.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
What he just said.0
-
There are riders in the top ten or twenty of the ProTour who have never been implicated in a scandal, but who I would stake good money have cheated for much longer and much more lucratively than Frankie Andreu, but are we supposed to give them a platform and not Andreu?
Don't give any of them a platform Daniel. There must be hundreds of committed cyclists out there who are capable of reviewing bikes, myself included. + THEY don't shoot-up!
As for the 'I have never tested positive' brigade; you know who they are and can slant your content accordingly. Just because you know other riders aren't clean doesn't give you the excuse to plough on regardless.I say what I like and I like what I say!0 -
I think that journos need to be more sceptical. Look at David Walsh - he woke up to the reality and it is a wonder that more have not done so. Now I do not agree with all he says or reports but the sport needs people who will probe and ask the hard questions of top athletes. All too often journos want to be buddies with the top dog! As for Kimmage well I am afraid he has too much of a chip on his shoulder!!!
Also I would add that some old school guys like Phil Liggot should step aside - he to me is the King of hear no evil see no evil!! Nice guy and good commentator but for years he has side steps any doping controviousy and plays down the extent of the problem more so than the UCI ever have!! For someone who is in the sport so long must know so much (look how much any of us know and we only go to 3/4races year) and paid to report on the sport this is unacceptable.0 -
***Frankie is no hero (his wife is a bit of a legend), but is a guy who knows he did wrong and is contrite. Cut him some slack.***
I totally agree, i think Frankie and his wife have been dragged through all types of excriment and he is fully repentant. He's now running a 'pro-clean' team which is good for sport.
A0 -
Iv been following cycling for a few years (well the tour de france) and only recently started cycling as a hobby but find the dopping storys sad and eye opining but intresting, the thing about david walsh he seems fixated with Armstrong. He has lots of storys About incidents and text messages, but he seems to acknolage that it all stated in the early 90s. Surly its the teams and riders that started doping should be the ones that should face up to the responsability, riders in the late 90s were kind of forced into it to be competitive. I mean if you grow up to be a pro rider and your prime years e.g 20 - 30s happened to to be in that time frame of the 1990s you either went and got another Job or you had to dope... its not fair but you can see the point of veiw from the riders who do dope. Thing I dont like about Walsh his story seems to be "Armstrong is a cheat!......." but the other 90% of the peliton seems to be cheaters also is less of a story.
But now that it seems everybody is aware surely its for everybodys best intrest to make sure the sport is clean, Whats the point in winning the tour de france if a week later your all over the worlds press as a cheater.
Surely the pro teams are realising that if the sport keeps up the image it has gained there will be no sponsers to pay for it. The teams should only sign riders that are going to accept the rules the uci is implicating if they want anything to do with the sport.0 -
Moomaloid wrote:
I totally agree, i think Frankie and his wife have been dragged through all types of excriment and he is fully repentant. He's now running a 'pro-clean' team which is good for sport.
A
Rock Racing? If the main guy says this, what message does it send?
Ball's management style is quite evident just by speaking to him. "I told these guys you have to win," he said. "I said to Rahsaan half way through the season, 'I'm not paying you for second or third place. You either win or you're fired.' Same for the rest of them."Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Let's take Bjarne Riis, he won the Tour de France. Has your mum heard of him? Thought not. He doped and won the Tour and that's about it. A big deal for cycling fans but no one else in the world, except maybe some Amgen shareholders, care.muz250 wrote:Thing I dont like about Walsh his story seems to be "Armstrong is a cheat!......." but the other 90% of the peliton seems to be cheaters also is less of a story.
But Lance is so much more than a cyclist. He's an inspiration for many in adversity, a source of hope for thousands, perhaps millions of cancer-stricken chemo patients. He's influential in fundraising for cancer charities and on top of this, he's a "celebrity" and endorses products like his own Nike range, Trek and Oakley. So he's made millions of dollars from his almost biblical tale of resurrection. He's certainly a taller poppy.
Lance is clean (of course, your honour) but imagine if someone else had achieved the same as him not just because he trained hard, but because he used shady medical support staff, that he won thanks to giant cocktails of banned substances, breaking the rules and made millions on the back of a fairytale that was actually a cynical lie. It might sound preposterous but just fancy that!0 -
Kléber wrote:
Lance is clean (of course, your honour) but imagine if someone else had achieved the same as him not just because he trained hard, but because he used shady medical support staff, that he won thanks to giant cocktails of banned substances, breaking the rules and made millions on the back of a fairytale that was actually a cynical lie. It might sound preposterous but just fancy that!
Its a hell of a story isnt it! I personaly would like to beleave that lance won the tdf clean but I dont think he did, but what good dose it do cycling if he comes out and says he didint. Somebody was going to win the tdf in 99-05 and if it wsnt lance the next 10 (or however many guys) would have been cheating to.
Dose Lance Armstrong admitting he took baned substances make the situation with in sport of cycling any better or just make worse the general publics veiw on it.
From what iv heard from David Walsh it makes him out to be the anti christ, and if he was the only rider doping it would be quite right, but from what I understand a significant % of the peliton were doing it to, dose that make Armstrong a criminal mastermind or somebody thats playing the game that all the other riders were playing. It dosnt make it right but at the same time If armstrong comes back from cancer and rides claming hes a clean rider and gets poor results the cycling and outside world would asume that his loss in form was due to the cancer and his career would be over.
The thing that gets me is that after having cancer why would anybody want to risk using these drugs / blood doping methods. Iv read his book and it seems to me that after recovering from cancer he didnt want to get back in to cycling (mayby scaired) but the people around him were keen to get him back involved, mayby he knew what they didnt, what was involved with getting back into sport and thats what took him so long to start riding again.
Not wanting to turn this into a lance armstrong thread but surly the with the state of cycling at the moment its better to try and clean it up quitly than have the previous winners acheivments brought into question again and again into the general public.
I mean I got into watching the the tdf cause it was often on eurosport before the moto gp/500cc motorbike racing started, so I,d watch the tdf racing to pass the time and became intrested, and before the tdf started in 06 I thought basso was going to win it, then every thing just seemed to go to pot from there on in which certanly made me lose intrest, so the less that is dragged up from the past and the more effort put in to making it better for the future would be a better course of action. Yet all the work Walsh seems to do just brings the sports image into controversy even more.0 -
The blame lies on the door of Hein Verbruggen and his 1990's leadership of the Uci 'ignorance is bliss' attitude.
McQuaid went along with this blinkered approach and is now having to face the music.
The riders are the biggest victims in this and have played russian roulette with their health for a possible fat pay cheque.
So what if races were run off 2-3 kmh slower. I would still be happy to watch a tdf run at 35-37 kmh and see a fair race, than a 40kmh drugathon.0
