which pro cyclists would you remove

dave_1

before 2008 season, to try to reduce the doping scandal stories with the threat this brings to sponsorship and jobs, who should quietly suspend themself or be quietly suspended to keep the media from scaring more sponsors

1. Valverde

2.

3.

LangerDan

You do realise what you've just done.....


[/img]

iainf72

Mick Rogers.

But I bet he'll get "injured" in the winter or something.

dave_1

iainf72 wrote:

Mick Rogers.

But I bet he'll get "injured" in the winter or something.

I agree, and Leiphemer and Contador.

andyp

Why are you picking on the riders alone?

Why not widen it out to who would you like to see removed from the 'professional' side of the sport? Then, in no particular order;

Hein Verbruggen
Pat McQuaid
Michele Ferrari
Manolo Saiz
Johan Bruyneel
Tony Rominger
Mauro Gianetti
Francesco Moser
Victor Cordero
Jose Miguel Echavarri
Patrick Leferve

iainf72

andyp wrote:

Why not widen it out to who would you like to see removed from the 'professional' side of the sport? Then, in no particular order;

You may as well say "who would you keep"?

dave_1

andyp wrote:

Why are you picking on the riders alone?

Why not widen it out to who would you like to see removed from the 'professional' side of the sport? Then, in no particular order;

Hein Verbruggen
Pat McQuaid
Michele Ferrari
Manolo Saiz
Johan Bruyneel
Tony Rominger
Mauro Gianetti
Francesco Moser
Victor Cordero
Jose Miguel Echavarri
Patrick Leferve

Fair comment...how can former dopers, managers of doped teams or officials who turned a blind eye be involved. Is it time to remove Sean Kelly too, and Richard Virenque from commentary?

ContrelaMontre

Get rid of McQuaid, Moser and Valverde in that order.

Not going to campaign to purge anyone else, though I'd like wheezy Alex to bugger orf too perhaps!

LangerDan

But several of them have such redeeming features:

Michele Ferrari -reputedly the model for Machiavellis "Prince"

Manolo Saiz - perversely I kinda like the idea of the "best prepared" riders coming from the stable of a sweaty, obese, sweary manager.

Tony Rominger - currently undergoing leading-edge biomechanical augmentation. As all of his "natural" fingers are in pies, he's having additional ones implanted.

Franceso Moser -"Drugs? In cycling? Are you mad?"


My nomination to be "retired" - Paulo Bettini, if for no other reason than those Sidi ads are nuts-dissolvingly awful.

dave_1

Ligget and Sherwin? They encourage us to glorify these grand tour grand liars (Basso, Ullrich, Vino, Landis) on the TV screens...unwiitingly dopings biggest cheerleaders?

LangerDan

Dave_1 wrote:

Ligget and Sherwin? They encourage us to glorify these grand tour grand liars (Basso, Ullrich, Vino, Landis) on the TV screens...unwiitingly dopings biggest cheerleaders?

I wouldn't use the term "unwittingly" - they're not stupid. "Uncaringly", perhaps. Or "Untossgivingly"

iainf72

It's all the race organisers fault. If it wasn't for the blasted races we wouldn't have these evil monsters.

This could get ridiculous.

It'll just end up being the usual suspects

Bruyneel because he worked with Lance. Lance was obviously the devil in lycra shorts. Ditto anyone tainted by working with USPS or Discovery. Cycling was virginal and pure until they came along.

The Spanish cyclists and teams all look dodgy.

Italians because they insist on wearing brown shoes with blue suits....oh no, wait, that's just me.

iainf72

LangerDan wrote:

I wouldn't use the term "unwittingly" - they're not stupid. "Uncaringly", perhaps. Or "Untossgivingly"

If I may channel Fignon for a minute here, they're not paid to care, toss give or being witting, they're paid to call a race.

And they do that.

spen666

why not remove those who are PROVEN to be guilty and stop having witch hunts and lynch mobs hounding those who have not been PROVEN guilty of any offence?


How about you being sacked because you might have breached your company rules? Without any evidence to prove you have done anything wrong, is this fair?

so why remove other people's livelihood without evidence?

LangerDan

Oh crap, its Kash's legal team!

ContrelaMontre

iainf72 wrote:

It's all the race organisers fault. If it wasn't for the blasted races we wouldn't have these evil monsters.

This could get ridiculous.

It'll just end up being the usual suspects

Bruyneel because he worked with Lance. Lance was obviously the devil in lycra shorts. Ditto anyone tainted by working with USPS or Discovery. Cycling was virginal and pure until they came along.

The Spanish cyclists and teams all look dodgy.

Italians because they insist on wearing brown shoes with blue suits....oh no, wait, that's just me.

You're taking this a tad seriously Iain, which isn't like you [Stop giggling at the back]

I contributed on a purely hypothetical level. Unless riders like Valverde actually test +ive or you happen to know an amiable hitman we can take Moser and MyQuim out with, then keep it light hearted internet chatroom bunk.





You don't happen to know a hitman do you???? :twisted:

No? It was worth asking anyway!

andyp

spen666 wrote:

why not remove those who are PROVEN to be guilty and stop having witch hunts and lynch mobs hounding those who have not been PROVEN guilty of any offence?


How about you being sacked because you might have breached your company rules? Without any evidence to prove you have done anything wrong, is this fair?

so why remove other people's livelihood without evidence?

This is the typical response of a lawyer. We all know you're only suggesting this to line your own pockets. :roll:

iainf72

Oh oh, what about Vaughters for employing a dodgy doping doctor?

:P

dave_1

iainf72 wrote:

Oh oh, what about Vaughters for employing a dodgy doping doctor?

:P

I think it is ok, how can this Lim fellow know wat someone does in private...its what they say in public that should raise red flag them as doping enablers...Ferrari pretty much said outright...if you can get round controls you are not cheating...'anything that eludes a doping control is not doping' being the verbatim quote...so in all seriousness...Leipheimer and Rogers should be off the team rosters for 08 as they dont care about ethics clearly...they would not go to such a shady character if they did.

jimmythecuckoo

Despite all of this I am still planning to go to watch the Tour next summer as part of my holidays, so maybe I am to blame?

LangerDan

Dave_1 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Oh oh, what about Vaughters for employing a dodgy doping doctor?

:P

I think it is ok, how can this Lim fellow know wat someone does in private...its what they say in public that should raise red flag them as doping enablers...Ferrari pretty much said outright...if you can get round controls you are not cheating...'anything that eludes a doping control is not doping' being the verbatim quote...so in all seriousness...Leipheimer and Rogers should be off the team rosters for 08 as they dont care about ethics clearly...they would not go to such a shady character if they did.

Lim remained publically and professionally linked to Landis into this year - guest speaker at Landis training camp in January and an (uncalled) expert witness for Floyds defense team.

Having said that I don't believe Lim is a medical doctor, per se. I think he has a Ph.D in exercise physiology or similar. Its not like he's a gynaecologist or something.

iainf72

Dave_1 wrote:

I think it is ok, how can this Lim fellow know wat someone does in private

Read Floyds book and note how much time Lim spent with him.

FFS he weighed Landis every day in the Tour.

DaveyL

Killjoy. Spen has failed to realise he's stumbled upon the subset of cycling fans who currently derive no pleasure from the sport of professional bike racing, yet who refuse to turn their backs on the sport and instead choose to follow the soap opera of professional drug-taking....

spen666

andyp wrote:

spen666 wrote:

why not remove those who are PROVEN to be guilty and stop having witch hunts and lynch mobs hounding those who have not been PROVEN guilty of any offence?


How about you being sacked because you might have breached your company rules? Without any evidence to prove you have done anything wrong, is this fair?

so why remove other people's livelihood without evidence?

This is the typical response of a lawyer. We all know you're only suggesting this to line your own pockets. :roll:

Nothing to do with being a lawyer

I'm sure you'd be complaining if your livelihood was taken away because somebody decided without any evidence you had been breaking company rules. You are talking about effectively removing somebodies ability to earn a living on the basis of conjecture only

Why stop there- lets bring back internment (oh sorry- new labour have done that already for muslims haven't they?)

skut

DaveyL wrote:

Killjoy. Spen has failed to realise he's stumbled upon the subset of cycling fans who currently derive no pleasure from the sport of professional bike racing, yet who refuse to turn their backs on the sport and instead choose to follow the soap opera of professional drug-taking....

Amen to that!!

Cycnicism about pro-cycling is the only thing left to enjoy