The ultimate Lance doping thread
Comments
-
This was a great mudslinging thread until everyone turned and ganged up on the Daily Mail.
<in the style of a cycling forum rant>
Hey! The poor DM hasn't done anything to anyone. Where's the evidence??? The rumours you write are just that. You guys are surely Express stooges trying to undermine a fine publication with a great history and respect for the trade. You know nothing about what it's like to be a top newspaper!
The Mail only trying to be the best newspaper in the world. It would have won the ultimate accolade - Best A*se-wiping Rag competition - repeatedly if it hadn't been overweight and undertrained each spring and then beaten into submission by The (omnipotent) Sun 7 and its team of reporters years in a row (many of which have been exposed as journalists since leaving). And we all know The Sun is rotten, it's owned by Murdoch who, though he's never been tested positive, he trots out this old quip of being "the most tested newspaper mogul in history". And he's not a nice man, he'd be nail Kimmage to the chair too if the latter asked those kind of questions. It's a conspiracy, I tell you!
;-)Aspire not to have more, but to be more.0 -
Simon E wrote:This was a great mudslinging thread until everyone turned and ganged up on the Daily Mail.
<in the style of a cycling forum rant>
Hey! The poor DM hasn't done anything to anyone. Where's the evidence??? The rumours you write are just that. You guys are surely Express stooges trying to undermine a fine publication with a great history and respect for the trade. You know nothing about what it's like to be a top newspaper!
The Mail only trying to be the best newspaper in the world. It would have won the ultimate accolade - Best A*se-wiping Rag competition - repeatedly if it hadn't been overweight and undertrained each spring and then beaten into submission by The (omnipotent) Sun 7 and its team of reporters years in a row (many of which have been exposed as journalists since leaving). And we all know The Sun is rotten, it's owned by Murdoch who, though he's never been tested positive, he trots out this old quip of being "the most tested newspaper mogul in history". And he's not a nice man, he'd be nail Kimmage to the chair too if the latter asked those kind of questions. It's a conspiracy, I tell you!
;-)
Give the Sun the benifit of the doubt! whatever happened to innocent until proven guitly and no, annecdotal tales of Murdoch count for nought. The suns good for the newspaper industry and the unions know it. the history books only record the circulation
Armstrong for the BIG 8! raahhhh0 -
Is that BNP list still online somewhere still? I've a new name to look up.
0 -
andyp wrote:Is that BNP list still online somewhere still? I've a new name to look up.
There you go again trying to be the arbitar of taste on the one hand and bringing the BNP into it on the other????? what does the P stand for Andy?0 -
Aurelio wrote:Armstrong is a model of the 'dog eat dog', 'to the winner the spoils’ ideal that has seen the breakdown of what used to be called 'social' values in recent decades. No wonder so many people who acclaim Armstrong as a 'hero' so often appear to have a very 'right-wing' (or hierarchical) outlook on life!
I also feel uncomfortable when people talk about the way he 'beat' cancer. In reality people get lucky and respond well to their medical treatment, and even if having a positive attitude helps, this is surely a secondary issue.
If it is claimed that Armstrong’s 'will' (how Nietzsche would have loved him!) saw him 'beat cancer' what does that say of those who die of the disease? That they were 'weak' and by extension chose their own fate? A certain politician from the mid part of the 20th century argued something very similar about humanity in general: "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."
QED, methinks!markwalker wrote:The loony loser left call anyone who doesnt agree with them a facist. Surely theres nothing wrong with prefering your own culture and history over someone elses. Problem is that many feel that the right way is to lie down and get trampled. Thats becasue theyre not strong. Armstrong would never have that. Livestrong. Just because hes the one putting it up em hes despised by the weak 0 -
Aurelio! full marks
0 -
markwalker wrote:andyp wrote:Is that BNP list still online somewhere still? I've a new name to look up.
There you go again trying to be the arbitar of taste on the one hand and bringing the BNP into it on the other????? what does the P stand for Andy?
You've no idea how apt the P is in this case .
MGGasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
aurelio wrote:
P.s to be fair the Daily Mail is not alone it it's attitudes. Just look at the Express!
the Daily Mail what a paper eh !
Such a distinguished history backers of Oswald Mosley and his facists hurrah for the blackshirts wrote Lord Rothermere. Backers of Adolf Hitler aka Adolf the Great according to Lord Rothermere. 64 years of right wing nonsense and scare stories pandering to large swathes of the English population who hold such views.
MGGasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
The support in Britain for Fascism and the Nazis in the 1930's went far beyond The Daily Mail though. The Mirror ran a similar headline reading ‘Give the Blackshirts a helping hand’, many in the British establishment and aristocracy saw Fascism as being the perfect response to the ‘threats’ of socialism and trade unionism and so on. The British motor and aviation industries were particular fans of the Nazis, praising Hitler’s plans for a society based on car use and motoring power and speed. (The peoples’ car, Autobahns without speed limits, powerful Mercedes for the elites, the banning of cyclists from the road and so on). A few examples:Moray Gub wrote:the Daily Mail what a paper eh !
C.G Grey, editor of Jane's All the Worlds Aircraft and The Aeroplane wrote in The Aeroplane in March 1936 of how under the Nazis Germany was ruled by "sensible middle-class men of real intelligence" who had "freed Germany from Communism". He also praised Hitler's system of concentration camps writing: " I cannot imagine anything better for the morale of a nation than that all the discontented grousers and grumblers and agitators should be carted off to isolated places where they can grouse at one another until they are sick of grousing."
The Motor of June 29 1937 argued that "Germany to-day is the nearest approach to Utopia, with a single political creed, whole-hearted worship of the Fatherland." The Motor went on to note that "cycle tracks (only 2 ft. wide) are to be found alongside the main roads and are used instead of the roadway by cyclists", concluding that "Germany was a motoring paradise".
Motoring publications were particularly impressed by Hitler's attitude to speed. For example, on July 12, 1938 the editor of the Motor railed against the "fatuity" of the questioning of MP. R.W. Sorensen when he asked the Minister of Transport whether he was aware that: "On a recent run to Cambridge a speed of 109 m.p.h. was reached by a motorcar and in view of the road danger of this speed what action he proposes to prevent such speeds." The editor, apparently with approval, noted that: "If a similar question had been asked in Germany, where they are motor-minded, the questioner by now would have been speeding himself towards a concentration camp!"
More support for Germany's Fascist program, especially in relation to it's attitude to motoring, came from the British Admiral Sir Barry Domvile. In his 1936 book By and Large Domvile wrote:
'I am a great believer in first impressions and some of my earliest in Germany made me wonder whether England is really quite so much a land of the free as we are all so fond of bucking about. In many respects poor oppressed Nazi Germany is much better off. To start with, you can drive your car at any speed that your reason considers safe, without the ever-present fear which haunts one over here of attracting the undesired attentions of a disguised policeman, intent on victims. There are no speed limits in Germany. Even in Berlin you can park your car pretty well where you please.'
No wonder that George Orwell warned in ‘The Road To Wigan Pier’ that Britain might well end up being another Fascist state albeit one based on: 'a slimy Anglicized form of Fascism, with cultured policemen instead of Nazi gorillas and the lion and the unicorn instead of the swastika.'
Of course the level of support for Fascism in Britain right up to and into WW2 has been largely written out of the history books, but it is clear that Hitler had ample grounds for believing that Britain would readily agree to his plans for Britain and Germany to join forces and rule the world together. It was much the same story in the USA, with people like Henry Ford helping to fund the Nazi party.
As is shown by the popularity of The Daily Mail, The Express, The Sun and so on show, essentially ‘fascist’ , or hierarchical and authoritarian attitudes still run deep in the British psyche. Just look how far to the right and how authoritarian ‘New Labour’ is. And it is ironic that it should be a party with supposedly left-wing, egalitarian values that has taken Britain so far along the road to fascism. They might as well have changed their name from Labour to the ‘National Socialists’!
Orwell’s warning may yet come true. If it hasn’t already…
0 -
Forget the 'if'.... From today's Guardian:
Government plans to keep DNA samples of innocent
The government is planning to get around a European court ruling that condemned Britain's retention of the DNA profiles of more than 800,000 innocent people by keeping the original samples used to create the database, the Guardian has learned.
A damning ruling last December criticised the "blanket and indiscriminate nature" of the UK's current DNA database - which includes DNA from those never charged with an offence - and said the government had overstepped acceptable limits of storing data for crime detection.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009 ... se-justice
DNA details of 1.1m children on database
Genetic information taken from nearly 1.1 million children is now stored on the national DNA database, official figures show...
Britain's DNA database is proportionately the biggest in the world and includes the profiles of more than 7% of the population, according to Home Office figures. Almost everyone arrested for a recordable offence is required to provide a DNA sample. Whether or not criminal proceedings follow, DNA records stay on file until the person reaches their 100th birthday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009 ... nal-record
Mintrue put their view:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... tion-straw
Check out the comments!0 -
Interesting stuff, but I think we're going off topic now...
People come here for pro racing, not to have a chill go down their spine when learning of the latest loss of liberty or scheming government ploy.0 -
Which is the appropriate response to the attempts of the ‘Thought police’ on here to dictate where the activites of Mr. Pharmstrong should be discussed.Kléber wrote:Interesting stuff, but I think we're going off topic now... 0 -
dennisn wrote:flattythehurdler wrote:Seriously Dennis,
Why do you spend so much time on here whilst telling others to get a life? You post on little but the doping issues. They obviously interest you. Why protest so much? I don't post bile. I post what I believe to be true. I was unfortunately proven correct in my assumptions about Ricco, and I think many would agree that LA, whatever his benefit to "cancer awareness", is not necessarily a nice person. I don't like the way he treats people, simple as that. I never will meet him, but I haven't seen the icecaps melting, nor experienced the Iraq war. This does not preclude me having , nor stating an opinion. If something happened to change my opinion about LA I would happily publicly admit this. I would also be prepared to confront him on issues raised here (as long as he didn't find out where I live). LA , if you are out there, come round for tea. I would love a lengthy and frank discussion about all things cycling and performance optimizing. (Actually I would love a long and frank discussion with Dr Ferrari, who is a very very talented man, whether those talents are well applied or not).
I still can't quite understand why you spend so long on here if you dislike it so.
Got a story to tell you - bear with me.
A few years back the company I work for wanted to be able to bid on state government jobs. In order to do this every one in the company is subject to drug testing. So we all get to sit down in a meeting room and listen to a state employee deliver a lecture and something of a slide show on the testing and the dangers of drug use. Very boring, but I digress. She proceeds to show us pictures of various people in various stages of decay
because of drug use. The last picture that she pops up on the screen was a very unfaltering picture of none other than Keith Richards, in a somewhat typical Rolling Stones pose. She then proceeds to tell us that this is a prime example of what drugs will do to you and talks about his statement of snorting his fathers ashes. Right about there
I asked her if she knew Keith personally. She said no but told me that everyone knows what he's like. I then told her that he is a friend of mine and has been for 20 some years.
We see each other when we can and my wife and myself have vacationed with him and his family at his Caribbean island home 5 or 6 times. I told her that in all this time I have never seen him do anything that you claim and asked why she would say these things.
You could have knocked her over with a feather. She stuttered a bit and the meeting was soon over. Right after she came up to me and tried to apoligize and then said one of the stupidest things I've ever heard "what's he really like". I told her that I thought she said she already knew all about him.
Now I don't really know Keith, it was all a big load of ....., but what I do know is that he is a member of the most successful rock band ever and you don't get there by not contributing and just being a drug addict along for the ride. I also know that Lance won 7 TDF's and you don't do that by simply being a druggie and going along for the ride either.
Dennis Noward
Point taken Dennis. My reply would I suposse be that I would never have believed the story about his father's ashes, that whatever recreational drugs he has or hasn't done are entirely his own business, and that he seems to be aging well to me. My vexation about the entire doping issue stems from my frustration that I can't watch racing any more with an innocent eye. I read about the history of the Tour, and the stories of heroism, and it seems to me to have been close to the sporting ideal. Now it seems that it is unlikely we have seen an un-drugged winner for years. i try to exercise my critical faculties regarding all doping stories, and this seems the logical conclusion based on the stuff I have read. I try to read only well written and researched material, finding tabloid journalism depressing in the extreme. I admit I have an illogical bias in that I dislike pantani far less than others, though I suspect that in many ways he was an unpleasant individual, certainly he had his demons. I have to make judgements on averything based upon second hand accounts, as do we all. i have never met a single famous person, and, by and large they don't bother me, so i have no interest in judging them. I have no problem actually with the American baseball players. Anabolic steroids have no effect on the skill required to hit the ball. Nor in some ways do I have a problem with pot belge and the like. Entirely illogical I know. My problem really is with the cynical use of blood doping. I find the science behind it fascinating. My problem is that it skews natural ability so much that the race result becomes meaningless. I also have judged LA from the stories I have read, which don't paint him in a flattering light as a person. This may well be unfair. If I saw him out cycling I would be the first to try to have a starstruck chat with him as , to be honest, to pinhole a man unawares would be just rude. He does put himself firmly in the public eye , however, and is obviously fond opf centre stage, and if I were a sporting jouno I would no doubt be on the blacklist. I respect your story though. I won't change your mind. I doubt I will change mine. Acceptance of differences makes the world go round I suppose.
I do find Aurelio, Iain F and Kleber to be some of the most articulate and convincing posters on here though.
Well that was a bit verbiose :?Dan0 -
PS Strangely brown, i love your signature line.Dan0
-
aurelio wrote:[
essentially ‘fascist’ , or hierarchical and authoritarian attitudes still run deep in the British psyche. /quote]
"essentially ‘fascist’ , or hierarchical and authoritarian attitudes still run deep in the English psyche."
There you go i have corrected that for you
MGGasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Thanks! . That was very sloppy of me. I won't make that mistake again. :oops:Moray Gub wrote:
"essentially ‘fascist’ , or hierarchical and authoritarian attitudes still run deep in the English psyche."aurelio wrote:essentially ‘fascist’ , or hierarchical and authoritarian attitudes still run deep in the British psyche.
There you go i have corrected that for you0 -
markwalker wrote:The loony loser left call anyone who doesnt agree with them a facist. Surely theres nothing wrong with prefering your own culture and history over someone elses. Problem is that many feel that the right way is to lie down and get trampled.
No. I don't call liberals fascists and I don't call conservatives fascists. I call fascists fascists. And I wasn't calling you a fascist because I don't know whether you are or not.
I love my own culture - I read English books, watch English films, listen to English music (note to the Celts - I like your culture too, it's just I'm replying to Mark here.) And that's just the thing - nobody is stopping me doing this. Nobody is stopping me loving HG Wells and the Kinks and the Wicker Man. And I celebrate Christmas, despite the paranoid right-wingers telling me that mentioning Christmas has been banned to avoid offending the Muslims.
I can also appreciate the good things that come from other countries - no contradiction there. In fact so do you - the Arabic number system, Latin alphabet, our national religion is Middle Eastern, I could go on but I'm sure that everyone's familiar with this argument.
Anyway, back to the doping....0 -
...cor...those bicylces eh?......they're good aren't they?...0
-
aurelio wrote:Government plans to keep DNA samples of innocent
The government is planning to get around a European court ruling that condemned Britain's retention of the DNA profiles of more than 800,000 innocent people by keeping the original samples used to create the database, the Guardian has learned.
A damning ruling last December criticised the "blanket and indiscriminate nature" of the UK's current DNA database - which includes DNA from those never charged with an offence - and said the government had overstepped acceptable limits of storing data for crime detection.
So you're clearly against storing innocent peoples DNA (as am I). With that in mind how would you feel about the UCI (or CONI or whoever) using existing DNA samples of a cyclist, let's call him Alejandro, who has never been found guilty of anything, to make a comparison with bags of blood?
And what if the cyclist was called Lance, not Alejandro?Twitter: @RichN950 -
True I am against the Government storing the DNA profiles of people. However, I see nothing wrong with requiring people to give a DNA sample in relation to a specific crime in order to show that they were involved, or to prove their innocence. The issue is not about taking such samples as part of an investigation into a crime but is about keeping DNA profiles on record for all time, especially when the innocence of the person giving the sample has been established.RichN95 wrote:So you're clearly against storing innocent peoples DNA (as am I). With that in mind how would you feel about the UCI (or CONI or whoever) using existing DNA samples of a cyclist, let's call him Alejandro, who has never been found guilty of anything, to make a comparison with bags of blood? And what if the cyclist was called Lance, not Alejandro?
Now lets turn to your cycling example. (The name of the rider is immaterial :roll: ). Once again, if evidence arose related to a possible breach of the rules by which cycle sport is run (say a large number of bags of blood that had been stored for doping purposes) I can see no objection to riders giving DNA samples in order to allow the authorities to establish who was involved, and to also allow those not involved to prove their innocence. Again, as long as those samples are destroyed after the investigation is complete, I see no problem.0 -
Cycling is a civil matter, you can opt out. Having your DNA placed onto a database in the UK is not a matter of choice at the moment.
Note that in civil cases, the burden of proof is not "beyond all reasonable doubt" but "in the balance of probability". Applying this, I think a day or two in court would see verdicts against many high profile riders, from Valverde to many others.0 -
Quite so, but I would imagine that any genuinely clean rider would be more than happy to give a DNA sample in order to protect their reputation.Kléber wrote:Cycling is a civil matter, you can opt out.
Under WADA regulations doping cases need to be proved to ‘the comfortable satisfaction’ of the investigatory panel.Kléber wrote:in civil cases, the burden of proof is not "beyond all reasonable doubt" but "in the balance of probability".0 -
flattythehurdler wrote:PS Strangely brown, i love your signature line.
...and I think you're super too - mwaah xIt doesn't get any easier, but I don't appear to be getting any faster.0 -
Is this thread straying back into cycling?It doesn't get any easier, but I don't appear to be getting any faster.0
-
aurelio wrote:
True I am against the Government storing the DNA profiles of people. However, I see nothing wrong with requiring people to give a DNA sample in relation to a specific crime in order to show that they were involved, or to prove their innocence. The issue is not about taking such samples as part of an investigation into a crime but is about keeping DNA profiles on record for all time, especially when the innocence of the person giving the sample has been established.RichN95 wrote:So you're clearly against storing innocent peoples DNA (as am I). With that in mind how would you feel about the UCI (or CONI or whoever) using existing DNA samples of a cyclist, let's call him Alejandro, who has never been found guilty of anything, to make a comparison with bags of blood? And what if the cyclist was called Lance, not Alejandro?
Now lets turn to your cycling example. (The name of the rider is immaterial :roll: ). Once again, if evidence arose related to a possible breach of the rules by which cycle sport is run (say a large number of bags of blood that had been stored for doping purposes) I can see no objection to riders giving DNA samples in order to allow the authorities to establish who was involved, and to also allow those not involved to prove their innocence. Again, as long as those samples are destroyed after the investigation is complete, I see no problem.
Please don't feel that I was having a pop at you. I wasn't. I was genuinely interested in your opinion.
There have been some who advocated using DNA from existing drug tests (or future standard drug tests) to compare DNA to the Puerto blood. I thought, with you being the harshest critic of dopers on here, you may have been one of them, but clearly not.Twitter: @RichN950 -
I just popped in on this thread to see if it really was the ultimate Lance doping thread.
Since I can't be arsed to read the previous 9 pages, I have to reach the conclusion that if it ever was the ultimate Lance Armstrong doping thread it has since deteriorated into a discussion of aspects of the burden of proof and circumstantial evidence that surrounds the question of whether LA has ever doped, or perhaps even more inane and banal arguments that have arisen over the previous 9 pages.
Quite why I can be arsed to write such a lengthy post beats me, but then so does why Lance would chose to be so guarded in responses to the doping questions the 'I've never tested positive' rather than 'I've never undertaken any banned practice'
I'm getting tired of all the arguments about did he didn't he
I've become a complete cynic about the whole matter
I love the sport and enjoy the racing regardless of whether the riders are doping
I'm pissed off when someone tests positive during a stage race and spoils the result like I am when a footballer commits a professional foul during a final stage world cup match
I think there are sportsmen in all sports that dope, however there is a lot more money and vested interests in other sports that enable the practices to persist.
Therefore I think that generally cycling is cleaner than many other sports.
Lance Armstrong thankfully recovered from cancer with the help of some very effective and powerful drugs
Quite when such a drug assisted recovery regime had to stop for such an accomplished and fit person bears thinking about.
How such a cancer victim could recover to a level that was so far beyond self declared dopers is mind boggling
In last years tour Ricard Ricco on his stage winning ride and Frank Schlek on the Alpe D'huez both looked within themselves in the way Armstrong did when he was smoking his rivals.
Lance wouldn't be back if he didn't have a regime that will lead him to suceed.
This looks like being the best racing season for years
Bring it on0 -
Isn't it odd that while you're doped to the gills you can look like you're riding within yourself (compared to others)? Oh no, it's not. c.f. Riis 96 on Hautacam.
Back to heads in the sand then.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Sorry guys, this was the worst post ever ....
and has been edited
bring on the racing0 -
But the real issue is that modern doping can make such a difference to a rider’s ability and yet and benefits different riders to such different degrees, that, when doping is rife, the result of almost every race must be regards as ‘spoiled’, regardless of whether anyone tests positive or not.ninjaslim wrote:I love the sport and enjoy the racing regardless of whether the riders are doping. I'm pissed off when someone tests positive during a stage race and spoils the result…0 -
I agree and doping is undoubtly still going on and moving very well ahead of the testers. It's a fact of life, there's probably a lot more dopers in others sports that choose not to expose it, to protect their vested interests.
For the supporters of those sports ignorance is bliss.
In many ways I hope they don't get caught. I think that this year more than any, its not in the sports' interest to find any one doping and for that reason I think what Kimmage said about the problem going away when LA turns up, could be true.
So in order to enjoy my sport I choose to suspend my disbelief, enjoy the racing and not taint the 'naturally' trained rider with the same brush as the dopers.0
