AFLD v Armstrong

24567…13

Comments

  • le_patron
    le_patron Posts: 494
    Dennis, you know exactly what you will see when you click on these threads, so I don’t know why you do it. You seem to be a little obsessed yourself and make the same comment over and over again.

    Relax, it's an internet cycling forum. Assume people will speculate and debate every micro detail, and leave them to it.
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,725
    dennisn wrote:
    Here in the states we use the word "stalker" to describe this kind of adulation(for lack of a better word). Usually ends up in court and some sort of restraining order.

    Dennis Noward

    You seem to be talking from experience, there, Dennis.

    I wonder where Iain is.....
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • stagehopper
    stagehopper Posts: 1,593
    I'm surprised that people think thay Bruyneel being able to ring McQuaid is somehow a surprise.

    It's like saying you're shocked that Barcelona's Juan Laporta or Man Utd's David Gill are able to ring up UEFA's Michel Platini.

    I'd have thought it utterly incomprehensible if the lead DS/team owner on all the Pro-Tour teams didn't *at minimum* have McQuaid's number at the UCI and a mobile number for him.
    @stagehopper
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    And yet you were still moved to comment on it Dennis... :D

    I am a member of this forum and can post on any subject I care to. If my ideas don't suit your's, well, isn't that what forums are for. Just letting everyone know that it's all very pathetic IMHO(which most will think not to humble). I'm moved to post on a variety of subjects and will tell you if I think you've got it wrong. I'm old and allowed to do this. It
    keeps me young. :wink::wink:
    And yes, I am a bit of an *sshole(or maybe more than a bit). Oh well.

    Dennis Noward
  • DaveyL
    DaveyL Posts: 5,167
    Well, maybe more surprised that they called the head of the UCI to find out if the AFLD were allowed to test LA, on French soil. (1) they should know that already and (2) isn't there someone less senior they could call? Would other teams call up McQuaid for such info?

    To carry on with the analogy, it's like Sir Alex calling up Platini to ask if the player they're about to pick is eligible to play in a certain competition.
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • stagehopper
    stagehopper Posts: 1,593
    On the soap thing to destroy EPO in urine - doesn't work if you also give a blood test.
    @stagehopper
  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    dennisn wrote:
    J I'm moved to post on a variety of subjects and will tell you if I think you've got it wrong
    Dennis, you just seem to pop up every now and then to have a go at forum members, not to discuss cycling.
  • stagehopper
    stagehopper Posts: 1,593
    DaveyL wrote:
    Well, maybe more surprised that they called the head of the UCI to find out if the AFLD were allowed to test LA, on French soil. (1) they should know that already and (2) isn't there someone less senior they could call? Would other teams call up McQuaid for such info?

    To carry on with the analogy, it's like Sir Alex calling up Platini to ask if the player they're about to pick is eligible to play in a certain competition.

    We recently had Real Madrid calling up Platini to complain that they'd been told their couldn't register both their January signings Klaas Jan Huntelaar and Lassana Diarra for the second stage of the Champions League contrary to their understanding of the rules (it eventually went as far as CAS but they lost).

    Now I've understood and known about those rules for at least 4 years ...

    ====================

    From what is in the public domain:

    Is the half hour wait suspicious? Yes and needs investigating.

    Is checking to see if the AFLD had the right to test unannounced suspicious? Subjective. Rules differ from country to country.

    Is Bruyneel being able to ring McQuaid suspicious? No. And particularly in this case as McQuaid seems to have passed him straight onto Gripper.
    @stagehopper
  • DaveyL
    DaveyL Posts: 5,167
    Seems like McQuaid has found his calling as a switchboard operator... Seriously though, couldn't someone more junior have dealt with it? I find it odd they go straight to the top for such a matter.
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    I found the "hotline" matter odd, not because I'm surprised Bruyneel doesn't call McQuaid, but because here is a tester from the AFLD, who must always turn up with valid ID and up-to-date credentials, and yet Bruyneel feels the need to go via McQuaid, to Gripper when the matter has nothing to do with them and they'd surely know this.

    Perhaps there's nothing wrong with it all but they've lost the sure PR touch these days, whether it's this, Catlin or the sniping at Contador.
  • Tempestas
    Tempestas Posts: 486
    Maybe, just maybe they wanted to check it was a legitimate test?

    Not some faker turning up with fraudulent credentials, who else would be better at validating the legitimacy of a test?
  • stagehopper
    stagehopper Posts: 1,593
    With you on the PR Kleber - it's been downhill all the way since Armstrong announced his comeback. PR mistake following PR mistake.

    I wonder if part of the problem was the AFLD required a hair sample - that seemed to have surprised a few people.
    @stagehopper
  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    Tempestas wrote:
    Not some faker turning up with fraudulent credentials, who else would be better at validating the legitimacy of a test?
    That's the point, no one at the UCI has anything to do with the AFLD, it is totally independent and seperate. And like I say, the man would have arrived with credentials and ID. If there was a doubt, the AFLD should have been contacted and this should have been done with the tester and the subject in eyesight at all times.
  • disgruntledgoat
    disgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    Kléber wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    J I'm moved to post on a variety of subjects and will tell you if I think you've got it wrong
    Dennis, you just seem to pop up every now and then to have a go at forum members, not to discuss cycling.

    To be fair, Dennis does post some useful stuff in the amateur race and workshop sections too. I wan't having a go Dennis, merely gently ribbing you.
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • Tempestas
    Tempestas Posts: 486
    Kléber wrote:
    Tempestas wrote:
    Not some faker turning up with fraudulent credentials, who else would be better at validating the legitimacy of a test?
    That's the point, no one at the UCI has anything to do with the AFLD, it is totally independent and seperate. And like I say, the man would have arrived with credentials and ID. If there was a doubt, the AFLD should have been contacted and this should have been done with the tester and the subject in eyesight at all times.

    Ah, my bad getting the two mixed up. I agree they should have contacted the relevant agency.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Kléber wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    J I'm moved to post on a variety of subjects and will tell you if I think you've got it wrong
    Dennis, you just seem to pop up every now and then to have a go at forum members, not to discuss cycling.

    Well, I guess I take my clues from you as you seem to pop up on this forum every now
    and then to have a go at pro riders. You can criticize them but I can't return the favor?
    How does that work? People are going to tell you you're right or wrong about some things for the rest of your life. And you probably will be(right and or wrong). Just like lots of people on this forum tell me I'm full of sh*t or have my head up my *ss. Hey, they could be right. But don't think for a minute that I won't challenge you on something I think you're wrong about(key word - "think"). :wink::wink:

    Dennis Noward
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    DaveyL wrote:
    CFA posted several times on the 5th April too, before posting a whole load of stuff yesterday. But basically we wouldn't be having this discussion if ian hadn't gone AWOL, as it would've been up here like a shot....

    Things have gone right downhill without me - Y'all are having to use Cyclingnews as a source of news

    :wink:
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    phips wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    favor

    "favour" ;)

    Listed both ways in my dictionary. I have seen "favour" before. Not so much here in the States though.


    Dennis Noward
  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    dennisn wrote:
    Well, I guess I take my clues from you as you seem to pop up on this forum every now and then to have a go at pro riders. You can criticize them but I can't return the favor?
    Another thread where I try to reason with you! This is the "Pro Race" bit and so we discuss pro racing, whether riders, tactics, races and more. Except that you rarely offer any opinions on these but prefer to wind up fellow forum members, you're stalking us :wink:
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    A couple of years ago a tester turned up at a T-Mobile training camp. A couple of the riders high tailed it and had a shower before being tested.

    Does the name Pat Sinkewitz mean anything to anyone?
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Kléber wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    Well, I guess I take my clues from you as you seem to pop up on this forum every now and then to have a go at pro riders. You can criticize them but I can't return the favor?
    Another thread where I try to reason with you! This is the "Pro Race" bit and so we discuss pro racing, whether riders, tactics, races and more. Except that you rarely offer any opinions on these but prefer to wind up fellow forum members, you're stalking us :wink:

    I don't buy it. You guys are on this "Lance" subject for the sole purpose of slamming Lance or some other rider that you feel MIGHT have doped, not really talking Pro Race
    as the forum title would suggest. Now if this forum section were named Anti Race then
    you would be in the right place. As for me being here "to wind up fellow members". No, not really(well, maybe a little), I'm here to say I think you're wrong. And a little tit for tat.

    Dennis Noward
  • rockmount
    rockmount Posts: 761
    dennisn wrote:
    I don't buy it. You guys are on this "Lance" subject for the sole purpose of slamming Lance or some other rider that you feel MIGHT have doped, not really talking Pro Race
    as the forum title would suggest. Now if this forum section were named Anti Race then
    you would be in the right place. As for me being here "to wind up fellow members". No, not really(well, maybe a little), I'm here to say I think you're wrong. And a little tit for tat.

    Dennis Noward

    +1 ... I like to read this forum because it reminds me I'm sane !!
    .. who said that, internet forum people ?
  • The Prodigy
    The Prodigy Posts: 832
    Im sure I have seen this thread somewhere before....several times in fact.....is this groundhog day?

    Lance is guilty, Lance is not guilty, the best thing about both sides of this arguement is neither side seems to be able to quite convince....as to where the truth lies...I dunno
  • sicrow
    sicrow Posts: 791
    The Prodigy wrote:
    Im sure I have seen this thread somewhere before....several times in fact.....is this groundhog day?

    Lance is guilty, Lance is not guilty, the best thing about both sides of this arguement is neither side seems to be able to quite convince....as to where the truth lies...I dunno

    +1

    however I always work on innocent until proven
    http://www.action.org.uk/sponsor/simoncrowther
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,725
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    It's another non-starter.
    I'm fairly sure that by now, that even if the AFLD came up with a positive, Lance would shout French conspiracy and those fairy tale believers would swallow it, regardless.

    Ah well, what a surprise. Prediction confirmed. Didn't even take a positive:-

    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/ ... port_N.htm

    Those French labs eh? :roll:
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    dennisn wrote:
    I don't buy it. You guys are on this "Lance" subject for the sole purpose of slamming Lance or some other rider that you feel MIGHT have doped, not really talking Pro Race
    as the forum title would suggest.

    I don't recall seeing a single post from you about Pro cycling Dennis?

    I also don't believe you've ever defended anyones honour who wasn't Lance. Why is that?
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • The Prodigy
    The Prodigy Posts: 832
    iainf72 wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    I don't buy it. You guys are on this "Lance" subject for the sole purpose of slamming Lance or some other rider that you feel MIGHT have doped, not really talking Pro Race
    as the forum title would suggest.

    I don't recall seeing a single post from you about Pro cycling Dennis?

    I also don't believe you've ever defended anyones honour who wasn't Lance. Why is that?

    From more passive observers such as myself, an answer to the second question could help the undertsanding abit, somehow I doubt we will get an answer
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    I'm fairly sure that by now, that even if the AFLD came up with a positive, Lance would shout French conspiracy........

    I do love a good conspiracy theory. My wife says I'm very good at them myself. Although she my not even be listening and just saying that to get me to shut up. See there's one already, if a bit small. Lance may become as famous as John F. Kennedy in this respect.
    All the theory's advanced by so many people about his performance, how it comes or came about, and why he is so strong. What if it turns out to be the "lone gunman" all along? Just Lance, only Lance, and nothing else? It could be. I've got a feeling that we will all be dead and gone by the time someone finds out(if ever) if it was indeed the "lone gunman" in either or both cases.
    And what about that moon landing thing? Did we all fall for it?

    Dennis Noward
  • camerone
    camerone Posts: 1,232
    The Prodigy wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    I don't buy it. You guys are on this "Lance" subject for the sole purpose of slamming Lance or some other rider that you feel MIGHT have doped, not really talking Pro Race
    as the forum title would suggest.

    I don't recall seeing a single post from you about Pro cycling Dennis?

    I also don't believe you've ever defended anyones honour who wasn't Lance. Why is that?

    From more passive observers such as myself, an answer to the second question could help the undertsanding abit, somehow I doubt we will get an answer

    Because there is no need to defend anyone elses honour - its Lance who takes the primary kicking from the obsessed.

Categories