Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

The UCI. Again

13»

Posts

  • markwalkermarkwalker Posts: 953
    Dave_1 wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    aurelio wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    aurelio wrote:
    which 'winners' of the Tour de France, say in the last 20 years, do you actually believe did so purely 'on mineral water'?
    As for the TDf the last two for start
    And apart from Lemond (or so we assume) who else? I also wonder what miraculous change you think has come about in cycling to make it, in your view, clean after having an almost unbroken line of dopers 'win' the Tour all the way through from Roche to Armstrong? ('Allegedly' :roll: ).
    Moray Gub wrote:
    The bottom line is some riders have more talent than others end of.
    If only that were true. Yes talent and application counts for a lot, but given the effectiveness of modern doping, a relative 'donkey' really can become a serial 'winner'. What's more not all riders benefit from doping to the same degree so doping certainly does not create a level playing field. Remember the Gewiss 123? Was that simply the product of talent? How about Riis's ride on the Hautecam, or Armstrong's 7 Tour 'wins"?

    So you think there is no difference in the testing regime today compared to say 1996 then ? mmmm thats an interesting viewpoint.Also if you discount talent then all riders must be the same like a kind of stepford wive and only doping makes them faster and stronger. I presume youve never particpated in a sport and noticed that just occsaionally some people are better than others at certain sports.Not every golfer is Tiger Woods you know............oe every cyclist Eddy Merckyx..........or every boxer like Ali.......see what i am getting at it is possible to be more talented than others at your given sport. Dismissing talent as the major factor like you are doing is nonsensical

    well put Moray Gub...it is indeed true that some people are just better, much better than others, at certain sports...aptitiude, physiology, psychological make up...supportive people around them at the right times..it's a shame Aurelio is so determined to distract readers from that and smear the races, the sport every time....

    Dave you get blinkered when you start to attack people whos views dont support yours. Aurelio is right, peds are more effective in some people than others. this is a medically proven fact.
    You are also right, some people are better at certain activities than others. FACT
    So if a sample of cyclists with varying abilities are given drugs there is no reason why the winner of the race would or would not be the winner of a race.

    If for example Armstrong who has never been found guilty of ped abuse were to be considered clean and Ulrich and all the others dirty it would make Armstrong a superhuman. Or put another way every one else were virtual cripples who even with the aid of the best preparation couldnt even come close.

    I got very dissapointed and disallusioned in cycling a few years ago but now i accept it for what it is. For me the ped thing detracts only because when caught some people bleet on about how theyre clean or victimised or whatever. Its still great to watch the tactics spills and effort in a race like Paris Roubaix. I even cheered that twunt landis for a superb ride whilst having bets if theyd catch him out. Then he spoiled it.

    Before anyone says it yes it is about entertainment for 99% of spectators wether its the scenery or the superhuman efforts or the soap opera.

    Off to work now DAve_1, or I might join you as an underachiever.

    Tally ho
  • Dave_1Dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    markwalker wrote:
    Dave_1 wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    aurelio wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    aurelio wrote:
    which 'winners' of the Tour de France, say in the last 20 years, do you actually believe did so purely 'on mineral water'?
    As for the TDf the last two for start
    And apart from Lemond (or so we assume) who else? I also wonder what miraculous change you think has come about in cycling to make it, in your view, clean after having an almost unbroken line of dopers 'win' the Tour all the way through from Roche to Armstrong? ('Allegedly' :roll: ).
    Moray Gub wrote:
    The bottom line is some riders have more talent than others end of.
    If only that were true. Yes talent and application counts for a lot, but given the effectiveness of modern doping, a relative 'donkey' really can become a serial 'winner'. What's more not all riders benefit from doping to the same degree so doping certainly does not create a level playing field. Remember the Gewiss 123? Was that simply the product of talent? How about Riis's ride on the Hautecam, or Armstrong's 7 Tour 'wins"?

    So you think there is no difference in the testing regime today compared to say 1996 then ? mmmm thats an interesting viewpoint.Also if you discount talent then all riders must be the same like a kind of stepford wive and only doping makes them faster and stronger. I presume youve never particpated in a sport and noticed that just occsaionally some people are better than others at certain sports.Not every golfer is Tiger Woods you know............oe every cyclist Eddy Merckyx..........or every boxer like Ali.......see what i am getting at it is possible to be more talented than others at your given sport. Dismissing talent as the major factor like you are doing is nonsensical

    well put Moray Gub...it is indeed true that some people are just better, much better than others, at certain sports...aptitiude, physiology, psychological make up...supportive people around them at the right times..it's a shame Aurelio is so determined to distract readers from that and smear the races, the sport every time....

    Dave you get blinkered when you start to attack people whos views dont support yours. Aurelio is right, peds are more effective in some people than others. this is a medically proven fact.
    You are also right, some people are better at certain activities than others. FACT
    So if a sample of cyclists with varying abilities are given drugs there is no reason why the winner of the race would or would not be the winner of a race.

    If for example Armstrong who has never been found guilty of ped abuse were to be considered clean and Ulrich and all the others dirty it would make Armstrong a superhuman. Or put another way every one else were virtual cripples who even with the aid of the best preparation couldnt even come close.

    I got very dissapointed and disallusioned in cycling a few years ago but now i accept it for what it is. For me the ped thing detracts only because when caught some people bleet on about how theyre clean or victimised or whatever. Its still great to watch the tactics spills and effort in a race like Paris Roubaix. I even cheered that twunt landis for a superb ride whilst having bets if theyd catch him out. Then he spoiled it.

    Before anyone says it yes it is about entertainment for 99% of spectators wether its the scenery or the superhuman efforts or the soap opera.

    Off to work now DAve_1, or I might join you as an underachiever.

    Tally ho


    nice, thanks for the put down.
  • moray_gubmoray_gub Posts: 3,328
    markwalker wrote:
    [

    Off to work now DAve_1, or I might join you as an underachiever.

    Tally ho

    Mark must you resort to that kind of shite ? it does you no favours at all.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
Sign In or Register to comment.