O, Danny Boy
Comments
-
rayjay wrote:iainf72 wrote:rayjay wrote:Its bullshi#%
THATS MY OPINON.
Move on...if you can without the attempted smarter%e comments.
If you think it should be a straight out life ban first time, that's fine. Express that. But don't act like there is some unfairness at work here - there isn't.
I think when a load of Garmin riders have to confess to doping and just get an off season ban while others get a 2 year ban say I say that is unfair .
IMO that's unfair
Isn't the difference that they may have confessed whereas Di Luca got caught? In most societies you get a reduced sentence for coughing the job.
Move ON0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:rayjay wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:Rayjay spitting out his yellow dummy again, I see.
Still not been over to the Lance is doping thread....check it out and then apologise for your massive wrong accusations.
Wellllllll, admitting to something a year after the fact, doesn't really qualify for an apology, especially since
you only did so to avoid what you really wanted to say, but couldn't.
Lets be honest here, You couldn't care less if di Luca got 2 years or 2 life time bans.
It's all hypocritical bullpoo to you, because your hero got his comeuppance.
You, failing to recognise the difference in sentencing dished out, between a user and a pusher,
is the real hypocrisy, here.
First off I say exactly what I think so don't try and tell me what I wanted to say.
I have never thought anything else of Armstrong. Go and look at older posts and you will see this.
Before you make assumptions get your facts right.
I told you what I thought. I don't give a Sh5t about Armstrong and his comeuppance.
He doped and he has to deal with the consequences of that not me.
I Couldn't care less how long Di Luca gets.
The bans dished out to a lot of doped riders are inconsistent IMO.
That's my point . I could not be clearer and you once again have got my opinions wrong because my views don't add up in your simple minded way of thinking.0 -
PBo wrote:rayjay wrote:Its bullshi#%
THATS MY OPINON.
Move on...if you can without the attempted smarter%e comments.
I appreciate that you are entitled to an opinion.
However, if you repeat it again and again, approx every 4th post, and make no attempt to engage with the broader debate about natural justice, then you are going to get smartar$e comments.
and lots of smileys
I HAVE ONLY MADE A POINT. I DID NOT ASKE FOR THE PATRONISING BULLSH^T REPLIES.
IF PEOPLE RESPONDED IN A ADULT WAY THEN WE COULD HAVE A DEBATE INSTEAD THEY HAVE TO USE PUT DOWNS AND SMARTAR$E COMMENTS JUST LIKE THE BULLS4IT YOU HAVE JUST POSTED.0 -
Yellow Peril wrote:rayjay wrote:iainf72 wrote:rayjay wrote:Its bullshi#%
THATS MY OPINON.
Move on...if you can without the attempted smarter%e comments.
If you think it should be a straight out life ban first time, that's fine. Express that. But don't act like there is some unfairness at work here - there isn't.
I think when a load of Garmin riders have to confess to doping and just get an off season ban while others get a 2 year ban say I say that is unfair .
IMO that's unfair
Isn't the difference that they may have confessed whereas Di Luca got caught? In most societies you get a reduced sentence for coughing the job.
Move ON
I am not just talking about one case. I am making a general point that bans are inconsistent .
And the GARMIN boys did not cough up . They got busted and talked so they would get reduced bans.
so If Di Luca names and can tell us of several riders who he will swear under oath are doping should he get a reduced ban just like the Garmin boys?0 -
TailWindHome wrote:rayjay wrote:Some just get a off season ban.
Hypothetically speaking what would your view be if Di Luca was to name names in return for a reduced sentence?
Any thoughts on this?
Happy to move on if not.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Di Luca has nothing to gain from naming names outwith a book deal ...
Also not a fan of ex-riders p!ssing in the pot once they're no longer taking from it (a la Hincapie) ...0 -
TailWindHome wrote:TailWindHome wrote:rayjay wrote:Some just get a off season ban.
Hypothetically speaking what would your view be if Di Luca was to name names in return for a reduced sentence?
Any thoughts on this?
Happy to move on if not.
Vino came back and won a gold medal.
If Di Luca named riders or managers etc and got a reduced ban then good for him.
I doubt he would get back. He would have to serve some kind of ban and what team would want to have him.0 -
rayjay wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:rayjay wrote:iainf72 wrote:rayjay wrote:Its bullshi#%
THATS MY OPINON.
Move on...if you can without the attempted smarter%e comments.
If you think it should be a straight out life ban first time, that's fine. Express that. But don't act like there is some unfairness at work here - there isn't.
I think when a load of Garmin riders have to confess to doping and just get an off season ban while others get a 2 year ban say I say that is unfair .
IMO that's unfair
Isn't the difference that they may have confessed whereas Di Luca got caught? In most societies you get a reduced sentence for coughing the job.
Move ON
I am not just talking about one case. I am making a general point that bans are inconsistent .
And the GARMIN boys did not cough up . They got busted and talked so they would get reduced bans.
so If Di Luca names and can tell us of several riders who he will swear under oath are doping should he get a reduced ban just like the Garmin boys?[/quote]
Ah! The fly in the ointment is that he is an habitual offender which kind of goes against him. If he was on his first strike then may be. The real winners are the likes of Big George who safeguarded his career results with a confession plus cooperation plus without being busted. Which is of course the Holy Trinity to a short end of career ban.0 -
Hincapie has come out untouched financially and his image has hardly been tarnished.
But think about it ,,,Armstrong's main man and still his friend and he knew everything that went down.
Mr Ceramic Pan.0 -
rayjay wrote:Hincapie has come out untouched financially and his image has hardly been tarnished.
But think about it ,,,Armstrong's main man and still his friend and he knew everything that went down.
Mr Ceramic Pan.
Hincapie may struggle if the Whistleblower suit comes to anything ... I can see several counter suits coming if there are big sums involved ...0 -
Last news I heard was that Armstrong was talking to the Justice dept.0
-
rayjay wrote:Last news I heard was that Armstrong was talking to the Justice dept.
Which, if they make an 'agreement' means GH gets away with it ... Meanwhile, Horner can't get a gig ...0 -
So, you don't give a s$*t about Armstrong, couldn't care less how long
Di Luca's ban is, but you are very upset by the length of the Garmin
boys bans.
Illogical, or else somebody's pants are on fire."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Blazing, I too no longer care about LA (it's done, nothing more will change), don't care about DDL (as he's not been a player for years) but do care about the way the Garmin team is allowed to politically manipulate it's way around the sport ...0
-
Crankbrother wrote:Blazing, I too no longer care about LA (it's done, nothing more will change), don't care about DDL (as he's not been a player for years) but do care about the way the Garmin team is allowed to politically manipulate it's way around the sport ...
Would that be an issue with JV directly, or the Garmin whistle-blowers?
I have to admit, the team does tend to get looked upon in a very positive manner.
Even Paul Kimmage now talks about them as being "clean"."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Struggling to follow the argument on this thread. (Poor quoting isn't helping)
Are we saying that DiLuca, in theory, should get a reduction if he confesses and names names, but that it was wrong to offer the same deal to Garmin riders?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Crankbrother wrote:Di Luca has nothing to gain from naming names outwith a book deal ...
Also not a fan of ex-riders p!ssing in the pot once they're no longer taking from it (a la Hincapie) ...
There is the issue of subpoenas though, it's a bit harsh to judge those under oath the same as the kiss-and-tellers...0 -
rayjay wrote:PBo wrote:rayjay wrote:Its bullshi#%
THATS MY OPINON.
Move on...if you can without the attempted smarter%e comments.
I appreciate that you are entitled to an opinion.
However, if you repeat it again and again, approx every 4th post, and make no attempt to engage with the broader debate about natural justice, then you are going to get smartar$e comments.
and lots of smileys
I HAVE ONLY MADE A POINT. I DID NOT ASKE FOR THE PATRONISING BULLSH^T REPLIES.
IF PEOPLE RESPONDED IN A ADULT WAY THEN WE COULD HAVE A DEBATE INSTEAD THEY HAVE TO USE PUT DOWNS AND SMARTAR$E COMMENTS JUST LIKE THE BULLS4IT YOU HAVE JUST POSTED.
Seriously, you've made a point to which several different people have pointed out that there is an illogicality in your point....but you aren't discussing or countering, you're just shouting it louder and louder....0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:Crankbrother wrote:Blazing, I too no longer care about LA (it's done, nothing more will change), don't care about DDL (as he's not been a player for years) but do care about the way the Garmin team is allowed to politically manipulate it's way around the sport ...
Would that be an issue with JV directly, or the Garmin whistle-blowers?
I have to admit, the team does tend to get looked upon in a very positive manner.
Even Paul Kimmage now talks about them as being "clean".
Surely everyone knows that garmin riders may well have previously doped - they don't have ZTP like Sky. But garmin are supposed to be clean now.
Surely confessing to previously doping is NOT the same as still doing it...(irrespective of if you are crap enough to get caught several times....)0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:So, you don't give a s$*t about Armstrong, couldn't care less how long
Di Luca's ban is, but you are very upset by the length of the Garmin
boys bans.
Illogical, or else somebody's pants are on fire.
No, I am not upset it does not have any effect on my daily life.
Garmin riders got away with no penalty if you think about it.
They admitted to doping only when they had no choice all towards the downfall of a rider we already knew was doping.
Contador missed some big races for just having a disputed amount of clen.
The Garmin riders missed nothing.
So still no apology.
You are wrong on all accounts as usual.
Stop trying to presume you know me with your desperate attempts to win a point when I am just stating my opinion. You just cannot bring your self to apologise for accusing me of something
I never ever said, infact you show me one post where I ever said Armstrong was clean or even thought it.
I said to my wife years ago that Armstrong should own up when he retires.
Just because I think he was a great champion does not mean I thought he was clean.
Eddy Merckx , the greatest rider ever IMO doped.0 -
PBo wrote:rayjay wrote:PBo wrote:rayjay wrote:Its bullshi#%
THATS MY OPINON.
Move on...if you can without the attempted smarter%e comments.
I appreciate that you are entitled to an opinion.
However, if you repeat it again and again, approx every 4th post, and make no attempt to engage with the broader debate about natural justice, then you are going to get smartar$e comments.
and lots of smileys
I HAVE ONLY MADE A POINT. I DID NOT ASKE FOR THE PATRONISING BULLSH^T REPLIES.
IF PEOPLE RESPONDED IN A ADULT WAY THEN WE COULD HAVE A DEBATE INSTEAD THEY HAVE TO USE PUT DOWNS AND SMARTAR$E COMMENTS JUST LIKE THE BULLS4IT YOU HAVE JUST POSTED.
Seriously, you've made a point to which several different people have pointed out that there is an illogicality in your point....but you aren't discussing or countering, you're just shouting it louder and louder....
What's illogical about my point ?
Armstrong has his tour wins taken away for doping Riss has not ....what's illogical about that?
Vino gets a year ban , Chicken never got to ride again. what's illogical about that?
That's the only point I am making. if you think that's fair then so be it. I don't.0 -
ddraver wrote:Riss admitted it, Armstrong did not
Someone would pay Vino to ride again but no one would pay Rasmussen (Well Christina Watches would but no one important let them in their races)
Of course Armstrong admitted it , did you see Oprah. Both won tours doped. The same offence. Both had team mates doping. Both did the same offence to win a tour.
Perhaps maybe the clean riders could take a stand and refuse to race with a rider like Vino or Di Luca before he was banned.
They, the clean riders are quick to make comments after a rider is busted when the know full well what riders even team mates are doping. They are all to scared to put the head on the line ?
If the riders want a clean sport maybe it's time they did something. if peloton is clean then maybe they should tackle the problem from within.
Instead we have all these sporting bodies that say they want a clean sport etc but are more concerned about the profits they make and the money in their pockets.0 -
rayjay wrote:ddraver wrote:Riss admitted it, Armstrong did not
Someone would pay Vino to ride again but no one would pay Rasmussen (Well Christina Watches would but no one important let them in their races)
Of course Armstrong admitted it , did you see Oprah. Both won tours doped. The same offence. Both had team mates doping. Both did the same offence to win a tour.
Perhaps maybe the clean riders could take a stand and refuse to race with a rider like Vino or Di Luca before he was banned.
They, the clean riders are quick to make comments after a rider is busted when the know full well what riders even team mates are doping. They are all to scared to put the head on the line ?
If the riders want a clean sport maybe it's time they did something. if peloton is clean then maybe they should tackle the problem from within.
Instead we have all these sporting bodies that say they want a clean sport etc but are more concerned about the profits they make and the money in their pockets.
Quite agree. If teams refused to sign ex dopers (sure I heard that somewhere before) and the clean riders refused to compete against known dopers, the problem would eventually recede. I believe there were a couple of endurance athletes who refused to compete against a known doper in Athletics, but I cant remember the event.
There again there are still too many riders that remember the Omerta era and cant seem to escape its grasp.0 -
The issue with Rassmussen wasn't that he was never allowed to ride again, it was that his comeuppance played out in front of the biggest audience in the sport resulting in him being unofficially blacklisted by ASO. That meant any team who decided to take a punt on him was basically signing away any ambition they had to ride Paris Nice, Paris-Roubiax and the Tour, amongst others. Same issue with Landis.
Lesson is, if you're going to get got, don't do it whilst leading the biggest bike race in the world at the sharp end.
As to Garmin, confessing to 5 year old transgressions when put under the threat of prison time for perjury is not the same as getting caught in a test. What is the incentive for anyone to cooperate with the authroities if their career gets destroyed over something that, did they nt confess, would probably never come to light?"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'"
@gietvangent0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:The issue with Rassmussen wasn't that he was never allowed to ride again, it was that his comeuppance played out in front of the biggest audience in the sport resulting in him being unofficially blacklisted by ASO. That meant any team who decided to take a punt on him was basically signing away any ambition they had to ride Paris Nice, Paris-Roubiax and the Tour, amongst others. Same issue with Landis.
Lesson is, if you're going to get got, don't do it whilst leading the biggest bike race in the world at the sharp end.
As to Garmin, confessing to 5 year old transgressions when put under the threat of prison time for perjury is not the same as getting caught in a test. What is the incentive for anyone to cooperate with the authroities if their career gets destroyed over something that, did they nt confess, would probably never come to light?
Armstrong never got caught in a test when he was riding. should he have just got an off season ban for confessing?
Is it not the same offence. All these riders doped.
Is it not that the whole issue is such a mess that the UCI are out of their depth and were a part of the problem in the first place by denying or avoiding the issue that doping was going on in such a big way.
Like most things they catch up with you, in the end your left with a big mess for initially turning a blind eye to keep your pockets filled.0 -
mike6 wrote:rayjay wrote:ddraver wrote:Riss admitted it, Armstrong did not
Someone would pay Vino to ride again but no one would pay Rasmussen (Well Christina Watches would but no one important let them in their races)
Of course Armstrong admitted it , did you see Oprah. Both won tours doped. The same offence. Both had team mates doping. Both did the same offence to win a tour.
Perhaps maybe the clean riders could take a stand and refuse to race with a rider like Vino or Di Luca before he was banned.
They, the clean riders are quick to make comments after a rider is busted when the know full well what riders even team mates are doping. They are all to scared to put the head on the line ?
If the riders want a clean sport maybe it's time they did something. if peloton is clean then maybe they should tackle the problem from within.
Instead we have all these sporting bodies that say they want a clean sport etc but are more concerned about the profits they make and the money in their pockets.
Quite agree. If teams refused to sign ex dopers (sure I heard that somewhere before) and the clean riders refused to compete against known dopers, the problem would eventually recede. I believe there were a couple of endurance athletes who refused to compete against a known doper in Athletics, but I cant remember the event.
There again there are still too many riders that remember the Omerta era and cant seem to escape its grasp.
So tell us how the effect of a couple of endurance athletes refusing to compete against a known doper, had and has had on endurance sports?
You are so black and white. Solutions seem to appear very simple to you. Life is not like that. If riders refused to compete, they would be in breach and they would be at risk of having their employment terminated - and be pretty unattractive to other teams from that point on. Riders are not unionised. This isn't back to the days of "Right, everybody out!"
The riders are paid to ride their bikes. For the most part, they just want to be allowed to get on with their job.0 -
rayjay wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:The issue with Rassmussen wasn't that he was never allowed to ride again, it was that his comeuppance played out in front of the biggest audience in the sport resulting in him being unofficially blacklisted by ASO. That meant any team who decided to take a punt on him was basically signing away any ambition they had to ride Paris Nice, Paris-Roubiax and the Tour, amongst others. Same issue with Landis.
Lesson is, if you're going to get got, don't do it whilst leading the biggest bike race in the world at the sharp end.
As to Garmin, confessing to 5 year old transgressions when put under the threat of prison time for perjury is not the same as getting caught in a test. What is the incentive for anyone to cooperate with the authroities if their career gets destroyed over something that, did they nt confess, would probably never come to light?
Armstrong never got caught in a test when he was riding. should he have just got an off season ban for confessing?
Is it not the same offence. All these riders doped.
Is it not that the whole issue is such a mess that the UCI are out of their depth and were a part of the problem in the first place by denying or avoiding the issue that doping was going on in such a big way.
Like most things they catch up with you, in the end your left with a big mess for initially turning a blind eye to keep your pockets filled.
If you add up the wins and money earned of every single one of those Garmin riders who, whilst we shouldn't forget were compelled to confess on pain of prison, willignly cooperated with USADA, they won't ammount to half the career Armstrong had. And he was caught in his own lie, confessing only when he had something to gain from it.
Can you honestly not see the difference between one of the sports modern greats who ran the Tour like his own personal fifedom for the better part of a decade and Dave Zabriskie?"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'"
@gietvangent0 -
I have no love for the likes of Danielson, but...just to be clear, the Garmin crew were not sub-poena'd. They were not threatened with prison if they didn't talk. Nor was Barry (to cite another example). The guys who were called in by Novitsky - different story. But the ones who weren't, and who talked to USADA once they'd taken up the case when Novitsky had the case closed down against his will....they were not sub-poena'd. Tygart had nothing like the legal power that Novitsky had, to force people to talk. The most he could do was to contact someone and 'invite' them to come in to talk to USADA. They were able to refuse (as Barry did at first, and then changed his mind in Aug '12 and contacted them to say he'd provide a witness statement after all. Sure, if a false statement is found to been provided, that witness would be in trouble - but the thing is that they were not coerced to talk in the first place.
Just setting the record straight a bit0
