Floyd -- he wrote us a letter...
Comments
-
I had to look up Rachida Dati... there's definitely more glamour in French politics!0
-
McQuaid's on form again!"Let's move forward. As president of the UCI, I prefer to look forward to the cycling of today and the cycling of tomorrow, rather than the cycling of yesterday and years gone by. And that includes Floyd Landis and what have you.""He was certainly involved in Puerto and that has come back to haunt him. That is a message for any cyclist today - if he decides to get involved in a doping programme, that it may eventually come back to haunt him. There is no statute of limitations in relation to that, so it is a good lesson from that point of view.
How do these two quotes square with each other?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-welcomes-valverde-decision-says-justice-has-been-done0 -
iainf72 wrote:
This hack writing about ASO being ostriches is funny-sad.. given the Armstrong bashers want to burn the house down and appear to show little concern for the several hundred innocent cyclists who lose their sponsor and income, I'd say it is you lot who are the ostriches. The collateral damage is fine for you. I tried to bring this up earlier in this lousy thread and the only reply was to blame the top guys caught doping and no concern was shown for the majority of clean riders. I know all 30+ plus of the lance bashers will be packing the next two pages of this thread with evasive answers...don't worry about a reply..I don't read the thread replies here, not even sure what the replies were to my posting 5 days ago.. am in a minority of 1 or 2 on here who actually see it from the riders perspective and see no point in trying to persuade. No doubt the crap about saving the riders health will be used by some as the reason for taking down LA...very few people are dead of drugs in this sport considering the thousands involved and the testing is far improved so don't hide behind that sham argument that you stand up for the riders...you don't care....you want clean cycling, even if it involves turfing everyone out of a job...what logic...and you are quite happy with the amount of unemployment on your conscience?0 -
They are contradictory but reflect McQuaid's dual standards, the first one being motivated by his desire to protect Armstrong, the second one being motivated by his dislike of riders from 'Mafia European nations'.jp1985 wrote:McQuaid's on form again!"Let's move forward. As president of the UCI, I prefer to look forward to the cycling of today and the cycling of tomorrow, rather than the cycling of yesterday and years gone by. And that includes Floyd Landis and what have you."
How do these two quotes square with each other?"He was certainly involved in Puerto and that has come back to haunt him. That is a message for any cyclist today - if he decides to get involved in a doping programme, that it may eventually come back to haunt him. There is no statute of limitations in relation to that, so it is a good lesson from that point of view.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-welcomes-valverde-decision-says-justice-has-been-done0 -
I think this is where your argument falls down, replace 'several hundred' with 'several' and you would be nearer the mark. Also, history shows that sponsors are more interested in the commercial value of backing a team than the controversy surrounding doping. Look at Festina, for example, who continued sponsorship for 3 years after the 1998 scandal.Dave_1 wrote:Armstrong bashers want to burn the house down and appear to show little concern for the several hundred innocent cyclists who lose their sponsor and income...
On top of all this is the fact that, because Epo and blood doping can make such a difference to a rider's performance, as long as doping is allowed to persist many riders will be given the 'choice' of doping or going back to the factory. This is a choice they should not be forced to make.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:iainf72 wrote:
This hack writing about ASO being ostriches is funny-sad.. given the Armstrong bashers want to burn the house down and appear to show little concern for the several hundred innocent cyclists who lose their sponsor and income, I'd say it is you lot who are the ostriches. The collateral damage is fine for you. I tried to bring this up earlier in this lousy thread and the only reply was to blame the top guys caught doping and no concern was shown for the majority of clean riders. I know all 30+ plus of the lance bashers will be packing the next two pages of this thread with evasive answers...don't worry about a reply..I don't read the thread replies here, not even sure what the replies were to my posting 5 days ago.. am in a minority of 1 or 2 on here who actually see it from the riders perspective and see no point in trying to persuade. No doubt the crap about saving the riders health will be used by some as the reason for taking down LA...very few people are dead of drugs in this sport considering the thousands involved and the testing is far improved so don't hide behind that sham argument that you stand up for the riders...you don't care....you want clean cycling, even if it involves turfing everyone out of a job...what logic...and you are quite happy with the amount of unemployment on your conscience?
Well I'm going to reply anyway, that's what debate in open forums is about, it's a shame if you don't read replies.
1) The hundreds of clean riders you mention don't have a chance against the dopers, not in the big events. I'd like them to.
2) You seem to think that the natural consequence of LA going down would be the destruction of cycling. That's far from certain, it's also possible that it could be the rebirth of cycling. I for one would start watching again if I didn't think the podium places in the TdF would go to EPO, HGH and steroids.
3) Why is it us, the "LA bashers" who should shoulder the guilt for any "collateral damage" to cycling if he goes down? None of us ever pissed on the sport from the height of 7 TdF wins on the trot. Save your anger for those that turned the sport into the equivalent of the Formula1 constructors championship, but with doctors rather than engineers and mechanics.
And lastly, I'd like to ask you: If LA is guilty, would you prefer that it was hushed up, hidden away, that blood test results were locked in a safe in the UCI and we pretended everything was fine, or would you like him to suffer the same fate as other riders who have been caught with their snout in the drugs-bag?Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Dave_1 wrote:
This hack writing about ASO being ostriches is funny-sad.. given the Armstrong bashers want to burn the house down and appear to show little concern for the several hundred innocent cyclists who lose their sponsor and income, I'd say it is you lot who are the ostriches....don't worry about a reply..I don't read the thread replies here, not even sure what the replies were to my posting 5 days ago.. am in a minority of 1 or 2 on here who actually see it from the riders perspective and see no point in trying to persuade. ...what logic...
What logic indeed Dave_1 - nice of you to pop your head out of the sand to post the above. :roll:0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
They are contradictory but reflect McQuaid's dual standards, the first one being motivated by his desire to protect Armstrong, the second one being motivated by his dislike of riders from 'Mafia European nations'.jp1985 wrote:McQuaid's on form again!"Let's move forward. As president of the UCI, I prefer to look forward to the cycling of today and the cycling of tomorrow, rather than the cycling of yesterday and years gone by. And that includes Floyd Landis and what have you."
How do these two quotes square with each other?"He was certainly involved in Puerto and that has come back to haunt him. That is a message for any cyclist today - if he decides to get involved in a doping programme, that it may eventually come back to haunt him. There is no statute of limitations in relation to that, so it is a good lesson from that point of view.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-welcomes-valverde-decision-says-justice-has-been-done
He is so dumb that he thinks folks are unable to make comparisions between such statements and see them for what they are.
I hope some journalist nails him to the floor with this latest gaff.
I blame the weakening Euro and a strong Dollar.
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Hmm, there's not a whole lot new here. But I do wonder about Armstrong's ex wife and others who get interviewed, they will be worried about going to prison knowing that if they tell a lie that's perjury and instant prison for six months. All it takes is someone to confirm a fridge full of blood and things could implode quite quickly.iainf72 wrote:
Prisoners dilemma and all that.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:..very few people are dead of drugs in this sport considering the thousands involved and the testing is far improved so don't hide behind that sham argument
I disagree with quite a lot of what you said but just picking this point - how many exactly have died ? Do you know - it's certainly more than a couple - in the long term what are the consequences of epo use ? I don't claim to be an expert but from what you read there are links between epo and cancer.
It's certainly not a sham argument to point out that riders are currently pressured into using drugs that are potentially harmful.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
Exactly so:Tom Butcher wrote:
I disagree with quite a lot of what you said but just picking this point - how many exactly have died ? Do you know - it's certainly more than a couple - in the long term what are the consequences of epo use ? I don't claim to be an expert but from what you read there are links between epo and cancer. It's certainly not a sham argument to point out that riders are currently pressured into using drugs that are potentially harmful.Dave_1 wrote:..very few people are dead of drugs in this sport considering the thousands involved and the testing is far improved so don't hide behind that sham argument
Two years ago, author Jean-Francois Quinet published "The Secrets of the Festina Affair," which detailed drug use among riders in recent Tours. Quinet said he found that "close to 100 percent" of the riders were using banned substances.
Further, Quinet said, team doctors have become more savvy than the UCI in dealing with illegal substances.
"The drugs they are currently giving to their cyclists might not even be ones for which a test has been developed," Quinet said. "Their M.O. is to stay a few steps ahead of the testing."
One way some riders have attempted to stay ahead is using EPO, an endurance-boosting hormone that is produced naturally in the kidneys and is undetectable by current tests. But its use brings serious risks.
Quinet said he was able to document 80 riders in the 1980s and 1990s who died because of EPO-related heart problems.
"The real damage was done at night," Quinet said. "When the riders went to sleep, their pulses slowed down but their hearts fought to keep the circulation flowing. That left them as prime candidates for heart attacks and strokes."
Most EPO-related deaths, Quinet said, took place in Belgium and Holland in the early 1990s, when riders dabbled in the drug without supervision from a team physician. Most recently, the deaths of several Dutch cylo-cross riders were blamed on their misuse of EPO.
http://www.press-enterprise.com/newsarc ... 24010.html
The Times
24 February 2009.
World in motion: why we need to know what killed Frederiek Nolf
You may not have heard of Frederiek Nolf, but he is dead, so now is probably your last chance. He was five days short of his 22nd birthday
Cyclingnews.com
June 3, 2003
Salanson dies
French Professional Fabrice Salanson (Brioches la Boulangère) was found dead today in his hotel room just hours before the start of the Deutschland Tour (Tour of Germany), according to German wire reports. The 23 year old was found by his roomate Sebastien Chavanel at 8:30am local time on the floor, with one leg on the bed. He died in his sleep between 2:30 and 4:00am
cyclingnews.com
January 11, 2003
Denis Zanette dead from heart attack
32 year old Italian professional Denis Zanette has died as a result of a heart attack, suffered while visiting the dentist on Friday, January 10.
The Guardian,
Monday 16 February 2004.
Inquiry into Belgian cyclist's death raises new fears over EPO
Tally of deaths reaches eight as drug suspicions rise
Marco Ceriani (Italy)
Died May 5, 2003 aged 16
An elite amateur, Ceriani experienced a heart attack during a race, was admitted to hospital in a coma, and failed to recover consciousness.
Marco Rusconi (Italy)
Died November 14, 2003 aged 24
Rusconi was leaving the party of a friend last November when he collapsed and died in a shopping centre car park.
Jose Maria Jimenez (Spain)
Died December 6, 2003 aged 32
Died from a heart attack in a psychiatric hospital in Madrid. Had retired two years previously but consistently claimed a comeback was imminent.
Michel Zanoli (Netherlands)
Died December 29, 2003 aged 35
Zanoli, who retired in 1997, was 35 when he suffered a fatal heart attack.
Johan Sermon (Belgium)
Died February 15 2004, aged 21
Suffered an apparent heart failure in his sleep. Had reportedly gone to bed early to prepare for an eight-hour training ride.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2004/fe ... g.cycling10 -
P.s. those who might try to argue that the above deaths were probably due to natural causes should consider just how rare such deaths are amongst those not already suffering from heart disease and so on. One major study of American high-school athletes found that the incidence of such deaths was only 0.46 deaths per 100,000 athletes and other studies have found a rate between 0.28 and 1 death per 100,000 athletes. See:
http://www.americanheart.org/downloadab ... osCA06.pdf
So amongst a couple of thousand, at most, professional cyclists, all of whom are under constant medical supervision and monitoring, such deaths should be almost vanishingly rare...0 -
Dave_1 wrote:[. given the Armstrong bashers want to burn the house down and appear to show little concern for the several hundred innocent cyclists who lose their sponsor and income, I'd say it is you lot who are the ostriches.
I total disagree with your line of thinking on this topic
In effect you are holding the innocent hostage to protect the cheats.. this type of argument is actually a unstated admission you support cheating..
if you/we/everybody allows the "image of the sport" to be "protected" for the good of the innocent then in effect we are partaking in some sort of omerta ourselves.
the very fact it has come to this indicates how we failed... if we adopt mick rogers "i sick of all the negativity" line then we are helping create an environment were cheats are enabled as we empower them to an INCREASING hold on the sport
note INCREASING and centralised control because the cheaters will be protected by arguments like yours even if they are in a minority
you support cheating irrespective of how many times you say you dont just by creating a standpoint that holds others as hostage
its wrong"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
micron wrote:DaveyL, of course you could say 'well Lemond would say that' Still interested in when it became unsupportable for you.
As HWSNBN is often know as the 'fat arsed pigeon chested Texan ****' in our house, Herrera's assessment works for me
For me it is the same as Lemond, early 90s.
I only put in a part of his quote, but the full quote is here:
"I witnessed a dramatic change in the sport in the early 90s. I saw the speeds in the Tour de France immediately come up in 91 and 92, and usually it was the same group of riders, that had the same doctors, who were dominating.
It was shocking, the difference. I mean, can you imagine, I won the Tour de France in 1990, my team won the team classification, and two years, three years later, we weren’t capable of finishing riders in the Tour de France. The introduction of epo, growth hormone and testosterone into the peloton at that time, in a scientific way, elevated the speeds and if you weren’t on it, you weren’t competing. You weren’t competitive.”
It is from the interview Lemond gave on Competitor Radio a couple of years back. This is the period when epo took hold and the speeds went up, and if you wanted to be at all competitive, or in some cases to just finish, you had to get on it.
Also note the infamous 1994 Fleche Wallone, where Armstrong watched two Italians and a Russian, on an Italian team, fuelled by an Italian doctor, ride away from him. They, and other riders from "mafia European nations" started it, not him, like it or not. He may have decided to play them at their own game, and to do that "better" than anyone else, but one ought to be clear about those two different roles when apportioning blame.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Which ties in with the analysis done by Cyclismag.DaveyL wrote:"I witnessed a dramatic change in the sport in the early 90s. I saw the speeds in the Tour de France immediately come up in 91 and 92, and usually it was the same group of riders, that had the same doctors, who were dominating.
Yes, the performances lost all 'authenticity' and came to reflect the effectiveness of the rider's doping 'program' as much as their natural ability. This, of course, is something that is equally true for Armstrong's performances once he got on to a properly managed doping 'program' as well.DaveyL wrote:It was shocking, the difference. I mean, can you imagine, I won the Tour de France in 1990, my team won the team classification, and two years, three years later, we weren’t capable of finishing riders in the Tour de France. The introduction of epo, growth hormone and testosterone into the peloton at that time, in a scientific way, elevated the speeds and if you weren’t on it, you weren’t competing. You weren’t competitive.”
That would have been Ferrari, the man who later 'managed' Armstrong's doping program. (You probably already knew this, even if you didn't want to mention Ferrari by name because of his close relationship with Armstrong...)DaveyL wrote:Also note the infamous 1994 Fleche Wallone, where Armstrong watched two Italians and a Russian, on an Italian team, fuelled by an Italian doctor, ride away from him.
If you follow that logic back through history the people who started it were probably Brits like 'Choppy' Warburton.DaveyL wrote:They, and other riders from "mafia European nations" started it, not him, like it or not.
It also makes him no better than any other doper. It is also the case that Armstrong did not dope in order to survive. Rather he did so to dominate, in so doing taking doping to whole new levels and forcing others to follow in his footsteps, if only to get round in the 'autobus' within the cut-off time.DaveyL wrote:He may have decided to play them at their own game, and to do that "better" than anyone else, but one ought to be clear about those two different roles when apportioning blame.
Cyclevaughters: yeah, it's very complex how the avoid all the controls now, but it's not any new drug or anything, just the resources and planning to pull of a well devised plan
Cyclevaughters: it's why they all got dropped on stage 9 - no refill yet - then on the rest day - boom 800ml of packed cells...
FDREU: crazy! it' just keep going to new levels
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis ... ssage.html0 -
Dave_1 wrote:
This hack writing about ASO being ostriches is funny-sad.. given the Armstrong bashers want to burn the house down and appear to show little concern for the several hundred innocent cyclists who lose their sponsor and income, I'd say it is you lot who are the ostriches. The collateral damage is fine for you. I tried to bring this up earlier in this lousy thread and the only reply was to blame the top guys caught doping and no concern was shown for the majority of clean riders. I know all 30+ plus of the lance bashers will be packing the next two pages of this thread with evasive answers...don't worry about a reply..I don't read the thread replies here, not even sure what the replies were to my posting 5 days ago.. am in a minority of 1 or 2 on here who actually see it from the riders perspective and see no point in trying to persuade. No doubt the crap about saving the riders health will be used by some as the reason for taking down LA...very few people are dead of drugs in this sport considering the thousands involved and the testing is far improved so don't hide behind that sham argument that you stand up for the riders...you don't care....you want clean cycling, even if it involves turfing everyone out of a job...what logic...and you are quite happy with the amount of unemployment on your conscience?
1) Why is it crap to not want to see people die early because of the effects of doping? That is, after all, the whole rationale for banning doping. If it weren't dangerous to misuse medical products then nobody would care.
2) You have an interesting point about innocent riders having their livelihoods harmed by cleaning up the sport, but is it actually valid? How many professional cyclists are there now compared to pre-Festina times? Have new teams come in and plugged the gaps left by the demise of the Phonaks in this world? I'm not saying you're right or wrong, it would just be interesting to know if the numbers have risen or fallen.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Cyclevaughters: yeah, it's very complex how the avoid all the controls now, but it's not any new drug or anything, just the resources and planning to pull of a well devised plan
Cyclevaughters: it's why they all got dropped on stage 9 - no refill yet - then on the rest day - boom 800ml of packed cells...
FDREU: crazy! it' just keep going to new levels
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis ... ssage.html
This should be your sig line.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
If you follow that logic back through history the people who started it were probably Brits like 'Choppy' Warburton.DaveyL wrote:They, and other riders from "mafia European nations" started it, not him, like it or not.
No, I'm talking about the era where performances, to use your own words "lost all authenticity". The epo era.
I know you don't have time to comment on the doping of riders from "mafia European nations", but I'm sorry to tell you they were in the vanguard when it came to epo use.
I'm sad you didn't quote the bit from the IM where they say that Ullrich raced with a hematocrit of 42 from 2000 onwards. Or the bit where they say "Floyd has photos", despite him saying he never took any photos. Oh well, maybe next time.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
That would have been Ferrari, the man who later 'managed' Armstrong's doping program. (You probably already knew this, even if you didn't want to mention Ferrari by name because of his close relationship with Armstrong...)DaveyL wrote:Also note the infamous 1994 Fleche Wallone, where Armstrong watched two Italians and a Russian, on an Italian team, fuelled by an Italian doctor, ride away from him.
Of course it would be Ferrari - everyone who knows about the race knows that.
You seem to think I am somehow defending Armstrong. I'm not. I'm saying that if you are ging to blame someone for starting it, it's not him, by a long shot. Yes, maybe he joined the game relatively late, but he certainly made up for it.
Perhaps in your binary little world, anyone who does not blame Armstrong 100% for all of cycling's ills is some sort of apologist for the guy, but I'm sorry to tell you that really isn't the case in the real world.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
-
BikingBernie wrote:
It also makes him no better than any other doper. It is also the case that Armstrong did not dope in order to survive. Rather he did so to dominate, in so doing taking doping to whole new levels and forcing others to follow in his footsteps, if only to get round in the 'autobus' within the cut-off time.DaveyL wrote:He may have decided to play them at their own game, and to do that "better" than anyone else, but one ought to be clear about those two different roles when apportioning blame.
Of course it makes him no better than the others - that's exactly my point. No better and no worse, except he won the Tour a lot more, made a bit more money, trampled over a lot of people on the way, and is American. But in terms of doping, not much better or worse.
He's not the first rider who doped "to dominate", riders like Indurain, Riis, Pantani, Ullrich also did so, and in their era others had to follow as well, even to just finish - as Lemond pointed out. So yes, no better than the others who came before him.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Disclaimer - what follows is a purely personal opinion
DaveyL, thanks for the response. I agree with both you and Bernie - I asked you when the performances became 'ET' for you and you pegged it slightly early than I did (I was still prepared to enjoy and turn a blind eye until the USPS mountain train). Certainly it didn't start with Armstrong - who could forget Gewiss Ballan under Ferrari or Mapei going 1,2,3 in P-R (oh, but that was Sassi so it must have been clean ). I guess it's about when you cross the line from being able to turn a blind eye to finding it just too in your face and cynical, which is what I disliked about 1999 onwards - probably because I was just about able to justify those ET performances before then (and let's not be hypocritical and leave personality out of it - Indurain came across well, Armstrong didn't). 0 -
Yes, this is all true. It's also worth bearing in mind that Armstrong's era has also coincided with the age of the internet and 24 hour scrutiny. When you couple that with the slow realisation, (via athletes being caught and scandals breaking) that something has been going on, then it becomes a lot more obvious, and in-your-face diffiuclt to ignore.
Imagine if we'd had such mass-participation internet forums back in '96, for example, when Riis was sizing up the opposition on Hautacam, or a few years earlier when the Indurain "motorbike" towed Bruyneel into Liege (was it?), to pick just two examples.
I do believe the relative lack of coverage back then has almost shielded a lot of riders from the scrutiny we put them under today, and also that there was no "back story" then, as it was the early days of the systematic doping. Even Walsh says it took til 96 and Riis on Hautacam for him to say "Wait a minute"Le Blaireau (1)0 -
micron wrote:who could forget Gewiss Ballan under Ferrari or Mapei going 1,2,3 in P-R (oh, but that was Sassi so it must have been clean)..
That 1-2-3 was also Ferrari rather than Sassi. As I recall, Aldo tried to stop anyone working with Ferrari after seeing the wierdness with their blood after getting training advice from him.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
I don't suppose that is has occurred to you that both the 'Instant message' and what Landis has said recently could both be true? For example, if had such a photo but no longer does...DaveyL wrote:I'm sad you didn't quote the bit from the IM where they say that Ullrich raced with a hematocrit of 42 from 2000 onwards. Or the bit where they say "Floyd has photos", despite him saying he never took any photos. Oh well, maybe next time.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
I don't suppose that is has occurred to you that both the 'Instant message' and what Landis has said recently could both be true? For example, if had such a photo but no longer does...DaveyL wrote:I'm sad you didn't quote the bit from the IM where they say that Ullrich raced with a hematocrit of 42 from 2000 onwards. Or the bit where they say "Floyd has photos", despite him saying he never took any photos. Oh well, maybe next time.
It could, but Landis said "I never took any photos", not "I don't have any photos"....
Now how about Jan and his "natural" 'crit? Do you still think *every* word of that IM is true?Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Personally, I would say that doping simply in order to survive is slightly less immoral than doping in order to dominate others. I would also say that the way Armstrong has based his whole 'cancer survivor' mythology on doping, and so deceit, is disgraceful.DaveyL wrote:Of course it makes him no better than the others - that's exactly my point. No better and no worse..0 -
DaveyL wrote:BikingBernie wrote:
I don't suppose that is has occurred to you that both the 'Instant message' and what Landis has said recently could both be true? For example, if had such a photo but no longer does...DaveyL wrote:I'm sad you didn't quote the bit from the IM where they say that Ullrich raced with a hematocrit of 42 from 2000 onwards. Or the bit where they say "Floyd has photos", despite him saying he never took any photos. Oh well, maybe next time.
It could, but Landis said "I never took any photos", not "I don't have any photos"....
Now how about Jan and his "natural" 'crit? Do you still think *every* word of that IM is true?
TIME OUT... your both going retarded here
its moot as both of you agree he is a doper
your position if I have it correctly is he is being picked on out of proportion compared to previous tour dopers..yes? because of anti Americanism and other stuff...perhaps yes?
lets put that aside for the moment
what is in proportion....? what level of criticism or sanction would you support?"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Personally, I would say that doping simply in order to survive is slightly less immoral than doping in order to dominate others. I would also say that the way Armstrong has based his whole 'cancer survivor' mythology on doping, and so deceit, is disgraceful.DaveyL wrote:Of course it makes him no better than the others - that's exactly my point. No better and no worse..
"The others" being the others who doped "to dominate" as I explained in the previous post. Not necessarily the guys who were dragged along with them.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
mididoctors wrote:TIME OUT... your both going retarded here
its moot as both of you agree he is a doper
your position if I have it correctly is he is being picked on out of proportion compared to previous tour dopers..yes? because of anti Americanism and other stuff...perhaps yes?
lets put that aside for the moment
what is in proportion....? what level of criticism or sanction would you support?
Me? I'm happy for people to criticise him as much as they want.
Someone on the cn.com forum put it nicely with respect to Jonathan Vaughters. He said the thing about JV is "He's not anti-Lance, he's anti-doping". I suspect for individuals like "Bernie" it's the other way round. He's anti-Lance but he's not anti-doping. Plenty of people on here who really care about the sport, comment on lots of aspects of doping, including Lance, but also any other cases that crop up - Pelizotti, Di Liuca etc. You will note from "Bernie"'s posting history that is not the case, and when asked to comment on other doping cases in general he offers up only facetious replies like he is too busy correcting the hoardes of LA fanboys on here (yeah, check them all out...).
So yes, "Bernie", go ahead and criticise LA all you want. Just don't pretend you're doing it because you care about doping in the sport.Le Blaireau (1)0
