Floyd -- he wrote us a letter...
Comments
-
BikingBernie wrote:
Yes, but when they are racing to the limit - those occasions when the race is won or lost, as on a summit finish - what counts is putting out the power, and the best way to do that is to adopt a 'traditional' climbing cadence, not twiddle away at a high metabolic cost. Unless of course you are so 'juiced' that you don't need to get out every last watt of power that you are capable of.Dave_1 wrote:the idea in stage races is to save as much energy as possible...that's why all the racing is done in the last hour and they only race to "the limit" on 4 or 5 days I bet. Spinning or pushing work... but one uses carbs-spinning the other more protein which has an impact on how tired the rider gets over days, that why spinning is probably better...
I think it is fair to say that everyone Armstrong beat rode to the limit of their abilities. Perhaps you think Armstrong could have gone even faster except for the fact that he was 'saving himself'. If so the margin he had over all the other riders was truly prodigious.
And fair to say they all took EPO to the limit which is what you don't like to talk about...just pick on one..along with plenty others in this snakepit that is pro race0 -
Dave_1 wrote:fair to say they all took EPO to the limit which is what you don't like to talk about...just pick on one..along with plenty others in this snakepit that is pro race
Cyclevaughters: believe me, as carzy as it sounds - Moreau was on nothing. Hct of 39%
FDREU: when in 2000-2001
Cyclevaughters: so, that's when you start thinking... hell, kevin was telling me that after 2000 Ullrich never raced over 42%--- yeah moreau in 2000-2001...
FDREU: After 1999, you know many things changed. lance did not
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis ... ssage.html0 -
BikingBernie wrote:Dave_1 wrote:fair to say they all took EPO to the limit which is what you don't like to talk about...just pick on one..along with plenty others in this snakepit that is pro race
Cyclevaughters: so, that's when you start thinking... hell, kevin was telling me that after 2000 Ullrich never raced over 42%--- yeah moreau in 2000-2001
Cyclevaughters: anyhow - whtever
FDREU: After 1999, you know many things changed. lance did not
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis ... ssage.html
about as a credible as Floyd has photos of the the motorbikes0 -
Believe whatever makes you happy. Believe in fairies if that's what you want, it's no skin off my nose.Dave_1 wrote:about as a credible as Floyd has photos of the the motorbikes
The Armstrong Creed.
I believe in Pat the Father almighty, saviour of heaven, earth and cycle sport.
And in Lance, our Lord, who was conceived by Johan the Holy Ghost, born of Ferrari the pure, suffered under Greg Lemond, but though crucified by the evil power of the truth and ‘The French’ could not be buried;
he descended into hell; the third day rose again from the dead, transformed from also-ran into ‘the greatest Tour rider in History’ by the miraculous powers of cancer;
he ascended to the podium and did payeth half a million dollars homage to the right hand of the UCI Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead (the doped and the clean).
I believe in the Holy Trinity of Lance, Pat and Johan, the holy UCI; whatever Phil, Paul and the rest of the Lance-worshiping media tell me; the forgiveness of dopers; that Lance is doing it all to raise cancer awareness and the lies everlasting.
AMEN.
http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu22 ... strong.jpg0 -
"Bernie", you are aware of T-Mobile's connection to the Freiburg clinic and their pretty serious blood doping programme? Or the huge budget of the T-Mobile team, you know, the kind of budget a team needs to have a large-scale, systematic team doping regime?
And you are aware that in Landis's interview with Bonnie Ford, he said he never took any photos.
Have you ever considered that some parts of that IM might not be true?Le Blaireau (1)0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Believe whatever makes you happy. Believe in fairies if that's what you want, it's no skin off my nose.Dave_1 wrote:about as a credible as Floyd has photos of the the motorbikes
The Armstrong Creed.
I believe in Pat the Father almighty, saviour of heaven, earth and cycle sport.
And in Lance, our Lord, who was conceived by Johan the Holy Ghost, born of Ferrari the pure, suffered under Greg Lemond, but though crucified by the evil power of the truth and ‘The French’ could not be buried;
he descended into hell; the third day rose again from the dead, transformed from also-ran into ‘the greatest Tour rider in History’ by the miraculous powers of cancer;
he ascended to the podium and did payeth half a million dollars homage to the right hand of the UCI Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead (the doped and the clean).
I believe in the Holy Trinity of Lance, Pat and Johan, the holy UCI; whatever Phil, Paul and the rest of the Lance-worshiping media tell me; the forgiveness of dopers; that Lance is doing it all to raise cancer awareness and the lies everlasting.
AMEN.
http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu22 ... strong.jpg
He was likely a doper...in a field full of dopers. That is what I believe and you accuse me of not believing that if am reading this posting correctly?? There's still some merit in the top guys performances, 2006 showed how widespread the problem still was and Landis has shown how easy it was. Stop picking on one when hundreds are responsible for what happened0 -
And who else 'gave hope to millions of cancer sufferers' and even suggested that cancer had made him the rider he was, when it was all based on not just a lie, but the 'biggest fraud in the history of cycling' to paraphrase Greg Lemond?Dave_1 wrote:Stop picking on one when hundreds are responsible for what happened
If the world's most famous cancer survivor has been lying to us all these years, then Armstrong didn't just collect seven ill-gotten Tour de France titles. He'd be guilty of a deceit of unconscionable callousness because of the special constituency he eagerly represents.
Armstrong would be guilty of conning everyone who has used his stirring example or best-selling autobiography as a blueprint for confronting cancer in their lives.
He'd level a blow of unfathomable cruelty to the millions of survivors of the disease in the United States alone whom Armstrong often invokes -- sometimes with tears welling up in his eyes -- as the "silent army" that helped him soldier on from one cycling victory to the next.
To this day, thousands of Armstrong's fans make pilgrimages to his races just to catch a glimpse of him as he blurs by. His Livestrong foundation says it has sold more than 70 million yellow bracelets in his crusade to help fund cancer research. He once filmed a heart-tugging commercial that showed him flying through city streets on his bike, acknowledging cancer victims who had run to the windows of their hospital ward to wave excitedly at him. He has constantly presented himself as flesh-and-blood proof that no matter how dire or impossible things may seem, there's hope.
That's why the specter of Armstrong being a drug cheat feels worse -- and somehow different -- than all the other fallen heroes in a sports landscape awash with dopers.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commenta ... ard/1005280 -
Of course some parts of it might not be true, but even if only half of it is true, it is still damning.DaveyL wrote:"Have you ever considered that some parts of that IM might not be true?
Whatever, I bet 'the whole truth' is a lot more shocking than what is in that message.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
And who else 'gave hope to millions of cancer sufferers' and even suggested that cancer had made him the rider he was, when it was all based on not just a lie, but the 'biggest fraud in the history of cycling' to paraphrase Greg Lemond?Dave_1 wrote:Stop picking on one when hundreds are responsible for what happened
IF the world's most famous cancer survivor has been lying to us all these years, then Armstrong didn't just collect seven ill-gotten Tour de France titles. He'd be guilty of a deceit of unconscionable callousness because of the special constituency he eagerly represents.
Armstrong would be guilty of conning everyone who has used his stirring example or best-selling autobiography as a blueprint for confronting cancer in their lives.
He'd level a blow of unfathomable cruelty to the millions of survivors of the disease in the United States alone whom Armstrong often invokes -- sometimes with tears welling up in his eyes -- as the "silent army" that helped him soldier on from one cycling victory to the next.
To this day, thousands of Armstrong's fans make pilgrimages to his races just to catch a glimpse of him as he blurs by. His Livestrong foundation says it has sold more than 70 million yellow bracelets in his crusade to help fund cancer research. He once filmed a heart-tugging commercial that showed him flying through city streets on his bike, acknowledging cancer victims who had run to the windows of their hospital ward to wave excitedly at him. He has constantly presented himself as flesh-and-blood proof that no matter how dire or impossible things may seem, there's hope.
That's why the specter of Armstrong being a drug cheat feels worse -- and somehow different -- than all the other fallen heroes in a sports landscape awash with dopers.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commenta ... ard/100528
Fixed the first word of that paraphrase for you.0 -
'Faith is believing what you know isn't true'...dennisn wrote:Fixed the first word of that paraphrase for you.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
'Faith is believing what you know isn't true'...dennisn wrote:Fixed the first word of that paraphrase for you.
Not really. For me faith is what I have in people I know and / or trust. Never met LA, so don't have a clue whether I would have faith in him or not. To be truthful whether he doped or not would most likely NOT effect whether I had faith and trust in him.
Whle I disagree with using drugs, that's up to him to decide which way he goes and IF I was his friend I probably still would be even if HE does chose the wrong path. If I said to h*ll with every friend who didn't live his / her life the way I thought they should I'd be a pretty lonely person.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:Dave_1 wrote:fair to say they all took EPO to the limit which is what you don't like to talk about...just pick on one..along with plenty others in this snakepit that is pro race
Cyclevaughters: believe me, as carzy as it sounds - Moreau was on nothing. Hct of 39%
FDREU: when in 2000-2001
Cyclevaughters: so, that's when you start thinking... hell, kevin was telling me that after 2000 Ullrich never raced over 42%--- yeah moreau in 2000-2001...
FDREU: After 1999, you know many things changed. lance did not
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis ... ssage.html
All speculation but given Ullrich's link to Puerto it suggests that maybe not everyone in a team knew what was going on. Maybe T-mobile were suspicious of Kevin, coming from Lance, and thought he could be a spy of some kind and that they would only let him know what he needed to know?0 -
Did t-Mobile really have institutionalised doping? If so why the strong statement from the Team director at the 2006 tour when he sacked Ulrich who had failed to provide any evidence of innocence0
-
dave milne wrote:Did t-Mobile really have institutionalised doping? If so why the strong statement from the Team director at the 2006 tour when he sacked Ulrich who had failed to provide any evidence of innocence
Yes. Their doctors were implicated, there's the famous "Freiberg convoy" after Ullrich was booted out.
They were filthy in the extreme.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
Institutionalised? Filthy in the extreme?iainf72 wrote:
Yes. Their doctors were implicated, there's the famous "Freiberg convoy" after Ullrich was booted out.dave milne wrote:Did t-Mobile really have institutionalised doping? If so why the strong statement from the Team director at the 2006 tour when he sacked Ulrich who had failed to provide any evidence of innocence
They were filthy in the extreme.
As far as I understand it, it wasn’t quite as simple as institutionalised doping, nor can filthy apply to everyone - not to the sponsor, i.e. Telekom/T-Mobile, also not to some of the riders.
It seems that the business side of the organisation was unaware of what was going on and in fact thought they had done the right thing in accepting their riders being connected to a university clinic with an emphasis on sports medicine, rather than employing doctors as part of the racing team staff. It was felt employed doctors might turn to illicit means since they would have a definite vested interest in the team performing well.
What the business side didn’t know was that the professor in charge of the relevant department at the Freiburg clinic had long been a supporter of doping in sport. Some of his underlings thus had few qualms in towing his line when approached for help by Godefoot’s right-hand man, D’hont, after the team performed poorly in 1992, and it was known Italian and Spanish teams were already using EPO.
Even then, the doping wasn’t really institutionalised because it seems it was left to the two doctors to introduce the possibilities to the riders, rather than there was a definite organised internal programme. At the investigation, several riders said they didn’t discuss with other riders what they were up to with the doctors because after all they were in competition with each other too, for places in the nominations for the different events.
D'hont and Godefroot probably got feedback from the doctors but everything to do with doping as opposed to general health was really a private arrangement between the doctors and riders, the Freiburg trip in 2006 included (which was done without any knowledge of the then newer team management). Riis, when with the team, had his own doctor, and didn’t deal with the Freiburg ones at all.
Thus it was left to riders to decide whether they were interested in what there was to offer if approached by the doctors. In fact not all riders were approached - this applies to Bartko, and possibly Evans, who were both probably taken into the team primarily so that they didn’t join competitors. Kohl, who later doped when with another team, also apparently didn’t ever have any discussions about doping, or dope himself, when at T-Mobile. It was hardly a systematic or institutionalised approach.
I’d guess there were others too who may have stayed clean when with T-Mobile – maybe Grabsch, Livingston, Botero (explains his poor performances with them?), Aerts, Savoldelli, also most of those in the 2007 team - according to the investigation, after the racing team was taken over by Stapleton at the end of 2006, there was no more doping activity from Freiburg, Sinkewitz and Hontschar doped in 2007 on and by their own means.0 -
Cumulonimbus wrote:BikingBernie wrote:Dave_1 wrote:fair to say they all took EPO to the limit which is what you don't like to talk about...just pick on one..along with plenty others in this snakepit that is pro race
Cyclevaughters: believe me, as carzy as it sounds - Moreau was on nothing. Hct of 39%
FDREU: when in 2000-2001
Cyclevaughters: so, that's when you start thinking... hell, kevin was telling me that after 2000 Ullrich never raced over 42%--- yeah moreau in 2000-2001...
FDREU: After 1999, you know many things changed. lance did not
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis ... ssage.html
All speculation but given Ullrich's link to Puerto it suggests that maybe not everyone in a team knew what was going on. Maybe T-mobile were suspicious of Kevin, coming from Lance, and thought he could be a spy of some kind and that they would only let him know what he needed to know?
Or they wanted to know what KL knew. In any case, how odd is it that two people from the same town of half a million people scale the heights of the sport together. Whatever trade secrets were to be passed on , one assumes they were. KL, n the face of it, got to a very very high level as a domestique0 -
You ought to get a new dictionary, yours is broken ... lots more "evidence" about all kinds of sh1t for you here >>>>BikingBernie wrote:
'Faith is believing what you know isn't true'...dennisn wrote:Fixed the first word of that paraphrase for you.
LINK.. who said that, internet forum people ?0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
And who else 'gave hope to millions of cancer sufferers' and even suggested that cancer had made him the rider he was, when it was all based on not just a lie, but the 'biggest fraud in the history of cycling' to paraphrase Greg Lemond?Dave_1 wrote:Stop picking on one when hundreds are responsible for what happened
If the world's most famous cancer survivor has been lying to us all these years, then Armstrong didn't just collect seven ill-gotten Tour de France titles. He'd be guilty of a deceit of unconscionable callousness because of the special constituency he eagerly represents.
Armstrong would be guilty of conning everyone who has used his stirring example or best-selling autobiography as a blueprint for confronting cancer in their lives.
He'd level a blow of unfathomable cruelty to the millions of survivors of the disease in the United States alone whom Armstrong often invokes -- sometimes with tears welling up in his eyes -- as the "silent army" that helped him soldier on from one cycling victory to the next.
To this day, thousands of Armstrong's fans make pilgrimages to his races just to catch a glimpse of him as he blurs by. His Livestrong foundation says it has sold more than 70 million yellow bracelets in his crusade to help fund cancer research. He once filmed a heart-tugging commercial that showed him flying through city streets on his bike, acknowledging cancer victims who had run to the windows of their hospital ward to wave excitedly at him. He has constantly presented himself as flesh-and-blood proof that no matter how dire or impossible things may seem, there's hope.
That's why the specter of Armstrong being a drug cheat feels worse -- and somehow different -- than all the other fallen heroes in a sports landscape awash with dopers.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commenta ... ard/100528
I feel defrauded by hundreds of them...they juiced up. Internet forum anti-doping warriors who won't go public are the biggest fraud0 -
Thing is ... most aren't anti doping, they are just anti Armstrong. It's them that are disingenuous..Dave_1 wrote:I feel defrauded by hundreds of them...they juiced up. Internet forum anti-doping warriors who won't go public are the biggest fraud.. who said that, internet forum people ?0 -
BikingBernie wrote:Dave_1 wrote:Stop picking on one when hundreds are responsible for what happened
To this day, thousands of Armstrong's fans make pilgrimages to his races just to catch a glimpse of him as he blurs by. ............................
That's why the specter of Armstrong being a drug cheat feels worse -- and somehow different -- than all the other fallen heroes in a sports landscape awash with dopers. [/i]
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commenta ... ard/100528
He's a celebrity. Thousands of people flock to see the Queen wave or to see the President go by in a car or to watch movies stars arrive at the Oscars. So I don't see how that is unusual in LA's case. It doesn't really matter to the people watching whether he / she is loved or hated. They just want to see a celeb. Love 'em or hate 'em the "fans" just want to get a glimpse. Apparently this makes their lives complete, or something like that. It sort of gives these "followers" a chance to either cheer their support or vent their anger at someone. No big deal. Happens all the time, in lots of aspects of life.
I don't follow your problem with LA in particular. What did he do, if he did anything, that
all the others haven't done or did(if they did or are doing)? Whew, forget that question.
I barely understood it myself. About the only thing I can say for sure about him is that he
and / or his "handlers"(for lack of a better word) have "overexposed" him in the extreme.
Plus I don't think anyone ever told him that fame is a fleeting thing or at best it comes and goes. Either that or he didn't listen and / or believe them. But I ramble on, as usual.0 -
dennisn wrote:
I don't follow your problem with LA in particular. What did he do, if he did anything, that
all the others haven't done or did(if they did or are doing)?
Well he won the worlds hardest and most prestigious bike race 7 times on the trot....
I'd like all the cheaters caught, but obviously I want the ones that won most by cheating caught first. You cheat and lose, who cares? You cheat and win, that's different.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:dennisn wrote:
I don't follow your problem with LA in particular. What did he do, if he did anything, that
all the others haven't done or did(if they did or are doing)?
Well he won the worlds hardest and most prestigious bike race 7 times on the trot....
.
I'd like all the cheaters caught, but obviously I want the ones that won most by cheating caught first. You cheat and lose, who cares? You cheat and win, that's different.
We had no doping controls and no way to trust anyone, so why should we punish one..I don't agree at drawing a line in the sand at 1999 like BB and others. Who do we give the win to? Kimmage?0 -
Dave_1 wrote:Internet forum anti-doping warriors who won't go public are the biggest fraud
Not sure I follow. Are you suggesting people on this forum have inside info they're keeping quiet, despite a public anti-doping stance?Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Dave_1 wrote:
We had no doping controls and no way to trust anyone, so why should we punish one..I don't agree at drawing a line in the sand at 1999 like BB and others. Who do we give the win to? Kimmage?
Nor do I. I stopped watching cycling in 98. I still trust none, though have decided I'll watch the TdF this year. Riis, Pantani, Basso, Virenque, Landis, they've all been outed/punished. Why should LA be an exception?
And if there's anything concrete on Big Mig then bring it on as well.
I don't really care who the victories are given to, they're all pretty much meaningless now.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
someone's getting cranky...
"don't ask me another stupid f***ing question like that"
http://www.sporza.be/cm/sporza/videozon ... 8/1.7950530 -
Arkibal wrote:someone's getting cranky...
"don't ask me another stupid f***ing question like that"
http://www.sporza.be/cm/sporza/videozon ... 8/1.795053
It would get annoying though, you gotta understand that...The most painful climb in Northern Ireland http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs200.snc1/6776_124247198694_548863694_2335754_8016178_n.jpg0 -
Why? People ask me stupid questions all the time at work - if you're a professional you smile and answer politely and get on with the job.0
-
Maybe he should tell the truth and answer?0
-
It could well get annoying, but did you see what colour socks he was wearing? :?:Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
