Lemond calls for reform

Dgh

mididoctors wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

what does it matter if he is?

I think the whole thing needs to overseen by those with NO previous invested interest emotional or otherwise..

So, cycling should be overseen by people who don;t give a fuck about it? :roll:

mididoctors

Dgh wrote:

I don't agree that it's in Greg's financial or personal interest to diss Lance. I

Irrespective of the logic of your bike sales=LA brand argument don't underestimate the emotional perspective of the people involved..

ego revenge and all that other juicy stuff play a much bigger part than simple self interest..

why on earth did lance make the comeback... he had so so so much too lose.. and he is going to lose..

I will never forget Victor Pena quizzed with in a few days of lance's comeback announcement.. he just shook his had gently and stared into the middle distance...
he knew what was coming.. "I think he has too much to lose"

ego.. but he is not alone... I mean all of us at times try and win pointless arguments on the internet for no gain at all... some involve a fair amount of effort..no?

whats all that about?

Dgh

Moray Gub wrote:

dulldave wrote:

Since the Landis email, there is now a general acceptance on this forum that LA doped. Many of those who were arguing LA's corner seem to be saying he probably doped. Except Moray it seems.

Without getting into the evidence or lack there of, do you still think he never doped Moray?

I was one of the few in here who said it was ridiculous that Landis has went from being a pariah to somehow a believeable individual in the space of one email. His standing on forums in general was lower than snakes balls and he was scorned to the max. So i take it all with a pinch of salt they may turn out to have substance they may not but its too earlry to be writing of LA just yet. So in answer to your question he may have doped he may not have until its proved i will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Floyd does have credibility issues, but he has said two contradictory things (first that he didn't dope, then that he did dope). They can't both be false. Therefore to say that whatever he says must lack credibility is illogical. One of his positions must be right, the difficulty is in deciding which.

I agree that there is doubt about whether LA doped. The strongest evidence that he did isn't from FL, but rather from what David Walsh has put together, from the test results discovered by L'Equipe, etc. In other words, evidence that does not rely on the word on someone like Landis, but rather on that of people with no axe to grind against LA or (better still) on scientific analysis.

I loved the way LA raced, and would love to hear a persuasive answer to that evidence.

mididoctors

Dgh wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

what does it matter if he is?

I think the whole thing needs to overseen by those with NO previous invested interest emotional or otherwise..

So, cycling should be overseen by people who don;t give a fark about it? :roll:

yes.. the less they care the better

flattythehurdler

Moray Gub wrote:

dulldave wrote:

Since the Landis email, there is now a general acceptance on this forum that LA doped. Many of those who were arguing LA's corner seem to be saying he probably doped. Except Moray it seems.

Without getting into the evidence or lack there of, do you still think he never doped Moray?

I was one of the few in here who said it was ridiculous that Landis has went from being a pariah to somehow a believeable individual in the space of one email. His standing on forums in general was lower than snakes balls and he was scorned to the max. So i take it all with a pinch of salt they may turn out to have substance they may not but its too earlry to be writing of LA just yet. So in answer to your question he may have doped he may not have until its proved i will give him the benefit of the doubt.

And yet you quote Greg Lemond's motives as being base with absolute certainty. No benefit of the doubt there then? Some of what you say has merit, butyou apply one law to LA and another to other people.

dulldave

Moray Gub wrote:

dulldave wrote:

Since the Landis email, there is now a general acceptance on this forum that LA doped. Many of those who were arguing LA's corner seem to be saying he probably doped. Except Moray it seems.

Without getting into the evidence or lack there of, do you still think he never doped Moray?

I was one of the few in here who said it was ridiculous that Landis has went from being a pariah to somehow a believeable individual in the space of one email. His standing on forums in general was lower than snakes balls and he was scorned to the max. So i take it all with a pinch of salt they may turn out to have substance they may not but its too earlry to be writing of LA just yet. So in answer to your question he may have doped he may not have until its proved i will give him the benefit of the doubt.

OK thanks for that. I see your point. I guess we just have different tolerances for what we'd accept as proof with which to form an opinion.

moray_gub

flattythehurdler wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

dulldave wrote:

Since the Landis email, there is now a general acceptance on this forum that LA doped. Many of those who were arguing LA's corner seem to be saying he probably doped. Except Moray it seems.

Without getting into the evidence or lack there of, do you still think he never doped Moray?

I was one of the few in here who said it was ridiculous that Landis has went from being a pariah to somehow a believeable individual in the space of one email. His standing on forums in general was lower than snakes balls and he was scorned to the max. So i take it all with a pinch of salt they may turn out to have substance they may not but its too earlry to be writing of LA just yet. So in answer to your question he may have doped he may not have until its proved i will give him the benefit of the doubt.

And yet you quote Greg Lemond's motives as being base with absolute certainty. No benefit of the doubt there then? Some of what you say has merit, butyou apply one law to LA and another to other people.

I dont actually i apply the same to LA as i would other riders . I find most posters in here apply different rules to LA than they do others both in terms of drug issues and his riding perfomances take last year for instance to come back after years out and take 3rd place in the TDF was excellent perfomance but becuase it was Lance it was laughed at in the main..Going back to the situation with Greg Lemond its is how i see it just like the situation with Greg Lemond in your opinion is how you see it.

Richrd2205

Moray Gub wrote:

I was one of the few in here who said it was ridiculous that Landis has went from being a pariah to somehow a believeable individual in the space of one email. His standing on forums in general was lower than snakes balls and he was scorned to the max. So i take it all with a pinch of salt they may turn out to have substance they may not but its too earlry to be writing of LA just yet. So in answer to your question he may have doped he may not have until its proved i will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Outstanding post! I often read your posts & am unsure whether you have something to say or are trying to get a rise. This, however, gives context to that & is well argued. Don't agree with the last sentence, but that's just opinion....

Moray Gub wrote:

I dont actually i apply the same to LA as i would other riders . I find most posters in here apply different rules to LA than they do others both in terms of drug issues and his riding perfomances take last year for instance to come back after years out and take 3rd place in the TDF was excellent perfomance but becuase it was Lance it was laughed at in the main..Going back to the situation with Greg Lemond its is how i see it just like the situation with Greg Lemond in your opinion is how you see it.

Then I go back to wondering what you're trying to say....
What they do is bad, so I'll do it too?
You guys do it & are dumb for doing it, but I do exactly the same & I'm OK?
C'mon, you can't claim the moral high ground & then immediately indulge in the things that you claim are wrong without diminishing what you claim (above) to be trying to say....

paulcuthbert

Moray Gub wrote:

I was one of the few in here who said it was ridiculous that Landis has went from being a pariah to somehow a believeable individual in the space of one email. His standing on forums in general was lower than snakes balls and he was scorned to the max. So i take it all with a pinch of salt they may turn out to have substance they may not but its too early to be writing of LA just yet

+1

I've always believed in 'innocent until proven guilty'. Call me an optimist, but what's the point in assuming guilt. That's like seeking out the bad in people without giving them a chance. Doesn't feel right and doesn't fit with who I am.

Speculation and allegation always cloud things, so I'll change my opinion of LA if and when some hard evidence is presented.

dennisn

paulcuthbert wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

I was one of the few in here who said it was ridiculous that Landis has went from being a pariah to somehow a believeable individual in the space of one email. His standing on forums in general was lower than snakes balls and he was scorned to the max. So i take it all with a pinch of salt they may turn out to have substance they may not but its too early to be writing of LA just yet

+1


Speculation and allegation always cloud things, so I'll change my opinion of LA if and when some hard evidence is presented.

Stay right where you are. I've notified "bikingbernie" and he will be here shortly to set you on the right path. He my even bring the, now famous, chart. Then you'll see the error of your ways.

moray_gub

Richrd2205 wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

I
C'mon, you can't claim the moral high ground & then immediately indulge in the things that you claim are wrong without diminishing what you claim (above) to be trying to say....

I dont claim any moral high ground i am merely indicating that i tend be a bit more consistent with how i apply things in here than most.

paulcuthbert

dennisn wrote:

+1


Speculation and allegation always cloud things, so I'll change my opinion of LA if and when some hard evidence is presented.

Stay right where you are. I've notified "bikingbernie" and he will be here shortly to set you on the right path. He my even bring the, now famous, chart. Then you'll see the error of your ways.[/quote]

Nice edit of the reason for the way I'm thinking about it. Kudos.

Ps. Graph or not (I don't understand his point with it anyway!) I don't think "bikingbernie" is going to change the way I think about this, and have always thought about other situations in life. Sorry to disappoint

moray_gub

dennisn wrote:

paulcuthbert wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

I was one of the few in here who said it was ridiculous that Landis has went from being a pariah to somehow a believeable individual in the space of one email. His standing on forums in general was lower than snakes balls and he was scorned to the max. So i take it all with a pinch of salt they may turn out to have substance they may not but its too early to be writing of LA just yet

+1


Speculation and allegation always cloud things, so I'll change my opinion of LA if and when some hard evidence is presented.

Stay right where you are. I've notified "bikingbernie" and he will be here shortly to set you on the right path. He my even bring the, now famous, chart. Then you'll see the error of your ways.

I am sure he will be along shortly and post the greg/stef link for the 1,235,728 th time and the graph for the 1,123,489 th and then tell everbody how all Americans are right wing extremists.

dennisn

Moray Gub wrote:

dennisn wrote:

paulcuthbert wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

I was one of the few in here who said it was ridiculous that Landis has went from being a pariah to somehow a believeable individual in the space of one email. His standing on forums in general was lower than snakes balls and he was scorned to the max. So i take it all with a pinch of salt they may turn out to have substance they may not but its too early to be writing of LA just yet

+1


Speculation and allegation always cloud things, so I'll change my opinion of LA if and when some hard evidence is presented.

Stay right where you are. I've notified "bikingbernie" and he will be here shortly to set you on the right path. He my even bring the, now famous, chart. Then you'll see the error of your ways.

I am sure he will be along shortly and post the greg/stef link for the 1,235,728 th time and the graph for the 1,123,489 th and then tell everbody how all Americans are right wing extremists.

Well, he is right about the right wing thing. We are all nuts. He showed me a graph that proved it.

dave_1

I agree with Stephen Roche's view far more... am sure few of the forum's anti-doping warriors will not like it though

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/4566/ ... cling.aspx

No_Ta_Doctor

Dave_1 wrote:

I agree with Stephen Roche's view far more... am sure few of the forum's anti-doping warriors will not like it though

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/4566/ ... cling.aspx

Your right about one thing, we don't like it. Anyone that praises McQuaid for his role in this can't be taken all that seriously.... Yes, Roche has a point that progress is being made, but he seems to be rather ill-informed about Landis. It wasn't Landis who went public, he wrote to the UCI and others, just like Roche says he should have. They appear to have done precisely f.all until it broke as a news story, and not a great deal since then. I don't really care who it is telling me to put my faith in the UCI, I won't because I can't.

iainf72

Dave_1 wrote:

I agree with Stephen Roche's view far more... am sure few of the forum's anti-doping warriors will not like it though

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/4566/ ... cling.aspx

Ok. I'm game. Lets forget about the doping investigations and just leave these things in the past.

Should we do the same for the criminal investigations? After all, that has to do with multi-million dollar fraud and misuse of public funds.....

huuregeil

I'm fully with Lemond, no matter his motives. For me, the issue is not really whether armstrong doped or not. I'm certain he did, but then I'm certain that the vast majority of his main rivals did too.

What bothers me is the systemic corruption and abuse of power, and Armstrong is right at the heart of that, along with the UCI leadership. Again, no matter the details, there are massive conflicts of interest to do with the UCI's promotion of the sport and the resulting commercial interests, and the enforcement of anti-doping policy.

If what Landis has said is true, and I think he's believable - he has the air of a sinner confessing, and has actually conducted himself perfectly decently, despite the talk of blackmail and going to the media, none of which I see - then not only did Armstrong dope, but he doped to extremes by having the system in his pocket, along with Bruyneel, McQuaid, et al. This is plain wrong. Plus, milked this success to the max for his commercial interests. This is fraud on a massive scale.

Name me one other rider who is even half as politically active as Armstrong. I can't think of anyone. What has armstrong done in the effort against doping? Nothing. (Well, actually a lot of negatives!). He is the one person, if he's genuinely clean, who can stand up and say, look, in this era of PEDs, it's possible to win the TdF clean and I'm living proof. He doesn't say this, he does nothing, yet it's not for the lack of clout! For me, this speaks volumes.

This is why I agree with Lemond. The system appears totally corrupt and that's no way to run a sport. The UCI needs to get its house in order, out with the old guard, and remove the conflicts of interest by splitting the functions of sport development, promotion, and anti-doping. The Feds appear to be involved in a fully-blown investigation, which is good, I await the outcome with interest.

Dgh

paulcuthbert wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

I've always believed in 'innocent until proven guilty'. Call me an optimist, but what's the point in assuming guilt. That's like seeking out the bad in people without giving them a chance. Doesn't feel right and doesn't fit with who I am.

Speculation and allegation always cloud things, so I'll change my opinion of LA if and when some hard evidence is presented.

Don't the tests from the 1999 tour count as "hard evidence"? I accept LA can;t be senctioned because a B test can't be done, but those tests are pretty objective ...

flattythehurdler

Moray Gub wrote:

flattythehurdler wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

dulldave wrote:

Since the Landis email, there is now a general acceptance on this forum that LA doped. Many of those who were arguing LA's corner seem to be saying he probably doped. Except Moray it seems.

Without getting into the evidence or lack there of, do you still think he never doped Moray?

I was one of the few in here who said it was ridiculous that Landis has went from being a pariah to somehow a believeable individual in the space of one email. His standing on forums in general was lower than snakes balls and he was scorned to the max. So i take it all with a pinch of salt they may turn out to have substance they may not but its too earlry to be writing of LA just yet. So in answer to your question he may have doped he may not have until its proved i will give him the benefit of the doubt.

And yet you quote Greg Lemond's motives as being base with absolute certainty. No benefit of the doubt there then? Some of what you say has merit, butyou apply one law to LA and another to other people.

I dont actually i apply the same to LA as i would other riders . I find most posters in here apply different rules to LA than they do others both in terms of drug issues and his riding perfomances take last year for instance to come back after years out and take 3rd place in the TDF was excellent perfomance but becuase it was Lance it was laughed at in the main..Going back to the situation with Greg Lemond its is how i see it just like the situation with Greg Lemond in your opinion is how you see it.

For the record, drugs or not, I think LA's third place last year was an amazing ride, though the "internal politics" were less impressive. It is not me who states GL's motives with certainty. I don't know what his motives are, I suspect vindication rather than revenge would be foremost, but that's just my opinion.

Dgh

Dave_1 wrote:

I agree with Stephen Roche's view far more... am sure few of the forum's anti-doping warriors will not like it though

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/4566/ ... cling.aspx

And why won't "anti-doping warriors" like it? Because of Roche's long history of duplicity and equivocation on doping matters? Because of his threats to sue Kimmage? Because he shunned his former friend, instead of backing him after "Rough Ride" came out, complete with "sun shines out of his arse" references to Roche? Because Matt Randell produced the documents to prove that he doped in his last spell with Carrera? Because of his bitching about journalists (without whose coverage of cycling he'd be a poor man) daring to investigate doping in cycling, instead of diverting their attention away from what happens to be Europe's premier summer sport?

It's not Roche's fault that he didn't have the class of Lemond on the bike - few did. But Greg can teach him a thing or two off the bike too.

dave_1

Dgh wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

I agree with Stephen Roche's view far more... am sure few of the forum's anti-doping warriors will not like it though

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/4566/ ... cling.aspx

And why won't "anti-doping warriors" like it? Because of Roche's long history of duplicity and equivocation on doping matters? Because of his threats to sue Kimmage? Because he shunned his former friend, instead of backing him after "Rough Ride" came out, complete with "sun shines out of his ars*" references to Roche? Because Matt Randell produced the documents to prove that he doped in his last spell with Carrera? Because of his bitching about journalists (without whose coverage of cycling he'd be a poor man) daring to investigate doping in cycling, instead of diverting their attention away from what happens to be Europe's premier summer sport?

It's not Roche's fault that he didn't have the class of Lemond on the bike - few did. But Greg can teach him a thing or two off the bike too.

he won the big three in one season, show some respect!! You Pro Race anti doping warriors are getting tiresome, running trial by forum on anyone you like. Let's hope the mods step in more often and keep you lads in line a bit

No_Ta_Doctor

Dave_1 wrote:

You Pro Race anti doping warriors are getting tiresome, running trial by forum on anyone you like. Let's hope the mods step in more often and keep you lads in line a bit

And yet you pretty much invited the comments...

Dave_1 wrote:

am sure few of the forum's anti-doping warriors will not like it though

dougzz

Dave_1 wrote:

he won the big three in one season, show some respect!! You Pro Race anti doping warriors are getting tiresome, running trial by forum on anyone you like. Let's hope the mods step in more often and keep you lads in line a bit

You type well for a man with his head buried so firmly in the sand.

There's a wealth of evidence concerning doping and individuals names in this thread. You can choose to ignore it, but please don't pretend there's no evidence.

dennisn

dougzz wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

he won the big three in one season, show some respect!! You Pro Race anti doping warriors are getting tiresome, running trial by forum on anyone you like. Let's hope the mods step in more often and keep you lads in line a bit

You type well for a man with his head buried so firmly in the sand.

There's a wealth of evidence concerning doping and individuals names in this thread. You can choose to ignore it, but please don't pretend there's no evidence.

So, you're on here criticizing just about every rider out there because they are ALL dopers, you criticize the people who don't really give a sh*t who doped or didn't, you criticize any view that doesn't reflect your own. Must be great fun to be around. Lighten up. It's not that important, to your life, who gets busted and who doesn't. I'd see if I could find something useful to worry about. If you must obsess over something how about family, friends. etc? What good, on your part, will come from having an LA, FL, GL, and the like, mindset? Which appears to upset you greatly, by the way.

Dgh

Dave_1 wrote:

Dgh wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

I agree with Stephen Roche's view far more... am sure few of the forum's anti-doping warriors will not like it though

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/4566/ ... cling.aspx

And why won't "anti-doping warriors" like it? Because of Roche's long history of duplicity and equivocation on doping matters? Because of his threats to sue Kimmage? Because he shunned his former friend, instead of backing him after "Rough Ride" came out, complete with "sun shines out of his ars*" references to Roche? Because Matt Randell produced the documents to prove that he doped in his last spell with Carrera? Because of his bitching about journalists (without whose coverage of cycling he'd be a poor man) daring to investigate doping in cycling, instead of diverting their attention away from what happens to be Europe's premier summer sport?

It's not Roche's fault that he didn't have the class of Lemond on the bike - few did. But Greg can teach him a thing or two off the bike too.

he won the big three in one season, show some respect!! You Pro Race anti doping warriors are getting tiresome, running trial by forum on anyone you like. Let's hope the mods step in more often and keep you lads in line a bit

Show some respect? To Roche? :roll: The same Roche who showed such respect to his friend and fan Paul Kimmage? The same respect that Roche shows fans, treating us like idiots by denying the clear evidence that he doped at Carrera? The same respect that Roche shows the sport by his complacent (at best) attitude towards doping?

Before you point out the (rather obvious) fact that Roche was a more successful bike racer than me (he could hardly not be, as I've never raced!), that fact alone does not entitle him to respect when his attitude towards his own past doping and towards those who've tried to clean up the sport disentitles him to any respect.

Yes, he had a good year in 87, but does anyone seriously think he'd have won the Tour if Lemond had been fit? No. Roche has lost his entitlement to respect.

Dgh

I should add, it's not trial by forum, it's trial by the documents that Matt Randell put in his book on Pantani.

dougzz

dennisn wrote:

So, you're on here criticizing just about every rider out there because they are ALL dopers, you criticize the people who don't really give a sh*t who doped or didn't, you criticize any view that doesn't reflect your own. Must be great fun to be around. Lighten up. It's not that important, to your life, who gets busted and who doesn't. I'd see if I could find something useful to worry about. If you must obsess over something how about family, friends. etc? What good, on your part, will come from having an LA, FL, GL, and the like, mindset? Which appears to upset you greatly, by the way.

Denis, WTF? I've largely stopped offering any response to your posts as they appear almost random to me. I should do the same with this one but can't let it pass I'm afraid. I don't know how you drew all those conclusions from what I wrote? Of course I offer criticism of views that differ to mine, that's called debate, forums are great places to debate. I most definitely did not say that all riders are doped. I said that there was plenty of evidence that riders named in this thread, I mean specifically Lance and Roche, have doped. Those that say they want proof are ignoring the proof already available. Giving Lance 'the benefit of the doubt' as has been said by Paul Cuthbert amongst others, is saying I'll ignore the evidence and continue to believe the rubbish he and his PR team spout, I'm the most tested athlete, blah blah blah.

dennisn

dougzz wrote:

dennisn wrote:

What good, on your part, will come from having an LA, FL, GL, and the like, mindset? Which appears to upset you greatly, by the way.

Denis, WTF? I've largely stopped offering any response to your posts as they appear almost random to me.

Random? No not really. I am really intrigued by people who obsess over "celebrities"(and I use that word to cover a lot of people - sports, movies, politics). I simply can't understand how people can spend their time getting all wound up about this or that person just because they are famous or infamous. It's as if their own lives don't matter or are so boring that they need to live vicariously through others.
Then again I'm obsessing over the obsessed. Just can't fathom how that kind of thinking goes and yet I do it myself. At least on this forum.

iainf72

At least we're not obsessing about nobodies (apologies dougzz and everyone else, myself included) on the internet Dennis.