NY Times - Cyclists are said to back claims Armstrong doped

1…1011131516…26

Comments

  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    ratsbeyfus wrote:
    ratsbeyfus wrote:
    I’m going to try and make sense of your post piece by piece, in an effort to find out what is going on inside the world of Dennisn:
    dennisn wrote:
    I'm pretty sure the old champs doped. I'm pretty sure the current crop have doped and I'm pretty sure the future will contain more of the same.

    1. You are pretty sure LA doped. Perhaps you should hand your evidence in to Novitsky.
    dennisn wrote:
    So I don't really see why "weighing their achievments" is any problem. It's still the same race, just different dope.

    2. You haven’t read the previous posts about EPO being different to drugs used in the past. Why would you?
    dennisn wrote:
    What I don't understand is why you would care if anyone thought LA didn't dope his way to seven titles?

    3. You don’t understand that people on a cycling forum may be interested in cyclists.
    dennisn wrote:
    I mean, if someone thinks that way, well, so what? Sort of a "what's it to you", I guess?

    4. See 3.
    dennisn wrote:
    If LA has these, so called, "myth makers", what's the big deal?

    5. See 3.
    dennisn wrote:
    You obiviously don't believe in any of it, so why not just blow him off as a big windbag and go back to not worrying about him?

    6. I do see LA as a big windbag. I don’t ‘worry’ about it. I post comments on a cycling forum. I worry at night about my children, getting old, becoming senile, etc.
    dennisn wrote:
    Let the people believe what they will believe.

    7. Pot – kettle – black.
    dennisn wrote:
    Seems simple enough.

    8. I’m sure it all makes sense to you.

    I just don't follow why you, yourself, believing that LA is a no good scumbag seem so insistent that this "myth" be shattered in everyones mind? You seem at ease with knowing all about this situation, and have formed a "guilty as charged" frame of mind.
    Almost to the point of sounding like you want revenge. For what I'm not sure but it seems that way. What did LA winning 7 TDF's do to you? And why did you let it happen?
    As for me, I'd like to hear someone admit his true feelings behind all this hatred, and not the usual fluff they give out. I'm still betting on jealously toward a person who won something a few more times than you can tolerate. I guess I'm back to square one with the old "you can't handle it".
  • cajun_cyclist
    cajun_cyclist Posts: 493
    We all know Eddie Merckx got punched in the stomach that one tour, Bartali got beat up by a crowd in France in one of the Tours shortly after the war, too bad, Gino B. seems to be the one cyclist that if any of these fellows were on the straight and narrow, he would be. I'm sure there are others too.

    This book Le Tour by Wheatcroft mentions this, certainly puts the whole history of the Tour in perspective. If the almost norm is and has been for a long time, that the top cyclists used doping products, I mean then, what is normal? What can be one's expectations? A lot of people are just johnny come latelies to enjoy the sport anyway and in that way, Armstrong has attracted many. I think Pantani was a big personality too.

    I doubt if there will be any Folsom Prison Blues for LA, but Chris Carmichael is going to a bookstore in that area, Folsom California and here is an email interview. I guess he just wrote a new book, "The time crunched cyclist", I'll tell you I am bonking this week, too much riding and other stuff.

    http://placerherald.com/detail/159172.html


    "I hope somebody breaks a baseball bat over your head," McIlvain tells Andreu in the first message. ..."

    http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_ ... probe.html
  • sherer
    sherer Posts: 2,460
    cajun_cyclist wrote:
    We all know Eddie Merckx got punched in the stomach that one tour, Bartali got beat up by a crowd in France in one of the Tours shortly after the war, too bad, Gino B. seems to be the one cyclist that if any of these fellows were on the straight and narrow, he would be. I'm sure there are others too.

    I think this is the problem with cycling. All those people who raced in the you had to use PEDs to compete or even finish a race are now working as DSs. As such they tell the same thing to all the young riders who end up taking PEDs too.
  • Richrd2205
    Richrd2205 Posts: 1,267
    Moray Gub wrote:

    Nobody in this thread has compared the two as such apart from saying both are the use of PEDs but i think its fairly obvious the taking of amphetamines enables you to do things you normally would not be able to do naturally so thats why they were so effective in stage racing and top riders used them to that effect in previous Tours. I see what you are doing here though ,if you try to negate the effects of the drug you can excuse the dopers and your cycling heroes remain just that even though they were doped to the eyeballs.
    I was merely reflecting on the entire page of discussion about the relative impact of doping in the pre- and post-EPO era.
    You are correct that amphetamines enable (short term) things you would not otherwise be able to do. What won't work at all is the use day after day, where you are likely to see worse performance. The fact that they are used does not mean that they worked (I gave you an example of another widely used "PED" from the not-too-distant past that no-one would argue worked now), it's also fairly obvious that amphetamines will change your perception of events and decisions based on altered perceptions may not stand up to examination to a non-user, for example, the working out whether or not your performance over a 3 week stage race was better or worse than it hypothetically would have been without.
    I have no agenda within this, other than trying to correct an argument that's woefully far from the facts. I have no heroes from that era anyway, other than Coppi & I'm not stupid enough to believe that he was some sort of angel. I don't excuse dopers either & really don't like the words you try to put into my mouth (or do I mean keyboard?). I merely stated some fairly obvious facts that contra-indicate some of the arguments used. You like arguments being fact based, rather than than trying to portray opinion as objective, no?
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,559
    dennisn wrote:
    As for me, I'd like to hear someone admit his true feelings behind all this hatred, and not the usual fluff they give out. I'm still betting on jealously toward a person who won something a few more times than you can tolerate. I guess I'm back to square one with the old "you can't handle it".

    You're crossing a line there for me dennis. I, like many others who contribute to this debate, have been open and honest about how and why I feel about LA and I don't appreciate being called a liar.

    Personally I find that the way you seem to continually miss or ignore the point when you reply to a poster indicative of someone that isn't engaging in open debate but is trying to win an argument. You aren't open to the points people are making, you're only interested in knocking them down. This leads me to suspect that you're missing a huge portion of what people have put into this debate on numerous threads, including what people's true feelings toward LA are. You've demonstrated very little empathic ability, certainly not enough to draw your cod psychology conclusions about a vast swathe of posters here from. Pack it in.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • sherer
    sherer Posts: 2,460
    according to a thread over on cycling news Stephanie McIlvain testified yesterday and stuck to the story that she didn't hear LA admit to doping.

    Will post some links after lunch
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    Personally I find that the way you seem to continually miss or ignore the point when you reply to a poster indicative of someone that isn't engaging in open debate but is trying to win an argument. You aren't open to the points people are making, you're only interested in knocking them down.
    I knew if this internet thingy was around for long enough someone was going to start getting argumentative on it, I guess 20 years or so of peace and harmony on the net had to end sometime
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,559
    bompington wrote:
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    Personally I find that the way you seem to continually miss or ignore the point when you reply to a poster indicative of someone that isn't engaging in open debate but is trying to win an argument. You aren't open to the points people are making, you're only interested in knocking them down.
    I knew if this internet thingy was around for long enough someone was going to start getting argumentative on it, I guess 20 years or so of peace and harmony on the net had to end sometime

    Are you calling me a Nazi? You are, aren't you? :wink:
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • dougzz
    dougzz Posts: 1,833
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    Personally I find that the way you seem to continually miss or ignore the point when you reply to a poster indicative of someone that isn't engaging in open debate but is trying to win an argument. You aren't open to the points people are making, you're only interested in knocking them down.
    I knew if this internet thingy was around for long enough someone was going to start getting argumentative on it, I guess 20 years or so of peace and harmony on the net had to end sometime

    Are you calling me a Nazi? You are, aren't you? :wink:

    Your mistake was confronting Denis with logic ;)
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Goodwin rule?
    _
  • AidanR
    AidanR Posts: 1,142
    I think you mean Godwin's Law.
    Bike lover and part-time cyclist.
  • dougzz
    dougzz Posts: 1,833
    AidanR wrote:
    I think you mean Godwin's Law.

    What a pedantic correction, you're just like a bloody Nazi...... Oh. :)
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    I think we can all agree* that we don't need any pedantic nazis on the net.


    *A statement as easily falsifiable, and self-defeating, as my favourite: "I think I can say without fear of contradiction..."
  • AidanR
    AidanR Posts: 1,142
    dougzz wrote:
    AidanR wrote:
    I think you mean Godwin's Law.

    What a pedantic correction, you're just like a bloody Nazi...... Oh. :)

    :lol:

    This is much more fun than doping talk.
    Bike lover and part-time cyclist.
  • sherer
    sherer Posts: 2,460
    link to McIllvain story

    http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-lan ... 5856.story

    Still sticking to the new heard nothing story
  • shm_uk
    shm_uk Posts: 683
    When Usain Bolt destroyed the sprint world records everybody happily accepted his achievements were fantastic etc etc ... there has been nobody jumping up and down all over his achievements saying he must have doped because nobody could possibly run that much faster ...

    So why is it that people can't accept that, just maybe, LA was simply a supreme athlete.

    ?
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    shm_uk wrote:
    When Usain Bolt destroyed the sprint world records everybody happily accepted his achievements were fantastic etc etc ... there has been nobody jumping up and down all over his achievements saying he must have doped because nobody could possibly run that much faster ...



    Yes there was.


    Lots.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SPORT/10/29 ... index.html

    http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/report_us ... gs_1284533

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/more-spor ... -21615169/
    _
  • shm_uk
    shm_uk Posts: 683
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    shm_uk wrote:
    When Usain Bolt destroyed the sprint world records everybody happily accepted his achievements were fantastic etc etc ... there has been nobody jumping up and down all over his achievements saying he must have doped because nobody could possibly run that much faster ...



    Yes there was.


    Lots.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SPORT/10/29 ... index.html

    http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/report_us ... gs_1284533

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/more-spor ... -21615169/



    These few articles don't appear to include any reference to formal or systematic accusations of doping, they mainly just seem to talk about the acknowledgment that people will always raise the question of doping just because Usain's performances are generally head and shoulders above his peers
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    shm_uk wrote:

    These few articles don't appear to include any reference to formal or systematic accusations of doping, they mainly just seem to talk about the acknowledgment that people will always raise the question of doping just because Usain's performances are generally head and shoulders above his peers

    With Armstrong, there's a huge volume of "other stuff" which isn't there with Bolt.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • Stewie Griffin
    Stewie Griffin Posts: 4,330
    shm_uk wrote:
    When Usain Bolt destroyed the sprint world records everybody happily accepted his achievements were fantastic etc etc ... there has been nobody jumping up and down all over his achievements saying he must have doped because nobody could possibly run that much faster ...

    So why is it that people can't accept that, just maybe, LA was simply a supreme athlete.

    ?

    http://current.com/news-and-politics/89 ... -cheat.htm

    He isnt helped by the ongoing lack of drug testing carried out in Jamaica.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Stewie Griffin wrote:
    shm_uk wrote:
    When Usain Bolt destroyed the sprint world records everybody happily accepted his achievements were fantastic etc etc ... there has been nobody jumping up and down all over his achievements saying he must have doped because nobody could possibly run that much faster ...

    So why is it that people can't accept that, just maybe, LA was simply a supreme athlete.

    ?

    http://current.com/news-and-politics/89 ... -cheat.htm

    He isnt helped by the ongoing lack of drug testing carried out in Jamaica.

    So with Bolt you're saying that a lack of testing pretty much proves doping? Then in LA"s case it's a lack of positve test results that proves doping? :? :?
  • DaveyL
    DaveyL Posts: 5,167
    No, Dennis. No-one is claiming that. What has been claimed is that a lack of positive tests does not disprove doping.

    There is a difference, but I agree it may be too subtle for you. Carry on trolling!
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    shm_uk wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    shm_uk wrote:
    When Usain Bolt destroyed the sprint world records everybody happily accepted his achievements were fantastic etc etc ... there has been nobody jumping up and down all over his achievements saying he must have doped because nobody could possibly run that much faster ...



    Yes there was.


    Lots.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SPORT/10/29 ... index.html

    http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/report_us ... gs_1284533

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/more-spor ... -21615169/



    These few articles don't appear to include any reference to formal or systematic accusations of doping, they mainly just seem to talk about the acknowledgment that people will always raise the question of doping just because Usain's performances are generally head and shoulders above his peers

    but you said
    there has been nobody jumping up and down all over his achievements saying he must have doped because nobody could possibly run that much faster ...
    I'm saying otherwise, as do the articles.
    _
  • dave_1
    dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    Good news IMO re SM..hope it helps end this sorry mess and let the sport move on. I guess it's
    not the news some of the lynch mob here were hoping for though http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5762/ ... lvain.aspx
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKBacb2V ... ata_player
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    Dave_1 wrote:
    Good news IMO re SM..hope it helps end this sorry mess and let the sport move on. I guess it's
    not the news some of the lynch mob here were hoping for though http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5762/ ... lvain.aspx


    I think the lynch mob will be gutted at this turn of events.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    Dave_1 wrote:
    Good news IMO re SM..hope it helps end this sorry mess and let the sport move on. I guess it's
    not the news some of the lynch mob here were hoping for though http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5762/ ... lvain.aspx

    Seeing as this is now a legal case, shouldn't we be hoping that the truth, whatever it may be, comes out?
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Dave_1 wrote:
    Good news IMO re SM..hope it helps end this sorry mess and let the sport move on. I guess it's
    not the news some of the lynch mob here were hoping for though http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5762/ ... lvain.aspx

    You're not allowed a lawyer at a grand jury I think, so how would he know what she said?
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    dennisn wrote:

    You're crossing a line there for me dennis. I, like many others who contribute to this debate, have been open and honest about how and why I feel about LA and I don't appreciate being called a liar.

    Oh you are such a
    41N76554F7L._SL160_.jpg
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    iainf72 wrote:
    Dave_1 wrote:
    Good news IMO re SM..hope it helps end this sorry mess and let the sport move on. I guess it's
    not the news some of the lynch mob here were hoping for though http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5762/ ... lvain.aspx

    You're not allowed a lawyer at a grand jury I think, so how would he know what she said?

    Maybe she em told him
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Moray Gub wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Dave_1 wrote:
    Good news IMO re SM..hope it helps end this sorry mess and let the sport move on. I guess it's
    not the news some of the lynch mob here were hoping for though http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5762/ ... lvain.aspx

    You're not allowed a lawyer at a grand jury I think, so how would he know what she said?

    Maybe she em told him

    Maybe she did. But only the grand jury know what they were told. All we know is she was in there for 7 hours. A long time to talk about idle gossip.

    Interesting Gub that you take things at face value when it suits you. Looks like you're just like the rest of us afterall.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.

Categories