Tyler sinks the Lance
Comments
-
iainf72 wrote:deejay wrote:
If he does it will still land on the Texan's door as he also improved his drug knowledge with his time in the Bruyneel/Armstrong set up.No tA Doctor wrote:
Contador has far more chance of killing cycling than Lance does.
Yes, that makes sense. Rode for Saiz who taught Bruyneel what he knows, but it will be Bruyneels fault.
Its everyone’s fault (some more than others) who facilitated this culture to exist, right down to the fans who continue to pay to watch cycling.Mañana0 -
pb21 wrote:iainf72 wrote:deejay wrote:
If he does it will still land on the Texan's door as he also improved his drug knowledge with his time in the Bruyneel/Armstrong set up.No tA Doctor wrote:
Contador has far more chance of killing cycling than Lance does.
Yes, that makes sense. Rode for Saiz who taught Bruyneel what he knows, but it will be Bruyneels fault.
Its everyone’s fault (some more than others) who facilitated this culture to exist, right down to the fans who continue to pay to watch cycling.
I know! But that Quick Step flooring was just so easy to assemble!"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:mididoctors wrote:
Indurain shared it around comment by rick rings true as well
I have no idea whether Indurain kept accomplices sweet somehow, but I suspect that the difference in personality between him and LA may also account for some of this. LA's willingness to self-promote has attracted more attention and his brashness may well have alienated both cycling fans and some of those close to him.
i think it's more he didn't dump them out in the cold.
Even the way he raced gave the impression that he was aware of the smaller rider, 'gifting' stage wins, blah blah.0 -
I can never get my head round the hostility towards Lance: I'm not a follower of the sport, but I always found his achievements remarkable. So I can only assume that he's not a particularly pleasant character with it and there's something alongside his obvious sporting achievements which drives his unpopularity.
But underneath all of this I can't help detect a sense of 'there's no way he could be as successful as he was without using drugs, so he must be lying'.
Other sports have individuals who dominate for long periods of time: it's not impossible or even that unlikely that an exceptional athlete should be able to do the same with cycling. So if we can only conceive of this level of success arising with chemical assistance, should we be focussing on individual athletes or the governing bodies?0 -
Tusher wrote:Should I buy the wool for another Aran cardigan or tackle a complicated crocheted baby shawl in two ply?
The shawl, it'll be months before the weather cools enough to wear aran, baby shawls are used anytime.
Unless you take months to knit, or it'f for someone in cold climes, in which case, get out the needles.
Now, back to the fun... :twisted:--
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0 -
I guess if your success is partly dependent on people keeping schtum, it's not the best tactic to hog all the spoils and hit out at anyone who is wavering.
I recon, had he thrown a bit of cash and goodwill at Flandis and Hamilton when they were at rock bottom they'd not be grassing him up right now.
In that respect I think Armstrong's repatoire of responses to a difficult situation is decidedly limited, and in cycling, where nothing is achieved without a deal of some sort, that is ultimately very costly.
Which other riders has been grassed up by former teammates and riders in the peloton for doing the bad thing? Off the top of my head I can't think of any.0 -
andrewjoseph wrote:Tusher wrote:Should I buy the wool for another Aran cardigan or tackle a complicated crocheted baby shawl in two ply?
Unless you take months to knit, or it'f for someone in cold climes, in which case, get out the needles.
*coughcoughscotlandcoughcough*Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
rhext wrote:I can never get my head round the hostility towards Lance: I'm not a follower of the sport, but I always found his achievements remarkable. So I can only assume that he's not a particularly pleasant character with it and there's something alongside his obvious sporting achievements which drives his unpopularity.
But underneath all of this I can't help detect a sense of 'there's no way he could be as successful as he was without using drugs, so he must be lying'.
Other sports have individuals who dominate for long periods of time: it's not impossible or even that unlikely that an exceptional athlete should be able to do the same with cycling. So if we can only conceive of this level of success arising with chemical assistance, should we be focussing on individual athletes or the governing bodies?
I'll happily admit that I've never liked him. He's not the first athlete to give it the big "look at how awesome I am" and he won't be the last, but I always find that when Americans do it then it rubs me up the wrong way and I want them cut down to size.
When British athletes do it (thinking Cav here) you know there's usually at least a smidgeon of irony or cheekiness in there, we have a culture where boasting isn't really allowed.
When, say, an Italian does it then it usually feels fairly comical - even when they might be right. I tend to get images of Mussolini looking down his nose at people to make up for his lack of height.
But when an American does it then it feels like it's speaking straight from the heart of a culture that rips the heart out of Corinthian sporting ideals. Not only does the winner take all, he cr*ps in the handbag of the loser as well.
On a serious side though, doping was endemic at the time LA was racking up his victories. All his major competitors were beaten while they were doped to the eyeballs. That's the context of his dominance. And no, level playing fields isn't a good argument, doping affects different athletes differently. There is a question about whether it's valid to focus on LA given the doping around him, but at the end of the day it was him that took the spoils of victory.
As for looking at the regulatory bodies, I'll refer you to Floyd's claims regarding payments to the UCI and alleged failed tests.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
rhext wrote:I can never get my head round the hostility towards Lance: I'm not a follower of the sport, but I always found his achievements remarkable. So I can only assume that he's not a particularly pleasant character with it and there's something alongside his obvious sporting achievements which drives his unpopularity.
But underneath all of this I can't help detect a sense of 'there's no way he could be as successful as he was without using drugs, so he must be lying'.
Other sports have individuals who dominate for long periods of time: it's not impossible or even that unlikely that an exceptional athlete should be able to do the same with cycling. So if we can only conceive of this level of success arising with chemical assistance, should we be focussing on individual athletes or the governing bodies?
Go and do some research on the subject - LA pre-cancer was not a Tour contender, only a fairly-decent 1 day rider. Post-cancer everyone knows about.
The issue here isn't just about doping in cycling, it's about paying backhanders to the sport's governing body to hide positive tests 'cos it suited their agenda. Defrauding sponsors and taking out insurance policies under false pretences. Launching legal and smear campaigns (e.g. Betsy Andreu & Greg Lemond) to discredit anyone who had the timerity to speak out. Drug trafficking and money laundering and finally about creating a "noble cause" on the back of this myth.
All that Tyler has done has confirmed what many already knew - the difficulty is that LA's legal & PR machine (funded by unwitting purchasers of Livestong stuff) can no longer keep this stuff under wraps.Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0 -
iainf72 wrote:IOC looking at taking away the gold medal and giving it to.....
EKI!
Yay clean cycling!
Ooo err missus.0 -
what's he saying? Can't get to tw*tland from work.
0 -
Congratulations to @eki_ekimov on his 3rd Olympic Gold Medal!!Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
Monty Dog wrote:rhext wrote:I can never get my head round the hostility towards Lance: I'm not a follower of the sport, but I always found his achievements remarkable. So I can only assume that he's not a particularly pleasant character with it and there's something alongside his obvious sporting achievements which drives his unpopularity.
But underneath all of this I can't help detect a sense of 'there's no way he could be as successful as he was without using drugs, so he must be lying'.
Other sports have individuals who dominate for long periods of time: it's not impossible or even that unlikely that an exceptional athlete should be able to do the same with cycling. So if we can only conceive of this level of success arising with chemical assistance, should we be focussing on individual athletes or the governing bodies?
Go and do some research on the subject - LA pre-cancer was not a Tour contender, only a fairly-decent 1 day rider. Post-cancer everyone knows about.
The issue here isn't just about doping in cycling, it's about paying backhanders to the sport's governing body to hide positive tests 'cos it suited their agenda. Defrauding sponsors and taking out insurance policies under false pretences. Launching legal and smear campaigns (e.g. Betsy Andreu & Greg Lemond) to discredit anyone who had the timerity to speak out. Drug trafficking and money laundering and finally about creating a "noble cause" on the back of this myth.
All that Tyler has done has confirmed what many already knew - the difficulty is that LA's legal & PR machine (funded by unwitting purchasers of Livestong stuff) can no longer keep this stuff under wraps.
Curiosity was why I posted in the first place: but I still take the view that if they're all at it then demonising the cheat who happens to sit on top of a pyramid of cheats is missing the point somewhat.
....as described he certainly seems a bit of a criminal mastermind. Be interesting to see whether the evidence supports this when he gets to court.0 -
and his reply:
"@lancearmstrong thanks Lanse! see if this guy has a bolls to return the medal honestly."
No stench here, oh no0 -
What Monty said. My objection was never to his nationality or the hoardes of yellow clad middle managers he brought to the sport... It was to presenting himself as the most important part of the whole sport, to intimnidating and smearing those who spoke against him to the extent that even now David Millar won't talk about anything to do with LA, to bare faced lying not only about doping but in trying to rewrite history and to attempting to silence any critical press."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Ekimov just made me a little bit queasy... I'm minded of what Landis said about the inside and outside of the sport and the total dichotemy between them."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Snorebens wrote:and his reply:
"@lancearmstrong thanks Lanse! see if this guy has a bolls to return the medal honestly."
No stench here, oh no
If I was Tyler, I'd ask to meet Eki to hand over the medal personally. Give him a wink and pat on the shoulder while he's at it. And pat the crook of his elbow as if he's trying to get a vein up.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
I think were I Tyler I'd tell him that my golden retriever chewed it or I gave it to my disappearing twin to look after."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Fanboy`s to the defence raise your weapons.
Moray Gub - Paul Cuthbert etc etc .....Can see these 2 flying over to Los Angeles with their banners outside the courthouse just like all the wacko jacko supporters screaming "We want Justice We Want Justice"
0 -
be interesting to hear what phil and paul have to say tonight......or will they not open that particular suitcase of pain.The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.0 -
Reading non-cycling messageboard threads about this is depressing as hell.0
-
-
This hasn't been posted here - Hamilton's email to friends & family explaining his motivation for coming clean:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/05/ ... ter_174652
Credit to him and his core motivation is the main reason why cycling needs to get to the bottom of this in a systemic way, not by treating bad apples - kids coming into the sport should never be in a position where they have to dope or be forced to abadon their dreams of reaching the top. The really interesting issue with this whole case is not so much Lance, but what might come out about teams, doctors, and the alleged corruption at the UCI. Hamilton too has apparently claimed that LA failed a Tour de Suisse control.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:afx237vi wrote:Reading non-cycling messageboard threads about this is depressing as hell.
Link please.
http://www.metafilter.com/103706/Its-al ... -from-here0 -
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
Maybe Armstrong could ask Fred Goodwin ex RBS boss for some help .....well on 2nd thoughts maybe not.0
-
Whatever the outcome in the court of public opinion the confirmation that someone else spilled the beans to the grand jury is interesting.
Wonder if he can corroborate the details from Floyd?Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:Whatever the outcome in the court of public opinion the confirmation that someone else spilled the beans to the grand jury is interesting.
Wonder if he can corroborate the details from Floyd?
He's corroborated the Tour de Suisse failed test which was covered up in 2001.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:
He's corroborated the Tour de Suisse failed test which was covered up in 2001.
He corroborated that Lance said there was a failed test. Subtle, but important difference.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
