Armstrong interview
Comments
-
i8contador wrote:What if, maybe, just maybe, he didn't dope? There must have been some guys back then, not all at the back, who refused to?
If we can never believe them, just let them dope and then see how fast they can go.
Mods!!!!!(Chasey) (Think Moray or DennisN have 2 accounts registered!)0 -
Does anybody REALLY care if they dope up.
Would the SHOW be any better or worse if they went back to the 50% rukew and let everyone take what they can but stay under 50.
Do we think less of Indurain, Pantani, Miller, Carl Lewis, Linford Christie, Mike Tyson, Pacchio, Tom Simpson............
Do I need to list more.
The SHOW is what we want how it is put together who really cares?0 -
Qui curat si gladiatores morientur? Sunt tantum servos. Id circensibus desideramus.Rule74Please wrote:Does anybody REALLY care if they dope up.
Would the SHOW be any better or worse if they went back to the 50% rukew and let everyone take what they can but stay under 50.
Do we think less of Indurain, Pantani, Miller, Carl Lewis, Linford Christie, Mike Tyson, Pacchio, Tom Simpson............
Do I need to list more.
The SHOW is what we want how it is put together who really cares?0 -
Rule74Please wrote:
The SHOW is what we want how it is put together who really cares?
The 'show' was better before EPO came along. Doping minimizes weakness. Doped and undoped performances, in isolation, look the same.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:Rule74Please wrote:
The SHOW is what we want how it is put together who really cares?
The 'show' was better before EPO came along. Doping minimizes weakness. Doped and undoped performances, in isolation, look the same.
Tell that to Landis
.
On the one hand I hear people say doping irons out weaknesses - the other I hear that doping made performances more erratic, and that erratic performances are a sign of a dude on the juice.
Which is it?0 -
-
In case that's all greek to you, perhaps we could improve the SHOW by, say, shooting the lantern rouge at random intervals? That should keep 'em going!bompington wrote:
Qui curat si gladiatores morientur? Sunt tantum servos. Id circensibus desideramus.Rule74Please wrote:Does anybody REALLY care if they dope up.
Would the SHOW be any better or worse if they went back to the 50% rukew and let everyone take what they can but stay under 50.
Do we think less of Indurain, Pantani, Miller, Carl Lewis, Linford Christie, Mike Tyson, Pacchio, Tom Simpson............
Do I need to list more.
The SHOW is what we want how it is put together who really cares?
And to answer your question, you may not think less of your listed heroes, but a lot of us do, or to be more nuanced, we think a lot less of the system that put them in the position where they thought that doping was the answer.0 -
-
First reference I remember was in early 1990 in an article in The Correspondent about young Dutch cyclists inexplicably dying in their sleep.Rule74Please wrote:When do we think EPO arrived?0 -
Late 80's Product made it to retail market in '89
So going by what we know about other drugs I'd say it was around as early as '87-88.
By 91-92 people knew how to use it and don't forget blood doping has been around since the 60's
Do we think anything less of those "greats" from the past who claimed to be clean?
Who is clean now?0 -
Contador is the Greatest0 -
You read the Ashenden interview yet FF?Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
-
Yep, was good stuff. Not going to distract this thread though with my opinion.Contador is the Greatest0
-
josame wrote:i8contador wrote:What if, maybe, just maybe, he didn't dope? There must have been some guys back then, not all at the back, who refused to?
If we can never believe them, just let them dope and then see how fast they can go.
You got onto the internet today found this site and typed that which means you:
1) know how to type and ..
2) know how to use the internet.. but
3) still made that post
:roll:
In addition just for the record - what does berty taste like???
Sorry, what I should do is post 505 times and never leave my house.0 -
Rule74Please wrote:Does anybody REALLY care if they dope up.
Would the SHOW be any better or worse if they went back to the 50% rukew and let everyone take what they can but stay under 50.
Do we think less of Indurain, Pantani, Miller, Carl Lewis, Linford Christie, Mike Tyson, Pacchio, Tom Simpson............
Do I need to list more.
The SHOW is what we want how it is put together who really cares?
Loving your use of the CAPITALS! Very EFFECTIVE.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:RichN95 wrote:Rule74Please wrote:
The SHOW is what we want how it is put together who really cares?
The 'show' was better before EPO came along. Doping minimizes weakness. Doped and undoped performances, in isolation, look the same.
Tell that to Landis.
On the one hand I hear people say doping irons out weaknesses - the other I hear that doping made performances more erratic, and that erratic performances are a sign of a dude on the juice.
Which is it?
I thought it was that you juiced up for the big races and then had disastrous performances in the smaller ones.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:Which is of course true, and whoever wins the Tour de France this year will probably be doped as well.
Still no faith in Evans or Wiggins then? BTW, I know you have complained in the past about Wiggins going quiet on doping, so what do you make of his remarks on the BOA's position and his comments on Evans winning the TdF last year?0 -
My reaction on reading this, based on LA's performances with the media in past was that this was a pre-emptive strike. The beginning of a damage limitation exercise and switching the focus from a combative FU "prove it or you're in a whole lot of trouble" attitude to a more exasperated "whatever, i give up say what you want i never did it, despite what the others say, there is no scientific proof". Quite clever refocus of arguments I think. He must spend a lot on advisers 
0 -
i8contador wrote:josame wrote:i8contador wrote:What if, maybe, just maybe, he didn't dope? There must have been some guys back then, not all at the back, who refused to?
If we can never believe them, just let them dope and then see how fast they can go.
You got onto the internet today found this site and typed that which means you:
1) know how to type and ..
2) know how to use the internet.. but
3) still made that post
:roll:
In addition just for the record - what does berty taste like???
Sorry, what I should do is post 505 times and never leave my house.
Well as long as your sorry, it's cool but honestly this is what someone on the inside said today:
"Unless he's completely deluded himself at this point he knows that virtually nobody believes that he didn't dope. You'd have to have no internet connection to think so," Landis added. quote from CN'Do not compare your bike to others, for always there will be greater and lesser bikes'0 -
Don't deny USADA's ruling and so avoid USADA arbitration hearing under oath, avoid perjury, avoid the feds. Simple as that I think. I wish he would shut down the livestrong foundation now. He should go away, be anonymous and be grateful if he keeps most of his wins. What a sorry state of a sport that wins cannot really be reassigned given every rider behind him in top 10 or 20 has used the kit too0
-
There will probably be some characters in the UCI quaking in their boots over the possibility of another revelation and Lance's capitulation.
They (the UCI) whored themselves to the Texan because he globalised the sport dragging it up and out from its non English speaking roots.
I don't think it is so much about Lance coming clean (no pun intended) anymore but the shameful aiding/abetting/looking the other way that may have gone on by the very people who run the sport.0 -
Absolutely, and what the UCI has been up to has been obvious for years.Yellow Peril wrote:They (the UCI) whored themselves to the Texan because he globalised the sport dragging it up and out from its non English speaking roots.
I don't think it is so much about Lance coming clean (no pun intended) anymore but the shameful aiding/abetting/looking the other way that may have gone on by the very people who run the sport.
I wonder why the mainstream cycling press haven't been all over this one? Not a mention of it on Cycling Weekly or Bike Radar, as far as I can see, and the Landis article on Cycling News seemes to go out of its way to avoid asking the obvious questions.0 -
-
In any of LA's legal battles, did he ever swear under oath that he had never doped? Things might get interesting if that is the case.0
-
but I think LA would only go under oath if he appealed against USADA at an arbitration hearing whereas if he accepts a USADA sanction he doesn't go under oath.johnfinch wrote:In any of LA's legal battles, did he ever swear under oath that he had never doped? Things might get interesting if that is the case.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:I wonder why the mainstream cycling press haven't been all over this one? Not a mention of it on Cycling Weekly or Bike Radar, as far as I can see, and the Landis article on Cycling News seemes to go out of its way to avoid asking the obvious questions.
I know this does nt fit in with your tinfoil hat BB, but I'd guess it's because it's the weekend and all the journos are at home...
Only sad acts like us that post on the internet can be bothered commenting - wait till tomorrow... We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
ddraver wrote:BikingBernie wrote:I wonder why the mainstream cycling press haven't been all over this one? Not a mention of it on Cycling Weekly or Bike Radar, as far as I can see, and the Landis article on Cycling News seemes to go out of its way to avoid asking the obvious questions.
I know this does nt fit in with your tinfoil hat BB, but I'd guess it's because it's the weekend and all the journos are at home...
Only sad acts like us that post on the internet can be bothered commenting - wait till tomorrow...
It might be because, really, if you're a proper journo, it's a bit of a non-story. It might be as close to an admission as we're likely to get any time soon, but it isn't actually an admission.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
I think LA has just gone for the long game here. There hasn't been much reaction and much of the reaction there has been has been of the "I know he doped but I'm bored of it, can we move on?" Playing on public apathy may prove more of an effective defense strategy than throwing money at the problem anymore.
The faithful are fighting a rear-guard action but even some of their posts are now tending towards the "we know he's probably not clean, but look at the good he's done". Very few are taking the "most tested", "he had cancer, why would he dope", "they're just jealous" stance.'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
But the Velonation summary was published on Thursday, and presumably the original interview in the Men's Journal was published prior to this.ddraver wrote:BikingBernie wrote:I wonder why the mainstream cycling press haven't been all over this one? Not a mention of it on Cycling Weekly or Bike Radar, as far as I can see, and the Landis article on Cycling News seemes to go out of its way to avoid asking the obvious questions.
I know this does nt fit in with your tinfoil hat BB, but I'd guess it's because it's the weekend and all the journos are at home...0
