USADA files doping charges against Lance
Comments
-
Jez mon wrote:dennisn wrote:Jez mon wrote:I suspect even Lance might get tired of fighting, and it looks like USADA have a fairly strong case. I don't know...do Americans do teary apologies?
I'm not so sure. You don't win 7 TDF's without having a bit of fight in you(drugs or no drugs).
Isn't the fact that he always had a fairly good chance of winning those 7 TdFs a key difference here?
Isn't "my theory" that he always had......
Fixed that for you.
0 -
derbygrimpeur wrote:dennisn wrote:
Why is "Wiggo" all of a sudden pure as the driven snow? Can he stay that way(if he is)?Alwaystoohot wrote:So if Lance and Contador are guilty wadda we do, wipe the records clean for the last 10-15 years and tell the kids cycling wasn't invented until Wiggo came along in 2012?
dennisn > there is, currently, no compelling evidence to suggest Wiggo is not clean. Quite the opposite. If this changes, we can vilify him then.
I understand, but aren't all the TDF winners cheats. Or so it would seem. I say let's get an early start on this vilifying of Wiggo. That way we can all say "told ya so".
0 -
Na, I like Wiggo. His press conferences etc are great. His riding style might not have the razzle dazzle that some yearn for, but at least he's clean*
*I hope0 -
dennisn wrote:
Why is "Wiggo" all of a sudden pure as the driven snow? Can he stay that way(if he is)?Alwaystoohot wrote:So if Lance and Contador are guilty wadda we do, wipe the records clean for the last 10-15 years and tell the kids cycling wasn't invented until Wiggo came along in 2012?
He's British. All British riders are clean.0 -
sherer wrote:based on what we know of Lance and his personality I just can't see him confessing. I'm not even sure if he realises he has done anything wrong. I think he just feels he took doping to the next level and they all did it anyway
zero tolerance just say no Sherer? They all did it!0 -
TheBigBean wrote:dennisn wrote:
Why is "Wiggo" all of a sudden pure as the driven snow? Can he stay that way(if he is)?Alwaystoohot wrote:So if Lance and Contador are guilty wadda we do, wipe the records clean for the last 10-15 years and tell the kids cycling wasn't invented until Wiggo came along in 2012?
He's British. All British riders are clean.
Of course. Stupid me. Why didn't I think of that? I apologize. :oops: :oops:0 -
sherer wrote:based on what we know of Lance and his personality I just can't see him confessing. I'm not even sure if he realises he has done anything wrong. I think he just feels he took doping to the next level and they all did it anyway
based on what we "think" we know of.......
Fixed that for ya.
I think you've got a few good points there. If he did "do the deed" then he really did take it up a notch, which makes sense. Ya gotta keep ahead of the "watchers" if you're attempting to cheat. Trying not to run afoul of any of these organizations must be tough work and you would need to work at it constantly.0 -
-
deejay wrote:
Oh dear and I thought Greg Lemon was allegedly "Clean"dennisn wrote:So if Lance and Contador are guilty wadda we do, wipe the records clean and tell the kids cycling wasn't invented until Wiggo came along in 2012?
I do believe "alwaystoohot" came up with "...wipe the records..". Not myself.
Greg Lemon?????0 -
This some may regard as OT but there are relevances to this thread to my mind. At least I thought it funny: http://www.theonion.com/articles/barry- ... y_dispatch.
Pardon the long url but The Onion doesn't appear to allow the use of url shorteners, and damned if I know the trick on this website to bury the url in a word. :?
Oh,..preview displays it as reasonably short anyway. Onwards.... :roll:"Lick My Decals Off, Baby"0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:dennisn.
Have you read In Defence of History by Richard Evans?
If not, you should.
No I haven't. Looked it up and read a review and quick synopsis. Sounds like pretty heavy reading(almost testbook). Just out of curiousity why are you thinking I need to read this particular book? :? :?
It will have to wait a while. I'm right in the middle of a re-read of Atlas Shrugged. "bikingbernie" would be proud of me. Well, maybe not proud but he would be something.0 -
Pepe Marti gets arbitration
USADA are quite a fair minded bunch, aren't they?
http://www.usada.org/files/active/resou ... ration.pdf
Does that mean he can "train" Bert again?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Can anyone explain the twitter paranoiacs buzz over some sort of official document from USAC? Couldn't be a***** to read it all the way through and nobody summarised it for me...Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
-
iainf72 wrote:Pepe Marti gets arbitration
USADA are quite a fair minded bunch, aren't they?
http://www.usada.org/files/active/resou ... ration.pdf
Does that mean he can "train" Bert again?
USADA probably couldn't be sure that "his legal counsel" was in fact still "his legal counsel" and didn't want to argue the toss in court, can't help feeling that something is going on behind the scenes though.0 -
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
iainf72 wrote:
i've given up after the first few pages. Too much legal jargon but seems they have busted Lance's theory he doesn't fall under USADA jurisdiction0 -
iainf72 wrote:
Executive summary? More than "wallop" please...Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Makes you wonder just how big a house of cards could fall.iainf72 wrote:0 -
dennisn wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:dennisn.
Have you read In Defence of History by Richard Evans?
If not, you should.
No I haven't. Looked it up and read a review and quick synopsis. Sounds like pretty heavy reading(almost testbook). Just out of curiousity why are you thinking I need to read this particular book? :? :?
It will have to wait a while. I'm right in the middle of a re-read of Atlas Shrugged. "bikingbernie" would be proud of me. Well, maybe not proud but he would be something.
You seem to take quite an aggressive post-modernist stance on 'truth' and 'knowledge'.0 -
DNQ wrote:....... can't help feeling that something is going on behind the scenes though.
I'm not following all this in detail like lots of people seem to be, i.e. I'm not reading all the posted documents and such. Still, your "feeling" seems to be something of an understatement at the very least. 0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:dennisn wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:dennisn.
Have you read In Defence of History by Richard Evans?
If not, you should.
No I haven't. Looked it up and read a review and quick synopsis. Sounds like pretty heavy reading(almost testbook). Just out of curiousity why are you thinking I need to read this particular book? :? :?
It will have to wait a while. I'm right in the middle of a re-read of Atlas Shrugged. "bikingbernie" would be proud of me. Well, maybe not proud but he would be something.
You seem to take quite an aggressive post-modernist stance on 'truth' and 'knowledge'.
I guess I do, now that you mention it. Never thought of myself like that, to be honest.
To me it's just the way I think. If someone has put a label on it, so be it. :?0 -
dennisn wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:dennisn wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:dennisn.
Have you read In Defence of History by Richard Evans?
If not, you should.
No I haven't. Looked it up and read a review and quick synopsis. Sounds like pretty heavy reading(almost testbook). Just out of curiousity why are you thinking I need to read this particular book? :? :?
It will have to wait a while. I'm right in the middle of a re-read of Atlas Shrugged. "bikingbernie" would be proud of me. Well, maybe not proud but he would be something.
You seem to take quite an aggressive post-modernist stance on 'truth' and 'knowledge'.
I guess I do, now that you mention it. Never thought of myself like that, to be honest.
To me it's just the way I think. If someone has put a label on it, so be it. :?
If it's any consolation Dennis, I think the label is entirely and utterly wrong.
Wouldn't see many post-modernists calling for rock solid objective empirically proven laboratory verified and court ratified fact as the single basis of truth. Certainly not at the expense of the testimony of those that have been marginalised by the power of the dominant narrative.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
You need to stop reading junk like that too...dennisn wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:dennisn.
Have you read In Defence of History by Richard Evans?
If not, you should.
No I haven't. Looked it up and read a review and quick synopsis. Sounds like pretty heavy reading(almost testbook). Just out of curiousity why are you thinking I need to read this particular book? :? :?
It will have to wait a while. I'm right in the middle of a re-read of Atlas Shrugged. "bikingbernie" would be proud of me. Well, maybe not proud but he would be something.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:dennisn wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:dennisn wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:dennisn.
Have you read In Defence of History by Richard Evans?
If not, you should.
No I haven't. Looked it up and read a review and quick synopsis. Sounds like pretty heavy reading(almost testbook). Just out of curiousity why are you thinking I need to read this particular book? :? :?
It will have to wait a while. I'm right in the middle of a re-read of Atlas Shrugged. "bikingbernie" would be proud of me. Well, maybe not proud but he would be something.
You seem to take quite an aggressive post-modernist stance on 'truth' and 'knowledge'.
I guess I do, now that you mention it. Never thought of myself like that, to be honest.
To me it's just the way I think. If someone has put a label on it, so be it. :?
If it's any consolation Dennis, I think the label is entirely and utterly wrong.
Wouldn't see many post-modernists calling for rock solid objective empirically proven laboratory verified and court ratified fact as the single basis of truth. Certainly not at the expense of the testimony of those that have been marginalised by the power of the dominant narrative.
I THINK I understood that. And I'm really sorry or thanks a lot. 0 -
Atlas shrugged? Does anyone still read Ayn Rand? Somehow seems like someone Laarnce might read.0
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/jurisdiction-fight-in-armstrong-case-includes-uci-chief-interview-saying-agency-not-involved/2012/08/08/f01c2a2a-e19d-11e1-89f7-76e23a982d06_story.html“The position of UCI is that we’re not involved in this, and it’s a USADA investigation,” McQuaid said according to the transcript. “They’re doing all the process in the United States. It’s nothing to do with UCI, and we’ll wait and see what the eventual outcome is.”
But just two days later, McQuaid and UCI tried to assert control over the case, telling USADA officials that the Switzerland-based cycling group has jurisdiction and USADA does not.0 -
mm1 wrote:Atlas shrugged? Does anyone still read Ayn Rand? Somehow seems like someone Laarnce might read.
I'm not an Ayn Rand follower but it's a great story. Just one of those books that I have read more than once.
Also -
Love in the Time of Cholera - Garcia Marquez
Point Counter Point - Huxley
Nostromo - Joseph Conrad
A Prayer for Owen Meany - John Irving
Dracula - Bram Stoker
And yes, I know this isn't the place but I'm a bit bored. Sorry.
Anyone else out there care to divulge books they've read more than once?0 -
Excellent piece by inrng. http://inrng.com/2012/08/uci-vs-president-mcquaid/0
-
No tA Doctor wrote:Can anyone explain the twitter paranoiacs buzz over some sort of official document from USAC? Couldn't be a***** to read it all the way through and nobody summarised it for me...
+1. Censored Cyclist is going nuts saying Howman should be resigning and that WADA has suffered a massive credibility blow.....no idea why0
