Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped
Comments
-
If he wanted yellow that much he should've ridden for it, instead of trying to grab the stage win too.
You can't have your cake and eat it.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
Why do people keep saying that? On many occasions I've had a cake and then eaten it. That's how I got fat.andyp wrote:You can't have your cake and eat it.
No. You had a cake and ate it.
You didn't have your cake anymore.
Then you bought more cake.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
iainf72 wrote:rayjay wrote:
I remember Hincapie in tears or near tears after that stage . There was obviously a lot more going on. I doubt he would have been so upset otherwise.
It's a bike race. Why should Hincapie have been "given" the yellow?
But the team that done the chasing had absolutely nothing to gain in sporting terms ... which is why I used it as a parallel with LA/Simeoni ... Except Vaughters got his 'gang' to do his dirty work for him ...0 -
0 -
Crankbrother wrote:iainf72 wrote:rayjay wrote:
I remember Hincapie in tears or near tears after that stage . There was obviously a lot more going on. I doubt he would have been so upset otherwise.
It's a bike race. Why should Hincapie have been "given" the yellow?
But the team that done the chasing had absolutely nothing to gain in sporting terms ... which is why I used it as a parallel with LA/Simeoni ... Except Vaughters got his 'gang' to do his dirty work for him ...
Really not the same though is it?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Crankbrother wrote:iainf72 wrote:rayjay wrote:
I remember Hincapie in tears or near tears after that stage . There was obviously a lot more going on. I doubt he would have been so upset otherwise.
It's a bike race. Why should Hincapie have been "given" the yellow?
But the team that done the chasing had absolutely nothing to gain in sporting terms ... which is why I used it as a parallel with LA/Simeoni ... Except Vaughters got his 'gang' to do his dirty work for him ...
Really not the same though is it?
It has some similarities ...0 -
I suppose Hincapie not getting that yellow was a justice bizaarly dealt out by a team of dopers. Shame on him if he is still sulking about it.0
-
Essex Rouleur wrote:but deep down inside he still doesn't feel like he's done anything wrong and virtually apologises through clenched teeth.
It's a good point you make. LA may not believe he has done something wrong. Some peoples brains are just wired that way.
Question.
Do YOU, personally, need an apology from this guy? :?0 -
I would like a full apology and a signed tour shirt and a free Trek blinged to the max and a massive amount of Nike cycling stuff and 10 pairs of Oaks and a Sheryl Crow album.0
-
There was something in the interview I thought sounded like a slip. When he defended his comment of "you couldn't win without doping" meaning "back then" or however he put it and how he said now might be different, I would have thought he would have been surer than that.... as he's saying he didn't dope in 2009, so surely it must follow that in 2009 if he didn't dope it's because by 2009 he believed "you didn't need to to win", let alone by now.
I can't remember the exact words, but it seemed he slipped up by not claiming from 2009 onwards you could win without doping... doesn't do much for his claim he didn't in 2009.0 -
Maybe his stock has fallen so low that the BBC are no longer allowed to broadcast his voice - like Gerry Adams in the 80s.mfin wrote:ddraver wrote:Anyone else listening to that Interview thinking that he sounds NOTHING like Lance Armstrong?!?!
Yeah, that's the first thing I thought! I instantly thought it might have been any old actor's voice reading what he'd said, was confused by it for a bit.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
Maybe his stock has fallen so low that the BBC are no longer allowed to broadcast his voice - like Gerry Adams in the 80s.mfin wrote:ddraver wrote:Anyone else listening to that Interview thinking that he sounds NOTHING like Lance Armstrong?!?!
Yeah, that's the first thing I thought! I instantly thought it might have been any old actor's voice reading what he'd said, was confused by it for a bit.
Gerry Adams sprang to mind too last night! 0 -
dennisn wrote:rayjay wrote:I would like a full apology and a signed tour shirt and a free Trek blinged to the max and a massive amount of Nike cycling stuff and 10 pairs of Oaks and a Sheryl Crow album.
Although I could skip the Sheryl Crow album
To be honest I much prefer Radiohead and early Prince.0 -
What guy.dennisn wrote:It's a good point you make. LA may not believe he has done something wrong.
Question.
Do YOU, personally, need an apology from this guy? :?
Is that the Clown I saw riding in front of the TDF. (can't remember much about him)
Nah I don't need an apology for his comical attempted fruitless entertainment. :!:Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
dennisn wrote:Essex Rouleur wrote:but deep down inside he still doesn't feel like he's done anything wrong and virtually apologises through clenched teeth.
It's a good point you make. LA may not believe he has done something wrong. Some peoples brains are just wired that way.
Question.
Do YOU, personally, need an apology from this guy? :?
As a cycling fan for a couple of decades I feel I have a share in the collective ownership of the sport like the rest of us. The likes of Nike, Oakley and Trek only invest hard cash to the likes of LA on the expectation that they will get a return many fold over from us , cycling fans who then buy their products. So I guess although I don't NEED an apology I think he OWES us, as in cycling fans in general, an apology. He "wins" the races but we bestow the adoration that makes the myth or legend. He obtained that "majorly" (bit of an Americanism for you there Dennis) on false pretences.0 -
iainf72 wrote:dennisn wrote:Do YOU, personally, need an apology from this guy? :?
I do
Vaughters too. I may have been wearing a pastel blazer but that didn't give him a licence to be rude
^This
Iain actually deserves compensation because LA blocked him on twitter. Vaughters is just a poor man's Thomas Dolby.0 -
The disgraced seven-times Tour de France winner was warned by Cookson, however, that his life ban is unlikely to be reduced.
"What I am really interested in, I have to say, is the allegations he has apparently made ... about the way in which he was given special treatment by the UCI," Cookson said. "If that was true, I'd like to know about it." Armstrong made donations to the UCI totalling $125,000 (£78,000) between 2002 and 2005.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/n ... i-olympics
Cookson calling his bluff...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Here's what they could offer Armstrong: a lifetime ban from cycling and a two year ban from other sports. After all does anyone really give a toss if he does triathlons or runs marathons?
Having said that, I really don't see what Armstrong's angle is. If he wants a reduction in the ban he should go to CAS - he'd most likely win.Twitter: @RichN950 -
I see his links to the UCI (if any) as his only currency. Perhaps the dangling of a carrot allowing him back into the sport at the age of 50 would suffice. By then his win expectations would be limited to the Vuelta :shock:0
-
Cookson bascially wants to know the juice on his predecessors.
But I really disagree with all the deals being done. Lance chanced the system and got a life ban. Now he wants to play ball to get a reduction - that doesn't happen in every day criminal cases. You roll the dice and live with the sentence. You don't run scenarios and play out each one to see if you like the outcome better. All sides are making it up as they go.
Shows you how much cycling needs Lance and his story. He'll make a lot of money yet.The titifers have sung their song.
Now it's time for sleep.0 -
slam that stem wrote:
But I really disagree with all the deals being done. Lance chanced the system and got a life ban. Now he wants to play ball to get a reduction - that doesn't happen in every day criminal cases. You roll the dice and live with the sentence. You don't run scenarios and play out each one to see if you like the outcome better.
I would say that people who have "done wrong" are always looking to lessen the punishment. It happens all the time.0 -
Yellow Peril wrote:I see his links to the UCI (if any) as his only currency. Perhaps the dangling of a carrot allowing him back into the sport at the age of 50 would suffice. By then his win expectations would be limited to the Vuelta :shock:
Its not competitive cycling he wants to get back to - its triathlons, Ironman and stuff0 -
RichN95 wrote:Here's what they could offer Armstrong: a lifetime ban from cycling and a two year ban from other sports. After all does anyone really give a toss if he does triathlons or runs marathons?
Agreed. Keep the ban for cycling. If he wants to be a triantelope or runner then let him. But only AFTER a full confession under oath with the stipulation that if he changes his story and/or more comes out he has to sew the sleeves back on his jerseysCoach H. (Dont ask me for training advice - 'It's not about the bike')0 -
Coach H wrote:RichN95 wrote:Here's what they could offer Armstrong: a lifetime ban from cycling and a two year ban from other sports. After all does anyone really give a toss if he does triathlons or runs marathons?
Agreed. Keep the ban for cycling. If he wants to be a triantelope or runner then let him. But only AFTER a full confession under oath with the stipulation that if he changes his story and/or more comes out he has to sew the sleeves back on his jerseys
^this could work. The sleeves bit.
Of course the triantelopes dont want him, but we dont care what they want0
