Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped
Comments
-
dennisn wrote:Wily-Quixote wrote:dennisn wrote:Wily-Quixote wrote:Betsy Andreu - consistently and uncompromisingly ethically courageous when all else, including (allegedly) 'hard-man' riders, were submitting to Armstrong's bullying.
Just to remind you that you said "...when all else...were submitting....". I take this to mean you're claiming he bullied everyone? In any case your argument that he was / is a bully makes you sound like you're 10 years old. Sort of a "I'm gonna tell my mom" thing. :?
I'm presuming you're just being contrary rather than illiterate.
Absolutely being contrary. You say what you believe about a person or subject and I say what I believe. I simply don't believe all that you say.
you don't have to believe anything that I write but being captious is pointless, particularly as everything that I based my opinions upon is evidenced in the public domain. That you don't like my opinion does not mean that bullying is not a real phenomenon amongst adults nor does it mean that lance Armstrong did not exhibit bullying behaviour towards fellow cyclists and anyone else in public life that he considered an adversary. I suggest that you read the evidence that is available in the public domain before embarrassing yourself further.0 -
Ahh... Mr Grumpy's back....
'Performance analysis and Froome not being clean was a media driven story. I haven’t heard one guy in the peloton say a negative thing about Froome, and I haven’t heard a single person in the peloton suggest Froome isn’t clean.' TSP0 -
dennisn wrote:Dave_1 wrote:all done. Move on folks. Joke of a sport
Yeah, I know what you're saying. Watching stage two of this years TDF and the lack of crowds clearly shows that cycling is dead. Hardly a fan to be seen. Sad times.
Watching stage 3 and it has confirmed your "joke of a sport" post of earlier. Another stage with pretty much zero attendance and the few that were there only wanted to boo and hiss. Definitely the end.
If all this seems like sarcasm, well congrats, you got that right at least. It just warms the cockles of my heart to see all the cycling doomsayers proven wrong. :P0 -
Deep breaths Dennis, deep breaths.... the Cartoon Channel will come back on line shortly don't worry.'Performance analysis and Froome not being clean was a media driven story. I haven’t heard one guy in the peloton say a negative thing about Froome, and I haven’t heard a single person in the peloton suggest Froome isn’t clean.' TSP0
-
0
-
Will he get a reduction in his sentence? Will we see a comeback?0
-
More importantly, when will we see the results of:
Peters added: "If you made a list of all the questions people would want to ask about Lance and his activities in cycling and everything else, those were the questions that were asked and answered."
Especially the UCI related ones0 -
Wily-Quixote wrote:dennisn wrote:Wily-Quixote wrote:Betsy Andreu - consistently and uncompromisingly ethically courageous when all else, including (allegedly) 'hard-man' riders, were submitting to Armstrong's bullying.
Just to remind you that you said "...when all else...were submitting....". I take this to mean you're claiming he bullied everyone? In any case you're argument that he was / is a bully makes you sound like you're 10 years old. Sort of a "I'm gonna tell my mom" thing. :?
I'm presuming you're just being contrary rather than illiterate. There is a workplace definition of bullying that encompasses behaviour from adults towards other adults, there's a dictionary online, look it up if you don't believe me.
When I said 'when all else... Were submitting' I was referring to 'all the people he bullied, dominated or acted aggressively towards'. That was implied in the statement 'all else'. If you think that I meant 'everyone he came into contact with' or 'everyone on the planet' than you have to learn to take written communication less literally. Are you autistic? Or American?
This is an offensive post. You're using disability and nationality as a means to ridicule Dennis. Perhaps you should look at you pc "workplace definitions" and in particular discrimination then grow up.0 -
dsoutar wrote:More importantly, when will we see the results of:
Peters added: "If you made a list of all the questions people would want to ask about Lance and his activities in cycling and everything else, those were the questions that were asked and answered."
Especially the UCI related ones
Wonder what finally made him change his mind. We know he never does anything just because it is the right thing to do.0 -
He wants to race triathlons. Both his first love and a healthy age group competition structure. A more ambivalent view of doping and ex-dopers too. The sport is wrestling with where it stands on the subject as they don't really know. Key people have already said they want LA in the sport.sherer wrote:dsoutar wrote:More importantly, when will we see the results of:
Peters added: "If you made a list of all the questions people would want to ask about Lance and his activities in cycling and everything else, those were the questions that were asked and answered."
Especially the UCI related ones
Wonder what finally made him change his mind. We know he never does anything just because it is the right thing to do.
LA could potentially be a world champ in a triathlon age group and it does have far more status than many masters sports. You can be sure he'd be able to secure good sponsorship deals too. Like him or loathe him, or his actions, he's still got to earn a living.0 -
Taking away his victorys on a piece of paper means nothing. Armstrong was the worthy winner of all those tour victorys. He had no clean rivals or teams. Why not take away Zidanes World cup win or champions league win.
He doped....Its all bullshi%. Prince "sign of the times " That's all. Just hope some of you don't feel to let down every time a new pro athlete gets busted. Money rules and results count the cash.0 -
Vino'sGhost wrote:Wily-Quixote wrote:dennisn wrote:Wily-Quixote wrote:Betsy Andreu - consistently and uncompromisingly ethically courageous when all else, including (allegedly) 'hard-man' riders, were submitting to Armstrong's bullying.
Just to remind you that you said "...when all else...were submitting....". I take this to mean you're claiming he bullied everyone? In any case you're argument that he was / is a bully makes you sound like you're 10 years old. Sort of a "I'm gonna tell my mom" thing. :?
I'm presuming you're just being contrary rather than illiterate. There is a workplace definition of bullying that encompasses behaviour from adults towards other adults, there's a dictionary online, look it up if you don't believe me.
When I said 'when all else... Were submitting' I was referring to 'all the people he bullied, dominated or acted aggressively towards'. That was implied in the statement 'all else'. If you think that I meant 'everyone he came into contact with' or 'everyone on the planet' than you have to learn to take written communication less literally. Are you autistic? Or American?
This is an offensive post. You're using disability and nationality as a means to ridicule Dennis. Perhaps you should look at you pc "workplace definitions" and in particular discrimination then grow up.
You're sort of right. People can ridicule someone being American, British, French, whatever. That's just the way of the world sometimes, but autism is another thing.
In any case I'm not bothered by it all. I know that I am contrary pretty much for the sake of being contrary. I figure it's a forum, so why not . :?0 -
Coachb wrote:Taking away his victorys on a piece of paper means nothing. Armstrong was the worthy winner of all those tour victorys. He had no clean rivals or teams. Why not take away Zidanes World cup win or champions league win.
He doped....Its all bullshi%. Prince "sign of the times " That's all. Just hope some of you don't feel to let down every time a new pro athlete gets busted. Money rules and results count the cash.
It's the great unknown though. Bassoons was clean in 99 and we will never know if he was really better than all the others. I'd also like to think post Festina that more teams and riders were clean during those three weeks at least apart from USPS.
Add in the fact Armstrong seemed to have the ear of the UCI then that is another advantage rivals never had.0 -
What do you think is the probability that Lance would have retained Tour-winning power, after getting down to Tour-winning weight, without blood doping?Coachb wrote:Taking away his victorys on a piece of paper means nothing. Armstrong was the worthy winner of all those tour victorys. He had no clean rivals or teams. Why not take away Zidanes World cup win or champions league win.
He doped....Its all bullshi%. Prince "sign of the times " That's all. Just hope some of you don't feel to let down every time a new pro athlete gets busted. Money rules and results count the cash.
Worthy winner my arse.
Any clean riders in his era were not his rivals because they were clean. Not because they weren't talented. I guess you could argue that means they didn't want it as much, which, I mean, if you think that entitles somebody to win then that's your business.0 -
jamie1012 wrote:
What do you think is the probability that Lance would have retained Tour-winning power, after getting down to Tour-winning weight, without blood doping?Coachb wrote:Taking away his victorys on a piece of paper means nothing. Armstrong was the worthy winner of all those tour victorys. He had no clean rivals or teams. Why not take away Zidanes World cup win or champions league win.
He doped....Its all bullshi%. Prince "sign of the times " That's all. Just hope some of you don't feel to let down every time a new pro athlete gets busted. Money rules and results count the cash.
Worthy winner my ars*.
Any clean riders in his era were not his rivals because they were clean. Not because they weren't talented. I guess you could argue that means they didn't want it as much, which, I mean, if you think that entitles somebody to win then that's your business.
I think you're forgetting that bunches of people, in bunches of sports and games, don't play by the "rules". Any advantage, fair or unfair, legal or illegal, shady or not, will be exploited to it's max when big money and fame(and even small money and very little fame) is on the line.
I don't believe getting caught stops anyone except the one who got caught, and in some cases not even them. They may go right back to their devious ways.
People NOT cheating in sports and games is some sort of pipe dream. Not gonna happen.0 -
Exactly what part of my post indicated that I am forgetting any of that? My post was concerned solely with the self-evidently ludicrous idea that Armstrong "deserved" to win 7 tours simply because he worked very hard and did what he thought was necessary regardless of the rules (that might make him the deserving winner of a competition that didn't include those rules, but not one that did), and with the notion that simply because his famous rivals were dopers, that means that those riders who did stay clean during his tour-winning years wouldn't have been his famous rivals if everybody was clean. Even if the top 50 riders were doped, that doesn't make it okay for the rider who wins to have cheated the guy who came 51st.dennisn wrote:jamie1012 wrote:
What do you think is the probability that Lance would have retained Tour-winning power, after getting down to Tour-winning weight, without blood doping?Coachb wrote:Taking away his victorys on a piece of paper means nothing. Armstrong was the worthy winner of all those tour victorys. He had no clean rivals or teams. Why not take away Zidanes World cup win or champions league win.
He doped....Its all bullshi%. Prince "sign of the times " That's all. Just hope some of you don't feel to let down every time a new pro athlete gets busted. Money rules and results count the cash.
Worthy winner my ars*.
Any clean riders in his era were not his rivals because they were clean. Not because they weren't talented. I guess you could argue that means they didn't want it as much, which, I mean, if you think that entitles somebody to win then that's your business.
I think you're forgetting that bunches of people, in bunches of sports and games, don't play by the "rules". Any advantage, fair or unfair, legal or illegal, shady or not, will be exploited to it's max when big money and fame(and even small money and very little fame) is on the line.
I don't believe getting caught stops anyone except the one who got caught, and in some cases not even them. They may go right back to their devious ways.
People NOT cheating in sports and games is some sort of pipe dream. Not gonna happen.0 -
jamie1012 wrote:
What do you think is the probability that Lance would have retained Tour-winning power, after getting down to Tour-winning weight, without blood doping?Coachb wrote:Taking away his victorys on a piece of paper means nothing. Armstrong was the worthy winner of all those tour victorys. He had no clean rivals or teams. Why not take away Zidanes World cup win or champions league win.
He doped....Its all bullshi%. Prince "sign of the times " That's all. Just hope some of you don't feel to let down every time a new pro athlete gets busted. Money rules and results count the cash.
Worthy winner my ars*.
Any clean riders in his era were not his rivals because they were clean. Not because they weren't talented. I guess you could argue that means they didn't want it as much, which, I mean, if you think that entitles somebody to win then that's your business.
Wiggins, Froome all have lost weight. Even more than Armstrong and Wiggins became a ITT winner when he never won anything of consequence on the road when he was heavier, So that blows that theory out of the window.
Who was Clean then? Cycling was riddled with drugs it always has been ...check your history. If Armstrong is not a worthy winner then what about Merckx, Panatani and all the other legends long ago who admitted that they took naughty stuff. Can you name 4 tour winners that you know for sure have never doped? I give you WIggo and Froome ,,,,who else? Show me your worthy winners?0 -
dennisn wrote:I know that I am contrary pretty much for the sake of being contrary. I figure it's a forum, so why not . :?
There is a word for that.I have a policy of only posting comment on the internet under my real name. This is to moderate my natural instinct to flame your fatuous, ill-informed, irrational, credulous, bigoted, semi-literate opinions to carbon, you knuckle-dragging f***wits.0 -
jamie1012 wrote:
Exactly what part of my post indicated that I am forgetting any of that? My post was concerned solely with the self-evidently ludicrous idea that Armstrong "deserved" to win 7 tours simply because he worked very hard and did what he thought was necessary regardless of the rules (that might make him the deserving winner of a competition that didn't include those rules, but not one that did), and with the notion that simply because his famous rivals were dopers, that means that those riders who did stay clean during his tour-winning years wouldn't have been his famous rivals if everybody was clean. Even if the top 50 riders were doped, that doesn't make it okay for the rider who wins to have cheated the guy who came 51st.
Since when are cheaters concerned about anyone but themselves? You may be concerned, and that's fine, but when cheaters enter the game all bets are off. They don't care about you or me or that 51st rider. In any case it's all "...okay for the rider who wins to have cheated..", according to their way of thinking. Explain to me how you intend to change that? :?0 -
Your whole premise is faulty. You think I'm a hypocrite because you assume I believe Wiggins and Froome were clean. Instead of fabricating a version of my argument you think you can pick holes in, how about trying to actually respond to what I DID say?Coachb wrote:jamie1012 wrote:
What do you think is the probability that Lance would have retained Tour-winning power, after getting down to Tour-winning weight, without blood doping?Coachb wrote:Taking away his victorys on a piece of paper means nothing. Armstrong was the worthy winner of all those tour victorys. He had no clean rivals or teams. Why not take away Zidanes World cup win or champions league win.
He doped....Its all bullshi%. Prince "sign of the times " That's all. Just hope some of you don't feel to let down every time a new pro athlete gets busted. Money rules and results count the cash.
Worthy winner my ars*.
Any clean riders in his era were not his rivals because they were clean. Not because they weren't talented. I guess you could argue that means they didn't want it as much, which, I mean, if you think that entitles somebody to win then that's your business.
Wiggins, Froome all have lost weight. Even more than Armstrong and Wiggins became a ITT winner when he never won anything of consequence on the road when he was heavier, So that blows that theory out of the window.
Who was Clean then? Cycling was riddled with drugs it always has been ...check your history. If Armstrong is not a worthy winner then what about Merckx, Panatani and all the other legends long ago who admitted that they took naughty stuff. Can you name 4 tour winners that you know for sure have never doped? I give you WIggo and Froome ,,,,who else? Show me your worthy winners?
It's impossible to know for sure that anybody never doped. What is possible is to know that Armstrong did. Which seems to bother you a great deal.0 -
What on earth are you wittering on about?dennisn wrote:jamie1012 wrote:
Exactly what part of my post indicated that I am forgetting any of that? My post was concerned solely with the self-evidently ludicrous idea that Armstrong "deserved" to win 7 tours simply because he worked very hard and did what he thought was necessary regardless of the rules (that might make him the deserving winner of a competition that didn't include those rules, but not one that did), and with the notion that simply because his famous rivals were dopers, that means that those riders who did stay clean during his tour-winning years wouldn't have been his famous rivals if everybody was clean. Even if the top 50 riders were doped, that doesn't make it okay for the rider who wins to have cheated the guy who came 51st.
Since when are cheaters concerned about anyone but themselves? You may be concerned, and that's fine, but when cheaters enter the game all bets are off. They don't care about you or me or that 51st rider. In any case it's all "...okay for the rider who wins to have cheated..", according to their way of thinking. Explain to me how you intend to change that? :?0 -
jamie1012 wrote:
Your whole premise is faulty. You think I'm a hypocrite because you assume I believe Wiggins and Froome were clean. Instead of fabricating a version of my argument you think you can pick holes in, how about trying to actually respond to what I DID say?Coachb wrote:jamie1012 wrote:
What do you think is the probability that Lance would have retained Tour-winning power, after getting down to Tour-winning weight, without blood doping?Coachb wrote:Taking away his victorys on a piece of paper means nothing. Armstrong was the worthy winner of all those tour victorys. He had no clean rivals or teams. Why not take away Zidanes World cup win or champions league win.
He doped....Its all bullshi%. Prince "sign of the times " That's all. Just hope some of you don't feel to let down every time a new pro athlete gets busted. Money rules and results count the cash.
Worthy winner my ars*.
Any clean riders in his era were not his rivals because they were clean. Not because they weren't talented. I guess you could argue that means they didn't want it as much, which, I mean, if you think that entitles somebody to win then that's your business.
Wiggins, Froome all have lost weight. Even more than Armstrong and Wiggins became a ITT winner when he never won anything of consequence on the road when he was heavier, So that blows that theory out of the window.
Who was Clean then? Cycling was riddled with drugs it always has been ...check your history. If Armstrong is not a worthy winner then what about Merckx, Panatani and all the other legends long ago who admitted that they took naughty stuff. Can you name 4 tour winners that you know for sure have never doped? I give you WIggo and Froome ,,,,who else? Show me your worthy winners?
It's impossible to know for sure that anybody never doped. What is possible is to know that Armstrong did. Which seems to bother you a great deal.
I responded to your point about weight loss and power. I gave you an example of 2 riders that have never been caught doping who have lost weight and increased power/performance.
I saw quite a few of Armstrongs wins in the flesh. I never ever thought for once that the riders were riding clean.
Armstrong's doping does not bother me one bit. I would never have taken away his titles he was the greatest rider of his era in my view.0 -
Coachb wrote:jamie1012 wrote:
Your whole premise is faulty. You think I'm a hypocrite because you assume I believe Wiggins and Froome were clean. Instead of fabricating a version of my argument you think you can pick holes in, how about trying to actually respond to what I DID say?Coachb wrote:jamie1012 wrote:
What do you think is the probability that Lance would have retained Tour-winning power, after getting down to Tour-winning weight, without blood doping?Coachb wrote:Taking away his victorys on a piece of paper means nothing. Armstrong was the worthy winner of all those tour victorys. He had no clean rivals or teams. Why not take away Zidanes World cup win or champions league win.
He doped....Its all bullshi%. Prince "sign of the times " That's all. Just hope some of you don't feel to let down every time a new pro athlete gets busted. Money rules and results count the cash.
Worthy winner my ars*.
Any clean riders in his era were not his rivals because they were clean. Not because they weren't talented. I guess you could argue that means they didn't want it as much, which, I mean, if you think that entitles somebody to win then that's your business.
Wiggins, Froome all have lost weight. Even more than Armstrong and Wiggins became a ITT winner when he never won anything of consequence on the road when he was heavier, So that blows that theory out of the window.
Who was Clean then? Cycling was riddled with drugs it always has been ...check your history. If Armstrong is not a worthy winner then what about Merckx, Panatani and all the other legends long ago who admitted that they took naughty stuff. Can you name 4 tour winners that you know for sure have never doped? I give you WIggo and Froome ,,,,who else? Show me your worthy winners?
It's impossible to know for sure that anybody never doped. What is possible is to know that Armstrong did. Which seems to bother you a great deal.
I saw quite a few of Armstrongs wins in the flesh. I never ever thought for once that the riders were riding clean.
Armstrong's doping does not bother me one bit. I would never have taken away his titles he was the greatest rider of his era in my view.
Whew, talk about blasphemy on this forum topic.
I agree with you though. Doesn't bother me either. Lifes too short(if you will). 0 -
jamie1012 wrote:
What on earth are you wittering on about?dennisn wrote:jamie1012 wrote:
Exactly what part of my post indicated that I am forgetting any of that? My post was concerned solely with the self-evidently ludicrous idea that Armstrong "deserved" to win 7 tours simply because he worked very hard and did what he thought was necessary regardless of the rules (that might make him the deserving winner of a competition that didn't include those rules, but not one that did), and with the notion that simply because his famous rivals were dopers, that means that those riders who did stay clean during his tour-winning years wouldn't have been his famous rivals if everybody was clean. Even if the top 50 riders were doped, that doesn't make it okay for the rider who wins to have cheated the guy who came 51st.
Since when are cheaters concerned about anyone but themselves? You may be concerned, and that's fine, but when cheaters enter the game all bets are off. They don't care about you or me or that 51st rider. In any case it's all "...okay for the rider who wins to have cheated..", according to their way of thinking. Explain to me how you intend to change that? :?
Sort of got the impression that you thought that cheaters should feel bad about it. Your statement "...doesn't make it OK for the rider......who came in 51st." seems to say that because YOU feel bad for #51, the first 50(who cheated) should feel bad too. Maybe they should, but they don't. Sort of raises the question I've been asking for years now. Why would YOU feel badly and or beat yourself up over cheaters? Doesn't make any sense to me.0 -
I don't expect them to feel bad about it. They wouldn't have done it if they thought a bike race was something worth having a conscience over. Some people are too driven to care about the livelihood of other people. I get that. They're jock arseholes I wouldn't want to hang out with, but I get it. I expect fans of the sport to feel bad for the clean riders, though, and I expect those in charge of the sport to take responsibility for allowing them to find out how if their talent has any value.dennisn wrote:jamie1012 wrote:
What on earth are you wittering on about?dennisn wrote:jamie1012 wrote:
Exactly what part of my post indicated that I am forgetting any of that? My post was concerned solely with the self-evidently ludicrous idea that Armstrong "deserved" to win 7 tours simply because he worked very hard and did what he thought was necessary regardless of the rules (that might make him the deserving winner of a competition that didn't include those rules, but not one that did), and with the notion that simply because his famous rivals were dopers, that means that those riders who did stay clean during his tour-winning years wouldn't have been his famous rivals if everybody was clean. Even if the top 50 riders were doped, that doesn't make it okay for the rider who wins to have cheated the guy who came 51st.
Since when are cheaters concerned about anyone but themselves? You may be concerned, and that's fine, but when cheaters enter the game all bets are off. They don't care about you or me or that 51st rider. In any case it's all "...okay for the rider who wins to have cheated..", according to their way of thinking. Explain to me how you intend to change that? :?
Sort of got the impression that you thought that cheaters should feel bad about it. Your statement "...doesn't make it OK for the rider......who came in 51st." seems to say that because YOU feel bad for #51, the first 50(who cheated) should feel bad too. Maybe they should, but they don't. Sort of raises the question I've been asking for years now. Why would YOU feel badly and or beat yourself up over cheaters? Doesn't make any sense to me.0 -
Again, you seem to be wilfully missing my point and I'm getting terribly bored.Coachb wrote:jamie1012 wrote:
Your whole premise is faulty. You think I'm a hypocrite because you assume I believe Wiggins and Froome were clean. Instead of fabricating a version of my argument you think you can pick holes in, how about trying to actually respond to what I DID say?Coachb wrote:jamie1012 wrote:
What do you think is the probability that Lance would have retained Tour-winning power, after getting down to Tour-winning weight, without blood doping?Coachb wrote:Taking away his victorys on a piece of paper means nothing. Armstrong was the worthy winner of all those tour victorys. He had no clean rivals or teams. Why not take away Zidanes World cup win or champions league win.
He doped....Its all bullshi%. Prince "sign of the times " That's all. Just hope some of you don't feel to let down every time a new pro athlete gets busted. Money rules and results count the cash.
Worthy winner my ars*.
Any clean riders in his era were not his rivals because they were clean. Not because they weren't talented. I guess you could argue that means they didn't want it as much, which, I mean, if you think that entitles somebody to win then that's your business.
Wiggins, Froome all have lost weight. Even more than Armstrong and Wiggins became a ITT winner when he never won anything of consequence on the road when he was heavier, So that blows that theory out of the window.
Who was Clean then? Cycling was riddled with drugs it always has been ...check your history. If Armstrong is not a worthy winner then what about Merckx, Panatani and all the other legends long ago who admitted that they took naughty stuff. Can you name 4 tour winners that you know for sure have never doped? I give you WIggo and Froome ,,,,who else? Show me your worthy winners?
It's impossible to know for sure that anybody never doped. What is possible is to know that Armstrong did. Which seems to bother you a great deal.
I responded to your point about weight loss and power. I gave you an example of 2 riders that have never been caught doping who have lost weight and increased power/performance.
I saw quite a few of Armstrongs wins in the flesh. I never ever thought for once that the riders were riding clean.
Armstrong's doping does not bother me one bit. I would never have taken away his titles he was the greatest rider of his era in my view.
If you are seriously comparing Armstrong and Wiggins though, do you remember all those stunning Lance-esque mountain stage victories Wiggins won at the Tour in 2012 after getting down to Tour-winning weight? Me neither.0 -
I hate Armstrong as a cyclist because he always said when asked about doping "Never tested positive". And he didnt, well he did but it was buried and made to go away. So the reason I hate him is the fact that any wanabee cycling expert, on the internet, can cast doubts about ANY rider and say "Well just because they have not tested positive does not mean they are not doping, look at Armstrong". Arrrrggggghhhhhh. Nurse. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:0
-
I am bored with this whole Armstrong thing and yet I still fell the urge to defend the riders of that era.
I can understand why people, cycling fans feel like Armstrong damaged cycling. He won the tour 7 times. Nuff said.
There is no way you can compere Wiggins to Armstrong. You cannot compere Armstrong to Merckx, a rider who did dope but was phenomenal. I think you are missing my point. Look at Froome's attack on the Ventoux , it was awesome. It's a never ending cycle of did they dope. are they clean. I think it's best to just enjoy cycling for what it is . The good and the bad ,if you see it that way that's your problem. Watching Nibs ride at the moment is something special and I am enjoying watching such a performance. Cycling is a tough sport and to reach those kind of heights does take a dedication and effort that most cannot imagine, doped or not.0 -
mike6 wrote:I hate Armstrong as a cyclist because he always said when asked about doping "Never tested positive". And he didnt, well he did but it was buried and made to go away. So the reason I hate him is the fact that any wanabee cycling expert, on the internet, can cast doubts about ANY rider and say "Well just because they have not tested positive does not mean they are not doping, look at Armstrong". Arrrrggggghhhhhh. Nurse. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
He cheated and lied about it. The two DO go together. It's not a case of one or the other. Everybody who cheats lies about it. LA is no different from the rest. 0
