Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped

1…4142444647…239

Comments

  • petemadoc
    petemadoc Posts: 2,331
    Will Lance be prosecuted for perjury?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19921705

    @FF loving the quote from "its not about the bike"
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    Millar calls for Verbruggen's resignation...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... esign.html

    Basically, Pat, throw Hein under the (Postal) bus...

    Those who want the heads of both HV and PM won't like it but quite smart in a way: huge twat though PM is, HV is the biggest villain, and it gives PM a lifeline - otherwise he has no incentive other than to fight like mad with HV
  • oneof1982
    oneof1982 Posts: 703
    In my experience of business life there's a big difference between lawyers "deciding" and lawyers "advising". My point with McQuaid's comment was his reference to what the lawyers "decide". The Board should "decide" based on lawyers "advice". Maybe nothing.....but let's wait and see what kind of response they make.
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,553
    Tom Butcher wrote:
    A few years back at least one person on here linked Cuddles to Ferrari - I can't remember the details or how strong a link it was so I'm not saying it's anything suspicious - anyone remember the details ?

    He was tested once by Ferrari when he was at Saeco as I recall. Evans moved to Mapei shortly afterwards where he was coached by Sassi, a relationship that continued until the latter's death.

    Ferrari published something about it on his 53x12 website after Evans won the Tour, presumably to claim some credit.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    oneof1982 wrote:

    So we can expect a "legal" rather than a moral response.

    I think we all know that legal responces will help your "case" a whole lot more than moral ones will. Once again this is a case of YOU wanting him to say what you've decided YOU want to hear. Most likely not gonna happen. You don't count in his way of thinking.
  • Crawlinguphills
    Crawlinguphills Posts: 95
    Wallace1492 wrote:
    Slim Boy Fat wrote:
    Wallace1492 wrote:
    Slim Boy Fat wrote:
    Wallace1492 wrote:
    Slim Boy Fat wrote:
    reallyarunner wrote:
    Nike backing Armstrong.... unbelievable.....
    Unbelievable how big business will ignore morals if its good for their balance sheet. Woods, Vick and now Armstrong, quite a ménage a trois right there.

    WOODS? FFS He did nothing illegal, he never gained an unfail illegal advantage at his sport. So, he played away, but what has that to do with his sporting prowess or backing from sponsors?
    Where did I say he did anything illegal?

    You didn't, and I never said you did. Just making the pont that the cases are hugely different. Systemic doping and drug cheating is vastly different from having a few affairs away from the sport.
    I was talking about morals and many people, me included, find what they both did morally reprehensible. Woods built his image as a clean cut athlete and Nike promoted him as such, the truth is something far removed from that both in terms of his on course behaviour and his personal life, that to me is also cheating. However, I wasn't comparing the two I was making the point that big business still backs these people because they know it makes them money.

    Not disagreeing with you. Though in the case of Woods, he has a very strong, winning personality, rather like Lance. However, I don't believe that Woods is a sporting cheat. Big business backs them as they make money, yes, but that relies on public support. If the public turned against this backing, it would soon change, $ and £ speak quite loudly.

    Just thought I would stick my oar in on the Woods issue, as I was on the business side of golf for many years. Firstly I would like to pre-empt this by saying that everything around Woods is alleged, rumour and I know nothing as fact.

    However the parrallels to me between Woods and Armstrong are uncanny. Now with successful people there will always be a level of resentment so read this with that in mind.

    1) Both characters are obsessive in a way that goes beyond your average athlete, and can be extremely un-healthy. Every single thing around them has to be controlled and if its not, all hell breaks loose. Both have violent tempers which are brilliantly hidden from the public. Both find it extremely difficult to inter-act with people, and do so in a very 'taught manner.' Both bring people into their inner circles and are 'best friends' with them for short periods of time before moving them on. However each has one or two long term mainstays.

    2) Both are universally disliked inside the sport, yet are never really taken on, as they are also greatly feared and do have the ability to 'drum people out.' In the same way that the UCI wont take LA on, the USPGA will never take Tiger on, as they are/were the big draws.

    3) Both have links to extremely questionable doctors who specialise in 'blood'. Obviously Ferrari for LA and Tony Galea for Woods.
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    I think people may be respecting Millar a lot more now. Was able to tackle the issue, come back and create a great career for himself. Not afraid to speak out. Strong character to do that. Braveheart; Scottish warrior blood, hit em with the Claymore sword.
    Contador is the Greatest
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    frenchfighter wrote:
    Here you go...

    postal99.jpg

    I feel very sorry for those young riders who were intimidated into taking the drugs. Sure it was their choice, but damn those who forced them.
    I think the key words in your post are "Sure it was their choice". I also don't recall hearing anyone say "...but mom, he twisted my arm and made me do it". We are talking about grown men here who did all this on a strictly voluntary basis. They all had a choice. In the end it was not a good choice that they made. "forced?" I think not.
  • oneof1982
    oneof1982 Posts: 703
    dennisn wrote:
    oneof1982 wrote:

    So we can expect a "legal" rather than a moral response.

    I think we all know that legal responces will help your "case" a whole lot more than moral ones will. Once again this is a case of YOU wanting him to say what you've decided YOU want to hear. Most likely not gonna happen. You don't count in his way of thinking.

    Of course it is. I'm one of us, not one of them. :shock:
  • k-dog
    k-dog Posts: 1,652
    Crawlinguphills wrote:
    Wallace1492 wrote:
    Slim Boy Fat wrote:
    Wallace1492 wrote:
    Slim Boy Fat wrote:
    Wallace1492 wrote:
    Slim Boy Fat wrote:
    reallyarunner wrote:
    Nike backing Armstrong.... unbelievable.....
    Unbelievable how big business will ignore morals if its good for their balance sheet. Woods, Vick and now Armstrong, quite a ménage a trois right there.

    WOODS? FFS He did nothing illegal, he never gained an unfail illegal advantage at his sport. So, he played away, but what has that to do with his sporting prowess or backing from sponsors?
    Where did I say he did anything illegal?

    You didn't, and I never said you did. Just making the pont that the cases are hugely different. Systemic doping and drug cheating is vastly different from having a few affairs away from the sport.
    I was talking about morals and many people, me included, find what they both did morally reprehensible. Woods built his image as a clean cut athlete and Nike promoted him as such, the truth is something far removed from that both in terms of his on course behaviour and his personal life, that to me is also cheating. However, I wasn't comparing the two I was making the point that big business still backs these people because they know it makes them money.

    Not disagreeing with you. Though in the case of Woods, he has a very strong, winning personality, rather like Lance. However, I don't believe that Woods is a sporting cheat. Big business backs them as they make money, yes, but that relies on public support. If the public turned against this backing, it would soon change, $ and £ speak quite loudly.

    Just thought I would stick my oar in on the Woods issue, as I was on the business side of golf for many years. Firstly I would like to pre-empt this by saying that everything around Woods is alleged, rumour and I know nothing as fact.

    However the parrallels to me between Woods and Armstrong are uncanny. Now with successful people there will always be a level of resentment so read this with that in mind.

    1) Both characters are obsessive in a way that goes beyond your average athlete, and can be extremely un-healthy. Every single thing around them has to be controlled and if its not, all hell breaks loose. Both have violent tempers which are brilliantly hidden from the public. Both find it extremely difficult to inter-act with people, and do so in a very 'taught manner.' Both bring people into their inner circles and are 'best friends' with them for short periods of time before moving them on. However each has one or two long term mainstays.

    2) Both are universally disliked inside the sport, yet are never really taken on, as they are also greatly feared and do have the ability to 'drum people out.' In the same way that the UCI wont take LA on, the USPGA will never take Tiger on, as they are/were the big draws.

    3) Both have links to extremely questionable doctors who specialise in 'blood'. Obviously Ferrari for LA and Tony Galea for Woods.

    You can probably add Michael Jordan to that list too - a very similar character IMO. A magnificent athlete and competitor - but clearly a bully and there's all sorts of stuff coming out now about his compulsive gambling and associating with knows gangsters etc.
    I'm left handed, if that matters.
  • MrTapir
    MrTapir Posts: 1,206
    Crawlinguphills wrote:
    Wallace1492 wrote:
    Slim Boy Fat wrote:
    Wallace1492 wrote:
    Slim Boy Fat wrote:
    Wallace1492 wrote:
    Slim Boy Fat wrote:
    reallyarunner wrote:
    Nike backing Armstrong.... unbelievable.....
    Unbelievable how big business will ignore morals if its good for their balance sheet. Woods, Vick and now Armstrong, quite a ménage a trois right there.

    WOODS? FFS He did nothing illegal, he never gained an unfail illegal advantage at his sport. So, he played away, but what has that to do with his sporting prowess or backing from sponsors?
    Where did I say he did anything illegal?

    You didn't, and I never said you did. Just making the pont that the cases are hugely different. Systemic doping and drug cheating is vastly different from having a few affairs away from the sport.
    I was talking about morals and many people, me included, find what they both did morally reprehensible. Woods built his image as a clean cut athlete and Nike promoted him as such, the truth is something far removed from that both in terms of his on course behaviour and his personal life, that to me is also cheating. However, I wasn't comparing the two I was making the point that big business still backs these people because they know it makes them money.

    Not disagreeing with you. Though in the case of Woods, he has a very strong, winning personality, rather like Lance. However, I don't believe that Woods is a sporting cheat. Big business backs them as they make money, yes, but that relies on public support. If the public turned against this backing, it would soon change, $ and £ speak quite loudly.

    Just thought I would stick my oar in on the Woods issue, as I was on the business side of golf for many years. Firstly I would like to pre-empt this by saying that everything around Woods is alleged, rumour and I know nothing as fact.

    However the parrallels to me between Woods and Armstrong are uncanny. Now with successful people there will always be a level of resentment so read this with that in mind.

    1) Both characters are obsessive in a way that goes beyond your average athlete, and can be extremely un-healthy. Every single thing around them has to be controlled and if its not, all hell breaks loose. Both have violent tempers which are brilliantly hidden from the public. Both find it extremely difficult to inter-act with people, and do so in a very 'taught manner.' Both bring people into their inner circles and are 'best friends' with them for short periods of time before moving them on. However each has one or two long term mainstays.

    2) Both are universally disliked inside the sport, yet are never really taken on, as they are also greatly feared and do have the ability to 'drum people out.' In the same way that the UCI wont take LA on, the USPGA will never take Tiger on, as they are/were the big draws.

    3) Both have links to extremely questionable doctors who specialise in 'blood'. Obviously Ferrari for LA and Tony Galea for Woods.

    The possibiility of a doping scandal in golf is rather amusing
  • Crawlinguphills
    Crawlinguphills Posts: 95
    MrTapir wrote:
    Crawlinguphills wrote:
    Wallace1492 wrote:
    Slim Boy Fat wrote:
    Wallace1492 wrote:
    Slim Boy Fat wrote:
    Wallace1492 wrote:
    Slim Boy Fat wrote:
    reallyarunner wrote:
    Nike backing Armstrong.... unbelievable.....
    Unbelievable how big business will ignore morals if its good for their balance sheet. Woods, Vick and now Armstrong, quite a ménage a trois right there.

    WOODS? FFS He did nothing illegal, he never gained an unfail illegal advantage at his sport. So, he played away, but what has that to do with his sporting prowess or backing from sponsors?
    Where did I say he did anything illegal?

    You didn't, and I never said you did. Just making the pont that the cases are hugely different. Systemic doping and drug cheating is vastly different from having a few affairs away from the sport.
    I was talking about morals and many people, me included, find what they both did morally reprehensible. Woods built his image as a clean cut athlete and Nike promoted him as such, the truth is something far removed from that both in terms of his on course behaviour and his personal life, that to me is also cheating. However, I wasn't comparing the two I was making the point that big business still backs these people because they know it makes them money.

    Not disagreeing with you. Though in the case of Woods, he has a very strong, winning personality, rather like Lance. However, I don't believe that Woods is a sporting cheat. Big business backs them as they make money, yes, but that relies on public support. If the public turned against this backing, it would soon change, $ and £ speak quite loudly.

    Just thought I would stick my oar in on the Woods issue, as I was on the business side of golf for many years. Firstly I would like to pre-empt this by saying that everything around Woods is alleged, rumour and I know nothing as fact.

    However the parrallels to me between Woods and Armstrong are uncanny. Now with successful people there will always be a level of resentment so read this with that in mind.

    1) Both characters are obsessive in a way that goes beyond your average athlete, and can be extremely un-healthy. Every single thing around them has to be controlled and if its not, all hell breaks loose. Both have violent tempers which are brilliantly hidden from the public. Both find it extremely difficult to inter-act with people, and do so in a very 'taught manner.' Both bring people into their inner circles and are 'best friends' with them for short periods of time before moving them on. However each has one or two long term mainstays.

    2) Both are universally disliked inside the sport, yet are never really taken on, as they are also greatly feared and do have the ability to 'drum people out.' In the same way that the UCI wont take LA on, the USPGA will never take Tiger on, as they are/were the big draws.

    3) Both have links to extremely questionable doctors who specialise in 'blood'. Obviously Ferrari for LA and Tony Galea for Woods.

    The possibiility of a doping scandal in golf is rather amusing

    It is quite funny in the respect that since drug testing was introduced to golf there has only been one (to my knowledge) ban or failed test, and that was for weed. Now how on earth weed would help you with golf is anyone guess but there you go.

    However, with Woods you have a slightly different scenario. He was the first to REALLY apply sports science to his game. So he built the muscles that aided his swing, and reduced the muscles that would affect his turn etc. As a result he created one of the most effective swings (wasnt a pretty swing, just effective) the games ever seen and left everyone else for dead. If you are constantly looking for improvement, no matter how small, it is not a small jump from there to blood doping. Something like human growth hormone would greatly help. I am of course, not stating this as anything other than hypothetical.
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    Has Wiggins corrected his mistake of forgetting he rode the Tour with Wiggins?

    tumblr_mbrrozHddR1qca3d4o1_500.jpg

    The other qusetion is what happens to the people who have collected memorbillia from him? I reckon Lance should buy it off them at value.
    Contador is the Greatest
  • timoid.
    timoid. Posts: 3,133
    dennisn wrote:
    frenchfighter wrote:
    Here you go...

    postal99.jpg

    I feel very sorry for those young riders who were intimidated into taking the drugs. Sure it was their choice, but damn those who forced them.
    I think the key words in your post are "Sure it was their choice". I also don't recall hearing anyone say "...but mom, he twisted my arm and made me do it". We are talking about grown men here who did all this on a strictly voluntary basis. They all had a choice. In the end it was not a good choice that they made. "forced?" I think not.

    It's not much of a choice though is it? You can

    A) Give up everything you've dedicated your life to, made sacrifices for and pack up and go home - Bruyneel threatened Zabriske (read his affidavit btw) with the sack if he didn't get on the programme.
    B) Leave the team and try and find another clean one. Unlikely if you keep silent, impossible if you speak out.
    C) Dope

    As someone (and I may be doing you a disservice here) who has never been anywhere near the level of a pro sports star and has no idea of the singlemindedness and dedication that involves you have absolutely no idea what it would be like to be faced with the thought of giving up your dreams.
    It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    tumblr_mbqthmZCuv1qcqye1o1_500.png
    Contador is the Greatest
  • Gazzetta67
    Gazzetta67 Posts: 1,890
    frenchfighter wrote:
    Has Wiggins corrected his mistake of forgetting he rode the Tour with Wiggins?

    tumblr_mbrrozHddR1qca3d4o1_500.jpg

    The other qusetion is what happens to the people who have collected memorbillia from him? I reckon Lance should buy it off them at value.

    Armstrong brought us Black socks that itself should be a concern to uASDA 8)
  • Coach H
    Coach H Posts: 1,092
    MrTapir wrote:
    Crawlinguphills wrote:
    Wallace1492 wrote:
    Slim Boy Fat wrote:
    Wallace1492 wrote:
    Slim Boy Fat wrote:
    Wallace1492 wrote:
    Slim Boy Fat wrote:
    reallyarunner wrote:
    Nike backing Armstrong.... unbelievable.....
    Unbelievable how big business will ignore morals if its good for their balance sheet. Woods, Vick and now Armstrong, quite a ménage a trois right there.

    WOODS? FFS He did nothing illegal, he never gained an unfail illegal advantage at his sport. So, he played away, but what has that to do with his sporting prowess or backing from sponsors?
    Where did I say he did anything illegal?

    You didn't, and I never said you did. Just making the pont that the cases are hugely different. Systemic doping and drug cheating is vastly different from having a few affairs away from the sport.
    I was talking about morals and many people, me included, find what they both did morally reprehensible. Woods built his image as a clean cut athlete and Nike promoted him as such, the truth is something far removed from that both in terms of his on course behaviour and his personal life, that to me is also cheating. However, I wasn't comparing the two I was making the point that big business still backs these people because they know it makes them money.

    Not disagreeing with you. Though in the case of Woods, he has a very strong, winning personality, rather like Lance. However, I don't believe that Woods is a sporting cheat. Big business backs them as they make money, yes, but that relies on public support. If the public turned against this backing, it would soon change, $ and £ speak quite loudly.

    Just thought I would stick my oar in on the Woods issue, as I was on the business side of golf for many years. Firstly I would like to pre-empt this by saying that everything around Woods is alleged, rumour and I know nothing as fact.

    However the parrallels to me between Woods and Armstrong are uncanny. Now with successful people there will always be a level of resentment so read this with that in mind.

    1) Both characters are obsessive in a way that goes beyond your average athlete, and can be extremely un-healthy. Every single thing around them has to be controlled and if its not, all hell breaks loose. Both have violent tempers which are brilliantly hidden from the public. Both find it extremely difficult to inter-act with people, and do so in a very 'taught manner.' Both bring people into their inner circles and are 'best friends' with them for short periods of time before moving them on. However each has one or two long term mainstays.

    2) Both are universally disliked inside the sport, yet are never really taken on, as they are also greatly feared and do have the ability to 'drum people out.' In the same way that the UCI wont take LA on, the USPGA will never take Tiger on, as they are/were the big draws.

    3) Both have links to extremely questionable doctors who specialise in 'blood'. Obviously Ferrari for LA and Tony Galea for Woods.

    The possibiility of a doping scandal in golf is rather amusing

    I could be completely wrong here, but was there not an issue sourounding David Duval and his spectacular rise and decline?

    And don't forget the beta-blockers scandals in snooker and darts........and they are not really sports, mearly games for people who can't be arsed to leave the pub :lol:
    Coach H. (Dont ask me for training advice - 'It's not about the bike')
  • Coach H
    Coach H Posts: 1,092
    Gazzetta67 wrote:
    frenchfighter wrote:
    Has Wiggins corrected his mistake of forgetting he rode the Tour with Wiggins?

    tumblr_mbrrozHddR1qca3d4o1_500.jpg

    The other qusetion is what happens to the people who have collected memorbillia from him? I reckon Lance should buy it off them at value.

    Armstrong brought us Black socks that itself should be a concern to uASDA 8)

    I can confidently state that I have never doped (apart from the odd puff of Salbutamol :D ) and wore black socks for cycling before I had even heard of Armstrong. Back then I aspired to be the English Pedro Delgado, a paragon of virt........no hang on this is not going as I planned!!
    Coach H. (Dont ask me for training advice - 'It's not about the bike')
  • natrix
    natrix Posts: 1,111
    frenchfighter wrote:
    Has Wiggins corrected his mistake of forgetting he rode the Tour with Wiggins?

    Wiggins rode the tour with Wiggins?? Does EPO give you a dual personality?
    ~~~~~~Sustrans - Join the Movement~~~~~~
  • timoid.
    timoid. Posts: 3,133
    natrix wrote:
    frenchfighter wrote:
    Has Wiggins corrected his mistake of forgetting he rode the Tour with Wiggins?

    Wiggins rode the tour with Wiggins?? Does EPO give you a dual personality?

    I think he's confusing him with Tyler Hamilton.
    It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.
  • Crawlinguphills
    Crawlinguphills Posts: 95
    Timoid. wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    frenchfighter wrote:
    Here you go...

    postal99.jpg

    I feel very sorry for those young riders who were intimidated into taking the drugs. Sure it was their choice, but damn those who forced them.
    I think the key words in your post are "Sure it was their choice". I also don't recall hearing anyone say "...but mom, he twisted my arm and made me do it". We are talking about grown men here who did all this on a strictly voluntary basis. They all had a choice. In the end it was not a good choice that they made. "forced?" I think not.

    It's not much of a choice though is it? You can

    A) Give up everything you've dedicated your life to, made sacrifices for and pack up and go home - Bruyneel threatened Zabriske (read his affidavit btw) with the sack if he didn't get on the programme.
    B) Leave the team and try and find another clean one. Unlikely if you keep silent, impossible if you speak out.
    C) Dope

    As someone (and I may be doing you a disservice here) who has never been anywhere near the level of a pro sports star and has no idea of the singlemindedness and dedication that involves you have absolutely no idea what it would be like to be faced with the thought of giving up your dreams.

    Couple of points I'd like to just throw out there. Firstly I cant even begin to imagine what it is like to work your entire young life for a goal, achieve it, join a pro team and then suddenly face the dilemma of 'dope or you're out.' It is disgusting, and the people who condoned it and pushed it, should in my view be put in jail.

    However I have worked around professional athletes for the last 10 years of my life, and been around professional athletes since I was young. In 90% of cases at some stage during their career they have had an opportunity to take PED's. In almost all cases (to my knowledge) they said no. Whilst it is a vile position to be put in, I dont buy this 'peer pressure' bull. If you think its wrong, dont do it. Even if it means walking away. If I was in a job, even a job I loved and I got pressured to do something that would involve me lying and cheating while causing potential harm to myself I would be out of the door like a shot. I like to believe that is because I have a strong moral compass, and to an extent, I was once placed in a position where this was tested in work, and I refused. So I dont believe that it excuses the riders to say 'we're were forced into it' and 'everyone else was doing it.' This was not a playground, they were not kids.

    Unless someone can provide me evidence of a gun being placed to their temple, I hold them fully accountable.

    Oh, and the best way to get rid of doping? If you get busted, you go to jail for six months. That would make them think twice. As far as I see it they are being paid a salary and prize money to ride a bike clean. If they dont do this, in my mind its fraud. Many may find this all a bit ott, but I am very disappointed with the latest revelations. Now all I am thinking is 'Are BC clean?' and I hate that.
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    natrix wrote:
    frenchfighter wrote:
    Has Wiggins corrected his mistake of forgetting he rode the Tour with Wiggins?

    Wiggins rode the tour with Wiggins?? Does EPO give you a dual personality?


    I think its being assumed that what he meant was that he didnt ride against Armstrong in any of the 99-05 Tours...
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    MrTapir wrote:

    The possibiility of a doping scandal in golf is rather amusing

    Not really. I take what's called a beta blocker for my high blood pressure and it is banned from use in professional pool / billiards because of it's "calming" effect(for lack of better words). I would guess it might also be banned in pro golf, as being able to stay calm and not cave in to pressure is very useful in that sport.
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    frenchfighter wrote:
    I think people may be respecting Millar a lot more now. Was able to tackle the issue, come back and create a great career for himself. Not afraid to speak out. Strong character to do that. Braveheart; Scottish warrior blood, hit em with the Claymore sword.

    FF, are you going to be breaking into a rousing chorus of 'Flower of Scotland' soon? :lol:
  • meagain
    meagain Posts: 2,331
    The only thing tha surprises me about this whole much-ado-about-nowt is the (phony in most cases) SURPRISE! Whoever thought that LA was clean was living in cloud cuckoo land. How could he possibly have out-ridden a super-doped Marco if not on at least level terms?

    As for
    "As someone (and I may be doing you a disservice here) who has never been anywhere near the level of a pro sports star and has no idea of the singlemindedness and dedication that involves you have absolutely no idea what it would be like to be faced with the thought of giving up your dreams.

    User avatar
    Timoid."

    Pro sports is only one of many professions where one has to decide whether to sacrifice ones dreams or ones moral beliefs and principles. Pro cyclists may not in general be overly endowed with intelligence but I'm sure they understood the choice before them - cheat and succeed or ...not. Some give up their dreams, many just "compromise" enough to feed their kids. it's called life.
    d.j.
    "Cancel my subscription to the resurrection."
  • Lichtblick
    Lichtblick Posts: 1,434
    Wiki was changed earlier, allegedly (......cheated to win seven titles, etc.). If that was true, it's changed back again. :roll:

    Bruyneel. Is he still going to contest this, I wonder.

    FBI may re-open their case in view of WASDA file. Is Perjury a jailable offence in USA?
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    natrix wrote:
    frenchfighter wrote:
    Has Wiggins corrected his mistake of forgetting he rode the Tour with Wiggins?

    Wiggins rode the tour with Wiggins?? Does EPO give you a dual personality?


    I think its being assumed that what he meant was that he didnt ride against Armstrong in any of the 99-05 Tours...

    Ah, makes sense.
    Contador is the Greatest
  • disgruntledgoat
    disgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    frenchfighter wrote:
    I think people may be respecting Millar a lot more now. Was able to tackle the issue, come back and create a great career for himself. Not afraid to speak out. Strong character to do that. Braveheart; Scottish warrior blood, hit em with the Claymore sword.

    FF, are you going to be breaking into a rousing chorus of 'Flower of Scotland' soon? :lol:

    Especially funny as Millar is about as Scottish as me (IE lived there for a bit).
    "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'"

    @gietvangent
  • Crawlinguphills
    Crawlinguphills Posts: 95
    meagain wrote:
    The only thing tha surprises me about this whole much-ado-about-nowt is the (phony in most cases) SURPRISE! Whoever thought that LA was clean was living in cloud cuckoo land. How could he possibly have out-ridden a super-doped Marco if not on at least level terms?

    As for
    "As someone (and I may be doing you a disservice here) who has never been anywhere near the level of a pro sports star and has no idea of the singlemindedness and dedication that involves you have absolutely no idea what it would be like to be faced with the thought of giving up your dreams.

    User avatar
    Timoid."

    Pro sports is only one of many professions where one has to decide whether to sacrifice ones dreams or ones moral beliefs and principles. Pro cyclists may not in general be overly endowed with intelligence but I'm sure they understood the choice before them - cheat and succeed or ...not. Some give up their dreams, many just "compromise" enough to feed their kids. it's called life.

    Whilst I agree with many of your points meagain, I am not sure what we are talking about here is compromise. As you have quite rightly stated, many of us in work compromise our moral belief systems in order to earn our salary. I for instance once pitched for the business of a sports organisation that I loathed due to some of their practices (none of which were illegal, just extremely hard line) that to me was a compromise. What we are discussing here is making the choice to SMASH beliefs and principles. Quite honestly how did they compromise? They entered knowingly into a program that broke every rule going, thats not a compromise, thats capitulation. I am also baffled by this argument they keep coming out with 'I know that had I competed clean I was never going to be successful'. How could they take any success by doing it through cheating, it surely would mean nothing?
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    RSNT may well fire Joahn today:

    http://sport.rtl.lu/cyclissem/news/328163.html
    Contador is the Greatest

Categories