Hamilton's autobiography *spoilers*

ratherbeintobago

Not showing in the Kindle store at the moment.

It's been pulled, disappointingly. More disappointingly as an Amazon UK customer, I can't order from the US store.

Edit - found it

Andy

disgruntledgoat

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Before adding

I did not cross the bridge

Is he inferring Riis offered him passage across the bridge?

That's how I read it.

timoid.

Wow. Interesting stuff. Arvesen talking like many more should be. I think the Sastre comment is more lost in translation than anything else. Arvesen's comments are more telling.

Personally I do think Tyler is telling the truth and using this as a form of therapy. I can't see why he'd invent things like the Riis accusation. Yes, he stands to make money, but this is the first time someone has really pulled away the veil that shrouds doping in cycling.

Richmond Racer

I think David Millar did start it with his book last year, but was held back by both UK libel laws and also the fact that he's still a rider

rick_chasey

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Before adding

I did not cross the bridge

Is he inferring Riis offered him passage across the bridge?

That's how I read it.

S'not how I did.

Lichtblick

Timoid. wrote:

Wow. Interesting stuff. Arvesen talking like many more should be. I think the Sastre comment is more lost in translation than anything else. Arvesen's comments are more telling.

I've clicked on a few links but can't find those riders' comments. Which link, please?

timoid.

Lichtblick wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

Wow. Interesting stuff. Arvesen talking like many more should be. I think the Sastre comment is more lost in translation than anything else. Arvesen's comments are more telling.

I've clicked on a few links but can't find those riders' comments. Which link, please?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/arvesen ... csc-doubts

slim_boy_fat

ratherbeintobago wrote:

Not showing in the Kindle store at the moment.

It's been pulled, disappointingly. More disappointingly as an Amazon UK customer, I can't order from the US store.

Edit - found it

Andy

Thanks. Weird that it has the whole 'tell the publisher you want this title to appear on Kindle' blurb on the hardback page.

graeme_s-2

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Before adding

I did not cross the bridge

Is he inferring Riis offered him passage across the bridge?

Cycling News wrote:

“In the end, it was Hamilton who took the chance,” he told sporten.dk. “It’s not Bjarne’s fault, it’s Hamilton’s fault. If I told you that you had to jump off a bridge, would you do it?”

Asked if Riis had ever introduced him to Fuentes, Sastre said, “I did not go over the bridge.”

Sastre went on to say that he did not know Fuentes and that Riis had never spoken to him of Fuentes.

I'm also going with lost in translation. He seems to be implying one thing, and then out right denies it.

disgruntledgoat

I think arguing over the inent behind two sentances uttered by a bloke we've never met is going to be unenlightneing.

slim_boy_fat

Graeme_S wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Before adding

I did not cross the bridge

Is he inferring Riis offered him passage across the bridge?

Cycling News wrote:

“In the end, it was Hamilton who took the chance,” he told sporten.dk. “It’s not Bjarne’s fault, it’s Hamilton’s fault. If I told you that you had to jump off a bridge, would you do it?”

Asked if Riis had ever introduced him to Fuentes, Sastre said, “I did not go over the bridge.”

Sastre went on to say that he did not know Fuentes and that Riis had never spoken to him of Fuentes.

I'm also going with lost in translation. He seems to be implying one thing, and then out right denies it.

Probably translation then. Didn't actually see the last sentence. Weird that they didn't put it in quotation marks.

Lichtblick

I'm looking forward to reading this book and will order it as soon as it's discounted.

As I see it, Armstrong would still have everyone believe that he rode and won seven tours in a row, clean. This despite so many (dozens?) of other riders having been banned for drugs or for association with druggers, all riding alongside him in those seven Tours. They were all doing drugs but Oh No, Not him.

Why does he still deny?

An alternative POV put to me here by someone else, is that if it is accepted that they were all doing drugs those seven years, then yes, he did win. All on drugs = level playing field. His drugs were better than theirs, his worked, so, he won. (well, it's a point, of sorts..........)

Lichtblick

Timoid. wrote:

Lichtblick wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

Wow. Interesting stuff. Arvesen talking like many more should be. I think the Sastre comment is more lost in translation than anything else. Arvesen's comments are more telling.

I've clicked on a few links but can't find those riders' comments. Which link, please?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/arvesen ... csc-doubts

Thank you. I always liked KAA and CSC were one of my favourite teams.

skylla

Lichtblick wrote:

I'm looking forward to reading this book and will order it as soon as it's discounted.

As I see it, Armstrong would still have everyone believe that he rode and won seven tours in a row, clean. This despite so many (dozens?) of other riders having been banned for drugs or for association with druggers, all riding alongside him in those seven Tours. They were all doing drugs but Oh No, Not him.

Why does he still deny?

An alternative POV put to me here by someone else, is that if it is accepted that they were all doing drugs those seven years, then yes, he did win. All on drugs = level playing field. His drugs were better than theirs, his worked, so, he won. (well, it's a point, of sorts..........)

IT IS NOT A LEVEL FIELD! sigh.

bompington

skylla wrote:

IT IS NOT A LEVEL FIELD! sigh.

No, it's not, and when was it ever? All the stuff about "super-responders" is just another stick to beat Armstrong with, isn't it? He'd be a nobody without the drugs, so we can look down on him all the more, right?
It's not a level playing field, if it was then I wouldn't have a greater genetic predisposition to eat biscuits than BW, so I'd be the TdF champ.

slim_boy_fat

bompington wrote:

skylla wrote:

IT IS NOT A LEVEL FIELD! sigh.

No, it's not, and when was it ever? All the stuff about "super-responders" is just another stick to beat Armstrong with, isn't it? He'd be a nobody without the drugs, so we can look down on him all the more, right?
It's not a level playing field, if it was then I wouldn't have a greater genetic predisposition to eat biscuits than BW, so I'd be the TdF champ.

I don't see it as another stick to beat Armstrong with. Just a counter to those who say 'well doping is ok cause everyone was at it'.

frenchfighter

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/jor ... lled-bella

LangerDan

Jaksche - "I asked if it was ethically okay to name my blood bags after my deceased dogs and he said ‘yes, it’s okay’"

Jesus wept. Nice to know that Jaksche and Fuentes have such finely tuned ethical sensitivities

slim_boy_fat

LangerDan wrote:

Jaksche - "I asked if it was ethically okay to name my blood bags after my deceased dogs and he said ‘yes, it’s okay’"

Jesus wept. Nice to know that Jaksche and Fuentes have such finely tuned ethical sensitivities

I'm not sure how the irony of asking that considering what they were doing didn't hit them so hard they ended up on their backs!

skylla

bompington wrote:

skylla wrote:

IT IS NOT A LEVEL FIELD! sigh.

No, it's not, and when was it ever? All the stuff about "super-responders" is just another stick to beat Armstrong with, isn't it? He'd be a nobody without the drugs, so we can look down on him all the more, right?
It's not a level playing field, if it was then I wouldn't have a greater genetic predisposition to eat biscuits than BW, so I'd be the TdF champ.

Apart from the fact that biscuit intake is not regulated? It's so simple even you should understand.

timoid.

LangerDan wrote:

Jaksche - "I asked if it was ethically okay to name my blood bags after my deceased dogs and he said ‘yes, it’s okay’"

Jesus wept. Nice to know that Jaksche and Fuentes have such finely tuned ethical sensitivities

Now this is a more damning statement of Riis:

I didn’t want people like Bjarne Riis pointing the finger at me and telling the public how clean everyone on his team was clean. I didn’t want to live that lie and didn’t want to live with the hypocrisy.”

I really hope more and more people speak out frankly. A little more water and the dam could burst.

bompington

skylla wrote:

bompington wrote:

skylla wrote:

IT IS NOT A LEVEL FIELD! sigh.

No, it's not, and when was it ever? All the stuff about "super-responders" is just another stick to beat Armstrong with, isn't it? He'd be a nobody without the drugs, so we can look down on him all the more, right?
It's not a level playing field, if it was then I wouldn't have a greater genetic predisposition to eat biscuits than BW, so I'd be the TdF champ.

Apart from the fact that biscuit intake is not regulated? It's so simple even you should understand.

Obviously I'm too dim to have remembered to make it clear for the hard of thinking what anyone who had seen any of my recent posts on the subject would have read - that Armstrong is a stinking drug cheat & has behaved far worse than the rest of the stinking drug cheats, and that I would certainly like to see PEDs removed from sport entirely.
But it still just seems to me, in my dimness, that some of the LA-haters would like to use any and every piece of evidence to show that he is a) the devil incarnate, and only ever has nefarious motives, and b) not a very good cyclist at all, in fact probably not a cyclist at all, if he wasn't on drugs. I just find this obsession a bit petty, that's all I was saying.

rozzer32

The only thing that gets me is that Hamilton says how easy it is to avoid detection in the tests.

If that is the case then how many riders today are on the drugs. Makes you wonder.

skylla

bompington wrote:

Obviously I'm too dim to have remembered to make it clear for the hard of thinking what anyone who had seen any of my recent posts on the subject would have read - that Armstrong is a stinking drug cheat & has behaved far worse than the rest of the stinking drug cheats, and that I would certainly like to see PEDs removed from sport entirely.
But it still just seems to me, in my dimness, that some of the LA-haters would like to use any and every piece of evidence to show that he is a) the devil incarnate, and only ever has nefarious motives, and b) not a very good cyclist at all, in fact probably not a cyclist at all, if he wasn't on drugs. I just find this obsession a bit petty, that's all I was saying.

So dim you didn't even notice I never mentioned LA. What an obsession, eh?! So if that's all you were saying, why not say it right from the start that your own "obsession is a bit petty". Put it in your sig, I say!

So, again what I said was that if all contenders in a race turn to PEDs it does not create a level playing field, or for the pedantic among you: the field with PEDs is not the same as the field without. Simples.

Lichtblick

To bompington and skylla, It wasn't my theory/idea, as I said:

An alternative POV put to me here by someone else.....

I'm always glad when someone else at work has sufficient interest to have conversations about Pro Cycling.
They could hardly not know how interested I am, since the Tour, the Olympics, and the Vuelta have all been on this computer in this office this year. (with sound muted )

skylla

Lichtblick wrote:

To bompington and skylla, It wasn't my theory/idea, as I said:

An alternative POV put to me here by someone else.....

I'm always glad when someone else at work has sufficient interest to have conversations about Pro Cycling.
They could hardly not know how interested I am, since the Tour, the Olympics, and the Vuelta have all been on this computer in this office this year. (with sound muted )

I know, you're absolved. So tell them it does not create a level playing field - for a few reasons more than that were mentioned above, but that's for another day or thread.

RichN95.

Lichtblick wrote:

To bompington and skylla, It wasn't my theory/idea, as I said:

An alternative POV put to me here by someone else.....

I'm always glad when someone else at work has sufficient interest to have conversations about Pro Cycling.
They could hardly not know how interested I am, since the Tour, the Olympics, and the Vuelta have all been on this computer in this office this year. (with sound muted )

I think that someone else was me. My view is that if everyone is cheating then the ability of an athlete to respond favourably to drugs just becomes another physical attribute - no difference to lung capacity or body shape. So in a 100% dirty sport, assuming no-one has access to magic beans, the playing field is a level as it is in a 100% clean field. A better doctor becomes no different than a better coach. And saying someone is successful just because they are a better responder is no different than saying they only won because they had bigger lungs.

'Better Responder' has become a get-out clause which permits people to demonize one doper (typically Armstrong) while still remaining fond of others (Pantani & Ullrich are favourites here). Some may even use it to portray their favourite doper as a victim. In reality they are all cheats, so don't complain that another cheat turned out to be a better cheat that your pet cheat.

calvjones

RichN95 wrote:

Lichtblick wrote:

To bompington and skylla, It wasn't my theory/idea, as I said:

An alternative POV put to me here by someone else.....

I'm always glad when someone else at work has sufficient interest to have conversations about Pro Cycling.
They could hardly not know how interested I am, since the Tour, the Olympics, and the Vuelta have all been on this computer in this office this year. (with sound muted )

I think that someone else was me. My view is that if everyone is cheating then the ability of an athlete to respond favourably to drugs just becomes another physical attribute - no difference to lung capacity or body shape. So in a 100% dirty sport, assuming no-one has access to magic beans, the playing field is a level as it is in a 100% clean field. A better doctor becomes no different than a better coach. And saying someone is successful just because they are a better responder is no different than saying they only won because they had bigger lungs.

'Better Responder' has become a get-out clause which permits people to demonize one doper (typically Armstrong) while still remaining fond of others (Pantani & Ullrich are favourites here). Some may even use it to portray their favourite doper as a victim. In reality they are all cheats, so don't complain that another cheat turned out to be a better cheat that your pet cheat.

Sorta reasonable points, but people have more time for Ullrich (especially) and Pantani because they were a loveable buffoon and histrionic panache-merchant respectively, (and not domineering, swaggering bullies at the head of a frat club of unlikeable strong-arm omerta-merchants), rather than because LA was a better cheat.

DeadCalm

RichN95 wrote:

So in a 100% dirty sport

It wasn't a 100% dirty sport though. Assuming Bassons was the only clean rider (and he wasn't) then Armstrong (and all the rest) still cheated him.

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

Lichtblick wrote:

To bompington and skylla, It wasn't my theory/idea, as I said:

An alternative POV put to me here by someone else.....

I'm always glad when someone else at work has sufficient interest to have conversations about Pro Cycling.
They could hardly not know how interested I am, since the Tour, the Olympics, and the Vuelta have all been on this computer in this office this year. (with sound muted )

I think that someone else was me. My view is that if everyone is cheating then the ability of an athlete to respond favourably to drugs just becomes another physical attribute - no difference to lung capacity or body shape. So in a 100% dirty sport, assuming no-one has access to magic beans, the playing field is a level as it is in a 100% clean field. A better doctor becomes no different than a better coach. And saying someone is successful just because they are a better responder is no different than saying they only won because they had bigger lungs.

'Better Responder' has become a get-out clause which permits people to demonize one doper (typically Armstrong) while still remaining fond of others (Pantani & Ullrich are favourites here). Some may even use it to portray their favourite doper as a victim. In reality they are all cheats, so don't complain that another cheat turned out to be a better cheat that your pet cheat.

It's nothing to do with who you like and who you don't.

Having a better body for cheating than others is still not remotely fair.