Alex Dowsett - stupid comments

andy_wrx

afx237vi wrote:

Samuel Sanchez wins.

"Until the contrary is proved, he remains innocent. Lance has overcome many controls and even until today he has never been found positive in any of them."

That's from yesterday, not 1999.

Go to the top of the page...

LeicesterLad

RichN95 wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

Ok, so what's coming out from other teams...owt?

But the doping by Armstrong wasn't done at other teams. It was done at Sky. Or least that's what you'd think the way some people are going on.

That's fine Rich, but for someone thats just brushed off Yates's exploits as 'a bit of pill popping' and then defended the man, but then turns up on every Frenchie/Contador thread because mainly you don't like the poster but also youn clearly find Contador disgusting (sorry he wasn't just 'popping a few pills') its a bit rich. If you are really naive enough to believe Sean Yates disgusting 'saw nothing, heard nothing' bullsh*t then you are not really the decent bloke I had you down as. I don't know weather its a nostalgia thing with you but for someone who lamblasts Contador and Frenchie like hell you are not really too concerned with rider's from your own era. Who are your Hero's Rich? Who did you grow up watching? because they were probably as filthy as Bertie.

It's pretty obvious why Sky should come into the firing line. They are a British based team, we are in Britain. They set out strong statements regarding anti-doping - they should be the first to criticise Armstrong etc etc but the way they have handled it so far is a disgrace. Sean Yates shouldn't be on the books and never should have been, or Barry after Landis blew the trumpet on him. So yes, we should be questioning Sky and why they are not putting on the strong anti-doping show they promised us.

Richmond Racer

RichN95 wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

Ok, so what's coming out from other teams...owt?

But the doping by Armstrong wasn't done at other teams. It was done at Sky. Or least that's what you'd think the way some people are going on.

Of course...thanks for putting me right

heavymental

rickyrider

afx237vi wrote:

Samuel Sanchez wins.

"Until the contrary is proved, he remains innocent. Lance has overcome many controls and even until today he has never been found positive in any of them."

That's from yesterday, not 1999.

Wow, that's pretty pathetic. What a spineless numpty.

Anyone see Fernando Alonso's response at South Korea GP today: "Lance was more than another rider, he was some kind of idol for many people and inspiration for many of us and many media people in the world. It's not easy and I think he will remain an inspiration for many people, whatever happened, whatever the result. Not easy to put together all things."

Pretty hard to understand eh?

dave_1

Someone at Sky needs to have a quiet word. He just shows riding a bike fast doesn't take brains

Richmond Racer

rickyrider wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

Samuel Sanchez wins.

"Until the contrary is proved, he remains innocent. Lance has overcome many controls and even until today he has never been found positive in any of them."

That's from yesterday, not 1999.

Wow, that's pretty pathetic. What a spineless numpty.

Anyone see Fernando Alonso's response at South Korea GP today: "Lance was more than another rider, he was some kind of idol for many people and inspiration for many of us and many media people in the world. It's not easy and I think he will remain an inspiration for many people, whatever happened, whatever the result. Not easy to put together all things."

Pretty hard to understand eh?

Compare that to Webber: http://sports.ndtv.com/formula-1/news/i ... ark-webber

Yellow Peril

Dowsett, complete moron. Sanchez, likewise.

All pro cyclists past and present should take this opportunity to make their statement of condemnation or confession. This report represents a watershed and if you are found out afterwards you'll just end up looking a right spineless c0ck like Michael Barry.

skavanagh.bikeradar

The trouble with Dowsett's comments is that the BBC is using it as the main headline on their home page for the Armstrong furore. Double tosser and the BBC should make the facts the headlines - they are quite combustible on their own there is no need to put empty headed moronspeak there.

Pross

LeicesterLad wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

Ok, so what's coming out from other teams...owt?

But the doping by Armstrong wasn't done at other teams. It was done at Sky. Or least that's what you'd think the way some people are going on.

That's fine Rich, but for someone thats just brushed off Yates's exploits as 'a bit of pill popping' and then defended the man, but then turns up on every Frenchie/Contador thread because mainly you don't like the poster but also youn clearly find Contador disgusting (sorry he wasn't just 'popping a few pills') its a bit rich. If you are really naive enough to believe Sean Yates disgusting 'saw nothing, heard nothing' bullsh*t then you are not really the decent bloke I had you down as. I don't know weather its a nostalgia thing with you but for someone who lamblasts Contador and Frenchie like hell you are not really too concerned with rider's from your own era. Who are your Hero's Rich? Who did you grow up watching? because they were probably as filthy as Bertie.

It's pretty obvious why Sky should come into the firing line. They are a British based team, we are in Britain. They set out strong statements regarding anti-doping - they should be the first to criticise Armstrong etc etc but the way they have handled it so far is a disgrace. Sean Yates shouldn't be on the books and never should have been, or Barry after Landis blew the trumpet on him. So yes, we should be questioning Sky and why they are not putting on the strong anti-doping show they promised us.

Surely there's a difference between criticising Bertie, a current pro, for failing a drug test and expecting an ex-pro who retired years ago to admit to doping that we don't know he was involved in? I don't follow doping in cycling that closely as it's depressing but other than the failed test in '89 why are people so convinced that Yates doped considering his name doesn't get raised in the USADA documents? Is it soley down to him riding on LA's team?

nic_77

prawny wrote:

To be fair, I think DB comes across a bit naive, which I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for. When Sky started up, people slagged him off for knowing nothing about road cycling so it's fairly possible that he knew doping went on but was shocked at the extent of it. I mean to be fair there's stuff in there that surprised me and I expected the worst.

I used to buy into this 'naivety' idea too... until I read David Millar's book. DB is best mates with DM, and was with him at the time he was busted. DB met DM when he was released from prison and DB made DM sit down and tell him everything.

This doesn't make DB guilty of anything or necessarily dodgy himself, but he can't pretend he doesn't (or even didn't when he started Team Sky) understand how professional road cycling operates (or operated).

Richmond Racer

LeicesterLad wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

Ok, so what's coming out from other teams...owt?

But the doping by Armstrong wasn't done at other teams. It was done at Sky. Or least that's what you'd think the way some people are going on.

That's fine Rich, but for someone thats just brushed off Yates's exploits as 'a bit of pill popping' and then defended the man, but then turns up on every Frenchie/Contador thread because mainly you don't like the poster but also youn clearly find Contador disgusting (sorry he wasn't just 'popping a few pills') its a bit rich. If you are really naive enough to believe Sean Yates disgusting 'saw nothing, heard nothing' bullsh*t then you are not really the decent bloke I had you down as. I don't know weather its a nostalgia thing with you but for someone who lamblasts Contador and Frenchie like hell you are not really too concerned with rider's from your own era. Who are your Hero's Rich? Who did you grow up watching? because they were probably as filthy as Bertie.

It's pretty obvious why Sky should come into the firing line. They are a British based team, we are in Britain. They set out strong statements regarding anti-doping - they should be the first to criticise Armstrong etc etc but the way they have handled it so far is a disgrace. Sean Yates shouldn't be on the books and never should have been, or Barry after Landis blew the trumpet on him. So yes, we should be questioning Sky and why they are not putting on the strong anti-doping show they promised us.

LL, would those be the same strong anti-doping statements that Garmin have put out since 2007?

Or GreenEDGE? because now we have Matt White implicated too

rdt

Yellow Peril wrote:

Dowsett, complete moron. Sanchez, likewise.

All pro cyclists past and present should take this opportunity to make their statement of condemnation or confession. This report represents a watershed and if you are found out afterwards you'll just end up looking a right spineless c0ck like Michael Barry.

Unfortunately, the pro cycling ranks appear to consist of an inordinate number of c0cks, with seemingly few deserving of much in the way of respect from cycling fans.

Gazzaputt

Rider expresses personal opinion not in line with Bikrader Pro forum righteous take on matters.

Of course he must be an idiot :roll:

iainf72

Richmond Racer wrote:

LL, would those be the same strong anti-doping statements that Garmin have put out since 2007?

Or GreenEDGE? because now we have Matt White implicated too

There is an enormous difference between Sky's position and Garmin. Garmin have always accepted they'd have people on the squad who doped in the past.

Sky got their policy horribly wrong and are paying a bit for it.

Turfle

nic_77 wrote:

prawny wrote:

To be fair, I think DB comes across a bit naive, which I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for. When Sky started up, people slagged him off for knowing nothing about road cycling so it's fairly possible that he knew doping went on but was shocked at the extent of it. I mean to be fair there's stuff in there that surprised me and I expected the worst.

I used to buy into this 'naivety' idea too... until I read David Millar's book. DB is best mates with DM, and was with him at the time he was busted. DB met DM when he was released from prison and DB made DM sit down and tell him everything.

This doesn't make DB guilty of anything or necessarily dodgy himself, but he can't pretend he doesn't (or even didn't when he started Team Sky) understand how professional road cycling operates (or operated).

He has never suggested cycling wasn't a dirty sport. In fact, he said one of the reasons they finally decided to set up a road team was because he felt road cycling was finally cleaning up, and that a clean team could now compete in it.

My best guess is he believed Barry (and I certainly wouldn't have denied him employment based on one Floyd Landis statement), but I expect he knows that Sean Yates may well have some skeletons.

celestecharlie

Dowsett's musings are embarrassing. Given the possibility of him being taken out of context or misquoted, he would surely be well advised to clarify himself (and I use Sir Humphrey's definition of the word 'clarify' here).

If those are his actual opinions then well... I guess he's entitled to them.

Turfle

iainf72 wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

LL, would those be the same strong anti-doping statements that Garmin have put out since 2007?

Or GreenEDGE? because now we have Matt White implicated too

There is an enormous difference between Sky's position and Garmin. Garmin have always accepted they'd have people on the squad who doped in the past.

Sky got their policy horribly wrong and are paying a bit for it.

I really dislike Sky's zero tolerance policy, as I don't think it's viable if you want to hire anyone over the age of 25 who has experience in cycling.

But I also think it's pathetic that people are using Barry doping with US Postal, and Possoni maybe using Ferrari 3 years before Sky even existed, as sticks to beat them with.

Leeinders and Yates they should be questioned about,

greentea

I dont think Dowsett is an idiot.

Drugs or not, i think it was at a time when everyone was taking it anyway, so its not like it was an un-level playing field. The only thing Armstrong has done was to do the whole doping thing better than the others.

I don't agree with the testosterone stuff, the guy didn't have any balls so to take a testosterone supplement to me is just leveling the playing field for himself as all the other riders had balls so therefore were producing testosterone.

What gets me is the double-standards. They have got ex-riders to say Armstrong doped but they don't mention the fact that if the ex-riders were doping, along with all the other ex-riders, then who was actually clean? because from where i'm sitting they were all taking it, which means no one had a complete advantage, so whats the big deal? how credible are these ex-dopers if they doped? no one seems to be asking this. You wouldnt believe the words of an alcoholic pointing the finger at another guy accusing him of being alcoholic would you?

Doped or not, the guy has still had to drag his ass over 7 Tour de France races, its not like its a walk in the park even with EPO in his system. Im sure if we all took EPO it wouldnt mean we would all suddenly be able to take on the Tour.

The trouble with this enquiry is that its taking modern day ethics and applying them to a time when there werent any. So what do we do? go back and round up every person whos called a black man a 'nigga' because we dont accept it anymore? grab everyones Jim Fixed It For Me badges back because it turns out hes a kiddy-fiddler? where does it end?

Richmond Racer

Turfle wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

LL, would those be the same strong anti-doping statements that Garmin have put out since 2007?

Or GreenEDGE? because now we have Matt White implicated too

There is an enormous difference between Sky's position and Garmin. Garmin have always accepted they'd have people on the squad who doped in the past.

Sky got their policy horribly wrong and are paying a bit for it.

I really dislike Sky's zero tolerance policy, as I don't think it's viable if you want to hire anyone over the age of 25 who has experience in cycling.

But I also think it's pathetic that people are using Barry doping with US Postal, and Possoni maybe using Ferrari 3 years before Sky even existed, as sticks to beat them with.

Leeinders and Yates they should be questioned about,

I dont disagree - the zero tolerance policy was dumb/naive (delete as appropriate) as soon as you're talking about riders with over xx number of years in the pro ranks - just the law of averages dictate that there's going to be a high probability of past skeletons in the cupboard with some percentage of that group being hired. Perhaps it was the only message that Sky the sponsor was comfortable with, dont know. And yes, Ian, as you say, its coming back to bite them a bit.

But there is a huge dose of glee or schadenfreude from some quarters re this situation and Sky, which for me colours the contribution of those quarters to a balanced debate. I just dont see much of the same directed at Katusha, Astana or Saxo, plus Movistar with Valverde - all teams who for me pose more of a question mark over the credibility of the sport right now.

squired

I believe Dowsett is in Beijing at the moment, so given the fact that the paperwork would have been released while he was asleep, he probably hasn't seen any of it. If so, he probably should have said that he didn't want to comment until he'd read the evidence.

I've also read on here that his contract is ending at Sky and he is looking for a new team. If that is the case he is in a difficult situation where he isn't going to want to upset anyone that could stop him getting a ride next season. I'd certainly be careful with my words if I was in that situation. Of course, if he still has a contract with Sky for next year he has nothing to lose.

The simple response that any cyclist should be giving is that dopers are stealing money and contracts from clean riders and the more that are found out the better.

prawny

nic_77 wrote:

prawny wrote:

To be fair, I think DB comes across a bit naive, which I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for. When Sky started up, people slagged him off for knowing nothing about road cycling so it's fairly possible that he knew doping went on but was shocked at the extent of it. I mean to be fair there's stuff in there that surprised me and I expected the worst.

I used to buy into this 'naivety' idea too... until I read David Millar's book. DB is best mates with DM, and was with him at the time he was busted. DB met DM when he was released from prison and DB made DM sit down and tell him everything.

This doesn't make DB guilty of anything or necessarily dodgy himself, but he can't pretend he doesn't (or even didn't when he started Team Sky) understand how professional road cycling operates (or operated).

I'm still not so sure, I have to admit I don't know the full fact of the Millar case and I've not read his book, but from the little I do know I get the impression that doping at cofidis is much less scientific aggressive and corrupt than USPS. Maybe DB thought that cofidis style doping is how it was and that was that, to be fair, it's kind of what I thought, the USADA summary was a bit of an eye opener.

Anonymous

greentea wrote:

I dont think Dowsett is an idiot.

Drugs or not, i think it was at a time when everyone was taking it anyway, so its not like it was an un-level playing field. The only thing Armstrong has done was to do the whole doping thing better than the others.

I don't agree with the testosterone stuff, the guy didn't have any balls so to take a testosterone supplement to me is just leveling the playing field for himself as all the other riders had balls so therefore were producing testosterone.

What gets me is the double-standards. They have got ex-riders to say Armstrong doped but they don't mention the fact that if the ex-riders were doping, along with all the other ex-riders, then who was actually clean? because from where i'm sitting they were all taking it, which means no one had a complete advantage, so whats the big deal? how credible are these ex-dopers if they doped? no one seems to be asking this. You wouldnt believe the words of an alcoholic pointing the finger at another guy accusing him of being alcoholic would you?

Doped or not, the guy has still had to drag his ass over 7 Tour de France races, its not like its a walk in the park even with EPO in his system. Im sure if we all took EPO it wouldnt mean we would all suddenly be able to take on the Tour.

The trouble with this enquiry is that its taking modern day ethics and applying them to a time when there werent any. So what do we do? go back and round up every person whos called a black man a 'nigga' because we dont accept it anymore? grab everyones Jim Fixed It For Me badges back because it turns out hes a kiddy-fiddler? where does it end?

To put it on those terms, its like having those people who called black people 'nigga' head of the 'lets kick racism out of football' charity, or saville being head of NSPCC.

These people haven't gone away, they are significantly influential in cycling.

nferrar

Dowsett was a muppet for commenting the way he did, at worst he should have given a neutral "hasn't seen all the facts" type line but to actually see him supporting him then I had to facepalm watching the news earlier. This isn't surprise news either, being on the start line of a race isn't an excuse for coming out with garbage.

Richmond Racer

apparently Alex D is on 5live around 4pm 'expanding on his earlier comments'

ahhhh....he's tweeting now....:

'Hi guys, just to let you know I wasnt clear when I was quoting Lance Armstrong is a legend, I meant this in regards to the charity work he has done. Also when I said it doesnt matter, what I mean is that we are racing clean now and it is a different sport to what it was back then. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I was just about to start stage 3 of the tour of beijin. I do think what Lance has done is completely unacceptable.'

finchy

So I take it that nobody's considering the idea that Dowsett might have been partially quoted.

andyp

He's just clarified what he was trying to say via his twitter account @alexdowsett

prawny

andyp wrote:

He's just clarified what he was trying to say via his twitter account @alexdowsett

You think he did that off his own bat?

Richmond Racer

well, at first I said FFS when I read the quote on the BBC site (but then when has the BBC ever got anything correct that they write about cycling, I guess)

but I guess this does show why so many riders say nothing - or at least the reason for some of them - and why some teams insist on it

schlepcycling

He's just tweeted that he'll be talking about it on 5Live drive later.

Also I don't get this 'it is a different sport now to what it was back then' comment.....Armstrong only retired in 2009.