Miguel Indurain.

lotus49

kleinstroker wrote:

damn you... I always thought Miguel was the real deal! Does this mean I have to take this down from my hallway.. gutted!!

No don't. He was the real deal. OK he may have been one of many riders doping but he still was a great cyclist.

I am a great admirer of Mahatma Gandhi. I read a biography of him only to find out that he was a racist and a pervert. I was very disappointed but when I thought about it, I realised that no-one is perfect and it's foolish to believe they can be. Admire what's admirable and try not to look too closely at the rest.

I think it's a very cool poster BTW.

simon_masterson

mikeyj28 wrote:

Now what about Roche??? a good winner or a tainted one?

Roche too? Say it ain't so...

the playing mantis

we may take sport far too seriously but its in the human psyche in most cases to do so, indeed it speaks to something rather deep in the human condition, a taste for unscripted entertainment.

i recommend simon barnes book, the meaning of sport, as to why so many see sport as beyond mere entertainment.

lotus49

Simon Masterson wrote:

mikeyj28 wrote:

Now what about Roche??? a good winner or a tainted one?

Roche too? Say it ain't so...

Are you a baseball fan?

"Say it ain't so Joe".

siamon

Mikey23 wrote:

Interesting... Link to that?

Mikey,

Sorry but I cannot remember the exact name of the program. It was one of the pre Olympic shows and I think the main subject was the 100m final that Ben Johnson won in a world record and subsequently disqualified. It was absolutely fascinating and if you can track it down well worth a watch. Extremely important people seemed to be amazingly candid and all of the athletes involved in the race contributed. I don't think it will spoil it (and may well contribute to the thread) to say that towards the end, they interviewed the Brazilian athlete in lane 8 and said that he must be immensely proud that he was the only athlete from the final that had not subsequently been caught taking drugs. He looked at the reporter in a confused way and said, all the others were multi millionaires living in the lap of luxury, whilst he struggled to feed his kids some days? This decent and honest man seems to conclude that he was the mug for NOT taking PEDs. It seems looking in the mirror and thinking you are an honest and decent individual counts for nothing when your kids are starving. A real eye opener.

brighton1975

Roche cheated?!?!

That's one of the easier ones - you only have to look at the amazing year he had in 1987 and compare that to the relatively woeful years bookending it.

As much as it absolutely pains me to admit but having read David Millar's incredible book and hearing Tyler Hamilton's recent confession, even with his near supernatural physical make-up, it would seem impossible that Indurain raced clean (trust me, no-one wants Miguel to be innocent more than me).

And why Indurain is defending Lance is just jaw-droppingly bizarre. Is he afraid of what Armstrong will reveal once he decides to talk (I have a feeling Armstrong could bring down a LOT of people if he wishes).

On a positive note (pardon the pun) at least this year's 'boring' TDF was a good sign that the winner was clean. No springing up mountains for Wiggo á la Armstrong (or Contador for that matter... another dodgy rider than Indurain chooses to make alliances with).

Frank the tank

Attitudes to drugs in cycling has changed from the days of "big Mig". The start point was the Festina affair and things have been improving slowly since. Hopefully one good thing to come out of the Armstrong affair is ( for those in pro cycling for who the penny hadn't already dropped) that sponsors will no longer want to be associated with the sport and ultimately pro cycling will die. Every member of the peloton now must realise it's "last chance saloon time".

MattC59

Personally, I think that the USADA should hound all and any athletes suspected of performance enhancing drug abuse. If you're going to take the approach ignoring due process for one, then you should do it for all.

Whilst I think most people would agree that it's highly likely that LA doped, the conduct of the USADA is highly questionable. If you're going to advocate fair competition in sport, then you should do so in the processes that you use.

rdt

Big Mig vs. Armstrong, 1994:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmR9k8UAohs

Remember, Big Mig had lungs larger than any other bipedal mammal, and bettered only by those of a juiced up bull elephant in musk.

rdt

MattC59 wrote:

the conduct of the USADA is highly questionable.

I demand that either ALL lying, cheating bullies are taken down simultaneously, or none at all. I tell ya, I can barely sleep at night what with the injustice of it all.

Paul E

Please don't bring senna into this, completely different and the lead up to that was full of politics about changing the side the pole sitter was on and prost had done the same the year before so not comparable to drugs cheats.

Frank the tank

I'm no fan of LA but it does seem like he's been singled out for special treatment. Perhaps all cyclists should have their records gone into in retrospective micro detail where possible.

As for other sports, I think a whole shedful of records could be struck off the books especially prior to "iron curtain" coming down.

Pross

MattC59 wrote:

Personally, I think that the USADA should hound all and any athletes suspected of performance enhancing drug abuse. If you're going to take the approach ignoring due process for one, then you should do it for all.

Whilst I think most people would agree that it's highly likely that LA doped, the conduct of the USADA is highly questionable. If you're going to advocate fair competition in sport, then you should do so in the processes that you use.

How did they ignore due process? You should raise that point on Pro Race and I suspect you will be educated on the realities rather than the crap that the LA machine tried to establish as fact. If he hadn't been arrogant enough to make his comeback then he would have been safe forever due to the Statute of Limitations.

hopper1

It's a sad day for me, that the fall out from the Armstrong case has seen many of my childhood heroes cast under suspicion, or be found guilty of doping as well.
Big Mig was awesome to watch, and he was key to me taking to road cycling. Many others have helped to keep up my interest in this sport over the years, but sadly, I now dismiss them ALL as cheats, or probable cheats.
Not sure if I'll bother with the 2013 TdF et al...

curvenut

Do you think Greg Lemond was doped when he wins his 3 tour de France ??
even is he is a big advocate of clean cycling and not tested positive

MattC59

Pross wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Personally, I think that the USADA should hound all and any athletes suspected of performance enhancing drug abuse. If you're going to take the approach ignoring due process for one, then you should do it for all.

Whilst I think most people would agree that it's highly likely that LA doped, the conduct of the USADA is highly questionable. If you're going to advocate fair competition in sport, then you should do so in the processes that you use.

How did they ignore due process? You should raise that point on Pro Race and I suspect you will be educated on the realities rather than the crap that the LA machine tried to establish as fact. If he hadn't been arrogant enough to make his comeback then he would have been safe forever due to the Statute of Limitations.

When I say due process, I mean that of a normal court, one governed by the laws o the land.

In a criminal court of law, by U.S. Supreme Court mandate, prosecutors have to turn over any ‘exculpatory evidence’ that could prove the innocence of the defendant. As far as I'm aware, this wasn't done. (Whether it was there or not)

If the case is based primarily on witness testimony, the USADA can avoid having their witnesses cross-examined in he courtroom by not having them testify in person. They can submit written affidavits scripted in advance. this goes against the rules of a regular court as it prevents cross examination. As a defence lawyer, you're screwed if you can't do this.

There's two points.
It's hardly surprising that the USADA has been called a kangaroo court.

Don't get me wrong, whilst I don't like the idea, like the rest of us I'm pretty sure that LA doped. However, my opinion is based on hearsay, "everyone was at it, so why wouldn't Lance have been" etc. WhatI don't like is the apparent witch hunt by Tygart and the use of his own rules to 'prosecute' in a way that suited him. If the process is fair and the motives of the USADA are to clean up the sport, past and present, then they should go after everyone suspected of doping. If they don't, then how can you come to any conclusion other than that there is a personal element to this ?