The 'let it all out' thread - who do you hate the most?
Comments
-
*mischievous bump.
Be interesting to see how the landscape of hate has changed in under two years.
Would Bertie rate so highly?
Would DiLuca make the list?
Sky must get more votes, surely.
Are we 'over' Armstrong?
Who was thon McQuaid fella?
Name some names and I may start a new poll (or get banned
) “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I really don't understand some of you lot. Pantani is a hero, yet Valverde is hated. All in the same boat, all denied everything, all did it, and I'm pretty sure the vast majority are unrepentant given the circumstances. Valverde gained much respect from me last year as he never once gave up the chase, after his mishap he supported Quintana without any complaints etc.
I voted for Armstrong simply because he is a bully and he intimidated people throughout his career.
Don't particularly like Cav either, although I do respect him. Too grumpy.0 -
Joelsim wrote:I really don't understand some of you lot. Pantani is a hero, yet Valverde is hated. All in the same boat, all denied everything, all did it, and I'm pretty sure the vast majority are unrepentant given the circumstances. Valverde gained much respect from me last year as he never once gave up the chase, after his mishap he supported Quintana without any complaints etc.
I voted for Armstrong simply because he is a bully and he intimidated people throughout his career.
Don't particularly like Cav either, although I do respect him. Too grumpy.
Wrong. Pantani didn't deny anything. I don't remember him ever being asked in an interview or appearing before a tribunal.
Never said he was a hero, I liked him as a nice guy.
Valverde, on the other hand, denied and denied and it took years to get him.0 -
Unless you speak Italian (and you may do) I doubt you remember him saying anything about anything.mike6 wrote:Wrong. Pantani didn't deny anything. I don't remember him ever being asked in an interview or appearing before a tribunal.
Never said he was a hero, I liked him as a nice guy.Twitter: @RichN950 -
mike6 wrote:Joelsim wrote:I really don't understand some of you lot. Pantani is a hero, yet Valverde is hated. All in the same boat, all denied everything, all did it, and I'm pretty sure the vast majority are unrepentant given the circumstances. Valverde gained much respect from me last year as he never once gave up the chase, after his mishap he supported Quintana without any complaints etc.
I voted for Armstrong simply because he is a bully and he intimidated people throughout his career.
Don't particularly like Cav either, although I do respect him. Too grumpy.
Wrong. Pantani didn't deny anything. I don't remember him ever being asked in an interview or appearing before a tribunal.
Never said he was a hero, I liked him as a nice guy.
Valverde, on the other hand, denied and denied and it took years to get him.
I'm failing to see the difference b/w Valverde and any of the others. Sorry. The problem wasn't with the riders, it was with the sport in general.
Given the same set of options I imagine you also would act in the way that they did. Or are you saying you were one of the tiny minority who would have foregone a career...0 -
Joelsim wrote:mike6 wrote:Joelsim wrote:I really don't understand some of you lot. Pantani is a hero, yet Valverde is hated. All in the same boat, all denied everything, all did it, and I'm pretty sure the vast majority are unrepentant given the circumstances. Valverde gained much respect from me last year as he never once gave up the chase, after his mishap he supported Quintana without any complaints etc.
I voted for Armstrong simply because he is a bully and he intimidated people throughout his career.
Don't particularly like Cav either, although I do respect him. Too grumpy.
Wrong. Pantani didn't deny anything. I don't remember him ever being asked in an interview or appearing before a tribunal.
Never said he was a hero, I liked him as a nice guy.
Valverde, on the other hand, denied and denied and it took years to get him.
I'm failing to see the difference b/w Valverde and any of the others. Sorry. The problem wasn't with the riders, it was with the sport in general.
Given the same set of options I imagine you also would act in the way that they did. Or are you saying you were one of the tiny minority who would have foregone a career...
Yes, that would be me. I was brought up not to cheat. You don't know me, you don't know anything about me, or the others on this form. Don't just assume everyone else has your relaxed attitude to right and wrong. :roll:0 -
Can you really not see a difference between the benefits doping brought Pantani and Valverde? :roll: Pantani was probably a more abundant user of PEDs than Valverde, but I can feel sympathy for the tragic situation it brought Pantani in and the ultimate penalty he paid, while there is very little tragic to feel sympathy for in Valverde's career to date.Joelsim wrote:I really don't understand some of you lot. Pantani is a hero, yet Valverde is hated. All in the same boat, all denied everything, all did it, and I'm pretty sure the vast majority are unrepentant given the circumstances. Valverde gained much respect from me last year as he never once gave up the chase, after his mishap he supported Quintana without any complaints etc.
I don't 'hate' Valverde either BTW, it's only sport, although his shenanigans in the worlds final kms were a bit disrespectful0 -
Sympathy is a different matter. The fact is that both of them did what everyone else was doing. Except Delion, Boardman and Bassons and a few others. Oh and mike6.0
-
Pantani never tested positive. Is there enough evidence against him to be sure he was doping?0
-
Here comes the Truth. Quick post before the lock.0
-
Seriously just ignore it...one reply is all it takes to start a s%^tstorm. Please don't let yet another thread be derailed just because of one person, it ain't worth it.0
-
Boardman? ... Not trolling, but why so? He said so?
Unless there is testing that covers everyone, for every stage ... Why should I believe?
It's like Lemond ... Find a way to prove your point, or live with the suspicion of your winning against proven dopers ...0 -
The Truth wrote:
I thought you were really keen on this doping lark, or maybe you are just keen on joining dodgy dots that point only to Sky?
The evidence you haven't seen, is now common knowledge, thanks to the French:
http://www.dopeology.org/people/Marco_Pantani/
Positive tests for epo being generally accepted as evidence, whereas the stuff you go in for, is not."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Wiggo,,, the most unworthy tour winner ever,,,,what a joke of a rider.0
-
FJS wrote:
Can you really not see a difference between the benefits doping brought Pantani and Valverde? :roll: Pantani was probably a more abundant user of PEDs than Valverde, but I can feel sympathy for the tragic situation it brought Pantani in and the ultimate penalty he paid, while there is very little tragic to feel sympathy for in Valverde's career to date.Joelsim wrote:I really don't understand some of you lot. Pantani is a hero, yet Valverde is hated. All in the same boat, all denied everything, all did it, and I'm pretty sure the vast majority are unrepentant given the circumstances. Valverde gained much respect from me last year as he never once gave up the chase, after his mishap he supported Quintana without any complaints etc.
I don't 'hate' Valverde either BTW, it's only sport, although his shenanigans in the worlds final kms were a bit disrespectful
How the FU$% do you know that Pantani used more PED's Than Valverde?
Oh ...... No you don't.
Where is the proof ?
Did you google it? 0 -
Having a rant at one of the more informed people on the forum ain't go to help your cause much.
Pantani was pretty much a science experiment for much of the 90's. There is a fairly significant body of evidence about him and his doping.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:The Truth wrote:
I thought you were really keen on this doping lark, or maybe you are just keen on joining dodgy dots that point only to Sky?
The evidence you haven't seen, is now common knowledge, thanks to the French:
http://www.dopeology.org/people/Marco_Pantani/
Positive tests for epo being generally accepted as evidence, whereas the stuff you go in for, is not.
Dr Lienders . Sky used a doping Dr, FACT
and you are now boiling up in anger because the truth hurts and I am laughing 0 -
iainf72 wrote:Having a rant at one of the more informed people on the forum ain't go to help your cause much.
Pantani was pretty much a science experiment for much of the 90's. There is a fairly significant body of evidence about him and his doping.
Yes and what actual proof do you have that one doped more than the other.
Factual proof ....you know the stuff your always going on about .....
If you have no proof then I am sure you will resort to calling my behaviour childish or uncouth 0 -
There is fairly significant evidence. You can look it up and make your own judgements based on that evidence. And if you look at it and then decide your position that's cool.
Indeed I would welcome debate on specific points of the evidence against him (positive for EPO at 98 tour, the 60% HCT after his crash, the Giro incidents, Puerto links, Cecchini etc etc etc)Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
There's plenty of recorded tests on Pantani's blood in the mid 90s which show him having a HCT in excess of 60%. There's no way Valverde could have done that. Riders from 93-97 before the 50% rule came were the most juiced up of them all.rayjay wrote:Yes and what actual proof do you have that one doped more than the other.
Factual proof ....you know the stuff your always going on about .....
If you have no proof then I am sure you will resort to calling my behaviour childish or uncouthTwitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
There's plenty of recorded tests on Pantani's blood in the mid 90s which show him having a HCT in excess of 60%. There's no way Valverde could have done that. Riders from 93-97 before the 50% rule came were the most juiced up of them all.rayjay wrote:Yes and what actual proof do you have that one doped more than the other.
Factual proof ....you know the stuff your always going on about .....
If you have no proof then I am sure you will resort to calling my behaviour childish or uncouth
Rajay is now playing the semantics game, cos his mate got what he asked for. What has one doping more than the other got to do with anything?
Perhaps he is unable to open the supplied link.
Evidence:Following the 2013 publication of a French Senate Anti-Doping report and its annexe showing the results of 2004 retested samples, Pantani was shown to have tested positive in the 1998 Tour de France, on this occasion after Stage 11, which he won.Following the 2013 publication of a French Senate Anti-Doping report and its annexe showing the results of 2004 retested samples, Pantani was shown to have tested positive in the 1998 Tour de France, on this occasion after Stage 15, which he won.Following the 2013 publication of a French Senate Anti-Doping report and its annexe showing the results of 2004 retested samples, Pantani had tested positive in the 1998 Tour de France, on this occasion after Stage 16, on which he finished second.
Not quite the 6 strikes of Armstrong, but should be enough for a guy who advocates a lifetime ban for just one offence."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
iainf72 wrote:There is fairly significant evidence. You can look it up and make your own judgements based on that evidence. And if you look at it and then decide your position that's cool.
Indeed I would welcome debate on specific points of the evidence against him (positive for EPO at 98 tour, the 60% HCT after his crash, the Giro incidents, Puerto links, Cecchini etc etc etc)
If I may ask, why does being connected to a doping doctor count as evidence in one case, but not another?0 -
Because it was bit more than just knowing them. Pantani was linked to three doping doctors - Cecchini, Conconi and Fuentes. The latter two were subject to legal investigations which uncovered fairly detailed documentation of them doping him - doping plans, financial records, HCT readings.The Truth wrote:iainf72 wrote:There is fairly significant evidence. You can look it up and make your own judgements based on that evidence. And if you look at it and then decide your position that's cool.
Indeed I would welcome debate on specific points of the evidence against him (positive for EPO at 98 tour, the 60% HCT after his crash, the Giro incidents, Puerto links, Cecchini etc etc etc)
If I may ask, why does being connected to a doping doctor count as evidence in one case, but not another?
It's not as though Pantani's links to Cecchini are the only evidence against him. It's just one small part of a pile of evidence.Twitter: @RichN950 -
LOL: Iain sticks out the Cecchini chin and the Truth swings his telegraphed Leinder's left hook.
Unfortunately, he'd already been put on the canvas by a barrage of positive punches he'd tried to ignore."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
You're absolutely right, we don't know for sure (even though there is plenty of evidence, as already provided by others, to suggest it was probably the case). Let's scrap that bit, it wasn't what my post was about at all. What I tried to say was that in my opinion there can be other criteria to base our feelings for and regard of cyclists on than the severity of their doping use. Like dying way too young.rayjay wrote:FJS wrote:
Can you really not see a difference between the benefits doping brought Pantani and Valverde? :roll: Pantani was probably a more abundant user of PEDs than Valverde, but I can feel sympathy for the tragic situation it brought Pantani in and the ultimate penalty he paid, while there is very little tragic to feel sympathy for in Valverde's career to date.Joelsim wrote:I really don't understand some of you lot. Pantani is a hero, yet Valverde is hated. All in the same boat, all denied everything, all did it, and I'm pretty sure the vast majority are unrepentant given the circumstances. Valverde gained much respect from me last year as he never once gave up the chase, after his mishap he supported Quintana without any complaints etc.
I don't 'hate' Valverde either BTW, it's only sport, although his shenanigans in the worlds final kms were a bit disrespectful
How the FU$% do you know that Pantani used more PED's Than Valverde?
Oh ...... No you don't.
Where is the proof ?
Did you google it?
There's no need for the language you use btw; do you start conversations that way in real life?0 -
It was Valverde's atrocious excuses whilst avoiding riding in Italy for about 2 years whilst the Spanish federation attempted to work out a way to get him off that really did it for me. A snake."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'"
@gietvangent0 -
The thing I love most about bike racing is its complexity: the rider (normally a human), parcours, team, weather, race situation... all combining now and again to produce grand opera and ecstatic wheelies.
The thing I hate about the doping debate is how people become reduced to one-dimensional cheats. Thus Contador - by many accounts a fine human with dazzling sequined swingers - possibly a mere pawn in Spanish power diplomacy, becomes one of the untouchables. Similarly with Valverde. We have no idea how much these guys were in control of their actions - how many livelihoods were they told would be ruined if they confessed and took the full sanction?
That said, I have no mercy for anyone testing positive today, or for a 'new-generation' getting popped for a BP voilation or a retest.
I abstained. Don't hate on the Sabbath....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
FJS wrote:
You're absolutely right, we don't know for sure (even though there is plenty of evidence, as already provided by others, to suggest it was probably the case). Let's scrap that bit, it wasn't what my post was about at all. What I tried to say was that in my opinion there can be other criteria to base our feelings for and regard of cyclists on than the severity of their doping use. Like dying way too young.rayjay wrote:FJS wrote:
Can you really not see a difference between the benefits doping brought Pantani and Valverde? :roll: Pantani was probably a more abundant user of PEDs than Valverde, but I can feel sympathy for the tragic situation it brought Pantani in and the ultimate penalty he paid, while there is very little tragic to feel sympathy for in Valverde's career to date.Joelsim wrote:I really don't understand some of you lot. Pantani is a hero, yet Valverde is hated. All in the same boat, all denied everything, all did it, and I'm pretty sure the vast majority are unrepentant given the circumstances. Valverde gained much respect from me last year as he never once gave up the chase, after his mishap he supported Quintana without any complaints etc.
I don't 'hate' Valverde either BTW, it's only sport, although his shenanigans in the worlds final kms were a bit disrespectful
How the FU$% do you know that Pantani used more PED's Than Valverde?
Oh ...... No you don't.
Where is the proof ?
Did you google it?
There's no need for the language you use btw; do you start conversations that way in real life?
Your right FJS,,,, I apologise......in my defence I thought it was a Blazing sandbags post ,,,again I apologise and agree with the above points you have made.0
