Contadors Can Of Worms
Comments
-
bompington wrote:
That is quite likely true. But does it mean he doesn't actually exist now? You seem to think that he is playing the part of the repentant sinner as a PR exercise?LeicesterLad wrote:If he hadn't been banged up in a cell and caught red handed, I think the David Millar we know now wouldn't exist.
All the while twirling his moustache and laughing uproariously at the poor, deluded sheep who buy his schtick."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 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:bompington wrote:
That is quite likely true. But does it mean he doesn't actually exist now? You seem to think that he is playing the part of the repentant sinner as a PR exercise?LeicesterLad wrote:If he hadn't been banged up in a cell and caught red handed, I think the David Millar we know now wouldn't exist.
All the while twirling his moustache and laughing uproariously at the poor, deluded sheep who buy his schtick.
And the swirling of the cape. Dont forget the cape.0 -
LeicesterLad wrote:I like this thread: http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12887023&hilit=sean+yates&start=60
There is no hypocrisy to be seen here. :roll:L.E.G.E.N.D. Nothing less.
Ex-team mates tell stories of him having to cut his kit to stop it cutting into him cos he worked out so much
Frenchie, can you find any pics of him descending - or even better, vids?
Lets not foget, Sean Yates refused to even acknowledge doping as an problem, refused to say he saw it or even heard it was happening, he also refused a chance to admit his guilt instead taking the 'oh no, im choosing to leave, nothing to do with doping' line and making out like we are all idiots. He has left cycling with no admission, no apology or acknowledgment, let alone remorse. He also did test positive even if people like to pass it off as 'a few pills' all of a sudden.
but 'he's a legend' he's a 'gentle giant'.
Actually, he's as bad as Contador.
Yeah, it's funny isn't it. The issue is actually they hate on Contador (however they try and dress their reasons). I have come to the conclusion it is jealousy and habit (it is a natural human tendency to attack and pull down those that are at the top of their domain and habit when analysed can be very detrimental).
It isn't worth discussing with them (unless you have time and don't mind to), because to be honest, none of them are going to change their opinions. They will just repeat them. I only read/skim some of the posts as most are a waste of time and then those that are totally useless just dont even bother to read anything they say.Contador is the Greatest0 -
frenchfighter wrote:
It isn't worth discussing with them (unless you have time and don't mind to), because to be honest, none of them are going to change their opinions. They will just repeat them. I only read/skim some of the posts as most are a waste of time and then those that are totally useless just dont even bother to read anything they say.
Behold! We have found the path to Enlightenment!
'Voice opinions then ignore the response'.
Fabulous.0 -
OCDuPalais wrote:frenchfighter wrote:
It isn't worth discussing with them (unless you have time and don't mind to), because to be honest, none of them are going to change their opinions. They will just repeat them. I only read/skim some of the posts as most are a waste of time and then those that are totally useless just dont even bother to read anything they say.
Behold! We have found the path to Enlightenment!
'Voice opinions then ignore the response'.
Fabulous.
Best of all: start a thread and then lock it down so no one can respond with their opinions. An idea for BR for a new bit of functionality perhaps?0 -
ddraver wrote:Let's not forget that the simplest answer is often the right one LL....youre getting a bit tin foil hat here
So you don't think Yates is as bad as Contador then?0 -
ddraver wrote:he at least has the good sense to keep his mouth shut...
Yes keeping it shut with such statements as:
"doping? whats doping? In the 90's? your kidding? really? Lance who? never saw or heard of it? OMG OMG!"
And keeping his mouth shut wasn't a great outcome in the end was it? - it means he managed to slither away from the sport without having to own up to anything or provide a dignified response or reasoning. Damned if you talk, damned if you dont.0 -
LeicesterLad wrote:ddraver wrote:he at least has the good sense to keep his mouth shut...
Yes keeping it shut with such statements as:
"doping? whats doping? In the 90's? your kidding? really? Lance who? never saw or heard of it? OMG OMG!"
And keeping his mouth shut wasn't a great outcome in the end was it? - it means he managed to slither away from the sport without having to own up to anything or provide a dignified response or reasoning. Damned if you talk, damned if you dont.
Again LL, comparing a turd to another turd does nt not make the turd not a turd, it just means the other turd is also a turd.
Yes it does make sense!We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
ddraver wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:ddraver wrote:he at least has the good sense to keep his mouth shut...
Yes keeping it shut with such statements as:
"doping? whats doping? In the 90's? your kidding? really? Lance who? never saw or heard of it? OMG OMG!"
And keeping his mouth shut wasn't a great outcome in the end was it? - it means he managed to slither away from the sport without having to own up to anything or provide a dignified response or reasoning. Damned if you talk, damned if you dont.
Again LL, comparing a turd to another turd does nt not make the turd not a turd, it just means the other turd is also a turd.
Yes it does make sense!
I agree with that but then why is one turd labelled an ar*e and the other a 'legend' by the same people for pretty similar lie's, denials, taking the cycling public for mugs, etc?0 -
" better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and confirm it. "--
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0 -
I tend to keep out of these, but maybe because one of them is the leading GC rider of his generation, still active in the peloton, has ridden for any number of dodgy teams, got caught and recieved a backdated ban whereas the other is a former domestique, descender of note, former British TT champ and directeur for Sky?"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 -
LeicesterLad wrote:
no, but it reinforces people's perception about the man. I can see you're getting worked up about it, but generally it really isn't worth going into a discussion with people who hold the opposite stance unless your doctor told you you need to get your blood pressure up.0 -
ddraver wrote:dunno...if I'm completely honest he's way before my time so I never really had an opinion on him
Working for a "clean team" definitely helps, it's the attempt to right some wrongs.
Really bad effort at attempting to right some wrongs, he was in denial right up till his exit. Still is in denial.
Disgruntled:
So he might not be current but that does mean he was part of the original disease, the horror that was the 90's early 00's the very creation of the EPO/blood doping culture. That makes him pretty bad, and his place on the timeline pretty significant. And if anything the 'British' thing and 'Sky' thing is partly the reason his misdemeaners are overlooked.0 -
LeicesterLad wrote:ddraver wrote:dunno...if I'm completely honest he's way before my time so I never really had an opinion on him
Working for a "clean team" definitely helps, it's the attempt to right some wrongs.
Really bad effort at attempting to right some wrongs, he was in denial right up till his exit. Still is in denial.
Again, see the turd line....We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
ddraver wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:ddraver wrote:dunno...if I'm completely honest he's way before my time so I never really had an opinion on him
Working for a "clean team" definitely helps, it's the attempt to right some wrongs.
Really bad effort at attempting to right some wrongs, he was in denial right up till his exit. Still is in denial.
Again, see the turd line....
Hey, i've admitted on here more than once that Contador was in the wrong on clen, I also made clear how it angered me when he came out in support of Armstrong, and had anyone asked my opinion on his latest press release then I would have said that it was a completely stupid thing for Contador to say at this stage in his career. I can see why Contador can be percieved as a Turd, again my issue is why some turds get a pardon and the rest berated to death everytime their name gets a mention - often by the same people.0 -
--
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0 -
andrewjoseph wrote:
I always found it slightly weird that Kittel could be so staunchly anti-doping but not have a problem with removing and reinjecting blood thats been treated by UV to enhance 'health' therefor performance. Odd that anybody would think its fine and dandy, even if according to the rules it is fine and dandy.0 -
Scheisse....and not what Argos-Shimano want right now given the ProTour licence situation0
-
LeicesterLad wrote:andrewjoseph wrote:
I always found it slightly weird that Kittel could be so staunchly anti-doping but not have a problem with removing and reinjecting blood thats been treated by UV to enhance 'health' therefor performance. Odd that anybody would think its fine and dandy, even if according to the rules it is fine and dandy.
If it's in the rules it isn't cheating.
Seems a bizarre process though. A bit like the crystal dangling and sugar injections that got Di Gregorio pinged."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 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:andrewjoseph wrote:
I always found it slightly weird that Kittel could be so staunchly anti-doping but not have a problem with removing and reinjecting blood thats been treated by UV to enhance 'health' therefor performance. Odd that anybody would think its fine and dandy, even if according to the rules it is fine and dandy.
If it's in the rules it isn't cheating.
Seems a bizarre process though. A bit like the crystal dangling and sugar injections that got Di Gregorio pinged.
Yeah that's what I mean, of course if its legal its legal, I was just thinking more of the mind-set - if you were very against messing around with stuff, surely blood and needles would be top of the list even if it sounded legit.0 -
LeicesterLad wrote:ddraver wrote:dunno...if I'm completely honest he's way before my time so I never really had an opinion on him
Working for a "clean team" definitely helps, it's the attempt to right some wrongs.
Really bad effort at attempting to right some wrongs, he was in denial right up till his exit. Still is in denial.
Disgruntled:
So he might not be current but that does mean he was part of the original disease, the horror that was the 90's early 00's the very creation of the EPO/blood doping culture. That makes him pretty bad, and his place on the timeline pretty significant. And if anything the 'British' thing and 'Sky' thing is partly the reason his misdemeaners are overlooked.
The evidence against Yates isn't all that conclusive. I don't think he was ever Armstrong's DS so its possible he wasn't in the inner doping sanctum at USPS / Disco. Was Savoldelli doping? Perhaps, but can we say Yates definitely knew? I'm not sure. I'd be surprised if he was as innocent as he claims, but I wouldn't be surprised if he knew something was going on but wasn't actively involved. Bad, but not comparable to a career doper whose entire palmares is based on doping, who has been caught red handed but with the help of his national federation done his best to slither out of the net, riding whilst under investigation (Cf. Frank Schleck) and winning another grand tour in the process which he was always going to be stripped of - a cynical disregard for the sport. Who now doesn't know whether to support dopers, or toe the line to get his team back at the top table by spouting cynical rubbish that he clearly doesn't believe. That's just a summary of how many people feel about Bertie, by the way, not necessarily my opinion!0 -
BigMat wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:ddraver wrote:dunno...if I'm completely honest he's way before my time so I never really had an opinion on him
Working for a "clean team" definitely helps, it's the attempt to right some wrongs.
Really bad effort at attempting to right some wrongs, he was in denial right up till his exit. Still is in denial.
Disgruntled:
So he might not be current but that does mean he was part of the original disease, the horror that was the 90's early 00's the very creation of the EPO/blood doping culture. That makes him pretty bad, and his place on the timeline pretty significant. And if anything the 'British' thing and 'Sky' thing is partly the reason his misdemeaners are overlooked.
The evidence against Yates isn't all that conclusive. I don't think he was ever Armstrong's DS so its possible he wasn't in the inner doping sanctum at USPS / Disco. Was Savoldelli doping? Perhaps, but can we say Yates definitely knew? I'm not sure. I'd be surprised if he was as innocent as he claims, but I wouldn't be surprised if he knew something was going on but wasn't actively involved. Bad, but not comparable to a career doper whose entire palmares is based on doping, who has been caught red handed but with the help of his national federation done his best to slither out of the net, riding whilst under investigation (Cf. Frank Schleck) and winning another grand tour in the process which he was always going to be stripped of - a cynical disregard for the sport. Who now doesn't know whether to support dopers, or toe the line to get his team back at the top table by spouting cynical rubbish that he clearly doesn't believe. That's just a summary of how many people feel about Bertie, by the way, not necessarily my opinion!
Fine with all of that except the bit in bold. There's no evidence that his whole palmares has been based on doping is there? Only speculation and guilt by association, and he and Armstrong were hardly best bud's at Astana. Contador certainly wasn't towing Lance's line, thats for sure.0 -
LeicesterLad wrote:BigMat wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:ddraver wrote:dunno...if I'm completely honest he's way before my time so I never really had an opinion on him
Working for a "clean team" definitely helps, it's the attempt to right some wrongs.
Really bad effort at attempting to right some wrongs, he was in denial right up till his exit. Still is in denial.
Disgruntled:
So he might not be current but that does mean he was part of the original disease, the horror that was the 90's early 00's the very creation of the EPO/blood doping culture. That makes him pretty bad, and his place on the timeline pretty significant. And if anything the 'British' thing and 'Sky' thing is partly the reason his misdemeaners are overlooked.
The evidence against Yates isn't all that conclusive. I don't think he was ever Armstrong's DS so its possible he wasn't in the inner doping sanctum at USPS / Disco. Was Savoldelli doping? Perhaps, but can we say Yates definitely knew? I'm not sure. I'd be surprised if he was as innocent as he claims, but I wouldn't be surprised if he knew something was going on but wasn't actively involved. Bad, but not comparable to a career doper whose entire palmares is based on doping, who has been caught red handed but with the help of his national federation done his best to slither out of the net, riding whilst under investigation (Cf. Frank Schleck) and winning another grand tour in the process which he was always going to be stripped of - a cynical disregard for the sport. Who now doesn't know whether to support dopers, or toe the line to get his team back at the top table by spouting cynical rubbish that he clearly doesn't believe. That's just a summary of how many people feel about Bertie, by the way, not necessarily my opinion!
Fine with all of that except the bit in bold. There's no evidence that his whole palmares has been based on doping is there? Only speculation and guilt by association, and he and Armstrong were hardly best bud's at Astana. Contador certainly wasn't towing Lance's line, thats for sure.
But still markedly superior to the 3rd place guy who had a "one in a million" chance of being clean."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 -
LeicesterLad wrote:BigMat wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:ddraver wrote:dunno...if I'm completely honest he's way before my time so I never really had an opinion on him
Working for a "clean team" definitely helps, it's the attempt to right some wrongs.
Really bad effort at attempting to right some wrongs, he was in denial right up till his exit. Still is in denial.
Disgruntled:
So he might not be current but that does mean he was part of the original disease, the horror that was the 90's early 00's the very creation of the EPO/blood doping culture. That makes him pretty bad, and his place on the timeline pretty significant. And if anything the 'British' thing and 'Sky' thing is partly the reason his misdemeaners are overlooked.
The evidence against Yates isn't all that conclusive. I don't think he was ever Armstrong's DS so its possible he wasn't in the inner doping sanctum at USPS / Disco. Was Savoldelli doping? Perhaps, but can we say Yates definitely knew? I'm not sure. I'd be surprised if he was as innocent as he claims, but I wouldn't be surprised if he knew something was going on but wasn't actively involved. Bad, but not comparable to a career doper whose entire palmares is based on doping, who has been caught red handed but with the help of his national federation done his best to slither out of the net, riding whilst under investigation (Cf. Frank Schleck) and winning another grand tour in the process which he was always going to be stripped of - a cynical disregard for the sport. Who now doesn't know whether to support dopers, or toe the line to get his team back at the top table by spouting cynical rubbish that he clearly doesn't believe. That's just a summary of how many people feel about Bertie, by the way, not necessarily my opinion!
Fine with all of that except the bit in bold. There's no evidence that his whole palmares has been based on doping is there? Only speculation and guilt by association, and he and Armstrong were hardly best bud's at Astana. Contador certainly wasn't towing Lance's line, thats for sure.
Sure there's evidence. Circumstantial evidence, but evidence nonetheless. There's no proof, if that's what you mean, but we know he started out in a team well known for doping and at the centre of Op Puerto, allegations that his blood was in Fuentes' clinic (which he could have cleared up by taking a simple DNA test), he then moved to the most infamous doping team in the history of the sport, he then stayed with Astana when teams with a clean manifesto were apparently bidding for his signature, he then signed for confessed doper and (according to Hamilton) serial "introducer" Riis. Throw in a failed blood test for good measure. To me, it doesn't look great.0 -
BigMat wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:BigMat wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:ddraver wrote:dunno...if I'm completely honest he's way before my time so I never really had an opinion on him
Working for a "clean team" definitely helps, it's the attempt to right some wrongs.
Really bad effort at attempting to right some wrongs, he was in denial right up till his exit. Still is in denial.
Disgruntled:
So he might not be current but that does mean he was part of the original disease, the horror that was the 90's early 00's the very creation of the EPO/blood doping culture. That makes him pretty bad, and his place on the timeline pretty significant. And if anything the 'British' thing and 'Sky' thing is partly the reason his misdemeaners are overlooked.
The evidence against Yates isn't all that conclusive. I don't think he was ever Armstrong's DS so its possible he wasn't in the inner doping sanctum at USPS / Disco. Was Savoldelli doping? Perhaps, but can we say Yates definitely knew? I'm not sure. I'd be surprised if he was as innocent as he claims, but I wouldn't be surprised if he knew something was going on but wasn't actively involved. Bad, but not comparable to a career doper whose entire palmares is based on doping, who has been caught red handed but with the help of his national federation done his best to slither out of the net, riding whilst under investigation (Cf. Frank Schleck) and winning another grand tour in the process which he was always going to be stripped of - a cynical disregard for the sport. Who now doesn't know whether to support dopers, or toe the line to get his team back at the top table by spouting cynical rubbish that he clearly doesn't believe. That's just a summary of how many people feel about Bertie, by the way, not necessarily my opinion!
Fine with all of that except the bit in bold. There's no evidence that his whole palmares has been based on doping is there? Only speculation and guilt by association, and he and Armstrong were hardly best bud's at Astana. Contador certainly wasn't towing Lance's line, thats for sure.
Sure there's evidence. Circumstantial evidence, but evidence nonetheless. There's no proof, if that's what you mean, but we know he started out in a team well known for doping and at the centre of Op Puerto, allegations that his blood was in Fuentes' clinic (which he could have cleared up by taking a simple DNA test), he then moved to the most infamous doping team in the history of the sport, he then stayed with Astana when teams with a clean manifesto were apparently bidding for his signature, he then signed for confessed doper and (according to Hamilton) serial "introducer" Riis. Throw in a failed blood test for good measure. To me, it doesn't look great.
Of course it doesn't - but like you said, there is no proof, so its as circumstantial as Yates. Anyway this was never an argument about whether Bertie has always been clean, I don't think hes always been clean. The argument is why he's singled out from a long line of others who have done the same, even though punishment has been served. Whats wrong with moving on now that he's done his time, and discussing the subject rather than calling for his head.0
