• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Alexandre Vinokourov

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 11, 2009
3,274
1
0
Visit site
auscyclefan94 said:
good for you, a guy who is a drug cheat & who can't admit it is your hero:rolleyes:. I liked the guy as well but i can't respect him now for what he has done.

he is not MY hero.
he is A hero.

:)

/edit: i like people who stick to their words (read lies if you want :)).

i prefer endless denial over "this is insane, i'm innocent, but in a few months i'll admit, sell my story and rat on my colleagues so i can get some money out of this"

/edit 2:
hehehe, from cycloscosm.com
In a way, I want to respect this. Coming off a two-year dope ban and wearing a jersey with a picture of yourself silkscreened onto it is a tremendous message of defiance, and a great way to put a human face (several, actually) on your continued assertion of innocence.

i love that guy :)
 
Jun 24, 2009
463
0
0
Visit site
Animal said:
Latest news is that he'll work for Contador in next year's Tour.

Yeah. That's gonna happen. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I'd be skeptical too! But while we're at it, If your source was Cycling News, All I can say is: What a poorly written, speculative piece of crap journalism that was. First it was said that LA and AC engaged in a war via twitter. Wrong! LANCE, engaged in a unilateral war on twitter. It then again repeated their sparring on the social networks. Wow, who wrote that junk? AC gve a post race interview where everyone got all those Lance is zero quotes from not any social network.
Then finally, the writer seems to want us to believe that staying at Astana will now be attractive to AC, because Vinokourov has announced that he would work for him. What nonsense. To that point, I can see Astana not getting invited to next years Tour for quite a few different reasons, Vino being one of them. Would AC like to gamble his chances of participating in the 2010 TdF, by staying with this troubled team?
But more to the point, how did the writer come to this conclusion? What's the source? The simple statement(as quoted) that Contador would be A leader on his team in 2010? He doesn't need to be A leader, he needs to be THE leader, on his new team of choice. Now, while that might be my own speculation, it is a lot more respectful of AC's intelligence and true market value, than the desperate sounding speculation that was aired in that crumby, unsourced CN article.
Is this writing what CN is reduced to, when the going gets a little slow?:cool:
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,268
1
0
Visit site
ak-zaaf said:
hehehe, from cycloscosm.com:

In a way, I want to respect this. Coming off a two-year dope ban and wearing a jersey with a picture of yourself silkscreened onto it is a tremendous message of defiance, and a great way to put a human face (several, actually) on your continued assertion of innocence.

r
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,498
0
0
Visit site
These posts seem to be from teenagers.Vino wearing a jersey with himself on it makes Armstrong look humble.The only way the guy could do more and say more about being the king of ego would be to do himself while riding.Robbie saying anything about a fellow rider coming up positive is dumb,if the guy is telling the truth and his B sample comes back clear,will people spend as much time saying I am an as#%ole as they did turning themselves into one.The sport needs a 35 yo ego commie threatening his team and it's management, He thinks he is a Russian Clint Eastwood.Dame Edna maybe.I know how he really got those bloody knees.
 
auscyclefan94 said:
Mcewans tweet about astraloza


You've gotta love robbie. Straight to the point with no bs.

Sorry mate but why ?!! Because he hesitated to sign the anti-doping agreement with Katusha perhaps !?
Astarloza, Ricco and ( retired ) Kohl !? Woooooooooooow all big peloton guns in one place, simply amazing bravery !??
Oh, oh, oh what a hero !?!
respect-069.gif
 
Mar 10, 2009
341
0
0
Visit site
Zen Master said:
Sorry mate but why ?!! Because he hesitated to sign the anti-doping agreement with Katusha perhaps !?
Astarloza, Ricco and ( retired ) Kohl !? Woooooooooooow all big peloton guns in one place, simply amazing bravery !??
Oh, oh, oh what a hero !?!
respect-069.gif

I follow Robbie and I can't see that listed, what time was it posted ?
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,274
1
0
Visit site
Eva Maria said:
A Hero? What he do that was heroic, save some kids from a burning building?

yes, in his spare time he cures cancer, saves kids from burning buildings and does casting for erotic thrillers.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,268
1
0
Visit site
joe_papp said:
haha - not this year, though I'm out on the bike 5-7x/week :)

Well, let us know when you are back.

We'll start a 'Joe Papp' thread that'll specify all the victory salutes you'd need to execute when you cross the line (first). And other silly, but also supportive stuff ;)
 
Aug 4, 2009
98
0
0
Visit site
I think prior to the Tour, AC had no problem with Vino returning Astana, probably AC didn't think Vino had it to challenge the GC. I tend to think Vino is harmless, he's more into glories of stage wins (but come on if a rider can win the Tour, he wont just let it pass). Vino probably cared less about being a team leader or being political correct or media darling like LA does. However, Vino certainly will cause stresses when the loose canon breaks away in the mountain stage. After the sore experience AC had this year, he should be prudent enough to pass the offer.
 
Bala Verde said:
Well, let us know when you are back.

We'll start a 'Joe Papp' thread that'll specify all the victory salutes you'd need to execute when you cross the line (first). And other silly, but also supportive stuff ;)

lol it would be nice to win again (cleanly, like I did from 1989-2001)...but I can't believe I'm 34 already...like, where did all that time go? Not to hijack this thread, but one thing that I think gets lost in the hate-slinging that characterizes a typical unsympathetic view towards athletes who've served a ban and want to get back into cycling is the fact that - what else are they going to do? You're talking about guys who have 15-20 years invested in the sport, and putting aside whatever personal anger one might feel towards a convicted doper, seriously - what do you counsel them to do with their lives? Starting over at age 30+ is not easy (though of course people have to do it all the time), and even if a guy doped, that still doesn't change the fact that he has 15-20 years worth of experience in a particular field - which many would seemingly deny him the chance to re-enter, despite having served a ban. Of course you can argue in typical black/white fashion that even someone who has only one doping violation and is ostensibly reformed should be ostracized, hated-upon and blacklisted from the sport (MR?). But it's not like there are job retraining programs that provide any help in transitioning out of cycling and into something completely different. Even prison is supposed to rehabilitate the offender so they can become productive members of society.

I'm still surprised at the savagery that dwells within people who blast away at the ex-doper and demand his banishment, even when the rules allow him to return. It's like you're saying he is nonredeemable, it doesn't matter what price he's already paid, and he should be given a psychological and material death sentence - either to make an example of him for others, or to satisfy your own blood lust.

I'm not taking this solely from my own personal experience, but if the UCI or USADA or WADA or a coaches' association or ...(you get the picture)... asked me what I personally would say to discourage a cyclist tempted by doping, it wouldn't be to emphasize that there is a health risk. Rather, I'd tell them that if they dope and get caught, there will be no mercy whatsoever shown to them by anyone, and they are going to be cast out of normal society and left to fend for themselves with whatever non-cycling skill set or resources they can scrape together.

Michael Schermer wrote an article for Scientific American entitled "The Doping Dilemma," in which he tried to identify the incentives and disincentives to doping. It might make sense (in a cynical kinda way) to juice if in doing so you were likely to bank millions of euros that you otherwise wouldn't earn (never mind the fact that the money would be tainted - much like Thor's green jersey - lol :p), but if you're not walking away with millions to go with your suspension, holy sh*t - there's no way doping is worth it.

If I knew how my life would implode, and how much hate I would be subjected to by strangers, how I would lose most of the friendships I had cultivated over two decades (Which were primarily with other cyclists, who came to fear being outed by me for their own doping and so broke contact), and how difficult it would be to re-enter normal society in any productive way - I would never, ever, ever have thought for a second about doping. I would have stayed right where I was or quit the sport. Why? Because look at it: I didn't walk away with millions, I'm 34, I dedicated 20 years of my life to this sport, and none of that counts for anything right now when it comes to surviving day in and day out.

My cycling career ended with me having *nothing* to show for it, as the doping conviction invalidated everything from race results to whatever aura of achievement and capacity for success I'd cultivated. Granted, someone like Basso, who got caught, admitted nothing really, and was able to return to the sport at the same level with the same earning potential is a bad example, but for the vast majority of riders whose careers are ended by a doping violation, the long-term cost far outweighs whatever gains they made while doped (FL as an example, perhaps? no wife, no father-in-law, no big house, no big bank account...racing for a domestic team, not even doing that well, and getting humiliating fines for littering during races that he probably thought he'd never have to ride again).

Some blogger wrote that the article on me that appeared in Outside magazine last year portrayed me as an epic loser. While that's not entirely accurate :cool:, what is true is that I went from living what I considered at the time to be a rather charmed existence to having worse than nothing. It's one thing to be an anonymous loser. It's another thing entirely to have no resources to deploy in the advancement of your life AND to be portrayed in the public record as a complete and total unethical, cheating b*stard with absolutely no redeeming qualities. Holy sh*t!

I write this not because I want sympathy, as the public has shown for the most part that they're typically not willing to offer, but rather to chronicle the real-life price paid by the doper and how it is almost impossible to argue that this cost is worth whatever transitory gains were experienced on the bike.
 
joe_papp said:
lol it would be nice to win again (cleanly, like I did from 1989-2001)...but I can't believe I'm 34 already...like, where did all that time go? Not to hijack this thread, but one thing that I think gets lost in the hate-slinging that characterizes a typical unsympathetic view towards athletes who've served a ban and want to get back into cycling is the fact that - what else are they going to do? You're talking about guys who have 15-20 years invested in the sport, and putting aside whatever personal anger one might feel towards a convicted doper, seriously - what do you counsel them to do with their lives? Starting over at age 30+ is not easy (though of course people have to do it all the time), and even if a guy doped, that still doesn't change the fact that he has 15-20 years worth of experience in a particular field - which many would seemingly deny him the chance to re-enter, despite having served a ban. Of course you can argue in typical black/white fashion that even someone who has only one doping violation and is ostensibly reformed should be ostracized, hated-upon and blacklisted from the sport (MR?). But it's not like there are job retraining programs that provide any help in transitioning out of cycling and into something completely different. Even prison is supposed to rehabilitate the offender so they can become productive members of society.

I'm still surprised at the savagery that dwells within people who blast away at the ex-doper and demand his banishment, even when the rules allow him to return. It's like you're saying he is nonredeemable, it doesn't matter what price he's already paid, and he should be given a psychological and material death sentence - either to make an example of him for others, or to satisfy your own blood lust.

I'm not taking this solely from my own personal experience, but if the UCI or USADA or WADA or a coaches' association or ...(you get the picture)... asked me what I personally would say to discourage a cyclist tempted by doping, it wouldn't be to emphasize that there is a health risk. Rather, I'd tell them that if they dope and get caught, there will be no mercy whatsoever shown to them by anyone, and they are going to be cast out of normal society and left to fend for themselves with whatever non-cycling skill set or resources they can scrape together.

Michael Schermer wrote an article for Scientific American entitled "The Doping Dilemma," in which he tried to identify the incentives and disincentives to doping. It might make sense (in a cynical kinda way) to juice if in doing so you were likely to bank millions of euros that you otherwise wouldn't earn (never mind the fact that the money would be tainted - much like Thor's green jersey - lol :p), but if you're not walking away with millions to go with your suspension, holy sh*t - there's no way doping is worth it.

If I knew how my life would implode, and how much hate I would be subjected to by strangers, how I would lose most of the friendships I had cultivated over two decades (Which were primarily with other cyclists, who came to fear being outed by me for their own doping and so broke contact), and how difficult it would be to re-enter normal society in any productive way - I would never, ever, ever have thought for a second about doping. I would have stayed right where I was or quit the sport. Why? Because look at it: I didn't walk away with millions, I'm 34, I dedicated 20 years of my life to this sport, and none of that counts for anything right now when it comes to surviving day in and day out.

My cycling career ended with me having *nothing* to show for it, as the doping conviction invalidated everything from race results to whatever aura of achievement and capacity for success I'd cultivated. Granted, someone like Basso, who got caught, admitted nothing really, and was able to return to the sport at the same level with the same earning potential is a bad example, but for the vast majority of riders whose careers are ended by a doping violation, the long-term cost far outweighs whatever gains they made while doped (FL as an example, perhaps? no wife, no father-in-law, no big house, no big bank account...racing for a domestic team, not even doing that well, and getting humiliating fines for littering during races that he probably thought he'd never have to ride again).

Some blogger wrote that the article on me that appeared in Outside magazine last year portrayed me as an epic loser. While that's not entirely accurate :cool:, what is true is that I went from living what I considered at the time to be a rather charmed existence to having worse than nothing. It's one thing to be an anonymous loser. It's another thing entirely to have no resources to deploy in the advancement of your life AND to be portrayed in the public record as a complete and total unethical, cheating b*stard with absolutely no redeeming qualities. Holy sh*t!

I write this not because I want sympathy, as the public has shown for the most part that they're typically not willing to offer, but rather to chronicle the real-life price paid by the doper and how it is almost impossible to argue that this cost is worth whatever transitory gains were experienced on the bike.

Very well written Joe. Obviously if anyone on this forum can write on this subject, it be you. These thoughts have come to me about teh non-sporting life consequences that come with the expulsions, but there is no way I can truly put in words because I am not living that life like you have had to do.

I read the Outside article, and i don't know if it portrays more as a loser, just more to me as a person who took a chance and now has no direction in life because well as you said, the one thing you have worked for has been taken completely away from you. I saw the your forum name, but I didnt' realize until i read your last response that it was actually you.

All athletes have a close minded version of the world because they become so engulfed in their particular sport, that sometimes they lose perspective on what life would be like without it. I use to bowl as an amateur for living in the US, one day I decided I just had enough with it and walked away. When I returned home i felt psychologically lost because what I had known for my life was not there, leaving a massive void, empty feeling. THis was almost 8 years ago, and somedays I still feel lost. I have gotten back into it as recreational, but its not the same.
 
Aug 1, 2009
7
0
0
Visit site
180mmCrank said:
I think we need that bloke from the Da Vinci Code on here - what's his name...

Tom Hanks :)

You are right, my son.... the truth is somewhere near.;)



Vinokurov is back, there used to win Yakovlev (2000 year),,,, great symbolism in this,,,
ridges new era, "Vino Age 2" ...
trepidation bourgeois Worms, "comes" the wheel of fate " :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
joe_papp said:
lol it would be nice to win again (cleanly, like I did from 1989-2001)...but I can't believe I'm 34 already...like, where did all that time go? Not to hijack this thread, but one thing that I think gets lost in the hate-slinging that characterizes a typical unsympathetic view towards athletes who've served a ban and want to get back into cycling is the fact that - what else are they going to do? You're talking about guys who have 15-20 years invested in the sport, and putting aside whatever personal anger one might feel towards a convicted doper, seriously - what do you counsel them to do with their lives? Starting over at age 30+ is not easy (though of course people have to do it all the time), and even if a guy doped, that still doesn't change the fact that he has 15-20 years worth of experience in a particular field - which many would seemingly deny him the chance to re-enter, despite having served a ban. Of course you can argue in typical black/white fashion that even someone who has only one doping violation and is ostensibly reformed should be ostracized, hated-upon and blacklisted from the sport (MR?). But it's not like there are job retraining programs that provide any help in transitioning out of cycling and into something completely different. Even prison is supposed to rehabilitate the offender so they can become productive members of society.

I'm still surprised at the savagery that dwells within people who blast away at the ex-doper and demand his banishment, even when the rules allow him to return. It's like you're saying he is nonredeemable, it doesn't matter what price he's already paid, and he should be given a psychological and material death sentence - either to make an example of him for others, or to satisfy your own blood lust.

I'm not taking this solely from my own personal experience, but if the UCI or USADA or WADA or a coaches' association or ...(you get the picture)... asked me what I personally would say to discourage a cyclist tempted by doping, it wouldn't be to emphasize that there is a health risk. Rather, I'd tell them that if they dope and get caught, there will be no mercy whatsoever shown to them by anyone, and they are going to be cast out of normal society and left to fend for themselves with whatever non-cycling skill set or resources they can scrape together.

Michael Schermer wrote an article for Scientific American entitled "The Doping Dilemma," in which he tried to identify the incentives and disincentives to doping. It might make sense (in a cynical kinda way) to juice if in doing so you were likely to bank millions of euros that you otherwise wouldn't earn (never mind the fact that the money would be tainted - much like Thor's green jersey - lol :p), but if you're not walking away with millions to go with your suspension, holy sh*t - there's no way doping is worth it.

If I knew how my life would implode, and how much hate I would be subjected to by strangers, how I would lose most of the friendships I had cultivated over two decades (Which were primarily with other cyclists, who came to fear being outed by me for their own doping and so broke contact), and how difficult it would be to re-enter normal society in any productive way - I would never, ever, ever have thought for a second about doping. I would have stayed right where I was or quit the sport. Why? Because look at it: I didn't walk away with millions, I'm 34, I dedicated 20 years of my life to this sport, and none of that counts for anything right now when it comes to surviving day in and day out.

My cycling career ended with me having *nothing* to show for it, as the doping conviction invalidated everything from race results to whatever aura of achievement and capacity for success I'd cultivated. Granted, someone like Basso, who got caught, admitted nothing really, and was able to return to the sport at the same level with the same earning potential is a bad example, but for the vast majority of riders whose careers are ended by a doping violation, the long-term cost far outweighs whatever gains they made while doped (FL as an example, perhaps? no wife, no father-in-law, no big house, no big bank account...racing for a domestic team, not even doing that well, and getting humiliating fines for littering during races that he probably thought he'd never have to ride again).

Some blogger wrote that the article on me that appeared in Outside magazine last year portrayed me as an epic loser. While that's not entirely accurate :cool:, what is true is that I went from living what I considered at the time to be a rather charmed existence to having worse than nothing. It's one thing to be an anonymous loser. It's another thing entirely to have no resources to deploy in the advancement of your life AND to be portrayed in the public record as a complete and total unethical, cheating b*stard with absolutely no redeeming qualities. Holy sh*t!

I write this not because I want sympathy, as the public has shown for the most part that they're typically not willing to offer, but rather to chronicle the real-life price paid by the doper and how it is almost impossible to argue that this cost is worth whatever transitory gains were experienced on the bike.

Do you think any of the ostracization comes from having been honest and detailed in your admissions about doping?
 
Thoughtforfood said:
Do you think any of the ostracization comes from having been honest and detailed in your admissions about doping?

Perhaps that which comes from my peers is related to the honesty and detail of my admissions. But I'm at a loss to explain the reaction of people who I've never met - unless they blame me for ruining their image of their sport. I doubt that I could have that much of an effect on someone, though. It's hardly as if I commanded the loyal following of a Landis or Hamilton.
 
Aug 1, 2009
7
0
0
Visit site
everyone who made a mistake, should be a second chance opportunity. Any law does not require repentance of the convicted person. Because there is a risk of erroneous verdicts.

as said Astarlosa - Dudo en la actual lucha contra el dopaje ...

I look at "honest" eye Astarlosa, I believe him
 
Aug 4, 2009
177
0
0
Visit site
1) How does one say "tool" in whatever-the-hell language veenial speaks? :eek:

2) Remember his press conference in Monaco? REMEMBER??? Give the real credit for Astana's team antics to the craphead who drove that wedge through the middle of Astana the week before the tt in Monaco...now, after paying the payroll for "veenial's team", and JB and LA move on, you all wanna trash talk them?? pfft!
 

Eva Maria

BANNED
May 24, 2009
387
0
0
Visit site
joe_papp said:
lol it would be nice to win again (cleanly, like I did from 1989-2001)...but I can't believe I'm 34 already...like, where did all that time go? Not to hijack this thread, but one thing that I think gets lost in the hate-slinging that characterizes a typical unsympathetic view towards athletes who've served a ban and want to get back into cycling is the fact that - what else are they going to do? You're talking about guys who have 15-20 years invested in the sport, and putting aside whatever personal anger one might feel towards a convicted doper, seriously - what do you counsel them to do with their lives? Starting over at age 30+ is not easy (though of course people have to do it all the time), and even if a guy doped, that still doesn't change the fact that he has 15-20 years worth of experience in a particular field - which many would seemingly deny him the chance to re-enter, despite having served a ban. Of course you can argue in typical black/white fashion that even someone who has only one doping violation and is ostensibly reformed should be ostracized, hated-upon and blacklisted from the sport (MR?). But it's not like there are job retraining programs that provide any help in transitioning out of cycling and into something completely different. Even prison is supposed to rehabilitate the offender so they can become productive members of society.

I'm still surprised at the savagery that dwells within people who blast away at the ex-doper and demand his banishment, even when the rules allow him to return. It's like you're saying he is nonredeemable, it doesn't matter what price he's already paid, and he should be given a psychological and material death sentence - either to make an example of him for others, or to satisfy your own blood lust.

I'm not taking this solely from my own personal experience, but if the UCI or USADA or WADA or a coaches' association or ...(you get the picture)... asked me what I personally would say to discourage a cyclist tempted by doping, it wouldn't be to emphasize that there is a health risk. Rather, I'd tell them that if they dope and get caught, there will be no mercy whatsoever shown to them by anyone, and they are going to be cast out of normal society and left to fend for themselves with whatever non-cycling skill set or resources they can scrape together.

Michael Schermer wrote an article for Scientific American entitled "The Doping Dilemma," in which he tried to identify the incentives and disincentives to doping. It might make sense (in a cynical kinda way) to juice if in doing so you were likely to bank millions of euros that you otherwise wouldn't earn (never mind the fact that the money would be tainted - much like Thor's green jersey - lol :p), but if you're not walking away with millions to go with your suspension, holy sh*t - there's no way doping is worth it.

If I knew how my life would implode, and how much hate I would be subjected to by strangers, how I would lose most of the friendships I had cultivated over two decades (Which were primarily with other cyclists, who came to fear being outed by me for their own doping and so broke contact), and how difficult it would be to re-enter normal society in any productive way - I would never, ever, ever have thought for a second about doping. I would have stayed right where I was or quit the sport. Why? Because look at it: I didn't walk away with millions, I'm 34, I dedicated 20 years of my life to this sport, and none of that counts for anything right now when it comes to surviving day in and day out.

My cycling career ended with me having *nothing* to show for it, as the doping conviction invalidated everything from race results to whatever aura of achievement and capacity for success I'd cultivated. Granted, someone like Basso, who got caught, admitted nothing really, and was able to return to the sport at the same level with the same earning potential is a bad example, but for the vast majority of riders whose careers are ended by a doping violation, the long-term cost far outweighs whatever gains they made while doped (FL as an example, perhaps? no wife, no father-in-law, no big house, no big bank account...racing for a domestic team, not even doing that well, and getting humiliating fines for littering during races that he probably thought he'd never have to ride again).

Some blogger wrote that the article on me that appeared in Outside magazine last year portrayed me as an epic loser. While that's not entirely accurate :cool:, what is true is that I went from living what I considered at the time to be a rather charmed existence to having worse than nothing. It's one thing to be an anonymous loser. It's another thing entirely to have no resources to deploy in the advancement of your life AND to be portrayed in the public record as a complete and total unethical, cheating b*stard with absolutely no redeeming qualities. Holy sh*t!

I write this not because I want sympathy, as the public has shown for the most part that they're typically not willing to offer, but rather to chronicle the real-life price paid by the doper and how it is almost impossible to argue that this cost is worth whatever transitory gains were experienced on the bike.

Good, thoughtful post Joe.

I don't hate dopers. many of my best friends and teammates doped. I do dislike those that try to lie their way out or manipulate the system to avoid facing reality. Landis, Armstrong, Tyler, Di lucca, Vino, Kash, etc. No respect for these guys.

On related note I remember when you used to write your cyclingnews diary's you talked about racing against Rumsas in a GF. IIRC you talked about how much you "respected" him. I thought it was an interesting choice of words and it stuck with me. What did you find respectful about him? Was it just his athletic ability or was he just a nice guy? After he ditched his wife in the French prison I lost respect for him.
 
joe_papp said:
I'm at a loss to explain the reaction of people who I've never met - unless they blame me for ruining their image of their sport.

That's exactly it.

The weekend warrior watches races imagining himself attempting to mix it up there. How many extra miles per week would it take? How much could they hurt themselves?

To find out that all that was pointless, and an artificial show just tears down any enjoyment of the sport.

It's not only about public image, it's about the whole perception of the sport.

Peole have posted this before, but nowadays, I just follow the races less. I can't get excited about the races, I can't really cheer on riders.

I have been made to look like a total fucking TWAT time after time after time. And I really do resent that.
 
Mar 10, 2009
341
0
0
Visit site
great post Joe, not been on the forum long so didn't know we had any ex pros or anything on here.

If people show humility then I don't have a problem with what they have done. Paying thousands for a "training plan" F Schleck, or Basso with his I might dope in the future so had it just in case , even though blood won't keep for long, is where I lose respect.

I like to believe they are all clean until they fail a test, naive I know but sometimes that is the only way you can watch the sport
 

TRENDING THREADS