being on the record...manifesto baby

[sittingbison]

This sticky is for declaring your opinions views and manifestos on the record, so it doesn't get lost in the (hog) wash

 

[Race Radio]

I think that several of SKY performance are not normal and I have made this clear several times. Froome on the top part of Ventoux showed he could likely put :30-1min on Quintana on a 30-40 min climb. That would put him around 38:30 on Alp d'Huez, or even faster on an easier stage. Not Normal. Semnoz is also not normal, highest output of the race. Uran in the Giro? Not normal. I think Sky knows this and that is why they didn't resign him. JTL? Doper. They would have to have been idiots to not know this. Classics riders using Cortisone OOC without a TUE, legal but certainly not ethical. I still don't know what to make of Wiggins or Porte. I also don't think there is a team program.....Flame away I just don't know.

As much as I think this w/kg stuff is interesting I am far from an expert at it. I think it is an interesting data point but far more interesting is a disgruntled wife, SKY has one of those, or a former rider like Flecha spilling the beans.

The weight thing makes no sense to me. There is clearly something going on but none of the people I talk to can figure it out. Sure some say various substances but nothing that is traceable or had been found on anyone.

I have written all of this several times, often with far more detail, but some like to pretend I have not.

Not directed at you but I am sure others will flame away but don't expect me to respond. Really tired of the endless nonsense here

 

[mewmewmew13]

This sticky is for declaring your opinions views and manifestos on the record, so it doesn't get lost in the (hog) wash

thanx SB

gotta go through my thoughts..

 

[Race Radio]

12% on Mount Ventoux?

Here is the real story

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1356336&postcount=1351

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Now we just need to remove the other clutter including mine.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I'm pretty sure Lance Armstrong doped...

And I think Froome is suspicious enough not to believe, and that Horner is completely unbelievable, and that one of the big names like Contador or Nibali will get popped this year for preparing to beat Froome at the Tour...which will make Froome's win all that much more unbelievable.

And regardless of whether Wigans is doping or not, he is the biggest d0uchebag on a bike...in fact, I'm not sure his birth name wasn't original Bradley Gallagher...

 

[mewmewmew13]

I NEVER liked Lance Armstrong. I NEVER was a fan. I NEVER believed he was truly gifted. Didn't buy in from the moment I saw him.

I want to go on record as saying that something is wrong with this whole skinny and fast thing.

 

[MarkvW]

I think that professional cycling is corrupt through and through. From buying and selling races, to doping, to the horrible exploitation of vulnerable riders. I am near certain that the filthy cesspool of cycling is absolutely beyond redemption. The sport will NEVER get better!! (And that's a good thing, because it's so entertaining).

I think somewhere between sixty and ninety percent of the pro peloton are dopers. I think DiLuca wasn't lying and Basso was.

Guessing who is clean and who is dirty is a ridiculous (but fun) undertaking. Even the clean riders support a filthy sport--and the sport needs them to maintain the miniscule fig leaf of pseudo-respectability that it does have.

People who get angry about Sky are stupid. Sky is the last thing in the world anybody should get angry about. If you want to get angry about something worthwhile, get angry about how horribly underpaid and vulnerable the domestiques are.

Some people have an agenda to make cycling look "not that bad." But it is that bad! Look at Lance Armstrong--he's the living embodiment of professional cycling. He is its most pronounced tumorous excrescence! He's like the boneheaded Dr. Moriarty of professional cycling. You just have to love that!!! And then there's the drama of the dead dopeheads. Stuff that's better than tabloid! (Anybody feeling holier than thou should at this point stop reading).

I thank Floyd Landis so much for what he has done for professional cycling. He made a fortune by doping, lost it, and now stands to make it back--and more--by snitching off the very man who taught him everything he knew about doping! Such entertainment! I also thank Floyd's soul-brother: Joe Papp. While Floyd was still touting his Fairness Fund, Papp kept us all entertained with hypocrisy and doping felony.

I am not a road racer. I commute by bike and do hundred mile rides for fun. I've toured some fairly long distances, and when I get some time I'll do some epic multi-month tours. I boil roadies down into two types: The dudes who say hi to me and the self-obsessed pushy f***wads who don't. I've met a universe of "Freds" on the bike who are the most awesome individualistic dudes on the face of the planet. I know it is a fact that all car drivers are not as stupid as deer, but I truly and deeply refuse to accept that fact.

I avoid buying anything sponsored by pro cycling teams and anything that has ever been sponsored by Lance Armstrong (except, curse me, I like Powerbars (made by evil Nestle) (and I am trying to find a good substitute)). I try my best to support my local bike stores.

My attitude toward professional cycling can best be described as nihilistic. I'd like to see the sport crash and burn in the most Hindenburgian Zeppelinesque manner possible! Then it could start all over again (like a disease infecting Patient Zero). You just can't make up the drama that professional cycling brings!

I enjoy reading about disasters other than pro cycling. Right now I'm in the middle of an awesome three volume study of Operation Uranus (Stalingrad).

 

[andy1234]

I have never, not once, not even for a second, supported Lance Armstrong.
Not even when everyone thought he was the second coming of Jesus.
I am on record several times, stating that i was convinced he was doping, the moment he won the prologue of the 99 tour. I have also been educated in many of his other flaws, by some well informed posters.

I have, however, never subscribed to the manifesto, of "any enemy of Armstrong, is a friend of mine".

I have consistently, and will continue, to question the accuracy, intent, and motivation of all the players in the Armstrong clusterf**ked, universe.
That includes LeMond, Landis, Hamiltion, the Andreus' etc etc.

While these waters have been well and truly thrashed, by the alternative manifesto of "any enemy of Armstrong, is an enemy of mine", I personally don't raise the questions with any benefit to Armstrong in mind.

I also do not like, and have never liked, the music of Bruce Springsteen.

Thank you for listening. Tea and coffee is available on your way out.

 

[gooner]

First of all I'm not a fan of Sky and I don't know where these accusations of national bias towards me come from when I have no affiliation with the UK whatsover.

As for Froome, I have serious reservations with the huge leap in performance coming off his pre-2011 days. That being said, I stand by my opinion that I have said here before, I believe they aren't running a doping programme throughout the team. I keep hearing that Leinders was the mastermind but he has been ditched and the success has still maintained with long peaks in 2013 with Froome and Porte. Who's doing it now so? He's certainly not on a Ferrari scale. I was listening to John Herety in the Eurosport studio last summer for the Tour and he said guys like Brailsford and Ellingworth who he knows very well from the British Cycling scene, are vehemently anti-doping and wouldn't put up with it in any shape or form. He couldn't emphasise it enough especially with Ellingworth. Walsh in his interaction with Ellingworth who he said he spent many hours with, said something similar from his time around him.

I also don't agree with the USP comparisons and think the Sky situation should be judged on its own merits where I think the evidence against Sky doesn't stack up when we take what we had against USP for the same period. Too much is made of that and it's not an argument with substance, just a statement that is being pushed to further a narrative. Even judging them independently they still have criticism to answer for. Maybe they push the boundaries within legal means. Either way, I don't think we know for certain one way or the other no matter what side of the argument we are on.

On Wiggins, the guy comes across as an ***hole at times but for now, I'm inclined to believe him even though his love in for Lance portrays him in poor light. I think JV and Garmin are genuine in the way they run their team and Wiggins's leap with them and finishing 4th goes in his favour. I think he was lucky in 2012 with the route design and when it was announced I remember the general reaction was that this route was one which Wiggins could nail his colours to. That was all before his P-N, Romandie and Dauphine win. All this with Wiggins is just a gut feeling. I maybe wrong but it's on his head if he's the cheat, not me. I don't look at this as personal vindication over others.

Cue the accusations of Wiggins fanboy.

 

[RedheadDane]

I believe that cycling has indeed gotten cleaner, but I'm well aware that it'll never be 100% clean; if there is a opportunity to cheat there will always be someone taking it, no matter the risks.

I believe that people are innocent until proven guilty, whether from testing positive, admitting themselves, or being busted by some other source. When that's said I think people should be much more willing to bust others; Omerta needs to die!

Finally I think that if a rider is revealed to have been doped during a major win he (or she) should be required to ride the entire route of said race on a heavy iron bike with no wheels!
And yes that would mean that Armstrong should do all seven tours on such a bike!

 

[D-Queued]

Why Actovegin?

As a small part of the bigger question, will we ever get the whole truth?

Dave.

 

[The Hitch]

On Wiggins, the guy comes across as an ***hole at times but for now, I'm inclined to believe him even though his love in for Lance portrays him in poor light. I think JV and Garmin are genuine in the way they run their team and Wiggins's leap with them and finishing 4th goes in his favour. I think he was lucky in 2012 with the route design and when it was announced I remember the general reaction was that this route was one which Wiggins could nail his colours to. That was all before his P-N, Romandie and Dauphine win. All this with Wiggins is just a gut feeling. I maybe wrong but it's on his head if he's the cheat, not me. I don't look at this as personal vindication over others.
.

How can Froome be suspicious if Wiggins is clean?

If Wiggins can go from 130th to dominate the TDF clean then Froome cannot possibily be doping when he goes 80th to 1st with the same team.

Wiggins also, hillariously, holds the all time cq efficiency record -47 points per day in 2012. If a guy outside the world top 500 can post the most successful pound for pound season since records began (1999), then no performance can ever be labelled suspicious. Ever.

 

[BroDeal]

I want to declare that Lexx is the greatest sci-fi series ever and I really like Family Guy. I think it is important to get that off my chest so people know where I am coming from.

Also JV, Tygart, the Andreus, and other do-gooders are really starting to annoy me.

 

[Maxiton]

1) I like manifestos in general.

2) Professional sports are about money, not sport. They are a simulacrum of sport, one in which their starring figures make a Faustian bargain in exchange for fame, fake glory, and, in exceptional cases, real riches.

3) In a system that is corrupt through and through, such as professional sports, fame can turn to infamy in a flash. The true stars of pro sports are not the players but the big money behind the scenes, and they won't tolerate anyone, or anything, who threatens their interests.

4) The only hope for reforming pro sport into something healthy and wholesome is a strong players union controlled by the players, combined with open discussion among enlightened fans who demand better than they are getting.

5) Lance Armstrong is a reprehensible character, but he is as much a victim as a perpetrator and a straw man where corruption in cycle sport is concerned. The sport is as corrupt now as it was in his heyday.

6) Today's cycling stars - Froome, Wiggins, Horner, et al. - and their teams, are as fake as Fox News. Vaughters and his team are no exception, far from it.

7) I too despise Bruce Springsteen.

 

[simoni]

1/ My initial standpoint is that everyone is clean and I seek evidence that teams/riders are not rather than the other way round. I don't think I could ever give up on cycling altogether.

2/ I have trouble with the assumption that drugs are the only determinant of success. I compete in distance running and have some degree of success but some people are just better than me. There are many many factors, doping is just one.

3/ I'm british. That means I should unconditionally support sky, right? No. I'm on the fence. The team is such a big sprawling unit and has been home to a number of certain dopers/staff. I find it very difficult to believe that the management staff (who I believe to have good intentions) can keep a proper oversight of what is going on. At best they're a PR disaster area, at worst, there are factions in the team cheating.

4/ I believe cycling is in the process of changing for the better but there will always be cheats where there's money. Change needs to come from the inside and riders are now more prepared to speak out. Some will be bull****ters, some will be speaking the truth.

5/ I neither like nor hate Bruce Springsteen.

 

[bobbins]

Brailsford, Froome, Wiggins, Leinders, BSkyB. The truth will come out sooner rather than later.

 

[Wallace]

Lance Armstrong is a reprehensible character, but he is as much a victim as a perpetrator and a straw man where corruption in cycle sport is concerned. The sport is as corrupt now as it was in his heyday.

Not to pick specifically on Maxiton, but this is the thing that most drives me nuts about the current pro cycling conversation, and I feel a need to call it out as buIIlsh!t. The first ridiculous, deluded and incessantly repeated line of the pro-Lance crowd was "biggest heart, high cadence, trains harder than anyone else." When that start to fall apart, it was replaced by the desperate "most tested athlete in history, never tested positive," Then, "think of all he's done for the sport and for cancer." Naively, I thought that even the die-hard Lance fanatics would be done with him after the "circumstantial evidence/hearsay" last-ditch defense fell apart. No such luck. Now every Lance supporter offers the same, boiler-plate line, the latest lie directly from the man himself: he may be a (insert pejorative term here), but he's been unfairly singled out, martyred, the victim of a witch-hunt, etc, etc. Now, whenever you see someone criticizing LA's character, you know what's going to follow is a simplistic statement which is the result of Lance propaganda. I'm really sick of it. I don't give a $#@! about LA's character, personality, etc. He got exactly what he deserved, and what he got was--as anyone who actually followed the process of the Reasoned Decision knows--entirely fair. Armstrong's current situation is entirely the result of his own decisions. No witch-hunt, no straw men. And one on one, he's a really nice guy. The sweetest justly-punished cheat you'll ever meet.

I feel a great deal of compassion for Rick Springfield.

 

[Maxiton]

Not to pick specifically on Maxiton, but this is the thing that most drives me nuts about the current pro cycling conversation, and I feel a need to call it out as buIIlsh!t. The first ridiculous, deluded and incessantly repeated line of the pro-Lance crowd was "biggest heart, high cadence, trains harder than anyone else." When that start to fall apart, it was replaced by the desperate "most tested athlete in history, never tested positive," Then, "think of all he's done for the sport and for cancer." Naively, I thought that even the die-hard Lance fanatics would be done with him after the "circumstantial evidence/hearsay" last-ditch defense fell apart. No such luck. Now every Lance supporter offers the same, boiler-plate line, the latest lie directly from the man himself: he may be a (insert pejorative term here), but he's been unfairly singled out, martyred, the victim of a witch-hunt, etc, etc. Now, whenever you see someone criticizing LA's character, you know what's going to follow is a simplistic statement which is the result of Lance propaganda. I'm really sick of it. I don't give a $#@! about LA's character, personality, etc. He got exactly what he deserved, and what he got was--as anyone who actually followed the process of the Reasoned Decision knows--entirely fair. Armstrong's current situation is entirely the result of his own decisions. No witch-hunt, no straw men. And one on one, he's a really nice guy. The sweetest justly-punished cheat you'll ever meet.

I feel a great deal of compassion for Rick Springfield.

Armstrong is dead as a figure of power. No words can revive him. The cesspool he thrived in, on the other hand, is still very much alive.

The entire structure of pro cycling is corrupt. Those who maintain it and profit by it would have us believe that Armstrong was the problem, and now that he is vanquished the problem is solved. Maybe you believe that, I don't. Not for a second. This was my point.

 

[ebandit]

love

don't despair.................love will prevail

Mark L

 

[Scott SoCal]

The Northern Classics Rule.

There are a bunch of compelling one-day races; Strade Bianche, Liege, Amstel, San Remo....

But let's be honest. The two best racing days of the year are Flanders and Roubaix. Nothing else is even close.


I never liked Springsteen or the Beatles.

 

[oldcrank]

This sticky is for declaring your opinions views and manifestos on the record, so it doesn't get lost in the (hog) wash

The True Monuments of Cycling:
The Catford Hill Climb
The Austral Wheelrace
The Southern Counties Good Friday Meeting
The Paarl Boxing Day Meeting

 

[BroDeal]

Just about every regular who has called another poster a troll is also guilty of trolling. And everyone of them says, "Oh, I'm not guilty, I never do THAT!" Plumb amazing. Ironically -the prime name slapdown has happened even without me.

The problem with the new mods is a lack of understanding of what trolling is. The acid test is not whether someone lobs a bomb occasionally into a thread. That type of post keeps the place lively and often elicits interesting responses. The acid test is whether it is persistently disruptive or not. BPC would not simply post distortions. He would post distortions then doggedly post followup after follow up until the thread was not worth reading.

A muckraker is not necessarily a troll.

 

[42x16ss]

Until I can see that things are getting cleaner at the pointy end of the very biggest races, stuff it, I'm gonna cheer for the biggest trolls on the road. In the past this has included Pantani, VDB, Vino, Mayo, RoboBasso, Ricco, Piepoli and Contador (when he was awesome) and current faves include guys like Gilbert, Boonen, Gerrans, Rodriguez, Cancellara and Sagan.

I just can't warm to the guys who have to carry on and on about how squeaky f#$%ing clean they (or their team) are. IMHO they should be keeping their tongues in their heads and be grateful that their names haven't been drawn from the lottery that the UCI has been using to determine their random positives.

Until we start seeing some real changes at the very highest level of pro riders I'm going to stick with this.

Having said that, I also believe that in the middle tier of the pro ranks, riders can't get away with as much as they used to, either quantity or quality (possibly both?), possibly through fear of the bio-passport and improved tests. Judging from what certified clean riders have achieved in the past I'll say that it may well be possible to be a solid watercarrier and win the very occasional small race without taking anything banned.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Of course you don't agree with it.
You are another clueless follower of TheHog without an original thought. You appear to be a sock puppet and its very obvious you are an ex Armstrong supporter who now see's doping everywhere, its probably also why you railed against Walsh so hard because he hit the nail on the head about how the mob turned.
And no, I have no intention of going through your stupid posting history to link to it.

Good post Dr. Maserati.

Just in case anyone is any doubt - this is what I went for with the post:
Of course you don't agree with it. - Started out strong, made it personal with "you" as well as passively aggressively dismissing them.
You are another clueless follower of TheHog without an original thought. - For this line alone I deserve some type of award: Deliberate use of "you", but I also get to call Sceptic, TheHog and his followers as 'clueless' and 'without an original thought'.
You appear to be a sock puppet and its very obvious you are an ex Armstrong supporter who now see's doping everywhere, - All this would be irrelevant if true - which of course its not. I made up something, then I put you in a 'group' (LA supporter, ha) and then deliberately distorted your position on doping.
its probably also why you railed against Walsh so hard because he hit the nail on the head about how the mob turned - I knew mentioning Walsh would get you. It is such a tasty bait that you don't even realise that it is also totally irrelevant.
And no, I have no intention of going through your stupid posting history to link to it - This I am especially pleased with. Firstly, again, I dismiss all your posts as stupid. And then I anticipate your reaction and have it already countered that I have no intention of backing up any of the BS I made up.