Bill Strickland interview

[JRTinMA]

A long read but well worth it, it probably does not have to be in the clinic but doping is mentioned.

http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/10/27/1775204/interview-bill-strickland

 

[TERMINATOR]

A long read but well worth it, it probably does not have to be in the clinic but doping is mentioned.

http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/10/27/1775204/interview-bill-strickland

Anybody who writes a book "about Lance" and only mentions the doping accusations as an ancillary footnote is not a credible author. The fact is Armstrong doped to win his Tours according to the evidence (i.e. the failed EPO tests in '99 and eyewitness accounts by Landis and unnamed others according to federal grand jury leaks).

Anything associated with Lance - whether it's his foundation or his legacy - is all linked to those Tour de France wins. Without them, he's got nothing. And he can't admit to winning them through doping because that would ruin his legacy. Since he won those races while doped to the gills, I'm not sure why I should care about anything the guy says, let alone any hanger-on who writes about him.

This book is right up there with a book about Marion Jones extolling her 2000 Sydney Olympic gold medals or Barry Bonds home run domination without mentioning those records were only possible because of BALCO.

Lance is a con man. Everybody in the sport knows he doped and the fact that he is so comfortable lying to everyone about it - especially all the cancer sufferers who think he is God - is really sad.

Bicycling Magazine is circling the drain in an Internet age where print edition sales have tanked and their advertising dollar trend looks like the slope of a World Cup downhill. I guess they're trying to milk the whole 'Lance effect' for its last dollar before he's indicted and/or charged with a doping offense by USADA.

 

[JRTinMA]

Anybody who writes a book "about Lance" and only mentions the doping accusations as an ancillary footnote is not a credible author. The fact is Armstrong doped to win his Tours according to the evidence (i.e. the failed EPO tests in '99 and eyewitness accounts by Landis and unnamed others according to federal grand jury leaks).

Anything associated with Lance - whether it's his foundation or his legacy - is all linked to those Tour de France wins. Without them, he's got nothing. And he can't admit to winning them through doping because that would ruin his legacy. Since he won those races while doped to the gills, I'm not sure why I should care about anything the guy says, let alone any hanger-on who writes about him.

This book is right up there with a book about Marion Jones extolling her 2000 Sydney Olympic gold medals or Barry Bonds home run domination without mentioning those records were only possible because of BALCO.

Lance is a con man. Everybody in the sport knows he doped and the fact that he is so comfortable lying to everyone about it - especially all the cancer sufferers who think he is God - is really sad.

Bicycling Magazine is circling the drain in an Internet age where print edition sales have tanked and their advertising dollar trend looks like the slope of a World Cup downhill. I guess they're trying to milk the whole 'Lance effect' for its last dollar before he's indicted and/or charged with a doping offense by USADA.

I thought Strickland addressed the issue well, maybe its a cop out or maybe he's just a fanboy as he basically admits. I found the Podium Cafe piece interesting and thats all, while he asks about LA its not totally about him. I didn't read a the book so I can't comment. The story really didn't seem to milk anything in my opinion. Strickland does recommend reading The Rider in the piece which is the best book ever written on cycling. An article does not need to address doping every time to be good, sometimes it just cool to read a story and not be reminded what a mess this pathetic sport has become.

 

[scribe]

Anybody who writes a book "about Lance" and only mentions the doping accusations as an ancillary footnote is not a credible author. The fact is Armstrong doped to win his Tours according to the evidence (i.e. the failed EPO tests in '99 and eyewitness accounts by Landis and unnamed others according to federal grand jury leaks).

Anything associated with Lance - whether it's his foundation or his legacy - is all linked to those Tour de France wins. Without them, he's got nothing. And he can't admit to winning them through doping because that would ruin his legacy. Since he won those races while doped to the gills, I'm not sure why I should care about anything the guy says, let alone any hanger-on who writes about him.

This book is right up there with a book about Marion Jones extolling her 2000 Sydney Olympic gold medals or Barry Bonds home run domination without mentioning those records were only possible because of BALCO.

Lance is a con man. Everybody in the sport knows he doped and the fact that he is so comfortable lying to everyone about it - especially all the cancer sufferers who think he is God - is really sad.

Bicycling Magazine is circling the drain in an Internet age where print edition sales have tanked and their advertising dollar trend looks like the slope of a World Cup downhill. I guess they're trying to milk the whole 'Lance effect' for its last dollar before he's indicted and/or charged with a doping offense by USADA.

What do you get out of watching cycling these days? You know, the top GC guys are still falling like flies because of doping.

 

[Benotti69]

I thought Strickland addressed the issue well, maybe its a cop out or maybe he's just a fanboy as he basically admits. I found the Podium Cafe piece interesting and thats all, while he asks about LA its not totally about him. I didn't read a the book so I can't comment. The story really didn't seem to milk anything in my opinion. Strickland does recommend reading The Rider in the piece which is the best book ever written on cycling. An article does not need to address doping every time to be good, sometimes it just cool to read a story and not be reminded what a mess this pathetic sport has become.

impossible to read a story about a guy who largely reintroduced the mess back into the sport first chance he got after it had tried to kick out doping and not be reminded of it unless one has had a lobotomy.

 

[JRTinMA]

impossible to read a story about a guy who largely reintroduced the mess back into the sport first chance he got after it had tried to kick out doping and not be reminded of it unless one has had a lobotomy.

This story is not about Pantani.

 

[fmk_RoI]

This story is not about Pantani.

Excellent

 

[Benotti69]

This story is not about Pantani.

if only it was about Pantani, but hey 7TdF's is a lot of Omerta controlling.

I bet half or more of the peloton thought in 98 great now we can rid of this crap for good and ride clean, then bingo back with a bang the blue train EPOOOOO EPOOOOO EPOOOOOO...........

 

[JRTinMA]

if only it was about Pantani, but hey 7TdF's is a lot of Omerta controlling.

I bet half or more of the peloton thought in 98 great now we can rid of this crap for good and ride clean, then bingo back with a bang the blue train EPOOOOO EPOOOOO EPOOOOOO...........

You missed the greater point, Pantani was the first doper caught after 98. LA sure doped but your premise he brought it back is flawed, actually wrong.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Anybody who writes a book "about Lance" and only mentions the doping accusations as an ancillary footnote is not a credible author. The fact is Armstrong doped to win his Tours according to the evidence (i.e. the failed EPO tests in '99 and eyewitness accounts by Landis and unnamed others according to federal grand jury leaks).

Which BS book 'only' mentions the doping accusations as a footnote? And what page is this alleged footnote on?

 

[Benotti69]

You missed the greater point, Pantani was the first doper caught after 98. LA sure doped but your premise he brought it back is flawed, actually wrong.

when the peloton saw the Uniballer and his team power their way around France they knew the score. Doesn't matter who got caught first. The Yellow Jersey re introduced it back to the peloton..........Italians introduced epo and the French got caught for it and a Yank milked it.

 

[fmk_RoI]

The Yellow Jersey re introduced it back to the peloton

How do you re-introduce something that never went away?

 

[Benotti69]

How do you re-introduce something that never went away?

it certainly left the french teams

 

[Maxiton]

when the peloton saw the Uniballer and his team power their way around France they knew the score. Doesn't matter who got caught first. The Yellow Jersey re introduced it back to the peloton..........Italians introduced epo and the French got caught for it and a Yank milked it.

You mean the Pantani yellow jersey, right? Or didn't you watch cycling back then? Armstrong came to the Tour riding on, surprize, the same juice Pantani had used to win.

Why do I have the feeling that if it had been Pantani, or other European, who won 7 in a row, you wouldn't mind so much?

 

[Benotti69]

You mean the Pantani yellow jersey, right? Or didn't you watch cycling back then? Armstrong came to the Tour riding on, surprize, the same juice Pantani had used to win.


Why do I have the feeling that if it had been Pantani, or other European, who won 7 in a row, you wouldn't mind so much?

i think we are forgetting 98 and a little small team called Festina, the next year was supposed to be a new dawn but then came the DIP (dopers in blue)...

Since 98 the French teams have faired poorly at Le Tour.

you blame Pantani if you want to ignore LA's contribution if you want. Pantani never raced without epo but he was not rubber stamping his juiced authority all over France now was he? maybe if Pantani sent money for a new blood machine to Switzerland he'd still be here?

If Pantani won the TdF 7 times in the manner of Armstrong building a myth and using his recovery from cancer to enrich himslef, i imagine the clinic would be discussing him. that is obvious.

 

[fmk_RoI]

i think we are forgetting 98 and a little small team called Festina, the next year was supposed to be a new dawn but then came the DIP (dopers in blue)...

Who said it was a new dawn? Seriously. Show me even one piece of believable evidence that anyone believed it was a new dawn. That it wasn't just a cynical realigment of realities, an acceptence that in order for things to stay the same they would have to change.

Your blinkers seem to make you miss the point. Pantini. Armstrong. Whoever. They're not the problem. They're symptoms of the problem.

But what I really want to know is this: what has any of this got to do with interviewing Bill Strickland? What would you have asked him if you were popping the questions?

 

[python]

isn't it interesting that a thread starter claims to be 'a firm-fence-sitter' and yet promotes armstrong fanboys articles whilst accusing most mods of anti-armstrong feelings and recommending more pro-armstrong moderation. he even goes to attack others who see thru that.

who are you trying to fool, fanboy ?

 

[JRTinMA]

isn't it interesting that a thread starter claims to be 'a firm-fence-sitter' and yet promotes armstrong fanboys articles whilst accusing most mods of anti-armstrong feelings and recommending more pro-armstrong moderation. he even goes to attack others who see thru that.

who are you trying to fool, fanboy ?

Nobody, I have been clear all along, I don't care. You on the other hand "protesteth to much" fanboy. Go read your LA books and its probably time for your to eat your lunch in the lab break room from your Postal mussette.

 

[python]

Nobody, I have been clear all along, I don't care. You on the other hand "protesteth to much" fanboy. Go read your LA books and its probably time for your to eat your lunch in the lab break room from your Postal mussette.

the most deceptive and dishonest post in the forum.

the protests started with you, closet fanboy - from accusing others of being fanboys to pounding your own chest about hating dopers b/c you a lib fro mass (who really cares ??) to pretending being 'objective' and tactlessly apportioning moderators into pro- or anti- armstrong fans.

you fool nobody, but yourself.

 

[scribe]

You can't sneak one past Nowinsky.

 

[JRTinMA]

the most deceptive and dishonest post in the forum.

the protests started with you, closet fanboy - from accusing others of being fanboys to pounding your own chest about hating dopers b/c you a lib fro mass (who really cares ??) to pretending being 'objective' and tactlessly apportioning moderators into pro- or anti- armstrong fans.

you fool nobody, but yourself.

But we should care that you pretend to read German?

 

[python]

But we should care that you pretend to read German?

very stupid of you.

i care in the least what you care about me. i only commented on the facts of you deceptive claims based on your actual posts whilst all your arguments consist of attacks on my avatars, language, sentence structure etc.

instead of addressing the post you attacked a poster. don't whine if you get back exactly what you asked for - denunciation of your simplistic and fraudulent claims. if you managed to accuse others of fanboyism to boost your own credential, be ready to be challenged on facts, fanboy.

 

[Race Radio]

Who said it was a new dawn? Seriously. Show me even one piece of believable evidence that anyone believed it was a new dawn.

If you read the results of retesting of the samples from 1999 you will see that Armstrong was one of the few riders to test positive throughout the Tour. They also tested the 1998 samples and there was a significant difference in number of positives. There was also a drop in number of riders over 410 watts

 

[JRTinMA]

very stupid of you.

i care in the least what you care about me. i only commented on the facts of you deceptive claims based on your actual posts whilst all your arguments consist of attacks on my avatars, language, sentence structure etc.

instead of addressing the post you attacked a poster. don't whine if you get back exactly what you asked for - denunciation of your simplistic and fraudulent claims. if you managed to accuse others of fanboyism to boost your own credential, be ready to be challenged on facts, fanboy.

I'm still waiting for the facts. So far its been all misrepresentation. I have never whined, another misrepresentation, but I can point you to plenty of posts where you have. I didn't create an online persona of a scientist and then go on to use basic english and be horribly inconsistent, two very non-scientific approaches. This played out before it started and I totally forgot you have not been addressing me properly.

 

[python]

I'm still waiting for the facts. .

you're clueless about what i do for living and i have never entertained it. another lie from you because you can't dress an argument.

since you're blinded by your own deception, i'm going to remind you some facts from your own posts:

- 'i'm am a firm fence sitter (what the hell that means ?) on armstrong whilst 'attacking posters or white washing anything critical of him
- rude and tactless apportioning of mods into pro-and anti armstrong camps
- promoting armstrong fan boy articles
- claims of being a lib from mass (who really asked you ?) as the reason for hating all dopers

is that enough fanboy ? or should i bring actual quotes with links ?