Cycling is entering a clean chapter, says Phil Liggett

[Zam_Olyas]

Yeah, sure thing buddy.



By the law of you, one of the reasons we should come into the clinic is for the show. I should approve of that.

Others might have different, more interesting and constructive reasons.



Ridiculous.

There's no technology to help referees and the standard of refereeing isn't exactly of a high one these days. You just have to look at the Tiote's goal against City last week and the terrible decision there. A simple video replay would have stopped all the arguing and the Pardew rant at Pellegrini and the ref at half-time. Football is the most tribal of all sports so of course fans of the affected clubs are going to be enraged due to decisions like these directly influencing results but like I said already it's an issue which most definitely can be solved and improved on and one worth discussing. I'm not a fan of either City and Newcastle but still enjoyed watching the game even with the big decision going wrong. Many fans around the world would have felt the same.

On the diving issue, people have called for retrospective action for players who engage in it. The Eduardo incident against Celtic is a classic one when he got charged but later left off the hook by UEFA. That got widely criticised and if this was introduced it could have a significant impact. Honestly you don't know what you're talking about if you think these issues are not worthwhile paying attention to. Football is the most backward of all sports at embracing change. Majority of football fans will admit these faults in the game but praise other aspects of the game. They are widely talked about points on fan phone in shows. All these talking points in games are instant ones and quick instant responses during games when tensions and rivalries are high, are definitely going to be of the norm. You say nothing is going to change but we've seen the start with goal line technology introduced in the Premiership and that has been done on the backdrop of many years of players, managers, pundits, and fans highlighting the issue.

The point pcmg76 is making in regards to cycling is that some have nothing but total and endless criticism for the sport and have nothing good to say about it. They are on default for anyone who wins and have no hope for it going forward. Just look at Cookson and the Commission he set up where the same old suspects were taking issue with it. No praise or welcome of it or even reserve judgement on it. I don't know why they follow the sport if that's there position and following on from that, anyone who says he's in it for the show that doping brings, is no fan whatsoever of the sport.

Would you have given it as a goal after watching the replay?

 

[Benotti69]

<snip>


Just look at Cookson and the Commission he set up where the same old suspects were taking issue with it. No praise or welcome of it or even reserve judgement on it. I don't know why they follow the sport if that's there position and following on from that, anyone who says he's in it for the show that doping brings, is no fan whatsoever of the sport.

Cookson has history.

Why should fans think Cookson is going to clean up cycling? He was there on the UCI management committee when Armstrong came back.

This sport has *** on fans consistently so why believe them when they say they have changed?

I am waiting to see the change before i believe it.

Is that a crazy position to take? I dont think so when i look at who is telling me the sport has changed, dopers, liars and cheaters!

 

[Zam_Olyas]

 

[the sceptic]

Cookson has history.

Why should fans think Cookson is going to clean up cycling? He was there on the UCI management committee when Armstrong came back.

This sport has *** on fans consistently so why believe them when they say they have changed?

I am waiting to see the change before i believe it.

Is that a crazy position to take? I dont think so when i look at who is telling me the sport has changed, dopers, liars and cheaters!

Seems pretty rational to me. Of course Gooner is free to believe in unicorns if he wants to, but most rational people will learn from the past and not just have blind faith in someone because they come from the same country as you.

 

[Benotti69]

that was when i had hair.........

 

[martinvickers]

Maybe people enjoy discussing doping too? It is very much part of the game after all.

Then that person is just as much an immoral sh!t as the people they criticize - in fact more, because they aren't accepting the risks of the behaviour - just enjoying the consequences. They are enjoying an activity that has killed young men. Well done, what moral heroes.

 

[the sceptic]

Then that person is just as much an immoral sh!t as the people they criticize - in fact more, because they aren't accepting the risks of the behaviour - just enjoying the consequences. They are enjoying an activity that has killed young men. Well done, what moral heroes.

Ball, not man.

You have really lost your mind now Martin. Im an immoral **** because I enjoy discussing doping?

And please, get off your moral high horse. You have said multiple times that you enjoy reading the clinic and were looking forward to the clinic losing it over Froomes performances. You even said that you come to the clinic to be entertained.

 

[ebandit]

ball

Ball, not man.

sceptic.................so why do you think that it's ok to mock the poster?

Mark L

 

[gooner]

Seems pretty rational to me. Of course Gooner is free to believe in unicorns if he wants to, but most rational people will learn from the past and not just have blind faith in someone because they come from the same country as you.

You just took your own post apart there with accusations towards me of national bias to Cookson.

Ball, not man.

You have really lost your mind now Martin. Im an immoral **** because I enjoy discussing doping?

It absurd you enjoy it when more recently the impact of positives on some people have been there for everyone to see with Santambrogio and Breyne. It's even distasteful.

 

[Samson777]

I think this is very simple, if people believe the sport is rotten to the core and see no possibility for change they yes you have to wonder why they follow the sport. If they find it so offensive as many on here seem to do, then yes it makes no sense.

If people enjoy the sport even though they know there is doping, that means they have accepted that doping is part and parcel, therefore whats the point of *****ing about it all the time. If nothing is going to change(according to the experts here) what's the point complaining?

Lets be honest if you heard someone in real life whining about their job all the time, you would be likely to tell them to get a different job of STFU. I think the same principle applies to following pro cycling.

So what different, drug free sport, would you suggest to watch instead?

Just because you realize that the doping is part of sport, why would that mean you can not enjoy, or complain about it. I don't understand that? I mean all it takes, is for you to realize, that there is more to cycling than doping. If the only reason for a person to enjoy cycling, was that it was drug free, then you would have a point. But I seriously doubt a lot of people feel like that.

And yes, there is a billion things in this world, that is unlikely to get better, but that never stopped people complaining about it.

 

[the sceptic]

You just took your own post apart there with accusations towards me of national bias to Cookson.



It absurd you enjoy it when more recently the impact of positives on some people have been there for everyone to see with Santambrogio and Breyne. It's even distasteful.

yawn. Did I say I enjoy the doping itself? I accept its part of the sport, and enjoy discussing it.

 

[martinvickers]

Ball, not man.

You have really lost your mind now Martin. Im an immoral **** because I enjoy discussing doping?

Where did I mention You? I made a comment, very carefully, in the third person plural. A comment therefore of general application to a question posed. Neither you, nor any other poster, was identified or highlighted. I was, indeed, very careful not to use the 'generic you' to avoid doubt and confusion.

As to the comment itself, in its general application, I stand by every word. IF posters feel it applies to them, I'm perfectly tranquilo.

Accusations as regards my sanity, however, are personal insults against the rules. Ball, not man, Septic.

And please, get off your moral high horse. You have said multiple times that you enjoy reading the clinic and were looking forward to the clinic losing it over Froomes performances. You even said that you come to the clinic to be entertained.

Indeed. Because I don't laugh at the sport, doping, or dopers. I take all that pretty seriously.

I laugh at the Clinic. Because, quite frankly, quite often it's laughable. But finding it amusing from time to time does not preclude contempt or disgust for certain arguments, or by extension, arguers within. Quite the reverse, actually.

 

[the sceptic]

If you took doping seriously, you wouldnt spend 99% of your posts trolling and whining to the mods. Maybe stop acting like a tool and get some opinions of your own rather than nitpicking other peoples posts constantly?

 

[martinvickers]

Cookson has history.

What history? Could you be more specific please.

Why should fans think Cookson is going to clean up cycling? He was there on the UCI management committee when Armstrong came back.

1. Why would Cookson alonehave any influence over whether or not Armstrong

2. According to Vaughters, admittedly, Tygartclaimed that only one person from the uci managment committee called during the lance/usada/uci debacle asd asked what they could do to help. Cookson.

Perfect? No, of course not. Improvement? Quite likely, actually. We have a commission with its own remit, setting its own remit, actually looking at UCI practices. Like it or not, that's an improvement.

This sport has *** on fans consistently so why believe them when they say they have changed?

The Sport is a meaningless abstract, it hasn't sh!t on anybody. People have. Individual people, responsible for themselves and their own mistakes and wrongs. And each person has a right to be judged on their own activities, not their forbears.

I am waiting to see the change before i believe it.


Is that a crazy position to take? I dont think so when i look at who is telling me the sport has changed, dopers, liars and cheaters!

I'm none of the above, but I'm pretty certain the sport has changed - the issue for me is one of degree - albeit the variability in that degree is massive.

If you want to wait to believe, that's one thing. Refusing to consider the possiblity of belief is another - scepticism does not equal cynicism.

Don't get me wrong - getting back on topic, i dismiss pretty much every word liggett says - that doesn't mean I think he's wrong, just that he's meaningless.

 

[martinvickers]

If you took doping seriously, you wouldnt spend 99% of your posts trolling and whining to the mods. Maybe stop acting like a tool and get some opinions of your own rather than nitpicking other peoples posts constantly?

Within forum rules, I'll post as I see fit. If you post cr^p, I'm going to pick you on it. And you don't have a free pass to disregard the rules and persoanlly abuse posters you don't like.

Live with it.

 

[The Hitch]

Then that person is just as much an immoral sh!t as the people they criticize - in fact more, because they aren't accepting the risks of the behaviour - just enjoying the consequences. They are enjoying an activity that has killed young men. Well done, what moral heroes.

Do you boo Rio Ferdinand every time he plays for Man U?

 

[martinvickers]

Do you boo Rio Ferdinand every time he plays for Man U?

I don't boo footballers, or any other sportspersons. I'm not eight years old any more. I admit at one stage I was hoping someone would push Lance Armstrong off a mountain during a tour. But I'm not proud of it.

But do I think he should have been sacked, yes, no question. I don't happen to think he avoided tests because he doped - i happen to think he, like other footballers, was just that arrogant as to think it didn't matter. but he should have been sacked, absolutely.

As should Stam if his nandrolone bust had occured while at mufc, rather than in italy.


It's a real failing in football.

 

[Ripper]

Does anyone actually listen to Phil anymore?

 

[movingtarget]

Does anyone actually listen to Phil anymore?

At the TDU we don't have a choice. Eurosport don't show it in the Pacific region.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

I just watched the end of the first stage of the ToC. Why is it cycling continues to countenance Phil Liggett a renowned Armstrong apologist and fanboy to announce races. In addition they are using Christian Van de Velde as the commentator, a cyclist who eagerly participated in the doping programs of two pro teams, USPS and Once.

Do the networks, USA Cycling or the UCI not understand that the use of these types of people only perpetuates and gives some credence to the culture of doping.

Phil in his usual way miscalled the winner in spite of the fact it was a photo finish.

Cycling just doesn't seem to learn or get it with respect to cleaning out the dead and tainted wood!

 

[red_flanders]

Do the networks, USA Cycling or the UCI not understand that the use of these types of people only perpetuates and gives some credence to the culture of doping.

• The Networks probably have no idea the background on these guys.
• USA Cycling certainly does not care.
• The UCI does not appear to care and I don't know that they have any say in the matter.

I would be happy if all the dead wood was cleared out. Don't know who the announcers who have un-tainted backgrounds would be but I'm sure we could find a couple of clean guys to announce races.

That said, cycling is a niche sport here. Pulling Phil and Paul would certainly cause a negative reaction as those who have been with the sport are quite familiar with Phil and Paul, and they have a lot of name/voice recognition here. I would guess pulling in others would hurt ratings, which isn't great for promoting the sport. Not an easy call.

Vandevelde is a long shot better than Bobke as far as apologists go, and actually offers some insight into what it's like to ride in a race. Bobke basically paints the view from somewhere lodged up Armstrong's nether regions, as do Phil and Paul.

As far as giving "credence to the culture of doping" I'm a heck of a lot less concerned about on-air talent selections than the ongoing and perpetual doping that is clearly going on with the racing. Maybe worry less about Phil and Christian and more about blatantly doped riders winning the biggest races throughout the year.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I just watched the end of the first stage of the ToC. Why is it cycling continues to countenance Phil Liggett a renowned Armstrong apologist and fanboy to announce races. In addition they are using Christian Van de Velde as the commentator, a cyclist who eagerly participated in the doping programs of two pro teams, USPS and Once.

Media rights and organization is a largely secret side of the UCI/Pro Cycling affairs. Here's what I know.

-Phil Anschutz pays for this race. That means he pays the UCI and teams to show up, their housing and more, then sells sponsorship rights to recoup these costs. It may be a hobby for him, or the event comes vaguely close to paying for itself.

-ASO is paid to provide the broadcast infrastructure.

-Phil seems to be the announcer for some kind of generic English feed for many elite UCI events. I don't know who has hired him for this job. ASO? UCI? But, here he is again.

-Makarov disclosed there is additional licensing to title your elite UCI race "Tour of ...." We know this revenue doesn't appear on the UCI's books. We also know Colorado's event owner balked at paying the fee.

-Who owns the media rights to Tour of California?? We don't know.

-We know the UCI had intentionally scheduled it against il Giro to weaken RCS. Lots of possibilities as to how and why.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

• The Networks probably have no idea the background on these guys.
• USA Cycling certainly does not care.
• The UCI does not appear to care and I don't know that they have any say in the matter.

I would be happy if all the dead wood was cleared out. Don't know who the announcers who have un-tainted backgrounds would be but I'm sure we could find a couple of clean guys to announce races.

That said, cycling is a niche sport here. Pulling Phil and Paul would certainly cause a negative reaction as those who have been with the sport are quite familiar with Phil and Paul, and they have a lot of name/voice recognition here. I would guess pulling in others would hurt ratings, which isn't great for promoting the sport. Not an easy call.

Vandevelde is a long shot better than Bobke as far as apologists go, and actually offers some insight into what it's like to ride in a race. Bobke basically paints the view from somewhere lodged up Armstrong's nether regions, as do Phil and Paul.

As far as giving "credence to the culture of doping" I'm a heck of a lot less concerned about on-air talent selections than the ongoing and perpetual doping that is clearly going on with the racing. Maybe worry less about Phil and Christian and more about blatantly doped riders winning the biggest races throughout the year.

Good points all. And CVV does offer some good commentary. But he was still a key component in the greatest fraud in sproting history.

My concern is that broadcasting provides people with a pulpit to in turn set the tone! Surely the networks are aware of the criticisms of Liggett due to his unabashed love in with Armstrong and his extreme ignorance about doping in the peloton.

Agreed his voice is synonymous with cycling and he does have a good broadcasting voice. But he continues to make simplistic mistakes in his broadcasting that are very annoying.

Sherwin is a lot more measured in his comments and does not come off sounding like a dufus.

 

[stutue]

• The Networks probably have no idea the background on these guys.
• USA Cycling certainly does not care.
• The UCI does not appear to care and I don't know that they have any say in the matter races.

That said, cycling is a niche sport here. Pulling Phil and Paul would certainly cause a negative reaction as those who have been with the sport are quite familiar with Phil and Paul, and they have a lot of name/voice recognition here. I would guess pulling in others would hurt ratings, which isn't great for promoting the sport. Not an easy cal

You are right. But.

How important is a bit of cheating in a bike race in the grand scheme of things?

Of course the networks don't care. With all that is going on in the world why would they? Why should they?

Let's try and keep a sense of perspective shall we. Cheating in a bike race isn't the Holocaust.

Its nothing.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Surely the networks are aware of the criticisms of Liggett due to his unabashed love in with Armstrong and his extreme ignorance about doping in the peloton.

I promise, the only thing the broadcasters buying this feed are interested in is ratings. As long as Phil is not driving away viewers, it's all good.