Eki frustrated by AC's comments

Page 15 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
A

Anonymous

Guest
Eva Maria said:
What is jaded about the truth?
If your truth were overwhelming then it would be a case. The case would be presented and adjudicated. So present it already. Seriously, what's keeping you?

Have a great evening, off to a group ride where no one is doping.:rolleyes:
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
If your truth were overwhelming then it would be a case. The case would be presented and adjudicated. So present it already. Seriously, what's keeping you?

Have a great evening, off to a group ride where no one is doping.:rolleyes:
I can tell from the speed of your posts that you are obviously doping. Why don't you understand that?
 
Jul 11, 2009
792
0
0
pmcg76 said:
For most of us, the default test is the Simeoni affair.

In a time of rampant doping, here was a guy who was willing to testify against the generally accepted biggest doping doctor(Ferrari) in cycling, this case started long before Ferraris connection with Lance became public so had no connection with Lance.

It was Lance who started this one by calling Simeoni a liar through a newspaper.

So when Simeoni launched his attack to try and win a stage at the Tour, he was chased by the MJ who had the race won at that point. He didnt even let his team chase him down, he went after Simeoni himself so he brought a feud that very few knew about to the forefront of the Tour, to humiliate a fellow pro in front of the world just because he was willing to testify against Ferrari. If that is not vindictive and classless and reason enough to dislke Lance, I dont know what is.

Look forward to hear your thoughts on this issue or is it minor compared to what AC done this year.
Thankyou for your posts in this thread. They have been little pieces of sanity in a lot of.....well......stuff I just cant get my head around.
 
Jul 27, 2009
623
0
0
Publicus said:
Based on what I heard from Lance and Levi after the stage, they fully expected that Lance would be in yellow after Stage 7. JB didn't want the jersey, but the group was pushing the pace too fast (and in contravention of JB's orders). This is purely speculation, but my guess is AC figured out what was going on and flew the coop.
lance in yellow after 7 wouldn't have changed the outcome or make the podium sweep less possible. AC was the strongest obviously on by far the strongest team. There was little doubt AC would win other than an far outside chance that Lances body would adapt the way it had in the past in the third week. He did get stronger but not strong enough.
 
Jul 27, 2009
14
0
0
pmcg76 said:
I dont like Lance, my opinions are based on following his career from the start and what I find acceptable/unacceptable in cycling, not what others think of Lance. His actions & behaviour turned me away from him long ago and I just got tired of the amount of coverage he receives in comparison to others in the sport. I like the sport overall, not one rider so I dont want to hear about one rider all the time.

I stay off topics like family, his cancer work(even though he has abused it in his comeback) or what art he likes. I just think his presence turns the sport into a circus and his twittering is complete media whoring and then there are too many fans that cannot accept he is less than perfect and cannot distingiush between Lance the cancer/cycling hero and Lance the jerk guy. Although there are plenty of haters who cannot do so either.
Got news for you. I doubt Lance cares about what you think.
Sounds to me like all you got is sour grapes.

Lance being a jerk is just a loserspeak term for extremely competitive. All great competitors - or most of them - were "jerks."
 
Jul 27, 2009
623
0
0
pmcg76 said:
For most of us, the default test is the Simeoni affair.
LADIES AND GENTELMEN!!!

LET ME INTRODUCE TO YOU... FOR HIS LIMITED ENGAGMENT ONLY...
THAT HIGHLY MORAL, WELL LOVED, SELF APPOINTED SAVIOUR OF CYCLING...
THAT DIGNIFIED, UPSTANDING HERO....
THE SANCTIFIED, SANITIZED, SANCTIMONIOUS AND WELL DRESSED MAN ABOUT THE PELOTON... I GIVE YOU THE ONE........
THE ONLY.......
THE BELOVED.......

SAINT SIMEONI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:rolleyes:
 
Jul 27, 2009
623
0
0
Eva Maria said:
I did not start this line of discussion, why do you insist on continuing this in this thread?

Asheden disputes all of what you say in his interview. As he knows much more then you do about the process I will side with him on this matter.
yes, in fact, as i pointed out in an earlier post, you did start this in the direction of doping. We were talking about L'equipe and reporting.
From then every thing you said required an answer lest people who read it think it's true.
 
Jul 11, 2009
792
0
0
Carboncrank said:
SAINT SIMEONI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:rolleyes:
The interest in Simeoni is because he is NOT a saint. He was someone who was involved in a not often discussed (by the people involved) area of the sport, and Armstrong shut him down.

Should he not be listened to just because he was involved in doping practices? If thats the case who can we listen to?
 
Mar 12, 2009
163
0
0
slimkay said:
got news for you. I doubt lance cares about what you think.
Sounds to me like all you got is sour grapes.

Lance being a jerk is just a loserspeak term for extremely competitive. All great competitors - or most of them - were "jerks."
yeah! You suck man!

U-s-a ! U-s-a! U-s-a!

You are just a whining baby.

Go lance!
 
Jul 11, 2009
792
0
0
slimkay said:
Got news for you. I doubt Lance cares about what you think.
Sounds to me like all you got is sour grapes.

Lance being a jerk is just a loserspeak term for extremely competitive. All great competitors - or most of them - were "jerks."
Whether or not Lance cares is hardly the (or A) point. Lance only cares about you as long as your buying nike, trek, his books, SRAM, donating to his foundation and swallowing the bizzaro posts on his twitter.

As for your loserspeak comment, I cant believe Im now validating that with comment.
 
May 24, 2009
387
0
0
Carboncrank said:
yes, in fact, as i pointed out in an earlier post, you did start this in the direction of doping. We were talking about L'equipe and reporting.
From then every thing you said required an answer lest people who read it think it's true.
Really?

Originally Posted by gree0232
Doping cases announced within hours and well before the athlete is notified? The source, almost every time? L'Equipe
It is clear who introduced doping into this thread. If you do not think what I post is true you are welcome to address it, but so far you haven't done anything more then insults and misinformation.

If you would like to continue to discuss doping I suggest you do it here
 
Jul 27, 2009
623
0
0
pmcg76 said:
Your right all he had to do was defend, silly attack but as I said, its a 3 week race and everybody makes mistakes including Lance, maybe if Kloeden had not towed Lance at Verbier or rode a good TT, he might have made the podium also but probably at the expense of Lance, there are a few variables other than just that one attack by Contador.

There was no way Lance was gonna close an almost 3 minute gap. I know he closed a gap on a previous stage but that was more down to the front group slowing and lower down the climb, with a less severe gradient. On that climb, not realistic.

The Schlecks were setting a good pace beforehand and continued to do the same after the attack. Do you think Nibali would have closed the gap as well if Lance was going so fast, they would have needed to be going a lot faster than the Schlecks and they were not. If Contador was worried, he would have kept attacking, which happened first, Contador attacking or Lance attacking Wiggins, I honestly thought the Contador attack happened first, could be wrong on that.

Bruyneel set his team up in a certian manner for so long but this year, he decided to reverse that approach for no apparent reason. I mean every man and his dog had AC down as favourite this year, most thought the only reason he didnt win last year was because he wasnt there, the heaviest favourite since Lance in his pomp yet his team failed to back him from the start even though he was obviously in great shape. If your objective is to win the Tour, everything else should be secondary. Who remembers T-Mobile loading their team for Ullrich at the expense of Zabel shooting for the Green jersey.

My own thougths are base your allegiances based on personal opinions, not in response to what others think about riders. I dont like Lance, my opinions are based on following his career from the start and what I find acceptable/unacceptable in cycling, not what others think of Lance. His actions & behaviour turned me away from him long ago and I just got tired of the amount of coverage he receives in comparison to others in the sport. I like the sport overall, not one rider so I dont want to hear about one rider all the time.

I stay off topics like family, his cancer work(even though he has abused it in his comeback) or what art he likes. I just think his presence turns the sport into a circus and his twittering is complete media whoring and then there are too many fans that cannot accept he is less than perfect and cannot distingiush between Lance the cancer/cycling hero and Lance the jerk guy. Although there are plenty of haters who cannot do so either.
Really, you should avoid things like "even though he has abused it in his comeback". First you include in topics you stay off of then you don't stay off it. Lose anyone to cancer lately? It's the thing that fired me up the most a couple of month ago when the hateboys started in on the foundation. Then when the tour started some said that in his TV interviews he wasn't mentioning in at all, as though this was NASCAR where you need to mention sponsors 15 times in 14 seconds.

The problem Johan had was he knew how good Contador was but he also remembered how good Lance could be. One might think that his broken collarbone might have settled it but then he kept getting stronger in the Giro. That 3rd week adaptation that made him was starting to show. I'm sure Johan takes advantage of all the gizmos in the sport and could see the power numbers of both. Lance was back to where he'd been on a couple of the years when he won but wasn't dominant. Then he also had the luxury of having a second or third rider than could possibly win for the team even if the #1 rider went down.

I was hoping, naively I guess, that these 2 guys would be so supreemly confident in their own abilites that they could face each other eye to eye say "let's go do this and let the chips fall where they may"

But that never happened. By the time they got to the tour, like TFF was saying, they were just these 2 big male mammals posturing for doiminance in the herd.

In the end they pulled it off fairly well with a win for AC and an extreemly respectable finish for Lance plus the chance to try one more time on his own team. No more interferance from the Kazaks.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
53 x 11 said:
The interest in Simeoni is because he is NOT a saint. He was someone who was involved in a not often discussed (by the people involved) area of the sport, and Armstrong shut him down.

Should he not be listened to just because he was involved in doping practices? If thats the case who can we listen to?
It is just as easy to assassinate a fellow rider with your words if you allow this to happen.

Who should we listen to? Thorough doping controls with multiple entities overseeing the process and results.
 
Jul 27, 2009
623
0
0
Eva Maria said:
Really?



It is clear who introduced doping into this thread. If you do not think what I post is true you are welcome to address it, but so far you haven't done anything more then insults and misinformation.

If you would like to continue to discuss doping I suggest you do it here
i figured you'd go there. he mentioned leaking of sanctions by L'Equipe in a list of things he was critical of them for.
I'll go check for insults but i don't think they are there.
 
Jul 27, 2009
623
0
0
53 x 11 said:
The interest in Simeoni is because he is NOT a saint. He was someone who was involved in a not often discussed (by the people involved) area of the sport, and Armstrong shut him down.

Should he not be listened to just because he was involved in doping practices? If thats the case who can we listen to?
I was a fan of racing back then and I was watching and I was aware of his commets and that some thought he was not honest about them. It was a flat stage with a break ahead. At a point with no possible advantage Simeoni went solo off the front of the main group. There was no tactical reason to do so.

He was grandstanding.

Lance was not the only one offended by it.

Simeoni got an earful from rider after rider all the way to the back.
Others clearly thanked Lance.

This is a story that has grown in importance to the hateboys over the years. Some of which should full understand the history of the peloton going back a hundred years. No one rider defies the group and no one rider is the group's Saviour. Performance enhancing has always been part of the sport. If I wanted to argue the finer points of who did what when and what advantage it gave I'd do it over in the clinic. I want the sport as clean as science can make it, but someone sooner or later will try something. Welcome to the human condition. If you condem all dopers you condem most if not all of its greatest performers.

Lance is riding under Passport rules. He was tested 40+ time before the tour and at last count in think15 times during the tour. Morning, night, surpirse visits, urine, blood, hair and Ashenden figuraltively looking over his shoulder.

4 years off the bike, new rules, new testing new scrutiny, broken collarbone, a Giro/Tour double and Contador is riding his wheel 2k out of the last 5 up Ventoux on stage 20.

He's back and he's damned good. Keep squirming.

I'm tired of all Lance all the time too but, really, Contador is not exactly lighting up the scene with his personal charisma, Andy is more interesting, Cav is more interesting, hell, Wiggo is probably more interesting. I'll be watching the Vualta with interest but it would be better if the defending champion was going to actually be there.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Carboncrank said:
I was a fan of racing back then and I was watching and I was aware of his commets and that some thought he was not honest about them. It was a flat stage with a break ahead. At a point with no possible advantage Simeoni went solo off the front of the main group. There was no tactical reason to do so.

He was grandstanding.

Lance was not the only one offended by it.

Simeoni got an earful from rider after rider all the way to the back.
Others clearly thanked Lance.

This is a story that has grown in importance to the hateboys over the years. Some of which should full understand the history of the peloton going back a hundred years. No one rider defies the group and no one rider is the group's Saviour. Performance enhancing has always been part of the sport. If I wanted to argue the finer points of who did what when and what advantage it gave I'd do it over in the clinic. I want the sport as clean as science can make it, but someone sooner or later will try something. Welcome to the human condition. If you condem all dopers you condem most if not all of its greatest performers.

Lance is riding under Passport rules. He was tested 40+ time before the tour and at last count in think15 times during the tour. Morning, night, surpirse visits, urine, blood, hair and Ashenden figuraltively looking over his shoulder.

4 years off the bike, new rules, new testing new scrutiny, broken collarbone, a Giro/Tour double and Contador is riding his wheel 2k out of the last 5 up Ventoux on stage 20.

He's back and he's damned good. Keep squirming.

I'm tired of all Lance all the time too but, really, Contador is not exactly lighting up the scene with his personal charisma, Andy is more interesting, Cav is more interesting, hell, Wiggo is probably more interesting. I'll be watching the Vualta with interest but it would be better if the defending champion was going to actually be there.
I'd like to think the haters would read and digest this post. Your points are excellent and, more importantly, relevant.

Too much to hope for perhaps.
 
May 24, 2009
387
0
0
Carboncrank said:
I was a fan of racing back then and I was watching and I was aware of his commets and that some thought he was not honest about them. It was a flat stage with a break ahead. At a point with no possible advantage Simeoni went solo off the front of the main group. There was no tactical reason to do so.

He was grandstanding.

Lance was not the only one offended by it.

Simeoni got an earful from rider after rider all the way to the back.
Others clearly thanked Lance.
Your hero does not agree with you. Lance say it was one of the biggest mistakes of his career.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,814
0
0
didn simeoni make it over the escape group which ended up winning, so it wasn´t a pointless mvoe by him:S

wait this has nothing to do with ekimov.

I´m going to look on twitter for some new stories.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Well, I will take a crack at the whole Simeoni nonesense. In the probably rediculous hope that the Lance Haters will give it a rest and actually focus on what is being said for a change.

Please put yourself in a doctors shoes, and make the realization that a doctor must find the correct treatment for the patient. The way cancer is treated and responds to medication is very different from person to person for example.

Now, put yourself in the shoes of a sports doctor. A guy like Lance comes in and says, "I would like help to get even stronger." You can analyze that patient, already a GT winner, and find way to improve him without ever having to mention doping. A good result is just another Tour win.

A guy like Simeoni comes in and says, "I want to be the greatest rider in Italy!" Given the base, a doctor of questionable ethics may deduce very quickly that only very powerful dope will get this particular dope on a podium any time soon.

It is entirely possible that Ferrari had two very different relationships with two very different athletes. Lance's mistake was that he defended based on his relationship with Ferrari, ignoring, deliberately or not, the distinct possibility that a doctor interacts with different patients differently. To Lance's credit, when the finding came out against Ferrari, he broke his ties with him.

Simeoni himself is not exactly a paragon of excellence. His antics before this years Giro effectively alienated him from the peloton and the professional cycling organization far more than the Lance incident ever could. My read on Simeoni is that he is simply not intelligent enough, deliberately or not, to realize the implications of his words, and thus does not coach them in terms that accurately convey his intentions.

Now will one of the Lance Hater's, Maria?, please tell me what this has to do with Eki's comments?

Incidentally, if you would like to discuss Lance's doping, please go here:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=2477&page=3
 
Jul 11, 2009
792
0
0
Eva Maria said:
Your hero does not agree with you. Lance say it was one of the biggest mistakes of his career.
Oh no! Im so conflicted, I'm such a hater I cant agree with Armstrong! What am I to do? :confused:
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
gree0232 said:
Well, I will take a crack at the whole Simeoni nonesense. In the probably rediculous hope that the Lance Haters will give it a rest and actually focus on what is being said for a change.

Please put yourself in a doctors shoes, and make the realization that a doctor must find the correct treatment for the patient. The way cancer is treated and responds to medication is very different from person to person for example.

Now, put yourself in the shoes of a sports doctor. A guy like Lance comes in and says, "I would like help to get even stronger." You can analyze that patient, already a GT winner, and find way to improve him without ever having to mention doping. A good result is just another Tour win.

A guy like Simeoni comes in and says, "I want to be the greatest rider in Italy!" Given the base, a doctor of questionable ethics may deduce very quickly that only very powerful dope will get this particular dope on a podium any time soon.

It is entirely possible that Ferrari had two very different relationships with two very different athletes. Lance's mistake was that he defended based on his relationship with Ferrari, ignoring, deliberately or not, the distinct possibility that a doctor interacts with different patients differently. To Lance's credit, when the finding came out against Ferrari, he broke his ties with him.

Simeoni himself is not exactly a paragon of excellence. His antics before this years Giro effectively alienated him from the peloton and the professional cycling organization far more than the Lance incident ever could. My read on Simeoni is that he is simply not intelligent enough, deliberately or not, to realize the implications of his words, and thus does not coach them in terms that accurately convey his intentions.

Now will one of the Lance Hater's, Maria?, please tell me what this has to do with Eki's comments?

Incidentally, if you would like to discuss Lance's doping, please go here:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=2477&page=3
This has got to be one of stupidest posts ever made on this site.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
BroDeal said:
This has got to be one of stupidest posts evenmade on this site.
Yes, yes, I actually like Lance. I understand that I am thus a flawed human being. Honestly, if you don't like it, don't read it. No one is forcing you to be here, but I will remind you that there is a code of conduct on this forum.

So, for the record, now we are talking about Simeoni's incident with Lance and how stupid Lance supporters are, apparently the stupidest ever, on a thread about Eki's comments?

Exactly what is the debate?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS