like when you posted instagram pics of U23 racers TOTALLY unrelated from Sky, in the Sky thread?thehog said:This is the Froome thread not the Armstrong. You should take your grievances up on that thread. Not relevant here, sorry. Although since you brought it up, Outside were one of the first to print an exposé on Livestrong so what you are saying is more made up tripe (not unexpected mind you). For reference the article and subsequent issues with Bill Gifford and Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/1912911/our-fight-lance-and-livestrong - “Our fight with Lance and Livestrong”.fmk_RoI said:Outside Magazine, who before and after the fall knelt at the altar of LA so much you had to think they were fellating him? Where's that salt cellar...thehog said:Outside magazine pulling plenty of punches asking for Froome to be banned:
Cycling is rife with these sorts of unlikely stories. In 2005, for instance, when Tyler Hamilton was called out for doping, he argued that the small amount of a second type of blood mixed in with his own came from a “vanishing twin,” which, before dying in utero, had left him with traces of its blood. (Of course it wasn’t from a blood transfusion, silly.)No matter how the decision on Froome turns out, it’s clear that UCI and its anti-doping processes are broken. The fact that athletes can return adverse results and continue racing is like giving a drunk driver who fails a breathalyzer test the chance to come up with a good excuse and drive away. If athletes with adverse test results are allowed to keep racing, there’s no motivation for their teams to conclude the affairs quickly and every reason to stretch them—and their possible winning streaks—out.
Moving on, I thought it was a good article, good for a non-cycling publication to reach some of the masses who may not understand the case fully.