If Armstrong, Contador, etc. are clean, where is the outrage?

[Ninety5rpm]

For those of you who believe Armstrong, Contador, Evans, Sastre, Leipheimer, etc. are clean, please explain this to me.

Where is the outrage expressed about the ones who are proven guilty, let alone the ones who admit guilt?

In particular, Lance Armstrong, the patron, who is not one to avoid harsh words when he feels they are appropriate, expresses no outrage about all the doping going on all around him, his key team members and his key opponents, and, instead, attacks those who expose it.

The list of doping cases in cycling compiled at Wikipedia is sobering to look at.

Doping cases in cycling

Where is the outrage? Why is there no outrage?

I mean, if you were clean, and you found out the guys helping you and racing against you were cheating, wouldn't that pi$$ you off?

More importantly, if you were clean, why would you hold those who spoke out about doping in cycling in such low esteem (as Armstrong obviously does)?

Do you guys remember how convinced you might have been that Tyler, Floyd, Roberto, Andreu, Basso, Ulrich, etc. were clean?

Why is it is so hard to accept that despite the natural talents one might have, or how much training one does at high altitude, the performances required to compete, much less win, at this level are simply inhuman? How else do you explain the lack of outrage about the known cheaters, except that they too are cheating, but getting away with it?

And to the extent that there is a stigma within the peloton with regard to exposing doping in cycling, you've got to realize that le patron is largely responsible for establishing and fueling that stigma. The Filippo Simeoni incident established that.

 

[ndpuck]

That's outrage-ous.

 

[kloftus1044]

"How else do you explain the lack of outrage about the known cheaters, except that they too are cheating, but getting away with it?"

Why should they express outrage? If they did, would you be satisfied? Or would you then argue that their outrage is a coverup for their own transgressions? My guess is the latter.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

"How else do you explain the lack of outrage about the known cheaters, except that they too are cheating, but getting away with it?"

Why should they express outrage? If they did, would you be satisfied? Or would you then argue that their outrage is a coverup for their own transgressions? My guess is the latter.

I didn't say they should express outrage. I just don't understand why a clean rider would express outrage about those who expose doping, or even just talk about it, and no outrage about those who dope. Does that make sense to you?

I mean, one can argue that doping is like a cancer in the sport, yet Mr. Anti-cancer is basically mum about it. Why?

 

[pmcg76]

I didn't say they should express outrage. I just don't understand why a clean rider would express outrage about those who expose doping, or even just talk about it, and no outrage about those who dope. Does that make sense to you?{QUOTE]

Of course you are right, the rule of ometra rules the peloton, how can you speak out, if you yourself have doped. Easy to understand why the lesser lights say nothing in public as they would face the wrath of the bigger names (a la Simeoni) and until someboby is caught, nobody has the hardcopy, unquestionable proof of doping.

I have posed the question in numerous posts about the Simeoni v Armstrong affair and for any Lance fan to justify what he done. Only one LA fan has ever repsonded and that was to say "they heard about it but considered it a minor incident"???

I would feel a big reason Lance is hated more than other riders is down to this incident, what other rider in the modern era has ever done anything similar? To be honest, if this is the only reason to dislike Lance, its more than justifiable.

 

[ak-zaaf]

again?


really?


come on

plz

 

[cyclegunn]

My opinion on Armstrong & LeMond

For those of you who believe Armstrong, Contador, Evans, Sastre, Leipheimer, etc. are clean, please explain this to me.

Where is the outrage expressed about the ones who are proven guilty, let alone the ones who admit guilt?

In particular, Lance Armstrong, the patron, who is not one to avoid harsh words when he feels they are appropriate, expresses no outrage about all the doping going on all around him, his key team members and his key opponents, and, instead, attacks those who expose it.

The list of doping cases in cycling compiled at Wikipedia is sobering to look at.

Doping cases in cycling

Where is the outrage? Why is there no outrage?

I mean, if you were clean, and you found out the guys helping you and racing against you were cheating, wouldn't that pi$$ you off?

More importantly, if you were clean, why would you hold those who spoke out about doping in cycling in such low esteem (as Armstrong obviously does)?

Do you guys remember how convinced you might have been that Tyler, Floyd, Roberto, Andreu, Basso, Ulrich, etc. were clean?

Why is it is so hard to accept that despite the natural talents one might have, or how much training one does at high altitude, the performances required to compete, much less win, at this level are simply inhuman? How else do you explain the lack of outrage about the known cheaters, except that they too are cheating, but getting away with it?

And to the extent that there is a stigma within the peloton with regard to exposing doping in cycling, you've got to realize that le patron is largely responsible for establishing and fueling that stigma. The Filippo Simeoni incident established that.

In my opinion, Armstrong is and has been one of the most talented and disciplined individuals the cycling and endurance sport world has ever known. However, I think it is despicable the way he treated Simeoni as well as his wife and in my opinion there is no doubt in my mind that he is a doper. If everyone raced clean I believe he would have won the Tour, although 7 times probably would have been stretching it. As for his teammates, it is my opinion they had/have to dope to be able to ride at the front and do the work for Armstrong. I believe LeMond raced clean and with the introduction of EPO, et al that ended his days as a competitive Tour rider. My opinion is that he doesn't care that Armstrong has won more tours than him, he only cares that he did it as a doper. That in my opinion is why LeMond shows the outrage at doping that Armstrong never can. Also, Armstrong can cry all he wants that "I've never tested positive" Kohl talked about all the times he could have tested positive and didn't so for the most part the dopers are still way ahead of the testers.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

On the other hand, you know who else doesn't talk about the doping? Pretty much everyone whose livelihood depends on the sport, including the commentators (Phil, Paul, Bob, etc.). They, like Armstrong, understand that the sport as a whole $uffer$ the more exposure the doping gets. But, and here's the difference, they don't go after the exposers with a vengeance the way Armstrong does.

As I noted in another thread, I was once in a public forum where Bob Roll was speaking during the whole Frankie Andreu fiasco, and Bobke said that he called Frankie and told him to "STFU". What he expressed was genuine concern and disbelief that Frankie would talk about this stuff, but it was clear that his concern was not about Frankie's claims being true, but about them being publicized. As I look back, I think that moment a few years ago was the turning point for me, when I realized how entrenched the whole doping culture was within the sport, including the "don't talk about it" aspect.

None of this makes sense to me without assuming that nearly all, if not all, are doping, and certainly everyone riding near the front, contending wins, and winning.

 

[Anonymous]

I didn't say they should express outrage. I just don't understand why a clean rider would express outrage about those who expose doping, or even just talk about it, and no outrage about those who dope. Does that make sense to you?{QUOTE]

Of course you are right, the rule of ometra rules the peloton, how can you speak out, if you yourself have doped. Easy to understand why the lesser lights say nothing in public as they would face the wrath of the bigger names (a la Simeoni) and until someboby is caught, nobody has the hardcopy, unquestionable proof of doping.

I have posed the question in numerous posts about the Simeoni v Armstrong affair and for any Lance fan to justify what he done.

I posted this a couple of days ago. I'm not at all bothered by the topic.

-------------

There was no tactial reason for
simeoni to go off the front at the time. He was trying to get attention.
my recollection is that when simeoni was absorbed back you could see several riders having words for him.

you don't get to re write history.

quoting the cyclingnews recap of the race.

"Once back in the bunch, Simeoni got some verbal abuse from Italian riders and went to hide at the back of the peloton, while Armstrong was applauded by many riders and made the cryptic sign of a zipper across his lips".

and lance is quoted post race:

" "The story of Simeoni is not a fair story...there's a long history there. All (journalists) want to write about is parts of the story. It's a long history...a guy like (Simeoni), all he wants to do is to destroy cycling...and for me, that's not correct. And I when I went back to the group they said 'chapeau'...thank you very much. Because they understand that (cycling) is their job and that they absolutely love it and they're committed to it and don't want somebody within their sport destroying it. So...for me it's no problem to go on the wheel, to follow the wheel."

I know of no rider that disagreed with that at the time.

if you condemn lance for this you pretty much have to condemn they whole group, you own favorites as well.

are you holding simeoni up as some saint?

The riders were aware of the whole story.

 

[Anonymous]

I posted this a couple of days ago. I'm not at all bothered by the topic.

-------------

There was no tactial reason for
simeoni to go off the front at the time. He was trying to get attention.
my recollection is that when simeoni was absorbed back you could see several riders having words for him.

you don't get to re write history.

quoting the cyclingnews recap of the race.

"Once back in the bunch, Simeoni got some verbal abuse from Italian riders and went to hide at the back of the peloton, while Armstrong was applauded by many riders and made the cryptic sign of a zipper across his lips".

and lance is quoted post race:

" "The story of Simeoni is not a fair story...there's a long history there. All (journalists) want to write about is parts of the story. It's a long history...a guy like (Simeoni), all he wants to do is to destroy cycling...and for me, that's not correct. And I when I went back to the group they said 'chapeau'...thank you very much. Because they understand that (cycling) is their job and that they absolutely love it and they're committed to it and don't want somebody within their sport destroying it. So...for me it's no problem to go on the wheel, to follow the wheel."

I know of no rider that disagreed with that at the time.

if you condemn lance for this you pretty much have to condemn they whole group, you own favorites as well.

are you holding simeoni up as some saint?

The riders were aware of the whole story.

Simoni or Simeoni?

Either way, Simeoni didn't disclose anything about the whole peloton, it was his comments on Dr Ferrari that raised the ire of Mr Armstrong. I also don't recall that Mr Armstrong had any help (well, except for PED's) to help him bridge the gap to Simeoni's group. It was he alone. To suggest that every other rider in the race approved is baseless.

It is also interesting that he and you consider those who expose doping to be the ones destroying cycling. Actually, "interesting" is a gracious term for what it really is.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I posted this a couple of days ago. I'm not at all bothered by the topic.

-------------

There was no tactial reason for
simeoni to go off the front at the time. He was trying to get attention.
my recollection is that when simeoni was absorbed back you could see several riders having words for him.

you don't get to re write history.

quoting the cyclingnews recap of the race.

"Once back in the bunch, Simeoni got some verbal abuse from Italian riders and went to hide at the back of the peloton, while Armstrong was applauded by many riders and made the cryptic sign of a zipper across his lips".

and lance is quoted post race:

" "The story of Simeoni is not a fair story...there's a long history there. All (journalists) want to write about is parts of the story. It's a long history...a guy like (Simeoni), all he wants to do is to destroy cycling...and for me, that's not correct. And I when I went back to the group they said 'chapeau'...thank you very much. Because they understand that (cycling) is their job and that they absolutely love it and they're committed to it and don't want somebody within their sport destroying it. So...for me it's no problem to go on the wheel, to follow the wheel."

I know of no rider that disagreed with that at the time.

if you condemn lance for this you pretty much have to condemn they whole group, you own favorites as well.

are you holding simeoni up as some saint?

The riders were aware of the whole story.

And what was Simeoni doing that Armstrong referred to as "destroying cycling"? He was exposing the extent and depth of drug use in the sport.

Now, Armstrong's point is well taken - exposing that is arguably destroying the sport, and I think it's clear that whether that's true or not, Armstrong and many other cyclists seem to sincerely believe that. This implies that they believe seriously going after the doping cancer, from the inside, is not a worthy goal. Why? Because of all the bad publicity? So let's not get serious about ridding our sport of doping because of the bad publicity we would temporarily get? That's just not credible.

I just don't get why somebody who is clean, and especially someone who won seven Tours clean, would believe that cleaning the sport, including by talking about it and going after cheaters from the inside, is not a realistic and worthy goal. It just makes no sense.

 

[Anonymous]

And what pray tell do you believe the "zipper across the mouth" represents?

 

[Snake8]

People drive over the speed limit all the time. Where is the outrage?
People dont come to a complete stop at stop signs. Where is the outrage?
Greedy filthy *** take down our entire economy causing untold suffering to millions around the globe. Where is the outrage?

On the other hand, if you are winning clean or not, why would you be outraged?

If you are clean, you are winning and the better your sport does overall financially the better you will do. Talking about doping all the time would be counterproductive for the winners.

If you are dirty and winning likewise you would not be outraged. Nor would you want to talk about it all the time.

If you have a boil on your a$$ do you talk about it all the time?

Every single "reasoned" argument to prove doping is entirely circumstantial. For me its pretty easy, you get caught you pay the price. Until then I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, same as I would in civil matters. It just seems like being obsessed with doping is as much of a waste as being outraged by speeders. And if the history of this board holds true to form, some dope head will be outraged over my views...

 

[Anonymous]

People drive over the speed limit all the time. Where is the outrage?
People dont come to a complete stop at stop signs. Where is the outrage?
Greedy filthy *** take down our entire economy causing untold suffering to millions around the globe. Where is the outrage?

On the other hand, if you are winning clean or not, why would you be outraged?

If you are clean, you are winning and the better your sport does overall financially the better you will do. Talking about doping all the time would be counterproductive for the winners.

If you are dirty and winning likewise you would not be outraged. Nor would you want to talk about it all the time.

If you have a boil on your a$$ do you talk about it all the time?

Every single "reasoned" argument to prove doping is entirely circumstantial. For me its pretty easy, you get caught you pay the price. Until then I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, same as I would in civil matters. It just seems like being obsessed with doping is as much of a waste as being outraged by speeders. And if the history of this board holds true to form, some dope head will be outraged over my views...

But I am not a fan of watching speeders......

Plus, positive doping tests that prove doping are more than circumstantial. Again, look at the top 10 for GT's from 1993 (picked at random....ok, maybe not) on and then look at the number of them who have tested positive or admitted doping and then bring back your "circumstantial" doping theory.

 

[BroDeal]

Don't tell me Jackhammer is still trying to sell the idea that Armstrong chasing down Simeoni was anything other than enforcement of omerta. Mind boggling.

My favorite bit of outrage came from Periero when asked about Landis. His response was that it was "unfortunate" what had happened to Landis. There is some hopping mad outrage right there. Of course it is probably hard for him to say anything since the year before the two were on the same team and they know where each other's skeletons are buried.

 

[pkelly]

Christophe Bassons

Forget about Armstrong and Simeoni, the most dispicable of Armstrongs actions were towards Christophe Bassons. The fact he has never apologised for this summerises Armstrongs attitude towards Doping.

As for people on this forum advocating for 'the omerta' and keeping it all nice and quiet and dishonest...no respect for you at all as you have no respect for cycling or common decency.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Forget about Armstrong and Simeoni, the most dispicable of Armstrongs actions were towards Christophe Bassons.

Wow, I had forgotten about that incident with Bassons, thanks for the reminder!

 

[Snake8]

But I am not a fan of watching speeders......

Plus, positive doping tests that prove doping are more than circumstantial.

Exactly my point. Why are you arguing with me then? If they fail a test, they are guilty. All the other arguments such as the one starting this thread are entirely circumstantial. I do not deny you your facts: the endless list of positives should be enough to make anyone skeptical.

But a healthy skepticism and outrage are not the same thing. You dopeheads seem to feel if we are not all outraged we are "fanboys" or LA worshippers.

Sorry but you guys s u ck the way you ruin every thread with your vitriol.

 

[Anonymous]

Exactly my point. Why are you arguing with me then? If they fail a test, they are guilty. All the other arguments such as the one starting this thread are entirely circumstantial. I do not deny you your facts: the endless list of positives should be enough to make anyone skeptical.

But a healthy skepticism and outrage are not the same thing. You dopeheads seem to feel if we are not all outraged we are "fanboys" or LA worshippers.

Sorry but you guys s u ck the way you ruin every thread with your vitriol.

How does you complaining about the posts of others do anything different that what you accuse me of? Dang.

Who said I am outraged? I understand it is a complex situation. I just want to keep fresh the idea that doping is destroying the sport, and that until there is a serious effort to curb it, people need to keep pressing. We cannot rely on Mr Armstrong to do so.

I understand your opinion though, and I can see how it could get tiresome. Like I told a person who posted earlier, start threads that are what you want to read and ignore any posts that are off topic. Heck, you can ignore me and will never have to read a word I post.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

People drive over the speed limit all the time. Where is the outrage?
People dont come to a complete stop at stop signs. Where is the outrage?
Greedy filthy *** take down our entire economy causing untold suffering to millions around the globe. Where is the outrage?

On the other hand, if you are winning clean or not, why would you be outraged?

If you are clean, you are winning and the better your sport does overall financially the better you will do. Talking about doping all the time would be counterproductive for the winners.

If you are dirty and winning likewise you would not be outraged. Nor would you want to talk about it all the time.

If you have a boil on your a$$ do you talk about it all the time?

Every single "reasoned" argument to prove doping is entirely circumstantial. For me its pretty easy, you get caught you pay the price. Until then I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, same as I would in civil matters. It just seems like being obsessed with doping is as much of a waste as being outraged by speeders. And if the history of this board holds true to form, some dope head will be outraged over my views...

Actually, I do see a lot of outrage expressed about speeding motorists on cycling forums, as well as about financial greed. Rolling stops, not so much, but that behavior is not generally seen as being significantly harmful. Are you saying doping is harmless, akin to rolling a stop?

Why would someone who is winning clean be outraged by doping cheaters? For the same reason someone who is winning dirty would be outraged by those who are exposing the cheaters. It's hurting the sport. The only difference is that from the clean winner's perspective, it's the actual doping that's doing the harm, while from the dirty winner's perspective, it's the exposing of the doping that's doing the harm.

You contend, If you are dirty and winning likewise you would not be outraged. Yet, Mr. Armstrong is outraged by those who expose doping in cycling from the inside.

Yes, you get caught you pay the price. But, if you don't get caught does not mean you're clean. You still want to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, same as you would in civil matters. That sounds reasonable and just on the surface. So you believe OJ is innocent? I mean, let's keep things in context. The issue here is not about whether there is enough evidence to sanction anyone. The issue here is about whether there is enough evidence to conclude that everyone, or nearly everyone, in the peloton dopes.

 

[Bala Verde]

Here is outrage. Clean Bram Tankink about Ricco He says he would have loved to beat Ricco up. Unfortunately he did not have the chance to do so at the day of his removal from the race, so he takes solace in the fact that he had punched him the day before...

 

[rhubroma]

Simple, he can't express outrage about other's doping because he's a doper himself. All he can, and has, done, is say how incredibly stupid the guys are who have doped and gotten caught. But it is a fake concern which exchanges an outrage for getting caught, with doping itself, given the immage problems that causes for a sport which is run by a culture of doping. And doesn't want to have to change, becuae that way the supermen would be less awsome in their athletic gestures. A sport whithout doping, in their eyes, would take away some of the granduer of their athletic feats, upon which their egos thrive.

 

[Angliru]

The Simeoni incident was the start of my seeing beyond the facade and my later finding out about the Bassons incident that really cemented my disdain for Armstrong. I could still appreciate his accomplishments but as far as his actions and intimidation tactics: that is what really opened my eyes.

 

[Angliru]

Don't tell me Jackhammer is still trying to sell the idea that Armstrong chasing down Simeoni was anything other than enforcement of omerta. Mind boggling.

According to Jackhammer, Armstrong's actions were accepted behaviour by the majority of the peloton. Thus that makes it correct and proper. Need I say that all through history there were several practices that were accepted by the majority of the population, however horrible they may have been. This didn't make them the moral correct thing to do at the time.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

According to Jackhammer, Armstrong's actions were accepted behaviour by the majority of the peloton. Thus that makes it correct and proper. Need I say that all through history there were several practices that were accepted by the majority of the population, however horrible they may have been. This didn't make them the moral correct thing to do at the time.

Yes, it's correct and proper if you honor the "code of silence" with respect to exposing doping in cycling. The reason this is "accepted behaviour by the majority of the peloton" can only be because the majority dopes. Why would a clean rider go to these lengths to protect the code of silence that benefits the cheaters?