Levi Leipheimer

[VeloFidelis]

The irony is, using the standard "any Pro who has pulled on a team kit, or cashed a paycheck, regardless how meager, for racing his bike", there are actually more than a few of those on here...

Thanks for noticing. I doubt that any who understand that pain and effort would call those results unimpressive.

 

[stephens]

That's right, if the Pros say drugs are not cheating then drugs are okay and their perspective is the only one that matters.

You can roll your eyes all you want, but can you make a persuasive argument on why it is any business of yours? Because you want to exploit their efforts for financial gain? Or if you have no financial stake in the racing world, is it just because you want to be entertained in only very specific ways of your own choosing, irregardless of the choices the entertainer prefers? What is it? Please tell us what gives you the desire to dictate what others can and can't do.

The cyclists need to be put in charge of their own destiny. Until they are, and until they decide to go "natural", then the thirst will continue to be stronger than the rules. Surely we've learned over the last 100 years that "Omerta," is more powerful than any governing body or testing agency. And it should be. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to form their own peloton and their own races. But what right does anyone on the outside really have to tell the riders what they can and can't do? None. Change must come from within. (and no, bitter, retired cyclists are not "within".)

 

[BikeCentric]

And you love making sh!t up! You can talk smack all day about anyone you want. But if you are not impressed with results like that, then you must be ***

So you accuse me of making things up, then ascribe to me an insinuation that I did not make. I said nothing about Levi's results being impressive or not, I merely stated that any racers results, no matter how impressive, does not put that person above criticism or reproach.

 

[BikeCentric]

You can roll your eyes all you want, but can you make a persuasive argument on why it is any business of yours? Because you want to exploit their efforts for financial gain? Or if you have no financial stake in the racing world, is it just because you want to be entertained in only very specific ways of your own choosing, irregardless of the choices the entertainer prefers? What is it? Please tell us what gives you the desire to dictate what others can and can't do.

The cyclists need to be put in charge of their own destiny. Until they are, and until they decide to go "natural", then the thirst will continue to be stronger than the rules. Surely we've learned over the last 100 years that "Omerta," is more powerful than any governing body or testing agency. And it should be. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to form their own peloton and their own races. But what right does anyone on the outside really have to tell the riders what they can and can't do? None. Change must come from within. (and no, bitter, retired cyclists are not "within".)

You are placing far too much power into the hands of the riders than they have. Yes they make the choice to dope and will be held responsble for this choice, but currently they are hostages to the system that they are in and they don't have the choice to just "go natural."

Furthermore, your attempt to give them the "freedom" to dope on some sort of *******ized Libertarian grounds just doesn't make sense. In a society there are such things as laws and standards of social behavior and the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the people who support cycling, either as fans or sponsors, find doping unattractive. Why do sponsors keep pulling out when their teams get busted? Maybe because they don't want their brand associated with cheating?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I have no problem with Levi (or Lance or Horner) riding at races like the Gila, as long as that's all they are doing. To normally ride with the big boys in European PT, then come to NM to clean up on Cat 1 racers isn't cool. I'd like to think that Levi, Chris and Lance would form a UCI-Continental team next year and race stateside to help promote local races, and make Lance's idea of bring the Coors' Classic back come to life.

Having said that, doping sucks. Riders who dope cheat. Even Joe will be compelled to admit that.

 

[velosopher54]

You can roll your eyes all you want, but can you make a persuasive argument on why it is any business of yours? Because you want to exploit their efforts for financial gain? Or if you have no financial stake in the racing world, is it just because you want to be entertained in only very specific ways of your own choosing, irregardless of the choices the entertainer prefers? What is it? Please tell us what gives you the desire to dictate what others can and can't do.

The cyclists need to be put in charge of their own destiny. Until they are, and until they decide to go "natural", then the thirst will continue to be stronger than the rules. Surely we've learned over the last 100 years that "Omerta," is more powerful than any governing body or testing agency. And it should be. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to form their own peloton and their own races. But what right does anyone on the outside really have to tell the riders what they can and can't do? None. Change must come from within. (and no, bitter, retired cyclists are not "within".)

Until riders make the rules they are to follow the rules as set down, and that means NO CHEATING! How hard is that to understand? If I take a job that requires certain behavior(all jobs do)then I'm going to follow those rules, it's part of the job. If I get fired(banned)then that is on me! It is the dopers who should make their own peloton, not the clean riders. The clean riders are already doing what is right for their job description! You really seem to have things twisted around.

Oh, yeah, the mob practices omerta, so much for that precident.

 

[top_tenz_finish]

You can roll your eyes all you want, but can you make a persuasive argument on why it is any business of yours? Because you want to exploit their efforts for financial gain? Or if you have no financial stake in the racing world, is it just because you want to be entertained in only very specific ways of your own choosing, irregardless of the choices the entertainer prefers? What is it? Please tell us what gives you the desire to dictate what others can and can't do.

The cyclists need to be put in charge of their own destiny. Until they are, and until they decide to go "natural", then the thirst will continue to be stronger than the rules. Surely we've learned over the last 100 years that "Omerta," is more powerful than any governing body or testing agency. And it should be. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to form their own peloton and their own races. But what right does anyone on the outside really have to tell the riders what they can and can't do? None. Change must come from within. (and no, bitter, retired cyclists are not "within".)

Of course it is reasonable, as fans, to make demands and have expectations of the sport we follow. That is the very nature of big sports, if you want a absolutely closed shop then fine I guess they can race amongst themselves with nobody watching. I'm not exactly sure anyone would sponsor that though. Until that does happen then of course fans are going to have expectations and demands, whether these are listened to is another matter of course. Without the fans there would be no money and without money there would be no sport in this form so yes this is the business of us fans.

 

[VeloFidelis]

So you accuse me of making things up, then ascribe to me an insinuation that I did not make. I said nothing about Levi's results being impressive or not, I merely stated that any racers results, no matter how impressive, does not put that person above criticism or reproach.

Absolutely, your "Appeal to Authority" nonsense is complete and utter fabrication (and spiced up oh so colorfully with the obligatory "Fanboy" insinuation). I WAS talking exclusively about Levi's results and not about anyone's right to criticize whomever they choose.

I was merely pointing out that since the critic, who obviously considers himself a cyclist, and evidently lives in a glass house, may want to consider his own cycling prowess and legacy before declaring Levi's results as "unimpressive". Dislike any rider you want. But before you get dismissive with their accomplishments, you should at least have a few of your own for contextual balance. I'm going to go way out on a limb here, and bet that he doesn't.

 

[BikeCentric]

Absolutely, your "Appeal to Authority" nonsense is complete and utter fabrication (and spiced up oh so colorfully with the obligatory "Fanboy" insinuation). I WAS talking exclusively about Levi's results and not about anyone's right to criticize whomever they choose.

I was merely pointing out that since the critic, who obviously considers himself a cyclist, and evidently lives in a glass house, may want to consider his own cycling prowess and legacy before declaring Levi's results as "unimpressive". Dislike any rider you want. But before you get dismissive with their accomplishments, you should at least have a few of your own for contextual balance. I'm going to go way out on a limb here, and bet that he doesn't.

Wrong, you're still using the "appeal to authority." It's just silly sauce to say we can't critcize pro cyclists because they're all better than us. Of course they are, they are the best in the world by definition. Therefore the only relevant comparison is to their peer group, other pros, and they can and will be criticized on their merit relative to their peer group. On that merit, Levi is extremely average if not bad as a historical pro cycling GC rider. And yeah he could crush me. But I still make more money than him. And your point is irrelevent.

 

[top_tenz_finish]

Absolutely, your "Appeal to Authority" nonsense is complete and utter fabrication (and spiced up oh so colorfully with the obligatory "Fanboy" insinuation). I WAS talking exclusively about Levi's results and not about anyone's right to criticize whomever they choose.

I was merely pointing out that since the critic, who obviously considers himself a cyclist, and evidently lives in a glass house, may want to consider his own cycling prowess and legacy before declaring Levi's results as "unimpressive". Dislike any rider you want. But before you get dismissive with their accomplishments, you should at least have a few of your own for contextual balance. I'm going to go way out on a limb here, and bet that he doesn't.

How do you know he is making that comment as a cyclist though?

 

[131313]

I have no problem with Levi (or Lance or Horner) riding at races like the Gila, as long as that's all they are doing. To normally ride with the big boys in European PT, then come to NM to clean up on Cat 1 racers isn't cool. I'd like to think that Levi, Chris and Lance would form a UCI-Continental team next year and race stateside to help promote local races, and make Lance's idea of bring the Coors' Classic back come to life.

Having said that, doping sucks. Riders who dope cheat. Even Joe will be compelled to admit that.

couple a things here

-I have no issue racing against those guys at all. It makes the race harder, adds legitimacy to the race and brings more interest. Everyone wins in my book.

-people are underestimating the difficulty of Gila a little. I realize it's become a generic term for "crappy American local race". Take a look at someone like Sutherland, who is finishing in roughly the same position in both the ToC and Gila. just sayin'. You have to go down to the 30's to find any Cat 1's, and those guys are mostly Cat 1 lifers who have just chosen jobs over poverty

-the only objection I, or most anyone, has when a top euro guy shows up is the difference in "preparation", if you get my drift. That's not to say that the US domestic peloton is clean (it's not), but the guys who do chose to dope don't have anywhere near the resources of the euro guys, and you can still get good results clean.

If they show up and race clean, I'd like to see more of them racing domestically, not fewer. It's nothing but an opportunity as far as I see it. Not allowing guys to race because they might be better than you is, in my opinion, lame.

 

[VeloFidelis]

How do you know he is making that comment as a cyclist though?

Oh, you mean Dekker_Tifosi? Gee, let me think about that... Hmmm. Yup! OK, that didn't take long.

 

[joe_papp]

Having said that, doping sucks. Riders who dope cheat. Even Joe will be compelled to admit that.

Correct. I admit that.

 

[SpartacusRox]

i would rather be a fan of cycling than a pro who dopes!

At least i know who i am and i am not cheating everyone by taking PEDs to pretend to be an extremely talented pro hard man cyclist who can whip everyone on 2 wheels and talk hard and big.

Not answering for Moose man but when people come on here and say show me your Palmares, F*CK that ****, just because you cheated in bike races does not make you better than everybody else it makes you a cheating scumbag. That kind of machismo talk is for idiots with small Penii

Whoa, a little sensitive there Beno.

From where I am sitting, machismo talk is where you have people who have achieved very little in the sport slagging off top riders just to make themselves feel big.

I have never seen Levi "talking hard and big", he is actually quite a quiet sort of guy. If you don't (or in this case Moose) want to be challenged, perhaps keeping ones mouth shut in relation to ridiculous statements may be a start.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Whoa, a little sensitive there Beno.

From where I am sitting, machismo talk is where you have people who have achieved very little in the sport slagging off top riders just to make themselves feel big.

I have never seen Levi "talking hard and big", he is actually quite a quiet sort of guy. If you don't (or in this case Moose) want to be challenged, perhaps keeping ones mouth shut in relation to ridiculous statements may be a start.

No, Levi just shuts up and takes the check to the bank. He's got you and Stephens and Velofidelis to make all his noise for him. None of that means he is not a doper though. I really wish someone sane could tell me where this idea that you have to be a pro bike racer (and evidently a very good one to boot) in order to form the opinion (with a great deal of supporting evidence) that there is cheating going on, came from.
Does one need to be a 70 handicap golfer to express the opinion that Tiger Woods is (or was) an out of control horn-dog?
Can I criticise my state senator even if I have never held public office?
How many years do I have to have held a Cat 1 license before I can accuse a pro of cheating?

 

[Benotti69]

Whoa, a little sensitive there Beno.

not showing any sensitivity, only honesty, but if you cant recognise that i am not surprised

From where I am sitting, machismo talk is where you have people who have achieved very little in the sport slagging off top riders just to make themselves feel big.

I.e. your postings on here, talking big on behalf of cyclists.

I have never seen Levi "talking hard and big", he is actually quite a quiet sort of guy. If you don't (or in this case Moose) want to be challenged, perhaps keeping ones mouth shut in relation to ridiculous statements may be a start.

No problem with being challenged on here, but if it's from hidden fanboys and omerta 'acceptees' like yourself, failing by trying to hide under the so called 'balance' you purport to argue

 

[irritated_cycling_fan]

You call that keeping a secret?

Yeah, Levi being caught and punished for doping is so secret and hush, hush that Phil and Paul were talking about in the early days of the Tour this year. lol How 'secret' is it when it's spoken about on a tv sporting event available to millions of people multiple times during each day?

Try to tone down the hypocrisy please. It's unbelievable reading some of these post! Here are people ranting and raving against Levi as though he got caught doping, screamed to the world that it wasn't true, took money from people to defend himself, wrote a book about his innocence and then finally admitted the truth years later. And the person who actually DID those things? Many of these same people have forgiven him everything and now consider him the 'savior of cycling'!

Who do you think rational people would consider to have committed the bigger offense? Brain not wanting to admit a simple truth here? Let me help you. The big offender is the guy who doped, got caught, screamed his denial, took money fraudulently, wrote a book completely of lies before finally admitting the truth years later. Yes, that is Floyd Landis.

Not saying Levi wasn't wrong; just saying that those of you who are now into praising Landis should probably bow out of the Levi bashing.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Yeah, Levi being caught and punished for doping is so secret and hush, hush that Phil and Paul were talking about in the early days of the Tour this year. lol How 'secret' is it when it's spoken about on a tv sporting event available to millions of people multiple times during each day?

If you read the whole thread, you will find that only a few months ago it wasn't accepted as fact by everyone. A situation which a number of people here went to considerable trouble to rectify. It seems they succeeded

 

[irritated_cycling_fan]

Too much information

If you read the whole thread, you will find that only a few months ago it wasn't accepted as fact by everyone. A situation which a number of people here went to considerable trouble to rectify. It seems they succeeded

Does it have to be? How many cyclists are in the professional ranks? There are far too many for anyone to know everything about all of them. If it's a cyclist you're interested in you make the effort to find out more about them. The information on Levi was there and not hard to find. Certainly it's not something he wants to advertise; not only did it happen many years ago and before he was a pro cyclist but who in any walk of life publicizes their failings?

What bothered me about this was 1) the implication that it was a big secret that was part of a 'conspiracy' to keep hidden and 2) reading posts by people bashing Levi who were praising Landis. Of course people are allowed to say what they choose here and I wouldn't try to prevent that. But I also don't see any thing inherently wrong about 'reminding' some people of the discrepancy of their thinking.

 

[mortailcoil]

Radiosmack.

 

[top_tenz_finish]

Oh, you mean Dekker_Tifosi? Gee, let me think about that... Hmmm. Yup! OK, that didn't take long.

I'm not sure you really got my point though. It is all a question of hats, I could be a cyclist but when making a post here I am making it from the point of view of a fan/observer and so not with my cycling hat on. I think he (and we all) can criticise if he wants to. For one do you really think he was calling Leipheimer an absolute **** rider, of course he wasn't. That would go to the person down my road with no legs or the kid outside now who has been using stabilisers for 3 years.

This kind of 'show me your medals' talk is silly (and I do despair when I see it written by people who themselves don't have any - I don't know if you do of course). What makes it especially silly is when it is regarding sport that is followed by the public.

 

[Benotti69]

..... reading posts by people bashing Levi who were praising Landis. .....

i dont see people praising Landis for anything other than his honesty about his PED use in his career, how it started with USPS and where he ended up, who was involved etc....

That is admirable for an athlete to do who has cheated most of his sporting career as it sheds light on the sports and fans can then be the judge of that sportsperson and their sport.

Cycling has an inherent problem with PED use and it has led to the deaths of many young athletes, which is a big problem.

I imagine many many posters would praise LA if he confessed and told the whole truth about his career after 1999 and laid bare his use of PEDs and apologised for it. Why not? A lot of people will forgive him. It depends on the manner of his apology.

the manner of how he has ridden throughout his career has angered many fans and that is apparent on here, and why not? he has treated people appallingly and continues to do so for his own personal financial benefit.

 

[131313]

The information on Levi was there and not hard to find.

total, utter BS.

The information was almost impossible to find, pretty much until this thread came up.

If you did a Google search 3 months ago, there was absolutely no mention of it anywhere. The governing body claimed the old records weren't available and wouldn't confirm or deny. Wikipedia refused to post anything about it. Archived articles which used to be available weren't there anymore.

In short, you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[BikeCentric]

Does it have to be? How many cyclists are in the professional ranks? There are far too many for anyone to know everything about all of them. If it's a cyclist you're interested in you make the effort to find out more about them. The information on Levi was there and not hard to find. Certainly it's not something he wants to advertise; not only did it happen many years ago and before he was a pro cyclist but who in any walk of life publicizes their failings?

What bothered me about this was 1) the implication that it was a big secret that was part of a 'conspiracy' to keep hidden and 2) reading posts by people bashing Levi who were praising Landis. Of course people are allowed to say what they choose here and I wouldn't try to prevent that. But I also don't see any thing inherently wrong about 'reminding' some people of the discrepancy of their thinking.

^
Omerta Enforcement 101 right here. That folks, is how it's done.

 

[VeloFidelis]

No, Levi just shuts up and takes the check to the bank. He's got you and Stephens and Velofidelis to make all his noise for him. None of that means he is not a doper though. I really wish someone sane could tell me where this idea that you have to be a pro bike racer (and evidently a very good one to boot) in order to form the opinion (with a great deal of supporting evidence) that there is cheating going on, came from.
Does one need to be a 70 handicap golfer to express the opinion that Tiger Woods is (or was) an out of control horn-dog?
Can I criticise my state senator even if I have never held public office?
How many years do I have to have held a Cat 1 license before I can accuse a pro of cheating?

I guess the point is that when you get your Cat 1 license you'll realize that everyone out there with you still has to pedal his bike, still has good days and bad, and still suffers greatly for the results he gets. That while suspicion of doping is always a convenient fall back position, it is harder to admit that I just sucked out there today. The realization that other riders are on a whole different performance plane than yourself has little more meaning when it is derived from actual experience, and it makes you a little less judgmental. It's very obvious from so many of the cavalier opinions and attitudes expressed here to see, who gets that concept and who doesn't.

Please feel free to criticize and castigate any rider any rider you choose. That is what this forum is ultimately about; a place for those of us who can't, to openly criticize those who can. And while your distain for any one rider can be as arbitrary as you care to make it, to challenge their palmares as "unimpressive" reflects far more on your personal character than your knowledge of cycling.

You can despise an Armstrong, Ullrich , Basso, or (fill in the blank) for all the personally justified "right reasons", but you cannot get by the fact, that as a doped rider, they often crushed a field of similarly doped riders, while you sat there with remote in hand cheering, and replayed the moment time and time again. Forgive me if the attitude du jour rings a little hollow now.