Moncoutie

[Semper Fidelis]

This is a strategy of course. Post something that is accusatory or insinuates something without knowing background facts. If nobody correct's it then it stands and will be repeated at future dates. If someone correct's the falsehood, then act all apologetic and claim you were misinformed. As you say, happens on a regular basis.

So you guys are saying that blackcat is full of it?

Sure is some "strange love" for ManCartier on this board. No one should question this cyclist. He is above it all. Never even was on a team with dopers. Nope not this guy.

 

[Mr.DNA]

So you guys are saying that blackcat is full of it?

I've had him on my ignore list for a couple of years. I wish people would not quote him.

 

[blackcat]

This is a strategy of course. Post something that is accusatory or insinuates something without knowing background facts. If nobody correct's it then it stands and will be repeated at future dates. If someone correct's the falsehood, then act all apologetic and claim you were misinformed. As you say, happens on a regular basis.

nah. this IS CYCLING.

I invested undue amount of support in Casar, Tombak, Moncoutie, Hushovd. and when i found evidence controverting anecdotal evidence of them being Bassonsque, even with contra anecdotal, it resonates, and my memory bank is charged.

one feels betrayed if you find out it is BS.

any layperson psychoanalysis would tell someone why one could feel betrayed and how responding behaviour occurs.

it is instructive. i still cant reconcile the doping. and (irrationally) i respond with a shrew's motive.

i now accept the doping. but it still does not sit well with me.

hopefully, no more kirchen, no more salanson, no more ricco, pantani, and vandenbroucke, no more tom simpson. stay safe on the asphalt, and dont make me a party to the danger. pls

 

[Semper Fidelis]

nah. this IS CYCLING.

I invested undue amount of support in Casar, Tombak, Moncoutie, Hushovd. and when i found evidence controverting anecdotal evidence of them being Bassonsque, even with contra anecdotal, it resonates, and my memory bank is charged.

one feels betrayed if you find out it is BS.

any layperson psychoanalysis would tell someone why one could feel betrayed and how responding behaviour occurs.

it is instructive. i still cant reconcile the doping. and (irrationally) i respond with a shrew's motive.

i now accept the doping. but it still does not sit well with me.

hopefully, no more kirchen, no more salanson, no more ricco, pantani, and vandenbroucke, no more tom simpson. stay safe on the asphalt, and dont make me a party to the danger. pls

I hear you man. You see the post you quoted and the other ones? They were tearing you down. Whatever you do ....don't mention that ManCartier might be on the ped's then they will get really whack.

Now you are on dnaman's ignore list.

 

[Hugh Januss]

This is a strategy of course. Post something that is accusatory or insinuates something without knowing background facts. If nobody correct's it then it stands and will be repeated at future dates. If someone correct's the falsehood, then act all apologetic and claim you were misinformed. As you say, happens on a regular basis.

And all of those who post (and post and post and post) that Froome etal. are clean have what sort of real "background knowledge" to support their claims?

 

[pmcg76]

And all of those who post (and post and post and post) that Froome etal. are clean have what sort of real "background knowledge" to support their claims?

If people base their arguments on something that is real then fine, making stuff up or ignoring existing facts is something different altogether.

An example on the Froome thing, how many poster's have constantly used the fact that Froome grew up in Kenya as some sort of excuse why he didn't develop earlier when in fact he lived in South Africa from age 14 and started racing in South Africa which has a decent racing cycling scene. Some people genuinely don't know that and just hear the Kenya thing but there are others who willfully ignore the South Africa angle to pursue their agenda.

It happens on both sides of the debate, posting deliberately misleading facts to further an agenda.

 

[blackcat]

If people base their arguments on something that is real then fine, making stuff up or ignoring existing facts is something different altogether.

An example on the Froome thing, how many poster's have constantly used the fact that Froome grew up in Kenya as some sort of excuse why he didn't develop earlier when in fact he lived in South Africa from age 14 and started racing in South Africa which has a decent racing cycling scene. Some people genuinely don't know that and just hear the Kenya thing but there are others who willfully ignore the South Africa angle to pursue their agenda.

It happens on both sides of the debate, posting deliberately misleading facts to further an agenda.

yeah, picknpay cape argus is a big gran fondo, with perhaps the record for most amateur participants, up there with l'etape de tour.

inatech challenge and giro del capo

 

[Cycle Chic]

yeah, picknpay cape argus is a big gran fondo, with perhaps the record for most amateur participants, up there with l'etape de tour.

inatech challenge and giro del capo

Well said.

 

[goggalor]

Name one cyclist or official who has said cycling "is clean now", go on, I dare you. Many have said it is cleaner which is pretty much what Moncoutie said in this article so how does he differ from most other guys.

Moncoutie said you could take part clean, clearly he feels to actually win clean is a stretch. The cheekiest of the "it's clean now" guys are even saying it's clean because they're winning. What's so interesting about this interview is how he shuts down the journo when he asks him if cycling has a bright future. I can't think of many other riders who'd do that. A cyclist without a PR agenda is a rare animal.