The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Jamsque said:Proof, as if you needed it, that Contador is stupid. He should have eaten humble pie and taken one year. Now he'll get the two he richly deserves.
Jamsque said:Proof, as if you needed it, that Contador is stupid. He should have eaten humble pie and taken one year. Now he'll get the two he richly deserves.
Publicus said:Or it could be proof that he in fact believes in his innocence. Put it this way, if you were being penalized for something you felt you hadn't done, would you appeal or just eat humble pie?
I got the impression that he was saddened, disheartened, frustrated, and even angry. Which is how I would feel if had done the same thing as many of my competitors in 2010 but was the only one who was caught.hrotha said:Yeah, if I didn't know better I'd think he's totally innocent. I imagine he made quite an impression on the casual fans today.
Altitude said:"The system is obsolete and outdated."
Obviously not obsolete if you're being sanctioned by it.
pedaling squares said:I got the impression that he was saddened, disheartened, frustrated, and even angry. Which is how I would feel if had done the same thing as many of my competitors in 2010 but was the only one who was caught.
Walkman said:If, and that's a big if, he is innocent why doesn't he take this opportunity and let them compare his DNA to the blood bags find at Fuentes?
Moose McKnuckles said:This doesn't make a lot of sense. Really, if he were guilty, he'd take the ban, complain about it being "unfair", and come back in a year. Why fight it, if he's guilty, since he'd be getting off with only a year ban.
If he is guilty and he appeals, he should get 10 years just for being stupid. But, he doesn't strike me as a stupid guy at all.
Moose McKnuckles said:This doesn't make a lot of sense. Really, if he were guilty, he'd take the ban, complain about it being "unfair", and come back in a year. Why fight it, if he's guilty, since he'd be getting off with only a year ban.
If he is guilty and he appeals, he should get 10 years just for being stupid. But, he doesn't strike me as a stupid guy at all.
TubularBills said:
Publicus said:Why doesn't every professional cyclists? More to the point, has the UCI, WADA or any other body asked him to provide that sample (in connection with these allegations) and he refused?
"I have never doped," he said. "I think I am an example of cleanliness. I believed in the test system, not now. I do not believe in the system. I know what I'm exposed to and that's why I never doped."
Lanark said:As far as I know there is that although the letters AC appeared in a couple of places in Fuentes documents, there weren't any bloodbags with the letters AC. Don't forget, not everyone visiting Fuentes stored blood, he provided different doping programs for different athletes.