-
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!
Why did he cast any stones at all?
If you attack somebody's livelihood for no apparent reason, expect to get something in return.
In the end we have three American tdf winners, and only one who gets to keep his titles. The other two see Lemond testify against them and their titles stripped. Funny.
I mean clearly if you believe in a clean Lemond hating drugs and drugcheats and fighting for clean cycling, then it's a completely different matter. I believed in that once, too.
If you attack somebody's livelihood for no apparent reason, expect to get something in return.
In the end we have three American tdf winners, and only one who gets to keep his titles. The other two see Lemond testify against them and their titles stripped. Funny.
I mean clearly if you believe in a clean Lemond hating drugs and drugcheats and fighting for clean cycling, then it's a completely different matter. I believed in that once, too.
Re: Re:
facts and reality....despite your "certainly not" you have yet to produce any actual evidence and so you may wish to be slightly less definitive in your statements?
and
single out?...Armstrong singled himself out by being the most successful rider ever in the worlds biggest race and a 'celebrity' far above and beyond what the cycling world has ever seen...
quite why you see him as your average doping pro I'm not quite sure
although, suffice to say you really don't like Lemond
sniper said:
facts and reality....despite your "certainly not" you have yet to produce any actual evidence and so you may wish to be slightly less definitive in your statements?
and
single out?...Armstrong singled himself out by being the most successful rider ever in the worlds biggest race and a 'celebrity' far above and beyond what the cycling world has ever seen...
quite why you see him as your average doping pro I'm not quite sure
although, suffice to say you really don't like Lemond
@gillian: the evidence is there. you have yet to pull your head out of the sand and read it. 
@Mark: The point at issue here is not 'do I like omerta'. The point is: did Gilroy have any journalistic reason to use that history with Lemond as a stick to beat Lance with (and multiple times during the same interview)? I say not really. The "Lance, are you really really sorry?" line of questioning is like a broken record, and boring.
It was a missed opportunity by Gilroy who had half an hour to ask some interesting questions, which he didn't.
The other point at issue is did Lance have the right to feel annoyed about Gilroy's line of questioning? I say yes.
And in case you forgot, I was here celebrating in the Clinic when Lance got exposed.
But I also feel (unlike some others) that, because he got exposed so blatantly, he's no longer 'part of the problem' and so there is plenty of reason to try and build a conversation with him that is not aimed at putting him down.
I must admit, otoh, from what I heard in the Gilroy interview, I doubt he wants to be 'part of the solution', at least not at this moment. For me that's a slight disappointment (who wouldn't be excited if he decided to be more vocal on doping and/or spill some bigger beans), but not at all difficult to understand considering he still has lots to loose.
I'm still gonna be interested in what he has to say at the upcoming conference.
I hope he'll be asked some real questions this time.
@Mark: The point at issue here is not 'do I like omerta'. The point is: did Gilroy have any journalistic reason to use that history with Lemond as a stick to beat Lance with (and multiple times during the same interview)? I say not really. The "Lance, are you really really sorry?" line of questioning is like a broken record, and boring.
It was a missed opportunity by Gilroy who had half an hour to ask some interesting questions, which he didn't.
The other point at issue is did Lance have the right to feel annoyed about Gilroy's line of questioning? I say yes.
And in case you forgot, I was here celebrating in the Clinic when Lance got exposed.
But I also feel (unlike some others) that, because he got exposed so blatantly, he's no longer 'part of the problem' and so there is plenty of reason to try and build a conversation with him that is not aimed at putting him down.
I must admit, otoh, from what I heard in the Gilroy interview, I doubt he wants to be 'part of the solution', at least not at this moment. For me that's a slight disappointment (who wouldn't be excited if he decided to be more vocal on doping and/or spill some bigger beans), but not at all difficult to understand considering he still has lots to loose.
I'm still gonna be interested in what he has to say at the upcoming conference.
I hope he'll be asked some real questions this time.
Ger Gilroy writes
Redemption a long way away for Lance Armstrong
http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/ger-gilroy-redemption-a-long-way-away-for-lance-armstrong-35122762.html
Redemption a long way away for Lance Armstrong
http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/ger-gilroy-redemption-a-long-way-away-for-lance-armstrong-35122762.html
Re:
The evidence, IMO, appears to be fairly solid. Ashenden concluded that his blood values from the Tour showed evidence of blood manipulation. And though this was the first official year of the ABP, and he couldn't boost his Hct some 20%+ from earlier years, he maintained stable values through the Tour compared to the ~12% drop in Hct observed earlier in the Giro that year where he finished 12th. I also believe there was a report of empty packaging of AICAR (which was banned in Jan/09) found in Astana's team hotels.
Though the evidence seems solid, surprisingly, there are posters (self-proclaimed cycling experts nonetheless) on other forums who impetuously insist that LA's 09 podium was clean, completely dismissing Ashenden's analysis (as unreliable), and other evidence. Interestingly, in his presentation at Colorado University this past March (YouTube video), Armstrong doesn’t address the 09 Tour at all other than poking fun at Sastre as his motivation for coming back. He says he used "low-octane" PEDs when he won the Worlds and characterizes the scene back then as "low-octane" and "high-octane." LA's dopng nomenclature...I guess:
https://youtu.be/fshoz6cnKPY
Speaking of LA: Any thoughts on why he continually maintains that he was clean in his 09 comeback? I've always wondered about this; what's his motive? What would he have to lose? Is there somekind of statue of limitations involved here that could have potential legal consequences? And since his podium finish was already stripped, it wouldn't be like he's trying to protect that result. I also don't think if he admitted to it that it would be any great story nor "shock & awe" for most people (i.e., "who cares...it's Armstrong" type of response).sniper said:@gillian: the evidence is there. you have yet to pull your head out of the sand and read it.
@Mark: The point at issue here is not 'do I like omerta'. The point is: did Gilroy have any journalistic reason to use that history with Lemond as a stick to beat Lance with (and multiple times during the same interview)? I say not really. The "Lance, are you really really sorry?" line of questioning is like a broken record, and boring.
It was a missed opportunity by Gilroy who had half an hour to ask some interesting questions, which he didn't.
The other point at issue is did Lance have the right to feel annoyed about Gilroy's line of questioning? I say yes.
And in case you forgot, I was here celebrating in the Clinic when Lance got exposed.
But I also feel (unlike some others) that, because he got exposed so blatantly, he's no longer 'part of the problem' and so there is plenty of reason to try and build a conversation with him that is not aimed at putting him down.
I must admit, otoh, from what I heard in the Gilroy interview, I doubt he wants to be 'part of the solution', at least not at this moment. For me that's a slight disappointment (who wouldn't be excited if he decided to be more vocal on doping and/or spill some bigger beans), but not at all difficult to understand considering he still has lots to loose.
I'm still gonna be interested in what he has to say at the upcoming conference.
I hope he'll be asked some real questions this time.
The evidence, IMO, appears to be fairly solid. Ashenden concluded that his blood values from the Tour showed evidence of blood manipulation. And though this was the first official year of the ABP, and he couldn't boost his Hct some 20%+ from earlier years, he maintained stable values through the Tour compared to the ~12% drop in Hct observed earlier in the Giro that year where he finished 12th. I also believe there was a report of empty packaging of AICAR (which was banned in Jan/09) found in Astana's team hotels.
Though the evidence seems solid, surprisingly, there are posters (self-proclaimed cycling experts nonetheless) on other forums who impetuously insist that LA's 09 podium was clean, completely dismissing Ashenden's analysis (as unreliable), and other evidence. Interestingly, in his presentation at Colorado University this past March (YouTube video), Armstrong doesn’t address the 09 Tour at all other than poking fun at Sastre as his motivation for coming back. He says he used "low-octane" PEDs when he won the Worlds and characterizes the scene back then as "low-octane" and "high-octane." LA's dopng nomenclature...I guess:
https://youtu.be/fshoz6cnKPY
Re: Re:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-probably-clean-in-comeback-damsgaard-claims/
As there was also discussion about the plasticizer test (to detect blood storage in plastic bags) to be introduced during the 2009 Tour, one should also question whether Lance would've risked his lifework and seven earlier Tour titles in case he would've been caught. The test never materialized, but according to book Wheelmen, it almost did.
One reason could simply be that he was innocent after all, a possibility that blood doping researcher Rasmus Damsgaard - who supervised Astana's internal anti-doping program in 2009 - brought up when Lance was stripped of his titles.Nomad said:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-probably-clean-in-comeback-damsgaard-claims/
While I've read up to a dozen of good research papers by Michael Ashenden, one should have slight questions about his impartiality, because he was involved as a paid expert in the SCA case in 2005 and at least a part of his reputation rested on the assumption that Armstrong was not physically outstanding outlier (a key thesis of Ed Coyle in his mostly debunked JAP-research paper).Cyclingnews.com said:
As there was also discussion about the plasticizer test (to detect blood storage in plastic bags) to be introduced during the 2009 Tour, one should also question whether Lance would've risked his lifework and seven earlier Tour titles in case he would've been caught. The test never materialized, but according to book Wheelmen, it almost did.
Agree with Nomad, the evidence is solid.
And even without the evidence, mere common sense would suggest he doped to get back in shape.
I don't know the ins and outs, but I don't doubt he stands to lose (a lot of) money if he admits he doped in those comeback years.
Maybe has to do with sponsor deals, some prize money, or something else that could see him face financial claims if he admitted.
There might be other motives in the mix, too. Pride for instance. Or maybe he's protecting people.
And of course there were no USADA testimonies against him relating to those two years. So he had scope to lie about it.
Either way, it's done, he's said he was clean in those years, and he can't backtrack from that now.
If he would now say he doped in those years, too, it would be another blow to his image which he's currently trying to restore.
And even without the evidence, mere common sense would suggest he doped to get back in shape.
I don't know the ins and outs, but I don't doubt he stands to lose (a lot of) money if he admits he doped in those comeback years.
Maybe has to do with sponsor deals, some prize money, or something else that could see him face financial claims if he admitted.
There might be other motives in the mix, too. Pride for instance. Or maybe he's protecting people.
And of course there were no USADA testimonies against him relating to those two years. So he had scope to lie about it.
Either way, it's done, he's said he was clean in those years, and he can't backtrack from that now.
If he would now say he doped in those years, too, it would be another blow to his image which he's currently trying to restore.
Re: Re:
Also, what do you think of his Hct values falling ~12% at the Giro months earlier? Shouldn't we see the same trend at the Tour?
There's the issue of the empty packaging of AICAR found in Astana's team hotels...which was banned in Jan/09 (the CIRC report from last year mentions that AICAR is still popular within the peloton to this day).Aragon said:
Also, what do you think of his Hct values falling ~12% at the Giro months earlier? Shouldn't we see the same trend at the Tour?
Re: Re:
Good luck answering the *why?* question.
And Damsgaard was compromised, he sold out.
His opinion on the matter is less credible than Parisotto's and Ashenden's, at least in my book.
Lance has used detectable substances all his life.
If UCI wanted to test him positive, they had all the means to do so.
You speak of Lance's "lifework", but you forget that his lifework was inextricably tied to Verbruggen's and McQuaid's lifework. They weren't going to test him positive. That much is certain. Plasticizers don't come into the picture.
it's possible, but highly unlikely.Aragon said:
Good luck answering the *why?* question.
And Damsgaard was compromised, he sold out.
His opinion on the matter is less credible than Parisotto's and Ashenden's, at least in my book.
plasticizers don't really play a role in assessing this case.
Lance has used detectable substances all his life.
If UCI wanted to test him positive, they had all the means to do so.
You speak of Lance's "lifework", but you forget that his lifework was inextricably tied to Verbruggen's and McQuaid's lifework. They weren't going to test him positive. That much is certain. Plasticizers don't come into the picture.
@Nomad: not just AICAR, also Hematide (3rd gen EPO) packages found in Astana dustbins. (And note that AICAR wasn't banned at the time.)
Armstrong was a Frankenstein Ferrari experiment.
He wont ever give a full account of what he was on but the most chilling part was a few weeks after being in an Oncology ward he was at the Cofidis team presentation in Nice when his real reason for being in Europe was to see Ferrari.
How a guy who only a few weeks earlier is staring death in the face, can then want to go and speak to Ferrari at THE very earliest opportunity to manipulate and play God with his bodily functions/chemistry is pretty grotesque and insane if nothing else.
I reckon he has told the authorities what they already know. That last part of the jigsaw (alluded to in Hamiltons book) will stay with Ferrari and Armstrong forever.
My guess is its a lethal cocktail of undetectable, unobtainable and untested drugs that Armstrong gave Ferrari permission to put into his body shortly after getting out of hospital in order to make him the best cyclist by whatever means necessary.
Pretty insane by all accounts.
Buy hey he's just a normal guy from Texas who eats pizza and drinks beer............................year right.
He wont ever give a full account of what he was on but the most chilling part was a few weeks after being in an Oncology ward he was at the Cofidis team presentation in Nice when his real reason for being in Europe was to see Ferrari.
How a guy who only a few weeks earlier is staring death in the face, can then want to go and speak to Ferrari at THE very earliest opportunity to manipulate and play God with his bodily functions/chemistry is pretty grotesque and insane if nothing else.
I reckon he has told the authorities what they already know. That last part of the jigsaw (alluded to in Hamiltons book) will stay with Ferrari and Armstrong forever.
My guess is its a lethal cocktail of undetectable, unobtainable and untested drugs that Armstrong gave Ferrari permission to put into his body shortly after getting out of hospital in order to make him the best cyclist by whatever means necessary.
Pretty insane by all accounts.
Buy hey he's just a normal guy from Texas who eats pizza and drinks beer............................year right.
Re:
but more to the point, he did what it takes to get to the very top of a killer sport like procycling - arguably the toughest sport of all physically and mentally - , and stay at the top for seven years. During his reign none of his doping colleagues argued that he wasn't the best or didn't deserve it.
Serena, Federer, Djokovic, Messi, Ronaldo, the Brownlee Brothers, Bjoern Dali, Phelps, Merckx, Hinault, Lemond, they all did/do what it takes to maximize their talent and get to the top of their respective sport.
From that list, Lance is the only one who got caught and exposed and then stripped of his results.
Which is brilliant, as it served as an eyeopener to many and made an abrupt end to the hypocrisy that accompanied Lance's reign.
However, the purpose of catching dopers is to give way to clean athletes. Yet this hasn't happened in cycling, and so exposing Lance has, hitherto, served little purpose. Lance's doping and hypocrisy has been replaced by Sky's doping and hypocrisy. Verbruggen and McQuaid's corruption has been replaced by Cookson's and Reedie's.
Just saying, imo there is little point in continuing to put the boot into Lance.
Pro-cycling faces some huge problems now and Lance is no longer part of those problems.
he did some insane doping.B_Ugli said:
but more to the point, he did what it takes to get to the very top of a killer sport like procycling - arguably the toughest sport of all physically and mentally - , and stay at the top for seven years. During his reign none of his doping colleagues argued that he wasn't the best or didn't deserve it.
Serena, Federer, Djokovic, Messi, Ronaldo, the Brownlee Brothers, Bjoern Dali, Phelps, Merckx, Hinault, Lemond, they all did/do what it takes to maximize their talent and get to the top of their respective sport.
From that list, Lance is the only one who got caught and exposed and then stripped of his results.
Which is brilliant, as it served as an eyeopener to many and made an abrupt end to the hypocrisy that accompanied Lance's reign.
However, the purpose of catching dopers is to give way to clean athletes. Yet this hasn't happened in cycling, and so exposing Lance has, hitherto, served little purpose. Lance's doping and hypocrisy has been replaced by Sky's doping and hypocrisy. Verbruggen and McQuaid's corruption has been replaced by Cookson's and Reedie's.
Just saying, imo there is little point in continuing to put the boot into Lance.
Pro-cycling faces some huge problems now and Lance is no longer part of those problems.
Re: Re:
But the directors and producers remain largely the same. Who else gets the payoffs?
ontheroad said:
But the directors and producers remain largely the same. Who else gets the payoffs?
Re: Re:
Armstrong could make a big change by exposing those who enabled his dominance, Hein, Pat, Saugy, ASO etc. He wont.
I dont think Armstrong the best of his generation. I think Ullrich, Heras, Beloki, Salvodelli and others had more class. Armstrong wanted it more due to his psychosis and the USA market offered more to the sport than EU markets so those at the top table helped Armstrong in order to benefit.
I hope QuiTam case sucks most of Armstrong finances and makes him throw everyone under the bus, but i doubt that will happen.
sniper said:
Armstrong could make a big change by exposing those who enabled his dominance, Hein, Pat, Saugy, ASO etc. He wont.
I dont think Armstrong the best of his generation. I think Ullrich, Heras, Beloki, Salvodelli and others had more class. Armstrong wanted it more due to his psychosis and the USA market offered more to the sport than EU markets so those at the top table helped Armstrong in order to benefit.
I hope QuiTam case sucks most of Armstrong finances and makes him throw everyone under the bus, but i doubt that will happen.
Re: Re:
Lance may have already spilled all of the doping mechanics in his deposition in the qui tam case. No inducement to lie, and great monetary consequences if he is caught in a lie.
Benotti69 said:
Lance may have already spilled all of the doping mechanics in his deposition in the qui tam case. No inducement to lie, and great monetary consequences if he is caught in a lie.
Its become a bit more like obvious why Gilroy pressed Lance aggressively on the motor doping issue in his interview last week. He has Lance's words on audio now for ever more so that if he is ever implicated in a motor doping story then that interview could be up there with the Kimmage 'not worth the chair your sitting on moment'. By Gilroys insinuations it was obvious he knew something about a motor doping story and Lemond has previously hinted at Lance using a motor which he was also ridiculed for. I reckon there is more than meets the eye on this story given what we learned about motor doping in the OTB interview this evening.
Re: Re:
In addition, the documented 12 % fall of hematocrit as well as the reticulocyte data during Giro is based on only three blood samples, all taken some week and half apart of each other and even one of them having exactly same reticulocyte count (0.7 %) as Lance had after both of the alleged transfusions (ie. low reticulocyte count as an independent figure isn't necessarily that strange at all).
I could also add additional strange features in his 2008-2009 blood data than the Giro vs. Tour hematocrit:
- USADA based their "one in a million" - claim mostly on low reticulocyte count during the Tour, and the figure is indeed some 30-40 % lower than his other reticulocyte counts from 2008-2009 (mostly from OFF-season).
- Strange fluctuations of parameters (OFF-Score, hemoglobin) just weeks before the Tour as well as no reason for suppressed RBC genesis when reticulocyte count is low and his hematocrit is the highest in the dataset (rEPO-treatment to recover from Giro or that had ended a few days earlier...?)
I am suspicious, but not "all-in" - convinced. There are red flags here and there, but still aside from a handful of reticulocyte counts and OFF-Scores, every data is well within normal range even when there is some measurement noise ([de]hydration, machine calibration etc) here and there.
While this consensus view has validity, this is partly a comparison between apples and oranges, because they were different Grand Tours of different importance, with different characteristics, with different time of year and different weather (hydration status, stress hormones etc. different). Whereas Tour was all-in-showdown for Lance, Giro was only a prelude for the Texan, so the physiological response might've been different. Not to say that the fall doesn't look suspicious, but were the comparison between two TDFs with half a dozen blood samples from both and the anomaly occurring only in other, then I'd be more convinced.Nomad said:
In addition, the documented 12 % fall of hematocrit as well as the reticulocyte data during Giro is based on only three blood samples, all taken some week and half apart of each other and even one of them having exactly same reticulocyte count (0.7 %) as Lance had after both of the alleged transfusions (ie. low reticulocyte count as an independent figure isn't necessarily that strange at all).
I could also add additional strange features in his 2008-2009 blood data than the Giro vs. Tour hematocrit:
- USADA based their "one in a million" - claim mostly on low reticulocyte count during the Tour, and the figure is indeed some 30-40 % lower than his other reticulocyte counts from 2008-2009 (mostly from OFF-season).
- Strange fluctuations of parameters (OFF-Score, hemoglobin) just weeks before the Tour as well as no reason for suppressed RBC genesis when reticulocyte count is low and his hematocrit is the highest in the dataset (rEPO-treatment to recover from Giro or that had ended a few days earlier...?)
I am suspicious, but not "all-in" - convinced. There are red flags here and there, but still aside from a handful of reticulocyte counts and OFF-Scores, every data is well within normal range even when there is some measurement noise ([de]hydration, machine calibration etc) here and there.
Re:
I also posted this on the Quintana thread. The text says that GW501516 was added to the prohibited sustance list in Jan/2009, and that AICAR was also added to the list in 09:
J Physiol Pharmacol. 2014 Aug;65(4):469-76.
Metabolic modulators of the exercise response: doping control analysis of an agonist of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor δ (GW501516) and 5-aminoimidazole-4-carboxamide ribonucleotide (AICAR).
Pokrywka A1, Cholbinski P, Kaliszewski P, Kowalczyk K, Konczak D, Zembron-Lacny A.
Author information
Abstract
In 2008, the team of Ronald Evans, a professor at the Salk Institute Gene Expression Laboratory, published an article about the effects of two metabolic modulators branded as GW501516 and AICAR on physical endurance of laboratory animals. Both substances, also called 'exercise pills' or 'exercise mimetics', showed the ability to cause multidirectional changes in muscle metabolism. In particular, they stimulated fatty acid oxidation and promoted muscle remodelling. These compounds were regarded as very promising drug candidates for the treatment of diseases such as obesity and type 2 diabetes. GW501516 and AICAR have received considerable attention in doping control due to assumed performance-enhancing properties and recent confiscations of illicitly distributed drugs containing AICAR. Therefore, the World Anti-Doping Agency added GW501516 and AICAR to the Prohibited List in 2009. This review covers the cellular and systemic effects of the metabolic modulators' administration with special emphasis on their role in exercise metabolism. It also presents the advancements in development of methodologies for the detection of their abuse by athletes.
PMID: 25179079
Interesting...I've heard of 3rd gen CERA, but not Hematide. Nevertheless, must of been used by someone else - Lance is adamant that he was clean for that Tour. Lol.sniper said:
I also posted this on the Quintana thread. The text says that GW501516 was added to the prohibited sustance list in Jan/2009, and that AICAR was also added to the list in 09:
J Physiol Pharmacol. 2014 Aug;65(4):469-76.
Metabolic modulators of the exercise response: doping control analysis of an agonist of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor δ (GW501516) and 5-aminoimidazole-4-carboxamide ribonucleotide (AICAR).
Pokrywka A1, Cholbinski P, Kaliszewski P, Kowalczyk K, Konczak D, Zembron-Lacny A.
Author information
Abstract
In 2008, the team of Ronald Evans, a professor at the Salk Institute Gene Expression Laboratory, published an article about the effects of two metabolic modulators branded as GW501516 and AICAR on physical endurance of laboratory animals. Both substances, also called 'exercise pills' or 'exercise mimetics', showed the ability to cause multidirectional changes in muscle metabolism. In particular, they stimulated fatty acid oxidation and promoted muscle remodelling. These compounds were regarded as very promising drug candidates for the treatment of diseases such as obesity and type 2 diabetes. GW501516 and AICAR have received considerable attention in doping control due to assumed performance-enhancing properties and recent confiscations of illicitly distributed drugs containing AICAR. Therefore, the World Anti-Doping Agency added GW501516 and AICAR to the Prohibited List in 2009. This review covers the cellular and systemic effects of the metabolic modulators' administration with special emphasis on their role in exercise metabolism. It also presents the advancements in development of methodologies for the detection of their abuse by athletes.
PMID: 25179079
Good info. I'll have to check. Last time I looked into Aicar I remember reading it got on the list only in 2011.
If you are right, that's potentially bad news for wiggins should his name ever become associated to aicar use in 2009.
If you are right, that's potentially bad news for wiggins should his name ever become associated to aicar use in 2009.
Re:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzSDNEgV794
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzSDNEgV794
That question sums up nicely the goal and quality of the Gilroy-interview.Ger Gilroy said:
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession
Lance Doped, lance is/was an ass.
But to say he was not the best rider in his era? C'mon. They ALL could dope. He was just a raving mad man in his dope,prep,nutrition...etc.
Lance Doped, lance is/was an ass.
But to say he was not the best rider in his era? C'mon. They ALL could dope. He was just a raving mad man in his dope,prep,nutrition...etc.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 983
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
Latest posts
-
-
77th Tour de Romandie (2.UWT) // 23rd - 28th of April 2024- Latest: RedheadDane
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram