• 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 @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Read it and weep. Strickland's dope-free podia

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
roundabout said:
Read the link.

Contador was withdrawn from the Tour team because he was initially named in OP. The same reason that Beloki is "disqualified" in the article by Strickland

I don't think Strickland is overly concerned about who does or doesn't get a pass after 05. I think this article is a prelude to another in which he will claim that LA was the only clean rider in the top 10 (25? 50?) of any of his Tours.
 
Merckx index said:
I don't think Strickland is overly concerned about who does or doesn't get a pass after 05. I think this article is a prelude to another in which he will claim that LA was the only clean rider in the top 10 (25? 50?) of any of his Tours.

I think that's right. This is about protecting/defending Lance's legacy and nothing more. The rest of the folks are just background noise. Interesting that Bill didn't mention the 6 samples with EPO in them (sure there weren't sanctions, but no one has disproven their existence or the presence of the EPO).
 
Moose McKnuckles said:
I doubt Strickland believes a word of that. Saying stupid and controversial things in order to sell papers or whatever is a staple is a well-used media tool by the unscrupulous.

If the guy wants to be cycling's version of Glenn Beck, then I'm sure there are lots of easily led and poorly informed fans ready to buy his garbage too.

I'm sure you are correct about this but Strickland is also a poor writer. Perhaps above average as far as English speaking cycling reporters go but still a terrible writer in general.

In any event, I'm quite sure you're right that he's far less naive about the realities of pro cycling than he's let on over the years.
 
Publicus said:
I think that's right. This is about protecting/defending Lance's legacy and nothing more. The rest of the folks are just background noise. Interesting that Bill didn't mention the 6 samples with EPO in them (sure there weren't sanctions, but no one has disproven their existence or the presence of the EPO).

I have to agree. The real purpose of that article was simply to highlight in bold that "clean" #1 finisher from '99 through '05.

Strickland taking up his ball polishing duties as usual.
 
Hugh Januss said:
Off topic a bit, but I wonder if Zabriske, who finished 101st at 3:01 in the TDF and is currently holding down 189th overall 50 minutes back at the Vuelta is showing us what it really looks like when someone rides a GT truly "clean".

I think he doesn't care anymore after his CSC days. He could probably finish 41st, but is happier riding for someone else and occasionally giving it all for a TT.
 
BikeCentric said:
I have to agree. The real purpose of that article was simply to highlight in bold that "clean" #1 finisher from '99 through '05.

Strickland taking up his ball polishing duties as usual.

Which is ironic, because one of the major incriminating pieces of evidence against LA has always been that all his rivals were known or likely dopers. Even those who know nothing about bike racing can figure out that someone who dominates a field of dopers has to be juiced. I've known people who dismiss the EPO samples because of their unknown history, who hesitate to believe LA associates who have spoken out against them, yet who realize that winning a dirty peloton clean doesn't add up.

So maybe Strickland, by going through this little exercise, is actually making the point clearer for everyone. Could it possibly be that we have all judged him wrong, that he is secretly the devil's advocate?:rolleyes:

A textbook example of reductio ad absurdum.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
Merckx index said:
Which is ironic, because one of the major incriminating pieces of evidence against LA has always been that all his rivals were known or likely dopers. Even those who know nothing about bike racing can figure out that someone who dominates a field of dopers has to be juiced. I've known people who dismiss the EPO samples because of their unknown history, who hesitate to believe LA associates who have spoken out against them, yet who realize that winning a dirty peloton clean doesn't add up.

So maybe Strickland, by going through this little exercise, is actually making the point clearer for everyone. Could it possibly be that we have all judged him wrong, that he is secretly the devil's advocate?:rolleyes:

A textbook example of reductio ad absurdum.

Greg LeMond and Andy Hampsten Frank Schleck and Alberto beat proven dopers consistently. That proves that my Lord Armstrong was clean Cien Percento. You heard it from the source, me!
 
Oh well I had a go... says it all about pro cycling when it's so difficult to remember all the doping cases. Anyhoo, Strickland's article is more about protecting the legacy AFTER Armstrong is proved a doper - just look at the guys he was up against, Lance didn't cheat anyone, just doing what he had to do, it was a level playing-field, he was still the greatest yatter yatter yatter.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
Visit site
theswordsman said:
Strickland is still trying to keep his Tour de Lance book out of the bargain bin. I stop reading when I see an article is his. I can't even make myself go to the Bicycling site. Does Carmichael still post there as an expert?
+1. Now THAT dear Clinic readers is a conflict of interest.

I admire his criteria. People who were investigated but received no finding of guilt have their tour records excluded. We cannot prove they were doping, we just suspect that they were. But the rider who signed a form saying he had no TUE, told the media he had no TUE, then pulled a TUE out of his bibs after testing pos for a corticosteroid keeps his 'clean' tour record. Despite someone having given a first hand eyewitness account of a meeting, post-test, between rider and team management where the idea for the TUE was hatched. That's bordering on fantasy writing, perhaps I should buy his book for my 3 yr old.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
What Bill really wanted to write was:

Tour de France
1999.
1. Lance Armstrong.
2. Lance Armstrong.
3. Lance Armstrong.

2000.
1. Lance Armstrong.
2. Lance Armstrong.
3. Lance Armstrong.

2001.
1. Lance Armstrong.
2. Lance Armstrong.
3. Lance Armstrong.

2002.
1. Lance Armstrong.
2. Lance Armstrong.
3. Lance Armstrong.

2003.
1. Lance Armstrong.
2. Lance Armstrong.
3. Lance Armstrong.

2004.
1. Lance Armstrong.
2. Lance Armstrong.
3. Lance Armstrong.

2005.
1. Lance Armstrong.
2. Lance Armstrong.
3. Lance Armstrong.

Now I realise Lance was not riding in 2006 - but since everyone else is doping I believe it is only fair that he be given all jerseys, stage wins, podium girls, and cheese that he can fit in to his jet.

So the 2006 podium.
1. Lance Armstrong.
2. Lance Armstrong.
3. Lance Armstrong.

A reminder that my book "Its not about the Bribes' is still available (indeed all 100 copies printed are still available) but get yours now before the Grand Jury does.



NEXT UP:
Who would have won 'The Eurovision' if they could actually sing.

1978
1. Peoples Republic of China
(while not technically part of Europe I decided they should be No.1 because.... )
 
Mar 12, 2009
2,521
0
0
Visit site
flicker said:
Greg LeMond and Andy Hampsten Frank Schleck and Alberto beat proven dopers consistently. That proves that my Lord Armstrong was clean Cien Percento. You heard it from the source, me!

stop trolling, will ya. You really must get paid well..

Actually, I could use some extra cash, what kind of CV is needed for the job?
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
flicker said:
Greg LeMond and Andy Hampsten Frank Schleck and Alberto beat proven dopers consistently. That proves that my Lord Armstrong was clean Cien Percento. You heard it from the source, me!

You're absolutely without shame some times. That, and that fishy smell!
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
Greg LeMond says he was clean, Andy Hampsten from the people I know who know him say he was clean. Thus clean riders can beat dopers. EPO is doping and the other things my Lord Armstrong has been accused of taking. Yet Le. and And. beat riders who were using the best manufactured peds of their time. You do not think that riders of their era were tryin for a competetive edge? When Lance beat F. Shleck and Contador(both known to be clean) and Rassmusson(also clean) I mean really be fair what is the difference.?
I know most of the haters think I am moran or retaded but wait what is their logic? The same as Greg LeMonds. Do not hate.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
Visit site
flicker said:
Greg LeMond says he was clean, Andy Hampsten from the people I know who know him say he was clean. Thus clean riders can beat dopers. EPO is doping and the other things my Lord Armstrong has been accused of taking. Yet Le. and And. beat riders who were using the best manufactured peds of their time. You do not think that riders of their era were tryin for a competetive edge? When Lance beat F. Shleck and Contador(both known to be clean) and Rassmusson(also clean) I mean really be fair what is the difference.?
I know most of the haters think I am moran or retaded but wait what is their logic? The same as Greg LeMonds. Do not hate.

WTF? I don't even know where to start... I really hope you're medicated.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
Visit site
JMBeaushrimp said:
WTF? I don't even know where to start... I really hope you're medicated.
Flicker doesn't know where to start either. He has trouble with the middle parts, and he's still stuck on the ending. Bear with him. He's harmless. Clueless too mind you, but harmless. I like having the guy around, he's not the mean-spirited type. He's funny too, in an "I want to be a troll but it's really hard to focus thanks to all these meds" kind of way.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
The logic once again is this. LeMond quit cycling because of dopers. At the end of his career. Yet LeMond beat many dopers and never said squat. When he was dropped by donkeys all of a sudden doping was rife in cycling. That I do not get.
The other logic is Lance beat all these others who were doped because he could only do it because he was doped. What is the reasoning and assumptions if you are being fair? What goes for LeMond is one thing what goes for Armstrong is another thing? Please.
 
flicker said:
The logic once again is this. LeMond quit cycling because of dopers. At the end of his career. Yet LeMond beat many dopers and never said squat. When he was dropped by donkeys all of a sudden doping was rife in cycling. That I do not get.
The other logic is Lance beat all these others who were doped because he could only do it because he was doped. What is the reasoning and assumptions if you are being fair? What goes for LeMond is one thing what goes for Armstrong is another thing? Please.

Last try, LeMond did not quit cycling because of "dopers", he quit because he could not keep up any more. He was still training the same and feeling the same, but a whole group was riding at a higher speed. It was enough to make him think he was sick. It was not that though, it was the fact that the peloton (and a few Doctors with a lack of ethics) had discovered EPO, a drug which absolutly did turn Donkeys into Racehorses. Soon the racehorses were taking it too and thus we have the history of cycling late 90's through the present. The only time in cyclings history when medical preparation made as much difference to the results as the rest of a riders preparation did.
That is precisely why "what goes for LeMond" (and others of his era) is not the same as "what goes for Lance".
If as Jan Ullrich said, you still can't understand what happened in pro cycling, well, I can't help you either.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
Hugh Januss said:
Last try, LeMond did not quit cycling because of "dopers", he quit because he could not keep up any more. He was still training the same and feeling the same, but a whole group was riding at a higher speed. It was enough to make him think he was sick. It was not that though, it was the fact that the peloton (and a few Doctors with a lack of ethics) had discovered EPO, a drug which absolutly did turn Donkeys into Racehorses. Soon the racehorses were taking it too and thus we have the history of cycling late 90's through the present. The only time in cyclings history when medical preparation made as much difference to the results as the rest of a riders preparation did.
That is precisely why "what goes for LeMond" (and others of his era) is not the same as "what goes for Lance".
If as Jan Ullrich said, you still can't understand what happened in pro cycling, well, I can't help you either.

Dammit! He only caught a little shrimp (although a good shrimp) with the last bit of chum. You bit again and he caught a Huge Bass. He won't stop until the fish quit biting.
PS Flicka-thanks for keeping thing respectfully fun.