Eshnar
Moderator
nah, I'm from the pragmatic side. You dreamers are too easy to distract.darwin553 said:If you're on the immoral, unethical or illegal side it may seem so
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!
nah, I'm from the pragmatic side. You dreamers are too easy to distract.darwin553 said:If you're on the immoral, unethical or illegal side it may seem so
Eshnar said:nah, I'm from the pragmatic side. You dreamers are too easy to distract.
I can ensure there is one. We are generally much more difficult to spot than yours though We talk less and act in the shadowsdarwin553 said:Sorry there is no such side as that
Eshnar said:I can ensure there is one. We are generally much more difficult to spot than yours though We talk less and act in the shadows
I'm not here by chancedarwin553 said:Now you are just talking about your job as moderator!
hrotha said:We don't need to figure any deadlines out. We already have them: eight years, as a standard. Personally I don't think Pantani being dead should matter one bit - it's not cycling's job to right the wrongs of the world.
More Strides than Rides said:I feel like I'm reading an LA thread from last September.
If you can't get everybody, don't get anybody?
For the record, I want the UCI to adhere to the SOL. But, thats the only reason Pantini's titles should stay safe. Hell, I'd be in favor of amending the SOL... but through the right process and not the ad hoc procedure the UCI is too used too implementing.
That being said, the to say that it isn't ethically fair is not true
Just allow a fan club to represent the dead athlete. Or better, the national sports federation to take on the role of defendant on the athlete's behalf if they feel he deserves this postume service.datalore said:It may not be fair to actually remove any results after a person has died, because they cannot participate in the proceedings. However, if a person is shown to have been doping after they have died, the historical record should be amended in some way to show that there is strong evidence that the person was cheating.
rhubroma said:I agree with this, though unfortunately that same cycling world killed him.
Those same demons eventually would have manifested themselves, and probably to the same effect, even if he'd pursued a career as a dog groomer.rhubroma said:I agree with this, though unfortunately that same cycling world killed him....
andy1234 said:You're back, and still lacking in basic comprehension....
LeMond needs people like you defending him, as much as he needs Armstrong adjusting his brake pads.
rhubroma said:I agree with this, though unfortunately that same cycling world killed him.
IndianCyclist said:McQuaid has recanted. Says there is no basis.
Netserk said:He will always be the winner.
darwin553 said:So after the release of the French Senate Report, we're all happy to disagree with the UCI's position that it won't be stripping Pantani's title?
maybe you meant 80's ?VeloFidelis said:I was around pro cycling during Pantani's rise to fame. He was a megalomaniacal nut case, who referred to himself in the third person, and never won a single race as a pro without the benefit of a "program". He was a doping pioneer, and victim at the same time. There should be an asterisk next to every result he ever had... and next to just about every other result, of every other pro, from the mid 90's on.
Dunno, there are naive people out there but mid 90's, just no.Netserk said:Why stop there?