The 9/7 Gene

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

del1962 said:
LaFlorecita said:
del1962 said:
I want to know how many GTs can be said that he won in the PRR section, I think it should be the official number of 7 and those who want to say 9 should do so in the clinic
That's stupid.
Not stupid at all, as doping cant be discussed in the PRR section then the argument of 7 or 9 can't be had in there so it just deteriotes into he said/ she said, hence we need a rule for the PRR section on how many he has won, and for this the best way to do it is stick with the official records, so those who say 9 should do so in the clinic where it can be properly discussed
It doesn't need to be discussed, it's just a statement. Those who want to discuss it can do so in the Clinic.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
sniper said:
actually agree with this.
You're never in the PRR section anyway.
true but i was bored and felt like posting something, anything ;)
regardless, del has a point.
I like agreeing with Del once in a while :)
 
Re: Re:

sniper said:
del1962 said:
LaFlorecita said:
del1962 said:
I want to know how many GTs can be said that he won in the PRR section, I think it should be the official number of 7 and those who want to say 9 should do so in the clinic
That's stupid.
Not stupid at all, as doping cant be discussed in the PRR section then the argument of 7 or 9 can't be had in there so it just deteriotes into he said/ she said, hence we need a rule for the PRR section on how many he has won, and for this the best way to do it is stick with the official records, so those who say 9 should do so in the clinic where it can be properly discussed
actually agree with this.
Me too and I was going to post something very similar in the mods thread. I actually consider it a form of light trolling as all it's going to do is elicit responses from people who can't help themselves.
 
hmm. very interesting hypothesis.

it would appear that there might be confusion and mayhem (let alone delusion) amongst the 9-ers.

but how is that news?

as these sanctimonious 9-ers would then have to also be 7-ers (armstrong) and 1-ers (landis) and 2-ers (pollentier) and 9-ers (hinault - since pollentier's tdf win in 1978 would have to be recognized), and then 12-ers (merckx), and on and on...

in fact, let's not stop there...how about making fignon-fans 4-ers as well and moser-fans 0-ers since it is clear fignon should have won that giro (despite what the record books say).

but perhaps the traits of a 9-er include inconsistency, hypocrisy, lack of logic, and living in an alternate universe where their hero lies to them on every front and rules don't matter.

and perhaps the reason millar is pushing this hypothesis is that he wants his fans to be at least 1-ers (since he should have won that stolen Vuelta!)...

(btw - millar appears to forget that the only reason clentadoppucci was at the 2011 giro was because he and his lawyers constantly fought to delay the date for a timely ruling)

and i am not a 7-er, but a proud 0-er. perhaps that is why my favorite is pin0t.

:)
 
Re: Re:

carton said:
del1962 said:
I want to know how many GTs can be said that he won in the PRR section, I think it should be the official number of 7 and those who want to say 9 should do so in the clinic
The official number is 7, as it is 0 for Lance, Landis, the Chicken and Ji Cheng. If anyone disagrees you can easily set them straight without mentioning doping. In fact I'm usually as curt and to the point as possible.
Pretty sure nobody would disagree about the Chicken and Ji Cheng having 0 GT wins. Chicken because he was pulled out before reaching Paris and Ji Cheng because... I'm pretty sure he's never even been close to a GT win. :p
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Chicken is the spiritual winner of the 2007 Tour like (denoting similarity, as opposed to equivalence) Contador is the spiritual winner of the 2010 Tour.
 
sniper said:
regardless, del has a point.
I like agreeing with Del once in a while :)
Seconded. Remember, this discussion came up in PRR last year following the Vuelta, when it was 6 vs. 8. Someone actually started a thread on that, which was closed. But then when the same discussion was resuscitated in the Contador thread following the Giro, it was mostly allowed to continue.

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
You can´t blame people for gene defects.
Then why are you so hard on the Mannings? It obviously runs in the family. Not their fault.

LaFlorecita said:
It doesn't need to be discussed, it's just a statement. Those who want to discuss it can do so in the Clinic.
To make a statement that begs a response that isn’t allowed in that forum is tantamount to trolling, isn’t it? As KB says. If one poster makes the statement that he’s won nine—and posters did just that in the PRR following the Giro, indeed, you and others were already counting those chickens (no pun intended) before the Giro was over—then of course people who disagree are going to post their opinions. You’re asking the mods to draw a fine line between expressing a controversial opinion that is based on a view about doping, on the one hand, and discussing doping on the other. If you're not allowed to discuss the reasons for having an opinion, then what's the point of being allowed to express that opinion?

Big Doopie said:
(btw - millar appears to forget that the only reason clentadoppucci was at the 2011 giro was because he and his lawyers constantly fought to delay the date for a timely ruling)

:)
I don’t think there was any way the ruling was going to occur before the 2011 Giro. He was cleared by the Spanish federation in early 2011. Then WADA and UCI appealed the decision to CAS. Both sides needed a lot of time to prepare. The final arguments weren’t made until I think the end of the year, and the decision was announced in February 2012.

I'm not sure, but I think the way it works is that Contador was allowed to ride until both sides actually began presenting their arguments before CAS. IIRC, Contador's side did ask for more time, but I believe WADA and/or UCI did, too.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
I don't think common ground is needed here...

Both premises are probably not without fault or wrong..

1. If you accept the "rules/verdicts" then it is also implying legitimacy to an anti-doping system not earned such label..

2. If you accept the results of the race(s) "at the time" you accept the doping discarding potential clean contenders ..

None of these options are in my opinion preferable to the other..

Therefore I can accept both pov's......
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Seems like the 987 thread mysteriously vanished from existence. Posting this here

Dr 53x12:
Alberto Contador deservedly won his third Giro, despite a performance level lower than that of his previous victories.
:p

The rest of his take on the Giro is interesting as well.
 
Re: Re:

RedheadDane said:
carton said:
del1962 said:
I want to know how many GTs can be said that he won in the PRR section, I think it should be the official number of 7 and those who want to say 9 should do so in the clinic
The official number is 7, as it is 0 for Lance, Landis, the Chicken and Ji Cheng. If anyone disagrees you can easily set them straight without mentioning doping. In fact I'm usually as curt and to the point as possible.
Pretty sure nobody would disagree about the Chicken and Ji Cheng having 0 GT wins. Chicken because he was pulled out before reaching Paris and Ji Cheng because... I'm pretty sure he's never even been close to a GT win. :p
I was just going for a little alliteration. It also amuses me to no end that Cheng has the same # of maillot jaunes on his palmares than Mr. "Mellow Johnny" himself (no offense to Ji Cheng).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS