the "clean" era

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Franklin said:
That's miles from what you wrote.



That's not writing that they might be ignoring evidence. that's full on accusing that they are ignoring evidence on purpose to implicate Lance and that you know the truth.
hmmmm i agree with lawhoo. they want armstrong, not clean sport per se.

not ignoring evidence. just not pursuing it.
 
Jul 1, 2009
12
0
0
You unfortunately are not making any sense. Lance is implicated no matter how you cut the evidence. I'm saying the evidence may be cut selectively in order to tell a better story. Or, another possibility which you are not considering is that USADA may have refused to take any post-2006 evidence. In that scenario, they are not withholding evidence inasmuch as they affirmatively put on blinders in order to focus on the Postal/Discovery period and strenghten the conspirary count.

Further, I am not sure how that could constitute evidence "tampering" as you suggest, unless you are saying that USADA is withholding potentially exculpatory evidence insofar as they have information that contradicts the sworn statements of some of their witnesses (i.e., have information about their witnesses doping after 2006, when they said they did not). That is an interesting angle which I did not consider. I wonder if that would constitute exculpatory evidence?



Franklin said:
That's miles from what you wrote.



That's not writing that they might be ignoring evidence. that's full on accusing that they are ignoring evidence on purpose to implicate Lance and that you know the truth.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
I'm at a loss that you don't see the problems. I'll try to explain why I think your post is illogical:

1. "The real reason" is implyng that that is the primary motivator, without a doubt. But later you say that there wouldn't be a case if they hadn't stopped at 2006. The latter reason is obviously infitely more imoortant... because otherwise there would be no case.

-Strike one: you imply that it's certain
-Strike two: you come up yourself with a much more important reason.

2. "They need this claim to strenghten their conspiracy count." This implies there conspiracy claim stands or falls by stopping at 2006. This is quite illogical, as whatever they did after Lance has zero bearing on Lance's case. Keep in mind that a lot of pushing is in the initial years of young riders.

- Strike three giving much weight to the riders morality after they left Lance. For the initial case it doesn't matter one bit.

I agree that if it comes to light now it would be fodder for Lance, but if they had it in the original article it only would have shown the size of the issue and in no way would it change a bit for Lance's case.

All in all, it's extremely questionable it's "The real reason" and besides, you have absolutely no way that this is "The real reason". You are the editor in chief, so why post something with such a conviction while there simply is no proof that this is the case and that there is a way more important reason to cut it off at 2006?
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
Pulled this from the "Reactions from the peloton thread". Cranky, but honest...



I love that at the eleventh hour there was a mass filing of comments/concessions/admissions. And they all stopped doping in 2006? Gotcha...

Everyone of these d*uche-bag liars have been part of Omerta for the beter part of a decade (if not more). Why did they come out now? The gun was to their head. If they weren't sh*tting their pants, there is NO WAY any of them would have 'fessed up. These are not heroes.

The sad fact is that the heroes are guys like Bassons, who burnt his own bridges by being honest. Where were these f*ck-wads then? Did they back him up? Did they offer support to him? Did they change what they were doing? Not even by an iota. They stuck to the plan. They kept on cranking.

To see them now, admitting their guilt, and showing no regard for the riders who had more moral fortitude than them (after all, they all said they didn't WANT to dope), is an utter disgrace.

I felt the same after Zable's admission, "Nice that you found honesty now, but what about the riders who WOULDN'T dope, where are they? F*ck you, Erik.".

And a really serious F*CK YOU to the cowards who are coming out now, because it's only due to pressure.

Been clean since 2006? Fool me once (which you tried), shame on me. Fool me twice... Well, too late for that...

You are lying cowards trying to play the 'level playing field' card when you really know what the truth is. It does not level the playing field, and you know you were cheating.

F*CK YOU!
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Ryo Hazuki said:
botero was never caught and he was acquitted of fuentes case by both federation and uci, similar as davis. I'm not saying he didn't dope btw. still in botero's first 4 years he was he was paid 600 euros per month by kelme. a ridiculous salary. there's even an interview with him about it. that changed after his incredible 2000 tour. still with 600 euros per month I doubt you have much to give on doping, let alone epo and transfusions
kenyans get paid less and dope.

your argument does not hold much water.
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
kenyans get paid less and dope.

your argument does not hold much water.
how many kenyans have been convicted of doping? couldn't find a single one in my quick search and top kenyan walkers don't get paid 600 euros per month
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
Ryo Hazuki said:
botero was never caught and he was acquitted of fuentes case by both federation and uci, similar as davis. I'm not saying he didn't dope btw. still in botero's first 4 years he was he was paid 600 euros per month by kelme. a ridiculous salary. there's even an interview with him about it. that changed after his incredible 2000 tour. still with 600 euros per month I doubt you have much to give on doping, let alone epo and transfusions
He was aquited by who, the Colombian Federation. How much did that cost? 25 pesos? UCI, well are you holding them up as being the defenders of clean cyclists becuase from where I am sitting they are defending dirty cyclists while suing LeMond, Landis and Kimmage.

So on the above Botero was a doper!
 
Apr 4, 2010
2,420
0
0
Benotti69 said:
There has been no clean era since at least 94!

Evans wasn't clean neither was Wiggins. You are only kidding yourselves.
You think Indurain was clean in the beginning?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Ryo Hazuki said:
how many kenyans have been convicted of doping? couldn't find a single one in my quick search and top kenyan walkers don't get paid 600 euros per month
bernie kohl's manager stefan matschiner was the manager of kenyan runners for the golden league and he had them on blood transfusions too
 
158mdk said:
Leipheimer et al claiming to have raced clean since 2005, 2006, or 2007 makes for a nice story, and i'd like to believe it, but i think these claims need some scrutiny, once the dust has settled from the armstrong investigation.

the average speed at the tour has been fairly consistent for the last 15 years. leipheimer finished 3rd in the 2007 tour and 2nd in the 2008 vuelta, apparently clean.

How did he have his best GT results clean after being doped to the gills for the previous five or so years?
Leipheimer's affadavit goes into detail about how he asked Bruyneel to help him out with a doping programme for the 07 Tour and then goes onto mention the saline and blood infusions he had during the Tour.
He skips over 2008 but mentions that Bruyneel, Marti and Celaya were still there which is pretty much an admittance.
He was talking to Lance about some new drug in 09/10 so its pretty likely he never stopped, just no details after 2007 for some reason.
 
Jun 26, 2012
253
0
0
Benotti69 said:
There has been no clean era since at least 94!

Evans wasn't clean neither was Wiggins. You are only kidding yourselves.
I've been what they call a lurker on this forum for a while but I had to comment on this

One thing I've notice (correct me if I'm wrong about you) is the same people who trot this line are the same ones who still treat Vino as a hero when he came back from his drug ban...and there are many.

Who is the one really kidding themselves? The ones believing Cadel and Brad/Sky are clean or those who believe a proven liar and cheat when he says 'I don't do that anymore, I've learnt my lesson the first time'...you tell me?
 
AussieEdge said:
I've been what they call a lurker on this forum for a while but I had to comment on this

One thing I've notice (correct me if I'm wrong about you) is the same people who trot this line are the same ones who still treat Vino as a hero when he came back from his drug ban...and there are many.

Who is the one really kidding themselves? The ones believing Cadel and Brad/Sky are clean or those who believe a proven liar and cheat when he says 'I don't do that anymore, I've learnt my lesson the first time'...you tell me?
So wrong and please stop with the generalization.
 
Jun 26, 2012
253
0
0
Well it's not

Call me a fool to believe in Cadel being clean but I'm no more a fool than those who still call Vino a hero

And you know there are many

Tell me what's wrong, the Vino hero worshipping bit or the 'oh Evens and Wiggens must be dirty' believers bit or some believing both part
 
AussieEdge said:
Well it's not

Call me a fool to believe in Cadel being clean but I'm no more a fool than those who still call Vino a hero

And you know there are many

Tell me what's wrong, the Vino hero worshipping bit or the 'oh Evens and Wiggens must be dirty' believers bit or some believing both part
I do not think anyone here thinks Vino is clean and the reason they might like him be because he is an attacking rider. Please give examples who thinks vino is a hero here in the clinic.
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
AussieEdge said:
I've been what they call a lurker on this forum for a while but I had to comment on this

One thing I've notice (correct me if I'm wrong about you) is the same people who trot this line are the same ones ...
I know what you mean. I was also a sceptical lurker for a fair while. Reality is that with the Lance and UCI stories now unfolding, the large majority of stuff discussed here for years has come out to be true. Whilst it's easy to assume that posters here are similar crackpots as in many other forums, the regular frequency posters do seem to have insides or insights or serious historical know how.
 
Jul 13, 2012
263
0
0
Points from the BBC 5 live doc last night;

Millar; "its moved on, huge steps taken, look at Brad"

Matt DeCanio; "no one ever implicated in doping should be involved in cycling again"

Tyler: " we were 2 steps at least ahead of the testers, I think now they (dopers) are only 1 step ahead"

D. Pound: "corruption will always be there, tests/positives will always be covered up, especially if the rider is high profile"

Ashenden: "the cheaters pretty much know what we know & we know what they are doing"

"None analytical testing is the way forward and the most sucessful way of catching these guys"

"I don't watch sport anymore, not even one day of the London Olympics"

"Any athlete using 'I've never tested positive' is rubbish, to me why would they say that, all they are doing is drawing attention to themselves"
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
RichWalk said:
Points from the BBC 5 live doc last night;

Millar; "its moved on, huge steps taken, look at Brad"

Matt DeCanio; "no one ever implicated in doping should be involved in cycling again"

Tyler: " we were 2 steps at least ahead of the testers, I think now they (dopers) are only 1 step ahead"

D. Pound: "corruption will always be there, tests/positives will always be covered up, especially if the rider is high profile"

Ashenden: "the cheaters pretty much know what we know & we know what they are doing"

"Non analytical testing is the way forward and the most sucessful way of catching these guys"

"I don't watch sport anymore, not even one day of the London Olympics"

"Any athlete using 'I've never tested positive' is rubbish, to me why would they say that, all they are doing is drawing attention to themselves"
No real issues with anything but the bold. Who said that second bold (non-analytical)?

I am guessing they mean the ABP, and that's a joke.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
No real issues with anything but the bold. Who said that second bold (non-analytical)?

I am guessing they mean the ABP, and that's a joke.
Non-analytical positives basically means police raids and judicial investigations. From WADA's site:
Terminology sometimes used to describe an anti-doping rule violation other than the presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen.
It can also mean sample tampering or refusing to take a test, but that's not what Ashenden is referring to.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M The Clinic 34
Similar threads
Tour de Cleans?

ASK THE COMMUNITY