- May 29, 2011
- 3,504
- 1,573
- 16,680
Fidolix
BANNED
- Jan 16, 2012
- 997
- 0
- 0
"Armstrong has threaten to sue USADA if he is stripped....but who does he sue? It is actually the UCI that would do the stripping so perhaps he files a lawsuit against Travis? "
"The impact that it has had on my family, my work for our foundation and myself, led me to the decision to stop"
Loool I wonder if anything could be more contradictory than this.
Your a scared fukup Lance, pathetic and a joke.
"The impact that it has had on my family, my work for our foundation and myself, led me to the decision to stop"
Loool I wonder if anything could be more contradictory than this.
Your a scared fukup Lance, pathetic and a joke.
- Aug 2, 2012
- 4,999
- 130
- 17,880
Wada
not sure if such Action is Possible
but if UCI did so it would Reinforce the Idea of Collusion even more than FAT Pat's recent Letters
this would Prove to Observers like Me that the UCI has Much to Hide
I See FAT Pat and the UCI Retreating to a Safe Distance hoping to Weather the Storm
BotanyBay said:
not sure if such Action is Possible
but if UCI did so it would Reinforce the Idea of Collusion even more than FAT Pat's recent Letters
this would Prove to Observers like Me that the UCI has Much to Hide
I See FAT Pat and the UCI Retreating to a Safe Distance hoping to Weather the Storm
Race Radio said:
So Pat really has been Verdrug'em's sockpuppet. Is Pat going to pay for Hein's mistakes?
As has been suggested before, Pat could've let this whole saga take its normal course, and he could've come out a better man, letting Hein take the punches. The coverups took place in Hein's era.
So when and why did Pat decide to serve as punchbag for Hein, to take punches for Hein's sins?
Perhaps Pat does have more **** on his shoulders than we are aware of? Was he directly involved in the briberies?
Race Radio said:
depends on the perspective
- May 26, 2010
- 28,143
- 5
- 0
ÅSBJÖRN BENKT said:
If you knew what Armstrong has done all his career, a jail might be considered to good for him by some.
I dont understand how people come in here pretending they dont know the extent of the doping never mind the abusive, bully behaviour Armstrong has committed on people like Betsy Andreu, Emma O'Reilly and Mike Anderson to name but a few.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 8,660
- 16
- 17,510
It's interesting that little has been made of the fact that Travis was present at the Interpol meeting in Lyons a couple of years ago in a huge internationally coordinated doping investigation into the two-wheeled sport, or that he received files from the Italian procurator's Mantua investigation. Some of the material, especially from Lyons, would be most damning to the UCI's comportment.
It seems that the UCI would, therefore, not want to go into arbitration against USADA, for it would be the sporting case of the century, while the governing body of cycling would probably come out with its credibility completely destroyed for having scandalously covered Wonderboy's doping for all those years. The consequences to cycling as a whole would be, furthermore, catastrophic; with the likely revoking of cycling's place at the Olympics by the IOC and, even worse, the flight of the sponsors - to say nothing of the risk Pat Mc******bag would personally face in having continued to cover up the corruption and conflict of interests perpetrated by his predecessor Heinz Verbonehead, again in connection with UCI’s complicity in Mr. Armstrong's doping.
The safest thing for the UCI to do is uphold USADA's sentence and cancel LA from cycling history, however late in coming and for reasons having only to do with saving face. Lance, it seems, would have thus given the only body he has any hope to come out "clean" on this one no other choice but to adjudicate against him, and all because during his career he bribed them. A corruption that no doubt also saw the Texan use the threat of his tarnished image as leverage in pressuring the UCI to cover him, all in the name of protecting cycling's market growth and UCI profits. How sublimely ironic! How deviously paradoxical in a most just and thoroughly entertaining manner.
It seems that the UCI would, therefore, not want to go into arbitration against USADA, for it would be the sporting case of the century, while the governing body of cycling would probably come out with its credibility completely destroyed for having scandalously covered Wonderboy's doping for all those years. The consequences to cycling as a whole would be, furthermore, catastrophic; with the likely revoking of cycling's place at the Olympics by the IOC and, even worse, the flight of the sponsors - to say nothing of the risk Pat Mc******bag would personally face in having continued to cover up the corruption and conflict of interests perpetrated by his predecessor Heinz Verbonehead, again in connection with UCI’s complicity in Mr. Armstrong's doping.
The safest thing for the UCI to do is uphold USADA's sentence and cancel LA from cycling history, however late in coming and for reasons having only to do with saving face. Lance, it seems, would have thus given the only body he has any hope to come out "clean" on this one no other choice but to adjudicate against him, and all because during his career he bribed them. A corruption that no doubt also saw the Texan use the threat of his tarnished image as leverage in pressuring the UCI to cover him, all in the name of protecting cycling's market growth and UCI profits. How sublimely ironic! How deviously paradoxical in a most just and thoroughly entertaining manner.
- Feb 16, 2011
- 1,456
- 4
- 0
This from USADA's sanctioning letter:
http://www.usada.org/media/sanction-armstrong8242012
Who's going to pursue Lance for his Tour prizemoney? This is going to be a big deal.
http://www.usada.org/media/sanction-armstrong8242012
Who's going to pursue Lance for his Tour prizemoney? This is going to be a big deal.
- May 26, 2010
- 28,143
- 5
- 0
rhubroma said:
Excellent post Rhub.
I also imagine that there are a few European anti-doping Federations (french, German and Italians) pulling at their leads hoping for UCI to get into a fight with USADA so they can chime in and feed on UCI's corpse.
I am hoping that UCI pulls back from taking on USADA so that USADA can hang the UCI at a later date. I am hoping that various anti-doping federations including WADA are gonna ensure UCI gets a thorough kicking,
- May 26, 2010
- 28,143
- 5
- 0
Stingray34 said:
Remember when a rider wins it is supposed to get shared through the team including soigneurs, mechanics etc
I imagine few will be suing for winnings and i imagine fewer will be looking for winning purses now that they have moved up a podium place. Most knew what was going on. They enjoyed the ride on the pigs back. No refunds given.
Getting monies out of Armstrong will be long and protracted. The returns needs to worth the investment.
SCA will be the benchmark. If they succeed others will follow.
- Apr 3, 2009
- 12,047
- 7,370
- 28,180
Animal said:
http://www.usada.org/files/active/resources/press_releases/Press Release-Armstrong -August 2012.pdf
Nothing new there. When and how are the details supposed to come out? Or is this it?
- Aug 9, 2012
- 2,223
- 0
- 11,480
I was wrong
I thought I had caught up with the last thread(ignoring a lot of potential ignore list candidates) and then this one came up. I haven't started reading on this one yet, but time is not on my side, so I would like to say I was wrong before too much time has passed.
I thought Armstrong would go all out public arbitration. I thought his history showed he would do that. I was wrong.
But since he chickened out, I think the evidence will be available sooner, since his lawyers would have pulled every trick they could think of before any evidence would be presented. I think this is good news. We will know more sooner.
I find it interesting that those with something to loose in the sport of cycling are reluctant to acknowledge what armstong really is and was in public.
I think it's a symptom of Armstrong and the UCIs ability to make things difficult for them. As more evidence is released I'm hopeful that fewer people will feel compelled to stay within their good graces.
This is a good first step for cycling.
One argument frequently made is that there is no point in looking for the real winners. I disagree. I think there have been some clean cyclists in all the tours Armstrong won. Just attempting to identify them should be important. A blanket "they all doped" statement plays into the Lance myth. I don't think they all doped. I think some rode clean and in later years gave up and doped. Some perhaps even rode clean throughout the period. I think after the 50% crit rule came into play a clean cyclist could win stages, perhaps even be top 3-5.
But this is I think for another thread, and right now I don't have time to start it.
I think the long time clinic members should take a few seconds and smile. Armstrong is no longer untouchable in the US media. His tire has burst and the air will leak out faster and faster.
I thought I had caught up with the last thread(ignoring a lot of potential ignore list candidates) and then this one came up. I haven't started reading on this one yet, but time is not on my side, so I would like to say I was wrong before too much time has passed.
I thought Armstrong would go all out public arbitration. I thought his history showed he would do that. I was wrong.
But since he chickened out, I think the evidence will be available sooner, since his lawyers would have pulled every trick they could think of before any evidence would be presented. I think this is good news. We will know more sooner.
I find it interesting that those with something to loose in the sport of cycling are reluctant to acknowledge what armstong really is and was in public.
I think it's a symptom of Armstrong and the UCIs ability to make things difficult for them. As more evidence is released I'm hopeful that fewer people will feel compelled to stay within their good graces.
This is a good first step for cycling.
One argument frequently made is that there is no point in looking for the real winners. I disagree. I think there have been some clean cyclists in all the tours Armstrong won. Just attempting to identify them should be important. A blanket "they all doped" statement plays into the Lance myth. I don't think they all doped. I think some rode clean and in later years gave up and doped. Some perhaps even rode clean throughout the period. I think after the 50% crit rule came into play a clean cyclist could win stages, perhaps even be top 3-5.
But this is I think for another thread, and right now I don't have time to start it.
I think the long time clinic members should take a few seconds and smile. Armstrong is no longer untouchable in the US media. His tire has burst and the air will leak out faster and faster.
- Feb 17, 2012
- 2,756
- 0
- 11,480
Mod should really close the other thread. Having two threads going is even worse than having one that is on page 1023023023
- Feb 16, 2010
- 15,104
- 5,671
- 28,180
- Apr 2, 2009
- 8,660
- 16
- 17,510
By ChewbaccaD:
...He's not legally trained, so your condescension is truly misplaced there. As to his final point, no it isn't wrong at all. Again, you explain how one is to investigate and expose a conspiracy with no incentives given to the members of the conspiracy who can give up the bigger fish.
Contrary to your ignorant assertion that Armstrong was just another one of the guys, he was the driving force behind this. He was the star who promoted himself as a savior. He was the one with enough marketability to provide actual pressure to overlook or to force other organizations and people to become complicit in his lie. Lets face it, he made a lot of people A LOT of money. He became a marketing machine, superhero figure by his own hand. He is addicted to the hero status. A person like that can make a lot of people do a lot of things. You keep acting like he was just one of the guys. Deserves no more attention than anyone else. That is a false narrative. It is either willfully ignorant of reality, or just plain ignorant.
You keep pretending that you are just a dispassioned observer. Your narrative is easy enough to pick up on, so it doesn't really matter how much you yell your belief in your own objectivity. Anyone with a sense of reason can tell you are blind to your own bias. Me, I am biased as hell against Armstrong. That doesn't alter the fact that what the USADA did with the witnesses was nothing unprecedented, and completely consistent with the model of criminal prosecutions. Again, the pushers and dealers always deserve to be more harshly punished than the users. You will not be able to pretend that Armstrong was just one of the guys for too much longer. Better get your hits in now while you can. Not to mention the fact that Armstrong was offered the same deal as everyone else, but he refused to even talk to the USADA. Bad choice that, I think we can all agree.
Applause and compliments!
What I don't get is how so many people can in good faith equate a bias against Armstrong, for all the reasons you mention, with a tainted sense of justice and to present that as a "demonstration" of why the USADA case is a "witch hunt" without scruples. When LA and company have always been unscrupulousness personified. In fact one finds the man so appalling simply because of all the appalling things he has done during his career: organized doping and trafficking of doping products, corruption, bribery, slander, coercion, intimidation of witnesses, mendacity, deception, baseness. Thus only in finding him appalling can one see clearly in terms of justice and injustice here, can one perceive reality and not all the falsehood that is exchanged for fact by those who continue to love and support him.
Then there are the knowing cynics, most of whom are in the annals of cycling history. I have never met a lower brand of hypocrites in all my life. Chief among them is Eddie Merckx, who is both a tool and a hypocrite, and who only wishes for convenience sake to preserve the false image of the sport he has always thrived on, also financially, instead of the truth, which is lethal to his interests. Merckx, like the others, is always complaining to the press about how cycling is being unjustly persecuted by it, that it does more than any other sport to fight doping with testing (blah, blah, blah) and that the public shouldn't be exposed to this ceaseless barrage of journalistic negativity. What Merckx forgets, or neglects to mention, however, is that cycling since his era has always been rife with doping, that since the 90's and EPO it went from bad to definitively worse in becoming a grotesque arms race under medical supervision and that, still worse, the governing body of cycling cynically runs its own anti-doping program with an appalling conflict of interests the result being that for 7 years it gave their marketing icon immunity to pursue a super sophisticated doping regime without the threat of being sanctioned, was thus complicit in the fraud and now tries to obstruct, or at least not cooperate, with an air-tight USADA case against him. Merckx is in favor of the code of silence and has lost all intelectual as well as moral purchase in supporting the cancer within the sport, which for 7 long years was represented by the very man he finds so praisworthy.
If it weren't so pathetic the viewpoints of the likes of Merckx it would simply be nauseating and revolting. I have lost all respect for these guys.
...He's not legally trained, so your condescension is truly misplaced there. As to his final point, no it isn't wrong at all. Again, you explain how one is to investigate and expose a conspiracy with no incentives given to the members of the conspiracy who can give up the bigger fish.
Contrary to your ignorant assertion that Armstrong was just another one of the guys, he was the driving force behind this. He was the star who promoted himself as a savior. He was the one with enough marketability to provide actual pressure to overlook or to force other organizations and people to become complicit in his lie. Lets face it, he made a lot of people A LOT of money. He became a marketing machine, superhero figure by his own hand. He is addicted to the hero status. A person like that can make a lot of people do a lot of things. You keep acting like he was just one of the guys. Deserves no more attention than anyone else. That is a false narrative. It is either willfully ignorant of reality, or just plain ignorant.
You keep pretending that you are just a dispassioned observer. Your narrative is easy enough to pick up on, so it doesn't really matter how much you yell your belief in your own objectivity. Anyone with a sense of reason can tell you are blind to your own bias. Me, I am biased as hell against Armstrong. That doesn't alter the fact that what the USADA did with the witnesses was nothing unprecedented, and completely consistent with the model of criminal prosecutions. Again, the pushers and dealers always deserve to be more harshly punished than the users. You will not be able to pretend that Armstrong was just one of the guys for too much longer. Better get your hits in now while you can. Not to mention the fact that Armstrong was offered the same deal as everyone else, but he refused to even talk to the USADA. Bad choice that, I think we can all agree.
Applause and compliments!
What I don't get is how so many people can in good faith equate a bias against Armstrong, for all the reasons you mention, with a tainted sense of justice and to present that as a "demonstration" of why the USADA case is a "witch hunt" without scruples. When LA and company have always been unscrupulousness personified. In fact one finds the man so appalling simply because of all the appalling things he has done during his career: organized doping and trafficking of doping products, corruption, bribery, slander, coercion, intimidation of witnesses, mendacity, deception, baseness. Thus only in finding him appalling can one see clearly in terms of justice and injustice here, can one perceive reality and not all the falsehood that is exchanged for fact by those who continue to love and support him.
Then there are the knowing cynics, most of whom are in the annals of cycling history. I have never met a lower brand of hypocrites in all my life. Chief among them is Eddie Merckx, who is both a tool and a hypocrite, and who only wishes for convenience sake to preserve the false image of the sport he has always thrived on, also financially, instead of the truth, which is lethal to his interests. Merckx, like the others, is always complaining to the press about how cycling is being unjustly persecuted by it, that it does more than any other sport to fight doping with testing (blah, blah, blah) and that the public shouldn't be exposed to this ceaseless barrage of journalistic negativity. What Merckx forgets, or neglects to mention, however, is that cycling since his era has always been rife with doping, that since the 90's and EPO it went from bad to definitively worse in becoming a grotesque arms race under medical supervision and that, still worse, the governing body of cycling cynically runs its own anti-doping program with an appalling conflict of interests the result being that for 7 years it gave their marketing icon immunity to pursue a super sophisticated doping regime without the threat of being sanctioned, was thus complicit in the fraud and now tries to obstruct, or at least not cooperate, with an air-tight USADA case against him. Merckx is in favor of the code of silence and has lost all intelectual as well as moral purchase in supporting the cancer within the sport, which for 7 long years was represented by the very man he finds so praisworthy.
If it weren't so pathetic the viewpoints of the likes of Merckx it would simply be nauseating and revolting. I have lost all respect for these guys.
- Feb 16, 2011
- 1,456
- 4
- 0
could someone adept at digital trickery (and who can be bothered) make a CSheen 'Winning'-style graphic with Lance's dumb head and 'Quitting' plastered across it.
The Onion piece was good. 'Hypercompetitive a**hole' nails it.
The Onion piece was good. 'Hypercompetitive a**hole' nails it.
- Feb 16, 2011
- 1,456
- 4
- 0
BotanyBay said:
You're right. I'm not even a fan of the sport anymore. I just like the scenery on TV sometimes, nowadays. I really want cycling kicked out of the Olympics and sponsors to leave the sport. It deserves it. Otherwise there's always a new monster a**hat slouching towards Bethlehem to be born out of some holy place. Or in the case of Wiggins, someone's backpassage.
- Aug 13, 2009
- 12,854
- 1
- 0
Animal said:
They issued it yesterday
http://www.usada.org/files/active/resources/press_releases/Press Release-Armstrong -August 2012.pdf
Should see a lot of evidence in the next 2 weeks
- Jul 10, 2010
- 1,006
- 1
- 10,485
The BBC
Yesterday I had a working day where I was traveling and could listen to the radio. The BBC sports department - what a bunch of morons. Anti-drugs Czar - Martin de Bruin was on doing his comedy show routine. We didn't get the "you can tell if someone uses EPO they become twice as big" tale but we did get "witch-hunt" and "poor Lance is exhausted from all of this - well put yourself in his shoes - wouldn't you be. Lance is innocent". The day started with 7.55am on the Radio 4 today program with Wil Fotheringham and Michele Verroken. Given that one is a life long cycling journo and the other was in charge of UK Sport anti-drugs program and given this is the heavyweight news program on am radio, one would imagine they would move the language from "tingha and tucker have a day out by the river" style. Instead all we were treated to was "It is difficult to know what to think - Lance has been tested over 500 times and never failed a test". You could have picked me up off the floor. Not once was blood profiling mentioned or the fact that epo and analogous blood doping beats any tests we have, or none of the guys who have later confessed were caused to confess via op Puetro. Lance's big rival was Jan. He was doped to the eyeballs but the tests were rubbish - we never caught him, let alone any link to the UCI". No absolutely nothing on those lines. And so it continued through the day. Matt Slater came on 5 live and burnished his heroes crown. Simon Brotherton came on and gave another totally forgettable interview apart from one incredible point he took time out to achieve - correcting the host about the nature of Lance's cancer charity - it does not contribute to sponsoring research into cures for cancer just has a nebulous aim of "raising the awareness of cancer". Talk about dancing on a pinhead and avoiding the case. How about telling us how much Lance charges the charity each day he "works" for it ! Simon where is your yellow bracelet - I bet it is in the drawer still. Retaining it for a keepsake - oh the good times.
Radio 5 interviewed John Fahey of WADA and he was great in condemning Armstrong but they didn't ask him the questions that could allay worries in the mind of the neutrals, so as to dispel the idea that this was a witch-hunt. Then next up was someone (cann't remember) who slagged of John Fahey as a nutter who did not know anything he was babbling about.
The Radio 4 lunchtime news decided to use Gary Imlach for the "expert". now at least we did get some idea of what evil USADA might have in their armory and told us that many of Lance's rivals had been shown to use drugs and that testing was poor.
I listened all day and nowhere did I hear anyone say that testing was way behind the curve or advise on the wider problems of the UCI involvement in the cover up.
Apart from......
Radio 5 had a phone in - that had virtually nobody on air because of the Norwegian terrorist story. And then they got Graham Obree on.
Graham - superb. Told it like it was. (I am going to paraphrase as best I can remember) "UCI are in it up to their gills. Testing a joke. Everyone at it. Systematic. And he backed it up with his first hand testimony. The host was wanting to get him off air and de-tune him, so asked an innocent question - well what do you feel about all this, has it affected you? "Affected me ! Are you joking? I slogged my guts out and gave my life to it. There is no money and nothing on the track. It is all about the road. I had a road team signed up and was down for a Tour ride (Le Groupement - remember) and they asked me to pay out of my wages for the epo. I refused and was told I was not riding the Tour. Everything I had slogged and worked for - destroyed because I would not cheat and lie. And nobody I turned to would help me expose them. All my mental health issues arose from that. It is not just the riders it is the managers doctors and the UCI. The whole damn lot and that is why Lance is trying to cover up and stop the story and why the UCI were trying to get jurisdiction. "
Graham, in a day of comedy rubbish when the BBC sports department showed they are a collection teenage fan boys with a man-crush, and the news department could not spot systemic corruption from the top down - when it smacked them on the head - you were the only voice of reason.
Yesterday I had a working day where I was traveling and could listen to the radio. The BBC sports department - what a bunch of morons. Anti-drugs Czar - Martin de Bruin was on doing his comedy show routine. We didn't get the "you can tell if someone uses EPO they become twice as big" tale but we did get "witch-hunt" and "poor Lance is exhausted from all of this - well put yourself in his shoes - wouldn't you be. Lance is innocent". The day started with 7.55am on the Radio 4 today program with Wil Fotheringham and Michele Verroken. Given that one is a life long cycling journo and the other was in charge of UK Sport anti-drugs program and given this is the heavyweight news program on am radio, one would imagine they would move the language from "tingha and tucker have a day out by the river" style. Instead all we were treated to was "It is difficult to know what to think - Lance has been tested over 500 times and never failed a test". You could have picked me up off the floor. Not once was blood profiling mentioned or the fact that epo and analogous blood doping beats any tests we have, or none of the guys who have later confessed were caused to confess via op Puetro. Lance's big rival was Jan. He was doped to the eyeballs but the tests were rubbish - we never caught him, let alone any link to the UCI". No absolutely nothing on those lines. And so it continued through the day. Matt Slater came on 5 live and burnished his heroes crown. Simon Brotherton came on and gave another totally forgettable interview apart from one incredible point he took time out to achieve - correcting the host about the nature of Lance's cancer charity - it does not contribute to sponsoring research into cures for cancer just has a nebulous aim of "raising the awareness of cancer". Talk about dancing on a pinhead and avoiding the case. How about telling us how much Lance charges the charity each day he "works" for it ! Simon where is your yellow bracelet - I bet it is in the drawer still. Retaining it for a keepsake - oh the good times.
Radio 5 interviewed John Fahey of WADA and he was great in condemning Armstrong but they didn't ask him the questions that could allay worries in the mind of the neutrals, so as to dispel the idea that this was a witch-hunt. Then next up was someone (cann't remember) who slagged of John Fahey as a nutter who did not know anything he was babbling about.
The Radio 4 lunchtime news decided to use Gary Imlach for the "expert". now at least we did get some idea of what evil USADA might have in their armory and told us that many of Lance's rivals had been shown to use drugs and that testing was poor.
I listened all day and nowhere did I hear anyone say that testing was way behind the curve or advise on the wider problems of the UCI involvement in the cover up.
Apart from......
Radio 5 had a phone in - that had virtually nobody on air because of the Norwegian terrorist story. And then they got Graham Obree on.
Graham - superb. Told it like it was. (I am going to paraphrase as best I can remember) "UCI are in it up to their gills. Testing a joke. Everyone at it. Systematic. And he backed it up with his first hand testimony. The host was wanting to get him off air and de-tune him, so asked an innocent question - well what do you feel about all this, has it affected you? "Affected me ! Are you joking? I slogged my guts out and gave my life to it. There is no money and nothing on the track. It is all about the road. I had a road team signed up and was down for a Tour ride (Le Groupement - remember) and they asked me to pay out of my wages for the epo. I refused and was told I was not riding the Tour. Everything I had slogged and worked for - destroyed because I would not cheat and lie. And nobody I turned to would help me expose them. All my mental health issues arose from that. It is not just the riders it is the managers doctors and the UCI. The whole damn lot and that is why Lance is trying to cover up and stop the story and why the UCI were trying to get jurisdiction. "
Graham, in a day of comedy rubbish when the BBC sports department showed they are a collection teenage fan boys with a man-crush, and the news department could not spot systemic corruption from the top down - when it smacked them on the head - you were the only voice of reason.
Cerberus said:
Armstrong's tweet from yesterday:
"Thanks to all the amazing @livestrong supporters worldwide. Donations today were UP 25x over yesterdays. Thank you thank you thank you!"
There are a lot of people who still believe him. They won't be swayed by forthcoming evidence. They'll discount it and cling on to the belief he's being victimized.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d'Italia 2025 stage 20: Verrès – Sestrière, 205 km- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 1K
-
Tour de Suisse 2025 - Men's (June 15- June 22)- Started by Tricycle Rider
- Replies: 605
-
Giro d'Italia Giro D'italia 2025 Stage 16: Piazzola sul Brenta – San Valentino- Started by YavorD
- Replies: 1K
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d'Italia 2025 Stage 17: San Michele all’Adige – Bormio, 155 km- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 742
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 30K
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d'Italia stage 19 Biella – Champoluc 166km- Started by YavorD
- Replies: 664
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram