mowie133 said:um speaking of dope heads we have a winner here!!!!! get back on the pipe mate,
Is there a space between the "MOWIE" and the "133"? Just asking because I want to add you to my ignore list. Thanks!
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. 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!
mowie133 said:um speaking of dope heads we have a winner here!!!!! get back on the pipe mate,
Angliru said:Is there a space between the "MOWIE" and the "133"? Just asking because I want to add you to my ignore list. Thanks!
Carl0880 said:IN a perfect world, I understand your point. The world isn't run from the heart, its run by the almighty dollar. This is where fans do come into play. If you dislike Basso, then fans need to stop buying the Liquigas apparel, the Cannondale bikes (The bike provider for them), and all other sponsors connected to his team. When these companies see sales fall and notice its due to have a rider with a history, then they will probably avoid other riders with similiar history because they don't want sales to drop again.
They signed him because it brings them the money they want. This is why the big riders get more money then the domestiques. They usually have a global appeal and following that will come and buy the products and apparel of the new team. With Radioshack sponsoring a team with Lance as its main guy, I read their sales this year in the global market are up approx 10 percent in the first quarter. Thats why he can command his salary, because he makes these companies money.
There are some teams that have decided they are willing to not make as much money to keep a personal ethics to the team. Those are few and far between. Until the risks outweighs the rewards for signing these riders, they will always find a place to ride for.
auscyclefan94 said:NO space. I will have to add you to my friends list.
ingsve said:Yes, I know that money rules the world but that does not make it right. I don't think teams that focus on profit over ethics are evil or anyhing. I understand perfectly why they do it but I believe that they are valueing the wrong things. And that's why I'm arguing against that type of thinking. I would want more teams to have a strict non-doping policy and I would want more fans to use their power by supporting such teams rather that teams that focus mainly on profit and success at any cost.
Angliru said:I thought I was already on it. You must have added me when I said something positive about Evans and then tossed me off when I reverted back to form and said something less than flattering.![]()
Carl0880 said:Well with all that said, when can i come and see your collection of FDJ and Bbox gear :0)
I realize the question is probably rhetorical, but I did a count once and 50% of the podiumspots (meaning I counted people who podiumed multible times for each time they podiumed) between 1995-2009 had confessed, tested positive or been thrown out of the sport for doping. 35% had been implicated in doping scandals and only 15% had never been (credibly) implicated. I might even have missed an implication or two.Angliru said:If you look at the top 5 for the gc in the Tour during let's say 2000 to 2005, how many of those eventually were found to have been "enhanced"?
ingsve said:And I would be fine with that if you can prove that all riders were cheating. The problem is that without proof it's very hard to do that so we can only focus on those that we can prove have done wrong.
We ran that same acid test some months ago in detail - maybe you were part of the discussion then - and you've pretty much got it right. Your numbers may sound cynical to some, but they are accurate.Cerberus said:I realize the question is probably rhetorical, but I did a count once and 50% of the podium spots between 1995-2009 had confessed, tested positive or been thrown out of the sport for doping. 35% had been implicated in doping scandals and only 15% had never been (credibly) implicated. I might even have missed an implication or two.
Alpe d'Huez said:We ran that same acid test some months ago in detail - maybe you were part of the discussion then - and you've pretty much got it right. Your numbers may sound cynical to some, but they are accurate.
rhubroma said:Well were not in the court man. In any case your point is absurd, like not seeing the forest through the trees. And how can you live in such semi-darkness? It's like living in a museum!
Alpe d'Huez said:We ran that same acid test some months ago in detail - maybe you were part of the discussion then - and you've pretty much got it right. Your numbers may sound cynical to some, but they are accurate.
Cerberus said:I realize the question is probably rhetorical, but I did a count once and 50% of the podiumspots (meaning I counted people who podiumed multible times for each time they podiumed) between 1995-2009 had confessed, tested positive or been thrown out of the sport for doping. 35% had been implicated in doping scandals and only 15% had never been (credibly) implicated. I might even have missed an implication or two.
auscyclefan94 said:Bingo! Some posters are on my friends list like yoyo's.
Anyway, your a poster which I respect a lot more than most on this forum even though I disagree with you sometimes. My first battle on this forum was with you and it was an epic.
auscyclefan94 said:Bingo! Some posters are on my friends list like yoyo's.
Anyway, your a poster which I respect a lot more than most on this forum even though I disagree with you sometimes. My first battle on this forum was with you and it was an epic.
BroDeal said:I believe that from 1999 - 2005 everyone who podiumed has been implicated in doping. I think the only possible exception showed up in the files of Conconi, but I am not absolutely sure.
It is ridiculous to hate on Vino, who served his time, when others who we know are just as guilty still have not paid for what they did.
Vino 4 Ever!!!
ingsve said:Yes, and that's why doping will never disappear from cycling. I think it's disgusting how people can be so hypocritical that a many fans seem to be.
It's not a question of having served his sentence. I'm fine with riders being legally allowed to come back but what I can't stand are people who don't recognize the tremendous damage doping does to the sport.
If a person has committed a murder or some other serious crime then of course that person should get a chance to come back into society but you don't elect him president.
Well there's a lot of room for debate on what counts as a "credible" implication. Evans and Sastre were two of those I counted as "not implicated".BroDeal said:I believe that from 1999 - 2005 everyone who podiumed has been implicated in doping. I think the only possible exception showed up in the files of Conconi, but I am not absolutely sure.
Cerberus said:Well there's a lot of room for debate on what counts as a "credible" implication. Evans and Sastre were two of those I counted as "not implicated".
Cerberus said:Well there's a lot of room for debate on what counts as a "credible" implication. Evans and Sastre were two of those I counted as "not implicated".
Moose McKnuckles said:LMAO. BB just owns mowie.
I'm with Ryo Hazuki here. Vino did the crime then served the time. Welcome back. Those are the rules. Plus, I do think he's been the most exciting rider to watch in the last 5-6 years.
_yngve_ said:If they guy would only suck it up and admit it, and show some freakin humility he'd find folks far more willing to accept him back into the fold.