Why Alberto Contador is Cycling's One True Champion

[Jakub]

Re:

They all were "dancing with the devil," not all, however, were thrown under the bus and not all were targeted by the Mafia, while others were protected. It was this hypocrisy that devoured Pantani. He was certainly an egomaniac, I'll grant that. However, this shouldn't be construed as making the exceptionally negative way he was treated "his fault." It though did make him incapable of swallowing being the fall guy, which he undoubtedly was at the time.

I think we don't understand each other - I started to write only because you told Echoes that he "shouldn't discuss something he doesn't understand" or what. First thing is that he can discuss whatever he wants and the second thing is that his opinion, that the true heros/victims, that should be rememebered with nostalgia, are those, who didn't dance with the devil, is fully respectable. When a rider dope, he can't expect, that he'll be protected. He can be easily thrown under the bus and he can't do much, that's the risk, he simply becomes a card in the corrupt hands. It's a shame it is like that, but everyone is only responsible for himself. Pantani seems to have missed political abilities, whereas Armstrong was probably the best politician in cycling ever. Luckily today LA is out and Pantani still has his titles, giro-tour double and his climb, although it is publicly known he was a doper. It's a small thing compared to live, I know and many people could have and should have a bad concious about that...

 

[sniper]

Re:

Anyway, I think this story - Pantani, Contador, and everything in between - points to one conclusion: doping is a sideshow, a straw man. Doping isn't the central problem in cycling. The central problem is corruption in the governing body.

An honest governing body could control for and minimize doping in a big hurry. The riders are more the victims of doping than they are its perpetrators. If there were as many Twitter accounts devoted to corruption in the governing body as there are to doping, we might have some hope of getting an honest UCI, and an honest sport. Until then, riders will continue to jeopardize their health, and their careers.

Here's another central problem - unbearable amounts of hypocrisy:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/feb/11/david-millar-mentor-british-cycling-anti-doping

David Millar, who was banned from the sport for two years after admitting to using EPO, is to work with British Cycling, mentoring young riders about the dangers of drug taking.

Shane Sutton, the team’s technical director, said: “Nurturing an anti-doping culture is at the heart of everything we do at British Cycling and educating our young riders on the subject is a responsibility we take seriously.

This pass-the-bucket-level of hypocrisy really is patented by Sky and BC.
I think it shows (in part) why quite a few fans have in the past few years come to take sides with Alberto Contador and why even Lance Armstrong can count on sympathy again. (speaking for myself, at least)

 

[dacooley]

many cycling fans willingly forgive bertie absolutely anything just because of the fact that he's a primary source of inspiration and the biggest reason to follow the sport for them.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

I think it shows (in part) why quite a few fans have in the past few years come to take sides with Alberto Contador and why even Lance Armstrong can count on sympathy again. (speaking for myself, at least)

I think you are right, it seems many have warmed to Alberto thanks to Sky, I guess I should be grateful

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

Anyway, I think this story - Pantani, Contador, and everything in between - points to one conclusion: doping is a sideshow, a straw man. Doping isn't the central problem in cycling. The central problem is corruption in the governing body.

An honest governing body could control for and minimize doping in a big hurry. The riders are more the victims of doping than they are its perpetrators. If there were as many Twitter accounts devoted to corruption in the governing body as there are to doping, we might have some hope of getting an honest UCI, and an honest sport. Until then, riders will continue to jeopardize their health, and their careers.

Here's another central problem - unbearable amounts of hypocrisy:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/feb/11/david-millar-mentor-british-cycling-anti-doping

David Millar, who was banned from the sport for two years after admitting to using EPO, is to work with British Cycling, mentoring young riders about the dangers of drug taking.

Shane Sutton, the team’s technical director, said: “Nurturing an anti-doping culture is at the heart of everything we do at British Cycling and educating our young riders on the subject is a responsibility we take seriously.

This pass-the-bucket-level of hypocrisy really is patented by Sky and BC.
I think it shows (in part) why quite a few fans have in the past few years come to take sides with Alberto Contador and why even Lance Armstrong can count on sympathy again. (speaking for myself, at least)

Yeah, I guess once you establish your anti-doping bona fides (especially tenuous in Miller's case) and a certain measure of fame, you can look forward to becoming a highly paid "beard" for an organization that needs a beard. Thus we have Jeff Novitzsky at UFC, David Walsh for Sky, and now David Miller at British Cycling. The best legitimacy money can buy.

Edit: Oh, and I almost forgot Dick Pound and his commission.

I think it shows (in part) why quite a few fans have in the past few years come to take sides with Alberto Contador and why even Lance Armstrong can count on sympathy again. (speaking for myself, at least)

I think you are right, it seems many have warmed to Alberto thanks to Sky, I guess I should be grateful

Yeah, you should put Brailsford on your Christmas card list, and send him flowers.

 

[sniper]

Re:

you see hypocrisy...i see honesty ...........millar fesses up...admits his faults

alberto pretends it never happened that he is still winner of those titles

lost to sanction....................................truly champion!

Mark L

unless you never cared to look beyond the average Guardian article on Millar, I don't understand where your claim that he "fessed up and admitted his faults" comes from.
maybe 10% of it? That's generous.

if we're talking about people who pushed other people to dope, that's millar.
it's all there in gaumont's book. Gaumont, you know, the guy who millar tried hard to villify and ridicule before the french police busted millar's sorry ass with brailsford sitting next to him.
If you ask which guy in the peloton came closest to ressembling Lance Armstrong in terms of pushing others to dope and mobbing, it would be Millar. Objectively.

And any kind of statement from Sutton on antidoping should insult that part of the brain where your knowledge about Sutton is stored, though again provided you ever took the effort to look beyond the average Guardian article.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

This pass-the-bucket-level of hypocrisy really is patented by Sky and BC.
I think it shows (in part) why quite a few fans have in the past few years come to take sides with Alberto Contador and why even Lance Armstrong can count on sympathy again. (speaking for myself, at least)

Same here. LA certainly behaved like a jumped-up dick, but only because he was put in position to by people already in power and still in power, who made a ton of money from him. He has no one to blame but himself for his downfall, but he wouldn't have been at that height in the first place, and encouraged to act like a dick, and encouraged to come back from retirement, if it weren't for the greed and corruption at the top. LA is now gone, but the machine that made him and perpetuated him is still there.

 

[sniper]

^amen

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

They all were "dancing with the devil," not all, however, were thrown under the bus and not all were targeted by the Mafia, while others were protected. It was this hypocrisy that devoured Pantani. He was certainly an egomaniac, I'll grant that. However, this shouldn't be construed as making the exceptionally negative way he was treated "his fault." It though did make him incapable of swallowing being the fall guy, which he undoubtedly was at the time.

I think we don't understand each other - I started to write only because you told Echoes that he "shouldn't discuss something he doesn't understand" or what. First thing is that he can discuss whatever he wants and the second thing is that his opinion, that the true heros/victims, that should be rememebered with nostalgia, are those, who didn't dance with the devil, is fully respectable. When a rider dope, he can't expect, that he'll be protected. He can be easily thrown under the bus and he can't do much, that's the risk, he simply becomes a card in the corrupt hands. It's a shame it is like that, but everyone is only responsible for himself. Pantani seems to have missed political abilities, whereas Armstrong was probably the best politician in cycling ever. Luckily today LA is out and Pantani still has his titles, giro-tour double and his climb, although it is publicly known he was a doper. It's a small thing compared to live, I know and many people could have and should have a bad concious about that...

You evidently have missed the many posts from Echoes basically stating that I'm repugnant and that I don't know what I'm talking about, to which I have simply replied in kind when something demanded to be said. And who are we talking about in terms of the "true heroes?" I doubt you'll find any champion of this sport who rode on "bread and water" alone throughout his career.

At any rate, while disappointed as I was in Pantani's downfall, he wasn't my hero. His particularly tragic demise, however, needs to be set against the terms by which he was actually brought down (and here, in Italy, we enter the domain of organized crime), in addition to the way in which Armstrong's subsequent rise was sanctioned by the cynical cycling establishment. On the one hand you thus had a UCI that was morally complicit in Armstrong's doping, while tolerating the omerta and intimidation methods that were used to protect him. On the other, these same mafioso forms of coercion in a reversal of terms were deployed to destroy Pantani, who conversely was discharged by the governing body of the sport.

This paradox became even more sinister as Pantani's inability to accept the hypocrisy, accelerated his detachment from reality, drug addiction and depression. As far as I can tell, such dark forces in this sport have never worked at once so much in someone's favor as they did to someone else's demise. Can we really say, therefore, that all those who "danced with the devil" exposed themselves to the same risks?

To answer Maxiton's question: I don't think there is the political or judicial will in Italy to pursue Pantani's case any further. Especially since the country has got far greater concerns to worry about.

All of this began, though, because the rise of Sky and Froome with their "new methods" and colossal budget, seems strangely familiar in regards to the unseating of a popular champion.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

They all were "dancing with the devil," not all, however, were thrown under the bus and not all were targeted by the Mafia, while others were protected. It was this hypocrisy that devoured Pantani. He was certainly an egomaniac, I'll grant that. However, this shouldn't be construed as making the exceptionally negative way he was treated "his fault." It though did make him incapable of swallowing being the fall guy, which he undoubtedly was at the time.

I think we don't understand each other - I started to write only because you told Echoes that he "shouldn't discuss something he doesn't understand" or what. First thing is that he can discuss whatever he wants and the second thing is that his opinion, that the true heros/victims, that should be rememebered with nostalgia, are those, who didn't dance with the devil, is fully respectable. When a rider dope, he can't expect, that he'll be protected. He can be easily thrown under the bus and he can't do much, that's the risk, he simply becomes a card in the corrupt hands. It's a shame it is like that, but everyone is only responsible for himself. Pantani seems to have missed political abilities, whereas Armstrong was probably the best politician in cycling ever. Luckily today LA is out and Pantani still has his titles, giro-tour double and his climb, although it is publicly known he was a doper. It's a small thing compared to live, I know and many people could have and should have a bad concious about that...

You evidently have missed the many posts from Echoes basically stating that I'm repugnant and that I don't know what I'm talking about, to which I have simply replied in kind when something demanded to be said. And who are we talking about in terms of the "true heroes?" I doubt you'll find any champion of this sport who rode on "bread and water" alone throughout his career.

At any rate, while disappointed as I was in Pantani's downfall, he wasn't my hero. His particularly tragic demise, however, needs to be set against the terms by which he was actually brought down (and here, in Italy, we enter the domain of organized crime), in addition to the way in which Armstrong's subsequent rise was sanctioned by the cynical cycling establishment. On the one hand you thus had a UCI that was morally complicit in Armstrong's doping, while tolerating the omerta and intimidation methods that were used to protect him. On the other, these same mafioso forms of coercion in a reversal of terms were deployed to destroy Pantani, who conversely was discharged by the governing body of the sport.

This paradox became even more sinister as Pantani's inability to accept the hypocrisy, accelerated his detachment from reality, drug addiction and depression. As far as I can tell, such dark forces in this sport have never worked at once so much in someone's favor as they did to someone else's demise. Can we really say, therefore, that all those who "danced with the devil" exposed themselves to the same risks?

To answer Maxiton's question: I don't think there is the political or judicial will in Italy to pursue Pantani's case any further. Especially since the country has got far greater concerns to worry about.

All of this began, though, because the rise of Sky and Froome with their "new methods" and colossal budget, seems strangely familiar in regards to the unseating of a popular champion.

Thanks. Beautifully put.

 

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

They all were "dancing with the devil," not all, however, were thrown under the bus and not all were targeted by the Mafia, while others were protected. It was this hypocrisy that devoured Pantani. He was certainly an egomaniac, I'll grant that. However, this shouldn't be construed as making the exceptionally negative way he was treated "his fault." It though did make him incapable of swallowing being the fall guy, which he undoubtedly was at the time.

I think we don't understand each other - I started to write only because you told Echoes that he "shouldn't discuss something he doesn't understand" or what. First thing is that he can discuss whatever he wants and the second thing is that his opinion, that the true heros/victims, that should be rememebered with nostalgia, are those, who didn't dance with the devil, is fully respectable. When a rider dope, he can't expect, that he'll be protected. He can be easily thrown under the bus and he can't do much, that's the risk, he simply becomes a card in the corrupt hands. It's a shame it is like that, but everyone is only responsible for himself. Pantani seems to have missed political abilities, whereas Armstrong was probably the best politician in cycling ever. Luckily today LA is out and Pantani still has his titles, giro-tour double and his climb, although it is publicly known he was a doper. It's a small thing compared to live, I know and many people could have and should have a bad concious about that...

You evidently have missed the many posts from Echoes basically stating that I'm repugnant and that I don't know what I'm talking about, to which I have simply replied in kind when something demanded to be said. And who are we talking about in terms of the "true heroes?" I doubt you'll find any champion of this sport who rode on "bread and water" alone throughout his career.

At any rate, while disappointed as I was in Pantani's downfall, he wasn't my hero. His particularly tragic demise, however, needs to be set against the terms by which he was actually brought down (and here, in Italy, we enter the domain of organized crime), in addition to the way in which Armstrong's subsequent rise was sanctioned by the cynical cycling establishment. On the one hand you thus had a UCI that was morally complicit in Armstrong's doping, while tolerating the omerta and intimidation methods that were used to protect him. On the other, these same mafioso forms of coercion in a reversal of terms were deployed to destroy Pantani, who conversely was discharged by the governing body of the sport.

This paradox became even more sinister as Pantani's inability to accept the hypocrisy, accelerated his detachment from reality, drug addiction and depression. As far as I can tell, such dark forces in this sport have never worked at once so much in someone's favor as they did to someone else's demise. Can we really say, therefore, that all those who "danced with the devil" exposed themselves to the same risks?

To answer Maxiton's question: I don't think there is the political or judicial will in Italy to pursue Pantani's case any further. Especially since the country has got far greater concerns to worry about.

All of this began, though, because the rise of Sky and Froome with their "new methods" and colossal budget, seems strangely familiar in regards to the unseating of a popular champion.

Thanks. Beautifully put.

No, it's not beautifully put.

How about a bit of perspective?

Honchar overdoes his doping a couple of weeks later in the Tour de Suisse.

As a result he gets the same 2 week rest.

You can google what it meant for his team and how his subsequent career went.

Did that little incident stop Honchar from doping? No.

Did Pantani stop doping after 1999? No.

It's morally repugnant to try to shift the blame to the governing body when to my knowledge they did not do anything apart from not covering up Pantani's sloppiness.

It's also extremely disingenuous to present a certain version of events as a fact while admitting that they are not likely to be investigated to an extent that will "officially" confirm the said pet theory.

It's also incomprehensible how one criminal's word has more value than excellent investigative work which has not been discredited at any point.

But then again, I have come to expect this perverse view from the poster in question.

 

[Jakub]

Re: Re:

They all were "dancing with the devil," not all, however, were thrown under the bus and not all were targeted by the Mafia, while others were protected. It was this hypocrisy that devoured Pantani. He was certainly an egomaniac, I'll grant that. However, this shouldn't be construed as making the exceptionally negative way he was treated "his fault." It though did make him incapable of swallowing being the fall guy, which he undoubtedly was at the time.

I think we don't understand each other - I started to write only because you told Echoes that he "shouldn't discuss something he doesn't understand" or what. First thing is that he can discuss whatever he wants and the second thing is that his opinion, that the true heros/victims, that should be rememebered with nostalgia, are those, who didn't dance with the devil, is fully respectable. When a rider dope, he can't expect, that he'll be protected. He can be easily thrown under the bus and he can't do much, that's the risk, he simply becomes a card in the corrupt hands. It's a shame it is like that, but everyone is only responsible for himself. Pantani seems to have missed political abilities, whereas Armstrong was probably the best politician in cycling ever. Luckily today LA is out and Pantani still has his titles, giro-tour double and his climb, although it is publicly known he was a doper. It's a small thing compared to live, I know and many people could have and should have a bad concious about that...

You evidently have missed the many posts from Echoes basically stating that I'm repugnant and that I don't know what I'm talking about, to which I have simply replied in kind when something demanded to be said. And who are we talking about in terms of the "true heroes?" I doubt you'll find any champion of this sport who rode on "bread and water" alone throughout his career.

At any rate, while disappointed as I was in Pantani's downfall, he wasn't my hero. His particularly tragic demise, however, needs to be set against the terms by which he was actually brought down (and here, in Italy, we enter the domain of organized crime), in addition to the way in which Armstrong's subsequent rise was sanctioned by the cynical cycling establishment. On the one hand you thus had a UCI that was morally complicit in Armstrong's doping, while tolerating the omerta and intimidation methods that were used to protect him. On the other, these same mafioso forms of coercion in a reversal of terms were deployed to destroy Pantani, who conversely was discharged by the governing body of the sport.

This paradox became even more sinister as Pantani's inability to accept the hypocrisy, accelerated his detachment from reality, drug addiction and depression. As far as I can tell, such dark forces in this sport have never worked at once so much in someone's favor as they did to someone else's demise. Can we really say, therefore, that all those who "danced with the devil" exposed themselves to the same risks?

To answer Maxiton's question: I don't think there is the political or judicial will in Italy to pursue Pantani's case any further. Especially since the country has got far greater concerns to worry about.

All of this began, though, because the rise of Sky and Froome with their "new methods" and colossal budget, seems strangely familiar in regards to the unseating of a popular champion.

fair enough

I was only citing, I didn't say I could see any heroes in proffesional sport. but...a hero of cycling for me would be a rider, that doesn't dope, doesn't give a *** about other doping riders, tries his best, don't regret, don't accuse, don't complain. Maybe there are some there?

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

They all were "dancing with the devil," not all, however, were thrown under the bus and not all were targeted by the Mafia, while others were protected. It was this hypocrisy that devoured Pantani. He was certainly an egomaniac, I'll grant that. However, this shouldn't be construed as making the exceptionally negative way he was treated "his fault." It though did make him incapable of swallowing being the fall guy, which he undoubtedly was at the time.

I think we don't understand each other - I started to write only because you told Echoes that he "shouldn't discuss something he doesn't understand" or what. First thing is that he can discuss whatever he wants and the second thing is that his opinion, that the true heros/victims, that should be rememebered with nostalgia, are those, who didn't dance with the devil, is fully respectable. When a rider dope, he can't expect, that he'll be protected. He can be easily thrown under the bus and he can't do much, that's the risk, he simply becomes a card in the corrupt hands. It's a shame it is like that, but everyone is only responsible for himself. Pantani seems to have missed political abilities, whereas Armstrong was probably the best politician in cycling ever. Luckily today LA is out and Pantani still has his titles, giro-tour double and his climb, although it is publicly known he was a doper. It's a small thing compared to live, I know and many people could have and should have a bad concious about that...

You evidently have missed the many posts from Echoes basically stating that I'm repugnant and that I don't know what I'm talking about, to which I have simply replied in kind when something demanded to be said. And who are we talking about in terms of the "true heroes?" I doubt you'll find any champion of this sport who rode on "bread and water" alone throughout his career.

At any rate, while disappointed as I was in Pantani's downfall, he wasn't my hero. His particularly tragic demise, however, needs to be set against the terms by which he was actually brought down (and here, in Italy, we enter the domain of organized crime), in addition to the way in which Armstrong's subsequent rise was sanctioned by the cynical cycling establishment. On the one hand you thus had a UCI that was morally complicit in Armstrong's doping, while tolerating the omerta and intimidation methods that were used to protect him. On the other, these same mafioso forms of coercion in a reversal of terms were deployed to destroy Pantani, who conversely was discharged by the governing body of the sport.

This paradox became even more sinister as Pantani's inability to accept the hypocrisy, accelerated his detachment from reality, drug addiction and depression. As far as I can tell, such dark forces in this sport have never worked at once so much in someone's favor as they did to someone else's demise. Can we really say, therefore, that all those who "danced with the devil" exposed themselves to the same risks?

To answer Maxiton's question: I don't think there is the political or judicial will in Italy to pursue Pantani's case any further. Especially since the country has got far greater concerns to worry about.

All of this began, though, because the rise of Sky and Froome with their "new methods" and colossal budget, seems strangely familiar in regards to the unseating of a popular champion.

Thanks. Beautifully put.

No, it's not beautifully put.

How about a bit of perspective?

Honchar overdoes his doping a couple of weeks later in the Tour de Suisse.

As a result he gets the same 2 week rest.

You can google what it meant for his team and how his subsequent career went.

Did that little incident stop Honchar from doping? No.

Did Pantani stop doping after 1999? No.

It's morally repugnant to try to shift the blame to the governing body when to my knowledge they did not do anything apart from not covering up Pantani's sloppiness.

It's also extremely disingenuous to present a certain version of events as a fact while admitting that they are not likely to be investigated to an extent that will "officially" confirm the said pet theory.

It's also incomprehensible how one criminal's word has more value than excellent investigative work which has not been discredited at any point.

But then again, I have come to expect this perverse view from the poster in question.

There are five paragraphs in rhubroma's post. Which of them do you take exception to?

 

[rhubroma]

I've come to expect the "logical" and oh so spot on conclusions from the Anglo-American brigade for decades now. The same ones that would have sworn against their own mothers that Armstrong was clean against all evidence to the contrary, until the bitter end. And now its the Sky shill crew.

So, alright, it's all cool.

First of all, my point wasn't to extoll Pantani as a virtuous model, but to simply point out the perverse paradox that we saw in the demise of one rider and the rise of another and that the concept of "anti-doping" is itself applied at different measures and with imbalanced objectices. This has also been argued for Contador's Clen case. They could have popped Armstrong for years, but they chose not to. Nay, they covered him up. I doubt we'll be seeing any Sky positives if they have any say in it, as a result. In compensation we do get the same peremptory commands from Froome to the UCI, as we did with Armstrong, on what it should be "doing" about controls. Not only is it improper for him to be talking to the UCI about such matters, but if the governing body of cycling had any inegrity it would tell him to mind his own damn business.

The case of Honchar? E che c'entra? (What does it have to do with anything?) In any case, the latest reports I've got from 2015 say that Pantani's case will be reopened and that it could be conducted by Italy's anti-Mafia division, based on the involuntary testimony received via tapped phone from Napoli by the Banda della Comasina boss, Renato Vallanzasca, which was confirmed as credible by the Forlì power of attorney. http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/noti...ani-fermato-camorra-184949.shtml?uuid=ACHCHo4

Anyone with an opinion that isn't based upon their own willfully circumscribed concept of "knowing the facts," especially if based on reading this site, I'd be glad to discuss the matter with further. But the arrogance of people who don't read Italian or know Italian society, with their high Anglo-snobbery, telling me what "logical" is, or "what they've come to expect from me," are only worth considering as the boobs and imbeciles they are.

At any rate, knowing as I do the Italian political and judicial systems, I have little confidence in the actual circumstances behind Pantani's expulsion from the 99 Giro ever being made official truth, as I have said. Yet only real suckers would be so disingenuous as to accept a certain version of events as fact, simply because of the "excellent investigative work that was done." Oh really? Is it simply "pet theory" whatever doesn't conform to your rather high-minded British sense of "excellent investigative work?"

There's also this petition on change.org:
https://www.change.org/p/non-archiv...ge&algorithm=curated_trending#petition-letter

 

[sniper]

Any tinfoil hat theories about Li Fuyu's clen positive in April 2010?
He was riding for Bruyneel at the time.

I though of this as it doesn't seem to sit quite well with the hypothesis that AC's clen positive was a Lance-instigated UCI payback.

 

[Echoes]

Re: Re:

You evidently have missed the many posts from Echoes basically stating that I'm repugnant and that I don't know what I'm talking about, to which I have simply replied in kind when something demanded to be said. And who are we talking about in terms of the "true heroes?" I doubt you'll find any champion of this sport who rode on "bread and water" alone throughout his career.

This claim is totally gratuitous, unfounded and outrageous. It's too easy to bring up the "everybody dopes" soap when the honour of the great Marco Pantani is at stake.

Champions of this sport who rode clean throughout their career exist, okay? We have no reason to think otherwise.

If I may quote BigMac again, I think it's the right moment to say "Nuke the Clinic! Prohibit the insulting of riders. " Because that is so offensive towards hundreds and hundreds of riders who practice this sport in an honest way. Even among those who took dope, few did to the extent Pantaloni did. He took EPO, Testosterone, HGH in unthinkable proportions. Only just the Puerto revelations are there to make him pretty damn joke.

Riders like Edwig Van Hooydonck, Frans Maassen, Jim Van de Laer, Sammie Moreels, Gilles Delion, Dimitri Zhdanov, Peter De Clercq, Luc Roosen, Alvaro Mejia, Eddy Bouwmans, possibly Flavio Giupponi or Vladimir Pulnikov had been cheated by people like him. Belgian cycling was killed by EPO. So I make no apologies with EPO apologists.

I don't recall ever using the word "repugnant" on these boards, but it might be the right moment to use it.

 

[Eshnar]

Ok, you've all had lots of fun, surely, but now the party is over. This thread doesn't even have an on-topic post since days.
May I remember you all that deliberately insulting other members is forbidden, and accusing them of trolling is likewise strongly frown upon (by mods, at least)? So those who did that (the list would be too long) can please consider themselves warned, thanks.

Thread closed.

 

[Irondan]

We're (mods) going to give this thread another chance at life.

Please post your comments in accordance to all forum rules.

Deliberately trying to get this thread closed again by instigating chaos will result in a very long ban for all participants.

Merry posting!

 

[LaFlorecita]

Great! Thanks Irondan & the other mods now where do we start

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

well? i will start............hailing any cyclist as 'the one true champion' is always going to divide

opinion ....................what makes alberto better than other dopers?

i am personally disappointed that 'the one true champion' does nothing to clean up our

sport preferring to go with the flow ........and then when busted pretending it never happened

Mark L

He has no such ambition. He doesn't want to be an anti-doping hero, he wants to be a winner

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

well? i will start............hailing any cyclist as 'the one true champion' is always going to divide

opinion ....................what makes alberto better than other dopers?

i am personally disappointed that 'the one true champion' does nothing to clean up our

sport preferring to go with the flow ........and then when busted pretending it never happened

Mark L

He has no such ambition. He doesn't want to be an anti-doping hero, he wants to be a winner

I think you are right, But why was the thread started in the Clinic at all if posters are not to have free reign to express the wide diversity of opinions (as they did)? Is it because he can neither be admired nor criticised without the issue of doping coming into it at every turn?

 

[LaFlorecita]

Why Alberto is a true cycling champion - my opinion:
Very hard to dislike as a person. Humble, cautious, soft-spoken, friendly, smiley, knows when to keep his mouth shut, talks with his legs but is also incredibly stubborn and hard to persuade. Rides with his heart. Panache in abundance. Has had great successes but also setbacks and has overcome adversity. A great ambassador for the sport ignoring his doping history.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

I think you are right, But why was the thread started in the Clinic at all if posters are not to have free reign to express the wide diversity of opinions (as they did)? Is it because he can neither be admired nor criticised without the issue of doping coming into it at every turn?

Of course posters are free to express their opinions. Maxiton opened this thread to invite discussion on this topic. The problem was, as Irondan pointed out, that several posters who did not agree with Maxiton's statement tried to instigate chaos by, for example, deliberately misrepresenting other posters' opinions, and they succeeded, the thread turned into a mess of endless bickering.
As for your second point, of course a discussion on his position in the history of cycling will always involve doping in some way or another.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

I think you are right, But why was the thread started in the Clinic at all if posters are not to have free reign to express the wide diversity of opinions (as they did)? Is it because he can neither be admired nor criticised without the issue of doping coming into it at every turn?

Of course posters are free to express their opinions. Maxiton opened this thread to invite discussion on this topic. The problem was, as Irondan pointed out, that several posters who did not agree with Maxiton's statement tried to instigate chaos by, for example, deliberately misrepresenting other posters' opinions, and they succeeded, the thread turned into a mess of endless bickering.
As for your second point, of course a discussion on his position in the history of cycling will always involve doping in some way or another.

Yes, I do wish people would not bicker. It is one of the things that discourages me from greater participation. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect. i hope this thread that you like will go better for you. But there is the question as to how people who disagree with the proposition can do so without allegedly derailing the thread. After all, the proposition that "Contador is not Cycling's One True Champion" would be off topic.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Yes, I do wish people would not bicker. It is one of the things that discourages me from greater participation. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect. i hope this thread that you like will go better for you. But there is the question as to how people who disagree with the proposition can do so without allegedly derailing the thread. After all, the proposition that "Contador is not Cycling's One True Champion" would be off topic.

Discussion about the topic is never off topic.