|
London424
Original Poster
2,749 posts
44 months
|
|
|
el stovey
13,497 posts
132 months
|
It's no surprise to anyone with an open mind that Armstrong has finally been done for doping. He's long been linked with doping as have his associates and teammates and DS.
I'm not sure why his fans in here seem to now be pointing the finger at wiggins who has no links to doping and has never been linked to cheating throughout his long proven career.
Armstrong was a doper, let's not go around suggesting all the top riders are still at it, just because your hero turned out to be a lying drugs cheat.
|
|
|
JuniorD
3,069 posts
92 months
|
|
|
JuniorD
3,069 posts
92 months
|
el stovey said: It's no surprise to anyone with an open mind that Armstrong has finally been done for doping. He's long been linked with doping as have his associates and teammates and DS. . Absolutely. el stovey said: I'm not sure why his fans in here seem to now be pointing the finger at wiggins who has no links to doping and has never been linked to cheating throughout his long proven career.
Armstrong was a doper, let's not go around suggesting all the top riders are still at it, just because your hero turned out to be a lying drugs cheat. I agree but it is unfortunate that the Sky outfit have amongst their team doctors Geert Leinders who is widely known for his work with Rabobank during a time in which EPO doping was accepted in the team. http://massnewsmedia.com/sport/9537/sky-claims-phy...I don't know if this is the same controversial doctor they apparently hired to help manage saddle sores, yet hasn't been to any of the big tours...
|
|
|
Derek Smith
16,058 posts
117 months
|
London424 said: From my recollection they said that they would publish all the evidence they had when the legal limitations allowed. JuniorD said: Has anyone seen the franky pathetic video radio interview with Phil Liggett on the Armstrong USADA affair? This guy is an idiot of the highest order. I've never liked Liggett as a commentator. Further he seemed to support drug taking cyclists. The Delgardo incident where he went on and on, as he tended to do, criticising the officials when Delgardo's provided positive for a masking agent that was to be banned from the Monday following the TdF made me switch off the sound at one point as I was so angry. A convenient date one might think. He said something along the lines of Delgardo's reputation unsullied.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
el stovey
13,497 posts
132 months
|
Ligggett has always had a pro Lance stance. He is paid much of his money through his work with and syndication to the US networks. Any anti lance Armstrong position would be career suicide for him. Lance is still powerful in cycling, there are many bloggers and journalists that have been black balled by the sponsors, bike/component manufacturers and big event organisers for simply daring to criticise him.
|
|
|
el stovey
13,497 posts
132 months
|
Sycophantic idiot that Ligggett is, I still think he's great at commenting on the last 1km of any race.
|
|
|
mcelliott
1,809 posts
50 months
|
JuniorD said: I don't know if this is the same controversial doctor they apparently hired to help manage saddle sores, yet hasn't been to any of the big tours... You're indeed spot on on both counts.
|
|
|
aspender
934 posts
134 months
|
mcelliott said: JuniorD said: I don't know if this is the same controversial doctor they apparently hired to help manage saddle sores, yet hasn't been to any of the big tours... You're indeed spot on on both counts. Well, not quite. Regardless of whether or not Leinders is 'clean' (and I'm not arguing that either way): 1. He was hired after the experience of the team (and their British doctors with no explicit cycling experience) at the 2010 Vuelta when numerous team members came down with a stomach bug in the heat, and one team mechanic died of an un-related condition. To quote Brailsford: "We sat down and realised that as a group of people we did not know enough about looking after people in extreme heat, with extreme fatigue. We were making calls like ‘no, on you go mate’." The saddle sore stuff was given as an example of the subsequent use of his consultancy. 2. He is contracted for 80 days a year as somebody for the British team docs to refer to, not to replace them. http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-and-comment/brai...
|
|
|
mcelliott
1,809 posts
50 months
|
aspender said: mcelliott said: JuniorD said: I don't know if this is the same controversial doctor they apparently hired to help manage saddle sores, yet hasn't been to any of the big tours... You're indeed spot on on both counts. Well, not quite. Regardless of whether or not Leinders is 'clean' (and I'm not arguing that either way): 1. He was hired after the experience of the team (and their British doctors with no explicit cycling experience) at the 2010 Vuelta when numerous team members came down with a stomach bug in the heat, and one team mechanic died of an un-related condition. To quote Brailsford: "We sat down and realised that as a group of people we did not know enough about looking after people in extreme heat, with extreme fatigue. We were making calls like ‘no, on you go mate’." The saddle sore stuff was given as an example of the subsequent use of his consultancy. 2. He is contracted for 80 days a year as somebody for the British team docs to refer to, not to replace them. http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-and-comment/brai... To be fair to Brailsford he did admit by hiring Leinders they had taken a reputational risk.
|
|
|
Cavalierfc
25 posts
9 months
|
el stovey said: Ligggett has always had a pro Lance stance. He is paid much of his money through his work with and syndication to the US networks. Any anti lance Armstrong position would be career suicide for him. Lance is still powerful in cycling, there are many bloggers and journalists that have been black balled by the sponsors, bike/component manufacturers and big event organisers for simply daring to criticise him. It's far more to do with the fact that Liggett owns shares in a gold mine with Armstrong (as does Paul Sherwen), flies on Lance's jet, and he's paid for speaking at Livestrong events.
|
|
|
WeirdNeville
4,220 posts
84 months
|
Cavalierfc said: el stovey said: Ligggett has always had a pro Lance stance. He is paid much of his money through his work with and syndication to the US networks. Any anti lance Armstrong position would be career suicide for him. Lance is still powerful in cycling, there are many bloggers and journalists that have been black balled by the sponsors, bike/component manufacturers and big event organisers for simply daring to criticise him. It's far more to do with the fact that Liggett owns shares in a gold mine with Armstrong (as does Paul Sherwen), flies on Lance's jet, and he's paid for speaking at Livestrong events. Small world, eh? I mean, what are the odds!
|
|
|
Cavalierfc
25 posts
9 months
|
aspender said: Well, not quite. Regardless of whether or not Leinders is 'clean' (and I'm not arguing that either way): 1. He was hired after the experience of the team (and their British doctors with no explicit cycling experience) at the 2010 Vuelta when numerous team members came down with a stomach bug in the heat, and one team mechanic died of an un-related condition. To quote Brailsford: "We sat down and realised that as a group of people we did not know enough about looking after people in extreme heat, with extreme fatigue. We were making calls like ‘no, on you go mate’." The saddle sore stuff was given as an example of the subsequent use of his consultancy. 2. He is contracted for 80 days a year as somebody for the British team docs to refer to, not to replace them. http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-and-comment/brai...There's about a million doctors out there who can treat saddle sores. There's also plenty of doctors with experience in heat and fatigue. Now, again, how does a doctor remotely provide advice to cyclists and doctors when he's not even at a cycling race? I'm ignoring that Chris Froome's girlfriend slammed Sky's medical staff on twitter. The hiring of Leinders also doesn't explain the hiring of Fabio Bartalucci, a doctor with a long doping history.
|
|
|
el stovey
13,497 posts
132 months
|
Unfortunately,It goes against all the team sky mission statements and ideals they came in with. It just shows how difficult it has been for Brailsford to run a team where all employees are free from any doping grubbiness.
Hopefully he'll relent and give Millar a ride now.
|
|
|
Cavalierfc
25 posts
9 months
|
el stovey said: Hopefully he'll relent and give Millar a ride now. Millar will never ride for another team, he owns 10% of Garmin now.
|
|
|
DJRC
19,847 posts
105 months
|
So Cavalier...are you saying SKY are doping or just casting aspersions?
I agree that the hiring of certain doctors and their current approach does not reflect well on their original mission statements.
I agree that Froome has seemingly emerged from nowhere.
|
|
|
Cavalierfc
25 posts
9 months
|
DJRC said: So Cavalier...are you saying SKY are doping or just casting aspersions?
I agree that the hiring of certain doctors and their current approach does not reflect well on their original mission statements.
I agree that Froome has seemingly emerged from nowhere. Not making a definitive statement, merely saying they've shown an unnatural improvement, hired people with extremely suspect pasts, and not remotely provided the transparency they were promising back in 2010. It's a complete sea change from what they were saying coming into the sport.
|
|
|
IroningMan
5,815 posts
115 months
|
Cavalierfc said: Not making a definitive statement, merely saying they've shown an unnatural improvement, hired people with extremely suspect pasts, and not remotely provided the transparency they were promising back in 2010. It's a complete sea change from what they were saying coming into the sport. Put down Kimmage and form your own views. 'Unnatural improvement'? Orly?
|
|
|
pablo
10,293 posts
142 months
|
Cavalierfc said: Not making a definitive statement, merely saying they've shown an unnatural improvement, hired people with extremely suspect pasts, and not remotely provided the transparency they were promising back in 2010. It's a complete sea change from what they were saying coming into the sport. it saddens me that rather than say "hey, these guys obviously worked harder in training than anyone else and they got their tactics spot on" even people with a good knowledge of how many miles these guys do in their training and their discipline to diet and nutrition still prefer to go with the "they must be doping because I cant rid elike that" theory....
|
|
|
DJRC
19,847 posts
105 months
|
Cavalierfc said: DJRC said: So Cavalier...are you saying SKY are doping or just casting aspersions?
I agree that the hiring of certain doctors and their current approach does not reflect well on their original mission statements.
I agree that Froome has seemingly emerged from nowhere. Not making a definitive statement, merely saying they've shown an unnatural improvement, hired people with extremely suspect pasts, and not remotely provided the transparency they were promising back in 2010. It's a complete sea change from what they were saying coming into the sport. They being who? Wiggo has always been one of the best in the world. Big George is performing as he has always done. Cav was the best there has ever been and has continued to be the best there has ever been. Froome is the one to me who has shown substantial form improvement. The rest of the team has performed as they were hired. Ben Swift is showing normal progress, i.e. progress and improving but not mental giant strides. For the team themselves to be organised around a doping regime then you immediately put the focus on Shane Sutton and Darth Dave at which point you put the whole track and road operation into the equation. That becomes a very different proposition. Now then, if however you were to propose a suggestion of individual riders prospering to an unlikely degree within the overall team operation, then I would agree that you possibly have a position to explore. To cast a blanket aspersion over the whole operation though opens the scope to a much greater extent for which you need much greater evidence.
|
|
