# Armstrong Acolytes...



## Happiness Stan (4 Sep 2012)

Will you continue to wear:

Your Livestrong wristband,
Your Livestrong Giro helmet,
Your Livestrong Oakley sunglasses,
Your USPS, Discovery, Radioshack jersey, shorts, socks
Your Nike Livestong Shoes,
and ride your Trek Livestrong bike?


----------



## Buddfox (4 Sep 2012)

Livestrong wristband - yes, I just like the colour, and to be fair I've worn it for I don't know how many years non-stop, so it just stays on
My USPS shirt - yes, it's a cool design and I like the Discovery logo. This I only bought recently, on ebay, it was never an LA related purchase.

It does make me feel like a fanboy though - I wore both on my commute today!


----------



## rich p (4 Sep 2012)

I chatted to a stranger on a ride today who volunteered the information that he was slightly irritated that he had to ride a Trek. It's all pretty irrelevant though.


----------



## Noodley (4 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> I chatted to a stranger on a ride today who volunteered the information that he was slightly irritated that he had to ride a Trek. It's all pretty irrelevant though.


 
The correct translation being:
"I went up to this complete nobber today, who I had never seen before; he was riding a Trek and I grabbed him by the throat and demanded if he was proud to support a drug cheat. He wimpered a reply which I took to mean that he was suitably chastised and will never ride _that_ bike ever again."


----------



## lukesdad (4 Sep 2012)

I'd be pretty iritated if I had to ride a Trek too


----------



## Red Light (4 Sep 2012)

Before I could continue to wear them I would need to start wearing them which I have no plans to do. But I guess I am not as much a fanboy as some here


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Sep 2012)

Even though I'm an ex-fanboy I never ever felt the need to own any item on that list.


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Sep 2012)

There is a real assumption here that anyone really cares!

Ask why they were bought ad the whole question becomes an irrelavance


----------



## martint235 (4 Sep 2012)

If I hadn't lost it, I'd continue to wear my wristband. Even if he'd cheated at every single race I still think that the livestrong foundation does good work.


----------



## Chuffy (4 Sep 2012)

Is there a way that I can avoid brands tainted by the Cheatstrong association even harder than I already do? I mean, I'd rather buy a Halfords BSO than a Trek. Bontrager, Nike and Oakley are right out and it's too soon to go looking for an amusingly ironic USPS jersey. What does a chap do?

@martint235 - if you think propping up the public reputation of Lance Armstrong is good work, then go right ahead. Otherwise, sling some money to a charity like Macmillan or Cancer Research.


----------



## johnnyh (4 Sep 2012)

oh my god, I will never ride my Trek again, I will go out now and run over it in my truck... oh hell that is a Nissan... 

deary me, in other news people were being blown apart in Syria.


Yes I will ride my Trek and enjoy every second on it


----------



## Chuffy (4 Sep 2012)

johnnyh said:


> oh my god, I will never ride my Trek again, I will go out now and run over it in my truck... oh hell that is a Nissan...
> 
> *deary me, in other news people were being blown apart in Syria.*
> 
> ...


You wasted precious seconds of potential charity work typing this post. Selfish bastard.


----------



## martint235 (4 Sep 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Is there a way that I can avoid brands tainted by the Cheatstrong association even harder than I already do? I mean, I'd rather buy a Halfords BSO than a Trek. Bontrager, Nike and Oakley are right out and it's too soon to go looking for an amusingly ironic USPS jersey. What does a chap do?
> 
> @martint235 - if you think propping up the public reputation of Lance Armstrong is good work, then go right ahead. Otherwise, sling some money to a charity like Macmillan or Cancer Research.


And providing a service for cancer sufferers isn't good work then?

The guy in my local cancer research shop was once done for mugging an old lady so I can't really support them anymore. *

* Not really but hopefully you get the point.


----------



## Noodley (4 Sep 2012)

Oh FFS, we've done this one to death! Give up! Have a fecking laff!


----------



## StuAff (4 Sep 2012)

Have a Trek. One that has a sticker to proclaim Trek as 7 times TDF champion on the seat tube. This is no longer the case. Can't bring myself to give a toss, let alone remove said sticker. 

Specialized use Tom Boonen as a poster boy. Does that promote cocaine? Nope.


----------



## Red Light (4 Sep 2012)

StuAff said:


> Have a Trek. One that has a sticker to proclaim Trek as *former* 7 times TDF champion on the seat tube. This is no longer the case. Can't bring myself to give a toss, let alone remove said sticker.


 
FTFY.


----------



## StuAff (4 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> FTFY.


Didn't need fixing, thank you very much.


----------



## Chuffy (4 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> Oh FFS, we've done this one to death! Give up! Have a fecking laff!


No! We must do more to promote awareness of cheating!


----------



## Get In The Van (4 Sep 2012)

If i followed the OP train of thought, i would have to ditch probably 99% of my music collection due to bands/band members drug abuse!


----------



## Red Light (4 Sep 2012)

Get In The Van said:


> If i followed the OP train of thought, i would have to ditch probably 99% of my music collection due to bands/band members drug abuse!


 
A number here would probably need to ditch themselves too


----------



## Monsieur Remings (4 Sep 2012)

Well when my boy was in hospital after he was born, I very nearly did buy a Livestrong top; something I'm glad I didn't.


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Sep 2012)

An auto de fe?


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Sep 2012)

... and of course don't forget to boycott the contraceptive pill, cancer drugs, aspirin , etc.

All of these are manufactured by companies responsible for supplying EPO to these cyclists in the first place!


----------



## Noodley (5 Sep 2012)

And nobbers. Always boycott nobbers.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (5 Sep 2012)

You can say what you want, but there is two sides to every story
You have to remember that Lance Armstrong has denied ever using drugs, but he has admitted pedalling. 

Haters the lot of you... I will still proudly wear my livewrong bracelet.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (5 Sep 2012)

I think I mite start wearing some of his branded stuff to make a point, What the point is I dont know yet.


----------



## Red Light (5 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> And nobbers. Always boycott nobbers.


 
Don't be so hard on yourself.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Sep 2012)

StuAff said:


> Have a Trek. One that has a sticker to proclaim Trek as 7 times TDF champion on the seat tube. This is no longer the case. Can't bring myself to give a toss, let alone remove said sticker.
> 
> Specialized use Tom Boonen as a poster boy. Does that promote cocaine? Nope.


jet wash your bike. that will get rid of it.


----------



## gb155 (5 Sep 2012)

Happiness Stan said:


> Will you continue to wear:
> 
> Your Livestrong wristband,
> Your Livestrong Giro helmet,
> ...



Yes, yes yes and yes 

Livestrong and lance ftw


----------



## montage (5 Sep 2012)

It's a shame Lance had to use the colours yellow and black - they go so well together, but are now unusable - shame he couldn't have picked granny green and brown


----------



## raindog (5 Sep 2012)

Come on lads, stop trekkin' about


----------



## johnnyh (5 Sep 2012)

As a special treat today I rode my Trek on the commute... lovely


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Sep 2012)

StuAff said:


> Have a Trek. One that has a sticker to proclaim Trek as 7 times TDF champion on the seat tube. This is no longer the case.


 
Actually one of the lies being paraded by USADA they don't have the authority to do so, and the titles at this point in time are still in place.

The UCI may (or may not) remove the titles, but they are waiting to see the USADA evidence before deciding


----------



## Hacienda71 (5 Sep 2012)

If anyone has a Trek they would like to get rid of, I would be more than willing to dipose of it for you, no questions asked.


----------



## Herbie (5 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Even though I'm an ex-fanboy I never ever felt the need to own any item on that list.


 me too


----------



## StuAff (5 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Actually one of the lies being paraded by USADA they don't have the authority to do so, and the titles at this point in time are still in place.
> 
> The UCI may (or may not) remove the titles, but they are waiting to see the USADA evidence before deciding


And none of that makes a difference to whether or not I want to own a Trek. The bike's staying and so is the sticker.


----------



## mickle (5 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Actually one of the lies being paraded by USADA they don't have the authority to do so, and the titles at this point in time are still in place.
> 
> The UCI may (or may not) remove the titles, but they are waiting to see the USADA evidence before deciding



You couldn't be more wrong One of the lies being pedalled by Armstrong is that the USADA doesn't have the authority to remove his titles. Evert time he signed into race control he signed up to the WADA rules and regulations. The WADA doesn't need the UCIs permission. As you'll soon discover.


----------



## festival (5 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> If I hadn't lost it, I'd continue to wear my wristband. Even if he'd cheated at every single race I still think that the livestrong foundation does good work.


 

What exactly does it do?


----------



## Red Light (5 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> You couldn't be more wrong One of the lies being pedalled by Armstrong is that the USADA doesn't have the authority to remove his titles. Evert time he signed into race control he signed up to the WADA rules and regulations. The WADA doesn't need the UCIs permission. As you'll soon discover.


 
Actually I think its Amaury Sports Organisation that runs the race and awards the winners that makes the decision. They have said they are currently waiting for USADA and UCI to sort out their jurisdictional dispute on the decision before doing anything. But its a bit moot anyway because last time UCI and ASO locked horns over control of the TdeF, ASO came out on top. So I suspect at the end of the day the decision will be ASOs who will be massively torn between getting rid of a pesky non-French winner they never did like and having a race which has no winner for seven years.


----------



## montage (5 Sep 2012)

Hacienda71 said:


> If anyone has a Trek they would like to get rid of, I would be more than willing to dipose of it for you, no questions asked.


 
walk from chesire to inverness. Thats a trek


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> You couldn't be more wrong One of the lies being pedalled by Armstrong is that the USADA doesn't have the authority to remove his titles. Evert time he signed into race control he signed up to the WADA rules and regulations. The WADA doesn't need the UCIs permission. As you'll soon discover.


 
Are you not a little confused?

If we will soon discover, that is the future tense?

At this time the titles have not been removed....... or are you going to categorically say that they have?


----------



## raindog (6 Sep 2012)

I thought we had a specific thread for this stuff


----------



## yello (6 Sep 2012)

I have some Nike bibs and overshoes. Both are decent kit. There's even a label in them that says they were made by Lance....


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (6 Sep 2012)

According to the John Fahey, the president of WADA:

"I am confident and WADA is confident that the USADA acted within the WADA code, and that a court in Texas also decided not to interfere," Fahey said in a telephone interview. *"They now have the right to apply a penalty that will be recognized by all WADA code countries around the world."*
http://www.greenwichtime.com/sports...tance-raises-questions-on-charges-3811670.php
And according to the WADA Code, it is the responsibility of international organizations:

20.3.9 To vigorously pursue all potential anti-doping rule violations within its jurisdiction including investigation into whether Athlete Support Personnel or other Persons may have been involved in each case of doping.
20.3.12 To cooperate with relevant national organizations and agencies and other Anti-Doping Organizations.
http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...DP-The-Code/WADA_Anti-Doping_CODE_2009_EN.pdf

So according to WADA, the USADA does have the right to impose penalties and the UCI is bound by the WADA Code to comply with their findings. They can, of course, appeal to The Court of Arbitration for Sport. And they almost certainly will.


----------



## mickle (6 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Are you not a little confused?
> 
> If we will soon discover, that is the future tense?
> 
> At this time the titles have not been removed....... or are you going to categorically say that they have?


 
No confusion at all. Read this from the USADA:

_The anti-doping rule violations for which Mr. Armstrong is being sanctioned are: 

(1) Use and/or attempted use of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.

(2) Possession of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions and related equipment (such as needles, blood bags, storage containers and other transfusion equipment and blood parameters measuring devices), testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.

(3) Trafficking of EPO, testosterone, and corticosteroids.

(4) Administration and/or attempted administration to others of EPO, testosterone, and cortisone.

(5) Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity involving one or more anti-doping rule violations and/or attempted anti-doping rule violations.

These activities are defined as anti-doping rule violations under the USADA Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing, the United States Olympic Committee National Anti-Doping Policies, USA Cycling rules and the International Cycling Union (UCI) Anti-Doping Rules (UCI ADR), all of which have adopted the World Anti-Doping Code (Code) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List.

In accordance with the Code, aggravating circumstances including involvement in multiple anti-doping rule violations and participation in a sophisticated doping scheme and conspiracy as well as trafficking, administration and/or attempted administration of a prohibited substance or method, justify a period of ineligibility greater than the standard sanction. Accordingly, Mr. Armstrong has received a lifetime period of ineligibility for his numerous anti-doping rule violations, including his involvement in trafficking and administering doping products to others. A lifetime period of ineligibility as described in the Code prevents Mr. Armstrong from participating in any activity or competition organized by any signatory to the Code or any member of any signatory."_

You will soon discover that you were wrong to believe Armstrong's feeble line.


----------



## oldroadman (6 Sep 2012)

Question. Why is any of the (legal) equipment used by LA "bad"?
It's just a bike and kit. The engine powering the bike and wearing the kit you may suspect.
Are Trek just a brand of a much bigger group anyway?
Please name a (credibly decent) bike brand used in competition which someone who may have once used PEDs has not used? Delete all references to BSOs distributed by chain retailers and the choice is suddenly close to zero.
Move on!


----------



## martint235 (6 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> No confusion at all. Read this from the USADA:
> 
> _The anti-doping rule violations for which Mr. Armstrong is being sanctioned are: _
> 
> ...


 Sorry Mickle but all that says is he's been banned which USADA do have the authority to do. The question is whether or not he's been stripped of his TdF titles which USADA doesn't have the authority to do.

I'm not defending LA at all but I think the more USADA go on about stripping the titles, the more stubborn the UCI will become, possibly to the point of letting him retain some of the titles because they are essentially a French organisation and there's nothing the French hate more than being told what to do by the Americans (ok they hate being told what to do by the British more)


----------



## thom (6 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> I'm not defending LA at all but I think the more USADA go on about stripping the titles, the more stubborn the UCI will become, possibly to the point of letting him retain some of the titles because they are essentially a French organisation and there's nothing the French hate more than being told what to do by the Americans (ok they hate being told what to do by the British more)


 
You're only saying that because you're a stubborn northern g*t with little recollection of how the French deal with substance abuse


----------



## Chuffy (6 Sep 2012)

oldroadman said:


> Question. Why is any of the (legal) equipment used by LA "bad"?
> It's just a bike and kit. The engine powering the bike and wearing the kit you may suspect.
> Are Trek just a brand of a much bigger group anyway?
> Please name a (credibly decent) bike brand used in competition which someone who may have once used PEDs has not used? Delete all references to BSOs distributed by chain retailers and the choice is suddenly close to zero.
> Move on!


None of the kit is 'bad', but the associations it has are. All of those brands (Trek, Bontrager, Nike, Oakley) have an extremely strong association with Lance/USPS, developed since 1999. I can't think of another cyclist with such strong brand associations. There will be plenty of people who buy kit and bikes in a state of blissful ignorance but if you are a fan it's almost impossible to avoid, whether you chose to buy the kit because you like/support the cyclist/team in question or avoid buying it because you loathe them. By all means pretend otherwise, but the fanboys in USPS kit on Treks would suggest otherwise.


----------



## mickle (6 Sep 2012)

If the association of an athlete with a product had no influence on people's buying decisions no one would ever get sponsored.


----------



## thom (6 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> If the association of an athlete with a product had no influence on people's buying decisions no one would ever get sponsored.


Indeed. "We are what we are, susceptible to persuasion" (read it backwards).
Advertisers are clever people - personal brand association is just one of many ad strategies employed upon us.
A lot of that kit is high quality, expensive and the spectrum of engagement with Pro-cycling of typical consumers is wide. I'd think it a bit tasteless to judge someone for continued use because of the financial side.


----------



## festival (6 Sep 2012)

The associated brands have invested a huge amount of time and money in marketing their goods with LA and probably like a super tanker will take a lot of work and time to change course.
I wouldn't expect them to come out with any profound statements right now but once the dust has settled I expect them to back away from the cheat.
I have mainly used Giro and Oakley for years (never LA stuff) and will continue to, as they are quality and they do the job, I have never used Nike as I don't like their kit.
I raced on Treks in the early days of carbon frames and they were great, but only due to a contact who provided them as part of a (small) sponsorship. Up until now if i had to go and buy a bike from a shop I would have seriously considered a Trek.
I understand the reasoning about how far do you go in being ethical and how unreasonable it would be to always hold the moral high ground on every issue in life etc but personally if these massive companies don't make some effort to distance themselves from being associated with LA I will seriously think about spending my money elsewhere in future and i don't think I will be alone.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Sep 2012)

gb155 said:


> Yes, yes yes and yes
> 
> Livestrong and lance ftw


and if he is proven to be a doper and/or has his titles stripped?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Sep 2012)

montage said:


> walk from chesire to inverness. Thats a trek


Not much of one though.


----------



## martint235 (6 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> Indeed. "We are what we are, susceptible to persuasion" (read it backwards).
> Advertisers are clever people - personal brand association is just one of many ad strategies employed upon us.
> A lot of that kit is high quality, expensive and the spectrum of engagement with Pro-cycling of typical consumers is wide. I'd think it a bit tasteless to judge someone for continued use because of the financial side.


 "Noisausrep ot elbitpecsus, era ew tahw era ew"???

Still no clear Thom.


----------



## Chuffy (6 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> "Noisausrep ot elbitpecsus, era ew tahw era ew"???
> 
> Still no clear Thom.


The devil has just entered your soul.


----------



## martint235 (6 Sep 2012)

Chuffy said:


> The devil has just entered your soul.


 Does he bring sweeties? If he doesn't he can just f*** off back out again.


----------



## Hip Priest (6 Sep 2012)

If you don't want to use a cycling brand that has an association with a drug-user, you're not leaving yourself a lot of choice. I'm still getting a Bianchi next year, even though Pantani was stuffed with drugs from bandana to cleats.


----------



## Chuffy (6 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> Does he bring sweeties? If he doesn't he can just f*** off back out again.


He does if you buy your Cheatstrong kit from Wiggle.


----------



## thom (6 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> "Noisausrep ot elbitpecsus, era ew tahw era ew"???
> 
> Still no clear Thom.


ha ha ha ;-) 
It shows you were persuaded


----------



## Chuffy (6 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> ha ha ha ;-)
> It shows you were persuaded


Pull my finger...


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> No confusion at all. Read this from the USADA:
> 
> _The anti-doping rule violations for which Mr. Armstrong is being sanctioned are: _
> 
> ...


 

It is not "Armstrong's feeble line" at all, but USADA's feeble line that they have stripped him of the titles.


The question I asked remains unanswered......

_*At this time the titles have not been removed....... or are you going to categorically say that they have?*_


----------



## mickle (6 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> It is not "Armstrong's feeble line" at all, but USADA's feeble line that they have stripped him of the titles.
> 
> 
> The question I asked remains unanswered......
> ...


 
You're shouting.

Try this:

_"As a result of Mr. Armstrong’s decision, USADA is required under the applicable rules, including the World Anti-Doping Code under which he is accountable, to disqualify his competitive results and suspend him from all future competition."_

From this statement: http://www.usada.org/media/sanction-armstrong8242012

Let me know which bit of _"disqualify his competetive results"_ you don't get.


----------



## martint235 (6 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> You're shouting.
> 
> Try this:
> 
> ...


But the problem is USADA can say that all they like, they don't actually have the authority to do it. As the UCI have pointed out, only they can remove his TdF titles. USADA can remove titles such as American road race champion or Tour of California (if LA won these) but they have no jurisdiction in France.


----------



## Andrew_P (6 Sep 2012)

What I do not understand is why people would get any pleasure from thinking or maybe even prompting someone not to want to use their bike or wear a sponsors clothing or a charity wristband or charity clothing? 

Lets face it there are probably very few brands that are not tarnished in a similar way.


----------



## mickle (6 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> But the problem is USADA can say that all they like, they don't actually have the authority to do it. As the UCI have pointed out, only they can remove his TdF titles. USADA can remove titles such as American road race champion or Tour of California (if LA won these) but they have no jurisdiction in France.


 
That's what Lancey boy wishes. Unfortunately for him the USADA is a subsidiary of/ acts on behalf of the WADA (W as in World). They _do_ have authority, and in the absence of any real defence against their evidence LA is seriously clutching at straws by suggesting they don't.


----------



## Chuffy (6 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> But the problem is USADA can say that all they like, they don't actually have the authority to do it. As the UCI have pointed out, only they can remove his TdF titles. USADA can remove titles such as American road race champion or Tour of California (if LA won these) but they have no jurisdiction in France.


Yes they do. The UCI have to do as USADA recommend, otherwise they are in breach of the WADA Code.


----------



## martint235 (6 Sep 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Yes they do. The UCI have to do as USADA recommend, otherwise they are in breach of the WADA Code.


But they haven't yet. 

This is purely a pedantic argument because there is no doubt that LA should be stripped of the titles but he hasn't yet. WADA seem to have a been fairly quiet and may be letting USADA do their talking but as yet it's up to uci to do the stripping and they haven't


----------



## thom (6 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> But they haven't yet.
> 
> This is purely a pedantic argument because there is no doubt that LA should be stripped of the titles but he hasn't yet. WADA seem to have a been fairly quiet and may be letting USADA do their talking but as yet it's up to uci to do the stripping and they haven't


 
WADA I think did indicate they are backing USADA and the UCI, having clarified the jurisdiction with Sparks (or whatever his name was...) have done nothing to suggest they would be in conflict with USADA. Indeed they publicly stated they would not be afraid to strip LA (of his TdF titles).

It is pedantic. Technically USADA cannot unilaterally strip the titles but they have entered into the process to do so and so far no party, including LA (edit: save some esteemed members of this parish), have expressed an iota of opposition to the process.

edit : I think normally the USADA recommended sanction would be accepted (any examples where this is not the case ...?), so you know, it's not looking good for LA.


----------



## martint235 (6 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> It is pedantic. Technically USADA cannot unilaterally strip the titles but they have entered into the process to do so and so far no party, including LA (edit: save some esteemed members of this parish), have expressed an iota of opposition to the process.
> 
> edit : I think normally the USADA recommended sanction would be accepted (any examples where this is not the case ...?), so you know, it's not looking good for LA.


I accept all this and I'm sure it will happen. I think the point that Cunobelin was trying to make, and that I agree with, is that LA is currently a 7 time TdF champion. He might not be next week, but right now he is.


----------



## Red Light (6 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> I accept all this and I'm sure it will happen. I think the point that Cunobelin was trying to make, and that I agree with, is that LA is currently a 7 time TdF champion. He might not be next week, but right now he is.


 
And when he's not the 7 time TdF champion he will be the former 7 time TdeF champion if he takes a leaf out of the book of the former 2004 Olympic Gold Medal winner, Tyler Hamilton.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (6 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> And nobbers. Always boycott nobbers.



Trouble is, there's a superfluity of nobbers.


----------



## martint235 (6 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> And when he's not the 7 time TdF champion he will be the former 7 time TdeF champion if he takes a leaf out of the book of the former 2004 Olympic Gold Medal winner, Tyler Hamilton.


I don't think he should be. I know people will disagree but I think those 7 TdF titles should be just null and void. The history books currently have Schleck as 2010 winner but he didn't win it. The history books should just state no one won - drug abuse.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (6 Sep 2012)

If you're unlucky enough to own a Trek you could paint 'Kie' after Trek and pretend you are just a saddo Star Trek geek with no friends and you smell.


----------



## rich p (6 Sep 2012)

Why does anyone care? He was a drugs cheat who is getting his just desserts. Whether he gets stripped next week, next year or sometime never is a farking side issue.


----------



## Noodley (6 Sep 2012)

I shall not wear black half-calf socks when or when it does not happen.

Actually I might turn up for the welsh ride in full Disco kit and wearing yellow bits and pieces and chasing you all down and calling you nobbers...just for the hell of it


----------



## rich p (6 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> I shall not wear black half-calf socks when or when it does not happen.
> 
> Actually I might turn up for the welsh ride in full Disco kit and wearing yellow bits and pieces and chasing you all down and calling you nobbers...just for the hell of it


 FDJ á la Sandy Casar I hope. He's as clean as a whistle but I have my doubts about you Noodles.


----------



## Chuffy (6 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> FDJ á la Sandy Casar I hope. He's as clean as a whistle but I have my doubts about you Noodles.


Test him for Buckie and kebabs. Dead cert +tive.


----------



## rich p (6 Sep 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Test him for Buckie and kebabs. Dead cert +tive.


 Chuffy, it's worse than that - he's been talking up lasagne pies FFS!


----------



## Red Light (6 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> I don't think he should be. I know people will disagree but I think those 7 TdF titles should be just null and void. The history books currently have Schleck as 2010 winner but he didn't win it. The history books should just state no one won - drug abuse.


 
Better tell Tyler Hamilton, the self styled *former* 2004 Olympic Gold medal winner, that he isn't then.


----------



## Norm (6 Sep 2012)

I think that repetition is a sign that this topic has nowhere to go and is the cue for closing down this one too.


----------

