Michael Rasmussen fessing up and ...

[Hont]

Contador likeable?

Just because someone is a doper, does not make them unlikeable as a person. In the same way as being likeable does not mean you can't be a doper.

Contador behaved with great dignity during the Armstrong spat of 2009, still lives in his home-town, and he appears to have a lot of former teammates who remain friends with him and loyalty appears to be mutual.

That being said, I wouldn't put any sportsman at the top of his sport on a pedestal - they are just too driven, selfish, sometimes morally suspect and single-minded. And we never really know what they're actually like from the image they present to the media.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

You just don't get it still, do you.

I think it's best just to ignore Cunobelin. He's living in a fantasy world in which he is Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men...

 

[rich p]

Please actually read what is written as opposed to your weird interpretation ?

The question raised recognises this. Now instead of a fanciful rant, why not try contributing?

Take Jens Voigt as an example

Of he is (as stated above) a doper , then he should not be racing

At what point do you remove him from the race?

It seems that anyone who posts disagreeing with you is dismissed as a ranter. Almost an Armstrongian defence!
Answer this for me if you have time - Is Armstrong guilty despite never having any evidence against him that satisfies you?

In other news, you are still missing the point and just as spectacularly.

We, I, Noodley, Flying Monkey et al, do not have the authority to remove riders from the race.
This is not a court of law. This is the internet as Noodley pointed out above.
We will still carry on voicing concern about riders we think doped (or are doping) whilst you, no doubt, will continue to defend them until they are caught with a syrringe and a red-faced look of horror.

 

[Hont]

I just find him a bit cold. Admittedly that might be a language thing.

You're not alone. Ned Boulting says much the same thing in his Yellow Jumper book.

 

[Rob3rt]

Someone posted earlier that "there is no scumbag like an elite sport scumbag". Wrong.
Bankers who rip people's life saving off, rapists, burglars, murderers, wife beaters...shall I go on?
I will never condone doping and want the dopers out, but a bit of proportion in the use of language would be good. Throwing accusations around, cheap shots really. I've seen a post on another site which puts Wiggins, Evans, Contador, Ullrich, all in the same group. I just wonder if these people have good lawyers, or just don't like their houses!
Odd that nobody accuses track riders of anything, next we'll have someone trying to blacken Sir Chris, Darren Kenny, and Laura, but I'll bet they would not say it to them face to face with witnesses.

TBH, I would expect doping to be (potentially) just as rife on the track, possibly different drugs, but doping all the same, especially when you see some of the mass on those monster sprinters.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Another one who never failed a drug test yet was chock full of every damned product.
It makes the repeated bleating from the Armstrong supporters in recent years (and supposedly clean riders) seem ever more ridiculous.

Trouble is the current crop haven't failed tests either and they bleat about being clean too. Worrying times.

 

[Crackle]

Trouble is the current crop haven't failed tests either and they bleat about being clean too. Worrying times.

Yes and no. Nothing would surprise me anymore but so far there's nothing but innuendo and the times and power outputs look believable....but, we wait..

 

[ufkacbln]

It seems that anyone who posts disagreeing with you is dismissed as a ranter. Almost an Armstrongian defence!
Answer this for me if you have time - Is Armstrong guilty despite never having any evidence against him that satisfies you?

Your agenda is closed to not agreeing with you is pro- Armstrong / Doping and you don't think outside that blinkered box.

As before - find a post where I have said he was not guilty - you failed to do so last time you were challenged and ran away ... Can you do better this time?

In other news, you are still missing the point and just as spectacularly.

We, I, Noodley, Flying Monkey et al, do not have the authority to remove riders from the race.
This is not a court of law. This is the internet as Noodley pointed out above.
We will still carry on voicing concern about riders we think doped (or are doping) whilst you, no doubt, will continue to defend them until they are caught with a syrringe and a red-faced look of horror.

Again your lies and misinterpretation entirely.

Where on this or any other thread have I spoken out to support doping?

Put your money where your mouth is

 

[ufkacbln]

Edited

At the start the question was raised as to the level of proof required to remove a rider from a race.

My first post in this thread pointed out that testing was flawed and inadequate, and asked what level of proof was required to remove a rider. It used Jens Voight as an example as he is a classic case where he appears clean, but there are many claims that he is not.

Should the authorities act on testing alone given the failure or can other levels of proof be used (as happened with Armstrong) the question raised being at what level of proof you censure the rider



We know that testing is flawed, and also that there are ways to beat the system.

In other professions serious accusations of misconduct are treated seriously and the professionals suspended during the investigation. Hence the list of rumour, testimony, allegation, or testing?

This is where the (supposedly pro abuse) question arises as to whether given credible evidence / testimony / proof a rider like Jens Voight or many of the others could and should be suspended during the investigation of the allegations.

It is within the power of the teams and governing bodies to do so - should they?[/quote]

 

[Noodley]

At the start the question was raised as to the level of proof required to remove a rider from a race.

No it wasn't.

 

[Herbie]

He just needed the spray-on stuff for the rest of his, er, body!

he looks awful...like an anerexic sufferer

 

[ufkacbln]

No it wasn't.

Amended

 

[ufkacbln]

he looks awful...like an anorexic sufferer

Two reasons.

There is massive weigh loss in most of the long tours, The difficulty in maintaining the calorific balance is also though to contribute to the long term problems of low bone density in cyclists



Secondly if the body is pushed even further in the case of PEDs then the body cannot fulfill the demand from normal resources and will convert other tissue such as body fat to energy exacerbating the weight loss

The overall result is very similar to not getting sufficient calorific input due to eating disorders

Sunken eyes are always a giveaway as the fat at the rear of the orbit is absorbed

 

[Andrew_P]

he looks awful...like an anerexic sufferer

yup, I was begining to worry that LA was a positive advert for EPO HGH and Testostorone as he looks pretty fit and healthy. That picture is the perfect counter balance.

I must admit to being tainted by the 100's of negative tests spouted by LA, in fact it is spouted by most Pros. I beleived the hype around that. The confessions bring everyones negative tests in to question. Quite a bubble burst for me.

 

[raindog]

he looks awful...like an anerexic sufferer

To be fair, almost any pro rider - especially a skinny climber - will look pretty shocking naked to the waist just after finishing a tough stage.