The Cycling Thread

Thanks for the advice. I'm trying a Supersix tomorrow or Wednesday so I'll report what I think of it.

[maviczap]

No, but its a sad day for the sport yet again.

I'm no Armstrong fan, but maybe these years ought to be classified as the EPO years, because if you take away his titles then they'll be another rider below him, who also doped, Ulrich, Pantani etc etc.

From my opinion it all started in 1996, when Riis won the tour, although we know now that there were plenty of other races won on EPO before this.

It literally is fine the first riding who wasn't doping...

Should accept that pretty much everyone doped and armstrong was the best doper clearly - especially as he never got caught whilst he was actually racing.

I would certainly be interested to see what evidence the WADA has against him, as he seems to think this has only started because of team mates that have said, 'oh by the way he was doping too'.

[pookie]

in this article I presume http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/oth...g-charges.html

This historians are going be a bit busy now

[fizzwheel]

Originally Posted by maviczap

No, but its a sad day for the sport yet again.

I'm no Armstrong fan, but maybe these years ought to be classified as the EPO years, because if you take away his titles then they'll be another rider below him, who also doped, Ulrich, Pantani etc etc.

From my opinion it all started in 1996, when Riis won the tour, although we know now that there were plenty of other races won on EPO before this.

Completely agree, very sad day, but IMHO not entirely unexpected.

The fact is that IMHO everybody from that era doped, so it in my mind levels the playing field and they should leave the results as they are.

I sort of admire Armstrong for his take on this, the whole "I'm done with it I want to move on and live my life" attitude I respect him for.

[maviczap]

Originally Posted by EssexDave

I would certainly be interested to see what evidence the WADA has against him, as he seems to think this has only started because of team mates that have said, 'oh by the way he was doping too'.

Very strong and compelling evidence I should imagine, and not just from twisted losers like Landis & Hamilton.

My American buddy met Hamilaton at a US trade show and thought he was an grade A a**ehole.

Originally Posted by fizzwheel

Completely agree, very sad day, but IMHO not entirely unexpected.

No, I've been expecting this for a while

[Luckypants]

So everyone sees this as an admission of guilt? Despite there being no physical evidence? Perhaps you should read his statement about being persecuted and that he is fed up of it?

Why does Armstrong have to prove his innocence? They have to prove his guilt which so far they have failed to do.

Guilty or not, the authorities have not been able to prove anything. They should let it lie and accept they cannot prove anything. Move on and catch today's drug cheats, not hound a retired cyclist for years after he finished competing.

[maviczap]

I think they'll be more to come out from the US anti doping agency and maybe the cynic in me says this is just damage limitation from Lance.

[maviczap]

Yep, Millars book is a good read

[fizzwheel]

Originally Posted by Luckypants

So everyone sees this as an admission of guilt? Despite there being no physical evidence? Perhaps you should read his statement about being persecuted and that he is fed up of it?

No not at all. I was left with a feeling that he feels fedup with it and has had enough which I respect him for.

IMHO he beat some of the best riders of his era, some of whom have confessed to doping.

So he was either incredibly clever and cheated and got away with it. Or he was an incredibly talented athlete who is clean.

He's retired leave the guy alone. If he doped so did others that he was racing against which levels the playing field. But it seems there are some in the cycling world who just dont like the fact he won and was dominant for so many years, but if you look at his training program, its the only race he trained for...