again, a lot of the illeagal stuff only allows the competitor to recover and train more frequently. They still have to do the hard work more often. If you take it and dont do the extra training, then, you will get n benifit from it !! that means you can takle it and still come last if you dont do the work.! It doesnt instantly give you better times, more stamina or anything else. Dont forget, even with all the tech used by sky, you are still dependent on a human being puttig in the effort to move the bike. tech will only get you so far in ANY sport....even F1
What I find quite funny about this is that all the cycling aficionados that inhabit their forums slag off the teams for doping, so why do they have such an interest in following such an 'unclean' sport? Personally I think cycling is now a lot cleaner than it has been in the past 20 years and that Sky are where they are because, as Superhoops 67 says, their massive funding has enabled them to become the Man City of cycling...
Date 27th October 2012: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...-stare-abyss-senior-staff-look-set-leave.html The Laboratoire national de dépistage du dopage de Châtenay-Malabry stores samples for years until anti doping tests catch up. Armstrong was found out years later. In 10 years time we will know the truth about the riders of the 2012 Tour.
If we should believe that everyone's a cheat, but we'll only find out in a decade, then why not just say "**** it" and not bother with any competition? On the other hand, perhaps we should applaud the cunning of the drugs cheats and accept its as integral a part of the sport as chafed testicles?
Personally, I'm all for a paranormal Olympics as well, where the ghosts of these dead bike riders can race each other for eternity. As long as I don't have to watch. Don't mind the velodrome stuff because its over quickly and we normally win. Imaz, I think Messi had a genuine condition for which he would have been prescribed HGH, even if he wasn't a brilliant footballer/prospect.
True concerning Messi, he had some growth issues and as you rightly say would have been treated anyway as he had some rare form of dwarfism. Barcelona saved him as his family would not have have had the financial means for very costly medication.
Sky employed a known doping doctor and no one does what Froome did, going from nowhere to being able to win the TDF and he would have done that if Wiggins wasnt team leader.
Agree totally. Armstrong wants everyone to think its wider than him to dilute the magnitude. He's a very unpleasant selfish individual. Funnily enough this is how BW's wife described her husband the cyclist in a recent documentary. But for me here's where the parallels stop. Armstrong was seeking victory at all costs. He cheated cancer and inspired many others, raising the profile and millions of dollars for cancer research. Separate this from his ruthless, bullying cycling career and you will find a very odious character, who when necessary has destroyed those around him that dared to question his authority or integrity. In the cold light of day, those he crushed were right. Why did he do this? Because they risked derailing his personal goals. Now he's playing the sympathy card and tying in his fight against cancer as the rationale for his disgraceful conduct. It's further proof of his invidious nature. I categorise him in the same bracket as Jimmy Savile. And as I've opined in earlier posts, I predict a similar scenario emerging when SAF retires / dies and individuals have the confidence to uncover his blatant corruption over player signings and 'buying' referees.
Steady there otherwise we (and 10,000 others) will end up in court! Of course it can all go horribly wrong as in LA's case with the Times now going after him for their money back and then there's perjury which is a different matter entirely and usually ends up with a custodial sentence. Only Armstrong the sociopath dared to sue, all the others, Wiggins included, have been more sensible. Remember well Froome falling apart on the short climb to San Luca (Bologna) a few years ago, what has suddenly happened? My money's on the Ray Wikins lookalike.
As I said yesterday, yes you will, but only if you have the balls to publish your comments using something other than an internet forum. Thousands of creepy nerds posting spoiler comments under aliases is not a replacement for real evidence. When I see your accusations in the Times letters page or similar then we can restart this debate (although you will possibly be too busy getting a lawyer). In the meantime your unfounded remarks are just offensive to anyone with a sense of justice or respect for what our countrymen achieved last year.
Armstrong is going to have to pay lots of money, he won 7 figures from a british paper for libel. Thats now been proved incorrect. Hes a slimeball of the lowest order, he only confessed now because the statute of limitations is up so he cant be charged for perjury which he is obviously guilty of.
Nicole Cooke was far from the greatest cyclist the UK has ever produced which is probably why you got so many replies. Bit like saying SWP is the most talented player QPR has ever had
More than half the winners of the TDF in last 20 years are proven dopers. Logic suggests the others just got away with it because they would have had to beat the dopers to win. I assume all TDF riders are dirty, I dont have the same feeling for the olympics so their wins arent tainted for me.
Don't like a post? Report it, feel free. Wait ten years and then see why no one apart from that idiot Armstrong has sued. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tour_de_France_winners#By_country
The reason why people dont put their name to it is they can lose their life savings as the cheat Armstrong proved. He was a cheat but still sued for libel and won.
British libel laws are likely to be changed in the near future. Perjury isn't the best of ideas when there are samples lying frozen for detection techniques to improve in future years. Armstrong was very foolish to take the risk, others are more cautious. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/15/libel-law-reforms
Now that's just nonsense Sku. Jimmy Savile was a disgusting *****phile. As dishonest as Armstrong is, he's not near the same level as a kiddy fiddler. Never thought I'd see the day where Imaz is quoting from the Daily Mail
Isn't it interesting that the investigation on Savile was reported as fact, yet it is only an investigation and sadly can never go to trial to prove or disprove. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...immy-Savile-as-a-fact-undermines-justice.html I do think you're missing the point here. Mine was not a simile between a cheat and an alleged *****phile. I was instead making an observation, drawing a parallel between two strong characters that used fear and aggression to maintain their cycle of odious activities.
Any other British cyclist ever with such a palmarès? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Cooke#Palmar.C3.A8s Grand Tours, Spring Classics, World Championships, Olympic Gold and more...
