Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Sat Dec 03, 2016 5:33 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 17  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Lance Armstrong
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:10 am 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11104
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
A cycling journalist is going to be on BBC Breakfast in a minute discussing the situation.

The guy must feel awful.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:57 am 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 1:10 am
Posts: 4471
Location: Bristol
I'm still confused as the whole thing seems half-@rsed. Has he been stripped of his T.D.F. titles? Is he UCI guilty as well as USDA guilty?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:40 am 
MacRetro rider
MacRetro rider

Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:16 pm
Posts: 8658
If a lesser organisation has the power to ruin a persons rep where will it end.

Surely UCI outranks USDA in cycling and in a recent football incident a UK court of law outranks the FA but apparently not.

In scotland in our courts we have a controversial 3rd verdict of 'not proven'. This basically in many folks eyes undermines the Innocent verdict.

If a lesser organisation can say guilty when a higher one says innocent then effectively the various organisations have our 'not proven' verdict.

Result the accussed is dead in the water, bad state of affairs. The USDA should have presented its evidence to the higher authority and if they acted and banned Lance then fine. Destroying someone even when the sports governing body says no case to answer is bad.

I'm not in favour of cheating but I do believe in the correct judicial process otherwise dictatorship and corruption are inevitable. Just look at Pussy Riot in Russia which is a corrupt dictatorship disguised thinly as a democracy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 10:22 am 
King of the Skip Monkeys
King of the Skip Monkeys
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:34 pm
Posts: 26146
Location: Moomin Valley
from the BBC news website:


Quote:
Sci/Environment
Report damns 'cheating' Armstrong
Turtle passes waste through mouth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: cutns
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:31 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:39 pm
Posts: 962
Location: glens of antrim
-this guys been making a potload of groats recently,one has noticed...


Attachments:
Hahahahahahahahahahahhh!!!!!.jpg
Hahahahahahahahahahahhh!!!!!.jpg [ 46.17 KiB | Viewed 778 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:41 am 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:04 pm
Posts: 3363
Location: Completely in the dark, thanks to me good mate Terry....
legrandefromage wrote:
from the BBC news website:


Quote:
Sci/Environment
Turtle passes waste through mouth


....looks like the bookies have an odds-on favourite to win The X Factor, then. ;)

David


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:59 am 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider

Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:58 pm
Posts: 2362
Location: Bournemouth
velomaniac wrote:
If a lesser organisation has the power to ruin a persons rep where will it end.

Surely UCI outranks USDA in cycling and in a recent football incident a UK court of law outranks the FA but apparently not.

In scotland in our courts we have a controversial 3rd verdict of 'not proven'. This basically in many folks eyes undermines the Innocent verdict.

If a lesser organisation can say guilty when a higher one says innocent then effectively the various organisations have our 'not proven' verdict.

Result the accussed is dead in the water, bad state of affairs. The USDA should have presented its evidence to the higher authority and if they acted and banned Lance then fine. Destroying someone even when the sports governing body says no case to answer is bad.

I'm not in favour of cheating but I do believe in the correct judicial process otherwise dictatorship and corruption are inevitable. Just look at Pussy Riot in Russia which is a corrupt dictatorship disguised thinly as a democracy.


UCI have 21 days to review the evidence, and appeal if they think so fit. USADA is not a lesser organisation, but the one responsible for dope testing and enforcing in the US. It is WADA recognised for this purpose. The UCI haven't had jurisdiction up to this point, which was proved when they tried to get involved, and were told to get back in their box. In addition, since there are accusations against them too, I am skeptical they can make a call without a conflict of interest. At the end of the day, I see little in how they can do anything but rubber stamp the verdict, which by all accounts is conclusive. LA was offered the opportunity to challenge this, and has had the report one imagines, but chose not to challenge it.

Anyone still clinging to the believe that LA was clean, in the dirtiest, darkest days of cycling is sadly deluded. 20 of the top 21 riders in one of the tours was doping, are you really telling me the one who won by some distance was clean?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:20 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:13 pm
Posts: 8176
Location: Tredavoe, Cornwall
The UCI are now stood around whistling and shoe gazing hoping that the fact they must have known about drug taking drug dealing fraudulant lying bullying two faced arrogant cheating Armstrong and his hired medical goons for many years.



al.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 1:30 pm 
Old School Hero

Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:35 am
Posts: 237
Location: Birmingham
Pyro Tim wrote:
velomaniac wrote:
If a lesser organisation has the

Anyone still clinging to the believe that LA was clean, in the dirtiest, darkest days of cycling is sadly deluded. 20 of the top 21 riders in one of the tours was doping, are you really telling me the one who won by some distance was clean?


Well going by that if everyone was on drugs and he was the winner doesn't that technically mean he was still the best racer there???

:shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 1:35 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider

Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:58 pm
Posts: 2362
Location: Bournemouth
Possibly, but still a cheat. Drugs work differently for different physiology, plus who's to say he just didn't take more.

Personally I think leave his name there, with an asterix stating dirty race for each of them, as you can't award the win to anyone else


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 17  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: integerspin and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group