Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:18 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:03 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:50 pm
Posts: 946
Location: Over there -->
I think the likelyhood is that those seven tours will be left "unwon" as M. Prudhomme has suggested.

Otherwise this article, whilst light-hearted has some good clues about who may be awarded the victories based on other doping convictions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 7:22 pm 
eBay Outing Master
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:53 pm
Posts: 8000
If it was anyone else other than the governing cycling bodies it would be farcsical

it's almost like harry potter and voldermort with ..he who should not be named


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 7:28 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider

Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:58 pm
Posts: 2362
Location: Bournemouth
USADA only have jurisdiction against US riders and teams. They fought their battle, but are not responsible for the rest of cycling. Was it a witchhunt? Who cares, the guy was guilty, and is now being asked to pay back $7.5 million by SCA, + €2.95 million by Le Tour

He's been dropped by his sponsors, Oakley confirmed today they have joined Trek, Nike and the brewer. He's up a creek without a paddle :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 7:47 pm 
Classified Mod
Classified Mod

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:34 pm
Posts: 12697
Location: Fife in Scotland
Surely he could do a deal with the SPO manufacturers now sponsorship or summit? :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 7:54 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:18 pm
Posts: 3798
Location: Staffordshire
grahame wrote:
I think the likelyhood is that those seven tours will be left "unwon" as M. Prudhomme has suggested.

Otherwise this article, whilst light-hearted has some good clues about who may be awarded the victories based on other doping convictions.


That makes you think doesn't it? You have to go down to tenth and beyond some years.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 7:55 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:13 am
Posts: 1311
Location: I don't know, the satnav's bust!
sylus wrote:
If it was anyone else other than the governing cycling bodies it would be farcsical

it's almost like harry potter and voldermort with ..he who should not be named


Do you really believe that everyone in this whole disaster is wrong except Armstrong, and that he has done nothing to be blamed or punished for?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 8:03 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:25 pm
Posts: 606
Location: New Forest
Any future court case by those seeking a refund of monies from Lance will be the only place where we will finally see the true strength of this 'evidence' against him. I'm still on the fence until such time, the hearsay evidence held up as a torch by USADA and now UCI does them and indeed the sport more damage than they themselves care to realise. Thank god for the likes of Team Sky who have demonstrated this year what can be be achieved through unequivocal clean cycling.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 8:11 pm 
Old School Grand Master

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:55 pm
Posts: 8209
Location: New Forest, UK
I'm sorry, it is not hearsay. It is made by witnesses under oath. No different to a witness testimony that says someone stabbed somebody. A load of witnesses testified that he doped and they had seen him do it. Hearsay is that a mate knows a guy down the pub whose sister was a soigneur who saw him do it... :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 8:16 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:25 pm
Posts: 606
Location: New Forest
I use the term hearsay loosely, on the legal basis that evidence from a co accused suspect (as I understand this evidence to be) cannot be relied upon to form the substantive evidence of the alleged offence. It might be good enough for a sporting authority but not a courtroom I'm afraid.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 8:41 pm 
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:45 pm
Posts: 10942
Location: kent
retrocomeback wrote:
Any future court case by those seeking a refund of monies from Lance will be the only place where we will finally see the true strength of this 'evidence' against him. I'm still on the fence until such time, the hearsay evidence held up as a torch by USADA and now UCI does them and indeed the sport more damage than they themselves care to realise. Thank god for the likes of Team Sky who have demonstrated this year what can be be achieved through unequivocal clean cycling.


you wont have long to wait :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20029617


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], hamster, magas, stew-b and 44 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