velonews breaks somebody else's story about 6 riders from TMobile '06 TourdeFrance team gonna be named as ePO'sersthe team~klodimicRogersstinkywitztiniGueriniSelvillaKe$$lermazzyleenyGoncharUllrich
Actually it looks like blood Doposers
You've been tagged by me...see my blog for details!
Five riders, and the already culpable Sinkewitz, Sevilla, Gonchar, and Ullrich makes four. So, they've manufactured a "big" headline out of possibly exposing one more rider.
It seems unlikely that any elite grand tour rider from the era wasn't involved in some form of bloodplay.The regulations that say you can have a hematocrit of X -- but not a drop more -- guarantee brinksmanship. At least among the riders seeking palmares.
so how the fuc did armstrong kick their ass every day clean?
"so how the fuc did armstrong kick their ass every day clean?"did he?
Yeah, Armstrong was clean...NOT!
armstrong? clean? that's precious!
I totally understand why peeps always feel like they need to pull in Armstrong on this. If Rider A doped, and Rider B beat Rider A, then Rider B must have doped, too. Right?And who knows? Armstrong might've been on something. Same for Merckx, Indurain and LeMond. But why go there? Many folks seem willing to nail a guy based purely on how fast he was on a bike. So then ... what about the opposite ... how "slow" does a guy need to be before we're all satisfied that he is clean? (Go ahead. Pick a rider from the 07 tour that was slow enough to "seem" clean.) I'm a big believer in the following policy: 1) Make the best test you can, 2) test everyone in the pro peloton and do it often, 3) if a guy or gal tests positive, nail them, 4) if they don't test positive, leave them alone and let the race roll.In Armstrong's paticular case, clean or not, his success has done a lot for American cycling -- not to mention the fact his story has given a lot of hope to folks with cancer. I personally know several cancer patients who have found hope in his story. That's worth a helluva lot more than trying to nail the guy retroactively. Plus, I'll admit that there's a big part of me that really wants to believe that us human-types are capable of the impossible every once in a while. If Lance could come back from cancer and train his butt off and win, then maybe with lots of hard work, I can achieve my goals too.
"Many folks seem willing to nail a guy based purely on how fast he was on a bike."i don't know if that's an accurate assesment as to why public sentiment (in the minor world of aMErican cycling) is turning against Lance, a bit (... or more, depending on who blabs about it).i loved Lance when he was so strong in those early Tours. i didn't question his strength like the frenchies did. but, i didn't question his strength based on the chance he used performance enhancing drugs (PEGs), or not.i think what Armstrong did, or Indurain or Eddie (or insert legendary athlete), was well within the limits of human endeavor.i'm talking about the obsession with achievement. the absolute drive of personality and athleticism. the ability to suffer more than everyone else, over and over again.these are attributes that i believe humans are able to excel in, sometimes more, sometimes less per each individual. and sometimes, those attributes combine in a perfect genetic/nurtured storm ~ into one person ... and you get a LArmstrong or federer or schumacher or whoever.-No, my opinion of LArmstrong didn't turn because of his speed in those Tours.it turned because of all the gossip'ing and yelps and moans of his personality. his actions.are they all lies? maybe.but ... that's a pretty big smear campaign. -i don't say Armstrong used PEGs. I can't say that ... that would be ludicrous without proof. will there be proof, oneday? who knows.but, no matter ... what i've seen reported, heard talked about, read covered over ... leads me to question Lance Armstrong's ... choices in life.but in the end, cycling is more popular because of him. world-wide, i believe.so ... yay!and he may have doped himself blind to win the bicycle races, or he may pee holy milk.yay!-moving on.
Post a Comment