Seriously? Then I guess you haven't been following the case. There's nothing wrong with that, but given you demonstrated lack of interest, maybe you should hold off sharing your opinions.

I still bet Bruyneel never goes to arbitration.

Well, if he does not go to arbitration after all his "denial", then something is seriously rotten. In no way should he be given a "deal", considering the seriousness of his part in the whole debacle.

He'll take the same position as Lance.

Please give us one example of this.

The list is quite extensive. Start by reading the affidavits. He pissed off a lot of those people.

I love internet bravery,you can say thinks you would never say to a persons face.You can go to your room now and let the adults finish a serious conversation

No,I think he doped and should be punished.I think he and other TDF riders deserve a degree of respect.

The video below the article is priceless: http://keepingscore.blogs.time.com/2...nce-armstrong/

;)

That's how it works. Confessing always yields leniency. It's a little thing known as "incentive". Never heard of it?

If you think he doped, which he has denied to high heavens, then logically, you must know that he is a fraud.

So respect for a fraudster? Especially one who has ruined a lot of honest peoples' lives? He knew he doped, participated as a ringleader in that conspiracy, then has been relentless in destroying or trying to destroy the lives of people he knew were telling the truth, and still you think he deserves respect? Well, not my respect!

I am a responsible adult. I agree that you are complete nutter. The evidence does not paint Lance as a person who has made a few regrettable mistakes and used bad judgement (which is all the evidence you would find on a majority of persons), but as a person who willfully cheated, lied, coerced, threatened, and lied more to cover it all up.

Although I do think most of the pro Euro peleton has engaged in activities closer to the latter than the former, but as they are caught, they are also being punished.

Rather than simply disagree,you call me names.That is juvenile.This discussion is for serious adults.You remind me of the little wild dogs in the country.One on one they are submissive and cower face to face,but when in there little packs ,they become brave and bark from far away.You would never call Lance names to his face,and you would certainly not call me names face to face

And here we go :popcorn:

First, Lance is a public figure. And I would indeed, in context, tell Lance what I thought of him. Lance made a fortune in the public eye and off its adulation. Because he was a cheat, a lair, and an total ass hat to all sorts of people (these stories have been around for a long long time) he gets the other side of that.

Why in god's name would I not call you a 'complete, raving, PR-vomiting nutter' to your face? Hey you said it, I just called you on it.

You just may have an inflated opinion of yourself.

I know that I don't.

If you read the affidavits, yes I would use the term 'accuser'. In one affidavit, the 'damning evidence' is nothing more than " I know LA used EPO", nothing more than that. Others reference one instance prior to cancer.

I wouldn't call them witnesses, nor would I call confessed cheaters reliable.

No winners from 1999-2005??? :eek:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...trong/1630411/

In that case, you don't know what the word means.

Do you go down the list and find the first rider not associated with doping?

Hey dude, that 15th place finish? Well now you are the winner!

LOL You just made my point,little pack dog

Oh my GOD, man, he called you a "little pack dog"! :eek: On a public forum! No effin' way! You're not going to just sit there and take that, are you? :fight:

LOL you got to admit this is a funny thread

It would be nice to have the GC listing from '95-'05 and highlight all the riders that doped.

the point of all this is it's impossible to tell who doped because the tests were easy to evade.