It's okay if some people beat the system. The world's not perfect, and it won't ever be.

But if we can make it hard enough that neo pros don't feel like they have to, we won enough.

I mean I love pro cycling, but not so much I want people to be risking their health just to participate.

Anyways, I'm like ten pages behind in this thread.

He's telling the truth now. Not before. Ok.

If everybody on Postal cheated, then Eki cheated. So now the investigation will include Eki. Has to unless the investigators are even more "Clouseauesque" than they appear.

If Tyler wrote a book it would contain the truth. I heard that about Floyd, too. And all of Floyd's people, including his lawyer "believed" him. I even had email contact with a couple of them. They ab$olutely believed him. They almost had me believing. Then I went to a forum populated by people that really know their stuff on this subject. Ironically, Floyd's people spent a lot of time on this forum, and Floyd himself did this too, defending themselves and Floyd.

Do these people realize how foolish they look? And they are getting paid for this. It's easy, I suppose, to believe someone if they are paying you to do that.

You haven't missed anything.

To me it does seem considerably more delusional to believe that Armstrong could have possibly won 7 TdF's clean against world class competitors who were all doping than to believe that witnesses like Tyler and Floyd have finally decided to come clean after lying about doping for years, no matter how badly their flip-flopping erodes their credibility. But whether the Feds can really make this complicated money laundering/fraud case against Tex - good luck with that. Lance does have very good lawyers.

Stay tuned.

Who can argue with this?

Hey RW, that new Cdale Super Six Evo looks awfully nice.

Basically they employed the CAAD10 changes to the EVO. Their Ultimate bike will weigh about 10 pounds. It will be nice.

Fixed for accuracy.

Nah...I think it's in the ten grand range. Surgeons, really good family doctors, people with executive level jobs, good dentists that all think if they buy an expensive bike that will make them a racer type can all do it too. It's that SRAM Red groupset that gets the weight so low...now that Liquigas has seen the error of their ways and switched.

I like how this thread suddenly changed its focus.

^^ Talking about bike schwag > talking about doped fallen heroes

While on the subject….following is sport’s version of Michael Jackson…both body dysmorphic wack jobs driven mercilessly by their fathers:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/706272-maya-moore-tiger-woods-nba-draft-2011-and-thursdays-top-sports-stories/entry/84532-tiger-woods-knee-injury-stirs-up-more-rumors-of-steroid-use-for-woods


https://bleacherreport.com/articles/309141-tiger-woods-on-steroids-you-be-the-judge#/articles/309141-tiger-woods-on-steroids-you-be-the-judge/page/10

And even that's assuming Armstrong signed anything directly with the US government.

IMO it's a lot more likely that the USPS contracted with the team. Yeah, it was the team that had Armstrong on it, and there was probably language about him being on the team in that contract.

So, it'd be up to the team to enforce the contract.

And with all these riders who rode on that team with Armstrong now admitting they were doping while on that team, just demonstrates that the team failed to uphold the contract. And that team sits between Armstrong and the US government.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the more riders who come forward and admit to doping while riding on the same team as Armstrong, the less likely it is that Armstrong himself will get convicted of anything.

What exactly do you know about:

1. Tiger Wood's medical history?
2. Tiger Wood's relationship with his father?

What the media tells you? That's useless as teats on a bull. They sling innuendo and trash just to get page hits and advertising dollars from schleps without 1% of the talent of the person being smeared, but the smearing makes the schleps feel better about themselves.

If the facts don't fit the "story", and the "story" generates ad revenue, the facts are forgotten, ignored, or, umm, modified.

Yeah, that's it. Modified.

But it's all for a good cause.

More money for yellow "journalism".

thread being what it is, i suspect there will just be more strawman "so what if he doped, everyone else did to"/"witchhunt" banter, but this is a pretty good summary of a couple of the actual issues at the heart of the legal procedings.

https://velonews.competitor.com/2011/...lawsuit_175838

Love it. You remind of all the guys that think that Lance is clean even though his entire team doped.
All underneath the 'guise' of yellow journalism because it doesn't comport with your polly anna view.
I know many think that Lance is a prick for his single minded focus to do what it takes to win which likely includes doping, but Woods makes Bonds and Armstrong look like choirboys. There is no bigger prick in sports.
Oh btw Woods lover. News flash for you. Woods is DONE....over...history. No more majors and not even close to Nichlaus' record.
Btw, I couldn't be happier about it and he has gotten what he deserves...as big a precipitous fall from grace as the mountain of lies he built his false reputation and aura of infallibility upon. I believe it is called just desserts.
I will add, I still like Lance in spite of everything...lol.

MSRP on that ELS (Expensive Lightweight You Know What) sled is $10,999.

They did.

i dont think thats in dispute.

What was that I said about schleps without talent feeling good about themselves when they read about and get to cheer celebrity failure?

Look at the way you just cheered Woods' not being as good as he used to be.

Look at the way you ASSUME what my opinion is about Tiger Woods:

You pulled that right out of your rectal database, didn't you?

Ever been involved in events that make the front page of the NY Times? The "highest" standard in journalism?

I have.

Three times. One first-hand. Twice indirectly, but close enough to have first-hand knowlege of quite a few facts.

Guess what?

In a front-page story in the NY Times, the "highest" standard of journalism out there, if you take ten random facts from the story, 5-7 of them will be correct, 2-4 of them will be wrong in some way, and one of them will be utterly fabricated and false.

And that's the "highest" standard in "journalism" that's out there - AND WHEN THERE'S NO AGENDA.

Give the media an agenda, make it an arena where lower standards apply - like, says, oh, SPORTS, and maybe put the story on some podunk no-name site like bleacherreport.com, where a few thousand extra hits makes a big difference in their ad revenue, and you get CRAP.

Crap that's only connection with reality is that it exists in the same universe as the events it's purported to be about.

Want to know a perfect example of agenda/story-driven sports reporting that has no basis in fact?

Michael Phelps.

"Raised by a single mom" makes a great story that sells. Too bad it's all false - Phelp's older sister was every bit as good as he is, but she got injured. Phelp's father? An Olympic-level swim official who was intimately involved in his upbringing.

Didn't know that, did you?

Why? Because it doesn't fit the STORY you're being fed.

thread just out-41'd itself

Is that all you got? You should be embarrassed.
What are we denying here? That Lance cheated? Some press believes he didn't and most believes he did which is probably correct.
Tiger Woods? That the billionaire golfer wasn't cranking the hostess at Denny's out in the parking lot and having sex with porn stars when he was projecting the image of family life being everything?
How about Woods pulling out of golf tournaments when feining injury like at the Players? When he shot 6 over on the front nine like a million 10 handicappers on the planet could because all of a sudden he was injured when he played flawlessly with his buddy Mark O'Meara in previous practice rounds. If Tiger Woods is one thing he is perhaps the biggest liar ever to play the game.
So yes, I am happy to see him fail. I rarely wish that on anybody. For somebody given so much I expect more...at least decency. There are so many real good guys on the PGA tour I pull for.

You know what I will enjoy? Watching him come in 15th-30th in forthcoming majors as he G-dam's his way around the golf course. That is gonna be sweet.

go thread go!

+1

Out of curiosity - why? Because of his affairs (ie, him as a person) or b/c of something he's done/not done as a sportsperson?

I dont follow golf - am genuinely asking.

Out of curiosity - why? Because of his affairs (ie, him as a person) or b/c of something he's done/not done as a sportsperson?

I dont follow golf - am genuinely asking.

I agree with your post. Armstrong was not a federal employee just because his team was sponsored by USPS. If he gets busted for cheating, I don't think they can hang any additional charges because his team was sponsored by the USPS.

Other than the obstruction conviction, Bonds walked from his case, and that's with credible witness testimony and physical (forensic) evidence (failed drug test). So far, the case against Lance seems to be built on hearsay from less than credible witnesses. The BF case is also bulit on speculation among morons that he "must have cheated" because the guys who finished beneath him were all busted for doping (in the races he won). The latter - assuming he must have cheated because the guys he beat were all busted for cheating - holds no water in a court of law and the former - testimony of non-credible witnesses with no forensic proof, is flimsy and will not hold up in a court of law, especially when you consider Armstrong has been tested hundreds of times and has never been found to have failed a drug test.

Again, for the guys who have difficulty reading, I'm not saying he is innocent. I'm just saying if this is the best the Feds can do, unless they have a smoking gun, I can't see them winning a trial.

More importantly, Lance is has already been found guilty by the all-important BF jury of popular opinion and wild speculation. If he goes to trial and is found guilty, all of the Lance haters will come forward and say, "I knew he was guilty all along!". If he goes to trial and is found innocent or if the feds decide they don't have enough evidence and drop the case, the Lance haters will say, "I still know he was guility all along, regardless of what the feds say!". I'm trying to figure out what is accomplished by debating flimsy new "evidence" when the end result is of no consequence.