Cry Baby Simeoni



babylou said:
The reason Amrstrong denies doping so often is because he is asked the question so often. No one asks Ullrich if he is doping even though he has proven he is willing to use illicit substances. What about Mayo? Maybe he sucked at the TDF this year because he skipped hi EPO therapy due to the new testing regimen implemented at the '04 TDF. Zubeldia also was a no show.

If Armstrong is doping and his competitors are clean then I am amazed at how close in performance they are to him. The fact is almost all are all doping. This is what Greg Lemond has stated and what Andy Hampsten has backed up today on the Velo News website.
If Armstrong isn't clean then it's pretty clear that Basso, Mayo, Hamilton, Kloden, Heras and Voekler are all doping as well. Some had a bad year, some had bad luck but you can't implicate Armstrong without implicating the other noteables. Perhaps it's the whole field or perhaps only a few but Armstrong wasn't as decisive this year as he has been in years past yet still put a firm, controlling hand on the Tour. Since Ullrich is usually the biggest challenge Armstrong has, if Lance is doping, Ullrich is right there with him.
 
If superior performance or IMPROVEMENT IN PERFORMANCE sufficed to establish doping, only losers who never improve or never win would not be implicated in doping! :D
 
Beastt said:
If Armstrong isn't clean then it's pretty clear that Basso, Mayo, Hamilton, Kloden, Heras and Voekler are all doping as well. Some had a bad year, some had bad luck but you can't implicate Armstrong without implicating the other noteables. Perhaps it's the whole field or perhaps only a few but Armstrong wasn't as decisive this year as he has been in years past yet still put a firm, controlling hand on the Tour. Since Ullrich is usually the biggest challenge Armstrong has, if Lance is doping, Ullrich is right there with him.
Yes, damn near every one of them is doping! I said this earlier in this thread and keep saying it. Cycling is no different than any other real sport. Hell even some soccer players have been caught doping and that is a sissy sport :D (what did you expect? I'm American).

The reasoning process the athlete follows to convince themselves to take EPO or anabolic steroids (good for sprinters) or human growth hormone is simple and somewhat logical. It goes something like this:

1. Hey this drug, be it EPO or HGH or anabolic steroids, is a medicine prescribed by doctors for sick people not some illegal loser **** like cocaine.

2. If the drug is good for sick people it must be good for me.

2. All my competitors are doping so if I dope I am not getting an unfair advantage. I am simply evening the score. The best man will still win.

3. Shucks if I don't perform I'm gonna have to get a job at my cousin's auto repair shop.

I knew competitiors of mine, in another sport, that began to use anabolic steroids in the 9th grade.
 
babylou said:
Yes, damn near every one of them is doping! I said this earlier in this thread and keep saying it. Cycling is no different than any other real sport. Hell even some soccer players have been caught doping and that is a sissy sport :D (what did you expect? I'm American).

The reasoning process the athlete follows to convince themselves to take EPO or anabolic steroids (good for sprinters) or human growth hormone is simple and somewhat logical. It goes something like this:

1. Hey this drug, be it EPO or HGH or anabolic steroids, is a medicine prescribed by doctors for sick people not some illegal loser **** like cocaine.

2. If the drug is good for sick people it must be good for me.

2. All my competitors are doping so if I dope I am not getting an unfair advantage. I am simply evening the score. The best man will still win.

3. Shucks if I don't perform I'm gonna have to get a job at my cousin's auto repair shop.

I knew competitiors of mine, in another sport, that began to use anabolic steroids in the 9th grade.
Why does everyone say for us not to claim Armstrong is doping because you do not have any proof? There is proof just not irrefutable proof. His association with a known sport dope dealing doctor, Michele Ferrari, is circumstantial. Then there is the lady who claims she witnessed the drug paraphernalia which is more damning than circumstantial. There are a hell of a lot of people in prison in Texas that were convicted of crimes with no ore proof than was just presented.

I applaud Lemond's and Hampsten's stance against EPO. I am disappointed that Lemond singled out Armstrong since damn near all of the field is cheating.
 
musette said:
The reason LA gets asked about doping more is that he is SUCCESSFUL in races, and has won five (soon to be six) TdFs. That does not mean he dopes. It means he is highly successful. :p People don't want to acknowledge that LA/USPS/Bruyneel are more talented, hard-working and strategic-thinking than they are, so it's more protective of one's ego (or more protective, in the case of, say, a Mayo fan, of his image of Mayo and Mayo's capabilities) to blame the superior performance of LA on doping instead of recognizing what the true causes of such performance are.

The reason fewer people ask why JU dopes is that he has not won five (soon to be six) TdFs and he does not generally perform as well as LA. :p
I'm with you my man! Success breeds jealousy for those who don't have what they want.

Nicholas
 
babylou said:
Why does everyone say for us not to claim Armstrong is doping because you do not have any proof? There is proof just not irrefutable proof. His association with a known sport dope dealing doctor, Michele Ferrari, is circumstantial. Then there is the lady who claims she witnessed the drug paraphernalia which is more damning than circumstantial. There are a hell of a lot of people in prison in Texas that were convicted of crimes with no ore proof than was just presented.

I applaud Lemond's and Hampsten's stance against EPO. I am disappointed that Lemond singled out Armstrong since damn near all of the field is cheating.
That's a very good point... LeMond has singled out mainly LA in which the whole cycling world is guilty of letting doping get out of coutrol. While there are rules in place, it's evident that it's part of the pro cycling culture. And this culture should be eliminated and I hope that Lance somehow... someway can compeletely prove his innocense. This will restore some legitamcy to the sport and prove that you can win without cheating.

In regards to LeMond and Hampsten... such poor sportsmen from the sidelines (it's hard for me to tear down their posters in my den since I spent good money framing them... so for now they stay). They really should read or listen to the available audio CD, "How to Win Friends and Influence People." Seems like LeMond and Seimeoni are bigger enemies to LA than real contenders on the field like Ulrich etc.

Nicholas
 
If there is guilt by associating with somebody, then a friend of a mafia boss who is not himself involved in the mafia should also go to jail?

Yes, on the jealousy point, it might be a protective mechanism for less successful cyclists (or supporters thereof) to not have to acknowledge the weaknesses in such cyclists. It's part of the "blame society" we live in. Instead of focusing on improving their own performance, they are in denial and want to see the successful party as doping. Rather sad for those under this illusion. :p
 
Lemond uses his own experience with a debilitating incident as the basis for his claim that LA could not possibly do what he’s done without doping. This is inherently faulty thinking. Lemond and LA went through two entirely different situations. LA made a clean recovery. Lemond did not. Lemond still walks around carrying lead pellets and suffers from effects suspected to be directly related to this.
 
musette said:
If there is guilt by associating with somebody, then a friend of a mafia boss who is not himself involved in the mafia should also go to jail?

Yes, on the jealousy point, it might be a protective mechanism for less successful cyclists (or supporters thereof) to not have to acknowledge the weaknesses in such cyclists. It's part of the "blame society" we live in. Instead of focusing on improving their own performance, they are in denial and want to see the successful party as doping. Rather sad for those under this illusion. :p
With these LA opponents pointing their witchhunt fingers... I'm fearful of the kind of society that I'm raising my young daughter in.

I know that we all believe doping has hurt cycling and I hope that UCI, USCF and other cycling organizations work together to develop better policies and technologies to determine doping problems. If the technology isn't quite there to conclusively test for EPO (maybe there is), how about voluntary EPO testing? Biweekly? Monthly? I bet you LA would be the first to endorse a policy or voluntary practice.

Needless to say... back to the thread of "Cry Baby Simeoni"...

Come on, if you are against or fore LA, you have to admit Simeoni is a cry baby!!! Tables would be different if respected racers in the current race would call out foul play. Had Ulrich said something... maybe I'd take notice because the guy is a great racer. But Simeoni even said "Lance won't even talk to me... boo hoo". I added the boo hoo part. Ha ha ha...

Nicholas
 
musette said:
If there is guilt by associating with somebody, then a friend of a mafia boss who is not himself involved in the mafia should also go to jail?
I did not say Armstrong's guilt was proven by his association with Dr. Ferrari. I only stated that their association was some evidence.

BTW: If you are friends with a mafia boss you are in the mafia. Whether you want to be or not. Just hope the boss never kisses you on both cheeks. Otherwise you can kiss your butt cheeks goodbye.:eek:
 
StarryMan said:
And that's what he did exactly. He rode, didn't hold back, and his legs spoke to the world. His leg said, "I'm the Boss Man."

You are correct. That was such a beautiful ride!!!! (I'm not the biggest fan in the world but............THAT WAS A BEAUTIFUL RIDE!!!!!)
 
babylou said:
The reason Amrstrong denies doping so often is because he is asked the question so often. No one asks Ullrich if he is doping even though he has proven he is willing to use illicit substances. What about Mayo? Maybe he sucked at the TDF this year because he skipped hi EPO therapy due to the new testing regimen implemented at the '04 TDF. Zubeldia also was a no show.

If Armstrong is doping and his competitors are clean then I am amazed at how close in performance they are to him. The fact is almost all are all doping. This is what Greg Lemond has stated and what Andy Hampsten has backed up today on the Velo News website.
thank u! i set up a thread about this if armstrongs guilty all the competitors are too
 
Simoeni's silliness was exhibited in the final stage, when he tried to get in front of the peloton. How disrespectful of the Yellow Jersey and how further signaling Simeoni's lack of judgment. :p
 
Ted B said:
Unless you were from the U.S., I doubt you would have an understanding of the changes that have taken place in the U.S. with respect to the sport of cycling since that time, and how these changes have impacted the quality of expertise and support available to a U.S. team. Furthermore, while Motorola was in the TdF with the intention of being competitive (like every other team), they certainly didn't have the resources of the present USPS team by any stretch of the imagination.

At that time, LA was a 'hungry' 20-22 year-old youngster who was far from being developed into his full potential. From what I know of the man, I doubt he would have achieved what he has had he NOT weathered his bout with cancer. To say that event changed his life is an understatement. If anything changed between LA the young cyclist and the LA of today, it is his entire mentality.
hey i know a bit about the changes that have taken place in the us. THG was a good change
 
babylou said:
I did not say Armstrong's guilt was proven by his association with Dr. Ferrari. I only stated that their association was some evidence.

BTW: If you are friends with a mafia boss you are in the mafia. Whether you want to be or not. Just hope the boss never kisses you on both cheeks. Otherwise you can kiss your butt cheeks goodbye.:eek:
but armstrong is involved with dr ferrari. they are not just friends
 
musette said:
Simoeni's silliness was exhibited in the final stage, when he tried to get in front of the peloton. How disrespectful of the Yellow Jersey and how further signaling Simeoni's lack of judgment. :p

I ask the question of you - for the third time - do you believe that Lance Armstrong is clean ?

As regards Jan Ullrich - his palmares unlike your hero - has never been questioned.
He debuted at a very high level after a glittering career as an amateur.
No one has ever, ever brought allegations of performance enhancing drugs against JU.
No one.
His career/palmares is beyond doubt or question.

I refer you once again to what a 5 time TDF winner told me in 1998 :
"I saw JU in my rear view mirror. I competed from 1985 to 1996 against
all of the greats in that era and I have never seen as complete a cyclist
as Jan Ullrich"

I might point out to you that your hypothosis about people being jealous of
LA and their "perceived" jealously - is again, totally inaccurate.

When LeMond was beating a French institution (Bernard Hinault), not one of Hinault's supporters claimed that LeMond was using drugs to be their hero.
When a bloke from a neighbouring country completely dominated the TDF
in the 1970's (Merckx), no one ever raised the question of performance enhancing drugs.
In the 1990's when Indurain was blowing the entire field - and your harworking, diet watching, hero - to smithereens, no one raised any allegations of performance enhancing drugs.

Funny how only LA has been targetted.
Is he the victim of some wide international conspiracy ?
You'd probably advocate that he is.

So I ask you the question for the fourth time - do you believe that Armstrong is entirely clean ?
Your refusal to answer this question - I'll take it that you do not advocate that he is clean.
 
babylou said:
Why does everyone say for us not to claim Armstrong is doping because you do not have any proof? There is proof just not irrefutable proof. His association with a known sport dope dealing doctor, Michele Ferrari, is circumstantial. Then there is the lady who claims she witnessed the drug paraphernalia which is more damning than circumstantial. There are a hell of a lot of people in prison in Texas that were convicted of crimes with no ore proof than was just presented.

I applaud Lemond's and Hampsten's stance against EPO. I am disappointed that Lemond singled out Armstrong since damn near all of the field is cheating.

Okay...let's have at it with this "proof"....

1. The "proof" of the known associate, aka Dr. Ferrari. I know a man who committed murder. In spite of my association with a convicted murderer, I have not committed any acts of homocide. Nor is it reasonable for anyone to assume that I am somehow more predisposed to committing heinous acts of violence because I know someone who did such a thing.

While we're at it, depending on your personal set of beliefs, it is rumoured that Christ himself hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors...

2. Ms. O'Reilly....a low ranking former employee of USPS cycling team who claims she a) picked up drugs for Lance and/or the team; b) assisted in cover up of said drug usage by lending her cosmetics to Lance so he could cover up his needle tracks.

Can we review this for a moment....minor employee entrusted with the most explosive "secret" that USPS cycling team could ever possibly have. An employee without any vested interest in Lance Armstrong Inc...ie she's on salary and not making a personal fortune off him like a host of others who have a whole lot to lose if Lance Armstrong Inc goes in the toilet. This is what the guys who stand to lose MILLIONS are going to entrust with the one piece of information that can tear down the entire house of cards. This is credible?

Cosmetics? The guy's jacking up on God knows what that will annihilate his career, his public reputation and the reputation and success of his charitable foundation. Given that all of this is on the line, our Mr Armstrong, with all his resouces both personal and those of USPS cycling team at his disposal, the best he can come up with to save his ass is slapping on a little liquid concealer and dust it off with a bit of powder. This is undoubtedly a time tested method of pulling a fast one on a physician looking for evidence of illegal substance abuse. I know street junkies with more finesse than that....oops, shouldn't have mentioned that last bit. According to the theory of the "known associates", this makes me a heroin addict.

Do you find this "evidence" to be credible? I mean really? Take the "star power" gossip factor of the A-list name out of the story and would you believe it?
 

Similar threads

N
Replies
7
Views
511
F
D
Replies
0
Views
460
Road Cycling
Davey Crockett
D