Discovery disbands

Discussion in 'Professional Cycling' started by snood, Aug 10, 2007.

  1. Tim Lamkin

    Tim Lamkin New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly…no money no dope no reason for dope…then get it back together, begin sponsorship by companies that give you a kit to wear...grow it from there. ;)
     


  2. Klodifan

    Klodifan New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're point is well taken. And I agree with lot of what you said. However, it is not that tailwind did not find a new sponsor. It is that they ended talks with prospective sponsors. This is a critical distinction that some have missed by stating how cycling is in such crisis that a successful team like disco couldn't find a sponsor. Cycling is the whipping boy for the media. Absolutely. You'd think the most successful team in recent years at the biggest race in the world would step up and take a leadership role in order to reform the situation. The vacuum speaks volumes.
     
  3. ??? 3/4 ? 1/4

    ??? 3/4 ? 1/4 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    It does speak volumes...but in which way? Is it that Disco was the worst doping team in the pro peloton as people like you say or that they feel that the current climate is not good to be bringing in new sponsors and they are sick of the BS slung at them.
     
  4. earth_dweller

    earth_dweller New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    0
    As I said before, imo, this has nothing to do with finding a sponsor or not, or even the mess the sport is in right now as far as protecting a sponsor's investment.

    This has to do with protecting Armstrong's clean name (in the eyes of most Americans). There is no way, if Tailwind stayed in the sport, that they would stay unscathed by doping infractions. I think that Tailwind finally saw that with Contador who they thought was protected by the UCI, but is still under serious pressure from third-parties.

    This way, Armstrong goes out a winner, blames the other parties for the mess - and of course they had nothing to do with it - works with his foundation for a few years and re-emerges as the governor of Texas.

    Simple.
     
  5. cyclingheroes

    cyclingheroes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    3,463
    Likes Received:
    0
    Governor of Texas? I am dissapointed, I thought he would become the next (well maybe not the next...) president. He would be re-elected 7 times :D

    Ok I guess I've had enough beer for tonight...

     
  6. Frigo's Luggage

    Frigo's Luggage New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,249
    Likes Received:
    0
    Stop. Please stop perpetuating the myth that USPS/Discovery never had a positive drug test. What about Benoit Joachim? Please tell me why you Disco people ignore Benoit Joachim's positive test.

    What about Armstrong's six EPO positives in the 1999 Tour?

    Please stop the myth that Discovery didn't have any failed doping tests (as if passing a doping control is proof of non-doping).

    I am disappointed by Armstrong pulling out in this way. If he really did have sponsors lined up he should have hooked them up with Vaughters. Instead he has turned his back on the sport that made him rich and famous. By the way, I don't think he really had any serious offers and this claim is just more Armstrong spin. Who would invest that kind of money into cycling now?

    Good riddens. I hope he goes away forever. Surviving cancer and winning bike races does not make you a good person. This guy is a creep.
     
  7. Doctor.House

    Doctor.House New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    902
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wolf is a LAF doping apologist. Lance played him like a fiddle. He own $300 Nike sneakers.

    USPO had many doping positives:

    Lance 1999 (corticosteroids)
    Benoit Joachim 2000 (Deca Durabolin)
    Lance again 2000 (insulin, cow blood, 160 used syringes, IV equipment)
    Pavel Padrnos, 2004 exemption from San Remo Giro doping inquiry
    Michele Ferrari, 2004 illegal pharmacy conviction
    Frankie Andreu, EPO confession
    Wold lives in a bubble. His reality is a Nike commercial.

    LAF motto reads: LIVE WRONG!
     
  8. earth_dweller

    earth_dweller New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    0
    But you know what the worst part of this news is?

    We'll now be subjected to review of the 'best team in the world' in all english cycling mags. The inhumanity!!!
     
  9. wolfix

    wolfix New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,756
    Likes Received:
    0
    He was never charged with them by the UCI. So you are wrong. There were no EPO positives by the UCI in the 1999 TDF.You need to distinguish facts from the anti-Disco circle jerk on this forum.If you can show me where he tested positive in the 1999 TDF by the UCI, I will apologize. But until then , I consider you to be doing nothing but doing a spin of your liking.

    T-M just did , CSC just re-upped, and Slipstream..... Do I need to continue?
     
  10. fbircher

    fbircher New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Messages:
    217
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't you know - cycling is only a European sport if you're denigrating the Tour of California. When it is revealed that 108 cyclists in the pro peleton are doper/clients of SINGLE European doctor (the vast majority of them European cyclists), then the European identity of professional cycling is conveniently overlooked. Professional cycling is replete doping and most of the people on this forum recognize that fact. The focus on one team as the embodiment of "doping evil" is not only immature - it's intellectually dishonest.
     
  11. jsull14

    jsull14 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    1
    I wish people would stop bringing this one up. It's laughable for two reasons:

    1. Lance won seven Tours, not just in 1999. And his best performances were in 04, 05
    2. You are saying that 1999 urine tested in 2004 sounds legit? The mere fact that they have someone's piss sitting around on a shelf for that long should get that lab shut down.

    Sorry Frigo & House, you are wrong again...
    Vrijman said Wednesday his report "exonerates Lance Armstrong completely with respect to alleged use of doping in the 1999 Tour de France."

    The 132-page report said no proper records were kept of the samples, there had been no "chain of custody" guaranteeing their integrity and there was no way of knowing whether the samples had been "spiked" with banned substances.
     
  12. Frigo's Luggage

    Frigo's Luggage New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,249
    Likes Received:
    0
    I read the Vrijman report. Did you?

    Why is it important that he won 7 times and his best were 04 and 05? Does this show he wasn't doping? I don't follow the logic.


     
  13. Bro Deal

    Bro Deal New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,701
    Likes Received:
    2
    So you would have us believe that he stopped doping after 1999? That's laughable. The UCI study on blood parameters shows a switch from EPO to blood transfusions in the latter part of Armstrong's career, so doping methods changed and we can assume the perofrmance benefits also changed.

    They were frozen.


    Vrijman is a lawyer who defends dopers, and if you had read the report you would know that Vrijman's definition of exoneration is that the athlete cannot be sanctioned. This was never a question. Without an A sample Armstrong could never be punished. The real question is why EPO was found in Armstrong's urine. Vrijman did not address this.

    LNDD published its results in the peer reviewed publication Nature. Where did the UCI publish the results of its whitewash report? Maybe Scumbag Shysters Daily?

    Vrijman clearly shows his bias by claiming that the samples might have been spiked. He presents zero evidence whatsoever to back up the allegation. Armstrong might have been anally probed by aliens. There's no evidence that he was, but should we assume that it might have happened? Even worse is that he has no explanation for how such a act might have been committed. The lab did not know which sample belonged to which athlete. It was more than a year later that l'Equipe was able to link the samples to Armstrong, and that required information released by the UCI with Armstrong's permission. The ridiculous claims of spiking fails the means, motive, and opportunity test. There was no opportunity because there was no knowledge of which samples to spike.

    Armstrong had the opportunity to have the samples DNA tested to show they were not his. He refused. Again Vrijman fails to present any evidence that the samples were not Armstrong's or that any error caused the EPO positives.

    The Vrijman report is a complete joke. It was nothing but an attempt by the UCI to sweep doping under the rug and attack WADA at the same time.
     
  14. jsull14

    jsull14 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    1
    Umm, yes. It means he was not doping. That is the point. Sorry if I went too fast for you.
     
  15. jsull14

    jsull14 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    1
    A first year law student could destroy 90 percent of what you just said. You don't even need to be a conspiracy theorist to see a conspiracy here. All of a sudden after Lance was winning 3,4,5 tours amidst heavy animosity with the French they test five year old urine and get a trace of EPO. Who believes this nonsense.
     
  16. Bro Deal

    Bro Deal New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,701
    Likes Received:
    2
    Those of us with a brain who know the facts--unlike those who think the urine was just sitting on a shelf.
     
  17. Jono L

    Jono L Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    4,434
    Likes Received:
    62
    And you would blame him when every dickhead with no girlfirend and an internet connection comes on line to pay him out?
     
  18. Frigo's Luggage

    Frigo's Luggage New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,249
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, did you read the Vrijman report? It is only a fair question since you are claiming that it exonerates Armstrong with regard to his six EPO positives from 1999. If you call me wrong because of the report, it would only be fair if you read it. So, did you read it?
     
  19. Frigo's Luggage

    Frigo's Luggage New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,249
    Likes Received:
    0
    Its not how fast you went. I just think you missed a few logic steps in your conclusion. Please explain your position. I am really interested. If it makes sense, I will reconsider my position.
     
  20. Frigo's Luggage

    Frigo's Luggage New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,249
    Likes Received:
    0
    I assume that you are calling me a dickhead. If so, why do you think I am a dickhead? Is it because I disagree with you?
     
Loading...
Loading...