The Greatest
- Thread starter limerickman
- Start date
- Status
roadhouse said:
Doping was 'illegal' in the Merckxx era but there was rather a 'laissez faire' attitude towards it. Rider were disarmingly candid about using PED's & the punishments if caught were mininal - ie 1 month ban & fine. I think you can safely assume that many of the professional peleton used something in the bigger events. Don't forget doping has been entrenched in high level competitive cycling since the beginning of the 20th century.
Without wanting to go over old ground your defence of Armstrong as a 'Mr Clean' is laughable - He's one of the dirtiest riders currently active. The evidence (& there is a lot of it from myriad sources) is out there should you choose to find it.
Baron Merckxx is simply the greatest by a huge distance & I'm getting slightly exasperated by explaining this to every 'johnny come lately' LA fanboy (& also setting them straight about LA's less than enviable doping record)
gtm said:
have you seen the voting statistics/percentages of those who think that Big Lance may have doped? It' done below somewhere but many more more than half say no. and as for Eddy, if it was illegal to dope and he did it anyway and just didn't get caught than that is all the more reason there is no way in hell that i respect him, can't whatsoever and all of his accomplishments are null and void to myself. like i said, Eddie who?
and i'm no 'johnny come lately' as you put it.
roadhouse said:
I don't care what your stupid poll says. Armstrong doped simple as that. They're are positive tests & eye witness accounts of him confessing to doping, extraordinary improvements in form after mysterious absences, associations with dodgy doctors. Why has Armstrong allowed this book to stay on the shelves:-
[ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lance-Landis-Inside-American-Controversy/dp/034549962X/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1263889713&sr=8-1-fkmr1"]From Lance to Landis: Inside the American Doping Controversy at the Tour de France: Amazon.co.uk: David Walsh: Books[/ame]
I don't know about you but if I was a multi millionaire professional cyclist & someone wrote something like that about me I'd be down to the High Court with m'learned friends to get defamation damages & the book pulped. Why hasn't LA done this? Res Ipso loquitor
gtm said:
everyone is allowed a voice as contrary to polar, er, poplar, er, popular belief if he had the power to actually pull that book ( he doesn't) or if he sued to have that power than he'd have something to hide....he doesn't. and i'm pretty sure that every time his name is mentioned either in a postive or a negative light he gets royalties and someone has to pay. ha! and it's not my poll, it's cyclingforums.com. the place is bigger than just me.
roadhouse said:
Believe me in the English & Welsh Courts LA could get a Judge to order the book be pulped (& huge cash damages as well) if the allegations turned out to be untrue. Why hasn't he done so? The obvious answer is the risk that the likes of Betty Andrieu & Emma O'Reilly will turn up & blow him out of the water.
He's as guilty as a puppy next to a pile of poo.
gtm said:
Exactly.
The law is in favour of the defendant, in the UK.
Strangely Armstrong chose not to avail of this bias, for some reason.
i disagree in the fact that he doesn't need to sue any one. i believe it's that fact that the tests were done which is why the book is out and no one is disputing that fact. however, he was never charged because he was never found guilty of any wrong doing, only accused of it and apparently everyone is out to make a name for themselves even at the cost of the attempted slandering of others.
Not one guilty doping charge EVER and that is all we need to know as it was at the end of this day and as it has been at the end of yesterday and will be at the end of tomorrow however hard it is for you all to believe.
Not one guilty doping charge EVER and that is all we need to know as it was at the end of this day and as it has been at the end of yesterday and will be at the end of tomorrow however hard it is for you all to believe.
roadhouse said:
I'll tell you why he never sued.
He would have to enter a witness box in a British court, to sue.
Given his history, a witness box in a British Court - even a British civil law court - would be a bit too claustrophobic.
roadhouse said:not too mention being surrounded by all those brightly glaring yellow and crooked teeth. can you blame him?
He'd be able to win very sizable damages for loss of reputation/defamation.
Curious how a man as litigious as he is - did not sue in a jurisdiction where the law would be very much in his favour.
limerickman said:
explain in detail, please, how it would be in his favor from all sides while i go for a short run and thank gawd i more than likely will not be having to sell my bike seeing as how i just recieved a job offer with an interview to set it in stone this late afternoon. hallefreakinluya!!
roadhouse said:not too mention being surrounded by all those brightly glaring yellow and crooked teeth. can you blame him?
Haha - very droll. He'd stand a better chance in an US Court being surrounded by morbidly obese cretins
If you take the trouble to read 'From Armstrong to Landis' you'll see that it's absolutely damning. Why didn't he file a case (incidentally, he time barred for this particular publication)
- Status
Similar threads
