Who do you think is doping in the '09 tour?

[jimmypop]

How come the National Enquirer can publish heaps of false rubbish about celebrities week after week and yet most elect not to sue? Does that make it true? Think about it.

Here's why, in a nutshell:

How the Supermarket Tabloids Stay Out of Court - The New York Times

Armstrong not suing, though, is another matter. He could easily have his attorneys push this into a UK (English? Not sure what's appropriate to use here) court, where the burden is essentially on the publisher/author.

So why, exactly, does a clean, lawsuit-happy athlete like Armstrong not sue Walsh? Why does Armstrong strong-arm bike companies into shutting out those who speak out against him? I'm no fan of Lemond or Armstrong's former mechanic, but make no mistake: if you don't stick to the "clean" story - even after witnessing doping or seeing doping products in Armstrong's house - then you'll pay the price.

I mean, really - you believe that Armstrong raced clean all those years?

 

[zander1983]

How come the National Enquirer can publish heaps of false rubbish about celebrities week after week and yet most elect not to sue? Does that make it true? Think about it.

are you seriouosly comparing a seriously recieved book published around the world with the tabloids??????

 

[zander1983]

thumbs up for that. armstrong sent lemonds cycling business under after lemond decided to testify against him. someone with nothing to lose has to go up against lance. someone who isnt afraid to lose everything, because that's what will happen, they will lose everything to armstrongs heavies

 

[Ted B]

Here's why, in a nutshell ...

That's one reason. It's not easy to prove libel. Another reason stems from the fact that there is hardly a such thing as bad publicity, and ignoring something that will fade into obscurity without additional help is sometimes a better strategy.

I mean, really - you believe that Armstrong raced clean all those years?

I think I've said this twice. I'm of the opinion that he possibly, if not probably, did take performance enhancing substances at some point. It's an opinion that I can make about every rider going back to before Tom Simpson's time. But just because it's my opinion doesn't make it fact.

are you seriouosly comparing a seriously recieved book published around the world with the tabloids??????

I can't help but notice that a book that criticizes LA is "seriously received", Bassons and Simeoni are "magnificent", and you apply other superlatives to anything countrary to LA. You also have barely 40 posts to your credit, virtually all of them being whining about doping, with no other contributions to these boards.

I can't take you seriously any longer. I'm sorry.

 

[zander1983]

That's one reason. It's not easy to prove libel. Another reason stems from the fact that there is hardly a such thing as bad publicity, and ignoring something that will fade into obscurity without additional help is sometimes a better strategy.



I think I've said this twice. I'm of the opinion that he possibly, if not probably, did take performance enhancing substances at some point. It's an opinion that I can make about every rider going back to before Tom Simpson's time. But just because it's my opinion doesn't make it fact.

I can't help but notice that a book that criticizes LA is "seriously received", Bassons and Simeoni are "magnificent", and you apply other superlatives to anything countrary to LA. You also have barely 40 posts to your credit, virtually all of them being whining about doping, with no other contributions to these boards.

I can't take you seriously any longer. I'm sorry.

im not the only one applying superlatives to bassons. i'll fill you in on the story if you like. also go read the book, or at least some reviews. you've now said that he "possibly" doped. thats a start. you're making progress. as for not taking me seriously - why is that? maybe im too well informed regarding your hero?

 

[zander1983]

this aint catching on. for what its worth: Levi LeipHIGHmer

 

[easthwk]

This is sad. I am relatively new as an audience to the sport of cycling. I am checking out this forum for the first time thinking that I would find some informative articles. Instead I find many threads expressing their suspicion and their anger on doping. I am not naive about cyclists using performance enhancing drugs. But the majority of people here seems to think that all the top performers are doing some kind of doping. This is shocking. I am not sure about Contador. But the Schlek brothers? Is there anyone beyond suspicion? How can I enjoy the sport if I can not be certain that the performances are genuine. This is sad indeed.

 

[zander1983]

thats the reality im afraid. i reckon that fella that's last, 10 or so hours behind, is clean

 

[tonyzackery]

This is sad. I am relatively new as an audience to the sport of cycling. I am checking out this forum for the first time thinking that I would find some informative articles. Instead I find many threads expressing their suspicion and their anger on doping. I am not naive about cyclists using performance enhancing drugs. But the majority of people here seems to think that all the top performers are doing some kind of doping. This is shocking. I am not sure about Contador. But the Schlek brothers? Is there anyone beyond suspicion? How can I enjoy the sport if I can not be certain that the performances are genuine. This is sad indeed.

Suggestion: make sure you put on your wading boots and grow some thick skin when you come into these internet forums.

Let me go a little further to end your innocence: Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are fictitious entities. Sorry, but I had to be the one to pull the wool up from over your eyes.

WRT pro cycling, using enhancements to further one's natural performance have been around since 2 guys decided to race each other on bikes...don't be shocked...

 

[nonns]

thats the reality im afraid. i reckon that fella that's last, 10 or so hours behind, is clean

Nah doping. He's probably doping to just try and keep up and avoid being kicked out and having to ride the Continental Tour. (Big drop in earnings).

Look we just don't know. To silence the doping addicts. You might as well just beleive that they're all doping. Its as good as believing none are cos it levels the playing field.

 

[poulidor]

That's one reason. It's not easy to prove libel. Another reason stems from the fact that there is hardly a such thing as bad publicity, and ignoring something that will fade into obscurity without additional help is sometimes a better strategy.

Clearly that strategy failed with the 6 EPO samples.
France has the strongest libel laws that is the reason for many celbrities to come or live in Paris.
When l'Equipe published this

, Armstrong never sued. When Le Monde wrote about doping in FC Barcelona linked to Fuentes and Puerto Affair, FC Barcelona sued Le Monde and won their case.

Why didn't do the same?

 

[nonns]

No idea but i'll ya one thing it doesn't seem to have hurt him one jot suggesting thta he has done the right thing from a strategic point of view.

 

[leerobbs]

"Here's the thing" (Jimmypoop loves to point out the thing) Jiffypop or Jimmypoop, whichever, just cracks me up. But you have got to give it to him he has all the answers. He may not always be right...but he is never in doubt. Gotta love him...bless his little haten heart. He would pee all over himself if LA came back with a positive test. If however AC and AS came back positive after the final and LA did not test positive then LA would be declared the winner...then of course he would have to be put on suicide watch. That would effectively shut down this site. All the haters (as per Jimmypoop using this term "haters" makes one cool) would be on heavy medication. We love you Jiffypoop! Keep on keeping on.

 

[jimmypop]

"Here's the thing" (Jimmypoop loves to point out the thing) Jiffypop or Jimmypoop, whichever, just cracks me up. But you have got to give it to him he has all the answers. He may not always be right...but he is never in doubt. Gotta love him...bless his little haten heart. He would pee all over himself if LA came back with a positive test. If however AC and AS came back positive after the final and LA did not test positive then LA would be declared the winner...then of course he would have to be put on suicide watch. That would effectively shut down this site. All the haters (as per Jimmypoop using this term "haters" makes one cool) would be on heavy medication. We love you Jiffypoop! Keep on keeping on.

So what's your handle on DPF again? Begin with an 'A' and end with an 'I'?

 

[OAR8]

So what's your handle on DPF again? Begin with an 'A' and end with an 'I'?

Not sure that is him but it could be.

But it is clear to see who the "Big mouth is not welcome" (poulidor is???)

 

[jimmypop]

Not sure that is him but it could be.

But it is clear to see who the "Big mouth is not welcome" (poulidor is???)

Yeah, that's no secret.

 

[greg52]

This is sad. I am relatively new as an audience to the sport of cycling. I am checking out this forum for the first time thinking that I would find some informative articles. Instead I find many threads expressing their suspicion and their anger on doping. I am not naive about cyclists using performance enhancing drugs. But the majority of people here seems to think that all the top performers are doing some kind of doping. This is shocking. I am not sure about Contador. But the Schlek brothers? Is there anyone beyond suspicion? How can I enjoy the sport if I can not be certain that the performances are genuine. This is sad indeed.

Not everyone dopes, but a majority of the probably do. The Schleck bros. were very questionable last year.

If you don't think top riders dope, take a look at this chart I made of every overall Tour podium since 1996.

Key:

Red - Caught doping
Orange - Believed of be doping/inconclusive positive evidence/accusations
Green - Believed to be clean/no positive tests

1996- Riis, Ullrich, Virenque
1997- Ullrich, Virenque, Pantani
1998 - Pantani, Ullrich, Julich
1999 - Armstrong, Zuile, Escartin
2000 - Armstrong, Ullrich, Beloki
2001 - Armstrong, Ullrich, Beloki
2002 - Armstrong, Beloki, Rumsas
2003 - Armstrong, Ullrich, Vinokourov
2004 - Armstrong, Kloden, Basso
2005 - Armstrong, Basso, Ullrich
2006 - Landis, Pererio, Kloden
2007 - Contador, Evans, Leipheimer
2008 - Sastre, Evans, Kohl

You could make a very strong case that between 1996 and 2006, out of the 30 riders who finished on the overall podium, only 3 were clean.

 

[tonyzackery]

^^Interesting. There is dirt "out there" on Leipheimer though. Some US race in the late 90's, early 2000s had him dirty, but the dirt never stuck...someone will perhaps fill in the blanks...but I don't think he's "squeaky" clean...

 

[leerobbs]

You da man Jiffypoop.

 

[jimmypop]

You da man Jiffypoop.

You know it.

Yeah, Leipheimer has been attached to a positive in a U.S. race. It was years ago, I think, and was eventually shuffled away.

Anyone have the details on this?