Right, so I take the view that everyone (more or less) is doping, as all evidence suggests. You take the view that the one rider that can thrash the pants off everyone else (even when we know now that they were all doping), is the only clean rider. And you say that I am showing a lack of intelligence. Religious beliefs like yours are always the most ridiculous.House said:
ndbiker said:
You must be happy that your Aussie boy was doped to the gills and pulled off another CSC trouncing of the field. When the tables are turned, now what will you say? Stuey was clean? He was gonna be Basso's roomie at teh Tour de france last year? CSC is one of the biggest doper teams in the peloton. Why should anyone believe that O'Grady was clean, pulling away solo against Flecha in the chase group and Boonen in the peloton? Unbelievable to many. Unpredicted by all, like FLanders.patch70 said:
Sorry but I don't "trumpet the relative probity of the French labs" I take into account the public issues of a lab. I don't care what country the lab is from, I care about whether it's doing it's job right. I wouldn't expect you to know the difference since you are too busy with your own xenophobia, proven on this forum and the one where you get suspended all the time.thunder said:
You know, you'd be much, much happier if you just stopped denying what is painfully obvious - like his competitors, Armstrong was a doper. Doped most of his career. Started at Motorola. Continued through USPS/Disco. Won 7 Tours while doping. No big shame, since it's clear that his main competitors like Basso, Ullrich, etc were doping as well.House said:
Where did I say anything in this thread about whether Armstrong doped or not? I simply called someone out for calling one person a bigot while ignoring another making the same type of comments. I guess some people just can't let their obsession go long enough to read what is actually written.Leafer said:
thunder said:
bobke said:
While Bobke is obviously on the same level of obsession and intelligence as people like patch, WBT, etc. and thus generally only good for a laugh, I think the point he was making in his own way was that many claim that clean riders can't beat doped riders, thus a winner of a race like this must be doped. Of course then we have people trumpeting the CSC and T-Mobile doping programs...and usually they are the same people who say that a clean rider can't beat doped riders. So, according to them, Stuey must be doped because he won, but has to be clean because he rides for CSC. Then you can add the idea that the peloton is now clean, but those same individuals don't believe that. In other words Stuey winning presents quite the conundrum for those people who say these things.tcklyde said:
Neil? Lance?jhuskey said:
While it’s true that failing a drug test proves something significant, the converse is not true: never having failed a drug test doesn’t really mean very much. Up to the point that Millar was busted with empty dope vials, he had never failed a drug test, neither had the Festina squad, neither had Rumsas until they started targeting him after discovering a truckload of dope in his wife’s car, neither had the guys whose hotels were raided at the 2004(?) Giro, neither had Ullrich or the other OP drug cheats whose 200 bags of blood were found at Fuentes’ dope lab. Recent history is replete with so many examples of cyclists who never failed a drug test, only to be busted through other means, that never having failed a drug test doesn’t really mean a lot. I have no idea if O’Grady is a doper or not. But I can’t agree with the notion that it’s preposterous for someone to think he might be, simply because he never failed a drug test. There are too many counter examples for this to be a tenable position in my opinion. Until cycling cleans up it’s act, misplaced suspicion will be another unfortunate consequence for the cyclists who are clean.limerickman said:
