|
|
Really?
Last Post 11/05/2013 09:10 AM by jacques anquetil. 47 Replies.
|
Sort:
|
|
 Prev Next |
You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
Keith Richards
Posts:781
 |
| 10/31/2013 03:23 PM |
|
CK, to me what is the same is the tired, "I only did it once, ten years ago" conveniently just outside of the statute of limitations. I don't believe he stopped ten years ago any more than I think Stuey did.
|
|
| -----
It is his word versus ours. We like our word. We like where we stand and we like our credibility."--Lance Armstrong. |
|
|
Oldfart
Posts:511
|
| 10/31/2013 05:15 PM |
|
| If Ryder only did it the one time or only for a short time period, why did he stop? Answer that one for me please. |
|
|
|
|
longslowdistance
Posts:2881
|
| 10/31/2013 06:13 PM |
|
| Pangs of conscience! (Har!) |
|
|
|
|
Orange Crush
Posts:4499
|
| 10/31/2013 08:43 PM |
|
Posted By Andy Eunson on 10/31/2013 05:15 PM
If Ryder only did it the one time or only for a short time period, why did he stop? Answer that one for me please.
I downed a full bottle of Jagermeister only once in my life. Maybe he didn't like the taste or the hangover? |
|
|
|
|
Ride On
Posts:537
|
| 11/01/2013 08:50 AM |
|
| He needs to play the get of jail free "Lance made me do it" card. Not my fault. |
|
|
|
|
Keith Richards
Posts:781
|
|
Cosmic Kid
Posts:4209
|
| 11/01/2013 10:43 AM |
|
@ KR - agreed. Amazing how they all manged to stop doping at the point iin time where, once they confessed, it is outside the statute of limitations.
But I will give Ryder props for coming forward on his own, as opposed to having been exposed and then "confessin'.
|
|
| Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
|
|
|
BikeCzar
Posts:53
|
| 11/01/2013 10:58 AM |
|
He didn't come forward on his own. He came forward after the chicken outed him and his buddies. The company he kept at the front of his notably exceptional Giro win says a lot about his use.
I find the relative silence and lack of outrage from the cycling circus over the "clean" team's practices deafening. They must be batting .500 or better on dirty riders past and present and with little to no consequence. A real clear double standard here. If this was a revelation about Armstrong or Ulrich or Pantani there would be 18 articles a day posted on each outlet about the depth of the corruption. Goose and gander.
|
|
|
|
|
Entheo
Posts:317
|
| 11/01/2013 11:25 AM |
|
BC, if i read your implication correctly, we're to be outraged because vaughters is trying to run a clean team and he happens to have some guys on the team who transgressed previously because it was accepted and/or encouraged and/or required by the management of teams they were previously on?
you lost me on that one. |
|
|
|
|
Cosmic Kid
Posts:4209
|
| 11/01/2013 11:56 AM |
|
Posted By Bike Czar on 11/01/2013 10:58 AM
He didn't come forward on his own. He came forward after the chicken outed him and his buddies.
Wrong.. Here is what happened, which was confirmed by CCES.
According to his team, the Canadian had already given the information of his past doping offences, which took place in 2003, to the anti-doping agencies from the USA and Canada before the statements in Rasmussen's autobiography, which is being published this week, made the press. |
|
| Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
|
|
|
BikeCzar
Posts:53
|
| 11/01/2013 12:05 PM |
|
"trying to", "happens to", "some guys", "transgressed previously", "teams they were previously on"
"zero tolerance"
Vaughters, Millar, VandeVelde, Danielson, Hesjadal, Zabriske, Dekker, Klier, Rasmussen, etc....
Please.
|
|
|
|
|
BikeCzar
Posts:53
|
| 11/01/2013 12:08 PM |
|
Ok. He came forward publicly after being outed. He came forward previously after being forced to testify in a grand jury.
He didn't volunteer anything. And even if he had, it doesn't make it any better for the North American riders who he/they cheated out of big contracts, sponsor dollars and Olympic appearances. |
|
|
|
|
Cosmic Kid
Posts:4209
|
| 11/01/2013 12:58 PM |
|
He testified before USADA and CCES. He was not "forced to testify" before a grand jury.
But please, don't let facts get in the way of your rant....carry on.
As to the rant itself, it seems pretty clear you don't udnerstand what Vaughters is trying to accomplish. He never said that his riders would be have clean pasts or never have doped. His goal was to give riders an environment where they could compete without the pressure of having to dope.
Now, if / when a Garmin rider comes up dirty while on the team, you can start ranting about the "clean team's practices, if you want.....
|
|
| Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
|
|
|
jrt1045
Posts:363
|
| 11/01/2013 02:08 PM |
|
CK
interesting point, what is Vaughters really trying to accomplish? It is what BikeCzar and others realize all to well - pointy sideburns and hipster glasses automatically make you an expert on dealing with doping in cycling even if you are elbows deep in the mess
JV is just as bad as the rest of them, he is in a position where he doles out facts as needed and throws folks under the bus when it doesn't fit his needs - which is funding his team and lining his pockets. One would be a fool to listen too closely to someone with so much at stake.
I think BZ is right, if JV knew all about it why did he wait until chicken outed his rider - who just so happened to win the Giro last year. And why do all his riders that do confess parse out "facts" that are so conveinient and self serving? Damage control, pure and simple - this is a PR job worthy of -7. The sport would be better without him IMHO.
Here's a little note from Paul Willerton over on Tilford's blog for a little bit of context. This is what Vaughters is all about:
http://stevetilford.com/2013/10/31/remorseful-ryder-hesjedal/
"Tilford touches on how frustrating that time period was. It’s all kind of surreal to me. My ride at Haro was handed over to… surprise: Chris Sheppard, Seamus McGrath, and then Michael Rasmussen.
Don’t let anyone tell you different. It’s nothing short of thievery. As they look for ways to justify doping in their own minds, the fading images of themselves on podiums that were truly a ‘joke’ can only become less and less significant." |
|
|
|
|
ElleSeven
Posts:48
|
| 11/01/2013 03:47 PM |
|
Something that’s interesting to me is that the cycling public seem to be very interested in, and fickle about, how confessions are made.
The infraction is sometimes “worse,” you might say, for being long concealed. Sometimes it’s “worse” for being revealed immediately afterward. Sometimes the impact, or its moral weight, is reduced by ceremonies of remorse. On other occasions, such displays of remorse are vilified as self-serving and cynical. Sometimes it’s the borderline personality disorder (Armstrong, Ricco, Vinokurov, etc.), arguably the one thing that the rider may not be responsible for, that worsens his crimes. Sometimes brutal honesty after protracted denial results in a sort of absolution (Millar, Vande Velde, etc.); yet similar reversals just as often result in infamy (Leipheimer, Jaksche, Rasmussen, etc.).
Is there a correct way to do it?
I mean, I suspect that Leipheimer is taking a bigger hit than some others because his character is judged to be, what, unmanly or dreary or something. While Basso, sobbing under judicial pressure, returns to the peloton not only richer but beatified. |
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
Active Forums 4.1
|
|
No articles match criteria.
|