Tour de France 2007 thread (1 Viewer)

[rettucs]

Pretty good interview with Kimmage on Off The Ball tonight.

that was a great interview.

that wankball Pat McQuaid is on Pat Kenny this morning. He better give him hell. Would be great if he gets Walsh on to ambush him.

McQuaid called Hamilton and Landis 'scumbags' in an interview he gave last night. This is the same cunt whose taking Paul Kimmage to court for defamation.

 

[CinnamonBoy]

that was a great interview.

that wankball Pat McQuaid is on Pat Kenny this morning. He better give him hell. Would be great if he gets Walsh on to ambush him.

McQuaid called Hamilton and Landis 'scumbags' in an interview he gave last night. This is the same cunt whose taking Paul Kimmage to court for defamation.

I don't think he will, unfortunately. Listened to Walsh on his show last week and Kenny didn't seem to grasp the whole situation at all well.

McQuaid deserves to die, quite frankly. He's an utter cunt of a man.

 

[rettucs]

The Kimmage fund has gone up 4 grand in the last 24 hours.

WOW

 

[rettucs]

I don't think he will, unfortunately. Listened to Walsh on his show last week and Kenny didn't seem to grasp the whole situation at all well.

McQuaid deserves to die, quite frankly. He's an utter cunt of a man.

Kenny did reasonably well. He asked good questions but didn't know enough to pick holes in McQuaids answers.

I contacted RTE to let them have Shane Stokes on to try and pick apart the answers. They did that last week with one of Lance's lawyers and did so excellently well. Heres hoping.

 

[BonsaiSuperstar]

lads - cus of all da drugs, is it possible to know who is actually a good cyclist?
Like was Armstrong a good rider and may have won a lot of races anyway (TdF)?
Or are the lines blurred for all that era etc, that we dont know anyones level?

 

[rettucs]

lads - cus of all da drugs, is it possible to know who is actually a good cyclist?
Like was Armstrong a good rider and may have won a lot of races anyway (TdF)?
Or are the lines blurred for all that era etc, that we dont know anyones level?

They were all good. Some were good in disciplines they shouldn't have been good at though. Armstrong pre-dope and pre-cancer finished 36th in the tour. Its generally acknowledged that he had the attributes to be a top-class 1-day classics rider, but not a grand tour rider. He didn't have great climbing ability until he acquired the extra horsepower.

In my view the most naturally talented of that bunch was Jan Ullrich. The man was a savage on the bike.

But then, as you said, the lines are so blurred its hard to know where talent ends and drugs take over.

There is also the likelihood that someone with even more talent than the guys we know about, turned away from the sport. I'm thinking the likes of Mark Scanlon here, but we'll never know how much he could have won.

 

[magicbastarder]

armstrong's improvement was also put down to him shedding weight as a result of the cancer; given he appears to have been on the drugs before and after the cancer, this probably did help.

 

[rettucs]

armstrong's improvement was also put down to him shedding weight as a result of the cancer; given he appears to have been on the drugs before and after the cancer, this probably did help.

theres a school of thought suggesting the drugs caused the cancer.

see the shit that came out today about him blackmailing John Kerry to get Obama to appear at a Livestrong conference?

It just goes on and on.

 

[oh shit]

I don't think the theory is that the drugs caused the cancer. testicular cancer is sadly common in young men. but it is almost certain that the cocktail of cortisol, HGH and testosterone caused the incredibly fast spread of it to his brain and lungs.

I don't think it's possible to speculate on who would have won a clean race. Some would have turned away as scutter says. Others who did ride would have behaved differently had they been in with a chance. there are calculations and gambles and mistakes that decide bike races, the doping elite completely warped all those calculations... speculation is therefore pointless, i think.

 

[CinnamonBoy]

I don't think it's possible to speculate on who would have won a clean race. Some would have turned away as scutter says. Others who did ride would have behaved differently had they been in with a chance. there are calculations and gambles and mistakes that decide bike races, the doping elite completely warped all those calculations... speculation is therefore pointless, i think.

Reading The Secret Race at the moment and was surprised to see that Bassons actually had a better VO2 max than Armstrong. Makes me wish he'd taken a load of drugs in 2000 and gone to win the Tour and then quit and told everyone how he'd done it, just to prove a point like.

I agree there's too many variables to speculate on who would have won etc. I also hate when people say they were all it so the results would've been the same, or, even worse, just let them take what they want. We all know the reasons why those attitudes are wrong at this stage. I'm also fascinated by the odd cases, like say Evgeni Berzin....I doubt he gave up doping but it seemed to just not work for him anymore after he'd won the Giro. Seemed to effect his health or something.

 

[rettucs]

I agree there's too many variables to speculate on who would have won etc. I also hate when people say they were all it so the results would've been the same, or, even worse, just let them take what they want. We all know the reasons why those attitudes are wrong at this stage. I'm also fascinated by the odd cases, like say Evgeni Berzin....I doubt he gave up doping but it seemed to just not work for him anymore after he'd won the Giro. Seemed to effect his health or something.

One thing thats very apparent from Hamilton's book is how differently drugs affect different people.

And, when young riders were being scouted, or were being considered for the 'inner-circle' (non panigua brigade), one of the major things they were being judged on was how low their current haematocrit level was while panigua. If, say, a young lad was performing well with a Haematocrit level of 40, then imagine the improvement if given the dope to push him just below the 50% threshold. So physiology was a huge part. You could have been the most naturally talented rider in the world, but if you didn't have that capacity for improvement within what the drugs tested looked for, you were fucked.

And who brought in the 50% haematocrit level? Yep, those pricks in the UCI.

 

[rettucs]

I don't think the theory is that the drugs caused the cancer.

I definitely heard it said somewhere that the drugs may have caused the cancer.

But I don't know the full context of the remark. Maybe wishful thinking more than anything else.

 

[oh shit]

Maybe they are carcinogenic too, I mean anything that instructs the body to artificially produce new cells (HGH) will inevitably be a cancer risk. But it's irrefutable that the cancer, once formed, would have been as stimulated by the medicine to grow at the same boosted rate as his body.

 

[IFF]

I definitely heard it said somewhere that the drugs may have caused the cancer.

But I don't know the full context of the remark. Maybe wishful thinking more than anything else.

in the book "bad blood" by jeremy whittle, whittle refers back to an interview in 1996 when he asks Armstrong "was there anything in your past that made you susceptible to it". Armstrongs response was a growl that "other people have said that and it pisses him off".
Whittle only realised what armstrong meant by his response when researching at a few years later" links made by some between testicular cancer and doping"

 

[nuke terrorist]

i haven't looked at the text of the USADA report so i'm wondering how many of the people who gave evidence continued to side with the 'I saw nothing' story ? did the likes of Livingston or Horner give evidence ? and how many of those questioned have been identified ?

the worst side of this was the amount of bullying applied to lads to dope (like Zabriske and Vandevelde) who resisted - really sickening.

 

[Unicron]

There was a brilliant interview on off the ball last night with a guy who rode in 92 with Lance, he didn't take up cycling till he was 22 in 1990 and then went to the olympics just 2 years later so obviously he was just a super natural talent. Quit a few years later when he realised he could even be competative in the tour of Meixico clean.

 

[rettucs]

i haven't looked at the text of the USADA report so i'm wondering how many of the people who gave evidence continued to side with the 'I saw nothing' story ? did the likes of Livingston or Horner give evidence ? and how many of those questioned have been identified ?

the worst side of this was the amount of bullying applied to lads to dope (like Zabriske and Vandevelde) who resisted - really sickening.

Livingston didn't give evidence to USADA. Its not clear whether he gave any to the federal investigation before that. Remember, the feds gave nothing to USADA. They had to get separate testimony for their investigation. Livingston is name-checked in the report by Hamilton, but no indication is given as to whether he was approached. In the Secret Race, Dan Coyle mentions contacting him and receiving no response. Livingston runs a fitness/coaching business that operates out of the same building as Mellow Johnnys, probably bankrolled by Lance. So its no surprise he didn't talk.

Kirsten Armstrong is another notable omission. There have been noises in the past couple of weeks that she may have had to sign non-disclosure stuff as part of her divorce settlement with Lance.

And there is no mention whatsoever of Chris Horner. In a way I'm glad that someone this obvious was left out, and heres why. I've had arguments with people in the past few days who have argued that the likes of Danielson, Zabriske, Van de Velde, only gave evidence because they negotiated a reduced ban. And while there may be an element of truth to that, its not the main reason in my view. The main reason these guys spoke up is because of Jonathan Vaughters. Knowing they had a fully supportive DS behind them and that their livelihood wouldn't be ruined by talking, they were free to voluntarily come forward. But they did not do so to save their own skins, or for any other self-serving reason. The argument that they only spoke because it meant a 6-month ban rather than a 2-year ban is bullshit because they could have just did what Horner did. Thats say nothing and get no ban. And also, Hincapie and Barry retired. What the hell difference is a 6-month from a 2-year ban to them?

I haven't read the full report. The 1200 page version. I have read the 202 page version and I recommend spending some time with it. It leaves you with little doubt about anything that Armstrong is being accused of.

 

[rettucs]

There was a brilliant interview on off the ball last night with a guy who rode in 92 with Lance, he didn't take up cycling till he was 22 in 1990 and then went to the olympics just 2 years later so obviously he was just a super natural talent. Quit a few years later when he realised he could even be competative in the tour of Meixico clean.

Scott Mercier? Off the Ball have been great in the coverage they've been giving this. Their interview with Kimmage the other night was very good.

72 and a half grand in the Kimmage fund now. Thats almost 10 grand in the past 3 days. Fantastic.

 

[Unicron]

Scott Mercier?

That's the one. I meant to say "couldn't even be competative".

The interview:

[sc]http://soundcloud.com/off-the-ball/scott-mercier-former-team-mate[/sc]

 

[magicbastarder]

http://www.facebook.com/greglemond/posts/10151127372613494