Request to investigate L.A. !

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

oh, and Lim, I respect your opinion. I was not saying what you asserted was BS, just the point you raised on Riis.

Spin. All it is.

You win as big and as often as CSC, enjoy great prizemoney and bonuses, ofcourse everyone is cheery happy.

Just who was "amigo de Birillo"?

If Riis was anti-doping, he would have confirmed if it was the elder Schleck, or Giovanni Lombardi. It could have been Mazzoleni.

But if he was anti-doping on CSC, you can be bet two things would have transpired. He WOULD NOT have paid Basso out his contract. Why did Riis pay Basso out?

He would have demanded a DNA sample from Schleck and Lombardi, to ensure that they were not "amigo de birillo". The Dutch media had mail on amigo being Frank Schleck.



................and Giovanni Lombardi completed all three GT's in 2006, age 34.
Only the 13th rider to do so, in cycling history.

................and Giovanni Lombardi completed all three GT's in 2006, age 34.
Only the 13th rider to do so, in cycling history.
interesting there was a short uphill tt, might have been a long prologue, and lombardi was in the top 30% of the field. Ridiculous result.

And you have guys like Jans Koerts who goes on Dutch tv and says, "if you dont wanna take doping, dont become a pro".

If you try and distill doping down to a black and white scenario of who is moral and who is not,who is right and who is wrong, you are missing the point.
The basis all comes down to money and power. There has been what I would deem a conspiracy the past few years to undermine the "Old Essence" of cycling.
It seems to be a systematic progressive attempt to weed out certain elements or individuals from the cycling community.
I know deals are made in an attempt to achieve whatever end is desired.
Exactly what is the desired end result , escapes me.
Compromises and deals will continue to be made in what seems a chaotic and non-logical mess.
The riders are just parts in a much larger corrupt machine. Some are just bigger parts than others are.
At worst sponsors will continue to drop out and pro cycling will sink even lower, but at least it gives us something to debate about.

"They all dope, cowblood, cowblood, cowblood"!
Sorry, Flyer had control of my mind for a second or so. :D

but Landis et al cant whinge.

Landis signs a big endorsement deal with Smith and Nephew, gets his story placed in the NYTimes weekend mag, and sells out to the corporate shill.

Smith and Nephew second biggest medical products firm, makes prosthetics. He said he needed a hip replacement, and had necro whatever, dying of the hip/femur ball.

Nothing of the sort, he had a hip resurfacing. Puts his hand out for the dollars, and creates this Armstrong narrative.

So, when he whinges about conspiracies, and corporate interests, and the riders get going over, it is BS. He was a willing participant. He wanted to get rich off the back of the corporate sector.

Nothing of the sort, he had a hip resurfacing. Puts his hand out for the dollars, and creates this Armstrong narrative.

The procedure he had doesn't just involve a resurfacing, there are prosthetics as well, just not as extensive as with a total hip replacement.

See:
http://www.birminghamhipresurfacing.com/1/19/

If you try and distill doping down to a black and white scenario of who is moral and who is not,who is right and who is wrong, you are missing the point.
The basis all comes down to money and power. There has been what I would deem a conspiracy the past few years to undermine the "Old Essence" of cycling.
It seems to be a systematic progressive attempt to weed out certain elements or individuals from the cycling community.
I know deals are made in an attempt to achieve whatever end is desired.
Exactly what is the desired end result , escapes me.
Compromises and deals will continue to be made in what seems a chaotic and non-logical mess.
The riders are just parts in a much larger corrupt machine. Some are just bigger parts than others are.
At worst sponsors will continue to drop out and pro cycling will sink even lower, but at least it gives us something to debate about.

"They all dope, cowblood, cowblood, cowblood"!
Sorry, Flyer had control of my mind for a second or so. :D

I agree with the views that you express here.

The analysis that you have put forward is correct - there does seem to be a duality operating within the sport.

Part one - consists of teams/riders who do not dope.
Part two - is split in to two camps : both camps dope, but only one camp is offered up as a sacrifice when the heats comes on and the other camp are allowed flourish unhindered.

Underpinning all of this is the UCI - who set the tone and the parameters in which both camps operate.

The sport continues to die by a thousand cuts..........while McQuaid et al, refuse to tackle camp two and it's delinquent half.

Lim, I have had discussions with others that have more knowledge than I about cycling that hold the same views.
They also cannot decipher the reasoning behind decisions that have been made, but the pattern is there.
I suspect if we had all the facts someone would have to kills us.

Lim, I have had discussions with others that have more knowledge than I about cycling that hold the same views.
They also cannot decipher the reasoning behind decisions that have been made, but the pattern is there.
I suspect if we had all the facts someone would have to kills us.
Lemond's suit against Trek says that Armstrong paid $500K to the UCI for his backdated TUE in 1999. We can only guess what the price for the Vrijman sham must have been.

Lemond's suit against Trek says that Armstrong paid $500K to the UCI for his backdated TUE in 1999. We can only guess what the price for the Vrijman sham must have been.
Does it give any information to back this claim up?

Does it give any information to back this claim up?

Nope, it was allegedly told to him by Julien DeVriese.

Nope, it was allegedly told to him by Julien DeVriese.
Isn't that the mechanic who the actovegin was supposedly for as well? A claim he later denied in one of Walsh's books?

Funny, they do it!

http://www.investigatelance.org/homeokay, I actually spent a few minutes going through the site (cos it's Friday afternoon and I don't feel like working ssshhhh), and I'd put money on Decanio being behind it. He tried to tone it down, but the same phrasing as on u13 is all over the place.

In mitigation, Riis did admit, in 2007, that he doped in the 1996.

I know that people closer to the sport (than I am) have said that Riis and the others who did admit it, made their admissions because they had little or no choice.


Despite this, I have to admit that I find Riis to be a very intriguiging character.
He's goes to great lengths to extol how his teams train harder, bond better,
dedicate every minute of their existence to the team performance.
It may all be bluster of course - but fascinating nonetheless.For Armstrong is was gear selection. Like Picaso, many have followed in the same genre but no one can outdo the master.

................and Giovanni Lombardi completed all three GT's in 2006, age 34.
Only the 13th rider to do so, in cycling history.He is a doper....anyone know you can't win all three without "it"

He is a doper....anyone know you can't win all three without "it"


I said Lombardi completed 3 GT's in the same year.

I didn't say Lombardi won 3 GT's in the same year.