![]() |
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
|
|||||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#31 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,125
|
All the presidents in the world, all the corporate businesses in the world, most professional athletes................want more names! That's society....interesting and disturbing huh! Can't change it...........
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 860
|
For someone who cries so much about personal attacks and ad hominum attacks Flyer sure does include a lot in his posts...along with the lies and half truths. I guess as the biggest coward on this forum we can't expect any more from him!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Registered User
|
As someone new to cycling, I have gained much inspiration from and respect for the man who has won the Tour de France 6 times for the past 6 years. I can only imagine the many more people whom he has inspired with his life's victories. As a newby to cycling I would be really disapointed to find out that his story was half true. I would be even more disapointed to learn that there is compelling evidence that he has been doping and deceiving his fans all this time. I don't want to believe but at the same time I don't want to be naive.
So, could someone please show me the proof? And if there is none, please allow me to continue to admire and respect the man for whom I believe him to be. Thanks, Daviie |
|
|
|
|
|
#36 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 648
|
Quote:
His credentials are good. The article says he's good at detecting drugs he knows about, not so good at staying ahead of new ones. In essence, he says some athletes may be doping and he woudn't be able to tell. There is a difference of opinion between him and WADA as to whether current testing methods can accurately detect HGH, etc. He doesn't say he thinks everyone is doping; he simply believes there are those who do, and that testing methods need to be improved. I agree with him. What I do not agree with is your suggestion that there needs to be a presumption of guilt imposed upon the athletes. You are basically saying that because a respected sports physician opines that drug testing is not foolproof, we must presume that all athletes (especially the successful ones you happen to dislike ) must necessarily be on the juice. Sorry, but the article simply confirms that there is a dispute as to the efficacy and reliability of sports drug testing. Forgive me if I cannot stifle a yawn. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#37 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 860
|
Quote:
Wow, the coward once again didn't respond to what I said, merely reposted a link, tried to rip on me about wanting to try track riding and said nothing. Step up to the challenge or would you rather keep proving what a coward you are? I think we all know the answer to that one! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#41 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 860
|
Quote:
Wow, I could not have said it better myself! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 860
|
No matter how many times I call you out to take up a challenge, to answer a question directly, to show actual proof, to actually respond directly to what I have written you keep producing reposts filled with a fact or two, a lot of lies, and half-truths, and personal accusations and attacks. You are a joke, nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#45 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 648
|
Quote:
And yours is apparently based on asking questions for which you imply you know the answer, yet refuse to provide a shred of evidence other than more questions. You're inquisitive, but not particularly compelling. |
|
|
|
|