New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Andreu Outs Self

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 
post #2 of 24
I saw that... Not very good for Armstrong's oft-stated conviction that the Posties and Discovery teams always did everything "by the book" and that their secret was in the training.
post #3 of 24
Frankie did what he had to do.
post #4 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by carbonissimo View Post
Frankie did what he had to do.
Vampires must drink blood or die.

A very sick sport, I'm pretty much over being a cycling fan.
post #5 of 24
Carbo said "It will go on without you"

Yes, the U.S. fan base will continue to grow, I'm sure. Big money sponsors lining up. Huge competition for rights to televise world cup, world championships. I can see it already!
post #6 of 24
What I want to know is how can someone annonymously admit he took drugs? If he stays annonymous, he's not really admitting anything, is he?
post #7 of 24
I'm feeling pretty much done as a fan too. I hope the sport can astonish me with a recovery but I'm not holding my breath.
post #8 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post
What I want to know is how can someone annonymously admit he took drugs? If he stays annonymous, he's not really admitting anything, is he?
He's admitting that the Posties -- which Armstrong always maintained were clean and did everything by the book -- weren't all that clean after all. I'm not sure if Andreu and Mr. Anonymous were ever tested, but it seems likely that at some point they were. They obviously passed (at least I never heard anything about Andreu being suspended), so it's another statement of "testing clean doesn't really mean anything", which has always been Armstrong's chief defense (that he's always tested clean).

Note: I don't hate Armstrong by any stretch, but the events of the previous couple months have really been an eye-opener as to how rampant drug use is amoungst the pro peleton.
post #9 of 24
Doesn't surprise me about Frankie. Maybe this is part of the reason he was fried from Toyota-United over the summer. I love how he was saying Lance took EPO earlier and now he says he never talked to Lance about the issue ever. I think he is the one with the problem.
post #10 of 24
Thread Starter 

back to floyd for a minute

Lim has this to say on the Saris/CycleOps site:

"water."

http://www.cycle-ops.com/t-floydlandis.aspx
post #11 of 24
Lim is explaining how Floyd could have won that stage in the manner he did. But the assumption is that Floyd trained clean and we do no know that. His explanation doesn't address the failed tests.
post #12 of 24
Thread Starter 
well, no, nothing is explained regarding the tests; besides which, Lim probably wouldn't qualify as an objective observer.

i want to believe he did it clean; i still replay stage 17 and get all tingly. we all want to believe in the power of grit, perserverance...character. recent events, though, certainly make it harder to believe that there's no way he cheated.

ullrich's home was raided by german authorities yesterday, by the way, while he's on his honeymoon.
post #13 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by jstraw View Post
Lim is explaining how Floyd could have won that stage in the manner he did. But the assumption is that Floyd trained clean and we do no know that. His explanation doesn't address the failed tests.
If he had trained dirty, wouldn't other tests have come back positive? The only positive he got was on satge 17 to Testosterone ratio levels.

You're right, this justification of Floyd's ability to pull off his performance on stage 17 doesn't, in any way, explain the T levels.
post #14 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan View Post
ullrich's home was raided by german authorities yesterday, by the way, while he's on his honeymoon.
That's just wrong!: I hope he goes after them for B&E! I like Jan, although I think they pretty much caught him red handed, but this kind of stuff just isn't right.
post #15 of 24
Thread Starter 
the new york times has a couple reporters, particularly juliet macur, all over this stuff but i don't post links because you have to register. (still, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/sp...tml?ref=sports)

it's kinda funny, though, sometimes, watching pound (whose logic defies logic) and lance trade volleys.

excerpts from today's:

Lance Armstrong said yesterday that he never pushed teammates to use performance-enhancing drugs and did not know they had done so. Instead, he said, there was a simple reason for his success.
“Some of us are born with 4 cylinders, and some of us are born with 12,” he said in a telephone interview from Austin, Tex.
He added that his miraculous recovery from cancer made him mentally tougher than his opponents, who might have felt that they needed to dope to succeed.

*************************************

Dick Pound, chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency, said yesterday that he applauded the two riders for coming forward and that their revelations hurt Armstrong’s reputation.
“They were on the same team, weren’t they?” Pound said in a telephone interview. “I think you have to draw one conclusion from that. It certainly indicates that there were a whole bunch of people around him using drugs. It doesn’t prove that he did anything, but you look all around him and everyone else is doing it, so what should you think?”
Armstrong said he expected comments like that from Pound, who he called “kind of a blowhard.”
post #16 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan View Post
Dick Pound, chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency, said yesterday that he applauded the two riders for coming forward and that their revelations hurt Armstrong’s reputation.
“They were on the same team, weren’t they?” Pound said in a telephone interview. “I think you have to draw one conclusion from that. It certainly indicates that there were a whole bunch of people around him using drugs. It doesn’t prove that he did anything, but you look all around him and everyone else is doing it, so what should you think?”
Armstrong said he expected comments like that from Pound, who he called “kind of a blowhard.”
Too funny! Then maybe this means Pound should be accused of the same... umm... problems as Marv Albert. :
post #17 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan View Post
the new york times has a couple reporters, particularly juliet macur, all over this stuff but i don't post links because you have to register. (still, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/sp...tml?ref=sports)

it's kinda funny, though, sometimes, watching pound (whose logic defies logic) and lance trade volleys.

excerpts from today's:

Lance Armstrong said yesterday that he never pushed teammates to use performance-enhancing drugs and did not know they had done so. Instead, he said, there was a simple reason for his success.
“Some of us are born with 4 cylinders, and some of us are born with 12,” he said in a telephone interview from Austin, Tex.
He added that his miraculous recovery from cancer made him mentally tougher than his opponents, who might have felt that they needed to dope to succeed.

*************************************

Dick Pound, chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency, said yesterday that he applauded the two riders for coming forward and that their revelations hurt Armstrong’s reputation.
“They were on the same team, weren’t they?” Pound said in a telephone interview. “I think you have to draw one conclusion from that. It certainly indicates that there were a whole bunch of people around him using drugs. It doesn’t prove that he did anything, but you look all around him and everyone else is doing it, so what should you think?”
Armstrong said he expected comments like that from Pound, who he called “kind of a blowhard.”
Senator Pat Geary: Mr. Cici, was there always a buffer involved?
Willi Cici: A what?
Senator Pat Geary: A buffer. Someone in between you and your possible superiors who passed on to you the actual order to kill someone.
Willi Cici: Oh yeah, a buffer. The family had a lot of buffers!
post #18 of 24
I've only read the NY Times coverage of this and it is appallingly bad journalism. The "breaking news" was on the front page (A1) I think -- screaming headline "ARMSTRONG TEAMMATES ADMIT DOPING" or some such. You had to read to the continuation, buried inside the C section to find Armstrong's denial. That plus the obligatory sour grapes quote from Greg LeMond, plus their hatchet jobs on Landis and Hamilton ... basically it's guilty until proven innocent with the NYT on cyclists. Very little if any play is given to the way stories leak out of WADA, links between race organizers and French press etc. (And don't get me started on their coverage of the Duke lacrosse "scandal".)

This is a story about Andreu - they've got nothing but smear and innuendo on Armstrong.

And btw - if "everyone was doping" and "Armstrong was doping too but hasn't been caught" well then guess what? Armstrong kicked butt on a level field. Stale samples, leaks without rebuttals, hazy hearsay, and guilt by association do not change the fact that he dominated.
post #19 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ts01 View Post
I've only read the NY Times coverage of this and it is appallingly bad journalism... basically it's guilty until proven innocent with the NYT on cyclists.
agreed.

pretty cheap.
post #20 of 24
there was an interesting documentary about Greg LaMonde on ESPN awhile back where he eluded to cyclists taking performance enhancers. He was commenting on how hard it was for him to make a comeback after his shooting accident and that in the time he took to recuperate cyclists started accomplishing crazy feats that were near impossible via training alone. He didn't name names, which was classy, but he definitely insinuated that the sport changed around the time he got shot.
post #21 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dookey67 View Post
Greg LaMonde...classy...
and in the same paragraph.
post #22 of 24
I agree with all the criticisms of the poor journalism, the usual crap from Lemond, the innuendo, etc.

That said, it is true that one can conceive a plan for Armstrong that involved him riding clean and his teammates all doping and where Armstrong was "buffered" from direct connection to scheme.

I'm not saying that I think or do not think that happened. I'm just saying a clean team leader can benefit from a doped team in a big way. A strong team can save the leader for when it really counts and can protect him from big efforts on the day-in, day-out of the tour.
post #23 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by jstraw View Post
I'm just saying a clean team leader can benefit from a doped team in a big way. A strong team can save the leader for when it really counts and can protect him from big efforts on the day-in, day-out of the tour.
Excellent point. There is no way Lance could have achieved his level of success without his teamates. It may be that the only cheating he did was on his wife.
post #24 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by jstraw View Post
That said, it is true that one can conceive a plan for Armstrong that involved him riding clean and his teammates all doping and where Armstrong was "buffered" from direct connection to scheme.
Unfortunately that's an increasingly successful strategy in politics. No hijack intended, but see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability .

On the other hand while it's conceivable in bike racing, it's a much bigger stretch than in politics. The teams reshuffle -- no lifelong party affiliation -- there's not the same reward for loyalty. Only in hindsight can you see the long stretch of Postal dominance and financial rewards. In 1999, who knew? And who could put it together and make it pay off?

Here's my bottom line on this week's doping "scandal" - Frankie's wife thinks Armstrong is a jerk. Frankie stands by his girl and comes clean on his own doping. Armstrong may well be a jerk but none of this has anything to do with how well he rode a bike and led his team.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Cycling