petatodd

About the first honest thing he's done in this whole sordid episode.

What a stunning day. The fat lady, actually Fat Pat, has sung and the septic never won a tour. If only I could get those 8 3 week periods in July back...yes, I include 2006 when Puerto broke.

Loose's? or just plain loses? Loser

What rubbish. After Festina? Dream on. See #25 above.

Punchy do you really wonder that? Shame on you

Sore loser? Your guy got done for being a dopehead cheating scumbag and your'e taking your ball and leaving?

Yes UCI can take it to CAS. Big Tex can't.

He lost the right to take it to the CAS in August when he walked away....

The early celebration:

Talk about hedging your bets to be able to argue another day. If they don't ratify he never cheated but paid them off making everything in the USADA report fiction. If they ratify USADA findings then everyone except big Tex is a liar and a fraud. At least you are consistent in your absolute desire to be wrong on the biggest cheat in sporting history. http://www.observer-...012_steigerwald More impressive than Armstrong’s cycling, his ability to cheat Lance Armstrong didn’t lose all of his endorsements. He just lost most of the big ones like Nike that paid him millions of dollars until he ran out of plausible ways to deny being a major PED user. None other than Victor Conte, the founder of BALCO, the steroid distributor to the stars, who did a stretch in federal prison not too long ago, had this to say: “Lance Armstrong certainly didn’t invent the drug culture that exists at the elite level of sport, but he may have been the very best to ever play the cat-and-mouse game of doping. Lance is simply one of the many athletes involved in the drug culture that has existed for over five decades in Olympic and professional sport.” So, as great as Armstrong was at riding a bike really fast for a really long time, that was his second most impressive talent. His most impressive talent was his ability to cheat in order to go faster longer than anybody else. Armstrong lost millions of dollars in endorsements when he decided to stop fighting the doping charges, but he has made over $100 million from them already. Moral question: Should those companies, who were led to believe that Armstrong was a squeaky clean representative for their product or company, be entitled to a refund? People like Armstrong are why I decided several years ago to take a “guilty until proven innocent” approach to any elite-level, superstar athlete whose name is associated in any way with the use of performance enhancing drugs. If I were on the jury during a lawsuit by an endorser looking for a refund, I wouldn’t take that stance. I’ve gotten myself in trouble for making my guilty presumptions out loud, but I’ve been right too many times to change my approach and I could really offend you if I gave you my list of people I presume to be guilty. I presumed Armstrong’s guilt several years ago. That was pretty mean of me when he was going through his epic and successful battle with cancer, but I just never bought into the idea that so many people could be telling so many lies about him. And, of course, there were those seven Tour de France championships. By the way, I couldn’t care less if Armstrong injected gasoline into his veins to give himself an edge. It’s his body and I wouldn’t watch the Tour de France if the finish line was my driveway. Just don’t insult my intelligence by telling me that you’re doing it all by just outworking everybody else.

Ja, and all his idiot fanboys will rush out and buy it. Why not just send him the cash and avoid having to read his sewerage being spilled out into the world?

How else is he going to seek redemption? Worked for Hansie...

From the article: "Who are you cheating? Definitely not the other competitors as we now see they were doing the same. That's why I say it was people being pushed in a direction that was not right and now looking back a bunch of mistakes [were made] that just bring you in deeper until it's normal. Or so they all believed. Yes there were people who never did anything, like myself. But how hard is it to be one person to take on an entire system. I decided to carry on and not care what others did. I won what I could when I could but a lot of the time I was on the receiving end." Not sure there is clarity in his thought process here. On the one hand he's saying everyone did it, mistakes were made. Then next sentence he says he didn't make those mistakes. This is the problem with the omerta. Surely he could just condemn it as a non user, clean rider himself? And then in true Robbie style, "I don't give a fark what anyone thinks, I'm the hero cos I made it in Europe!"

Interesting post eddy. After being a fervent ashiest for so long I reckon he'll find the Lord soon.

I'm the victim of a witch hunt and I've had no due process and I won the tour de France 7 times and thanks for giving me all those millions (and under his breath, suckers)

Why do you think big Tex took his budgie smuggler and went to Triathlon?

You are seriously challenged, aren't you? And now we know why

His advice might be OK but his opinions need work.

Why stick to the facts they get in the way of one's long held opinion?

The lie detector test "offer" is a crock on portaloo contents on race day morning. Herman stated "me might" and all of a sudden he volunteered? The good guys are the guys who never fell under the spell of big Tex and his fanboy Phil Liggett, the guys who never bought the yellow cock ring, the guys who didn't fall for the whole charity fund raiser and the guys who thought the 28 black shirt rubbish was a cheap stunt. And the good guys remain those who love cycling as a sport, not because big Tex "put it where it is today" as so many of the bad guys seem to pontificate. Guys like Greg LeMond and a few on these boards. And it's easy to be the good guy when, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, guys are still trying to convince us that big Tex is the good guy.

3rd question first: Personally I think it's fine to write an autobiography about one's experiences, people will buy it if the subject interests them. It's the person who buys the book who needs to look at himself. The author has. I bought the secret race on my kindle but haven't read past the first chapter yet. Having read the USADA document in detail I'm not sure I will finish the book in a hurry as it only confirms what I have suspected for 13 years. Will I rush to a book signing or speech by any of these guys? No. There are certain guys who's books I will never buy or read. Big Tex was one of those. Irrationally, my dislike of him started in 1999 when he so easily beat Pantani but Ullrich was not racing and Jan would sort him out in 2000. Then my dislike and suspicions got stronger, fueled by PnP and their unbridled manlove of everything USPS. 2nd question: Riders like Vino, Basso, Contador and before them Landis, Hamilton and before them Virenque who denied any wrong doing and denied being doped despite being caught have little self respect and are hard to admire as sportsmen but some known cheats have been great to watch for the way they animate the racing. Vino certainly was one of the characters but I don't admire him. There is a HUGE difference between these type of guys and the 11 who gave evidence to USADA. Some of the guys who where never caught doping came clean and risked a more than we can imagine by telling the truth about the past. Although I don't particularly like Leipheimer I do think Quickstep did the wrong thing in firing him as it reinforces the old school of thought. But dislike any of them like I have despised the Texan? No And lastly current favourites? I like my boy, he is a class act. Most of the sprints are worth watching but it doesn't really matter to me who wins the race as I love watching the sport. I think Wiggo and FroomeDog are class acts, I like Andy, JRod, The Gorilla and Orica GreenEdge are having fun and of course Peter the Great is a breath of fresh air. But since Ullrich got farked over by the scum I have stopped getting emotional about having favourites. So not much hypocracy there then.

It's bizarre how fellow hubbers have to state again and again that they believe in the cheating scumbag Texan and how they admire him. It's a lost cause, the good guys have won. Move on to something worthwhile believing in and admiring. And leave us good guys who have endured 13 years of this scumbag to our smug satisfaction that we were right all along. edit typo on that

Not a good omen for guys fessing up to their past sins...but speculation is Lefevere is getting rid of dead wood and big wages to make way for my boy. If there is any doubt that the guys who gave evidence against big Tex are going to pay a huge price if they did not tell the truth surely this will remove it? Why would a pro jeopardise his job for some lies?

It'll be really disappointing if JB doesn't go to arbitration after all.

Bollocks, we pay well for the privilege of hearing his geriatric ramblings. Any commentator would cover South African teams and riders in the events he commentates on WHEN they are at a South African event. Duh? PnP or just the daily live coverage with some great scenery and a guide book of the significant historical landmarks? His manlove of Armstrong has been a real grater for so many years now but my real issue is the repetitive nature of his commentary. Who doesn't know about Jean Stalinski and Arenberg yet? In the same way so many of the world's leaders stay past their use by date? Have you ever listened to real commentators calling the cycling? See next quote? let him fade with dignity? I wish he would but his ego is getting in the way. Worth using the bandwidth and the hassle of syncing the feed to the HD pictures. But it's not only the guys doing the commentary, it's also the interviews, the background and the studio experts who complete the package.