raptor-22

but how bad a sin is doping really? No animals are harmed

Hub logic = they with the highest perceived moral altitude wins

the truth is the truth. evidence merely points you in the direction where you might find it. It is not a guarantor of truth

No crucifixion here. We're not in Jerusalem. But it's easy to end up on the wrong side of the game even when not intending to break any rules / laws.

So why did he retire a year ago? AH i see we're looking to fight about it. Makes sense. He still rides his bike, A year ago he retired from racing because the health issues meant he could no longer compete. hasn't stop him riding a bicycle has it?

so she raced without a TUE? since it was retrospective?

From his perspective ridi his mtb is his life and his livihood.

I think those are valid questions which may lead back to the proposed alternative thread.

More especially, Dopers getting tarred and feathered. One would think that by not contesting the ruling KE would be applauded for not dragging the situation out and for giving an explanation as to how he arrived here And the tar and feather brigade wonder why more riders don't come clean....

I'm in the grey area in between

which is why penalties are in place. Attacks on your loved ones is not part of the penalty even if they are only cyber in nature. Play the situation factually, not the man emotionally

denied. no explanation given. Argust is in two weeks. "phuq it, who cares, I'll ride anyway. I'm not in it too win it!" right or wrong? Is there intent to cause harm or influence an outcome?

ok so you're in the black and white camp. noted

Do you? Are there no alternatives to this or is the world black and white? Should a diabetic stay on the couch? Should an asthmatic live in a fresh air tent? Should a recovering cancer patient not ride the Argust? Despite the fact that they may still be pumped up with UCI banned substances?

Do you? Are there no alternatives to this or is the world black and white?

Is it cheating if you trying to win....? so try not to look at that as a justification for doping but as a justification that even ill people should be given the opportunity to participate. what is the difference between competing and participating?

Why would the alternative path end? Must BE obey to Bikehub blogger pressure and condemn a rider that has delivered results? Hence questioning the vitriol being leveled at him. He's accepted the ban. Explained his situation and moved on. BE is on the alternative path. He's defending someone who he is obviously close too. every other scenario being portrayed is just speculation and the baying for blood on twatbook and bikehub is akin to a tar an feather mob. Now there's a non factual history being written which seems to want to be accepted as truth without further input? Is this behaviour any better?

why is this the only course of action? Are there no alternative paths?

You would need to ask him if that's the real reason but I heard that that is why he raced without the TUE. I'm merely placing other views on the table

So then basically, a lot of the accusations now being thrown about are really just speculation ...again? Does it change the view if one suggests KE knowingly raced without a TUE, to fulfill sponsorship obligations Is there a distinction between racing without a TUE to just appear in the event vs, hiding PED use with the objective to win?

and now lost in a mire of Lance worship

Has it been established that Kevin was doping prior to his medical problems? Has it been established that he was consistently doping? Or has it been established that he was doping post medical procedures? Its all getting confusing because fact seems to be diluted by speculation and I stopped following this thread many many many pages back

I Hope they retained the wide and tall toe box of previous shoes. They really catered well for South African feet

Lance a saddle sore?

Would be great to see similar movie on pauline