Tumbleweed Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 I read Kimmage's book about 10 years ago' date=' and was left with the impression that he was a bit of a whiner, not particularly talented and resorted to doping because everyone else was doing it. Even when he doped he couldn't hack it.[/quote'] i think he admits as much in the book. been a long time since i read it too. go read it again - he used amphetemines 3 times in crits and was amazed at the effect it has on his performance. also go and read "Bad Blood" by Jeremy Whittle. but if you'r a Lance disciple then nothing you will read will make a difference i meant the being "not particularly talented" bit.
Guest colonel Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 If I remember correctly LA Contributes a large sum on money every year to WADA to help them financially.
TNT1 Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 If I remember correctly LA Contributes a large sum on money every year to WADA to help them financially. So there you have it. They must be completely impartial. TNT12009-02-16 04:45:51
Slowbee Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 If I remember correctly LA Contributes a large sum on money every year to WADA to help them financially. So there you have it. They must be completely impartial. about as impartial as Zim's judiciary
Tumbleweed Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 If I remember correctly LA Contributes a large sum on money every year to WADA to help them financially. So there you have it. They must be completely impartial. about as impartial as Zim's judiciary kinda ironic that wada and the uci were used to obtain the "proof" that unearthed lance's 1999 samples.
DeltaOscar Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 I read Kimmage's book about 10 years ago' date=' and was left with the impression that he was a bit of a whiner, not particularly talented and resorted to doping because everyone else was doing it. Even when he doped he couldn't hack it.[/quote'] i think he admits as much in the book. been a long time since i read it too. go read it again - he used amphetemines 3 times in crits and was amazed at the effect it has on his performance. also go and read "Bad Blood" by Jeremy Whittle. but if you'r a Lance disciple then nothing you will read will make a difference So if I write anything other than hate for LA, i'm a disciple?And I've read both books.Kimmage even on amphetimines couldn't hack it, just became bitter and miserable.
SwissVan Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 If I remember correctly LA Contributes a large sum on money every year to WADA to help them financially. So there you have it. They must be completely impartial. about as impartial as Zim's judiciary kinda ironic that wada and the uci were used to obtain the "proof" that unearthed lance's 1999 samples. Another fantastic "fact", thats a good disclaimer there Colonel "If I remember correctly"<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> ?If I remember correctly LA Contributes a large sum on money every year to WADA to help them financially.? LA and WADA have been at each others throats on numerous occasions so I dont see why he would give them money. Quote from WADA website:For the first two full years of operation (2000?2001), WADA was funded in entirety by the Olympic Movement; a total of US$18.3 million. The IOC made this decision to allow governments appropriate time to get budgetary approvals for their 50 percent contribution. In January 2002, the agreed co-funding of WADA began with Governments providing 50 percent and the Olympic Movement 50 percent.
Tumbleweed Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 If I remember correctly LA Contributes a large sum on money every year to WADA to help them financially. So there you have it. They must be completely impartial. about as impartial as Zim's judiciary kinda ironic that wada and the uci were used to obtain the "proof" that unearthed lance's 1999 samples. Another fantastic "fact"' date=' thats a good disclaimer there Colonel "If I remember correctly" <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> ?If I remember correctly LA Contributes a large sum on money every year to WADA to help them financially.? LA and WADA have been at each others throats on numerous occasions so I dont see why he would give them money. Quote from WADA website:For the first two full years of operation (2000?2001), WADA was funded in entirety by the Olympic Movement; a total of US$18.3 million. The IOC made this decision to allow governments appropriate time to get budgetary approvals for their 50 percent contribution. In January 2002, the agreed co-funding of WADA began with Governments providing 50 percent and the Olympic Movement 50 percent. [/quote'] if i remember correctly, he does donate to the usada?
TNT1 Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 Lance does fund or has funded anti doping agencies:Armstrong gave money for anti-doping fightSix-timeTour de France champion Lance Armstrong quietly gave money to the UCIto help in the fight against doping. According to a report byEurosport, Armstrong gave the UCI a ?fair amount of money? severalyears ago to help discover new anti-doping methods.?This is not my position or my modus operandi to advertise what Ido,? Armstrong told Eurosport. ?So, if I've donated money to the UCI tocombat doping, step up controls and to fund research, it is not my jobto issue a press release. That's a secret thing, because it's the rightthing to do.Armstrongwouldn?t disclose the amount of money or what it was specifically spenton. UCI president Hein Verbruggen told the European sports channelabout the donation a few years back and Armstrong finally confirmed thereports to reporters. http://velonews.com/article/7914 Armstrong puts extra money into anti-doping http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/jul05/jul01news3
SwissVan Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 Lance does fund or has funded anti doping agencies: The finer details guys pleez Colonel was refering to WADA, not the ****en UCI / USAAD. UCI / USAAD = yes, quite commendable of LA, there's no ending to his quest for justice WADA = Uhrmmm...if i remember correctly ummmm.... scamper.... SwissVan2009-02-16 06:34:50
Canaris Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 The big problem with cycling is that it is a TEAM sport with individual rewards.This being so, means that the team captain or favourite can be kept clean, while the rest of the team are creative amateur pharmacists. What the public sees is the clean smile on the podium, and not the dirt that got him there.Furthermore, if a team is focused on winning the GC and not the team competition, then some sacrifices are made in terms of the team mates. Also if the team leader (star) is focused on the win, he can bet very demanding and unpleasant when his underlings start developing ambitions of their own.Although there is only speculation on LA's pharmacutical habits, most of his inner circle, Heras, Hamilton Landis, ext have all been caught out for doping. It seems that LA's magic turns bad if you part company with him.
SwissVan Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 The big problem with cycling is that it is a TEAM sport with individual rewards. This being so' date=' means that the team captain or favourite can be kept clean, while the rest of the team are creative amateur pharmacists. What the public sees is the clean smile on the podium, and not the dirt that got him there.Furthermore, if a team is focused on winning the GC and not the team competition, then some sacrifices are made in terms of the team mates. Also if the team leader (star) is focused on the win, he can bet very demanding and unpleasant when his underlings start developing ambitions of their own.Although there is only speculation on LA's pharmacutical habits, most of his inner circle, Heras, Hamilton Landis, ext have all been caught out for doping. It seems that LA's magic turns bad if you part company with him.[/quote'] Objection your Honour!The statement assumes facts not in evidence."means that the team captain or favourite can be kept clean, while the rest of the team are creative amateur pharmacists". Objection your Honour!The statement refers to the obvious.Road cycle racing (duh...)"Furthermore, if a team is focused on winning the GC and not the team competition, then some sacrifices are made in terms of the team mates. Also if the team leader (star) is focused on the win, he can bet very demanding and unpleasant when his underlings start developing ambitions of their own". Objection your Honour!The statement is based on speculation."Although there is only speculation on LA's pharmacutical habits" Objection your Honour!The statemet smells like Bull sh*t contradiction, some of these (Hamilton, Landis) are team leaders who as per statement 1 above dont have to dope? Anyway how can the defendent be responsible for FORMER team mates actions? "most of his inner circle, Heras, Hamilton Landis, ext have all been caught out for doping. It seems that LA's magic turns bad if you part company with him"
Tumbleweed Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 The big problem with cycling is that it is a TEAM sport with individual rewards. This being so' date=' means that the team captain or favourite can be kept clean, while the rest of the team are creative amateur pharmacists.? What the public sees is the clean smile on the podium, and not the dirt that got him there. Furthermore, if a team is focused on winning the GC and not the team competition, then some sacrifices are made in terms of the team mates.? Also if the team leader (star) is focused on the win, he can bet very demanding and unpleasant when his underlings start developing ambitions of their own. Although there is only speculation on LA's pharmacutical habits, most of his inner circle, Heras, Hamilton Landis, ext have all been caught out for doping.? It seems that LA's magic turns bad if you part company with him.[/quote'] ? Objection your Honour! The statement assumes facts not in evidence. "means that the team captain or favourite can be kept clean, while the rest of the team are creative amateur pharmacists". ? ? Objection your Honour! The statement refers to the obvious. Road cycle racing ?(duh...) "Furthermore, if a team is focused on winning the GC and not the team competition, then some sacrifices are made in terms of the team mates.? Also if the team leader (star) is focused on the win, he can bet very demanding and unpleasant when his underlings start developing ambitions of their own". ? Objection your Honour! The statement is based on speculation. "Although there is only speculation on LA's pharmacutical habits" ? Objection your Honour! The statemet?smells like?Bull sh*t contradiction, some of these (Hamilton, Landis)?are team leaders who as per statement 1 above dont have to dope? Anyway how can the defendent be responsible for?FORMER team mates actions? "most of his inner circle, Heras, Hamilton Landis, ext have all been caught out for doping.? It seems that LA's magic turns bad if you part company with him" ? ? you are getting close to contempt, mr swissvan. another outburst like that, and i'll have you removed from this court.
cycleq Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 If this is about Kimmage, please recall his anecdote about the time he met his hero, Sean Kelly, in a sauna. After his introductions he and Kelly sat in increasingly more unpleasant conditions until it became unbearable. Kelly then asked him:"Have you ever felt like this in a race?" Kimmage rattled on about some or other mountain-top finish in one of his tours and how he was delirious in the heat/dehydration etc. He then asked Kelly "Have you ever felt like this?" To which Kelly replied "Every race". I suppose that's what separates winners from losers irrespective of whether or not they doped.
SwissVan Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 The big problem with cycling is that it is a TEAM sport with individual rewards. This being so' date=' means that the team captain or favourite can be kept clean, while the rest of the team are creative amateur pharmacists. What the public sees is the clean smile on the podium, and not the dirt that got him there.Furthermore, if a team is focused on winning the GC and not the team competition, then some sacrifices are made in terms of the team mates. Also if the team leader (star) is focused on the win, he can bet very demanding and unpleasant when his underlings start developing ambitions of their own.Although there is only speculation on LA's pharmacutical habits, most of his inner circle, Heras, Hamilton Landis, ext have all been caught out for doping. It seems that LA's magic turns bad if you part company with him.[/quote'] Objection your Honour!The statement assumes facts not in evidence."means that the team captain or favourite can be kept clean, while the rest of the team are creative amateur pharmacists". Objection your Honour!The statement refers to the obvious.Road cycle racing (duh...)"Furthermore, if a team is focused on winning the GC and not the team competition, then some sacrifices are made in terms of the team mates. Also if the team leader (star) is focused on the win, he can bet very demanding and unpleasant when his underlings start developing ambitions of their own". Objection your Honour!The statement is based on speculation."Although there is only speculation on LA's pharmacutical habits" Objection your Honour!The statemet smells like Bull sh*t contradiction, some of these (Hamilton, Landis) are team leaders who as per statement 1 above dont have to dope? Anyway how can the defendent be responsible for FORMER team mates actions? "most of his inner circle, Heras, Hamilton Landis, ext have all been caught out for doping. It seems that LA's magic turns bad if you part company with him" you are getting close to contempt, mr swissvan. another outburst like that, and i'll have you removed from this court. Your Honour on the grounds of preventing further dissipation of valuable time, I herby respectively request that this case be purged from the court of the hub until the troll prosecution can provide indisputable evidence supporting their case, whereupon I will remove the subject in question motif from my wall, proceed to cut into small squares and use it for bathroom tissue.<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now