Other Sports
|
By:
'Top class journalist' with history of outing cheating cyclists encamped with a team doesn't think they are cheating. It's a conspiracy against you, if only everyone else could see it.
|
|
By:
Encamped. I dont think so. But if you believe that good luck to you. Good move by sky to get one of the few journalist that did go after the cheats, and get him on side. Who owns the sunday times?
|
|
By:
Journo writing in Murdoch rag defends Murdoch team ? Is there any 1.01 left ?
|
|
By:
Ahh.. it's a big conspiracy. Send for Tom Watson and the David Icke forum!
 |
|
By:
not that big of a conspiricy. not like the moon landing
|
|
By:
Yep. more like Santa Claus not being real. Oops sorry CJ
|
|
By:
Intelligent.
|
|
By:
How strange - journo can't find any evidence of cheating so writes an article which expresses his views. Has this ever happened before.
Simple idea.... If you believe somebody is a cheat, post the evidence why you believe this theory. |
|
By:
you are very stupid mexico. there is no evidence. but as i said about the duck.
|
|
By:
there was no evidence on tyson gay and asafa powell up to about a week ago!
|
|
By:
Gordi, you are very stupid.
WTF are you on about ducks. Are you so stupid. You have produced zero evidence that sky are cheating, yet break the law in claiming they are. Gordi why jump to name calling and insults at the first chance. Is it because you have zero evidence to back up your argument? Come on Gordi, rather than acting like a 5 year old calling anybody who disagrees with your theory stupid, just act like an adult and explain what evidence you have to back up your theory. |
|
By:
once again showing your stupidity. i never said they were cheating. read my posts again, and dont be so stupid
|
|
By:
Gordi,
The article you were wittering on about with your childish duck talk suggested Sky are not cheats. You claimed it was disappointing he defended sky. Anybody reading your posts is likely to believe you are accusing Sky of cheating. Calling people names rather than producing any evidence to support your theory is a pretty stupid way of presenting a theory. So Gordi, don't be so stupid, grow up. Present the evidence for your theory. |
|
By:
what theory? i also told you there is no evidence, what more do u want! i just might not have been impressed with team tactics. You have just claimed i called them cheats which i havent. so i called you stupid, get over it. And im not responsible for what people are likely to think. If i was i would probably be the leader of a religion
|
|
By:
Gor, you started a tread about ducks, and claimed you are disappointed with an article by a journalist. You then implied ths article did not express his views.
This journalist wrote that in his opinion Sky were not cheats. Why would anybody be disappointed with this journalist? Why would a sane person resort to childish name calling as soon as anybody disagreed with the duck story. |
|
By:
now you have just claimed im insane. but i wont take it to heart. have a good day
|
|
By:
Not at all Gordi, there may be lots of very good reasons why a sane person would resort to childish name calling as soon as somebody disagreed with the duck story.
It just so happens that neither you nor I seen to be able to think of any. |
|
By:
so you disagree with the duck story?
|
|
By:
@gordi It's patently clear what you were suggesting.
|
|
By:
OP is spot on imho. The hypocrisy of Walsh is nauseating. He had no proof of Armstrong back in 99 yet kept penning articles about his "Suspicions". Sky dominate a sport that for decades has been riddled with drugs and suddenly Walsh believes the peleton have a change of conscience
Froome and Wiggins sudden improvement from average road riders to Tour Kings is comical and more suspicious than Armstrongs. Wiggins in particular spent much of his road career in obscurity at such well known teams as Linda McCartney, Francaise des Jeux and Cofidis achieving a grand total of zilch...... suddenly in 2010 at the age of 30 he begins climbing mountains like a goat. Walsh spent much of his repetitive books lecturing anyone who would listen that "Armstrongs behaviour" was enough to convict him yet will defend Wiggins who proclaims Paul Kimmage is a w**ker for raising suspicions of the hiring of Geert Leanders. (We are supposed to believe Sky hired a doctor from a confessed doping outfit without checking his CV )Journo writing in Murdoch rag defends Murdoch team ? Is there any 1.01 left ? Yep, sadly he has no Lance Armstrong to milk to sustain his career anymore  |
|
By:
Someone doesn't watch much cycling.
|
|
By:
Feel free to explain then......
Ive seen decades of cycling, i'm just not naive enough to believe because a few British riders start winning the sport is suddenly clean. BTW dont think i think badly of them. They do as the majority have always done.....got some much needed "Support". Froome was the best rider and he deserves the plaudits |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Joe Wiggins wasn't riding for SKY when he "started climbing mountains like a goat"! Were all of Garmin dopin then as well????
|
|
By:
Just to defend Diamond Joe..he has been on the cycling [other sports] forum here for years, so is not one of the 'nouveaus' that have just discovered cycling.
|
|
By:
I'm defending cycling, because it's a wonderful sport (did it by myself on a much lower level). There is almost no Sport with much money involved (and even with much less money) where you won't find cheaters and dopers.
|
|
By:
sorry i didnt make myself clear. how people can defend pro cycling. has there been a clean tour in the last 25 years. doubt it. but im not SURE. Lance armstrong said he could not have won any of his tours if he did not dope. what does that tell us about the sport? but as diamond said you cant blame them, how can a clean cyclist compete with a doper. if he doesnt compete he d
|
|
By:
does not get the big contract. he stays a domestique. and as you said there is not much money in the sport.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Lance armstrong probably the worlds most famous doper. and you wouldnt use him as a yardstick. may i ask you who would you use?
|
|
By:
Maybe Sky are clean, I personally don't believe they are.
But the OP is fair to question Walsh as he has completely ignored Froome's overnight transformation and ascent times at this year's TDF. This is the same Walsh who called out Contador as doping based on his ascent of the Verbier in 2009 ('I know what times they do up that mountain'), not just questioning the performance, not saying it was suspicious but straight out accusation of doping. The silence from Walsh in not even questioning these times is deafening and if he did want to beg the question, the newspaper wouldn't even print it IMO. Maybe he did want to, who knows? I think that if Walsh had something concrete this time he would leave the ST and write about it, I just don't think he has and he is older and has a job to lose this time, the ST prob wouldn't print anything negative anyway. He had nothing to lose in accusing LA and was previously prepared to accuse based on circumstantial evidence, not this time tho. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
cj i will ask you again, who would you use as a yardstick? we all know lance armstrongs history. as i said he probably the worlds most famous doper.
simple question, please answer! |
|
By:
|
