|
News in March
|
| Juan |
Posted on 24-03-2009 18:07
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1282
Joined: 09-12-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
Andreas_K wrote:
Biathlon wrote:
Colom  That could be..
But why do everyone think That Conta have been doped but Schleck is all okay even he admit to give Fuentes money...
  the best i've ever read
hopeless
I think you misunderstood him. I don't think he said anything wrong. In fact, I agree with him.
I'm pretty sure what he means is something such as
"Why does everyone think that Contador has doped, but think that Schleck is okay? Even though Schleck has admitted to giving Fuentes money?"
ok understood 
but still hopeless |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 24-03-2009 18:09
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Why hopeless?
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| Wiggo |
Posted on 24-03-2009 18:11
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3212
Joined: 07-06-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
I find myself agreeing with a Contador fan. That makes me fell weird inside. |
| |
|
|
| Waghlon |
Posted on 24-03-2009 18:11
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7694
Joined: 18-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Frank Schleck is equally as doped as Contador!
There, i repeated myself yet again.
THE THOMAS VOECKLER PROPHET OF PCM DAILY
 |
| |
|
|
| Juan |
Posted on 24-03-2009 18:12
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1282
Joined: 09-12-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
Why hopeless?
because when you think AC has always been clean, even with evident facts, and that you don't change of opinion, there's maybe a little problem |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 24-03-2009 18:16
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Andreas_K wrote:
issoisso wrote:
Why hopeless?
because when you think AC has always been clean, even with evident facts, and that you don't change of opinion, there's maybe a little problem
Oh. that. I don't know whether he thinks that. I agree with his point about differing treatments though.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| Juan |
Posted on 24-03-2009 18:25
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1282
Joined: 09-12-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
Andreas_K wrote:
issoisso wrote:
Why hopeless?
because when you think AC has always been clean, even with evident facts, and that you don't change of opinion, there's maybe a little problem
Oh. that. I don't know whether he thinks that. I agree with his point about differing treatments though.
of course he is right sometimes, but you just can't speak of doping when you think that your favourite rider has always been clean
just look at me : i'm a Kloeden fan, but not since 2005-2006. i know he was doped, and won't deny it, but now i just see this rider as normal, even though he made bad things for cyclism.
I'll never say : "yeah, Kloeden has never been doped. you're all wrong, that were just rumours." |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 24-11-2024 11:12
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| schleck93 |
Posted on 24-03-2009 18:39
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3715
Joined: 04-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Waghlon wrote:
Frank Schleck is equally as doped as Contador!
There, i repeated myself yet again.
Why do I keep agreeing with Waghlon?
On a side note, I think I should chance my name And when did rolelreyes smiley come back?
BenBarnes wrote:
Thor wears a live rattlesnake as a condom.
|
| |
|
|
| Waghlon |
Posted on 24-03-2009 18:41
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7694
Joined: 18-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
schleck93 wrote:
Why do I keep agreeing with Waghlon?
Serious eyerolling
THE THOMAS VOECKLER PROPHET OF PCM DAILY
|
| |
|
|
| Ste117 |
Posted on 24-03-2009 18:58
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3684
Joined: 21-02-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
if you looked at the rider in that peurto document beloxi got injured and never returned did he get banned no one knows, roberto heras got banned scarponi just come back from a ban, not good for the rest of the riders mentioned in that document, Luis Leon sanchez im not surprised he is mentioned in the document as i think he is doping because he aint a good climber but yet nearly kept up with conatdor in the paris- nice race. as for Jan Ullrich he was my favourite rider in my first couple of years of watching cycling but unfortunalty he got banned for doping after my first year of seeing him race, i was gutted and didnt believe he doped and i still dont believe he doped. |
| |
|
|
| untal |
Posted on 24-03-2009 19:05
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1727
Joined: 02-05-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
And for the "it could be Colom" crowd, here's a little present for ya
it's taken from the famous "document 31" that is one of the very few to become public from Operación Puerto:
En el documento 3 se observan marcados de distinta forma los nombres de los corredores: Dariuz BARANOWSKY; Josefa BELOKI; Ginpaolo CARUSO; Alberto CONTADOR; Allan DAVIS; David ETXEBARRÍA; Igor GONZÁLEZ DE GALDEANO; Roberto HERAS; Jorg JAKSCHE; Isidro NOZAL; Sergio PAULINHO; Nuno RIBEIRO; Luis León SÁNCHEZ; Michele SCARPONI; Marcos SERRANO y Ángel VICIOSO.
The second reference includes initials of riders’ name that appeared on another training document:
En el reverso del documento 31 se localizan unas anotaciones manuscritas con el título “INDIVIDUALIZACIÓN” en el que se identifican a distintos corredores del equipo LIBERTY-SEGUROS WÜRTH por sus iniciales: R. H. (Roberto HERAS), M. S. (Marcos SERRANO), J. B. (Joseba BELOKI), I. G. (Igor GONZÁLEZ), A. V. (Ángel VICIOSO), J. J. (Jorg JAKSCHE), A. D. (Alan DAVIS), L. (sin identificar)
, A. C. (Alberto CONTADOR) .
What I was trying to prove is that inicials aren't a proof for a thing. Colom wasn't even in Liberty Seguros and Contador is the only guy from Liberty in that year who fits in "A.C". And you understand more than doping than I do, so it was found a blodd bad with Valv.Piti on it or Valv.Piti was just referred on documents?
Andreas_K wrote:
issoisso wrote:
Why hopeless?
because when you think AC has always been clean, even with evident facts, and that you don't change of opinion, there's maybe a little problem
What evident facts? Inicials on a document? Why do you think he's not clean? Because he is dominating? He is probably doped but with the facts you have, you can't accuse him of a thing. Operacion Puerto's files are under investigation and Contador and many other riders with the inicials in there weren't accused, so how can you say that he's doped with evident facts? Maybe you're the hopeless here.
Edited by untal on 24-03-2009 19:09
|
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 24-03-2009 19:12
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
If your name is in the Puerto documents, it's pretty much 100 % certain that you've doped - you may not be a doper anymore, but you were back then if you're in those documents. How else would you end up there.
I don't see how anyone can deny that. |
| |
|
|
| Juan |
Posted on 24-03-2009 19:17
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1282
Joined: 09-12-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
untal wrote:
issoisso wrote:
And for the "it could be Colom" crowd, here's a little present for ya
it's taken from the famous "document 31" that is one of the very few to become public from Operación Puerto:
En el documento 3 se observan marcados de distinta forma los nombres de los corredores: Dariuz BARANOWSKY; Josefa BELOKI; Ginpaolo CARUSO; Alberto CONTADOR; Allan DAVIS; David ETXEBARRÍA; Igor GONZÁLEZ DE GALDEANO; Roberto HERAS; Jorg JAKSCHE; Isidro NOZAL; Sergio PAULINHO; Nuno RIBEIRO; Luis León SÁNCHEZ; Michele SCARPONI; Marcos SERRANO y Ángel VICIOSO.
The second reference includes initials of riders’ name that appeared on another training document:
En el reverso del documento 31 se localizan unas anotaciones manuscritas con el título “INDIVIDUALIZACIÓN” en el que se identifican a distintos corredores del equipo LIBERTY-SEGUROS WÜRTH por sus iniciales: R. H. (Roberto HERAS), M. S. (Marcos SERRANO), J. B. (Joseba BELOKI), I. G. (Igor GONZÁLEZ), A. V. (Ángel VICIOSO), J. J. (Jorg JAKSCHE), A. D. (Alan DAVIS), L. (sin identificar)
, A. C. (Alberto CONTADOR) .
What I was trying to prove is that inicials aren't a proof for a thing. Colom wasn't even in Liberty Seguros and Contador is the only guy from liberty in that year who fits in "A.C". And you understand more than doping than I do, so it was found a blodd bad with Valv.Piti on it or Valv.Piti was just referred on documents?
Andreas_K wrote:
issoisso wrote:
Why hopeless?
because when you think AC has always been clean, even with evident facts, and that you don't change of opinion, there's maybe a little problem
What evident facts? Inicials on a document? Why do you think he's not clean? Because he is dominating? He is probably doped but with the facts you have, you can't accuse him of a thing. Operacion Puerto's files are under investigation and Contador and many other riders with the inicials in there weren't accused, so how can you say that he's doped with evident facts? Maybe you're the hopeless here.
of course the facts can't be 100% proven. and i dont think he is or was doped because he's dominating. But do you know lots of riders whose initials are AC ? so, maybe not evident facts, but coincidences and too many rumours...
and finally, why would i be hopeless?
Too simple to say : "you're wrong X's not doped, X's not doped", and one morning, you wake up and see "X was doped" and then you say : "ok, he was innocent until proven guilty, how could have I known ?"
That's just too simple
As for the fact of domination, we've seen too much riders who dominated races within the 10 last years, and then who were caught, that now we're always suspecting
Edited by Juan on 24-03-2009 19:22
|
| |
|
|
| untal |
Posted on 24-03-2009 19:19
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1727
Joined: 02-05-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
CrueTrue wrote:
If your name is in the Puerto documents, it's pretty much 100 % certain that you've doped - you may not be a doper anymore, but you were back then if you're in those documents. How else would you end up there.
I don't see how anyone can deny that.
I agree with you here. I believe that every rider with the inicials or even the dog's name in Puerto files is doped. What I don't understand is why people are constantly accusing one single rider when there are many other names involved and if inicials proved a thing why weren't some riders involved in OP suspended. What i think is that people who deal with doping affaires and read OP files should accuse in court the riders involved but that didnt happened with Contador and other riders. |
| |
|
|
| Juan |
Posted on 24-03-2009 19:23
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1282
Joined: 09-12-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
untal wrote:
CrueTrue wrote:
If your name is in the Puerto documents, it's pretty much 100 % certain that you've doped - you may not be a doper anymore, but you were back then if you're in those documents. How else would you end up there.
I don't see how anyone can deny that.
I agree with you here. I believe that every rider with the inicials or even the dog's name in Puerto files is doped. What I don't understand is why people are constantly accusing one single rider when there are many other names involved and if inicials proved a thing why weren't some riders involved in OP suspended. What i think is that people who deal with doping affaires and read OP files should accuse in court the riders involved but that didnt happened with Contador and other riders.
we were speaking of Contador, that's why |
| |
|
|
| untal |
Posted on 24-03-2009 19:26
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1727
Joined: 02-05-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Andreas_K wrote:
untal wrote:
What evident facts? Inicials on a document? Why do you think he's not clean? Because he is dominating? He is probably doped but with the facts you have, you can't accuse him of a thing. Operacion Puerto's files are under investigation and Contador and many other riders with the inicials in there weren't accused, so how can you say that he's doped with evident facts? Maybe you're the hopeless here.
of course the facts can't be 100% proven. and i dont think he is or was doped because he's dominating. But do you know lots of riders whose initials are AC ? so, maybe not evident facts, but coincidences and too many rumours...
and finally, why would i be hopeless?
I stopped with the big quoting but I think you said "evident facts", what I think is, and I said this many times today, that inicials don't prove a thing.
Here is a quote that reflects what I think:
rjc_43 wrote:
So you read the entire documentation referring to the Fuentes case? If not, I don't think any of us are in position to infer thru this and that rumour or "news" about a riders particular participation in doping schemes. |
| |
|
|
| untal |
Posted on 24-03-2009 19:28
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1727
Joined: 02-05-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Andreas_K wrote:
untal wrote:
CrueTrue wrote:
If your name is in the Puerto documents, it's pretty much 100 % certain that you've doped - you may not be a doper anymore, but you were back then if you're in those documents. How else would you end up there.
I don't see how anyone can deny that.
I agree with you here. I believe that every rider with the inicials or even the dog's name in Puerto files is doped. What I don't understand is why people are constantly accusing one single rider when there are many other names involved and if inicials proved a thing why weren't some riders involved in OP suspended. What i think is that people who deal with doping affaires and read OP files should accuse in court the riders involved but that didnt happened with Contador and other riders.
we were speaking of Contador, that's why
That's why what? |
| |
|
|
| Wiggo |
Posted on 24-03-2009 19:28
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3212
Joined: 07-06-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
If the other sports that were involved in it could get someone banned, I'd be happy. |
| |
|
|
| Juan |
Posted on 24-03-2009 19:30
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1282
Joined: 09-12-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
untal wrote:
Andreas_K wrote:
untal wrote:
What evident facts? Inicials on a document? Why do you think he's not clean? Because he is dominating? He is probably doped but with the facts you have, you can't accuse him of a thing. Operacion Puerto's files are under investigation and Contador and many other riders with the inicials in there weren't accused, so how can you say that he's doped with evident facts? Maybe you're the hopeless here.
of course the facts can't be 100% proven. and i dont think he is or was doped because he's dominating. But do you know lots of riders whose initials are AC ? so, maybe not evident facts, but coincidences and too many rumours...
and finally, why would i be hopeless?
I stopped with the big quoting but I think you said "evident facts", what I think is, and I said this many times today, that inicials don't prove a thing.
i said evident facts, which was maybe too much |
| |
|
|
| Juan |
Posted on 24-03-2009 19:32
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1282
Joined: 09-12-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
untal wrote:
Andreas_K wrote:
untal wrote:
CrueTrue wrote:
If your name is in the Puerto documents, it's pretty much 100 % certain that you've doped - you may not be a doper anymore, but you were back then if you're in those documents. How else would you end up there.
I don't see how anyone can deny that.
I agree with you here. I believe that every rider with the inicials or even the dog's name in Puerto files is doped. What I don't understand is why people are constantly accusing one single rider when there are many other names involved and if inicials proved a thing why weren't some riders involved in OP suspended. What i think is that people who deal with doping affaires and read OP files should accuse in court the riders involved but that didnt happened with Contador and other riders.
we were speaking of Contador, that's why
That's why what?
you said you didn't understand people who accuse single riders, whereas lots of riders are involved
I was speaking only of Contador because it was the subject of the discussion, or at least because Biathlon was speaking about Contador |
| |
|
