But hey, guys like us must spend every waking hour researching cycling, eh Aqua? That's the only way we can actually know these amazing things we know that totally aren't plastered all over the media
It's a shame you guys can`t share your "who is and who`s not" doping masterminds on a grander stage. Also your analysis of riders personality without ever having met them(Moncoutie) is quite fascinating.
issoisso wrote:
It's just a feeling I get. I obviously don't know him in person, but he strikes me from his behaviour as being dumber than a brick and not exactly friendly
Again, I don't know him in person so this is just an impression that might be completely wrong.
You should read the whole post.
I have read the whole post, I just find it interesting to go out with such harsh thoughts, when I in my own life has learned through experience that one should never judge a personality before you get to know them.
Aquarius wrote:
Erm, no. I don't read cycling newspaper (lack of time, and say, of interest), and it's a bit complicated to get access to foreign publications.
However, if the arguments used are the same we use here, let's say I'm aware of the substance of the article. Don't hesitate to post any new element, though.
To be honest, I never believed in coincidence, but that post was just hilarious. Realistically, are there any teams in the pro peloton without a magic doctor?
I think that issoisso and Aquarius talk sense. I was a blind Armstrong fanboy until recentley, when I hated them for making good points. However, they convinced me with liable facts and I now understand fully and am not such a loyal idiot. So I thank them, and enjoy reading their post that I used to think were arrogant now.
P.S. I know the sig is still up, but i wanted the whole sig because I want to fill up my sig space until I find something else to put there.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
Aquarius wrote:
Erm, no. I don't read cycling newspaper (lack of time, and say, of interest), and it's a bit complicated to get access to foreign publications.
However, if the arguments used are the same we use here, let's say I'm aware of the substance of the article. Don't hesitate to post any new element, though.
Aquarius wrote:
Erm, no. I don't read cycling newspaper (lack of time, and say, of interest), and it's a bit complicated to get access to foreign publications.
However, if the arguments used are the same we use here, let's say I'm aware of the substance of the article. Don't hesitate to post any new element, though.
ruben wrote:
Gesink says he never crashed this hard and felt almost nothing. "Must have landed on top of someone instead of asphalt"
Top 3 chances are gone ofcourse, but not chances of being good in mountain stages
Still he couldn't follow the group with Schleck and Mollema and lost an additional 1,5 minutes. So I'm not too hopeful for him. And Mollema looked bad too, so I'm afraid they will just be dropped.
Amazing that Ten Dam is the only guy uninjured. That will probably last until the Pyrenees.
I was right unfortunately
Gesink = a specialized climber who can't climb
or
Gesink = a professional bike rider who can't ride a bike
Don't know which is more true?
That's harsch, he has rarely crashed in any other race but the Tour the France.
It's just unlucky. And he seems to recover very slowly from crashes compared to other riders.
Anyway, again a year ruined for GT for him
Aquarius wrote:
Erm, no. I don't read cycling newspaper (lack of time, and say, of interest), and it's a bit complicated to get access to foreign publications.
However, if the arguments used are the same we use here, let's say I'm aware of the substance of the article. Don't hesitate to post any new element, though.
ruben wrote:
Gesink says he never crashed this hard and felt almost nothing. "Must have landed on top of someone instead of asphalt"
Top 3 chances are gone ofcourse, but not chances of being good in mountain stages
Still he couldn't follow the group with Schleck and Mollema and lost an additional 1,5 minutes. So I'm not too hopeful for him. And Mollema looked bad too, so I'm afraid they will just be dropped.
Amazing that Ten Dam is the only guy uninjured. That will probably last until the Pyrenees.
I was right unfortunately
Gesink = a specialized climber who can't climb
or
Gesink = a professional bike rider who can't ride a bike
Don't know which is more true?
That's harsch, he has rarely crashed in any other race but the Tour the France.
It's just unlucky. And he seems to recover very slowly from crashes compared to other riders.
Anyway, again a year ruined for GT for him
This is not unlucky anymore Ruben, this points to the fact Gesink cant ride the bike properly, i remember him in dozens of crashes and half of them was rather his fault than someone else...
I was out for three days and now i am having such a fun read with these almost 30 pages. Sky domination is really really strange from my point of view, but as i cant bring anything new into the discussion after many relevant posts from aquarius and isso especially, i will just wait as the others. I just hope that people who are doping and if Sky is doping, that they will be caught and than i would like to see some reflection from the british fans.
Now it is only three way battle probably between Wiggo, Cadel and Nibbles. I hope for Nibbles, but he has to attack on the descends later.
And Froome? This man is ridicolous, i am suspicious about him from last years Vuelta and i will probably never believe in him truly, like i dont believe Porte and Rogers are Szmyd-like climbers suddenly.
Aquarius wrote:
Erm, no. I don't read cycling newspaper (lack of time, and say, of interest), and it's a bit complicated to get access to foreign publications.
However, if the arguments used are the same we use here, let's say I'm aware of the substance of the article. Don't hesitate to post any new element, though.
Ok, I've read it. And it's far from being the only evidences or things that point towards Armstrong's guilt. Many of those have been written above, or in other forum threads.
It's funny to read Armstrong's worshippers comments. Just cursing, and calling words, or implying there's a conspiracy, but none of them has a serious argument or counter-argument. I think it means a lot.
Aquarius wrote:
Erm, no. I don't read cycling newspaper (lack of time, and say, of interest), and it's a bit complicated to get access to foreign publications.
However, if the arguments used are the same we use here, let's say I'm aware of the substance of the article. Don't hesitate to post any new element, though.
Ok, I've read it. And it's far from being the only evidences or things that point towards Armstrong's guilt. Many of those have been written above, or in other forum threads.
It's funny to read Armstrong's worshippers comments. Just cursing, and calling words, or implying there's a conspiracy, but none of them has a serious argument or counter-argument. I think it means a lot.
Like Wiggins.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
