Wiggo

Generali

purch wrote: »

Other than my cousins lad, who has just won his semi-final in the double-skulls :j

....it's all in the genes you know :eek:

Congrats to him. That's brilliant.

Of course if your uncle had kept it in his jeans the win could never have happened....

StevieJ

purch wrote: »

Other than my cousins lad, who has just won his semi-final in the double-skulls :j

....it's all in the genes you know :eek:

Would that be Zac

purch

Yes, they are gutted that they couldn't repeat.

Their form this year has been poor, but the way they rowed (sculled :eek:) in the heats and semi made them think they were back to 100%, so it was a bit of a let down in the end.

Shouldn't be too down though, the number of Olympic Gold winners who repeat 4 years later is very small, which is why they are held in such esteem. :T

wotsthat

Generali wrote: »

Top 10s from the Tour from 2003-11:

http://www.cyclingtipsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/armstrong1150px.jpg

Those in grey have admitted to or been caught doping. I suspect that Armstrong will end up in the grey group in the end. L'Equipe already had a B sample tested for EPO which came up positive and the USDA always get their man.

Yes - they got their man in the end...

US cycling star Lance Armstrong has announced he will no longer fight drug charges from the US anti-doping agency, ahead of a Friday deadline.

In a statement the 40-year-old maintains he is innocent, but says he is weary of the "nonsense" accusations.

The US anti-doping agency (USADA) now says it will ban Armstrong from cycling for life and strip him of his seven Tour de France titles.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19364384

Gutted - I wanted to see him in Ironman Hawaii.

Generali

Lance was screwed from the moment L'Equipe had his B sample tested and it was positive for EPO once they could test for it.

He was doping, there is loads of circumstantial and witness evidence to state that he was. He never tested positive but he is accused to be taking things that they couldn't test for at the time.

He's still one of the greats for me and this doesn't tarnish his achievements at all in my eyes. He was a doper riding against other dopers, it's fair enough. The only problem I have with his career is the focus on the Tour de France: wins in the Giro and Vuelta and also taking some of the classics would have been better. It's why I rate Merkx as the better rider.

Wookster

Lance has just announced he won't be fighting any of the charges.

Guess that is a tacit admission of guilt.

wotsthat

Wookster wrote: »

Lance has just announced he won't be fighting any of the charges.

Guess that is a tacit admission of guilt.

Armstrong doesn't have full sight of the evidence against him. I suspect he's just made a judgement that the reputational damage is less if he doesn't contest the charges than if he contests and loses. Might be best for the sport too.

This is going to rumble on for a while yet.

chewmylegoff

my view is that, in reality there is little point in fighting charges in any part of the US legal system, as they have no real concept of innocent until proven guilty, you are guilty until proven innocent, and even then a determination that you are innocent is merely a matter of inconvenience; they will find something else to find you guilty of instead. it has its positives and negatives. the positive being that most guilty people end up being found guilty. the negative being the collateral damage i.e. a lot of innocent people end up also being found guilty - but they seem happy with that level of risk.

nicko33

Generali wrote: »

He was a doper riding against other dopers, it's fair enough.

Every single rider was on drugs? All of them?

StevieJ

The big question is, why are the US so keen to get their most successful RETIRED riders, as the judge notably opined?