Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

DaveOZ wrote: Worth watching the 4 Corners prog if you missed it.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/ ... 608613.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/despite ... -supporter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Phil Ligget seems awfully confused and seems like he's finding it very difficult to accept the truth. Pretty sad. He didn't look good on 4 corners.

philip wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/despite ... -supporter
Phil Ligget seems awfully confused and seems like he's finding it very difficult to accept the truth. Pretty sad. He didn't look good on 4 corners.

I feel genuinely sorry for the guy..........some on here have expressed their disappointment in seeing one of their hero’s take a dive of a mile high cliff............I can only imagine how Phil Ligget would feel under these circumstances as he obviously idolised LA.

philip wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/despite ... -supporter
Phil Ligget seems awfully confused and seems like he's finding it very difficult to accept the truth. Pretty sad. He didn't look good on 4 corners.

Cycling is this man's LIFE. He's done commentary right through the bad old days. He probably rode through the bad old days too. I'm sure LA has looked him straight in the eye and said "I'm clean". That's enough for many people. I don't think you could be so cynical as to doubt one of the legends of the sport when they look you in the eye (normally the common man's test of truth) and have spent time with you.

For Lance to go down probably means the death of cycling for Phil. And I think he'd be right.

warthog1 wrote:That was hilarious, such a good analogy for the UCI. "The longer you have the dead body in the basement the more it starts to stink". Pretty foul odour coming from the UCI's basement. They must be going through some brut and air freshener by the pallet load.

But if it was left long enough, it'll turn into fossils for the archeologists.

greyhoundtom wrote:I feel genuinely sorry for the guy..........some on here have expressed their disappointment in seeing one of their hero’s take a dive of a mile high cliff............I can only imagine how Phil Ligget would feel under these circumstances as he obviously idolised LA.

I don't so much feel for the individual but the whole road cycling fraternity. To me, it's unfortunate how LA has been portrayed as the sole source of the problem. Fact is, it's the culture of the time, one that started way before LA joined the racing scene there in Euroland. The only difference being, a hard nosed Texan and an intellectually capable Johan Bruyneel combined and took the view that was how it was, and worked the system for all its worth.

Looking forward to the turning of a new page.

Wow Liggett is starting to look like part of the problem. An enabler.

Xplora wrote:

philip wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/despite ... -supporter
Phil Ligget seems awfully confused and seems like he's finding it very difficult to accept the truth. Pretty sad. He didn't look good on 4 corners.

Cycling is this man's LIFE. He's done commentary right through the bad old days. He probably rode through the bad old days too. I'm sure LA has looked him straight in the eye and said "I'm clean". That's enough for many people. I don't think you could be so cynical as to doubt one of the legends of the sport when they look you in the eye (normally the common man's test of truth) and have spent time with you.

For Lance to go down probably means the death of cycling for Phil. And I think he'd be right.

Agreed. It looked and sounded like he still has some mental adjustments to make about it all. To be honest I thought he looked like he'd been crying, though it was probably just the way he appeared on camera.

herzog wrote:Wow Liggett is starting to look like part of the problem. An enabler.

That's a big rough.

master6 wrote:The good news for Australia is that only one of our number has offended here.

Glad to know you were actually joking.

sogood wrote:

herzog wrote:Wow Liggett is starting to look like part of the problem. An enabler.

That's a big rough.

Well, some might say an apologist at best, SoGood, a sock puppet at worst. Enabler not so bad a moniker by comparison.

Check out Phil's attitude back in August.

http://www.inthegc.com/2012/08/film-fri ... lance.html

Phil was a journalist "inside" Lance's circle, Rupert Guinness one "outside".

Jean wrote:

Xplora wrote:

philip wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/despite ... -supporter
Phil Ligget seems awfully confused and seems like he's finding it very difficult to accept the truth. Pretty sad. He didn't look good on 4 corners.

Cycling is this man's LIFE. He's done commentary right through the bad old days. He probably rode through the bad old days too. I'm sure LA has looked him straight in the eye and said "I'm clean". That's enough for many people. I don't think you could be so cynical as to doubt one of the legends of the sport when they look you in the eye (normally the common man's test of truth) and have spent time with you.

For Lance to go down probably means the death of cycling for Phil. And I think he'd be right.

Agreed. It looked and sounded like he still has some mental adjustments to make about it all. To be honest I thought he looked like he'd been crying, though it was probably just the way he appeared on camera.

And that was before USADA's RD document was released.

Since then he's back to his old BS making stupid statements - latest is the "SMS from an eminent scientist". Liggett needs to go and I sure don't want my tax payer funded TV stations spending another $ on this fool (or on Sherwen, who is actually worse).

master6 wrote:The good news for Australia is that only one of our number has offended here.

I did get your humour, Master6, but just wondering, while Matt's stood down, will the assistant Neil Stephens be replacing him? (cough) Festina (cough)

Lucky our cycling body isn't as compromised as the UCI:

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/ ... 27n0p.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

clackers wrote:Lucky our cycling body isn't as compromised as the UCI

Given what has happened, I don't have faith with any of the associated organizations. Everyone is under the cloud unfortunately.

clackers wrote:
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/ ... 27n0p.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Heads in the sand down here too

Excellent article thanks for sharing clackers.

sogood wrote:

clackers wrote:Lucky our cycling body isn't as compromised as the UCI

Given what has happened, I don't have faith with any of the associated organizations. Everyone is under the cloud unfortunately.

Sarcasm

Chuck wrote:Sarcasm

So it would be.

sogood wrote:
Looking forward to the turning of a new page.

Let's not be too hasty in turning that page. This needs to play right out, all the nasty secrets need to be exposed. The UCI need to act as enablers in this process. There can be no self preservation in their response to USADA's extensive report, they must take ownership for their complicity in all of this. Any shortcuts taken now will see the sport taken back to where it was in 1999.

There is a massive opportunity now for cycling to purge itself. Let's hope the UCI are brave and surprise us with an honest and transparent response.

philip wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/despite ... -supporter
Phil Ligget seems awfully confused and seems like he's finding it very difficult to accept the truth. Pretty sad. He didn't look good on 4 corners.

Maybe I'm mistaken, I've never met Ligget, but to me - cycling seems to be his world - he lives and breathes it. I think he knows the truth and I also suspect it upsets and angers him. The body language seemed to suggest it.

I've just watched the Four Corners version of propaganda (you have the pro-LA propaganda and the anti-LA propaganda, with the truth somewhere in the middle) and it doesn't look good. It's a good time for cycling to purge itself of these problems, but will it, and can it do so? I don't believe so because science is always a step ahead of drug-testing. It's like the F1 regulations designed to slow cars down. Regardless of what they do, the engineers find a way to make them go even faster than before. While there is so much money in sponsorship and that desire to win, those with the best science behind them will still win.

Cycling won't die however, for all the people who suggest it will. It's still a great sport. People will still ride and race bikes regardless of what happens.

sogood wrote:

herzog wrote:Wow Liggett is starting to look like part of the problem. An enabler.

That's a big rough.

It's not rough, it is 100% correct.

Go back and listen to any TDF commentary, whenever allegations were raised by people such as Emma O'Reilly, Betsy Andreu, Lemond, David Walsh, Kimmage

Phil and Paul were the first to jump all over them and their 'ludicrous' claims.

They made it so easy for joe blow on their couch who did not want to have to think too hard, or have their beliefs challenged to just throw all the accusers in the same 'loony' basket and forget about them.

They made it easy, for the Armstrong PR campaign to destroy the lives of people who did nothing more than tell the truth.

Whether Phil was aware of this or he really was just a blustering old fool who took the Armstrong bait hook line and sinker, is another debate. But of course he enabled it. And he is very much part of the problem. If he chooses to continue to be part of the problem, then that's even worse.

Jono L. wrote:It's not rough, it is 100% correct.

Guess the questions, whether one should apply the rule of guilty until proven otherwise? If that's upheld, then I don't see too much wrong for a journalist to defend the position. He could be as much in the wood as many many others. If lynch mob mentality is acceptable, then that's a different criteria. It's so easy at this point to call "I told you so". In any case, I would agree that the UCI has some explaining to do given that they have access to all the data first hand.

sogood wrote:

Jono L. wrote:It's not rough, it is 100% correct.

Guess the questions, whether one should apply the rule of guilty until proven otherwise? If that's upheld, then I don't see too much wrong for a journalist to defend the position. He could be as much in the wood as many many others. If lynch mob mentality is acceptable, then that's a different criteria. It's so easy at this point to call "I told you so". In any case, I would agree that the UCI has some explaining to do given that they have access to all the data first hand.

If innocent until proven guilty was applied Phil wouldn't have helped to advocate the denigration of people who spoke out against Lance.

He would have been diplomatic, he would have said, " I believe Lance is innocent blah blah blah, but let these allegations have their day in court" or similar and he would not have helped perpetuate the myths that these people are bitter/twisted/jealous etc. Instead Phil sprayed out TV screens with ad hominen attacks that only served to enable Armstrong to bully and intimidate.

Yes it is easy to point and say told you so. And I am. And I will.

Well said.

For me, Liggett's credibility is in tatters.

Anybody know why Betsy Andreu is so vocal in all of this?

At first I thought that she might be a jilted lover...but unlike his first wife, Sheryl Crow or the anorexia twins, Betsy looks nothing like LA's mother, so that can't be it.

JustJames wrote:Anybody know why Betsy Andreu is so vocal in all of this?

At first I thought that she might be a jilted lover...but unlike his first wife, Sheryl Crow or the anorexia twins, Betsy looks nothing like LA's mother, so that can't be it.

Interview - Five Questions with Betsy Andreu