Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:Nothing to see here, move along....

Sorry, was just absent mindedly channelling my inner brentono

Rabobank to cease sponsoring professional cycling teams - http://www.rabosport.com/news/item/25789" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wonder if we'll see many other sponsors follow suit?

ningnangnong wrote:Rabobank to cease sponsoring professional cycling teams - http://www.rabosport.com/news/item/25789" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wonder if we'll see many other sponsors follow suit?

Not to mention all the potential sponsors that will definitely stay away...

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:Not to mention all the potential sponsors that will definitely stay away...

UCI probably had this concern when they realised how big this whole deal is. In effect, it got sucked in. Or rather, the whole sport sucked itself in.

Might want to be careful about references to Mark French seeing as the CAS overturned the ban & he has so far been awarded $350,000 & $175,000 in defamation proceedings

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:

The 2nd Womble wrote:Remember that until this week, Australian riders had been beyond reproach. I'm not naive.

Then we have evidence of a multiverse.

A question to all theoretical physicist on the board: What is the least number of universes necessary to ensure that no Australian professional cyclists have doped?

exadios wrote:

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:

The 2nd Womble wrote:Remember that until this week, Australian riders had been beyond reproach. I'm not naive.

Then we have evidence of a multiverse.

A question to all theoretical physicist on the board: What is the least number of universes necessary to ensure that no Australian professional cyclists have doped?

Somewhere over the rainbow, there’s a magical land

exadios wrote:

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:

The 2nd Womble wrote:Remember that until this week, Australian riders had been beyond reproach. I'm not naive.

Then we have evidence of a multiverse.

A question to all theoretical physicist on the board: What is the least number of universes necessary to ensure that no Australian professional cyclists have doped?

There would be a finite solution to your question but it would be pointless to determine. To maintain this nirvana you would have to exponentially increase the number of them with the passage of time.

Cycling’s governing body agrees to strip Lance Armstrong of his 7 Tour de France titles.

“Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling and he deserves to be forgotten in cycling.”

exadios wrote:Cycling’s governing body agrees to strip Lance Armstrong of his 7 Tour de France titles.

“Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling and he deserves to be forgotten in cycling.”

He should not be forgotten....
he did managed to get 7 tdf titles without getting caught.... (until now)
He did manage to do lots of things.....

Dont forget it.. learn from it
And use it to stop doping!!

One must ask... how could this happen.. and how can prevent it??
this is not just about lance anymore....
There are many people to blame for this...

This should not be forgotten.. ever!!

damhooligan wrote:
Dont forget it.. learn from it
And use it to stop doping!!

This should not be forgotten.. ever!!

Spot on.

Now that McQuaid of UCI have accepted USADA's work (it was, after all, easier than to do otherwise, something that the UCI seems to have form on) has stated a desire that Lance Armstrong be forgotten, then a few bike tracks and roads around the planet will need to be renamed methinks.

I suspect tha UCI is really hoping that the Armstrong affair is forgotten, rather than Lance. I truly hope not - there is much to be done including cleaning out UCI.

Richard Glover on ABC yesterday evening (paraphrased):

"Of course the real worry in the wake of the Lance Armstrong debacle is that young drug users will now start to think that cycling is cool."

In the last week or so Phil has been creeping towards a mea culp but doing his best to not admit to denial in the face of evidence (as well as obscuring or denying has his own responsibility from his profile in cycling or any proffesional obligations as a speialist journalist).

So, his reasoning as to what finally convinced he has been backing the wrong story makes no sense. Except to not have to admit wanton disregard for the evidence that was there all the time.

""I am like everybody else. I had no idea such an in-depth drug scheme was taking place.

Yeah - there was no reason for Phil to be concerned. And no-one else harboured any suspicions either.

Yep, nothing that went before was convincing or worthy of his won proper assessement. Nope - Phil came to the right conclusion finally with this piece of self serving logic:

"If there were any lingering doubts as far as I was concerned, when Nike and all his sponsors pulled out, but continued to donate to Livestrong, quite clearly a deal was struck.

"We’ll donate to Livestrong Lance, providing you leave the company as chairman’.

"That’s about the nearest I think we’re going to get to a confession from Lance. And if he does confess, that leaves him wide open to a myriad legal entanglements."

Yep, the logic is compelling Phil And everything before this was just fluff.

Lifted from http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/cyclin ... 6500550404

Get on board the bikePure train and lend your support people. They're one of our best bets for a better cycling future.
I got Alex Morgan and his WR Jnr Pursuit WC'S mates signed up with them, and I've just passed on details of 2 more rising Aussie juniors that are chomping at the bit to commit to a clean future for cycling.

JustJames wrote:Richard Glover on ABC yesterday evening (paraphrased):

"Of course the real worry in the wake of the Lance Armstrong debacle is that young drug users will now start to think that cycling is cool."

McQuaid disgusts me : "Forget Lance" ... "Whistleblowers are scumbags". Ahole McQuaid is the one who should be forgotten.

Really good analysis of the McQuad announcement here http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... -armstrong.

Meantime, if there's a phd in denial these two would sail through

Kimmage counter attacks by suing Verbruggen and McQuaid

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13195 ... z2B0pabEQH" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ross wrote:Kimmage counter attacks by suing Verbruggen and McQuaid

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13195 ... z2B0pabEQH" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lol - when I have some spare money, I'll add to the fund. Go Kimmage!

+1

The brave and righteous are stepping forward. It's a new era dawning. Bring it on.

It's amazing, but he better have pockets deep enough to pay their legal fees if he doesn't win!

The lawyer that is acting for Kimmage (who coincidently is the same one that SKINS Chairman Jamie Fuller is using) is reportedly doing it for free.

Ross wrote:The lawyer that is acting for Kimmage (who coincidently is the same one that SKINS Chairman Jamie Fuller is using) is reportedly doing it for free.

Nothing is for free, especially lawyers. It's a calculated gamble by the lawyers and will take a deep cut in the financial transaction should they win or settle.

Ross wrote:The lawyer that is acting for Kimmage (who coincidently is the same one that SKINS Chairman Jamie Fuller is using) is reportedly doing it for free.

I don't think that can be correct. If Kimmage was getting free legal representation, there would be no need for fund that has raised over US$90,000 to "help defray legal costs incurred by Paul Kimmage while undertakking his defence against a defamation lawsuit bought by the UCI" - apart from anything else Kimmage would be aware of what happened to Landis for knowingly participating in a scheme to raised money on false pretences.

sogood wrote:Nothing is for free, especially lawyers. It's a calculated gamble by the lawyers and will take a deep cut in the financial transaction should they win or settle.

While you generally can't go wrong in bagging lawyers, your statement is not true of the entire profession. While it doesn't get much publicity there are actually lawyers who represent people for free - but being lawyers it is called pro-bono.