http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/ ... 608613.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;DaveOZ wrote: Worth watching the 4 Corners prog if you missed it.
HOLY !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!
- Ross
- Posts: 5742
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:53 pm
Re: HOLY showtime!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!
Postby Ross » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:42 am
- philip
- Posts: 1622
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:57 pm
- Location: Sydney
- Contact:
Re: HOLY showtime!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!
Postby philip » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:58 am
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.
- greyhoundtom
- Posts: 3023
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:28 am
- Location: Wherever the sun is shining
- Contact:
Re: HOLY showtime!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!
Postby greyhoundtom » Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:09 am
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.
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: HOLY showtime!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!
Postby Xplora » Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:51 am
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.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.
For Lance to go down probably means the death of cycling for Phil. And I think he'd be right.
- sogood
- Posts: 17168
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
- Location: Sydney AU
Re: HOLY showtime!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!
Postby sogood » Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:52 am
But if it was left long enough, it'll turn into fossils for the archeologists.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.
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
- sogood
- Posts: 17168
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
- Location: Sydney AU
Re: HOLY showtime!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!
Postby sogood » Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:59 am
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.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.
Looking forward to the turning of a new page.
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
- herzog
- Posts: 2174
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:50 pm
Re: HOLY showtime!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!
Postby herzog » Tue Oct 16, 2012 10:11 am
- Jean
- Posts: 1754
- Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:26 am
- Location: Canberra
Re: HOLY showtime!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!
Postby Jean » Tue Oct 16, 2012 10:24 am
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.Xplora wrote: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.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.
For Lance to go down probably means the death of cycling for Phil. And I think he'd be right.
- sogood
- Posts: 17168
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
- Location: Sydney AU
Re: HOLY showtime!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!
Postby sogood » Tue Oct 16, 2012 10:40 am
That's a big rough.herzog wrote:Wow Liggett is starting to look like part of the problem. An enabler.
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
- Alex Simmons/RST
- Expert
- Posts: 4997
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
- Contact:
Re: HOLY showtime!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!
Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:01 am
Glad to know you were actually joking.master6 wrote:The good news for Australia is that only one of our number has offended here.
- clackers
- Posts: 2065
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 10:48 am
- Location: Melbourne
Re: HOLY showtime!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!
Postby clackers » Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:01 am
Well, some might say an apologist at best, SoGood, a sock puppet at worst. Enabler not so bad a moniker by comparison.sogood wrote:That's a big rough.herzog wrote:Wow Liggett is starting to look like part of the problem. An enabler.
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".
- Alex Simmons/RST
- Expert
- Posts: 4997
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
- Contact:
Re: HOLY showtime!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!
Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:03 am
And that was before USADA's RD document was released.Jean wrote: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.Xplora wrote: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.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.
For Lance to go down probably means the death of cycling for Phil. And I think he'd be right.
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).
- clackers
- Posts: 2065
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 10:48 am
- Location: Melbourne
Re: HOLY showtime!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!
Postby clackers » Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:10 am
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)master6 wrote:The good news for Australia is that only one of our number has offended here.
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;
- sogood
- Posts: 17168
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
- Location: Sydney AU
Re: HOLY showtime!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!
Postby sogood » Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:26 am
Given what has happened, I don't have faith with any of the associated organizations. Everyone is under the cloud unfortunately.clackers wrote:Lucky our cycling body isn't as compromised as the UCI
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
- Chuck
- Posts: 4376
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:19 pm
- Location: Hiding in the bunch
Re: HOLY showtime!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!
Postby Chuck » Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:33 am
Heads in the sand down here tooclackers wrote:
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/ ... 27n0p.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Excellent article thanks for sharing clackers.
- Chuck
- Posts: 4376
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:19 pm
- Location: Hiding in the bunch
Re: HOLY showtime!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!
Postby Chuck » Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:37 am
Sarcasmsogood wrote:Given what has happened, I don't have faith with any of the associated organizations. Everyone is under the cloud unfortunately.clackers wrote:Lucky our cycling body isn't as compromised as the UCI
- sogood
- Posts: 17168
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
- Location: Sydney AU
Re: HOLY showtime!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!
Postby sogood » Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:47 am
So it would be.Chuck wrote:Sarcasm
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
- Chuck
- Posts: 4376
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:19 pm
- Location: Hiding in the bunch
Re: HOLY showtime!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!
Postby Chuck » Tue Oct 16, 2012 12:22 pm
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.
- g-boaf
- Posts: 21497
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm
Re: HOLY showtime!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!
Postby g-boaf » Tue Oct 16, 2012 12:53 pm
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.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'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.
-
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:12 pm
Re: HOLY showtime!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!
Postby Jono L. » Tue Oct 16, 2012 1:17 pm
It's not rough, it is 100% correct.sogood wrote:That's a big rough.herzog wrote:Wow Liggett is starting to look like part of the problem. An enabler.
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.
- sogood
- Posts: 17168
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
- Location: Sydney AU
Re: HOLY showtime!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!
Postby sogood » Tue Oct 16, 2012 1:26 pm
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.Jono L. wrote:It's not rough, it is 100% correct.
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
-
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:12 pm
Re: HOLY showtime!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!
Postby Jono L. » Tue Oct 16, 2012 2:05 pm
If innocent until proven guilty was applied Phil wouldn't have helped to advocate the denigration of people who spoke out against Lance.sogood wrote: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.Jono L. wrote:It's not rough, it is 100% correct.
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.
- herzog
- Posts: 2174
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:50 pm
Re: HOLY showtime!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!
Postby herzog » Tue Oct 16, 2012 2:46 pm
For me, Liggett's credibility is in tatters.
- JustJames
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 1:50 am
Re: HOLY showtime!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!
Postby JustJames » Tue Oct 16, 2012 3:49 pm
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.
http://pedallingcharm.wordpress.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- greyhoundtom
- Posts: 3023
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:28 am
- Location: Wherever the sun is shining
- Contact:
Re: HOLY showtime!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!
Postby greyhoundtom » Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:33 pm
Interview - Five Questions with Betsy AndreuJustJames 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.
Return to “General Cycling Discussion”
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+10:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.