RonK wrote:A well-written article - let's just hope it's not also a self-serving one. Time will tell...
I for one would rather you just came out and said whatever it is you are insinuating.
open topic, for anything cycling related.
i'm insinuating nothing. I'm expressing the hope that McGee's letter is not just a cleverly-worded denial, and that he is not eventually shown to be a doper.
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
I think the issue is that there is such a long and consistent history of doping denials from those who have subsequently been found to have lied, that all professional rider's statements are being viewed with a degree scepticism, irrespective of the credibility of the individual in question.
That's an insinuation all right. Your denial is meaningless.
Well, that's a fair point. It's a point about the credibility of the sport, though, not the credibility of any individual. Attacking an individual (something the OP did, not you) is unhelpful and unwarranted.
I think you are being overly sensitive high_tea - I read Ron's post along the lines set out by Alex, although I see how it can be taken a different way.
I was going to buy a fast, stylish bike, but I looked in the mirror & thought "you're not fooling anyone, you know"
So did i, and i'm getting that feeling every time i read a statement by a supposedly clean rider. After the high profile cases of riders swearing black and blue that they have never had anything to do with drugs and they don't even know how to spell drugs, then it comes out that no, they were lying all along, it's really hard to trust anyone. I'm not saying for a second that i think Mcgee has done anything, but after reading of how much difference can be made with even virtually undetectable doping, it's hard to believe that clean riders could really compete unless the dopers were having a bad day.
When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments- Elizabeth West.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]