So who won the tour from 1999 to 2005
80 watchers
Mar 2018
6:27pm, 17 Mar 2018
12,387 posts
|
Chrisull
And also the bio passport entry: 'Likely doping. Passport suspicious. Further data is required.' Remember when UCI cycling list was leaked? Look at that list with retrospective knowledge and tell me in the 4 /10 and over who has been unfairly maligned? One or two there... Geraint ? Tony Martin?? Not many others are there. Look at the 4s in particular. 2010. Lance, Levi, Sammy Sanchez, Van de Velde... cyclingnews.com Retrospective clearances mean nothing as Lance has showed. Some names are just too big to fail. |
Mar 2018
7:22pm, 17 Mar 2018
4,168 posts
|
larkim
Further testing required. And done. And clarified. Surely we've got to have some faith in the process? |
|
Mar 2018
8:00pm, 17 Mar 2018
4,169 posts
|
larkim
And Farah hadn't denied he'd known aden, he even gets a mention in his autobiography I believe. If Farah's guilty of anything, it's someone's giving naive answers to journalists like MacKenna who then spin and over interpret them and turn them into stories which become LetsRun forum fodder for the intellectually disadvantaged who inhabit that forum with their conspiracy theory minds. There's no way Farah can prove he's clean sufficiently in the current environment. But I'm comfortable that someone with his profile has been properly scrutinised by UKAD, IAAF and WADA over a long enough period to be as conclusively clean as anyone else on the track or roads. (And before anyone screams the pointless argument that Lance never failed a test, I suggest you try that argument with Jo Pavey, Laura Muir, etc and see how fallacious that is. Plus no UCI involvement in testing Farah). |
Mar 2018
8:06pm, 17 Mar 2018
838 posts
|
SailorSteve
And I’m comfortable that Vladimir Putin has been properly scrutinised by the authorities sharing his interests.
|
|
Mar 2018
8:07pm, 17 Mar 2018
839 posts
|
SailorSteve
Ya pays ya money......
|
|
Mar 2018
8:26pm, 17 Mar 2018
4,171 posts
|
larkim
Just goes to show we all have inherently prejudged views. I think my position is more credible - treat as clean unless the authorities find otherwise. Any other position and all you've got is your own opinion, supposition and hypothesis which gives almost no rational reason not to suspect everyone in the sport. That's untenable as far as I can see. |
|
Mar 2018
8:38pm, 17 Mar 2018
840 posts
|
SailorSteve
I've no beef with you Larks. I do have an issue in the area that you describe as "the authorities." You take it as read that "the authorities" are clean. I don't.
|
Mar 2018
8:50pm, 17 Mar 2018
12,679 posts
|
Bazoaxe
Kabooom
|
|
Mar 2018
10:14pm, 17 Mar 2018
4,172 posts
|
larkim
I've got no information to the contrary though - why assume UKAD, USADA, WADA and IAAF are all in on a conspiracy to keep Mo badged as clean?
|
|
Mar 2018
10:29pm, 17 Mar 2018
4,173 posts
|
larkim
I'm not saying those bodies are flawless, but it's quite an "omerta" required to achieve the fraud that's effectively being suggested. Or incompetence on a fairly unimaginable scale, and given that two of the bodies I mentioned above brought down LA I think they have some credibility, no? |
Related Threads
-
Cheating in amateur sports
Apr 2017
-
Are you doping? Do you know someone who is?
Mar 2017
-
Tour De France
Aug 2020
-
Le Tour 2016
Jul 2016
-
Tour de France 2016
Jun 2016
-
T\'Tour in otley
Apr 2016
-
Le Tour 2015
Aug 2015
-
Le Tour 2014
Jun 2015
-
Tour of Britain
Jan 2015
-
Womens Tour Of Britain
May 2014
