Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Tour de France 2010
but the other guy would have just kept heading him into the barrier, so no :)
all the commentators ive heard (brits, aussies, irish and yanks) have said that its part and parcel of sprint racing and they should just get on with it.
Its not like they banned the 2 guys that actually had a fist fight after the race, so they cant say that there clamping down on violence.
all the commentators ive heard (brits, aussies, irish and yanks) have said that its part and parcel of sprint racing and they should just get on with it.
Its not like they banned the 2 guys that actually had a fist fight after the race, so they cant say that there clamping down on violence.
A late answer is better than none.
The reason I support the Schlecks is that there is no fact that they used doping afaik.
Armstrong had a positive doping probe, that's a fact, "AC" was on the Fuentes list, that's a fact too and Basso and Winokurov admitted it, that's a fact too. I don't say the Schlecks don't or never did use doping though.
The problem aren't even the riders but the whole mafia system. Like in the Armstrong case it came out (because of the good work of some journalists) that he paid $ 250000 to the UCI. Rumours say there's even much more he paid. And for that money the UCI destroyed his positive doping probes. Did you read the things Landis said? It's worth reading it I think, you might find it somewhere on the homepage of the Wallstreet Journal. Anyway, think an official court is taking care of it and we'll see what's coming out. According to Greg Lemond it'll be a huge thing!
About Contador it's a similar thing. He is on the Fuentes list but the Spanish cycling association or even the Guardia Civil protected him. Like they did in the case of "Piti" Valverde, who finally got punished four years later. I still hope "AC" gets caught aswell. And it was said that more than 200 names of sportsmen were affected, I think around 50 cyclists got punished, all others are still around. And it's said they were some Spanish top sportsmen from other sports than cycling involved aswell. Anyway, those names somehow dissappeared and the Guardia Civil didn't show the documents to others.
Basso and Winokurov were banned two years. Now they're back and almost as good as before? The cycling expert in the Swiss TV said that this is pretty suspicious. They were caught using doping, came back after two years and are still as good? And there are even riders who're better?
Well, that's not everything. You remember Ricco and Sella? They rode the tour of Austria last week and up to the Kitzbühler Horn they were even faster than years ago! Impossible.
And then you see those who were caught and tried to cooperate with the judges. Where are they now? Jaksche, Sinkewitz for example? They didn't get a contract in the top teams because they told things about the "mafia" cycling they shouldn't have said. And well, they're out of it, nobody wants them anymore.
Anyway, even though I know there still are a lot of cheaters in the peloton I still love cycling! However, I'm always glad if someone gets caught, I hope the whole Armstrong story will end in a huge thing and I also hope they somewhen get Contador's blood bag if he still exists and wasn't destroyed.
-----
And now I'm looking forward to todays stage, the Port de Pailhères is a monster! :-)
The reason I support the Schlecks is that there is no fact that they used doping afaik.
Armstrong had a positive doping probe, that's a fact, "AC" was on the Fuentes list, that's a fact too and Basso and Winokurov admitted it, that's a fact too. I don't say the Schlecks don't or never did use doping though.
The problem aren't even the riders but the whole mafia system. Like in the Armstrong case it came out (because of the good work of some journalists) that he paid $ 250000 to the UCI. Rumours say there's even much more he paid. And for that money the UCI destroyed his positive doping probes. Did you read the things Landis said? It's worth reading it I think, you might find it somewhere on the homepage of the Wallstreet Journal. Anyway, think an official court is taking care of it and we'll see what's coming out. According to Greg Lemond it'll be a huge thing!
About Contador it's a similar thing. He is on the Fuentes list but the Spanish cycling association or even the Guardia Civil protected him. Like they did in the case of "Piti" Valverde, who finally got punished four years later. I still hope "AC" gets caught aswell. And it was said that more than 200 names of sportsmen were affected, I think around 50 cyclists got punished, all others are still around. And it's said they were some Spanish top sportsmen from other sports than cycling involved aswell. Anyway, those names somehow dissappeared and the Guardia Civil didn't show the documents to others.
Basso and Winokurov were banned two years. Now they're back and almost as good as before? The cycling expert in the Swiss TV said that this is pretty suspicious. They were caught using doping, came back after two years and are still as good? And there are even riders who're better?
Well, that's not everything. You remember Ricco and Sella? They rode the tour of Austria last week and up to the Kitzbühler Horn they were even faster than years ago! Impossible.
And then you see those who were caught and tried to cooperate with the judges. Where are they now? Jaksche, Sinkewitz for example? They didn't get a contract in the top teams because they told things about the "mafia" cycling they shouldn't have said. And well, they're out of it, nobody wants them anymore.
Anyway, even though I know there still are a lot of cheaters in the peloton I still love cycling! However, I'm always glad if someone gets caught, I hope the whole Armstrong story will end in a huge thing and I also hope they somewhen get Contador's blood bag if he still exists and wasn't destroyed.
-----
And now I'm looking forward to todays stage, the Port de Pailhères is a monster! :-)
I also think it was a good decision!
Renshaw had space enough and the head butts were totally unnecessary. Moreover, he blocked Farrar intentionally. When you're looking at the slow motion you see he's first looking back and sees Farrar is coming. Then he turns left to block Farrar. No need to mention how dangerous that is.
Good decision!
Renshaw had space enough and the head butts were totally unnecessary. Moreover, he blocked Farrar intentionally. When you're looking at the slow motion you see he's first looking back and sees Farrar is coming. Then he turns left to block Farrar. No need to mention how dangerous that is.
Good decision!
agreed with everything, but...
Anyway, even though I know there still are a lot of cheaters in the peloton I still love cycling! However, I'm always glad if someone gets caught, I hope the whole Armstrong story will end in a huge thing and I also hope they somewhen get Contador's blood bag if he still exists and wasn't destroyed.
Contador appeared at the port operation, but no one was dope, put in the road "as well as the broker or anything," Fuentes never saw, had no blood bag ...
About Valv "piti" it was clear that the blood was his, was not caught by any control, but not being completely honest or have worked with the UCI, I see just the penalty, but not years later!
Mountain today!
Anyway, even though I know there still are a lot of cheaters in the peloton I still love cycling! However, I'm always glad if someone gets caught, I hope the whole Armstrong story will end in a huge thing and I also hope they somewhen get Contador's blood bag if he still exists and wasn't destroyed.
Contador appeared at the port operation, but no one was dope, put in the road "as well as the broker or anything," Fuentes never saw, had no blood bag ...
About Valv "piti" it was clear that the blood was his, was not caught by any control, but not being completely honest or have worked with the UCI, I see just the penalty, but not years later!
Mountain today!
Well, the British and the Aussies don't count, they want Renshaw in the race ( for Cav and for Renshaw himself ), the yanks know nothing about cycling, and the Irish ... well, they're Irish, aren't they? ;-)
No, I saw the race on Flemish television ( experienced commentators, as almost all the cycling races are live on television here ), and everyone agreed Renshaw had to be banned. Same thing on Eurosport, where we have commentators from the Netherlands. Everyone who knows cycling very well, and isn't nuts, will say it was a correct decision.
Edit: and maybe you're used to watch Keirin etc. where this is normal stuff, but in road cycling, it isn't.
(edited)
No, I saw the race on Flemish television ( experienced commentators, as almost all the cycling races are live on television here ), and everyone agreed Renshaw had to be banned. Same thing on Eurosport, where we have commentators from the Netherlands. Everyone who knows cycling very well, and isn't nuts, will say it was a correct decision.
Edit: and maybe you're used to watch Keirin etc. where this is normal stuff, but in road cycling, it isn't.
(edited)
So you don't find this suspicious ? :
Prior to the 2008 UCI Road World Championships in Varese, Italy, on September 26, 2008, the Süddeutsche Zeitung published a further article on the connections between Schleck and Fuentes after claiming to have seen evidence on a bank transfer of €7000 from Schleck to a Swiss bank account linked to Fuentes. The existence of the evidence was revealed by German police and subsequently confirmed by Luxembourg prosecutors.[6]
Following Schleck's public admittance of such payment on October 3, 2008, Bjarne Riis and Team CSC Saxo Bank decided to temporarily suspend Schleck from any further races until the outcome of the doping allegations towards Schleck would be fully clarified.[7] Schleck was cleared from all allegations by the doping authorities of Luxembourg at the beginning of December.
Atleast 1 of the 2 brothers isn't/wasn't a clean rider .
Where's the article that proves Armstrong used doping ? I would like ro tead that .
(edited)
Prior to the 2008 UCI Road World Championships in Varese, Italy, on September 26, 2008, the Süddeutsche Zeitung published a further article on the connections between Schleck and Fuentes after claiming to have seen evidence on a bank transfer of €7000 from Schleck to a Swiss bank account linked to Fuentes. The existence of the evidence was revealed by German police and subsequently confirmed by Luxembourg prosecutors.[6]
Following Schleck's public admittance of such payment on October 3, 2008, Bjarne Riis and Team CSC Saxo Bank decided to temporarily suspend Schleck from any further races until the outcome of the doping allegations towards Schleck would be fully clarified.[7] Schleck was cleared from all allegations by the doping authorities of Luxembourg at the beginning of December.
Atleast 1 of the 2 brothers isn't/wasn't a clean rider .
Where's the article that proves Armstrong used doping ? I would like ro tead that .
(edited)
Of the Schleck, I had no idea
xDDD
Atleast 1 of the 2 brothers isn't/wasn't a clean rider .
Frank is the one that has to force, Andy is the best progression is. :P
For now, the best among them are Chavanell and Vinokourov
It's so funny listening to commentators telling Norwegian Thor Hushovd sprints from the cab of the Spanish commentators xDDDDDDDD
xDDD
Atleast 1 of the 2 brothers isn't/wasn't a clean rider .
Frank is the one that has to force, Andy is the best progression is. :P
For now, the best among them are Chavanell and Vinokourov
It's so funny listening to commentators telling Norwegian Thor Hushovd sprints from the cab of the Spanish commentators xDDDDDDDD
Here a article over Amrstrong ( translated form dutch to english so it isnt perfect )
Conspiracy against Lance Armstrong
BACKGROUND, by Harm Kuipers on September 12 '05, 11:25, Updated May 10 '06, 18:20
FORUM - That Lance Armstrong would have used drugs, is hardly an accusation that can be hard, set Harm Kuipers. The result is that the confidence of athletes in the anti-doping rules severely undermined.
Recently reported the French newspaper L'Equipe that Lance Armstrong's urine sample taken during the Tour de France 1999, would be positive for EPO. The research was done on preserved samples B (normally used for counter-expertise), commissioned by the anti-doping agency WADA (World Anti Doping Agency).
It looks very similar to that Armstrong is the victim of a conspiracy, which, unfortunately, the network beyond the doping in Paris and L'Equipe. It is curious that a WADA accredited laboratory data to an outside person can bring, because a lab has only urine samples showing a code number. The samples were anonymous and it is strictly against all rules and regulations that an accredited laboratory can link names to code numbers.
And if you have any way that could reduce, or prohibit the rules to bring that out. But how can the lab still know that a certain code of Lance Armstrong was? The only ones to link name and code have been Armstrong himself, the office of the UCI (International Cycling Union) and WADA. Reliable sources indicate that neither Armstrong nor the UCI that provided data to the French dopinglab.
It seems therefore that the information, code and name which could be brought together, came from WADA. That in itself is very serious, but it gets even worse when the President of WADA by the smear campaign against Armstrong feeds statements in the media do.
The most appropriate response to the allegations against Armstrong, WADA would have been to the accredited lab in Paris immediately suspend or reprimand. The strict rules about anonymity and confidentiality are nota bene themselves up by WADA. It can not have a WADA on the one hand, strict ethical rules imposed on athletes and sports organizations, while allowing the same WADA rules are grossly violated by officials?
Legally, the insinuations and accusations extremely weak. First, it can not be proved that the urine indeed Armstrong, because it is very easy to jar open, there epo to make or the urine to change for 'dirty' urine of someone else, so the result is positive. Even with a DNA test, which is to show whether the urine of Armstrong really is, adding epo not be excluded. So any evidence goes wrong and it seems that some people are only out the dominance of Armstrong to discredit.
And what if Armstrong's urine from 1999 was indeed positive for EPO? In any case it is only fair to include the results and names of the other Tour cyclists to publish, to assess whether Armstrong really benefited. But even if he had his urine in 1999 epo, some drivers appear in the flow of vague allegations to forget that Lance Armstrong 1999, five years after a row has the toughest cycling event to win, while same-EPO urine test clean found.
On that performance is nothing to bargain and Armstrong does not need to prove again that he can win without doping. Lance Armstrong remains a great sportsman who did not deserve such a way to discredit or use.
The sad affair is that the confidence of the sporting world in the reliability and integrity of the anti-doping movement has seriously harmed. It is difficult to explain that an athlete for a doping violation as a criminal is treated and two years suspended, while key figures in the anti-doping movement, without any penalty to all provisions of confidentiality to their boot can relax and unsubstantiated accusations the world can throw . Therefore, a strong signal to WADA in place.
Sports federations, governments and anti-doping organizations can this injustice and violation of rules adopted by them do not simply let go of their hand?
Conspiracy against Lance Armstrong
BACKGROUND, by Harm Kuipers on September 12 '05, 11:25, Updated May 10 '06, 18:20
FORUM - That Lance Armstrong would have used drugs, is hardly an accusation that can be hard, set Harm Kuipers. The result is that the confidence of athletes in the anti-doping rules severely undermined.
Recently reported the French newspaper L'Equipe that Lance Armstrong's urine sample taken during the Tour de France 1999, would be positive for EPO. The research was done on preserved samples B (normally used for counter-expertise), commissioned by the anti-doping agency WADA (World Anti Doping Agency).
It looks very similar to that Armstrong is the victim of a conspiracy, which, unfortunately, the network beyond the doping in Paris and L'Equipe. It is curious that a WADA accredited laboratory data to an outside person can bring, because a lab has only urine samples showing a code number. The samples were anonymous and it is strictly against all rules and regulations that an accredited laboratory can link names to code numbers.
And if you have any way that could reduce, or prohibit the rules to bring that out. But how can the lab still know that a certain code of Lance Armstrong was? The only ones to link name and code have been Armstrong himself, the office of the UCI (International Cycling Union) and WADA. Reliable sources indicate that neither Armstrong nor the UCI that provided data to the French dopinglab.
It seems therefore that the information, code and name which could be brought together, came from WADA. That in itself is very serious, but it gets even worse when the President of WADA by the smear campaign against Armstrong feeds statements in the media do.
The most appropriate response to the allegations against Armstrong, WADA would have been to the accredited lab in Paris immediately suspend or reprimand. The strict rules about anonymity and confidentiality are nota bene themselves up by WADA. It can not have a WADA on the one hand, strict ethical rules imposed on athletes and sports organizations, while allowing the same WADA rules are grossly violated by officials?
Legally, the insinuations and accusations extremely weak. First, it can not be proved that the urine indeed Armstrong, because it is very easy to jar open, there epo to make or the urine to change for 'dirty' urine of someone else, so the result is positive. Even with a DNA test, which is to show whether the urine of Armstrong really is, adding epo not be excluded. So any evidence goes wrong and it seems that some people are only out the dominance of Armstrong to discredit.
And what if Armstrong's urine from 1999 was indeed positive for EPO? In any case it is only fair to include the results and names of the other Tour cyclists to publish, to assess whether Armstrong really benefited. But even if he had his urine in 1999 epo, some drivers appear in the flow of vague allegations to forget that Lance Armstrong 1999, five years after a row has the toughest cycling event to win, while same-EPO urine test clean found.
On that performance is nothing to bargain and Armstrong does not need to prove again that he can win without doping. Lance Armstrong remains a great sportsman who did not deserve such a way to discredit or use.
The sad affair is that the confidence of the sporting world in the reliability and integrity of the anti-doping movement has seriously harmed. It is difficult to explain that an athlete for a doping violation as a criminal is treated and two years suspended, while key figures in the anti-doping movement, without any penalty to all provisions of confidentiality to their boot can relax and unsubstantiated accusations the world can throw . Therefore, a strong signal to WADA in place.
Sports federations, governments and anti-doping organizations can this injustice and violation of rules adopted by them do not simply let go of their hand?
Google Translator?
Better translate it yourself next time.
Better translate it yourself next time.
those cycling commentators are awesome, 200km of no action and absolutely nothing to talk about but they just keep going and are still so energetic at commentating the last 10 km.
I am just wondering, does anynone really watches all 200km from beginning till the end? It reminds me mass start in cross-country skiing, which is really boring and cycling lasts often 5-6 hours.
Well let's hope not. But on the other hand there are also ppl who play laser tag.
Very nice pictures, all those riders in the Pyrenees. Always impressive ..
does anynone really watches all 200km from beginning till the end?
If I'm correct, they start showing the Tour on tv in all countries at the same time, around 13.40h France time. So, no, no one watches the full 200km.
If I'm correct, they start showing the Tour on tv in all countries at the same time, around 13.40h France time. So, no, no one watches the full 200km.
I've been watching the race today since 13:30, but with my PC with me ;-)
What was Schleck and Contador doing today?!