Login Registrati Connettiti via Facebook



Non sei registrato o connesso al forum.
Effettua la registrazione gratuita o il login per poter sfruttare tutte le funzionalità del forum e rimuovere ogni forma di pubblicità invasiva.

Condividi:
Lance Armstrong
#41
Ahah Gibo che fa piazza pulita...

Ma va che io stavo scherzando eh, è divertente segnalare la gente alla cazzo...
 
Rispondi
#42
Sì perchè si stava innescando anche una discussione del cavolo su Pantani, doping e cazzi vari Sweat Sese

(Questo messaggio si autodistruggerà entro 3 secondi Shifty )
 
Rispondi
#43
Qui c'è la censura non va bene Mmm
 
Rispondi
#44
Amrstrong ha restituito la medaglia olimpica vinta a Sidney. Gli altri medagliati del ciclismo su strada di quell'edizione sono Ullrich, Vinokourov, Kloden e Ekimov. Loro naturalmente non devono restituire niente, ci mancherebbe. Anzi, magari facciamo una squadra pure ad Ullrich e Kloden
 
Rispondi
#45
Sarà un caso, ma sono tutti T - Mobile ed US Postal...

Klöden però ha avuto una carriera - apparentemente almeno - esemplare...

Gersh merda tifoso di Armstrong Sick
 
Rispondi
#46
Io ho sempre tifato contro Armstrong, però l'ingiustizia di questo trattamento è troppo grossa (non tanto perché gli altri non devono restituire le medaglie, ma perché due di loro sono ancora nel ciclismo, prendono stipendi importanti per dirigere squadre di primissima fascia con tanti giovani)
 
Rispondi


[+] A 1 utente piace il post di Gershwin
#47
Ricordiamo il podio Olimpico di quel giorno.

[Immagine: 1200-armstrong-medal.jpg]

Oro: Emanuel Sellovsky
Argento: Jan Ullrich
Bronzo: Lance Armstrong
 
Rispondi
#48
Ullrich finito il Tour era quasi magro, comunque sono uno più brutto dell'altro, molto meglio la prima immagine che ha in firma Manuel, là sì che ci sono tre bellezze mica da ridere...
 
Rispondi
#49
La cosa sconvolgente che le Olimpiadi di Sydney non le hanno fatte neanche a fine Tour, ma a Ottobre se non ricordo male e che quindi Kaiser Jan avrebbe già potuto abbuffarsi :P

Trattamento ingiusto no, perchè questo Armstrong se lo poteva aspettare e non si può lamentare che gli altri non pagano. Il pugno duro purtroppo lo usano solo con chi conviene in quel momento.
 
Rispondi
#50
Ingiusto rispetto al nulla subito da tutti gli altri che facevano le stesse cose (e alla Telekom facevano di peggio). Io le medaglie le toglierei ad Armstrong e a tutti gli altri. Poi non ci sono le prove, ok, ma basta prendere 2-3 ex Telekom a caso, forzarli un attimo come è stato fatto con gli ex Us Postal e ci saranno testimonianze sufficienti a radiare Ullrich, Zabel, Kloden, Vinokourov e così via. Si punisce solo chi si vuole punire in quel momento, però non capisco perché tutti se ne accorgono solo quando è troppo tardi (come con Pantani visto che anche in quel caso la grande ingiustizia non è stata punire lui, ma punire solo lui)
 
Rispondi
#51
Lance Armstrong exclusive interview: Part 1
Oslo 1993, the UCI and the switch to "high-octane" doping


A year on from USADA’s Reasoned Decision, Lance Armstrong swivels in his desk chair as he talks at length about the last 12 months and many aspects of his career starting from when he turned professional back in 1992. The now disgraced Texan has agreed to sit down with Cyclingnews Editor Daniel Benson for a face-to-face interview in his new temporary home in a sleepy suburban district of Austin.

Armstrong has seen his entire empire crumble during the last 12 months. His sponsors have fled, his cancer foundation has cut its ties, and all the endorsements have gone. All his power has diminished. Credible no longer and with a lifetime ban and several legal cases snapping at his heels, Armstrong is in a place he never thought he’d be.

We had met the evening before the interview, albeit briefly, in one of Armstrong’s favourite local bars, a case of each of us sounding the other out, perhaps. But the next morning, Armstrong, having just returned from a run, was relaxed, poised and keen to talk.

The limits: No video and an understanding that there are details he will only share with WADA, the UCI or a formal truth and reconciliation process. However, he is keen to talk.

Armstrong talks his meteoric rise and early doping, his manipulation of the narrative, his allies and foes in the press room, his apologies, how he hid behind the "cancer shield", his win-at-all-cost mentality and his bitter war with Travis Tygart and USADA.

Cyclingnews will publish the complete interview over the next four days.

Daniel Benson: Let’s start with 1993 and coming over to Europe and what that experience was like.

Lance Armstrong: It really started in 1992 because I was a stagiaire after the Olympics. I’d already gotten a sense of what pro riding was like. The highs and the lows. From the lows of San Sebastian to the experience of racing the Worlds that year in Benidorm. I had some idea what it was like, but 1993 was obviously the first full season. For a young guy, that was eye-opening for sure. But I wasn’t overwhelmed. I was competitive at Gent-Wevelgem, I was competitive in Paris-Nice, in [Tour] DuPont. I felt I was in the game for such a young guy.

DB: How aware were you of the culture of the sport?

LA: I was moderately aware. But I think everyone was, from the riders to the press room to the fans. Everyone today just acts so shocked and stunned but back then, the press room and the riders were closer I think. I think it was that way in other sports: it was like that in baseball, in boxing. Those guys [the press] knew everything, whether it was a baseball player or a cyclist, they just didn’t write it. But the media has changed. Obviously cycling has evolved, but the media has changed drastically.

DB: I definitely want to come to the media and the narrative – even Cyclingnews had part to play in it – but just going back to the issue of the culture. You were up against guys like [Miguel] Indurain, [Laurent] Jalabert, [Tony] Rominger and all these guys. When you came over, were you clean in those early races? Did you realise what was going on or were you already ingrained in that culture that existed?

LA: No. I mean as a young rider, I didn’t know then what other people were doing, but we were basically… I mean, I don’t know about [Andy] Hampsten or [Alvaro] Mejia or the GC guys at Motorola, but we were more or less a clean team. And then again, as young riders, you would be even a tier below that.

DB: You said more or less?

LA: [Laughs] That’s what I mean, more or less. Again I don’t know what others did or didn’t do, and I don’t want to get into the details, but at some point cycling switched from low-octane to high-octane. I don’t know who had made that switch to high-octane first. In Motorola, we had not in 1993. It’s well documented that we did make that switch in 1995, but in the years before, we were low-octane [Armstrong later defined "low-octane" as meaning "Cortisone, etc"– ed.] That worked okay in 1993 but it did not work okay in 1994. In that winter between '93 and '94, there was a tectonic shift.

DB: What hasn’t been documented is when you first crossed that line. If you even want to call it a line, in terms of being low-octane. Can you say when that was?

LA: That’s the kind of detail… It was before 1995, put it that way.

DB: Before you came to Europe?

LA: No. No. I mean if taking a caffeine pill for a criterium counts.

DB: Nothing like testosterone?

LA: Absolutely not. And that wasn’t even in 1995. [Armstrong confirmed later he took testosterone for the first time in 1996 - ed.] In the affidavits of these guys you can tell when there was a switch. We felt we had no choice. Of course, we had a choice, we could have bailed and gone home, but we felt that to compete at that level we didn’t have a choice.

DB: Did you win that world championships in Oslo, 20 years ago, on [taps glass of water] clean?

LA: That’s the detail I can’t get into. It was still low-octane. You know, I think, in the last couple of days I’ve read these stories about Michael Rasmussen and his interaction with [Rolf] Sørensen. That was the norm then. I think he’s spot on. I don’t know his motivation, it doesn’t matter, but he’s spot on.

DB: So it’s a slow process.

LA: At the time that was the norm.

DB: What I mean is was it a slow process in the sense that you see these riders in 1994 and they’re dancing away from you at Flèche Wallonne and Liège-Bastogne-Liège. You’re in the rainbow jersey and you think "we’ve got to catch up" but is it a slow process to move into that area of doping or is it just a quick instantaneous move?

LA: Well we rode in 1994 and we didn’t move into high-octane. We just suffered through the year. In '95, for a variety of reasons we just decided to make that next step.

DB: Was there a ringleader who stood out and ushered that through?

LA: It’s not my style to name names. There were certainly as a whole us American guys, to generalise that group, who made that decision together. Perhaps there were people on the team, older riders who we knew had done that, and there were others – we had to have help from the team doctor – but these are all people who have avoided any consequences. Totally.

DB: Did you think you could win the Tour in those early years?

LA: I dreamed and aspired to it. I wasn’t sure, and I wasn’t concerned because at 21, 22, I didn’t need to worry about it then. I had a few years to focus on the things that I was excelling at, like the Classics and small stage races. That kept the team happy, that kept me with a good contract and that was fine with me.

DB: The 1998 Vuelta a España was a breakthrough. What do you put that down to? I read Wheelmen but what do you put that down to? Because your GC record before then was around the mid 30s, it wasn’t a top five or a top four…

LA: That was an interesting year because I came back, then I didn’t come back, and then I came back after bailing. The only thing – obviously the Vuelta isn’t the Tour or the Giro – is that I was super light, much lighter than I’d ever been in my career. You can see that from the pictures, but that ratio of power to weight was better and I was incredibly motivated. We were still trying to scrap by as this team. Postal Service at the time was a shit team, and we took a shitty team to the Vuelta. We caught some lucky breaks too. Shit, the first day there was a split, the very first day, and 200 guys split in two, and I was the 99th guy to make it. I was hanging on by the skin of my teeth. No secrets and if you look at the competition you had some explosive climbers like [José Maria] Jimenez but you also had [Abraham] Olano win…

DB: Who you said you could drop on your grandmother’s bicycle… But something must have changed in terms of the doping program that you went through.

LA: I’m not going to get into that. This is not an interview with WADA or a TRC so I’m not getting into that. If that interview comes, I’ll be happy to talk about that or I’ll tell that story myself. It would be foolish of me to tell every detail in an online interview. I had a feeling you wanted detail like that but I’m not giving that.

DB: Could I have a yes or a no?

LA: No. No. Everyone already knows. There’s not that much more to tell. And I don’t want to just talk about doping. It’s obviously an element but 99 per cent of my career isn’t about doping. Maybe it is today because that’s the tagline that gets the attention.

DB: When did you realise that the UCI didn’t give a fuck?

LA: I don’t know if they didn’t give a fuck or if they just couldn’t, honestly, and I don’t think highly of Pat [McQuaid] or Hein [Verbruggen] today, but what were they going to do? Imagine you’re Hein, and again I’m not defending him, but take yourself to '94 or maybe even '93 or before. He should have known before because high-octane existed in the late '80s and not just in cycling, in other endurance sports. You’re there, you’re the head of the governing body, you’ve got no test, no test at all – what are you going to do? And again, I know those guys are easy to pick on, but it’s 1995 for example, you’re Hein Verbruggen. What the fuck are you going to do? Hope someone gets caught at a border? There’s nothing you can do. Maybe they didn’t give a fuck, I didn’t ask them, but I do know that they could not do a thing. Just like the head of the IAAF couldn’t do a thing, just like the head of FINA couldn’t do a thing. They just did not have the tools to do anything until maybe 10 years later.

DB: But do you not think they didn’t have even the will?

LA: If they had the scientific data to protect them legally, then yeah, but again I don’t know. Ultimately we end up where we are today where we have a test that works for one compound [EPO] and guys have to decide if they want to dance around that. I’d like to think that there’s a lot less risk taking. But at the time they could only test for what they had a test for. I don’t think it’s right or responsible, and again I’m not defending them because I don’t really care for them, but cycling tried with some pressure to implement things that were just band-aids over the course of time. Whether it was just the 50 per cent rule, which was what it was – it wasn’t perfect but it was a step. But the sport got no credit for it. That led to more things like the off-score, which led to the biological passport and all the while, no credit. And every other sport that has the doping problem is sitting back and laughing, laughing their asses off, getting no attention, no criticism, no exposure and not doing a fucking thing.

DB: Okay, well what do you put that down to?

LA: Well cycling, the Tour is bigger than some cross country race, even the New York City Marathon. It’s bigger than those things.

DB: Okay, but it’s not as big as the World Cup in soccer or the Super Bowl.

LA: Well listen, the biggest difference between cycling, football and tennis is the players’ union, an athletes’ union. We have no voice, no unity. There are guys all over the place. Those sports, major league sports, they’re not letting that happen and the owners wouldn’t allow it to happen. Whereas we’ve just been living in the Wild West. The riders have no rights, ASO continues to make millions, the teams don’t own anything. The only thing a team owns is its current contract, and when that’s up you’re fucking done. You might have a couple of buses and a truck. There’s no equity and value. It’s a fucked up business model.

Cyclingnews.com
 
Rispondi
#52
Lance Armstrong exclusive interview: Part 2

During Lance Armstrong’s career, controlling the narrative was a key element to his power, his story and to hiding his doping.

Whether it was through controlling access of the media, degrading those few journalists that stood in his way or welcoming the writers who thrived on his cancer-survivor-turned-Tour-winner miracle, he knew it all helped shaped his heroic public perception.

In this second part of Cyclingnews’ exclusive interview with Armstrong at his home in Austin, Managing Editor Daniel Benson ask him how his relationships with the press worked; whether it was the pro-Armstrong camp or those like David Walsh and Pierre Ballester who listened to their instincts and strove for the truth. He admits he and Walsh are similar because they are both “win at all cost guys.”

Armstrong also reveals his regrets about using the cancer shield to protect and boost his image as the doping allegations grew stronger and stronger. He acknowledges he fooled them into believing his story was perfect.

USADA has claimed there is a one in a million chance that Armstrong rode the 2010 Tour de France clean. He says a test for blood transfusions would prove his innocence.

Cyclingnews will publish further parts of interview in the next few days. You can read part one of the interview here.

DB: Let’s talk about 1999. I remember reading the cover of one magazine and the heading was ‘English-speaking Tour winner wanted please.’ I want to talk about how the media reacted to your win, in terms of both the suspicions they had and the other side of cheerleading and help they gave to promote the story. What was that like, how did that work?

LA: Which part?

DB: The pro-Armstrong part.

LA: The momentum built in the media and then that helped build it in the public eye. It was what it was. It was a cancer survivor who was two years out of diagnosis winning the hardest sport in the world. As you can imagine, I know at the time I took that for granted. I can see why that became such a story and one turns to two and the story just builds and builds. Hence the reason why so much of the fallout has been so drastic. If you’re just a guy who wins the Tour seven times with no ‘story,’ the fallout isn’t the same. A lot of that’s my fault. I accept responsibility for being so aggressive and stern when it came to the denials. It was a tremendous mistake. That took the fall and doubled it.

I definitely denied it. In the first press conference in 1999 when the question comes up and you’re in the yellow jersey, I don’t know a person who would say ‘you’re right, that’s a great question, and I have to be honest’. Who the fuck would say that? Who? It’s one thing to not comment and get out of that question as soon as you can. It’s a whole different thing to be confrontational and combative, which was what I was.

DB: You had these relationships with some press though, I remember a French journalist visiting you when you were sick in 1996 and he saw a shift in your personality and behaviour from 1999 onwards.

LA: I don’t know. But certainly there was a big difference between a press conference of mine in 1996 and a press conference of mine in 1999. It elevated at what seemed to me as being very quickly. I wasn’t prepared for that, clearly. It’s no secret that it was on the heels of Festina in 1998 so you were going to get a lot of questions. I took offence to those, I didn’t want to answer those, but I handled it the wrong way. That’s all my fault. I’d like to go back and answer questions differently or more mildly but I can’t.

DB: At the same time, you had a large element in the press corps that didn’t ask you those questions and wrote glowingly of you.

LA: Yep.

DB: They must have known, too, or had their suspicions but didn’t write about it. How did that relationship work?

LA: I don’t know. I think, as you know, the press room at the Tour is a weird place. You have a thousand people there. Okay so you have guys who really know, know cycling left, right and centre, upside down and inside out. They knew. They knew everything, all that shit, but they were friends with the players. Then you had a new generation of journalists and then you had those who were there just to cover a doping story. They didn’t care about a bike race, they didn’t care about a crash, they just came waiting for a car crash.

DB: Did you respect that pro-Armstrong camp?

LA: Yeah. And I still do.

DB: Well what about on the other side of the fence, guys like David Walsh? What were your feelings towards him and have they changed since 1999?

LA: Obviously David and I have had a long history. I have mixed feelings. He was right about some things but I saw a side of him along the way that wasn’t correct. He knows better than anyone the times he’s been caught out, but whatever. I doubt that he will read this interview because he’s in the middle of his global victory tour. I’ve tried to resolve that situation as best as I could and I think that I did.

DB: How did the blacklist work?

LA: There was never a blacklist. People think there was a list on the bus with a bunch of photos, but that’s a load of bullshit. Okay, we’d sit in the bus and look outside, but we did that every day and talked about other teams, people – you’re pretty much a rat in a cage. We were looking outside. There were certain people we didn’t want to talk to but Chris Froome, I’m sure, sits on the bus and looks outside and thinks he’s not talking to that guy. That’s totally normal.

DB: There was an element of the press you wouldn’t talk to and there were certainly journalists who felt that if they were associated with guys like Walsh or [Pierre] Ballester, for example, they would find their access limited or cut. That’s been well documented.

LA: There was never that much access anyway. There was very little access anyhow.

DB: That did happen. Guys kicked Walsh out of a car because they didn’t want to travel with him. Johan Bruyneel once made that clear to them.

LA: I consider Rupert [Guinness] and John [Wilcockson] friends, I don’t know Andy [Hood] that well but I never once said that if you’re riding in the car with him you can’t talk to me. I never said that. It’s no secret that David and I had a contentious relationship, the entire world knew, but there was no quid pro quo with those guys.

DB: Do you respect David Walsh?

LA: [long pause] If you look at the entire peloton...This isn’t Michelle Smith. She was in a pool with more or less clean athletes. This was truly a targeted mission but that’s okay, that was his ticket. So was he being honest, and right on certain aspects? Yes. Was I no different from everyone else? I think we’re starting to see that.

DB: But back to the question. Do you have, even if it’s grudging or if it’s too soon, do you have respect for him as a journalist. I won’t say you’re similar but you’re both dogged….

LA: You took the words right out of my mouth. David and I are similar. I was a win at all costs kind of guy. David is a win at all costs kind of guy. Even if it means embellishing, tweaking. Was he right that I was doping in those years? Absolutely and hats off to him, but there were times he would have done anything to do that story. But I understand that, I was the same way. That was the world I lived for a long time.

DB: Did you think that you could control the media, the cycling media?

LA: I don’t know. I think for the most part, I don’t know the answer, but for the most part I had a decent relationship with them.

DB: Because they wanted a good story and you were that angle?

LA: I don’t know.

DB: Did it come easy for you to have those type of relationships, to have those press conferences in 1993 to having those different ones in 1999 and onwards?

LA: Again it changed. The media really changed. You had more and more outlets. In '93 you had newspapers and you didn’t have this entire army of bloggers and websites. Fast forward to today where everyone is some kind of journalist covering an event. That breeds competition, and people chasing stories. Cycling was a perfect petri dish for that. Again fast forward to today and the frenzy around the last 12 months. It was fodder for what we call the media today.

DB: Was it easy to do that, to sit in the press conferences and deny and lie effectively?

LA: Again, I don’t know who else got the questions, but once you say no once you’re stuck with no. So you just keep saying no.

DB: You said more than just no though.

LA: I know and it would have been better to have been more passive in a press conference.

DB: I remember one quote, ‘I’ve seen death in the face and I don’t do drugs.’ That’s a really strong statement to make.

LA: Daniel, those are the moments you’d do anything to take back or say something different, or erase it. It’s inexcusable; it’s embarrassing to hear that. And even in many ways, fuck the press room. A statement like that, what it would have signified or the confidence it would have given to the community that matters, the cancer community, they took stuff like that to heart. That gave them faith that the story was perfect. In my mind – and maybe I’m more aligned to that group – but in my mind that’s where the foul there is times one thousand. I’d love to change it but I can’t.

DB: Do you ever wish that you’d not come up with that TUE in '99, lost the Tour win and been sanctioned?

LA: I’ve not thought about that. I don’t know. I don’t have a crystal ball.

DB: If you’d ever been caught outright would have you have come back and done the same again, or would you have raced clean or given up?

LA: Again I don’t know. I never planned on testing positive. I was not going to test positive. Ever. No.

DB: Because?

LA: Because the plan was conservative. It’s funny because I say these things that are the truth and people don’t like it. They say they want the truth, you give them the truth and then they say, ‘fuck, we don’t like the truth.’ It was so conservative, risk adverse and mathematical. It was not going to be a positive test.

DB: Just going back to what you said, part of the reason why people don’t like your truth is because they find it hard to tell what the truth actually is.

LA: I have no credibility. Of course they’re going to think I’m lying, that I lied to them for 15 years, and of course that I’m lying still. Right. I get it. But I’d put it out there in pieces, not every day, but at times like this and that’s it, that’s the truth. They don’t like me saying Postal wasn’t that sophisticated. They don’t like me saying that in 2009 I was clean but these things are the truth. But I also understand the people who say they don’t believe me.

DB: Do you care?

LA: Yeah. That’s frustrating, I absolutely care about that. Look man, this is not easy, it’s not going to be fast, there’s no magic formula, it just takes time. Over time there will be other voices that support, hopefully, what I say, about that era. Over time, hopefully, there’s a test for transfusions and 2009 will be put to the true test.

DB: And 2010?

LA: Oh god yeah. I was terrible then. I wasn’t that good in '09. It’s so funny as people point to Ventoux. It would be one thing if you were 15th, rode away, won by 5 minutes and made the podium but I was fucking hanging on by the skin of my teeth.

DB: That’s the blip on the passport that people and experts point to.

LA: But the sample was taken, me and Levi [Leipheimer], we drive down, the doping control agent was in the room and the sample was taken immediately. No food, no water, no nothing.

DB: USADA said that there was a one in a million chance that you rode that Tour clean.

LA: That was just about one of their ten talking points. Hey, I don’t care what they said. What I’m saying is that the day there’s a test of a transfusion I’ll be the first guy to put that sample on the line. And I’ll bet everything on that.

Cyclingnews.com
 
Rispondi
#53
Armstrong si scusa: http://www.cyclismactu.net/news-dopage-l...37204.html
 
Rispondi
#54
Armstrong, la strana vita di Lance
Tra giorni sereni e cause milionarie

Diciotto mesi dopo la confessione pubblica in tv, Lance Armstrong sta vivendo serenamente: lo ha detto lo stesso texano in una intervista concessa alla CNN. Sopravvissuto al cancro ed eroe per milioni di persone, Armstrong è stato spogliato delle vittorie ottenute dal 1998 in poi e squalificato a vita da tutte le competizioni sportive a causa della scoperta del sistema di doping che aveva instautrato in seno al suo team.
«Vivo la mia vita quotidiana senza essere insultato per quello che ha fatto. Certo, talvolta ho la sensazione che qualcuno voglia dire qualcosa, ma non è mai successo».

Se la quotidianità scorre serena, non altrettanto accade dal punto di vista legale: qui i problemi del ciclista sono ben lontani dall’essere finiti. Lui e il suo team di avvocati si preparano ad affrontare numerose cause civili che potrebbero dissipare la fortuna accumulata da quello che era uno degli atleti più popolari e pagati al mondo.

Nel mese di giugno un giudice federale ha respinto la richiesta di Armstrong di impedire una causa intentata contro di lui per aver defraudato il governo, attraverso la US Postal Service, assumendo sostanze dopanti.
Armstrong sostiene che la US Postal Service ha comunque beneficiato enormemente dell’investimento su di lui e sul suo team e che la causa è stato presentata troppo tardi. «Sono molto fiducioso - ha detto Armstrong -. Io non credo che nessuno possa veramente sostenere che la US Postal Service è stata danneggiata. Hanno fatto un sacco di soldi investendo questa sposnorizzazione e ottenuto quello che si aspettavano. Inoltre non c'era alcun rapporto tecnico tra me e la US Postal Service».

tuttobiciweb.it
 
Rispondi
#55
Tra l'altro era sulle strade del Tour of Colorado come spettatore in questi giorni
 
Rispondi
#56
Comunque ha ragione lui, la US Postal non è stata danneggiata in nessun modo dall'affare Armstrong. E oltre tutto non credo proprio che abbiano bisogno del risarcimento di Armstrong per tirare avanti.
 
Rispondi
#57
Armstrong guarda la corsa e non sfugge a Basso
L'ex ciclista sul ciglio della strada per vedere il passaggio nel Giro del Colorado. E i fan scattano selfie

http://www.gazzetta.it/Ciclismo/20-08-20...6688.shtml
 
Rispondi
#58
Odio questa mania che ha fatto perdere il tour 2014 a Andy Schleck... Ma la odiavo anche prima. È da idioti.
Aprendo una parentesi filosofica, tutte le mie fotografie più belle sono quelle scattate prima dell'era cellulari smartphone e in ogni caso da quando possiedo un iPod touch o un iPhone non ho più visto belle foto in giro, se non foto da idioti con facce da lupo, smorfie orrende e cose simili che prima non potevi permetterti di fare
 
Rispondi


[+] A 1 utente piace il post di Andy Schleck
#59
Armstrong corre a piedi e stravince, ma i rivali si infuriano
Lance domina una gara podistica in salita di 35 km con un super tempo, lasciando il 2° a oltre due minuti. “Mi sono divertito”. Indignata la reazione di alcuni avversari

La sua partecipazione alla Woodside Ramble, una corsa a piedi fuoristrada in salita, aveva già suscitato malumori, perplessità e polemiche. Figurarsi dopo che Lance Armstrong l’ha stravinta, percorrendo i 35 chilometri dislocati su un dislivello di circa 1000 metri, con il tempo di 3.00’36”’, e infliggendo un distacco di 2’ al californiano Roger Montes, giunto secondo. Un riscontro cronometrico, quello del vincitore di sette Tour de France e poi squalificato a vita per doping, che fa invidia ai migliori specialisti. Alla corsa, disputata in Texas, Armstrong (che a dire il vero ha ricevuto anche molti complimenti sul suo profilo Instagram) era stato ammesso fra mugugni e indignazione di molti dei partecipanti, a cui ha lasciato solo le briciole. La sua partecipazione non era peraltro vietata, non trattandosi di corsa inserita nel calendario soggetto all’egida dell’Usatf, la federazione statunitense d’atletica. “Non ricordo l’ultima volta in cui mi sono divertito tanto, soffrendo per tre ore”, ha poi twittato Lance. Estromesso dal mondo dello sport attivo, il cowboy non è gradito dagli altri concorrenti e, a tal proposito, l’organizzatore della Woodside Rambler, Tim Sthaler, inizialmente aveva esitato a inserire il suo nome fra quello dei partecipanti. Salvo poi fare retromarcia: “Alla fine la sua partecipazione è stata positiva”, ha scritto. Resta il fatto che, sui siti riservati agli amatori (e amanti) di podismo non mancano le stilettate e le invettive contro Lance che vanta un passato da triatleta e che, dopo la squalifica del 2012, ha pure partecipato alle maratone di Boston e New York.

http://www.gazzetta.it/Ciclismo/15-12-20...5595.shtml
 
Rispondi
#60
Come da titolo il texano merita di stare nella storia del ciclismo, penso che nessuno abbia pensato in questi anni al perchè Rijs che ha ammesso di essersi dopato non gli è stato tolto il Tour del 1996, la risposta è perchè era caduto in prescrizione........4 dei Tour di Armstrong erano in prescrizione ma stranamente gli sono stati tolti, ho sempre pensato che se l'americano avesse fatto ricorso (non dico in un tribunale ordinario, ma anche solo al tas) avrebbe vinto su questo aspetto (certo da un posto di vista più generale non sarebbe cambiato molto per lui).

Ora la domanda è questa, secondo voi nel giro di qualche anno il nome di Lance Armstrong tornerà nell'albo d'oro del Tour de France?
 
Rispondi
  


Vai al forum:


Utente(i) che stanno guardando questa discussione: 2 Ospite(i)