Archive for justcycling.myfastforum.org Just Cycling
 


       justcycling.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Cycling Forum
Mrs John Murphy

Uniballer - still completely delusional?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/30981609

Still using the cancer shield.

Still claiming that he was clean on his comeback - no questions about the blood profiles.

This I guess is the next step in the PR campaign... and of course the BBC as they always were are happy to lap it up
gerry12ie

And still talking in third person...

Quote:
“I would want to change the man that did those things, maybe not the decision but the way he acted, the way he treated other people.”
mr shifter

Certainly trying to get into politics with some Cred's.
HuwB

I thought this had all become Travis T's fault now........
Mrs John Murphy

I really will lose any interest I have in cycling if he has his ban reduced because he should be nowhere near the sport. If the UCI does reduce his ban then I don't see how we can have any faith in Cookson.
HuwB

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
I really will lose any interest I have in cycling if he has his ban reduced because he should be nowhere near the sport. If the UCI does reduce his ban then I don't see how we can have any faith in Cookson.


I wouldn't disagree.
Maybe if he finally nailed Hein and co, I'd consider an over 50s pass, but that's never going to happen.
HuwB

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
I really will lose any interest I have in cycling if he has his ban reduced because he should be nowhere near the sport. If the UCI does reduce his ban then I don't see how we can have any faith in Cookson.


I wouldn't disagree.
Maybe if he finally nailed Hein and co, I'd consider an over 50s pass, but that's never going to happen.
Mrs John Murphy

I love how is the Uniballer's mind the problem is with us. We don't recognise how great he is, how he is the victim here, everyone was cheating but he is the one suffering. Because of us people are dying of cancer because he can't ride a bike a cure people with cancer.

I think the real issue is that he is struggling to come to terms with the fact that no one wants anything to do with him.
gerry12ie

One of the paradoxes of modern sport is probably the greatest responder of all still waffling about the mythical 'level playing field'.  If he did have the level start that he so craves he would have just been a half-decent puncheur - nothing more...

No matter what he says or does, it will always, always, always be about Lance and nobody else.
Boogerd_Fan

But he could raise money for cancer by riding his bike in recognized events...!! <shock>

He still has enough infamy to organize his own ride across america as a charity ride should he so wish.
mazda

gerry12ie wrote:
One of the paradoxes of modern sport is probably the greatest responder of all still waffling about the mythical 'level playing field'.  If he did have the level start that he so craves he would have just been a half-decent puncheur - nothing more...

My definition of level playing field is about what knowingly goes into the inputs, not on the result. If it's about a level result then there is no point in anything. That would be like me wanting to play basketball with a much lower hoop for me and not my opponents, to counteract the fact that I am shorter and can't shoot as well. So his being the greatest responder doesn't nullify it being a level playing field or otherwise.
And as for what might have been. Well, that is pure speculation Evil or Very Mad

Quote:
No matter what he says or does, it will always, always, always be about Lance and nobody else.

To be fair he does say something like that in the interview - it's about nobody other than 7 people called Armstrong, or something similar.
Mrs John Murphy

But the thing is that he assumed that everyone is doping = everyone on the same doping program.

If this were the case then why did he spend so much time making sure that Ferrari worked exclusively with him? If it were a level playing field then it would not have mattered if Ferrari had doped the whole field equally.

We know full well that different teams had different programs and it depended a lot of what could be afforded, and indeed how far the riders were willing to go - isn't the story that Ullrich was fairly wary about EPO.

We know the inputs were different - there is more than enough evidence to show that this was the case. (Look at all the different Fuentes programs he ran depending on your budget).

The level playing field is the biggest canard out there.
mazda

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
But the thing is that he assumed that everyone is doping = everyone on the same doping program.

If this were the case then why did he spend so much time making sure that Ferrari worked exclusively with him? If it were a level playing field then it would not have mattered if Ferrari had doped the whole field equally.

Because he was an obnoxious control freak who had to win at all costs and didn't want to give anyone a chance to match him once he was on top ?

TBH I forgot about the Ferrari expertise angle as an input to the playing field.
Clearly that part wasn't level.
But initially he didn't have the resources to do that, to demand exclusivity ?
And again some of that difference is partly down to Armstrong's desire to extract the maximum benefit for himself from any given input.

I think we can say that he probably used less drugs than, say, Riis did in winning his first title. It was Armstrong that did the rest, not so much the drugs.
Mrs John Murphy

As I recall he had Ferrari on an exclusive deal from 1998 before he won anything.

The point is Ricco is doing DIY transfusions and nearly killing himself. Armstrong had motoman to deliver his blood to him. Polti were smuggling their drugs in vacuum cleaners. The idea that everyone was doing the same, to the same amount is crazy.

Pantani for example could only afford 36,000 euros to Fuentes which was the basic package. Hamilton paid a lot more.

You only need to compare Hamilton's program with Fuentes to Pantani's program with the same doctor to see that the inputs were not the same.

Just like the old days - nothing like the Uniballer to get a debate going. All we need is Cape to come back and give us a 20 post response and we'll be partying like its 1999.
SlowRower

mazda wrote:
TBH I forgot about the Ferrari expertise angle as an input to the playing field.
Clearly that part wasn't level.
But initially he didn't have the resources to do that, to demand exclusivity ?
And again some of that difference is partly down to Armstrong's desire to extract the maximum benefit for himself from any given input.


Where there certainly (in as much as anything in forum-world is certain) was equality was the opportunity to build a set-up like Lance's. He didn't claim the exclusive with Ferrari by divine right for example. He just saw an "opening in the market" and developed it. Much like Bill Gates negotiated the exclusive arrangement with IBM to have DOS as the operating system on IBM PCs.

Obviously, both Lance and Bill had some luck along the way. I don't think Lance would have survived the 1999 positive test if Festina hadn't happened the year before and Pantani hadn't failed the Hct test in the Giro, thus leaving the UCI desperate for a new "poster boy". And it obviously helped that he responded very well to blood-doping in a year where other riders were being somewhat conservative. (He who dares wins?)

Once established, neither Lance nor Bill were going to surrender their position and ruthlessly exploited the advantages that their position gave them. But the #1 person/team/company etc. exploiting their position is hardly a new concept. Even something as innocuous as the seeding system in tennis gives an in-built advantage to the top players.

If folk really want Lance to fade away, the only option I can see (other than a contract killing) is to shorten his ban so that he's got nothing to moan about and then let him get his ar*e kicked in the over 40s Ironman. Interest in him would soon fade.
Mrs John Murphy

I think David Walsh's comments about Armstrong struggling to come to terms with the fact that he isn't being phoned up by presidents etc anymore.

Hence his desire to re-use the cancer shield.

I found McQuaid's comments bizarre. Armstrong is a scapegoat - well ok then but that means that you are admitting that the UCI systematically failed under your watch.
HuwB

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
I think David Walsh's comments about Armstrong struggling to come to terms with the fact that he isn't being phoned up by presidents etc anymore.

Hence his desire to re-use the cancer shield.

I found McQuaid's comments bizarre. Armstrong is a scapegoat - well ok then but that means that you are admitting that the UCI systematically failed under your watch.


He doesn't even try to cover himself by involving other sports.
Well done again Pat, for missing the blindingly obvious.
Mrs John Murphy

I wondered if Pat had been drinking when he gave that interview.
HuwB

BG's done a piece in the Guardian on these latest soundbites:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/.../28/what-is-lance-armstrong-doing
Mrs John Murphy

BG really is good. A shame that she wasn't writing in 1999. Certainly a change from the normal jock sniffers who write on sport.

The comments on the blog - hmmm.
mazda

There are some good comments - OscarAwesome sums things up without the underlying maliciousness (perhaps justified, I don't know) in the original article.
Quote:
"If Armstrong's case does not justify the maintenance of an irrevocable lifetime ban, it is unlikely there will ever be one."
Mrs John Murphy

Well Twat Slater is out there busy on his knees for the Uniballer. No doubt he must have loved the free jaunt out there to be Armstrong PR lackey in the UK. If it isn't Sky it's the Uniballer. I am not sure if he is corrupt or just really stupid.

Everytime someone raises 'a lot of good work for charity' I am reminded of Smashy and Nicey, and then that simply reminds me of Jimmy Savile.

It's a long way from his first attempts to write about cycling. Mind you, anyone remember him saying doping wouldn't help in golf.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/31040693

So BG does provide a useful counter-weight to what is a clear PR drive by Armstrong (in what he knows is a low news time period for the cycling press).
SlowRower

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
Well Twat Slater is out there busy on his knees for the Uniballer. No doubt he must have loved the free jaunt out there to be Armstrong PR lackey in the UK.


You've (well probably not you personally, obviously!) got to feel sorry for Matt Slater. He brokers the deal for the interview with Lance and then his boss, Dan Roan, swans in to take the glory of actually doing it.
SlowRower

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
If it isn't Sky it's the Uniballer. I am not sure if he is corrupt or just really stupid.


He's just employed by the BBC and knows the editorial line and his audience. Not everyone can be a crusader. Some folk value a little stability so they can pay the mortgage and gas bills.
Mrs John Murphy

Does the same not also apply to BG? I think you are giving too much credit to the likes of Slater, Benson etc. The journalists I've dealt with have all been pretty thick.

I've told the story before about the FT journalist I met who told me that corruption was overstated in Romania, and then proceeded to tell me how (the most corrupt party) was flying him around the country and inviting him to all the parties, which he absolutely loved. He was blinded to the truth because he had his head so far in the trough. The same goes for Slater etc. Slater isn't going to rock the boat because he is too stupid to see he is being played and because he likes the good life too much.

He's the gimp to Armstrong's Zed.
gerry12ie

Mrs John Murphy wrote:


He's the gimp to Armstrong's Zed.



Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy

Zed's dead, baby.
Mrs John Murphy

Landis must be Marcellus Wallace at this rate and Hamilton a 'hard pipe hittin nigga with a blow torch and a pair of pliers.'
Mrs John Murphy

The BBC working hard to rehabilitate Armstrong.

Mercer playing all the cards - Armstrong the victim, all the fault of the Europeans
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/31073880

We could restart Armstrong bingo.
HuwB

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
The BBC working hard to rehabilitate Armstrong.

Mercer playing all the cards - Armstrong the victim, all the fault of the Europeans
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/31073880

We could restart Armstrong bingo.


Trust those ostriches at Beeb.
Ex Posties leaves because of doping, thinks he deserves a full pardon?
Kind of a conflicting stance.

I'm sure Bertie thinks his lost titles are all the fault of those dastardly Europeans, too. Rolling Eyes
Mrs John Murphy

These quotes are interesting:

Quote:
Armstrong mentioned Mercier in his recent BBC interview as an example of somebody who chose "integrity" over the career in professional cycling.


then

Quote:
Armstrong and Mercier are now friends and often ride together when the disgraced Texan visits his holiday home in Colorado.


Basically - I say you have integrity, and you say I deserve a pardon, and then I cook you dinner.

'I'm not a Lance fan but' is the cycling equivalent of 'I'm not racist but...'
SlowRower

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
Does the same not also apply to BG? I think you are giving too much credit to the likes of Slater, Benson etc. The journalists I've dealt with have all been pretty thick.

I've told the story before about the FT journalist I met who told me that corruption was overstated in Romania, and then proceeded to tell me how (the most corrupt party) was flying him around the country and inviting him to all the parties, which he absolutely loved. He was blinded to the truth because he had his head so far in the trough. The same goes for Slater etc. Slater isn't going to rock the boat because he is too stupid to see he is being played and because he likes the good life too much.

He's the gimp to Armstrong's Zed.


I don't know if Slater is thick. You appear to think everyone is so it may not be a useful description! However, he gets paid by the taxpayer to swan round the world reporting on sport so he's not done too badly for himself...

BG's published writings were pretty mainstream if I remember correctly. Obviously anti Lance but given she's married to an ex-pro, remarkably free of any interesting revelations. She must know a thing or two...
Biosphere

SlowRower wrote:
. . . However, he gets paid by the taxpayer to swan round the world reporting on sport so he's not done too badly for himself . . .


Really? Have you been giving credence to the UKIP leaflets that get stuffed through your door? Next you'll be complaining about cyclists not paying any road tax Wink
Mrs John Murphy

As opposed to swanning around on customers money as he would do if he were a Murdoch hack, or swanning around on money stolen from the Romanian tax payer if he were an FT journalist.
SlowRower

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
As opposed to swanning around on customers money as he would do if he were a Murdoch hack, or swanning around on money stolen from the Romanian tax payer if he were an FT journalist.


I wasn't commenting on the morality of funding BBC journalists to go on beanos. Just highlighting that Slater might be brighter than you think to have blagged himself that gig.
SlowRower

Biosphere wrote:
SlowRower wrote:
. . . However, he gets paid by the taxpayer to swan round the world reporting on sport so he's not done too badly for himself . . .


Really? Have you been giving credence to the UKIP leaflets that get stuffed through your door? Next you'll be complaining about cyclists not paying any road tax Wink



Ok. Slater is funded by licence fee payers. Either way, the BBC can p*ss other folks' money up against the wall as you have to pay the fee if you watch the telly even if you don't watch the BBC. Nice gig if you can get it!
Mrs John Murphy

Almost as good as gig as running a privatised company, bank or hedgefund.

You don't have to be smart to be a journalist to get on the gravy train, you either have to be willing to sell out, or be so stupid as to not to realise that you are being played.

If you know what you are doing then you have no moral integrity, if you don't know what is happening then frankly you don't deserve to be let out of the house unsupervised.
Biosphere

SlowRower wrote:
Ok. Slater is funded by licence fee payers. Either way, the BBC can p*ss other folks' money up against the wall as you have to pay the fee if you watch the telly even if you don't watch the BBC. Nice gig if you can get it!


I'm not really sure what your point is anymore? Do the BBC breakdown Slater's overseas trips and how many hours he works and how many hours he slacks off when overseas so we can talk about these things with a semblance of authority? Where do they piss money up walls? When it produces programming someone disagrees with?

More generally, are there really that many people who don't use BBC services but own a TV? I suspect very few and even if there are more than that then "so what" is my ultimate answer. Taxpayers who never got sick contributed to Mrs. SR's NHS wages. Taxpayers who never had kids contributed to the little SR's education. I want to own a car, I'm legally obliged to pay insurance and cover other people's accidents despite never being responsible for one myself.

It's life - not a Daily Mail whipping boy Smile
gerry12ie

I am astounded by the wave of casual anti-BBC bias in the UK in recent years.  It produces commercial-free television and radio of the very highest quality yet gets kicked around the Tory/UKIP press regardless.  That tourettic clarion squawk about paying for it without watching it says a lot more about those that say it than than it does about the BBC.

I have spent the last two Sunday nights watching over 9 hours of the Shoah documentary on BBC4.  The BBC IMO is one of a tiny handful of broadcasters brave enough to show this astonishing, mindblowing documentary - something that reaches far above the petty politics that constantly snipe at the beeb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoah_(film)

BTW, our national broadcaster, R TEE HEE HEE collect a licence fee, all their channels are commercial, and now have open product placement on shows.  Oh, and (apart from some of it's sports coverage) it's shit...
levi

why does he not just go away he has given our sport which we
love a bad name ,the man is not worth a ?.
SlowRower

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
Almost as good as gig as running a privatised company, bank or hedgefund.

You don't have to be smart to be a journalist to get on the gravy train, you either have to be willing to sell out, or be so stupid as to not to realise that you are being played.

If you know what you are doing then you have no moral integrity, if you don't know what is happening then frankly you don't deserve to be let out of the house unsupervised.


Matt Slater graduated from Leeds Uni with a degree in history and Italian, so I doubt he is thick by any conventional measure.
Mrs John Murphy

No, that is just how you are choosing to measure non-thickness
SlowRower

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
No, that is just how you are choosing to measure non-thickness


Would you like to borrow a shovel?
Mrs John Murphy

You are digging yourself a deep enough hole as it is. You've avoided Bio's points, so we can safely assume that you are in full on troll mode.

Oh look, what's this?



Oh yeah, it's your most recent strawman going up in flames.
SlowRower

Biosphere wrote:
SlowRower wrote:
Ok. Slater is funded by licence fee payers. Either way, the BBC can p*ss other folks' money up against the wall as you have to pay the fee if you watch the telly even if you don't watch the BBC. Nice gig if you can get it!


I'm not really sure what your point is anymore? Do the BBC breakdown Slater's overseas trips and how many hours he works and how many hours he slacks off when overseas so we can talk about these things with a semblance of authority? Where do they piss money up walls? When it produces programming someone disagrees with?

More generally, are there really that many people who don't use BBC services but own a TV? I suspect very few and even if there are more than that then "so what" is my ultimate answer. Taxpayers who never got sick contributed to Mrs. SR's NHS wages. Taxpayers who never had kids contributed to the little SR's education. I want to own a car, I'm legally obliged to pay insurance and cover other people's accidents despite never being responsible for one myself.

It's life - not a Daily Mail whipping boy Smile


Bio,

Education, health and mandatory liability car insurance are considered "good things". I think the economic term is "social goods". Without them, we have unambiguous bad outcomes, so it is a good thing that they are either funded out of general taxation or are legal requirements. By comparing the Beeb to healthcare and education, you're implicitly suggesting the licence fee is indeed a tax. (Which was my original claim!)

If we didn't have the BBC, we'd simply watch something else. A lot of the BBC's best dramas are made by independent production companies anyway. The only downside is a few adverts, which is hardly on a par with having no access to healthcare or education or potentially being at risk of having to fund lifetime care for a family member injured by a car driven by a careless stranger.

Therefore, there is not a strong case for paying for the BBC to be a legal requirement if you want to watch other channels on the BBC. (I'm sure most fee-payers would stump up £150 a year or more for the service, as it's actually quite good.) There is no real mechanism to stop the Beeb wasting its funds, as it doesn't have to compete for them. If you want examples, simply consider the array of expensive ex-player droning Match of the Day pundits or the duplication of news journalists. There are different folk essentially covering the same story for News 24, the 10 o'clock news and radio news.
Mrs John Murphy

You have a very narrow understanding of a common good.
SlowRower

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
You are digging yourself a deep enough hole as it is. You've avoided Bio's points, so we can safely assume that you are in full on troll mode.

Oh look, what's this?



Oh yeah, it's your most recent strawman going up in flames.


If you were half as good at constructing arguments as you are at finding funny pictures on the internet then you wouldn't make yourself look like a fool so often.

You said Slater was thick. I highlighted that he had a degree from a reputable university. You then introduce the term "non-thickness" to try and deflect attention from the fact that you were talking rubbish.

BTW, how's your attempt at defining "financial doping" to prove that Sky took the practice to a level beyond the previous benchmark set by USPS (and that the USPS benchmark was itself beyond anything that had gone before) going?
gerry12ie

Armstrong - the gift that just keeps on giving  Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy
Mrs John Murphy

And I'm still better at constructing an argument than you because your method of constructing an argument is to take one line, take it out of context, and create a strawman out of it.

You introduced claimed Slater's education means he can't be thick. This was your definition of non-thickness, not mine. So asking me to defend a position that is not my own is bizarre in the extreme.

I've already defined financial doping for you. You got upset last time and you've clearly not recovered from it. You ought to go and have a lie down. Given your track record of hitching your fanboy fantasies to the wrong horse, I dread to think how you'll cope when the arse falls out of UKPostal.

Maybe a pop up Ayn Rand book might help you sleep better a night.

Oh look a before and after from your latest foray into politics and cycling.

Mrs John Murphy

gerry12ie wrote:
Armstrong - the gift that just keeps on giving  Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy


It's just like the old days. All we need is Cape to come back and maybe someone to start invoking 'never tested positive' and we'll have the full house.

I'd think about playing some music from the period but for the most part it was pretty shit. A bit like the cycling.
Biosphere

SlowRower wrote:


Bio,

Education, health and mandatory liability car insurance are considered "good things".  . . .


So is public service broadcasting (or media if we want to update the service for the internet) .

I also compared the license fee to insurance, so I'm quite clear in my mind that it's not an implicit tax. It's a license fee. Transfer of money to the public sector is not automatically or implicitly a tax. If the little SRs go on to third level education, their fees will be paying the state for a service rather than a being a tax. Overlapping arguments regarding the merits of funding the NHS, car insurance and the BBC does not imply they are equivalent or that I mistakenly think they are.

I too dislike at Alan Shearer's soporific droning, but I accept that some like to watch it and that it helps put them to sleep on a Saturday night and forget about the fact that their team just got thrashed. I despair that nutters like Melanie Phillips have had more appearances on Question Time than all the scientists that have appeared summed up (I'm trusting the internet on that one). The BBC is great if you're white and middle class, but arguably fails large sectors of society to some extent. It creates false balance between opposing views on issues like climate change. You're far more likely to hear spokesmen for the financial sector than unions on Radio 4. Wasteful expenditure - of course . . . . I would be happy to go on but I'm not going to on this thread . . . In general, until the Daily Mail is as vigorous at reporting the damage caused to the vulnerable by austerity, or exposing the tax dodging of the private sector I'm not going to engage with their argument on their terms.

Anyway, none of the BBC's faults change the principle of public funding for me though. The commercial media have an agenda of capturing BBC programming and privatising it. As should be pretty obvious by now, I don't buy it.

Here the Swiss license fee is getting on for double the UK fee (smaller population base and a requirement for tri-lingual output), whilst the Italian was a wee bit cheaper when I lived there. I complain about neither even though I don't use that often*, and unsurprisingly the UKIP equivalent here are the biggest complainers about the license.

*My usage is (was) seasonal since the Italians and now the Swiss Italians serve up far better season long coverage of cycling than you would ever get from a commercial broadcaster. Public Service Broadcasting indeed Smile
SlowRower

Biosphere wrote:
SlowRower wrote:


Bio,

Education, health and mandatory liability car insurance are considered "good things".  . . .


So is public service broadcasting (or media if we want to update the service for the internet).


Interesting response. Thanks.

How much of the BBC's output is "public service" though? Not much, I'd wager. Whilst the BBC is the public service broadcaster, most of the output is aimed at the masses to prevent commercial TV getting higher ratings (to justify the licence fee!)

I'd agree that genuine PSB should be funded via some sort of compulsory payment, but from general taxation would be my favourite. Whether anyone would watch it is another matter.
SlowRower

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
I've already defined financial doping for you.


Indeed you did. But I asked you to back up your assertion that USPS took this to a level never previously seen and that Sky took it further still.
SlowRower

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
You introduced claimed Slater's education means he can't be thick. This was your definition of non-thickness, not mine.


So what's your definition then? Obviously not everyone can occupy the lofty heights of intellect from which you generously dispense your rounded view of the world but there must surely be some scope for graduation from Leeds Uni to be a useful indicator of some level of non-thickness.

Or maybe not. Educational standards are maybe not what they once were. Perhaps if you gave a few examples of folk who we might know who you consider to be non-thick we could get a feel for your rating scale.
Mrs John Murphy

Not getting taken for a ride by a doper is one measure and one where you keep falling short.

Maybe you ought to go back and read and absorb what was written about USP and Sky. Oh no, actually you won't because it would mean you'd have to change your mind and admit you are wrong. Much better to introduce some specious red herring. No doubt much more arousing for you to derail the thread. Do you need some kleenex after this little effort?

I do believe that the term is 'vortexing'. So at least we know your talent.
mazda

[quote="Biosphere:223749"]
SlowRower wrote:

It creates false balance between opposing views on issues like climate change.

Aha. Good old BBC impartiality. To be fair it is an impossible job, what with the overwhelming pressure it must get from the various self serving interests.
SlowRower

mazda wrote:
SlowRower wrote:

It creates false balance between opposing views on issues like climate change.


I think there must be some mis-quoting going on, as I've not waded into the climate change debate. But I will say that the licence fee does enable the BBC to send a decent sized team of reporters and correspondents flying business class to climate change conferences and the like.
SlowRower

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
Not getting taken for a ride by a doper is one measure and one where you keep falling short.


Interesting. It is odd that a bright guy like yourself hasn't realised that rather than being taken for a ride by dopers I simply don't really care that much. If Sir Brad was outed today, I'd be a bit sad briefly, but no more than when England lose at Rugby or Lord Murray of Dunblane goes into meltdown.

Well that's it from me debating with you. I've nurtured the hope over the last 8 or so years that you might one day actually engage in a discussion, but I finally realise that you've taken me for a ride. All you do is deflect, insult and throw in bizarre references to Kleenex and duvets. I realise now that this is all you can do. A Real Champion (TM) would do so much better.

I do wonder what aspect of your life makes you so keen to throw in the Kleenex references. Do you have a permanently runny nose, perhaps?
billgull

Talk about being "taken for a ride!" Who was really driving?

http://velonews.competitor.com/20...iven-two-tickets-car-crash_359970
mazda

On first reading it sounds like they just left the scene and were caught later.
However the more detailed article does point out that they stopped (out of sight) round the corner and gave details to a person in charge of the vehicles they had hit.
So describing it as a "hit and run" and them as "leaving the scene" must be some kind of legal description.
There's always the lingering suspicion that Lance must have been on something at the time Smile
Biosphere

mazda wrote:
Aha. Good old BBC impartiality. To be fair it is an impossible job, what with the overwhelming pressure it must get from the various self serving interests.


It's certainly at the difficult end of the scale. One of the reasons why I'd defend them against people who want to take away the license fee and complain that they do a good job of being popular making it v. hard to justify taking the licence fee off them Smile
HuwB

billgull wrote:
Talk about being "taken for a ride!" Who was really driving?

http://velonews.competitor.com/20...iven-two-tickets-car-crash_359970


I thought Lance only had problems with level playing fields.
Mrs John Murphy

Interesting that the story is everyone other than the BBC, but not surprising.
SlowRower

I love this bit in the Guardian report:

"Pitkin county prosecutor Andrea Bryan said by telephone that Hansen was not charged for filing a false report because authorities encourage witnesses to be truthful."

Not only will Vicky Price be wishing she lived in Pitkin County, but it doesn't really make much sense in isolation. (Although the rest of the article makes it clear that Hansen subsequently fessed up voluntarily.)
Mrs John Murphy

He's turning into the Wil E Coyote of cycling. He spends all this money and effort in how he is being unfairly victimised, how much good work he does curing cancer, then he gets trashed, crashes his car and puts his girlfriend up to take the blame. Which is a really good way to prove to everyone that you aren't a total dick.

Even when it comes to partying it isn't a level playing field, at least Ullrich liked disco biscuits and beer.



Ullrich was later taken to hospital suffering with a severe case of schadenfreude.
berck

HuwB wrote:
billgull wrote:
Talk about being "taken for a ride!" Who was really driving?

http://velonews.competitor.com/20...iven-two-tickets-car-crash_359970


I thought Lance only had problems with level playing fields.


Well, after having a few drinks, Lance thought those other cards were going to rat him out about his DUI experience. He decided to ram them to shut them up. When he realized what happened, he made his wife/girlfriend take the fall after she drove him home.

Wink
berck

Armstrong has been charge for the incident now...

Armstrong charged following traffic incident
Biosphere

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
Ullrich was later taken to hospital suffering with a severe case of schadenfreude.


Those wonderful Germans have a word for everything


Link


Funniest thing I read yesterday:

"Why would I get into a car and then drunk drive myself and risk my life again? That's crazy. I would never do that. No way. I can't be any clearer than that! ”
Mrs John Murphy

berck wrote:
Armstrong has been charge for the incident now...

Armstrong charged following traffic incident


Don't get a blurry mug shot to laugh at?

Well if nothing else, Armstrong is doing tremendous work keeping lawyers employed. Just think of it - if he weren't those poor lawyers would be unemployed and starving to death.
mr shifter

Re: Uniballer - still completely delusional?

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/30981609

Still using the cancer shield.

Still claiming that he was clean on his comeback - no questions about the blood profiles.

This I guess is the next step in the PR campaign... and of course the BBC as they always were are happy to lap it up

This turned up on the BR forum yesterday.

Postby Matt Slater » 04 Feb 2015 16:09
Hi, this is a message to "deejay", who appears to have me badly confused with somebody else.

I was not a moderator on the BBC's 606 pages and I have never blocked/unfollowed/ignored/whatevered anybody, apart from one particularly potty-mouthed Rangers fan during that club's lurch towards financial ruin.

If I recall rightly, we outsourced the moderation of 606 to a third party. It wasn't my area, but I think the site was effectively self-policed by the site's users. If somebody complained/flagged something up, the moderators looked at it.

Also, as far as I can recall, I did not write anything about Lance Armstrong on a 606 page. If you know differently, can you send me the link? Can you also send me a link to a single "pro-Lance" story prior to the pieces I wrote last week?

I suspect you will struggle, as they do not exist. In fact, prior to last week my online/TV/radio output on Armstrong had been entirely negative, which is one of the reasons why I think he gave us the interview.

He knew who I was when I got in touch with him last year - he had always fobbed me off on Fabiani, Higgs or Stapleton before - but my pitch intrigued him enough to invite me over to talk about an interview, which I did, making him very clear of how far my sympathy for his situation extended. I believe he realised that this interview would have more credibility than the stage-managed confession he gave to his friend and neighbour Oprah.

Whether you agree with this is entirely up to you, of course, but please stop repeating this **** about me blocking you on 606, being a Lance 'fan boy' or any of the other related-nonsense you've been spouting on here.

Matt Slater
   
   Posts: 1
   Joined: 04 Feb 2015 15:41
Mrs John Murphy

Well he would say that wouldn't he. And a useful reminder why we are here and not on 606.
SlowRower

I thought we moved here because the old 606 forum got shut down in preference for commenting on specific articles.

The moderators there were a bit heavy handed. Even I managed to get myself banned once, and I didn't even refer to the licence fee as a tax. I'm sure we'd have decamped somewhere else eventually even if the 606 forums had stayed open.
mazda

Re: Uniballer - still completely delusional?

mr shifter wrote:

Post by Matt Slater » 04 Feb 2015 16:09
In fact, prior to last week my online/TV/radio output on Armstrong had been entirely negative

On the face of it that would seem like a reasonably easy thing to disprove. After all the entire media were in denial for most of the time.
So he must be fairly confident of his position.
I suspect he may only be referring to events since the reasoned decision, whereas we all work to a different calendar.
Mrs John Murphy

I'm not sure I'd want to inflict the job of going back and reading old Matt Slater articles on anyone.

SR - you may well be right. I had forgotten that they had closed down the old boards in favour of commenting on articles. I think the moderation was ridiculous though because they just used the threat of Armstrong suing to delete anything critical of him.
SlowRower

Re: Uniballer - still completely delusional?

mazda wrote:
mr shifter wrote:

Post by Matt Slater » 04 Feb 2015 16:09
In fact, prior to last week my online/TV/radio output on Armstrong had been entirely negative

On the face of it that would seem like a reasonably easy thing to disprove. After all the entire media were in denial for most of the time.
So he must be fairly confident of his position.
I suspect he may only be referring to events since the reasoned decision, whereas we all work to a different calendar.


"Negative" is a bit subjective, I guess. There's a huge gulf between an unashamed Lance cheerleader and Mrs M, and we are likely to draw the boundary between positive and negative in different places.

For example, Mrs M makes reference above to the lack of questioning about the 2009/10 blood profiles, which is presumably considered by Mrs M as positive or at least non-negative comment by the BBC (albeit Dan Roan not Matt Slater) whereas the article about the interview makes clear reference to the implausibility of him being clean in 2009/10 and that people think he's still lying which seems reasonably negative to me.

I wonder if there will be any follow-up to Matt Slater's post on Bike Radar? Not sure if Mrs M is a poster there.
SlowRower

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
SR - you may well be right.

...

I think the moderation was ridiculous though because they just used the threat of Armstrong suing to delete anything critical of him.


Well I'll file that one to show to the grandchildren...

But joking aside, it wasn't just Armstrong related stuff that got moderated. I had loads of posts pulled relating to Ullrich and Basso when Puerto blew up and I doubt their lawyers read the old 606 boards. And my first membership ended when I posted that Tony Blair was a war criminal.
Biosphere

Re: Uniballer - still completely delusional?

mazda wrote:
mr shifter wrote:

Post by Matt Slater » 04 Feb 2015 16:09
In fact, prior to last week my online/TV/radio output on Armstrong had been entirely negative

On the face of it that would seem like a reasonably easy thing to disprove. After all the entire media were in denial for most of the time.
So he must be fairly confident of his position.
I suspect he may only be referring to events since the reasoned decision, whereas we all work to a different calendar.


I thought the problem people had with Slater was that his commentary in general on cycling was more or less entirely negative, so it doesn't seem so crazy that he would be negative about Armstrong, but I suspect he never said anything (or more precisely was never allowed to say anything) until open season when USADA published.

More generally having finally seen the interview, I don't think the BBC did such a bad job in content or tone. The editorial that went with the interview was quite clear that he cannot be trusted given his past, he cannot repent because he's not repentant (openly admits he would do it again if he had to) and he was challenged on things in the interview too.

Quote:
Armstrong: The reason we're here is because people with guns rounded up and threatened witnesses.
BBC: No, that's a consequence of your doping which is the actual reason we're here.


A few other general comments. Wonder if the obvious that Huw speaks of with regards to McQuaid's suggestion that Armstrong is a scapegoat, is that Verbruggen is then the Kingpin?

I like BG's blog a lot, but I found she was reaching too much with the latest and he's anyway not going to go away as long as her two Guardian articles on him this year get ballpark the same amount of comments as the sum of everything they published from her last year. More the pity.

The BBC had the Armstrong drunk driving as one of their top 3 sports stories yesterday and in an 'above the fold' position. Cyclingnews and Cyclingtips don't even seem to have covered it which is the way it probably should be.
Mrs John Murphy

The thing with Slater is he wrote a hack piece after Landis got popped and basically said 'Cycling is in the toilet', which was a basic hatchet piece, when people pointed out that cycling tests while his beloved golf doesn't he told us that doping wouldn't help in golf.

I think he was tasked to write a hatchet piece to get hits after Landis/Puerto and based on cliches. Since then he's got on the Sky bandwagon but when it comes to doping he is pretty much 'only foreigners do it'.

Being pre-Sky etc it was easy to do, sport full of foreigners, full of dopers. Sport is a joke, watch golf, football and rugby etc

I can't remember what he wrote during the Armstrong comeback but I seem to recall the BBC being very much Armstrong, Armstrong, Armstrong and ignoring the Menchov-DDL-FP battle in the Giro and again during the TDF as well.

On the subject of BG's blog - I wonder how much that is the Guardian only asking her to blog about Armstrong rather than her being focussed on him
gerry12ie

AFAIK BG 'writes' for the Guardian as part of Guardian Sports Network, which is their blogger 'partners from across the web'.  The original articles they printed were from BG's excellent blog/ebook http://100tours100tales.wordpress.com/about/ but the more recent ones don't appear on that blog, so she may be on some kind of independent Guardian contract for her more recent stuff on Armstrong/Astana/Guadry?  I dunno...
Mrs John Murphy

Re: Uniballer - still completely delusional?

mr shifter wrote:
Mrs John Murphy wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/30981609

Still using the cancer shield.

Still claiming that he was clean on his comeback - no questions about the blood profiles.

This I guess is the next step in the PR campaign... and of course the BBC as they always were are happy to lap it up

This turned up on the BR forum yesterday.

Postby Matt Slater » 04 Feb 2015 16:09
Hi, this is a message to "deejay", who appears to have me badly confused with somebody else.

I was not a moderator on the BBC's 606 pages and I have never blocked/unfollowed/ignored/whatevered anybody, apart from one particularly potty-mouthed Rangers fan during that club's lurch towards financial ruin.

If I recall rightly, we outsourced the moderation of 606 to a third party. It wasn't my area, but I think the site was effectively self-policed by the site's users. If somebody complained/flagged something up, the moderators looked at it.

Also, as far as I can recall, I did not write anything about Lance Armstrong on a 606 page. If you know differently, can you send me the link? Can you also send me a link to a single "pro-Lance" story prior to the pieces I wrote last week?

I suspect you will struggle, as they do not exist. In fact, prior to last week my online/TV/radio output on Armstrong had been entirely negative, which is one of the reasons why I think he gave us the interview.

He knew who I was when I got in touch with him last year - he had always fobbed me off on Fabiani, Higgs or Stapleton before - but my pitch intrigued him enough to invite me over to talk about an interview, which I did, making him very clear of how far my sympathy for his situation extended. I believe he realised that this interview would have more credibility than the stage-managed confession he gave to his friend and neighbour Oprah.

Whether you agree with this is entirely up to you, of course, but please stop repeating this **** about me blocking you on 606, being a Lance 'fan boy' or any of the other related-nonsense you've been spouting on here.

Matt Slater
   
   Posts: 1
   Joined: 04 Feb 2015 15:41


Slater always was a thin-skinned prick. He's always quite happy to macho it out when it comes to writing stories, lots of 'I' in the story, (and his profile pic makes him look like a constipated ferret in the middle of a particularly tricky shit). But he got very upset when we called him for his lack of cycling knowledge and he still doesn't like being criticised.

SR - As I seem to recall the BBC were very hot on deleting posts about Dertie Cont and his role in Puerto when he was riding for Disco. I don't recall them deleting anything about Ullrich, Basso etc and this was one of the things that annoyed me.
Mrs John Murphy

Can we start to talk about 'the curse of the Uniballer'

http://www.thestar.com/business/2...es-for-bankruptcy-protection.html
gerry12ie

$10m down and counting...

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/...ned-10m-drugs-lies-sca-promotions
Mrs John Murphy

Good.
Fontfroide

I wonder if he will ever be so broke he can't buy anything he wants.  Or has to shop at Lidl.  Or even has to actually buy food himself.  I never know what to make of thee numbers as they bear no relation to any reality I know about.  If he has 50 million, then ten million makes no difference to every day life.  Means nothing.  If his total wealth is 15 million he might have to sell one or two houses.  Oh wait, he has.

Still never liked the guy since the middle of his first book.  Before then I just thought he was a normal macho bike rider.
Mrs John Murphy

Interesting. Is it all about Armstrong?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/31923891

However, not the first time Geoff Thomas has messed up when it comes to France


Link
mazda

Geoff Thomas is being a bit more christian than most of us might be (am I allowed to use that word, big 'C' or little 'c' ?, and keep it clean).

While I am getting a bit fed up of Armstrong's "comeback" by now I also find the responses of certain people incredibly sanctimonious.

Quote:
"For the sake of all clean riders in the peloton, who've already suffered enough from that era, leave them alone - enough's enough,"
Brailsford added.
FFS.
Mrs John Murphy

He doth protest too much.
mr shifter

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
Interesting. Is it all about Armstrong?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/31923891


This is your old friend "Matt Slater" and his BBC cohorts, who are again determined to raise some sympathy in the general public for Armstrong.
When he does it often enough, he will succeed.
Not many Journalists get invited to the back of his bike shop for a chat and then go for a ride with him.
Mrs John Murphy



Armstrong was always pleased to see Uncle Hein. Surprised
Mrs John Murphy

Uncle Hein even more delusional than the Uniballer

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/...strong-affair-scandalously-biased
HuwB

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
Uncle Hein even more delusional than the Uniballer

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/...strong-affair-scandalously-biased


This sport's real cancer.
In another life he would have been vying for a very senior spot in the Third Reich.
Mrs John Murphy

No longer considers himself to be Jesus.

However, he 'loves France'

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/...e-armstrong-fears-trial-voldemort
Mrs John Murphy

HuwB wrote:
Mrs John Murphy wrote:
Uncle Hein even more delusional than the Uniballer

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/...strong-affair-scandalously-biased


This sport's real cancer.
In another life he would have been vying for a very senior spot in the Third Reich.


A cancer that keeps on coming back

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/33167448

       justcycling.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Cycling Forum
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum