I don't know Eustice, maybe he is a scumbag. But, seems to me, with the Harlem race, he's just doing what promoters do: trying to find ways to stir up interest and to make the race more exciting. Some of the most exciting editions of this race were the ones that Danny Clark (a foreign, six day racer) won.
manipulating media? how about manipulating individual athletes....how is it ethical for a promoter to contact individual athletes regarding their attendance and performance at their event!!?? Or how about how he brought Landis here and took all these people's money to support him....where'd that money go? But let's forget about the past and look at the present...Harlem! Two foreign riders HE brought to clean up...WTF? I'm sure he was paid well.
When you go home and talk to friends and family, do you tell them how you doped up to win? Or do you tell them about how all the sacrifices you, and they, made won the race for you?
I have to wonder WTF the NT Times reports spoke to a sociologist on the topic? they may as well have spoken to me Lorenzo Rivnut. I obviously know more about the sport than that idiot Coakley
Jay Coakley, a sociologist and the author of “Sports in Society: Issues and Controversies,” said that he had no doubt that Mr. Armstrong was guilty of doping, but that it did not matter. For athletes, he said, the line between performance enhancement and medical treatment has become so fuzzy that it is impossible to discern.
I guess it's "impossible to discern" for people like Coakley. People who are too stupid to read the rulebook & list of banned substances.
Gomer, you don't get a prize for busting you butt - you get the prize for winning. You'll need to change that before you'll see clean sport which there never has been.
Now the egghead professors are going to tell us that cheating in sports is OK. Never mind that others are busting their butts over the handlebars racing clean. Never mind the rules prohibit a long list of PEDs. Professor Coakley says anything goes. From the NYT article:
Jay Coakley, a sociologist and the author of “Sports in Society: Issues and Controversies,” said that he had no doubt that Mr. Armstrong was guilty of doping, but that it did not matter. For athletes, he said, the line between performance enhancement and medical treatment has become so fuzzy that it is impossible to discern.
“Deciding to use performance-enhancing substances and methods has nothing to do with lack of morality,” Mr. Coakley said. “It has to do with normative structure of elite sport, and the athlete’s commitment to his identity as an athlete.”
If I am to take your word that you're a "good guy" in the sport of cycling, can you answer one question:
Why have you never spoken in defense of Betsy Andreu as you did for Odessa Gunn, Levi's wife? Do you think Betsy is lying? Is Frankie lying? Frankie's one guy who, 4 years ago, did more to expose cycling in order to clean it up than most anyone involved in the sport. His actions - being truthful at cost - spoke louder than so many deft words by others in the sport.
Again, John, just answer the question posed to you here because you haven't done so yet.
The cycling establishment, UCI, promoters ... long tried to suppress exposure of drug use to keep sponsors and "save" the sport for a long time. Now we can see that this strategy backfired. Eustice has bought into this strategy. When Heredia and Tardaguila tested positive at 2005 Univest, he tried to suppress news of the bust. He didn't even list Amos Brumble as the winner until 3 years later and as of last spring he's yet to give Brumble the winner's money and trophy. Maybe John intimidated some media to remove offending images because he feared for the future of his race but do you think the motivation of the evil UCI people has any other basis? His failure to give Brumble his just awards shows contempt for fair sport and the athletes.
Yes, it'll take a while, but it'll take even longer with people like Eustice around. There are plenty of people with experience in Europe, like, say, Greg LeMond, who don't share his views. Eustice's fence sitting and swaying with the wind is uniquely breathtaking.
Andy and Dan I have been a fan of your site for awhile now and especially enjoy Toto. But your policy of allowing anonymous posters has reached a new low with this Jelle Torque character. You guys are losing your audience by fostering this stuff.
I have known John for 37 years and consider him a good friend. He's always been a good hearted person, concerned with others and I admire him for sticking with this crazy sport and actually making a living at it. Believe many of us wished we could have done the same. He's done more for the sport than any of the rest of you folks have, so respect him for that. Jelle Torque's attempts to undermine him are in poor taste and cowardly to say the least.
I've done my share of high level racing in Europe and the states and well understand how so many of you fans are upset with the doping in the sport. But remember that John has a perspective that most of you will never experience. As he says it's a systemic problem and will take time to clean up.
Dude, That youtube link is hilarious!!!!!!!!! You must really know Useless. How poignant?!
Some people need to lay off of the kool-aid. You obviously have NO idea about the true character of Useless. Or the true character of those in the sport. Everything Floyd is saying is true. He finally came clean. One has to give him that, at least.
Anyone who has been involved in the Philadelphia cycling scene over the past 30 years knows of his reputation. It's not anything similar to what you described. Maybe why he fled to NYC -- to escape his own widely known bad reputation. He's a charlatan and cheat. Further he has always participated in some of the shadiest behavior as a rider, promoter and manager.
The hypocrit says wives are off limits. Yeah, if one talks about them.
(edited)
Useless, et al have a reputation of trying to discredit anyone who speaks out against them or wants to reveal the truth because they are honest people. He doesn't defend Betsy because she is honest and her honesty won't help his agenda in the sport. That's their MO. That's their party line...'sacrifice for the sport -- at any cost.' Even if it means lies, deceit, lack of ethics and morals and discredit ANYONE who tries otherwise.
Further, isn't this the same person who fell on a sword for Floyd. Must have been a time when he felt he could manipulate the situation to further his own objectives. That's the only way he operates. He cannot be trusted under any circumstance.
Don't know how a rumored high school drop out could know about the effects of these drugs / doping methods unless of course they had first hand experience. Which, based on his analogy, seems pretty clear he has...He can always speak to every angle. Isn't that unusual and, well, duplicitous. Don't know how he could get hired to give any kind of commentary when he is so biased and unobjective with conflicts of interest at all levels.
What's the deal with his association with that vulgar guy from Rock Racing? Isn't he being investigated as well. I guess they're getting close.
Betsy, you rock!!!!! You have more backbone, ethics and balls than many of these people combined. They all owe you a huge apology. In fact, you should head up the Giro coming to DC. You're honest, ethical, smart, etc. and you've suffered enough with this ugliness. Yet, no one every comes to your defense. Just double-talk about defending Floyd when its suitable and then Lance when it's suitable. But, Useless came to Odessa's defense...go figure!
Which team won the races at the ones he promotes? Amore and Vita? Doesn't he own the team with a woman? Sound familiar? Sound like a pattern? It's in his best interest to lie through his teeth and to get Lance on his side because it can be quite lucrative when all is said and done. He has EVERYTHING to gain by defending Lance and MUCH to lose if Lances ship sinks.
Quote: "And no, I do not believe that "bringing down Lance" will solve the issue in any way."
True it won't solve it but it must be done to bring down the hypocrisy that exists, if he is not taken down when the young riders will continue to think they can follow along in the same way(s).
“...I'm probably not the only one wondering right now why the FDA is spending its resources looking into international bicycle races that occurred years ago," Fabiani said in an e-mail to Bloomberg.”
If someone is innocent, shouldn’t they welcome a thorough investigation in order to clear their name, instead of questioning how the FDA is spending their money? I may be wrong, but stuff like this does a lot to convince me that Lance is guilty.
With all the money being spent by Lance on damage control and his defense, I would bet my house that people have been recruited to patrol the comments section of cycling web sites and post pro-Lance remarks.
(from CBS Sports)
It is perhaps the biggest doping cover-up in all of sports.
Dr. Wade Exum's report that 19 American medallists were allowed to compete at various Olympic Games from 1988 to 2000 despite having earlier failed drug tests shocked some people in the sporting community but was no surprise to others.
For years, insiders had speculated that U.S. athletes were not immune to delving into doping to get ahead of the competition.
But how could this be? American athletes often spoke publicly against illegal drug use in sport, cursing the sports regimes of East Germany and China for systemic doping practices.
"There is no commitment to stopping the drug problem," said track and field star Carl Lewis in 2000. "People know the sport is dirty, the sport is so driven by records."
Little did Lewis know he would be named in Exum's report.
The five-time Olympic medallist was among the athletes named in more than 30,000 pages of documents released by former U.S. Olympic Committee anti-doping chief to Sports Illustrated and several newspapers in 2003. More than 100 athletes from several different sports tested positive for banned substances between 1988 and 2000 but were cleared by internal appeals processes.
According to Exum's evidence, Lewis was one of three eventual Olympic gold medallists who tested positive for banned stimulants in the months leading up to the 1988 Seoul Games.
Exum made the initial allegations about coverups in 2000, which led several sporting organizations – among them, the IOC, IAAF and the World Anti-Doping Agency – to pressure the USOC to re-examine how they conducted drug testing.
Soon, the USOC turned over drug testing responsibilities to the newly founded U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. Don't worry, the USOC assured, this type of cover-up will never happen again.
So far, it hasn't. (Well, aside from track and field's Jerome Young being allowed to compete – and win a gold medal – at the 2000 Sydney Olympics despite testing positive for steroids in 1999.)
These coverups still beg the question: How could a country's own Olympic federation turn their backs on the oath of fair play and allow drug cheats to compete for a decade's worth of Olympic Games?
Ben Johnson would like to know.
Lewis was awarded the gold medal in the 100-metres after Johnson was disqualified for using steroids.
The Canadian sprinter told the Toronto Star that he felt somewhat vindicated by Exum's report.
"It was (for years) like I was the only cheat," he told the newspaper. "I knew time would take care of the truth."
I am very glad to see some good commentary on this issue. Couple of things: First, I absolutely want to see clean sport. It's actually much more exciting (because human frailty is not masked by drugs) and above all, healthier for the athletes. So many of my teammates and friends from the old days are in terrible psychological and physical states. I lost a dear friend from TV to what I directly attribute to the steroid programs he was on as a college then pro football player.
And I never say that doping does not exist. In fact I say the opposite: I believe that modern sport (beginning in the early 1900's) has been infected by medicines and drugs, and needs to be "detoxed". My disagreement is with the methods currently being employed. And no, I do not believe that "bringing down Lance" will solve the issue in any way. I was in the Euro peloton by 1975, have kept my contacts since then, and have a pretty good handle how things work from the grassroots up to the pros. And the grassroots, juniors through U23's are where the focus needs to be (by the time many of these riders make it to the pros they are already damaged goods) - there and in the continued development of clean training methods, and stringent controls (from juniors up to the pros) that are reliable and not politicized (leaks to the media, etc., the usual bag of tricks). The anti-doping effort needs massive government funding to really work. It is currently severely underfunded and problems arise from that.
I don't judge the riders. It's very difficult to find your way in pro sports. The Michael Creed article just published in Cyclingnews gives an excellent insight to the issues confronted by the pros. In many ways, he was describing my own career.
I can personally attest that the picture of Eustice back in his pro riding days, while sporting his trademark handlebar mustache, reminds me of the Village People.
John is a good and decent human being willing to risk his own reputation for the sake of doing the right thing. That's a rare quality these days and for someone in his position. He should be given much credit for this and for continually acting as ambassador for the sport of cycling.
However, Dan's argument is valid. IF there is corruption throughout and including the highest levels of the sport, then the solution must start there. It's the most efficient and symbolic path that will have the broadest impact. The counter argument to this is to start with the Cat 5s racing club races. I would argue that this would indeed be a waste of time.
Finally, if the UCI, et al. went after a 1-time TdF winner in Floyd Landis for a questionable (and convincingly specious) positive control, then why is a federal investigation (with at least SOME evidence or corroboration of Landis' claims) of a 7-time TdF winner now off limits and a waste of time and resources? It seems to me that the only difference is scale.
I think John sincerely believes he is acting in cycling's best interest, and he often is and I respect him for it, think a lot o people do.
However his argument reminds me of those made in the civil rights era against people who were staging sit-ins and strikes, they called it "causing trouble". Just wait be patient, change is coming was the argument. In retrospect we can see this was hopeful thinking, the people who have power in an unfair system will never voluntarily surrender it. They have to be forcibly unmasked.
Lorenzo, thanks for reading. Are you saying Creed was too crazy to be trusted with EPO? How did you come by this tremendously inside information? Did the voices in your head tell you?
do something more useful, like go after j-walkers, bad marshaling, and wreck lane violators...
"you people" have your heads so far up you arses you can't even "holdja line" anymore!!!!
Did going after Clinton for lying about a cigar help clean up politics? yeah right...
How about BP?
How about Blackwater?
How about insider trading?
How about sexual assault and cover up by religious leaders?
Going after and "getting" Armstrong will do NOTHING to stop the next ass wipe that dopes!!!
And BTW, CREED did solicit EPO from the powers that be, but he is sucha loose cannon that they couldnt trust him with the dirty little secret...he aint no saint either...
STFU!!! Pedal pedal pedal!!!!!!!!
this site and all the self righteously is completely
ri-gd-dnm-diculous!!!! does anyone really go to the advertisers? would anyone really pay to subscribe? its a big circle jerk...
It's called taking a stand because it's difficult. No one needs anyone to stand up and be counted if and when Armstrong goes down. And yes, lots of people have done it, just not Eustice.
Lets say you STFU and discontinue the stoking of the flames that you know nothing about. How the fck do you know what one knows and doesnt know? You should take your own stand and maybe start with signing your name and owning your stupid position.
sign
nUNYA
"To focus on a few star athletes, hunt them down and destroy them, might make some law enforcement careers, but won't really change that much in the sport."
John, I have to say that I disagree entirely with that statement.
Let me ask you which scenario you think is more corrosive:
Not investigating substantive allegations against "star athletes" (who may be "stars" in the first place due of doping, but let's set that argument aside for a moment) because it won't "really change anything in the sport."
or
Investigating all riders in the sport regardless of their successes (or even their UCI donations), even though the investigation may give the sport a (probably temporary) black eye?
I suppose it comes down to which scenario you believe will serve as more of a deterrent (I don't call it a solution, mind you) to potential dopers. Personally, I think that if a doper thinks, "Wow, they even go after Tour winners. " is more of a deterrent than dopers thinking, "Well, if I win enough races (and become a "star"), they won't risk besmirching the sport's image with an investigation."
So Eustice signs his name, let's say he knows the truth. Yet he refuses to take a stand, relying instead on the 'never failed a test' line. What does that make him?
Funny how the only people who could possibly know the truth on some parts of this topic are the only ones signing their real names. I gave them more credence than the rest of us anonymous posters.
Blame the prosecutor, not the criminal. Is that the kind of education you're so magnanimously offering our juniors, Eustice?
If you were a young rider, what would make more of an impression on you? Some guy straddling the fence while claiming to be for clean sport, or the #1 rider doping with impunity and making a shitload of money at it?
I have never spoken one lie nor created one rumor. From the very beginning the journalists who come to mind who cared about the truth in the sport of cycling were/are Gwen Knapp, SF Chronicle; Tom Goldman, NPR; Alan Abrahamson; Paul Kimmage, London Sunday Times; and my favorite, "the f*&%ing little troll" David Walsh. I'd venture to say Kimmage loves the sport.
It is sick and sad that I am considered a liability for my husband because I refuse to go along with the lie and speak the truth. Only be acknowledging the truth can the sport truly get cleaned up and grow.
The attitude of some in regards to what's going on now is truly amazing. It's like discovering a man cheating on his wife, telling the wife, and then blaming the person who told the wife for the failure of the marriage.
There are some people who truly want clean sport. I consider myself one of them.
Is it fair for Eustice to impute motive to Landis? Maybe he came clean because his conscience was bothering him. Landis' motive is less provable than Lance doping. Eustice is using his own conjecture to put Landis in the worst light. On the other hand all he will say about Armstrong is that he never failed a test and the tests should be used to prove innocence as well as guilt which he knows is a lot of shit. He can't say that Armstrong doped because he does not have proof but there is a lot of evidence that Eustice chooses not to discuss while he trys to discredit Landis.
The tough question is whether Eustice is acting in the best interest of the sport. Of course, he thinks he is, but has trying to hide and make excuses for doping for 15+ years worked?
Hi, it's "grandpa"! Want to go for a ride and see how you do? Anyway, my position is very clear: I do not paint a rosy picture of racing. Cycling is really a 19th century sport in origin, like baseball and boxing, and not much has changed since then in many ways. If you want a nice, gentlemanly sport, this is the wrong one. it's a rough, working class, old sport with lot's of nasty people floating around in it.
I see the doping issue in the same way that I see the change from fossil to green energy or from chem-food to organic. To succeed will require time and patience, and most of all education. To focus on a few star athletes, hunt them down and destroy them, might make some law enforcement careers, but won't really change that much in the sport. And yes, I do want the sport to continue - should it be shut down? What on earth would you all talk about then? I also see abuses in the enforcement side of the doping industry, big abuses. So I believe in going with facts, disregarding rumors, and working with young athletes to educate them in proper training and in "green" methods of finding super fitness. This mediathon of "did he or didn't he?" is just so boring. And, one thing is certain and will never change: Top athletes (singers. actors, politicians, cops and crooks) will all search with all they have for the "edge". They have to in order to stay in the game. So our job is to find them safe pathways to that edge and to remember that doping issues are systemic and not individual. And changing systems takes a long, long time.
I dont think anyone here is a lanc fan. The previous comments are just folks that measure their opinions to what is publicly factual knowledge. the only writing on the wall is that rider A is takin the piss out of rider B for not letting B join his team and "get back together with the boys". To publicly write that Lance is doped without the factual evidence is irresponsible and comes off makin one look ignorant. I would argue that the opposing viewpoint could equally be labled Lance hatin extremist (LHE) and we all have our views on the mentality of an extremist. - Lack of clear thinking comes to mind.
Here in the USA it ain't the truth unless you can prove it. No solid proof YET. You can't hold a grudge against a guy who promotes cycling and wants to make it appealing to the general public.
It's pretty obvious what Eustice is doing. He is into promoting bicycle races. He is very good at that. Him being able to do that, and get sponsors, depends on cycling having a good reputation. So he will do what he can to make cycling looking appealing to the general public. So unless there is solid proof otherwise, he will continue to paint a rosy picture of pro cycling. So you can understand why he is not happy with anyone who is making accusations that cannot be backed up with solid proof.
what 'appenz in vegas stays in vegas, what 'appenz on the road stays on the road...
LA doped, who at that level didnt? JV, FA, FL, GH, TH, are all "hot sauce" addicts...
whatever. you all suck, go get a Signature fitting, and Will Schneider Freakout!!!!
instead of roller races or ccx, lets do MMA off season...
J.E. is an enigma. He's always been a pioneer in providing cyclist opportunities and finding positive and creative ways to promote the sport to the general public.
On the flip side, he's supported Todd Harriot, Floyd Landis, and Lance Armstrong while criticizing the likes of Greg Lemond.
I try to treat Eustice like you would a grandpa who still talks about the "colored people". I ascribe his faults to the fact that he's becoming a bit of a dinosaur in a modern world.
The TUE was a rue i.e. that was the cover-up. Monsieur Armstrong declared "rien" on any exemptions he should've made the uci aware about. But only after was he caught were the shady team doctors in motion to come up with a TUE.
Another prime example of skirt the issue with the same defenders. Lance DID test positive so much so that at the 1999 Tour he had to get a backdated prescription to a TUE he had 2 weeks earlier he neglected to mention. I won't even argue that the scrip was a cover-up.
The John Eusless poster here has a good point. John Eustice can cry fowl on behalf of Odessa (which does give him brownie points with certain riders and teams). When in the hell has he ever stuck up for Andreu's wife? Hell, he's gone on tv to defend Lance against any and all accusations against Armstrong including the Andreus's accusations.
You read this John - why HAVEN'T you ever stuck up for Betsy since you're in the business of defending the good honor of riders' wives?
Why bash Eustice? He is not defending LA. He is an analyst who is basing his opinion on known facts, not accusations of a known cheat and liar. It would irresponsible for him to go around calling LA a cheat when there is no proof, yet. I'm sure that some time in the near future LA will be found positive of doping. At that time I'm sure Eustice will come out and condemn him.
Here's the deal. Until one of you douchfcks find mult. bags of blood code named uniballer, dont associate Puerto with this finger pointing Landis hissy fit. Its different. The fact is - as Eustice pointed out - he never tested positive, he never left empty blood bags laying around, his connection with any doctor that may implement him is zilcho and last but not least - who the fck cares who Lance is bangin. Given the money and lifestyle he leads, I'm sure most of you trolls would be logging your own frequent fck'r miles with women in every continent. The Hypocrit - look in the mirror cat 4 squids.
This toto - lacked anything remotely funny - last toto (gold)
When and if the smoking gun shows itself then we can all go on with our lives and find some other rider to run down. Until then Lance will continue to bring more cyclist into the sport, start development teams, and show up at domestic races that will pretty much give said town a good shot in the economic arm.
Here's the story - why would us postal need a device to check blood values? In terms of fairness, I find that a little suspect. All of this other noncense, is just media fodder for selling books and logging website hits (toto).
Disappointing? Really, John? Let me ask you this Mr. Toto Fan - you are another Unabashed Lance Fanboy (ULF). When have you ever said anything anti-doping? Protecting the riders' wives? Hmmm, can you point me to your comments when you were as protective of Betsy Andreu as you are here to Mrs. Levi? Until then, Mr. Eustice, you're a hyprocrite.
Eustice uses the "never failed a drug test" defense for Armstrong in the ESPN interview. It's well enough known that the guys caught in Puerto and in other stings also never tested positive. Of course Eustice knows his argument is absurd and borders on being dishonest.
Many moons ago I worked for Kristen A's dad. He was an ok guy but when he found out I rode a bike to work and raced he stopped liking me. A few times he shared his opinion on Lance, absolutely hated him.
Why this story relates to all the commentary about who is banging who and whether wives are fair game I don't really know, I just felt like now was the time to drop my little insider bombshell. Ex-father-in-law hated Lance while still father-in-law = doper and all round bad person who probably did poke Odessa.
You hate Lance for doping (his popularity probably interested you in this sport); I imagine on moral grounds..
Then you promote rumor and character assassination..
You're cheating yourselves by lying to yourselves that you're so high and good..
Do you realize you are using the same tactics that Armstrong does by attacking Eustice, rather than the point he is making? See "argumentum ad hominem"
it's no secret around girona and more of common knowledge that Armstrong banged Odessa. Got to feel sorry for little bottle, being team mates and training partners and all
I don't know, Odessa used to race, she has a public role in levi's life, and for the most part they are harmless jokes mostly to make fun of levi, but i agree its an area where you should probably be more careful. making fun of levi by painting him as someone who is not only subservient to lance, but also his wife is fair game, bringing up his wife's sexuality and lance together is close to a line. I was not really offended, but that was because I had to look up Estrus.
Kudo's for telling it like it is Joe.
There is enough cycling fodder for Toto to skewer without bringing in the wives, children, girlfriends etc. into the equation.
As Joe said: genuine disappointment that you would stoop to the level of insulting the wife of one of the subjects you criticize. You've lost a lot of your moral authority by making that mistake, and I hope it's one that's not repeated.
I don't see why people are offended. This isn't an attack on Odessa. The joke is about Lance's need to be alpha male and his disregard for anyone who challenges his "greatness." Hence, the subtle threat to steal Levi's woman.
I don't disagree with you. i personally thought it was overall humor. Levi winning Leadville- yawn. Levi racing by his lonesome in Utah- could be ripe with Mormon irony!
As an original supporter of Toto, and one of his biggest fans, I've eagerly awaited every new installment of the strip. This week's version is a great disappointment, though, and I'm, well, disappointed to see you reduced to the level of insulting the wife of one of the subjects you satirize. Their IS a difference between what's fair game (cyclists, their handlers, apologists and co-conspirators) and what's not (family members not directly involved in the scenarios you're supposedly basing Toto on) - and it's surprising to see the the authors are so willing to ignore the distinction.
I'm not personally insulted, and there's no fake moral outrage here. Rather, just genuine disappointment that you would stoop to the level of insulting the wife of one of the subjects you criticize. You've lost a lot of your moral authority by making that mistake, and I hope it's one that's not repeated.
the wives hold more than a leash on these guys. they will get tired of the innuendos and rumors and turn before their emaciated, chicken chest husbands do. (Betsy)
the wives are the ones with the balls and aren't afraid to use them. us guys jus' wanna ride, even with the douches who are trying to take us down.
Guys, guys. The wife stuff way out of line, way out. Riders are fair game, but riders' wives? I find this really low, horrible. And the editors should remove some of the comments.
I love to read this cartoon, but wow. This is a sad one.
Obviously the comments section is for douche-nozzles, but denigrating the man's wife? Why should Mrs. Leipheimer be subjected to these comments?
Why would any pro rider show up to any of your gay spinathons or whatever? So you can host forums that bash their wives in the worse possible way?
Satire is one thing. so is "scathing commentary"
Just being dishonorable is another thing entirely. Screw your juvenile cartoon and your Fred-filled New York weekend warrior club (which by the way, is this the least photogenic group of amateur bike racers in the country? is it something in the water up there?)
He'll get snubbed by Lance one too many times, stepped on like a doormat by his ridiculous wife, laughed at by the press, pissed on by the dogs, etc., etc.
And he'll grab a bottom bracket wrench at some one-day race in the Loire valley and kill 13 people before they get the taser gun to grab hold in his unfleshy body.
He will be a changed man after that, and his balls will descend from inside his torso and he'll get sent to one of those French prisons where they rehabilitate the convicts on country-wide bike tours and he will COMPLETELY ANNIHILATE THE FIELD IN BRUTAL, BLISTERING, DAY-LONG ATTACKS!
O.G. was rolling around Philly week in the feed zone a bunch of years back. she was wearing cut offs and looked pretty hot , like a runaway waiting at a bus station.
We thought the she was a stripper. a local strip club that year had a few chicks handing out flyers (for reals). then a buddy told me she was just a groupie stalking the Big Guy (LA).
So you heard about the party in Vegas where Lance hung out with other women, one not yet married to his soon-to-be-teammate while his wife was home pregnant? That was the Oakley party.
All these liars should go to Vegas now - maybe the last big public hoorah before indictments fly. Odessa's nice but so is Haven, so is Tyler, yadda yadda yadda
EMAIL
PRINT
Subscribe
Comments
Add a commentPharmstrong nailed Odessa too?
BTW, do you know if Lance will be a bottom in Dirk's new boy/boy flick?
USAC needs to reboot.
http://www.sandcreeksports.com/usa_cyclings_history_of_crooked_elections...
I don't know Eustice, maybe he is a scumbag. But, seems to me, with the Harlem race, he's just doing what promoters do: trying to find ways to stir up interest and to make the race more exciting. Some of the most exciting editions of this race were the ones that Danny Clark (a foreign, six day racer) won.
manipulating media? how about manipulating individual athletes....how is it ethical for a promoter to contact individual athletes regarding their attendance and performance at their event!!?? Or how about how he brought Landis here and took all these people's money to support him....where'd that money go? But let's forget about the past and look at the present...Harlem! Two foreign riders HE brought to clean up...WTF? I'm sure he was paid well.
I hope they don't let this idiot Coakley teach any courses on ethics:
“Deciding to use performance-enhancing substances and methods has nothing to do with lack of morality,” Mr. Coakley said.
Um, yes it does have to do with a lack of morality ( assuming those substances are banned). It's called cheating.
This:
I have to wonder WTF the NT Times reports spoke to a sociologist on the topic?
Should read:
I have to wonder WTF the NY times reporters were thinking when they spoke to a sociologist on the topic?
When you go home and talk to friends and family, do you tell them how you doped up to win? Or do you tell them about how all the sacrifices you, and they, made won the race for you?
I have to wonder WTF the NT Times reports spoke to a sociologist on the topic? they may as well have spoken to me Lorenzo Rivnut. I obviously know more about the sport than that idiot Coakley
"Gomer, you don't get a prize for busting you butt - you get the prize for winning."
Hey that is true! But the prize ain't worth nothing if you cheated. Maybe you think otherwise.
Jay Coakley, a sociologist and the author of “Sports in Society: Issues and Controversies,” said that he had no doubt that Mr. Armstrong was guilty of doping, but that it did not matter. For athletes, he said, the line between performance enhancement and medical treatment has become so fuzzy that it is impossible to discern.
I guess it's "impossible to discern" for people like Coakley. People who are too stupid to read the rulebook & list of banned substances.
to say it's not a moral decision is total, total bullshit.
The end justify the means, eh?
Gomer, you don't get a prize for busting you butt - you get the prize for winning. You'll need to change that before you'll see clean sport which there never has been.
Now the egghead professors are going to tell us that cheating in sports is OK. Never mind that others are busting their butts over the handlebars racing clean. Never mind the rules prohibit a long list of PEDs. Professor Coakley says anything goes. From the NYT article:
Jay Coakley, a sociologist and the author of “Sports in Society: Issues and Controversies,” said that he had no doubt that Mr. Armstrong was guilty of doping, but that it did not matter. For athletes, he said, the line between performance enhancement and medical treatment has become so fuzzy that it is impossible to discern.
“Deciding to use performance-enhancing substances and methods has nothing to do with lack of morality,” Mr. Coakley said. “It has to do with normative structure of elite sport, and the athlete’s commitment to his identity as an athlete.”
Roger Chillingworth has spoken. Your desire for justice is unhealthy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/sports/cycling/22armstrong.html
If I am to take your word that you're a "good guy" in the sport of cycling, can you answer one question:
Why have you never spoken in defense of Betsy Andreu as you did for Odessa Gunn, Levi's wife? Do you think Betsy is lying? Is Frankie lying? Frankie's one guy who, 4 years ago, did more to expose cycling in order to clean it up than most anyone involved in the sport. His actions - being truthful at cost - spoke louder than so many deft words by others in the sport.
Again, John, just answer the question posed to you here because you haven't done so yet.
B wtf....go get your friggen stuff. Here's how you do it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEhk5N32Tec
The cycling establishment, UCI, promoters ... long tried to suppress exposure of drug use to keep sponsors and "save" the sport for a long time. Now we can see that this strategy backfired. Eustice has bought into this strategy. When Heredia and Tardaguila tested positive at 2005 Univest, he tried to suppress news of the bust. He didn't even list Amos Brumble as the winner until 3 years later and as of last spring he's yet to give Brumble the winner's money and trophy. Maybe John intimidated some media to remove offending images because he feared for the future of his race but do you think the motivation of the evil UCI people has any other basis? His failure to give Brumble his just awards shows contempt for fair sport and the athletes.
Yes, it'll take a while, but it'll take even longer with people like Eustice around. There are plenty of people with experience in Europe, like, say, Greg LeMond, who don't share his views. Eustice's fence sitting and swaying with the wind is uniquely breathtaking.
Andy and Dan I have been a fan of your site for awhile now and especially enjoy Toto. But your policy of allowing anonymous posters has reached a new low with this Jelle Torque character. You guys are losing your audience by fostering this stuff.
I have known John for 37 years and consider him a good friend. He's always been a good hearted person, concerned with others and I admire him for sticking with this crazy sport and actually making a living at it. Believe many of us wished we could have done the same. He's done more for the sport than any of the rest of you folks have, so respect him for that. Jelle Torque's attempts to undermine him are in poor taste and cowardly to say the least.
I've done my share of high level racing in Europe and the states and well understand how so many of you fans are upset with the doping in the sport. But remember that John has a perspective that most of you will never experience. As he says it's a systemic problem and will take time to clean up.
Dude, That youtube link is hilarious!!!!!!!!! You must really know Useless. How poignant?!
Some people need to lay off of the kool-aid. You obviously have NO idea about the true character of Useless. Or the true character of those in the sport. Everything Floyd is saying is true. He finally came clean. One has to give him that, at least.
Anyone who has been involved in the Philadelphia cycling scene over the past 30 years knows of his reputation. It's not anything similar to what you described. Maybe why he fled to NYC -- to escape his own widely known bad reputation. He's a charlatan and cheat. Further he has always participated in some of the shadiest behavior as a rider, promoter and manager.
The hypocrit says wives are off limits. Yeah, if one talks about them.
(edited)
Useless, et al have a reputation of trying to discredit anyone who speaks out against them or wants to reveal the truth because they are honest people. He doesn't defend Betsy because she is honest and her honesty won't help his agenda in the sport. That's their MO. That's their party line...'sacrifice for the sport -- at any cost.' Even if it means lies, deceit, lack of ethics and morals and discredit ANYONE who tries otherwise.
Further, isn't this the same person who fell on a sword for Floyd. Must have been a time when he felt he could manipulate the situation to further his own objectives. That's the only way he operates. He cannot be trusted under any circumstance.
Don't know how a rumored high school drop out could know about the effects of these drugs / doping methods unless of course they had first hand experience. Which, based on his analogy, seems pretty clear he has...He can always speak to every angle. Isn't that unusual and, well, duplicitous. Don't know how he could get hired to give any kind of commentary when he is so biased and unobjective with conflicts of interest at all levels.
What's the deal with his association with that vulgar guy from Rock Racing? Isn't he being investigated as well. I guess they're getting close.
Betsy, you rock!!!!! You have more backbone, ethics and balls than many of these people combined. They all owe you a huge apology. In fact, you should head up the Giro coming to DC. You're honest, ethical, smart, etc. and you've suffered enough with this ugliness. Yet, no one every comes to your defense. Just double-talk about defending Floyd when its suitable and then Lance when it's suitable. But, Useless came to Odessa's defense...go figure!
Which team won the races at the ones he promotes? Amore and Vita? Doesn't he own the team with a woman? Sound familiar? Sound like a pattern? It's in his best interest to lie through his teeth and to get Lance on his side because it can be quite lucrative when all is said and done. He has EVERYTHING to gain by defending Lance and MUCH to lose if Lances ship sinks.
Quote: "And no, I do not believe that "bringing down Lance" will solve the issue in any way."
True it won't solve it but it must be done to bring down the hypocrisy that exists, if he is not taken down when the young riders will continue to think they can follow along in the same way(s).
“...I'm probably not the only one wondering right now why the FDA is spending its resources looking into international bicycle races that occurred years ago," Fabiani said in an e-mail to Bloomberg.”
If someone is innocent, shouldn’t they welcome a thorough investigation in order to clear their name, instead of questioning how the FDA is spending their money? I may be wrong, but stuff like this does a lot to convince me that Lance is guilty.
With all the money being spent by Lance on damage control and his defense, I would bet my house that people have been recruited to patrol the comments section of cycling web sites and post pro-Lance remarks.
yes but not directly!
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-adds-communications-strategist...
Sure is bringin in the big guns...
And I thought I was the housewives' favorite.
(from CBS Sports)
It is perhaps the biggest doping cover-up in all of sports.
Dr. Wade Exum's report that 19 American medallists were allowed to compete at various Olympic Games from 1988 to 2000 despite having earlier failed drug tests shocked some people in the sporting community but was no surprise to others.
For years, insiders had speculated that U.S. athletes were not immune to delving into doping to get ahead of the competition.
But how could this be? American athletes often spoke publicly against illegal drug use in sport, cursing the sports regimes of East Germany and China for systemic doping practices.
"There is no commitment to stopping the drug problem," said track and field star Carl Lewis in 2000. "People know the sport is dirty, the sport is so driven by records."
Little did Lewis know he would be named in Exum's report.
The five-time Olympic medallist was among the athletes named in more than 30,000 pages of documents released by former U.S. Olympic Committee anti-doping chief to Sports Illustrated and several newspapers in 2003. More than 100 athletes from several different sports tested positive for banned substances between 1988 and 2000 but were cleared by internal appeals processes.
According to Exum's evidence, Lewis was one of three eventual Olympic gold medallists who tested positive for banned stimulants in the months leading up to the 1988 Seoul Games.
Exum made the initial allegations about coverups in 2000, which led several sporting organizations – among them, the IOC, IAAF and the World Anti-Doping Agency – to pressure the USOC to re-examine how they conducted drug testing.
Soon, the USOC turned over drug testing responsibilities to the newly founded U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. Don't worry, the USOC assured, this type of cover-up will never happen again.
So far, it hasn't. (Well, aside from track and field's Jerome Young being allowed to compete – and win a gold medal – at the 2000 Sydney Olympics despite testing positive for steroids in 1999.)
These coverups still beg the question: How could a country's own Olympic federation turn their backs on the oath of fair play and allow drug cheats to compete for a decade's worth of Olympic Games?
Ben Johnson would like to know.
Lewis was awarded the gold medal in the 100-metres after Johnson was disqualified for using steroids.
The Canadian sprinter told the Toronto Star that he felt somewhat vindicated by Exum's report.
"It was (for years) like I was the only cheat," he told the newspaper. "I knew time would take care of the truth."
was pretty interesting. It was like waking up the next morning and seeing procycling without its make-up.
I am very glad to see some good commentary on this issue. Couple of things: First, I absolutely want to see clean sport. It's actually much more exciting (because human frailty is not masked by drugs) and above all, healthier for the athletes. So many of my teammates and friends from the old days are in terrible psychological and physical states. I lost a dear friend from TV to what I directly attribute to the steroid programs he was on as a college then pro football player.
And I never say that doping does not exist. In fact I say the opposite: I believe that modern sport (beginning in the early 1900's) has been infected by medicines and drugs, and needs to be "detoxed". My disagreement is with the methods currently being employed. And no, I do not believe that "bringing down Lance" will solve the issue in any way. I was in the Euro peloton by 1975, have kept my contacts since then, and have a pretty good handle how things work from the grassroots up to the pros. And the grassroots, juniors through U23's are where the focus needs to be (by the time many of these riders make it to the pros they are already damaged goods) - there and in the continued development of clean training methods, and stringent controls (from juniors up to the pros) that are reliable and not politicized (leaks to the media, etc., the usual bag of tricks). The anti-doping effort needs massive government funding to really work. It is currently severely underfunded and problems arise from that.
I don't judge the riders. It's very difficult to find your way in pro sports. The Michael Creed article just published in Cyclingnews gives an excellent insight to the issues confronted by the pros. In many ways, he was describing my own career.
This is a really good article that explains the life a racer
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/michael-creed-why-i-never-doped-and-...
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/dailypitch/post/2010/08/new-york...
I prefer Recto-Puffs.
I can personally attest that the picture of Eustice back in his pro riding days, while sporting his trademark handlebar mustache, reminds me of the Village People.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9OO0S5w2k
John is a good and decent human being willing to risk his own reputation for the sake of doing the right thing. That's a rare quality these days and for someone in his position. He should be given much credit for this and for continually acting as ambassador for the sport of cycling.
However, Dan's argument is valid. IF there is corruption throughout and including the highest levels of the sport, then the solution must start there. It's the most efficient and symbolic path that will have the broadest impact. The counter argument to this is to start with the Cat 5s racing club races. I would argue that this would indeed be a waste of time.
Finally, if the UCI, et al. went after a 1-time TdF winner in Floyd Landis for a questionable (and convincingly specious) positive control, then why is a federal investigation (with at least SOME evidence or corroboration of Landis' claims) of a 7-time TdF winner now off limits and a waste of time and resources? It seems to me that the only difference is scale.
8:22: Exactly: Levi Wife Jokes are right up there with the Selma to Montgomery March. Can I use the rest of your brain for bike storage?
does hypocrite have anything to do with hematocrit?
I think John sincerely believes he is acting in cycling's best interest, and he often is and I respect him for it, think a lot o people do.
However his argument reminds me of those made in the civil rights era against people who were staging sit-ins and strikes, they called it "causing trouble". Just wait be patient, change is coming was the argument. In retrospect we can see this was hopeful thinking, the people who have power in an unfair system will never voluntarily surrender it. They have to be forcibly unmasked.
Lorenzo, thanks for reading. Are you saying Creed was too crazy to be trusted with EPO? How did you come by this tremendously inside information? Did the voices in your head tell you?
do something more useful, like go after j-walkers, bad marshaling, and wreck lane violators...
"you people" have your heads so far up you arses you can't even "holdja line" anymore!!!!
Did going after Clinton for lying about a cigar help clean up politics? yeah right...
How about BP?
How about Blackwater?
How about insider trading?
How about sexual assault and cover up by religious leaders?
Going after and "getting" Armstrong will do NOTHING to stop the next ass wipe that dopes!!!
And BTW, CREED did solicit EPO from the powers that be, but he is sucha loose cannon that they couldnt trust him with the dirty little secret...he aint no saint either...
STFU!!! Pedal pedal pedal!!!!!!!!
this site and all the self righteously is completely
ri-gd-dnm-diculous!!!! does anyone really go to the advertisers? would anyone really pay to subscribe? its a big circle jerk...
flatbush from man bridge to fbf
The best way to ride to FBF?
It's called taking a stand because it's difficult. No one needs anyone to stand up and be counted if and when Armstrong goes down. And yes, lots of people have done it, just not Eustice.
PS there's lots of evidence.
Lets say you STFU and discontinue the stoking of the flames that you know nothing about. How the fck do you know what one knows and doesnt know? You should take your own stand and maybe start with signing your name and owning your stupid position.
sign
nUNYA
"To focus on a few star athletes, hunt them down and destroy them, might make some law enforcement careers, but won't really change that much in the sport."
John, I have to say that I disagree entirely with that statement.
Let me ask you which scenario you think is more corrosive:
Not investigating substantive allegations against "star athletes" (who may be "stars" in the first place due of doping, but let's set that argument aside for a moment) because it won't "really change anything in the sport."
or
Investigating all riders in the sport regardless of their successes (or even their UCI donations), even though the investigation may give the sport a (probably temporary) black eye?
I suppose it comes down to which scenario you believe will serve as more of a deterrent (I don't call it a solution, mind you) to potential dopers. Personally, I think that if a doper thinks, "Wow, they even go after Tour winners. " is more of a deterrent than dopers thinking, "Well, if I win enough races (and become a "star"), they won't risk besmirching the sport's image with an investigation."
that would make you a masters at least 45+
I'm feeling a little excitable this morning. Must've been the colon blow cereal.
You want someone to take a stand when there are no proof of any wrong doing? Isn't the answer obvious?
So Eustice signs his name, let's say he knows the truth. Yet he refuses to take a stand, relying instead on the 'never failed a test' line. What does that make him?
How does one score an invite to the Sinclair party?
Are YOU going to be at the Sinclair party?
Funny how the only people who could possibly know the truth on some parts of this topic are the only ones signing their real names. I gave them more credence than the rest of us anonymous posters.
Blame the prosecutor, not the criminal. Is that the kind of education you're so magnanimously offering our juniors, Eustice?
If you were a young rider, what would make more of an impression on you? Some guy straddling the fence while claiming to be for clean sport, or the #1 rider doping with impunity and making a shitload of money at it?
Maybe I'm reading John wrong, but did he imply that taking EPO is like driving a Camry instead of a Prius?
Bravo, Betsy
- someone who loves the sport and wants to clean it up too
Lance haters are just as bad as Lance fanboys.
I have never spoken one lie nor created one rumor. From the very beginning the journalists who come to mind who cared about the truth in the sport of cycling were/are Gwen Knapp, SF Chronicle; Tom Goldman, NPR; Alan Abrahamson; Paul Kimmage, London Sunday Times; and my favorite, "the f*&%ing little troll" David Walsh. I'd venture to say Kimmage loves the sport.
It is sick and sad that I am considered a liability for my husband because I refuse to go along with the lie and speak the truth. Only be acknowledging the truth can the sport truly get cleaned up and grow.
The attitude of some in regards to what's going on now is truly amazing. It's like discovering a man cheating on his wife, telling the wife, and then blaming the person who told the wife for the failure of the marriage.
There are some people who truly want clean sport. I consider myself one of them.
Is it fair for Eustice to impute motive to Landis? Maybe he came clean because his conscience was bothering him. Landis' motive is less provable than Lance doping. Eustice is using his own conjecture to put Landis in the worst light. On the other hand all he will say about Armstrong is that he never failed a test and the tests should be used to prove innocence as well as guilt which he knows is a lot of shit. He can't say that Armstrong doped because he does not have proof but there is a lot of evidence that Eustice chooses not to discuss while he trys to discredit Landis.
The tough question is whether Eustice is acting in the best interest of the sport. Of course, he thinks he is, but has trying to hide and make excuses for doping for 15+ years worked?
Hi, it's "grandpa"! Want to go for a ride and see how you do? Anyway, my position is very clear: I do not paint a rosy picture of racing. Cycling is really a 19th century sport in origin, like baseball and boxing, and not much has changed since then in many ways. If you want a nice, gentlemanly sport, this is the wrong one. it's a rough, working class, old sport with lot's of nasty people floating around in it.
I see the doping issue in the same way that I see the change from fossil to green energy or from chem-food to organic. To succeed will require time and patience, and most of all education. To focus on a few star athletes, hunt them down and destroy them, might make some law enforcement careers, but won't really change that much in the sport. And yes, I do want the sport to continue - should it be shut down? What on earth would you all talk about then? I also see abuses in the enforcement side of the doping industry, big abuses. So I believe in going with facts, disregarding rumors, and working with young athletes to educate them in proper training and in "green" methods of finding super fitness. This mediathon of "did he or didn't he?" is just so boring. And, one thing is certain and will never change: Top athletes (singers. actors, politicians, cops and crooks) will all search with all they have for the "edge". They have to in order to stay in the game. So our job is to find them safe pathways to that edge and to remember that doping issues are systemic and not individual. And changing systems takes a long, long time.
I dont think anyone here is a lanc fan. The previous comments are just folks that measure their opinions to what is publicly factual knowledge. the only writing on the wall is that rider A is takin the piss out of rider B for not letting B join his team and "get back together with the boys". To publicly write that Lance is doped without the factual evidence is irresponsible and comes off makin one look ignorant. I would argue that the opposing viewpoint could equally be labled Lance hatin extremist (LHE) and we all have our views on the mentality of an extremist. - Lack of clear thinking comes to mind.
to find the Lance fanboys even here.
Will Schneider Freak OUT? Is that when he is sitting on a Gimbels Long Breakaway calling out time gaps to the old man chase group?
Here in the USA it ain't the truth unless you can prove it. No solid proof YET. You can't hold a grudge against a guy who promotes cycling and wants to make it appealing to the general public.
So in other words, he's just interested in making a buck instead of the truth. Yep, sounds right.
It's pretty obvious what Eustice is doing. He is into promoting bicycle races. He is very good at that. Him being able to do that, and get sponsors, depends on cycling having a good reputation. So he will do what he can to make cycling looking appealing to the general public. So unless there is solid proof otherwise, he will continue to paint a rosy picture of pro cycling. So you can understand why he is not happy with anyone who is making accusations that cannot be backed up with solid proof.
what 'appenz in vegas stays in vegas, what 'appenz on the road stays on the road...
LA doped, who at that level didnt? JV, FA, FL, GH, TH, are all "hot sauce" addicts...
whatever. you all suck, go get a Signature fitting, and Will Schneider Freakout!!!!
instead of roller races or ccx, lets do MMA off season...
What did he criticize Lemond about?
J.E. is an enigma. He's always been a pioneer in providing cyclist opportunities and finding positive and creative ways to promote the sport to the general public.
On the flip side, he's supported Todd Harriot, Floyd Landis, and Lance Armstrong while criticizing the likes of Greg Lemond.
I try to treat Eustice like you would a grandpa who still talks about the "colored people". I ascribe his faults to the fact that he's becoming a bit of a dinosaur in a modern world.
The TUE was a rue i.e. that was the cover-up. Monsieur Armstrong declared "rien" on any exemptions he should've made the uci aware about. But only after was he caught were the shady team doctors in motion to come up with a TUE.
Another prime example of skirt the issue with the same defenders. Lance DID test positive so much so that at the 1999 Tour he had to get a backdated prescription to a TUE he had 2 weeks earlier he neglected to mention. I won't even argue that the scrip was a cover-up.
The John Eusless poster here has a good point. John Eustice can cry fowl on behalf of Odessa (which does give him brownie points with certain riders and teams). When in the hell has he ever stuck up for Andreu's wife? Hell, he's gone on tv to defend Lance against any and all accusations against Armstrong including the Andreus's accusations.
You read this John - why HAVEN'T you ever stuck up for Betsy since you're in the business of defending the good honor of riders' wives?
It was 191
192 was on the same page.
last toto also sucked sorry. I meant to write Toto 192 - The funniest toto this site has ever written - without Commesso.
Why bash Eustice? He is not defending LA. He is an analyst who is basing his opinion on known facts, not accusations of a known cheat and liar. It would irresponsible for him to go around calling LA a cheat when there is no proof, yet. I'm sure that some time in the near future LA will be found positive of doping. At that time I'm sure Eustice will come out and condemn him.
Wow..NYC eats their own.
Here's the deal. Until one of you douchfcks find mult. bags of blood code named uniballer, dont associate Puerto with this finger pointing Landis hissy fit. Its different. The fact is - as Eustice pointed out - he never tested positive, he never left empty blood bags laying around, his connection with any doctor that may implement him is zilcho and last but not least - who the fck cares who Lance is bangin. Given the money and lifestyle he leads, I'm sure most of you trolls would be logging your own frequent fck'r miles with women in every continent. The Hypocrit - look in the mirror cat 4 squids.
This toto - lacked anything remotely funny - last toto (gold)
When and if the smoking gun shows itself then we can all go on with our lives and find some other rider to run down. Until then Lance will continue to bring more cyclist into the sport, start development teams, and show up at domestic races that will pretty much give said town a good shot in the economic arm.
Here's the story - why would us postal need a device to check blood values? In terms of fairness, I find that a little suspect. All of this other noncense, is just media fodder for selling books and logging website hits (toto).
Disappointing? Really, John? Let me ask you this Mr. Toto Fan - you are another Unabashed Lance Fanboy (ULF). When have you ever said anything anti-doping? Protecting the riders' wives? Hmmm, can you point me to your comments when you were as protective of Betsy Andreu as you are here to Mrs. Levi? Until then, Mr. Eustice, you're a hyprocrite.
That's supposed to be Fat Pat McQuack...
why does versnuggin' look like george bush?
separately, there's too much vague inside innuendo on this toto.
last week: amazingly good.
this week: not so good.
Eustice uses the "never failed a drug test" defense for Armstrong in the ESPN interview. It's well enough known that the guys caught in Puerto and in other stings also never tested positive. Of course Eustice knows his argument is absurd and borders on being dishonest.
Many moons ago I worked for Kristen A's dad. He was an ok guy but when he found out I rode a bike to work and raced he stopped liking me. A few times he shared his opinion on Lance, absolutely hated him.
Why this story relates to all the commentary about who is banging who and whether wives are fair game I don't really know, I just felt like now was the time to drop my little insider bombshell. Ex-father-in-law hated Lance while still father-in-law = doper and all round bad person who probably did poke Odessa.
You hate Lance for doping (his popularity probably interested you in this sport); I imagine on moral grounds..
Then you promote rumor and character assassination..
You're cheating yourselves by lying to yourselves that you're so high and good..
Refuting the point is easy. Gunn is complicit and profits from Bottle's doping. Fair game. Eustice on high horse, hypocritical.
Hey Useless:
Do you realize you are using the same tactics that Armstrong does by attacking Eustice, rather than the point he is making? See "argumentum ad hominem"
Frankly, Lance started the wife attacks and the poaching, which will leave him no safe Haven.
it's no secret around girona and more of common knowledge that Armstrong banged Odessa. Got to feel sorry for little bottle, being team mates and training partners and all
Speaking of Eustice, anyone remember what LeMond said about him at that charity thing at city winery?
Omerta-lovin' Eustice loves to read Toto? Really? Watch who you agree with.
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5405134
funny if done well, if falls flat just seems a bit tasteless.
I agree with Eustice. And I guess some guy named Joe.
I don't know, Odessa used to race, she has a public role in levi's life, and for the most part they are harmless jokes mostly to make fun of levi, but i agree its an area where you should probably be more careful. making fun of levi by painting him as someone who is not only subservient to lance, but also his wife is fair game, bringing up his wife's sexuality and lance together is close to a line. I was not really offended, but that was because I had to look up Estrus.
Odessa used to race. why doesn't that make her fair game?
Kudo's for telling it like it is Joe.
There is enough cycling fodder for Toto to skewer without bringing in the wives, children, girlfriends etc. into the equation.
As Joe said: genuine disappointment that you would stoop to the level of insulting the wife of one of the subjects you criticize. You've lost a lot of your moral authority by making that mistake, and I hope it's one that's not repeated.
You can do better by leaving it out.
I got a tissue for you Joe.
And what happens when it comes out that some of the wives enabled the doping?
I don't see why people are offended. This isn't an attack on Odessa. The joke is about Lance's need to be alpha male and his disregard for anyone who challenges his "greatness." Hence, the subtle threat to steal Levi's woman.
I don't disagree with you. i personally thought it was overall humor. Levi winning Leadville- yawn. Levi racing by his lonesome in Utah- could be ripe with Mormon irony!
As an original supporter of Toto, and one of his biggest fans, I've eagerly awaited every new installment of the strip. This week's version is a great disappointment, though, and I'm, well, disappointed to see you reduced to the level of insulting the wife of one of the subjects you satirize. Their IS a difference between what's fair game (cyclists, their handlers, apologists and co-conspirators) and what's not (family members not directly involved in the scenarios you're supposedly basing Toto on) - and it's surprising to see the the authors are so willing to ignore the distinction.
I'm not personally insulted, and there's no fake moral outrage here. Rather, just genuine disappointment that you would stoop to the level of insulting the wife of one of the subjects you criticize. You've lost a lot of your moral authority by making that mistake, and I hope it's one that's not repeated.
the wives hold more than a leash on these guys. they will get tired of the innuendos and rumors and turn before their emaciated, chicken chest husbands do. (Betsy)
the wives are the ones with the balls and aren't afraid to use them. us guys jus' wanna ride, even with the douches who are trying to take us down.
A Lady's honor has been besmirched, er, I mean beschmalzed.
There's only one way to deal with this properly...
My TOTO
Guys, guys. The wife stuff way out of line, way out. Riders are fair game, but riders' wives? I find this really low, horrible. And the editors should remove some of the comments.
I love to read this cartoon, but wow. This is a sad one.
I kinda agree with Brent, except for the whole "gay spinathon" thing.
Fred-filled New York weekend warrior club
Tell your wife to return my underwear.
Dear Douchetards:
Obviously the comments section is for douche-nozzles, but denigrating the man's wife? Why should Mrs. Leipheimer be subjected to these comments?
Why would any pro rider show up to any of your gay spinathons or whatever? So you can host forums that bash their wives in the worse possible way?
Satire is one thing. so is "scathing commentary"
Just being dishonorable is another thing entirely. Screw your juvenile cartoon and your Fred-filled New York weekend warrior club (which by the way, is this the least photogenic group of amateur bike racers in the country? is it something in the water up there?)
http://singletrack.competitor.com/2010/08/features/leadville-2010-video-...
...was that another snarky Odessa reference?
So much for bottle not being able to ride in the dirt.
Odessa was with Vaughters before she was with Levi, and like half the Canadians in the peloton.
One day Leipheimer will snap.
He'll get snubbed by Lance one too many times, stepped on like a doormat by his ridiculous wife, laughed at by the press, pissed on by the dogs, etc., etc.
And he'll grab a bottom bracket wrench at some one-day race in the Loire valley and kill 13 people before they get the taser gun to grab hold in his unfleshy body.
He will be a changed man after that, and his balls will descend from inside his torso and he'll get sent to one of those French prisons where they rehabilitate the convicts on country-wide bike tours and he will COMPLETELY ANNIHILATE THE FIELD IN BRUTAL, BLISTERING, DAY-LONG ATTACKS!
O.G. was rolling around Philly week in the feed zone a bunch of years back. she was wearing cut offs and looked pretty hot , like a runaway waiting at a bus station.
We thought the she was a stripper. a local strip club that year had a few chicks handing out flyers (for reals). then a buddy told me she was just a groupie stalking the Big Guy (LA).
So you heard about the party in Vegas where Lance hung out with other women, one not yet married to his soon-to-be-teammate while his wife was home pregnant? That was the Oakley party.
All these liars should go to Vegas now - maybe the last big public hoorah before indictments fly. Odessa's nice but so is Haven, so is Tyler, yadda yadda yadda
I wonder how Odessa will take this. I kinda like her.
Post new comment