Lance Armstrong being stripped of all titles.

irishguy1983 wrote: »

Yes she is telling the truth now but lied for years herself. I was listening to her interview on NEWSTALK ydy and she was chatting about herself and Lance - something just doesn't sound right.....

Anyway my point is I even find even the ones telling the truth (Kimmage, Walsh) incredible unlikeable which so strange....Just my point of view....

Given that LA wrote a foreword to her book I'm not entirely sure why you don't believe her entirely

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Given that LA wrote a foreword to her book I'm not entirely sure why you don't believe her entirely

Maybe because the most well known liar ever wrote the foreword to her book?? Hardly a ringing endorsement of someone - if the devil wrote the foreword to my book I wouldn't exactly be bragging about it!

I am not sure being honest - I have just listened to a few interviews now and I just don't like her/trust her. Just something about her answers/their make up doesn't seem right....

irishguy1983 wrote: »

Maybe because the most well known liar ever wrote the foreword to her book?? Hardly a ringing endorsement of someone - if the devil wrote the foreword to my book I wouldn't exactly be bragging about it!

I am not sure being honest - I have just listened to a few interviews now and I just don't like her/trust her. Just something about her answers/their make up doesn't seem right....

Have a think about that.

He's admitted what he's done but he could be lying about admitting it?

Hmmmm

irishguy1983 wrote: »

So he is no longer a liar? Nor is there the possibility he is still lying about certain things?

Call me a bit cautious but I wouldn't exactly trust him nor her...

Fair enough....

I'm not saying he's not capable of being a liar anymore. I'm just not sure what you think he'd be lying about in relation to her story.

As for hee, there's nothing outlandish in her story in the context of what's been revealed in all the cases that have come to light

irishguy1983 wrote: »

I am agreeing with you in general so stop trying to pick a fight

Tis more a of a gut feeling and I was simply wondering did anyone feel the same about them all (Kimmage, Walsh, LA, O'Reilly) ie they are all incredibly unlikeable regardless of telling of the truth.

O' Reilly could well be telling the truth about herself and LA now - I just sense something is off. It doesn't add up and her interview on NEWSTALK seemed a bit strange really - just my two cents anyway.

Not trying to pick a fight at all fella.

I wouldn't go for a pint with her but I see no reason to doubt her story.

Figerty wrote: »

All of them.

Who funds the building of this super-jail?

Figerty wrote: »

Id say Lance made a few dollars,, start there..

Why not any of the others first?

I don't know jack about cycling.

Is there anyway to kind of decide who was the best cyclist around this time? Was Lance any good? Or is it impossible to say considering they were all on drugs?!

I can't imagine following a sport where you really don't have a clue who is good or not so to speak!

irishguy1983 wrote: »

Relax!

I am not having a pop at cycling!

I was just wondering is it possible for people who follow cycling to rate the cyclists at all? Was LA any good?! Impossible to decide as one poster pointed out I suppose.

Well we can say with the drugs he was the best ever. Some of those tours he won easy. Around 2003-2005 I don't think anyone in history would have been at his level. It just depends on the individual viewer as to whether or not they want to merit anything he's done in light of the whole drug situation.

Personally I watch the tour every year to see performance pushed to the limit. I enjoy the team strategy aspects and the breakneck speed risks the riders take. I don't for the most part worry about who's 'clean', but the nature of what it is will have you from time to time going 'yeah, that guy's on something'. Bottom line is you don't know who's on what in any sport, so if you want to enjoy watching it you may have to accept that fact.

I don't for the most part worry about who's 'clean', but the nature of what it is will have you from time to time going 'yeah, that guy's on something'.

I agree, you can see those who seem to pull a miraculous stage from the hat and it always strikes me as suspicious. Even last year there were some questionable performances and the testing is only as good as the processes they know of.

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Didn't Sean Kelly test positive way back at some stage?
Missed an Olympics?

Being banned from the Olympics was due to an Irish team racing in South Africa during apartheid.

But yes he tested positive. It was deemed that there was enough doubt in the veracity of the test that the ban was suspended. The other time it was for codeine he claimed was in a cough medicine.

Dietsquirt wrote: »

You're sure she's sound? 100%? Define sound please..

The poster asked the thread what people's opinion on Emma O'Reilly was, and I voiced mine. No need for the sarcasm.

He wasn't being sarcastic in his post. He just asked you how the fact that you don't like the way her face looks is supposed to matter. and it doesn't.

I wonder what Paul Kimmage's blood pressure is like now. If it's gone down after reading what Stephen Roche said about reinstating Armstrong as winnewrs of those TdFs.

To be fair he wasn't the only one - 12 of the 23 former winners that were interviewed reckoned LA should be reinstated as the winner.