The Spokesmen #100 – Why Are We Still Talking About This?

Listen now by clicking here:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

 

10 comments to The Spokesmen #100 – Why Are We Still Talking About This?

  • PatMac

    Congrats on show #100 – and a very good show indeed. Really enjoyed the spirited debate about doping (past/present/future).

    Let’s all hope Jens has a good explanation when he finally opens up.

    Cheers!

  • Clay

    Re: Froome possible doping.
    Do you also look at the second place guy? Third? Where do you stop?
    At some point you have to have some evidence, even if it is only the biological passport as opposed to a litmus paper test.
    So far, there is no evidence against Froome that I’m aware of.

  • Nobody said that there was any evidence. All we said was that his performance caused us to wonder, “could this be chemically induced?” No accusations, no evidence, just questions based upon having been burned for years by liars, cheaters and dopers.

    Do I believe he doped? No. But how many of us said that about Armstrong, Landis, Hamilton, Hincapie, Zabriskie, etc.?

    And in the face of our questions, comes this article from Velo suggested Lance was treated unfairly. Ha! They just made my point. If we forget the past we are bound to repeat it. That’s why I will continue to doubt, question and withhold my forgiveness of those who have all of a sudden confessed when it is now all to convenient and PC to do so.

  • I was pleased to hear some discussion on the most recent podcast about “Gravel Grinding”. Check out http://www.dirtykanza200.com to get a flavor of what’s going on in the Midwest. Also, check out Salsa’s Warbird for a gravel specific machine.

  • Merlin

    I found myself aligned with Carlton’s stance during the doping discussion, but for different reasons. I have always assumed all professional athletes, particularly the top athletes, are using PED’s. I rationalized at a young age, many years ago, that one would have to be incredibly naive to think that one athlete caught using PED’s could stand on the same podium, in lower classification, as a “clean” athlete. That hasn’t stopped me from watching and enjoying the spectacle of the tour, or other sporting events.

    In my opinion, PED’s for sports is analogous to Photoshop for magazine photos. I don’t think either are necessary, but the incentives to use these tools and financial rewards are so large that I don’t think either are going away any time soon.

  • Merlin: that is a realistic, albeit a bit cynical, view. Nevertheless, that means that they’re all cheaters. I simply can’t condone or countenance cheating. Pro sports would need to change the rules in order to make doping “okay.” If they did, they’d lose me as a fan forever. I know I’m old fashioned, but then again I still think flip flops are just for going to the beach.

  • DonB

    I often hear Carlton as being the voice of reason on your podcast. This time, though, I’m not going to agree to the “let’s just move on” attitude. Like David, I’m a bit more cynical. I call it the Lance Legacy. I’m going to question, if only in my mind, most every good performance.

    It seems that even some folks “in the know” have similar questions:

  • Matt

    David, Remember you said that if jens Voight is proven to have taken drugs you woul;d Retire!! I hope your not serious …..

  • Matt: I’m still holding out hope that he never did.

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>