# Tilford calls bullshit



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

"I say sorry. You guys are all rich. Very rich. Very rich compared to Americans and beyond extremely rich compared to the rest of the world. You get to walk away with all the money that you stole from friends of mine. You get to remember the life experiences that you experienced that others should have as their life experiences. You can’t give that back.

Now, all of a sudden, or maybe I should say, for some explained reason, 6 years ago, most of you decided to be moral. If you all are so moral, then maybe you should use those very morals and stop racing. You guys had your chances. You seemed to make the most of it. You have all the spoils. Just fade away and do something else. It seems like the right thing to do."


I Have to call Bullshit


----------



## T K (Feb 11, 2009)

I agree. Real easy to come out now and say you are sorry. Then ride back to your huge beautiful house and podium girl wife.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

I agree, too. It is very suspicious that everyone decided to go drug free at the same time.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

MarkS said:


> I agree, too. It is very suspicious that everyone decided to go drug free at the same time.


It's not that suspicious. Operación Puerto broke in 2006. That was a really messy situation. The TDF prevented riders and whole teams from entering the race. And to top it all off, Landis was busted in 2006. Plus, Lance was out in 2006, so the requirements changed somewhat, at least on his team. If you are going to stop doping, 2006 would have been a good year to start.


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> It's not that suspicious. Operación Puerto broke in 2006. That was a really messy situation. The TDF prevented riders and whole teams from entering the race. And to top it all off, Landis was busted in 2006. Plus, Lance was out in 2006, so the requirements changed somewhat, at least on his team. If you are going to stop doping, 2006 would have been a good year to start.


Read Tilford's blog. It sounds like he thinks its still going on. I'd guess that once you start doping, it's pretty hard to stop. And some of the guys who stopped still kept winning races? Why were they doing it in the first place then?

Steve Tilford ... always an opinion, not afraid to share it, and almost always right on the money. He used to show up for races my brother did in Missouri. My brother recalls him as a real nice guy and an order of magnitude better than most guys in the race. Steve lapped him more than once.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

pmf said:


> Read Tilford's blog. It sounds like he thinks its still going on. I'd guess that once you start doping, it's pretty hard to stop. And some of the guys who stopped still kept winning races? Why were they doing it in the first place then?
> 
> Steve Tilford ... always an opinion, not afraid to share it, and almost always right on the money. He used to show up for races my brother did in Missouri. My brother recalls him as a real nice guy and an order of magnitude better than most guys in the race. Steve lapped him more than once.


Although comparing average speeds from one year to another even on the same course given weather conditions,etc., it is my recollection that average speeds at the Tour de France have come down in the last few years, which would support an argument that many (but obviously not all) of the riders stopped or decreased their doping programs around 2006. But, I still am suspicious as to the uniformity of the riders' claims that they stopped doping in 2006.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Contador had plasticizers in his bloodstream. It's still going on.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

Fireform said:


> Contador had plasticizers in his bloodstream. It's still going on.


That may be the truest thing I've read in the past few days. :thumbsup:


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

MarkS said:


> Although comparing average speeds from one year to another even on the same course given weather conditions,etc., it is my recollection that average speeds at the Tour de France have come down in the last few years, which would support an argument that many (but obviously not all) of the riders stopped or decreased their doping programs around 2006. But, I still am suspicious as to the uniformity of the riders' claims that they stopped doping in 2006.


I don't think it's decreased at all...they have just had to change how they dope. They can't use large dosages of EPO, they have to micro dose and use blood bags more than in the past.

They are also using different drugs that they currently can't test for that have similar results...but mayby not quite as good as standard EPO.

The result...slightly lower performance, but still way better than with none at all.

The reality...PED's will never go away in sports. They have been around since sports started, the governments research them constantly to find better ways to make better soldiers (so they are doing a lot of research for the athletes to begin with), and when it comes to competition...there will always be somebody looking for an edge.

They can try and control it, but will never be able to eliminate it.

The next phase...genetic manipulation, which in some forms people in the know are already stating is going on. Undetectible and possibly better performance in the end.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Wookiebiker said:


> The next phase...genetic manipulation, which in some forms people in the know are already stating is going on. Undetectible and possibly better performance in the end.


I think I mentioned it many times on here before, but worth repeating. I sat through a "doping" lecture many years ago by a professor whose name escapes me. He was BIG into baseball, and it was the Bonds era of doping, and his lecture pretty much ended on the note that genetic manipulation was beyond the theory phase in professional sports. In the world of doping, if it's being talked about as a possiblility, then it's already in use by the athletes. Detection would be near impossible.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

The cut off date is almost certainly a lie. Some of the riders went on to the best results of their careers despite is being clear that doping continued in the sport. Quitting doping, then getting faster is a physiological impossibility. The dope allows more training and better recovery, there is no "working harder" to get that back.

If it is proven that the UCI is complicit then all doping violations are void imo.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

Fireform said:


> It's still going on.


Houanard Provisionally Suspended For EPO | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Fireform said:


> Contador had plasticizers in his bloodstream. It's still going on.



Don't forget Frank Enstein Schleck.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

They are still doping......and 2+2=4

Thanks.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

davidka said:


> The cut off date is almost certainly a lie. Some of the riders went on to the best results of their careers despite is being clear that doping continued in the sport. Quitting doping, then getting faster is a physiological impossibility. The dope allows more training and better recovery, there is no "working harder" to get that back.
> 
> If it is proven that the UCI is complicit then all doping violations are void imo.


Hincapie was still riding for Bruyneel in 2006 and 2007, when he captained the team that supported Contador in his first TdF win. According to stories I've read, Hincapie encouraged Barry to dope. No way, no how do I believe he rode from 2006 onward clean.

Maybe from 2008 when he switched to High Road.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Great read. As much as that report is so damning and at this point, we all know LA and everyone cheated, I still have a deep gut feeling that the 11 teammates that confessed are NOT 100% truthful and some of this stuff said to SAVE MY OWN A$$!

They ALL have been and still are DIRTY today!


----------



## rockstar2083 (Aug 30, 2005)

I'm with Tilford but I have 3 other questions. 

1. Where are the eye witnesses during the comeback? Surely somebody on Astana/Shack saw him dope? How come nobody is admitting anything during this time period? Is this just to protect the witnesses.

2. Why didn't they get statements from others of the Postal/Disco/Astana/Shack boys? Are the others innocent or why weren't they included in any of this? Horner, McCartney, Popo, Rast, Boonen, etc. Were they all clean, didn't want to testify, lied?

3. Why stop prosecuting at the Lance and the doctors? I'm not throwing up a red herring. I'm just wondering why when they had these jokers under oath - why not ask them about every team manager, doctor, and rider that actively participated or promoted doping? Forward the testimony to the other countries and let them decide if they want to go after anybody else.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

davidka said:


> Quitting doping, then getting faster is a physiological impossibility.


Really? A physiological impossibility? I think that is a stretch. Just because you are doping, doesn't mean the dope works for you or that you're doing it effectively.

Jonathan Vaughters' claims about Tom Danielson are interesting:

"Giving him o2 vector doping is akin to putting a bigger engine in a car with a flat tire, because you want it to go faster. yes, it will make the car with the flat tire go faster, but you could just go ahead and fix the flat tire instead?"

Erik Zabel claims he tried EPO once and quit because of the side effects. That may be a crock, but it brings up a good point. These are medications. They may not work well in a given person. They can have side effects. I'm no doctor, but there are plenty of cases where drugs are prescribed that negatively affect the user.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

mohair_chair said:


> Really? A physiological impossibility? I think that is a stretch. Just because you are doping, doesn't mean the dope works for you or that you're doing it effectively.
> 
> Jonathan Vaughters' claims about Tom Danielson are interesting:
> 
> ...


My statement assumes a pro level training program and a doping program that works. 

There is no reason to believe any of that. 

Zabel's claim was deftly timed so that is was outside the statute of limitations.

Mr. Tilford has some interesting things to say about Tom D. in particular.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

jorgy said:


> Hincapie was still riding for Bruyneel in 2006 and 2007, when he captained the team that supported Contador in his first TdF win. According to stories I've read, Hincapie encouraged Barry to dope. No way, no how do I believe he rode from 2006 onward clean.
> 
> Maybe from 2008 when he switched to High Road.


I am no great defender of George but I remember hearing from a mutual friend that George and Johan had a bit of a falling out after George said he was going to ride the Tour clean in 2006


----------



## WaynefromOrlando (Mar 3, 2010)

I read the statements and they all read more like a script than an honest mea culpa from any of the confessors. I personally believe they all pretty much caved under pressure from USADA to point fingers at Lance while avoiding significant penalties for themselves. 

I also believe much of the USADAs efforts probably came after they tried to shake down Lance and Livestrong for a "donation", one like Lance gave to the UCI according to their documentation. When he refused, they let loose the dogs of war and went after him hammer and tongs.

To be perfectly honest, if the evidence that the USADA is sufficient to convict Lance, then every cyclist in the peloton for the last 30 years should be thinking really, really hard about a preemptive confession to force the issue at the UCI level. I don't think that any rider could stand up to that level of scrutiny, too many have been around long enough and on enough teams to not be guilty by association.

And would it not be hilarious if the UCI decided that the USADA evidence was not sufficient to vacate Lance's victories!


----------



## metoou2 (Mar 18, 2009)

WaynefromOrlando said:


> I also believe much of the USADAs efforts probably came after they tried to shake down Lance and Livestrong for a "donation", one like Lance gave to the UCI according to their documentation. When he refused, they let loose the dogs of war and went after him hammer and tongs.


HUH? you sound like you're currently in the throws of some PED induced haze. 
Might want to re-read your statements before posting.

Better yet, go to the Dope Strong web site and make a donation.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

WaynefromOrlando said:


> I read the statements and they all read more like a script than an honest mea culpa from any of the confessors. I personally believe they all pretty much caved under pressure from USADA to point fingers at Lance while avoiding significant penalties for themselves.
> 
> *I also believe much of the USADAs efforts probably came after they tried to shake down Lance and Livestrong for a "donation", one like Lance gave to the UCI according to their documentation. When he refused, they let loose the dogs of war and went after him hammer and tongs.*
> 
> ...



Do you have _any_ evidence to back this up  ???



I would love to see it.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

When is Tilford going to give it a rest? He has nothing for spite for everyone in the pro peleton except for Team BMC, which his wife(?) just happens to work for. Ochowitz and Rihs had as much to do with Armstrong and Hamilton doping as anyone. Tilford goes on and on about how great BMC is but talks out the other side of his face about what evil dopers JV and Garmin are. I give him as much respect as the rest of the hypocrites in cycling out there.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

kbiker3111 said:


> When is Tilford going to give it a rest? He has nothing for spite for everyone in the pro peleton except for Team BMC, which his wife(?) just happens to work for. Ochowitz and Rihs had as much to do with Armstrong and Hamilton doping as anyone. Tilford goes on and on about how great BMC is but talks out the other side of his face about what evil dopers JV and Garmin are. I give him as much respect as the rest of the hypocrites in cycling out there.



Yeah; Damn that free speech.


----------



## burgrat (Nov 18, 2005)

It's just like when people cheat in relationships. They usually don't cheat again, right?


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

Doesn't the "I quit doping" date = the statute of limitations?????

Did any of them say that they quit in 2009?????
.
.
.


----------



## jjmstang (May 8, 2009)

cda 455 said:


> Don't forget Frank Enstein Schleck.


Frank was poisoned :thumbsup:


----------



## JohnHenry (Aug 9, 2006)

Steve Tilford should be calling bullsh*t on Lancey poo. I am pretty sure Juan Pelota goes home to a pretty nice house , I bet. 

Or maybe Lance is broke?


Another straw man article, opinion that basically tries to exhonerate Lance by damning those that decided to talk.
Nice try.


----------



## Samadhi (Nov 1, 2011)

burgrat said:


> It's just like when people cheat in relationships. They usually don't cheat again, right?


I can speak from experience.

I cheated on my first wife. I didn't cheat on the subsequent 2.

That doesn't make me less of a cheat. I am what I am.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

T K said:


> I agree. Real easy to come out now and say you are sorry. Then ride back to your huge beautiful house and podium girl wife.


Hincapie should have to give up his podium girl.

P.S. By chance I run a sanctuary for wayward podium girls.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

trailrunner68 said:


> Hincapie should have to give up his podium girl.
> 
> P.S. By chance I run a sanctuary for wayward podium girls.



:lol:


----------



## captain stubbing (Mar 30, 2011)

MarkS said:


> I agree, too. It is very suspicious that everyone decided to go drug free at the same time.


yeah about the time just after lance retired.


----------



## Handbrake (May 29, 2012)

JohnHenry said:


> Steve Tilford should be calling bullsh*t on Lancey poo. I am pretty sure Juan Pelota goes home to a pretty nice house , I bet.
> 
> Or maybe Lance is broke?
> 
> ...


I think you missed his point by a wide margin. Tilford isn't hoping to deflect criticism from Lance himself, only make the point that cycling's issue is doping, not Lance's doping or even Postal's. The current trend seems to be to express gratitude and forgiveness for all of this 'cooperation'. Some guy dopes and dopes and dopes through his entire career and when, finally, he is broke and irrelevant to the sport, he writes a book. And we are all supposed to pat him on the back and thank him for 'helping clean up the sport'? No thanks. Somewhere some guy is sitting on his couch because he didn't dope, so he has nothing to tell in any book because dopers took all the GT team spots and podiums. 

As much as many here want this to be the Anti-Lance forum, and try to affect that reality with every post they make, doping in cycling will continue regardless of what happens to any one rider or doctor or director or team. There were multiple mentions in USADA's affidavits of rider doping prior to coming to Postal. There were multiple mentions of Postal's program following the Spanish model. Armstrong and Brunyeel and Ferrari getting kicked out wont change a thing. If you unplug Armstrong's doping influence from one U23 team all you get is a U23 that isn't competitive. The same holds true on up the ranks. Whomever takes over will be expected to produce results and will do that however he can, and the Ferraris of the world are like serpent's teeth in that another is already ready to replace him. 

Cycling has to be reformed from the top down. If this isn't successful in fixing the UCI it does nothing for the long term prospects.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Mob Informants aren't good people*

Assuming you put Armstrong #1: any credible list of sleaziest doping scumbags riders has to have Landis and Hamilton as the next two.

Both stole lots of money from supporters and friends with books and charities that they knew to be fraudulent _from the planning stage_. *Both were busted for doping WHILE ON OTHER TEAMS AS THE GC LEADER.* Both doped for any result they got, and for their GC leader positions. Both lied repeatedly and at length, and would have never voluntarily stopped lying. 

Hamilton invoked his family repeatedly (very sleazy).

Landis committed several crimes outside of his doping ones, including the hacking and the incredibly awful thing he and his camp did to Lemond (super villain levels of sleazy). That alone at least ties him with Armstrong. 

These people aren't heros, nor have they done a single honorable thing their whole career. They are Mob Informants, plain and simple. _ Bad people selling out other bad people for their own benefit_.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Coolhand said:


> Assuming you put Armstrong #1: any credible list of sleaziest doping scumbags riders has to have Landis and Hamilton as the next two.
> 
> Both stole lots of money from supporters and friends with books and charities that they knew to be fraudulent _from the planning stage_. *Both were busted for doping WHILE ON OTHER TEAMS AS THE GC LEADER.* Both doped for any result they got, and for their GC leader positions. Both lied repeatedly and at length, and would have never voluntarily stopped lying.
> 
> ...


So is this a Moderator's note; Not to become a mob informant?


Or you'll hand out infractions without warning etc, etc  ?!


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

Coolhand said:


> Hamilton invoked his family repeatedly (very sleazy).


Even worse, Hamilton swore on Tugboat's grave.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Not a Moderators note at all (not even a little)*



cda 455 said:


> So is this a Moderator's note; Not to become a mob informant?
> 
> 
> Or you'll hand out infractions without warning etc, etc  ?!


Actually, becoming a Mob Informant is better than the alternative (usually life in prison). But nobody thinks Mob informants are motivated by anything other than self-interest. Although the analogy of using the dumb sleazy criminals to catch the smart sleazy criminals does seem particularly apt. . .


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Where would legal action against the mob be without informers? They provide a valuable service. It's fine to hate on Landis but the fact is that it was his second book that set all of this in motion. In the long run the sport will be much better off. 

It's also worth pointing out that it wasn't Tyler's idea to write his book and make money off his story. Coyle tracked him down and persuaded him to do it.


----------



## little_shoe (Apr 18, 2008)

Fireform said:


> Where would legal action against the mob be without informers? They provide a valuable service. It's fine to hate on Landis but the fact is that it was his second book that set all of this in motion. In the long run the sport will be much better off.


Indeed. However they are required to testify to what they know in a court where they can be cross examined and all the rules of evidence are applicable.


----------



## rufus (Feb 3, 2004)

I started reading Tyler's book because of this forum, and one thing I got from it was even more respect for Andy Hampsten. In the book, Tyler says that hampsten chose to retire at the relatively early age of 32 rather than prolong his career by doping. 

A couple other guys on the initial US Postal squad did the same. those are the guys with integrity, those are the ones who should be saluted.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Handbrake said:


> I think you missed his point by a wide margin. Tilford isn't hoping to deflect criticism from Lance himself, only make the point that cycling's issue is doping, not Lance's doping or even Postal's. The current trend seems to be to express gratitude and forgiveness for all of this 'cooperation'. Some guy dopes and dopes and dopes through his entire career and when, finally, he is broke and irrelevant to the sport, he writes a book. And we are all supposed to pat him on the back and thank him for 'helping clean up the sport'? No thanks. Somewhere some guy is sitting on his couch because he didn't dope, so he has nothing to tell in any book because dopers took all the GT team spots and podiums.
> 
> As much as many here want this to be the Anti-Lance forum, and try to affect that reality with every post they make, doping in cycling will continue regardless of what happens to any one rider or doctor or director or team. There were multiple mentions in USADA's affidavits of rider doping prior to coming to Postal. There were multiple mentions of Postal's program following the Spanish model. Armstrong and Brunyeel and Ferrari getting kicked out wont change a thing. If you unplug Armstrong's doping influence from one U23 team all you get is a U23 that isn't competitive. The same holds true on up the ranks. Whomever takes over will be expected to produce results and will do that however he can, and the Ferraris of the world are like serpent's teeth in that another is already ready to replace him.
> 
> Cycling has to be reformed from the top down. If this isn't successful in fixing the UCI it does nothing for the long term prospects.


Well said!!


----------



## SFTifoso (Aug 17, 2011)

What I don't understand is why pin this on Lance alone? Why not go after all the dopers and wipe the records books clean? I'm not defending Armstrong, but you can't hold your moral high ground if you let all the other admitted dopers walk away with free. Get them all, or leave the sport alone. The USADA isn't changing anything by going after a few guys.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

SFTifoso said:


> What I don't understand is why pin this on Lance alone? Why not go after all the dopers and wipe the records books clean? I'm not defending Armstrong, but you can't hold your moral high ground if you let all the other admitted dopers walk away with free. Get them all, or leave the sport alone. The USADA isn't changing anything by going after a few guys.


Because he is the biggest fish! All riders, the UCI, WADA, ASO, Giro organizers, sponsors everyone knew what was going in and turned a blind eye. But first punish every riders and DS! Then go after everyone else little by little.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Are Landis and Hamilton mob informants? Reasonable men can argue. The important thing is that the bosses were busted. 

And I hope we can all agree that without the mob there is no more crime in this country.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

cda 455 said:


> So is this a Moderator's note; Not to become a mob informant?
> 
> 
> Or you'll hand out infractions without warning etc, etc  ?!


Instead of infractions, you'll be sleeping with the fishes, see?


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Instead of infractions, you'll be sleeping with the fishes, see?


:lol:



Cement shoes; size 13 6E!


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

cda 455 said:


> Do you have _any_ evidence to back this up  ???
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to see it.


Of course he doesn't. After all he's in Florida FFS. Isn't that where America sends its senile citizens?


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

All the Lance fanboiz need to be told two things.
"Why was Lance the focus of this investigation?". Well duh, it's because he was being investigated. The USPS and Disco teams were all about him.
"Why are they picking on Lance". Even more duh. A lot of other riders have had suspensions in the last few years. Some of them have had to end their careers because of doping sanctions. They are not picking on him, you just are not aware of the others who are being investigated/sanctioned.
Please stop posting as if Lance is the only rider to be investigated or sanctioned.

It's nauseating that people think LA is some sort of martyr.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

little_shoe said:


> Indeed. However they are required to testify to what they know in a court where they can be cross examined and all the rules of evidence are applicable.


If the Feds hadn't dropped their case, Tyler would have. That event looks even more puzzling based on the USADA report. Somebody should have some 'splainin to do.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

SFTifoso said:


> What I don't understand is why pin this on Lance alone? Why not go after all the dopers and wipe the records books clean? I'm not defending Armstrong, but you can't hold your moral high ground if you let all the other admitted dopers walk away with free. Get them all, or leave the sport alone. The USADA isn't changing anything by going after a few guys.


Well, it's the *US*ADA. They can only go after US athletes. And as I read it, a veritable Who's Who of US professional cycling will be serving suspensions--albeit slap on the wrist ones---and losing results. And probably forfeiting prize money from those results.

And don't lose sight of the fact that Armstrong was offered pretty much the same deal for co-operating.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

cda 455 said:


> :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> Cement shoes; size 13 6E!


That or an Orgasmo reference. Either, ot.


----------



## chaulk61 (Jan 20, 2009)

mpre53 said:


> Well, it's the *US*ADA. They can only go after US athletes. And as I read it, a veritable Who's Who of US professional cycling will be serving suspensions--albeit slap on the wrist ones---and losing results. And probably forfeiting prize money from those results.
> 
> And don't lose sight of the fact that Armstrong was offered pretty much the same deal for co-operating.


 Question: How can they go after Bruyneel - not an American athlete? Because of his involment with an American team?


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

Tilford is right. Besides it is bad practice to believe any such self-serving pronouncements claiming they reformed and quit out of the mouths of known dopers, like Hincapie, Levi and co.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

SFTifoso said:


> What I don't understand is why pin this on Lance alone? Why not go after all the dopers and wipe the records books clean? I'm not defending Armstrong, but you can't hold your moral high ground if you let all the other admitted dopers walk away with free. Get them all, or leave the sport alone. The USADA isn't changing anything by going after a few guys.


My take is that Lance was much more than a doper. He was the "king pin" so to speak. He ruined people's careers, went after wives and supposed friends, intimidated teammates, ratted out people because he feared they would beat him, tried to ruin Greg Lemond's business, and so on and so forth.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

cda 455 said:


> :lol:
> 
> Cement shoes; size 13 6E!


How much does the Sidi version cost?


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

chaulk61 said:


> Question: How can they go after Bruyneel - not an American athlete? Because of his involment with an American team?


As a coach or manager? I think so. The same way that they could probably go after that great Romanian women's gymnastics coach whose name escapes me. Bela something-or-other. Coached Mary Lou Retton, among others. Just as an example. Not accusing him of anything.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

chaulk61 said:


> Question: How can they go after Bruyneel - not an American athlete? Because of his involment with an American team?



My guess is because he was working for an American team. :shrugs:


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderator's Note*



metoou2 said:


> HUH? you sound like you're currently in the throws of some PED induced haze.
> Might want to re-read your statements before posting.
> 
> Better yet, go to the Dope Strong web site and make a donation.


You may want to re-read your statements before post if you want to continue posting here. Enjoy your posting vacation in the interim.


----------

