|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Today Equipe"s Editorial
LES NEGATIONS DE L'UCI The today editorial of l'Equipe. (september 10 2005) Sorry but in french ; may be someone can help in the translation DIX SEPT JOURS. Dix sept jours, du mardi 23 août à hier, vendredi 9 septembre : tel est le délai qu'il a fallu à l 'Union cycliste internationale (UCI) et à son président, Hein Verbruggen, pour réagir (voir page 16) à la révélation, dans l'Equipe de la présence d'EPO, produit dopant lourd interdit depuis le début des années 90n dans six échantillons d'urine différents de Lance Armstrong conservés depuis le Tour de France 1999 Normal, Lance Armstrong n'est après tout que le vainqueur des sept derniers Tour de France, et à ce titre recordman de l'épreuve la plus prestigieuse et la plus emblématique du sport cycliste, dont l'UCI est le gouvernement. Et les pièces publiées dans l'Equipe du 23 août n'auraient rien démontré d 'essentiel : juste qu "Armstrong avait triché pour remporter son premier Tour de France et qu'il avait menti tout au long de sa carrière, en affirmant qu'il n'avait jamais, pendant l'exercice de celle-ci, consommé de produit dopant. Pareille information valait-elle que l'UCI et son président s'interrogent sur le fond : les règles et l'éthique du sport ; et sur cette question essentielle : Lance Armstrong a-t-il triché ou menti ? Bien sûr que non. Les préoccupations de l'UCI et de M. Verbruggen sont ailleurs : qui sont les responsables de cette nouvelle atteinte à la probité du cyclisme et de son plus éminent champion ? Qui a permis la fuite d'informations censées rester confidentielle ? De quel droit Richard Pound, président de l'Agence mondiale antidopage, s'exprime-t-il sur le sujet, etc. ? L'attitude de l'Union cycliste internationale nous a souvent interpellé quant à sa propre hiérarchie des combats à mener. Elle est cette fois confondante. Hein Verbruggen le reconnaissait lui-même, avec un brin de fatalisme, dans les colonnes du Figaro, hier matin : " Je sais déjà qu'il y aura des reproches avançant que nous ne nous attaquons qu'à la procédure.. " Oui, sur ce dossier Armstrong, on peut légitimement reprocher à l'UCI et à M. Verbruggen de ne pas se soucier du devenir de leur sport, qui court pourtant de très graves dangers. Au passage, bien entendu, ils ont également mis en cause la rigueur et l'objectivité du travail de l'Equipe. Nos lecteurs en sont juges. C'est bien connu : ce n'est pas dans les pelotons que le dopage est une abomination, mais bien dans les colonnes des journaux. Claude Droussent |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Today Equipe"s Editorial
Montesquiou wrote:
LES NEGATIONS DE L'UCI The today editorial of l'Equipe. (september 10 2005) Sorry but in french ; may be someone can help in the translation Shorter version: "Hein? Thhpppbbbttt." |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Today Equipe"s Editorial
"Robert Chung" wrote in message ... Montesquiou wrote: LES NEGATIONS DE L'UCI The today editorial of l'Equipe. (september 10 2005) Sorry but in french ; may be someone can help in the translation Shorter version: "Hein? Thhpppbbbttt." Indeed. And Droussent is correct, the essential question is, "Lance Armstrong a-t-il triché ou menti ?" |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Today Equipe"s Editorial
Il parait qui'll a fait tout les deux...tricher et mentir.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Today Equipe"s Editorial
B. Lafferty wrote:
Indeed. And Droussent is correct, the essential question is, "Lance Armstrong a-t-il triché ou menti ?" In much the same way that the essential question is "Who really killed Nicole Simpson?" |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Today Equipe"s Editorial
B. Lafferty wrote:
"Robert Chung" wrote Shorter version: "Hein? Thhpppbbbttt." Indeed. And Droussent is correct, the essential question is, "Lance Armstrong a-t-il triché ou menti ?" Brian? Thhpppbbbttt. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Today Equipe"s Editorial
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
ink.net... "Robert Chung" wrote in message ... Montesquiou wrote: LES NEGATIONS DE L'UCI The today editorial of l'Equipe. (september 10 2005) Sorry but in french ; may be someone can help in the translation Shorter version: "Hein? Thhpppbbbttt." Indeed. And Droussent is correct, the essential question is, "Lance Armstrong a-t-il triché ou menti ?" It's okay, Brian. _I_ believe you. ROFL -- All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds Awake to find that it was vanity; But the dreamers of day are dangerous men, That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible. -- T. E. Lawrence http://spaces.msn.com/members/flomblog/ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Today Equipe"s Editorial
Dans le message de news:tTDUe.222154$9A2.57252@edtnps89,
Jim Flom a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : "B. Lafferty" wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Chung" wrote in message ... Montesquiou wrote: LES NEGATIONS DE L'UCI The today editorial of l'Equipe. (september 10 2005) Sorry but in french ; may be someone can help in the translation Shorter version: "Hein? Thhpppbbbttt." Indeed. And Droussent is correct, the essential question is, "Lance Armstrong a-t-il triché ou menti ?" It's okay, Brian. _I_ believe you. Golly, Jim, spending all your time obsessing over Lafferty ? Like me and you, he is a speck in cycling. You seem offended that Armstrong can be put in the spotlight, and a glaring one. Let's just stick to the big guy, OK. You are saying that the stuff Lafferty has reproduced (without appartent permission - attention, Brian), is just gross turds ? I think that, whether or not you like the messenger (yes he harps on a single theme), it's hard to see where that leaves Armstrong in such a cool position. There are results of scientific analysis. Not one person (make sure you read the entirety of comments) has disputed the actual methodology, except (in rbr) Andy Coggan, who didn't give a good clue as to how to create EPO, in frozen samples, from the stuff we ****. So, pass on the messenger, stop (yourself !) obsessing, and take a clear look. Frankly, why not let all the guys who want short but financially profitable lives, do their thing, stop thinking that a race that takes place in France should have labs in Ecuador do the analysis, and admit that the shoulder and head that McEwen gave was no more and no less cheating than Armstrong seems to have done. Cheating, not biochemistry, is the part of competition that makes this no longer a sport. Since I don't pay much attention to the other sports often referred to here - is it true that the Red Sox finally won a World Series. Yeah, I could look that up, but that would be examining reported facts, which, as we know, is not reliable history. Many thanks -- Sandy Verneuil-sur-Seine ******* La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette, il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre. -- Einstein, A. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Today Equipe"s Editorial
"Sandy" wrote in message ... Dans le message de news:tTDUe.222154$9A2.57252@edtnps89, Jim Flom a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : "B. Lafferty" wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Chung" wrote in message ... Montesquiou wrote: LES NEGATIONS DE L'UCI The today editorial of l'Equipe. (september 10 2005) Sorry but in french ; may be someone can help in the translation Shorter version: "Hein? Thhpppbbbttt." Indeed. And Droussent is correct, the essential question is, "Lance Armstrong a-t-il triché ou menti ?" It's okay, Brian. _I_ believe you. Golly, Jim, spending all your time obsessing over Lafferty ? Like me and you, he is a speck in cycling. You seem offended that Armstrong can be put in the spotlight, and a glaring one. Let's just stick to the big guy, OK. You are saying that the stuff Lafferty has reproduced (without appartent permission - attention, Brian), is just gross turds ? I think that, whether or not you like the messenger (yes he harps on a single theme), it's hard to see where that leaves Armstrong in such a cool position. You and I are but specks of that rhythmic urge which is Brahma, which is Allah, which is God.--Ruth St. Denis There are results of scientific analysis. Not one person (make sure you read the entirety of comments) has disputed the actual methodology, except (in rbr) Andy Coggan, who didn't give a good clue as to how to create EPO, in frozen samples, from the stuff we ****. So, pass on the messenger, stop (yourself !) obsessing, and take a clear look. Frankly, why not let all the guys who want short but financially profitable lives, do their thing, stop thinking that a race that takes place in France should have labs in Ecuador do the analysis, and admit that the shoulder and head that McEwen gave was no more and no less cheating than Armstrong seems to have done. Cheating, not biochemistry, is the part of competition that makes this no longer a sport. Since I don't pay much attention to the other sports often referred to here - is it true that the Red Sox finally won a World Series. Yeah, I could look that up, but that would be examining reported facts, which, as we know, is not reliable history. Many thanks -- Sandy Verneuil-sur-Seine ******* La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette, il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre. -- Einstein, A. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Today Equipe"s Editorial
Sandy wrote: Cheating, not biochemistry, is the part of competition that makes this no longer a sport. Dumbass - You've got your head up your ass. Biochemistry is now a part of *all* professional sports and has been for quite some time. Cycling is not unique in this regard. thanks, K. Gringioni. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Great ride today? | jj | General | 0 | June 12th 05 05:29 AM |
Unless my fingers fell off - I was going to ride today! | Ken | General | 13 | May 15th 05 07:32 PM |
Another good ride today | MSeries | UK | 8 | February 7th 05 07:48 PM |
Unicyclist invasion .. today was f-in awsem | ben_unruh | Unicycling | 16 | January 23rd 05 08:42 PM |
There were some great views today | MSeries | UK | 1 | November 14th 04 07:20 AM |