Search results

FFS, they're a load of crap. Everyone knows this.

Sheryl Crow and mountains of drugs. Who's the looser eh? Not LA for sure.

And he got to bend one in Sheryl Crow.

Strange definition of guilty. I'd say this makes them look a bit stupid and unfit for purpose if they are suggesting guilt based on providing no evidence. Mind you, the tabloids have used the 'no smoke without fire' definition for decades now.

Armstrong has effectively issued a 'put up or shut up.' Let's see what comes out next. If he is found guilty by way of some dodgy testimonials then I think most people will see USADA for what they are. If there is more compelling evidence then maybe me and some others will have to admit we are...

This. During the Wiggins victory I read that Armstrong was universally disliked by almost everyone connected with the Tour de France. A reason which kept cropping up was his lack of historical knowledge of the race and ignoring the unofficial protocol and traditions of the race, something...

This is my feeling as well. Years and years have been spent trying to find Armstrong guilty. And relying on testimonials from other teams and riders smacks of desperation as well as being unreliable. Who knows what agendas all these other caught cyclists might have?

Are you a Sun journo?

He has spent virtually all his life fighting other opponents on a bike, anti-doping people and cancer. I can easily see why he might now decide he wants a break.