I had the feeling two years ago that Lance and Floyd were not close when they were on Postal. Their personalities were like oil and water. They just didn't mix. I also get the feeling Lance has been affected by his success and sometimes likes to exert his status at the expense of other people.
That's certainly at odds with Lance's last book, in which he basically claims to have taken Landis under his wing and watched out for him. And of course everything that's written in a book must be true, whether it's written by Lance or Walsh...
Personally, those books make me want to throw up. However ...
Does anyone besides me remember a stage last year that Lance tried to set Floyd up to win? It went to hell when Ullrich caught them on a descent a few km from the finish. Lance won in a sprint over Kloden, I believe. I'd have to go back over the DVD's but I believe this was just before Alpe D'Huez.
It sure didn't appear that there was a grudge between them, their "personalities were like oil and water" or anything like that.
But then again, recent discoveries about Tyler Hamilton have made Walsh' book more credible, too.
1. What did you think of Walsh's book before the recent discoveries about Hamilton? 2. Which Hamilton discoveries in particular made the book more credible?
"Tim Lines" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Mike Jacoubowsky said:
>I had the feeling two years ago that Lance and Floyd were not
close when
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>they were on Postal. Their personalities were like oil and water.
They
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>just >didn't mix. I also get the feeling Lance has been affected by his
success
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>and sometimes likes to exert his status at the expense of other
people.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
That's certainly at odds with Lance's last book, in which he
basically
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
claims to have taken Landis under his wing and watched out for
him. And
Quoted message said:
of
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
course everything that's written in a book must be true, whether
it's
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
written by Lance or Walsh...
Personally, those books make me want to throw up. However ...
Does anyone besides me remember a stage last year that Lance tried
to
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
set Floyd up to win? It went to hell when Ullrich caught them on a descent a few km from the finish. Lance won in a sprint over
Kloden, I
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
believe. I'd have to go back over the DVD's but I believe this was
just
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
before Alpe D'Huez.
It sure didn't appear that there was a grudge between them, their "personalities were like oil and water" or anything like that.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis said:
But then again, recent discoveries about Tyler Hamilton have made
Walsh'
Quoted message said:
book more credible, too.
And then the failure of LA to have tested postive during the last year, makes Walsh' claims less credibe, too. But then there wasn't much there to begin with.
"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Jonathan v.d. Sluis said:
But then again, recent discoveries about Tyler Hamilton have made Walsh' book more credible, too.
1. What did you think of Walsh's book before the recent discoveries about Hamilton? 2. Which Hamilton discoveries in particular made the book more credible?
My point was, for those who need it spelled out a bit more, that you can't point at just one incident and say: "hey it's true! Armstrong and Landis are actually good friends because he tried to set the other up to win!" What do we know? Landis might even have appreciated Armstrong's gesture.
As for Walsh' book, I'm entirely biased because I think Armstrong uses doping anyway. So there's bound to be something you can reveal about him, for whatever reason. But Walsh seems fixed on one rider and I really don't see the point of that. In fact I think it's unfair. Doping doesn't begin or end with Armstrong.
"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Jonathan v.d. Sluis said:
But then again, recent discoveries about Tyler Hamilton have made Walsh' book more credible, too.
1. What did you think of Walsh's book before the recent discoveries about Hamilton? 2. Which Hamilton discoveries in particular made the book more credible?
My point was, for those who need it spelled out a bit more, that you can't point at just one incident [snip]
Hmmm. If you believe that, why would you think any one incident involving Hamilton makes Walsh's book (which isn't really about Hamilton) more credible?
"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Jonathan v.d. Sluis said:
"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote: > > But then again, recent discoveries about Tyler Hamilton have made > Walsh' book more credible, too.
1. What did you think of Walsh's book before the recent discoveries about Hamilton? 2. Which Hamilton discoveries in particular made the book more credible?
My point was, for those who need it spelled out a bit more, that you can't point at just one incident [snip]
Hmmm. If you believe that, why would you think any one incident involving Hamilton makes Walsh's book (which isn't really about Hamilton) more credible?
Honestly, I don't. It was sarcasm, and a jab at people who really do believe that their hero Armstrong was tainted when Hamilton got caught.
