View Full Version : Deziluzia anului

5th December 2005, 20:03
Va rog sa votati la poll, iar pe acest thread sa comentati alegerea facuta de voi sau de altii, legata de deziluzia anului 2005.

Pentru a putea vota trebuie sa fiti inregistrati (http://www.onlinesport.ro/forum/register.php)pe forum.

5th December 2005, 20:05
fc national- si-a deziluzionat complet toti dusmanii

5th December 2005, 20:47
Ferarri ... :P

5th December 2005, 20:49
Real Madrid! in ciuda faptului ca Florentino a investit mai mult de 100 milioane de euro in echipa, aceasta da acelasi ranadament de anu' trecut, unul foarte prost...

5th December 2005, 20:52
Nationala,ma bucur ca nu ma mai uit la fotbal.....

5th December 2005, 23:27
Desi l-am propus si pe Gica Hagi optez totusi pentru alegerea lui Sandu in fruntea FRF si de aici poate si alte deziluzii: necalificarea la CE 2008, Mafia CCA+comisii federale, s.a.

6th December 2005, 18:33
Mirela, pt "performantele" de la national, echipa de club si calitatile de Karate Kid. Dar mai ales ca ia impis pe stelisti afara din CL. Tare, nu?

6th December 2005, 21:29
Off, very intersting...si foarte inteligent sa pui pe Ferrari si Michael Schumacher in acelasi poll. E cam acelasi lucru. Votez pe Schumacher, pt ca si-a dezamagit toti fanii in acest an.

9th December 2005, 17:16
Lance Armstrong ---DOPAT chiar dc nu eram fanul sau sunt DEZAMAGIT

joao pinto
9th December 2005, 20:18
Craiova, pentru prima jumatate a anului.

@ man_not_machine Tu chiar crezi tot ce scriu ziarele?

10th December 2005, 15:26

10th December 2005, 15:38
pt mine ramane victoria lui Sandu la FRF...deziluzia anului...

10th December 2005, 18:44
Scumacher! Nu cred ca se astepta cineva la asa ceva!

10th December 2005, 19:10
Nu inteleg prezenta lui Michael Schumacher si a lui Ferrari pentru ca ei au dat tot ce au putut. Mai bine sterge cele doua optiuni si pune "Bridgestone"

10th December 2005, 20:21
mirel radoi ?????? deziluzia anuluui? chiar ca numa niste amatori am votat pe aici........asta e pe cale sa iasa cel mai bun fotbalist in 2005 si astia il pun la deziluzii......chelsea la fel............deja au castigat titlu si e deziluzia anului? de ce? ca au luat un gol care trebuia anulat? de asta e deziluzia ? liverpool-chelsea 1-0 gol incorect validat..............de exemplu pe piturca nu-l vede nimeni ca marea deziluzie? sau pe mutu?.........in finee

10th December 2005, 20:44
Asa am considerat si eu, Lucky...Probabil unii au fost nominalizati doar pt ca le erau antipatici unora de pe aici...

10th December 2005, 20:58
Tata Lance care nu a rezitat si sa "infructat" din medicamentele "interzzise".:rosu:

10th December 2005, 21:06
Mai fratilor, voi toti care ati votat cu Lance, aveti idee pe ce lume traiti? Ati citit si voi pe undeva ca Lance a fost prins dopat? Va rog interesati-va de "caz" inainte de a vota ca berbecii. A aruncat cineva (un ziar!!! L'Equipe) un zvon si imediat a devenit stire de prima pagina la toata lumea. Stiu ca multi v-ati dori sa se fi dopat. A fost prea bun si nu puteti accepta asta.

Allegations of drug use

Like many top cyclists, Armstrong has long been accused of using performance-enhancing drugs. Armstrong and his supporters have often attributed accusations of doping to jealousy and sensationalist journalism by French and European newspapers such as l'Équipe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27%C3%89quipe) and Le Monde (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Monde); some American journalists even have attributed them to anti-americanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-americanism), though European newspapers have made similar accusations against European riders such as Richard Virenque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Virenque) and Marco Pantani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Pantani).
Prior to August 2005 a variety of accusations were made but none of his accusers provided compelling evidence. An accusation was made in 1999, when Armstrong tested positive for corticoids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corticoid). Armstrong explained he had used an external ointment in order to treat a rash, and produced a prescription for it. Use of the ointment broke cycling rules which state that while such external corticoids are legal, prescriptions must be shown to sports authorities in advance. However, sports authorities accepted the explanation and cleared Armstrong. Use of prescriptions unmotivated by medical needs, particularly external corticoids which cannot be distinguished from (prohibited) injected ones, has been described by some cycling insiders as a widespread trick.
On August 23 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_23), 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005), L'Équipe, the major French daily sports newspaper, reported on its front page under the headline "The Armstrong Lie" that the cyclist had taken EPO during the prologue and five stages of the 1999 Tour de France but said that it had not technically tested positive because at that point EPO tests were not administered. The newspaper then reprinted two kinds of documents: one were urine sample record forms, filled at the time when samples were taken, signed by the athlete and testing officials, and bearing sample numbers. It is unknown how the newspaper may have obtained such documents or whether they are authentic. The other were results from the comparison of 3 testing methods (two older and one newer ones) on many samples from the 1999 Tour, undertaken by the LNDD (French National Doping Detection Laboratory, a French public laboratory specialized in doping techniques) on numbered samples. By comparing numbers on the two kinds of documents, l'Équipe concluded that 6 samples of Armstrong's tested positive for EPO on all three methods.
Armstrong's web site commented - "Yet again, a European newspaper has reported that I have tested positive for performance enhancing drugs. Tomorrow’s L’Equipe, a French sports daily, is reporting that my 1999 samples were positive. Unfortunately, the witch hunt continues and tomorrow’s article is nothing short of tabloid journalism. The paper even admits in its own article that the science in question here is faulty and that I have no way to defend myself. They state: 'There will therefore be no counter-exam nor regulatory prosecutions, in a strict sense, since defendant’s rights cannot be respected.' I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance enhancing drugs."
The director of the official French anti-doping test laboratory at Châtenay-Malabry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%A2tenay-Malabry), Jacques de Ceaurriz [2] (http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/20050823_121001Dev.html) was quoted as saying he had "no doubt about the validity of our results." [3] (http://velonews.com/news/fea/8746.0.html) He said that while being kept for long periods can cause EPO proteins to deteriorate, this would possibly result in negative tests for doped athletes, but not false positives. He also stated that his laboratory worked on numbered anonymous samples, and was unaware when he sent his results to WADA/AMA that some of the results concerned Lance Armstrong.
In addition to these accusations, and in response to them, Armstrong has also received open backing from US Cycling [4] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/4178098.stm), individual cycling officials [5] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/4201482.stm), from former Tour winners Eddy Merckx and Miguel Indurain [6] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/4177952.stm) (both also involved in doping scandals), and other public figures.
Supporters argue numerous irregularities in the doping claim: "' Wada (World Anti-Doping Agency) and the US Anti-Doping Agency, they've all defined a process for collecting samples, managing samples, testing the samples, identifying the people who are involved,' said Johnson. ' They have certain rights in the process. None of that has been followed in this case.' Officials from cycling's ruling body (UCI), Wada, the French sports ministry and the Tour de France all agree normal anti-doping proceedings have not been followed. ' This isn't a 'doping positive. This is just a publication in a French tabloid newspaper. That's our perspective,'" added Johnson.'"--BBC
These allegations are still under examination by a number of news and anti-doping organizations.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lance_Armstrong&action=edit&section=17)]

UCI statement

On September 9, after a period of investigation, the UCI finally released a strongly-worded official statement condemning the WADA, the French laboratory in question, and the paper L'Equipe, for having failed to provide any official communication, and having failed to provide any data, evidence, or background on the allegations. The UCI stated that it was still "awaiting plausible answers" to its requests to WADA and the laboratory, but also indicated "We deplore the fact that the long-established and entrenched confidentiality principle could be violated in such a flagrant way without any respect for fair play and the rider's privacy."
The accusers themselves, in particular the World Anti-Doping Agency, might face an investigation into their own practices, in connection to their allegations against Armstrong. The UCI stated "We have substantial concerns about the impact of this matter on the integrity of the overall drug testing regime of the Olympic movement, and in particular the questions it raises over the trustworthiness of some of the sports and political authorities active in the anti-doping fight."
On October 5, the UCI announced the appointment of an independent expert to investigate the leaking of doping allegations against Armstrong: "French sports newspaper L'Equipe claims that samples given by the American icon on the 1999 Tour later tested positive. Armstrong has denied the allegations. The International Cycling Union (UCI) has now appointed Dutch lawyer and doping specialist Emile Vrijman to probe how the details were released. The UCI said it 'expects all relevant parties to fully co-operate'. Vrijman is a former director of the National Anti-Doping Agency in the Netherlands (NeCeDo)."

10th December 2005, 21:13
Se banuieste ca Lance s-a dopat. Ideea e ca Lequipe a aruncat asta dupa ce el s-a retras. Adica francezii si-au facut treaba, au vandut extraordinar Le Tour pe spatele lui, pentru ca apoi sa dea cu noroi. A ramas in aer treaba. pentru ca nu l-au avut cu nimic la mana. A facut-o prea bine. :)

10th December 2005, 21:16
Si sa luam cel mai rau caz, Lance a luat EPO in 1999. Atunci nu era interzis, deci dupa legile de atunci nu s-a dopat. Daca peste 4 ani interzic sucul de mere sa zicem si se descopera in proba de urina a lui Armstrong ca in 2005 a baut suc de mere inseamna ca s-a dopat?

L'echipe a aruncat aceasta "bomba" doar pentru publicitate, l-au asteptat sa se retraga si acum fara el trebui sa vanda si ei cumva ciclismul. Sunt tare curios care vor fi cifrele de audientza la Turul 2006. Eu presimt o scadere asa de vreo 25-30%

Si revenind la subiectul thredului sunt altii care au dezamagit mult mai tare: Ferrari, dupa atatia ani de dominare a clacat, Real MAdrid nu mai zic, nici eu nu mai stiu cand au luat ultimul trofeu, Adam Malysz, dar din pacate nu prea multa lume se uita la sarituri cu schiurile.

Alte variante care nu au ce cauta sunt Chelsea, care a luat itlul dupa nu stiu cati ani, si si-au facut o echipa redutabila, Radoi, care totusi e nominalizat la lucatorul anului de la noi, Catalina Ponor care daca nu ma insel a adus o carutza de medalii pana in toamna cand cei drept a inceput sa dezamageasca.

10th December 2005, 21:21
A luat EPO an de an. Turul va scadea mult in audiente, asa cum s-a intamplat cu NBA dupa plecarea lui Jordan. Cred ca afost un santaj asupra lui Lens, de a-l face sa revina. Oricum un atac murdar. Toti se dopeaza cat ii tine corpul.

10th December 2005, 21:24
Asta de unde ai masi scos-o cu EPO an de an? Presa a scris doar de 1999, si e o singura proba. Pai nu-l prideau? Ciclistii fac probabil 50 de controale pe an... acum iti explici ca a scapat? Sau zici ca a fost o conspiratie monstruasa, imensa pentru a "vinde" turul? Asta suna tare :yeah:

10th December 2005, 22:17
Why Hagi in the poll?

10th December 2005, 23:11
Adam Malysz...din pacate ultimile doua sezoane a dezamagit complet...in acesta parca da semne de revenire,dar ar trebui sa ajunga macar pe locul 3...

12th December 2005, 02:23
Mirela, pt "performantele" de la national, echipa de club si calitatile de Karate Kid. Dar mai ales ca ia impis pe stelisti afara din CL. Tare, nu?
DA !
Cu toate ca am votat "victoria lui Sandu la FRF", sant de acord si cu Darkslowstar ca Radoi e una din deceptii, spre disperarea si ofuscarea unuia care jigneste persoane de pe Forum, pentru asta fiind avertizat de cateva ori.

12th December 2005, 08:42
Initial am bifat alegerea lui Sandu (mai ales pentru stingerea luminitei de la capatul haului). Insa asta e ca-comunismul :evil: pe cand necalificarea la mondiale doare foarte tare acum ( nu am putut digera deloc stabilirea grupelor de la turneul final :ciocan: ).

Sasuke Uchiha
13th December 2005, 16:47
dar ce cauta campioana angliei acolo ?

13th December 2005, 21:20
Maxima deziluzie este ratarea calificarii cu Nationala Romaniei. "Valoarea" lui Sandu s-a vazut in tot acest parcurs (ma mir ca nu l-a schimbat pe Piti dupa 2-0 cu Cehia, sa-l aduca pe 'rege', ca poate, poate...). Craiova ar fi fost marea deziluzie daca s-ar fi pregatit de ..."7 ani in B"

14th December 2005, 05:34
cam aiurea variantele ... uf uf

14th December 2005, 21:10
Schumi... Parerea mea...

16th December 2005, 02:51
realegerea lu' nea mircea . e de kkt

18th December 2005, 09:03
Carmen Amariei

20th December 2005, 12:28
Romania si privitul CM la TV

20th December 2005, 13:53
dupa parerea me a deziluzia anului este realegerea lui mircea sandu. mai mult au aparut din nou in prim plan jenel, chivorchienel etc. sunt f pesimist in privinta fotbalului romanesc la nivel de nationala.

old lord
29th December 2005, 19:15
echipa nationala: necalificarea la CM 2006