Bernhard Kohl, the Austrian cyclist stripped of his third-place finish in the 2008 Tour de France, told attendees at the United States Anti-Doping Agency's science conference Monday that under current conditions, no one can win the Tour de France without using performance-enhancing drugs.
"People know in cycling that it's not possible to win the Tour de France without it," Kohl told AOL's sports website FanHouse after the speech. "It's three weeks, 3,000 km and you climb [the equivalent of] Mount Everest four times. That's just not possible."
Kohl confessed to doping many times, yet passed all but one test, which resulted in a two-year-ban from the sport. He said he and other unnamed riders rely on doping to remain competitive. He would not comment on the investigation of current Tour champion Alberto Contador or other riders.
While Kohl is eligible to return, he says his career is over. "I can never come back," he said. "It's not possible if you say the truth."
FanHouse: Tour not winnable without doping, former rider says
From 1986 until 1990, Justice William Brennan, the iconic liberal of the U.S. Supreme Court, secretly granted a young Wall Street Journal reporter access to his thoughts and papers for the purpose of someday writing his memoirs. Two decades later, after overcoming admitted writer's block and with the help of Congressional Quarterly writer Seth Stern, Stephen Wermiel, 60, has finally published "Justice Brennan: Liberal Champion." The book was released Monday.
Brennan, who died in 1997, served on the Supreme Court for 34 years. The court was known for its policies curbing workplace discrimination, enforcing equal protection and enforcing privacy. This includes Roe v. Wade, the controversial 1973 decision permitting a woman the right to an abortion.
Revelations from the book: Brennan was both frustrated and mystified that Thurgood Marshall, the iconic civil rights attorney of the 1960s, appeared disinterested once he became a justice, Wermiel told The New York Times on Monday. Also, Brennan's personal views didn't always match the way he voted. "He has discomfort with women in his workplace," Mr. Stern said, "yet he's a champion of women's rights in his decisions. He's uncomfortable about abortion, but his privacy decisions make Roe possible. The press infuriates him at a personal level, and yet he's a champion of the press."
New York Times: Brennan book, many years in making
The Spitzer show and his mate is lousey. I want
Rick Sanchez back. You worked him to death and he
needs a break. Let him rest a little and please hire him back for 3-4 and 8-9,
Justice Brennan knew he was wrong about allowing elective abortion. He knew two, no three things.
1. A human being female who has the ability to properly raise a child must do so. To make it possible for her to choose and be irresponsible is wrong. This leads to number two.
2. Justice Brennan had never spoke with God. The individual who spent a great great deal of time creating a living soul carrying reproducing machine. I will put it in a much much less significant example because you must have one first before you can have the other.
Suppose you solve the cure for cancer, but thousands of people each year decide not to use it. They die instead. Wouldn't that anger you? That leads to the inevitable number three.
3. Justice Brennan knew he would die someday and he should not have made that decision when he didn't have proof supporting his decision.
But now he knows. Shouldn't roll the dice.
This doesn't make much sense; were you crying when you typed it or something? Many people die every year rather than face agonizing chemotherapy; are you saying we should force them to take it the way you are saying all women should be forced to have babies?
1. "A human being female who has the ability to properly raise a child must do so."
Says who? And where's the male in all this?
2. "Justice Brennan had never spoke with God."
Neither have you or anybody else.
"The individual who spent a great great deal of time creating a living soul carrying reproducing machine."
25% of pregnancies, these are fertilized eggs here, result in miscarriage before the 6th week of pregnancy. If these are full human beings, then that makes God the biggest abortion doctor ever. In truth, nobody really knows when life begins, but I'm comfortable putting it at about 23 weeks, when brain activity starts to fire up, and a week or two before the fetus is actually viable.
"Suppose you solve the cure for cancer, but thousands of people each year decide not to use it. They die instead. Wouldn't that anger you?"
It's their choice.
3. "Justice Brennan knew he would die someday and he should not have made that decision when he didn't have proof supporting his decision."
Everybody dies. That's a sure thing. There is, however, no first hand proof or hard evidence, either of the oogey boogey hell,l or the harps and clouds heaven, or any kind of existence after death. So-called pro-life groups would be doing a lot more for humanity if they focused more on taking care of infants and children than on worrying about nonviable collections of cells.
Send Spitzer where Sanchez went, which I hope is a dog kennel.
Justice Brennan is one of the great supreme court justices of all time. He is not because he made liberal decisions but he did what was right and just. He also had the courage to vote against his personal beliefs because it was the right thing to do. if anybody deserves another chapter in JFK's "Profile in Courage" it is Justice Brennan.
His comments were out of line and he should not have access to a public form to spread rubbish CSP
I have to agree with James Early, Spitzer and Co didn't motivate me to miss "Countdown" on MSNBC.......on the other hand, Sanchez and Baldwin could keep my attention. He (Sanchez) certainly didn't say anything any more controversial than O'Rielly or Beck (for certain), maybe not cool, perhaps, but he has a right to his opinion. You guys are making a lot of programming mistakes here lately, and firing Sanchez was one of them....he was actually drawing flack from Faux.....perceived as a threat, maybe?
John. You assume alot. Also, I wouldn't write anything unless it was true.
John. Oh and I'm not part of any "so-called pro-life group" who you seem not to like very much. Not that it matters to me whether or not you like anyone.
However, I am part of a smaller group in a literal way.