19.com Scottish Open Last 128 !!!

Badsnookerplayer wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:I like Ullrich. He showed remorse. And whether out of his mind on drugs or not, he was the best cyclist in the world at that time.

Yes he showed remorse by repeatedly doping for the next decade.

You dumbkopf

He did because he had to. It clearly never sat well with him though. That is obvious. Same could be said for Rasmussen, for instance.

Yeah - I actually agree that those boys had no choice unless they wanted to be domestiques. I would have done the same.

I do think Lance has been hung out to dry though

Badsnookerplayer wrote:

mantorok wrote:Fouldsy good at punditry but Alan is good at both commentary and punditry.

So for that reason, and that reason alone it's Alan for me.

Important debate this.

Alan is my favourite.

Love Clive but Alan shades it IMO

mantorok wrote:Fouldsy good at punditry but Alan is good at both commentary and punditry.

So for that reason, and that reason alone it's Alan for me.

Important debate this.

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Agree with you both as it goes.

It was a great era in a funny way. One of my best memories of that era is when Floyd went mad on the testosterone and broke away for 100 miles. bucking insane but quality

Pink Ball wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Agree with you both as it goes.

It was a great era in a funny way. One of my best memories of that era is when Floyd went mad on the testosterone and broke away for 100 miles. bucking insane but quality

Landis was fantastic. Outstanding cyclist. bucking ballsy both on and off the saddle.

Ck147 wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Agree with you both as it goes.

It was a great era in a funny way. One of my best memories of that era is when Floyd went mad on the testosterone and broke away for 100 miles. bucking insane but quality

Landis was fantastic. Outstanding cyclist. bucking ballsy both on and off the saddle.

I'll always loved the look Lance gave Ullrich before he shot up the mountain and left everyone for dead. Why can't they just let everyone do PED's and then they wouldn't have to pay for testing and research, absolutely crazy! (I think you know I was joking at the end there.)

Oops, almost forgot, there is a thread for cycling, please use it.

mantorok wrote:Fouldsy good at punditry but Alan is good at both commentary and punditry.

So for that reason, and that reason alone it's Alan for me.

Important debate this.

Dan-cat wrote:

mantorok wrote:Fouldsy good at punditry but Alan is good at both commentary and punditry.

So for that reason, and that reason alone it's Alan for me.

Important debate this.

What?! Foulds is a great commentator

Pink Ball wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:

mantorok wrote:Fouldsy good at punditry but Alan is good at both commentary and punditry.

So for that reason, and that reason alone it's Alan for me.

Important debate this.

Alan is my favourite.

Love Clive but Alan shades it IMO

McManus is very good.

Holden Chinaski wrote:

Wildey wrote:

mantorok wrote:Jesus yes there was an uproar a few pages back but why is wildey stirring it up again. I didn't like it at the time but got over it very quickly not sure why you and Holden are still arguing the toss tbh

BECAUSE I REALLY HATE SOME runts FANS ON HERE THAT bucking WHY MIND YOUR OWN bucking BUSINESS hammer

Wow, relax man. Who are the runts? Aren't we all saying Ronnie was an idiot to play like that? We just don't think it's the unforgivable crime you seem to think it is.

Ck147 wrote:Fouldsy and Angles are both in the same ballpark when it comes to commentary, although Angles edges it slightly. Same with their punditry, although Fouldsy edges that slightly. Both better than most out there. Don't think either of them have anything to worry about.

rekoons wrote:

Ck147 wrote:Fouldsy and Angles are both in the same ballpark when it comes to commentary, although Angles edges it slightly. Same with their punditry, although Fouldsy edges that slightly. Both better than most out there. Don't think either of them have anything to worry about.

I have to ask: what is the difference between commentary and punditry?

chengdufan wrote:Looks like it's just me and you here Rekoons. Not sure if I should be your snazzy, popular with the masses sidekick, Loop. Or your old fashioned and high scoring nemesis, Sdraillib.

rekoons wrote:

chengdufan wrote:Looks like it's just me and you here Rekoons. Not sure if I should be your snazzy, popular with the masses sidekick, Loop. Or your old fashioned and high scoring nemesis, Sdraillib.

Errrr, still trying to decipher this to be honest...

rekoons wrote:

chengdufan wrote:Looks like it's just me and you here Rekoons. Not sure if I should be your snazzy, popular with the masses sidekick, Loop. Or your old fashioned and high scoring nemesis, Sdraillib.

Errrr, still trying to decipher this to be honest...

chengdufan wrote:

rekoons wrote:

Ck147 wrote:Fouldsy and Angles are both in the same ballpark when it comes to commentary, although Angles edges it slightly. Same with their punditry, although Fouldsy edges that slightly. Both better than most out there. Don't think either of them have anything to worry about.

I have to ask: what is the difference between commentary and punditry?

Commentary: Describing the match as it progresses.
Punditry: Providing a broad range of information related to the match based on specialist knowledge of the subject.

@all feel free to improve on or correct my hastily addled together definitions

chengdufan wrote:

rekoons wrote:

chengdufan wrote:Looks like it's just me and you here Rekoons. Not sure if I should be your snazzy, popular with the masses sidekick, Loop. Or your old fashioned and high scoring nemesis, Sdraillib.

Errrr, still trying to decipher this to be honest...

A weird and not particularly good attempt at humour based on your name being snooker backwards. Best ignored :)

rekoons wrote:I needed 10 minutes to work it out

chengdufan wrote:

rekoons wrote:

Ck147 wrote:Fouldsy and Angles are both in the same ballpark when it comes to commentary, although Angles edges it slightly. Same with their punditry, although Fouldsy edges that slightly. Both better than most out there. Don't think either of them have anything to worry about.

I have to ask: what is the difference between commentary and punditry?

Commentary: Describing the match as it progresses.
Punditry: Providing a broad range of information related to the match based on specialist knowledge of the subject.

@all feel free to improve on or correct my hastily addled together definitions

rekoons wrote:

chengdufan wrote:Looks like it's just me and you here Rekoons. Not sure if I should be your snazzy, popular with the masses sidekick, Loop. Or your old fashioned and high scoring nemesis, Sdraillib.

Errrr, still trying to decipher this to be honest...