Professional Cycling For the Fans - Landis just tested positive...again.

It is not "opinion" that anyone using a banned substance is cheating. According to the labs that test athletes in various sports, not everyone is using.
I did not associate "opinion" with "cheating" in that post. I said it was your opinion that not everyone is violating the rules.

You have been duped by the drug testing lunatics to believe that drug tested = drugfree. I have just given several examples proving that drug testing does not guarantee drug free. So I reiterate my point: prove to me that not everyone is using banned substances. Just how do you expect to do that when anyone can take as much hGH as he wants and never fail? The same with IGF-1 and insulin. Transdermal testosterone dosed correctly (notwithstanding any weird epiT anomalies) will never trip a 4:1 screen.

With respect to hormones, the only ones these drug tests can reliably detect is the current crop of known synthetic androgens (e.g., Deca, Primobolan, Anadrol, Dianabol, Equipoise, Anavar, Winstrol, etc.), and, of course, >4:1 T. If you create your own synthetic androgen, like Patrick Arnold did for BALCO (THG), you'll pass every drug test every time.

So, again, I would like to know how you intend to prove to me that not everyone is using a banned substance...

So Bellweatherman is banned, and we have a self-confessed -- i should really say very proud -- dope user defending Landis and company on this thread along with the regular "rally around the flag" folks....
If that's what happens at the level of BF's to people who want try and break the law of silence regarding doping in cycling and mention taboo subjects like Lance's positive dope test, etc... -- no wonder truth tellers are being shut out of pro-cycling!! :(

[QUOTE=goldenear]I did not associate "opinion" with "cheating" in that post. I said it was your opinion that not everyone is violating the rules.

You have been duped by the drug testing lunatics to believe that drug tested = drugfree. QUOTE]

So then, you are agreeing that "cheating" is not an opinion, but a reality?

I did not say "drug tested" is drugfree. Obviously, Landis was drug tested and not drug free as were quite a few other riders over the years. Some drugs may be undetectable, but not all are. So, within the parameters of scientific possibility, some riders test positive while others do not. Is this not true?

I recently watched 1996 and 1997 Tour DVD while I was riding my bike on the trainer, I have no doubt that beck then Riis, Virenque, Berzin, etc.. were all on dope.

From Cyclingnews.com:

Former Telekom rider confirms team doping in 1990s

Bert Dietz, who rode for Team Telekom from 1994 to 1998, has confirmed that team doctors provided EPO (Erythropoietin) and other illegal doping products to its riders. In an appearance Monday night on German television, he upheld the charges made by former soigneur (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr29news) Jef d'Hondt concerning the team doctors Andreas Schmid and Lothar Heinrich.
"When the doctors were there, they gave us the shots themselves," Dietz said on television program Beckmann. "When they weren't there, then the soigneurs did it, that is, Jef d'Hondt."
T-Mobile responded promptly to the allegations, referring to its new anti-doping program. "This is a rerun of concrete allegations," Christian Frommert, head of Sponsoring Communication for sponsor Deutsche Telekom, told Cyclingnews. "It becomes more and more clear that our [new anti-doping] course is very important and the only way to go. This is our way for the future, but we are looking at the past as well, together with Rolf Aldag and the current management."
Aldag, who was named Sport Director of the team last fall, rode for Team Telekom/T-Mobile from 1993 to 2005. He has claimed to know nothing about doping within the team and said that he never used the products.
Dietz rode for Telekom from 1994 to 1998 and for Team Nürnberger from 1999 to 2000. He was not on Telekom's winning Tour de France teams in 1996 or 1997 but he did win a stage of the Vuelta a España 1995.
He refused to say which other riders were involved. When asked specifically about Tour winners Bjarne Riis and Jan Ullrich, he responded "I am here to tell my story," saying that he didn't want to put the finger on anyone else.
Dietz is now only indirectly involved with cycling, as he runs a sporting goods store. He does not expect any direct consequences for his confession, as might someone who is still active either as a rider or in management. "Other riders must be afraid of losing their job and never again being hired by a team," he noted.
If he wasn't willing to implicate his former teammates, he was ready enough to speak out against Schmid and Heinrich. At first it was cortisone. But in 1995, he said, the doctors told the riders about EPO.
"It was a training camp on Mallorca in the spring. The doctors were becoming more and more involved in our training plans, at the wish of Telekom. In individual discussions, which they held with everyone, they first described the general situation in cycling. Then they came to the specific situation of Team Telekom; that we have pressure on us in the spring. And when we wanted to ride in the front, then we would probably have to try this new product. It was roughly explained how it worked and what side-effects and risks it had. That was, in principle, the decision, that we would do it."
At the time, there were no doping tests to detect EPO usage. "Later we had to be more careful." He eventually had his own centrifuge to conduct his own controls, so that he his blood values didn't go too high.
Asked if the doctors simply offered the EPO or whether they ordered the riders to take it, Dietz responded, "They offered it, but of course in such a way that everyone knew 'If I don't take this now, then probably I will have such bad results at the end of the year, that my contract won't be extended.' So, yes, it was pretty obvious."
Most of the riders had only one or two year contracts, and to receive extensions, the riders were expected to show good results in the spring. "The Henninger Turm race [held on May 1] was usually the limit."
In other words, the riders doped because they were afraid that otherwise they would lose their jobs. "You want to pursue your career. You realize, 'I can't do with normal means.'" The riders had to trust the doctors blindly, Dietz noted. "We often didn't know what they were giving us."
Telekom suspended its relationship (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may03news2) with Schmid and Heinrich earlier this month after d'Hondt's book appeared, in which he named them (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr29news) as providing doping to the team. The Freiburg University Clinic, with which they are associated, is also conducting its own investigation into the charges. Both doctors have proclaimed their innocence (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may16news3).

So Bellweatherman is banned, and we have a self-confessed -- i should really say very proud -- dope user defending Landis and company on this thread along with the regular "rally around the flag" folks....
The only thing I'm proud about is my level of knowledge surrounding this subject. I've spent literally the past eight years of my life researching this stuff, so you better believe I know what I'm talking about.

So then, you are agreeing that "cheating" is not an opinion, but a reality?

I did not say "drug tested" is drugfree. Obviously, Landis was drug tested and not drug free as were quite a few other riders over the years. Some drugs may be undetectable, but not all are. So, within the parameters of scientific possibility, some riders test positive while others do not. Is this not true?
If you want to call that cheating, then go ahead. I really don't care one way or another. It's really not the point anyway.

"Some drugs may be undetectable, but not all are."

Thank you for acknowledging the truth. So, are you still comfortable saying that individuals who pass drug tests are not using banned substances?

If you want to call that cheating, then go ahead. I really don't care one way or another. It's really not the point anyway.

"Some drugs may be undetectable, but not all are."

Thank you for acknowledging the truth. So, are you still comfortable saying that individuals who pass drug tests are not using banned substances?


I'm comfortable saying that those who have detectable levels of banned substance have violated the rules. And, yes, those who defy the rules by using banned substances are, by definition, cheating. Now, back to my question to you, is cheating a reality or an opinion?

The only thing I'm proud about is my level of knowledge surrounding this subject. I've spent literally the past eight years of my life researching this stuff, so you better believe I know what I'm talking about.


Not when it comes to ethical behavior, you don't.

Not when it comes to ethical behavior, you don't.
Actually, I aced my undergrad business ethics course, LOL. But alas, I didn't spend all of this time researching the ethical side of this debate. I spent the past eight years researching the biochemical effects of these pharmaceutical products on human physiology.

Personally, I don't think it's really any of my business or anyone else's what these guys use. So I'm not going to concern myself with the ethical aspect of this discussion.

Now, back to my question to you, is cheating a reality or an opinion?
According to your definition of cheating, practically the entire world of elite sport is cheating.

Actually, I aced my undergrad business ethics course, LOL..

"Business ethics"? That's an oxymoron if I ever heard one!

According to your definition of cheating, practically the entire world of elite sport is cheating.

My "definition of cheating?" Where does that come from? I never attempted to define cheating per se. All I said was, "I'm comfortable saying that those who have detectable levels of banned substance have violated the rules. And, yes, those who defy the rules by using banned substances are, by definition, cheating." So, the question remains, is cheating a reality or an opinion? Why don't you want to answer that question?

I already said the whole world is cheating. Not sure what you're trying to get me to say...

Like I said, it's not the point of this whole discussion anyway.

This problem is never going to go away unless in the future somekind of unbeatable but cheap testing method is found.

It seems to me that they should create two divisions in professional cycling. Open, with no or few drug rules and a clean drug free division.

Racers riding the drug free division would have to submit to a six month longitudinal bi-weekly blood and urine test. Before the racing season begins and also during. If a racer tests positive in any race they cannot compete in the clean division until they have shown that they have been drug free for six months prior to the season and also during the season.

In addition tests would be conducted on the athletes samples in both a scheduled and random manner for samples six months prior to the race. So what I am saying here is that any athlete in the clean division can have his samples randoming tested going back six months from any point in time.

The racers could race together but have two GC's. One for each division. This gives racers a choice and also allows science to push the boundries of what is possible for athletes and teams that want to go the route of drug enhanced performance.

^^^very interesting thinking there! This is exactly how some powerlifting federations handle the whole situation. For example, you have APF and AAPF. APF is non-tested and associated with pro caliber lifters while AAPF is tested and associated more with the amatuer side of the sport. Actually, if you fail a drug test in the AAPF, you're banned for life from that fed and either have to go to the APF or a different fed altogether.

Every lifter I know who competes in the APF (and uses) adimately opposes anyone competing in the AAPF who uses. That attitude permeates the entire federation because lifters who use respect the choice of non-users and want them to experience the most level playing field possible in the AAPF - even though they could beat the tests like anyone else.

I already said the whole world is cheating. Not sure what you're trying to get me to say...

Like I said, it's not the point of this whole discussion anyway.

Well, if cheating is a reality, then not cheating is the other reality. I prefer my sports to be conducted without cheating. To me, that is the point of the entire doping in cycling issue.