SunFlower
08-06-07, 12:59 AM
if the clean guys dont like it they can start their own "clean" tour.
View Full Version : Why Not Just Allow Any Drug ?
Pages :
[1]
2
cibai
08-06-07, 06:01 AM
because then it isnt sport, it is a pharmacology contest. How about let the dopers start a "dirty tour" and leave the tradition to those who understand it.
gmason
08-06-07, 06:14 AM
And they do care about keeping people alive.
VT Biker
08-06-07, 09:13 AM
if the clean guys dont like it they can start their own "clean" tour.
DUMBEST POST IN THE HISTORY OF BIKEFORUMS.NET EVER:eek:
DUMBEST POST IN THE HISTORY OF BIKEFORUMS.NET EVER:eek:
gmason
08-06-07, 09:40 AM
DUMBEST POST IN THE HISTORY OF BIKEFORUMS.NET EVER:eek:
Tied for dumbest with about 34,782 others. :rolleyes:
Tied for dumbest with about 34,782 others. :rolleyes:
Keith99
08-06-07, 09:46 AM
if the clean guys dont like it they can start their own "clean" tour.
Isn't the burden on whoever does not like what the Tour organizers are doing?
Think they are not testing enough, start your own. Think they are doing too much start your own.
Of course either will fail.
Isn't the burden on whoever does not like what the Tour organizers are doing?
Think they are not testing enough, start your own. Think they are doing too much start your own.
Of course either will fail.
gfrance
08-06-07, 12:50 PM
Poster is not the only one thinking along these lines:
http://www.slate.com/id/2171729/
http://www.slate.com/id/2171729/
gmason
08-06-07, 01:08 PM
MLB apparently is also. I think I recently saw a piece which pointed out that a player was caught for the third time abusing drugs. He will be given a whole 80 game suspension. Wow, they sure are going after the abusers big time. :(
SunSwingsLow
08-06-07, 02:33 PM
Its really not that far out of a thought. Professional Body Building has pretty much done this. having "natural" body building and then the pro's who take more drugs than we can possibly imagine.
erader
08-06-07, 02:39 PM
Its really not that far out of a thought. Professional Body Building has pretty much done this. having "natural" body building and then the pro's who take more drugs than we can possibly imagine.
what's to prevent a dirty rider from racing with clean riders (like it is now) or do we expect the cheating aspect of doping to just go away?
in body building it's a lot easier to tell whose juiced....
ed rader
what's to prevent a dirty rider from racing with clean riders (like it is now) or do we expect the cheating aspect of doping to just go away?
in body building it's a lot easier to tell whose juiced....
ed rader
gmason
08-06-07, 02:40 PM
Testing?
SunSwingsLow
08-06-07, 03:05 PM
what's to prevent a dirty rider from racing with clean riders (like it is now) or do we expect the cheating aspect of doping to just go away?
in body building it's a lot easier to tell whose juiced....
ed rader
Because the big money will be with the riders who use drugs and the clean riders will be riding for peanuts in comparison.
in body building it's a lot easier to tell whose juiced....
ed rader
Because the big money will be with the riders who use drugs and the clean riders will be riding for peanuts in comparison.
dutret
08-06-07, 04:23 PM
DUMBEST POST IN THE HISTORY OF BIKEFORUMS.NET EVER:eek:
You must have missed the next one then
How about let the dopers start a "dirty tour" and leave the tradition to those who understand
You must have missed the next one then
How about let the dopers start a "dirty tour" and leave the tradition to those who understand
erader
08-06-07, 04:48 PM
Testing?
if testing worked we wouldn't be having this discussion.
ed rader
if testing worked we wouldn't be having this discussion.
ed rader
gmason
08-06-07, 04:50 PM
Originally Posted by VT Biker
DUMBEST POST IN THE HISTORY OF BIKEFORUMS.NET EVER
You must have missed the next one then
Originally Posted by cibai
How about let the dopers start a "dirty tour" and leave the tradition to those who understand
Unfortunately, much of the tradition included taking whatever was required to get to the end of the race. The intended tradition is another story.
DUMBEST POST IN THE HISTORY OF BIKEFORUMS.NET EVER
You must have missed the next one then
Originally Posted by cibai
How about let the dopers start a "dirty tour" and leave the tradition to those who understand
Unfortunately, much of the tradition included taking whatever was required to get to the end of the race. The intended tradition is another story.
gmason
08-06-07, 04:53 PM
if testing worked we wouldn't be having this discussion.
ed rader
Testing is working, just not quite well enough yet. And the administrators leave a lot to be desired regarding their handling of what they do have.
But as we all know, the miscreants will always try to get an edge, and some will before the good guys catch up again.
ed rader
Testing is working, just not quite well enough yet. And the administrators leave a lot to be desired regarding their handling of what they do have.
But as we all know, the miscreants will always try to get an edge, and some will before the good guys catch up again.
erader
08-06-07, 04:54 PM
Because the big money will be with the riders who use drugs and the clean riders will be riding for peanuts in comparison.
well i don't think it's the same thing at all. i mean we can fantasize all we want but it's just not going to happen.
what i propose is that the witch hunt be stopped and riders be tested regularly while competing.
first dirty ... one-year suspension. second violation: life-time ban.
ed rader
well i don't think it's the same thing at all. i mean we can fantasize all we want but it's just not going to happen.
what i propose is that the witch hunt be stopped and riders be tested regularly while competing.
first dirty ... one-year suspension. second violation: life-time ban.
ed rader
gmason
08-06-07, 04:55 PM
Great idea.
erader
08-06-07, 04:57 PM
Testing is working, just not quite well enough yet. And the administrators leave a lot to be desired regarding their handling of what they do have.
But as we all know, the miscreants will always try to get an edge, and some will before the good guys catch up again.
doping is an integral part of pro cycling. i wouldn't call the cheaters "miscreants". it's a part of the culture that they all accept.
that's why you don't hear the top guys complain about dopers.
the guys who do the most whining and complaining wouldn't be winning even if the sport were clean :eek:.
ed rader
But as we all know, the miscreants will always try to get an edge, and some will before the good guys catch up again.
doping is an integral part of pro cycling. i wouldn't call the cheaters "miscreants". it's a part of the culture that they all accept.
that's why you don't hear the top guys complain about dopers.
the guys who do the most whining and complaining wouldn't be winning even if the sport were clean :eek:.
ed rader
gmason
08-06-07, 05:53 PM
if testing worked we wouldn't be having this discussion.
ed rader
If doping were not such an integral part of pro cycling, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
But that doesn't mean we have to accept it.
ed rader
If doping were not such an integral part of pro cycling, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
But that doesn't mean we have to accept it.
Helmet Head
08-06-07, 07:17 PM
Testing is working, just not quite well enough yet. And the administrators leave a lot to be desired regarding their handling of what they do have.
But as we all know, the miscreants will always try to get an edge, and some will before the good guys catch up again.
Testing does not work and will never work. Here are some of the reasons why.
The riders will always have an advantage over the testers. There are always two time lags following the discovery of a new doping technique before the testers are up to par. First, the testers have to learn that the riders might be using it, and they have to learn about it. Second, the testers have to learn how to test for it. They knew for over 10 years about EPO before they found a test for it. In the mean time, all they could do is test for hematocrit levels. Some of these time lags are not only measured in years, but are even indefinite. There is still no known test for autologous blood doping, for example. How do you detect a problem with the rider having his own blood in his blood? There are always no known tests for substances that the riders are using and the testers have no idea they are taking.
Testing is expensive. The list of banned substances keeps getting longer and longer. The ability to test for everything on the list in every rider before and after every race is simply impossible. There are screening tests which check for "suspicious" numbers and call for more specific follow-ups, but the screening tests cannot be comprehensive. Further, the riders' doctors know what the screening tests test for, and how to get around it.
Currently, they are tested hours before the race. What's to prevent them from doping between the test and the start?
Even a little doping, even doses too low to be considered "positive" in a test, can make a significant difference in a race where the difference between 1st and last in a 3 week race is a mere couple of hours. Sure EPO, testosterone and growth hormones are not legal, but if the rider only uses a little of each, not enough to exceed any threshholds on the tests, but enough to keep him high on GC, he can test "clean" every time.
Riders use masking agents to hide the fact that they are doping. Eventually, the testers also learn about the masking agents and introduce tests for them, but this is all susceptible to the time lags of (1) as well.
When virtually everyone else is doing it, it's almost impossible, perhaps actually impossible, to be successful without doing it too.
The majority of pro athletes are willing to take a fatal drug if they know that doing so will first make them a champion in their sport. Tyler Hamilton and Alexandre Vinokourov apparently were willing to use homologous blood doping. Unfortunately for them, they used too much - enough to exceed the allowable threshholds on the tests. Makes you wonder how many are doing it, but are staying under the allowable threshholds...
The alternative to doping is riding clean, and most riders would rather not race if they had to do it clean, given how relatively poor their performance would be if they stayed clean.
The sport is replete with superstition. If one of these guys brushes his teeth with a pink toothbrush one day and happens to win that day, don't be surprised if he brushes his teeth with a pink toothbrush every race day for the rest of his career. If they believe in the power of rabbit's feet and pink toothbrushes, surely they believe in the power of their doctor's recommendations. Just believing that they have an edge, actually gives them an edge, mentally.
Doctors like Michele "If it doesn't show up in the drug controls, then it's not doping" Ferrari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Ferrari).Sure the testing can do something. It will catch a rider here or there, and it helps keep the amount of doping each is doing down. Whenever the testers finally devise and perfect a new test, they'll catch a few unlucky *******s (like Tyler Hamilton got busted for homologous blood doping because they just started testing for it). But whenever that happens, the doctors simply adjust their recommendations.
But thinking that testing will work "well enough" to make cycling actually clean some day is very naive.
But as we all know, the miscreants will always try to get an edge, and some will before the good guys catch up again.
Testing does not work and will never work. Here are some of the reasons why.
The riders will always have an advantage over the testers. There are always two time lags following the discovery of a new doping technique before the testers are up to par. First, the testers have to learn that the riders might be using it, and they have to learn about it. Second, the testers have to learn how to test for it. They knew for over 10 years about EPO before they found a test for it. In the mean time, all they could do is test for hematocrit levels. Some of these time lags are not only measured in years, but are even indefinite. There is still no known test for autologous blood doping, for example. How do you detect a problem with the rider having his own blood in his blood? There are always no known tests for substances that the riders are using and the testers have no idea they are taking.
Testing is expensive. The list of banned substances keeps getting longer and longer. The ability to test for everything on the list in every rider before and after every race is simply impossible. There are screening tests which check for "suspicious" numbers and call for more specific follow-ups, but the screening tests cannot be comprehensive. Further, the riders' doctors know what the screening tests test for, and how to get around it.
Currently, they are tested hours before the race. What's to prevent them from doping between the test and the start?
Even a little doping, even doses too low to be considered "positive" in a test, can make a significant difference in a race where the difference between 1st and last in a 3 week race is a mere couple of hours. Sure EPO, testosterone and growth hormones are not legal, but if the rider only uses a little of each, not enough to exceed any threshholds on the tests, but enough to keep him high on GC, he can test "clean" every time.
Riders use masking agents to hide the fact that they are doping. Eventually, the testers also learn about the masking agents and introduce tests for them, but this is all susceptible to the time lags of (1) as well.
When virtually everyone else is doing it, it's almost impossible, perhaps actually impossible, to be successful without doing it too.
The majority of pro athletes are willing to take a fatal drug if they know that doing so will first make them a champion in their sport. Tyler Hamilton and Alexandre Vinokourov apparently were willing to use homologous blood doping. Unfortunately for them, they used too much - enough to exceed the allowable threshholds on the tests. Makes you wonder how many are doing it, but are staying under the allowable threshholds...
The alternative to doping is riding clean, and most riders would rather not race if they had to do it clean, given how relatively poor their performance would be if they stayed clean.
The sport is replete with superstition. If one of these guys brushes his teeth with a pink toothbrush one day and happens to win that day, don't be surprised if he brushes his teeth with a pink toothbrush every race day for the rest of his career. If they believe in the power of rabbit's feet and pink toothbrushes, surely they believe in the power of their doctor's recommendations. Just believing that they have an edge, actually gives them an edge, mentally.
Doctors like Michele "If it doesn't show up in the drug controls, then it's not doping" Ferrari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Ferrari).Sure the testing can do something. It will catch a rider here or there, and it helps keep the amount of doping each is doing down. Whenever the testers finally devise and perfect a new test, they'll catch a few unlucky *******s (like Tyler Hamilton got busted for homologous blood doping because they just started testing for it). But whenever that happens, the doctors simply adjust their recommendations.
But thinking that testing will work "well enough" to make cycling actually clean some day is very naive.
Helmet Head
08-06-07, 07:23 PM
If doping were not such an integral part of pro cycling, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
But that doesn't mean we have to accept it.
The fact that you don't want to accept it doesn't mean you can do something significant about it.
And as long as you can't, there is no alternative to accepting it. What are you going to do? Yell and scream and stomp your feet and bang your head against the wall? What good will that do?
But that doesn't mean we have to accept it.
The fact that you don't want to accept it doesn't mean you can do something significant about it.
And as long as you can't, there is no alternative to accepting it. What are you going to do? Yell and scream and stomp your feet and bang your head against the wall? What good will that do?
G-Whacker
08-06-07, 07:31 PM
Why not just allow any drug?
Tom Simpson.
http://www.nrc.nl/W2/Lab/Profiel/Doping/simpson.jpg
Tom Simpson.
http://www.nrc.nl/W2/Lab/Profiel/Doping/simpson.jpg
gmason
08-06-07, 07:57 PM
The fact that you don't want to accept it doesn't mean you can do something significant about it.
And as long as you can't, there is no alternative to accepting it. What are you going to do? Yell and scream and stomp your feet and bang your head against the wall? What good will that do?
I disagree with most of your earlier monologue, and your conclusion, for two main reasons.
1) Because the doping only really pays off if you win or finish high. And those are the ones being tested (in-competition) the most, and
2) Because while cheaters may find new ways to beat the protocols, the protocols have a way of catching up. It would help if more stringent penalties were levied.
Regardless of the end-arounds you stipulated, I believe that more and more will get caught, creating a strong deterrent among the riders. Will it ever disappear? Probably not - people are people. :(
As for accepting it, I would rather they continue trying to make it better than just give up and ignore it. Maybe that defines the difference in attitude between a possible loser and a guaranteed one.
What am I going to do? Continue to watch, enjoy the spectacle and performances, and keep hoping for the best. Head banging never seemed to work very well.
And as long as you can't, there is no alternative to accepting it. What are you going to do? Yell and scream and stomp your feet and bang your head against the wall? What good will that do?
I disagree with most of your earlier monologue, and your conclusion, for two main reasons.
1) Because the doping only really pays off if you win or finish high. And those are the ones being tested (in-competition) the most, and
2) Because while cheaters may find new ways to beat the protocols, the protocols have a way of catching up. It would help if more stringent penalties were levied.
Regardless of the end-arounds you stipulated, I believe that more and more will get caught, creating a strong deterrent among the riders. Will it ever disappear? Probably not - people are people. :(
As for accepting it, I would rather they continue trying to make it better than just give up and ignore it. Maybe that defines the difference in attitude between a possible loser and a guaranteed one.
What am I going to do? Continue to watch, enjoy the spectacle and performances, and keep hoping for the best. Head banging never seemed to work very well.
Dolomiti
08-06-07, 08:16 PM
Testing does work. It is just far from perfect. The riders winning races would probably be doped up far more if it wasn't for testing.
Cycling isn't like bodybuilding or baseball. In baseball maybe you get a minor injury for taking too many steroids. In cycling, if doping was legal, the sport would turn into a competition of whoever took the biggest risk on their own life. The faster you go, the closer you come to dying of a heart attack, or ruining your liver...
I would understand allowing doping if testing had no real value. But it does, and it has been particularly in the last few years.
Cycling isn't like bodybuilding or baseball. In baseball maybe you get a minor injury for taking too many steroids. In cycling, if doping was legal, the sport would turn into a competition of whoever took the biggest risk on their own life. The faster you go, the closer you come to dying of a heart attack, or ruining your liver...
I would understand allowing doping if testing had no real value. But it does, and it has been particularly in the last few years.
adamastor
08-07-07, 12:34 AM
if the clean guys dont like it they can start their own "clean" tour.
2 possibilities:
Doping allowed WITH rules and limits, then we are exactly at same level as today, because you'll have again 80% of the peloton that will go over the limit
Doping allowed WITHOUT rules and limits, you'll have 1 or 2 deaths during Tour de France, and race will be banned by authorities.
Plain and simple. Satisfied by the answer?
And I didn't talk about morals, ethics, etc
2 possibilities:
Doping allowed WITH rules and limits, then we are exactly at same level as today, because you'll have again 80% of the peloton that will go over the limit
Doping allowed WITHOUT rules and limits, you'll have 1 or 2 deaths during Tour de France, and race will be banned by authorities.
Plain and simple. Satisfied by the answer?
And I didn't talk about morals, ethics, etc
europa
08-07-07, 02:03 AM
You're making a mistake focussing on the winners. A clean winner can't be there without his domestiques who by definition, aren't as strong. If however, they're juiced up, their team leader will have the advantage of a stronger team, able to pull him along longer and faster.
Richard
Richard
dahoss2002
08-07-07, 02:10 AM
I disagree with most of your earlier monologue, and your conclusion, for two main reasons.
1) Because the doping only really pays off if you win or finish high. And those are the ones being tested (in-competition) the most, and
2) Because while cheaters may find new ways to beat the protocols, the protocols have a way of catching up. It would help if more stringent penalties were levied.
Regardless of the end-arounds you stipulated, I believe that more and more will get caught, creating a strong deterrent among the riders. Will it ever disappear? Probably not - people are people. :(
As for accepting it, I would rather they continue trying to make it better than just give up and ignore it. Maybe that defines the difference in attitude between a possible loser and a guaranteed one.
What am I going to do? Continue to watch, enjoy the spectacle and performances, and keep hoping for the best. Head banging never seemed to work very well.
Very nicely said Gmason!!! I couldnt agree more!!!!!
1) Because the doping only really pays off if you win or finish high. And those are the ones being tested (in-competition) the most, and
2) Because while cheaters may find new ways to beat the protocols, the protocols have a way of catching up. It would help if more stringent penalties were levied.
Regardless of the end-arounds you stipulated, I believe that more and more will get caught, creating a strong deterrent among the riders. Will it ever disappear? Probably not - people are people. :(
As for accepting it, I would rather they continue trying to make it better than just give up and ignore it. Maybe that defines the difference in attitude between a possible loser and a guaranteed one.
What am I going to do? Continue to watch, enjoy the spectacle and performances, and keep hoping for the best. Head banging never seemed to work very well.
Very nicely said Gmason!!! I couldnt agree more!!!!!
VT Biker
08-07-07, 07:59 AM
Maybe this has been stated already:
The idea that testing does not work is correct, in so far as testing has not really worked for the most part in the past. But keep in mind the following:
(a) Penalties have never been punitive enough as a true deterrent. Even the current 2-years is a sham. It should be 7 years minimum, enough to make everyone but the youngest riders give up the prime of their careers if caught.
(b) The two steps ahead argument I disagree with, if only because of this: top guys are getting popped for doping, and even guys like Rasmussan tried to evade authorities. If one of the world's top cyclists tried to evade testing, it must mean that at least currently, they are not 2-steps ahead of the testers. It seems to me, that the testers have caught up with the dopers. Now, I agree that EPO use is still rampant, and because the effects last longer than the tags which allow testers to catch it, it is still in use. But again, this can be fixed through two changes to the current system:
- (a) UCi increases the number of surprise visits to athletes
(b) Teams themselves develop more invasive and frequent testing and monitoring of its athletes. See Slipstream for one. The UCI and ASO should mandate such programs going forward as a prelude to even getting an invite to an ASO race.
(c) Until 2006/2007, testing was a joke. Even to this day, I am convinced that the UCI has routinely heloed to protect riders and teams, allowing for the appearance of diligence, but none of the substance. With the ASO and WADA joining together, I think you are going to see a change. Athletes are already starting to see the writing on the wall, which I think is apparent based on the number of high profile riders coming out against doping (Boonen, Millar etc...). I believe this is in part because they themselves understand the changes that are coming, and finally feel it is safe to take this stance.
(d) Until recently, teams were generally not punished for a rider's positive result. But by kicking out the entire team, this is going to change the mind-set of team managers both in terms of how they monitor the athletes on the team as well as who they hire in the first place.
The risk is finally rising to the point where the reward for doping does now outweight the risk. Since we have not had this situation until really the TdF, I do not think anyone can state that doping testing does not work. Nothing is perfect, but if I can get a tour that is 99% clean, I will take it.
The idea that testing does not work is correct, in so far as testing has not really worked for the most part in the past. But keep in mind the following:
(a) Penalties have never been punitive enough as a true deterrent. Even the current 2-years is a sham. It should be 7 years minimum, enough to make everyone but the youngest riders give up the prime of their careers if caught.
(b) The two steps ahead argument I disagree with, if only because of this: top guys are getting popped for doping, and even guys like Rasmussan tried to evade authorities. If one of the world's top cyclists tried to evade testing, it must mean that at least currently, they are not 2-steps ahead of the testers. It seems to me, that the testers have caught up with the dopers. Now, I agree that EPO use is still rampant, and because the effects last longer than the tags which allow testers to catch it, it is still in use. But again, this can be fixed through two changes to the current system:
- (a) UCi increases the number of surprise visits to athletes
(b) Teams themselves develop more invasive and frequent testing and monitoring of its athletes. See Slipstream for one. The UCI and ASO should mandate such programs going forward as a prelude to even getting an invite to an ASO race.
(c) Until 2006/2007, testing was a joke. Even to this day, I am convinced that the UCI has routinely heloed to protect riders and teams, allowing for the appearance of diligence, but none of the substance. With the ASO and WADA joining together, I think you are going to see a change. Athletes are already starting to see the writing on the wall, which I think is apparent based on the number of high profile riders coming out against doping (Boonen, Millar etc...). I believe this is in part because they themselves understand the changes that are coming, and finally feel it is safe to take this stance.
(d) Until recently, teams were generally not punished for a rider's positive result. But by kicking out the entire team, this is going to change the mind-set of team managers both in terms of how they monitor the athletes on the team as well as who they hire in the first place.
The risk is finally rising to the point where the reward for doping does now outweight the risk. Since we have not had this situation until really the TdF, I do not think anyone can state that doping testing does not work. Nothing is perfect, but if I can get a tour that is 99% clean, I will take it.
gmason
08-07-07, 08:05 AM
... (d) Until recently, teams were generally not punished for a rider's positive result. But by kicking out the entire team, this is going to change the mind-set of team managers both in terms of how they monitor the athletes on the team as well as who they hire in the first place. ...
Not only that, but some teams are taking the initiative as well. Probably in part altruistic, but probably also because they see the well drying up with sponsors unwilling to be associated with the abuses.
Not only that, but some teams are taking the initiative as well. Probably in part altruistic, but probably also because they see the well drying up with sponsors unwilling to be associated with the abuses.
Sci-Fi
08-07-07, 11:43 AM
Just about everything is banned. Can't take some name brand cold medication if you have a cold because the medication contains stimulants or steroids, if taken in sufficient quantities, may improve performance. Vitamins contain banned substances as well as supplements. Ibuprofen is not on the banned list and that might change.
With all the testing the Olympics does, the general public "suspects" Track and Field athletes are one of the biggest dopers, way more than cyclists. Minor league baseball is considered clean because of all the testing, but when those players reach the MLB level, the perception changes because they are now under union rules/contracts and the general public believes MLB players are the #1 abusers.
In any case, who knows what is "clean" and how accurate the testing labs are? Plenty of court cases blasting the procedures used at many testing labs and collection of the samples that "may allow" contamination...even on the "B" sample backup. While the testing lab loses one case, their results may result in convicting many others. Some question the "allowable" deviation found in any tested sample and how or who sets those baseline norms. The "cheaters" may be well ahead of the curve and one step ahead of the testing using the latest masking agents or drugs. As long as the TdF or any sport, catches as many cheaters as possible, I don't see the outcry being justified as threatening the existence of the events or sport...the event or sport is doing what is technically possible to keep the playing field even and that's all they can do.
With all the testing the Olympics does, the general public "suspects" Track and Field athletes are one of the biggest dopers, way more than cyclists. Minor league baseball is considered clean because of all the testing, but when those players reach the MLB level, the perception changes because they are now under union rules/contracts and the general public believes MLB players are the #1 abusers.
In any case, who knows what is "clean" and how accurate the testing labs are? Plenty of court cases blasting the procedures used at many testing labs and collection of the samples that "may allow" contamination...even on the "B" sample backup. While the testing lab loses one case, their results may result in convicting many others. Some question the "allowable" deviation found in any tested sample and how or who sets those baseline norms. The "cheaters" may be well ahead of the curve and one step ahead of the testing using the latest masking agents or drugs. As long as the TdF or any sport, catches as many cheaters as possible, I don't see the outcry being justified as threatening the existence of the events or sport...the event or sport is doing what is technically possible to keep the playing field even and that's all they can do.
Helmet Head
08-07-07, 11:45 AM
I disagree with most of your earlier monologue, and your conclusion, for two main reasons.
1) Because the doping only really pays off if you win or finish high. And those are the ones being tested (in-competition) the most, and
2) Because while cheaters may find new ways to beat the protocols, the protocols have a way of catching up. It would help if more stringent penalties were levied.
Regardless of the end-arounds you stipulated, I believe that more and more will get caught, creating a strong deterrent among the riders. Will it ever disappear? Probably not - people are people. :(
As for accepting it, I would rather they continue trying to make it better than just give up and ignore it. Maybe that defines the difference in attitude between a possible loser and a guaranteed one.
What am I going to do? Continue to watch, enjoy the spectacle and performances, and keep hoping for the best. Head banging never seemed to work very well.
(1) Because the domestiques rarely never finish high enough to be tested (unless chosen randomly), they can get away with doping easier. And if you think it doesn't pay for them to dope, think again. These guys need to perform and recover day after day, just like the leaders. If they don't, they don't get paid nearly as much.
(2) The protocols don't catch up. That's like saying the peloton is catching up with the breakaway that is 10 minutes ahead at the 50k point and 15 minutes ahead at the 100k point, because the peloton eventually made it to the 50k and 100k points as well. Yes, years after riders started using method/substance X, the protocols can test for it, and sometimes somebody gets busted when they first employ a new test. But the riders' doctors learn how the test works long before it gets into the protocols. It's not like they develop these tests in secrecy and start using them without warning the riders first. So usually the doctors have already introduced modified doses and new masking agents before the new protocols go into effect.
It is certainly true that riders today cannot use the products they used in 2000 in the same way they did back then. The "system" keeps evolving. I suppose you could argue that that means the testing is "working". I do agree that it is working in the sense that the doping would be even more rampant and the dosages higher if it were not for the testing. The testing helps keep things at a relatively moderate level.
My main objection is to the implication of your "[testing] is just not working well enough yet" assertion. The implication is that testing will eventually be "working well enough" to, presumably, make pro cycling be mostly clean (what else could "working well enough" mean?). I see no evidence of that.
If anything, while the peloton continues to be making progress on the route overall, the gap to the breakaway seems to be growing.
1) Because the doping only really pays off if you win or finish high. And those are the ones being tested (in-competition) the most, and
2) Because while cheaters may find new ways to beat the protocols, the protocols have a way of catching up. It would help if more stringent penalties were levied.
Regardless of the end-arounds you stipulated, I believe that more and more will get caught, creating a strong deterrent among the riders. Will it ever disappear? Probably not - people are people. :(
As for accepting it, I would rather they continue trying to make it better than just give up and ignore it. Maybe that defines the difference in attitude between a possible loser and a guaranteed one.
What am I going to do? Continue to watch, enjoy the spectacle and performances, and keep hoping for the best. Head banging never seemed to work very well.
(1) Because the domestiques rarely never finish high enough to be tested (unless chosen randomly), they can get away with doping easier. And if you think it doesn't pay for them to dope, think again. These guys need to perform and recover day after day, just like the leaders. If they don't, they don't get paid nearly as much.
(2) The protocols don't catch up. That's like saying the peloton is catching up with the breakaway that is 10 minutes ahead at the 50k point and 15 minutes ahead at the 100k point, because the peloton eventually made it to the 50k and 100k points as well. Yes, years after riders started using method/substance X, the protocols can test for it, and sometimes somebody gets busted when they first employ a new test. But the riders' doctors learn how the test works long before it gets into the protocols. It's not like they develop these tests in secrecy and start using them without warning the riders first. So usually the doctors have already introduced modified doses and new masking agents before the new protocols go into effect.
It is certainly true that riders today cannot use the products they used in 2000 in the same way they did back then. The "system" keeps evolving. I suppose you could argue that that means the testing is "working". I do agree that it is working in the sense that the doping would be even more rampant and the dosages higher if it were not for the testing. The testing helps keep things at a relatively moderate level.
My main objection is to the implication of your "[testing] is just not working well enough yet" assertion. The implication is that testing will eventually be "working well enough" to, presumably, make pro cycling be mostly clean (what else could "working well enough" mean?). I see no evidence of that.
If anything, while the peloton continues to be making progress on the route overall, the gap to the breakaway seems to be growing.
gmason
08-07-07, 11:49 AM
I guess we just have to disagree. :p
Helmet Head
08-07-07, 11:50 AM
Not only that, but some teams are taking the initiative as well. Probably in part altruistic, but probably also because they see the well drying up with sponsors unwilling to be associated with the abuses.
Yeah, like Cofidis? :rolleyes:
Remember, in marketing, perception is nearly everything. With respect to sponsors drying up, what's important is giving the appearance of being clean (doping in a manner that does not test "positive"), not actually being clean.
"If it doesn't show up in the drug controls, then it's not doping." -Dr. Michele Ferrari
"EPO is not dangerous, it's the abuse that is. It's also dangerous to drink 10 liters of orange juice." -Dr. Michele Ferrari
"I was disappointed to learn of the Italian court's judgment against Dr. Michele Ferrari. Dr. Ferrari has been a longtime friend and trusted adviser to me and the USPS team, ..." -Lance Armstrong
Yeah, like Cofidis? :rolleyes:
Remember, in marketing, perception is nearly everything. With respect to sponsors drying up, what's important is giving the appearance of being clean (doping in a manner that does not test "positive"), not actually being clean.
"If it doesn't show up in the drug controls, then it's not doping." -Dr. Michele Ferrari
"EPO is not dangerous, it's the abuse that is. It's also dangerous to drink 10 liters of orange juice." -Dr. Michele Ferrari
"I was disappointed to learn of the Italian court's judgment against Dr. Michele Ferrari. Dr. Ferrari has been a longtime friend and trusted adviser to me and the USPS team, ..." -Lance Armstrong
vjp
08-07-07, 12:53 PM
If science can build a better cyclist then why ban it? If everyone is open won't it be safer?
And as far as "tradition" goes, the TDF was created to sell newspapers and has ALWAYS been full of cheaters and deception. Morality? It's entertainment.
And as far as "tradition" goes, the TDF was created to sell newspapers and has ALWAYS been full of cheaters and deception. Morality? It's entertainment.
Helmet Head
08-07-07, 01:02 PM
If science can build a better cyclist then why ban it? If everyone is open won't it be safer?
And as far as "tradition" goes, the TDF was created to sell newspapers and has ALWAYS been full of cheaters and deception. Morality? It's entertainment.
There is something to be said for that. In the end, the rider's health and safety is ultimately his own responsibility. If he chooses to bomb down the twisty descents at the edge of control, that's his choice to make. And if he screws up by overdoing it and launching over the edge, that is his fault.
Doping is arguably similar, except that the cost for overdoing it may not be paid until long after the rider has retired from the sport.
And as far as "tradition" goes, the TDF was created to sell newspapers and has ALWAYS been full of cheaters and deception. Morality? It's entertainment.
There is something to be said for that. In the end, the rider's health and safety is ultimately his own responsibility. If he chooses to bomb down the twisty descents at the edge of control, that's his choice to make. And if he screws up by overdoing it and launching over the edge, that is his fault.
Doping is arguably similar, except that the cost for overdoing it may not be paid until long after the rider has retired from the sport.
gmason
08-07-07, 01:13 PM
Yeah, like Cofidis? :rolleyes: ...
I am 66 years old, and have always considered myself a cynical, half-empty cup type person. So I suppose it is about time I changed. This thread has made me think that perhaps I am a half-full cup person after all. By comparison, anyway. Not a bad thing, I guess.
I came to cycling very late in life, but love it. So regarding the statement by vjp about the TdF being entertainment, I agree wholeheartedly. I have been fortunate enough to attend four or five, and watch more than that on France 1/2. The excitement never wanes for me, even on VS. ;)
But it would be nice if it were fairer from the doping perspective. Fairer for them, and for me. But in the end, it really doesn't matter much to me who wins. It is the journey that counts.
As for the Doping is arguably similar comment, while true that the payment may be later, it still is cheating. If the rules say let them do it, fine (albeit sad). Otherwise it is just cheating plain and simple, and I wish it were otherwise.
I am 66 years old, and have always considered myself a cynical, half-empty cup type person. So I suppose it is about time I changed. This thread has made me think that perhaps I am a half-full cup person after all. By comparison, anyway. Not a bad thing, I guess.
I came to cycling very late in life, but love it. So regarding the statement by vjp about the TdF being entertainment, I agree wholeheartedly. I have been fortunate enough to attend four or five, and watch more than that on France 1/2. The excitement never wanes for me, even on VS. ;)
But it would be nice if it were fairer from the doping perspective. Fairer for them, and for me. But in the end, it really doesn't matter much to me who wins. It is the journey that counts.
As for the Doping is arguably similar comment, while true that the payment may be later, it still is cheating. If the rules say let them do it, fine (albeit sad). Otherwise it is just cheating plain and simple, and I wish it were otherwise.
Helmet Head
08-07-07, 02:17 PM
I am 66 years old, and have always considered myself a cynical, half-empty cup type person. So I suppose it is about time I changed. This thread has made me think that perhaps I am a half-full cup person after all. By comparison, anyway. Not a bad thing, I guess.
I came to cycling very late in life, but love it. So regarding the statement by vjp about the TdF being entertainment, I agree wholeheartedly. I have been fortunate enough to attend four or five, and watch more than that on France 1/2. The excitement never wanes for me, even on VS. ;)
But it would be nice if it were fairer from the doping perspective. Fairer for them, and for me. But in the end, it really doesn't matter much to me who wins. It is the journey that counts.
:beer: :beer: :beer:
I cannot agree more. These tribalistic "Discovery fans" bug me. I do of course have favorites, and like to see them do well, but in the end I truly like to see the best man win, no matter who he is.
As for the Doping is arguably similar comment, while true that the payment may be later, it still is cheating. If the rules say let them do it, fine (albeit sad). Otherwise it is just cheating plain and simple, and I wish it were otherwise.
I agree it's cheating and wish it were otherwise. But I also understand why the riders don't see it that way.
I came to cycling very late in life, but love it. So regarding the statement by vjp about the TdF being entertainment, I agree wholeheartedly. I have been fortunate enough to attend four or five, and watch more than that on France 1/2. The excitement never wanes for me, even on VS. ;)
But it would be nice if it were fairer from the doping perspective. Fairer for them, and for me. But in the end, it really doesn't matter much to me who wins. It is the journey that counts.
:beer: :beer: :beer:
I cannot agree more. These tribalistic "Discovery fans" bug me. I do of course have favorites, and like to see them do well, but in the end I truly like to see the best man win, no matter who he is.
As for the Doping is arguably similar comment, while true that the payment may be later, it still is cheating. If the rules say let them do it, fine (albeit sad). Otherwise it is just cheating plain and simple, and I wish it were otherwise.
I agree it's cheating and wish it were otherwise. But I also understand why the riders don't see it that way.
gmason
08-07-07, 03:09 PM
... But I also understand why the riders don't see it that way.
Me too. The good news is that some of the younger riders are seeing it that way. Or at least they are in agreement that it shouldn't be done. Perhaps out of a sense of self preservation (from more than one source of danger). But in any case, it looks to me like a move in the right direction. One lives in hope.
Me too. The good news is that some of the younger riders are seeing it that way. Or at least they are in agreement that it shouldn't be done. Perhaps out of a sense of self preservation (from more than one source of danger). But in any case, it looks to me like a move in the right direction. One lives in hope.
alanbikehouston
08-07-07, 03:20 PM
How much is a "ticket" to the "Tour de France"? And, what does the total "prize" money work out to on a "per team" or "per rider" basis?
Pro cycling is kept alive by the sponsors. Except for the Mafia, or a record label specializing in "rap" music, precisely who will sponsor cycling if "doping" was legalized?
As it is, Discovery has been unable to recruit a new major sponsor, and they have never had a rider suspended for failing an "in season" official test. If a team with the "cleanest" reputation in cycling can find new sponsors, you gotta know that the dirty teams are having are REALLY difficult time.
Pro cycling is kept alive by the sponsors. Except for the Mafia, or a record label specializing in "rap" music, precisely who will sponsor cycling if "doping" was legalized?
As it is, Discovery has been unable to recruit a new major sponsor, and they have never had a rider suspended for failing an "in season" official test. If a team with the "cleanest" reputation in cycling can find new sponsors, you gotta know that the dirty teams are having are REALLY difficult time.
Helmet Head
08-07-07, 03:38 PM
Me too. The good news is that some of the younger riders are seeing it that way. Or at least they are in agreement that it shouldn't be done. Perhaps out of a sense of self preservation (from more than one source of danger). But in any case, it looks to me like a move in the right direction. One lives in hope.
All we know is that some of the younger rider claim to be seeing it that way. I've seen way too many riders make all kinds of anti-doping claims, only to be busted for doping some time later to simply takes these guys at face. Heck that Cofidis guy, Moreni, was participating in the sit-in against doping right before he got busted!
Speaking of Moreni, there is an example of a regular rider, not someone who is riding for GC or even stage wins, who was doping. Is he typical or an anomaly?
All we know is that some of the younger rider claim to be seeing it that way. I've seen way too many riders make all kinds of anti-doping claims, only to be busted for doping some time later to simply takes these guys at face. Heck that Cofidis guy, Moreni, was participating in the sit-in against doping right before he got busted!
Speaking of Moreni, there is an example of a regular rider, not someone who is riding for GC or even stage wins, who was doping. Is he typical or an anomaly?
USAZorro
08-07-07, 04:12 PM
... As it is, Discovery has been unable to recruit a new major sponsor, and they have never had a rider suspended for failing an "in season" official test. If a team with the "cleanest" reputation in cycling can find new sponsors, you gotta know that the dirty teams are having are REALLY difficult time.
Are you sure of this, or might they have the new sponsor lined up and are just waiting until the proper time to make the announcement?
Are you sure of this, or might they have the new sponsor lined up and are just waiting until the proper time to make the announcement?
bikingshearer
08-07-07, 04:17 PM
Speaking of Moreni, there is an example of a regular rider, not someone who is riding for GC or even stage wins, who was doping. Is he typical or an anomaly?
My guess - and it is only that - is that he may not be typical but is certainly far from alone.
You have to remember the social strata from which most European bike racers are drawn. They have historically come from the ranks of the working poor - the miners, the factory workers, the barely-scraping-by farmers. (Fausto Coppi had fragile bones and suffered more than his share of fractures because he grew up in a poor home and had ricketts and borderline malnutrition througout his childhood.) Being a pro means a chance to retire with enough set aside to open a bike shop or a restaurant or some other small business and join the ranks of the (lower) middle class in their home town or village. Most pro bike racers did - and largely still do - look a lot like most pro baseball players in the first half of the 20th Century. 99% of these guys are not vying for glory - they are killing themselves to get and keep the best paying job they have any shot at and are desparately trying to get ahead in the world. The incentives to dope and keep that place in the peloton vs. riding clean and losing that all-important contract are pretty obvious, have been well-documented since the Pellesier brothers spilled the beans in the 1920's, and were likely in place no later than the second or third bike race ever held.
Greg Lemond was an anomaly to the Euros not just because he was American, but because he was the product of an upper-middle class home, something his working-class teammates had trouble relating to. Remember, Laurent Fignon was also consider something of an oddball because (1) he came from Paris, not the countryside or some small village, and (2) he actually read books - by choice. Lance Armstrong comes a lot closer to the typical Euro-pro in terms of socio-economic background than do most American pro racers.
So never make the mistake of thinking that only the top dogs have an incentive to dope. The big stars will get the latest and greatest, but there has always been "little helpers" for the gregarios and domestiques, too.
My guess - and it is only that - is that he may not be typical but is certainly far from alone.
You have to remember the social strata from which most European bike racers are drawn. They have historically come from the ranks of the working poor - the miners, the factory workers, the barely-scraping-by farmers. (Fausto Coppi had fragile bones and suffered more than his share of fractures because he grew up in a poor home and had ricketts and borderline malnutrition througout his childhood.) Being a pro means a chance to retire with enough set aside to open a bike shop or a restaurant or some other small business and join the ranks of the (lower) middle class in their home town or village. Most pro bike racers did - and largely still do - look a lot like most pro baseball players in the first half of the 20th Century. 99% of these guys are not vying for glory - they are killing themselves to get and keep the best paying job they have any shot at and are desparately trying to get ahead in the world. The incentives to dope and keep that place in the peloton vs. riding clean and losing that all-important contract are pretty obvious, have been well-documented since the Pellesier brothers spilled the beans in the 1920's, and were likely in place no later than the second or third bike race ever held.
Greg Lemond was an anomaly to the Euros not just because he was American, but because he was the product of an upper-middle class home, something his working-class teammates had trouble relating to. Remember, Laurent Fignon was also consider something of an oddball because (1) he came from Paris, not the countryside or some small village, and (2) he actually read books - by choice. Lance Armstrong comes a lot closer to the typical Euro-pro in terms of socio-economic background than do most American pro racers.
So never make the mistake of thinking that only the top dogs have an incentive to dope. The big stars will get the latest and greatest, but there has always been "little helpers" for the gregarios and domestiques, too.
Helmet Head
08-07-07, 04:27 PM
My guess - and it is only that - is that he may not be typical but is certainly far from alone.
You have to remember the social strata from which most European bike racers are drawn. They have historically come from the ranks of the working poor - the miners, the factory workers, the barely-scraping-by farmers. (Fausto Coppi had fragile bones and suffered more than his share of fractures because he grew up in a poor home and had ricketts and borderline malnutrition througout his childhood.) Being a pro means a chance to retire with enough set aside to open a bike shop or a restaurant or some other small business and join the ranks of the (lower) middle class in their home town or village. Most pro bike racers did - and largely still do - look a lot like most pro baseball players in the first half of the 20th Century. 99% of these guys are not vying for glory - they are killing themselves to get and keep the best paying job they have any shot at and are desparately trying to get ahead in the world. The incentives to dope and keep that place in the peloton vs. riding clean and losing that all-important contract are pretty obvious, have been well-documented since the Pellesier brothers spilled the beans in the 1920's, and were likely in place no later than the second or third bike race ever held.
Greg Lemond was an anomaly to the Euros not just because he was American, but because he was the product of an upper-middle class home, something his working-class teammates had trouble relating to. Remember, Laurent Fignon was also consider something of an oddball because (1) he came from Paris, not the countryside or some small village, and (2) he actually read books - by choice. Lance Armstrong comes a lot closer to the typical Euro-pro in terms of socio-economic background than do most American pro racers.
So never make the mistake of thinking that only the top dogs have an incentive to dope. The big stars will get the latest and greatest, but there has always been "little helpers" for the gregarios and domestiques, too.
I'm sorry but I'm so tired of this "social strata" argument. While it's true many euro cyclists are from that background, I think it has little to do with why they dope.
I have two words for you:
Tyler Hamilton
You have to remember the social strata from which most European bike racers are drawn. They have historically come from the ranks of the working poor - the miners, the factory workers, the barely-scraping-by farmers. (Fausto Coppi had fragile bones and suffered more than his share of fractures because he grew up in a poor home and had ricketts and borderline malnutrition througout his childhood.) Being a pro means a chance to retire with enough set aside to open a bike shop or a restaurant or some other small business and join the ranks of the (lower) middle class in their home town or village. Most pro bike racers did - and largely still do - look a lot like most pro baseball players in the first half of the 20th Century. 99% of these guys are not vying for glory - they are killing themselves to get and keep the best paying job they have any shot at and are desparately trying to get ahead in the world. The incentives to dope and keep that place in the peloton vs. riding clean and losing that all-important contract are pretty obvious, have been well-documented since the Pellesier brothers spilled the beans in the 1920's, and were likely in place no later than the second or third bike race ever held.
Greg Lemond was an anomaly to the Euros not just because he was American, but because he was the product of an upper-middle class home, something his working-class teammates had trouble relating to. Remember, Laurent Fignon was also consider something of an oddball because (1) he came from Paris, not the countryside or some small village, and (2) he actually read books - by choice. Lance Armstrong comes a lot closer to the typical Euro-pro in terms of socio-economic background than do most American pro racers.
So never make the mistake of thinking that only the top dogs have an incentive to dope. The big stars will get the latest and greatest, but there has always been "little helpers" for the gregarios and domestiques, too.
I'm sorry but I'm so tired of this "social strata" argument. While it's true many euro cyclists are from that background, I think it has little to do with why they dope.
I have two words for you:
Tyler Hamilton
tcs
08-07-07, 04:52 PM
Why not let 'em stick pumps in each other's spokes? I mean, talk about entertaining!
TCS
TCS
Dolomiti
08-07-07, 06:35 PM
Why not let 'em stick pumps in each other's spokes? I mean, talk about entertaining!
TCS
The riders should be allowed to hitch rides on trains through parts of stages. I mean it's tradition. They did it in 1904 so they should be allowed to do it today.
TCS
The riders should be allowed to hitch rides on trains through parts of stages. I mean it's tradition. They did it in 1904 so they should be allowed to do it today.
Michigan
08-07-07, 07:14 PM
Why not let 'em stick pumps in each other's spokes? I mean, talk about entertaining!
TCS
Cycling as a contact sport? Intriguing thought. Let's structure them like old time hockey, bring in thugs and see what happens. Hudson brothers?
Can you punch a guy out on a bike and still remain upright I wonder? I'll have to experiment sometime.:)
TCS
Cycling as a contact sport? Intriguing thought. Let's structure them like old time hockey, bring in thugs and see what happens. Hudson brothers?
Can you punch a guy out on a bike and still remain upright I wonder? I'll have to experiment sometime.:)
VT Biker
08-07-07, 07:28 PM
If science can build a better cyclist then why ban it? If everyone is open won't it be safer?
And as far as "tradition" goes, the TDF was created to sell newspapers and has ALWAYS been full of cheaters and deception. Morality? It's entertainment.
:crash::crash::crash:
Wow - do you realize that the first death of a major rider is going to be the end of the sport? Are you that naive. Without the controls, you will have riders trying to above the 50 hemocrit level on an regular basis. And, if you cannot win at 50, why not push it to 60 hemocrit level?
I think this is a horrible idea.
And as far as "tradition" goes, the TDF was created to sell newspapers and has ALWAYS been full of cheaters and deception. Morality? It's entertainment.
:crash::crash::crash:
Wow - do you realize that the first death of a major rider is going to be the end of the sport? Are you that naive. Without the controls, you will have riders trying to above the 50 hemocrit level on an regular basis. And, if you cannot win at 50, why not push it to 60 hemocrit level?
I think this is a horrible idea.
vjp
08-07-07, 08:32 PM
:crash::crash::crash:
Wow - do you realize that the first death of a major rider is going to be the end of the sport? Are you that naive. Without the controls, you will have riders trying to above the 50 hemocrit level on an regular basis. And, if you cannot win at 50, why not push it to 60 hemocrit level?
I think this is a horrible idea.
I don't, I think it's reality. Lot's of riders are doping now and they are not dying, why would they start to die if they had the best that modern science had to offer?
Wow - do you realize that the first death of a major rider is going to be the end of the sport? Are you that naive. Without the controls, you will have riders trying to above the 50 hemocrit level on an regular basis. And, if you cannot win at 50, why not push it to 60 hemocrit level?
I think this is a horrible idea.
I don't, I think it's reality. Lot's of riders are doping now and they are not dying, why would they start to die if they had the best that modern science had to offer?
gmason
08-07-07, 08:45 PM
The fact is that some are dying. In their sleep. At the dentist's office while paying their bill. From accidental (?) ODs. Etc.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.