Professional Cycling For the Fans - Ivan Basso

Regardless of who is a doper and who is not; cycling even with current testing, still tacitly encourages doping. If a former PROVEN doper can get a sponsorship deal with one of the biggest companies, enough is not being done to clean it from the sport.

People are forgiving as a whole, so eventually most of them will find cycling related work under the current system. The biggest names dont all go from "donkey to clydesdale" as Armstrong said in his twitter last week. Even after disgracing themselves, there had to be something in them that got them to the point where steroids made them a winner. Even if I EPO'ed, whatever, I still couldn't outride anyone in the peloton.

UCI or whoever can't stop someone from making a living, but they can do things to make it harder for them to do it officially as part of professional cycling. The punishments are generally not severe enough, or organized well enough. Hamilton got a deserved ban for choosing to take something (for whatever reason) that caused another non-negative.

If you non-negative it should be a universal 2 year ban the first time, the second time, it should be lifetime, not some limited number of years. LIFETIME. No involvement with the sport in any way, at any time, ever as part of any team actually racing. Write books, make tools, teach clinics to kids on why not to dope, fine. But no organized involvement, no "coaching", NOTHING.

In fact, they can go futher: If your product is one that is used in the pro-tours governed by the various bodies, whether a bike, equipment, etc. you cannot have a person who has acheived a binding non-negative as an endorser.

If you have a prescription, and it's validated, then you can take what a doctor prescribes. There are valid reasons to take some of the drugs used illictly in the peloton, and some of those reasons may happen to riders.

Anything else you take is on you. There of course should be appeals, like whats going on in the NFL right now. Two linemen took something that is said to have a masking agent in it. But when they took it, nothing on the label told them it had it in it, AND the previous sample of the product tested cleanly by the leagues lab. They SHOULD NOT be punished, even though they non-negatived. There is only so much we can do to protect ourselves from the things around us.

If you follow the protocol, and the protocol fails you, thats NOT on you, but everything else is.

And finally, unless someone non-negatives in test officially, supposition should stop. It distracts us from the real reasons we watch the sport. It also doesnt attract new followers to it.

Its not as cut and dry as this unfortunately.
Lance apparently had a positive test on his first Tour, but a prescription meant he was off the hook for example. If you were to be harsh and put an end to doping this would not have been tolerated. EPO, a big problem, could not be tested for the longest time, and is still being figured out. The thing is, if an athlete trains at altitude, they could get a "positive" test....their hematocrit level could be above 50% for using an altitude tent, then what? IGF-1 LR3, which someone might use, actually changes your genetic make up, all you would need is a year or two off the bike and a seemingly fight back up to the top to do it. Then what?

Drugs are becoming more and more powerful and undetectable that its hard pressed to see if there is any way to fight it. People winning 7 tours in a row meanwhile people getting axed left, right and center for all sorts of doping methods including genetic altering makes you wonder how you could ever get rid of doping in the sport doesnt it?

Its not as cut and dry as this unfortunately.
Lance apparently had a positive test on his first Tour, but a prescription meant he was off the hook for example. If you were to be harsh and put an end to doping this would not have been tolerated. EPO, a big problem, could not be tested for the longest time, and is still being figured out. The thing is, if an athlete trains at altitude, they could get a "positive" test....their hematocrit level could be above 50% for using an altitude tent, then what? IGF-1 LR3, which someone might use, actually changes your genetic make up, all you would need is a year or two off the bike and a seemingly fight back up to the top to do it. Then what?

Drugs are becoming more and more powerful and undetectable that its hard pressed to see if there is any way to fight it. People winning 7 tours in a row meanwhile people getting axed left, right and center for all sorts of doping methods including genetic altering makes you wonder how you could ever get rid of doping in the sport doesnt it?

Two things you are neglecting:

1. The prescription Armstrong had was valid. Also, the result that you call "positive" was so low as to be outside of the non-negative range. Therefore, even without the prescription, he wouldn't have been stopped from riding. His prescription simply explained why there was ever a reading.

2. Every body is different. Could armstrong be doping right this very minute? sure, I mean anything is possible. But your issue seems to stem from the fact that he won 7 tours, and everyone else is doping and he beat them, so he HAS to be.

Let's look at a few other cases in sports:

Tiger Woods. Last year, he won the hardest tournament in golf on a broken leg with basically no knee to help take the pain off the leg. He was clearly in pain the whole time, and yet he did it. He is in the best shape of any golfer on the course, he trains hard and drives himself to a level between talent and will that other people can't reach. Is he doping?

LeBron James. He is a physical freak. He regularly hits shots, that others cant, he embodies everything that is good about being a basketball athlete. he's like a freaking robot. He trains, he works hard, he does the little things. He is arguably the best at his sport at a VERY young age. Is he doping?

Take the altitude issue. Document the training. If you're training at altitude, then they have to disregard that test result under a certain threshold. Like I said, there are exceptions, and people will look for loopholes. But if you impose lifetime bans, and you show you're willing to be strong but fair, it will get people in line more quickly.

As for a drug that changes your genetic makeup, there has to be a way to test for that. Make sure dual samples are taken by the rider and the lab, stored independantly under independant control, double blind, with universal procedures for all testing. Plus, when new tests come out, the lab can use the samples to control past results.

Two things you are neglecting:

1. The prescription Armstrong had was valid. Also, the result that you call "positive" was so low as to be outside of the non-negative range. Therefore, even without the prescription, he wouldn't have been stopped from riding. His prescription simply explained why there was ever a reading.

Valid prescription? What does that mean?

The facts are that there are unscrupulous doctors in the world and that one of them wrote a backdated prescription for a saddle sore cream. Dr. Ferrari is a medical doctor you know and no one has accused him of being scrupulous except LA. You don't think the USPS doctor at that time (was it Pedro Celaya?) had any hesitation about covering for LA?

Documentary evidence had LA denying that he needed a TUE for anything before his positive for Corticoids was returned. It's considered a positive drug control by the UCI in spite of all of your making stuff up, to the contrary.

All of your other stuff about Tiger, LeBron, and anyone else is just subjective nonsense, produced to obfuscate LA's obvious doping.

It's sad you have to believe in LA mythology.:love:

Two things you are neglecting:

1. The prescription Armstrong had was valid. Also, the result that you call "positive" was so low as to be outside of the non-negative range. Therefore, even without the prescription, he wouldn't have been stopped from riding. His prescription simply explained why there was ever a reading.

2. Every body is different. Could armstrong be doping right this very minute? sure, I mean anything is possible. But your issue seems to stem from the fact that he won 7 tours, and everyone else is doping and he beat them, so he HAS to be.

Let's look at a few other cases in sports:

Tiger Woods. Last year, he won the hardest tournament in golf on a broken leg with basically no knee to help take the pain off the leg. He was clearly in pain the whole time, and yet he did it. He is in the best shape of any golfer on the course, he trains hard and drives himself to a level between talent and will that other people can't reach. Is he doping?

LeBron James. He is a physical freak. He regularly hits shots, that others cant, he embodies everything that is good about being a basketball athlete. he's like a freaking robot. He trains, he works hard, he does the little things. He is arguably the best at his sport at a VERY young age. Is he doping?

Take the altitude issue. Document the training. If you're training at altitude, then they have to disregard that test result under a certain threshold. Like I said, there are exceptions, and people will look for loopholes. But if you impose lifetime bans, and you show you're willing to be strong but fair, it will get people in line more quickly.

As for a drug that changes your genetic makeup, there has to be a way to test for that. Make sure dual samples are taken by the rider and the lab, stored independantly under independant control, double blind, with universal procedures for all testing. Plus, when new tests come out, the lab can use the samples to control past results.

LOL, you make me laugh.
You must be very young. You dont seem to understand the power and capabilities of money, LOL.

And by the way, Tiger Woods plays a sport thats predominantly motor skill driven, not physically and cardiovascularly driven. What kind of drugs would you expect Tiger Woods to take to become a better golfer, LOL you make me laugh, really you do. Look, the average V02 Max for a pro Golf player is in the 40-50 range, Basketball is 40-60 range, your beloved football is 42-60; do you know what cycling is? 62-84. Basically, the cycling V02 Max average starts where the basketball and football ends....... You make me laugh, oh boy do you make me laugh.

LOL, you make me laugh.
You must be very young. You dont seem to understand the power and capabilities of money, LOL.

And by the way, Tiger Woods plays a sport thats predominantly motor skill driven, not physically and cardiovascularly driven. What kind of drugs would you expect Tiger Woods to take to become a better golfer, LOL you make me laugh, really you do. Look, the average V02 Max for a pro Golf player is in the 40-50 range, Basketball is 40-60 range, your beloved football is 42-60; do you know what cycling is? 62-84. Basically, the cycling V02 Max average starts where the basketball and football ends....... You make me laugh, oh boy do you make me laugh.


I'm not that young, and I guess you don't understand power and money. Tiger Woods is the #1 richest athelete in the world according to Forbes, the list just came out this week. So if anyone has the money and power to get away with something it's Tiger.

Then, you tear down my opinion but only pick one stat (V02) out of hundreds against yours to argue. Sure there's a reason why drugs COULD help someone in the pro tours, but everyones body responds different. We don't even know that it absolutely would provide a serious boost to every rider on tour.

As just one example, Tiger Woods could use steroids to recover better between tournaments, or he could have used them to help fight off all that pain in his knee by building muscle around it.

LeBron James could use it to get stronger, have more endurance.

Yet, these two athletes, and some others like them have no need. they can be the best at thier sport without help.

Also, football isn't "my beloved" I'm in the cycling forum, just like you, so don't talk down to me as some stereotypical american. I could easily call you stereotypical in you anti-american attitudes, but I wont.

Again, you have no argument for my point. There are just some athletes who are better than the rest, even unaided by drugs. You cannot prove that Armstrong isn't one of them. The only test he's ever "failed" he had a valid prescription to account for it, and his number was so low it didnt qualify as failing anyways. But I love how you ignore both of those parts.

I'm not that young, and I guess you don't understand power and money. Tiger Woods is the #1 richest athelete in the world according to Forbes, the list just came out this week. So if anyone has the money and power to get away with something it's Tiger.

Then, you tear down my opinion but only pick one stat (V02) out of hundreds against yours to argue. Sure there's a reason why drugs COULD help someone in the pro tours, but everyones body responds different. We don't even know that it absolutely would provide a serious boost to every rider on tour.

As just one example, Tiger Woods could use steroids to recover better between tournaments, or he could have used them to help fight off all that pain in his knee by building muscle around it.

LeBron James could use it to get stronger, have more endurance.

Yet, these two athletes, and some others like them have no need. they can be the best at thier sport without help.

Also, football isn't "my beloved" I'm in the cycling forum, just like you, so don't talk down to me as some stereotypical american. I could easily call you stereotypical in you anti-american attitudes, but I wont.

Again, you have no argument for my point. There are just some athletes who are better than the rest, even unaided by drugs. You cannot prove that Armstrong isn't one of them. The only test he's ever "failed" he had a valid prescription to account for it, and his number was so low it didnt qualify as failing anyways. But I love how you ignore both of those parts.


I dont think you really need steroids to swing a gold club. Its more how accurate you can point the ball towards the hole with your stroke. Using steroids to recover from a knee injury wouldnt make Tiger a better or worse golfer. You must have missed my point. ;)
Cycling for the main part physical, golf, more motor skills. You can write 30 paragraphs if you like, thats not going to change that fact.
My football comments are not anti-american. There is pretty much one country that plays american football seriously. Are you saying that the world is anti-american? You dont like American football?

As for Lance being better than the rest, so much so that he can win 7 tours in a row.....
Well, you obviously didnt watch him race before cancer did you?

As for Lance being better than the rest, so much so that he can win 7 tours in a row.....
Well, you obviously didnt watch him race before cancer did you?

Actually, I did. The cancer defined him. It helped him figure out who he was and what he wanted. He became more focused, more obsessed. he got more of what he wanted out of life. Serious illness does that to people. I know.

I dont think you really need steroids to swing a gold club. Its more how accurate you can point the ball towards the hole with your stroke. Using steroids to recover from a knee injury wouldnt make Tiger a better or worse golfer. You must have missed my point. ;)


and evidently you missed mine. His knee was so bad he shouldnt have been playing. If he wanted to avoid the surgery at all cost, he could have resorted to doping in terms of building leg stregth to get through the pain, and recover from the time on the course.

Actually, I did. The cancer defined him. It helped him figure out who he was and what he wanted. He became more focused, more obsessed. he got more of what he wanted out of life. Serious illness does that to people. I know.

You have a point.

- LeMond, hunting accident, came back won 2 more times

- Lance, cancer, came back won 7 times

- Marco Pantani, bike accident, told could never walk again, came back and won both Tour and Giro same year

- Johan Museeuw, shattered his knee, came back and won Paris-Roubaix twice, HEW cyclassics e.t.c

Well, seems like thats the way to go.
By the way, food for thought: whenever you get stricken down like that, (major injury or illness requiring hormone treatment) wouldnt it be a grand if one could legally be prescribed powerful drugs/hormone therapy that are all on the banned list? Heck, the worse the injury/illness, the more powerful "treatment" you can get. Genetic altering therapy such as IGF-1 LR3 perhaps?

In any event, you are right. Major injuries/illness definitely help one focus and come back to produce results you never once got for years before. Makes perfect sense.

You have a point.

- LeMond, hunting accident, came back won 2 more times

- Lance, cancer, came back won 7 times

- Marco Pantani, bike accident, told could never walk again, came back and won both Tour and Giro same year

- Johan Museeuw, shattered his knee, came back and won Paris-Roubaix twice, HEW cyclassics e.t.c

Well, seems like thats the way to go.
By the way, food for thought: whenever you get stricken down like that, (major injury or illness requiring hormone treatment) wouldnt it be a grand if one could legally be prescribed powerful drugs/hormone therapy that are all on the banned list? Heck, the worse the injury/illness, the more powerful "treatment" you can get. Genetic altering therapy such as IGF-1 LR3 perhaps?

In any event, you are right. Major injuries/illness definitely help one focus and come back to produce results you never once got for years before. Makes perfect sense.

Why does a that young Belgian cyclist who suffered a cracked vertebrae and twisted pelvis that many think eventually shortened his career? He only won 9 more Major Tours after that.

and evidently you missed mine. His knee was so bad he shouldnt have been playing. If he wanted to avoid the surgery at all cost, he could have resorted to doping in terms of building leg stregth to get through the pain, and recover from the time on the course.

How do you know he hadn't taken a cortisone shot or something?

Actually, I did. The cancer defined him. It helped him figure out who he was and what he wanted. He became more focused, more obsessed. he got more of what he wanted out of life. Serious illness does that to people. I know.

+1 on this. My brother in law's life has changed dramatically after his battle with cancer and seeing my mother lost to cancer. His focus on what ever he is doing is very inspiring. He lives life to the fullest as if today is his last day on earth.

How do you know he hadn't taken a cortisone shot or something?

Thats my exact point. He may well have pursued every legal means to improve his performance enough to allow him to continue playing. Until he tests negatively in an event or uniformly in a controled environment with a new test on a stored sample we have to assume he is clean. Im using Tiger merely as an example. any player, any sport, this applies to.

Thats my exact point. He may well have pursued every legal means to improve his performance enough to allow him to continue playing. Until he tests negatively in an event or uniformly in a controled environment with a new test on a stored sample we have to assume he is clean. Im using Tiger merely as an example. any player, any sport, this applies to.

I meant Tiger.

+1 on this. My brother in law's life has changed dramatically after his battle with cancer and seeing my mother lost to cancer. His focus on what ever he is doing is very inspiring. He lives life to the fullest as if today is his last day on earth.

Agreed.

Now, if only winning the TDF was as easy as that.

Regardless of who is a doper and who is not; cycling even with current testing, still tacitly encourages doping. If a former PROVEN doper can get a sponsorship deal with one of the biggest companies, enough is not being done to clean it from the sport.To me that's like saying: "the criminal justice system tacitly encourages GTA becasue a proven car thief wll be allowed back into society where he can steal again."

Actually, I did. The cancer defined him. ...

It also changed his body shape. He was built more like a linebacker pre-cancer, with lots of upper body mass. The chemo cost him muscle mass everywhere but he only replaced his lower-body mass. He's still remarkably broad-shouldered for a cyclist - I can often spot him in the peleton.

It also changed his body shape. He was built more like a linebacker pre-cancer, with lots of upper body mass. The chemo cost him muscle mass everywhere but he only replaced his lower-body mass......

More like hormone treatment enabled him to train his legs while legally being on prescription.