Professional Cycling For the Fans - Nobody's been busted for doping this year.

Either they got the hint or got better hiding it. Personally, I think (hope) they got the hint.

There's still time...

yeah it's only the first week... though i really long for the day when they are all actually riding clean (and i do believe it can happen)

You and others might be unaware of there not being anyone busted for doping this year, but it doesn't mean that there has not been any doping. In fact, there were riders that were banned from competing THIS year in the Tour de France because of doping. How could you miss that?

During his Tour wins*, Armstrong claimed that widespread doping in the pro peloton was a myth. He always said how he believed in cycling and that the people watching were witnessing real performances by real riders. Over a short course of two years, many of his competitors and even teammates were busted for EPO and other performance-enhancing drugs.

Just because one man says that there is no doping, does not mean that there is no doping.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/the_bonus/07/07/tour/2.html

ixnay on the opingday

There's still time...

Landis didn't get busted till after the tour.

ed rader

Landis didn't get busted till after the tour.

ed rader

Bingo, the testers learned to keep good samples for years. These days even if you beat the system now, they will catch up with you later.

Landis didn't get busted till after the tour.

ed rader

I think they were stupid not to learn this lesson earlier on.
Ban people AFTER the Tour. By then people dont care and we are focused on the next race.
The image of cycling is saved. Win - win situation for everyone.

I ought to apply to rocket-science school damn.

Bingo, the testers learned to keep good samples for years. These days even if you beat the system now, they will catch up with you later.

And this practice is going to haunt us for decades. Just imagine what effect former riders are going to suffer when they learn that 2 or 3 of the team they were sent home from test + for that season, years later? How many guys are going to be left wondering how much more they could have earned and how many podiums they could have stood on if they guy who won hadn't been included in the equation years earlier?

Test today's sample, with today's technology, for today's known and identifiable substances?

I don't care about whether we're aware that something exists or not. Don't outlaw it until we can identify and test for it. Then, use the ultimate punishments to make today's results count. What we learn in the future is immaterial.

You and others might be unaware of there not being anyone busted for doping this year, but it doesn't mean that there has not been any doping. In fact, there were riders that were banned from competing THIS year in the Tour de France because of doping. How could you miss that?

During his Tour wins*, Armstrong claimed that widespread doping in the pro peloton was a myth. He always said how he believed in cycling and that the people watching were witnessing real performances by real riders. Over a short course of two years, many of his competitors and even teammates were busted for EPO and other performance-enhancing drugs.

Just because one man says that there is no doping, does not mean that there is no doping.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/the_bonus/07/07/tour/2.html

Did you even read the original post? (Rhetorical. Please don't answer.) Or were you looking for something that wasn't there? (Again I'm already aware of the answer.)

blahblahblah...

In fact, there were riders that were banned from competing THIS year in the Tour de France because of doping. How could you miss that?

...blahblahblah



I missed it? :wtf:

I missed it? :wtf:

It's non-news, there are always banned riders somewhere. He is till not disputing the fact that no riders were caught during the tour this year.

And this practice is going to haunt us for decades. Just imagine what effect former riders are going to suffer when they learn that 2 or 3 of the team they were sent home from test + for that season, years later? How many guys are going to be left wondering how much more they could have earned and how many podiums they could have stood on if they guy who won hadn't been included in the equation years earlier?

Test today's sample, with today's technology, for today's known and identifiable substances?

I don't care about whether we're aware that something exists or not. Don't outlaw it until we can identify and test for it. Then, use the ultimate punishments to make today's results count. What we learn in the future is immaterial.

Keeping these samples for years is going to end up causing far more problems than solving any. I've worked in a field where drug testing was done and the chain of custody issues and possibility for fark ups is astonishing, not to mention false positives can run in the 25% range. I say they throw the samples out a month or so after the tour has finished. Keeping those samples around is begging for trouble. If you cannot detect it now then throw in the towel and call it good. Having worked around drug testing I would not trust any test results that were over 1 month old and even then I'd want to look at the chain of custody documentation very carefully.

landis didn't get busted till after the tour.

Ed rader

the word landis makes me laugh.

At least a fair percentage of the busts are from where guys have been using all along and push the limits on an important stage.

Only one so far that looked like a likely possibility, but in the end it turned out not to have big time on offer. So anyone who pushed the limit on that one would just have stayed out of the top 3 and take the minimal risk of a random test.

Also it seems the game is getting more complicated. The riders use harder to detect stuff and it seems it often needs followup or time consuming tests. There could already be a positive waiting for confimation.

I think they were stupid not to learn this lesson earlier on.
Ban people AFTER the Tour. By then people dont care and we are focused on the next race.
The image of cycling is saved. Win - win situation for everyone.

I totally disagree.

Shame the miscreant while the eyes of the world are on him. And legitimize the winner. To this day few people consider Periero to be a legitimate Tour winner.

I think they were stupid not to learn this lesson earlier on.
Ban people AFTER the Tour. By then people dont care and we are focused on the next race.
The image of cycling is saved. Win - win situation for everyone.

I ought to apply to rocket-science school damn.

The Landis positive after the tour was due to the late stage he tested positive on, and the time gap between sample collecting and test results. That time gap has come down significantly. (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-afld-running-targeted-testing-at-tour)

I totally disagree.

Shame the miscreant while the eyes of the world are on him. And legitimize the winner. To this day few people consider Periero to be a legitimate Tour winner.

If Lance tested positive today, the Tour might get so chaotic, it might not see Paris. You really think 170+ other riders should suffer a media frenzy because of one cheat who got caught?

Not only that, if one person gets caught and the media has its frenzy it paints ALL the riders in a bad light these days. Innocent people are damned to hell.

Maybe some years ago that would have been the wy to go, but the sport is so tainted now, if one person goes to the gallows, its pretty much everyone.

Your point has long been that the uncaught riders are not innocent.

If Lance tested positive today, the Tour might get so chaotic, it might not see Paris. You really think 170+ other riders should suffer a media frenzy because of one cheat who got caught?

Not only that, if one person gets caught and the media has its frenzy it paints ALL the riders in a bad light these days. Innocent people are damned to hell.

Maybe some years ago that would have been the wy to go, but the sport is so tainted now, if one person goes to the gallows, its pretty much everyone.

I think you're a bit off the mark and here's why - a much bigger scandal would be if someone tested positive and no one did anything about it. THAT would undermine EVERYTHING.

I think they will bust anyone who's dirty, including LA (and I am familiar with your opinions on LA). I could be wrong but dirty riders is one thing, dirty testing procedure is another, and far more alarming. Some testing organization witholds dirty tests? Holy cow man that would be the death blow for cycling. LA gets a dirty test, that's a death blow to LA and a big black eye (and a wedgie) to cycling.

It's non-news, there are always banned riders somewhere. He is till not disputing the fact that no riders were caught during the tour this year.

Well, it's not for his lack of trying...:lol:

It would be great to see the tour make it all the way to Paris without someone getting tossed. But I'm not naive either.

new thread w/ poll: "who will get caught doping this year?"

I think you're a bit off the mark and here's why - a much bigger scandal would be if someone tested positive and no one did anything about it. THAT would undermine EVERYTHING.

I think they will bust anyone who's dirty, including LA (and I am familiar with your opinions on LA). I could be wrong but dirty riders is one thing, dirty testing procedure is another, and far more alarming. Some testing organization witholds dirty tests? Holy cow man that would be the death blow for cycling. LA gets a dirty test, that's a death blow to LA and a big black eye (and a wedgie) to cycling.


Welcome to the wonderful world of pro cycling. The scenario you describe is closer to reality than you think. Everything in cycling is not pure. You reference Armstrong as if he is the cleanest rider in the bunch. Most of them are dirty. Armstrong has, by far, the most numerous allegations of them all.

How about this? Did you know that Armstrong has made large donations to the UCI in the 6 figure amount for the purposes of drug testing research? How about that for undermining the system? Wouldn't that lead to any conflicts of interest in that the organization meant to oversee fair play could be influenced by such a donation? Do you know who the president of the UCI was during the time of this donation? Did you know that this was during the reign of Armstrong's now suspect Tour wins? Armstrong should not even be allowed to compete

This is widely reported, well-documented, common knowledge, etc. Basically, Armstrong has said that his donation to the UCI should be a secret. How's that for undermining the system?


Dr. Ferrari
Frankie
Vaughters
Emma O'Reilly
Stephen Swart
evading drug tests
donating hundreds of thousands to the UCI pres.
6 vials of EPO positives in 1999

...you've got to be kidding me. Only the most ardent Armstrong supporters would continue to believe that Armstrong was clean during any of his Tour wins. Seriously, if a new allegation came up next week, the same people would be defending him. Even if Armstrong tested positive again, the supporters of his would defend him.

new thread w/ poll: "who will get caught doping this year?"

I hope not me :-) The other day my new next door neighbor mentioned he smelled something funny from my back yard. I told him I was burning some sage.

Welcome to the wonderful world of pro cycling. The scenario you describe is closer to reality than you think. Everything in cycling is not pure. You reference Armstrong as if he is the cleanest rider in the bunch. Most of them are dirty. Armstrong has, by far, the most numerous allegations of them all.

How about this? Did you know that Armstrong has made large donations to the UCI in the 6 figure amount for the purposes of drug testing research? How about that for undermining the system? Wouldn't that lead to any conflicts of interest in that the organization meant to oversee fair play could be influenced by such a donation? Do you know who the president of the UCI was during the time of this donation? Did you know that this was during the reign of Armstrong's now suspect Tour wins? Armstrong should not even be allowed to compete

This is widely reported, well-documented, common knowledge, etc. Basically, Armstrong has said that his donation to the UCI should be a secret. How's that for undermining the system?


Dr. Ferrari
Frankie
Vaughters
Emma O'Reilly
Stephen Swart
evading drug tests
donating hundreds of thousands to the UCI pres.
6 vials of EPO positives in 1999

...you've got to be kidding me. Only the most ardent Armstrong supporters would continue to believe that Armstrong was clean during any of his Tour wins. Seriously, if a new allegation came up next week, the same people would be defending him. Even if Armstrong tested positive again, the supporters of his would defend him.

The only objection I have (worth mentioning) is this:

"You reference Armstrong as if he is the cleanest rider in the bunch"

I never said anything remotely close to that and when people (you) say ****e like that it's difficult to take anything they say with any seriousness. And I don't say Lance is not dirty, if anything I say the evidence is not convincing to me which doesn't mean he's clean, it just means I'm not convinced. I don't wear a tin foil hat for similar reasons. Not that I would not wear a tin foil hat, I'm simply not convinced of the need for one. And for the record I don't watch the X-Files either and you'll never catch me in Sunday school for that matter.

Again...I have never said Lance is clean, i have said the evidence is not convincing and the notion he doped for 7 wins is pretty out there.

The tin foil hat on you looks good though, it's just not my color. Those clash with my hair :-)

Welcome to the wonderful world of pro cycling. The scenario you describe is closer to reality than you think. Everything in cycling is not pure. You reference Armstrong as if he is the cleanest rider in the bunch. Most of them are dirty. Armstrong has, by far, the most numerous allegations of them all.

How about this? Did you know that Armstrong has made large donations to the UCI in the 6 figure amount for the purposes of drug testing research? How about that for undermining the system? Wouldn't that lead to any conflicts of interest in that the organization meant to oversee fair play could be influenced by such a donation? Do you know who the president of the UCI was during the time of this donation? Did you know that this was during the reign of Armstrong's now suspect Tour wins? Armstrong should not even be allowed to compete

This is widely reported, well-documented, common knowledge, etc. Basically, Armstrong has said that his donation to the UCI should be a secret. How's that for undermining the system?


Dr. Ferrari
Frankie
Vaughters
Emma O'Reilly
Stephen Swart
evading drug tests
donating hundreds of thousands to the UCI pres.
6 vials of EPO positives in 1999

...you've got to be kidding me. Only the most ardent Armstrong supporters would continue to believe that Armstrong was clean during any of his Tour wins. Seriously, if a new allegation came up next week, the same people would be defending him. Even if Armstrong tested positive again, the supporters of his would defend him.

What does this reply have to do with the OP? This year? It's getting tiring. Get a new schtick.

Someone please merge this thread to my "If Lance is doping thread" please.

I totally disagree.

Shame the miscreant while the eyes of the world are on him. And legitimize the winner. To this day few people consider Periero to be a legitimate Tour winner.

Mostly because of what he's done (or not done) since the 2006 Tour. Or more precisely, his Stage 13 win where Phonak seemed to not care what the breakaway was doing and that was just fine with the rest of the peloton.

Mostly because of what he's done (or not done) since the 2006 Tour. Or more precisely, his Stage 13 win where Phonak seemed to not care what the breakaway was doing and that was just fine with the rest of the peloton.

Realizing that in competition tests may not produce results before the end of that competition but using this instance as an example of how retro-active tests are going to leave an entire era of mariginalized results. Here in lies part of the huge issue with retro-active testing. The athlete catapulted into official First Place may not have been the best clean rider. Tactics and Strategies are based on the days events. The rightful second place/ new champion may have blown themselves up chasing a Turbo Juiced competitor, whom would only later be disqualified. Individual riders, teams and even the entire peleton may let a rider(s) go not realizing who the "clean" threats are. The number of possible ramifications is almost limitless.

End retro-active testing! (stepping back down off my soap box)

Now, if they could just come up with tests that could be administered and results published within 12-24 hours. Instantly would be even better. I know, wishful thinking.

However, what are they evere going to do to prove that an athlete's own blood is too good, his muscles too strong, his lungs too big, his tactical reasoning too advanced and his will too determined?

Keeping these samples for years is going to end up causing far more problems than solving any. I've worked in a field where drug testing was done and the chain of custody issues and possibility for fark ups is astonishing, not to mention false positives can run in the 25% range. I say they throw the samples out a month or so after the tour has finished. Keeping those samples around is begging for trouble. If you cannot detect it now then throw in the towel and call it good. Having worked around drug testing I would not trust any test results that were over 1 month old and even then I'd want to look at the chain of custody documentation very carefully.

I'm with you 100% on this issue. My wife works as a supervisor in a medical testing laboratory so I get fairly reliable information with regard to those challenges.

Cycling= let's take a bunch of samples by countless different policing agencies, labs and procedures, see what results we get, sit on the samples for years so that we can revisit years past with new technologies, and grimace the whole time about both the positives we find and the positives we don't find but would like to.

Welcome to the wonderful world of pro cycling. The scenario you describe is closer to reality than you think. Everything in cycling is not pure. You reference Armstrong as if he is the cleanest rider in the bunch. Most of them are dirty. Armstrong has, by far, the most numerous allegations of them all.

How about this? Did you know that Armstrong has made large donations to the UCI in the 6 figure amount for the purposes of drug testing research? How about that for undermining the system? Wouldn't that lead to any conflicts of interest in that the organization meant to oversee fair play could be influenced by such a donation? Do you know who the president of the UCI was during the time of this donation? Did you know that this was during the reign of Armstrong's now suspect Tour wins? Armstrong should not even be allowed to compete

This is widely reported, well-documented, common knowledge, etc. Basically, Armstrong has said that his donation to the UCI should be a secret. How's that for undermining the system?


Dr. Ferrari
Frankie
Vaughters
Emma O'Reilly
Stephen Swart
evading drug tests
donating hundreds of thousands to the UCI pres.
6 vials of EPO positives in 1999

...you've got to be kidding me. Only the most ardent Armstrong supporters would continue to believe that Armstrong was clean during any of his Tour wins. Seriously, if a new allegation came up next week, the same people would be defending him. Even if Armstrong tested positive again, the supporters of his would defend him.

Bellweatherman,

You just don't get it.

What does this reply have to do with the OP? This year? It's getting tiring. Get a new schtick.


You need to follow along with the flow of the conversation a bit better. I was replying to the content another poster was writing about. Thank you very much.