No argument there.
Doping Thread
- Thread starter Donakebab
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Do we all think currently illegal performance-enhancing strategies like blood doping will become legal in cycling in the near future?? Professional cycling relies on being entertainment and I think the use of PEDs actually adds to the drama of the sport. Over at the Clinic on the Cyclingnews Forum a few of the posters did a drafting game where they attempted to pick the best cycling team from the last 25 years with a focus on superhuman (doped) performances. Many of the outstanding (and most entertaining) performances in cycling (particularly in the grand tours) have retrospectively been found to be through the use of PEDs.
Some of the debate that happens on that forum is intriguing and it is obvious many people (including me) are passionate about the issue of PEDs (if you don't like skeptics stay away!). Professional cycling and PEDs have gone hand-in-hand throughout history and yet it appears that the sport is as popular as ever.
The solo Floyd Llandis breakaway at the Tour in 2006 was one of the reasons I got into watching cycling in the first place. At the time I had no idea he was 'cheating' and if I saw a performance like that today I would not accept it with such ease. It was compelling viewing however. I remember how fascinating it was watching the drama unfold surrounding Michael Rasmussen, Riccardo Ricco and Stefan Schumacher (amongst others).
Most good stories have a villain. Cycling is no different. The existence (and relative popularity) of this thread shows that the ethics and morality of doping are irrelevant in the big picture. I would go as far as saying doping is actually beneficial to the sport overall. It generates interest which in turn generates revenue. All publicity is good publicity.
Some of the debate that happens on that forum is intriguing and it is obvious many people (including me) are passionate about the issue of PEDs (if you don't like skeptics stay away!). Professional cycling and PEDs have gone hand-in-hand throughout history and yet it appears that the sport is as popular as ever.
The solo Floyd Llandis breakaway at the Tour in 2006 was one of the reasons I got into watching cycling in the first place. At the time I had no idea he was 'cheating' and if I saw a performance like that today I would not accept it with such ease. It was compelling viewing however. I remember how fascinating it was watching the drama unfold surrounding Michael Rasmussen, Riccardo Ricco and Stefan Schumacher (amongst others).
Most good stories have a villain. Cycling is no different. The existence (and relative popularity) of this thread shows that the ethics and morality of doping are irrelevant in the big picture. I would go as far as saying doping is actually beneficial to the sport overall. It generates interest which in turn generates revenue. All publicity is good publicity.
GotTheGoodes
Bloods
- Moderator
- #654
Morally I can't see sponsors condoning humans taking illegal substances. They're illegal for a reason. The issue of damage to the person taking such substances would be massive. Like concussion in contact sport, the insurance would need to be massive... The potential claim from an individual who felt forced to dope wouldn't be something anyone would risk.
Ethically, noone wants to associate themselves with being a "cheater" or being so weak & such a coward you need to dope.
Ethically, noone wants to associate themselves with being a "cheater" or being so weak & such a coward you need to dope.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
There is a difference between banned from sports and illegal by the law.
HGH is banned by WADA code and most of the big sports who didnt signed the code. Its not illegal to receive an injection of HGH from a registered doctor or from a prescription by that doctor. It is illegal to buy HGH without a prescription or traffic in them.
EPO and Insulin Growth Factor 1 are not illegal drugs they are manufactured to help people who have genuine medical conditions. EPO was made for people who are anemic and their kidneys cant produce enough red blood cells. They are banned from sport because they give the competitor an unnatural advantage. Once again it is illegal for someone to use them without a prescription.
Sponsors are happy to turn a blind eye. If the NFL came out and said its a free for all there would be a marginal decrease in sponsorship and fan interest. The yanks across the board from fans to broadcasters to sponsors pretty much know what is going on but turn a blind eye and ignore it.
Last edited:
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
I wrote somewhere on the hot topics board in a thread about removing restrictions that if the NFL went free for all the great check and balance would be the US lawyers who would go after the NFL clubs and medical staff for not administering the right drugs and right amount/dosage of the drugs. They would go after massive punitive damages which would mean accurate records would have to be kept. Knowing yanks those records would probably be made public just like the salaries.
REB there is already a lawsuit regarding the se of painkillers in the NFL. And likely to be more. There are lots of nfl players who will attest that vats of painkillers were put in the locker room and the players could just take handfulls whenever they wanted.
doping wont help u handle a bike
Freakie
Cool cool cool
10k Posts
Pantskyle
Brisbane Lions - Tom Rockliff 2012 Player Sponsor
Brisbane Lions - Tom Rockliff 2011 Player Sponsor
Brisbane Lions - Todd Banfield 2010 Player Sponsor
All the tour samples are being re tested for a new EPO drug, I'd be expecting a few to be very nervous.
nah. Remember the year Ricco was popped, with Piepoli. I think it was the year of Rasmussen, after the year of LAndis.
Supposedly about 30 riders tested positive for Myocera, the new version of EPO that has extended release, you only needed to take it once for two months.
7 of 9 from CSC tested positive. Over, the threshold, so the other 2 riders, probably on it, but could not breech the threshold for a positive.
30 riders. How many did the UCI sanction and publically expose? 2 or 3. And on the teams like Saunier Duval, the teams that were not approved at Aigle UCI hq.
so, no reason for anyone to feel nervous. They are not gonna throw the book at the big dogs. They might throw some small fry to the dogs as the scapegoat. But, no one of note or repute will be taken down.
grouse mate
Premiership Player
Looks like it is Athletics turn to take the ride...
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/thedopingscandal/article1588427.ece
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/thedopingscandal/article1588427.ece
Freakie
Cool cool cool
10k Posts
Pantskyle
Brisbane Lions - Tom Rockliff 2012 Player Sponsor
Brisbane Lions - Tom Rockliff 2011 Player Sponsor
Brisbane Lions - Todd Banfield 2010 Player Sponsor
Tom Danielson positive for testosterone
Only problem with your little conspiracy theory is that UCI didn't do any testing at the 2008 TDF. In fact, UCI had peripheral/zero involvement - the Tour that year wasn't even a UCI event. All testing was handled the French AD agency, AFLD - with any positives from the lab going directly to them, as well as the UCI and their old friends WADA.
(BTW, it's Mircera ... but heh, don't let facts or accuracy get in the way.)
nope, my memory is correct, in 2008. Cyclingnews or other cycling sites were getting the leaks of 30 positives, and 7 from CSC. And it was myacera, but there is no google search hit on this when i tried to find it a few months ago, when this was hitting and they were busting Kohl, Ricco, and Piepoli, and other Spaniards on Saunier Duval, the brand they were spruikiing was myocera. I think it comes up now as myacera. Ofcourse, you would know this because you sound pretty well informed, and you could parse what I am saying for BS or legit reference. I could have mixed it around, and the recall was actually myacera and the current brand name is going by myocera. But this is semantics.
They busted a few Saunier riders, cos they were expendable. You would know this ofcourse. You would also know that the Doctor head of the UCI medical supervisory body, Dr Zorzoli, may have been Mario Zorzoli, ofcourse I could google him now, buit prefer the extemporising, he was enabled to give those teams and riders a pass, or at the least a wide berth. And yes, I am extrapolating on my awareness, of what I know, and what it intuition.
The thing is, I dont see the individual riders of less character for doping. and using PEDs, I aint Betsy Andreu, I see it as value neutral. they are not axiomatically of less character because they dope. It is part of the sport. My personal views on doping are personal. But I do not think they could be tested before spending 10 years attempting to reach the pros, and then being confronted with a decision. I am a realist.
caveat: my memory may even have failed me in the 7 years since 2008, because I opted out of following the sport, not I follow the doping side for the kicks. But not the sport. So the original input, may well have been mircera, but my memory has manipulated it. I normally have a whippet smart recall. So I lean to that atm. but I could well be incorrect, and only going back to 2008 and reading the relevant reports would solve this dilemma.
But I am 100% on 7 from 9 CSC breached thresholds for this EPO version, if one believes the leaks. Now, I only read this again a few months ago which piqued my native memory for the positives. (the thirty positives). If it was not for that prompt, the native memory would not be volunteering it currently. And, it was from the Clinic sub-forum on Cyclingnews Forum.
if you have any questions, I am an open book.
grouse mate
Premiership Player
Froome's data released, maybe more coming, apparently a scientific report still to come.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-froomes-physiological-test-data-released/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-froomes-physiological-test-data-released/
419 watts over 40 minutes is pretty impressive. Brb, going to set bike on fire.
remember Armstrong's test, that went to a peer review journal by the Austin sports scientist Ed Coyle...
http://retractionwatch.com/2013/03/...-the-scientific-literature-a-reconsideration/
and anyway, Sky will be lying thru their teeth
so Ed Coyle? this explains Ed Coyle and Armstrong?
what did sir humphrey say, only commission an official inquiry when you know the results ahead of time?
this.
I think it may be humphry. no, think I had it right.
you know how the world works right? The barrier to entry starts much lower than the induction and promotion to QC, you dont enter the official halls and channels of the establishment if i) you dont play the game, and ii) aint willing to play the game. So the sample is self selective. Like the Essendon report by Ziggy, he had to indict Essendon just enough to make it plausible and keep the baying hordes at the pass, in communications-industry cant (etymology:3) it was called a limited hangout.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout
now some goose has edited the wiki page, I am quoting a former figbooty post of mine
In effect, if an array of offenses or misdeeds is suspected, this confession admits to a lesser offense while covering up the greater ones.
Last edited:
ComicSansHumour
Team Captain
- Apr 22, 2013
- 433
- 388
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Sterge
Premium Platinum
i like how the episode description says he is a 7 time tour de france winner, last I checked he was a zero time winner
This was a more interesting listen, compared to the Oprah rubbish that was put to air.
Papa Juggs
Hall of Famer
- Banned
- #675
So the crackheads of the 30s and 40s are still winners but Lance isn't?
Just gotta move on and accept what has been done official or not.
