The Kloden case...Bruynel preparing something ?...

On Jan 10, 7:16 am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:06:01 +0100, Keith wrote:
the B guys couldn't beat the A guys even by doping, when
EPO arrived that changed.

They could with a lot of uppers, but that stuff was easily caught and
also didn't make for a long career.

dumbass,

uppers affect your sense of fatigue, but can't boost a person's
aerobic capacity. on the other hand there was (and still is)
autologous blood doping.

wrote:
On Jan 8, 11:29 am, Bob Schwartz
wrote:
PS And just how do you know that sponsorship is dropping,
in aggregate?

Oh please, there is plenty of sponsors that have dropped their
sponsorship due to doping. Coca Cola, T-Mobile and many corporate
sponsors are reluctant to sponsor a team. Let's not forget that
Discovery was having problems locating a new .spon"Rock Racing on
slippery slope with sponsors" (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?
id=features/2008/rock_racing_bikes08 ).

Dumbass,

So you really don't know that aggregate sponsorship is dropping.
You just don't want to admit it. I mean, Eddy got popped three
times for dope. Molteni dropped out and hasn't been back. The
connection is clear, right?

Och couldn't land a sponsor after Motorola stopped. Sponsors
come, sponsors go.

How can I frame this in a way your small brain can grasp?
Consider the state of the sport now, compared to when the Festina
scandal hit the fan. Has the sport expanded since then? Is there
professional racing in places where it didn't used to exist? Are
there more teams and riders making a go of it in the US?

If you were to show up at Alpe d'Huez this year, how many days
ahead of the Tour would you have to be there in order to find a
spot for your camper van? Is that more or fewer than the late
1990s when Festina should have made the role of dope in the
sport clear, even to people such as yourself?

Doping is a huge problem for individual riders. But the sport is
doing just fine.

Bob Schwartz

On Jan 10, 6:29 am, Bob Schwartz
wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 8, 11:29 am, Bob Schwartz
wrote:
PS And just how do you know that sponsorship is dropping,
in aggregate?

Oh please, there is plenty of sponsors that have dropped their
sponsorship due to doping. Coca Cola, T-Mobile and many corporate
sponsors are reluctant to sponsor a team. Let's not forget that
Discovery was having problems locating a new .spon"Rock Racing on
slippery slope with sponsors" (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?
id=features/2008/rock_racing_bikes08 ).

Sorry to say, but I think you are denying the reality of racing
today. There is ample incidents of sponsors who are dropping off and
or reluctant to sponsor teams because of the current doping problems.
As for Merckx I only recall him being found positive once, but that is
before my time. The difference today is that we are seeing to many
riders who are testing positive. This cycle doping stories is hurting
it's image.

Dumbass,

So you really don't know that aggregate sponsorship is dropping.
You just don't want to admit it. I mean, Eddy got popped three
times for dope. Molteni dropped out and hasn't been back. The
connection is clear, right?

Och couldn't land a sponsor after Motorola stopped. Sponsors
come, sponsors go.

How can I frame this in a way your small brain can grasp?
Consider the state of the sport now, compared to when the Festina
scandal hit the fan. Has the sport expanded since then? Is there
professional racing in places where it didn't used to exist? Are
there more teams and riders making a go of it in the US?

If you were to show up at Alpe d'Huez this year, how many days
ahead of the Tour would you have to be there in order to find a
spot for your camper van? Is that more or fewer than the late
1990s when Festina should have made the role of dope in the
sport clear, even to people such as yourself?

Doping is a huge problem for individual riders. But the sport is
doing just fine.

Bob Schwartz

wrote in message
...

Almost everyone on Ullrich's 1996 and 1997 team (2nd and 1st in the
tour) have confessed to using EPO, so there is no direct evidence
against ullrich i wouldn't put money on him having been clean.

most of the guys he beat in 1997 were also implicated in subsequent
years (virenque, dufaux, pantani).

You do seem to be missing the point don't you? If there were no drugs then
Ullrich's NATURAL superior riding physique would have won him the tours.
There's absolutely no way that Pantani could have gotten anywhere near
Ullrich without drugs.

wrote in message
...

Oh please, there is plenty of sponsors that have dropped their
sponsorship due to doping. Coca Cola, T-Mobile and many corporate
sponsors are reluctant to sponsor a team. Let's not forget that
Discovery was having problems locating a new .spon"Rock Racing on
slippery slope with sponsors" (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?
id=features/2008/rock_racing_bikes08 ).

These companies enter into sponsorship to reach their advertising to a
certain segment of the population and then withdraw and use it somewhere
else for another segment. These companies would leave drugs or no drugs.

On Jan 10, 7:44 am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
wrote in message

...


It can be said that drugs helps a riders performance, but I doubt
there is enough evidence to show that doping will help enough to
ensure a win.



Almost everyone on Ullrich's 1996 and 1997 team (2nd and 1st in the
tour) have confessed to using EPO, so there is no direct evidence
against ullrich i wouldn't put money on him having been clean.

most of the guys he beat in 1997 were also implicated in subsequent
years (virenque, dufaux, pantani).

You do seem to be missing the point don't you? If there were no drugs then
Ullrich's NATURAL superior riding physique would have won him the tours.
There's absolutely no way that Pantani could have gotten anywhere near
Ullrich without drugs.

In article ,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

wrote in message
...

Almost everyone on Ullrich's 1996 and 1997 team (2nd and 1st in the
tour) have confessed to using EPO, so there is no direct evidence
against ullrich i wouldn't put money on him having been clean.

most of the guys he beat in 1997 were also implicated in subsequent
years (virenque, dufaux, pantani).

You do seem to be missing the point don't you? If there were no drugs then
Ullrich's NATURAL superior riding physique would have won him the tours.
There's absolutely no way that Pantani could have gotten anywhere near
Ullrich without drugs.

Was not Ullrich a beneficiary of a systematic, effective,
state subsidized doping program?

--
Michael Press

In article

egroups.com,
" wrote:

On Jan 8, 11:29 am, Bob Schwartz
wrote:
wrote:
The ASO has to much to lose in letting a bunch of dopers ride in
the TDF.

Here in the US, the main reason baseball was so slow in
bringing the hammer down on steroid use was... the owners
were making too much money on the guys that were juiced.

In the Olympics, the reason dope testing was established
as a separate agency was because the national federations
consistently refused to act counter to their financial
interests in enforcing doping regulations.

The ASO has become quite wealthy as an organization from
dopers riding in the Tour.

You're not really thinking this through, are you?

Bob Schwartz

PS And just how do you know that sponsorship is dropping,
in aggregate?

Oh please, there is plenty of sponsors that have dropped their
sponsorship due to doping. Coca Cola, T-Mobile and many corporate
sponsors are reluctant to sponsor a team. Let's not forget that
Discovery was having problems locating a new .spon"Rock Racing on
slippery slope with sponsors" (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?
id=features/2008/rock_racing_bikes08 ).

Tailwind Sports could not honestly promise to deliver
good, fair racing. Not because of pandemic doping, but
because the cycling governing bodies cannot keep
doping revelations from becoming the whole story.
The big sponsors do not have grown ups in charge of
bicycling, so they go elsewhere for grown up entertainment
to carry their logos.

--
Michael Press

"Michael Press" wrote in message
...

Was not Ullrich a beneficiary of a systematic, effective,
state subsidized doping program?

Do you suppose they just grabbed some guy off of the streets for that
program?

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:47:13 -0800, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo.
com wrote:

"Michael Press" wrote in message
...

Was not Ullrich a beneficiary of a systematic, effective,
state subsidized doping program?

Do you suppose they just grabbed some guy off of the streets for that
program?

hehe, good one !