|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Doping, money & lance used to be LANCE
I know this isn’t the popular view but I think Lance just played the game according to the rules set down. It is just that he was better at it than anyone else. It is hard to believe that the UCI, WADA …. didn’t know that drugs were endemic in the peloton. If you read what George Hincapie and others say it is always the same - early on in my career I realized that I would have to take drugs to move to the next level. George said he had been clean since 2006 which brings up the questions: what changed in 2006? Did his results suffer after 2006? If not, then did the drugs really need to do drugs? I read somewhere about a rider who was told you don’t have to take these drugs but if you don’t you won’t get any results and if you don’t get results you won’t have a contract. As long as the drug testing agencies can’t or won’t catch cheating, the system will be set to up so that if you want to be a professional racer you have to take drugs and lie about it. Which is sad and exactly what we have seen going on. I think everybody involved in professional cycling knew what was going on which is morally disgusting and this is compounded when they conveniently discover the “cheating” after they have made millions off of Lance and other cheaters. It is also discouraging to see rider like Levi Leipheimer fired for his recent confessions of past doping. This can only have to effect of continuing the status quo of doping and lying by discouraging everyone else from coming forward. Then maybe the team just getting rid of an old expensive rider so they can pay for Cavendish. Still a morally bankrupt way of doing business INMHO. I think a more sane policy would be to say that if you passed the drug tests you are legally clean. Then do everything possible to make the drug testing as good as possible. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Doping, money & lance used to be LANCE
"steve" wrote in message
... I know this isn’t the popular view but I think Lance just played the game according to the rules set down. It is just that he was better at it than anyone else. It is hard to believe that the UCI, WADA …. didn’t know that drugs were endemic in the peloton. If you read what George Hincapie and others say it is always the same - early on in my career I realized that I would have to take drugs to move to the next level. George said he had been clean since 2006 which brings up the questions: what changed in 2006? Did his results suffer after 2006? If not, then did the drugs really need to do drugs? I read somewhere about a rider who was told you don’t have to take these drugs but if you don’t you won’t get any results and if you don’t get results you won’t have a contract. As long as the drug testing agencies can’t or won’t catch cheating, the system will be set to up so that if you want to be a professional racer you have to take drugs and lie about it. Which is sad and exactly what we have seen going on. I think everybody involved in professional cycling knew what was going on which is morally disgusting and this is compounded when they conveniently discover the “cheating” after they have made millions off of Lance and other cheaters. It is also discouraging to see rider like Levi Leipheimer fired for his recent confessions of past doping. This can only have to effect of continuing the status quo of doping and lying by discouraging everyone else from coming forward. Then maybe the team just getting rid of an old expensive rider so they can pay for Cavendish. Still a morally bankrupt way of doing business INMHO. I think a more sane policy would be to say that if you passed the drug tests you are legally clean. Then do everything possible to make the drug testing as good as possible. ===============[reply]==================== You are exactly correct. WADA sets the bar for the TDF controls. UCI and WADA established limits for some drugs, devices and procedures and instituted a complete ban on others meaning any amount present is a violation. All the professional teams are aware of the limits and the limitations. If the WADA control is no clenbuteral above 20 parts per million and a cyclist's control reveals 10 ppm it is assumed that the cyclist in not in violation - by definition, he's not "doping." If a team 'supplements' with this that and the other performance enhancer but remains under the control limits then is that to be called 'doping' years after the fact by another country's anti-doping agency? I think not. I think that's ludicrous I equate it to the DUI controls. In most states in the USA if you test at .08% or above you are guilty of DUI and can be fined and jailed for it. But, if you test at .06% are not DUI. Why is there a different standard for other substances in the blood? What good is a control if it can become totally arbitrary after the fact as touted by another control agency? Answer - no good at all and totally unfair to the athlete. -- Willy Free |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Doping, money & lance used to be LANCE
On Thursday, October 18, 2012 12:41:28 PM UTC-4, Free Willy wrote:
"steve" wrote in message ... I know this isn’t the popular view but I think Lance just played the game according to the rules set down. It is just that he was better at it than anyone else. It is hard to believe that the UCI, WADA …. didn’t know that drugs were endemic in the peloton. If you read what George Hincapie and others say it is always the same - early on in my career I realized that I would have to take drugs to move to the next level. George said he had been clean since 2006 which brings up the questions: what changed in 2006? Did his results suffer after 2006? If not, then did the drugs really need to do drugs? I read somewhere about a rider who was told you don’t have to take these drugs but if you don’t you won’t get any results and if you don’t get results you won’t have a contract. As long as the drug testing agencies can’t or won’t catch cheating, the system will be set to up so that if you want to be a professional racer you have to take drugs and lie about it. Which is sad and exactly what we have seen going on. I think everybody involved in professional cycling knew what was going on which is morally disgusting and this is compounded when they conveniently discover the “cheating” after they have made millions off of Lance and other cheaters. It is also discouraging to see rider like Levi Leipheimer fired for his recent confessions of past doping. This can only have to effect of continuing the status quo of doping and lying by discouraging everyone else from coming forward. Then maybe the team just getting rid of an old expensive rider so they can pay for Cavendish. Still a morally bankrupt way of doing business INMHO. I think a more sane policy would be to say that if you passed the drug tests you are legally clean. Then do everything possible to make the drug testing as good as possible. ===============[reply]==================== You are exactly correct. WADA sets the bar for the TDF controls. UCI and WADA established limits for some drugs, devices and procedures and instituted a complete ban on others meaning any amount present is a violation. All the professional teams are aware of the limits and the limitations. If the WADA control is no clenbuteral above 20 parts per million and a cyclist's control reveals 10 ppm it is assumed that the cyclist in not in violation - by definition, he's not "doping." If a team 'supplements' with this that and the other performance enhancer but remains under the control limits then is that to be called 'doping' years after the fact by another country's anti-doping agency? I think not. I think that's ludicrous I equate it to the DUI controls. In most states in the USA if you test at .08% or above you are guilty of DUI and can be fined and jailed for it. But, if you test at .06% are not DUI. Why is there a different standard for other substances in the blood? What good is a control if it can become totally arbitrary after the fact as touted by another control agency? Answer - no good at all and totally unfair to the athlete. -- Willy Free And also totally unfair to the sport. With Lance it's guilty until proven innocent. How much money was he supposed to spend on defending himself from those relentless attacks? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Doping, money & lance used to be LANCE
On 18/10/2012 4:57 PM, steve wrote:
I know this isn’t the popular view but I think Lance just played the game according to the rules set down. It is just that he was better at it than anyone else. It is hard to believe that the UCI, WADA …. didn’t know that drugs were endemic in the peloton. If you read what George Hincapie and others say it is always the same - early on in my career I realized that I would have to take drugs to move to the next level. George said he had been clean since 2006 which brings up the questions: what changed in 2006? Did his results suffer after 2006? If not, then did the drugs really need to do drugs? I read somewhere about a rider who was told you don’t have to take these drugs but if you don’t you won’t get any results and if you don’t get results you won’t have a contract. As long as the drug testing agencies can’t or won’t catch cheating, the system will be set to up so that if you want to be a professional racer you have to take drugs and lie about it. Which is sad and exactly what we have seen going on. I think everybody involved in professional cycling knew what was going on which is morally disgusting and this is compounded when they conveniently discover the “cheating” after they have made millions off of Lance and other cheaters. It is also discouraging to see rider like Levi Leipheimer fired for his recent confessions of past doping. This can only have to effect of continuing the status quo of doping and lying by discouraging everyone else from coming forward. Then maybe the team just getting rid of an old expensive rider so they can pay for Cavendish. Still a morally bankrupt way of doing business INMHO. I think a more sane policy would be to say that if you passed the drug tests you are legally clean. Then do everything possible to make the drug testing as good as possible. 100% agree. How far back could this go? How many of the greats doped or used performance enhancers? Merckx? Coppi? Anquetil? Indurain? I believe the testing regime should be made as rigorous as it's possible to be - clearly it hasn't been in the past. That remark alleged to be LA's "my numbers are great" tells me all I need to know. It means "I'm legal and I'm blood supercharged." Time, surely for a re-examination of the numbers? -- Chris 'Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months.' (Oscar Wilde.) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lance Armstrong Foundation Wants Your Money! | Zenon | Racing | 0 | January 19th 11 09:24 AM |
LANCE DOPING - THE TRUTH! | Uncle Dave | Racing | 10 | May 27th 10 08:59 PM |
Lance Doping History | MagillaGorilla[_2_] | Racing | 20 | November 24th 09 01:19 PM |
Lance is money | Bill C | Racing | 47 | February 1st 09 06:30 PM |
Some new & old news about Lance doping records | Gary | Racing | 0 | February 27th 06 06:11 PM |