A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Doping, money & lance used to be LANCE



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 18th 12, 04:57 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default 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  
Old October 18th 12, 05:41 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Free Willy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default 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  
Old October 18th 12, 07:38 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default 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  
Old October 18th 12, 10:16 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Mower Man
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.