THE DOPING DILEMMA by Andre Jute

On 1/19/2013 6:13 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Jan 19, 1:20 pm, davethedave wrote:
[...]
I'd buy him a beer. Would you?

No. The guy still has a net worth of $125 million, so he can buy me a
beer. Why do people give stuff to the super rich? They get all the
free sh**, and they're the most able to pay for it. Lance, buy me a
beer!

Well, we agree on something.

I wonder if anyone will pry those millions away from him. I'm
thinking of filing a huge class-action fraud claim on behalf of
emotionally distressed fans from around the world. I suspect Lance
will make a ton of money off his confession -- he'll write another
book, "It's About the Drugs." He'll name names and ultimately be
rehabilitated as the fallen hero who cleaned up cycling and helped
cancer victims and dated Cheryl Crow, etc., etc. All he needs now is
a hit Country Western song and a stint on Dancing with the Stars. His
sponsors may be gone (except maybe the Betty Ford Clinic), but he has
some serious pay-days still ahead.

In this warped country called the USA, repenting sinners have more
credibility that those who behaved well all along.

--
Tom $herman

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 19:14:47 +0700, J.B.Slocomb
wrote:

in nearly every sport a large number of the successful participants
do take drugs.

A large number of *everybody* takes drugs. I take seven different
pills every day, and I'm sucking on a dose of theobromine right now.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

On Friday, January 18, 2013 2:32:16 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:

Oh, I did not mean to besmirch cyclists above all others.

Take mathematicians for example:

http://amphetamines.com/paul-erdos.html

" It's just that I don't want kids who are thinking about
going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs
to succeed."

A key difference between doping for the TdF and
doping to do math is that the former is dishonest.
E.g., there's not a word about doping at
http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Rules_etc/

Tom Ace

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 20:42:25 -0500, Joy Beeson wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 19:14:47 +0700, J.B.Slocomb
wrote:

in nearly every sport a large number of the successful participants do
take drugs.

A large number of *everybody* takes drugs. I take seven different pills
every day, and I'm sucking on a dose of theobromine right now.

Go easy on that **** man. People think they can handle it. It starts of
small. Just a wee bit with some tea at elevenses. Next thing you know you
are on the slippery slope to full on slippers and mugs of it addiction.
--
davethedave

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 09:54:48 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
wrote:

On Saturday, January 19, 2013 3:04:30 AM UTC, raamman wrote:
On Jan 18, 8:21*pm, Andre Jute wrote:





I agree. People who take drugs for any reason want to be someone else. But in the case of top-level cyclists the history tells us that they COULD NOT be who they wanted to be (winners) without the drugs. There wasn't too much choice involved here. Anto Kelly told a story on another forum back when this business first blew up: "A few years ago I was talking to Pat McQuade and asked him if we had anyone in the peleton that would give Irish cycling a boost. He mentioned a young lad called Mark Scanlon, the best cyclist in ireland at the time. He was brilliant. But when he signed up with a French team he could not even get up the road with the lesser riders in his team. He soon learned that if he wanted to race in the pro peleton he had better start using. He came home and never cycled again as far as I know."



Andre Jute-



I remember hearing about mark in cycling weekly way back when....so

that's what happened huh ? wow.



I've always maintained that a doper was a loser and could never be a

winner, because the doper gave up before the race even began; and I

can't imagine the champaign could taste so sweet as to wash away the

bitter aftertaste of the pill they took- Wiggins can say to Lance, you

were never as good as me; and Lance will always have to acknowledge

that truth; he competed, yet never won. For a man so driven, that must

be very hard to swallow.

I can see what you're getting at with this: "I've always maintained that a doper was a loser and could never be a winner,
because the doper gave up before the race even began", but it seems that Mark Scanlon's experience is the reigning truth: you have to dope up even to get into the race.

Andre Jute

The argument seems to be that the other top competitors are taking
drugs and to be competitive you need to also be taking them. The 100
yd. runners had that problem a few years ago with Ben Johnson being
the doper and the other guys apparently clean. Ben won everything
until he got caught at the Olympics.

Another thing that isn't often mentioned is the cost of supporting a
team for a year. I hear numbers like 2 million - 5 million. Imagine
you being the leader and having to explain to the sponsors why you
aren't winning. That German bloke and the Italian are walking away
with everything.

Not to say that sponsors encourage doping as I'm sure that they don't;
in so many words, but I'll bet that they say things like, "We'd sure
like to see you in the yellow jersey...."
--
Cheers,

John B.

Per davethedave:
Next thing you know you
are on the slippery slope to full on slippers and mugs of it addiction.

Can't speak to tea, but I know I can quit coffee any time I want.

After all, I've done it hundreds of times.... -)
--
Pete Cresswell

On Sunday, January 20, 2013 12:03:49 PM UTC, J. B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 09:54:48 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute wrote:



On Saturday, January 19, 2013 3:04:30 AM UTC, raamman wrote:

On Jan 18, 8:21*pm, Andre Jute wrote:











I agree. People who take drugs for any reason want to be someone else. But in the case of top-level cyclists the history tells us that they COULD NOT be who they wanted to be (winners) without the drugs. There wasn't too much choice involved here. Anto Kelly told a story on another forum back when this business first blew up: "A few years ago I was talking to Pat McQuade and asked him if we had anyone in the peleton that would give Irish cycling a boost. He mentioned a young lad called Mark Scanlon, the best cyclist in ireland at the time. He was brilliant. But when he signed up with a French team he could not even get up the road with the lesser riders in his team. He soon learned that if he wanted to race in the pro peleton he had better start using. He came home and never cycled again as far as I know."







Andre Jute-







I remember hearing about mark in cycling weekly way back when....so



that's what happened huh ? wow.







I've always maintained that a doper was a loser and could never be a



winner, because the doper gave up before the race even began; and I



can't imagine the champaign could taste so sweet as to wash away the



bitter aftertaste of the pill they took- Wiggins can say to Lance, you



were never as good as me; and Lance will always have to acknowledge



that truth; he competed, yet never won. For a man so driven, that must



be very hard to swallow.



I can see what you're getting at with this: "I've always maintained that a doper was a loser and could never be a winner,

because the doper gave up before the race even began", but it seems that Mark Scanlon's experience is the reigning truth: you have to dope up even to get into the race.



Andre Jute



The argument seems to be that the other top competitors are taking

drugs and to be competitive you need to also be taking them. The 100

yd. runners had that problem a few years ago with Ben Johnson being

the doper and the other guys apparently clean. Ben won everything

until he got caught at the Olympics.



Another thing that isn't often mentioned is the cost of supporting a

team for a year. I hear numbers like 2 million - 5 million. Imagine

you being the leader and having to explain to the sponsors why you

aren't winning. That German bloke and the Italian are walking away

with everything.



Not to say that sponsors encourage doping as I'm sure that they don't;

in so many words, but I'll bet that they say things like, "We'd sure

like to see you in the yellow jersey...."

--

Cheers,

John B.

No, I'm not wearing this. I know a good deal about sponsors, both as a pro athlete (auto, powerboat and yacht racing, polo, and rugby too though under the table; hell, as an exchange schoolboy in the States, I was slipped many a Ben Franklin or sometimes envelopes of Bennies -- and I mean bills, not pills -- "to help with the expenses" because the alumni knew goddamn well what was expected of them in support of the lacrosse team) and as a sponsor (when I was in advertising, either for my clients or directly when I was on loan to clients). I don't know a single sponsor who wouldn't be horrified to discover that the athletes he sponsors are taking drugs, because the damage to the sponsor's image when it comes out will be absolutely horrendous.. Remember how a soda-pop company fell over themselves to disown Michael Jackson at even the hint that he might be accused of being a pedophile? Drugs to most sponsors are in the same bracket.

No, a sponsor who discovers "his" athletes take drugs will start thinking of ways to drop them without announcing the true reason.

Andre Jute

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 09:19:50 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
wrote:

On Sunday, January 20, 2013 12:03:49 PM UTC, J. B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 09:54:48 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute wrote:



On Saturday, January 19, 2013 3:04:30 AM UTC, raamman wrote:

On Jan 18, 8:21*pm, Andre Jute wrote:











I agree. People who take drugs for any reason want to be someone else. But in the case of top-level cyclists the history tells us that they COULD NOT be who they wanted to be (winners) without the drugs. There wasn't too much choice involved here. Anto Kelly told a story on another forum back when this business first blew up: "A few years ago I was talking to Pat McQuade and asked him if we had anyone in the peleton that would give Irish cycling a boost. He mentioned a young lad called Mark Scanlon, the best cyclist in ireland at the time. He was brilliant. But when he signed up with a French team he could not even get up the road with the lesser riders in his team. He soon learned that if he wanted to race in the pro peleton he had better start using. He came home and never cycled again as far as I know."







Andre Jute-







I remember hearing about mark in cycling weekly way back when....so



that's what happened huh ? wow.







I've always maintained that a doper was a loser and could never be a



winner, because the doper gave up before the race even began; and I



can't imagine the champaign could taste so sweet as to wash away the



bitter aftertaste of the pill they took- Wiggins can say to Lance, you



were never as good as me; and Lance will always have to acknowledge



that truth; he competed, yet never won. For a man so driven, that must



be very hard to swallow.



I can see what you're getting at with this: "I've always maintained that a doper was a loser and could never be a winner,

because the doper gave up before the race even began", but it seems that Mark Scanlon's experience is the reigning truth: you have to dope up even to get into the race.



Andre Jute



The argument seems to be that the other top competitors are taking

drugs and to be competitive you need to also be taking them. The 100

yd. runners had that problem a few years ago with Ben Johnson being

the doper and the other guys apparently clean. Ben won everything

until he got caught at the Olympics.



Another thing that isn't often mentioned is the cost of supporting a

team for a year. I hear numbers like 2 million - 5 million. Imagine

you being the leader and having to explain to the sponsors why you

aren't winning. That German bloke and the Italian are walking away

with everything.



Not to say that sponsors encourage doping as I'm sure that they don't;

in so many words, but I'll bet that they say things like, "We'd sure

like to see you in the yellow jersey...."

--

Cheers,

John B.

No, I'm not wearing this. I know a good deal about sponsors, both as a pro athlete
(auto, powerboat and yacht racing, polo, and rugby too though under the table; hell, as an exchange schoolboy in the States, I was slipped many a Ben Franklin or sometimes envelopes of Bennies -- and I mean bills, not pills -- "to help with the expenses" because the alumni knew goddamn well what was expected of them in support of the lacrosse team) and as a sponsor (when I was in advertising, either for my clients or directly when I was on loan to clients). I don't know a single sponsor who wouldn't be horrified to discover that the athletes he sponsors are taking drugs, because the damage to the sponsor's image when it comes out will be absolutely horrendous. Remember how a soda-pop company fell over themselves to disown Michael Jackson at even the hint that he might be accused of being a pedophile? Drugs to most sponsors are in the same bracket.

No, a sponsor who discovers "his" athletes take drugs will start thinking of ways to drop them without announcing the true reason.

Andre Jute

Well, if you have the experience that you claim you will know that
many of the supposed amateur collage athletes were literally on a
salary to play. Certainly as far back as the 1950's an older brother
of a schoolmate of mine received a totally free scholarship to
Dartmouth Collage - that is free tuition, lab fees, books, and even
free accommodation in the dorm. In addition he was offered a part time
job in one of the collage facilities "to help out with the pocket
money". Unfortunately in the last High School level competition he
entered he broke his leg in several places which put paid to his ski
jumping and, of course, to his collage education.

I probably don't need to point out that buying athletes wasn't in
accordance with the inter-college rules.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 1/20/2013 7:16 PM, J.B.Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 09:19:50 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
wrote:

On Sunday, January 20, 2013 12:03:49 PM UTC, J. B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 09:54:48 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute wrote:



On Saturday, January 19, 2013 3:04:30 AM UTC, raamman wrote:

On Jan 18, 8:21 pm, Andre Jute wrote:











I agree. People who take drugs for any reason want to be someone else. But in the case of top-level cyclists the history tells us that they COULD NOT be who they wanted to be (winners) without the drugs. There wasn't too much choice involved here. Anto Kelly told a story on another forum back when this business first blew up: "A few years ago I was talking to Pat McQuade and asked him if we had anyone in the peleton that would give Irish cycling a boost. He mentioned a young lad called Mark Scanlon, the best cyclist in ireland at the time. He was brilliant. But when he signed up with a French team he could not even get up the road with the lesser riders in his team. He soon learned that if he wanted to race in the pro peleton he had better start using. He came home and never cycled again as far as I know."







Andre Jute-







I remember hearing about mark in cycling weekly way back when....so



that's what happened huh ? wow.







I've always maintained that a doper was a loser and could never be a



winner, because the doper gave up before the race even began; and I



can't imagine the champaign could taste so sweet as to wash away the



bitter aftertaste of the pill they took- Wiggins can say to Lance, you



were never as good as me; and Lance will always have to acknowledge



that truth; he competed, yet never won. For a man so driven, that must



be very hard to swallow.



I can see what you're getting at with this: "I've always maintained that a doper was a loser and could never be a winner,

because the doper gave up before the race even began", but it seems that Mark Scanlon's experience is the reigning truth: you have to dope up even to get into the race.



Andre Jute



The argument seems to be that the other top competitors are taking

drugs and to be competitive you need to also be taking them. The 100

yd. runners had that problem a few years ago with Ben Johnson being

the doper and the other guys apparently clean. Ben won everything

until he got caught at the Olympics.



Another thing that isn't often mentioned is the cost of supporting a

team for a year. I hear numbers like 2 million - 5 million. Imagine

you being the leader and having to explain to the sponsors why you

aren't winning. That German bloke and the Italian are walking away

with everything.



Not to say that sponsors encourage doping as I'm sure that they don't;

in so many words, but I'll bet that they say things like, "We'd sure

like to see you in the yellow jersey...."

--

Cheers,

John B.

No, I'm not wearing this. I know a good deal about sponsors, both as a pro athlete
(auto, powerboat and yacht racing, polo, and rugby too though under the table; hell, as an exchange schoolboy in the States, I was slipped many a Ben Franklin or sometimes envelopes of Bennies -- and I mean bills, not pills -- "to help with the expenses" because the alumni knew goddamn well what was expected of them in support of the lacrosse team) and as a sponsor (when I was in advertising, either for my clients or directly when I was on loan to clients). I don't know a single sponsor who wouldn't be horrified to discover that the athletes he sponsors are taking drugs, because the damage to the sponsor's image when it comes out will be absolutely horrendous. Remember how a soda-pop company fell over themselves to disown Michael Jackson at even the hint that he might be accused of being a pedophile? Drugs to most sponsors are in the same bracket.

No, a sponsor who discovers "his" athletes take drugs will start thinking of ways to drop them without announcing the true reason.

Andre Jute

Well, if you have the experience that you claim you will know that
many of the supposed amateur collage athletes were literally on a
salary to play. Certainly as far back as the 1950's an older brother
of a schoolmate of mine received a totally free scholarship to
Dartmouth Collage - that is free tuition, lab fees, books, and even
free accommodation in the dorm. In addition he was offered a part time
job in one of the collage facilities "to help out with the pocket
money". Unfortunately in the last High School level competition he
entered he broke his leg in several places which put paid to his ski
jumping and, of course, to his collage education.

I probably don't need to point out that buying athletes wasn't in
accordance with the inter-college rules.


Indeed. Someone in my family, of capable but not star
caliber college football talent, enjoyed free tuition, rent,
expenses, adulation and the life of Riley. Until his knees
were wrecked, at which point that all ended abruptly.


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 19:29:23 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/20/2013 7:16 PM, J.B.Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 09:19:50 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
wrote:

On Sunday, January 20, 2013 12:03:49 PM UTC, J. B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 09:54:48 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute wrote:



On Saturday, January 19, 2013 3:04:30 AM UTC, raamman wrote:

On Jan 18, 8:21 pm, Andre Jute wrote:











I agree. People who take drugs for any reason want to be someone else. But in the case of top-level cyclists the history tells us that they COULD NOT be who they wanted to be (winners) without the drugs. There wasn't too much choice involved here. Anto Kelly told a story on another forum back when this business first blew up: "A few years ago I was talking to Pat McQuade and asked him if we had anyone in the peleton that would give Irish cycling a boost. He mentioned a young lad called Mark Scanlon, the best cyclist in ireland at the time. He was brilliant. But when he signed up with a French team he could not even get up the road with the lesser riders in his team. He soon learned that if he wanted to race in the pro peleton he had better start using. He came home and never cycled again as far as I know."







Andre Jute-







I remember hearing about mark in cycling weekly way back when....so



that's what happened huh ? wow.







I've always maintained that a doper was a loser and could never be a



winner, because the doper gave up before the race even began; and I



can't imagine the champaign could taste so sweet as to wash away the



bitter aftertaste of the pill they took- Wiggins can say to Lance, you



were never as good as me; and Lance will always have to acknowledge



that truth; he competed, yet never won. For a man so driven, that must



be very hard to swallow.



I can see what you're getting at with this: "I've always maintained that a doper was a loser and could never be a winner,

because the doper gave up before the race even began", but it seems that Mark Scanlon's experience is the reigning truth: you have to dope up even to get into the race.



Andre Jute



The argument seems to be that the other top competitors are taking

drugs and to be competitive you need to also be taking them. The 100

yd. runners had that problem a few years ago with Ben Johnson being

the doper and the other guys apparently clean. Ben won everything

until he got caught at the Olympics.



Another thing that isn't often mentioned is the cost of supporting a

team for a year. I hear numbers like 2 million - 5 million. Imagine

you being the leader and having to explain to the sponsors why you

aren't winning. That German bloke and the Italian are walking away

with everything.



Not to say that sponsors encourage doping as I'm sure that they don't;

in so many words, but I'll bet that they say things like, "We'd sure

like to see you in the yellow jersey...."

--

Cheers,

John B.

No, I'm not wearing this. I know a good deal about sponsors, both as a pro athlete
(auto, powerboat and yacht racing, polo, and rugby too though under the table; hell, as an exchange schoolboy in the States, I was slipped many a Ben Franklin or sometimes envelopes of Bennies -- and I mean bills, not pills -- "to help with the expenses" because the alumni knew goddamn well what was expected of them in support of the lacrosse team) and as a sponsor (when I was in advertising, either for my clients or directly when I was on loan to clients). I don't know a single sponsor who wouldn't be horrified to discover that the athletes he sponsors are taking drugs, because the damage to the sponsor's image when it comes out will be absolutely horrendous. Remember how a soda-pop company fell over themselves to disown Michael Jackson at even the hint that he might be accused of being a pedophile? Drugs to most sponsors are in the same bracket.

No, a sponsor who discovers "his" athletes take drugs will start thinking of ways to drop them without announcing the true reason.

Andre Jute

Well, if you have the experience that you claim you will know that
many of the supposed amateur collage athletes were literally on a
salary to play. Certainly as far back as the 1950's an older brother
of a schoolmate of mine received a totally free scholarship to
Dartmouth Collage - that is free tuition, lab fees, books, and even
free accommodation in the dorm. In addition he was offered a part time
job in one of the collage facilities "to help out with the pocket
money". Unfortunately in the last High School level competition he
entered he broke his leg in several places which put paid to his ski
jumping and, of course, to his collage education.

I probably don't need to point out that buying athletes wasn't in
accordance with the inter-college rules.


Indeed. Someone in my family, of capable but not star
caliber college football talent, enjoyed free tuition, rent,
expenses, adulation and the life of Riley. Until his knees
were wrecked, at which point that all ended abruptly.

Well, there you go. No knees, no whoopee :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.