Organisers want Vinokourov's team out of Tour de France

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug...ters&type=lgns

No way Vino is a cheat. He's another of my favorite pro riders in a
list that used to be longer but gets shorter every month.
--
Marty

"Marty" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug...ters&type=lgns

No way Vino is a cheat. He's another of my favorite pro riders in a
list that used to be longer but gets shorter every month.
--
Marty

ASO says it will go to CAS if necesary to keep Wurth out.
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/breaking...912997,00.html

In article .com,
says...
http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug...ters&type=lgns
No way Vino is a cheat. He's another of my favorite pro riders in a
list that used to be longer but gets shorter every month.

That would suck. He is fun to watch.
-------------
Alex

Marty wrote:
http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug...ters&type=lgns

No way Vino is a cheat. He's another of my favorite pro riders in a
list that used to be longer but gets shorter every month.
--
Marty

Dear Marty.

If at least 14 riders of your team use (blood) dope, would you notice?
Strange medicine at camps, packages of blood, etc. Would an experienced
pro like Vino notice something "odd"? Considering it is a team sport,
is the consience of Vino crystal clear? Can he live with having
domestiques all doped up? Wouldn't it be odd everyone dopes except MR.
Bigshot team leader? Woudn't you expect Saiz and the doctors put
pressure on him?

Bottom line is: Vino knows damn well about the dope in his team. Now
you may believe he won't juice himself, but I find that unlikely by a
long shot indeed.

I think the time for naivety is long past us. Cycling has to face up
and work out it's problems.

Tuschinski wrote:
Marty wrote:
http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug...ters&type=lgns

No way Vino is a cheat. He's another of my favorite pro riders in a
list that used to be longer but gets shorter every month.
--
Marty

Dear Marty.

If at least 14 riders of your team use (blood) dope, would you notice?
Strange medicine at camps, packages of blood, etc. Would an experienced
pro like Vino notice something "odd"? Considering it is a team sport,
is the consience of Vino crystal clear? Can he live with having
domestiques all doped up? Wouldn't it be odd everyone dopes except MR.
Bigshot team leader? Woudn't you expect Saiz and the doctors put
pressure on him?

Bottom line is: Vino knows damn well about the dope in his team. Now
you may believe he won't juice himself, but I find that unlikely by a
long shot indeed.

I think the time for naivety is long past us. Cycling has to face up
and work out it's problems.

Yes, of course.

The "No way Vino is a cheat." statement that I made was simply
wishful/hopeful thinking. I'd hate to see him miss the TdF because
I've enjoyed watching him compete and become a contender over the last
several TdF. Now I have to wonder how he became a contender.

If Vino gets busted and banned - pro cycling will suck just a little
bit more for me. Not a lot, because I'm really starting to become
desensitized to the whole issue of cheating in all pro sports.
--
Marty

On 27 Jun 2006 13:16:06 -0700, "Tuschinski" wrote:


Marty wrote:
http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug...ters&type=lgns

No way Vino is a cheat. He's another of my favorite pro riders in a
list that used to be longer but gets shorter every month.
--
Marty

Dear Marty.

If at least 14 riders of your team use (blood) dope, would you notice?
Strange medicine at camps, packages of blood, etc. Would an experienced
pro like Vino notice something "odd"? Considering it is a team sport,
is the consience of Vino crystal clear? Can he live with having
domestiques all doped up? Wouldn't it be odd everyone dopes except MR.
Bigshot team leader? Woudn't you expect Saiz and the doctors put
pressure on him?

Bottom line is: Vino knows damn well about the dope in his team. Now
you may believe he won't juice himself, but I find that unlikely by a
long shot indeed.

I think the time for naivety is long past us. Cycling has to face up
and work out it's problems.

First issue would be defining the problem. Is the 100 year old tradition of
using whatever chemistry has to offer to improve performance. Or, is it a set of
rules that fail to reflect this reality.

Ron

RonSonic wrote:


First issue would be defining the problem. Is the 100 year old tradition of
using whatever chemistry has to offer to improve performance. Or, is it a set of
rules that fail to reflect this reality.

Ron

Don't waste time trying to define the problem. By the time you're at a
viable starting point, the problem will have changed.

The future is gene doping and the problem is defining what a human is.
Begin with Descartes, work your way up from there.

Gabe "Ontologically Deficient" Brovedani

In article ,
Gabe Brovedani wrote:

RonSonic wrote:


First issue would be defining the problem. Is the 100 year old tradition of
using whatever chemistry has to offer to improve performance. Or, is it a
set of
rules that fail to reflect this reality.

Ron

Don't waste time trying to define the problem. By the time you're at a
viable starting point, the problem will have changed.

The future is gene doping and the problem is defining what a human is.
Begin with Descartes, work your way up from there.

Gabe "Ontologically Deficient" Brovedani

The problem is to discourage dopey riders from sucking riders who would
like to remain clean into a vortex of health-hazarding behaviour.

It's not pretty to put it that way, but that's what anti-doping is
attempting to do.

No more Tom Simpsons, no more dead Dutchmen,

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

in message , Ryan
Cousineau ') wrote:

In article ,
Gabe Brovedani wrote:

RonSonic wrote:


First issue would be defining the problem. Is the 100 year old
tradition of using whatever chemistry has to offer to improve
performance. Or, is it a set of
rules that fail to reflect this reality.

Ron

Don't waste time trying to define the problem. By the time you're at a
viable starting point, the problem will have changed.

The future is gene doping and the problem is defining what a human is.
Begin with Descartes, work your way up from there.

Gabe "Ontologically Deficient" Brovedani

The problem is to discourage dopey riders from sucking riders who would
like to remain clean into a vortex of health-hazarding behaviour.

Look, lets be realistic.

You can't stop doping by producing a list of substances people /can't/
take, because the drug companies are continuously coming up with new
substances. If you want to stop doping you can only do it by producing a
list of substances you /can/ take, and making everything not on the list
banned. And even that's pretty impractical - people eating US beef will
be getting quite large inputs of artificial growth hormone, which people
eating European beef should (at least in theory) not be getting. So
you'd not only have to specify the foods people could eat but also the
conditions under which that food is produced.

What are we going to do? Shut our athletes up in monasteries on rigidly
controlled diets and only let them out to compete?

And then, indeed, we're only a couple of decades away - at most - from
the possibility of genetically designed sportspeople. It's going to be
pretty difficult to detect them. And whom do you penalise? It's not the
sportsperson's fault that they were genetically engineered before their
own birth.

I desperately want to believe that my personal heros - and that includes
Basso - are 'clean'. I know I'm probably wrong... But realistically
professional cycling, for certain, never has been 'clean' in the sense
of free from performance-enhancing drugs. That hasn't stopped it being a
thrilling spectacle. We can't, practically, make it a 'clean' sport
without making our athletes compete under conditions which would be
anathema to a free society.

What matters, I think, is that young athletes are not introduced to drugs
before they are mature enough to understand the risks that they are
taking, that they make a mature choice. It seems to me that if someone
chooses - freely - that the chance of a few years of fame and adulation
is worth a potentially greatly shortened life, that may be a reasonable
and rational choice for them to make.

I wish we could have 'clean' sport. But I don't think we can. This issue
is now like back-street abortions were fifty years ago. Because it is
shameful and outlawed, people are going to unscrupulous and
irresponsible medics to get their drugs. But they are still going and we
can't realistically stop them. Given that, would it not be better to
legalise it, so that people would have access to reputable medics who
could give them clear advice about their options and the risks they're
taking?

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; All in all you're just another nick in the ball
-- Think Droid

In article ,
Simon Brooke wrote:

in message , Ryan
Cousineau ') wrote:

In article ,
Gabe Brovedani wrote:

RonSonic wrote:


First issue would be defining the problem. Is the 100 year old
tradition of using whatever chemistry has to offer to improve
performance. Or, is it a set of
rules that fail to reflect this reality.

Ron

Don't waste time trying to define the problem. By the time you're at a
viable starting point, the problem will have changed.

The future is gene doping and the problem is defining what a human is.
Begin with Descartes, work your way up from there.

Gabe "Ontologically Deficient" Brovedani

The problem is to discourage dopey riders from sucking riders who would
like to remain clean into a vortex of health-hazarding behaviour.

Look, lets be realistic.

You can't stop doping by producing a list of substances people /can't/
take, because the drug companies are continuously coming up with new
substances. If you want to stop doping you can only do it by producing a
list of substances you /can/ take, and making everything not on the list
banned. And even that's pretty impractical - people eating US beef will
be getting quite large inputs of artificial growth hormone, which people
eating European beef should (at least in theory) not be getting. So
you'd not only have to specify the foods people could eat but also the
conditions under which that food is produced.

And then, indeed, we're only a couple of decades away - at most - from
the possibility of genetically designed sportspeople. It's going to be
pretty difficult to detect them. And whom do you penalise? It's not the
sportsperson's fault that they were genetically engineered before their
own birth.

Talk to me in a couple of decades, then. It's a different ethical issue
from doping, and may or may not have a different solution.

I desperately want to believe that my personal heros - and that includes
Basso - are 'clean'. I know I'm probably wrong... But realistically
professional cycling, for certain, never has been 'clean' in the sense
of free from performance-enhancing drugs. That hasn't stopped it being a
thrilling spectacle. We can't, practically, make it a 'clean' sport
without making our athletes compete under conditions which would be
anathema to a free society.

What matters, I think, is that young athletes are not introduced to drugs
before they are mature enough to understand the risks that they are
taking, that they make a mature choice. It seems to me that if someone
chooses - freely - that the chance of a few years of fame and adulation
is worth a potentially greatly shortened life, that may be a reasonable
and rational choice for them to make.

If you can't have a clean sport, how are you going to have clean juniors?

I wish we could have 'clean' sport. But I don't think we can. This issue
is now like back-street abortions were fifty years ago. Because it is
shameful and outlawed, people are going to unscrupulous and
irresponsible medics to get their drugs. But they are still going and we
can't realistically stop them. Given that, would it not be better to
legalise it, so that people would have access to reputable medics who
could give them clear advice about their options and the risks they're
taking?

Mm. Please discuss the effects "dose-response" is likely to have on an
ok-to-dope peloton.

Here's my brief take on this theory: even if you have Dr. Drake Ramoray
himself counselling the riders on the proper use of dope, there will be
the perpetual impulse to find an edge. In other words, where there is an
opportunity to do so, some riders will push the boundaries of safe
dosages. In return, some of them will get even higher performance, and
some of them will be laid low (or killed) by the exciting side-effects.

So what will you do? Continue to test the athletes to make sure they're
taking legal levels of dope? Ban side effects?

As much as riders (and people making the "some-doping" argument) like to
make much of the intrusiveness of doping controls, they're a small part
of the much greater insanity of a pro athlete's life. Given that Lance
was riding seven hours a day, weighing everything he ate, and getting
regular performance testing done, I don't think checking the ingredients
in your cold medication is the big problem.

And heck, half the time when athletes do get caught up by a technical
violation (I'm thinking here of the generally-accepted-as-legit stuff
like the proverbial cold-medicine or corticosteroid anti-inflammatory
mistakes) they end up blaming their trainer/soigneur/doctor/unlicensed
medical advisor.

*

What is interesting is that Operation Door has demonstrated that the
authorities (and the riders) are now learning that substances which are
very hard to detect inside of the body can be surprisingly easy to
detect outside the body. In order to have any sort of effective
distribution of these drugs, there ends up being a paper trail, physical
evidence, and a few too many eyes and ears in the distribution chain.
Note how many of the high-profile cases lately have been incidents of
product being found in room raids, trunk searches, or names in the wrong
set of files.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos