hilarious

[MagillaGorilla]

Isn't it hilarious that some guy did an interview with Pedro Delgado and
that they talked about the problems of doping in cycling...but never
discussed the fact that Deldopa tested positive for probenecid in the
'88 Tour de France?

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/11233.0.html
http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/11235.0.html


Thanks,


Magilla

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

MagillaGorilla wrote:

> Isn't it hilarious that some guy did an interview with Pedro Delgado and
> that they talked about the problems of doping in cycling...but never
> discussed the fact that Deldopa tested positive for probenecid in the
> '88 Tour de France?
>
> http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/11233.0.html
> http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/11235.0.html
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Magilla


It does seem that people were more inclined to forgive and forget even
that recently. There wasn't a presumption of innocence, but if my
failing memory serves even the American press seemed to want him to be
reinstated. Don't know if it would have been different in '89 when
Lemond was back.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

[[email protected]]

Delgado was a great rider duing his time. But Delgado's doping record
will taint his comments about drugs. Delgado comes across as a
apologist for dopers.

I think that Delgado does make some good points. Certain substances
should be allowed if they are used for medicinal purposes. Naturally a
use would have to be by prescription and reported to the UCI. The
medical condition would be to be verified by a UCI appointed doctor as
well.

Delgado is right when he says that riders don't race enough. It's
understandable that a rider like Lance cut back his spring schedule.
But there is no reason why he did not race more in the fall.
Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> > Isn't it hilarious that some guy did an interview with Pedro Delgado and
> > that they talked about the problems of doping in cycling...but never
> > discussed the fact that Deldopa tested positive for probenecid in the
> > '88 Tour de France?
> >
> > http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/11233.0.html
> > http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/11235.0.html
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > Magilla
>
>
> It does seem that people were more inclined to forgive and forget even
> that recently. There wasn't a presumption of innocence, but if my
> failing memory serves even the American press seemed to want him to be
> reinstated. Don't know if it would have been different in '89 when
> Lemond was back.
>
> Steve
>
> --
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
> http://www.dentaltwins.com
> Brooklyn, NY
> 718-258-5001

[MagillaGorilla]

wrote:

> Delgado was a great rider duing his time. But Delgado's doping record
> will taint his comments about drugs. Delgado comes across as a
> apologist for dopers.

His name is actually Deldopa.


> I think that Delgado does make some good points. Certain substances
> should be allowed if they are used for medicinal purposes. Naturally a
> use would have to be by prescription and reported to the UCI. The
> medical condition would be to be verified by a UCI appointed doctor as
> well.

Dude, are you lucid? TUE's are a loophole for using bannned substances
and WADA is trying to close them every year (asthma, etc.). What is it,
like 60% of pro cyclists claim to have diagnosable asthma. Since when
does a prescription by a medical doctor mean the purpose of its use is
not performance enhancing?

Also, the UCI isn't in the habit of verifying medical conditions. WADA
sets the doping code and banned list and TUE's, not the UCI. Any doctor
the UCI would hire is probably a part of the omerta anyway. They give
out TUE's in Europe like candy on Halloween.


> Delgado is right when he says that riders don't race enough. It's
> understandable that a rider like Lance cut back his spring schedule.
> But there is no reason why he did not race more in the fall.
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:

Yeah, well in Deldopa's day, the racing wasn't as hard as it is today
(according to LeMond it was 30% easier). And riders are a lot smarter
today and know it's not possible to peak year round. Top riders and
teams don't get paid to get 67th in a lot of races. So why ride on a
average level for the entire season rather than peak for a few events so
you have a better chance of winning one, as opposed to getting 46th in a
lot?

**** Deldopa. Deldopa needs to answer 2 questions - why was he taking
probencid in the '88 Tour and what steroids was he trying to mask. And
why should we take advice from a guy who shows up late to a time trial
in a Grand Tour? At least Landis had a good excuse.

Thanks,

Magilla

[RonSonic]

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 00:08:59 -0500, MagillaGorilla >
wrote:

wrote:
>
>> Delgado was a great rider duing his time. But Delgado's doping record
>> will taint his comments about drugs. Delgado comes across as a
>> apologist for dopers.
>
>His name is actually Deldopa.
>
>
>> I think that Delgado does make some good points. Certain substances
>> should be allowed if they are used for medicinal purposes. Naturally a
>> use would have to be by prescription and reported to the UCI. The
>> medical condition would be to be verified by a UCI appointed doctor as
>> well.
>
>Dude, are you lucid? TUE's are a loophole for using bannned substances
>and WADA is trying to close them every year (asthma, etc.). What is it,
>like 60% of pro cyclists claim to have diagnosable asthma. Since when
>does a prescription by a medical doctor mean the purpose of its use is
>not performance enhancing?

Since when does the fact that something is performance enhancing mean that it
shouldn't be prescribed.

Guys who run a lot of air through their lungs tend to get asthma.

Ron



>Also, the UCI isn't in the habit of verifying medical conditions. WADA
>sets the doping code and banned list and TUE's, not the UCI. Any doctor
>the UCI would hire is probably a part of the omerta anyway. They give
>out TUE's in Europe like candy on Halloween.
>
>
>> Delgado is right when he says that riders don't race enough. It's
>> understandable that a rider like Lance cut back his spring schedule.
>> But there is no reason why he did not race more in the fall.
>> Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
>Yeah, well in Deldopa's day, the racing wasn't as hard as it is today
>(according to LeMond it was 30% easier). And riders are a lot smarter
>today and know it's not possible to peak year round. Top riders and
>teams don't get paid to get 67th in a lot of races. So why ride on a
>average level for the entire season rather than peak for a few events so
>you have a better chance of winning one, as opposed to getting 46th in a
>lot?
>
>**** Deldopa. Deldopa needs to answer 2 questions - why was he taking
>probencid in the '88 Tour and what steroids was he trying to mask. And
>why should we take advice from a guy who shows up late to a time trial
>in a Grand Tour? At least Landis had a good excuse.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Magilla

[MagillaGorilla]

RonSonic wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 00:08:59 -0500, MagillaGorilla >
> wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Delgado was a great rider duing his time. But Delgado's doping record
>>>will taint his comments about drugs. Delgado comes across as a
>>>apologist for dopers.
>>
>>His name is actually Deldopa.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I think that Delgado does make some good points. Certain substances
>>>should be allowed if they are used for medicinal purposes. Naturally a
>>>use would have to be by prescription and reported to the UCI. The
>>>medical condition would be to be verified by a UCI appointed doctor as
>>>well.
>>
>>Dude, are you lucid? TUE's are a loophole for using bannned substances
>>and WADA is trying to close them every year (asthma, etc.). What is it,
>>like 60% of pro cyclists claim to have diagnosable asthma. Since when
>>does a prescription by a medical doctor mean the purpose of its use is
>>not performance enhancing?
>
>
> Since when does the fact that something is performance enhancing mean that it
> shouldn't be prescribed.

Why? Because every athlete in the world will then be claiming to their
doctor that they suffer from ailment "X", as has already occurred with
asthma. In most cases doctors diagnose patients with whatever they want
just to get them out of the room.

Stop being so idealistic.


Magilla

[[email protected]]

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Delgado was a great rider duing his time. But Delgado's doping record
> > will taint his comments about drugs. Delgado comes across as a
> > apologist for dopers.
>
> His name is actually Deldopa.
>
>
> > I think that Delgado does make some good points. Certain substances
> > should be allowed if they are used for medicinal purposes. Naturally a
> > use would have to be by prescription and reported to the UCI. The
> > medical condition would be to be verified by a UCI appointed doctor as
> > well.
>

WADA or UCI would appoint a doctor and the team would then be
responsible for the medical costs.

> Dude, are you lucid? TUE's are a loophole for using bannned substances
> and WADA is trying to close them every year (asthma, etc.). What is it,
> like 60% of pro cyclists claim to have diagnosable asthma. Since when
> does a prescription by a medical doctor mean the purpose of its use is
> not performance enhancing?
>
> Also, the UCI isn't in the habit of verifying medical conditions. WADA
> sets the doping code and banned list and TUE's, not the UCI. Any doctor
> the UCI would hire is probably a part of the omerta anyway. They give
> out TUE's in Europe like candy on Halloween.
>
>
> > Delgado is right when he says that riders don't race enough. It's
> > understandable that a rider like Lance cut back his spring schedule.
> > But there is no reason why he did not race more in the fall.
> > Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:

I agree that pro cycling has become much harder. But as I said before
it's hard to explain how a rider peaks for the TDF and then does not
enter any races for the rest of the season.
I sometimes wonder if the peaking has not become to predominant in
training. If there is any scientific studies on peaking I would be most
interested...??

> Yeah, well in Deldopa's day, the racing wasn't as hard as it is today
> (according to LeMond it was 30% easier). And riders are a lot smarter
> today and know it's not possible to peak year round. Top riders and
> teams don't get paid to get 67th in a lot of races. So why ride on a
> average level for the entire season rather than peak for a few events so
> you have a better chance of winning one, as opposed to getting 46th in a
> lot?
>
> **** Deldopa. Deldopa needs to answer 2 questions - why was he taking
> probencid in the '88 Tour and what steroids was he trying to mask. And
> why should we take advice from a guy who shows up late to a time trial
> in a Grand Tour? At least Landis had a good excuse.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Magilla

[MagillaGorilla]

wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Delgado was a great rider duing his time. But Delgado's doping record
>>>will taint his comments about drugs. Delgado comes across as a
>>>apologist for dopers.
>>
>>His name is actually Deldopa.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I think that Delgado does make some good points. Certain substances
>>>should be allowed if they are used for medicinal purposes. Naturally a
>>>use would have to be by prescription and reported to the UCI. The
>>>medical condition would be to be verified by a UCI appointed doctor as
>>>well.
>>
>
> WADA or UCI would appoint a doctor and the team would then be
> responsible for the medical costs.


Yeah, that should solve the doping problem and completely eliminate
athletes faking asthma. Nice logic idiot: doctors already prescribe
asthma drugs. How is the UCI appointing another one going to make a
difference?


Thanks,


Magilla

[MagillaGorilla]

wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Delgado was a great rider duing his time. But Delgado's doping record
>>>will taint his comments about drugs. Delgado comes across as a
>>>apologist for dopers.
>>
>>His name is actually Deldopa.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I think that Delgado does make some good points. Certain substances
>>>should be allowed if they are used for medicinal purposes. Naturally a
>>>use would have to be by prescription and reported to the UCI. The
>>>medical condition would be to be verified by a UCI appointed doctor as
>>>well.
>>
>
> WADA or UCI would appoint a doctor and the team would then be
> responsible for the medical costs.
>
>
>>Dude, are you lucid? TUE's are a loophole for using bannned substances
>>and WADA is trying to close them every year (asthma, etc.). What is it,
>>like 60% of pro cyclists claim to have diagnosable asthma. Since when
>>does a prescription by a medical doctor mean the purpose of its use is
>>not performance enhancing?
>>
>>Also, the UCI isn't in the habit of verifying medical conditions. WADA
>>sets the doping code and banned list and TUE's, not the UCI. Any doctor
>>the UCI would hire is probably a part of the omerta anyway. They give
>>out TUE's in Europe like candy on Halloween.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Delgado is right when he says that riders don't race enough. It's
>>>understandable that a rider like Lance cut back his spring schedule.
>>>But there is no reason why he did not race more in the fall.
>>>Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
>
> I agree that pro cycling has become much harder. But as I said before
> it's hard to explain how a rider peaks for the TDF and then does not
> enter any races for the rest of the season.
> I sometimes wonder if the peaking has not become to predominant in
> training. If there is any scientific studies on peaking I would be most
> interested...??


Lance didn't find it hard to explain. Personally, I think it's stupid
that guys ride year round.

You don't need scientific studies on peaking. When you're a pro and
riding 500 miles a week, burnout is at your doorstep every morning you
wake up. You shouldn't be riding 400 miles/week for 7 months out of the
year.


Magilla

[[email protected]]

Yeah try telling that to Merckx or Hinault. Actually I think lots of
miles especially long slow distance helps to prevent burnout.
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Delgado was a great rider duing his time. But Delgado's doping record
> >>>will taint his comments about drugs. Delgado comes across as a
> >>>apologist for dopers.
> >>
> >>His name is actually Deldopa.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I think that Delgado does make some good points. Certain substances
> >>>should be allowed if they are used for medicinal purposes. Naturally a
> >>>use would have to be by prescription and reported to the UCI. The
> >>>medical condition would be to be verified by a UCI appointed doctor as
> >>>well.
> >>
> >
> > WADA or UCI would appoint a doctor and the team would then be
> > responsible for the medical costs.
> >
> >
> >>Dude, are you lucid? TUE's are a loophole for using bannned substances
> >>and WADA is trying to close them every year (asthma, etc.). What is it,
> >>like 60% of pro cyclists claim to have diagnosable asthma. Since when
> >>does a prescription by a medical doctor mean the purpose of its use is
> >>not performance enhancing?
> >>
> >>Also, the UCI isn't in the habit of verifying medical conditions. WADA
> >>sets the doping code and banned list and TUE's, not the UCI. Any doctor
> >>the UCI would hire is probably a part of the omerta anyway. They give
> >>out TUE's in Europe like candy on Halloween.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Delgado is right when he says that riders don't race enough. It's
> >>>understandable that a rider like Lance cut back his spring schedule.
> >>>But there is no reason why he did not race more in the fall.
> >>>Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> >
> >
> > I agree that pro cycling has become much harder. But as I said before
> > it's hard to explain how a rider peaks for the TDF and then does not
> > enter any races for the rest of the season.
> > I sometimes wonder if the peaking has not become to predominant in
> > training. If there is any scientific studies on peaking I would be most
> > interested...??
>
>
> Lance didn't find it hard to explain. Personally, I think it's stupid
> that guys ride year round.
>
> You don't need scientific studies on peaking. When you're a pro and
> riding 500 miles a week, burnout is at your doorstep every morning you
> wake up. You shouldn't be riding 400 miles/week for 7 months out of the
> year.
>
>
> Magilla