"Tom Kunich" wrote in message
ink.net...
"benjo maso" wrote in message
...

"Tom Kunich" wrote in message
oups.com...
Not to put too fine a point on it but Dr. Ferrari is one of the
greatest sports physiologists in history whereas Balco was a
pharmaceutical company that was inventing new drugs to beat the
detection process.

I don't want to dispute your statement that Ferrari one of the greatest
sports physiologists in history, but you know of course that he thanked
his fame in the cycling world being the medical adviser of the
Gewiss-team in 1994/1995 when the hematocrite level of his clients rose
sharply in six month (Furlan 38-51, Ugrumov 42-60, Riis 41-56, Gotti
40-57, Berzin 41-53, etc.), resulting in the stunning results of the team
in 1995 and Ferrari's popularity among other ambitious riders.

Benjo

And if you suspected your clients were going to use a drug that wasn't
detectable and all of his competition was going to use, would you explain
to your clients how to safely use the substance or would you hope they get
good enough advice elsewhere to prevent them killing themselves?

This is CERTAINLY a case of ethics. But how to define the right side from
the wrong?


I know I am repeating myself, but I'm convinced the anti-doping policy is a
disaster and that bicycle racing would be much better off when riders were
allowed to prepare themselves the way they see fit. I think it's a pity that
products as epo, do exist, making it "clean" riders impossible to be on
equal footing with the rest. But that is a fact of life. All those efforts
to prevent riders and other athletes to use performance enhacing products
have been quite useless. I'm convinced riders are using more, amnd more
dangerous products than 40 years ago when it all started. IMO there is no
doubt that physicians as Ferrari would be a blessing if doping is legalized.
If the 17 or 18 Dutch and Belgian riders who experimented with epo at the
end of the 1980's would have been supervised by a man as Ferrari they would
probably be alive right now. No wonder that almost every rider wants to
associate himself with Ferrari or one of Conconi's other pupils. But what I
don't understand is that on this forum a lot of people are dead against the
use of doping products and at the same time praising Ferrari. Only because
of Armstrong? Well, everybody knows that Armstrong approached Ferrari in
1995, the year that the Italian doctor became famous because of the
performances of the Gewiss-team. And let's be fair, everybody knew the
reason why the Gewiss was so much better than most of the other teams: epo
and nothing else. Even I knew it, although I had only superficial contact
with some journalists and (ex-)riders. Of course that every rider who wanted
to have Ferrari as an adviser was using epo as well, but they were - and
still are - like men frequenting a brothel and Armstrong no less than the
others. Perhaps they are going there only to have a nice chat with the
girls, but it isn't very likely. In other words, I have no trouble
characterizing Ferrari as "one of the greatest sports physiologists in
history", but I can accept that statement only because I know that the
present day cycling he owes his reputation to, is far from perfect and
hundreds of miles remote from the idealized image some people still seem to
accept.

Benjo