Riis just killed pro-cycling.....

Riis's admission that he did dope has damaged the sport, but has by no
means killed it. But so long as cycling allows riders who have been
found positive to race again then more sponsors will leave the sport.
This is why it's so important for cycling to adopt a first offence
lifetime ban policy. Also this whole WADA drug testing body issue has
to be resolved. I am beginning to believe that a new anti-doping
organization needs to be formed and UCI should disassociate it.self
from WADA



On May 25, 4:14 pm, "Crescentius Vespasianus"
wrote:
Riis just killed the sport known as pro-cycling. The European police in
Italy and France were in the end correct and the people who criticized them
were wrong. I think David Millar was the first to crack under those warm
interrogation lights. In the end he told them all they needed to know about
this cycling-Mafia. Kudos to all of the European police agencies, in
cracking this Mafia wide open for all to see. All that crap about these
guys going up grades 8% at 26 mph were simply an illusion. Where does
Carmichael go now, when people now know it wasn't his training, but what he
had in the medicine bag. What about Liggett, will he now return to being a
shoe salesman? Trautman can now compare his steroid perfected Yankee team
to the EPO perfected CSC team. It was the perfect illusion,......all of it.
We should all give them a giant round of applause for this magic trick of
the century called pro-cycling.

wrote:

Riis's admission that he did dope has damaged the sport, but has by no
means killed it.

Dumbass,
It must be dead. There was hardly a soul on the Zoncolan yesterday.

wrote:
But so long as cycling allows riders who have been
found positive to race again then more sponsors will leave the sport.
This is why it's so important for cycling to adopt a first offence
lifetime ban policy.

Pussy. I'm in favor of the death penalty. If we want to clean up
the sport we need to stop screwing around.

Bob Schwartz

On 31 May 2007 00:36:31 -0700, " wrote:

Riis's admission that he did dope has damaged the sport, but has by no
means killed it. But so long as cycling allows riders who have been
found positive to race again then more sponsors will leave the sport.

As in that's why no company buys ads or makes sponsorship deals with football,
futbol, baseball? Because they only suspend players for a few months on a first
offense. Get it through your head, it ain't the dope that disgusts them it's the
drama, confusion and internecine legal battles.

This is why it's so important for cycling to adopt a first offence
lifetime ban policy. Also this whole WADA drug testing body issue has
to be resolved. I am beginning to believe that a new anti-doping
organization needs to be formed and UCI should disassociate it.self
from WADA

For all the wrong reasons you come to the right conclusion.

Ron







On May 25, 4:14 pm, "Crescentius Vespasianus"
wrote:
Riis just killed the sport known as pro-cycling. The European police in
Italy and France were in the end correct and the people who criticized them
were wrong. I think David Millar was the first to crack under those warm
interrogation lights. In the end he told them all they needed to know about
this cycling-Mafia. Kudos to all of the European police agencies, in
cracking this Mafia wide open for all to see. All that crap about these
guys going up grades 8% at 26 mph were simply an illusion. Where does
Carmichael go now, when people now know it wasn't his training, but what he
had in the medicine bag. What about Liggett, will he now return to being a
shoe salesman? Trautman can now compare his steroid perfected Yankee team
to the EPO perfected CSC team. It was the perfect illusion,......all of it.
We should all give them a giant round of applause for this magic trick of
the century called pro-cycling.

wrote:
But so long as cycling allows riders who have been
found positive to race again then more sponsors will leave the sport.
This is why it's so important for cycling to adopt a first offence
lifetime ban policy.

Bob Schwartz wrote:
Pussy. I'm in favor of the death penalty. If we want to clean up
the sport we need to stop screwing around.

You could always go the moslem route and cut off the testicles of anybody
caught with patches on.

in message , Tom Grosman
') wrote:

"Mike Jacoubowsky" a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
| Whether or not he doped, he beat the other guys for the same reasons
| he would
| have beaten them if nobody ever doped. Most of those reasons are
| pretty well
| known and are significant.
|
| You have absolutely no way of knowing that any more than what riders
such
| as Hampsten and Motet (as examples) might have done without the drug
| culture in cycling.
|
| I see a few options here-
|
| #1: Nobody doped, and Lance won because he was the better rider.
| #2: Many other riders doped but not Lance, who won because he was the
better
| rider.
| #3: Lance doped but none of his rivals did, so Lance won because he
| #doped. 4: Most riders, including Lance, doped... and Lance won because
| #he was
the
| better rider.
|

#5 Most riders, including Lance, doped and Lance won because he was the
better doper.

I am not saying this is the case, but...

#6 Many riders, including Lance, doped, but Lance was the only one being
treated for cancer.

Many of the drugs used in cancer recovery are performance enhancing.

I think it's undoubted that Armstrong had exceptional motivation,
exceptional will to win - was hungrier than most of the competition and
stayed hungrier longer. But in itself that isn't enough, any more than a
superb physique is enough. He also had a superb physique... but I don't
honestly believe he was 'clean', except in the special sense that I think
all his dope/medication was very probably clinically justified by his
condition.

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

I'm fed up with Life 1.0. I never liked it much and now it's getting
me down. I think I'll upgrade to MSLife 97 -- you know, the one that
comes in a flash new box and within weeks you're crawling with bugs.

Simon Brooke wrote:

| #3: Lance doped but none of his rivals did, so Lance won because he
| #doped. 4: Most riders, including Lance, doped... and Lance won because
| #he was
the
| better rider.
|


If my hematocrit is normally 38, and I boost it to 49.9, while yours is normally 47, and you boost it to 49.9, this may convert me from a relatively weaker, to a relatively stronger, rider. There's no basis to claim "if they all dope, the better rider still wins".

Additionally, Fuentes was charging a substantial fee for his services. Obviously, there are different levels of doping: few could have afforded Fuentes. God knows what someone of Ferrari's reputation would have charged.

Dan

Dan Connelly wrote:
God knows what someone of Ferrari's reputation would have
charged.

I believe Rominger, at the time the world's #1 ranked cyclist,
was paying 10%.

Bob Schwartz

On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:24:09 -0700, Dan Connelly
wrote:

Simon Brooke wrote:

| #3: Lance doped but none of his rivals did, so Lance won because he
| #doped. 4: Most riders, including Lance, doped... and Lance won because
| #he was
the
| better rider.
|


If my hematocrit is normally 38, and I
boost it to 49.9, while yours is normally 47,
and you boost it to 49.9, this may convert
me from a relatively weaker,
to a relatively stronger, rider. There's no basis
to claim "if they all dope, the better rider still wins".

BINGO

JT


--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

"Dan Connelly" wrote in message
t...
Simon Brooke wrote:

| #3: Lance doped but none of his rivals did, so Lance won because he
| #doped. 4: Most riders, including Lance, doped... and Lance won
because
| #he was the better rider.

If my hematocrit is normally 38, and I boost it to 49.9, while yours is
normally 47, and you boost it to 49.9, this may convert me from a
relatively weaker, to a relatively stronger, rider. There's no basis to
claim "if they all dope, the better rider still wins".

Additionally, Fuentes was charging a substantial fee for his services.
Obviously, there are different levels of doping: few could have afforded
Fuentes. God knows what someone of Ferrari's reputation would have
charged.

I don't follow you here. I suspect you didn't mean to include the second
"49.9" sentence.

But here is the problem - when Lance was winning the Tour his hematocrit was
apparently around 38%. And hematocrit alone is NOT significant. Total blood
volume is important and someone with a large blood volume and 38% can easily
be more enduring than someone with a significantly lower volume and 49.9%.