Floyd Landis Accuses Lance Armstrong Of Doping, Admits Own Use SaysReport

In article
,
wrote:

On May 20, 7:19Â*am, Neil Brooks wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...10/05/20/AR201...

The plot thickens.....

Certainly Landis' motives are questionable, but it inevitably raises
the issue of what to do about doping in cycling.

Answer: nothing. Leave it alone.
At one time the organizers did nothing about doping.
Now that they do racing stinks out loud.

Athletes need to be at liberty to manage
their health as they see best.

Our bodies. Ourselves. Fight the power!

--
Michael Press

In article
,
Chalo wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:

The alternative is even simpler: *let 'em dope. *Make it legal.
*These are adults who are responsible for their own decisions and
the consequences of those decisions. *There's no reason to Big
Brother them. * Of course it would also lead to the end of pro bike
racing but that would take care off the doping problem.

How do you reckon? About free choice being the end of pro racing,
that is?

I think that sponsors and fans would turn away from the sport. Since
the sport exists due to sponsorship money, the prize money being a
relative pittance, that'd be the end of that.

On 20 May, 21:17, Chalo wrote:
Tim McNamara wrote:

The alternative is even simpler: *let 'em dope. *Make it legal. *These
are adults who are responsible for their own decisions and the
consequences of those decisions. *There's no reason to Big Brother them. *
Of course it would also lead to the end of pro bike racing but that
would take care off the doping problem.

How do you reckon? *About free choice being the end of pro racing,
that is?

Chalo

It would not be free choice, as was experienced with the soviet
gymnasts and cyclists. Expressly permitting doping would lead to
every professional having to dope to get a contract. I hope that team
sky will show that top level cyclists can perform at the top of their
sport without 'doping'.

On 20 May, 23:06, AMuzi wrote:
wrote:
On May 20, 7:19 am, Neil Brooks wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...10/05/20/AR201....

The plot thickens.....

Certainly Landis' motives are questionable, but it inevitably raises
the issue of what to do about doping in cycling. *Right now, everyone
in the sport at least pays lip service to wanting it stopped, and the
penalties for those caught are harsh. *However, current policies on
doping foster "don't ask, don't tell" attitudes. *If I belong to a
professional cycling team and either witness a teammate taking drugs
or just see his performances improve in a way that cannot be
attributed simply to training, what is my incentive to turn him in?
As long as he is not getting caught, I am benefitting from any
improvements in the team's performance.

I think any effective measures to eliminate doping have to recognize
that cycling is a team sport and punish offending teams as well as the
individuals that get caught. *If a rider is found to be using illegal
performance enhancers, he and his team should be disqualified. *That
way, 'clean' riders benefit from blowing the whistle on those breaking
the rules.

This seems too simple. *Someone please explain to me why it wouldn't
work.

OK, it's workable but what's the goal?

Despite the occasional Tommy Simpson, Jacques Anquetil's
experience (copious amounts of drugs and alcohol on the way
to multiple resounding victories) was more typical for the
first hundred years of our sport.

If a rider wants to use enhancements from iron enriched
vitamins to EPO, whatever.

There's no drug on earth that could get me to the front of a
pro peloton anyway. Come to think of it, I probably couldn't
hang on the back either, drugs notwithstanding.

Use monofilament and knicker elastic.

Tim McNamara wrote:
The alternative is even simpler: let 'em dope. Make it legal.
These are adults who are responsible for their own decisions and
the consequences of those decisions. There's no reason to Big
Brother them. Of course it would also lead to the end of pro bike
racing but that would take care off the doping problem.

Chalo wrote:
How do you reckon? About free choice being the end of pro racing,
that is?

Tim McNamara wrote:
I think that sponsors and fans would turn away from the sport. Since
the sport exists due to sponsorship money, the prize money being a
relative pittance, that'd be the end of that.

But our sport publicizes testing (which is a self inflicted
injury, as regards marketing) and testing failures.

The Big Money sports look the other way for the most part.
So much so that our small sport is more associated in the
public's eye with drugs and enhancements than other,
probably more egregious, endeavors

[if I were racing at high speeds in an open wheel car, I
would hope to hell the next guy's on Adderall. Oh, and not
texting.]

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

In article ,
Tim McNamara wrote:

In article
,
wrote:

On May 20, 7:19Â*am, Neil Brooks wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010/05/20/AR20
1...

The plot thickens.....

Or sickens, as the case may be.

Certainly Landis' motives are questionable, but it inevitably raises
the issue of what to do about doping in cycling. Right now, everyone
in the sport at least pays lip service to wanting it stopped, and the
penalties for those caught are harsh. However, current policies on
doping foster "don't ask, don't tell" attitudes.

I think you're being far too charitable. The current policies foster
pro bike team hiring expensive specialist "team doctors" to assist with
doping and its concealment. It's no coincidence IMHO that having a team
doctor with the team at races became de rigeur at the time EPO (and
things like IGH, HGH, etc.) became the drug of choice in the peloton.
Team doctor = team doping. Doping is not done, in the major pro teams,
by individual riders going to back alley doctors and pharmacists; there
is an effort to make it appear that way to try to deflect responsibility.

Doping used to be managed by the soigneurs who bought the drugs,
combined the cocktails, smuggled them around Europe, etc. But modern
doping requires a formal medical background to be used effectively and
safely. The deaths of a number of riders in the early 1990s showed that
this was beyond the hands of soigneurs and that teams had to have a
doping system to be able to be competitive and to get the big
sponsorship bucks that go to the winners. It also meant that teams have
to have professionals who can manage the money laundering, since the
sums involved run into millions of Euros per year given the criminal
investigations indicating that doping costs tens of thousands of Euros
per rider per year.

If I belong to a professional cycling team and either witness a
teammate taking drugs or just see his performances improve in a way
that cannot be attributed simply to training, what is my incentive to
turn him in? As long as he is not getting caught, I am benefitting
from any improvements in the team's performance.

Yup.

I think any effective measures to eliminate doping have to recognize
that cycling is a team sport and punish offending teams as well as
the individuals that get caught. If a rider is found to be using
illegal performance enhancers, he and his team should be
disqualified. That way, 'clean' riders benefit from blowing the
whistle on those breaking the rules.

This seems too simple. Someone please explain to me why it wouldn't
work.

Works for me.

The alternative is even simpler: let 'em dope. Make it legal. These
are adults who are responsible for their own decisions and the
consequences of those decisions. There's no reason to Big Brother them.

Agree.


Of course it would also lead to the end of pro bike racing but that
would take care off the doping problem.

Disagree, or why?

--
Michael Press

On May 20, 4:18*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On May 20, 3:40*pm, wrote:





On May 20, 7:19*am, Neil Brooks wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...10/05/20/AR201....

The plot thickens.....

Certainly Landis' motives are questionable, but it inevitably raises
the issue of what to do about doping in cycling. *Right now, everyone
in the sport at least pays lip service to wanting it stopped, and the
penalties for those caught are harsh. *However, current policies on
doping foster "don't ask, don't tell" attitudes. *If I belong to a
professional cycling team and either witness a teammate taking drugs
or just see his performances improve in a way that cannot be
attributed simply to training, what is my incentive to turn him in?
As long as he is not getting caught, I am benefitting from any
improvements in the team's performance.

I think any effective measures to eliminate doping have to recognize
that cycling is a team sport and punish offending teams as well as the
individuals that get caught. *If a rider is found to be using illegal
performance enhancers, he and his team should be disqualified. *That
way, 'clean' riders benefit from blowing the whistle on those breaking
the rules.

This seems too simple. *Someone please explain to me why it wouldn't
work.

Cheers,

Nigel Grinter
Well-Spoken Wheels Inc.www.wellspokenwheels.com

That's not well-spoken at all, Nigel. All your "snitch-out-your-mates"
plan would do is to make competitive delations into a team strategy.

In Moscow in the little perestroika of the late 1960s I saw a queue
that twisted around a large block (entirely taken up by the not-so-
secret police) as Russians vied with each other to denounce their
neighbours.

Will we see a lot of famous names queueing outside the UCI
headquarters to accuse each other of doping?

Andre Jute
*Krygo, he say, "Any old number is good number."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Andre,

I wasn't suggesting that riders be disqualified one someone else's say-
so - there would have to be hard evidence. By the way, thanks for
introducing me to the word "delation". I will make a real effort to
use it in conversation from now on.

Best,

Nigel Grinter,
Well-Spoken Wheels Inc.,
www.wellspokenwheels.com

On May 20, 5:06*pm, AMuzi wrote:
wrote:
On May 20, 7:19 am, Neil Brooks wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...10/05/20/AR201....

The plot thickens.....

Certainly Landis' motives are questionable, but it inevitably raises
the issue of what to do about doping in cycling. *Right now, everyone
in the sport at least pays lip service to wanting it stopped, and the
penalties for those caught are harsh. *However, current policies on
doping foster "don't ask, don't tell" attitudes. *If I belong to a
professional cycling team and either witness a teammate taking drugs
or just see his performances improve in a way that cannot be
attributed simply to training, what is my incentive to turn him in?
As long as he is not getting caught, I am benefitting from any
improvements in the team's performance.

I think any effective measures to eliminate doping have to recognize
that cycling is a team sport and punish offending teams as well as the
individuals that get caught. *If a rider is found to be using illegal
performance enhancers, he and his team should be disqualified. *That
way, 'clean' riders benefit from blowing the whistle on those breaking
the rules.

This seems too simple. *Someone please explain to me why it wouldn't
work.

OK, it's workable but what's the goal?

Despite the occasional Tommy Simpson, Jacques Anquetil's
experience (copious amounts of drugs and alcohol on the way
to multiple resounding victories) was more typical for the
first hundred years of our sport.

If a rider wants to use enhancements from iron enriched
vitamins to EPO, whatever.

There's no drug on earth that could get me to the front of a
pro peloton anyway. Come to think of it, I probably couldn't
hang on the back either, drugs notwithstanding.

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

- Show quoted text -

Dear Andrew,

The goal? To eliminate cheating. To level the playing field (not
sure if that's a good metaphor). The alternative - no regulation -
would make drug use compulsory for anyone wanting to be successful.
I'd like to watch cycling events that are competitions between
athletes, not pharmacists. You're right that no amount of drugs would
make you (or me) competitive, but Lance Armstrong on EPO would
outperform his straight identical twin.

Best wishes,

Nigel Grinter
Well-Spoken Wheels Inc.
www.wellspokenwheels.com

wrote:
On May 20, 5:06 pm, AMuzi wrote:
wrote:
On May 20, 7:19 am, Neil Brooks wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...10/05/20/AR201...
The plot thickens.....
Certainly Landis' motives are questionable, but it inevitably raises
the issue of what to do about doping in cycling. Right now, everyone
in the sport at least pays lip service to wanting it stopped, and the
penalties for those caught are harsh. However, current policies on
doping foster "don't ask, don't tell" attitudes. If I belong to a
professional cycling team and either witness a teammate taking drugs
or just see his performances improve in a way that cannot be
attributed simply to training, what is my incentive to turn him in?
As long as he is not getting caught, I am benefitting from any
improvements in the team's performance.
I think any effective measures to eliminate doping have to recognize
that cycling is a team sport and punish offending teams as well as the
individuals that get caught. If a rider is found to be using illegal
performance enhancers, he and his team should be disqualified. That
way, 'clean' riders benefit from blowing the whistle on those breaking
the rules.
This seems too simple. Someone please explain to me why it wouldn't
work.
OK, it's workable but what's the goal?

Despite the occasional Tommy Simpson, Jacques Anquetil's
experience (copious amounts of drugs and alcohol on the way
to multiple resounding victories) was more typical for the
first hundred years of our sport.

If a rider wants to use enhancements from iron enriched
vitamins to EPO, whatever.

There's no drug on earth that could get me to the front of a
pro peloton anyway. Come to think of it, I probably couldn't
hang on the back either, drugs notwithstanding.

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

- Show quoted text -

Dear Andrew,

The goal? To eliminate cheating. To level the playing field (not
sure if that's a good metaphor). The alternative - no regulation -
would make drug use compulsory for anyone wanting to be successful.
I'd like to watch cycling events that are competitions between
athletes, not pharmacists. You're right that no amount of drugs would
make you (or me) competitive, but Lance Armstrong on EPO would
outperform his straight identical twin.

Best wishes,

Nigel Grinter
Well-Spoken Wheels Inc.
www.wellspokenwheels.com



Doesn't a test regime almost invite "just below threshhold"
drug use and/or innovation toward not-yet-banned substances
and protocols?

After meth and steroid testing, the pros sought blood doping
and EPO. The next level is as yet unknown but it will
arrive. The new will then be banned and the ratchet goes up
one more notch...

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

"AMuzi" wrote in message
...
wrote:

The goal? To eliminate cheating. To level the playing field (not
sure if that's a good metaphor). The alternative - no regulation -
would make drug use compulsory for anyone wanting to be successful.
I'd like to watch cycling events that are competitions between
athletes, not pharmacists. You're right that no amount of drugs would
make you (or me) competitive, but Lance Armstrong on EPO would
outperform his straight identical twin.

Doesn't a test regime almost invite "just below threshhold" drug use
and/or innovation toward not-yet-banned substances and protocols?

Of course, but all you need to do is set the threshhold to be below that
level which would give advantage.

After meth and steroid testing, the pros sought blood doping and EPO. The
next level is as yet unknown but it will arrive. The new will then be
banned and the ratchet goes up one more notch...

The "next level" will be MUCH easier to detect.