Is It Possible to be a Cycling Fan Without ...

On Jun 6, 5:18*pm, "Dave Lee" wrote:
... an advanced degree in pharmacology?

When I was riding regularly (90's) I really enjoyed buying video's of the
Tdf, Giro d'Italia, Paris-Roubaix, etc. and on late weekend nights plugging
one in with a glass of wine and just watching it for an hour or two.

I can't get enthused anymore - now it is all about hematocrits, testosterone
levels, etc.

Back to golf, I guess.


Fan, yes.
Rider, no.

Take a few minutes, there's some excellent "get real" material here,
free for the reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France

I confess, I just scanned that one before bookmarking; they seem to
have omitted the "PDM incident" of 1991. Maybe I just missed it, among
the many stories?

Let us have a "complete" drug testing regimen, as seen in cycling,
with OOC surprise tests, compulsory 365 days/year notification of
location, blood profiles, the whole nine yards for any sport, most
assuredly including "golf", and see what we find!

BTW: Is it "cheating" to have eye surgery so you can see the course
and the ball better?
--D-y

On 06/07/2011 12:01 PM, Dave Lee wrote:

If it is illegal to have the specified eye surgery but many golfers have
it anyway, then you are back to the cycling/doping problem.

I disagree. Please consider this correction: "If it is illegal to have
the specified eye surgery but all contending golfers have it anyway,
then you are back to the cycling/doping problem."

It's not possible to demonstrate an unlevel playing field. There are
regulars here who used to assert that Ullrich, Floyd Landis, Hamilton,
Basso etc. were clean, but it was generally done to support their
contention that LA benefitted from an unfair advantage. Later events
proved these assertions incorrect.

On 06/07/2011 01:24 PM, Dave Lee wrote:

It is also impossible to determine if all contending golfers 'have it
anyway' (eye surgery).

Really? If you follow it a while you get a feel for it. Let's try this:
I'll list the top finishers from 2005 and you tell me which ones you
think were clean. Here's the list:

1 Lance Armstrong
2 Ivan Basso
3 Jan Ullrich
4 Francisco Mancebo
5 Alexandre Vinokourov
6 Levi Leipheimer
7 Michael Rasmussen

It is completely without cynicism that I claim Armstrong was no dirtier
than the rest of these guys. I don't see any logical basis for disputing
that.

"--D-y" schreef in bericht
...

On Jun 6, 5:18 pm, "Dave Lee" wrote:
... an advanced degree in pharmacology?

When I was riding regularly (90's) I really enjoyed buying video's of the
Tdf, Giro d'Italia, Paris-Roubaix, etc. and on late weekend nights
plugging
one in with a glass of wine and just watching it for an hour or two.

I can't get enthused anymore - now it is all about hematocrits,
testosterone
levels, etc.

Back to golf, I guess.


Fan, yes.
Rider, no.

Take a few minutes, there's some excellent "get real" material here,
free for the reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France



I'm afraid it's full of mistakes. For instance, Janssen, Pingeon, Ocaña and
Gimondi tested positive, Thévénet admitted using corticoids, not steroids,
the autopsy of Knut Enemark Jensen's body didn't show had taken amphetamine
and other drugs. etc.

Benjo

"Dave Lee" wrote in
m:


I don't have to be a pharmacology expert to watch a golf
tournament - and that was my point.


Did you hear something whistle past your ear just then?

Anyway, Tiger Woods used a doctor who was later indicted for providing
steroids to athletes. Rumors of steroid use in golf are plentiful. So I
agree, you don't have to be a pharmacology expert to watch golf any more
than you have to for cycling. You just have to adapt your golf mindset
to cycling. Alternatively, you could just admit that you secretly like
watching these juiced guys go at it because it is goddamned awesome, you
just don't want to know about it.

--
Bill Fred

In article ,
"Benjo Maso" wrote:

I'm afraid it's full of mistakes. For instance, Janssen, Pingeon, Ocaña and
Gimondi tested positive, Thévénet admitted using corticoids, not steroids,
the autopsy of Knut Enemark Jensen's body didn't show had taken amphetamine
and other drugs. etc.

Technical point. Corticoids are steroids---corticosteroids.
Corticosteroids are catabolic steroids. When hand wringers
moan over the use of steroids it is the anabolic steroids
only that are at issue; though they do not know the difference.

--
Old Fritz

On Jun 7, 4:49*pm, "Benjo Maso" wrote:
"--D-y" *schreef in ...

On Jun 6, 5:18 pm, "Dave Lee" wrote:

... an advanced degree in pharmacology?

When I was riding regularly (90's) I really enjoyed buying video's of the
Tdf, Giro d'Italia, Paris-Roubaix, etc. and on late weekend nights
plugging
one in with a glass of wine and just watching it for an hour or two.

I can't get enthused anymore - now it is all about hematocrits,
testosterone
levels, etc.

Back to golf, I guess.

Fan, yes.
Rider, no.

Take a few minutes, there's some excellent "get real" material here,
free for the reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France

I'm afraid it's full of mistakes. For instance, Janssen, Pingeon, Oca a and
Gimondi tested positive, Th v net admitted using corticoids, not steroids,
the autopsy of Knut Enemark Jensen's body didn't show had taken amphetamine
and other drugs. etc.

Thank you for reading and correcting.

I humbly admit I did just scan that material, and not critically, even
for my very limited "knowledge" of what's what.
I hope I would have caught the Thevenet mistake, from reading
Thevenet's quotes of years ago.

That link was a dud; however, the concept that the 90's were somehow
an era of clean & noble (etc. etc.) competition in bike racing is also
a dud.
--D-y

On Jun 7, 4:57*pm, "Dave Lee" wrote:

ps. I think they were all doping is simple (and possibly correct). Useful -
not sure what to think of that.

It's useful in getting over the Lance Armstrong is Satan thing, for
one.

It's also useful-- speaking for myself, at least-- in coming to the
realization that athletes (meaning "bike racers", because they are the
worst affected) are scapegoats when their careers are taken away from
them for "doping".

Bad rules, bad enforcement ("the guy next to you being able to dope
without much fear of being caught"), a long history of lying and
deceit at all levels of the sport, from top to bottom-- that's *why*
they "were all doping".
--D-y

Dave Lee wrote:
Let me get this straight. You are equating the TW encounter with Galea
with the situation with cycling. Is that your point?

Fred Flintstein wrote:
Gues the answer is, no, you didn't hear it.

He's got a Phonak hearing aid.

On 6/7/2011 5:49 PM, Benjo Maso wrote:


"--D-y" schreef in bericht
...

On Jun 6, 5:18 pm, "Dave Lee" wrote:
... an advanced degree in pharmacology?

When I was riding regularly (90's) I really enjoyed buying video's of the
Tdf, Giro d'Italia, Paris-Roubaix, etc. and on late weekend nights
plugging
one in with a glass of wine and just watching it for an hour or two.

I can't get enthused anymore - now it is all about hematocrits,
testosterone
levels, etc.

Back to golf, I guess.


Fan, yes.
Rider, no.

Take a few minutes, there's some excellent "get real" material here,
free for the reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France



I'm afraid it's full of mistakes. For instance, Janssen, Pingeon, Ocaña
and Gimondi tested positive, Thévénet admitted using corticoids, not
steroids, the autopsy of Knut Enemark Jensen's body didn't show had
taken amphetamine and other drugs. etc.

Benjo



Benjo--

Glucocorticoids are considered steroids, and unless I'm greatly
mistaken, they are banned. Yes, their use in cycling is primarily
anti-inflammatory rather than anabolic. I assume the rationale for the
ban is that they convey the ability to ride with less pain. It doesn't
explain why NSAIDS aren't banned. But I'm certainly not saying that
criteria for banning a particular pharmaceutical are rational.

Steve

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