Hecklers starting to joust with the Dope King

--D-y wrote:
Or, the powers that be could formulate practical rules that could be
practically enforced, on the day.
IOW, no "test interpretations" that require political/professional
status from interpreters in order to hold force, no retro-testing, no
pie-in-the-sky promises to "clean up Sport" for the advertisers, who
are, aside from a minority of unrealistic fans, the only ones who
"care", and that only because sponsoring "cheaters" makes them look
bad.

Sometimes you write in code that I don't understand, but I think I agree
with some of this. Absolutely no room for politics in testing, and the
procedures must be impeccable. And definitely no empty promises from
governing bodies for sake of sponsors/advertisers. But why would you be
against retroactive testing? Seems to me that's one of the bigger deterents
available.

That's not apologizing. That's trying to get real about a complicated
situation that has no easy "solutions".

We agree that the anti-doping efforts to date have been largely ineffective
and that there are no easy solutions. It's my opinion that the sport should
invest more in the effort. I'm not sure how you feel about that, but I get
the sense that you think there's no hope.

Mark, I agree with much of what you say and about the consequences of
doping to the rest of the sport. I personally have a hard time
justifying the benefit of making a large investment to close the gap
between testing and doping, as I think such an investement (from a
money, time, talent, and science perspective) would be better applied
elsewhere. I'm also not convinced that the goal is achievable, and I
expect over the next couple of decades, we'll begin to see various
forms of genetic cheating. How sport deals with that is a new
challenge.

Brad Anders

On 6/8/2010 11:13 AM, marco wrote:
Obviously, rbr'ers are not representative of cycling fans. The majority
of people here will follow the sport no matter what happens with the
doping fight. My impression of the more casual fan base is that they are
drawn to the drama and suffer factor. Once it becomes widely accepted
that most all pro riders are doped, I believe that the casual fans will
lose interest.

I composed all sorts of replies in my head, but I'll stick to
one point that I think is central.

Is the scenario that you present above what happened to American
football when steroids came on the scene?

Baseball players have been doped since the invention of dope. Has
your scenario played out there?

How about tennis? When the sport of tennis embraced the syringe,
what happened to it's popularity and fan base?

I respect your opinions but I think you are bringing too much
emotion to your perception of reality. Even guys that are racing at
the Pro Tour level are better off going to college. Very few rise
above that. So while I sympathize with people that are trying to
do it clean, if someone doesn't get to dump time and effort down a
dead end of a career and instead has to pursue something that pays
better for less crap, I guess that for me the violins are playing
pretty softly.

I also think that if you cost out the needed effort to clean up
what is really a hobby for all but a very few, you really can't
justify it unless you also make an huge emotional investment into
elevating your hobby.

Fred Flintstein

"marco" wrote in message
...

I do agree with you that there will always be doping in cycling, but
perhaps we disagree about how much effort should be put into catching and
exposing the cheaters.

snip


Dumbass -

It's not just cycling and it's not just endurance sports.

It's *all* sports and it's because we live in a society that dopes. Most
people dope almost daily to some degree.

Caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, THC, birth control hormones, anti-depressives,
anti-ADHD (methamphetamines), Viagra and its brethren (true performance
enhancers which are also recreational), Xanax, aspririn, ibuprofen, valium,
sleeping pills, etc. etc. etc.

thanks,

Fred. presented by Gringioni.

On 6/8/2010 12:15 PM, F. Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

"marco" wrote in message
...

I do agree with you that there will always be doping in cycling, but
perhaps we disagree about how much effort should be put into catching
and exposing the cheaters.

snip


Dumbass -

It's not just cycling and it's not just endurance sports.

It's *all* sports and it's because we live in a society that dopes. Most
people dope almost daily to some degree.

Caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, THC, birth control hormones,
anti-depressives, anti-ADHD (methamphetamines), Viagra and its brethren
(true performance enhancers which are also recreational), Xanax,
aspririn, ibuprofen, valium, sleeping pills, etc. etc. etc.

thanks,

Fred. presented by Gringioni.

While I drive, my assumption is that I am sharing the road
with people that are doping. When I go to work, I assume
that people at my workplace are doping. I make those
assumptions because the odds are really one-sided.

It was over twenty years ago that I first heard about people
taking steroids to look good at the beach. Dope has only
gotten cheaper and more accessible since then.

If we are going to throw money and time into anti-doping
campaigns, bike racing seems to offer exceptionally poor
returns on that investment. I think you would get better
results by convincing people to not take their hobbies so
****ing seriously.

Fred Flintstein

In article ,
"marco" wrote:

--D-y wrote:
Or, the powers that be could formulate practical rules that could be
practically enforced, on the day.
IOW, no "test interpretations" that require political/professional
status from interpreters in order to hold force, no retro-testing, no
pie-in-the-sky promises to "clean up Sport" for the advertisers, who
are, aside from a minority of unrealistic fans, the only ones who
"care", and that only because sponsoring "cheaters" makes them look
bad.

Sometimes you write in code that I don't understand, but I think I agree
with some of this. Absolutely no room for politics in testing, and the
procedures must be impeccable. And definitely no empty promises from
governing bodies for sake of sponsors/advertisers. But why would you be
against retroactive testing? Seems to me that's one of the bigger deterents
available.

It is not a deterrent (sp). It is well known that
harsh sanctions occasionally meted are not a deterrent.
Knowing there is a high probability of being caught
is a deterrent.

--
Old Fritz

In article ,
"marco" wrote:

Brad Anders wrote:
I have struggled with my views on doping in cycling for a long time,
and I've advocated harsh sanctions against dopers in this n.g. as long
ago as '94 or possibly earler. My current view is that effective,
undetectable doping methods have existed for years, and while great
progress has been made in detection, such methods will continue to
exist and develop. Cycling will never be rid of doping, and neither
will other endurance sports.

So, what do you do as a fan? For me, my choices are to quit following
the sport or to assume that what I'm watching is a reasonably level
playing field, where the top guys I'm watching are doing essentially
the same things as their competitors. Those that go too far to gain an
unfair advantage pay the price. Those that are too careless pay the
price. Those that burn everyone on the way pay the price. There is
plenty of evidence that these eventualities are exactly what is
happening. Who knows, it may happen to Lance. Time will tell.

What is the impact on me as a cyclist, and as a parent? As a cyclist,
I don't care if pros are doping. I don't race any more, so I don't
care about master's fatties doping themselves to the gills to win the
COVETED STARS AND STRIPES JERSEY. As a parent, I would never advocate
a pro sports career to my kids in the first place, especially cycling,
no matter what talent level they show. In cycling, it's pretty clear
that for the ultra-elite, when they reach a certain level (and maybe,
way before then), they're confronted with a very ugly reality, which
is that effective, undetectable doping strategies exist that make the
difference at the 0.05% level that separates the winners from the also-
rans. Given the gigantic investment in time and effort that a cyclist
at this level has put into the sport at that point, it's not
surprising that some decide to drink the Kool-Aide and do what they
need to. Some don't, and that takes a lot of guts to do. As for my
kids, I'd rather see them pursue a career that has more potential for
lifelong accomplishment, and treat athletics as a requirement for a
healthy life and fun.


Well said, and I share some of your viewpoints above, particularly the part
about keeping your kids away from this particular sport. Not because of
doping but rather because the training commitment is too time consuming and,
in my opinion, becoming too dangerous on public roads. I am happy that my
own kids have stuck to more traditional sports.

I do agree with you that there will always be doping in cycling, but perhaps
we disagree about how much effort should be put into catching and exposing
the cheaters. You're right that doping techniques will stay ahead of
testing, but with more investment the gap can be narrowed. If the sport is
serious about cleaning itself up, then it will make the investment. With
enough effort, I believe doping could become the exception rather than the
norm.

Why make the effort? Several reasons. First, the fallacy in the
"they're-all-doing-it-so-who-cares" argument is that not everyone benefits
to the same extent when doped, even if they were all on the same program. It
does not maintain a level playing field.

Second, they're not all doing it. As long as doping is against the rules,
there will be riders who have the moral fortitude to say "No" and I think
they deserve a substantial amount of anti-doping effort on their behalf.
Fighting for the underdog and all that righteous stuff. I have friends who
raced clean at various pro levels, including one who spent a couple years on
Pro Tour teams, and it breaks my heart to see and hear what they're up
against.

Third, it seems to me that cycling is at a crossroad in its anti-doping
"fight"... either it really steps up to the challenge, or it turns a blind
eye like many other sports have done. If the latter path is taken, I have no
doubt that doping will spread like a cancer into lower and lower levels.
Several notable busts have shown that it's already metastasizing. Twenty
years ago, the typical local/regional race in the US would have a clean
P/1/2 field. In the last 5-10 years or so, it's changed...typically you'd
have a handful of riders on a program, and that's probably the case with
some masters fields now also. It will reach the situation where everyone who
pins on a number expects to be racing against dopers. I think that would
ruin bike racing as a participation sport. Unlike some rec-league softball
goon on steroids or a bowler on beta-blockers, a masters fatty or a young
cat 2 using epo and hgh that he/she bought in mexico will crush his/her
clean competitors. It will be a paradigm shift (to use an over-used phrase)
that impacts tens of thousands of people and it will drive people out of the
sport. That has to be bad.

Obviously, rbr'ers are not representative of cycling fans. The majority of
people here will follow the sport no matter what happens with the doping
fight. My impression of the more casual fan base is that they are drawn to
the drama and suffer factor. Once it becomes widely accepted that most all
pro riders are doped, I believe that the casual fans will lose interest.

Anyway, I know my opinions don't reflect the majority here, and I'm ok with
that.

Do you regularly take drugs?

--
Michael Press

On Jun 7, 3:52*pm, Anton Berlin wrote:
Probably a publicity stunt paid for by Lance. *(and yes I saw it when
it came out)

Question this ---Why does John Elway pull one car out of the snowy
ditch every winter and there just happens to be a tv station and news
photographer there when he does it?

To keep "The Drive" alive? Geddit? Geddit?

UD

On Jun 8, 11:34*am, "marco" wrote:
--D-y wrote:
Or, the powers that be could formulate practical rules that could be
practically enforced, on the day.
IOW, no "test interpretations" that require political/professional
status from interpreters in order to hold force, no retro-testing, no
pie-in-the-sky promises to "clean up Sport" for the advertisers, who
are, aside from a minority of unrealistic fans, the only ones who
"care", and that only because sponsoring "cheaters" makes them look
bad.

Sometimes you write in code that I don't understand, but I think I agree
with some of this. Absolutely no room for politics in testing, and the
procedures must be impeccable. And definitely no empty promises from
governing bodies for sake of sponsors/advertisers. But why would you be
against retroactive testing? Seems to me that's one of the bigger deterents
available.

That's not apologizing. That's trying to get real about a complicated
situation that has no easy "solutions".

We agree that the anti-doping efforts to date have been largely ineffective
and that there are no easy solutions. It's my opinion that the sport should
invest more in the effort. I'm not sure how you feel about that, but I get
the sense that you think there's no hope.

My hope is for pre-event testing with simple, sure tests that are
carried out including evaluation and sanction, if any, "on the day"
and not 4:00 a.m., either g.
Accepting the fact that the tests and testers are imperfect,
disallowing "retro testing" except for true scientific inquiry, not
witch hunts and retroactive penalties are other "hopes".

Others have suggested test results being posted publicly, with no
sanctions imposed (except IMHO for the "bad stuff" listed above).
That has appeal here.

I trust the people administering and using the tests a whole lot less
than the tests themselves, and frankly, I don't trust the tests much
at all.
--D-y

marco wrote:
Why make the effort? Several reasons. First, the fallacy in the
"they're-all-doing-it-so-who-cares" argument is that not everyone
benefits to the same extent when doped, even if they were all on the
same program. It does not maintain a level playing field.

Second, they're not all doing it. As long as doping is against the
rules, there will be riders who have the moral fortitude to say "No" and
I think they deserve a substantial amount of anti-doping effort on their
behalf. Fighting for the underdog and all that righteous stuff. I have
friends who raced clean at various pro levels, including one who spent a
couple years on Pro Tour teams, and it breaks my heart to see and hear
what they're up against.

Third, it seems to me that cycling is at a crossroad in its anti-doping
"fight"... either it really steps up to the challenge, or it turns a
blind eye like many other sports have done. If the latter path is taken,
I have no doubt that doping will spread like a cancer into lower and
lower levels. [...]

My main reason to be against doping is related to your third point,
namely that mandating it to whatever extent means that juniors will
eventually also feel pressured to dope or not get a contract later on.
They should not have to face that decision.