Is anyone clean?

Tom Kunich wrote:
It's always a fight - don't eat chocolate or limp around with gout. Or
find a source of Belgian stuff.......

Dumbass,
We're all looking for a source for belgian stuff, that mexican **** is no
good.

I'm absolutely certain that the majority of riders have at least some
questionable pharmacological additions. BUT that isn't the same as
doping.

And that's the thin line^^ Now I agree, especially morally that the
current Doping lists and regulations are a criminal disgrace. I also
think that the riders need protection from overzealous legislation.

Most of the stuff they're using doesn't really have performance
enhancing capacity. For instance - although everyone in endurance AND
strength sports is taking human growth hormone, none of the studies
have shown any effects from the stuff that are claimed. Granted that in
the studies they didn't use the massive amounts that cheaters are
using, one would normally expect at least a relative indication. And
the indications were zero.


Well, the big equalizer is EPO/Blood packing. It's probably the best
working drug for cyclists. Even a guy like me can feel the difference.
I did a heigth stage in Swiss Alps a year ago... the effect was indeed
eye-popping.

Epo/bloodpacking is that and more (as it is "medically" controlled).
The infamous "shake a racer every 15 minutes or he dies" epoch has
passed, but this modern day vampirism makes me uncomfortable.

wrote:
Sure, it would be nice if no one cheated. But if you require
a certification - especially a certification from bozos on rbr -
that your heroes are saints before you are willing to put them
on a pedestal, perhaps you would be better off without heroes.

I don't put them on a pedestal. I just like watching the sport. But if
it becomes something completely different, tainted by cheating, then
what is the point? The results are tainted just as clearly as if a game
was fixed or points were shaved. It's a waste of my time more than
anything and it gives me no reason to watch or care. And on some level
that is sad. The fact that so many accept it and either give in or
watch anyway is sad, IMHO.

Preston

Tuschinski wrote:

Well, the big equalizer is EPO/Blood packing. It's probably the best
working drug for cyclists. Even a guy like me can feel the difference.
I did a heigth stage in Swiss Alps a year ago... the effect was indeed
eye-popping.

The problem is that altitude training requires a month or six weeks in
order to have serious effects. Most people I talk to tell me that they
stayed a couple of days to "aclimate to altitude" an then get man when
I laugh.

Epo/bloodpacking is that and more (as it is "medically" controlled).
The infamous "shake a racer every 15 minutes or he dies" epoch has
passed, but this modern day vampirism makes me uncomfortable.

It makes me feel pretty uncomfortable as well. You'll notice that we
haven't seen any articles on Hct since the 50% limit. That suggests to
me that if you look at all of the guys on the starting line at this
year's Tour you'd see everyone at 49.8%

The problem is that altitude training requires a month or six weeks in
order to have serious effects. Most people I talk to tell me that they
stayed a couple of days to "aclimate to altitude" an then get man when
I laugh.


We lived over 1750 metres over a month

Epo/bloodpacking is that and more (as it is "medically" controlled).
The infamous "shake a racer every 15 minutes or he dies" epoch has
passed, but this modern day vampirism makes me uncomfortable.

It makes me feel pretty uncomfortable as well. You'll notice that we
haven't seen any articles on Hct since the 50% limit. That suggests to
me that if you look at all of the guys on the starting line at this
year's Tour you'd see everyone at 49.8%

I expect the same. I think the majority will be between 48-52% Now that
in itself makes me wonder. BUT... and that is always the problem with
this, maybe all pro's have a natural high Hematocrit.... suspicion is
no proof

On 7 Jun 2006 09:38:37 -0700, wrote:

It's a waste of my time more than
anything and it gives me no reason to watch or care. And on some level
that is sad. The fact that so many accept it and either give in or
watch anyway is sad, IMHO.

OK, fine. Stop watching for chrissakes. We can always use rbr as a
place to deal with our sadness that the rest of us continue to watch.
Or not. Or can't watch. Whichever. Whatever.

Oh yeah, by the way, most of us don't give a rats ass what your
opinion about us watching happens to be. Did anyone get to that fact
yet? Now if you can give us a reliable feed to watch Euro bike racing,
feel free to drop us a line...

Hell, I hope when I give up alcohol I don't spend a week talking about
it and just go in a corner some place and drown my sorrows. Quietly.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

wrote:
wrote:

Sure, it would be nice if no one cheated. But if you require
a certification - especially a certification from bozos on rbr -
that your heroes are saints before you are willing to put them
on a pedestal, perhaps you would be better off without heroes.


I don't put them on a pedestal. I just like watching the sport. But if
it becomes something completely different, tainted by cheating, then
what is the point? The results are tainted just as clearly as if a game
was fixed or points were shaved. It's a waste of my time more than
anything and it gives me no reason to watch or care. And on some level
that is sad. The fact that so many accept it and either give in or
watch anyway is sad, IMHO.


Races are often bought and sold by the riders who can win search the
recent archives for one example. Even in the absence of medical
assistance, races aren't a pure athletic endeavour.

You might as well stop following the sport, the cards are stacked
against you.

wrote:
wrote:
Sure, it would be nice if no one cheated. But if you require
a certification - especially a certification from bozos on rbr -
that your heroes are saints before you are willing to put them
on a pedestal, perhaps you would be better off without heroes.

I don't put them on a pedestal. I just like watching the sport. But if
it becomes something completely different, tainted by cheating, then
what is the point? The results are tainted just as clearly as if a game
was fixed or points were shaved. It's a waste of my time more than
anything and it gives me no reason to watch or care. And on some level
that is sad. The fact that so many accept it and either give in or
watch anyway is sad, IMHO.

The modern function of spectator sports is entertainment.
If you want to extract a greater meaning from them, you can,
but you may also run a risk of disappointment.

I'm not condoning doping. But I am suggesting that
"it gives me no reason to watch," when what you are
watching is entertainment, is a weak argument against
doping. Arguably, everything you watch is a waste of
your time.

Ben
Usenet is a _participator_ sport that is a waste of your time.

B. Lafferty wrote:

I have no idea whether or not you have a substance
abuse problem as posted by another, but it could well explain your
irrationality and vitriol. All kibitzing aside, you need help Tom. I hope
you get it.

stop, you're making me nostalgic.

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
wrote:
.

And please don't give me the (baseball players use steroids) argument.
I don't watch baseball. I stopped watching long ago. And I'll stop
watching cycling if every race is a jig-saw puzzle of who got caught
and who didn't.

dumbass,

i agree with the newbie in this case. it's pretty lame to watch a race
and then the results get reversed a few months (or years - if dick
pound gets his way) later.

it's made everyone cynical. so now when you're watching some guy rip it
up on cycling.tv you can't enjoy the race, instead you're thinking,
"hah! i wonder when he'll get popped ?"