a solution to doping...

I don't know if this has been suggested, but you have to ask the
question, "why are they all doping?" To win, maybe, but I tend to follow
the money when I see corruption on a mass scale. Why not take all of the
money out of it. No endorsements, no winnings, only amateurs. Anyone who
has accepted a single dollar for riding a bike has to be considered
corrupted. Have the participants buy their own bikes, travel to the Tour de
France on their dime. Forget the coaches, trainers, mechanics, get rid of
all of that. You have to squeeze every last penny out of the event, for the
riders. Then maybe we'll see some fun racing, with confidence that the
winner, actually won.

Callistus Valerius wrote:
I don't know if this has been suggested, but you have to ask the
question, "why are they all doping?" To win, maybe, but I tend to follow
the money when I see corruption on a mass scale. Why not take all of the
money out of it. No endorsements, no winnings, only amateurs. Anyone who
has accepted a single dollar for riding a bike has to be considered
corrupted. Have the participants buy their own bikes, travel to the Tour de
France on their dime. Forget the coaches, trainers, mechanics, get rid of
all of that. You have to squeeze every last penny out of the event, for the
riders. Then maybe we'll see some fun racing, with confidence that the
winner, actually won.

Dumbass,

So you're saying everything should be like RAAM, where there is doping
but no one knows for sure because no one cares enough to test?

Bob Schwartz

On Tue, 22 May 2007 14:16:53 GMT, "Callistus Valerius"
wrote:

I don't know if this has been suggested, but you have to ask the
question, "why are they all doping?" To win, maybe, but I tend to follow
the money when I see corruption on a mass scale. Why not take all of the
money out of it. No endorsements, no winnings, only amateurs. Anyone who
has accepted a single dollar for riding a bike has to be considered
corrupted. Have the participants buy their own bikes, travel to the Tour de
France on their dime. Forget the coaches, trainers, mechanics, get rid of
all of that. You have to squeeze every last penny out of the event, for the
riders. Then maybe we'll see some fun racing, with confidence that the
winner, actually won.

Dumbass - if they bring their own bikes, they'll bring their ownn dope. What are
you, silly. People don't dope because of money, they dope to avoid pain and to
make themselves happy. Endorsement deals have nothing to do with it.

Ron

Ron

Effect pedal demo's up at http://www.soundclick.com/ronsonicpedalry

Callistus Valerius wrote:

I don't know if this has been suggested, but you have to ask the
question, "why are they all doping?" To win, maybe, but I tend to
follow the money when I see corruption on a mass scale. Why not take
all of the money out of it. No endorsements, no winnings, only
amateurs. Anyone who has accepted a single dollar for riding a bike
has to be considered corrupted. Have the participants buy their own
bikes, travel to the Tour de France on their dime. Forget the
coaches, trainers, mechanics, get rid of all of that. You have to
squeeze every last penny out of the event, for the riders. Then maybe
we'll see some fun racing, with confidence that the winner, actually
won.

I think they ought to legalize all forms of PEDs. Then, PED research would
come out in the open and we might see drugs that would reduce health risks
and *really* increase performance. Imagine riders having to wear face
guards to protect their skin from high wind speeds. Race coverage altered
as the riders were now faster than the motos uphill, downhill, on the
flats, you name it. Crashes would be spectacular, field sprints would look
like an episode of Battle Bots. Stages would have to be lengthened to make
it hard for the riders, with a "monumental" mountain stage including Mt.
Ventoux climbed from the north, south, east, and west where there is no
road. The Tour de France, Giro, and Vuelta would be combined to make it a
challenge. They could call it the Tour de Europe, and include Western
Russia with stages through the Urals in the dead of winter (The Tour de
Langkawi would be lengthened a bit to include India, Thailand, China,
Mongolia, Pakistan, Nepal, Tibet, Bhutan, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, and
Siberia). At the end of the day, the riders would be packed in ice, like
Jean Claude van Damm in Universal Soldier.

Cooooooooooooooool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
Bill Asher

On Tue, 22 May 2007 10:12:03 -0500, Bob Schwartz
wrote:

Callistus Valerius wrote:
I don't know if this has been suggested, but you have to ask the
question, "why are they all doping?" To win, maybe, but I tend to follow
the money when I see corruption on a mass scale. Why not take all of the
money out of it. No endorsements, no winnings, only amateurs. Anyone who
has accepted a single dollar for riding a bike has to be considered
corrupted. Have the participants buy their own bikes, travel to the Tour de
France on their dime. Forget the coaches, trainers, mechanics, get rid of
all of that. You have to squeeze every last penny out of the event, for the
riders. Then maybe we'll see some fun racing, with confidence that the
winner, actually won.

Dumbass,

So you're saying everything should be like RAAM, where there is doping
but no one knows for sure because no one cares enough to test?

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

On May 22, 9:16 am, "Callistus Valerius"
wrote:
I don't know if this has been suggested, but you have to ask the
question, "why are they all doping?" To win, maybe, but I tend to follow
the money when I see corruption on a mass scale. Why not take all of the
money out of it. No endorsements, no winnings, only amateurs. Anyone who
has accepted a single dollar for riding a bike has to be considered
corrupted.

Isn't this suggestion the way it used to be? Remember the east
germans and soviet union? They perfected doping long before anyone
else had a clue.
No prize money then either. Just national pride in cheating.