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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

The plot thickens.....

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

In article
,
wrote:

On May 20, 7:19*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.
Of course it would also lead to the end of pro bike racing but that
would take care off the doping problem.

On 20/05/10 5:19 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

The plot thickens.....

Saw Lance yesterday in San Jose at the beginning of the San Jose to
Modesto stage of the Tour 'de California. If he's doping it hasn't
helped him in the Tour 'de California.

It was rather sickening seeing the female groupies screaming at Lance "I
want to have your children" and to see them kissing the pavement where
his tires touched it. I thought that kind of thing only happened to me.

On 20 May, 18:33, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article
,

wrote:
On May 20, 7:19*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.

Dates much further back, was present with soviet union etc. with
administration of 'vitamins' (hormones and steroids mostly).
*
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.. *
Of course it would also lead to the end of pro bike racing but that
would take care off the doping problem.

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

On May 20, 11:35*am, SMS wrote:
On 20/05/10 5:19 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:

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

The plot thickens.....

Saw Lance yesterday in San Jose at the beginning of the San Jose to
Modesto stage of the Tour 'de California. If he's doping it hasn't
helped him in the Tour 'de California.

It was rather sickening seeing the female groupies screaming at Lance "I
want to have your children" and to see them kissing the pavement where
his tires touched it. I thought that kind of thing only happened to me.

They scream for Lance because they can't afford to dress or screw like
Sarah Jessica Parker in "Sex and the City". They figure he could pay
for them.

sa

On May 20, 1:17*pm, 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?

It would actually benefit pro racing by allowing additional categories
ala body building. We could have the "all natural TdF" and the
"classic TdF." You could have those follow/lead promo cars from Amgen
and Becton Dickenson -- shaped like a giant syringe. I think I saw a
cartoon of that once. -- Jay Beattie.

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."

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