Take 80 to 100 Wasps....
B Lafferty
From CyclingNews:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/feb05/feb06news
July 2, 2003
Museeuw: "A wasps' nest, can you work one out? I'm leaving on Wednesday for
a training camp. I have no sight of the wasp. I have no control until 28/7."
Landuyt: "Now I would take 80-100 wasps and at the start of the training
camp a minimum of 40 and maximum of 60 wasps. Then completely clean from
19/7. It has to be in the inner tube. Test with washing machine."
Museeuw: "Subcutaneously or in the nose?"
Landuyt: "Always intravenously with wasp. Otherwise bingo. So certainly
intravenously."
--
How strange when an illusion dies, it's as though you've lost a child.--Judy
Garland
Bill C
That's going to be pretty tough to explain, or explain away, even with
no positive test. It's not concrete proof but it's pretty damn
convincing. For me this is worse than Hamilton if his is proven, or
even anything close to this level of proof. Hamilton was/is a good
human interest story, especially for Americans, but Musueew is a legend
with the results to validate it. Now those results have to be, at the
very least, marked with an asterisk. The only thing you can say is that
it's pretty much a given that he wasn't the only one on those podiums
who was doping.
Bill C
RonSonic
That's the point I've been trying to make every damn time I bother to post in
this group: There are no asterisks because everybody would have an asterisk. It
ain't cheating if everybody does it. Look at that thread about Lance and the
Hour - do you suppose Armstrong should take as much speed as Eddy did.
Cycling has had a drug problem for over 100 freeking years.
If we want it to come clean we stop fussing, worrying and persecuting who and
what and when in the PAST and mover forward with the intent and rules that
support clean racing in the future.
In the past the technology didn't exist that could catch all the cheats, it is
now a lot closer. Let's worry about what we can now control and the future
instead of flogging an unfortunate past about which we can do nothing but insult
the memory of the greats.
Ron
amit
RonSonic wrote:
> It
> ain't cheating if everybody does it.
that isn't the definition of cheating.
> If we want it to come clean we stop fussing, worrying and persecuting
who and
> what and when in the PAST and mover forward with the intent and rules
that
> support clean racing in the future.
that sounds like a concrete solution. i can't believe the UCI hasn't
figured this out.
> In the past the technology didn't exist that could catch all the
cheats, it is
> now a lot closer.
blood doping, epo, aranesp actually make someone significantly better.
speed, steroids, don't have nearly as much of an impact on endurance
performance.
B Lafferty
"Bill C" <trito...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1107707730.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
When you look at the rest of the published conversations from CN and
consider that this is a very small portion of the phone taps, there is
little doubt that the Lion of Flanders is really the Liar of Flanders. But
then, amongst the top pros, who isn't (excepting the US riders, domestic and
Euro, of course)
Luke
<rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> That's the point I've been trying to make every damn time I bother to post in
> this group: There are no asterisks because everybody would have an asterisk.
No asteriks need be appended if, indeed, the cheaters are first among
equals. But, first should it not be established that they are?
> It
> ain't cheating if everybody does it. Look at that thread about Lance and the
> Hour - do you suppose Armstrong should take as much speed as Eddy did.
>
> Cycling has had a drug problem for over 100 freeking years.
>
> If we want it to come clean we stop fussing, worrying and persecuting who and
> what and when in the PAST and mover forward with the intent and rules that
> support clean racing in the future.
Let's make a distinction between a persecution and an examination of
the truth--what's to fear from revealing the cloistered realities of
the pro peleton? If the Lion--or others--resorted to chemical courage
let it be known. After all, one cannot build toward 'clean racing in
the future' without determining the constitution and scope of the filth
pervading it today. And the how the transgressions are addressed today
figures into shaping that future.
>
> In the past the technology didn't exist that could catch all the cheats, it is
> now a lot closer. Let's worry about what we can now control and the future
> instead of flogging an unfortunate past about which we can do nothing but
> insult
> the memory of the greats.
>
> Ron
'Insult the memory of the greats!!??' <roll of the eyes> Yes, let not
the legacies of these gods suffer from unflattering truths.
luke
RonSonic
Well gee whiz, now that you are starting to get this figured out why not drop
your silly crusade of slurs and sneers and get a decent hobby. Maybe something
simple like following bicycle racing. It's a great sport and far more
interesting than the moral preening over drug use.
Ron
Jason Spaceman
just say that he was thinking of opening a laundromat, or taking up beekeeping
as a hobby, after he retired. And his doctor was helping him out. Yeah,
that's it, beekeeping and laundromats. Nothing wrong with that. Those
cyclists like good quality honey, and they need clean clothes. . .
J. Spaceman
--
My email address (notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org) is fake. Email sent to it
will only get caught in my spam tarpit.
Tom Kunich
news:060220051815534337%lu...@ca.inter.net...
> In article <3dkc01hn8t0p86lo1...@4ax.com>, RonSonic
> <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> That's the point I've been trying to make every damn time I bother to
>> post in
>> this group: There are no asterisks because everybody would have an
>> asterisk.
>
> No asteriks need be appended if, indeed, the cheaters are first among
> equals. But, first should it not be established that they are?
Here's the scoop - at the very end of his career Museeuw doesn't know how to
dope and is getting exact instructions.
Obviously those here who say everyone is doping just can't seem to add 2 and
2 together without getting 7.
RonSonic
They were great because they were great. Yep, they were also doped up. So was
the competition.
Now, does it matter what happened when? I think it doesn't. Oh, it gives
amusement to Lafferty and a life to Matt D for the rest of us and the sport
itself, nada.
Develop a sound, effective anti-doping program that the riders are comfortable
with and go from there.
Ron
B Lafferty
"RonSonic" <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:gedd01l1tdtanr9km...@4ax.com...
> Well gee whiz, now that you are starting to get this figured out why not
> drop
> your silly crusade of slurs and sneers and get a decent hobby. Maybe
> something
> simple like following bicycle racing. It's a great sport and far more
> interesting than the moral preening over drug use.
>
> Ron
>
It was a much greater and more interesting sport before the advent of EPO
and the other drugs of the past 15 years plus the resurgence of both forms
of blood doping. The problem is there for all to see. It's not about
slurs........the truth is not a slur. It is a great sport that is being
destroyed by cheats. Your attitude doesn't do anything to solve the
problem.
B Lafferty
That the riders are comfortable with? Most of them have been quite
comfortable over the past 15 years. Where have you been?
You might also want to consider that the level of doping since the advent of
EPO has made performance enhancement much more pronounced than in the quaint
old days of Coppi, Simpson, Jacques et al. And, at least those guys were
honest enough to admit that they juiced.
Patricio Carlos
know how to
dope and is getting exact instructions"
Possibly. But another explanation may be that he had only just changed
to aranesp (ie darbopoietin) from something else (eg erythropoietin)
and may be unsure of the new drug's dosages and the timing of the
drug's desired effect.
amit
B Lafferty wrote:
> It was a much greater and more interesting sport before the advent of
EPO
> and the other drugs of the past 15 years plus the resurgence of both
forms
> of blood doping.
dumbass, that's where you're wrong. as i've said here before, in
cycling as in rock'n'roll the best performances are drug performances.
pantani's blistering mtn attacks, furlan's poggio ascent, vdb's LBL
win, perhaps moose's greatest wins. when milaneza was tearing it up at
paris nice a couple years ago everyone was talking about their panache
etc. but it was the EPO.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
news:EPzNd.2204$mG6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Luke" <lu...@ca.inter.net> wrote in message
> news:060220051815534337%lu...@ca.inter.net...
> > In article <3dkc01hn8t0p86lo1...@4ax.com>, RonSonic
> > <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> That's the point I've been trying to make every damn time I bother to
> >> post in
> >> this group: There are no asterisks because everybody would have an
> >> asterisk.
> >
> > No asteriks need be appended if, indeed, the cheaters are first among
> > equals. But, first should it not be established that they are?
>
> Here's the scoop - at the very end of his career Museeuw doesn't know how
to
> dope and is getting exact instructions.
>
If that is the case, then his silence about all this doesn't really make
sense. I would expect that Museeuw would be willing to admit his doping use
if it was just a fraction of his career, because it would not taint his most
important achievements. Given his status, most people in his home country
would have given him the benefit of the doubt. But in reality, because he
will not admit anything, they suspect the worst. I understand why.
> Obviously those here who say everyone is doping just can't seem to add 2
and
> 2 together without getting 7.
'Everyone' is probably an overestimation, but there are many indications
that doping among pro cyclists is the norm rather than the exception. This
suspicion is often viewed as a hostile accusation against some or all
riders, which is bound to include the favorites that were assumed to be
clean or even considered to be paragons of virtue. But the doping hasn't
made me feel different towards any rider; I don't view either Hamilton or
Museeuw in a different way and can still respect what they did. The doping
problem appears to be bigger than any individual pro rider, so there is very
little to be gained by accusing or defending any individual and then
shouting victory when you're proven right. Doping issues should not become
an arena for other sentiments.
Van Hoorebeeck Bart
"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" schreef:
> If that is the case, then his silence about all this doesn't really make
> sense. I would expect that Museeuw would be willing to admit his doping use
> if it was just a fraction of his career, because it would not taint his most
> important achievements. Given his status, most people in his home country
> would have given him the benefit of the doubt. But in reality, because he
> will not admit anything, they suspect the worst. I understand why.
>
But I don't understand you. Cycling fans in his home country are aware doping
use is all around. That's what they basicly expect, and they don't bother.
What puzzles me and others is indeed the very fact the Museeuw at that age was
getting clued in and behaved so amateurishly about it. That makes me 'suspect'
he was rather clean-ish in his prime.
What you would expect about admitting etc. is not relevant either. Being Dutch
you must have seen lots of TV-interviews. Did he ever appear to be fitting in
your logic or the common sense?
B Lafferty
"amit" <am...@physics.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:1107752991....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
And groups of 30-40 riders in the closing kilometers of classics. Lead
peolotons of 20+ riders going over all the cols in the TdF as if they were
rolling hills and not major climbs. Riders with non-climbers height to
weight ratios able to climb like true climbers. Like Herrars said, when he
saw guys with fat asses passing him on major cols like he was standing
still, he knew the new drugs were responsible and that it was time to
retire. We can disagree, but I think there is a major difference in the
racing pre and post EPO and one difference is that the racing has become
more boring, set piece riding.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
bericht news:42074063...@wvc.vlaanderen.be...
>
>
> "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" schreef:
>
> > If that is the case, then his silence about all this doesn't really make
> > sense. I would expect that Museeuw would be willing to admit his doping
use
> > if it was just a fraction of his career, because it would not taint his
most
> > important achievements. Given his status, most people in his home
country
> > would have given him the benefit of the doubt. But in reality, because
he
> > will not admit anything, they suspect the worst. I understand why.
> >
>
> But I don't understand you. Cycling fans in his home country are aware
doping
> use is all around. That's what they basicly expect, and they don't bother.
Well, as I understood it from newspapers and what I saw on Belgian TV, he
would have met with a lot mroe understanding had he been as open as, say Ben
Berden. Perhaps because people already suspect pro riders to dope, and are
willing to believe Museeuw if he claims he did it just a few times to keep
up with the best at the end of his career.
And people do bother - unless I am gravely mistaken, the sanction put on
Museeuw did come as a shock.
>
> What puzzles me and others is indeed the very fact the Museeuw at that
age was
> getting clued in and behaved so amateurishly about it. That makes me
'suspect'
> he was rather clean-ish in his prime.
Rather cleanish? Relatively clean? That's saying a lot when in a strict
sense a single use of a forbidden product, even if its effects are minimal,
can cost a rider years of his career. Ofcourse it is possible that Museeuw
behaved like a beginner, but it does raise questions about how experienced
dopers would act.
>
> What you would expect about admitting etc. is not relevant either. Being
Dutch
> you must have seen lots of TV-interviews. Did he ever appear to be fitting
in
> your logic or the common sense?
He appeared to be meeting his lawyer's wishes. Also, I think his actions
make most sense if he has been doping to some extent most of his career.
Rather cleanish, I would agree.
Luke
<rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >'Insult the memory of the greats!!??' <roll of the eyes> Yes, let not
> >the legacies of these gods suffer from unflattering truths.
>
> They were great because they were great. Yep, they were also doped up. So was
> the competition.
>
> Now, does it matter what happened when? I think it doesn't.
Perhaps we share the same sentiments: Although I think it does matter
in the sense that openly acknowledging the extent and history of a
problem better informs the strategy designed to address it; as you, I
don't believe the lustre of the palmares of Merckx, Anquetuil, et al,
will be tarnished. Times and standards were different then: present-day
competition is more sophisticated and regulated. Kinda makes ya yearn
for a simpler era....
> Oh, it gives
> amusement to Lafferty and a life to Matt D for the rest of us and the sport
> itself, nada.
>
> Develop a sound, effective anti-doping program that the riders are comfortable
> with and go from there.
>
> Ron
Unfortunately, the numbing regularity of doping scandals indicates that
the peleton seems quite comfortable in accommodating the problem. I
wonder if consensus among the riders regarding an anti-doping
initiative is at all possible. No, the time for diplomacy is over.
There's no time like the present for cheaters to appreciate that they
must suffer the consequences of breaking the rules.
luke
Donald Munro
> In the past the technology didn't exist that could catch all the cheats, it is
> now a lot closer.
It's touching to see such idealism still exists.
RonSonic
wrote:
That's "a lot closer."
No it won't ever happen. Perhaps there'll come a time when you submit a DNA
sample with your license application and any blood test result that is
inconsistent with that DNA profile will be considered a positive.
Even then there'll be a work-around.
Ron
RonSonic
Then is it really any of your business if the riders agree that doping is
acceptable among themselves. Not going to defend doping, but I do want to know
why YOU get to dictate to these great athletes what they can take and can't.
The claim is constantly made that the anti-doping crusade protects the athletes.
If so wouldn't they support it? There was some initial resistance to hardshell
helmets but the grumbling stopped almost immediately. Wouldn't it be the same
with doping if it really were to their benefit.
>You might also want to consider that the level of doping since the advent of
>EPO has made performance enhancement much more pronounced than in the quaint
>old days of Coppi, Simpson, Jacques et al. And, at least those guys were
>honest enough to admit that they juiced.
They could afford to be honest because they didn't have puritanical mobs made up
of the likes of you trying to ruin their careers.
Look at their schedule. Let's see you ride like that without drugs. We'll come
along and pick you up sobbing in the middle of the road where you fell off the
bike in exhaustion. Or could you even push yourself that far and hard.
Ron
B Lafferty
> Then is it really any of your business if the riders agree that doping is
> acceptable among themselves. Not going to defend doping, but I do want to
> know
> why YOU get to dictate to these great athletes what they can take and
> can't.
It's every cycling fans business. Ronnie, it's not me dictating what the can
and can't take. It's the UCI and now the proscribed list propagated by WADA
which the UCI has signed on to.
>
> The claim is constantly made that the anti-doping crusade protects the
> athletes.
> If so wouldn't they support it?
No. By the same reasoning young people would never take up smoking knowing
that it casaes major health problems down the road. Down the road to a
young rider is too far away to prevent him/her from using dope to be
competitive in the short run, regardless of the down side. The fact that
riders have died in their sleep from EPO use, quite possibly suffered heart
attacks due to HgH use and that some have required dental surgery to
ameliorate the effects of HgH use has apparently not deterred them from
using if they want to ride as a pro.
>There was some initial resistance to hardshell
> helmets but the grumbling stopped almost immediately. Wouldn't it be the
> same
> with doping if it really were to their benefit.
No. The money to be made by taking dope to win and have a lucrative career
is not an issue in deciding whether or not to protest required helmet use.
>
>>You might also want to consider that the level of doping since the advent
>>of
>>EPO has made performance enhancement much more pronounced than in the
>>quaint
>>old days of Coppi, Simpson, Jacques et al. And, at least those guys were
>>honest enough to admit that they juiced.
>
> They could afford to be honest because they didn't have puritanical mobs
> made up
> of the likes of you trying to ruin their careers.
I haven't see any mobs. I do see sports governing bodies confronting the
drugs issue head on for a change (well, perhaps the UCI isn't all that
agressive but WADA is). I do see a peloton full of liars who even when
caught continue to deny their use of dope until either the sanction is
imposed or the evidence is totally incontravertable (eg. Virenque).
>
> Look at their schedule. Let's see you ride like that without drugs. We'll
> come
> along and pick you up sobbing in the middle of the road where you fell off
> the
> bike in exhaustion. Or could you even push yourself that far and hard.
Ronnie, as much as you'd like this to be about me--it really isn't. Their
schedule, hmmm. How many racing days does the typical rider today engage in
compared to the post-WWII period through 1980 or 1982? The answer is much
less with the advent of specialization that has occurred. If you read a
book such as Dino Buzzati's on the 1949 Giro, you'll see that the drugs used
back then were not so much to increase performance but for riders,
especially the less gifted ones, to be able to merely survive races that
were generally longer and more grueling that today.
As Daniel Baal said during the late 1990s, with the advent of EPO there was
no longer great suffereing on the TdF cols as there had been before. Riders
finishing mountain stages as fresh as could be, with little real suffering
was simply not natural. It turns out that it wasn't at all natural and
still isn't with the re-emergence of blood boosting now that EPO is more
readily detected.
You may find this difficult to fathom, but some of us to care about the
sport and would like to see cycling competition be between the riders and
not the doctors/trainers and indirectly the drug companies.
Tom Paterson
>It was a much greater and more interesting sport before the advent of EPO
>and the other drugs of the past 15 years plus the resurgence of both forms
>of blood doping.
Opinion. Especially since drugs (substance use) have been "in" all along. With
your comments elsewhere about riders not suffering on climbs, is your real
"interest" seeing people in pain?
You can attack EPO use on the basis of rider health with a lot more
justification-- IMHO. But as "cheating"? Bah. "Choose a substance that bothers
you".
>It is a great sport that is being
>destroyed by cheats.
The "problem" is the way the cheaters are being dealt with. Rumor, innuendo,
personal vendettas, secret testing operations, destroyed careers (effective
lifetime bans).
>Your attitude doesn't do anything to >solve the problem.
So now it isn't "about B. Lafferty" but it is "about" Ron Sonic?
Pound is a grandstanding bully. I get the feeling this all goes back to his
failure to medal in 1960 or whenever that was.
I'll draw a flawed comparison between bike racing and NASCAR. Police raiding
team transporters to find illegal parts or specs? Maybe the best thing would be
for the oh-so puritanical (and sponsor cash driven) WADA to make rules it can
really enforce, and with its own resources. Calling in the police (who else
dropped the dime?) made them look like a bunch of tea-sipping tsk-tsking old
ladies in need of prolonged, considerate penis application. Opinion and labeled
as such. --TP
B Lafferty
"Tom Paterson" <dusto...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20050207113653...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> From: "B Lafferty"
>
>>It was a much greater and more interesting sport before the advent of EPO
>>and the other drugs of the past 15 years plus the resurgence of both forms
>>of blood doping.
>
> Opinion. Especially since drugs (substance use) have been "in" all along.
> With
> your comments elsewhere about riders not suffering on climbs, is your real
> "interest" seeing people in pain?
>
> You can attack EPO use on the basis of rider health with a lot more
> justification-- IMHO. But as "cheating"? Bah. "Choose a substance that
> bothers
> you".
We have a difference of opinion.
>
>>It is a great sport that is being
>>destroyed by cheats.
>
> The "problem" is the way the cheaters are being dealt with. Rumor,
> innuendo,
> personal vendettas, secret testing operations, destroyed careers
> (effective
> lifetime bans).
Not the reality.
>
> >Your attitude doesn't do anything to >solve the problem.
>
> So now it isn't "about B. Lafferty" but it is "about" Ron Sonic?
It's not about me or Ronnie. It's about how best to deal with a major
problem in cycling as well as other sports. People can have differeing
opinions on the problem.
>
> Pound is a grandstanding bully. I get the feeling this all goes back to
> his
> failure to medal in 1960 or whenever that was.
Opinion.
>
> I'll draw a flawed comparison between bike racing and NASCAR. Police
> raiding
> team transporters to find illegal parts or specs? Maybe the best thing
> would be
> for the oh-so puritanical (and sponsor cash driven) WADA to make rules it
> can
> really enforce, and with its own resources. Calling in the police (who
> else
> dropped the dime?) made them look like a bunch of tea-sipping tsk-tsking
> old
> ladies in need of prolonged, considerate penis application. Opinion and
> labeled
> as such. --TP
WADA has not called in the police and I think you know that. Police action
and investigations of doping were prevalent prior to the formation of WADA.
Analogies to NASCAR don't interest me.
Tom Paterson
>> With
>> your comments elsewhere about riders not suffering on climbs, is your real
>> "interest" seeing people in pain?
>No.
Then?
>>But as "cheating"? Bah. "Choose a >>substance that bothers
>> you".
>We have a difference of opinion.
Correct. Opinion: EPO is "bad" because people died from using it. The "affect
on the sport" is playing with words for effect.
>> The "problem" is the way the cheaters are being dealt with. Rumor,
>> innuendo,
>> personal vendettas, secret testing operations, destroyed careers
>> (effective
>> lifetime bans).
>Not the reality.
Walsh goes after Armstrong. Pound goes after Marion Jones. Secret lab
protocols. Reality.
>It's not about me or Ronnie. It's about how best to deal with a major
>problem in cycling as well as other sports. People can have differeing
>opinions on the problem.
*If* "everyone is doing it", then you have to "do it" too, or be obscure. This
follows from weak testing methods (for all the lofty goals) that leave the door
wide open to escape being caught. So why the furor, and the harsh penalties,
when the sanctioning bodies are *at least* as much to blame for the situation
as athletes, coaches, etc.?
>> Pound is a grandstanding bully. I get the feeling this all goes back to
>> his
>> failure to medal in 1960 or whenever that was.
>Opinion.
I said that at the end. Steroids were available, were being used at least by
weightlifters, and were not being tested for.
Pound is using this "bully pulpit" to drag in lots of money over the bodies of
athletes. (Opinion) He stinks.
>WADA has not called in the police and I >think you know that.
No, and you don't know the whys and wherefores of the police actions either.
> Police action
>and investigations of doping were prevalent prior to the formation of WADA.
True. DA's looking for safe targets (as has been noted here previously)? Yup
(opinion). Phone calls from "interested parties", well versed in "political"
aspects of legal actions? Certainly possible.
>Analogies to NASCAR don't interest me.
NASCAR does a lot better and smarter job of policing the "fairness of
competition" than WADA. So maybe there should be some interest at least at
WADA. Fines, taking away points; perhaps even one- or two-race suspensions,
which strongly discourage cheating and unsportsmanlike behavior, are (for one
thing) so much less "damaging to the sport" than banning (effectively) racers
for life, or "tarnishing" careers beyond redemption.
For all the moralistic posturing one can see with the "enforcers" and their
admirers, Richard Virenque is a hero in France. Not putting a golden seal on
the court of public opinion, but I give his fans credit for being able to "get
real". As usual, "YMMV". --TP
gym gravity
> Here's the scoop - at the very end of his career Museeuw doesn't know how to
> dope and is getting exact instructions.
no, what he doesn't know how to do is how to use aranesp...exact
instructions for aranesp.
B Lafferty
"Tom Paterson" <dusto...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> From: "B Lafferty"
>
>>> With
>>> your comments elsewhere about riders not suffering on climbs, is your
>>> real
>>> "interest" seeing people in pain?
>
>>No.
>
> Then?
>
>>>But as "cheating"? Bah. "Choose a >>substance that bothers
>>> you".
>
>>We have a difference of opinion.
>
> Correct. Opinion: EPO is "bad" because people died from using it. The
> "affect
> on the sport" is playing with words for effect.
>
>>> The "problem" is the way the cheaters are being dealt with. Rumor,
>>> innuendo,
>>> personal vendettas, secret testing operations, destroyed careers
>>> (effective
>>> lifetime bans).
>
>>Not the reality.
>
> Walsh goes after Armstrong. Pound goes after Marion Jones. Secret lab
> protocols. Reality.
Still your opinioin. The "secret lab protocols" will be revealed at the
first hearing via discovery. Reality.
>
>>It's not about me or Ronnie. It's about how best to deal with a major
>>problem in cycling as well as other sports. People can have differeing
>>opinions on the problem.
>
> *If* "everyone is doing it", then you have to "do it" too, or be obscure.
> This
> follows from weak testing methods (for all the lofty goals) that leave the
> door
> wide open to escape being caught. So why the furor, and the harsh
> penalties,
> when the sanctioning bodies are *at least* as much to blame for the
> situation
> as athletes, coaches, etc.?
Which is why a tearful Virenque siad he didn't consider what he did to be
cheating--it was "preparation"--because they were all doing it. He was
sanctioned because what he did was cheating; it violated the stated rules of
his sport. If they're all doing it, they're all cheating. IMO, there should
be harsh penalties for not only the riders.
>
>>> Pound is a grandstanding bully. I get the feeling this all goes back to
>>> his
>>> failure to medal in 1960 or whenever that was.
>
>>Opinion.
>
> I said that at the end. Steroids were available, were being used at least
> by
> weightlifters, and were not being tested for.
>
> Pound is using this "bully pulpit" to drag in lots of money over the
> bodies of
> athletes. (Opinion) He stinks.
Our opinions differ.
>
>>WADA has not called in the police and I >think you know that.
>
> No, and you don't know the whys and wherefores of the police actions
> either.
>
>> Police action
>>and investigations of doping were prevalent prior to the formation of
>>WADA.
>
> True. DA's looking for safe targets (as has been noted here previously)?
> Yup
> (opinion). Phone calls from "interested parties", well versed in
> "political"
> aspects of legal actions? Certainly possible.
I know of no District Attorneys doing prosecutions in Europe. There are
investigating judges who are, by law, charged with carrying out
investigations of violations of law. Of course someone has to put the
problem on the radar screen. The sport is big in Europe but not here in the
US. Balco came into the prosecutorial sights because it involved high
profile T&F Olympic medalists and others in poppular US sports. Cycling is
on the radar in Europe because of its popularity.
>
>>Analogies to NASCAR don't interest me.
>
> NASCAR does a lot better and smarter job of policing the "fairness of
> competition" than WADA. So maybe there should be some interest at least at
> WADA. Fines, taking away points; perhaps even one- or two-race
> suspensions,
> which strongly discourage cheating and unsportsmanlike behavior, are (for
> one
> thing) so much less "damaging to the sport" than banning (effectively)
> racers
> for life, or "tarnishing" careers beyond redemption.
>
> For all the moralistic posturing one can see with the "enforcers" and
> their
> admirers, Richard Virenque is a hero in France. Not putting a golden seal
> on
> the court of public opinion, but I give his fans credit for being able to
> "get
> real". As usual, "YMMV". --TP
And Martha Steward signs to do a reality show while still in prison. Michael
Jackson will have legions of fans no matter what the verdict at his trial.
As Flom might argue, this is what happens when you kill God.
Tom Kunich
>
> It was a much greater and more interesting sport before the advent of
EPO
> and the other drugs of the past 15 years plus the resurgence of both
forms
> of blood doping. The problem is there for all to see. It's not
about
> slurs........the truth is not a slur. It is a great sport that is
being
> destroyed by cheats. Your attitude doesn't do anything to solve the
> problem.
Maybe you can explain that - perhaps there was a problem when EPO was
being used to force hematocrit above natural levels but since now
everyone has to maintain their hct at NORMAL levels perhaps you can
tell us why EPO would be having any significant effect?
Tom Kunich
Washing Machine = blood centrifuge for measuring hematicrit. You 'fuge
down the blood and measure the relative heights of blood cells and
serum.
B Lafferty
"Tom Kunich" <cycl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107803553.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
And as Squinzi and others have noted in relation to the 50% health rule,
it's a license to cheat up to 50%. The use of EPO/blood packing is against
the rules and is cheating no mater where the hematocrit falls. Further, we
know from the statements of riders who have knowledge of doping practices,
that the blood can be thinned to pass the test. What then are they actually
racing at? Importantly, EPO is still being used to force hematocrit levels
about natural levels. Nature doesn't give everyone 50% on race day.
Cheating does.
Tom Kunich
news:cu7es6$eam$1...@reader11.wxs.nl...
> "Tom Kunich" <cycl...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
> news:EPzNd.2204$mG6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> to dope and is getting exact instructions.
>
> If that is the case, then his silence about all this doesn't really make
> sense.
Why is that? Museeuw was doping for at least two years in which he won at
least one race. In anyone's vocabulary that's cheating all of those other
riders out of a win. Especially our man George.
>> Obviously those here who say everyone is doping just can't seem to add 2
>> and 2 together without getting 7.
>
> 'Everyone' is probably an overestimation, but there are many indications
> that doping among pro cyclists is the norm rather than the exception.
I don't know that I'd put it that way.
Tom Kunich
news:UbPNd.4216$wK....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
1) Nature gives most healthy men sufficient blood capacity if they train
properly.
2) Cheating does NOT guarantee hct levels at the limit.
Stewart Fleming
amit wrote:
> pantani's blistering mtn attacks, furlan's poggio ascent, vdb's LBL
> win, perhaps moose's greatest wins. when milaneza was tearing it up at
> paris nice a couple years ago everyone was talking about their panache
> etc. but it was the EPO.
Anything real since 1993?
B Lafferty
In the current issue of VeloNews, anonymous rider #1 put it that way.
Tom Paterson
>Still your opinioin. The "secret lab protocols" will be revealed at the
>first hearing via discovery. Reality.
Some of the lab protocols might be revealed, some may not. Meanwhile, they've
had a long, long time to "get their story straight", haven't they?
(I wrote):
>> Walsh goes after Armstrong. Pound >>goes after Marion Jones.
Brian? Brian? This is *personal* stuff. Armstrong embarrassed Walsh at a press
conference (so the story goes), Jones used the term "kangaroo court" and Pound
is trying to crush her. *personal stuff* *vendettas*
>Which is why a tearful Virenque siad he didn't consider what he did to be
>cheating--it was "preparation"--because >they were all doing it.
The governing bodies created a situation where they outlawed activities they
couldn't detect or control. NASCAR: "Your engine can have only 350 cu. in.
displacement", but then they don't measure engine displacements on winning cars
after races.
>He was
>sanctioned because what he did was cheating; it violated the stated rules of
>his sport. If they're all doing it, they're all cheating. IMO, there should
>be harsh penalties for not only the riders.
How do you outlaw something you can't find or measure?
>There are
>investigating judges who are, by law, charged with carrying out
>investigations of violations of law.
Just like traffic cops, they grab some and let others go for reasons that might
have nothing to do with their "charged duty".
>And Martha Steward signs to do a reality >show while still in prison.
I see some real justice there. Why the fuck isn't that son of a bitch Ken Lay
in jail? They beat up on a GIRL.
>Michael
>Jackson will have legions of fans no >matter what the verdict at his trial.
Michael likely will not do as well as M. Stewart in jail.
>As Flom might argue, this is what >happens when you kill God.
"God" has nothing to do with this. Skilling, is he on vakay in the Caribean?
The Lays, Christmas in one of their two or three remaining Aspen homes? Get
real. Please.
--TP
Tom Kunich
>
> In the current issue of VeloNews, anonymous rider #1 put it that way.
And we all know exactly what "anonymous testimony" is worth don't we? Or
perhaps you don't.
B Lafferty
Right, Asshole. They're just disgruntled, loser ex pros with an axe of
resentment to grind. Wake up, if you can. Then again....
amit
B Lafferty wrote:
> >
> > dumbass, that's where you're wrong. as i've said here before, in
> > cycling as in rock'n'roll the best performances are drug
performances.
> >
> > pantani's blistering mtn attacks, furlan's poggio ascent, vdb's LBL
> > win, perhaps moose's greatest wins. when milaneza was tearing it up
at
> > paris nice a couple years ago everyone was talking about their
panache
> > etc. but it was the EPO.
>
> And groups of 30-40 riders in the closing kilometers of classics.
Lead
> peolotons of 20+ riders going over all the cols in the TdF as if they
were
> rolling hills and not major climbs. Riders with non-climbers height
to
> weight ratios able to climb like true climbers.
dumbass,
i can't believe it's not panache!.
Kurgan Gringioni
B Lafferty wrote:
> >
> > pantani's blistering mtn attacks, furlan's poggio ascent, vdb's LBL
> > win, perhaps moose's greatest wins. when milaneza was tearing it up
at
> > paris nice a couple years ago everyone was talking about their
panache
> > etc. but it was the EPO.
>
> And groups of 30-40 riders in the closing kilometers of classics.
Lead
> peolotons of 20+ riders going over all the cols in the TdF as if they
were
> rolling hills and not major climbs. Riders with non-climbers height
to
> weight ratios able to climb like true climbers.
Dumbass -
Like Eddy Merckx?
K. Gringioni.
Donald Munro
>>> pantani's blistering mtn attacks, furlan's poggio ascent, vdb's LBL
>>> win, perhaps moose's greatest wins. when milaneza was tearing it up
>>> at paris nice a couple years ago everyone was talking about their
>>> panache etc. but it was the EPO.
B Lafferty wrote:
>> And groups of 30-40 riders in the closing kilometers of classics.
>> Lead peolotons of 20+ riders going over all the cols in the TdF as if
>> they were rolling hills and not major climbs. Riders with non-climbers height
>> to weight ratios able to climb like true climbers.
amit wrote:
> i can't believe it's not panache!.
Where can you buy panache and what dosage should you take ? Any side
effects ?
amit
dumbass, it was the panache.
Curtis L. Russell
<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Where can you buy panache and what dosage should you take ? Any side
>effects ?
GH only took a little and found out his feet only fit in odd
Italian-designed slippers.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...