Hecklers starting to joust with the Dope King
Anton Berlin
can't punch people for telling the truth.
They ain't 'fighting words' if they're true. (of course I have no
idea what the laws in LU are)
But in Amerika it's open season on Lance.
http://gantdaily.com/2010/06/06/heckler-tries-to-spoil-armstrongs-third-place-finish-in-luxembourg/
Fredmaster of Brainerd
The LANCE has previously shown hecklers that he is
not to be trifled with:
http://magliarosa.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/diabo-moderno/
Fredmaster Ben
(not actually that big a fan of the LANCE but this
episode was fairly awesome in its way)
Anton Berlin
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?
Is it because he's a genuine nice guy or is because he has 17 car
dealerships in Denver and people like to buy cars from a nice guy?
Lance Inc has a bigger media machine than most companies up to a $B in
annual revenues.
It's just sad that the guy didn't step up when challenged, sooner or
later someone will and that's when it gets interesting.
Brad Anders
Anton, you said you just stopped by his shop this past weekend, and it
sounds like you will likely have (or have had) the opportunity to
challenge Lance. Tell us what you did, or what you're going to do, we
all need the guidance. Are you going to bring your dual syringes
again?
thanks,
Brad Anders
Anton Berlin
I wouldn't go out of my way to run into him but if I did I doubt I
would waste my time or voice. Lance is pretty practiced at denial.
Why isn't he suing Landis ? In the past he did the next day.
--D-y
> On Jun 7, 11:17 am, Brad Anders <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 7, 7:52 am, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> 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?
>
> > > Is it because he's a genuine nice guy or is because he has 17 car
> > > dealerships in Denver and people like to buy cars from a nice guy?
>
> > > Lance Inc has a bigger media machine than most companies up to a $B in
> > > annual revenues.
>
> > > It's just sad that the guy didn't step up when challenged, sooner or
> > > later someone will and that's when it gets interesting.
>
> > Anton, you said you just stopped by his shop this past weekend, and it
> > sounds like you will likely have (or have had) the opportunity to
> > challenge Lance. Tell us what you did, or what you're going to do, we
> > all need the guidance. Are you going to bring your dual syringes
> > again?
> I wouldn't go out of my way to run into him but if I did I doubt I
> would waste my time or voice. Lance is pretty practiced at denial.
That knockdown into the snow bank must have really hurt you, bro.
--D-y
Brad Anders
So, earlier, you said:
It's just sad that the guy didn't step up when challenged, sooner or
later someone will and that's when it gets interesting.
.. and now, you say you wouldn't waste your time or voice to challenge
him. Hard to figure out where you're coming from. Given your oft-
expressed views about Lance, and your apparent connection to cycling
through all the hints you've dropped, why aren't you the guy to make
things "interesting"? Or is that something you advocate for someone
less anonymous than yourself? As you pointed out yourself, he's not
suing Landis, so I have a hard time understanding why any current or
ex-pro with an opinion to express about Lance wouldn't do so without
having to hide behind a pseudonym. If your goal is to see some kind of
justice served against Lance, and you actually have some standing in
the cycling world, wouldn't adding your name to the list be what you'd
want to do?
BTW, don't get the impression I think Lance is clean, or that he
hasn't done anything different than any other top pro riders have done
to be competitive. I don't. I just don't see him as being any
different from other top pros, other than having a past history of
winning more often. I also don't understand why so many of those
associated with pro cycling seem so reluctant to take a public stance,
it they're actually firm in their convictions.
thanks,
Brad Anders
Anton Berlin
I kill a little time at work ranting on these boards and the stories
in the Dallas newspaper but other than that I don't really care that
much.
I'm not an ex-pro, just one of many ex cat1s that exist. Life is busy
enough and the arenas I do my battles in are far more personal to
me.
And the reality is I don't any real passion or anger towards Lance or
even BP or Wall Street as examples.
It's a long haul and there are far greater forces in the universe
working to balance these things out.
Lance and all of the other cheaters in the world have a psychology
that allows them not to realize that simple fundamental reality.
marco
> Anton, you said you just stopped by his shop this past weekend, and it
> sounds like you will likely have (or have had) the opportunity to
> challenge Lance. Tell us what you did, or what you're going to do, we
> all need the guidance. Are you going to bring your dual syringes
> again?
Anton Berlin wrote:
> I wouldn't go out of my way to run into him but if I did I doubt I
> would waste my time or voice. Lance is pretty practiced at denial.
A week before the Tour of California, my wife and I were driving to the
nursery when we came up behind a slow moving SUV following two riders. I
knew immediately who it was--Lance riding with a friend of mine. I told my
wife and she got really excited (she's got a thing for celebrities). I
rolled down the passenger window and proceeded to pass the SUV and slow down
beside the riders. Lance turned toward us looking a bit annoyed. Out of
respect for my friend, I resisted my initial temptation to heckle him ...but
we didn't acknowledge him either. We just yelled "Hi" to my friend.
It's one thing to have a harsh opinion about somebody, but it's something
different to confront them directly, especially if the issue doesn't really
impact you. Actually, I'm conflicted... I do feel really bad for those guys
who stayed clean even though it meant a one-way ticket home. That's why the
doping apologists like --D-y bug me. Yeah, the system is corrupt, but still
some guys have enough integrity to say "No".
Brad Anders
OK, thanks for making your position clear.
Brad Anders
Brad Anders
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.
Brad Anders
S Perryman
> 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.
+1 ( +N in fact - as many I know feel the same way) .
All I hope is that I never come to see the day that those I revered are
shown to have been doping during their heyday (although their 'doping
family trees' suggest it may only be a matter of time) ... :-(
Regards,
Steven Perryman
Michael Press
<541e5503-87bd-44a9...@42g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Fredmaster of Brainerd <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 6, 4:39 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Lance better talk to his attorneys before he realizes too late you
> > can't punch people for telling the truth.
> >
> > They ain't 'fighting words' if they're true. (of course I have no
> > idea what the laws in LU are)
> >
> > But in Amerika it's open season on Lance.
> >
> > http://gantdaily.com/2010/06/06/heckler-tries-to-spoil-armstrongs-thi...
>
> The LANCE has previously shown hecklers that he is
> not to be trifled with:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/3c33439ab7a5289b/c4042006738809f3?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=devil+syringe#c4042006738809f3
>
> http://magliarosa.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/diabo-moderno/
Should have dispatched a water carrier to dismount
and rub snow in tool boy's face.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<83d5b1e2-a8a9-4705...@v12g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Anton Berlin <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
More proof that LANCE took drugs for performance!
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<03fcbcdb-a38e-40bc...@x27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Anton Berlin <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I do not believe you as you claim to dispassionately
observe. You write with venom; with a serious,
humorless, edge; with a kind of energy the matter does
not deserve; a matter that has nothing to do with you
personally or your endeavor to get along in the world.
--
Michael Press
A. Dumas Fred
> those I revered
There's your problem right there.
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It's a long haul and there are far greater forces in the universe
>working to balance these things out.
But evidently many aren't willing to chance it...
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Betty
> It's a long haul and there are far greater forces in the universe
> working to balance these things out.
Dark energy doesn't work if you get your candles wrong.
--D-y
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.
That's not apologizing. That's trying to get real about a complicated
situation that has no easy "solutions".
BTW, I feel bad for the guys who stay clean including myself who saw
others ride away to the medals. I could have juiced, as reports
indicate at least some of those guys were doing.
Again, people will take reputedly dangerous substances and egregiously
cheat in other ways to win *anything*, anywhere, any time.
I just want some nice entertainment with no "scandals" attending.
Let's work in that direction, shall we?
--D-y
marco
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.
Mark
marco
> 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.
Brad Anders
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
Fred Flintstein
> 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
F. Kurgan Gringioni
"marco" <marco_f...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b%tPn.97667$0B5....@newsfe05.iad...
>
> 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.
Fred Flintstein
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
fucking seriously.
Fred Flintstein
Frederick the Great
"marco" <marco_f...@yahoo.com> 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
Michael Press
"marco" <marco_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Do you regularly take drugs?
--
Michael Press
Uncle Dave
> 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
--D-y
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
A. Dumas Fred
> 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
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.
--D-y
Junior high, if not middle school, parents are doing whatever they
think will advance their children's careers in sports. Paying for
hours of extra coaching time, buying expensive equipment, moving the
family to get into the "right" school district according to which
teams are proven winners.
Go price a decent middle-grade jumper horse sometime, for instance.
So, your "junior" is going to have "that decision" handed to them on a
plate. And that is nothing new, either.
I'm not "for" doping. I'd like to see testing that works, in the
interest of "fair" competition (to use the expression), and to protect
the health of athletes. But that's not in the cards, now or in the
foreseeable future. Not to mention that "fair" and "protecting health"
are complicated issues. A case can be made for blood doping, for
instance:
<http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/pages/articleviewer.aspx?
year=2006&issue=06000&article=00005&type=abstract>
Nothing a little infusion of nice clean blood couldn't improve...
("We're still in a primitive age")
--D-y
Betty
> Junior high, if not middle school, parents are doing whatever they
> think will advance their children's careers in sports. Paying for
> hours of extra coaching time, buying expensive equipment, moving the
> family to get into the "right" school district according to which
> teams are proven winners.
And if there was dope which would make them get better marks at school
and get scholarships or bursaries they would be buying that too.
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<alex...@dumas.fr> wrote:
>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.
Until the unhealthy obsession with professional sports ends, that
pressure will be there. Drugs are no more an indication than cities
distorting their budgets for a sports stadium, a bloated Olympics
considered to be any kind of standard of anything, and people killing
athletes after a soccer/football game. And, to be clear, I think
enjoying a healthy obsession with a sport, knowing it for what it is,
is fine. But sports in general have gone way past that. When a person
comes on the regular ESPN channel every day and talks about the
current fantasy sports - geez, we aren't even obsessing about sports
anymore, we are obsessing about fake sports.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
--D-y
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:44:20 +0200, "A. Dumas Fred"
>
> >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.
>
> Until the unhealthy obsession with professional sports ends, that
> pressure will be there. Drugs are no more an indication than cities
> distorting their budgets for a sports stadium, a bloated Olympics
> considered to be any kind of standard of anything, and people killing
> athletes after a soccer/football game. And, to be clear, I think
> enjoying a healthy obsession with a sport, knowing it for what it is,
> is fine. But sports in general have gone way past that. When a person
> comes on the regular ESPN channel every day and talks about the
> current fantasy sports - geez, we aren't even obsessing about sports
> anymore, we are obsessing about fake sports.
Fake sports. "When real sports are just not enough..." Kinda sick.
The "pressure" is there without pro sports. How about soccer moms and
dads getting into deadly brawls over "whatever"-- good calls, bad
calls, playing time, trash talk.
"Bloated" is good. Houston went ape shit, building stadiums, light
rail (most dangerous in the USA because it had to be a showpiece), new
"events center", all to supposedly attract favor in a bid for being an
Olympics site. And how many taxpayer-bought stadiums have gone up over
the last ten or twenty years so that City X can "be a world-class
city"? Rammed right down the throat of John Q. Public who finds it
more and more difficult to afford a ticket.
Back to Lance as Evil Incarnate?
--D-y
marco
>> 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.
Fred Flintstein wrote:
> 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.
I appreciate your civil, well-reasoned response. Clearly you are correct
that those sports are just as popular as ever despite drugs coming to the
surface. I suppose the question you are really posing to me is, why would
cycling be any different? Fair enough. My answer is, in the US anyway, the
popularity of pro cycling is a fairly new phenomena and most fans are
nowhere near as knowledgeable and committed as baseball, football, and/or
tennis fans. For most, it's just kind of trendy to be aware of and follow
pro cycling. They are not hardcore fans, like rbr denizens for example, and
they are not yet aware of the depth of the doping issues, as made clear by
viewer/reader comments in mainstream media. I guess I'm afraid that it
wouldn't take much to lose their attention.
And yes, you are certainly correct that my views are colored by some emotion
and some personal experiences too. Thus, we've established that I'm a
defective bot ... so, this bot is going rogue and going to ask questions of
its author...
First, do you think doping is as deep and/or widespread in the three sports
you mentioned above as it is in cycling? That's not a particularly
well-defined question, so let me add: do you think it is possible to compete
successfully in those sports without doping? Can a rider be competitive in a
grand tour without doping? Why has cycling had more doping sanctions than
any other sport? Is it simply because cycling has turned the spotlight on
itself and the others haven't, or is it because the culture of pro cycling
is more infused with drugs than those other sports? Out of the last ten
years of Boston marathons, how many podium finishers were free of any
against-the-rules blood manipulation? How about TdF podiums?
The core of my questions is this: I think cycling at the Pro Tour level is
dirtier than most other sports, and I think a big part of the reason is that
the relevant doping techniques provide a substantial enough advantage that
riders who don't partake simply can't be there to compete.
Finally, I agree that in the grand scheme of things, 99.999% of people would
be better off to keep cycling as a simple recreational hobby and not get
hooked. Unfortunately, the romantic in me still respects and pulls for those
riders who give it a try and commit themselves to do it cleanly.
Don Quixote
ps. To Henry I'd say, yes, society is highly medicated and sadly that's our
culture but the difference I cannot get past is that in one case (society)
it is largely legal and directly impacts only the user, whereas in pro
cycling it's against the rules and impacts the user's brethren.
pps. To ED I'd say, I'm glad somebody out there is thinking of the children!
marco
> Do you regularly take drugs?
Only when reading/posting to rbr ...is it that obvious?
marco
> Junior high, if not middle school, parents are doing whatever they
> think will advance their children's careers in sports. Paying for
> hours of extra coaching time, buying expensive equipment, moving the
> family to get into the "right" school district according to which
> teams are proven winners.
True, some do, but it's a very small minority of parents and kids. At least
where I live.
Brad Anders
Actually, there is. Lots of students use ADHD medication to help them
focus more and improve their grades. Lots of use of caffiene, and also
beta blockers to reduce stage fright (helps get those first chair
positions and that scholarship). Energy drinks (a.k.a. caffiene
delivery systems), etc.
Using dope for better athletic performance isn't much of a step for
kids. And, if the watch the evening news with their parents, or prime
time TV, you get bombarded with drug ads for every possible problem
("ask your doctor about XXXX...").
Brad Anders
Fred on a stick
> pps. To ED I'd say, I'm glad somebody out there is thinking of the
> children!
So what you're saying is, someone with ED is thinking of children? Yuck.
marco
>> pps. To ED I'd say, I'm glad somebody out there is thinking of the
>> children!
Fred on a stick wrote:
> So what you're saying is, someone with ED is thinking of children? Yuck.
Yeah, I should have called him Ted.
BTW, I just got a disquieting mental image of "Fred on a stick"...
Frederick the Great
"marco" <marco_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No. I have no way of knowing.
Now, are you going to treat this seriously
as you started out, or are you going to
run and hide from the hard questions?
--
Old Fritz
marco
>> > Do you regularly take drugs?
I wrote:
>> Only when reading/posting to rbr ...is it that obvious?
Frederick the Great wrote:
> No. I have no way of knowing.
>
> Now, are you going to treat this seriously
> as you started out, or are you going to
> run and hide from the hard questions?
Uhh... ok... I didn't realize it was a serious question. The answer is Yes
or No, depending on your definition. Do you consider a glass of red wine
with dinner as drugs? I consider as part of dinner ...food basically. I do
not regularly take anything typically classified as a drug or medicine, even
sometimes when recommended by a physician. E.g., I've been trying to get in
racing shape all year and was starting to make progress when I got slammed
with the worst bronchial and sinus infection I've had in at least a decade.
I refused to take antibiotics for it, and suffered for nearly a month. It's
still not completely gone, but my racing season is...
--D-y
As far as you know. I don't "know" either. Sure are a lot of massive
high school football players around, these days.
--D-y
Fred Flintstein
A number of years ago (2000 or so?) a reporter at the Minneapolis
Star-Tribune went through archives looking up the weight figures
for kids that had been named "All Metro Area" at line positions.
He found something like a 50 lb weight gain over a ten year period.
And it ain't like Minnesota is the capitol of high school football.
Fred Flintstein
Frederick the Great
"marco" <marco_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What I am getting at is people are on drug regimens or
not by choice; and it should all be protected under
patient-physician confidentiality. Drug testing is a
serious intrusion, and asking somebody what they take
is a serious intrusion. We should not undertake it
lightly, as many crusaders do and as many uninvolved
do. Endurance athletes need good, close medical
supervision. I will not deny them anything.
I have one or two drinks or the equivalent most days,
will drain half a bottle of wine occasionally, will
drink off a whole bottle of good champagne on my
birthday and New Year's eve. Otherwise not so much as
an aspirin.
With a case of bronchitis as you describe, I would take
the antibiotics. After a dental procedure I took the
antibiotics that he recommended because I trust the guy.
--
Old Fritz
Fred Flintstein
Let's start with baseball. I think we can agree that as professional
sports go, baseball is pretty sedentary. Yet doping has had a huge
impact on the game. Baseball players spend almost the entire game
either on their cans or standing still. And doping has overrun the
game. So maybe a more refined question to ask is whether playing
clean hurts your income. I think the current set of MLB players is
giving you your answer, they think it is 'yes'. MLB had a 7% rate
of positives with their initial testing program that was purposely
designed to be inadequate. Using tests that people that are dirty as
hell can beat with their eyes closed. What that tells you is they had
7% that didn't even bother to take evasive maneuvers. Rather than
hire a Greg Anderson they were doing it on the cheap.
If you go to the beach you will be looking at dozens of people that
are doping strictly for cosmetic reasons. With little risk too. I
know there are those that think that cancer follows steroid use as
surely as summer follows spring, the scene at the beach tells you
that the risks are small and don't require a lot of brainpower to
manage.
What do you think it would look like if you paid people at the beach
large sums of money to take steroids. I think it would look like
MLB. You might have to require them to cut in an advisor to provide
training on getting past the tests. But I doubt that would change
things much. The Mitchel Report had enough names of confirmed users
to stock two teams. Clean players are certainly a minority.
I don't think it is possible for a clean player to win a tennis
grand slam event.
Ice hockey is well known for it's issues with steroid use.
High school (and college) football is populated with people that
very rarely see any testing at all and almost never see meaningful
testing. People that get a lot of positive feedback for good
performance and have a youthful sense of invulnerability. I think
that is you pulled a surprise test on just about any high school
team in this country you would get positives, and if it was a top
team there would be a lot of them. Player weights rose too much
and too quickly. We know what is behind that.
If you want to know why cycling has so many more problems with
this, the answer is simple. The sports that have a fewest problems
with doping are the ones that keep it all internal. Think about
that for a second. We never hear about doping issues in the NBA
except for recreational dope and usually the cops are involved.
Maybe dope doesn't help that much in a sport with massive physical
demands. Maybe NBA players just say 'no' in spite of the massive
financial rewards in the game.
Or maybe the NBA keeps it all in house. Like tennis does.
The sports that are having the most problems are the ones that
don't have a highly defined ownership or management structure
including some form of players representation. The sports that
are having problems are the ones that allow outside agencies
manage their testing. The Tour organizers will tell you how
important it is to have control over the testing process. When Vino
and Saunier Duval burned to a crisp there was no one looking out
for the Tour's interests. Dope test management changed the very
next year. The Tour has a much tighter grip on it's testing now.
Imagine that.
I wouldn't say that cycling is the dirtiest sport. I think that
soccer is. There is an order of magnitude more money and almost no
outside intervention there.
Cycling is certainly one of the most poorly managed.
Fred Flintstein
Fredmaster of Brainerd
>
> First, do you think doping is as deep and/or widespread in the three sports
> you mentioned above as it is in cycling? That's not a particularly
> well-defined question, so let me add: do you think it is possible to compete
> successfully in those sports without doping? Can a rider be competitive in a
> grand tour without doping? Why has cycling had more doping sanctions than
> any other sport? Is it simply because cycling has turned the spotlight on
> itself and the others haven't, or is it because the culture of pro cycling
> is more infused with drugs than those other sports? Out of the last ten
> years of Boston marathons, how many podium finishers were free of any
> against-the-rules blood manipulation? How about TdF podiums?
>
> The core of my questions is this: I think cycling at the Pro Tour level is
> dirtier than most other sports, and I think a big part of the reason is that
> the relevant doping techniques provide a substantial enough advantage that
> riders who don't partake simply can't be there to compete.
>
> Finally, I agree that in the grand scheme of things, 99.999% of people would
> be better off to keep cycling as a simple recreational hobby and not get
> hooked. Unfortunately, the romantic in me still respects and pulls for those
> riders who give it a try and commit themselves to do it cleanly.
>
> Don Quixote
Well, I don't actually think pro sports in say the US are
any cleaner than pro cycling. In fact, the dollar amounts at
stake are greater, and it's hard to imagine that the culture
and moral virtue of the people involved in US pro ball leagues
are restraining them from dipping further into the pharma.
Road cycling is an endurance sport, not a skill sport (except
for the occasional Savoldelli mad descent) and doping,
particularly doping that changes one's hematocrit, makes
a real difference. You can't change a donkey into a racehorse,
but you can sure make a racehorse faster. In many pro
sports, this isn't as obvious - drugs will make a receiver
faster or a basketball player stronger, but they won't cure
hands of stone or a poor shooting touch. (On the other hand,
a stronger player is less tired by game's end and doesn't
make skill mistakes, so ...) But there is still a huge advantage
to be gained by being faster and stronger.
The idea of cycling (or say track) as a test of who is fastest,
plus the fact that it's both an individual and a team sport, I think
means that Joe Fan (and maybe Joe Cat 1) regards doping
as a more serious violation of the state of play. This doesn't
really make sense. It's pretty obvious when you look at
recent baseball or football that, other things being roughly equal,
players with steroids will beat players without steroids. The
same is no doubt true of soccer and either steroids or EPO.
It's likely that there are some players out there good enough to
play in the big leagues without modification. But even they
are still at a disadvantage and will find it hard to be at the
very top - if you ask how many TdF podiums have doping
suspicions, it's kind of like asking what fraction of home run kings
are full of andro. It's probably larger than the fraction of
journeyman infielders.
I have sympathy for somebody like Myerson who chose to do
it his way, suffered rbr making jokes about him getting lapped
in Euro races, and may see those who did charge up and have
success as hypocrites. But really, it's not like Myerson would
be happy if he'd gone the charging route. He'd be hating
himself for it, because that's his personality. I "wish" I was
cutthroat and self-centered enough to have a more
successful academic career, but honestly, I couldn't do it,
I don't have the personality for it. That's life as a
journeyman infielder.
It's okay with me if Myerson vents about how the whole
structure of pro cycling should be torn down, but I don't see
how you'd replace it with something cleaner, just something
better organized (like FIFA). Sure, if they banned all the
old tainted coaches and DSes, that sounds great, but for
every Saiz or Pevenage you ban, someone new will pop up.
People dope even when there isn't money at stake, so
with the money, what can you do? I think the only
solutions are ones like Chung's, where you have more
frequent testing and smaller penalties that are handed out
instantly. The two-week sitdown for breaking the
50% HCT limit is a good example of this. It doesn't rid
the sport of doping. It does lessen the advantage.
Fredamateur Ben
Betty
> It's okay with me if Myerson vents about how the whole
> structure of pro cycling should be torn down, but I don't see
> how you'd replace it with something cleaner, just something
> better organized (like FIFA). Sure, if they banned all the
> old tainted coaches and DSes, that sounds great, but for
> every Saiz or Pevenage you ban, someone new will pop up.
>
> People dope even when there isn't money at stake, so
> with the money, what can you do? I think the only
> solutions are ones like Chung's, where you have more
> frequent testing and smaller penalties that are handed out
> instantly. The two-week sitdown for breaking the
> 50% HCT limit is a good example of this. It doesn't rid
> the sport of doping. It does lessen the advantage.
You're right, but unfortunately self righteousness and hysteria rules
just like it did in Salem (although with the expertise in microdosing
these days I'm not sure if a 50% rule would catch many potential Pantani's).
Fred on a stick
> I "wish" I was
> cutthroat and self-centered enough to have a more
> successful academic career, but honestly, I couldn't do it,
> I don't have the personality for it. That's life as a
> journeyman infielder.
You're the better for it. Though it would have been nice to declaim at
the award presentation, "If I've seen further than others it is by
standing on the necks of graduate students."
> I think the only
> solutions are ones like Chung's, where you have more
> frequent testing and smaller penalties that are handed out
> instantly.
and to team members.
> The two-week sitdown for breaking the
> 50% HCT limit is a good example of this. It doesn't rid
> the sport of doping. It does lessen the advantage.
Rather than punish the doping behavior as a moral offense, neutralize
the advantage as a sporting violation.
Betty
>> I "wish" I was
>> cutthroat and self-centered enough to have a more
>> successful academic career, but honestly, I couldn't do it,
>> I don't have the personality for it. That's life as a
>> journeyman infielder.
Fred on a stick wrote:
> You're the better for it. Though it would have been nice to declaim at
> the award presentation, "If I've seen further than others it is by
> standing on the necks of graduate students."
Is there any other use for graduate students ?