Blood Boosting at 1984 Olympics - the rest of the story
Anton Berlin
http://www.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/dopes.htm
Blood transfusions that were unethically administered to U.S. cyclists
during the Olympics probably didn’t improve their performance but
might have serious medical consequences later.
Originally published in the August 1988 issue of Cyclops USA as part
of the article “Coors is safer than tea”.
[Bracketed statements in italics below, such as this, are explanatory
remarks added in November 2005.]
In January 1985, it was publicly disclosed that a number of cyclists
on the U.S. Olympic Team had taken blood transfusions during the 1984
Olympics in an attempt to improve their performance. This remarkably
unethical project was made possible by dishonesty on the part of
certain USCF staff members and one officer. After the disclosure,
other sports governing bodies scrambled to cover their tails.
In early 1984 I had drafted the first medical control regulations for
the United States Cycling Federation (USCF). Up until that time, lists
of prohibited substances had been published but procedures for testing
and ensuring the integrity of the process had not been formally
stated. After the Olympics, I finished writing the drug testing rules
and got the USCF Board of Directors to adopt them. However the bloody
mess cited above made it clear that there was still more to be dealt
with in the field of medical control.
Medical literature on blood boosting goes back about 30 years. The
basic idea is fairly simple, though messy. An athlete has blood
withdrawn, just as if he were making a blood donation, then the red
cells are separated from the rest of the blood and frozen. About two
pints are withdrawn at least a month and a half before an important
race. The athlete's body will replace this blood in the intervening
period then, just before the race, the frozen blood is thawed and re-
infused into the athlete so as to elevate his red cell count.
Blood boosting enhances the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood,
which can increase performance. The medical literature is a bit
ambiguous regarding the amount of performance enhancement that
results, but most studies involving the infusion of two units of blood
or more show some improvement.
Blood boosting has allegedly been used by marathon runners and some
other athletes in endurance sports for at least 20 years, including
Olympic events. Marathon runner Lasse Viren of Finland was widely
rumored to have used it. There seemed to be no other explanation for
the fact that he ran much faster at the Olympics than he did any time
before or after. In recent years, Eastern Bloc athletes were believed
to be using this technique systematically.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) appeared to have been
uncomfortable about blood boosting but chose to do nothing about it on
the grounds that there was no practical way to test for it. Thus, the
practice continued covertly. This game of “We can't test for it, so
we'll pretend it doesn't exist” that the IOC and all of the other
sports bodies continued to play encouraged progressively more coaches
and athletes to use this scheme until the blunders of the U.S. Olympic
Cycling Team emerged and created such a public relations furor that it
could no longer be ignored.
My view is that blood boosting is an undesirable intrusion into
athletic competition in that it substantially raises the cost of
competing and forces athletes to submit to a messy medical procedure
in order to compete at the highest levels. On these grounds, it should
have been made against the rules even though there was no test for it,
since otherwise it was tacitly approved.
A Boost for Cycling
A proposal to try blood boosting for U.S. cyclists was initiated in
1983 by Ed Burke, who had a Ph.D. in physiology and who had secured a
position on the U.S. Cycling Federation staff by the time-honored
conflict-of-interest method: he managed to get elected to the USCF
Board of Directors, used that platform to obtain support for his
research, then arranged for a staff appointment with the understanding
that he would later resign from the Board.
In 1983 Burke approached the USOC staff with a proposal to try blood
boosting; they responded that they were interested in giving it a try
if the USCF officialdom blessed the project. Burke sought in-house
support but found little enthusiasm. In a memo dated October 1, 1983,
from Executive Director Dave Prouty, Burke was told not to proceed
with this project unless it was approved by the Board of Directors. It
was never taken to the Board.
As the Olympics approached, one rider whose father-in-law happened to
be an M.D. decided to give it a try on his own. Danny van Haute burned
up the track during the Olympic Selection Races and ascribed his
success to blood boosting. The national coaching staff and some riders
took a sudden interest in this scheme and started plotting to use it.
They decided to keep it a secret from most of the officers and staff
of the USCF, however, apparently because they figured it might get
blocked if they were open about it. The architects of this scheme were
national coach Eddie Borysewicz, staff physiologist Ed Burke, and vice
president Mike Fraysse.
The main problem with the blood boosting scheme was that there wasn't
enough time to extract blood from each athlete and let them fully
replenish it by the time of the Olympics. An alternative scheme was
concocted: use transfusions from friends and relatives instead. Aside
from the ethical and administrative errors in this decision, it was
also medically defective in two ways:
(1) according to prior medical studies, the planned transfusion of one
unit of blood per rider was insufficient to improve performance and
(2) transfusions involve considerably greater risks than self-
infusions.
Regarding the latter point, medical literature that had been read by
the organizers of this project pointed out that the use of
transfusions for blood boosting is unethical.
Self-infusions involve relatively low risk if done right, but
transfusions involve risks of various allergic reactions as well as
the transmission of certain diseases. In fact, we know now that some
of the riders might have contracted AIDS through this process; there
was no test for it then.
Ed Burke arranged for Dr. Herman Falsetti, a cardiologist acquaintance
of his from the University of Iowa, to come to the Olympics to
administer the transfusions. Falsetti was himself a competitive
cyclist. His participation in this project illustrates the fact that
whatever unethical medical procedure one might wish to undertake, a
medical doctor can probably be found who is willing to do it,
especially if it is for a noble cause such as winning Olympic medals.
A number of cyclists were talked into taking transfusions, which were
carried out in bedrooms in the Ramada Inn in Carson, California. They
should have been preceded by careful blood compatibility tests, but
this was apparently not done. However Dr. Falsetti did arrange through
a local hospital to test the blood types. The cover story given to the
hospital was that the large-scale blood testing was being undertaken
in case of a terrorist attack on the athletes! [Note that this
“terrorist attack” excuse for unethical actions predates the Bush
administration by many years.]
For some reason, the courier who took the blood samples to the
hospital was a Mexican bike shop owner who hobbled about with a large
cast on one leg. Such a cast of characters! I was staying in the motel
where the blood transfusions took place, though I was not aware of
them at the time. On some occasions, I even visited the room where it
was done, but the perpetrators kept this activity out of my sight.
They had apparently correctly assessed what my position would be.
The only odd thing that I noticed was in a hallway conversation with a
friend from my district who was one of the top riders. Our
conversations were normally open and candid, but this time he talked
in a guarded way and seemed to want to get away as soon as possible. I
learned much later that he had had a bad reaction to the transfusion
and so was unable to ride up to his capacity.
Thus, a number of athletes undertook a substantial risk without any
compensating benefits. In fact, a least one rider had a worse
performance as a result. As a consequence of these transfusions, one
or more female athletes might have developed blood antibodies that
could later attack her fetus if she became pregnant. At least nobody
seems to have gotten AIDS, which was already making its way through
the country, though there was no test for it yet.
The subsequent exposure of this unethical activity and the resulting
political fallout tell quite a bit about the integrity of the people
who run the sports governing bodies.
Opportunity to clean house
The cyclists' defective blood boosting project at the '84 Olympics was
destined to be exposed. The whistleblower was a person who was only
peripherally involved in the project. He was initially lauded for
stepping forward, but it later became apparent that his action was
motivated less by altruism than by a desire to cover up his own
misconduct.
When the blood transfusion incidents became known to USCF officials,
some of them looked on it as a problem to be dealt with, while others
saw it as a political opportunity. Rob Lea had been elected President
of the USCF about eight weeks after the 1984 Olympics, following a
campaign that featured a scurrilous attack on the incumbent, Phil
Voxland. A key part of the attack was a pamphlet that was written and
distributed by a contract employee of the Federation [Jim McFadden]
who was apparently trying to protect his job. Lea had the solid
support of the cabal and picked up enough additional votes from the
Board dimwits to get elected.
Lea was an outstanding track racer in the 35+ age group. He had a
Ph.D. and was a practicing psychologist. He was also an accomplished
manipulator. One of his campaign promises had been that he was going
to fire the Executive Director, Dave Prouty, who had resisted
manipulation by Lea and his Eastern colleagues.
After he won the Presidency, Lea quickly discovered that he didn't
have the support he needed within the Executive Committee to fire
Prouty. Facing reality, he very smoothly switched to negotiating a
renewal of Prouty's contract, as if nothing had happened. When, in the
same Executive Committee meeting, I proposed that Lea's hatchet man be
fired, he immediately agreed without even offering a counterargument.
I was a bit surprised at the ease with which he discarded the man who
had risked his job by doing Lea's dirty work. I felt at the time that
this was a revealing measure of Lea's integrity. He probably realized
that his man couldn't continue anyway, given that the attempt to fire
Prouty had failed.
In mid-November 1984, about a month after Lea took office, he received
a report from a person on the medical staff of the U.S. Olympic
Committee regarding a young orthopedic surgeon named Tom Dickson, who
had worked with the USCF National Team and was interested in sports
medicine. Dickson had complained to the USOC about a blood boosting
incident involving U.S. cyclists that he said he witnessed during the
Olympics.
Lea quickly set up a three-person inquiry panel to investigate the
incident. He asked me to participate because one of my listed duties
as Chairman Board of Control was to “Investigate allegations of
misconduct or violations of racing rules, assessing penalties when
required.” He also appointed himself and director Dale Hughes to the
panel. He notably did not include Executive Director Dave Prouty for
reasons that soon became clear.
Lea excitedly talked to me on the phone about the opportunity to
“clean house” that this situation presented. His plan was to use this
incident as a basis for ousting Dave Prouty, Eddie B., and Ed Burke.
He said with glee, “I'm going to get that Polish bastard!” In his
enthusiasm, Lea apparently forgot that I didn't share his views on
many issues. I pointed out that there was no evidence linking Prouty
to the conspiracy, so it looked like a far reach to try to get him.
Lea sounded disappointed that I felt that way.
Inquiring minds want to know
An inquiry into the blood boosting incident was held at the U.S.
Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs on November 17, 1984. USCF
Executive Director Dave Prouty had requested that he be included in
the investigative panel. President Rob Lea realized that his plot to
get rid of Prouty was too obvious, so he decided at the last moment to
include him in the panel.
When Lea and I were by ourselves at one point just before the inquiry
began, I smilingly asked him if he thought Prouty would recommend that
the Executive Director be fired. Lea looked at me blankly, as if he
didn't understand what I was talking about.
In the morning we listened to Dr. Tom Dickson's account of his
observations. He reported on which athletes he had seen getting
transfusions and which others he had heard about. He didn't mention
taking part in any of this, but we later learned that he had
apparently assisted willingly in some of the transfusions.
I was curious about why it had taken Dickson three months to report
his observations. He remarked that it had taken him awhile to get to
talk to a hematologist and learn that what he had seen was medically
unethical. I later learned that what really happened was that after he
returned home to Allentown, Pennsylvania, a national-level woman rider
who knew about the transfusions at the Olympics asked Dickson if he
would do the same thing for her in preparation for a forthcoming major
race. He agreed and did a preliminary test of blood compatibility with
her sister. The rider had a severe allergic reaction, causing her arm
to swell up. This apparently scared Dickson and made him realize that
he didn't know what he was doing. At that point he decided to complain
to the USOC about the earlier transfusion incidents.
Troika tango
The afternoon session of our inquiry was scheduled to be an interview
of the organizers of the transfusion scheme except for Dr. Falsetti,
who declined to talk. Dave Prouty had correctly perceived that he was
on Lea's hit list and, in typical style, had brought his lawyer into
the proceedings. Since his lawyer was also the Federation's lawyer,
they decided to bring in another lawyer to specifically look after the
Federation's interests, namely Bart Enoch. When those lawyers started
threatening the accused conspirators, the latter went out and hired a
real badass lawyer.
This lawyer proliferation was a direct result of Lea's political
posturing. It was a giant waste of everyone's time and money. The only
thing that the three lawyers accomplished was to inhibit the inquiry
and run up the bill. Before the hearing convened, the USCF lawyer and
Prouty's lawyer had gotten together to decide just what questions
could be asked. They developed a short list of things they wanted to
know and told the rest of us that we couldn't ask anything. I said
“Screw you! I never agreed to any of this” and they scowled over my
uncooperative attitude. Prouty clucked a bit but didn't press the
issue. He knew from past experience that I could get much more
outrageous, given provocation.
The inquiry began with Coaches Eddie B., Carl Leusencamp, and Tim
Kelly together with Vice President Mike Fraysse, Dr. Ed Burke, three
riders, and their mean-looking lawyer on one side of a wide table and
the four inquisitors and our two lawyers on the other side. From the
outset, the three lawyers discussed only procedural issues while
posturing and emitting content-free lawyer talk. There were a couple
of times when the lawyers felt that they needed to confer in private
with each other and went into the hall. This gave the rest of us a
chance to have some friendly conversation and actually begin to
communicate a bit until they returned.
After awhile, Eddie B. spoke up, saying “I do not like to be treated
like criminal. I do not understand why we must speak through lawyers.”
I said that I agreed with him that bringing the lawyers into the
inquiry had turned it into a fiasco. I said that I was sorry that we
could not discuss what happened in a more straightforward way. The
lawyers all scowled but didn't respond verbally.
After using up most of the available time discussing procedural
matters, their lawyer finally answered the six questions that our
lawyers had asked. Actually, he didn't so much answer them as evade
them. The lawyers then seemed to run out of gas and quieted down a
bit, so I went ahead and asked a number of questions that I had been
forbidden to bring up and received what seemed like straight answers.
In the weeks following the inquiry I communicated with the U.S.
Olympic Committee about their policies, did some private interviews of
riders, and developed recommendations for disciplinary action and
legislation to inhibit future undertakings of this type. When I
attended the next Executive Committee meeting in Chicago in mid-
December 1984, I noticed that Rob Lea made no specific proposals for
dealing with the vampire project. It also appeared that he had given
up on his plan to get rid of Prouty. He was getting heat from me over
his conduct and some of the other officers joined the attack. At that
point, he seemed to give up on everything. I was not too surprised
when he resigned a week or so later.
As a result of his bizarre performance, Lea holds the record for
shortest term in the office of USCF President. He was there just two
months, during which time he demonstrated that he was unable to cope
with the first problem that came along. He tried to turn this problem
into grounds for a political purge and, when that failed, he lost
interest in the job. I was not displeased that Lea had resigned. Like
former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, Lea seemed to be at his best in
running for office but, once elected, was not prepared to do the job.
Lea still had a parting shot left. He passed some inside information
and a lot of nonsense to a national magazine in an attempt to get his
enemies. Meanwhile, the U.S. Olympic Committee covered itself with a
thick layer of whitewash.
Rolling Stoned
We had hoped to keep a lid on the vampirism incident until the USCF
Board of Directors meeting scheduled for January 18, 1985. That would
permit the Board to review the results of our investigation, adopt
disciplinary and remedial measures, then make public both what had
happened and what was being done about it. This was not to be,
however. Early in the morning of January 4, I received a phone call
from a writer for Rolling Stone magazine. He asked me a series of
questions based on certain memos from our investigation that he said
he possessed. It did not take a lot of analysis to figure out where he
had gotten them -- only two copies had been made of some of the memos
I wrote. One copy was still in my filing cabinet and the other one I
had sent to Rob Lea.
I promptly called Rob and asked him why he was telling the press about
these incidents. He denied doing it, apparently not realizing that I
knew for sure that he had. This dishonest response seemed to me to be
tragically consistent with his general conduct. The newspapers and
television people had the story within a day or two and my telephone
was ringing a lot. I decided to confirm all information that was in
the memos that Rolling Stone had and to not comment on information
that was not in those memos. By following this policy, I aimed to
remove the insider's advantage that Rob Lea's friend at Rolling Stone
enjoyed.
I saw in the press that Dr. Tom Dickson was talking freely about what
others had done, but still was not mentioning his role in the
transfusion incidents. He reportedly offered various explanations for
these incidents, such as an alleged fear of failure that drove the
U.S. cyclists to take these risks.
Olympic whitewash
Officials of the U.S. Olympic Committee began trying to rewrite
history so as to divert attention from their failed responsibility to
set policy. In an article that appeared January 12, Dr. Irving Dardik,
Chairman of the U.S. Olympic Committee's Sports Medicine Council, was
quoted as stating that “the USOC informally has banned the
controversial procedure” (i.e. blood boosting). In fact, that ban was
so informal that it did not appear in any of their regulations or
guidance documentation. In other words, the bureaucrats were trying to
cover their blank slate, to avoid blame.
Col. F. Don Miller, the Executive Director of the USOC, was quoted the
next day as saying that the use of blood transfusions to improve
performance is unethical. That was certainly correct. He went on to
say that the International Olympic Committee has opposed such
practices since 1976. Unfortunately, there seems to be no documentary
support for that claim -- they kept their alleged opposition secret.
More whitewash.
The lead article in the Sports Illustrated edition of January 21, 1985
had a rather accurate and comprehensive review of the incident. It
quoted me correctly as saying about blood boosting that “There was a
policy vacuum and these guys moved into it in a stupid way.” They also
quoted Dr. Tom Dickson as saying he was opposed to the project from
the beginning. That was clearly a lie.
The USOC's Dr. Irving Dardik was quoted by Sports Illustrated as
saying “It's absolute that this was unethical, unacceptable and
illegal as far as the USOC was concerned. All [this discussion of]
questionable legality to me [is] immaterial.” His statement that it
was “illegal” was a flagrant, self-serving lie. I was pleased to see
Dr. Dardik get kicked out of the USOC a year or so after this
incident. He had apparently played a few too many political games for
even that political organization to swallow.
An amusing series of sports cartoons appeared in newspapers carrying
Tank McNamara. They showed cyclists circling a track with bottles of
blood connected to one arm, hanging bat-like from shower bars and
traveling in vampire-style coffins.
The worst major article was the last one to appear and the one based
on the extensive documentation that had been provided by Rob Lea. The
Rolling Stone issue of February 14 had a headline in 32 point type on
the cover, just below Mick Jagger's sardonic face, reading:
“AN OLYMPIC SCANDAL - How U.S. medalists were doped to win.”
Inside was an article under the headline,
“OLYMPIC CHEATING - The inside story of illicit doping and the U.S.
cycling team.”
The article was filled with lies and gross distortions, just like the
headlines.
I wrote a letter to Rolling Stone refuting some of the more flagrant
assertions in their article and followed it up with phone calls to the
editors. They refused to print the refutation unless I cut it down to
“a couple of hundred words.” In other words, I was supposed to refute
three full pages of lies in a few inches of text, provided that they
liked what I said. My answer to that was unprintable.
Vampirism -- Driving the Stake
The USCF Board of Directors disciplined the organizers of the vampire
project and took steps to prevent a recurrence of blood boosting. When
the Board met on January 18, 1985, the first order of business was to
elect a new president to replace the defunct Rob Lea. Phil Voxland
returned to power. As it turned out, Lea did Voxland a great favor --
under the USCF Constitution, a president many serve for at most four
consecutive years, but by taking a two month vacation, the clock was
reset and Voxland was eventually able to extend his tenure to about
five years.
No discipline of the athletes involved in blood boosting was
contemplated at any time because they had not violated any rules and
had, for the most part, followed the guidance of the coaches and other
officials. There had been a number of false rumors that they would be
punished and that Olympic medals that they won would have to be
returned. Those rumors were apparently circulated by the usual
troublemakers and some who wished to fan the fires under the vampire
conspirators.
After a review of the transfusion conspiracy, the Board decided on
disciplinary measures for Coach Eddie B. and Dr. Ed Burke as follows:
1. Letter of reprimand;
2. 30 day suspension without pay effective immediately;
3. Six month delay in salary review.
Vice President Mike Fraysse received minor penalties because there
wasn't much that could be done to him by the Board:
1. Letter of reprimand;
2. Removal as Chairman of the Competition Committee;
3. Demotion from First Vice President to Third Vice President;
4. Request that he resign as Vice President.
The reason that the Board didn't simply remove him from office
altogether is that the whole board didn't elect vice presidents --
they were chosen by directors from a geographical section. The Eastern
Directors subsequently met and decided to leave Fraysse in office as
Vice President, which was consistent with their general approach to
ethics.
Locking the Barn Door
At their meeting in January 1985, the USCF Board adopted rules banning
blood boosting. These made it clear that not only would there be
penalties if someone did it and was caught, but that coaches and other
officials could be disciplined if they even suggested doing it.
Somehow, Coach Eddie B. did not get the message. About a month later,
he was again being quoted in the press as saying “Blood doping is
legal and should be a personal matter left up to the athlete.” Only
after the Executive Director wrote him another letter telling him
politely to shut up did the he stop talking about this.
In adopting rules against blood boosting, the USCF apparently became
the first sports organization in the world to ban this practice. Other
organizations later adopted similar prohibitions, including the U.S.
Olympic Committee, the International Cycling Union, and the
International Olympic Committee. Unfortunately, none of these
prohibitions will be fully effective until a reliable test for blood
boosting is developed.
Cyclops USA Home Page
Bibliography
[1] Melvin H. Williams, et al, “The effect of blood infusion upon
endurance capacity and ratings of perceived exertion,” Medicine and
Science in Sports, Vol. 10, No. 2, p. 113, 1975.
[2] Melvin Williams, “Blood Doping and Aerobic Activity,” Joper, p.
55, Feb. 1980.
[3] Melvin Williams, “Blood Doping: an Update,” The Physician and
Sportsman, Vol. 9, No. 7, July 1981.
[4] Norman Gledhill, “The Ergogenic Effect of Blood Doping,” The
Physician and Sportsman, Vol. 11, No. 9, Sept. 1983.
[5] “U.S. Olympic cyclists in `blood doping' controversy,” Times
Tribune, Palo Alto, CA, p. D-3, Jan. 9, 1985.
[6] “U.S. Cyclists hurt by belief in miracles, official says,” San
Jose Mercury News, p. 13D, Jan. 12, 1985.
[7] “Blood-Doping Unethical, U.S. Olympic Official Says,” New York
Times, p. S-3, Jan. 17, 1985.
[8] “Blood-packing: Outspoken opponent agreed to attempt it after
Olympics,” Gazette Telegraph, p. C-1, Jan. 18, 1985.
[9] “U.S. `doping' incident leads to sanctions,” San Jose Mercury
News, p. 2E, Jan. 19, 1985.
[10] “The Racer's Edge?” Newsweek, p. 66, Jan. 21, 1985.
[11] Bjarne Rostang and Robert Sullivan, “Triumphs Tainted With
Blood,” Sports Illustrated, p. 12, Jan. 21, 1985.
[14] Richard Ben Cramer, “Olympic Cheating,” Rolling Stone, p. 25,
Feb. 14, 1985.
[12] “Cycling coach draws criticism,” Colorado Springs Sun, p. 1-A,
Feb. 27, 1988.
[13] “Cycling coach calls blood doping legal,” Denver Post, Feb. 27,
1985.
RicodJour
> Blood dopes of the 1984 Olympic Games by Les Earnest
>
{massive snip}
The pertinent part:
"I wrote a letter to Rolling Stone refuting some of the more flagrant
assertions in their article and followed it up with phone calls to the
editors. They refused to print the refutation unless I cut it down to
“a couple of hundred words.” In other words, I was supposed to refute
three full pages of lies in a few inches of text, provided that they
liked what I said. My answer to that was unprintable."
I agree with Rolling Stone. A wordy bastid, indeed.
At the time, the Cold War was still on, so US Cycling was fighting the
good fight against the dirty rat bastid commies, like Jan Ulrich.
Dave Stoller's coming of age story should have tipped you off.
Dave: Everybody cheats. I just didn't know.
R
Fred Fredburger
clean in the days of Lemond. We all know it was.
Anton Berlin
wrote:
> I do not understand. You seem to be claiming that cycling was not 100%
> clean in the days of Lemond. We all know it was.
Who me? I liked Lemond but as I explained before as I was trying to
explain to my girlfriend that Lemond was the last clean cyclist that
won anything of significance I caught myself unable to verbalize what
I always thought. Greg was probably a booster.
Maybe Hampsten ?
Fred Fredburger
Not you, necessarily. It sounds as though, in attempting to repeat a
overused (but underthought) RBR truism, you tripped over a logical
barrier. That disqualifies you as a target of my comment.
The claim that "Lemond was the last clean cyclist" has been made many,
many, many (...) times by Lemond fans. It's a meme, though it's meaning
depends upon who's repeating it.
> Greg was probably a booster.
>
> Maybe Hampsten ?
Having read this discussion in the past, I'm going to have to go Bill
Clinton on you: "That depends on what 'clean' means".
If this discussion continues beyond a half dozen posts, someone will
assert that clean means "Anything except EPO". At the other end of the
spectrum, someone will quote Benjo on the supposed performance enhancing
aspects of alcohol back in the thirties. Attempts to artificially
enhance performance have always been there. Many of those look stupid
enough in retrospect that they're easy to discount. I'm no Catholic, but
I think the intent to cheat should count for something.
BLafferty
Hampsten was probably clean. He was interviewed in Cycling Weekly back
in the mid-1990s and spoke about making a decision, supported by Dr. Max
Testa, to race clean even though it meant fewer victories. He said he
was happy with the career he had, knowing that he did it clean. Bruce
Hindenbran, who knew him well, always attested to Hampsten riding clean,
for what that's worth.
Plano Dude
wrote:
Intent already does. That's how Basso got two years for Birillo.
Fred Fredburger
Just to be clear, you've always been the chief proponent of the "It
doesn't count if it wasn't EPO" school of thought.
Anybody who doesn't buy that point of view should discount your evaluation.
BLafferty
Wrong.
Fred Fredburger
Your actual position has been that blood boosting was not effective in
the pre-EPO era, but it is now. I'd forgotten that fathomless bit of
weirdness.
Quoting you from one of the hundreds of times you've said this:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_thread/thread/1c18dca93029ac56/c54bba534fd0cb58?q=lafferty+EPO+%22blood+doping%22+effective#c54bba534fd0cb58
"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. "
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Dumbass,
What about the idea that a rider is clean because he
said so in Cycling Weekly and because a friend of his
who posted to rbr (Bruce Hildenbrand, not Hindenbran)
said so?
Apparently the rules of evidence are like the peloton -
they travel 'a deux vitesses.'
Fredmaster Ben
RobertH
> At the time, the Cold War was still on, so US Cycling was fighting the
> good fight against the dirty rat bastid commies, like Jan Ulrich.
Not in 1984...the commies were boycotting the games.. who was the
rider in the hallway who had the bad reaction to the transfusion?
Phinney?
Fred Flintstein
> Your actual position has been that blood boosting was not
> effective in the pre-EPO era, but it is now. I'd forgotten
> that fathomless bit of weirdness.
Its hardly fathomless. Its a classic candyass.
Fred Flintstein
Fred Fredburger
Laff is absolutely, unequivocal about one thing: THERE WAS NO CHEATING
OF ANY KIND WHEN LEMOND RACED.
All other facts must conform to this.
Anton Berlin
Fredmaster of Brainerd
wrote:
Lafferty has been relatively constant in saying that
it's possible or probable that Lemond doped, but it doesn't
count because it's not as bad as when LANCE did it.
For example
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/32ad6aeeca6ce24d?hl=en
Fredmaster Ben
Fred Fredburger
> Laff - that true? You think Lemond was clean?
>
I was hoping he'd respond.
He still claims that Lemond was clean. He's done this as recently as
last July. The July claim was noteworthy because YOU argued against him
then:
http://tinyurl.com/27ooskk
This version is classic Lafferty, good for laughs:
http://tinyurl.com/29vgjoo
The full, unequivocal, non-candyassed argument:
http://tinyurl.com/24eolq2
Fred Fredburger
"Relatively constant" is a good description. It captures Laff in a nutshell.