Landis Calls for Legalised Doping
Brad Anders
Did we chew this over? Must have missed it.
IMO, sport needs to get out of the dope testing racket. Testing cannot
assure a "clean" sport. Instead, move to a model where you monitor
basic physiological parameters such as blood hematocrit, and establish
"healthy" limits (e.g. the "50% rule"). Better yet, establish profiles
similar to the blood passport concept. If you go outside of those
limits, you're "unhealthy" and have to sit out for X months, and can't
return until you are shown to be "healthy" again. No appeals, no
questions, you're outside, you're out as specified. No 2-year or
lifetime bans that stimulate the market for expensive and lengthy
litigation and the suspension of race results for months/years.
A more workable model would probably be a hybrid approach, where some
baseline testing for steroids, testosterone, and amphetemines is
combined with the "healthy/not healthy" approach. People will still be
able to abuse such drugs if they manage their protocols carefully, but
they won't be able to blatantly use without risk of detection. If
"healthy/not healthy" indicators for these types of drugs exist or can
be developed, then in time they can replace the raw testing approach.
DirtRoadie
One concern under a "legalized doping" system is the issue of where is
the cutoff (or IS there a cutoff) between using and not using. Is it
even possible to have such a cutoff?
Or, for example, how does one progress from junior/amateur racing
toward the pro ranks without starting some sort of doping regimen
along the way?
What's are the appropriate dosage guidelines for an upcoming teenager?
Those are rhetorical questions.
DR
Choppy Warburton
It will never work. The charade parade we now know will continue for
all sports. Because at the end of the day it's about parents and
children and you can't have dopers serving as role models
Beloved Fred No. 1
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/floyd-landis-calls-for-legalised-doping
>
> Did we chew this over? Must have missed it.
Does he have a fred pseudonym on rbr or is he just another lurker ?
Brad Anders
wrote:
> It will never work. The charade parade we now know will continue for
> all sports. Because at the end of the day it's about parents and
> children and you can't have dopers serving as role models
Agree, though there may be hope that some marketing and PR flacks
could dress it up and sell it to the public and the IOC.
Frederick the Great
<9fa46c83-126d-49bc...@o11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Choppy Warburton <choppyw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Because at the end of the day it's about parents and
> children and you can't have dopers serving as role models
Actually, you can, and we have. The trick is to
keep a clean image. The doping persecutions do
not help.
--
Old Fritz
Steve Freides
Why anyone would listen to anything from a man who mounted a lengthy,
vigorous, expensive, fund-raising-assisted defense of himself and then
admitted that he'd really done everything he'd been denying? That's
just mind-boggling. The man has no credibility - none, zero, nada,
zilch, null, niente nulla, ninguno, ????. I wouldn't trust him to come
into my home and clean my toilets, so I'm sure as heck not going to
listen to his opinions on anything related to professional cycling. Why
our media continue to print what he's got to say is also mind-boggling.
I sure don't read it.
I'm just sayin' ...
-S-
Anton Berlin
Why would you tell everyone on the internets you have dirty toilets?
Mark J.
> Brad Anders wrote:
>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/floyd-landis-calls-for-legalised-doping
>>
>> Did we chew this over? Must have missed it.
>>
>> IMO, sport needs to get out of the dope testing racket. Testing cannot
>> assure a "clean" sport. Instead, move to a model where you monitor
>> basic physiological parameters such as blood hematocrit, and establish
>> "healthy" limits (e.g. the "50% rule"). Better yet, establish profiles
>> similar to the blood passport concept. If you go outside of those
>> limits, you're "unhealthy" and have to sit out for X months, and can't
>> return until you are shown to be "healthy" again. No appeals, no
>> questions, you're outside, you're out as specified. No 2-year or
>> lifetime bans that stimulate the market for expensive and lengthy
>> litigation and the suspension of race results for months/years.
>>
>> A more workable model would probably be a hybrid approach, where some
>> baseline testing for steroids, testosterone, and amphetemines is
>> combined with the "healthy/not healthy" approach. People will still be
>> able to abuse such drugs if they manage their protocols carefully, but
>> they won't be able to blatantly use without risk of detection. If
>> "healthy/not healthy" indicators for these types of drugs exist or can
>> be developed, then in time they can replace the raw testing approach.
>
> Why anyone would listen to anything from a man who mounted a lengthy,
> vigorous, expensive, fund-raising-assisted defense of himself and then
> admitted that he'd really done everything he'd been denying?
Even worse - he says he doped, but not in the ways he was accused of
(not testosterone, just EPO / blood doping - or has the story changed
/again/?) and that somehow this means his fund-raising-assisted defense
isn't totally reprehensible. In other words, "I'm a liar, but not
really - and it's all someone else's fault, anyway."
That's
> just mind-boggling. The man has no credibility - none, zero, nada,
> zilch, null, niente nulla, ninguno, ????. I wouldn't trust him to come
> into my home and clean my toilets, so I'm sure as heck not going to
> listen to his opinions on anything related to professional cycling. Why
> our media continue to print what he's got to say is also mind-boggling.
> I sure don't read it.
Yup, and he wonders why he can't get a job on a pro team.
Mark J.
RicodJour
> On 1/23/2011 9:07 AM, Steve Freides wrote:
>
> > Why anyone would listen to anything from a man who mounted a lengthy,
> > vigorous, expensive, fund-raising-assisted defense of himself and then
> > admitted that he'd really done everything he'd been denying?
>
> Even worse - he says he doped, but not in the ways he was accused of
> (not testosterone, just EPO / blood doping - or has the story changed
> /again/?) and that somehow this means his fund-raising-assisted defense
> isn't totally reprehensible. In other words, "I'm a liar, but not
> really - and it's all someone else's fault, anyway."
When I was a 'ute, my buddy Eddie and I rolled a huuuuge pumpkin down
a neighbors stepped walkway on Halloween night. Bump, bump, bump,
SPLAT! Their son who was a year older and bigger than us came
bursting out of the house and ran after us. We bolted and had to hop
over a hedge to get away, and unfortunately were forced to drop our
pillowcases full of candy to enable our escape. When I got home my
folks asked where my candy was, and I said a couple of big kids took
it.
Landis is still using that same defense.
R
Mark
>
> Why anyone would listen to anything from a man who mounted a lengthy,
> vigorous, expensive, fund-raising-assisted defense of himself and then
> admitted that he'd really done everything he'd been denying? That's
> just mind-boggling. The man has no credibility - none, zero, nada,
> zilch, null, niente nulla, ninguno, ????. I wouldn't trust him to come
> into my home and clean my toilets, so I'm sure as heck not going to
> listen to his opinions on anything related to professional cycling. Why
> our media continue to print what he's got to say is also mind-boggling.
> I sure don't read it.
>
> I'm just sayin' ...
>
> -S-
to write the 21st century version of "Death on the Installment Plan,"
one of the best books of the 20th century. Louis-Ferdinand Celine
whined self-pityingly about anything and everything in his life and
how rotten the world is. Floyd should work with a modern-day whiny
writer like Michel Houellebecq and write an autobiography of himself
hamming up his every slight and misfortune. It would transcend
cycling and encapsulate the worst of modern culture...
Beloved Fred No. 1
> On the other hand, Floyd may have the personality and life experience
> to write the 21st century version of "Death on the Installment Plan,"
> one of the best books of the 20th century. Louis-Ferdinand Celine
> whined self-pityingly about anything and everything in his life and
> how rotten the world is. Floyd should work with a modern-day whiny
> writer like Michel Houellebecq and write an autobiography of himself
> hamming up his every slight and misfortune. It would transcend
> cycling and encapsulate the worst of modern culture...
These days you do it on twitter.