Restating the obvious
Bill C
this out, not that I think it does any good.
Cycling has made a much larger effort to detect and penalize dopers
than any other sport. Therefore they have caught more of them, and
rather than the perception being that cycling is trying harder, it's
that cycling is dirtier. IMO this is another spot where the UCI is
failing miserably. If they used some of that energy and venom they
direct toward anyone who disagrees with them to highlight how hard
cycling has tried to respond to doping compared to the other sports
we'd all be better off. As far as I can tell we are the only major
sport that is actually trying to clean things up, and this is killing
us in the PR department. The others are paying weak lip service to
doping, finding next to noone and declaring victory, and the press lets
it go. That's sad too.
Bravo to a real champion.
http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=8649
Indurain also reflected on the irony that cycling faced: "Cycling has
a poor reputation, and yet as a sport we have led the way in the fight
against dopage, but that is not how it has been perceived and dopage
continues to haunt us."
Bill C
B. Lafferty
"Bill C" <trito...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1131224354....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
EPO. At the time, the explanation was that he lost weight. Sound familiar?
Given what we do know about the significant drug use problems in the Spanish
peloton, it would be facile to assume that Indurain was any cleaner than any
other rider not testing positive.
Also, the line that cycling has done more than any other organization to
combat doping is a load of crap. Cycling has reacted to crisis after crisis
claiming this knowing full well that the cheating was/is rampant. The 50%
hematocrit level is a mere license to dope to that point. When the UCI does
the same blood/health profiling that the French Federation has done for
several years, I'll believe they may have changed their stripes.
Bill C
What sport does more testing, including out of competition testing
than cycling? What do YOU suggest as the dividing line between a doped
and clean hematocrit?
I have made what to me is a fairly clear case, you need to prove
someone else is doing more.
Bill C
Jet
It surprises me when former riders make comments about doping. There's
undoubtely someone, if not many, who can see through to any hypocracy, and
they've got to be thinking something along the lines of '...well good that
you don't approve of jail time for dopers, because you'd be in jail if
there were'. ;-)
Sometimes I wonder if there isn't pressure to make comments. 'Send the Mig
out there to say something to support anti-doping because if he doesn't
we're thawing out his samples'.
>Also, the line that cycling has done more than any other organization to
>combat doping is a load of crap. Cycling has reacted to crisis after crisis
>claiming this knowing full well that the cheating was/is rampant. The 50%
>hematocrit level is a mere license to dope to that point. When the UCI does
>the same blood/health profiling that the French Federation has done for
>several years, I'll believe they may have changed their stripes.
Seems as though they are more complicit under the table than other
organizations, but not knowing about the degree of the situation in team
sports, it's hard to tell. It's all a lot of people talking out of both
sides of their mouths. If you get caught there's plausible deniability up
the chain of command. I wouldn't be surprised if General Managers aren't
saying 'he'd better go do some dope, b/c he's looking really crappy this
season'.
-jet
Bill C
out there.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/oct05/oct29news
Resistance to out of competition testing for English Soccer
By Shane Stokes
WADA chief Dick Pound has become known for his highly vocal stance when
it comes to the subject of doping in sport. Following criticisms of
cycling, which were published in recent days in the Guardian newspaper,
the Canadian now looks set for a run-in with some of those involved in
English soccer.
Someone needs to show me any sport doing more to combat doping than
cycling.
Bill C
Mike Jacoubowsky
> combat doping is a load of crap. Cycling has reacted to crisis after
> crisis claiming this knowing full well that the cheating was/is rampant.
> The 50% hematocrit level is a mere license to dope to that point.
The 50% hematocrit level was, at the time, the only *relatively* accurate
indication of EPO usage. There was no other test that could be done. What do
YOU propose they should have done instead?
At the very least, imposing a 50% level put some fear into the EPO users
that, if they messed up, they'd be out of a potentially-important race. No
official sanction beyond the two-week layoff for "health" reasons but,
again, what would you have done differently, given that there was no way to
detect EPO at the time?
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.org> wrote in message
news:eA9bf.5830$AS6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
B. Lafferty
The criteria isn't just the number of tests, but lets look at that first.
Out of competition testing was not the norm in cycling until very recently.
Hein and the UCI were pressured into that by WADA. Verbruggen and the UCI
have also stated publily that they oppose under all circumstances the
retroactive testing of stored samples of blood or urine even though the WADA
code to whcih they have agreed calls for a 8 year period of potential
athlete liability.
To answer your question about hematocrit level, I don't think the issue is
an arbitrary level. Rather, riders should be subjected to medical profiling
as the French Federation does, so as to know what the norm is for every
athlete individually. The UCI was invited by the French to do this within
the past month but they have not, AFIK, responded.
If you look at the penalties handed out for positive tests, they were a joke
under Hein's administration and before. It was only under the threat of
exclusion from the last Olympic games that the UCI signed on to meaningful
penalties under the WADA code. Recall if you will, that Hein publicly
stated that he opposed two year suspensions for the first offense as that
would effectively end some cyclists' careers. He also raised the spectre of
the UCI being sued for preventing a cyclist from making a living which was
ludicrous at best.
When the Festina affair hit the press, where was Hein. Off on a juncket to
India, IIRC. And he didn't exactly rush back to the Tour to help with the
situation. Rather, he has repeatedly stated that the peloton is 95% clean.
Whenever a rider has come forward, like Manzano, telling what they know,
Hein and his minions have immediately castigated the rider as a malcontent
or worse rather than investigating the charges made. When the manager of
Amore e Vita criticised the 50% hematocrit rule as a license to cheat, he
was disciplined by the UCI at Hein's behest for daring to say that the UCI
wasn't serious about stopping doping.
In the wake of the Festina affair, the investigating judge in Lille stated
that Hein and the UCI's drug program was a joke and that the leadership of
the UCI was not doing all they could to fight doping. The UCI appealed that
decision and that criticism of the judge was overturned, not be cause it was
factually inaccurate, but because it was beyond the scope of the judge's
charge to investigate.
As to other sports, I can only give you impressions as I haven't followed
tham as closely as cycling. My understanding is that swimming has been very
pro-active in going after dopers--particularly after the Chinese swimmers
arrived singing in basso profundo. I think Nordic Skiing has also been
pro-active but that may just be because of an entire national team being
caught and suspended (Norway?) recently.
I hope the above satisfies your definition of non-weaseling.
Bob Schwartz
> "Bill C" <trito...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1131231210.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>B. Lafferty wrote:
>>
>>>"Bill C" <trito...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>What sport does more testing, including out of competition testing
>>than cycling? What do YOU suggest as the dividing line between a doped
>>and clean hematocrit?
>>I have made what to me is a fairly clear case, you need to prove
>>someone else is doing more.
>>Bill C
> As to other sports, I can only give you impressions as I haven't followed
> tham as closely as cycling. My understanding is that swimming has been very
> pro-active in going after dopers--particularly after the Chinese swimmers
> arrived singing in basso profundo. I think Nordic Skiing has also been
> pro-active but that may just be because of an entire national team being
> caught and suspended (Norway?) recently.
>
> I hope the above satisfies your definition of non-weaseling.
He asked a very direct question. You gave him a very indirect,
weaseling answer.
That's but one of the reasons people think you're a douchebag.
Bob Schwartz
DepartFictif
that's why they like it, it sounds good.
As for the Spanish: Spain along with ITA and POR and some of the
countries with the performance inhancing product use, not that that
gives us any more info on Indurain.
DepartFictif
saying 'he'd better go do some dope, b/c he's looking really crappy
this
season'.
I should hope you woudn't be surprised! Oh course they do. Most DSs
are ex-riders, you need results.
DepartFictif
There was no EPO test and the 50% thing wasn't an attempt to
detect/dissuade EPO users, it was to keep rider from going too far in
the use of EPO. So in that respect it was a capped acceptance of EPO
use... however there really wasn't much else they could do at the time,
so...
DepartFictif
affraid they are FULL of loopholes! Variouse reasons and methods:
although they may be able to detect Amphetamine etc use, they are not
very good at detecting more effective product use. They go through a
set of test with a rider to set the rider's "minimums". That means
that they get a figure for a rider's "natural" hematocrit etc etc etc.
A rider in a good Elite 2 team with the right people around him, will
set himself up for the minimum test, meaning that will get (for
example) a minimum hematocrit of 53% (for example), allowing him to
test at 53% at any medical controle (out of or durring competition)
from then on. That's the case for many "minimums" though I am only
useing the 50% hematocrit rule as an example because it is easy to use,
and most people know and understand the rule...
Other than that, I agree with what you say!!!
Curtis L. Russell
>Sometimes I wonder if there isn't pressure to make comments. 'Send the Mig
>out there to say something to support anti-doping because if he doesn't
>we're thawing out his samples'.
How? What does Indurain gain by speaking out, other than make himself
a target? It would be easy enough to sit on the sidelines, be affable
and show up to sign autographs once in a long while. What are you
going to pressure him with - B samples from the 90s?
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Bill C
anti-doping efforts, and that's pretty easy to do because I can't find
another sport that has as anything close to as big a footprint as
cycling that has made anywhere near the level of effort. What they do
see is cycling giving itself a huge black eye and image problem by
actually finding dopers, which leads to the speculation that there must
be tons more to be found. When you compare the amount of cyclists
caught to football/soccer players it's not even close, because FIFA
doesn't want them caught, all they want is to keep the players and fans
happy while the cash rolls in. They have a program that wouldn't stand
up in here, or in any country where cycling is pushing it's anti-doping
program.
The rest of the sports have seen cycling actually attempt to address
doping in a meaningful way and have it's image hammered. None of them
are going to be stupid enough to put their sports into that position.
We are screwed as a sport because there is no way to stuff the genie
back in the bottle, and no way other than to attack the other sports
weak testing programs to even begin to see if cycling is any dirtier
than the other major sports and they aren't going to adopt serious
testing measures anytime soon. The first time a football superstar got
tagged and suspended for 2 years you'd see some serious ass rioting and
violence, let alone when a bunch of them got caught.
Just not going to happen.
Bill C
B. Lafferty
Is it possible that the reason for that is that other Olympic sports have
also done much the same as cycling but do not have the high profile or
hypocracy level that cycling does?
>What they do
> see is cycling giving itself a huge black eye and image problem by
> actually finding dopers, which leads to the speculation that there must
> be tons more to be found.
I think the main driver of the image problem is riders and officials in
cycling who constantly say the sport is much cleaner than it was at the time
of Festina and/or that the problem is merely one of perception created by
the media. According to Hein it's that 5% and nothing more. IMO, the main
culprits are the cyclists, doctors and teams that still permit and/or expect
riders to dope. The hypocracy of cycling team personel is rampant. It also
doesn't help when riders constantly deny using drugs only to later admit to
their use.
>When you compare the amount of cyclists
> caught to football/soccer players it's not even close, because FIFA
> doesn't want them caught, all they want is to keep the players and fans
> happy while the cash rolls in. They have a program that wouldn't stand
> up in here, or in any country where cycling is pushing it's anti-doping
> program.
FIFA and WADA are at odds. Sure money talks in soccer. It speaks loudly in
cycling and other sports as well.
> The rest of the sports have seen cycling actually attempt to address
> doping in a meaningful way and have it's image hammered. None of them
> are going to be stupid enough to put their sports into that position.
> We are screwed as a sport because there is no way to stuff the genie
> back in the bottle, and no way other than to attack the other sports
> weak testing programs to even begin to see if cycling is any dirtier
> than the other major sports and they aren't going to adopt serious
> testing measures anytime soon. The first time a football superstar got
> tagged and suspended for 2 years you'd see some serious ass rioting and
> violence, let alone when a bunch of them got caught.
I think we need to focus the discussion on Olympic sports federations.
Professional sports like US baseball and football are not yet facing the
anti-doping pressures that many other sports have had to deal with. It does
appear that MLB and the NFL are going to have the laws changed to their
detriment unless they change their ways.
As to the amount of out of competition testing and the claim that cycling is
doing more than any other sport, consider these test numbers for what they
may or may not be worth.
2003 Number of OOCT tests conducted by federation:
327 FIS
296 FISA
291 FINA
288 IWF
267 IAAF
247 ISU
242 UCI
2004:
Urine
203 FINA
161 FISA
133 IWF
128 UCI
Blood EPO Tests
107 ISU
UCI 98
69 IAAF and FISA
Bill C
given the money involved and public exposure as being much more like
the major spectator sports than the Olympic sports. Maybe it's me
being provincial but I can't think of another Olympic sport, other than
possibly Ice Skating which might even come close.
There aren't many events that also will give a politically mided
prosecutor as big a stage to grand-stand on as cycling. Having police
teams raid the hotels, roust riders, and drag people out in the middle
of the night for questioning makes great theater for political
purposes. But they sure as hell aren't going to try that on any other
major sport.
US athletes would be out on strike immediately with the full backing
of their union, soccer fans would go nuts, I can see F1 fans getting
pretty wound up too.
Cycling is, and has been dysfunctional on the inside, and an easy
target from the outside.
If either side had been stronger we wouldn't be hearing or dealing
with 90% of this shit. Cycling opened the door and opportunists charged
through.
Bill C
B. Lafferty
> We're at a fundamamental disagreement here because I see cycling,
> given the money involved and public exposure as being much more like
> the major spectator sports than the Olympic sports. Maybe it's me
> being provincial but I can't think of another Olympic sport, other than
> possibly Ice Skating which might even come close.
Ski racing is pretty big. Athletics is big also.
> There aren't many events that also will give a politically mided
> prosecutor as big a stage to grand-stand on as cycling. Having police
> teams raid the hotels, roust riders, and drag people out in the middle
> of the night for questioning makes great theater for political
> purposes. But they sure as hell aren't going to try that on any other
> major sport.
I have no idea if any other Euro sports have been subjected to police raids.
Perhaps one of our Euroopean posters can tell us.
> US athletes would be out on strike immediately with the full backing
> of their union, soccer fans would go nuts, I can see F1 fans getting
> pretty wound up too.
> Cycling is, and has been dysfunctional on the inside, and an easy
> target from the outside.
> If either side had been stronger we wouldn't be hearing or dealing
> with 90% of this shit. Cycling opened the door and opportunists charged
> through.
I think the Festina affair opened the door for targeting cycling. That, and
the public arrogance/denial of cyclists and the UCI that there was/is a
signifiicant problem in the sport. It's not as though the Italian raid on
the riders hotels during the Giro didn't find anything. Riders jumping out
of windows was, shall we say, startling.
My point in all of this is simply that the UCI has done no better than other
sporting federations and worse than some in at least acknowledging the
problem and coming to grips with it in a direct, above board manner.
Unfortunately, I don't see the situation changing now that Pat McQuaid is at
the helm.
> Bill C
>
benjo maso
"B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.org> wrote in message
>
> "Bill C" <trito...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1131303466.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> We're at a fundamamental disagreement here because I see cycling,
>> given the money involved and public exposure as being much more like
>> the major spectator sports than the Olympic sports. Maybe it's me
>> being provincial but I can't think of another Olympic sport, other than
>> possibly Ice Skating which might even come close.
>
> Ski racing is pretty big. Athletics is big also.
>
>> There aren't many events that also will give a politically mided
>> prosecutor as big a stage to grand-stand on as cycling. Having police
>> teams raid the hotels, roust riders, and drag people out in the middle
>> of the night for questioning makes great theater for political
>> purposes. But they sure as hell aren't going to try that on any other
>> major sport.
>
> I have no idea if any other Euro sports have been subjected to police
> raids. Perhaps one of our Euroopean posters can tell us.
Police raids like in bicycle racing in any other sports? Absolutely not.
>> US athletes would be out on strike immediately with the full backing
>> of their union, soccer fans would go nuts, I can see F1 fans getting
>> pretty wound up too.
>> Cycling is, and has been dysfunctional on the inside, and an easy
>> target from the outside.
>> If either side had been stronger we wouldn't be hearing or dealing
>> with 90% of this shit. Cycling opened the door and opportunists charged
>> through.
>
> I think the Festina affair opened the door for targeting cycling.
I'm afraid you're wrong. The first time bicycle racing was subjected to a
police raid was already in 1965. From the beginning of an anti-doping
legislation on bicycle racing has always been targeted. Actually, even
before. For instance, the proposed statute of the first Belgian anti-doping
law (also in 1965) began with the statement that is was "prohibited for
participants in bicycle races or other sports competitions to avail
themselves of stimulating agents".
>That, and the public arrogance/denial of cyclists and the UCI that there
>was/is a signifiicant problem in the sport.
Of course they denied. Whet else could they do? And let's be fair, for more
than twenty years it has been very effective.
> It's not as though the Italian raid on the riders hotels during the Giro
> didn't find anything. Riders jumping out of windows was, shall we say,
> startling.
>
> My point in all of this is simply that the UCI has done no better than
> other sporting federations and worse than some in at least acknowledging
> the problem and coming to grips with it in a direct, above board manner.
> Unfortunately, I don't see the situation changing now that Pat McQuaid is
> at the helm.
There is not much the UCI can do. Its authorities have come to grip with
"the problem" already a long time ago. Which means that they are well aware
that it cannot be solved. As long as there are effective performance
enhacing products which are not or not yet detectable or as long as there
are clever doctors capable of finding ways to use them with hardly any risk
to be caught, the possibility that the bicycle racing - or any other sports
for that matter - can ever be clean is an illusion.
Benjo
B. Lafferty
"benjo maso" <benjo...@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:dkls3r$1f0$1...@inews.gazeta.pl...
IIRC Benjo, you are a sociologist. Can you explain why cycling would be
focused on like that? Was it a reflection of the status of cycle racing in
Belgium at the time or was it related to a particular incident?
>
>
>>That, and the public arrogance/denial of cyclists and the UCI that there
>>was/is a signifiicant problem in the sport.
>
> Of course they denied. Whet else could they do? And let's be fair, for
> more than twenty years it has been very effective.
>
>> It's not as though the Italian raid on the riders hotels during the Giro
>> didn't find anything. Riders jumping out of windows was, shall we say,
>> startling.
>>
>> My point in all of this is simply that the UCI has done no better than
>> other sporting federations and worse than some in at least acknowledging
>> the problem and coming to grips with it in a direct, above board manner.
>> Unfortunately, I don't see the situation changing now that Pat McQuaid is
>> at the helm.
>
> There is not much the UCI can do. Its authorities have come to grip with
> "the problem" already a long time ago. Which means that they are well
> aware that it cannot be solved. As long as there are effective performance
> enhacing products which are not or not yet detectable or as long as there
> are clever doctors capable of finding ways to use them with hardly any
> risk to be caught, the possibility that the bicycle racing - or any other
> sports for that matter - can ever be clean is an illusion.
I agree that cheaters will always be ahead of the curve. I'm not convinced
that allowing sportspeople to use anything they like is what I would want
today given the increasing dangers of the treatments being used. The
imposition of the WADA ban system may help in the long run. We could always
make the athletes have 35 hour a week, real jobs as a precondition to
competing and make them Brundage amateurs. ;-)
benjo maso
"B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.org> wrote in message
>>> I think the Festina affair opened the door for targeting cycling.
>>
>>
>> I'm afraid you're wrong. The first time bicycle racing was subjected to a
>> police raid was already in 1965. From the beginning of an anti-doping
>> legislation on bicycle racing has always been targeted. Actually, even
>> before. For instance, the proposed statute of the first Belgian
>> anti-doping law (also in 1965) began with the statement that is was
>> "prohibited for participants in bicycle races or other sports
>> competitions to avail themselves of stimulating agents".
>
> IIRC Benjo, you are a sociologist. Can you explain why cycling would be
> focused on like that? Was it a reflection of the status of cycle racing in
> Belgium at the time or was it related to a particular incident?
I have already tried to explain it before (see
http://groups.google.nl/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_thread/thread/3c46b1fbd3b81440/e7305136e1ddf59d?lnk=st&q=helsinki+benjo&rnum=4&hl=nl#e7305136e1ddf59d).
I'm not too happy about it neither - I mean about a wide-spread use of
products which are so effective that it's impossible to be a top-athlete
without using them (and unfortunately that's how it is since the early
1990's). But there are so many things in this world I am not too happy
about, but have learned to accept them. And I'm also convinced that the
present anti-doping policy to destroy bicycle racing to save it is much
worse than allowing the use of it.
Benjo
B. Lafferty
>
> "B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.org> wrote in message
> news:_%ubf.6151$AS6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "benjo maso" <benjo...@chello.nl> wrote in message
> (snip)
>
>>>> I think the Festina affair opened the door for targeting cycling.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm afraid you're wrong. The first time bicycle racing was subjected to
>>> a police raid was already in 1965. From the beginning of an anti-doping
>>> legislation on bicycle racing has always been targeted. Actually, even
>>> before. For instance, the proposed statute of the first Belgian
>>> anti-doping law (also in 1965) began with the statement that is was
>>> "prohibited for participants in bicycle races or other sports
>>> competitions to avail themselves of stimulating agents".
>>
>> IIRC Benjo, you are a sociologist. Can you explain why cycling would be
>> focused on like that? Was it a reflection of the status of cycle racing
>> in Belgium at the time or was it related to a particular incident?
>
> I have already tried to explain it before (see
> http://groups.google.nl/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_thread/thread/3c46b1fbd3b81440/e7305136e1ddf59d?lnk=st&q=helsinki+benjo&rnum=4&hl=nl#e7305136e1ddf59d).
Ah yes, I remember that post. Thanks for the reminder and link.
What can one say?
Donald Munro
>> I hope the above satisfies your definition of non-weaseling.
Bob Schwartz wrote:
> He asked a very direct question. You gave him a very indirect,
> weaseling answer.
> That's but one of the reasons people think you're a douchebag.
Thats still beats a turd sandwich:
http://www.tv.com/douche-and-turd/episode/372423/summary.html
dusto...@mac.com
B. Lafferty wrote:
> What can one say?
"Call off the dogs".
Thanks to Benjo for taking the time to post here. A voice of reason.
Has Dick Pound been tested recently? Can't we catch him with a call
girl or choir boy or a bag of small-denomination unmarked bills?
Something? --D-y
Donald Munro
>> What can one say?
dusto...@mac.com wrote:
> "Call off the dogs".
VDB must be making a(nother) comeback.
B. Lafferty
<dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1131376726.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
allowed--I hope I haven't terribly mis-stated his position. I have two
objections to giving in to the dopers. The risk of death or shortened
lifespan is increasing with the drugs being abused. It makes for boring
racing. The latter it is open for debate. I think it would be difficult to
argue against the first, and no, I don't think informed consent is the
answer.
B. Lafferty
"Donald Munro" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.11.07....@invalid.invalid...
must have found a new veterinarian.
benjo maso
"B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.org> wrote in message
>
> <dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:1131376726.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>
>>> What can one say?
>>
>> "Call off the dogs".
>>
>> Thanks to Benjo for taking the time to post here. A voice of reason.
>>
>> Has Dick Pound been tested recently? Can't we catch him with a call
>> girl or choir boy or a bag of small-denomination unmarked bills?
>> Something? --D-y
>>
> Benjo's basic position is that doping can't be stopped, so it should be
> allowed--I hope I haven't terribly mis-stated his position.
Not terribly, but it should have mentioned another point: that the positive
effects of all those attempts to stop doping shrink into insignificance when
compared with the negative effects.
> I have two objections to giving in to the dopers. The risk of death or
> shortened lifespan is increasing with the drugs being abused.
Exactly, when abused... especially when it happens in secrecy, without the
consult of a doctor. All those riders who experimented with epo at the end
of the 1980;s and beginning of the 1990's with fatal results would be alive
if they could have asked advise to a specialist. Without the anti-doping
policy Pantani would have been alive.... Sure, the use of drugs can be
detrimental at the long term, just like smoking or drinking alcohol.
> It makes for boring racing.
How???
> The latter it is open for debate. I think it would be difficult to argue
> against the first, and no, I don't think informed consent is the answer.
It's certainly not the perfect answer, but sometimes one has to choose the
lesser of two evils.
Benjo
Kurgan Gringioni
benjo maso wrote:
>
> > It makes for boring racing.
>
> How???
Dumbass -
Lafferty consistently makes that erroneous point because he doesn't
really understand bike racing (the racing itself, not the politics).
thanks for your input,
K. Gringioni.
B. Lafferty
>
> "B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.org> wrote in message
> news:_vKbf.5339$2y....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> <dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:1131376726.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>>
>>>> What can one say?
>>>
>>> "Call off the dogs".
>>>
>>> Thanks to Benjo for taking the time to post here. A voice of reason.
>>>
>>> Has Dick Pound been tested recently? Can't we catch him with a call
>>> girl or choir boy or a bag of small-denomination unmarked bills?
>>> Something? --D-y
>>>
>> Benjo's basic position is that doping can't be stopped, so it should be
>> allowed--I hope I haven't terribly mis-stated his position.
>
> Not terribly, but it should have mentioned another point: that the
> positive effects of all those attempts to stop doping shrink into
> insignificance when compared with the negative effects.
>
>> I have two objections to giving in to the dopers. The risk of death or
>> shortened lifespan is increasing with the drugs being abused.
>
> Exactly, when abused... especially when it happens in secrecy, without the
> consult of a doctor. All those riders who experimented with epo at the end
> of the 1980;s and beginning of the 1990's with fatal results would be
> alive if they could have asked advise to a specialist.
I agree that some would be alive. However, not all of the effects are know
about using many substances on healthy athletes. As one example, HgH given
to a healthy person will weaken the left ventricle of the heart
significantly increasing the risk of a heart attack. No doubt some riders
will accept that risk as some have accepted acromeglia as an occupational
hazzard to be treated by dentists and podiatrists. I wonder too if the
winner will simply be the rider willing to risk more in a medical/helth
sense than other competitiors.
> Without the anti-doping policy Pantani would have been alive....
That's really an unknown
>Sure, the use of drugs can be detrimental at the long term, just like
>smoking or drinking alcohol.
Except that you buy butts and booze which are, whether rightly or wrongly,
legal to sell and use as intended. Not so with PIDs. I understand you want
to make it all legal which will moot that objection. However, the long term
effects of smoking and alcohol are known, unike many of the drugs used today
for doping.
I also object to allowing it because you will still have suspect winners who
are simply ahead of the PID curve. I'd like the winners to be placing on
ability rather than an unknown chemical advantage.
>
>
>> It makes for boring racing.
>
> How???
We've debated that here at rbr over the past year or so. IMO, doping is
bringing a great number of riders to a relatively equal level where the
peloton is too big as the end of a race nears and attempts to break away are
increasingly pointless given the ability of doped riders to chase down their
fellow dopee.
>
>
>> The latter it is open for debate. I think it would be difficult to argue
>> against the first, and no, I don't think informed consent is the answer.
>
> It's certainly not the perfect answer, but sometimes one has to choose the
> lesser of two evils.
Life is about choices like that. I'm just not willing to choose the evil
you prefer--at least not for now.
>
> Benjo
>
B. Lafferty
that he's learned what the word means.
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131396027.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
benjo maso
"B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.org> wrote in message
To what extent is it different from the present situation?
>> Without the anti-doping policy Pantani would have been alive....
>
> That's really an unknown
It's not completely certain, of course not. But it's quite possible - and
any people who knew him have said so - that he was more or less hounded to
death. Anyhow, it's certain that the doping-hunters have deprived bicycle
lovers of a lot of exciting racing.
>>Sure, the use of drugs can be detrimental at the long term, just like
>>smoking or drinking alcohol.
>
>
> Except that you buy butts and booze which are, whether rightly or wrongly,
> legal to sell and use as intended. Not so with PIDs. I understand you
> want to make it all legal which will moot that objection. However, the
> long term effects of smoking and alcohol are known, unike many of the
> drugs used today for doping.
Sure. It would be stupid to put HgH and whatever ion the free market - like
cigarettes or wine and whisky.
> I also object to allowing it because you will still have suspect winners
> who are simply ahead of the PID curve. I'd like the winners to be placing
> on ability rather than an unknown chemical advantage.
I'm afraid that's even in the 19th century bicycle racers already used all
the kinds of doping they could find. Perhaps they wouldn't in a perfect
world, but as long as it doesn't exist, we have to face reality.
>>> It makes for boring racing.
>>
>> How???
>
> We've debated that here at rbr over the past year or so. IMO, doping is
> bringing a great number of riders to a relatively equal level where the
> peloton is too big as the end of a race nears and attempts to break away
> are increasingly pointless given the ability of doped riders to chase down
> their fellow dopee.
It is not only pure speculation that doping is bringing a great number of
riders to a relatively equal level but not very likely either. Doping
doesn't change men in robots. They are still men with different abilities,
different talents, different dispositions, different outlooks and besides,
as any doctor knows, the same product has usually quite different effects on
different people. It's quite possible that some riders are ranking higher on
the list than they would ever have had in a world without doping (and the
other way around), but that's a different matter.
>>> The latter it is open for debate. I think it would be difficult to argue
>>> against the first, and no, I don't think informed consent is the answer.
>>
>> It's certainly not the perfect answer, but sometimes one has to choose
>> the lesser of two evils.
>
> Life is about choices like that. I'm just not willing to choose the evil
> you prefer--at least not for now.
Of course, you don't have to. But I'm only afraid that the evil you prefer
in the near future will get even worse.
Benjo
Tom Kunich
they have to be more faultless than Caesar's wife. Unfortunately too
many of the latest testing procedures are open to interpretation and
are not scientifically infalible.
I'm not sure how you can prevent 100% of drug abuse in any professional
sport where so much of an individual's personal wealth might be at
threat, but better to let questionable cases slide than to claim that
you're being "fair" when you aren't.
B. Lafferty
>>> I agree that some would be alive. However, not all of the effects are
>> know about using many substances on healthy athletes. As one example,
>> HgH given to a healthy person will weaken the left ventricle of the heart
>> significantly increasing the risk of a heart attack. No doubt some riders
>> will accept that risk as some have accepted acromeglia as an occupational
>> hazzard to be treated by dentists and podiatrists. I wonder too if the
>> winner will simply be the rider willing to risk more in a medical/helth
>> sense than other competitiors.
>
> To what extent is it different from the present situation?
The result may not be all that different. However, I'm not willing to take
the position that everything is open when the winner may well still be the
rider with just the latest dope that nobody else has scored yet.
>
>>> Without the anti-doping policy Pantani would have been alive....
>>
>> That's really an unknown
>
> It's not completely certain, of course not. But it's quite possible - and
> any people who knew him have said so - that he was more or less hounded to
> death. Anyhow, it's certain that the doping-hunters have deprived bicycle
> lovers of a lot of exciting racing.
If you mean that we were denied Pantani's panache, I agree to an extent.
But it wasn't just the doping athorities, there was something in his
character that allowed him to be beaten down whereas riders line Virenque
and Zulle simply came through and probably just moved on to microdosing EPO
or autologous transfusions. If anything the authorities probably hastened
what would have been triggered by something else later like retirement.
>
> >>Sure, the use of drugs can be detrimental at the long term, just like
>>>smoking or drinking alcohol.
>>
>>
>> Except that you buy butts and booze which are, whether rightly or
>> wrongly, legal to sell and use as intended. Not so with PIDs. I
>> understand you want to make it all legal which will moot that objection.
>> However, the long term effects of smoking and alcohol are known, unike
>> many of the drugs used today for doping.
>
> Sure. It would be stupid to put HgH and whatever ion the free market -
> like cigarettes or wine and whisky.
>
>> I also object to allowing it because you will still have suspect winners
>> who are simply ahead of the PID curve. I'd like the winners to be placing
>> on ability rather than an unknown chemical advantage.
>
> I'm afraid that's even in the 19th century bicycle racers already used all
> the kinds of doping they could find. Perhaps they wouldn't in a perfect
> world, but as long as it doesn't exist, we have to face reality.
>
Absolutely, but the the changes in doping over the past 15 years are of
another order of magnitude. Cocaine, strychnine and speed seem so quaint
now. The risks are far greater now, IMO, and I am not ready to say win
and/or die should be allowed.
>>>> It makes for boring racing.
>>>
>>> How???
>>
>> We've debated that here at rbr over the past year or so. IMO, doping is
>> bringing a great number of riders to a relatively equal level where the
>> peloton is too big as the end of a race nears and attempts to break away
>> are increasingly pointless given the ability of doped riders to chase
>> down their fellow dopee.
>
> It is not only pure speculation that doping is bringing a great number of
> riders to a relatively equal level but not very likely either. Doping
> doesn't change men in robots. They are still men with different abilities,
> different talents, different dispositions, different outlooks and besides,
> as any doctor knows, the same product has usually quite different effects
> on different people. It's quite possible that some riders are ranking
> higher on the list than they would ever have had in a world without doping
> (and the other way around), but that's a different matter.
We'll just have to disagree on this. I wonder how a rider with roughly
equal ability racing with a natural hematocrit in the mid 40s would do
against someone with a natural of 53% like Cunego just as I wonder how a
certain rider with a VO2Max of 82 would do in the Tour if it were a truly
level playing field.
>
>>>> The latter it is open for debate. I think it would be difficult to
>>>> argue against the first, and no, I don't think informed consent is the
>>>> answer.
>>>
>>> It's certainly not the perfect answer, but sometimes one has to choose
>>> the lesser of two evils.
>>
>> Life is about choices like that. I'm just not willing to choose the evil
>> you prefer--at least not for now.
>
> Of course, you don't have to. But I'm only afraid that the evil you prefer
> in the near future will get even worse.
Worse in what sense? More deaths or business problems for the sport?
>
> Benjo
>
>
>
Bill C
I understand your concerns, but how long do you think it would take
the tabloid press to start running sensational stories on the new arena
bloodsport, the drug cocktails the riders were taking, the doctors who
were willing to push it farther, the feature pieces on the latest
genetic doping mods for the riders.
I think the press would, rightly, report what's going on and then
sensationalize it as "Drugged Races of Death" where the riders willing
to go out the farthest without dying win.
I just can't see that being better than what we have now. Maybe the
Belgian and Dutch press would go that route, but I'll guarantee the US,
British, and some of the German and Canadian press sure as hell would.
You'd have every mother's group screaming to protect their children
and the majority of politicians racing to shut the sport down for good
IMO. At least all of that would be absolutely guaranteed to happen
here.
Bill C
B. Lafferty
OK. :-)
benjo maso
"Tom Kunich" <cycl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131400453.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I agree with you that doping regulations must be more or less perfect to
function. Unfortunately, they never will be, not only many of the latest
testing procedures are open to interpretation and
not scientifically infallible, but also because there have always been
products which are not yet detectable and I'm afraid there will always be
(after all, finding infallible testing procedures takes time). Some
examples: steroids: first used in 1954, detectable in 1976. Testosterone:
first used in 1952, detectable in 1982. Epo: first used in 1987, detectable
in 2000. HgH: first used in 1980, not yet detectable. DynEpo: first used in
2001 or 2002, not yet detectable, etc., etc. So how can tests be effective
when there are several performance enhancing products cannot be detected?
All you need is a clever doctor. No wonder that topriders are never testing
positive in the last ten or fifteen years (I think poor Tylor Hamilton is
the only exception).
Benjo
benjo maso
>
> benjo maso wrote:
(snip)
>> Of course, you don't have to. But I'm only afraid that the evil you
>> prefer
>> in the near future will get even worse.
>>
>> Benjo
>
> I understand your concerns, but how long do you think it would take
> the tabloid press to start running sensational stories on the new arena
> bloodsport, the drug cocktails the riders were taking, the doctors who
> were willing to push it farther, the feature pieces on the latest
> genetic doping mods for the riders.
> I think the press would, rightly, report what's going on and then
> sensationalize it as "Drugged Races of Death" where the riders willing
> to go out the farthest without dying win.
> I just can't see that being better than what we have now. Maybe the
> Belgian and Dutch press would go that route, but I'll guarantee the US,
> British, and some of the German and Canadian press sure as hell would.
> You'd have every mother's group screaming to protect their children
> and the majority of politicians racing to shut the sport down for good
> IMO. At least all of that would be absolutely guaranteed to happen
> here.
You are quite right: although the overwhelming majority in the "traditional"
bicycle countries don't hardly care if riders are using performance
enhancing products yes or no, in the "new cycling world" it's quite
different. What's more, persuing the present policy makes it every day more
difficult to change course and it's indeed quite possible that we have
already passed the point of no return. Alas.
Benjo
benjo maso
"B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.org> wrote in message
>
> "benjo maso" <benjo...@chello.nl> wrote in message
> news:dkoguq$rqs$1...@inews.gazeta.pl...
>>>> I agree that some would be alive. However, not all of the effects are
>>> know about using many substances on healthy athletes. As one example,
>>> HgH given to a healthy person will weaken the left ventricle of the
>>> heart significantly increasing the risk of a heart attack. No doubt some
>>> riders will accept that risk as some have accepted acromeglia as an
>>> occupational hazzard to be treated by dentists and podiatrists. I wonder
>>> too if the winner will simply be the rider willing to risk more in a
>>> medical/helth sense than other competitiors.
>
>>
>> To what extent is it different from the present situation?
>
> The result may not be all that different. However, I'm not willing to
> take the position that everything is open when the winner may well still
> be the rider with just the latest dope that nobody else has scored yet.
It gives him a edge, sure. But not more than that.
>>>> Without the anti-doping policy Pantani would have been alive....
>>>
>>> That's really an unknown
>>
>> It's not completely certain, of course not. But it's quite possible - and
>> any people who knew him have said so - that he was more or less hounded
>> to death. Anyhow, it's certain that the doping-hunters have deprived
>> bicycle lovers of a lot of exciting racing.
>
> If you mean that we were denied Pantani's panache, I agree to an extent.
> But it wasn't just the doping athorities, there was something in his
> character that allowed him to be beaten down whereas riders line Virenque
> and Zulle simply came through and probably just moved on to microdosing
> EPO or autologous transfusions. If anything the authorities probably
> hastened what would have been triggered by something else later like
> retirement.
It's true that he was very vulnerable, probably much more than Virenque or
Zülle (difficult to say because they haven't been persecuted the way Pantani
has). But it's quite possible that nobody would have never known if the
coirconstances would have been different.
Worse in the sense that if it continues the're will be no future for bicycle
racing on the road (which has always been dependent on the good will of the
authorities who did or did allow it to use public roads for a race). There
is no deny that nowadays doping is not only dominating the sports itself,
but also more and more the way it's seen by the public. Like a 85 years old
French ex-rider said to me not so long ago: ten, fifteen years ago people
asked me how the Tour was in the 1940's and 1950's, what I knew about Coppi,
Bartali or Bobet. But these days people are only asking what kinds of doping
we used.
Benjo
B. Lafferty
Bob Schwartz
> I understand your concerns, but how long do you think it would take
> the tabloid press to start running sensational stories on the new arena
> bloodsport, the drug cocktails the riders were taking, the doctors who
> were willing to push it farther, the feature pieces on the latest
> genetic doping mods for the riders.
> I think the press would, rightly, report what's going on and then
> sensationalize it as "Drugged Races of Death" where the riders willing
> to go out the farthest without dying win.
> I just can't see that being better than what we have now. Maybe the
> Belgian and Dutch press would go that route, but I'll guarantee the US,
> British, and some of the German and Canadian press sure as hell would.
> You'd have every mother's group screaming to protect their children
> and the majority of politicians racing to shut the sport down for good
> IMO. At least all of that would be absolutely guaranteed to happen
> here.
> Bill C
>
Bill, please. Turn down the emotion, you're not thinking straight.
A couple of points:
- Bike racing, even in the Age of LANCE, is on the fringe in the US.
If no one cares about the body count in football what makes you think
a sport like cycling is even on the long range scanners?
- The stuff you describe sounds a lot like cycling in the early 90s.
What you are saying is a lock to happen did not happen. Even the
death of a high profile athlete like FloJo didn't matter to her
sport.
- You're talking like this problem is unique to cycling. WTF, where
have you been during the BALCO mess?
If this were earlier in the year I would tell you to relax, crack
open a beer and turn the TV to the Red Sox, checking out all those
people in the stands clamoring to shut down that drug ridden sport.
Bob Schwartz
Bill C
Your going to tell me that Pound wouldn't scream bloody murder, the
IOC wouldn't drop the sport, and all the moral pontificators wouldn't
get in on it. How many proven deaths due to steroids do they have
documented? Not a lot as far as I can tell, but that doesn't stop the
politicians from seizing on a feel good issue with a few families to
raise hell. That's why Baseball is finally taking some heat despite
incredible amounts of money donated to politicians and Pacs.
Did you miss all the heat that the Ultimate Fighting Championships
(UFC) got even though their safety record was much better than boxing.
Lots of States had moved to ban it, it had hit the Congressional radar,
and there were tons of anti-violence groups raising holy hell about it
due to the perception, not the reality. Luckily they got new ownership
who had good PR skills, worked with the State athletic boards and
boxing commissions and were able to stay in business.
None of the sports has openly allowed doping except Bobdybuilding
earlier on and they ended up in the wringer along with Vince McMahon
about steroids with the Dept.of Justice and Congress critters.
This would be the equivalent in public opinion here of legalizing hard
drugs. Shit we have hysteria over weed, you really think there wouldn't
be hell to pay over college teams hiring doctors to shoot up the kids,
or kids being told they have to dope to make the team?
I know a lot of that shit is going on now, but it doesn't have the
public sanction that Benjo is talking about.
In a lot of ways I agree with him. I just don't think it's possible to
do.
Damn I've either got to come live where you do, or become less of an
information junkie.
Right now there's hell to pay in a fight over a new low power radio
station, which i theory was supposed to allow free access to all of the
community, but in reality is way out on the left fringe for here which
is way out. Now we've got charges of racism, falsification of
ducumentation for the license and funding, it got community support in
the run up from a fairly wide group of people, 1/3 of whom were
immediately run out including the board members who are all slamming
each other. Looks like they may very well lose the license and have to
shut down until they can sort it out. This is based in a community
center and the people who have been forced out are claiming to have
been intimidated and forced off of public property so they are
threatening to sue the city and this is a pretty minor example of life
here.
If a bear farts in the woods one of our news outlets or activist
groups on some side of the issue grabs it and runs with it for some
reason or other. We're also back in the preliminary stages of arguing
about the damn beaver again too. Our current election is pretty quiet
though since there hasn't been any real diversity of political opinion
expressed here in well over a decade and there wasn't much left then.
Bill C
Bill C
laudanum to even begin to have an effect up this end of the Valley, or
on Congress. Sometimes I feel like I need it though. Fortunately I
don't let it get me really hostile anymore. I just keep thinking about
moving out into the boonies and doing my thing.
Bill C
B. Lafferty
>> But if we put Prozac in the drinking water supply, everything would come
>> out
>> OK. :-)
> Now that's not a bad suggestion, but it'd have to be something like
> laudanum to even begin to have an effect up this end of the Valley, or
> on Congress. Sometimes I feel like I need it though. Fortunately I
> don't let it get me really hostile anymore. I just keep thinking about
> moving out into the boonies and doing my thing.
> Bill C
>
Cross-bow, assault rifle or blow gun? Seriously, we should discuss my Yurt
in the wilderness idea some time.
Bill C
Actually that kinda matches my thoughts. I've always said that it
needs to be at least the range of a .30-06 from anyone else with trees
in between. If I need to finish something up I want to be able to run a
saw or grinder at 11:00 at night without hassles. I want to play around
with the kids on dirtbikes and not worry about the bitching. I used to
be able to sit on my brothers back steps and plink with a .22 just for
fun. There was nothing out behind the house except fields and swamp for
a couple of miles. That works for me.
Haven't done anywhere near enough hiking, camping, fishing,
snowshoeing, and it's been at least 10 years since I bow hunted and 15
with a gun.
That yurt sounds really good.
Bill C
B. Lafferty
Michael Press
<tIcbf.4674$2y....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.org> wrote:
> "Bill C" <trito...@aol.com> wrote in message
> I think Nordic Skiing has also been
> pro-active but that may just be because of an entire national team being
> caught and suspended (Norway?) recently.
That does not qualify as pro-active.
> I hope the above satisfies your definition of non-weaseling.
Heh.
--
Michael Press
The rest of the world.
Donald Munro
> But if we put Prozac in the drinking water supply, everything would come out
> OK. :-)
Except for us cyclists:
Bob Schwartz
I'm sorry, I missed part of the context where you were responding
to the idea that everything should be legal. If nothing ever
gets trimmed I tend to just read the new stuff.
Low power radio stations are about pissing matches. You can't
give a group of people a microphone and an audience and not face
the risk of urine. The only way you get beyond that is if a
single person owns the mike. We have low power radio here too.
And I have to admit, I have never heard of the Ultimate Fighting
Championships. So yes, I missed that. If that's a cable thing
then it's off my radar screen.
I'm not sure knowing the details of cable extreme sports or low
power radio station urine slinging qualifies anyone as an information
junkie. To me that sounds like a cry for help. I have a two part
prescription, ride more and drink more beer. And 'lite' beer doesn't
count. Any beer where you can't tell that you're drinking beer
doesn't count. The exception is Irish beer. Biodiesel analogues don't
count either.
Bob Schwartz
I did look up the Ultimate Fighting Championships. That's where I
found this which I present as testimony to the value of research:
http://www.ufc.tv/index.cfm?fa=OctagonGirl.GalleryImgDetail&aid=2804&catid=7
Robert Chung
> I did look up the Ultimate Fighting Championships. That's where I
> found this which I present as testimony to the value of research:
>
http://www.ufc.tv/index.cfm?fa=OctagonGirl.GalleryImgDetail&aid=2804&catid=7
Dumbass,
Please don't bury this kind of thing at the bottom of a long post.
They sorta remind me of Carolina Panthers cheerleaders.
Bill C
It really is worth watching if you like martial arts. It's officially
billed as "mixed martial arts" but has pretty much been become a blend
of Gracie Jiu-jitsu, Muaythai, and the hard styles.
Then the ring card girls aint too shabby either.
Bill C
Bill C
>
> I'm not sure knowing the details of cable extreme sports or low
> power radio station urine slinging qualifies anyone as an information
> junkie. To me that sounds like a cry for help. I have a two part
> prescription, ride more and drink more beer. And 'lite' beer doesn't
> count. Any beer where you can't tell that you're drinking beer
> doesn't count. The exception is Irish beer. Biodiesel analogues don't
> count either.
>
> Bob Schwartz
>
> I did look up the Ultimate Fighting Championships. That's where I
> found this which I present as testimony to the value of research:
> http://www.ufc.tv/index.cfm?fa=OctagonGirl.GalleryImgDetail&aid=2804&catid=7
NO Cycling Related Stuff follows.
I've actually found that those kinds of things are the better issues
for my health and disposition. You know that bumper sticker "If you're
not outraged you're not paying attention" I did a pretty good overdose
of that for a lot of years now I mix in a lot of stuff like Dave Barry,
Erma Bombeck, Grizzard etc...along with a ton of old pulp Doc Savage
and some Golden Age SF. Basically brainless, amusing, easy reading.
I got hooked bad, when as a teenager doing martial arts, I started
doing the homework. It snowballed from the martial history of the
China, Japan, Korea region along with the Northern European/Germanic
stuff. Which led into philosophy and religion, which leads into
religion, politics, power and ethics. Then to follow the development of
this stuff you have to follow the history. You can't get into all of
this intelligently without questioning how you look at things, because
that's going to color how you see it. Through all that I finally came
to a philosophy I'm comfortable with.
Unfortunately growing up a, and being a grunt at heart I don't have a
whole lot of sympathy or patience for slipshod half assed research,
parrotted dittohead opinions, or pinheads trying to ram their agenda's
down people's throats. I also have this really fundamental hang up
with, freedom balanced by responsibility, hard work, fair treatment,
and judging things based on these. Needless to say I used to spend a
lot of time REALLY pissed off, now I only spend quite a bit of time
pissed off and disgusted, but I'm still, like the bird is by the snake,
fascinated by how people think and interact and how that's shaped by
their religion and history.
A big part of my coping mechanism has been to stop working in all the
stuff I still like in small bits like the Intelligence Community,
Mainframe Computers, and hardware electronics. I still sort of keep an
eye on things and assemble/build our PCs using what I want for boards
and modules, but I had enough of rooms with no windows and too much
pressure. Now I'm back outside making a lot less, but enjoying it SO
much more on my terms. I thought the motorcyle thing was going to be it
and spent my GI bill on the H-D factory school since I've loved
motorcycles forever, but what I didn't love was the corporate attitude
at H-D and how they tossed most of their former customers and dealers
who kept them afloat so I do that for fun now too once in a while. It's
so cool to build things to last for generations, restore something
Colonial, or even better add to something historic and make it blend
with the theme for the next generations. I still haven't shaken the
farmer, and love being outdoors for most of the year, and still have
good thoughts about farming until I remember the hours, aches, and
falling in the shit pit, warm but not good swimming.
I still read at least the BBC, Guardian, Fox, CNN, Al-Jazeera,
Arabnews.com, Masslive, two local paper sites, and various other news,
sports, and cycling sites everyday. Usually while watching things like
the Discovery, Military, History, PBS, Learning, Travel, Biography, and
various sports type channels.
It really is a disease, one I love, but still a disease. I've got a
huge backlog of serious books to get through, but I'm in the middle of
a current meltdown where I just can't seem to get going on the hard
research and study at the moment so I'm busy pissing about current
events shit instead of the political and cultural relationships of
several hundred to thousands of years ago.
It's all been made worse by all the physical shit that's happened to
restrict all the activities that used to be a great outlet, but at
least I should be able to get in a good year riding next year, and I
should be able to get back in the gym carefully shortly and that'll
help. Unfortunately I wasn't able to work from mid Feb until a couple
of weeks ago except for some really minor stuff, that doesn't help
much. With all the injuries people around here have had a lot of the
frustration should be real familiar. I feel really lucky compared to a
lot of people here and what they've been through.
I really think Brian can't decide whether to laugh or be really
worried a lot of times about my reactions to things here where I'm
living. We're only about 25 miles apart, but it might as well be light
years. This area really has a ton of great things going for it, and
lots of it I love, but the I'd describe the politcal climate as one
sided, fascist, hypocritical, on handfuls of speed, and they feed off
each others energy, and only listen to each other. I'd bet tons of cash
that Amit, and Howard would love it here because they are close enough
to the prevailing attitude to shrug off the worst of it, and it's a
great place to ride, see live music, theater, and get outside and enjoy
nature. The City's nickname is "Paradise City" given to it by Jenny
lind.:
http://www.northamptonguide.com/history.shtml
Anyway I think I'm pretty OK for a borderline type A, who spent years
trying to find ways to slow his brain down and pretend he didn't hate
90% of the planet in general. I still can't stand them in general, but
strangely I really like and enjoy a whole lot of the individuals.
To use a sig I havent In ages:
"To attain the capacity to enjoy the inevitable, a worthy goal"
Bill C
h squared
.
> Then the ring card girls aint too shabby either.
> Bill C
>
those women (in bob's link) are much much much more attractive than i
ever would have expected from ring card girls (my only experience in the
past with that sorta thing has been boxing ring girls, who i found not
soooo attractive...)
surprised,
h
Howard Kveck
wrote:
Heh, that's the kind of Ultimate Fighting lotsa guys want to see.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2216124
--
tanx,
Howard
The sheriff is near...
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Bill C
Penthouse, and a bunch of others are throwing money at them. Could be a
great business move for them. I think I'll pass though.
Bill C
Bill C
Still a fairly small company with really good management, and does NOT
want to get tagged with the boxing crap.
Nice, but short on muscle for me.
Just as a flashback for Jet, and for comparison:
http://www.bodybuildbid.com/articles/msolympia/rachel-mclish.html
Bill C
Ryan Cousineau
"benjo maso" <benjo...@chello.nl> wrote:
There is a grim issue I have with your position, Benjo: if you are going
to allow some "therapeutic" level of doping, why do you think the
problem of a level playing field gets easier?
In any imaginable scenario, there will be some sort of limit placed on
the amount of each goody that the rider can use. Maybe they'll have
dosage limits for steroids and HGH, and Hct limits for EPO and other
forms of blood doping.
But, excepting maybe Hct percentages, how do you keep the riders within
the specified limits? Don't you just create a peloton that is much more
drugged-up than today, but still with some cheaters (or if you prefer,
super-dopers) in the middle?
For any line you care to draw, there will surely be riders quite happy
to cross it. Of course, they'll be even harder to detect in some ways.
Did the rider go 10 mcg/kg/d over the approved dosage? Who knows? Sounds
like some pretty tricky testing is in order.
Do you think that the same peloton which you assert has embraced a
culture of cheating will suddenly embrace a culture of self-restraint,
as long as they are allowed some of their goodies?
We may not be able to prevent 100% of drug abuse, but at least we can
try to prevent 100% drug abuse.
This argument makes me despair about whether there is any future
whatsoever for pro cycling. I'd be sad if it collapsed, for sure. But
what would really sadden me is if it took amateur cycling with it. I've
gone back and forth over this, and I've decided that if I could only
have one (and the doping debate may make this non-academic) I choose
amateurs.
You know why? Some amateurs might dope, because they're idiots, just
like some guys will violate the yellow-line rule, or be poor sports in
myriad ways. But at the amateur level, it's about roughly competitive
groupings, competing against your personal benchmarks, and having fun. I
can live with those as essential antidotes to the problem of doping, at
least in the amateur levels.
Of course, Dick Pound seems to be acting like the worst friend a foe of
doping could have. I like his ideas, really I do: keeping current
samples securely for 10 years, so that if we come up with a test for
present dope in the future (as happened with EPO) we can use it? Good
idea! Accusing Lance of being a doper based on a test that can't
possibly meet WADA standards? Bad idea! Asserting a firm belief that
sport should create a culture of clean competition? Good idea! Wildly
asserting that sport X is insincere about doping control, because they
catch so many dopers? Bad idea.
I'm serious about throwing out pro competition. I think the ProTour is a
good idea, I think that the doping controls are getting pretty serious
(they've nailed, rightly or wrongly, several of the top riders in the
sport in the last few years, including Hamilton, Heras, Museeuw, Millar,
and lots more; if they're insincere about doping control, they have a
funny way of showing it).
The real trick, of course, is to force the _economics_ of doping to
fail. If you start fining riders major, income-proportionate dollars for
positive tests, you might get results. If you start requiring mandatory
retroactive nullification clauses for doping violations in ProTour rider
contracts, and then fine back the salary plus more from the team, too,
you'll have some teams keeping a pretty keen eye on their riders' drug
habits. If you start keeping those samples for 10 years, regressively
testing them with neat new tests, and then suing riders for prize money
when they come up positive, you'll get dopers to sit up and take notice.
Scary? You bet. In practice, you'll probably want to err on the side of
letting marginal (but likely dopey) cases through the net in the
interests of mercy and sensible caution. But these and other measures
could remove the economic advantages of doping which likely drive a lot
of doping. And creative testing regimens can increase both the certainty
of being caught and the uncertainty of being caught, if you know what I
mean.
So, what's it to be?
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
Bill C
HOLY SHIT POTY! Hands down folks! We have a winner!
Ryan that's a pretty rare level of thoughtfulness and reasoning for
rbr as far as I'm concerned. That could've come from Henry when he
bothers to waste time thinking about cycling issues and isn't jerking
chains.
Bill C
amit
Bill C wrote:
> Did you miss all the heat that the Ultimate Fighting Championships
> (UFC) got even though their safety record was much better than boxing.
> Lots of States had moved to ban it, it had hit the Congressional radar,
> and there were tons of anti-violence groups raising holy hell about it
> due to the perception, not the reality.
dumbass,
the perception and the reality is that it's very gay.
amit
benjo maso wrote:
> You are quite right: although the overwhelming majority in the "traditional"
> bicycle countries don't hardly care if riders are using performance
> enhancing products yes or no, in the "new cycling world" it's quite
> different.
dumbass,
that's why Mapei and Festina are no longer in the sport.
it doesn't matter what schmoes on the street think, they aren't making
the money decisions, even euro sponsors shy away from cycling when
there's doping scandals.
Ryan Cousineau
"Bill C" <trito...@aol.com> wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > In article <dkolm4$lk9$1...@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> > "benjo maso" <benjo...@chello.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > "Tom Kunich" <cycl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1131400453.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > > Benjo, My thoughts are that we need to have doping regulations. But
> > > > they have to be more faultless than Caesar's wife. Unfortunately too
> > > > many of the latest testing procedures are open to interpretation and
> > > > are not scientifically infalible.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure how you can prevent 100% of drug abuse in any professional
> > > > sport where so much of an individual's personal wealth might be at
> > > > threat, but better to let questionable cases slide than to claim that
> > > > you're being "fair" when you aren't.
> > >
> > >
> > > I agree with you that doping regulations must be more or less perfect to
> > > function. Unfortunately, they never will be, not only many of the latest
> > > testing procedures are open to interpretation and
> > > not scientifically infallible, but also because there have always been
> > > products which are not yet detectable and I'm afraid there will always be
> > >
> > > Benjo
> >
> > There is a grim issue I have with your position, Benjo: if you are going
> > to allow some "therapeutic" level of doping, why do you think the
> > problem of a level playing field gets easier?
[Ryan ranty rants]
> >
> > So, what's it to be?
> HOLY SHIT POTY! Hands down folks! We have a winner!
>
> Ryan that's a pretty rare level of thoughtfulness and reasoning for
> rbr as far as I'm concerned. That could've come from Henry when he
> bothers to waste time thinking about cycling issues and isn't jerking
> chains.
> Bill C
Thanks for the compliment. With the exception of the new economic ideas
bolted on, this is the same loony rant I post every few months here.
-RjC.
Sandy
news:1131519258....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
amit <am...@physics.utoronto.ca> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> benjo maso wrote:
>
>> You are quite right: although the overwhelming majority in the
>> "traditional" bicycle countries don't hardly care if riders are
>> using performance enhancing products yes or no, in the "new cycling
>> world" it's quite different.
>
> dumbass,
Neither original nor polite.
> that's why Mapei and Festina are no longer in the sport.
Could you be wrong ? Festina remains a general sponsor, just not of a
separate team.
> it doesn't matter what schmoes on the street think, they aren't making
> the money decisions, even euro sponsors shy away from cycling when
> there's doping scandals.
Schmoes on the street are the ones who buy or don't buy. Sponsors come and
go, taking advantage of what's there at the moment, for as long as it is
profitable. Too bad Cinzano and Ricard are gone...
--
Bonne route !
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
Bill C
Bill C
benjo maso
"Ryan Cousineau" <rcou...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:rcousine-BCEF07...@news.telus.net...
Allowing only a certain "therapeutic"'amount of doping is of course no
solution at all. IMO there are two possibilities: the current anti-doping
policy, which until now has only been disastrous, without significantly
reducing the use of doping (only of some doping products) or legalizing the
use of whatever product sporters would like to use (as it has been before
1965). IMO the less of two evils. In any case it could hard;y be worse than
it is now.
Benjo
benjo maso
"amit" <am...@physics.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:1131519258....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No, they don't. There are more companies willing to sponsor cycling than
ever before, and there is no trouble at all to find new ones. See
http://www.lexpansion.com/compteur/compteur.asp?compteurId=689&redirURL=http://www.lexpansion.com/art/2493.76963.0.html.
The overwhelming majority of the sponsors don't care one bit, as long as the
"schmoes on the street" are willing to buy their products. Before lauching
Aquarel as one of the major sponsors in the Tour, in 2001 Nestlé sponsored
surveys in several different countries. From these it emerged that the
effects of all the revelations was virtually zero. It's true that the
direction of Mapei adopted an "anti-doping" stance -perhaps they were
sincere, who knows? - but they failed miserably. One of the reasons why it
decided to quit, was a survey which showed that people believed that Festina
had contributed more to the anti-doping policy than Mapei ...
Benjo
amit
Sandy wrote:
> Could you be wrong ? Festina remains a general sponsor, just not of a
> separate team.
this and aquarel: these are the direction sponsorships seem to be
going.
from my own limited experience, companies are much more willing to
sponsor an event then they are of sponsoring teams. part of the reason
is wanting to avoid the bad publicity of a doping scandal.
the reason (i assume) is guaranteed exposure if one sponsors the race
rather than some riders.
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
>
>
> Allowing only a certain "therapeutic"'amount of doping is of course no
> solution at all. IMO there are two possibilities: the current anti-doping
> policy, which until now has only been disastrous, without significantly
> reducing the use of doping (only of some doping products) or legalizing the
> use of whatever product sporters would like to use (as it has been before
> 1965). IMO the less of two evils. In any case it could hard;y be worse than
> it is now.
>
> Benjo
So--the choice is ineffective regulation vs. no regulation?
Steve
>
>
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Sandy
Mark & Steven Bornfeld <bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :
> benjo maso wrote:
>>
>>
>> Allowing only a certain "therapeutic"'amount of doping is of course
>> no solution at all. IMO there are two possibilities: the current
>> anti-doping policy, which until now has only been disastrous,
>> without significantly reducing the use of doping (only of some
>> doping products) or legalizing the use of whatever product sporters
>> would like to use (as it has been before 1965). IMO the less of two
>> evils. In any case it could hard;y be worse than it is now.
>>
>> Benjo
>
> So--the choice is ineffective regulation vs. no regulation?
>
> Steve
I see it this way - truly, no regulation is a much better state of affiars.
After all, this is an activity in which cheating is both practiced and
sanctioned.
Take away the controls, let everyone play with chemistry sets, and don't
penalize them. If the result is that everyone learns how to dope both
successfully and with minimal risk, then the bodies are prepared to enter
the field of competition with no differential, unless the rider chooses not
to dope.
Then, the question of whether or not to dope may be better resolved by the
intelligent decisions to safeguard health. That will lead, certainly, to a
clear division between the professional (doped) riders, and the lesser
ranks. Which isn't a bad idea, if the lesser ranks can be satisfied with
the reality of their optimal unmodified performances.
At the very top level, both Darwinian selection and simple mortality will
thin the field of "entertainers", and we can leave that level of competition
untouched. I guess that if the lower ranks start to medicate, then we'll
see some ringers, but if there were forced upgrading, they would face their
own limits for sports ability as well as doping danger.
What does the current and enlarging regulation give us, anyway ? Suspicion
and envy and a lowering of the level of moral certainty that you compete on
a level playing field.
Milliano
don't
penalize them. If the result is that everyone learns how to dope both
successfully and with minimal risk, then the bodies are prepared to
enter
the field of competition with no differential, unless the rider chooses
not
to dope. >>>>
Well, the risk is quite high when you consider the large performance
increase with higher hematocrit. Those willing to take the highest
risks of a heart attack will be the ones winning races.
Winners determined partially by who wants to take the biggest risk on
their life? Not my type of entertainment.
gym.gravity
Bill C wrote:
> That yurt sounds really good.
Here's a nice one:
http://www.pacificyurts.com/images/photo-gallery/large/12_gallery_lrg.jpg
I bet the owner of this one is being watched by the ATF or FBI:
http://www.pacificyurts.com/images/photo-gallery/large/22_gallery_lrg.jpg
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> Dans le message de news:_fqcf.6328$SV1.427@trndny01,
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld <bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> a réfléchi, et puis a
> déclaré :
>
>>benjo maso wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Allowing only a certain "therapeutic"'amount of doping is of course
>>>no solution at all. IMO there are two possibilities: the current
>>>anti-doping policy, which until now has only been disastrous,
>>>without significantly reducing the use of doping (only of some
>>>doping products) or legalizing the use of whatever product sporters
>>>would like to use (as it has been before 1965). IMO the less of two
>>>evils. In any case it could hard;y be worse than it is now.
>>>
>>>Benjo
>>
>>So--the choice is ineffective regulation vs. no regulation?
>>
>>Steve
>
>
> I see it this way - truly, no regulation is a much better state of affiars.
I'll ask again--so the choice is between ineffective regulation and no
regulation?
How about take it one step further--we're all adults here. Abolish
regulation of all medications, inside and outside of sport. For that
matter, abolish regulation of medical practice. After all, there are
bad doctors out there. Can't a grownup make the choice as to whether
they wish to be treated by an MD, a rolfer, a chromic healer?
What the hell--do we really need to do drug testing, or require
licenses for airline pilots?
Let freedom ring,
Steve
>
> After all, this is an activity in which cheating is both practiced and
> sanctioned.
> Take away the controls, let everyone play with chemistry sets, and don't
> penalize them. If the result is that everyone learns how to dope both
> successfully and with minimal risk, then the bodies are prepared to enter
> the field of competition with no differential, unless the rider chooses not
> to dope.
>
> Then, the question of whether or not to dope may be better resolved by the
> intelligent decisions to safeguard health. That will lead, certainly, to a
> clear division between the professional (doped) riders, and the lesser
> ranks. Which isn't a bad idea, if the lesser ranks can be satisfied with
> the reality of their optimal unmodified performances.
>
> At the very top level, both Darwinian selection and simple mortality will
> thin the field of "entertainers", and we can leave that level of competition
> untouched. I guess that if the lower ranks start to medicate, then we'll
> see some ringers, but if there were forced upgrading, they would face their
> own limits for sports ability as well as doping danger.
>
> What does the current and enlarging regulation give us, anyway ? Suspicion
> and envy and a lowering of the level of moral certainty that you compete on
> a level playing field.
--
rcou...@gmail.com
benjo maso wrote:
> "Ryan Cousineau" <rcou...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> news:rcousine-BCEF07...@news.telus.net...
> > In article <dkolm4$lk9$1...@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> > "benjo maso" <benjo...@chello.nl> wrote:
> >
> >> "Tom Kunich" <cycl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1131400453.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Benjo, My thoughts are that we need to have doping regulations. But
> >> > they have to be more faultless than Caesar's wife. Unfortunately too
> >> > many of the latest testing procedures are open to interpretation and
> >> > are not scientifically infalible.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure how you can prevent 100% of drug abuse in any professional
> >> > sport where so much of an individual's personal wealth might be at
> >> > threat, but better to let questionable cases slide than to claim that
> >> > you're being "fair" when you aren't.
> >>
> >>
> >> I agree with you that doping regulations must be more or less perfect to
> >> function. Unfortunately, they never will be, not only many of the latest
> >> testing procedures are open to interpretation and
> >> not scientifically infallible, but also because there have always been
> >> products which are not yet detectable and I'm afraid there will always be
> >> when there are several performance enhancing products cannot be detected?
> >> All you need is a clever doctor. No wonder that topriders are never
> >> testing
> >> positive in the last ten or fifteen years (I think poor Tylor Hamilton is
> >> the only exception).
Heras, Museeuw, a bunch of mountain bikers, plus numerous riders caught
in ways other than drug tests (Millar...). Perhaps it depends on the
definition of top rider, but once you disqualify a Vuelta winner, a
great Classics hero, and a rainbow jersey owner, you're sort of left
with a definition of top riders that would only seem to include "TdF GC
winners in the last 7 years."
I think there's some pretty serious seriousness here.
> > There is a grim issue I have with your position, Benjo: if you are going
> > to allow some "therapeutic" level of doping, why do you think the
> > problem of a level playing field gets easier?
> >
> > In any imaginable scenario, there will be some sort of limit placed on
> > the amount of each goody that the rider can use. Maybe they'll have
> > dosage limits for steroids and HGH, and Hct limits for EPO and other
> > forms of blood doping.
[ranty ranty rant]
> > Scary? You bet. In practice, you'll probably want to err on the side of
> > letting marginal (but likely dopey) cases through the net in the
> > interests of mercy and sensible caution. But these and other measures
> > could remove the economic advantages of doping which likely drive a lot
> > of doping. And creative testing regimens can increase both the certainty
> > of being caught and the uncertainty of being caught, if you know what I
> > mean.
> >
> > So, what's it to be?
>
> Allowing only a certain "therapeutic"'amount of doping is of course no
> solution at all. IMO there are two possibilities: the current anti-doping
> policy, which until now has only been disastrous, without significantly
> reducing the use of doping (only of some doping products) or legalizing the
> use of whatever product sporters would like to use (as it has been before
> 1965). IMO the less of two evils. In any case it could hard;y be worse than
> it is now.
>
> Benjo
Benjo: I think you have a very unimaginative conception of "worse".
[Sorry, that sounds rude rather than funny. I think it lost something
in my translation of it from Cousineau to English. please take it
charitably. Well, as charitably as possible. This is rbr. Do I need to
throw in a "dumbass"?]
Let's leave aside what I think we would agree would be monumental PR
and
political issues with a free-doping pro peloton, and examine only the
physiological ramifications.
In my opinion? Riders would do incredibly stupid treatments and hurt
themselves or die in moderate numbers. The incentive to be the first on
the block with
whatever half-assed treatment was available would be incredible. You'd
probably have a few elite riders with very clever doctors on staff, who
would limit themselves to orange juice doses of EPO and conservative
'roid doses,
if only because their doctors had some personal interest in patient
survival and a faint remembrance of the Hippocratic oath.
But I don't think there would be enough clever doctors to go round. And
I
think there would be a certain cadre of riders who would think they
could
be a bit more clever than the doctors. And you know what? They would
probably be right. There are a drugs out there where performance
outcomes
keep rising beyond what any ethical doctor or reasonable person would
call
a safe dose. As far as I understand, Hematocrit boosters work better
and
better just about to the point where your heart stops. Steroids are
awesome
for training and recovery, until they actually fry your liver or
generate
some other fun rider-hobbling side effect, or non-hobbling side effects
like micro-nuts or long-term damage or whatever else they do.
Let me tell you a true story about a cyclist, not a pro, just a very
serious
local 'crosser and roadie. This story has nothing to do with drugs: at
a
recent cyclocross race, he determined during his practice laps that the
barriers on the course could be bunnyhopped, but that it would be a
very
risky move, and that he would not try doing so until the last laps, and
only if it would gain him a decisive advantage.
On the first lap, it became clear that a bunnyhop might push him into
the
lead breakaway. He tried and crashed horribly, and finished down the
field.
The moral: cyclists understand taking big risks for performance gains.
It's
written into the sport in ways large and small. Pro athletes in general
are
people who are so focused on achievement in their chosen sport that
they
focus on it to the exclusion of other issues, including their own
health.
We acknowledge the need to put limits on many other elements of cycling
to
keep competition fair and to prevent riders from taking inordinate
risks:
bike weight limits, handlebar and aerobar restrictions, bike shape
rules, and
so forth. There are still little games that riders play, stuff like
"sticky"
water bottles and pacing through the caravan, but these are either
tightly
constrained or written into the rules, and nobody wins a bike race by
having the best water bottle technique anyways.
So, even discounting the probably-insurmountable IOC/political/PR
obstacles
to establishing a free-doping system (and I daresay if we're trying to
be
realistic, that's an awfully big discount), why is a free-doping system
better than what we have today? I can't see any way in this brave new
peloton that the more riders aren't using more dope than ever before,
and
probably riskier dope in crazier quantities.
We're all familiar with Armstrong's "the shit that will kill me," his
phrase for the very best possible equipment. In a fully-doped peloton,
that
phrasing could be all too literal.
Benjo: you know the history of doping in the peloton. before they got
all scientific about it, the riders not only doped, they doped using
daft stuff (alcohol, strychnine) that probably harmed performance. I'm
not confident the peloton's IQ has risen substantially since then,
though Robert Chung is probably going to bust me by pointing out that
tested IQs in virtually all populations have steadily risen pretty much
since standardized testing began. So I'll concede smarter, but I'll bet
against wiser.
After thinking about it for another day, I'm still enamored of my idea
that we should create punitive economic disincentives for dopers and
the teams of dopers. But I just made it up sometime after midnight, so
critiques are eagerly welcomed!
Livedrunk, but not in excess of UCI alcohol limits,
--
Ryan Cousineau, rcou...@sfu.ca, www.wiredcola.com
Democracy, whiskey, and sexy!
Scott
Milliano wrote:
> Winners determined partially by who wants to take the biggest risk on
> their life? Not my type of entertainment.
It worked for the gladiators.
benjo maso
<rcou...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131575574.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
If riders are allowed to use doping, will some of them risk their lives? No
doubt. We have only to look at the times before the anti-doping legislation.
Although riders were well aware of the dager of using amphetamine, there
were still some of them who didn't care - or hardly - and they had to pay
for it. For instance Germain Derijcke or Charly Gaul, .of some years later
Eric De Vlaemyck or Johan Van der Velde. . Were they different from the
riders of nowadays? No, as you showed with your beautiful example there are
still riders quite willing to risk their lives or their health to win.
Should they be protected from themselves? Perhaps, but to which extent an
anti-doping policy can be effective? I don't think the use of doping has
diminished in the last ten years and if it has, only in a small way. There
are still products which cannot be detected and riders are quite willing to
buy them on the black market, even new products which have not been tested
properly (when the police raided the Giro in 2000 or 2001 the found two
kinds products not yet known by the medical authorities of the UCI). In
other words, they cannot be stopped (and by the way, the health of the
athletes is more an excuse than a justification of the anti-doping policy,
such considerations did hardly play a role in the original legislation). A
perfect world would be great, but it is sometimes better to be realistic.
Concerning the IQ of the peloton: I don;t think either that it has risen
substantially, but even in the 40's and 50's, when doping test didn't exist
yet, the overwhelming majority was wise enough to use amphetamine, etc.only
from time to time. And although their intelligence might be the same, they
have an clear advantage compared to their predecessors: nowadays they van at
least consult team-doctors (and if they don't before using doping, it's
because they are illegal). It's exactly 50 years ago that the Tour de France
had its first Tour-doctor, but the rest of the year they could only trust
soigneurs and other advisers without any medical knowledge.
Benjo
h squared
> (and by the way, the health of the
> athletes is more an excuse than a justification of the anti-doping policy,
the link to this article was posted before, but i still like the
following bit, concerning "the health of the athletes" (i have no idea
if it's factually correct, sorry):
"To be banned by WADA, a drug has to meet at least two of three
criteria: it must enhance performance, be harmful to health and (a very
Victorian touch) be against the spirit of sport. Clearly, this would
allow a drug to be banned if it had no adverse health effects but was,
even so, ruled contrary to whatever is deemed to be the spirit of sport.
Mr Pound, for one, seems to regard any use of a drug to enhance
performance as against that spirit: it is, quite simply, cheating.
A fierce critic of this approach to drugs in sport is Norman Fost,
director of the medical-ethics programme at the University of Wisconsin.
He calls the claims made about the harmful effects of steroids
“incoherent and flat-out wrong”. Mostly, they have small, temporary
side-effects, he says, not life-threatening ones. Indeed, the risks are
much smaller than those routinely taken by athletes. A man who plays
American football professionally for three years has a 90% chance of
suffering a permanent physical injury.
If health is the chief concern, surely certain sports should be banned
entirely—and athletes should not be allowed to smoke or drink,
activities that do far more harm than taking steroids. As for enhancing
performance, that is not seen as cheating if it is done by, say,
training at high altitude or in a sealed space that simulates high
altitude, says Dr Fost, though such training would have exactly the same
effect—an increase in oxygen-carrying red blood cells—as the banned
steroid EPO, which is especially popular with cyclists." (economist,
august 5, 2004)
heather
benjo maso
"h squared" <clevistoreply...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5e6dnRiEx4w...@comcast.com...
The point is of course that the arguments against the use of certain
products is very shaky indeed. "The spirit of sport" must be something
between "participating is more important than winning" and "sport is war",
as Rinus Michels, a famous Dutch soccer coach, used to say. "Harmful to
health" - well, a Dutch doctor argued not so long ago that the health of a
rider parycipating to the Tour would certainly benefit from a certain amount
of epo. Concerning "enhance performance" - Norman Fost is quite right. The
point is that the anti-doping idea is based on the traditional idea that men
must compete in their "natural" state. That was the reason why Pierre de
Coubertin, the fouding father of the Olympic Games, said once that training
several hours a day was as much "cheating" as using drugs. Therefore the
paradox Dr Fost is pointing out. Meanwhile training is accepted, using
certain products not - or rather, not yet.
Benjo
s
ox between training
Michael Press
<1131575574.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
rcou...@gmail.com wrote:
> After thinking about it for another day, I'm still enamored of my idea
> that we should create punitive economic disincentives for dopers and
> the teams of dopers. But I just made it up sometime after midnight, so
> critiques are eagerly welcomed!
This takes competition off the race course and into the
realm of rule bending within the governing body's
jurisdiction, same as the draconian drug enforcement.
It is no improvement.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
h squared <clevistoreply...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> benjo maso wrote:
>
>
> > (and by the way, the health of the
> > athletes is more an excuse than a justification of the anti-doping policy,
>
> the link to this article was posted before, but i still like the
> following bit, concerning "the health of the athletes" (i have no idea
> if it's factually correct, sorry):
>
> "To be banned by WADA, a drug has to meet at least two of three
> criteria: it must enhance performance, be harmful to health and (a very
> Victorian touch) be against the spirit of sport. Clearly, this would
> allow a drug to be banned if it had no adverse health effects but was,
> even so, ruled contrary to whatever is deemed to be the spirit of sport.
> Mr Pound, for one, seems to regard any use of a drug to enhance
> performance as against that spirit: it is, quite simply, cheating.
>
> A fierce critic of this approach to drugs in sport is Norman Fost,
> director of the medical-ethics programme at the University of Wisconsin.
> He calls the claims made about the harmful effects of steroids
> łincoherent and flat-out wrong˛. Mostly, they have small, temporary
> side-effects, he says, not life-threatening ones. Indeed, the risks are
> much smaller than those routinely taken by athletes. A man who plays
> American football professionally for three years has a 90% chance of
> suffering a permanent physical injury.
I posted some quotes from Bode Miller recently to this
effect; Dick Pound was foaming at the mouth. I agree that
the case against anabolic steroids is murky. `Everyone
knows' that they are harmful; yet I have never seen cogent
analysis nor compelling evidence that such is the case.
>
> If health is the chief concern, surely certain sports should be banned
> entirely‹and athletes should not be allowed to smoke or drink,
> activities that do far more harm than taking steroids. As for enhancing
> performance, that is not seen as cheating if it is done by, say,
> training at high altitude or in a sealed space that simulates high
> altitude, says Dr Fost, though such training would have exactly the same
> effect‹an increase in oxygen-carrying red blood cells‹as the banned
> steroid EPO, which is especially popular with cyclists." (economist,
> august 5, 2004)
Training at altitude provides weak, rapidly attenuating
benefits. To obtain strong benefits from altitude
training, the athlete would have to live at +3000 m for
more than a year, long enough to increase the population
and functioning of mitochondria. Just take the EPO.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
> We're all familiar with Armstrong's "the shit that will kill me," his
> phrase for the very best possible equipment
You are not familiar enough with it.
<http://www.booknoise.net/armstrong/qanda.html>
--
Michael Press
Steven Bornfeld
h squared wrote:
> benjo maso wrote:
>
>
>> (and by the way, the health of the athletes is more an excuse than a
>> justification of the anti-doping policy,
>
>
> the link to this article was posted before, but i still like the
> following bit, concerning "the health of the athletes" (i have no idea
> if it's factually correct, sorry):
>
> "To be banned by WADA, a drug has to meet at least two of three
> criteria: it must enhance performance, be harmful to health and (a very
> Victorian touch) be against the spirit of sport. Clearly, this would
> allow a drug to be banned if it had no adverse health effects but was,
> even so, ruled contrary to whatever is deemed to be the spirit of sport.
> Mr Pound, for one, seems to regard any use of a drug to enhance
> performance as against that spirit: it is, quite simply, cheating.
>
> A fierce critic of this approach to drugs in sport is Norman Fost,
> director of the medical-ethics programme at the University of Wisconsin.
> He calls the claims made about the harmful effects of steroids
> “incoherent and flat-out wrong”. Mostly, they have small, temporary
> side-effects, he says, not life-threatening ones.
Frost is not correct.
Steve
Indeed, the risks are
> much smaller than those routinely taken by athletes. A man who plays
> American football professionally for three years has a 90% chance of
> suffering a permanent physical injury.
>
> If health is the chief concern, surely certain sports should be banned
> entirely—and athletes should not be allowed to smoke or drink,
> activities that do far more harm than taking steroids. As for enhancing
> performance, that is not seen as cheating if it is done by, say,
> training at high altitude or in a sealed space that simulates high
> altitude, says Dr Fost, though such training would have exactly the same
> effect—an increase in oxygen-carrying red blood cells—as the banned
> steroid EPO, which is especially popular with cyclists." (economist,
> august 5, 2004)
>
> heather
>
>
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fswiss\fcharset0
Arial;}}
{\*\generator Msftedit 5.41.15.1507;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 Remove
"nospam" to reply\par
}
Steven Bornfeld
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <5e6dnRiEx4w...@comcast.com>,
> h squared <clevistoreply...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>benjo maso wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> (and by the way, the health of the
>>>athletes is more an excuse than a justification of the anti-doping policy,
>>
>>the link to this article was posted before, but i still like the
>>following bit, concerning "the health of the athletes" (i have no idea
>>if it's factually correct, sorry):
>>
>>"To be banned by WADA, a drug has to meet at least two of three
>>criteria: it must enhance performance, be harmful to health and (a very
>>Victorian touch) be against the spirit of sport. Clearly, this would
>>allow a drug to be banned if it had no adverse health effects but was,
>>even so, ruled contrary to whatever is deemed to be the spirit of sport.
>>Mr Pound, for one, seems to regard any use of a drug to enhance
>>performance as against that spirit: it is, quite simply, cheating.
>>
>>A fierce critic of this approach to drugs in sport is Norman Fost,
>>director of the medical-ethics programme at the University of Wisconsin.
>>He calls the claims made about the harmful effects of steroids
>>³incoherent and flat-out wrong². Mostly, they have small, temporary
>>side-effects, he says, not life-threatening ones. Indeed, the risks are
>>much smaller than those routinely taken by athletes. A man who plays
>>American football professionally for three years has a 90% chance of
>>suffering a permanent physical injury.
>
>
> I posted some quotes from Bode Miller recently to this
> effect; Dick Pound was foaming at the mouth. I agree that
> the case against anabolic steroids is murky. `Everyone
> knows' that they are harmful; yet I have never seen cogent
> analysis nor compelling evidence that such is the case.
I'll look for some materials tomorrow if no one else beats me to it.
Steve
>
>
>>If health is the chief concern, surely certain sports should be banned
>>entirely‹and athletes should not be allowed to smoke or drink,
>>activities that do far more harm than taking steroids. As for enhancing
>>performance, that is not seen as cheating if it is done by, say,
>>training at high altitude or in a sealed space that simulates high
>>altitude, says Dr Fost, though such training would have exactly the same
>>effect‹an increase in oxygen-carrying red blood cells‹as the banned
>>steroid EPO, which is especially popular with cyclists." (economist,
>>august 5, 2004)
>
>
> Training at altitude provides weak, rapidly attenuating
> benefits. To obtain strong benefits from altitude
> training, the athlete would have to live at +3000 m for
> more than a year, long enough to increase the population
> and functioning of mitochondria. Just take the EPO.
>
--
Stu Fleming
it. Why kill off your best drawcards?
Ryan Cousineau
Michael Press <ja...@abc.net> wrote:
Ah shit. The worst part is I have read (and enjoyed) Coyle's book.
Kill _them_.
Ryan Cousineau
"benjo maso" <benjo...@chello.nl> wrote:
> "h squared" <clevistoreply...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:5e6dnRiEx4w...@comcast.com...
> > benjo maso wrote:
> >
> >
> >> (and by the way, the health of the athletes is more an excuse than a
> >> justification of the anti-doping policy,
> >
> > the link to this article was posted before, but i still like the following
> > bit, concerning "the health of the athletes" (i have no idea if it's
> > factually correct, sorry):
> >
> > "To be banned by WADA, a drug has to meet at least two of three criteria:
> > it must enhance performance, be harmful to health and (a very Victorian
> > touch) be against the spirit of sport. Clearly, this would allow a drug to
> > be banned if it had no adverse health effects but was, even so, ruled
> > contrary to whatever is deemed to be the spirit of sport. Mr Pound, for
> > one, seems to regard any use of a drug to enhance performance as against
> > that spirit: it is, quite simply, cheating.
> >
> > A fierce critic of this approach to drugs in sport is Norman Fost,
> > director of the medical-ethics programme at the University of Wisconsin.
> > He calls the claims made about the harmful effects of steroids “incoherent
> > and flat-out wrong”. Mostly, they have small, temporary side-effects, he
> > says, not life-threatening ones. Indeed, the risks are much smaller than
> > those routinely taken by athletes. A man who plays American football
> > professionally for three years has a 90% chance of suffering a permanent
> > physical injury.
I'm deferring to Steven Bornfeld's assessment that steroids are more
harmful than Mr. Fost asserts. Let's wait for the evidence, but they're
really powerful drugs. People taking them for purely therapeutic reasons
are often leery of the exciting and varied side-effects.
> > If health is the chief concern, surely certain sports should be banned
> > entirely—and athletes should not be allowed to smoke or drink, activities
> > that do far more harm than taking steroids. As for enhancing performance,
> > that is not seen as cheating if it is done by, say, training at high
> > altitude or in a sealed space that simulates high altitude, says Dr Fost,
> > though such training would have exactly the same effect—an increase in
> > oxygen-carrying red blood cells—as the banned steroid EPO, which is
> > especially popular with cyclists." (economist, august 5, 2004)
The interesting thing about EPO is that it pretty much gets better and
better at improving your performance right up to the point where your
heart stops. There are natural risks in cycling that are similar (the
fastest guy down the mountain is the one who comes closest to sliding
off the mountain without actually doing so), but while very few races
are won by being the fastest descender, what EPO boosts is pretty much
the definition of a race-winning physiology.
If an athlete smokes or drinks, his choice doesn't force other athletes
to take new, very real risks with his health. Dose-response, if you know
the term, is a big concern for me, as may be evident from my posts.
My layman's understanding of dose-response is essentially this: for most
drugs, the more you take the more they do of whatever it is they are
supposed to do. This tends to include both good and bad effects.
To pick on steroids again, the more you take, the more rapidly and
powerfully you can recover/build muscle/train harder. But also the more
you experience all the side effects, which vary from steroid to steroid,
but include fun things like testicular shrinkage, kidney damage, and
other things.
When we use drugs therapeutically, we use them in doses that try to push
the patient back to something approximating normal, be they SSRIs, EPO,
or steroids. Even at that, side effects often have to be considered, and
may prevent a treatment as potent as the doctor could hope (or side
effects may be mitigated with other drugs, or drug substitutions happen
to minimize side-effects and maximize therapy for a particular patient).
Performance use isn't like that. With "normalcy" as a goal out the
window, the user is pushing for some peak response that tends to arrive
at higher doses, up where there is also maximum risk of harm.
Maybe we have to balance these relative risks. But you know, I bet those
cyclists who died in the 90s of EPO failure were going really fast the
week before their hearts stopped beating.
All this is pointing to one thing: many medical performance enhancements
work their best right before they start doing maximum damage. So free
use of dope to the limits of the riders' willingness to dope is likely
to push most or all riders to the limits of doping. And it only takes a
small cadre of pro-level riders doing maximal doping to force all riders
to decide between competitiveness and safe (or no) doping.
> The point is of course that the arguments against the use of certain
> products is very shaky indeed. "The spirit of sport" must be something
> between "participating is more important than winning" and "sport is war",
> as Rinus Michels, a famous Dutch soccer coach, used to say. "Harmful to
> health" - well, a Dutch doctor argued not so long ago that the health of a
> rider parycipating to the Tour would certainly benefit from a certain amount
> of epo. Concerning "enhance performance" - Norman Fost is quite right. The
> point is that the anti-doping idea is based on the traditional idea that men
> must compete in their "natural" state. That was the reason why Pierre de
> Coubertin, the fouding father of the Olympic Games, said once that training
> several hours a day was as much "cheating" as using drugs. Therefore the
> paradox Dr Fost is pointing out. Meanwhile training is accepted, using
> certain products not - or rather, not yet.
People started to get really picky about using certain products right
after Tommy Simpson died. There were probably previous incidents of one
type or another that turned people to thinking about cleaning dope out
of the sport, but that one was sort of the key, much in the way Kvilev's
death was the turning-point for mandatory helmets in the pro peloton.
The Hct 50% limit came about after riders started dropping dead in their
sleep in suspicious numbers.
People do get hurt and die in sport. A local road race used to be named
for the Cat 3 who died in a sprint crash in the race a few years ago.
But we do try to limit the dangers so that no sport is truly a
bloodsport, and nowadays most sportsmen retire and grow old.
I think one of the confusions is that we can actually test against most
of the common drug practices out there. Protocols (steroids) that are
widespread in other sports would never be contemplated in pro cycling,
not because they don't work, but because the rider would test positive
almost instantly. What this means is that much of the harm that riders
could do to themselves (and each other, as I have explained, for
prisoner's dilemma reasons) is mitigated right there.
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
>
>
>
> I'll look for some materials tomorrow if no one else beats me to it.
>
> Steve
The reason that glucocorticoids and anabolic steroids have such global
effects and why abuse can carry such a wide variety of potential effects
is because of their importance in the so-called
hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis:
Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis
Because variations in any component of the system triggers a sequence
of changes in distant organs, it is often useful to think of these organ
systems as functioning together.
http://biochemistry.ucsf.edu/~fulton/PTF/Metabolism%20Links/HPA%20Axis%20Physio.pdf
For these reasons, use (or abuse) of glucocorticoids and anabolic
steroids can cause both short-term and long-term effects across a wide
range of organ systems. The effects are well-known to both medicine and
regulatory agencies.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/about/welcome/messagesteroids305.html
http://www.steroids.org/health.htm
http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/2000/12_00/steroids.htm
Because these medications are not being used therapeutically in the
context of sport, there are ethical concerns not only for the sport
itself, but also for medicine.
I find that this second consideration is not always easy for patients
to understand. In fact, there are pressures all the time from patients
to commit unethical behavior. However, there is no ethical or statutory
authority anywhere that I know of permitting a medical professional to
consent to unethical behavior even with the request and consent of the
patient. A patient may NOT consent to unethical behavior by a medical
professional. So this cannot be viewed narrowly as an issue of personal
choice so long as medical professionals are involved. This is not only
a well-established ethical constraint, but a legal one as well:
http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/articles/bioethics/consent_3/
"
Courts generally frown upon so-called "releases of liability," and
refuse to allow them to bar a suit for malpractice. The courts reason
that patients typically are not in a position to refuse to sign releases
of this sort, and therefore that it would be unfair to make such a
release binding on the patient. (See, for example, Tunkl v. Regents of
the University of California, 383 P.2d 441 [Cal. 1963] ).2 Yet at the
same time, it is generally accepted that patients who give their
informed consent to participate in a legitimate medical experiment
cannot then sue the physicians merely for using experimental techniques.
(See, for example, Colton v. New York Hospital, 98 Misc. 2d 957, 414
N.Y.S.2d 866 [N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1979] ).3"
Steve
Michael Press
> Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I'll look for some materials tomorrow if no one else beats me to it.
> >
> > Steve
>
> The reason that glucocorticoids and anabolic steroids have such global
> effects and why abuse can carry such a wide variety of potential effects
> is because of their importance in the so-called
> hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis:
>
> Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis
>
> Because variations in any component of the system triggers a sequence
> of changes in distant organs, it is often useful to think of these organ
> systems as functioning together.
>
> http://biochemistry.ucsf.edu/~fulton/PTF/Metabolism%20Links/HPA%20Axis%20Physio.pdf
Neat introduction to the cast of characters, hormones. No
discussion of administration of anabolic steroids.
> For these reasons, use (or abuse) of glucocorticoids and anabolic
> steroids can cause both short-term and long-term effects across a wide
> range of organ systems. The effects are well-known to both medicine and
> regulatory agencies.
>
> http://www.drugabuse.gov/about/welcome/messagesteroids305.html
This is more like the usual scare tactic that cheeses me.
Qualifiers like `can' are used next to description of
appalling symptoms. Adolescents with stunted growth. Save
the children!
(And the picture of the author! If you take steroids
Jenny Greenteeth will get you.)
>
> http://www.steroids.org/health.htm
Dead link.
> http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/2000/12_00/steroids.htm
More vague accusations.
` Although replacing physiologic levels of circulating
testosterone may have no serious risk, long-term treatment
with high doses of AAS is linked to many negative side
effects ...'
[Ethics discussion excised]
While I do not hesitate to recommend against self
administration of steroids for athletic performance, my
position is based upon my personal no drug policy, and the
maxim `There is no such thing as a free lunch.'
Where are the studies of long term use? Who has talked to
hundreds of former NFL players and analyzed their health?
Where is the actual data on long term use of anabolic
steroids? Until I see it I am with Bode Miller.
"I don't even use any creatine or vitamins or supplements
or anything. The point is that I don't think it's a really
big deal. I think people should be able to do what they
want to do."
--Bode Miller
"When I look at all these professional athletes when they
are 50 or 45 years old, they have knees that don't work at
all, shoulders that don't work, back problems, and I think
that that's a much more common occurrence than a guy who
is 40 or 50 who has serious problems because of some
steroid he was taking when he was 20."
--Bode Miller
--
Michael Press