Not so squeaky clean

Chainwheel
Chainwheel Posts: 14
edited July 2008 in Pro race
Yet another tour with doubts hanging over riders. Schumacher's amphetimine abuse surely has to be seen as yet another rider doing what he should not be doing.
There seems to beno proper rulings. Basso is banned for thinking of blood doping. In my view wrong. Booned rightfully stopped from riding the tour because of Cocaine abuse, yet Schhumacher is allowed to ride wwith a known amphetimine conviction.
This leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth and a question.

Is Cocaine and amphetimines used as a masking agent for blood doping and other performance enhancing substances.

A dedicated Grand tour fan and life long cyclist.

Chainwheel

Comments

  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Chainwheel wrote:

    Is Cocaine and amphetimines used as a masking agent for blood doping and other performance enhancing substances.

    No.

    Both SS and TB's substance challenges are personal matters and while embarrassing for cycling, all they have in common with doping is there are drugs involved.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • guv001
    guv001 Posts: 688
    Chainwheel wrote:
    Is Cocaine and amphetimines used as a masking agent for blood doping and other performance enhancing substances.
    Chainwheel

    Generally the above is used to enhance performance on the dancefloor in nightclubs - probably what he was doing. Just like thousands and thousands of people do in nightclubs around the world every weekend.
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,549
    If you really believe that Basso was only 'thinking' of blood doping then I've got this lovely pristine bridge for sale....
  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    edited July 2008
    I don't think they're masking agents, just a reflection of some people partying too hard.

    Schumacher got caught after a party, same for Ullrich. It wasn't a test in competition. It's bad for them but test 200 young men and whether it's the Tour peloton, workers building site or a IT workers convention and a percentage will have used drugs recreationally.

    The police are investigating Boonen after allegations that he's been buying and selling on the drugs. Hopefully this isn't true but it's a lot more serious.

    Above all, why do you think it's wrong to ban Basso for blood doping? It's clear he had more than thoughts about it, he had given blood to the clinic, training programmes and notes with "Birillo" suggest his performances in the Giro were down to a lot more than just thinking. The "thought crime" punishment reflects his denial and the bare minimum he had to admit to get a ban and move on, to avoid criminal punishment in Italy and a longer ban.
  • Chainwheel
    Chainwheel Posts: 14
    Well he was not caught actually blood doping. The same with Rasmussen. He was diciplined for not saying where he was. No sign of doping as far as the eye can see.
    So where does one draw the line ???
  • Bronzie
    Bronzie Posts: 4,927
    andyp wrote:
    If you really believe that Basso was only 'thinking' of blood doping then I've got this lovely pristine bridge for sale....
    One careful owner like?

    london%20bridge.JPG
    It's a Lifestyle! -+-+- Coggan Training Levels
  • Chainwheel
    Chainwheel Posts: 14
    This also brings up another question concerning Riis. He confessed to doping. Yet is still welcome at the Tour, Why is that??
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Chainwheel wrote:
    This also brings up another question concerning Riis. He confessed to doping. Yet is still welcome at the Tour, Why is that??

    He wasn't last year.

    You can't rewrite history.

    So did Aldag. And Zabel. And Millar. And Vaughters (in a really awkward around about why)
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • Chainwheel
    Chainwheel Posts: 14
    Yes but that does not answer the question of where you darw the line?? In the case of Riis he publicly stated that his yellow jersey had no meaning and that it was in his garage and anyone could come and collect it. This is not a respectfull comment on the jersey or the tour.
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,549
    Whereabouts in Sweden do you live, Utopia? :roll:

    If you start going through the Tour records and erasing people who'd doped to win then you'd rapidly run out of winners. Riis did what 90% of the field were doing at the time.
  • Chainwheel
    Chainwheel Posts: 14
    That 90% do it simply does not make it right. Do you remember Paul Kimmage and his book about his exploits and why he stopped cycling?

    I am simply saying that where do we draw the line?
    Do the organisers open the way to total drug abuse as when Tom Simpson died on the Ventoux or do they make a complete ban. No drugs or hint of drugs during a cyclists career. Its a simple question and by the way Utopia only exists in the mind lol.
  • claudb
    claudb Posts: 212
    I just wish we could distinguish between 'Social' and 'Performace Enhancing' drugs.
    What Schumaker and Boonen have done is a Lifestyle offence. EPO and Blood Doping are cynical cheating. If we can't get that clear then we can't expect the mucky media to bother. I do sort of find it difficult to refuse Boonen a ride and not Schumaker, but they are NOT Drug CHEATS !! If you tested every professional footballer/cricketer/rugby player on a Saturday night/Sunday morning do you really think you would not find some evidence of social drug use amongst some of them ?? We somehow find it normal for a young pro footballer to be involved in a Nightclub incident or fracas or drink-driving offence and get over it quickly, but when it's a cyclist they seem to have to carry it with them forever.
  • guv001
    guv001 Posts: 688
    Chainwheel wrote:
    The same with Rasmussen. He was diciplined for not saying where he was. No sign of doping as far as the eye can see.
    So where does one draw the line ???

    Rasmussen problem (I was lead to believe) was he failed to be available for 3 separate doping test. Which has to be punished. I'm sure they have 3 strikes and out policy with the tests.
  • Chainwheel
    Chainwheel Posts: 14
    yes I agree, however if Schumaker had been tested by the wada or anti doping agencies at the time and not the Police, then he would of without doubt been banned. Thats the point I am trying to make, abeit badly of where do we draw theline.

    Look at Tennis, some of these women are more masculine than the male players and they dont test basketball or Ice hockey???

    I wonder why ??..lol

    Anyhow my original question is

    Where is the line drawn??

    Cheers

    Chainwheel.
  • drenkrom
    drenkrom Posts: 1,062
    The line doesn't need to be drawn, it's already there. It is drawn where the rules say it is drawn. If one thinks it should be elsewhere, or thinks the measures taken from the rules where not interpreted right, they can appeal to CAS, who have the final and official ruler and chalk to draw the line.

    Basso was miles past the line. Rasmussen was over it, as well. Schumacher and Boonen were on the right side of it.

    So why is Boonen not in the Tour? Because the Tour de France is a private institution and has the prerogative of inviting whoever it wants, and refusing entry when it sees fit. People can bicker and debate as much as they want, until they run the Tour themselves, they have no say in the decision. Loss of interest of a small fraction of the public must have been considered in taking the decisions ASO has this year. They went ahead with it anyways. The only constructive thing we can do is live with it and feast on the magnificent racing we've been getting this far.

    And whoever tested him, Schumacher would not have been banned. Stimulant use out of competition is tolerated by the rules. It's on the right side of the line.
  • biondino
    biondino Posts: 5,990
    Schumacher brought much less embarrassment to the world of cycling because he's much less of a name. Fair or otherwise it makes a difference and seems to have been treated accordingly.
    My Focus / My Bob Jackson
    Blog (incl. bikes)
  • z000m
    z000m Posts: 544
    the line is abit hazy
    New Build
  • takethehighroad
    takethehighroad Posts: 6,821
    z000m wrote:
    the line is abit hazy

    Especially if you're Boonen or Schumacher on a Saturday night!

    Boom boom
  • ricadus
    ricadus Posts: 2,379
    z000m wrote:
    the line is abit hazy

    Maybe it needs to be. Iif it were too clear the cheats would know exactly how far to go without crossing it.
    Tour de France
  • andrewgturnbull
    andrewgturnbull Posts: 3,861
    drenkrom wrote:
    And whoever tested him, Schumacher would not have been banned. Stimulant use out of competition is tolerated by the rules. It's on the right side of the line.

    Hi there.

    I agred with the stuff about respecting where the authorities have already drawn the line in the sand.

    I'm not sure about the last bit about stimulants though. As I understood it Boonen was ok, as cocaine is not a proscribed substance out of competition - whilst Simoni tested postive at the Giro and was sanctioned. Ampehetimine use is banned out of competition though, as Ullrich found out after his nightclub/car crash incident.

    How did Schumacher's scrape with the law differ from Ullrich's?

    Cheers, Andy
    http://www.andyturnbull.co.uk
    http://www.stirlingtri.co.uk
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    andrewgturnbull wrote:
    Ampehetimine use is banned out of competition though, as Ullrich found out after his nightclub/car crash incident.

    How did Schumacher's scrape with the law differ from Ullrich's?

    The rules have changed since Ullrich and out of competition use of speed is not a doping offence.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • knedlicky
    knedlicky Posts: 3,097
    Ullrich's 'offence' took place in May, so right in the middle of the season, with him supposed to take part in several events that summer.
    In Schumacher's case it was October, and he had finished his season and had nothing arranged for over 6 weeks.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    knedlicky wrote:
    Ullrich's 'offence' took place in May, so right in the middle of the season, with him supposed to take part in several events that summer.
    In Schumacher's case it was October, and he had finished his season and had nothing arranged for over 6 weeks.

    Ullrich was injured when he got busted and hadn't done a race for four months.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • andrewgturnbull
    andrewgturnbull Posts: 3,861
    knedlicky wrote:
    Ullrich's 'offence' took place in May, so right in the middle of the season, with him supposed to take part in several events that summer.
    In Schumacher's case it was October, and he had finished his season and had nothing arranged for over 6 weeks.

    Hmm, I don't think Ullrich's dodgy knee had much planned for that summer either!
    http://www.andyturnbull.co.uk
    http://www.stirlingtri.co.uk
  • andrewgturnbull
    andrewgturnbull Posts: 3,861
    Sorry, rich can type faster than me!
    http://www.andyturnbull.co.uk
    http://www.stirlingtri.co.uk
  • knedlicky
    knedlicky Posts: 3,097
    RichN95 wrote:
    Ullrich was injured when he got busted and hadn't done a race for four months.
    andrewgturnbull wrote:
    Hmm, I don't think Ullrich's dodgy knee had much planned for that summer either!
    It's not how long he'd done a race for, rather when his next might be, which counts.

    Ullrich had had an operation when he was caught on the night of 1st May, and had another mini-one in May but even at the end of May he and his trainer still spoke of the Vuelta as being highly possible. His manager, Strohband, said at the time "Whatever the case, Jan will take part in races this year".

    It was only in June, when they realised the consequences of his having taken amphetamines, that they changed their tune and said they hadn't planned any more races in 2002. But by then, they were unconvincing.

Categories