Doping Apologists - Stop Spinning and Acknowledge it!

Pokerface

Wheelspinner wrote:

Incidentally, can anyone tell me if banned riders are still subject to OOC testing while banned?

No they are not - but I believe they need to go into the testing pool 6 months prior to competing as a pro again.

This was another point of contention when Armstrong came back - they UCI let him slide on the 6 months thing (by 2 months I think) so he could ride in the Tour Down Under after he announced his comeback.

jerry3571

Pokerface wrote:

They should just establish a new Pro Tour outside the UCI - and have no doping rules whatsoever.

Then riders could dope up to 60% hemocrit and we'd see some awesome racing. FF would absolutely love it.

I think we already have a "no doping rules whatsoever" set up already. It's that the authorities can't catch the cheaters. Unless it is based on really really really honest people who ride then it could work. These riders would only include people who have never lied in thier lives; not even a white lie. It's possible.


I think I killed off the thread- "Is cycling beyond redemption?" with a comment saying that when the levels of Blood (hamocrit) were at 60% there was probably a greater chance of dying than getting caught for drugs at that time; cyclists dying of night time Heart Failure.
I think Tyler Hamilton once said that Doping doesn't seem such a big issue when your descending a Mountain at 80mph.
I've crashed at 45mph and I can appreciate that comment.

-Jerry

PS- A small favour please.
The last comment on the "Is cycling beyond redemption?" thread, responds to my comment by saying-

"Yes..................................but I'm not !"

What did "itisaboutthebike" mean by this???? Very interested to hear someone else's comments on this. Hmmm...

edhornby

problem is that 4 yr bans were in place for other sports and someone was landed with one, and he took the CAS for restraint of trade and won !!!

I think it should be 3yrs, commuted to 18months if they confess <u>and</u> dob in another doper or organiser that can be banned also

jerry3571

Also a 4 year ban in another sport would be a penalty by missing the Olympics which for quite a few sports is thier pinnacle. Olympics isn't the be all to end all in cycling though so not relevent.

Must admit to being a big Radio 4 listener and I remember a programme where a study came up with a result of saying that the Punishment isn't the deterent but the chances of getting caught (not my words). I beleive a life ban wouldn't do a thing also. Sounds tough but acheives little.

Also the aftermath of getting caught is a horrible thing and Mr Ullrich has recently gone to ground due the bad kharma in Germany, sending him down the Pantani, Jiminez, VDB route. Not good. (I think Jan is an ok bloke poor chap)

The truth of the matter is that the Anti Doping lot have to get better tests which is almost an impossiblity. I think this situation is something we have and will not go away. Simple as.

-Jerry

No_Ta_Doctor

jerry3571 wrote:

Also a 4 year ban in another sport would be a penalty by missing the Olympics which for quite a few sports is thier pinnacle. Olympics isn't the be all to end all in cycling though so not relevent.

Must admit to being a big Radio 4 listener and I remember a programme where a study came up with a result of saying that the Punishment isn't the deterent but the chances of getting caught (not my words). I beleive a life ban wouldn't do a thing also. Sounds tough but acheives little.

Also the aftermath of getting caught is a horrible thing and Mr Ullrich has recently gone to ground due the bad kharma in Germany, sending him down the Pantani, Jiminez, VDB route. Not good. (I think Jan is an ok bloke poor chap)

The truth of the matter is that the Anti Doping lot have to get better tests which is almost an impossiblity. I think this situation is something we have and will not go away. Simple as.

-Jerry

But as pointed out above, what might work isn't so much increasing the length of bans as decreasing them for anyone that grasses up a doctor or team manager etc. That makes it more likely to get caught. It would probably only have an effect if the ban a +ve rider was facing was fairly long though.

Anti doping needs both better tests and more of them, not to mention retrograde testing of samples when new tests are developed.

Buckled_Rims

I would love to see a clean sport, but that's not going to happen is it! It's a lost battle. Anyone who disagrees, please put up a £100 and wait 12 months to see who else gets caught.

I bet I win

Wheelspinner

Maybe instead of an individual ban for a busted doper, we should try the opposite: force their WHOLE TEAM to keep racing, but wearing special riding kit, bright coloured lycra with DRUG USERS in large letters all over it, right next to the sponsor's name just to really make the point.

After all, every single interview I've ever seen with a stage winning rider says "I couldn't have done it without the team".. so let's give the team credit, eh?

RichN95.

Buckled_Rims wrote:

I would love to see a clean sport, but that's not going to happen is it! It's a lost battle. Anyone who disagrees, please put up a £100 and wait 12 months to see who else gets caught.

I bet I win

Cycling's never going to be totally clean, just as life itself will never be free of cheats and criminals..

What cycling is doing, with some effect, is reducing the methods of cheating available and their effectiveness. If doping becomes increasingly difficult, more expensive and less effective, then fewer riders are going to bother.

dennisn

RichN95 wrote:

Buckled_Rims wrote:

I would love to see a clean sport, but that's not going to happen is it! It's a lost battle. Anyone who disagrees, please put up a £100 and wait 12 months to see who else gets caught.

I bet I win

Cycling's never going to be totally clean, just as life itself will never be free of cheats and criminals..

What cycling is doing, with some effect, is reducing the methods of cheating available and their effectiveness. If doping becomes increasingly difficult, more expensive and less effective, then fewer riders are going to bother.

It could end up being a war of attrition. Who will run out of money first? The dopers or the people trying to catch them? And who pays for all this? On both sides? Probably, in the end, you and I.

jerry3571

Another Radio 4 thing (not sure on exact figures) said that the drugs going to Medical need (Hospital drugs, medical drugs etc) only comes to about 25% of the total drugs which are manufactured. I guess this means that the illegal narcotic industry must play a large part in this (LSD, Crack, Steriods etc). Drugs must be a huge business and they must have some of the best Scientists available to stay ahead of the curve. Big business.

-Jerry

No_Ta_Doctor

jerry3571 wrote:

Another Radio 4 thing (not sure on exact figures) said that the drugs going to Medical need (Hospital drugs, medical drugs etc) only comes to about 25% of the total drugs which are manufactured. I guess this means that the illegal narcotic industry must play a large part in this (LSD, Crack, Steriods etc). Drugs must be a huge business and they must have some of the best Scientists available to stay ahead of the curve. Big business.

-Jerry

Don't forget the amount of drugs that go to meat and dairy production. This isn't a crack at Contador, what really gets my beef is the development of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria. Antibiotics have a limited span of usability before they're outdated, but we speed this up massively by pumping animals full of them....

Depending on the definition of drugs and the definition of "medical need" there might also be dietary supplements (huge business) and over the counter stuff like insect bite cream etc excluded from the 25%

I somehow doubt that they included illegal recreational drugs knocked up in a bathtub in someone's basement in their calculations.