Drugs in other sports and the media.

Dorset_Boy

So many ignorant luddites!
E-Racing is just a different discipline of the sport, very much in its infancy, but one that has an advantage financially due to the ability to monetise it easily.
It won't ever replace all the other disciplines, road, track, cross, MTB, etc, but be something alongside them.
The rules will develop over the coming years and there will be hiccups along the way, and the Cam Jeffers situation is certainly one.

Alejandrosdog

why is it n advantage that it can be monetised easily unless you have an interest in the company?

I suspect grubby finance are why the UCI and BC are so keen to get into electric assist racing.

Dorset_Boy

Alejandrosdog wrote:

why is it n advantage that it can be monetised easily unless you have an interest in the company?

I suspect grubby finance are why the UCI and BC are so keen to get into electric assist racing.

WTF is "electric assist racing"?
There is no assistance when you're racing, but if you'd ever tried it, you might know that.

The ability to charge folks to watch events live means the prize funds can be higher - particularly for women.

ddraver

Dorset Boy wrote:

So many ignorant luddites!

Dorset Boy wrote:

WTF is "electric assist racing"?

Life comes atcha fast...

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hather ... ld-titles/

Dorset_Boy

ddraver wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

So many ignorant luddites!

Dorset Boy wrote:

WTF is "electric assist racing"?

Life comes atcha fast...

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hather ... ld-titles/

Hardly the same context that Ale's Dog was referring to above though, as the topic was racing on turbos indoors.
One of our local bike shops has an e-bike cat in their MTB races too!

gsk82

Dorset Boy wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

So many ignorant luddites!

Dorset Boy wrote:

WTF is "electric assist racing"?

Life comes atcha fast...

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hather ... ld-titles/

Hardly the same context that Ale's Dog was referring to above though, as the topic was racing on turbos indoors.
One of our local bike shops has an e-bike cat in their MTB races too!

If it helps them sell expensive bikes they'd be foolish not to

rick_chasey

Won’t be long till swift rollers weigh you.

ddraver

Dorset Boy wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

So many ignorant luddites!

Dorset Boy wrote:

WTF is "electric assist racing"?

Life comes atcha fast...

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hather ... ld-titles/

Hardly the same context that Ale's Dog was referring to above though, as the topic was racing on turbos indoors.
One of our local bike shops has an e-bike cat in their MTB races too!

IGNORANT LUDDITE!!!

Alejandrosdog

I still don't understand why the ability of the UCI or BC to generate revenue is in itself a great benefit. fair enough for the investors in swift or some other platform but the battle for control of these physical interaction games is just about money. Id rather that cyclings governing body focused on getting the other bits right. Any argument that revenues will be used for development etc etc is ridiculous in the extreme.

No_Ta_Doctor

Alejandrosdog wrote:

I still don't understand why the ability of the UCI or BC to generate revenue is in itself a great benefit. fair enough for the investors in swift or some other platform but the battle for control of these physical interaction games is just about money. Id rather that cyclings governing body focused on getting the other bits right. Any argument that revenues will be used for development etc etc is ridiculous in the extreme.

I'd quite like the UCI to have a bit more money. I don't see the point in keeping them impoverished.

gweeds

This is fascinating. Nike paid for 9 lawyers to defend Salazar and Brown and did everything they could make it go away. Goucher and the other whistleblowers were scapegoated. Julian took athletes for transfusions and is guilty as Salazar. Nike CEO chose brand over integrity. https://twitter.com/karagoucher/status/ ... 9254388736

rick_chasey

Gweeds wrote:

This is fascinating. Nike paid for 9 lawyers to defend Salazar and Brown and did everything they could make it go away. Goucher and the other whistleblowers were scapegoated. Julian took athletes for transfusions and is guilty as Salazar. Nike CEO chose brand over integrity. https://twitter.com/karagoucher/status/ ... 9254388736

Nike aggressively supporting dopers?

I mean, I AM SHOCKED.

We as cycling fans especially will be totally blindsided by this.

philbar72

Gweeds wrote:

This is fascinating. Nike paid for 9 lawyers to defend Salazar and Brown and did everything they could make it go away. Goucher and the other whistleblowers were scapegoated. Julian took athletes for transfusions and is guilty as Salazar. Nike CEO chose brand over integrity. https://twitter.com/karagoucher/status/ ... 9254388736

hardly surprising. being associated with winning for them is better than the murk they create by sponsoring the regimes that create winners whether they be legitimate or otherwise.

sherer

philbar72 wrote:

Gweeds wrote:

This is fascinating. Nike paid for 9 lawyers to defend Salazar and Brown and did everything they could make it go away. Goucher and the other whistleblowers were scapegoated. Julian took athletes for transfusions and is guilty as Salazar. Nike CEO chose brand over integrity. https://twitter.com/karagoucher/status/ ... 9254388736

hardly surprising. being associated with winning for them is better than the murk they create by sponsoring the regimes that create winners whether they be legitimate or otherwise.

Look at Virenque, still advertising Festina watches.

Nike know full well that in the end people see the results and not the doping. Just look at the comments on Armstrong's social media, he crossed the line first so was better than all the others, and he only doped a little bit anyway.

No NOP athletes have been suspended, just the head of the project. Who will remember that come next year ?

Not sure the full story is out and some of the quotes from the decision are very much at odds with what Goucher has been saying

shirley_basso

Isn't a Nike sponsored athlete about to run a marathon in under 2 hours, training outside of the country (kenya, I think)?

Also sponsored by Ineos.

RichN95.

Shirley Basso wrote:

Isn't a Nike sponsored athlete about to run a marathon in under 2 hours, training outside of the country (kenya, I think)?

Also sponsored by Ineos.

Thousands of people are sponsored by Nike. He's nothing to do Salazar. And Kenya isn't 'out of the country' for a Kenyan.

philbar72

sherer wrote:

philbar72 wrote:

Gweeds wrote:

This is fascinating. Nike paid for 9 lawyers to defend Salazar and Brown and did everything they could make it go away. Goucher and the other whistleblowers were scapegoated. Julian took athletes for transfusions and is guilty as Salazar. Nike CEO chose brand over integrity. https://twitter.com/karagoucher/status/ ... 9254388736

hardly surprising. being associated with winning for them is better than the murk they create by sponsoring the regimes that create winners whether they be legitimate or otherwise.

Look at Virenque, still advertising Festina watches.

Nike know full well that in the end people see the results and not the doping. Just look at the comments on Armstrong's social media, he crossed the line first so was better than all the others, and he only doped a little bit anyway.

No NOP athletes have been suspended, just the head of the project. Who will remember that come next year ?

Not sure the full story is out and some of the quotes from the decision are very much at odds with what Goucher has been saying

true. coaches take the initial flak. Salazar does seem to be absolutely rotten though. as in great training methodology, backed up by at least partial weapons grade pharma to "help" the athletes.

larkim

Gweeds wrote:

This is fascinating. Nike paid for 9 lawyers to defend Salazar and Brown and did everything they could make it go away. Goucher and the other whistleblowers were scapegoated. Julian took athletes for transfusions and is guilty as Salazar. Nike CEO chose brand over integrity. https://twitter.com/karagoucher/status/ ... 9254388736

You're surprised that a highly paid member of an elite training setup sponsored by Nike who has publicly gone on record to set out the details of what he has done and has at least a credible case that it is not "doping" in the way the man in the street would consider it to be doping gets access to his corporate lawyers to try to keep his name clear? You must live in a very strange world.

As far as I can recall, nothing that Goucher (self-publicist and beneficiary of NOP training) disclosed about thyroid medication or medication being covertly transported to Europe etc was actually found to have been a breach of any regulation. She is claiming credit for something she didn't actually whistle blow about!!

shirley_basso

RichN95 wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Isn't a Nike sponsored athlete about to run a marathon in under 2 hours, training outside of the country (kenya, I think)?

Also sponsored by Ineos.

Thousands of people are sponsored by Nike. He's nothing to do Salazar. And Kenya isn't 'out of the country' for a Kenyan.

It was all meant as a joke, maybe poorly written

The Nike / Salazar / Ineos conection, I'm sure would make the right/wrong people froth.

Furthermore it was a remark about people who train overseas at altitude in Africa where testers aren't.

RichN95.

larkim wrote:

Gweeds wrote:

This is fascinating. Nike paid for 9 lawyers to defend Salazar and Brown and did everything they could make it go away. Goucher and the other whistleblowers were scapegoated. Julian took athletes for transfusions and is guilty as Salazar. Nike CEO chose brand over integrity. https://twitter.com/karagoucher/status/ ... 9254388736

You're surprised that a highly paid member of an elite training setup sponsored by Nike who has publicly gone on record to set out the details of what he has done and has at least a credible case that it is not "doping" in the way the man in the street would consider it to be doping gets access to his corporate lawyers to try to keep his name clear? You must live in a very strange world.

As far as I can recall, nothing that Goucher (self-publicist and beneficiary of NOP training) disclosed about thyroid medication or medication being covertly transported to Europe etc was actually found to have been a breach of any regulation. She is claiming credit for something she didn't actually whistle blow about!!

Despite reading a couple of reports about this affair, I still don't know what Salazar is supposed to have done. Typical modern journalism - little time spent explain what has happened, plenty speculating on its impact.

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

larkim wrote:

Gweeds wrote:

This is fascinating. Nike paid for 9 lawyers to defend Salazar and Brown and did everything they could make it go away. Goucher and the other whistleblowers were scapegoated. Julian took athletes for transfusions and is guilty as Salazar. Nike CEO chose brand over integrity. https://twitter.com/karagoucher/status/ ... 9254388736

You're surprised that a highly paid member of an elite training setup sponsored by Nike who has publicly gone on record to set out the details of what he has done and has at least a credible case that it is not "doping" in the way the man in the street would consider it to be doping gets access to his corporate lawyers to try to keep his name clear? You must live in a very strange world.

As far as I can recall, nothing that Goucher (self-publicist and beneficiary of NOP training) disclosed about thyroid medication or medication being covertly transported to Europe etc was actually found to have been a breach of any regulation. She is claiming credit for something she didn't actually whistle blow about!!

Despite reading a couple of reports about this affair, I still don't know what Salazar is supposed to have done.

He ran a doping regime for his athletes, no?

larkim

Rick Chasey wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

larkim wrote:

Gweeds wrote:

This is fascinating. Nike paid for 9 lawyers to defend Salazar and Brown and did everything they could make it go away. Goucher and the other whistleblowers were scapegoated. Julian took athletes for transfusions and is guilty as Salazar. Nike CEO chose brand over integrity. https://twitter.com/karagoucher/status/ ... 9254388736

You're surprised that a highly paid member of an elite training setup sponsored by Nike who has publicly gone on record to set out the details of what he has done and has at least a credible case that it is not "doping" in the way the man in the street would consider it to be doping gets access to his corporate lawyers to try to keep his name clear? You must live in a very strange world.

As far as I can recall, nothing that Goucher (self-publicist and beneficiary of NOP training) disclosed about thyroid medication or medication being covertly transported to Europe etc was actually found to have been a breach of any regulation. She is claiming credit for something she didn't actually whistle blow about!!

Despite reading a couple of reports about this affair, I still don't know what Salazar is supposed to have done.

He ran a doping regime for his athletes, no?

Er, no!

He used testosterone on his sons. Salazar is defined as an "athlete support person" and rubbing T on his sons as third parties is a strict liability sanction, and falls under "trafficking". So that was what he was found to have done. No other charges in relation to Testosterone would found proven.

He oversaw the administration of an L-Carnitine infusion to a member of his coaching staff (Steve Magness) who also happened to be a "club level" athlete. Magness was therefore an athlete and the infusion administration amount was above WADA levels. So again, he's proven guilty of the offence, but it wasn't doping any of his elite athletes.

And he advised his athletes not to disclose legal L-Carnitine injections in pre-dope testing forms because he was mistaken about whether these were "injections" or "infusions". So he misled them, but the finding concluded it was a mistake.

So no, he didn't run a doping regime for his athletes - or at least, there has been no finding that he did from USADA.

But the papers will have you believe a very different story because the words "trafficking" and "tampering" form part of the legalese outcome.

But don't take my word for it, read the arbitration judgement - you might form a different view from me, but you might not. I have a bias towards Salazar as the coach of my favourite athlete (whom I am also biased towards presuming to be clean) so be sceptical about my opinions. But I hold them honestly, in that context.

https://www.letsrun.com/wp-content/uplo ... sion-1.pdf

rick_chasey

I trust you mate, I don't really care.


I thought the vibe was he was doping his stable of athletes and this was how they could catch him. Obviously not.

sherer

from what I can gather, he as experimenting to work out how much he could legal dope someone up to and not show a positive

FocusZing

What I can't understand is what wrong with a nice cup of tea? Why are some people so keen to partake in nefarious chemifoolery?

Alejandrosdog

RichN95 wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Isn't a Nike sponsored athlete about to run a marathon in under 2 hours, training outside of the country (kenya, I think)?

Also sponsored by Ineos.

Thousands of people are sponsored by Nike. He's nothing to do Salazar. And Kenya isn't 'out of the country' for a Kenyan.

But kenyan and kenya is almost code for cheating

amrushton

FocusZing wrote:

What I can't understand is what wrong with a nice cup of tea? Why are some people so keen to partake in nefarious chemifoolery?

Because they can and enjoy it. Or they can make money from it. Perhaps they enjoy the science of it like Ferrari or they work for e.g. Nike and winning = success

shinyhelmut

But don't take my word for it, read the arbitration judgement - you might form a different view from me, but you might not. I have a bias towards Salazar as the coach of my favourite athlete (whom I am also biased towards presuming to be clean) so be sceptical about my opinions. But I hold them honestly, in that context.

He has history for testosterone though, Mary Slaney (Decker) was pinged while being coached by Salazar. He may of course have known nothing about her doping.

larkim

sherer wrote:

from what I can gather, he as experimenting to work out how much he could legal dope someone up to and not show a positive

You should read the judgement then, because what you've gathered is not what was found.

larkim

ShinyHelmut wrote:

But don't take my word for it, read the arbitration judgement - you might form a different view from me, but you might not. I have a bias towards Salazar as the coach of my favourite athlete (whom I am also biased towards presuming to be clean) so be sceptical about my opinions. But I hold them honestly, in that context.

He has history for testosterone though, Mary Slaney (Decker) was pinged while being coached by Salazar. He may of course have known nothing about her doping.

Agreed, I don't know much about that one other than what I've gleaned from Wikipedia etc. I believe she still protests innocence, so she hasn't personally implicated Salazar, but it's a logical inference to make that a convicted doper had a coach who was either aware of or instigated the doping.