Dopers benefiting 10yrs later?

Joeblack
Joeblack Posts: 829
edited October 2014 in Pro race
Reading the article on BR this morning it seems the science suggests dopers can still benefit within 10yrs of doping,

I wonder what peoples thoughts are?

Further to that, do people think a lifetime ban for doping would eradicate it from the sport?
One plays football, tennis or golf, one does not play at cycling

Comments

  • Yellow Peril
    Yellow Peril Posts: 4,466
    Good news. I'll start now and smash races to pieces when I'm 60
    @JaunePeril

    Winner of the Bike Radar Pro Race Wiggins Hour Prediction Competition
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,312
    Yellow Peril wrote:
    Good news. I'll start now and smash races to pieces when I'm 60

    That's been done before... about 6 years ago Carmine Stefanile, aged 46 was winning virtually every single Granfondo in the Italian calendar... he later tested positive for a record number of substances... steroids, EPO, cortisol... the lot... :lol:
    left the forum March 2023
  • chris_bass
    chris_bass Posts: 4,913
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    Yellow Peril wrote:
    Good news. I'll start now and smash races to pieces when I'm 60

    That's been done before... about 6 years ago Carmine Stefanile, aged 46 was winning virtually every single Granfondo in the Italian calendar... he later tested positive for a record number of substances... steroids, EPO, cortisol... the lot... :lol:

    Maybe they should let riders take a more the older you get.
    Nothing to 35, 35 to 45 only EPO, 45 to 55, EPO and Steriods, etc

    level the playing field somewhat :-)
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • IanRCarter
    IanRCarter Posts: 217
    Well I dare say some people (i.e dopers) will say that it's not true and it's difficult to prove. From reading the articles about this research, it doesn't really state whether these 'dormant' nuclei do anything, just that they are still present even after a person stops doping. And, of course, it was tested on mice, not humans, so there is another argument.

    Regardless of this research, I think a lifetime ban for clear doping offences is the easiest way to help clean up any sport, not just cycling (there's a lot of talk about Gatlin, the US sprinter at the moment too). If an athlete knows they face a lifetime ban which is the end of their sporting career (the ban should stretch to coaching, too, in my opinion), then they may think twice before doping. If they know they may miss a couple of years with a ban, then they may think the risk is worth it, especially as many nations forgive and idolise ex-dopers once they start winning again. If the athlete knows they are going 'all in' when they commit to doping, would they still be willing to dope?
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,312
    A couple of years ago when USADA was spending resources to retaliate against Armstrong I said they were doing nothing about Justin Gatlin, who was running faster than before his 4 years ban... that was/is very strange... yet USADA was not interested.... I bet they will go after him when he retires with another medal or two after Rio 2016

    Bunch of muppets... :?
    left the forum March 2023
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,608
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    A couple of years ago when USADA was spending resources to retaliate against Armstrong I said they were doing nothing about Justin Gatlin, who was running faster than before his 4 years ban... that was/is very strange... yet USADA was not interested.... I bet they will go after him when he retires with another medal or two after Rio 2016

    Bunch of muppets... :?

    USADA did a deal with Gatlin to reduce his second ban from life to 8 years. They were after Trevor Graham, his coach, so in exchange for recording a phone call with Graham, Gatlin got a reduction. He then appealed to CAS and got teh ban further reduced to 4 years. He appealed again to CAS to try and get it reduced to 2 years though this appeal was unsuccessful. Give some people an inch and they'll take a mile...

    He got his first ban reduced from 2 years to 1 year, so he must have a good lawyer tucked away somewhere!
  • navrig2
    navrig2 Posts: 1,851
    I reckon all races should have two classifications of riders/teams.

    Clean -all riders sign a declaration stating they have been and are clean. The declaration will also then state that if tested positive they will accept a life ban without appeal, challenge or grumbling. "They" being that rider AND the team including banning the sponsor from ever being involved in cycling.

    Dirty - all riders are free to consume, sniff, inject or transfuse whatever they want. No limitations. Let them knock themselves out with whatever can be invented to enhance performance. No testing needed.

    The UCI would keep two sets of records.

    This would allow the sponsors to weed out the dirty folks. I can't imagine any sponsor wanting to fund a declared dirty team.
  • thomthom
    thomthom Posts: 3,574
    edited October 2014
    There are side effects as well..

    BzhAb80CMAELxfO.jpg

    The user '1500flash' is a 21 year old track runner who had a go at Gatlin for being... a doper.
  • The_Boy
    The_Boy Posts: 3,099
    Navrig2 wrote:
    I reckon all races should have two classifications of riders/teams.

    Clean -all riders sign a declaration stating they have been and are clean. The declaration will also then state that if tested positive they will accept a life ban without appeal, challenge or grumbling. "They" being that rider AND the team including banning the sponsor from ever being involved in cycling.

    Dirty - all riders are free to consume, sniff, inject or transfuse whatever they want. No limitations. Let them knock themselves out with whatever can be invented to enhance performance. No testing needed.

    The UCI would keep two sets of records.

    This would allow the sponsors to weed out the dirty folks. I can't imagine any sponsor wanting to fund a declared dirty team.

    Which is why the dopers would declare themselves to be clean. Honestly, it's as if people don't think these proposals through before they type them out.
    Team My Man 2018: David gaudu, Pierre Latour, Romain Bardet, Thibaut pinot, Alexandre Geniez, Florian Senechal, Warren Barguil, Benoit Cosnefroy
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    This will just descend into an argument about life-time bans.


    Look too hard at doping and you'll ruin the sport you like.

    I want to look for everything, but I don't want to see everything.

    Sport's inherently unfair, particularly cycling, and it'd be boring if it was actually fair. Shakespeare loved flawed characters, bad luck, and unfair situations. It makes for better drama. Cycling always will be a filthy sport with politics, cheating and all sorts.

    As long as it feels fair enough when you're watching it (and as much as we decry '90s cycling, it didn't feel fake when I was watching it) it's fine.
    _
  • navrig2
    navrig2 Posts: 1,851
    The_Boy wrote:
    Navrig2 wrote:
    I reckon all races should have two classifications of riders/teams.

    Clean -all riders sign a declaration stating they have been and are clean. The declaration will also then state that if tested positive they will accept a life ban without appeal, challenge or grumbling. "They" being that rider AND the team including banning the sponsor from ever being involved in cycling.

    Dirty - all riders are free to consume, sniff, inject or transfuse whatever they want. No limitations. Let them knock themselves out with whatever can be invented to enhance performance. No testing needed.

    The UCI would keep two sets of records.

    This would allow the sponsors to weed out the dirty folks. I can't imagine any sponsor wanting to fund a declared dirty team.

    Which is why the dopers would declare themselves to be clean. Honestly, it's as if people don't think these proposals through before they type them out.

    Lighten up.
  • mm1
    mm1 Posts: 1,063
    The study looked at the effects of steroids on mice, I wonder if anyone has ever done an equivalent study of human subjects?

    It is common for premature neo-nates to be given steroids to accelerate lung development. My son was 7 weeks prem and was treated with steroids in this way and is now a strapping, athletic 15 year old (with no interest in sport), who appears to be stronger than most of his mates.
  • Mad_Malx
    Mad_Malx Posts: 5,182
    mm1 wrote:
    The study looked at the effects of steroids on mice, I wonder if anyone has ever done an equivalent study of human subjects?

    It is common for premature neo-nates to be given steroids to accelerate lung development. My son was 7 weeks prem and was treated with steroids in this way and is now a strapping, athletic 15 year old (with no interest in sport), who appears to be stronger than most of his mates.

    Steroids for neonatal lung development are glucocorticoids - anti-inflammatory with very little (if any) direct effect on performance or muscle building (will help exercise through injury though). Anabolic steroids (testosterone etc.) are different. We all stuff ourselves with other steroids in the form of cholesterol. They are not all the same.
  • iPete
    iPete Posts: 6,076
    Take this as you wish...
    _78049457_top5_100m_web_2.jpg

    Taken from this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/29515182
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,312
    Unfortunately the USADA and IAAF seem to have a soft spot for these bastaxds... they get away with light sentences and come back stronger than when they were doped... it's a joke, except it's not even funny anymore... Ben Johnson was a laugh, with his Michelin man body shape... these guys just reflect the state of the sport they're in.
    left the forum March 2023
  • gubber12345
    gubber12345 Posts: 493
    Wallace and Gromit wrote:
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    A couple of years ago when USADA was spending resources to retaliate against Armstrong I said they were doing nothing about Justin Gatlin, who was running faster than before his 4 years ban... that was/is very strange... yet USADA was not interested.... I bet they will go after him when he retires with another medal or two after Rio 2016

    Bunch of muppets... :?

    USADA did a deal with Gatlin to reduce his second ban from life to 8 years. They were after Trevor Graham, his coach, so in exchange for recording a phone call with Graham, Gatlin got a reduction. He then appealed to CAS and got teh ban further reduced to 4 years. He appealed again to CAS to try and get it reduced to 2 years though this appeal was unsuccessful. Give some people an inch and they'll take a mile...

    He got his first ban reduced from 2 years to 1 year, so he must have a good lawyer tucked away somewhere!
    Yeah Probably OJ Simpson's
    Lapierre Aircode 300
    Merida
  • gubber12345
    gubber12345 Posts: 493
    Wallace and Gromit wrote:
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    A couple of years ago when USADA was spending resources to retaliate against Armstrong I said they were doing nothing about Justin Gatlin, who was running faster than before his 4 years ban... that was/is very strange... yet USADA was not interested.... I bet they will go after him when he retires with another medal or two after Rio 2016

    Bunch of muppets... :?

    USADA did a deal with Gatlin to reduce his second ban from life to 8 years. They were after Trevor Graham, his coach, so in exchange for recording a phone call with Graham, Gatlin got a reduction. He then appealed to CAS and got teh ban further reduced to 4 years. He appealed again to CAS to try and get it reduced to 2 years though this appeal was unsuccessful. Give some people an inch and they'll take a mile...

    He got his first ban reduced from 2 years to 1 year, so he must have a good lawyer tucked away somewhere!
    Yeah Probably OJ Simpson's
    Lapierre Aircode 300
    Merida

Categories