Alpe d'Huez wrote:Myles and Andy are/were members of this site for the first couple of months it got going. Search and you can find their posts under the screen name BikePure. I think Andy was mostly posting them. I don't know if they got too busy, or what, but they haven't posted in a while.
I actually like them a lot, and bought their jersey. It's beautiful, and well worth the money. I have some issues with their list, and anyone who knows me knows why, and what some of my suggestions are (close to BC), but they seem to be dynamic in their approach to stopping doping, not with any dead set ironclad anything, and I think that's something that's needed in these times.
Are you thinking of signing on, Joe? I'm sure if you dropped them a line they'd respond, though they seem to be busy of late.
unsheath wrote:The problem with the 24/7 supervision methodology is that it only counters for in competition testing. As we know riders are now doping year round and not just exclusively at the GTs. In essence, they would still be bringing in the benefits from earlier doping to the event through either retained benefits of elevated blood boosting or the physiological benefits of harder doped training. Holding riders any longer would be far too draconian.
I personally think we've got to be taking baby steps before we unravel any of these grand plans. The total haemogloban test would be a good place to start.
Lastly in regards to the list formed by the OP, the 2 key points for mine are 2 & 3 which I agree wholeheartedly. Firstly we will never have a dope free sport if the UCI are in charge. It's been repeatedly shown, they cannot be trusted to run this sport. Secondly, I would love to see all support staff (owners, managers, DS, soigners, drivers) sign a 'magna carta' of sorts which results in life bans for practices that aids doping practices. 1 strike and you're out!! The point is can we trust the UCI to implement such systems? I think Not..
Alpe d'Huez wrote:More testing isn't completely the answer. We need accurate testing. Remember, false negatives are the problem. There's also the issue of when to test. Current UCI rules let riders off the hook during many times. And take a look at the fiasco in this year's Tour when the UCI decided to spring a late morning test (a prime time to catch someone doping) and yet the tester was delayed a half-hour willingly, and drank coffee with team officials!
blackcat wrote:More testing is the solution in my opinion. Forget about the peloton, and just target the winners. You need to create a peloton where you can win clean, not just like JV says that you can.
So seed the riders, and attack the big hitters. Get the total body hemoglobin test dialed in.
Forget about hitting the small fish. The small fish are your constituents. You give them the opportunity to ride clean. They are on low wages, they would prefer to be able to retain all their salary and prizemoney.
Just knock the top off the two speed peloton. And you only do this by seriously attacking the top end of the peloton.
DonTickles wrote:Who decides who the big hitters are? What you describe seems like an arbitrary decision on who to test and is open to abuse. Tighten that criteria and I agree it could help, but just saying to target the "heads of state" doesn't hold up. Is it the top 10 in a GT? Top 20? How do you seed riders? Well if that's the case then Evans isn't targeted based of his TDF performance this year, yet I think many of us think of him as a "head of state". Is it based on wins? # of high placements throughout the season, performance the previous season? If it's arbitrary then it requires human judgment and that is faulty without even considering corruption, which most of us believe is already a rampant problem.
The problem with a set formula for determining who's a "big hitter" provides for it's own potential abuse. Manage your results to be lower early in the season and slide in under the radar and target a big race, come out of nowhere and win without being subject to the higher standard of testing. Explain the jump in performance by saying you lost weight, were sick, found out you were lactose intolerant and stopped eating cheese, or were recovering from a fall during training or earlier in the season and now you're home free. This would work especially well for younger riders who don't have a long track record of mediocre results, a fresh face, or someone who had gotten good results in juniors. It's not unreasonable to think that you can dope it up and beat the lower tier controls and slip through the cracks to a big GT win while all the "heads of state" are clean(er) because of a massive targeted testing regimen. Once you get that big win you get the big contract. Of course now you're a targeted "big hitter" and have to cut out the dope and can no longer perform at that level. There's plenty of excuses you can pull out of the hat as to why you can't reach the same level or performance again ("oh I fell in training again and it still hurts" or "I drank the water in Mexico and am fighting these terrible intestinal parasites"), but what do you care, you have the big contract. As long as you can keep up that image of potential you can ride that to the bank for years.
Many will see the cleaner "heads of state" and decide they can now do the right thing and ride clean too. Other less scrupulous riders will see opportunity and jump on the chance to get a big advantage. Targeting the big hitters is good, but they need to expand controls on the lower riders and add new tests for the transfusions as others have suggested.
Staying on the Bike Pure topic, I'm all for #'s 1,2,3,4, and 9. I think 5 and 6 are unlikely to happen because they depend on changes to the judicial systems of various countries. #'s 7 and 8 are going to infringe on privacy concerns. If a rider has a TUE for Valtrex (no I have no idea if you need a TUE for Valtrex or not) then that rider is not going to want it to be public record that he's got the herp, and I agree with his right to that privacy. If TUEs are all in the hands of an independent authority as in #2 then that should be good enough and rider medical data privacy should be respected as much as possible.
Just my opinion.
Users browsing this forum: Black Betsy and 22 guestsBack to top