AP: CONI prez. Ettore Torri says legalize Doping !

[Dr. Maserati]

You cannot manipulate the Biological Passport. You can only manipulate your own blood values so as to conform to, or not stand out as suspicious. If the Bio Passport is changing behavior among racers then it is already more effective than any previous legislation has been. If they are using it as their guideline to stay under the radar, I would call that a success. This is what it was designed to do.

The position on the fan input is that too many are trying to put the genie back in the bottle. I say let him stay out. If attitudes at the highest level of the sport changed (as with Mr. Torri) and the demonization of "preparation" diminished the sport would likely benefit in the public arena. The irony is that fans have been applauding doped results for decades, and now the want accountability from individuals who have inherited a corrupt system.

As to marijuana and prostitution; of course they have nothing to do with PED's but they have everything to do with human nature. No amount of legislation will dissuade people from partaking in either one. and neither will it dissuade cyclist from PED use.

So I say decriminalize Pot and tax it. Lord knows we can use another revenue stream. Legalize prostitution and apply acceptable public health standards to keep people safe. And decriminalize PED's and hold athletes to a standard enforced through the Bio Passport, and let them control there own destiny. It seems a better alternative to forcing talented riders out of the sport in disgrace.

Wouldn't this proposal force talented CLEAN riders out of the sport?

The Bio Passport was originally set up to catch dopers and sanction them. Landis has already told Dr. Ashenden ways the riders manipulate it and of course we now know that the UCI is selective on who to pursue.
In its current state it is nothing more than a dope test by committee.

The only reason many applauded doped success over the years was that they were kept in blissfull ignorance to the scale of the deceit.
That is not the case now.

 

[VeloFidelis]

Wouldn't this proposal force talented CLEAN riders out of the sport?

The Bio Passport was originally set up to catch dopers and sanction them. Landis has already told Dr. Ashenden ways the riders manipulate it and of course we now know that the UCI is selective on who to pursue.
In its current state it is nothing more than a dope test by committee.

The only reason many applauded doped success over the years was that they were kept in blissfull ignorance to the scale of the deceit.
That is not the case now.

Yes, it would force clean riders out, or relegate them to obscurity in the peloton. How is that different from the current situation?

Again, you cannot manipulate the Bio Passport. It is simply a statement of your blood values at the time the sample is drawn. You can manipulate, adjust, moderate, increase or decrease whatever you are using, but it becomes the riders responsibility to make sure that he shows little or no irregularities, or does not exceed specific parameters. If no rider can exceed those parameters without sanction, then you have parity.

Were you blissfully ignorant?... Really? ... Argentin, Bugno, Berzin, Bartolli, Museeuw, VDB, Riis, Pantani, Ullrich, Basso, Armstrong... Really! You didn't have a clue? The 94 La Fleche Wallonne, the 96 Paris Roubaix... you didn't get the significance there? OK, I admit to having had hopes about Indurain back in the 90's, but for the rest I pretty much knew what I was looking at. And I have not had much reason to believe that anything has changed since.

The difference as I see it, is that we were not holding them to some unrealistic expectation like we are now. Which is to race at that level consistently without help, or to be ostracized when you are caught using it.

I applauded back then, and I do today as well. It is a rare situation when an individual rider's "program" moves them unexpectedly onto the podium. For the most part the talent pool is pretty predictable and far more genetic, than synthetic. At the head of the race, I don't believe that any one rider is better "prepared" than another, and I don't believe the riders do either.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes, it would force clean riders out, or relegate them to obscurity in the peloton. How is that different from the current situation?

Again, you cannot manipulate the Bio Passport. It is simply a statement of your blood values at the time the sample is drawn. You can manipulate, adjust, moderate, increase or decrease whatever you are using, but it becomes the riders responsibility to make sure that he shows little or no irregularities, or does not exceed specific parameters. If no rider can exceed those parameters without sanction, then you have parity.

Were you blissfully ignorant?... Really? ... Argentin, Bugno, Berzin, Bartolli, Museeuw, VDB, Riis, Pantani, Ullrich, Basso, Armstrong... Really! You didn't have a clue? The 94 La Fleche Wallonne, the 96 Paris Roubaix... you didn't get the significance there? OK, I admit to having had hopes about Indurain back in the 90's, but for the rest I pretty much knew what I was looking at. And I have not had much reason to believe that anything has changed since.

The difference as I see it, is that we were not holding them to some unrealistic expectation like we are now. Which is to race at that level consistently without help, or to be ostracized when you are caught using it.

I applauded back then, and I do today as well. It is a rare situation when an individual rider's "program" moves them unexpectedly onto the podium. For the most part the talent pool is pretty predictable and far more genetic, than synthetic. At the head of the race, I don't believe that any one rider is better "prepared" than another, and I don't believe the riders do either.

There you go.....thats it - the CURRENT situation.

Thats what you want to continue - and I want to change.

As for the rest of your post - hindsight is wonderful.
Yes, I had suspicions on many you named, but I also trusted the UCI and the riders when they gave their statements, they were given the benefit of the doubt.
It wasn't until Festina in '98 that it became apparent just how ingrained, systematic and corrupt the system was.

Also - you said they are held to some "unrealistic expectations" - quite simply no, they are not.

On the Bio passsport - again, Dr. Ashenden said he learned more from Landis in 2 days then he had trying to figure out peoples data.
Then you mentioned - If no rider can exceed those parameters without sanction, then you have parity..... With the UCI in control thats a very big IF.

 

[VeloFidelis]

There you go.....thats it - the CURRENT situation.

Thats what you want to continue - and I want to change.

As for the rest of your post - hindsight is wonderful.
Yes, I had suspicions on many you named, but I also trusted the UCI and the riders when they gave their statements, they were given the benefit of the doubt.
It wasn't until Festina in '98 that it became apparent just how ingrained, systematic and corrupt the system was.

Also - you said they are held to some "unrealistic expectations" - quite simply no, they are not.

On the Bio passsport - again, Dr. Ashenden said he learned more from Landis in 2 days then he had trying to figure out peoples data.
Then you mentioned - If no rider can exceed those parameters without sanction, then you have parity..... With the UCI in control thats a very big IF.

Dear Doctor,

I realize this is pretty much down to a personal discussion between you and I, so I will try to make my point, and we can move on to other threads.

As best I can tell we fundamentally disagree on a basic premise. It seems that you also believe that doping cannot be eradicated, but maybe controlled or reduced through regulation and enforcement. Basically, if they create more rules and enforce them things can possibly get better. Let me know if I have that wrong.

I understand your position and desire to see the sport come to a better place, with a more level playing field. I don't disagree with the principal behind your position, but I believe it relies too much on official oversight and basic honesty and at least some integrity among the majority of people involved.

My position is that man is basically a self interested animal, and will always do what is in his own best interests, and always take the risks of getting caught if the potential prize is deemed to be worth it. So while you would advocate making and enforcing rules to corral and direct riders behavior to move them in a direction. I advocate making it in their best interests to move towards the desired objective.

Would you pass a UCI drug test if you were tested today? I would not. I take DHEA as a supplement, and if you are over 40 and athletically competitive, you probably should too. I also regularly use a 1% cortisone creme on chafes or abrasions I get routinely from cycling and rowing. I infrequently use an inhaler when certain allergies act up. All of which I would test positive for. Yes I am a doper.

The point is that there are health regimens associated with just being active, and as you dial up the intensity the regimen gets more complicated. I know, and compete against Masters athletes who regularly use testosterone and HGH under a doctors supervision as part of an anti aging program. I wish I could get my health plan to cover that, because I would too. There are plenty of positive affirmation in the medical community for these products use in supervised dosages and situations. Hell they're advertising for "Low T" or testosterone to men in my age group on television these days.

I personally believe that many banned substances could actually help a professional cyclist be better prepared to compete and help him live a longer and more productive life. I am tired of the the drama and press around doping positives that really aren't PED's, and the damage done to athletes careers. But I am also not in favor of watching a rider with a hematocrit of 160 drop the entire field on an HC col. We've already seen too much of that.

For me there is just too much grey area where others see only black and white. I say let the Bio Passport find the egregious offenders, and those dumb enough to not monitor their blood values closely. And stop ending careers for levels of banned substances that could not possibly have affected the outcome of a race. In the end you cannot change human nature, so draw a line in the sand and only deal with what come across it.

Nobody doubted that Mapei's "program" was better than all the rest at the 96 Paris Roubaix. The problem is that very quickly, most other teams were riding with the same level of preparation. If the Bio Passport had been in place at that time, Museeuw, Bortolami, and Tafi would never have started instead of smoking the entire field by over 2.5 minutes. You might say they got a little greedy there... hmmm, that human nature thing. I say put the onus back on the riders and teams to monitor blood levels and keep them within acceptable parameters. If they do, they get to race. If they don't, they get to watch it on television. What's in the rider's and team's best interests?... and what's in the best interests of the sport?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Dear Doctor,

I realize this is pretty much down to a personal discussion between you and I, so I will try to make my point, and we can move on to other threads.

Before I address each of your key points - I appreciate your responses.

I should add my views are not as black & white as I think you believe. I spend most of my time in the grey.
I believe our views are for the most part very similar. It is the solutions where we disagree.

As best I can tell we fundamentally disagree on a basic premise. It seems that you also believe that doping cannot be eradicated, but maybe controlled or reduced through regulation and enforcement. Basically, if they create more rules and enforce them things can possibly get better. Let me know if I have that wrong.

By in large correct - but the key word you mentioned is enforcement.
This (IMO) is the current difficulty as the rules are not applied evenly and correctly - and are open to manipulation, favoritism and corruption.

Human nature shows that if rules are unevenly applied then the rules are not respected.

I understand your position and desire to see the sport come to a better place, with a more level playing field. I don't disagree with the principal behind your position, but I believe it relies too much on official oversight and basic honesty and at least some integrity among the majority of people involved.

Ok... by in large I agree, except I don't believe there is such a thing as a "level playing field", with or without PED's....

My position is that man is basically a self interested animal, and will always do what is in his own best interests, and always take the risks of getting caught if the potential prize is deemed to be worth it. So while you would advocate making and enforcing rules to corral and direct riders behavior to move them in a direction. I advocate making it in their best interests to move towards the desired objective.

Agree - which is why control of anti-doping should be taken away from the UCI to an independent body.
The UCI have a very obvious conflict of interest.

Would you pass a UCI drug test if you were tested today? I would not. I take DHEA as a supplement, and if you are over 40 and athletically competitive, you probably should too. I also regularly use a 1% cortisone creme on chafes or abrasions I get routinely from cycling and rowing. I infrequently use an inhaler when certain allergies act up. All of which I would test positive for. Yes I am a doper.

Simple answer - yes I would pass a test.
Yes - you are taking products that are on the banned list. But you are doing so for your health - not to gain an advantage on your competitors. Which is the key difference.
This is why TUE's are available for all the products you consume.

The point is that there are health regimens associated with just being active, and as you dial up the intensity the regimen gets more complicated. I know, and compete against Masters athletes who regularly use testosterone and HGH under a doctors supervision as part of an anti aging program. I wish I could get my health plan to cover that, because I would too. There are plenty of positive affirmation in the medical community for these products use in supervised dosages and situations. Hell they're advertising for "Low T" or testosterone to men in my age group on television these days.

I personally believe that many banned substances could actually help a professional cyclist be better prepared to compete and help him live a longer and more productive life. I am tired of the the drama and press around doping positives that really aren't PED's, and the damage done to athletes careers. But I am also not in favor of watching a rider with a hematocrit of 160 drop the entire field on an HC col. We've already seen too much of that.

You see this is where you misjudge my opinions on anti-doping.

Everything you wrote is correct - and to a point I would have no issue with certain products being allowed, and definitely recreational drugs that have no effect on performance being removed.

Hopefully one of the positive effects from the Contador saga is a more common sense application specific to each individual sport.

But this should have been addressed when Harding or Fuyu Li was controlled - not when AC was. Again this exposes the unfairness on how the rules are applied.

Yes - when you are over 40 you will not have the same sensations as a younger rider -but this is why there is a separate category in the first place.

For me there is just too much grey area where others see only black and white. I say let the Bio Passport find the egregious offenders, and those dumb enough to not monitor their blood values closely. And stop ending careers for levels of banned substances that could not possibly have affected the outcome of a race. In the end you cannot change human nature, so draw a line in the sand and only deal with what come across it.

Again - we have seen the Bio Passport used to prosecute some and not others.

You appear to have a poor view of Human nature - I think most people accept and abide by rules. Of course there will always be those who try to circumvent those rules for their advantage but with proper enforcement they can be identified, tested and sanctioned appropriately.

Nobody doubted that Mapei's "program" was better than all the rest at the 96 Paris Roubaix. The problem is that very quickly, most other teams were riding with the same level of preparation. If the Bio Passport had been in place at that time, Museeuw, Bortolami, and Tafi would never have started instead of smoking the entire field by over 2.5 minutes. You might say they got a little greedy there... hmmm, that human nature thing. I say put the onus back on the riders and teams to monitor blood levels and keep them within acceptable parameters. If they do, they get to race. If they don't, they get to watch it on television. What's in the rider's and team's best interests?... and what's in the best interests of the sport?

All your points would be correct except you have omitted one very important group.
The riders who - for various reasons - do not want to dope.

Legalizing doping only turns Cycling in to a chemistry competition - the winners are the Doctors and athletes are merely lab rats or 'subjects'.

That is not a sport.

 

[VeloFidelis]

OK, it seems we are of similar minds on most points, but I would refer to two points that you have made here. If I am taking substances on the banned list for my overall health, then so to is a pro. The demands on his system in an 8 or 9 month season are much greater than mine, and maintenance of his overall health a much bigger concern.

The other point is that I am not advocating legalizing doping. Rather decriminalizing certain drugs, and probably most of what is now banned, in favor of monitoring safe blood levels for every athlete. If blood levels are not maintained then you have de-facto drug abuse. If levels are maintained, who cares what is being used. In the end the athlete has two basic considerations; optimum performance inside Bio Passport mandates, and long term health to produce a long and productive season. I believe those incentives and self interests would generate the motivation for compliance.

Laurent Fignon passed recently from cancer. Thankfully I have not read any insinuating comments attempting to connect that cancer to his admitted drug use during his career. The first generation of EPO abusers, those 160+ hematocrit riders, are now in their mid forties. I am not seeing an epidemic of health concerns that can be connected to their time in the peloton. Bugno, Museeuw, Riis, et all, still look like that can punish any of us who would try to hold their wheel. I may well be proven wrong, but I do not subscribe to the philosophy that we are saving the riders from eventual health problems. The Bio Passport, properly deployed, would keep their blood levels cleaner and safer than the previous generation.

If we both believe that full compliance through legislation and enforcement is unattainable, then we have to accept a certain amount of "preparation" as a necessary component of the sport. If we do accept it, then we will no longer have selective enforcement.

 

[Benotti69]

OK, it seems we are of similar minds on most points, but I would refer to two points that you have made here. If I am taking substances on the banned list for my overall health, then so to is a pro. The demands on his system in an 8 or 9 month season are much greater than mine, and maintenance of his overall health a much bigger concern.

not too many ride 8/9 months anymore.

The other point is that I am not advocating legalizing doping. Rather decriminalizing certain drugs, and probably most of what is now banned, in favor of monitoring safe blood levels for every athlete. If blood levels are not maintained then you have de-facto drug abuse. If levels are maintained, who cares what is being used. In the end the athlete has two basic considerations; optimum performance inside Bio Passport mandates, and long term health to produce a long and productive season. I believe those incentives and self interests would generate the motivation for compliance.

Micro dosing will help some riders more than others which makes it not at all a level playing field. What is acceptably level is racing with your natural talents, training and intellect. Even race radios give unfair advantage to certain teams/riders over others imo.

Laurent Fignon passed recently from cancer. Thankfully I have not read any insinuating comments attempting to connect that cancer to his admitted drug use during his career. The first generation of EPO abusers, those 160+ hematocrit riders, are now in their mid forties. I am not seeing an epidemic of health concerns that can be connected to their time in the peloton. Bugno, Museeuw, Riis, et all, still look like that can punish any of us who would try to hold their wheel. I may well be proven wrong, but I do not subscribe to the philosophy that we are saving the riders from eventual health problems. The Bio Passport, properly deployed, would keep their blood levels cleaner and safer than the previous generation.

go and talk to a few footaballers who got injections to enable them to play through their injuries and who are now suffereing from them. How do you know when it affects someone's health. Sean Yates sufffered a stroke recently. He denied it was PED related, would he admit it?

Also by allowing riders to PED with limits is asking for all kinds of skullduggery to go on.

If we both believe that full compliance through legislation and enforcement is unattainable, then we have to accept a certain amount of "preparation" as a necessary component of the sport. If we do accept it, then we will no longer have selective enforcement.

If you officially accept 'preparation' you can close the books as it becomes what the chemists can manufacture to enhance performance within those levels whether it is dangerous or not. Along as it does not exceed the level no one cares about the possible detriment of a riders health. END OF!

Not answering on behalf of the good Dr Maserati, just adding my own thoughts.

 

[offbyone]

So do we then legalize mechanical doping too?

Sorry you either say no to all doping or you can't draw a line. This guy should lose his job immediately for saying this.

 

[VeloFidelis]

[I[]not too many ride 8/9 months anymore.[/I]

They may not race for 8 months, but they train seriously for 10.

Micro dosing will help some riders more than others which makes it not at all a level playing field. What is acceptably level is racing with your natural talents, training and intellect. Even race radios give unfair advantage to certain teams/riders over others imo.

There is nothing level bout the playing field in any sport. Natural talents are a variable and some athletes are better than others, that is the nature of sport. We tune in for one of two reasons; to see our expectations play out or to cheer an upset.

go and talk to a few footaballers who got injections to enable them to play through their injuries and who are now suffereing from them. How do you know when it affects someone's health. Sean Yates sufffered a stroke recently. He denied it was PED related, would he admit it?

Football played with out drugs has lasting affects on your health, so it's not a very useable example. How about doing a comprehensive health study on the worst PED offenders in the history of sport; every cyclist who stood on a podium in the 90's? Most of whom seem pretty unaffected to me, but I would gladly yield to any comprehensive data that showed otherwise.

By the way, how would Sean Yates even know if his stroke was related to PED's? Stoke is the 3rd leading cause of death in the U.S., and someone has one every 40 seconds, 24/7.

Also by allowing riders to PED with limits is asking for all kinds of skullduggery to go on.

... and no kind of skullduggery is going on now??

If you officially accept 'preparation' you can close the books as it becomes what the chemists can manufacture to enhance performance within those levels whether it is dangerous or not. Along as it does not exceed the level no one cares about the possible detriment of a riders health. END OF!

If you are currently a cycling fan, and I am assuming that you are, then you are already a fan of a system that is far more "enhanced" than the one I am advocating. Which one would you really prefer?

Not answering on behalf of the good Dr Maserati, just adding my own thoughts.

 

[VeloFidelis]

[I[]not too many ride 8/9 months anymore.[/I]

They may not race for 8 months, but they train seriously for 10.

Micro dosing will help some riders more than others which makes it not at all a level playing field. What is acceptably level is racing with your natural talents, training and intellect. Even race radios give unfair advantage to certain teams/riders over others imo.

There is nothing level bout the playing field in any sport. Natural talents are a variable and some athletes are better than others, that is the nature of sport. We tune in for one of two reasons; to see our expectations play out or to cheer an upset.

go and talk to a few footaballers who got injections to enable them to play through their injuries and who are now suffereing from them. How do you know when it affects someone's health. Sean Yates sufffered a stroke recently. He denied it was PED related, would he admit it?

Football played with out drugs has lasting affects on your health, so it's not a very useable example. How about doing a comprehensive health study on the worst PED offenders in the history of sport; every cyclist who stood on a podium in the 90's? Most of whom seem pretty unaffected to me, but I would gladly yield to any comprehensive data that showed otherwise.

By the way, how would Sean Yates even know if his stroke was related to PED's? Stoke is the 3rd leading cause of death in the U.S., and someone has one every 40 seconds, 24/7.

Also by allowing riders to PED with limits is asking for all kinds of skullduggery to go on.

... and no kind of skullduggery is going on now??

If you officially accept 'preparation' you can close the books as it becomes what the chemists can manufacture to enhance performance within those levels whether it is dangerous or not. Along as it does not exceed the level no one cares about the possible detriment of a riders health. END OF!

If you are currently a cycling fan, and I am assuming that you are, then you are already a fan of a system that is far more "enhanced" than the one I am advocating. Which one would you really prefer?

Not answering on behalf of the good Dr Maserati, just adding my own thoughts.

 

[TubularBills]

Wow. Congratulations gentlemen, this is the most thoughtful, polite, poignant and diplomatic exchange I've read in the clinic - it isn't an anomaly, in that within some thread topics, strings of exchanges maintain this degree of objectivity. But, it is refreshing to read a thread that doesn't rapidly degrade to name calling, pure unsupported supposition and subjective reasoning. This is a 'dialogue' and a demonstration of a Forum's potential.

Chapeau and thank you!

 

[Benotti69]

They may not race for 8 months, but they train seriously for 10.

but training is not racing, there is a difference. LeMond ended his career due to suffering in racing and he reckoned he over trained.

There is nothing level bout the playing field in any sport. Natural talents are a variable and some athletes are better than others, that is the nature of sport. We tune in for one of two reasons; to see our expectations play out or to cheer an upset.

Exactly. But natural talents give the fairest playing field. Some are blessed with a better natural strength, others intellect and the best riders use the all their talents to the best of their abilities. Many a time the wily old dog has beaten the young faster pro.

Football played with out drugs has lasting affects on your health, so it's not a very useable example. How about doing a comprehensive health study on the worst PED offenders in the history of sport; every cyclist who stood on a podium in the 90's? Most of whom seem pretty unaffected to me, but I would gladly yield to any comprehensive data that showed otherwise.

Footballers have regurlarly played with drugs whether pain killing injections to help them play through the pain. A Cameroon player died on the pitch, Marc-Vivien Foe died after he collapsed in the heat during the Confederations Cup,"I have spoken with the doctor. It was like a heart attack," Blatter told The Associated Press. "I saw that he collapsed and I immediately had a bad feeling," said Blatter.

... and no kind of skullduggery is going on now??

But if you legalise Skullduggery it would not put an end to it it would make it ten times worse as it would open the flood gates to chemists trying out and out to produce PEDS that make huge gains but under the legal limits etc....

If you are currently a cycling fan, and I am assuming that you are, then you are already a fan of a system that is far more "enhanced" than the one I am advocating. Which one would you really prefer?

I am a fan of cycling but watch it with the knowledge of what i have read on here and suspected for a long time watching a texan doing un-believable things on a bike, but the seed was sown when Indurain went past Robert Millar on a Pyrenean Col. That was wrong and i knew it was.

I personally feel that the system is so bad because the UCi allows it to be to the detriment of the sport. Instead of cleaning the pooh they stupidly sweep it under the carpet where they hope nobody will notice the smell. Ha!

Because the UCI behaves this way, teams (and i believe it is the teams that encourage and implement it) will continue to take the risks. They are on a win win because it is the rider who gets sanctioned, and they probably dont pay them when they get caught, keep all their bonuses etc....

The technology is fast catching up with the PEDs. Their will always be riders willing to risk doping because they are stupid and dont trust their abilities.

I think it is actually easier for the sport to continue without the PEDs if the riders want it. But the greed of those around the riders dont want it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

OK, it seems we are of similar minds on most points, but I would refer to two points that you have made here. If I am taking substances on the banned list for my overall health, then so to is a pro. The demands on his system in an 8 or 9 month season are much greater than mine, and maintenance of his overall health a much bigger concern.

The products you are taking is to restore levels as they diminish with age - most pro's are in 20's & 30's.

The drugs I am talking about are Performance Enhancing Drugs.
EPO, blood boosting and the 40 different products Manzano admitted taking have little to offer the health of a rider.

The other point is that I am not advocating legalizing doping. Rather decriminalizing certain drugs, and probably most of what is now banned, in favor of monitoring safe blood levels for every athlete. If blood levels are not maintained then you have de-facto drug abuse. If levels are maintained, who cares what is being used. In the end the athlete has two basic considerations; optimum performance inside Bio Passport mandates, and long term health to produce a long and productive season. I believe those incentives and self interests would generate the motivation for compliance.

Isn't "decriminalizing" most of whats on the current banned list essentially legalizing it?

Laurent Fignon passed recently from cancer. Thankfully I have not read any insinuating comments attempting to connect that cancer to his admitted drug use during his career. The first generation of EPO abusers, those 160+ hematocrit riders, are now in their mid forties. I am not seeing an epidemic of health concerns that can be connected to their time in the peloton. Bugno, Museeuw, Riis, et all, still look like that can punish any of us who would try to hold their wheel. I may well be proven wrong, but I do not subscribe to the philosophy that we are saving the riders from eventual health problems. The Bio Passport, properly deployed, would keep their blood levels cleaner and safer than the previous generation.

How many riders died before they worked out the correct dose of EPO?

The primary motivation for some to dope is to gain an advantage.
Legalizing or relaxing anti-doping rules would encourage those who want to gain an advantage to try the latest products with little knowledge of the dangers associated.

If we both believe that full compliance through legislation and enforcement is unattainable, then we have to accept a certain amount of "preparation" as a necessary component of the sport. If we do accept it, then we will no longer have selective enforcement.

No - I have no faith in enforcement in its current guise - as it has been shown time and again to be corrupt.
Hence my reasons for having anti-doping administered by an independent authority.

 

[AnythingButKestrel]

Legalizing or relaxing anti-doping rules would encourage those who want to gain an advantage to try the latest products with little knowledge of the dangers associated.

I really have gone back and forth with that view as well. But I'm not so sure that simply allowing athletes to use doping products under the guidance of a physician isn't the best alternative. They're already experimenting on their own anyway.

It really seems like there's been a stream of "advances" over the years that were ballyhooed to be the magic bullet that would end doping. Yet here we are, and all that's happened is that chemical doping has been toned down to a dull roar. Oddy, nobody's even *talking* about genetic doping, which if you believe the rumors is the next great frontier, if it's not already occurring.

I'm not sure that there's really a way to regulate doping short of "super-max" incarceration for the duration of an athlete's career. The level of supervision required to successfully prohibit doping is pretty much antithetical to living in a free society. Getting the doping out into the open may be the best way to reduce the health hazards.

Pro cycling may need to be regarded as just another high-risk occupation where people have to weigh the risks against the paycheck and choose accordingly. I'd love for it to be clean, but with the payout delta between "winner" and "loser" I don't see it ever happening.

 

[snackattack]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/italian-judge-says-doping-is-still-a-problem-in-cycling

 

[sniper]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/italian-judge-says-doping-is-still-a-problem-in-cycling

some interesting statements in that interview:

"Not all of cycling is bad but things aren't looking good and believe me, nothing has changed. It's not true that the situation has improved in the last few years.

compare that to Vaughters' "it's so much cleaner now".

and surprise surprise:

"Riders have recently told me that there are substances in use that can't be found by anti-doping tests. One is Erythropoietin Z by Retacrit, it's known as EPO Z. There's a Chinese EPO that has been released, I don't know its name but it can’t be found (in tests) and was definitely the queen of the Olympics. There's also AICAR, that is brought in from the East as a powder and is apparently a kind of genetic doping. In simple terms, it helps reset muscle fibres after huge efforts. It can't be found in anti-doping tests either."

"the queen of the Olympics", nice.

 

[blackcat]

"the queen of the Olympics", nice.

I thought Carl Lewis or Ian Thorpe were the Queens of the Olympics.

Lewis for the glutes, and Thorpe before his shave down, for the chest hair. If you are into that...

 

[thehog]

some interesting statements in that interview:
compare that to Vaughters' "it's so much cleaner now".

and surprise surprise:

"the queen of the Olympics", nice.

What he means its just the dirty Europeans not the British. They don't dope.

 

[ChrisE]

some interesting statements in that interview:
compare that to Vaughters' "it's so much cleaner now".
.

Yeah, it's much cleaner now, and then in the next sentence he pleads to triple the testing budget while his clean rider is winning the giro.

JV takes the gullible in the clinic for a joy ride.

 

[Tinman]

Roberti may make an excellent choice as next UCI president. Says all the right things and seems to have a backbone. Interview very timely in the current lull of news and seeming reversal to the old Omerta ways.

 

[Michele]

Does anyone know where those new products are made?
Cause a friend told me that it's made in Canada but by searching on google I couldnt find any info.

Cause by being mean, as we say in Italy, there would be a lot of connection with suspicious performances from canadians; Hejedal winning Giro, Veilleux having some of the best weeks of his life, and the canadian connection Barry at Team Sky.

 

[Ferminal]

Don't need Canadian dope when you ride for Europcar

 

[classicomano]

There's a Chinese EPO that has been released, I don't know its name but it can’t be found (in tests) and was definitely the queen of the Olympics.

 

[will10]

How are Garmin and Sky beating everyone on these new undetectable PEDs?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

How are Garmin and Sky beating everyone on these new undetectable PEDs?

Marginal gains:
* warming down
* washing their hands properly
* 40 minute, 50rpm hill efforts improving 96rpm TT efforts
* having their own pillows at hotels
* altitude training camps
* training harder than they race
* racing to win, not for training