- Nov 8, 2012
- 12,104
- 0
- 0
Your posts continue their steep decline.MarkvW said:You must be right! There's no big doping scandal in the NFL . . ..
Your posts continue their steep decline.MarkvW said:You must be right! There's no big doping scandal in the NFL . . ..
But, but, but, the UCI/Bio Pass says he was clean, Damsgaard says so and Anne Gripper says also...Bosco10 said:I was just watching the Oprah interview again. She asks Lance if it was possible to win the TdF without doping. He answers no. Maybe Oprah should have asked if it was possible to place on the TdF podium without doping. That would have cornered Lance with his claim of being clean in 2009.
I'm not providing links to the obvious. Doping in the NFL is a huge open scandal.Scott SoCal said:Your posts continue their steep decline.
Scott SoCal said:Does anybody think or know if Hein and Pat are the only one's who hold the secrets? Does Gripper or Carpani (others??) culpable?
It's a little hard to believe Pat could be the only one involved if passport results were withheld from panelists and interpretation.
Cool. Thanks for the hard-hitting well-researched dot-connecting.MarkvW said:I'm not providing links to the obvious. Doping in the NFL is a huge open scandal.
Weeks ago while googling I saw an internet story that spoke of the biggest scandal in sports history....turned out to be the Manti Te'o imaginary GF story....Race Radio said:Really? Do you have a link to this NFL scandal? It must be big news
What has become of football.....imaginary girlfriends!!! Never had any of those when I was in high school. Or university. Or yesterday afternoon.FitSsikS said:Weeks ago while googling I saw an internet story that spoke of the biggest scandal in sports history....turned out to be the Manti Te'o imaginary GF story....
...........................................
Back to the NFL, the only scandal is that there is no scandal.
Back in the day, when it came to acquiring imaginary GFs, I could really hold my hold own.Fortyninefourteen said:What has become of football.....imaginary girlfriends!!! Never had any of those when I was in high school. Or university. Or yesterday afternoon.
To quote one of my favorite movie lines, "I do not think that word means what you think it means."MarkvW said:I'm not providing links to the obvious. Doping in the NFL is a huge open scandal.
..........FitSsikS said:Back in the day, when it came to acquiring imaginary GFs, I could really hold my hold own.
You've taken the topic to its inevitable end--a discussion about the meaning of the word "scandal."gjdavis60 said:To quote one of my favorite movie lines, "I do not think that word means what you think it means."
"Scandal" denotes public outrage and attention. While I agree with your suspicion that there is widespread use of PEDs in the NFL, the public consternation simply isn't there. I believe this has everything to do with the way the league is manged.
I can't speak for Americans or NFL fans but it may be scandalous that they don't know or don't care about doping in the NFL.MarkvW said:You've taken the topic to its inevitable end--a discussion about the meaning of the word "scandal."
Anyway, I'm convinced that in the USA far more people are outraged by doping in the NFL than are outraged by doping in pro cycling. And I'm also convinced that in the USA doping in the NFL has been given far more attention over the years than doping in the European peloton. So I don't think my use of the term was unwarranted.
The way I read the story at Velonation, they confused the APMU and testing and mixed the term software into the confusion. I think the UCI likes the story that confusing though.RownhamHill said:Can someone help me understand how the blood passport is supposed to work?
From what I can gather, in the first instance the blood values are put through some computer analysis, and if they fall outside given parameters they are forwarded to an expert panel for extra scrutiny?
As I understand the WADA documentation, the non-suspicious test results means the APMU does not pass on the results to an expert. Why would they? Passing results to an expert generates meaningful costs. The anti-doping experts are not working for free.RownhamHill said:In Lance's case, from what I can gather, his profile was randomly scrutinised in May 2009, signed off as normal,
No. Statistics is pretty good at establishing good-enough sample sizes such that one can be confident testing a small population as representative of the whole.RownhamHill said:- are all blood values scrutinised through the computer analysis as a matter of course, on an ongoing basis?
Here's where things get murky and IMHO that is intentional.RownhamHill said:can anyone speculate why Lance's profile didn't ever trigger that after the Tour? (corruption? dodgy modelling? the profile wasn't that dodgy in the first place?)
Some positives are handled swiftly with the rider vanishing from the elite peloton and others drag on, or stranger still, the UCI pursues sketchy cases for years, or figure out the swiftest penalty phase possible. That's the same kind of mystery.Scott SoCal said:Does anybody think or know if Hein and Pat are the only one's who hold the secrets? Does Gripper or Carpani (others??) culpable?
It's a little hard to believe Pat could be the only one involved if passport results were withheld from panelists and interpretation.
I think because the NFL has a *much* bigger audience, any bit of doping controversy in the NFL is seen by many more people. Are many in that gigantic audience outraged? I don't think so. I think if they were, the anti-doping enforcement process would exist outside the sports league.MarkvW said:I'm convinced that in the USA far more people are outraged by doping in the NFL than are outraged by doping in pro cycling.
I think cycling gets so much control because the riders' union is pathetically weak. If the riders had a stronger union, then they could negotiate a lot of "due process" and privacy protections that would eviscerate the current antidoping model.DirtyWorks said:I think because the NFL has a *much* bigger audience, any bit of doping controversy in the NFL is seen by many more people. Are many in that gigantic audience outraged? I don't think so. I think if they were, the anti-doping enforcement process would exist outside the sports league.
The NFL behaves in a stimulus-response manner just like the UCI. If an athlete health story gets out of control, they make a little change.
Exactly. Except that the NFL manages its image effectively. As far as I know there is no widespread public interest in doping in the NFL as gauged by the number of new stories being produced on the topic.DirtyWorks said:The NFL behaves in a stimulus-response manner just like the UCI. If an athlete health story gets out of control, they make a little change.
It's much easier for the NFL to manage because they don't have a global media figure yelling "I'm clean, I'm clean, you doubters are all crap" for 10 years.gjdavis60 said:Exactly. Except that the NFL manages its image effectively. As far as I know there is no widespread public interest in doping in the NFL as gauged by the number of new stories being produced on the topic.
What is making headlines and taking up copious print space is the controversy over head trauma where the NFL is currently under intense scrutiny. Much, much more than doping.
But this, too shall be managed and shall pass.
The NFL would eat Armstrong for breakfast. The owners would sacrifice him in a heartbeat if he threatened the brand.reginagold said:It's much easier for the NFL to manage because they don't have a global media figure yelling "I'm clean, I'm clean, you doubters are all crap" for 10 years.
Indeed. I suppose it's easier for the NFL owners to throw dopers under the bus since the NFL owners aren't themselves a bunch of ex dopers.gjdavis60 said:The NFL would eat Armstrong for breakfast. The owners would sacrifice him in a heartbeat if he threatened the brand.
Just my opinion, and sorry to go so OT ... the NFL understands its mission, its business, and its market, and its actions are consistent with that understanding. It protects its brand and the interests of its stakeholders. It provides a product of high quality that perennially satisfies its customers and attracts sponsors consistent with the image it wants to cultivate around the sport.reginagold said:Indeed. I suppose it's easier for the NFL owners to throw dopers under the bus since the NFL owners aren't themselves a bunch of ex dopers.
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Scene from a Lance Armstrong Documentary I want to find | The Clinic | 2 |
Similar threads |
---|
Scene from a Lance Armstrong Documentary I want to find |