Doping according to some

[Ninety5rpm]

> Until one has done some serious cycling reading

OMG! I didn't spell "peloton" just right in a post I whipped out! No need to get hostile or insulting about it.

That said, as far as I know, all of us on this forum are "ignorant" about the doping situation. Unless you're getting first hand information, it's all just speculation, or in technical, serious cycling terms, "talking out you ***" All we know is who gets caught for stuff.

BTW, I do my "serious cycling reading" in Italian, not French, so I'm more used to "plotone", or simply "il gruppo".

Relax, man. Whether the correlation actually applies in your particular case is entirely beside the point - which was meant to be humorous. No need to take it so seriously!

The notion that it's either "firsthand information" or "all just speculation" is a false dichotomy. Yeah, we're all ignorant about doping in cycling, and whether OJ did it, because we lack firsthand information.

 

[Mr.DNA]

It's obvious that in 1994 they started training harder!

 

[BikeCentric]

Oooh, "not very smart"! Well... nothing to say to that, I guess you got me with your witty repartee. No... wait, I have one: you big doody head! So there!

Sheez...

Look David, obviously I'm kind of a dic*, but the point I'm trying to make is that you're wasting your time by attacking your fellow fans for talking about doping. They aren't the problem, they didn't cause the problem, and they aren't going to help the problem by ignoring it and hoping it goes away.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Why are you hopeful? Because every few months they catch someone who is doing something that can finally be detected? That gives you something to hope for? Really?

Didn't say I thought this would magically make the entire sport whistle clean. It never will, ever. But it might make it cleaner, and help discourage doping. What's the other choice, just throw up your arms like Hein Verbruggen and accept doping? Only watch golf (wait, those guys use steroids)? I think Bike put it well, below:

(The fans) aren't the problem, they didn't cause the problem, and they aren't going to help the problem by ignoring it and hoping it goes away.

 

[Anonymous]

Look David, obviously I'm kind of a dic*, but the point I'm trying to make is that you're wasting your time by attacking your fellow fans for talking about doping. They aren't the problem, they didn't cause the problem, and they aren't going to help the problem by ignoring it and hoping it goes away.

I am a dicl< too, and I agree with everything else also.

+1

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Didn't say I thought this would magically make the entire sport whistle clean. It never will, ever. But it might make it cleaner, and help discourage doping. What's the other choice, just throw up your arms like Hein Verbruggen and accept doping? Only watch golf (wait, those guys use steroids)? I think Bike put it well, below:

The choices are necessarily:

1) Do something effective (beyond what is already being done).
2) Do something ineffective.
3) Do nothing (beyond what is already being done).

I see no advantage in (2) over (3), do you? Further, since doing something always has a cost as compared to doing nothing, (3) is almost always preferable to (2).

So, yeah, since we can't come up with anything in the (1) category, the best that can be done is (drum roll) nothing.

 

[workingclasshero]

It's obvious that in 1994 they started training harder!

 

[davidw]

Didn't say I thought this would magically make the entire sport whistle clean. It never will, ever. But it might make it cleaner, and help discourage doping. What's the other choice, just throw up your arms like Hein Verbruggen and accept doping? Only watch golf (wait, those guys use steroids)? I think Bike put it well, below:

I'm not completely opposed to discussing this stuff, but the 'witch hunt' mentality strikes me as not all that productive...

V: What makes you think she is a witch?
P2: Well, she turned me into a newt!
V: A newt?!
(P2 pause & look around)
P2: I got better.
(pause)
P3: Burn her anyway! (burn her burn her burn!)
(king walks in)
V: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
P1: Are there? Well then tell us! (tell us)
V: Tell me... what do you do with witches?
P3: Burn'em! Burn them up! (burn burn burn)
V: What do you burn apart from witches?
P1: More witches! (P2 nudge P1)
(pause)
P3: Wood!
V: So, why do witches burn?
(long pause)
P2: Cuz they're made of... wood?

If you want to promote fighting it, you have to look at the incentives. Here's an economist looking at doping in baseball:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/how-do-we-get-baseball-players-to-stop-doping/

Basically, she's saying that currently, if you do, the worst that can happen is that you end up more or less as you would have been had you never doped. The best that can happen is that you're a whole lot better off. Naturally it's not quite so simple, but looking at the positives and negatives and making them tip in favor of 'no' is what needs to happen.

All in all, though, it ends up being a horse that gets beaten, killed, stabbed, shot, and backed over numerous times by various motor vehicles.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm not completely opposed to discussing this stuff, but the 'witch hunt' mentality strikes me as not all that productive...

V: What makes you think she is a witch?
P2: Well, she turned me into a newt!
V: A newt?!
(P2 pause & look around)
P2: I got better.
(pause)
P3: Burn her anyway! (burn her burn her burn!)
(king walks in)
V: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
P1: Are there? Well then tell us! (tell us)
V: Tell me... what do you do with witches?
P3: Burn'em! Burn them up! (burn burn burn)
V: What do you burn apart from witches?
P1: More witches! (P2 nudge P1)
(pause)
P3: Wood!
V: So, why do witches burn?
(long pause)
P2: Cuz they're made of... wood?

If you want to promote fighting it, you have to look at the incentives. Here's an economist looking at doping in baseball:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/how-do-we-get-baseball-players-to-stop-doping/

Basically, she's saying that currently, if you do, the worst that can happen is that you end up more or less as you would have been had you never doped. The best that can happen is that you're a whole lot better off. Naturally it's not quite so simple, but looking at the positives and negatives and making them tip in favor of 'no' is what needs to happen.

All in all, though, it ends up being a horse that gets beaten, killed, stabbed, shot, and backed over numerous times by various motor vehicles.

I''l take a dead horse over an ostrich any day.