Doping in other sports?

[More Strides than Rides]

So, American Jenny Simpson has taken her 5th Diamond league win in a row yesterday in Rome. World Gold and Silver medals to boot, 2014 DL champion. Broke BALCO's Regina Jacob's 2 mile record in February, which had been set the year before Regina got caught (2002).

Imagine any Turkish or Russian athlete with the same palmares, but the US's golden girl is just an example of "USA's incredible depth!"

 

[Cloxxki]

Re:

This will be the same BBC that are frequently accused of "looking the other way"....being partisan etc. It will be interesting to see if Travis goes after Alberto.

I think this is in fact the BBC that reported half an hour early on the collapse of Building 7 (still proudly standing in the background) with zero reason to expect it to collapse, not having been hit by an airliner or anything. This absolutely huge building then never again received as much as a mention on mainstream commentary.

It is look here, not there season. Dopers are being fed to the lions so the crowd has something to keep them off the streets.

 

[ray j willings]

Re: Re:

This will be the same BBC that are frequently accused of "looking the other way"....being partisan etc. It will be interesting to see if Travis goes after Alberto.

I think this is in fact the BBC that reported half an hour early on the collapse of Building 7 (still proudly standing in the background) with zero reason to expect it to collapse, not having been hit by an airliner or anything. This absolutely huge building then never again received as much as a mention on mainstream commentary.

It is look here, not there season. Dopers are being fed to the lions so the crowd has something to keep them off the streets.

Don't go there I already done 9/11 in another thread. I posted link after link. Answered every single question
Showed CIA , FBI whistle blowers including members of Bush's own administration. I showed a link from pilots for 9/11 truth that proved with out a doubt that no civil airliner could fly at those speeds at sea level.
I showed links from ex Fox news reporter that proved how the bush administration tied the media up. I showed a links that show the CIA have had up to 400 of the top US journalists on their payroll.
No one could explain how car engines melted together that were parked nearly a mile away from the WTC.
Some one the thread said it was the heat from the bulidings Funny how it did not burn all that paper flying around or the trees near by and left plastic parts of the cars intact and never burnt to death one person a half a mile away.
I gave up in the end. But feel free to go over there and try again . I will have your back.

cheers

 

[Poursuivant]

Re: Re:

Farah will stop being british if he is implicated in anything so this won't be nearly as satisfying as if they had managed to take down Radcliffe.

I think Farah is easily safe.

I mean if Radcliffe actually appeared on a list as a doper which dozens of journalists have seen, and everyone is perfectly fine with it, Farah working with a guy who doped people is not going to take him down.

I mean its not like the hero's of clean sport are viewed as tainted by these people despite working with Jullich and Lienders and a bunch of others who we know were also doping their athletes.

I've heard a lot of mention to Salazar's "scientific techniques". Kind of like you know who. And like with Brailsfraud they don't seem to come up with any explanation on what these are and how they actually help and why someone would use them instead of drugs which clearly do help.

Still situation is a bit strange to me. I'm surprised to see BBC go after someone so closely connected to one of the big "heroes" of the olympics. This is a network that gave you the 2012 olympic coverage.

2 explanations come to mind. 1 is that a few departments within the beeb are given very high degrees of independence and allowed to produce quality work. I remember seeing BBC This World produce a documentary on Rwanda last year that I could never imagine making it onto the main channels.
The other is that Farah hasn't proved himself to be as markatable as was hoped or even that the 15 minutes are over. The 2012 Olympics like any sporting event are 99% about making people fell good THEN. No one wants the "legacy" tarnished, but at the same time there isn't the same motivation to shield every single athlete from reputation damage, that there would have been 3 years ago.

I was shocked as well when I saw it was on the BBC.
I think since the report has come out they have not made a big issue as they could have concerning the implications for Mo.
I just don't trust the media so I think your right, for Mo it will go away.
I mean there is no Fu%%ing way that all those involved with that report can think Rudd is the only one taking PED's.
I hate Tygart, but maybe he has the sort of stubborn independence that could blow the whole thing open.
I just don't see the Beeb digging any deeper.
I thought the stuff on Alan Wells was a complete waste of time. I mean that was years ago.
It's like saying Merckx doped ,,,no one gives a sh%t.
Like I Said , Mo his a mainstream media figure they will not want him busted.
I'm off to have some Quorn

Why do you hate Travis Tygart?

 

[ray j willings]

Because IMO his take down of Armstrong was a waste of time and huge amounts of money.
We all knew lance was doping we all knew Flo Jo was doping . Its done Cycling no favours.
Before you or anyone else says Armstrong was a bully etc so are other top sportsman, so are politicians "far more dangerous" so are actors , so are teachers. so are policemen. That's not about doping that's about behaviour .Armstrong did not handled being top dawg as well as he should have but that's not a crime.

Have riders stopped doping since ?

Have athletes in general stopped doping ?

Did all those sponsors who mad a fortune out of Armstrong return their profits of from the sales of Trek bikes.
Oakley glasses, Nike clothing. No they Fu%%ing didn't.
The whole thing has been a disaster and complete waste of time and just shows the bullsh%% hypocrisy of the Governing sporting bodies and the personal witch-hunt of a federal agent who's only interest was to make headlines and serve his ego.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Because IMO his take down of Armstrong was a waste of time and huge amounts of money.
We all knew lance was doping we all knew Flo Jo was doping . Its done Cycling no favours.
Before you or anyone else says Armstrong was a bully etc so are other top sportsman, so are politicians "far more dangerous" so are actors , so are teachers. so are policemen. That's not about doping that's about behaviour .Armstrong did not handled being top dawg as well as he should have but that's not a crime.

Have riders stopped doping since ?

Have athletes in general stopped doping ?

Did all those sponsors who mad a fortune out of Armstrong return their profits of from the sales of Trek bikes.
Oakley glasses, Nike clothing. No they Fu%%ing didn't.
The whole thing has been a disaster and complete waste of time and just shows the bullsh%% hypocrisy of the Governing sporting bodies and the personal witch-hunt of a federal agent who's only interest was to make headlines and serve his ego.

You are missing the point. The Armstrong case was/is a the most significant microcosm into a dirty rotten sport. It accomplished three main things, Firstly, it exposed the hypocrisy in cycling. Secondly, it solidly confirmed what most people who follow the sport believed, and that the whole peloton was rife with dope. It vindicated the sceptics. And lastly, it took a fraud, cheat, manipulator, bully, liar, and sorry excuse for a human being out of action. LA can no longer peddle his arrogant BS and profit from it and hurt any more cancer victims who were sucked in by his deceit.

Has it improved cycling? Marginally, maybe. But the fight for a clean sport goes on. Will it be won? Maybe, maybe not. But at least the general public for the most part, now knows the ugly truth, to not to take the sport seriously or to waste any money and emotion following the sport. I am suspect of virtually every race, so I don't bother to watch races anymore. Sponsors who invest money in cycling are nuts. People who waste their time arguing, trolling and debating minutiae in the Clinic are just spinning their wheels and getting their rocks off slagging other people.

What LA's case exposed is the depth of poverty and moral failing to which a morally bankrupt human being can stoop. LA's case is a lesson in what not to be as a person. It is time to just be content being on your bike, one of the purist, greatest feelings there is.

 

[sniper]

You are missing the point. The Armstrong case was/is a the most significant microcosm into a dirty rotten sport. It accomplished three main things, Firstly, it exposed the hypocrisy in cycling. Secondly, it solidly confirmed what most people who follow the sport believed, and that the whole peloton was rife with dope. It vindicated the sceptics. And lastly, it took a fraud, cheat, manipulator, bully, liar, and sorry excuse for a human being out of action. LA can no longer peddle his arrogant BS and profit from it and hurt any more cancer victims who were sucked in by his deceit.

Has it improved cycling? Marginally, maybe. But the fight for a clean sport goes on. Will it be won? Maybe, maybe not. But at least the general public for the most part, now knows the ugly truth, to not to take the sport seriously or to waste any money and emotion following the sport. I am suspect of virtually every race, so I don't bother to watch races anymore. Sponsors who invest money in cycling are nuts. People who waste their time arguing, trolling and debating minutiae in the Clinic are just spinning their wheels and getting their rocks off slagging other people.

What LA's case exposed is the depth of poverty and moral failing to which a morally bankrupt human being can stoop. LA's case is a lesson in what not to be as a person. It is time to just be content being on your bike, one of the purist, greatest feelings there is.

good post, but what 'fight for a clean sport'? Where?
Mainly, I'm happy Floyd was vindicated.
And happy it exposed Pat.
Verdruggen wasn't damaged though.
All in all, the gains of the whole USADA file have been marginal to the point of being negligible.
It's painful to see people like JV and Walsh exploit the story to their benefit whilst indulging (and thus silently promoting) the doping.
It was also painful to watch USADA make deals with Garmin riders.
Lance's downfall would've been much more enjoyable if it hadn't been for those exponents of hypocricy.
My evaluation of Tygart has improved dramatically owing to the Leinders investigation, though here too one wonders why only the past was touched upon, whilst the present generation remains out of focus.

 

[ray j willings]

Who did Armstrong kill exactly ....Most of those bleating on about Armstrong's behaviour were mighty quiet when they were on the Armstrong money train and those who missed like Betty are just angry and obsessed with it all.
Armstrong got a big head thought he was untouchable but that's nothing to do with doping that's about his behaviour as a man at the top of his sport
Armstrong seems the worse because that the story that's been in the headlines ,What about the East German woman athlete who had to change sex to a man because of PED's. There are far worse story's out there. Some we may or may not find out about.
Tygart did not have to go Just after Armstrong he could have went for cycling in general, what about T mobile ,CSC etc. But he didn't and the perception is all about Armstrong and all the others getting a get out of jail free card. His destruction of Armstrong has done nothing for this Cycling.
Doping his still rife, Nicole Cooke told it like it is.

 

[blackcat]

You are missing the point. The Armstrong case was/is a the most significant microcosm into a dirty rotten sport. It accomplished three main things.................

+1 good post. Right now, without the take down, Armstrong would be doing "play days" at the Tour with George Bush and Bill Clinton and getting ready to run for senate as well as bullying whoever in whatever way he wanted. Oprah would be doing some very different programs with Lance as guest - Cancer Jesus, who won bike races, to become saviour of everyone in the USA - in fact let's set him up for the Nobel peace prize.

Move away from the febrile atmosphere of the clinic and there is a wider view. Certainly the bots and anyone prone to believing in a New Religious Order, posts up cr*p about how Wiggins and Froome which is very annoying to those who see through the veneer. And of course with St David and Cookson latched on there is a whole bundle of stuff spun out by the next generation of vacuous idiots called the cycling press who have replaced Wilcockson.

But certainly here in the UK, I can talk to people not involved in cycling and the significant majority don't swallow the BC/Sky story. The way that BBC Panorama documentary was done and the repeated "Of course we are not accusing Mo Farah of anything illegal even though his Coach is as dodgy as hell" played to this wider audience. I see on a couple of forums that people questioned why do the story on Allan Wells ? There was no absolute proof. Well, once again, they underestimate the common person, the person who does not make sport their raison d'etre. People can work out that there is a whole previous generation who swallowed the story that Daly, Cram, Ovett, Coe Wells and others could pan the likes of the best of the Eastern block who were juicing to the max for Moscow and the Americans who were juicing to the max for LA. These previous bots, exactly like those who will be bigging it up soon that Sir Bradley is the greatest ever cyclist on the planet - ever - had their very late call to reality. Wells was blown apart. his call for his lawyers did not aid his case but rather, with the bulk of the population, it just confirmed the story. Wells being blown up has put the skids under that whole generation. It was BS and the coaching staff around the athletes were encouraging it will be the long term factual view of that period.

That some at BC/Sky have followed that same path is going to lead to some uneasy feelings as they see how history starts to look at those T&F athletes. Hopefully, there will be some journalists (not cycling journalists) who are going to keep digging. Whilst previously I was despondent that Lance was get out of the sport with all his gains, and then later that Lance would be a single exception, I now have a little bit of hope that Sir Bradley, Sir David, Cav, G and the rest will be exposed. As it is, right now, I think Sir Bradley is going to be on all the papers on Monday. Just trust - a lot of the readers will be a lot more savy than the idiots drooling out the words.

i cant elucidate how much i enjoy and appreciate the freddythefrog contributions that are not swallowing the gordonstoun steve redgrave narrative like linda lovelace.

 

[blackcat]

Re:

Doping his still rife, Nicole Cooke told it like it is.

implicit in this, nicole cooke calls out doping, ergo, she is a good guy. just like paula radcliffe, she stole the page from paula's book.

 

[ray j willings]

Re: Re:

Doping his still rife, Nicole Cooke told it like it is.

implicit in this, nicole cooke calls out doping, ergo, she is a good guy. just like paula radcliffe, she stole the page from paula's book.

If I am honest I don't have a huge Info base on woman's "ped's" cycling , I got the impression from reading between the lines that what Cooke has said [she retired young] is that doping is pretty rife in woman's cycling some of her GB team mates are still friends, others are not "the ones she knows are doping " and she won't dope so has retired as her career is never going to reach the heights it did.
That's my take.

Please feel free to enlighten me. Like I said it's not a topic I have really had much interest in.
I always liked watching Cooke race.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

MMA fighter Wanderlei Silva has filed an appeal of his NSAC (lifetime) ban (for dodging an OOC) with the Nevada state supreme court. This manoeuver bypasses the district court, which had temporarily lifted the NSAC ban on grounds of insufficient evidence, but in the same ruling upheld the validity of NSAC's jurisdiction. Which scuppered Silva's claim that NSAC had no jurisdiction in the matter because he (Silva) was not at the time licenced to fight in Nevada.

In the run-up to UFC 175 (at which Silva was slated to fight Vitor Belfort), the NSAC agent arrived at Silva's gym, unannounced and unexpected, intending to both take Silva's application for licence to fight in the state and administer the OOC. But Silva told the NSAC agent (in English) that his English was too limited and he would not sign any legal documents without they first were screened by his attorney. And then he scarpered.

The latest move seems to signal that the Silva camp have more confidence in the jurisdictional question than in the evidentiary matter on which the temporary stay is based.

 

[Anaconda]

Nicole Cooke keeps using her voice to call out corruption and hippocracy in sport. As an Olympic gold medallist she's got cred. And credit to her for doing the opposite of guys like JV, who just want everyone to stick their heads back in the sand.

Anyway in her latest column there was a bit where she called out Michael Barrys wife Dede. I guess good for Cooke trying to tie up one of the loose ends USADA left.

Does money corrupt sport?

For some, of course, success and the money it brings overrides fairness.
So if it's life-changing wealth and the greed it generates that corrupts fairness, does a lack of money equate to cleanliness? And in that case, would we be better advised to keep women's sports impoverished to ensure clean competition?
The answer is more nuanced. Obviously money is a great driver, but other factors are at work.
One witness in the Armstrong saga was a young American rider called David Zabriskie, who had admitted to using performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs). In his affidavit, Zabriskie identified as a turning point a conversation with Canadian cyclist Michael Barry and his American wife Dede, also a professional cyclist. According to Zabriskie, they convinced him using PEDs was necessary to stay in the sport.
At Athens in 2004 I was in terrific form. I had beaten Dede Barry on many occasions but on this very big occasion, she caught and passed me as if I was some novice. Her husband had spent a career denying ever using doping products. Once the Armstrong scandal broke he wrote another book telling a different story. Apparently he and Dede used to keep EPO in the family fridge.
Dede Barry still has her Olympic silver medal from the day she roared past me; after all, she passed the tests.

[http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cycling/32972107][/url]

While I do applaud USADA for tacking the Armstrong case, and I realize there were very tough conditions owing to the resources Armstrong brought to the fight, such that he probably came close to destroying USADA, I have issues with the focus on Armstrong. All the riders on USPS/disco etc from a doping preservative did the same or similar crimes. They all doped on multiple accounts and lied on multiple occasions about it and were as complicit as LA and his gang at keeping things covered up. All deserved to start at 8 y to life penalties. First man in the door to testify gets 25% off penalty, maybe man 2, but man 3 gets 50% off and so forth. The 6 month penalty those guys got was so wrong, and seeing them all back in the cycling world its had zero effect on them having any regret for what they did.

Travis T had the resources and responsibility to question and met out sanctions to ALL the riders who they discovered to have doped. Maybe they did question Dede and she said she was clean. But who knows, they let Hesjedal slide through also it seems.

USADA had a job to do with Armstrong for sure and they did it, but an agency that promotes fairness and ethics did not do it's job as really they should have.

Still the case had many important effects including showing: the mighty can be bought down, and the value of producing and publishing for all to see a comprehensive reasoned decision.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

[/quote]good post, but what 'fight for a clean sport'? Where?
Mainly, I'm happy Floyd was vindicated.
And happy it exposed Pat.
Verdruggen wasn't damaged though.
All in all, the gains of the whole USADA file have been marginal to the point of being negligible.
It's painful to see people like JV and Walsh exploit the story to their benefit whilst indulging (and thus silently promoting) the doping.
It was also painful to watch USADA make deals with Garmin riders.
Lance's downfall would've been much more enjoyable if it hadn't been for those exponents of hypocricy.
My evaluation of Tygart has improved dramatically owing to the Leinders investigation, though here too one wonders why only the past was touched upon, whilst the present generation remains out of focus.[/quote]

The "fight" for a clean sport really started in 1928 with the recognition by the IAAF that amphetamines could be used to stimulate sleep deprived or physically tired track and field athletes. So they were banned. In 1966 the UCI and FIFA introduced drug "testing" to their respective world championships. The IOC introduced drug testing to both the winter and summer Olympic in 1968. By the early 1970s most international Olympic federations introduced drug testing. The scourge at the time was steroids. All of this was a recognition at least that certain drugs enhance performance and give an athlete doper an unfair competitive advantage. The "testing" was indiscriminate, primitive and ineffective.

The introduction of drug testing by the UCI, FIFA and the IOC was a recognition that to win using drugs that enhanced performance was morally wrong. The moral indignation was lip service however, as these organizations and the people running them did nothing effectively to stop the proliferation of the use of PEDs. Ben Johnson's case in Seoul (1984) is the classic result.

However unknown to a lot of people is the fact the Canadian Government of the day ordered there be a Commission of Inquiry into the Johnson case. The Commission was headed by Charles Dubin, a former elite athlete, a trial lawyer and the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal for the Province of Ontario. One of the 70 recommendations in 1990 was for the establishment of an independent world doping control agency by the IOC; standardized testing; anti-doping educational programs; and the implementation of neutral, out-of-competition, no-notice testing. Unfortunately the report was little known outside of Canada. As a former athlete Dubin recognized the pernicious effects of PEDs in sport. However no one at the IOC, the UCI or FIFA gave any shrift to his report. Canadians self-righteously felt we had dealt with the doping problem in Canada at least and cheating would go away. Ha!

WADA was established in 1999, and countries began to establish their own anti-doping organizations - USADA, ASADA , CCES, AFLD, UK Anti-Doping, CONI etc. Since 1999 there are now about 135 international anti-doping agencies. Ostensibly these organizations are committed to fighting the use of PEDs in sport. How effective they are depends on the quality of the people who work for them, their funding, the commitment they have to fight doping and their resources.

WADA has created an Anti-Doping Code, a Prohibited List and opened or contracted with laboratories to test athletes. Lab testing is hugely expensive, and chain of custody of urine and blood samples is critical to legal results.

So all of the above is the "fight for clean sport"

However the question really is how effective has all this been? For the average sports fan it is hard to know. It is easy to be sceptical. I understand the frustrations and cynicism. But what is the alternative? It really boils down to political will, leadership, inter-NADO cooperation, cooperation with police authorities and prosecution offices, vigorous arbitration hearings, the political will of governments etc. This requires a lot of resources to coordinate and a lot of money.

And last but not least it depends on athletes and their willingness to create a clean culture. The incentives to dope are huge. They are primarily monetary and fame (that opens doors to wealth). For an athletically talented kid from poverty (Justin Gatlin), from wealth (Hamilton), from dysfunction (Armstrong), from obscurity (Landis) etc. the power of wealth and notoriety are like drugs themselves.

I am an eternal optimist which may be a naive thing, but I am of the view we cannot abandon the effort. PEDs have ruined what should be the "beauty of sport." The innate and inherent fascination with athletic skill, performance and accomplishments has been sorely damaged. Will we ever see another performance like Lemond beating Fignon in 1989 in the Versailles to Paris time trial? The sceptics will continue to argue Lemond was doped but I believe he was clean and it was one of the most amazing athletic performances of the 20th century. THAT is in serious danger of never happening again unless we continue the effort.

 

[blackcat]

And last but not least it depends on athletes and their willingness to create a clean culture. The incentives to dope are huge. They are primarily monetary and fame (that opens doors to wealth). For an athletically talented kid from poverty (Justin Gatlin), from wealth (Hamilton), from dysfunction (Armstrong), from obscurity (Landis) etc. the power of wealth and notoriety are like drugs themselves.

hey brah, thats a paradox.

the ability to get a foot in the door, the barrier to entry that doping creates, effectively creates a self-selective sample.

the fallacy of sample. or a survivor fallacy.

ofcouse Armstrong is gonna dope to the 9's then say on the Tour podium as he retires, that hard work is the key. doping is not the reason, there are no secrets, he is against doping, i am sorry you cant believe in miracles.

the problem is like the SEC and getting Wall Street to self govern. ot self police or self rule.

you are asking dopers to create a system of doping rules? paradox much???

 

[Benotti69]

You are missing the point. The Armstrong case was/is a the most significant microcosm into a dirty rotten sport. It accomplished three main things.................

+1 good post. Right now, without the take down, Armstrong would be doing "play days" at the Tour with George Bush and Bill Clinton and getting ready to run for senate as well as bullying whoever in whatever way he wanted. Oprah would be doing some very different programs with Lance as guest - Cancer Jesus, who won bike races, to become saviour of everyone in the USA - in fact let's set him up for the Nobel peace prize.

Move away from the febrile atmosphere of the clinic and there is a wider view. Certainly the bots and anyone prone to believing in a New Religious Order, posts up cr*p about how Wiggins and Froome which is very annoying to those who see through the veneer. And of course with St David and Cookson latched on there is a whole bundle of stuff spun out by the next generation of vacuous idiots called the cycling press who have replaced Wilcockson.

But certainly here in the UK, I can talk to people not involved in cycling and the significant majority don't swallow the BC/Sky story. The way that BBC Panorama documentary was done and the repeated "Of course we are not accusing Mo Farah of anything illegal even though his Coach is as dodgy as hell" played to this wider audience. I see on a couple of forums that people questioned why do the story on Allan Wells ? There was no absolute proof. Well, once again, they underestimate the common person, the person who does not make sport their raison d'etre. People can work out that there is a whole previous generation who swallowed the story that Daly, Cram, Ovett, Coe Wells and others could pan the likes of the best of the Eastern block who were juicing to the max for Moscow and the Americans who were juicing to the max for LA. These previous bots, exactly like those who will be bigging it up soon that Sir Bradley is the greatest ever cyclist on the planet - ever - had their very late call to reality. Wells was blown apart. his call for his lawyers did not aid his case but rather, with the bulk of the population, it just confirmed the story. Wells being blown up has put the skids under that whole generation. It was BS and the coaching staff around the athletes were encouraging it will be the long term factual view of that period.

That some at BC/Sky have followed that same path is going to lead to some uneasy feelings as they see how history starts to look at those T&F athletes. Hopefully, there will be some journalists (not cycling journalists) who are going to keep digging. Whilst previously I was despondent that Lance was get out of the sport with all his gains, and then later that Lance would be a single exception, I now have a little bit of hope that Sir Bradley, Sir David, Cav, G and the rest will be exposed. As it is, right now, I think Sir Bradley is going to be on all the papers on Monday. Just trust - a lot of the readers will be a lot more savy than the idiots drooling out the words.

Yes they will. Great post.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Would it be possible by starting a new, grass-roots competitive cycling org, Blackcat? Maybe remove money from the equation from the start?

 

[RobbieCanuck]

And last but not least it depends on athletes and their willingness to create a clean culture. The incentives to dope are huge. They are primarily monetary and fame (that opens doors to wealth). For an athletically talented kid from poverty (Justin Gatlin), from wealth (Hamilton), from dysfunction (Armstrong), from obscurity (Landis) etc. the power of wealth and notoriety are like drugs themselves.

hey brah, thats a paradox.

the ability to get a foot in the door, the barrier to entry that doping creates, effectively creates a self-selective sample.

the fallacy of sample. or a survivor fallacy.

ofcouse Armstrong is gonna dope to the 9's then say on the Tour podium as he retires, that hard work is the key. doping is not the reason, there are no secrets, he is against doping, i am sorry you cant believe in miracles.

the problem is like the SEC and getting Wall Street to self govern. ot self police or self rule.

you are asking dopers to create a system of doping rules? paradox much???

For many athletes you are correct. It is really a moral issue. Is the sports community less or more moral than the population? I don't know. There may be studies. I would like to think that in most of the developed world there is a common recognition of fairness, doing the right thing, that dishonesty is wrong, that cheating is wrong , that winning by using performance enhancing drugs is wrong, that deceit is wrong ( and in most countries illegal as well).

I am encouraged by the story of Mark Daly, the BBC journalist who as an accomplished athlete, took micro doses of EPO to determine if he could pass the ABP parameters. (How I Became a Drug Cheat Athlete to Test the System, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32983932 ). Sadly he passed the ABP test after 10 weeks of micro dosing. A reflection of the short-comings of drug testing.

But from a moral point of view he expressed the following moral sentiments when he took his first dose of EPO

I had cheated for the first time and it felt terrible

But I had cheated and it felt wrong

Like anyone who is into sport, I would usually come home after a good training session and have a great feeling about it. Now I was training at a level I had never reached but there was no joy in it - I knew it was not real

His baseline VO2 max score was 58 and he improved to 63 on EPO or a 7% increase. His response to his improvement was as follows:

There was no elation. More a weary acceptance of what I had suspected

Daly's moral response to his experiment is what one would think most athletes would have. However moral strength requires a ton of courage that a lot of people including athletes don't have.

The sad conclusion to Daly's experiment is that he beat the ABP test and he concluded that:

If you put two people of equal ability up against one another, and one is on drugs, the cheat will almost certainly win

 

[blackcat]

Re:

Would it be possible by starting a new, grass-roots competitive cycling org, Blackcat? Maybe remove money from the equation from the start?

I think folks can do competitive cycling as it is, at the domestic tier 1 level. Cat 1. The pros in America, ok, you wont win a stage of Tour of Cali, you may win a smaller stage race, and may win stages of other races if you are very talented (we are talking clean ofcourse).

the thing is, to scacrifice the external locus of control, and the organisation systems of society, we have always seen cycling thru the lens of the TdF. but cycling is not the TdF, and the TdF is not cycling. As soon as one sumblimates this external locus, you can compete anywhere, and you are testing yourself when you ride a Herald Sun Tour or Tour of Gippsland on bread and water when the guy you are in a move off the front in, is doping.

I am not a buddhist, but this to me, reads as some buddhist tenet.

And no, even with no money, or perhaps, with no money, it is impossible to create a new system without offering that apogee and target of aspiration of TdF and the lens thru which we see cycling.

Thats how we consume and define cycling, that is the chief system. Without that, competition is neutralised

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

And no, even with no money, or perhaps, with no money, it is impossible to create a new system without offering that apogee and target of aspiration of TdF and the lens thru which we see cycling.

Thats how we consume and define cycling, that is the chief system. Without that, competition is neutralised

Why? Is it because we are conditioned thus?

Is it nature or nurture? Would it be possible at all to break the cycle? And if not, why not? Are we simple animals after all?

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Why? Is it because we are conditioned thus?

Is it nature or nurture? Would it be possible at all to break the cycle? And if not, why not? Are we simple animals after all?

its a confluence of the two, but I would say mostly nature. but the atmosphere and culture will mold control. so freud and bernays talked of this, then the french intellectuals of the C20 sartre barthes derrida.

there are a few polymaths and college teachers that post who know the literature, i dont.

but of cycling's organising system, you cannot remove the tdf without it have a reverberation. if you remove the apex predator, it alters the constitution.

here, if you remove the TdF, there will be some more triathletes, so more runners, and more soccer players, who will be seduced by the Olympics or the World Cup, or Kona.

 

[Poursuivant]

Because IMO his take down of Armstrong was a waste of time and huge amounts of money.
We all knew lance was doping we all knew Flo Jo was doping . Its done Cycling no favours.
Before you or anyone else says Armstrong was a bully etc so are other top sportsman, so are politicians "far more dangerous" so are actors , so are teachers. so are policemen. That's not about doping that's about behaviour .Armstrong did not handled being top dawg as well as he should have but that's not a crime.

Have riders stopped doping since ?

Have athletes in general stopped doping ?

Did all those sponsors who mad a fortune out of Armstrong return their profits of from the sales of Trek bikes.
Oakley glasses, Nike clothing. No they Fu%%ing didn't.
The whole thing has been a disaster and complete waste of time and just shows the bullsh%% hypocrisy of the Governing sporting bodies and the personal witch-hunt of a federal agent who's only interest was to make headlines and serve his ego.

So even when you're not trying to troll, you are still trolling! Have a word with yourself! Are you going to bleat like this when Froome hands Contadors arse to him next month, and then gets a positive? No, you aren't because it's not your boy suffering.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

jonathan edwards about 150lbs dripping wet could benchpress 330lbs i think.

a bit like Serena, but Serena usually just benchpresses her male partners post-coitus before lighting the new pack of Gauloises.

 

[blackcat]

dear wiggo, re: without some example, (ie tdf) is it possible to recreate a competitive calender which is strictly clean, and only wishes to aspire to this ethic, and the competition and win is secondary? two points, i) without a model on which to aspire to (ie. Tour) it will be difficult to attain traction in the sports competition disciplines and gain (market) share. ii) the W matters, more so than ethics. we are not talking succour[sic] moms here.

add a iii) external locus of control with ends seeking public adoration and the benefits(not necessarily monetary) that come with that. Some might purely be, not public adoration, but self, a narcissism, looking to beatdown your opponent.

like 131313 has said before, they do their best knowing they ride against charged athletes. But does it matter that you are deprived of the first place over the line when your competition is with yourself, and not for financial incentives, and one can appreciate why some others might take an alternative decision to dope when they are faced with the ethics within their milieu that will deprive them.

 

[Poursuivant]

Farah having a pop at the media is pathetic.