- Oct 25, 2010
- 3,049
- 2
- 0
Cobblestoned said:What do the Floydlovers think about that now ?
Cobble, you live a very polarized, binary existence. Just because I believe Floyd now tells the truth, does not mean I admire him or what he has done.
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Cobblestoned said:What do the Floydlovers think about that now ?
Skandar Akbar said:Isn't this great? This person lies to the innocent believers to take their money to cover up his doping. Then he comes clean to 'clear his conscience' coincidentally when Lance would not succumb to his blackmail to ride for Shack. Now he says to legalise dope so all the hard workers who want to be clean will have to take dope.
Wiggins says this guy drinks alot and we know he was drunk with his goofy friend when he called Greg Lemond. Maybe he should blow into a breath test before he is interviewed.
Skandar Akbar said:Isn't this great? This person lies to the innocent believers to take their money to cover up his doping. Then he comes clean to 'clear his conscience' coincidentally when Lance would not succumb to his blackmail to ride for Shack. Now he says to legalise dope so all the hard workers who want to be clean will have to take dope.
Benotti69 said:one wonders did a big fat cheque come through today from a swiss bank account from a former team leader![]()
Darryl Webster said:Beer talk or not ( I`ve no idea) theres a certain truth that with the current structures and legislations the fight against doping in sports only touches te tip of the ice berg in terms of what is actualy happening.
The "flaw" in the argument for legalisation is that if an athletic sport went for a free for all policy re drugs the credibilty allusion that having testing "seen to be efective " ( as apposed to being effective) creates no longer exists.
Protecting the allusion will always transcend in the battle against PEDS till more Criminal Law surrounding PED use is put to work.
Bottom line is while PED use is "cost effective" ie , the "winners" keep there spoils and arnt subject to criminal prosecutions if caught then PED use will continue.
Going doping control free would be suicide or the UCI...we should encourage the idea!![]()
lostintime said:Even if it was legalized, it would still be a can of worms.
There would still people who will cheat in any parameters you set forth.
How do you rid cheating? Call up your idea of god and ask. You may not like what you hear.
kurtinsc said:While I'm not saying we SHOULD do this...
if you had certain measurements that all riders needed to fall within, but didn't do any monitoring of how they got there... wouldn't that work?
I'm not sure if it would be really feasible, but it seems like the biological passport kind of has pieces of that in place already. We have a system where if a rider is "outside the norm", he gets suspended even though we don't know what he took. If you expanded on that in some way, but used it to replace any existing drug testing... wouldn't that kind of fit?
I'm not an expert... just throwing it out there. It wouldn't be that you took drug X so you're suspended. It would be that your blood levels were outside the legal limits... so you're suspended. We don't care how you got there.
It would be more similar to the rules on bikes. There are certain rules about weight and lengths and widths... but as long as you are within those rules you can do whatever you like.
As long as your blood values are within the rules... take whatever you like.
kurtinsc said:While I'm not saying we SHOULD do this...
if you had certain measurements that all riders needed to fall within, but didn't do any monitoring of how they got there... wouldn't that work?
I'm not sure if it would be really feasible, but it seems like the biological passport kind of has pieces of that in place already. We have a system where if a rider is "outside the norm", he gets suspended even though we don't know what he took. If you expanded on that in some way, but used it to replace any existing drug testing... wouldn't that kind of fit?
I'm not an expert... just throwing it out there. It wouldn't be that you took drug X so you're suspended. It would be that your blood levels were outside the legal limits... so you're suspended. We don't care how you got there.
It would be more similar to the rules on bikes. There are certain rules about weight and lengths and widths... but as long as you are within those rules you can do whatever you like.
As long as your blood values are within the rules... take whatever you like.
Hugh Januss said:Oh that should work just fine, since we have never seen any evidence of riders avoiding or manipulating the current tests.![]()
Polish said:I predict that 50 years from now "doping" as we call it today WILL be legal.
And Sports Medicine will be an important and useful part of the Medical field.
(Also predict that Floyd will have his rightful 2006 TDF Victory returned)
Anyway, here is an argument FOR legal doping and a clinic thread from way back:
http://www.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/Media/telegraph_dopingtourdefranceJuly07.pdf
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=4690
kurtinsc said:While I'm not saying we SHOULD do this...
if you had certain measurements that all riders needed to fall within, but didn't do any monitoring of how they got there... wouldn't that work?
I'm not sure if it would be really feasible, but it seems like the biological passport kind of has pieces of that in place already. We have a system where if a rider is "outside the norm", he gets suspended even though we don't know what he took. If you expanded on that in some way, but used it to replace any existing drug testing... wouldn't that kind of fit?
I'm not an expert... just throwing it out there. It wouldn't be that you took drug X so you're suspended. It would be that your blood levels were outside the legal limits... so you're suspended. We don't care how you got there.
It would be more similar to the rules on bikes. There are certain rules about weight and lengths and widths... but as long as you are within those rules you can do whatever you like.
As long as your blood values are within the rules... take whatever you like.
kurtinsc said:While I'm not saying we SHOULD do this...
if you had certain measurements that all riders needed to fall within, but didn't do any monitoring of how they got there... wouldn't that work?
I'm not sure if it would be really feasible, but it seems like the biological passport kind of has pieces of that in place already. We have a system where if a rider is "outside the norm", he gets suspended even though we don't know what he took. If you expanded on that in some way, but used it to replace any existing drug testing... wouldn't that kind of fit?
I'm not an expert... just throwing it out there. It wouldn't be that you took drug X so you're suspended. It would be that your blood levels were outside the legal limits... so you're suspended. We don't care how you got there.
It would be more similar to the rules on bikes. There are certain rules about weight and lengths and widths... but as long as you are within those rules you can do whatever you like.
As long as your blood values are within the rules... take whatever you like.
Polish said:I predict that 50 years from now "doping" as we call it today WILL be legal.
And Sports Medicine will be an important and useful part of the Medical field.
(Also predict that Floyd will have his rightful 2006 TDF Victory returned)
Anyway, here is an argument FOR legal doping and a clinic thread from way back:
http://www.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/Media/telegraph_dopingtourdefranceJuly07.pdf
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=4690
Darryl Webster said:If you allowed doping " up to a value" all you`d achieve is to "move the bar"..in the wrong direction.
Theres absalutly no logic to thinking thats basicy sugesting athletes are going to "only cheet within the rules" cus well, it wouldnt be cheating would it!... and no advantage would be gained .![]()
kurtinsc said:Sometimes, I tend to agree with him.
Perhaps just hold people to a certain range in blood scores... and as long as they are within the range who cares how they get there. If they're over, they're disqualified.
It would be an admission of failure on the doping front... but would eliminate a lot of the bad press and as long as the levels were set properly you'd think it could be fairly safe.
It would be more like Nascar... but instead of pushing the cars to the edge of the rules you'd be pushing the riders to the edge... but if you cross the line you're disqualified.
"You got to go about it another way and you've got to legalise doping. They [the testers] are so far behind in the testing organisations that there's no way to change it now. Just accept that it's here, that it's not going away and that it's just going to get more complicated and the fact that it's not that complicated yet compared to what it will be. Ten years from now it's going to be four times as hard as it now to test for things"