• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Floyd says...you've got to legalise doping

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Visit site
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.
 
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.

Wiggins accusing someone else of drinking a lot--pretty hilarious (to put it mildly), especially given the present topic.
 

Skandar Akbar

BANNED
Nov 20, 2010
177
0
0
Visit site
Also there is no such thing as monitoring because the cheats will then find ways around that. Somebody said that earlier. If they legalize it then the outer parameter should be whether or not you croak on the side of the road or in bed at night. That is the only way to will insure no cheating right? Just dope up to the point your system clogs up like an overworked API separator and it is all good right? I am glad I never put faith in this guy because I have no fleas from laying with the dogs.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Visit site
LOL! Oh, God. Heads are going to explode over on VN over this one!
All the Floyd haters could at least rest a bit because he finally "retired."
And in within one, short day he's back! The circus continues.

Flawed logic? Absolutely. Even with the absurd notion of allowable doping there would be "cheating the system" with unknown substances/methods.

That only thing of value that I took away from Lanidis' interview was his disgust with Wiggins--and rightly so. Jeeezus! Wiggo took all the talking points right out of the LA manual. Isn't he embarrassed by his stance on this?

Consider this:
Kimmage traveled with Garmin and spent a lot of time with the team. Even he was shocked by some of what he heard about LA and what went on at USPS. So do you think that Kimmage was privy to inside info and stories that Wiggo wasn't? You don't think those guys talk on long rides or after hours?

What kind of idiotic fool is Wiggins trying to play us for? Innocent until...what?! No wonder Floyd is outraged!

Landis is cuckoo and always has been, which is why I've always enjoyed his antics. There is some bizarre stuff going on here, without a doubt. But what Wiggins is doing is clearly indicative of the real problem at hand. Until riders, themselves, take a stand against the absurdity of all this, then the problem with only continue to fester.

As Floyd said, Wiggins should just shut up. He can safely avoid this whole thing by not saying anything and let the system play itself out. But to basically side with LA in the face of this, with his feigned naivete? Totally ridiculous and enough to cause me to lose any respect whatsoever that I could ever have for the guy.
Payroll much, Brad?
 
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.

Good take Skandar, I agree.

Sounds like a pendulum swinging from one extreme to the other. Good job Floyd :rolleyes:. That last bit of reality about "all the hard workers who want to be clean will have to take dope" gets my hackles up. I say rather than give in, hit em harder on the first offense... not a 2 year ban... maybe a 4 year ban... or life ban. Give em incentive to not dope. I know it's more complicated than that, like protection for the riders against false +ives, but that's just how I'm feeling at the moment. I might think different after my hackles drop down. Or not.
 
Mar 19, 2009
571
0
0
Visit site
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.
 
It's called Moral Relativism. We live in a post, post modern world.

Given what he's been through, what he has tried to fight, what he has lost, what he KNOWS: it's only normal.

In the end morality is all a human invention anyway, but I'm not going out to join any terrorist group soon because my natural inclination toward survival, and not auto-destruction, prevents me from doing so. This is the only thing we can count on.

Utopia is wishful thinking.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Visit site
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 the 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 for the UCI...we should encourage the idea! :D
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
Visit site
The Ajax white tornado-method, so effective when you want a clean conscience, was probably too effective, flushing out consistency, perspective and the ability to think outside the box as well.
I feel sorry for Landis. I really do. What he's been through could very well lead to PTSS, and his latest ramblings could be a symptom. At the very least he sure could use a friend to reason with, or a holiday to get away from it all for a week or two and get a different view of it all.
 
Jul 17, 2009
4,316
2
0
Visit site
Something we can all agree on however: Flandis facial hair look has to go. Come on dude, You look like you should be hiding a brown bad with a 40 in it with that lint on your mug.

Is is attractive? Is it Chic, GQ? Bro it is barely a 70's porno look.

WTF already
 
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! :D

Answer: it's all about money.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
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.

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.

Brilliant. Let's go with that.
 
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.

Oh that should work just fine, since we have never seen any evidence of riders avoiding or manipulating the current tests.:cool:
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
Hugh Januss said:
Oh that should work just fine, since we have never seen any evidence of riders avoiding or manipulating the current tests.:cool:

Well, make 'em give some blood before every stage too. Of course they might not have any left after a grand tour... that might be a problem.

In reality... there will always be cheating. But maybe holding riders to a certain "profile" is more realistic then trying to stop all doping. I don't know, just wondering if it might work better.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
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

LeMonds' eyeballs, the Lance Haters/privates, must be rolling and protracting.

Tough world haters!
 
Mar 19, 2009
571
0
0
Visit site
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.

I'd like to believe that would work too.

History has shown though, build a better mouse trap, and the mice adapt to better it. Ya know !

I'm just saying it's in our consciousness to cheat. There is no legislation that can even touch that. . . though it's not pleasant to say or think about. We must.

The only ones that con stop cheating is ourselves.

Where does that leaves us ? Take a look at where we are today :(
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Visit site
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.

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 . :D
 
Jul 17, 2009
4,316
2
0
Visit site
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

this is an interesting quote from that article you provided

"What is ruining sport is cheating. But cheating can be reduced by changing the rules."
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
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 . :D

IMO, EPO is a recovery agent, same with insulin, blood doping.

Some of these doping practices are actually improving the riders health and make stage races safer.

I think that is the consensus with the DSs.
 
May 8, 2009
133
0
0
Visit site
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.

So, kind of like the Biological Passport, without the express admission of failure.

I think the system in place right now is pretty good. You have the BP, which should work to keep doping with certain limits and you also have tests that can detect certain types of doping, with new and better tests in the works. The tests will always be behind the latest and greatest doping, but you have the BP in place to limit what can been done. Not perfect, but as we have seen this past year or so, seems to work pretty well at preventing outrageously good form.

The funny thing about Floyd's comments is that they kind of help LA in the level playing field argument and in painting the riders as victims.

2011 cycling and doping season is in full swing. Yeehaw!
 
"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"

I'm glad to see that FLandis is experiencing the freedom & the privilege of expressing his thoughts without the persecution & the hypocrisy subject to this delicate matter-go FLandis-good for you:)
about the message:
oddly enough- those are the kind of words that Lance Armstrong himself would love to use in public & put them in a context to fit his coming defense, in order to justify the doping abuse during his career....