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

[Hugh Januss]

Set a limit that safe guards the future health of the athlete and punish those who exceed it.

This is the only reality I have seen.

So the vast majority of pro athletes who dope while it is illegal in order to gain an advantage would suddenly obey a rule that said 'dope just this much'?

 

[VeloFidelis]

That's the apologists' view. I beg to differ.
PEDs are trafficked through much of the same channels as "recreational" drugs, feeding a black economy and organized crime. Russian mafia, the Ndrangheta, you name it!
Doping in the pro peloton is but one tip of the iceberg, nothing is ever said in here about the frightening use of doping among body builders and regular gymgoers or about the innumerable pathologies and deaths that ensue. There's been approx. 20 deaths ascribed to PED use in the pro peloton since the seventies. Among athletes that were under closer medical surveillance than the average Joe. What are the numbers among the general populace doping "in the dark"?

Both anabolic steroids and testosterone are highly addictive and, what is more, induce the use of other drugs and pharmaceutical substances. Growth hormones can be synthesized, but to keep costs down for the end-user GH's are often extracted from cadavers, leading to documented cases of Creutzfeld-Jacobs. Impurities in black-market drugs lead to unforseen consequences. Shelf-life for EPO is quite short, and cynical relabelling occurs for max profit. In short, PED's represents a significant health hazard, and if its use was "inevitable" I'd never allow my children to participate in organized sports, robbing them of all the joys I've experienced.

Accepting drugs will be a giant leap into the dark, and I see absolutely no valid reason to go there.

Unfortunately you don't get to make that call for your children. Most likely by the time they are called upon to make that decision for themselves the will be full adults and in control of their own lives. You can only hope that you did a good enough job that they will see the pitfalls and health risks for themselves. But they will weigh their options and make their own decision.

If you are truly worried about it you may want to steer them away from some competitive sports at the high school level. Certainly football, gymnastics, and wrestling are the worst at promoting steroid use and eating disorders. Other than that I can't see too much danger in adolescent competitive sports. I agree with you that giving your children the joy of competition through sport is a wonderful gift. But participation at the professional level in any sport is a genetic lottery, and if your kid pulls a winning ticket, you had better be ready for some long conversations about a host of things in which doping is one of many elements.

Rest assured that if your kids become professional athletes they will be exposed to doping. If they work on Wall Street they will be exposed to insider trading (and probably make a killing) If you have a viable and financially feasible way to eliminate PED use in the peloton I would love to hear it. The reality is that most of what is suggested here as economically feasible is a pipe dream. The governing bodies can do only so much, before the burden becomes unreasonable.

Set a quantifiable and conservative limits on blood values that safeguard the future health of the athlete and punish the offenders. Accepting some level of drug use as a fact of human nature is reality. Striving for a drug free sport as the standard is fantasy.

 

[hektoren]

Set a quantifiable and conservative limits on blood values that safeguard the future health of the athlete and punish the offenders. Accepting some level of drug use as a fact of human nature is reality. Striving for a drug free sport as the standard is fantasy.

You cross a line once doctors start administering drugs to extremely healthy individuals for performance-enhancement, drugs that're meant to cure or alleviate disease. If you think there are quantifiable and conservative limits on blood values that safeguard the future health of athletes, think again. There are no safe values. Every injection, every medication has side-effects. Some will have anaphylactic reactions to the preservatives added to the fluid, some will get bacteria into their bloodstream from poor hygiene, some will develop an adverse reaction to the active substance in and of itself etc. etc. It's always a calculated risk, a risk you're willing to accept to get rid of disease, a larger evil. But when it's totally unnecessary? That's crossing the line.

That's why the doping docs should be hanged, drawn and quartered. They've crossed the line.

And, by signalling that it's OK, you'll inevitably have the weekend-racers wanting to emulate their heros, having sub-standard checkups beforehand, black-market drugs. It will trickle down to the juniors etc. etc. Oh, the risks and consequences! It never stops. And who'll pay for ensuring that you're within safe limits? Health insurance? Should society pay for educating the doctors doing these unnecessary controls?

No, your proposition is just plain stoopid.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Unfortunately you don't get to make that call for your children. Most likely by the time they are called upon to make that decision for themselves the will be full adults and in control of their own lives. You can only hope that you did a good enough job that they will see the pitfalls and health risks for themselves. But they will weigh their options and make their own decision.

If you are truly worried about it you may want to steer them away from some competitive sports at the high school level. Certainly football, gymnastics, and wrestling are the worst at promoting steroid use and eating disorders. Other than that I can't see too much danger in adolescent competitive sports. I agree with you that giving your children the joy of competition through sport is a wonderful gift. But participation at the professional level in any sport is a genetic lottery, and if your kid pulls a winning ticket, you had better be ready for some long conversations about a host of things in which doping is one of many elements.

Rest assured that if your kids become professional athletes they will be exposed to doping. If they work on Wall Street they will be exposed to insider trading (and probably make a killing) If you have a viable and financially feasible way to eliminate PED use in the peloton I would love to hear it. The reality is that most of what is suggested here as economically feasible is a pipe dream. The governing bodies can do only so much, before the burden becomes unreasonable.

Set a quantifiable and conservative limits on blood values that safeguard the future health of the athlete and punish the offenders. Accepting some level of drug use as a fact of human nature is reality. Striving for a drug free sport as the standard is fantasy.

Who ever said that a drug free standard is attainable?
But just because it is not attainable why is it you believe that 'limits' should be the alternative?

You set the standard you seek and it allows doping - meaning athletes that do not wish to will not participate, so you are left with those who are for doping. Do you think they are going to adhere to some 'quantifiable conservative' limit?

And what is the 'quantifiable and conservative' limit for PEDs? Who sets it? Won't you have to test athletes for it - won't that cost the same as the testing currently done?

Also - while 'insider dealing' may be illegal or ethically wrong it won't kill you.

 

[Hugh Januss]

You cross a line once doctors start administering drugs to extremely healthy individuals for performance-enhancement, drugs that're meant to cure or alleviate disease. If you think there are quantifiable and conservative limits on blood values that safeguard the future health of athletes, think again. There are no safe values. Every injection, every medication has side-effects. Some will have anaphylactic reactions to the preservatives added to the fluid, some will get bacteria into their bloodstream from poor hygiene, some will develop an adverse reaction to the active substance in and of itself etc. etc. It's always a calculated risk, a risk you're willing to accept to get rid of disease, a larger evil. But when it's totally unnecessary? That's crossing the line.

That's why the doping docs should be hanged, drawn and quartered. They've crossed the line.

And, by signalling that it's OK, you'll inevitably have the weekend-racers wanting to emulate their heros, having sub-standard checkups beforehand, black-market drugs. It will trickle down to the juniors etc. etc. Oh, the risks and consequences! It never stops. And who'll pay for ensuring that you're within safe limits? Health insurance? Should society pay for educating the doctors doing these unnecessary controls?

No, your proposition is just plain stoopid.

How would distribution work anyway? Would doctors be able to write healthy athletes prescriptions? Or would the athletes still be liable to arrest for possession of prescription drugs without prescription? Wouldn't this mean that the sports federations would in effect be sanctioning illegal acts?

 

[flicker]

So the vast majority of pro athletes who dope while it is illegal in order to gain an advantage would suddenly obey a rule that said 'dope just this much'?

The only dirty rider in the 06 tour was Floyd. The organisers banned Ulrich and Basso because of the possibility they may have been doping.

 

[Hugh Januss]

The only dirty rider in the 06 tour was Floyd. The organisers banned Ulrich and Basso because of the possibility they may have been doping.

Wow, just wow.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Are you going to write a check to WADA or the UCI or what ever agency might end up being responsible for holding thousands of samples for decades and then retesting them just to remove your ten year old third place at Classica San Sebastian off the books?

WADA would be the one holding samples.

I did not say decades. You are blowing my opinion out of scale to make it sound ridiculous. This is a common tactic to shout down reasonable discussion. Please stop it. If I ever mention a time span, then it is ten years.

Who the hell do you thing is going to fund this sh!t?

You are using a false constraint and again blowing my opinion up to make it sound ridiculous. This is weak.

Instead of shouting me down, how about discussing the following:
-What are the costs of storage? It's freezer space.
-What would most riders do if they knew today's advanced drug is tomorrow's positive?

Besides calling the idea fecal matter, how about a well reasoned reply? So far, you it doesn't look like you are capable of reasoning well or discussing, or agree to disagree and move on.

At some point we all have to realize that doping for athletic performance is a fact of life.

You need to check your history. The sport has been there already. Check out the law suit against chris carmichael and Rene Wenzel. The U.S. was not the only place the under-23's and younger were being doped. Doping the young-uns for fun and profit. That's what you are advocating because there's no boundary to your ideal.


Perform sport within human limits is the ideal and rules should be enforced accordingly. No one dies of an overdose that way.

 

[flicker]

The only dirty rider in the 06 tour was Floyd. The organisers banned Ulrich and Basso because of the possibility they may have been doping.

This is one of the reasons I bang on LeMond and the haters, why would any person in their right mind want to testify and vilify Armstrong or Landis.

Any person in their right mind would embrace the truth about Lance, the good he has done and the hope he has given us.

About Floyd, really as long as LeMond has been around, finger pointing at Floyd and overlooking the harsh reality of the rest of the peloton tells me he is watching out for his own interests, not the general health of cycling.

 

[hektoren]

How would distribution work anyway? Would doctors be able to write healthy athletes prescriptions? Or would the athletes still be liable to arrest for possession of prescription drugs without prescription? Wouldn't this mean that the sports federations would in effect be sanctioning illegal acts?

Good and valid points. +1

 

[Hugh Januss]

That's what I thought you said.

 

[la.margna]

Any person in their right mind would embrace the truth about Lance, the good he has done and the hope he has given us.

Sorry, any good things about LIEstrong that I missed? What hope? Image distraction shows with ego-maniac selfish Pharmstrong? The only thing that drive all his actions is to make as much money on anything, no matter wheter legal, illegal or greyzone. the cancer on cycling.

I am not a Lance hater. Think he is a really great cyclist and I highly respect and admire how he has overcome cancer. But he really takes everybody with a brain as stupid by continously telling us his absurd lies and profiteering with his yellow LIEstrong propaganda. Just retire back to your ranch and shut up and I'm already happy, stop with the LA awareness campaign and cease to hunt down cyclists who tell the truth and speak out about doping. Thanks.

LIEstrong cashing in big on livestrong.com through Demand Media IPO read.bi/fHncz1 via @businessinsider #pharmstrong

by Velocentric alex@velocentric

So let's start with some statistics, shall we? This is a Charity that year on year spends more on lobbying than it does on research.

This is a Charity that pays more to long-term business partners for 'expenses' than it does on grants to groups in the field.

This is a Charity that underwrote a loan for Armstrongs shop to buy a jet, then leases that jet AND pays for jet fuel.

This is a charity that has blurred the lines so much its advertising generates more awareness of the FOR PROFIT .com site than its own.

This is a Charity that is being used as a "too much good for too many ppl" shield to distract from the fact it could all be based on a lie.

This is a Charity that has invested 100's of millions of $ to raise $325m in its life. Less than similar Charities have raised in 1 year.

This is a Charity that states it wants to fight a hideous disease but diverts funds from those who DO fight to raise awareness of 1 man.

 

[9000ft]

Poor Floyd. Goes from dirty, filty, cheater, joke of a human being with the true cycling fans here on th CN forum, to saint Floyd who will bring down the evil one, now it's back to dirty filthy, cheater, joke of a human being Floyd. Ah well, easy come easy go.

Well there's always Tyler boys, don't give up hope.

 

[flicker]

Poor Floyd. Goes from dirty, filty, cheater, joke of a human being with the true cycling fans here on th CN forum, to saint Floyd who will bring down the evil one, now it's back to dirty filthy, cheater, joke of a human being Floyd. Ah well, easy come easy go.

Well there's always Tyler boys, don't give up hope.

That is alright, for the haters: there is always hope Floyd will recant again.

 

[VeloFidelis]

WADA would be the one holding samples.

I did not say decades. You are blowing my opinion out of scale to make it sound ridiculous. This is a common tactic to shout down reasonable discussion. Please stop it. If I ever mention a time span, then it is ten years.

You are using a false constraint and again blowing my opinion up to make it sound ridiculous. This is weak.

Instead of shouting me down, how about discussing the following:
-What are the costs of storage? It's freezer space.
-What would most riders do if they knew today's advanced drug is tomorrow's positive?

Besides calling the idea fecal matter, how about a well reasoned reply? So far, you it doesn't look like you are capable of reasoning well or discussing, or agree to disagree and move on.

You need to check your history. The sport has been there already. Check out the law suit against chris carmichael and Rene Wenzel. The U.S. was not the only place the under-23's and younger were being doped. Doping the young-uns for fun and profit. That's what you are advocating because there's no boundary to your ideal.

Perform sport within human limits is the ideal and rules should be enforced accordingly. No one dies of an overdose that way.

Wow! It appears that your flair for sensationalism is apparently only to be outdone here by my own. It is an interesting distraction to break a fully formed thought down into it's contributing factors and dispute them out of context, but we see a lot of that here so I will rebut in kind and try to be less petty.

I have no interest in shouting down your opinion, there is far too much of that here already, and it is not my game. But if your sensibilities are not up for having your opinion challenged then you are undoubtedly in for a rough ride with some of the regulars here. My advice would be to sharpen your argument and try to stay on point. It will serve you better than playing victim does.

As to the points in question:

You seem pretty sure that WADA would maintain custody of these samples. Especially when you consider that they maintain no custody of any sample at present. However they have licensed laboratories all over the world who do for a fee. With a radical expansion of the inventory due to expanded testing, cataloging, monitoring, and holding all those samples for ten years, while guaranteeing incontrovertibly that their stability and security, sounds kind of expensive to me. Especially when you consider that since you have now made this a WADA program, it will also have to be expanded to all sports under their jurisdiction, which includes every Olympic sport and athlete. Sounds like a budget buster to me

You are correct in that you did not say decades. What you said is ten years, so I will admit to that gross exaggeration... I think...

As to false constraint: please do tell me, in all seriousness, who is going to fund your idea? Unlike other professional sports their is no price of admission to be a cycling fan. There is no revenue stream like other professional sports. Is that burden going to be put on the team sponsors along with all their other costs? Gee... I wonder how they will feel about that.

You really think the cost of a program like this is "freezer space"? As an athlete whose career, reputation, current and future livelihood depends on this accuracy and validity of this program, you had better be able to show me flawless documentation, iron clad security, and unbroken chain of custody that guarantees against tampering, contamination, and aging... or don't even get started. My lawyers will eat you and this program alive. So... thousands of athletes... ten test per year each... ten years worth of storage... sounds kind of spendy doesn't it?

So... what would most riders do if they know that their results would be expunged from the records nine or ten years from now?... Hmmm... Well the punishment for testing positive today is a two year ban, public shame, loss of income, future discredit. That doesn't seem to be a strong enough deterrent in today's peloton. Do you really think the threat of post retirement disgrace will have more impact? I don't!

I will gladly retract my fecal matter comparison since you obviously view it as inflammatory and see it as directed at your proposal as opposed the the greater context of these harebrained ideas for which it was intended.

And finally as to checking my facts; you will have you expand as to what I am checking my facts is search of. "Been there already"...huh? Do under 23's dope? uh... yeah. What's in dispute here? I think that you are trying to make the point that doping would get much worse under a program that I allude to, and which you do not completely comprehend. But as to saving lives... prior to the 50% hematocrit rule established in the 90's there was a significant number of young cyclist deaths Belgium and the Netherlands. They died mysteriously in their sleep. In the decade or more since then, there is only one I can think of. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I would welcome the discourse.

I hope this sufficiently meets your standard for reasonable discussion. I will be glad to agree to disagree with any well constructed argument you may care to make. And I would suggest that before you attack another poster's position on any topic, that you ask sufficient questions to accurately comprehend what their position is. You did not do it in this instance. Hopefully you will in the future.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Wow! It appears that your flair for sensationalism is apparently only to be outdone here by my own. It is an interesting distraction to break a fully formed thought down into it's contributing factors and dispute them out of context, but we see a lot of that here so I will rebut in kind and try to be less petty.

I have no interest in shouting down your opinion, there is far too much of that here already, and it is not my game. But if your sensibilities are not up for having your opinion challenged then you are undoubtedly in for a rough ride with some of the regulars here. My advice would be to sharpen your argument and try to stay on point. It will serve you better than playing victim does.

As to the points in question:

You seem pretty sure that WADA would maintain custody of these samples. Especially when you consider that they maintain no custody of any sample at present. However they have licensed laboratories all over the world who do for a fee. With a radical expansion of the inventory due to expanded testing, cataloging, monitoring, and holding all those samples for ten years, while guaranteeing incontrovertibly that their stability and security, sounds kind of expensive to me. Especially when you consider that since you have now made this a WADA program, it will also have to be expanded to all sports under their jurisdiction, which includes every Olympic sport and athlete. Sounds like a budget buster to me

You are correct in that you did not say decades. What you said is ten years, so I will admit to that gross exaggeration... I think...

As to false constraint: please do tell me, in all seriousness, who is going to fund your idea? Unlike other professional sports their is no price of admission to be a cycling fan. There is no revenue stream like other professional sports. Is that burden going to be put on the team sponsors along with all their other costs? Gee... I wonder how they will feel about that.

You really think the cost of a program like this is "freezer space"? As an athlete whose career, reputation, current and future livelihood depends on this accuracy and validity of this program, you had better be able to show me flawless documentation, iron clad security, and unbroken chain of custody that guarantees against tampering, contamination, and aging... or don't even get started. My lawyers will eat you and this program alive. So... thousands of athletes... ten test per year each... ten years worth of storage... sounds kind of spendy doesn't it?

So... what would most riders do if they know that their results would be expunged from the records nine or ten years from now?... Hmmm... Well the punishment for testing positive today is a two year ban, public shame, loss of income, future discredit. That doesn't seem to be a strong enough deterrent in today's peloton. Do you really think the threat of post retirement disgrace will have more impact? I don't!

I will gladly retract my fecal matter comparison since you obviously view it as inflammatory and see it as directed at your proposal as opposed the the greater context of these harebrained ideas for which it was intended.

And finally as to checking my facts; you will have you expand as to what I am checking my facts is search of. "Been there already"...huh? Do under 23's dope? uh... yeah. What's in dispute here? I think that you are trying to make the point that doping would get much worse under a program that I allude to, and which you do not completely comprehend. But as to saving lives... prior to the 50% hematocrit rule established in the 90's there was a significant number of young cyclist deaths Belgium and the Netherlands. They died mysteriously in their sleep. In the decade or more since then, there is only one I can think of. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I would welcome the discourse.

I hope this sufficiently meets your standard for reasonable discussion. I will be glad to agree to disagree with any well constructed argument you may care to make. And I would suggest that before you attack another poster's position on any topic, that you ask sufficient questions to accurately comprehend what their position is. You did not do it in this instance. Hopefully you will in the future.

Who pays for storage at the moment? The UCI through 'taxing' the teams - so there would be no change there.

Also - WADA accredited labs are only required to hold (negative) samples for 3 months after testing.
Again - no-one is suggesting storage of 10 years, as the Stsute of Limitations is 8 years. The only reason the labs hold on to samples in most cases is for testing new methods not for anti-doping.

The only rider I know of who has been caught by the UCI by retro testing is Thomas Dekker.


Here is a quick list of suspicious deaths in just a few years during the 2000's - (I am not suggesting these cases are doping related - but their circumstance were suspicious)

• Denis Zanette (Italy) (Fasa Bortolo) (32) 2003
• Manfred Donike (42) 2003
• Marco Ceriani (Italy) (16) 2003;
• Fabrice Solanson (France) (Brioches la Boulangère) (23) 2003;
• Marco Rusconi (Italy) (24) (Ceramiche Pagnoncelli) 2003;
• Michael Zanoli (Netherlands) (35) (2003).
• Johan Sermon (Belgium) (Daikin) (21) 2004.
• Steve Vermaut (Bel) (28)
• Alessio Galletti (Italy)(Naturino-Sapore di Mare) (35) 15th June 2005;
• Jorg Kohler (Ger) (45) 16th September 2005, found at home
• Ubaldo Mesa (Col) (31) 9th October 2005, collapsed at start Venezuela
• Dave Rose (Hol) (26) 28th February 2006, unwell after training
• Daniel Bennett (Aus) (23) 5th January 2007, Heart failure during training ride
• Bruno Neves (Por) (25) 11th May 2008,
• Frederiek Nolf (Bel) (21) 5th February 2009, Tour of Quatar

 

[VeloFidelis]

Who pays for storage at the moment? The UCI through 'taxing' the teams - so there would be no change there.

Also - WADA accredited labs are only required to hold (negative) samples for 3 months after testing.
Again - no-one is suggesting storage of 10 years, as the Stsute of Limitations is 8 years. The only reason the labs hold on to samples in most cases is for testing new methods not for anti-doping.

The only rider I know of who has been caught by the UCI by retro testing is Thomas Dekker.


Doc, I appreciate the scrupulous effort in fact finding, but the points you raise are all tangential to the discussion taking place. IN which, exactly 10 years was specified by the poster, and UNDER which ALL athletes under the jurisdiction of WADA (his distinction, not mine) would require testing and storage. And that this possibility of future detection would somehow be a viable deterrent current doping practices, and cost approximately the electricity required to run a freezer.

Can you buy off on this concept and cost estimate?

 

[VeloFidelis]

Who pays for storage at the moment? The UCI through 'taxing' the teams - so there would be no change there.

Also - WADA accredited labs are only required to hold (negative) samples for 3 months after testing.
Again - no-one is suggesting storage of 10 years, as the Stsute of Limitations is 8 years. The only reason the labs hold on to samples in most cases is for testing new methods not for anti-doping.

The only rider I know of who has been caught by the UCI by retro testing is Thomas Dekker.


Here is a quick list of suspicious deaths in just a few years during the 2000's - (I am not suggesting these cases are doping related - but their circumstance were suspicious)

Doc, I appreciate the scrupulous effort in fact finding, but the points you raise are all tangential to the discussion taking place. IN which, exactly 10 years was specified by the poster, and UNDER which ALL athletes under the jurisdiction of WADA (his distinction, not mine) would require testing and storage. And that this possibility of future detection would somehow be a viable deterrent current doping practices, and cost approximately the electricity required to run a freezer.

Can you buy off on this concept and cost estimate?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

The only dirty rider in the 06 tour was Floyd. The organisers banned Ulrich and Basso because of the possibility they may have been doping.

I think you've finally topped yourself with that one Flicker.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Doc, I appreciate the scrupulous effort in fact finding, but the points you raise are all tangential to the discussion taking place. IN which, exactly 10 years was specified by the poster, and UNDER which ALL athletes under the jurisdiction of WADA (his distinction, not mine) would require testing and storage. And that this possibility of future detection would somehow be a viable deterrent current doping practices, and cost approximately the electricity required to run a freezer.

Can you buy off on this concept and cost estimate?

If you wish to continue arguing over a inaccurate and pointless argument, don't let me stop you.

To the highlighted - yes, I can because as we already know the AFLD had kept the samples of the 98 & 99 Tours just to validate tests, why would they hold on to them if this is an expensive practice?

Retro testing is a viable deterrent - if an athlete has a product that cannot be detected they would be far more likely to take it if they knew that it would never be tested for.

 

[Roninho]

What happened to Floyd ?
Unbelievable. He should think about it and himself during a long vacation. He needs a break.

What do the Floydlovers think about that now ?


"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."

Landis expressed a pessimistic view of efforts to clean up the sport, saying, "They're not even remotely close to catching anybody; it's just a joke. You can use as much EPO as you want and unless you're an idiot you're not going to get caught.

"Just start over and let it be. I'm convinced now that there's no stopping it and you've got to stop ruining lives over it. The bad guys will always have guns and the bad guys will always use drugs and that will force the good guys to do the same.

"Since you can't stop it you have to deal with it in rational kind of way. You can't stop it and you cant fix it. Monitor it and make sure people don't hurt themselves, but you have to accept it."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/floyd-landis-calls-for-legalised-doping

I think he has a point, but his solution is not going to work.

Imo what he is trying to say is that effect of doping is so huge and the chances of getting caught are so limited that it is impossible to get good results without dope. Which forces a rider to make the step to also use it if he wants to have a nice career. The problem he seems to have with this is that since the UCI wants to look clean they do testing and every now and then a rider gets caught. With the omerta in place some guys basically lose their lives. Add to this that with it all being done illegall you get guys like willy voet doing medical 'procedures' on riders and dope being stored by riders themself. That's just an accident waiting to happen.

It's easy to say: well if you are a bit of a strong man you simply don't use doping, and i agree with that. I would like to think that i would have never made the decision to dope if i was a cyclist, but then again i also made my shares of stupid (non-cycling/doping) mistakes growing up. Is it that hard to see yourself make a mistake as a 21-year old kid who has done nothing but cycling for the last decade getting into a situation where your whole world consist of guys (other riders, DS, the willy voets of the world,etc),some of them you even might be your childhood heroes, and who all (or at least a lot) think it is normal to do it and if it you don't use you will not be able to be anything more then a domestique at best? I hope i would be strong in that situation, but no idea i would be.

Having said that, Landis solution doesn't solve anything.
First of all, no sport with major corporations involved is going to say: we accept doping.
2ndly, even if some form of doping is allowed, no way it is going to be accepted to use all the doping products that the riders are using, and certainly not the amount some tend to use. Just imagine this rule being in force in +- 1996, and EPO was legalised. No way they would allow you to use a lot of it, so what would stop Riis to get to 60% anyhow? What would stop a guy like Gianneti to use whatever dubious product he used in the 98 tour de romandia? No way the use of such a product would be legalised, so what effect would this rule have?

Imo there are 3 options:
1) Just keep doing it like it is right now. Riders dope, a relatively high % gets caught/in trouble (just look at the riders who finished in the top10 of a GT at least once in the last decade, and who got caught/into trouble). This is from a business a stupid move to make, the high % of doping cases are very bad for sponsorship. On a moral standpoint imo it also is a bad decision since the testing is obviously not stopping the peleton from using, so it forces riders into very bad situations, both mentally as safety wise.
2) Lower the doping controls, to the level that you have 1 or 2 positives by domestiques every year. Business wise this is a great decision (a la nfl), shows you do controls but 'there is almost no doping in this sport'. Morally imo an awfull decision.
3) Go all out, but only with a method that actually detects dopers. As Landis said the doping test are way behind the doping users. But without a probability of like > 80% that you are going to get caught you will not stop the using. So an option would be to do retro-testing. So make an announcement that starting today any bloodsamples taken will be re-tested a couple of years from now, and unofficially tell the top riders they better stop because they will be detected. The epo detection test was official in 2000 (?). Just imagine they would have started this in '95 and in 2000 retested all samples from '95 till 99 on epo...
Businesswise this will have an awfull effect at first when all the riders are caught a year or 3-4 after their wins, but in the long run imo it will be a great business decision. You as a sport can claim: we know for sure that our winners of 4 years ago did not use product xyz because we re-tested it. No other sport would be able to say that.... From a moral standpoint imo it is even better, within a couple of years the culture will changed a lot. No DS is going to take these chances to lose his sponsorship opportunities for the future. And imo most riders will be smart enough to understand they will get caught if they use anything special. Yes a veteran in his last year might think: let me dope to try to get 1 final good result in the april-classics, when i get caught i will be retired anyway. But how many are willing to accept that after a 10 year career they know they will be caught and be remembered a cheat for one shot at some good last results? Imo not that many. So a 21 year old rider comes into a whole different culture and will have a good shot good results without dope (assuming he is talented off course).

 

[snackattack]

 

[cineteq]

That's the International edition.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/23/o...to-allow-doping-in-sport/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

If we ignore the health issues, we still won't have a level-playing field.

 

[Robert21]

Here is one powerful argument against the idea of allowing doping.

Outside magazine, January 2004.

Drug Test

By Stuart Stevens

...WADA is the logical response to an argument that gets aired from time to time: that since cheating is impossible to eliminate, the only recourse is to simply legalize everything - that way, no athlete has a hidden advantage over another, since everyone would be free to try anything that might increase endurance.

Like a lot of powerfully bad ideas, that one has a certain mad logic. But it would turn every sport into a test of how much damage an athlete was willing to risk to improve performance, and would basically force every serious athlete to cheat and risk his or her health. Athletic contests would have a strange life-or-death quality. If we don't keep drugs out of these events, they become freak shows, the athletes like gladiators - with us playing the role of decadent Romans, urging them on.

Besides, on a fundamental level, drugs ruin the simple joy of competition. With drugs in the mix, it's not about the athletes, it's about the chemistry.

 

[TheEnoculator]

Legalize doping??!! Are you f-ing serious??!! They might as well legalize drug trafficking and dealing. Tell that to the fine people at Interpol.

Floyd, go take another EPO shot. Your lack of schooling is really showing.