• 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!

Fuentes interview

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Se&#241 said:
Well, mine is not a "theory", it's just an opinion.

The reason why I said bringing the entire family to a final game is sort of an indication that you may not be doing something wrong is because of cheater's guilt, that's all.

Now, there are exceptions to the rule, like Armstrong, who's a compulsive socialite/psychopath and OK with living a lie every day of his existence, and has actually tested positive, or Riccó, who is simply a moron, and has also tested positive.

But, if you know you're doing something wrong you usually try to extricate yourself from those that matter to you, phisically and emotionally. Even Jesús Manzano himself, once said that the reason they used to carry out the training camps away from their home towns was to "[...]create a false appearance. The people have always been afraid of a scene, and panic at surprise controls at home. It's best to be away."

That's why I'm saying that someone with a family as heavily involved in his success as Nadal has to know he does not take a little of the sumphin-sumphin. And if they all, or some, know and are all in the lie then they all deserve to be put in jail.

Remember, it's just an opinion.

1 You dont need to say "its just an opinion" after every post. 90% of the stuff on here is opinion. The other 10 % is false ;)

The fact that its an opinion does not give it immunity from counter opinions. My point is an opinion to. As are everyone elses.

2 You mention Armstrong and Ricco in your post, and though i know you know better, it reads as if they were the only people to ever dope. As you put it "the sociopath and the idiot". My point is, that there have been thousands of people, over the recent decades, who have doped. And though we would all like life to be so simple that we could catergorise all of them as sociopaths and idiots, that is not the case. If you looked at all these people you wouldnt get just black and white, but various coulours, and probably some other frequencies from the electromagentic spectrum.

3 I think you would need serious, and i mean serious pchyotheraputic research into the brains of Nadal and Lance to be able to simply conclude that one is a sociopath who dopes and the other is the embodyment of benevolance and hence doesnt.
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
Visit site
Some fine links:

A Short History of Drugs in Tennis:
http://www.insidetennis.com/2009/10/short-history-drugs-tennis/

John McEnroe in 1992:

“You can tell when someone has been on steroids,” he said… “A guy bulks up, has a new body and never gets tired.”
He said athletes on steroids…heal more quickly after an injury, recover faster after grueling matches and work much harder during training.

“You see these guys or girls who come onto the tour talking about their new training programs and their diets where they eat this or that new thing…but they’ll never tell you about the drugs they took.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...nN8VAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4hIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5751,254816

Mahesh Bhupati:

“The tennis players themselves have brought it (anti-doping rules) upon themselves. A lot of players have been cheating. The players have to cooperate to weed out instances of cheating from sports,”

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/players-to-blame-for-new-dope-rules-says-bh/423468/

Andrew Ilie:

"The problem is so bad that you might as well just let them use it and when players see people dying on court and exploding, then it's going to change their minds.

The sport has become so competitive and powerful it is just a matter of fitness and who will outlast who out there.

People are just happy to sacrifice their health for three years of fame."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/australian_open/2003/2661895.stm

"The chief executive of the Australian Sports Drug Agency, John Mendoza, said tennis was approaching a similar crisis that swimming faced at the farcical 1994 Rome world championships and that cycling encountered before the Tour de France drug busts in 1997.

"Players can use short-acting steroids in combination with human growth hormone which will produce muscle mass and enormous power, and while they can stop just before a competition and test clean, they still get the performance benefit of the drugs," Mendoza said.

"The tests are easy to manipulate - a small example is that there is no visual straight line witnessing of a player giving the sample, they use a convex mirror,"

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/11/1026185087993.html

Mendoza was widely condemned by tennis authorities for daring to speak out about his concerns. He warned in 2002 that tennis officials were living in a "fool's paradise" if they did not recognise a major problem in their sport. "Tennis is heavily under the influence of doping and they are in denial if they don't accept that," he said. In response, International Tennis Federation executive director Debbie Jevans accused Mendoza of making "broad-brush statements without any evidence".
Mendoza was not at all surprised yesterday to hear of Agassi's admission. "I didn't say it (in 2002) just because I felt like a bit of notoriety. I said it because there was so much evidence from within the sport that things were right off the rails. "I had been hearing from 1997 that they (ITF and ATP) were burying results, and the WTA wasn't testing at all." He said there was rampant speculation at the time that Agassi was using drugs."Agassi was viewed by his peers as a user,"

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26278467-5010361,00.html

Nicolas Escudé:

"To say that tennis today is clean you have to be living in a dream world.

When you're playing on clay and after 50 shots the guy on the other side of the net is fresh and waiting for you to serve, while you're in agony, it's mind-blowing."

Escude slammed Miles for his passive attitude towards doping, and branded measures taken against those caught as ridiculous.

"What I don't understand is that, if a company's accounts show bad results, the boss is always the first one to get fired," he said.

"So when I hear today that Mark Miles is untouchable, I begin to wonder."

And he claimed that the top tennis players were keeping a lid on the problem because the ATP has dossiers on them.

"The problem is that the ATP is lead by Americans, while 85 percent of players are Europeans and the money comes from Europe," he said.

"It's a mafia that's in place. If these dossiers were exposed, tennis would be in a bad state for six months. But out of the bad would come some good."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/2027664.stm

Nathalie Tauziat before the 2001 Wimbledon:

"I won't name individuals," she said, "but it's clear that doping exists in tennis and needs to be stopped. I have no hard evidence, but all I will say is that you don't have to have a degree in medicine to see that some of the players have transformed themselves almost overnight. It's time people stopped taking us for a bunch of fools. I don't care how much training or gym work you do, there is no way anyone can suddenly become stronger and faster in the space of a couple of months. How is it that some girls disappear for a few weeks, and then return looking totally different?"

More from her:

SPIEGEL: Female tennis players are getting more and more athletic and pummeling the ball at close to 200 kmh over the net. Do you think this is possible with legal means? In the French satire show, "Guignols de l'info" a latex doll of Mauresmo looks like Sylverster Sallone.

Tauziat: That's pretty hurtful and they also do the same with Mary Pierce. Amélie had a big build even as a young player. There are women that have 10 times more muscles than her. That is not good if you want to have a long tennis career. It damages the tendons and it's not a coincidence that the Williams sisters are constantly injured.

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-16811203.html
 
Tyler'sTwin said:
I really don't agree with that. There are quite a few truly great football players that are all skill and football IQ. You can be a world class footballer while being seemingly unathletic. I don't think that's true for tennis anymore. Power has become hugely important and considering the cream of the crop play like 80 matches from january-november, I'm guessing recovery doping is more important too. ).

You say tennis playes play 80 matches and might need recovery doping. And how many matches do footballers play? The top club players play over 60 a year for their clubs and a further 15 or so for their country. Its a tiring game football. And when you have 2 matches a week, i think boosting the blood can prove key, and its how you get barca, real, chelsea using the same players every match and they never tire.

And Ive been over this quite a few times in this forum, as have many others but speed and power means so much to football these days. There are so many 170cm next big things being produced in Brazil argentina who dont make it simply because they are too weak. They have the best skills the most amazing tricks and football minds but at the end of the day, if a taller defender can nudge them away with his finger, its over for the little guy. THe messis and iniestas (same size) are however constantly challenging the physically bigger players. Even if you dont see this in the highlights reels it happens. Moreover teams are increasingly bringing using physical beasts with more strenght than skill. more and more Defenders and defensive midfielders are put in those positions simply to outmuscle opponents in danger areas. Target men strikers too with little skill are selected for their physical presence in winning the balls in key areas.

And thats just strenght. What about speed and stamina. Wingers rely on having lots of both. As do the smaller strikers, and midfielders. So peds would definately be of big advantage here as well.

Also as LS is always quick to point out cortisone, which is banned in cycling and athletics, is injected by teams into injured players duing matches if they want to continue. Ive never seen a player complain that this injection is very risky. THey all take it. Why would they then refuse some epo or steroids which guarantee.

What i really cant understand though is how football is sufficiently a technical sport that doping can be ruled out (in some cases) while tennis isnt. Tennis is a way way way more technical sport. It takes years to perfect the right spins and technique. Power is good but you can win without it. Moreover all the top tennis players started when they were 4 or 5. By 6 ,7 its usually to late. By 10?? get out of here. But footballers? Lots of the top footballers, particularly from Africa, started playing when they were almost into double digets and sometimes later. Far less skill is needed to spot a run and curl the ball with the outside of your foot than to do a one hand topspin backhand down the line at 100mph, and to not get tense at key points, when it is all up to you.

Btw did anyone see Usain Bolt say he wants to become a pro footballer once hes broken another 100m record. I thinik thats relevent to this discussion for a few reasons.
 
Tyler'sTwin said:
Some fine links:

A Short History of Drugs in Tennis:
http://www.insidetennis.com/2009/10/short-history-drugs-tennis/

John McEnroe in 1992:

“You can tell when someone has been on steroids,” he said… “A guy bulks up, has a new body and never gets tired.”
He said athletes on steroids…heal more quickly after an injury, recover faster after grueling matches and work much harder during training.

“You see these guys or girls who come onto the tour talking about their new training programs and their diets where they eat this or that new thing…but they’ll never tell you about the drugs they took.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...nN8VAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4hIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5751,254816

Mahesh Bhupati:

“The tennis players themselves have brought it (anti-doping rules) upon themselves. A lot of players have been cheating. The players have to cooperate to weed out instances of cheating from sports,”

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/players-to-blame-for-new-dope-rules-says-bh/423468/

Andrew Ilie:

"The problem is so bad that you might as well just let them use it and when players see people dying on court and exploding, then it's going to change their minds.

The sport has become so competitive and powerful it is just a matter of fitness and who will outlast who out there.

People are just happy to sacrifice their health for three years of fame."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/australian_open/2003/2661895.stm

"The chief executive of the Australian Sports Drug Agency, John Mendoza, said tennis was approaching a similar crisis that swimming faced at the farcical 1994 Rome world championships and that cycling encountered before the Tour de France drug busts in 1997.

"Players can use short-acting steroids in combination with human growth hormone which will produce muscle mass and enormous power, and while they can stop just before a competition and test clean, they still get the performance benefit of the drugs," Mendoza said.

"The tests are easy to manipulate - a small example is that there is no visual straight line witnessing of a player giving the sample, they use a convex mirror,"

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/11/1026185087993.html

Mendoza was widely condemned by tennis authorities for daring to speak out about his concerns. He warned in 2002 that tennis officials were living in a "fool's paradise" if they did not recognise a major problem in their sport. "Tennis is heavily under the influence of doping and they are in denial if they don't accept that," he said. In response, International Tennis Federation executive director Debbie Jevans accused Mendoza of making "broad-brush statements without any evidence".
Mendoza was not at all surprised yesterday to hear of Agassi's admission. "I didn't say it (in 2002) just because I felt like a bit of notoriety. I said it because there was so much evidence from within the sport that things were right off the rails. "I had been hearing from 1997 that they (ITF and ATP) were burying results, and the WTA wasn't testing at all." He said there was rampant speculation at the time that Agassi was using drugs."Agassi was viewed by his peers as a user,"

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26278467-5010361,00.html

Nicolas Escudé:

"To say that tennis today is clean you have to be living in a dream world.

When you're playing on clay and after 50 shots the guy on the other side of the net is fresh and waiting for you to serve, while you're in agony, it's mind-blowing."

Escude slammed Miles for his passive attitude towards doping, and branded measures taken against those caught as ridiculous.

"What I don't understand is that, if a company's accounts show bad results, the boss is always the first one to get fired," he said.

"So when I hear today that Mark Miles is untouchable, I begin to wonder."

And he claimed that the top tennis players were keeping a lid on the problem because the ATP has dossiers on them.

"The problem is that the ATP is lead by Americans, while 85 percent of players are Europeans and the money comes from Europe," he said.

"It's a mafia that's in place. If these dossiers were exposed, tennis would be in a bad state for six months. But out of the bad would come some good."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/2027664.stm

Nathalie Tauziat before the 2001 Wimbledon:

"I won't name individuals," she said, "but it's clear that doping exists in tennis and needs to be stopped. I have no hard evidence, but all I will say is that you don't have to have a degree in medicine to see that some of the players have transformed themselves almost overnight. It's time people stopped taking us for a bunch of fools. I don't care how much training or gym work you do, there is no way anyone can suddenly become stronger and faster in the space of a couple of months. How is it that some girls disappear for a few weeks, and then return looking totally different?"

More from her:

SPIEGEL: Female tennis players are getting more and more athletic and pummeling the ball at close to 200 kmh over the net. Do you think this is possible with legal means? In the French satire show, "Guignols de l'info" a latex doll of Mauresmo looks like Sylverster Sallone.

Tauziat: That's pretty hurtful and they also do the same with Mary Pierce. Amélie had a big build even as a young player. There are women that have 10 times more muscles than her. That is not good if you want to have a long tennis career. It damages the tendons and it's not a coincidence that the Williams sisters are constantly injured.

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-16811203.html

A good post but im afraid you wasted your time. For you see Nadal has nice parents who would never ever ever let him dope, and hence he must be clean.:rolleyes::p:D
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
You say tennis playes play 80 matches and might need recovery doping. And how many matches do footballers play? The top club players play over 60 a year for their clubs and a further 15 or so for their country. Its a tiring game football. And when you have 2 matches a week, i think boosting the blood can prove key, and its how you get barca, real, chelsea using the same players every match and they never tire.

And Ive been over this quite a few times in this forum, as have many others but speed and power means so much to football these days. There are so many 170cm next big things being produced in Brazil argentina who dont make it simply because they are too weak. They have the best skills the most amazing tricks and football minds but at the end of the day, if a taller defender can nudge them away with his finger, its over for the little guy. THe messis and iniestas (same size) are however constantly challenging the physically bigger players. Even if you dont see this in the highlights reels it happens. Moreover teams are increasingly bringing using physical beasts with more strenght than skill. more and more Defenders and defensive midfielders are put in those positions simply to outmuscle opponents in danger areas. Target men strikers too with little skill are selected for their physical presence in winning the balls in key areas.

And thats just strenght. What about speed and stamina. Wingers rely on having lots of both. As do the smaller strikers, and midfielders. So peds would definately be of big advantage here as well.

Also as LS is always quick to point out cortisone, which is banned in cycling and athletics, is injected by teams into injured players duing matches if they want to continue. Ive never seen a player complain that this injection is very risky. THey all take it. Why would they then refuse some epo or steroids which guarantee.

What i really cant understand though is how football is sufficiently a technical sport that doping can be ruled out (in some cases) while tennis isnt. Tennis is a way way way more technical sport. It takes years to perfect the right spins and technique. Power is good but you can win without it. Moreover all the top tennis players started when they were 4 or 5. By 6 ,7 its usually to late. By 10?? get out of here. But footballers? Lots of the top footballers, particularly from Africa, started playing when they were almost into double digets and sometimes later. Far less skill is needed to spot a run and curl the ball with the outside of your foot than to do a one hand topspin backhand down the line at 100mph, and to not get tense at key points, when it is all up to you.

Btw did anyone see Usain Bolt say he wants to become a pro footballer once hes broken another 100m record. I thinik thats relevent to this discussion for a few reasons.

Sure recovery and blood doping would help a footballer, but the schedule in tennis is as ridiculous as it gets.

How much football do you watch? There are plenty of little guys at the top of the game and some of them aren't even quick. It is much easier to make it in football without great physical ability than it is in tennis. Either speed or power is a must for a top tennis player nowadays, but it isn't in soccer. Look at Fabregas, Xavi and Scholes for some of the most glaring examples.
 
Tyler'sTwin said:
Sure recovery and blood doping would help a footballer, but the schedule in tennis is as ridiculous as it gets.

How much football do you watch? There are plenty of little guys at the top of the game and some of them aren't even quick. It is much easier to make it in football without great physical ability than it is in tennis. Either speed or power is a must for a top tennis player nowadays, but it isn't in soccer. Look at Fabregas, Xavi and Scholes for some of the most glaring examples.

My point is that the little guys who dont become very strong for their size dont make it. The Fabregases, Xavis and Scholes, Messis etc are very strong for their size. Hence strength is very important.
 
Tyler'sTwin said:
Sure recovery and blood doping would help a footballer, but the schedule in tennis is as ridiculous as it gets.

How much football do you watch? There are plenty of little guys at the top of the game and some of them aren't even quick. It is much easier to make it in football without great physical ability than it is in tennis. Either speed or power is a must for a top tennis player nowadays, but it isn't in soccer. Look at Fabregas, Xavi and Scholes for some of the most glaring examples.

Have you ever been on a regulation-size football pitch?

It's like you're playing in the middle of the ocean, it's so vast.

And when I see those little HgH bloated runts running around and never tiring, it's enough to make me laugh.
 
Tyler'sTwin said:
Some fine links:

A Short History of Drugs in Tennis:
http://www.insidetennis.com/2009/10/short-history-drugs-tennis/
...
http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...nN8VAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4hIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5751,254816

Mahesh Bhupati:
...

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/players-to-blame-for-new-dope-rules-says-bh/423468/

Andrew Ilie:
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/australian_open/2003/2661895.stm

"The chief executive of the Australian Sports Drug Agency, John Mendoza,...

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/11/1026185087993.html

Mendoza was widely condemned by tennis authorities for daring to speak out about his concerns. ...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26278467-5010361,00.html

Nicolas Escudé:
...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/2027664.stm

Nathalie Tauziat before the 2001 Wimbledon:

"I won't name individuals," she said, "but it's clear that doping exists in tennis and needs to be stopped. I have no hard evidence, but all I will say is that you don't have to have a degree in medicine to see that some of the players have transformed themselves almost overnight. It's time people stopped taking us for a bunch of fools. I don't care how much training or gym work you do, there is no way anyone can suddenly become stronger and faster in the space of a couple of months. How is it that some girls disappear for a few weeks, and then return looking totally different?"

...

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-16811203.html
Good info. Thanks.:)
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
My point is that the little guys who dont become very strong for their size dont make it. The Fabregases, Xavis and Scholes, Messis etc are very strong for their size. Hence strength is very important.

I don't agree with that, but whether they are strong for their size or not, they definitely aren't in absolute terms so my point still stands.

Berzin said:
Have you ever been on a regulation-size football pitch?

It's like you're playing in the middle of the ocean, it's so vast.

And when I see those little HgH bloated runts running around and never tiring, it's enough to make me laugh.

You know, I couldn't stop thinking EPO during the OT between France and Ireland (yes, the infamous handball match). Everyone was just so ridiculously fresh and I kept thinking back to a semi in the U-21 euros that summer in which the players looked like they were dying during extra time.
 
Tyler'sTwin said:
I don't agree with that, but whether they are strong for their size or not, they definitely aren't in absolute terms so my point still stands.



You know, I couldn't stop thinking EPO during the OT between France and Ireland (yes, the infamous handball match). Everyone was just so ridiculously fresh and I kept thinking back to a semi in the U-21 euros that summer in which the players looked like they were dying during extra time.

WHy would they have to be strong in absolute terms. They just have to be stronger than x when x is the strenght needed to avoid being nudged away by opposition players every time they come into contact with them.

You try challenging someone like Lucio for a arial ball or even a ground one. Now imagine you are 170 cm tall, small build and you have to challenge these guys. If not Lucio, then Viera, or Drogba. Its a pretty tough task, and failure involves getting hit badly, and falling hard onto the ground. Iniesta, Xavi, Scholes succeed every match against vastly bigger players. Head to head body to body against these beasts. The strenght needed for this is big, even if it doesnt appear so on tv.
There are plenty of players who dont have x. Plenty who cant make it in the big leagues because they just dont have the strength to get past opposition defenders and get thrown to the ground everytime they try. Who are unable to challenge Lucio or John Terry. Who are unable to make their mark because of this and hence dont get into the 1st teams and dont get into the nike ads.

And peds would definately help in getting that strength. No question about that.
 
Jul 30, 2009
1,735
0
0
Visit site
Only on this forum can 2 guys agree so completely while still battling away with each other :rolleyes:

Footy IMO is riddled with it - for example can you read this story and not smell 10 legions of rats? http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2005/apr/01/newsstory.sport9

I think there is scope in footy for a skillful player or two to be successful clean - but not your midfield powerhouse who runs the whole game, still fresh in extra time, 60 games a season, never gets injured etc etc

PS great links Tyler's Twin - as a sport it stinks - but in the UK - tennis - surely not, strawberries and cream, posh people, nice bit of SW London, press and BBC senior management on junkets - all that drug taking is for cyclists and East European athletics?
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
WHy would they have to be strong in absolute terms. They just have to be stronger than x when x is the strenght needed to avoid being nudged away by opposition players every time they come into contact with them.

You try challenging someone like Lucio for a arial ball or even a ground one. Now imagine you are 170 cm tall, small build and you have to challenge these guys. If not Lucio, then Viera, or Drogba. Its a pretty tough task, and failure involves getting hit badly, and falling hard onto the ground. Iniesta, Xavi, Scholes succeed every match against vastly bigger players. Head to head body to body against these beasts. The strenght needed for this is big, even if it doesnt appear so on tv.
There are plenty of players who dont have x. Plenty who cant make it in the big leagues because they just dont have the strength to get past opposition defenders and get thrown to the ground everytime they try. Who are unable to challenge Lucio or John Terry. Who are unable to make their mark because of this and hence dont get into the 1st teams and dont get into the nike ads.

And peds would definately help in getting that strength. No question about that.

If you concede that a footballer doesn't have to be strong in absolute terms then you can't argue that great strength is a requirement for success.

Iniesta, Xavi and Scholes do not succeed by matching their strength, they succeed despite being at a major disadvantage in strength.

The small players who fail because they aren't strong enough simply do not have the skill and brains necessary to succeed anyway, unlike the midfielders previously mentioned. A playmaker can be world class without an impressive physique.
 
Tyler'sTwin said:
If you concede that a footballer doesn't have to be strong in absolute terms then you can't argue that great strength is a requirement for success.

Iniesta, Xavi and Scholes do not succeed by matching their strength, they succeed despite being at a major disadvantage in strength.

The small players who fail because they aren't strong enough simply do not have the skill and brains necessary to succeed anyway, unlike the midfielders previously mentioned. A playmaker can be world class without an impressive physique.

No no no. :p

Believe me there are plenty of players, who have been told that they would be great additions to the senior teams if they just had the strenght to compete with bigger guys. But they dont, and it means they just get pushed off the ball every time they get near it. How many times could messi dribble through entire teams if a touch was enough to push him to the ground? Far far less. He is able to very impressively hold of bigger guys before leaving them in his wake. Ive seen Scholes, Iniesta Xavi, go head to head with far bigger players and come out on top.

I ask you again. Do you think it takes basic strenght to hold off someone like Viera time and time again. I think you are underestimating the strenght needed. Perhaps i am overestimating it, but from what i have seen and heard and read, the strenght of these footballers is considerable. I think it is a difficult task to hold them off, as Iniesta and Xavi and Messi and Scholes have always managed to do, and not get hurt badly being pushed to the ground every time with barges. Peds will do the trick.
 
Apr 21, 2009
189
0
0
Visit site
Rugby

Makes me wonder about Rugby. I don't know how much / little drug testing exists, but it certainly is a sport where strength and aerobic capacity are both very important. I'd rather it's not so, but the potential for abuse is certainly there. Lots of really big guys who can run hard for 80 minutes....

I really don't think cycling is worse than many other sports, just that the emphasis on testing has made it all so visible and brought it out in the open to a much greater degree. So many other sports where testing programs are a joke, by comparison. Cycling gets a bad name because of making the effort.
 
Winterfold said:
Only on this forum can 2 guys agree so completely while still battling away with each other :rolleyes:

Footy IMO is riddled with it - for example can you read this story and not smell 10 legions of rats? http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2005/apr/01/newsstory.sport9

I think there is scope in footy for a skillful player or two to be successful clean - but not your midfield powerhouse who runs the whole game, still fresh in extra time, 60 games a season, never gets injured etc etc

PS great links Tyler's Twin - as a sport it stinks - but in the UK - tennis - surely not, strawberries and cream, posh people, nice bit of SW London, press and BBC senior management on junkets - all that drug taking is for cyclists and East European athletics?

Rupert said:
Makes me wonder about Rugby. I don't know how much / little drug testing exists, but it certainly is a sport where strength and aerobic capacity are both very important. I'd rather it's not so, but the potential for abuse is certainly there. Lots of really big guys who can run hard for 80 minutes....

I really don't think cycling is worse than many other sports, just that the emphasis on testing has made it all so visible and brought it out in the open to a much greater degree. So many other sports where testing programs are a joke, by comparison. Cycling gets a bad name because of making the effort.

Regarding the point you both make about cycling having a bad name i remember on one of the fawning bbc sports interview shows they have, where they basically invite a celebrity sports star on and spend an hour talking about how great said sports celebrity is, they had cav on once and the first thing they asked was about the doping in cycling and how rife it is.

You believe the balls on these ****s :cool: All they ever do is hero worship athletes, in some cases with history of doping, in some cases with other discrepancies in their past (like drogba tellingh refs to _ off etc) and they dont mention one word. Its just your so great your so great bla bla bla. But the moment they get cav on, who btw is atm Britians best athlete they put the heat to him on doping, because others in his sport have been caught.

The balls on these guys :cool:
 
Jul 22, 2009
754
1
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
1 You dont need to say "its just an opinion" after every post. 90% of the stuff on here is opinion. The other 10 % is false ;)

The fact that its an opinion does not give it immunity from counter opinions. My point is an opinion to. As are everyone elses.

I'm not asking you not to opine on my posts, I'm asking you not to call something I say a "theory" when I'm telling you it's just an opinion.

2 You mention Armstrong and Ricco in your post, and though i know you know better, it reads as if they were the only people to ever dope. As you put it "the sociopath and the idiot". My point is, that there have been thousands of people, over the recent decades, who have doped. And though we would all like life to be so simple that we could catergorise all of them as sociopaths and idiots, that is not the case. If you looked at all these people you wouldnt get just black and white, but various coulours, and probably some other frequencies from the electromagentic spectrum.

And I agree. I actually said the opposite of what you think I said, which was that the sociopath and the idiot are the exception to the rule, not the norm.

3 I think you would need serious, and i mean serious pchyotheraputic research into the brains of Nadal and Lance to be able to simply conclude that one is a sociopath who dopes and the other is the embodyment of benevolance and hence doesnt.

Well, no. I'm not saying that Nadal doesn't dope because of his humble or benevolent attitude. I'm saying that he shows no signs of cheater's guilt. That's all.

If you need further clarification, do me a favor, just send me a private message. I don't want to turn this into an "I said this because of that and you think I said this but in reality I mean that" marathon.

I'm sure it annoys the heck out of everyone.
 
Se&#241 said:
I'm not asking you not to opine on my posts, I'm asking you not to call something I say a "theory" when I'm telling you it's just an opinion.



And I agree. I actually said the opposite of what you think I said, which was that the sociopath and the idiot are the exception to the rule, not the norm.



Well, no. I'm not saying that Nadal doesn't dope because of his humble or benevolent attitude. I'm saying that he shows no signs of cheater's guilt. That's all.

If you need further clarification, do me a favor, just send me a private message. I don't want to turn this into an "I said this because of that and you think I said this but in reality I mean that" marathon.

I'm sure it annoys the heck out of everyone.

Nope. Dont worry i dont need to send you a pm. And i dont know if you see this as personal or not, but relax. Its just a bit of fun, talking about cycling and doping and all that :) I wouldnt be on here if i felt personal about it. When i mock your opinion, as the "superparents theory" im just joking. Feel free to do the same. I always smile when i am challenged like this. Thats what forums are for.


I think your above post is a pretty good one and a good way to end this little banter. I think Nadal does dope, you think he doesnt. For both of us these are simply opinions subject to change if evidence ever does come out. Nothing more than a minor disagreement is all. ;)
 
Jul 22, 2009
754
1
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
Nope. Dont worry i dont need to send you a pm. And i dont know if you see this as personal or not, but relax. Its just a bit of fun, talking about cycling and doping and all that :) I wouldnt be on here if i felt personal about it. When i mock your opinion, as the "superparents theory" im just joking. Feel free to do the same. I always smile when i am challenged like this. Thats what forums are for.


I think your above post is a pretty good one and a good way to end this little banter. I think Nadal does dope, you think he doesnt. For both of us these are simply opinions subject to change if evidence ever does come out. Nothing more than a minor disagreement is all. ;)

;)

No harm done at all.

By the by, I agree with 95% of the stuff you say.
 
Mar 11, 2009
18
0
0
Visit site
Rupert said:
Makes me wonder about Rugby. I don't know how much / little drug testing exists, but it certainly is a sport where strength and aerobic capacity are both very important. I'd rather it's not so, but the potential for abuse is certainly there. Lots of really big guys who can run hard for 80 minutes....

I really don't think cycling is worse than many other sports, just that the emphasis on testing has made it all so visible and brought it out in the open to a much greater degree. So many other sports where testing programs are a joke, by comparison. Cycling gets a bad name because of making the effort.

Rupert,

Rugby is one of the worst sports in terms of its PED use. Click on this link and look how many UK rugby players have tested positive.

http://www.ukad.org.uk/violations/

There are over 114 pages of positives - all from the UK. The country of so called fair play!! :rolleyes:
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
Thanks for this. Wow. Only 30% cycling. So maybe the perception that this thing of ours is the most dirty sport because of all the positive tests, is wrong.

And so many tennis players. The argument always was that Tennis is one of the most technique based sports.

Always said, that cycling isn´t the most dirty. It´s not big enough. The bigger the dirtier (NFL, MLB, Soccer, Tennis, NBA, Rugby: Doping PLUS Game fixing).

The cliche about technique sports = less doping is a myth. MLB had up to 7 % positive doping tests in 2003. And that´s only steroids and only the tip of the iceberg.