Gee I think it's awful that a DOPER won LBL

[buckwheat]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/vinos-victory-overshadowed-by-questions-about-his-pastIs it me, or does that "maybe next year some French riders might even join us" sound like it's basically an admission of why he was in the Canaries?

Yeah, the *** trips himself up being a smart aleck.

Cycling is done until they start handing out lifetime bans combined with a truth and reconciliation policy.

 

[BikeCentric]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/vinos-victory-overshadowed-by-questions-about-his-pastIs it me, or does that "maybe next year some French riders might even join us" sound like it's basically an admission of why he was in the Canaries?

Sounds like it, and it also seems like a weird coded message to the French riders along the lines of "get on the dope train now if you don't want to keep getting dropped."

I must say this whole Vino wins LBL saga is pretty weird because it's like the sport is overtly rubbing doping in our faces. We basically know Vino is doped again because there's simply no way he's going as good now clean as he was going when blood doped. So it's almost like this whole thing is a UCI message that it's okay to dope as long as you stay within bio passport parameters and make sure to time your doses so you don't pop positive for anything at controls.

 

[luckyboy]

He got punished and banned, so let's enjoy his attacks and aggressive riding style and hope he won't get caught again.

If he is doping, then surely we would be hoping the opposite? As with all dopers of course.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/vinos-victory-overshadowed-by-questions-about-his-pastIs it me, or does that "maybe next year some French riders might even join us" sound like it's basically an admission of why he was in the Canaries?

Looks that way tbh. Implicating some Leakygas riders while he's at it

 

[DonTickles]

Sounds like it, and it also seems like a weird coded message to the French riders along the lines of "get on the dope train now if you don't want to keep getting dropped."

I must say this whole Vino wins LBL saga is pretty weird because it's like the sport is overtly rubbing doping in our faces. We basically know Vino is doped again because there's simply no way he's going as good now clean as he was going when blood doped. So it's almost like this whole thing is a UCI message that it's okay to dope as long as you stay within bio passport parameters and make sure to time your doses so you don't pop positive for anything at controls.

No no no, you've got it all wrong. It's just proof that the Bio passport is working better than expected. Since Vino obviously cannot perform at his old, blood doped level without being doped now, it just means that he's NOT performing at those levels. It means that everyone else is clean and that he doesn't NEED to dope to win anymore. It's all so clear to me now, Pat McQuaid has been right all along and cycling is now completely dope free, and Vino is the proof.

Yeah, I don't believe that either...

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Yeah, the *** trips himself up being a smart aleck.

Cycling is done until they start handing out lifetime bans combined with a truth and reconciliation policy.

Cycling is not "Done", as long as the sports media decides to televise,write about, cover online and blog about. As long as sponsors are willing to attach their brands to this sport as their vehicle to gain exposure and awareness, there will be professional cycling.

Your concept of lifetime bans and "tell or else" policy will do one thing: create another professional league for riders to go to when they pop in a UCI race. Perhaps another professional organization would be a good thing?

There is a mis-guided resentment of Vino where by his returning, probably resorting to his previous methods, and coming back winning, he is a target for venom. Focus your venom on the UCI and the promoters.

If you want an alternate approach to punishment, there would be no stronger message than limiting the races a guy in Vino's spot can race. This was the concept with the rule that riders cannot sign with Pro Tour teams for another 2 years....how is that working out? Keeping the tainted riders out of the biggest races for an extra meter of time, really keeping them off Pro Tour teams, would be true deterrence.

But let's get past that. Someone is going to win these races. They are highly likely to be doped. Why begrudge Vino for having he skill (on the level-ized playing field) to win? Your moral high-ground is dropping in elevation.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Looks that way tbh. Implicating some Leakygas riders while he's at it

Yeah, like it did them any good on Sunday.

 

[Polish]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/vinos-victory-overshadowed-by-questions-about-his-pastIs it me, or does that "maybe next year some French riders might even join us" sound like it's basically an admission of why he was in the Canaries?

I read Vino's remarks as him saying that Teneriffe is NOT the doping-den it used to be.

It is clean enough now that even French Riders can visit without being infected with doper cooties.


edit...but it does sound like an admission that he WAS doping there while visiting 2003 - 2006.

 

[buckwheat]

Cycling is not "Done", as long as the sports media decides to televise,write about, cover online and blog about. As long as sponsors are willing to attach their brands to this sport as their vehicle to gain exposure and awareness, there will be professional cycling.

Do you think Radio Shack is a good sponsor?

The sport is an object of derision, and it's reached new heights. When one of the marquee events is won by a known cheat and even the extraordinarily timid cycling media is focused on that fact, your sport is in a very bad spot.

Your concept of lifetime bans and "tell or else" policy will do one thing: create another professional league for riders to go to when they pop in a UCI race. Perhaps another professional organization would be a good thing?.

It's not my concept. I don't really understand the interest at this point. Cycling is now a confirmed carnival freak show.

There is a mis-guided resentment of Vino where by his returning, probably resorting to his previous methods, and coming back winning, he is a target for venom. Focus your venom on the UCI and the promoters.

Oh, they're all complicit in the fraud. Especially people like Lim and Vaughters.

If you want an alternate approach to punishment, there would be no stronger message than limiting the races a guy in Vino's spot can race. This was the concept with the rule that riders cannot sign with Pro Tour teams for another 2 years....how is that working out? Keeping the tainted riders out of the biggest races for an extra meter of time, really keeping them off Pro Tour teams, would be true deterrence..

No, drastic measure are needed to restore credibility.

Now if they don't care about credibility and the cycling community is willing to accept a freak show, maybe I'm the one who's off.

But let's get past that. Someone is going to win these races. They are highly likely to be doped. Why begrudge Vino for having he skill (on the level-ized playing field) to win? Your moral high-ground is dropping in elevation.

Oh, the sport was cleaning up incrementally prior to THE RETURN.

What's crazy is that the most prophetic people like LeMond and Kimmage were 100% spot on.

 

[luckyboy]

Cycling is not "Done", as long as the sports media decides to televise,write about, cover online and blog about. As long as sponsors are willing to attach their brands to this sport as their vehicle to gain exposure and awareness, there will be professional cycling.

It's not done as a sponsorship vehicle yet then..

Yeah, like it did them any good on Sunday.

Let's wait until the Giro shall we?

I read Vino's remarks as him saying that Teneriffe is NOT the doping-den it used to be.

It is clean enough now that even French Riders can visit without being infected with doper cooties.

Yes, let's all take his word for it..

It's not my concept. I don't really understand the interest at this point. Cycling is now a confirmed carnival freak show.

Yep, it's been that way for some time though..

 

[buckwheat]

Yep, it's been that way for some time though..

For people who know. I'll bet that Armstrong still garners overwhelmingly positive public opinion in the U.S. I'd be shocked if he has more than 25% negative opinion.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Once you go down that road, not only is it necessary physically, it's necessary psychologically.

You can't be jacked and know how effective it is, then lay off and wonder whether your competition is cheating.

The sport you describe is more like poker than an athletic competition.

Any fan should have realized how pathetic these guys are when Beltran tried to evade the controls. That was a prelude to all of Pharmstrong and Astana'snonsense last year.

Cycling has less credibility than Bodybuilding.

I'm not suggesting he has decided to race clean, but merely that he's saving the blood boosting for Le tour. He's obviously nowhere near the form he was in when he won those GT's, including the Giro that he wasn't expecting to ride. Besides, you simply cannot be on the autologus stuff every race unless you compete very rarely. Do you think Lance was boosted when he was getting dropped by 50 riders? Do you think Ullrich was boosted when he was mediocre in the giro?

We know Hamilton only doped for a few select races.

Sounds like it, and it also seems like a weird coded message to the French riders along the lines of "get on the dope train now if you don't want to keep getting dropped."

I must say this whole Vino wins LBL saga is pretty weird because it's like the sport is overtly rubbing doping in our faces. We basically know Vino is doped again because there's simply no way he's going as good now clean as he was going when blood doped. So it's almost like this whole thing is a UCI message that it's okay to dope as long as you stay within bio passport parameters and make sure to time your doses so you don't pop positive for anything at controls.

What do you expect? They can't ban him just because he's probably going as fast as he did before the ban.

 

[BikeCentric]

What do you expect? They can't ban him just because he's probably going as fast as he did before the ban.

I don't expect them to nor do I think they should, which is why I didn't say that. Try not to misinterpret me; if you cannot understand what I write then also be sure not to put words in my mouth. Thanks.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

I don't expect them to nor do I think they should, which is why I didn't say that. Try not to misinterpret me; if you cannot understand what I write then also be sure not to put words in my mouth. Thanks.

So what did you mean by "So it's almost like this whole thing is a UCI message that it's okay to dope as long as you stay within bio passport parameters and make sure to time your doses so you don't pop positive for anything at controls"??? If you realize that they obviously can't ban someone without proper evidence, then how does this mean it's okay to dope?

 

[BikeCentric]

So what did you mean by "So it's almost like this whole thing is a UCI message that it's okay to dope as long as you stay within bio passport parameters and make sure to time your doses so you don't pop positive for anything at controls"??? If you realize that they obviously can't ban someone without proper evidence, then how does this mean it's okay to dope?

It means just what I said in my post: that it's okay to dope up to the levels stipulated by the bio-passport and okay to dope as long as you don't test positive on race day.

Please stop playing dumb or at least actually read the posts of the person you are trying to engage in discussion.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

It means just what I said in my post: that it's okay to dope up to the levels stipulated by the bio-passport and okay to dope as long as you don't test positive on race day.

Please stop playing dumb or at least actually read the posts of the person you are trying to engage in discussion.

This is like saying it's okay to murder as long as you cannot be proven guilty. Of course, it's not, it just means you wont be punished for it. The way you worded it implies that the UCI are fine with it.

 

[BikeCentric]

The way you worded it implies that the UCI are fine with it.

EXACTLY. Congratulations on learning to read.

 

[Berzin]

I think there's a good case for life-bans for doping now tbh. Why bother banning people at all if they're just going to come back at the same level?

Alex Zulle began this modern trend. I asked myself during the 1999 so-called "Tour of Redemption" how was it possible for Zulle to ride into second place when the year before he was part of the biggest doping scandal to hit the sport in years?

If he could ride this well undoped, then why take the risk? Not only over getting caught, but putting his long-term health at risk?

 

[BroDeal]

Yeah, like it did them any good on Sunday.

Leaky Gas is saving the blood for the Giro.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

It means just what I said in my post: that it's okay to dope up to the levels stipulated by the bio-passport and okay to dope as long as you don't test positive on race day.

C'mon BikeCentric, you can follow Tyler'sTwin's point. The message people might take from Vino's performance is that it's OK to dope within passport parameters because you won't get caught. But that's the message, not the UCI's message, because as you admit, there's nothing the UCI can actually do....so why interpret their inaction as tacit approval in this instance?

Please stop playing dumb or at least actually read the posts of the person you are trying to engage in discussion.

Please stop with the ad hominem stuff, especially with a relatively new forum member.

 

[luckyboy]

as you admit, there's nothing the UCI can actually do..

They should be doing the total body haemoglobin test.

 

[elapid]

They should be doing the total body haemoglobin test.

Agreed.

But please turn your Avatar the other way around Luckyboy. I haven't been drinking, but it sure feels like it!

 

[luckyboy]

I'll probably change it tbh. I think it'll probably encourage people to see me as a fanboy Hmm..

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

I like the idea and it might help a bit. If everyone caught did it perhaps the people caught would be more likely to get a ride on their return after spilling the beans.

Yes. One way or another, sanctions need to be structured so that riders expect others who get busted to name suppliers at the very least. The negative consequences of breaking omerta, within the pro cycling circles, might therefor be reduced.

Not enough people are being caught though and as many have said the enablers have to be able to be sanctioned too. May also lead to false information being given.

That's why every positive has to catch as many PED users as possible. The idea of forcing riders to name suppliers/enablers is that it allows for a police investigation which could break open a doping network. It also avoids putting cyclist in the position of having to directly rat out their peers.

The false info point is definitely a concern, but there are current rules around the quality of information required to receive a reduced ban for providing information, so I don't see why this would need to be different. A scenario where riders would be wise to keep some evidence proving who supplied them and unwise to share a supplier with another rider, might give omerta a bit of a nudge. Utopian ideals...

 

[luckyboy]

The general agreement RE: omertà seems to be that things were getting better until the dark lord came back. Anyone think things will go that way again when he re-retires? Unless, of course, he keeps a DS/some other management position at RetirementShack.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

C'mon BikeCentric, you can follow Tyler'sTwin's point. The message people might take from Vino's performance is that it's OK to dope within passport parameters because you won't get caught. But that's the message, not the UCI's message, because as you admit, there's nothing the UCI can actually do....so why interpret their inaction as tacit approval in this instance?



Please stop with the ad hominem stuff, especially with a relatively new forum member.

Im not suggesting this is the current UCI position as it relates to 1996, but 'BikeCentrics' position has merit.

Here are Hein Verbruggens comments when he was President of the UCI.

"The whole doping fight is pretty ineffective and it's also unsatisfactory. Imagine that in future there's more of a move towards health controls, concentrating not only on doping but also on the health aspect. If there are certain products that enhance performance when taken in large quantities which are also dangerous to health, why not prescribe certain limits, check the blood and the urine and say that as long as you stay within determined limits where there is no risk to health, that's fine by us?"

I asked the obvious question: if you do this, isn't there a risk of condoning doping, which could still be dangerous? To which Verbruggen replied: "we already permit certain levels of caffeine and testosterone and a certain haematocrit level."

Verbruggen added, "concentrating on punishment does not solve the doping problem... The fight against doping simply by controlling and punishing doesn't work. The cheats stay ahead."