Has anyone changed their mind about doping?

[Tonton]

The point is, among many, I would expect at least one to talk. Not to mention that with time the older ones go, too. Some stay, but most go. I prefer to think that the reason they don't talk is because there's nothing for them to talk rather than be cynical and blame it on some sort of code of silence.

And I respect your opinion, although I disagree with it.

Considering how no-one defended Bassons back in the day, that no-one called LA out for bullying Simeoni on live TV, and the bashing that LeMond took when he was going after Liestrong (being called bitter, loser, jealous, et caetera), maybe riders are probably thinking twice before speaking up.

 

[Walkman]

Nope.



Is this the link / abstract you meant to post?

This link / abstract does not describe a test showing no blood transfusions were made by Swedish skiers. Swedish skiers are not even mentioned.

Who do you think they tested back then? The guy in last place? Of course they didn't, they tested the guys on the podium and as I said in an earlier post (when I first posted this link) sweden claimed 6/12 individual medals and the relay gold on the men's side.

No, the abstract does not describe a test showing no blood transfusions but it show that the hemoglobin values are lower than the mean values for the general population as would be expected and rules out blood doping. So unless you are to tell me the swedish team used masking agents, such as say Hemohes, I'd say it counts as evidence that they did not use blood transfusions.

 

[Walkman]

There's not much more annoying for me than someone to suggest I did not read their post.

Here's what you wrote:



ie

I, Walkman, hate cheaters.
You, do not hate cheaters.
HOW CAN YOU NOT HATE CHEATERS!!?

ie you are not acting like I do - how is that possible?

Explain to me, forget all the stuff, how this is not reading your post clearly - the words are right there in black and fricken white.

I asked him a question, hence the question mark. That you tries to alter the circumstances and then pin it to me does not bother me. I did not write the following:

I, Walkman, hate cheaters.
You, do not hate cheaters.
HOW CAN YOU NOT HATE CHEATERS!!?

You did. I asked him how he, since he was competing, not could hate dopers. Never did I tell him:

"If you compete clean you must hate cheaters"

As you did suggest. Try and read my posts as they are, not the way you want them to be.

 

[DirtyWorks]

The point is, among many, I would expect at least one to talk.

More than one talked.
-Bassons
-The Andreus
-Landis
-How about Matt DeCanio?
-Ashenden
-how about the draconian NDA WADA experts must now sign?

And it only harmed the talkers. The sport's administrators launched all manner of tactics to limit the impact of the truth.

 

[Walkman]

Wow this Sweeden country sounds amazing. Is there no such thing as crime there either. Theft, murder etc, do yall have words for these things in that country seeing as its this race born immune to all manner of immorality. No poverty either?

Is Sweeden the land John Lennon was singing about in "Imagine"?

Can't see how this is somewhat close to relevant. It seems to me that you don't really have a good response and just tries to come down on me with something completely irrelevant. Crimes and doping are not the same thing.

Why not bring me some statistics of how many swedes that has gotten caught in XC-skiing, Biathlon or Track and Field during the last 10-15 years. Then you can compare those number with countries like Russia, USA, and the eastern Europe countries.

 

[BigMac]

Who are they?

People from my country for instance. I don't think we're alone. Many more people have gotten into cycling these last year's. Some others just watch the Tour, but many more do it in general. No study is needed to realize this.

It does change that fact because you have absolutely no argument to back up that claim. You just say its what you feel. How do you feel this anyway. When did you start watching cycling? You revealed your age here before and cycling was already a decade into EPO before you would have been able to talk. You cannot possibly be able to compare the fanbase now to what it was in the 1990's and early 2000's, so what feelings are you working off?

By observation of the sport. I started watching cycling often 8 or 9 years ago. My comparisons are from what I remember then and what I see now. I am comparing the fanbase in this time period. I don't know why you picked this in particular from my post, as it is almost irrelavent in the context and to what's written next.

Ok so the new generation of of 1990 did not stop doping and the new generation of 1995 did not stop doping and the new generation of 2000 did not stop doping and the new generation of 2005 and the new generation of 2010 did not stop doping.

But this current one just emerging. They bring with them a commitment to cleanliness? How does that work. Did Chernobyl change the genes of human beings, all babies born afterwards will refuse to dope?

From the dacade of 90 to 2000 I can't comment, but I assume that when compared to nowdays, doping was tabu or not many were aware or really cared about it. Different environment. From what I remember, it could as well be extended to the first half of the last decade. To the rest, can we not say, from common sence, that those of 2010 were cleaner than the previous ones? And that the Armstrong case somewhat divided cycling into anoher era?

Do bear in mind that I don't have my head stuck in the sand and would gladly be educated.

 

[Walkman]

Cultural differences my ar$e. I'm done with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_athletics

Russia: 118 cases
United states: 85 cases
Turkey: 53 cases
Jamaica: 35 cases
Ukraine: 25 cases
Romania: 25 cases
Bulgaria: 15 cases
Italy: 15 cases

Sweden: 6 cases

And of those 6 cases one was busted using cocaine on a night club while partying. He hardly doped to enhance performance.

Another case is Ludmila Engquist who was born and raised in Russia and thus was not raised into the swedish anti-doping culture.

And the last case (if we discard for the two cases I just mentioned) is in 1987.

Here is another link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_sport

And among all those list, we find just 16 swedish cases. Feel free to compare to other nations.

 

[King Boonen]

Swedish population = 10 million

Russian population = 144 million


Who wants to do the maths?

 

[Walkman]

Swedish population = 10 million

Russian population = 144 million


Who wants to do the maths?

Population has nothing to do with this. Number of active athletes has. But even if you have a million athletes, not all of them can compete. The Olympics and the World Championships has a limited number of sports for each country. So yeah, Russia may have more athletes but what would be interesting to ses is the "test/positive test" ratio for each country. That would tell us something.

 

[King Boonen]

Population has nothing to do with this. Number of active athletes has. But even if you have a million athletes, not all of them can compete. The Olympics and the World Championships has a limited number of sports for each country. So yeah, Russia may have more athletes but what would be interesting to ses is the "test/positive test" ratio for each country. That would tell us something.

Many, many, many more athletes than Sweden. At the 2012 Olympics Russia had 436 athletes. Sweden had 134.


Swedes dope, as much as everyone else. Deal with it. It's likely that athletes in richer countries have access to more refined doping programmes and are caught less than people who have to do it themselves or rely on limited information.

Stop talking rubbish.

 

[DirtyWorks]

So yeah, Russia may have more athletes but what would be interesting to ses is the "test/positive test" ratio for each country. That would tell us something.

Understand the fundamental problem with this is you don't know how many are positive under the bio-passport for any given year. You know how many are officially sanctioned.

That's completely different and a pretty meaningless number that WADA publishes. My recollection is it's not sorted the way you posted though so there would be some effort to re-sort the annual data.

 

[neineinei]

You don't know anything about XC-skiing, do you?

I posted facts. Pre EPO era the swedes dominated and test shows no blood transfusions were made. During the EPO era swedes were nowhere to be seen and world class skiers such as Mogren was marginalized much like Lemond was. After the EPO-test was introduced, the swedes start to become more successful again, do you think that's just a coincidence?

For this theory to hold water the EPO test would have to be a very effective test, and there would have to be sufficent testing. However, the EPO test is not effective, and the testing is in no way sufficent. Neither in Sweden nor anywhere else.

At the 2002 SLC games Mühlegg, Lazutina and Danilova were caught oxygen vector doping. However the head of the SLC anti doping lab, Don Catlin, has said that around 100 athletes at the games had abnormal blood values. Just like in cycling the top athletes in winter endurance sports just adjusted their doping, and most of them got away with it. There is no reason to think there were less doping in cross country skiing than in cycling in the 2000's. FIS is doing a lot less testing than UCI, they did not make their blood testing data available to WADA until 2012, they have never sanctioned anyone on the basis of the biological passport and they hardly ever catch anyone.

 

[DirtyWorks]

For this theory to hold water the EPO test would have to be a very effective test, and there would have to be sufficent testing. However, the EPO test is not effective, and the testing is in no way sufficent. Neither in Sweden nor anywhere else.

At the 2002 SLC games Mühlegg, Lazutina and Danilova were caught oxygen vector doping. However the head of the SLC anti doping lab, Don Catlin, has said that around 100 athletes at the games had abnormal blood values. Just like in cycling the top athletes in winter endurance sports just adjusted their doping, and most of them got away with it. There is no reason to think there were less doping in cross country skiing than in cycling in the 2000's. FIS is doing a lot less testing than UCI, they did not make their blood testing data available to WADA until 2012, they have never sanctioned anyone on the basis of the biological passport and they hardly ever catch anyone.

All true. Remember it was the then-head of the IOC that did not open those EPO cases during the games.

 

[neineinei]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_athletics

Russia: 118 cases
United states: 85 cases
Turkey: 53 cases
Jamaica: 35 cases
Ukraine: 25 cases
Romania: 25 cases
Bulgaria: 15 cases
Italy: 15 cases

Sweden: 6 cases

And of those 6 cases one was busted using cocaine on a night club while partying. He hardly doped to enhance performance.

Another case is Ludmila Engquist who was born and raised in Russia and thus was not raised into the swedish anti-doping culture.

And the last case (if we discard for the two cases I just mentioned) is in 1987.

Here is another link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_sport

And among all those list, we find just 16 swedish cases. Feel free to compare to other nations.

First, these lists are in no way complete. For instance there are lots of Russian cases not listed. Quite possibly also some Swedish

There are of course lots more Russian athletes than there are Swedish. And what is more, there is A LOT more testing in Russia than in Sweden. In fact Russia has a national anti dopnig agency. Something Sweden doesn't have.

 

[The Hitch]

Can't see how this is somewhat close to relevant. It seems to me that you don't really have a good response and just tries to come down on me with something completely irrelevant. Crimes and doping are not the same thing.

Why not bring me some statistics of how many swedes that has gotten caught in XC-skiing, Biathlon or Track and Field during the last 10-15 years. Then you can compare those number with countries like Russia, USA, and the eastern Europe countries.

Ah so the entire US 1984 Olympic squad was clean then? Got it.

And yes my post was relevant. What you are arguing is the sociological equivalent of creationism. You are claiming that one strand of land enclosed by borders will somehow produce people who are totally immune from a type of immoral behavior that many people everywhere else in the world engage in.

And then you offer as your empirical evidence for this outlandish claim, the amount of positive tests a country has had

 

[The Hitch]

People from my country for instance. I don't think we're alone. Many more people have gotten into cycling these last year's. Some others just watch the Tour, but many more do it in general. No study is needed to realize this.
By observation of the sport. I started watching cycling often 8 or 9 years ago. My comparisons are from what I remember then and what I see now. I am comparing the fanbase in this time period. I don't know why you picked this in particular from my post, as it is almost irrelavent in the context and to what's written next.

Ok, so you are basically guessing "I think more people watch the cycling now".

Either way the point is irrelevant since I think even you will concede that the 100m at the olympics gets infinately times more viewers, press, prestige, funding, attention etc than cycling does.

And all this attention has never stopped 100m athletes from doping.

3 billion viewers hasn't stopped footballers from doping at the world cup.

So why would 20 000 viewers instead of 18 000 viewers for a race on Eurosport stop a rider from doping?

From the dacade of 90 to 2000 I can't comment, but I assume that when compared to nowdays, doping was tabu or not many were aware or really cared about it. Different environment. From what I remember, it could as well be extended to the first half of the last decade. To the rest, can we not say, from common sence, that those of 2010 were cleaner than the previous ones? And that the Armstrong case somewhat divided cycling into anoher era?
.

2010? You mean the same 2010 that a confirmed doper coming back from a doping ban won LBL, a confirmed doper coming back from a doping ban became the first confirmed doper coming back from a doping ban to win a Grand Tour, the world number 1 was suspended for 2 years, the favourite for the Giro was pulled out 2 weeks before it started and suspended for 2 years, and the winner of the Tour de France was caught doping during the race?

The rest of your post is just weird assumptions. Different environment?
Ok. Whle we are at it maybe its a change in the bee population that has caused athletes to stop doping. Equally speculative.

 

[The Hitch]

I feel far more confident about this now that I know Swedes don't dope

http://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/tennis/article12049942.ab

 

[Walkman]

For this theory to hold water the EPO test would have to be a very effective test, and there would have to be sufficent testing. However, the EPO test is not effective, and the testing is in no way sufficent. Neither in Sweden nor anywhere else.

Not really. You just need to minimize doping. XC-skiign is not like cycling. Before Tour de Ski there were no back to back races and even so, stages in the Tour can be 5km or sprint stages hence the need for recovery is not nearly as important in XC-skiing as it is in cycling.

Of course doping will make you better, but not to the same extent as it does in cycling. With a EPO test and a maximum limit for Hb values you take away the ability to supercharge like Smirnov, Pantani and Riis did. That's enough to make a real impact in XC-skiing. Just look at the 2001 World Championships. During the opening distances Mühlegg was good, but not great, then come the 50km he dominated. The other guys could keep up when fresh but once the recovery became an issue, the dopers had the advantage.

 

[Walkman]

I feel far more confident about this now that I know Swedes don't dope

http://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/tennis/article12049942.ab

One guy was warned for missing a test five years ago, yep that makes all the difference...

I never said that swedes don't dope, they clearly do, I am arguing that they are less prone to do so because of the anti-doping culture that has existed and still exists in Sweden.

Swedish athletes that get caught are hated by the public, they are a disgrace for the country. I don't get the same impression watching the Vuelta with regards to piti and AC. Neither did I when I watched the 2010 Giro with Basso. They still see this guys as heroes. Heck, Pantani still gets praised for his performances. And I can tell you, none is praising Ludmila Engquists olympic gold medal in Sweden.

Nicklas Axelsson couldn't even live in Sweden after his suspension. He said people looked at him like he was a murderer. This is hardly the case in Spain and Italy.

 

[Walkman]

Many, many, many more athletes than Sweden. At the 2012 Olympics Russia had 436 athletes. Sweden had 134.


Swedes dope, as much as everyone else. Deal with it. It's likely that athletes in richer countries have access to more refined doping programmes and are caught less than people who have to do it themselves or rely on limited information.

Stop talking rubbish.

You have yet to produce a single argument that stand against my theory. You telling me that I am wrong and swedes dopes as much as the rest is not an argument, it's an opinion.

Give me some facts, statistics or anything to back up your claims. Until you do, why should I take your posts seriously?

 

[Walkman]

Understand the fundamental problem with this is you don't know how many are positive under the bio-passport for any given year. You know how many are officially sanctioned.

Good point. The data might not be perfect, but it would give us a hint, unless some countries are discriminated by WADA, which I find unlikely. Over time, statistically it should even out and the number of sanctioned should represent the numbers of positive, or am I mistaken?

That's completely different and a pretty meaningless number that WADA publishes. My recollection is it's not sorted the way you posted though so there would be some effort to re-sort the annual data.

If you have a recollection, please post it! Would be interesting to read!

 

[King Boonen]

You have yet to produce a single argument that stand against my theory. You telling me that I am wrong and swedes dopes as much as the rest is not an argument, it's an opinion.

Give me some facts, statistics or anything to back up your claims. Until you do, why should I take your posts seriously?

Most. Ironic. Post. Ever. Well done.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I asked him a question, hence the question mark. That you tries to alter the circumstances and then pin it to me does not bother me. I did not write the following:

I, Walkman, hate cheaters.
You, do not hate cheaters.
HOW CAN YOU NOT HATE CHEATERS!!?

You did. I asked him how he, since he was competing, not could hate dopers. Never did I tell him:

"If you compete clean you must hate cheaters"

As you did suggest. Try and read my posts as they are, not the way you want them to be.

It's really obvious English is a second or third language, so no worries.

When someone in English writes something like, "Then how can you not hate cheaters?" the implication is

1. the person talking does hate cheaters
2. the person talking finds it incredible that the person they are talking to does not hate cheaters

It's also implied that the person should hate cheaters. It's not said directly, but implied. It's part of the nuance of the English language.

eg: how could you not see the lights were red!!?

1. I saw they were red
2. I find it incredible that you didn't
3. I think you should have seen they were red

In this scenario, I am safely assuming.
1. you hate cheaters
2. you find it incredible that the other poster does not
3. *** here you claim you are not telling the poster they should hate cheaters

fair enough - but I hope also you can see how easy it is to follow that logical chain.

If you now say, "oh no, I do not hate cheaters", then the original question you asked looks kinda stupid.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Swedish population = 10 million
Russian population = 144 million
Who wants to do the maths?

*shudder* I get the feeling this discussion is going to remain unresolved if this is the level of logic being employed by Walkman.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Not really. You just need to minimize doping. XC-skiign is not like cycling. Before Tour de Ski there were no back to back races and even so, stages in the Tour can be 5km or sprint stages hence the need for recovery is not nearly as important in XC-skiing as it is in cycling.

Of course doping will make you better, but not to the same extent as it does in cycling. With a EPO test and a maximum limit for Hb values you take away the ability to supercharge like Smirnov, Pantani and Riis did. That's enough to make a real impact in XC-skiing.

Ok, at a guess (yes just opinion) doping is 80% training and 20% racing, in terms of number of times / days it is carried out, and also in terms of the impact of its use.

I do not think you can compare racing of skiing vs cycling and say doping doesn't help to the same extent.

There are only 3 x 3 week GTs, and a significant number of other races that are only 1 day, or a week. The GTs are well known, but a lot of contracts are made within those races pursuing individual stage wins, or jerseys that are not daily battles to stay on top.