Inga Thompson - and "cleaning house"

[hiero2]

Inga Thompson posted this Op-ed in VN:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/12/analysis/opinion-thompson-says-cleaning-house-is-the-only-way-forward_267849

What a wonderfully written piece! I found it magnificently appealing, and wonderful to hear the DOWN side from somebody who has a legitimate complaint that she got results stolen from her. She was no 2nd team wanna-be. Now, leaving aside the question that we must ask, i.e. "Is she being honest in claiming to be clean?" - I will assume this to be true. I think her points are valid regardless.

My first thought, on reading her op-ed, were of the many people here in the clinic who say something similar - we have to go back and clean house. She makes the point VERY convincingly. She almost convinces me 100%.

I love her answer for handling the situation with her own child. Good thinking on her part. Except that many HS football programs see steroid abuse.

My first response was to show this to all those people talking about cleaning house throughout the past. As validation of what they think. Except I thought about it for a little while, and I realize there is a flaw in her thinking. It is right here:

Would you hand your son or daughter over to a program if you knew the people overseeing them were ex-drug addicts doing cocaine, meth or heroin?

My first response is "this makes sense!" But, then, like I said, I thought about it. Let's replace the drugs mentioned with another - alcohol. Would you trust a reformed alcoholic to run a program for alcoholics? Notice I don't say EX-alcoholic, since people who have been dry for ever so many years don't allow themselves to say it that way. But, if you were wise, you wouldn't trust ANYBODY else to run a program for quitting alcohol. It takes an addict to understand addiction. Anybody else only has a 2nd-best idea of what that's like. Can a man every fully understand the pain that a woman feels when giving birth? No. Can someone who has never killed understand what it is like in battle? No. One can empathize, sympathize, and extrapolate so they have some idea, but it will never be quite the same.

I say Thompson is right when she says we need to achieve transparency for those years. We have a lot more today than we did a year ago, but it isn't all done yet. I have to agree with the transparency. Without the transparency, we fans will never KNOW enough to believe our current stars are clean.

But we don't need to completely purge those who were involved. Reform IS possible, and in this case, it is desirable. It takes a thief, or someone who thinks like a thief, to catch a thief. That's why the personality profiles of policemen are VERY much like the criminals they catch.

Which brings us back to what many people here have called for before: accountability, and transparency. Transparency for the past is no good without accountability for actions in the present. And when you can't have full accountability, and we know that drug testing will never be that good, then accountability in the present means that transparency for the past is essential.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Don't know Mrs Thompson, but her stance on the situation is very similar to mine.

 

[MarkvW]

Inga Thompson posted this Op-ed in VN:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/12/analysis/opinion-thompson-says-cleaning-house-is-the-only-way-forward_267849

What a wonderfully written piece! I found it magnificently appealing, and wonderful to hear the DOWN side from somebody who has a legitimate complaint that she got results stolen from her. She was no 2nd team wanna-be. Now, leaving aside the question that we must ask, i.e. "Is she being honest in claiming to be clean?" - I will assume this to be true. I think her points are valid regardless.

My first thought, on reading her op-ed, were of the many people here in the clinic who say something similar - we have to go back and clean house. She makes the point VERY convincingly. She almost convinces me 100%.

I love her answer for handling the situation with her own child. Good thinking on her part. Except that many HS football programs see steroid abuse.

My first response was to show this to all those people talking about cleaning house throughout the past. As validation of what they think. Except I thought about it for a little while, and I realize there is a flaw in her thinking. It is right here: My first response is "this makes sense!" But, then, like I said, I thought about it. Let's replace the drugs mentioned with another - alcohol. Would you trust a reformed alcoholic to run a program for alcoholics? Notice I don't say EX-alcoholic, since people who have been dry for ever so many years don't allow themselves to say it that way. But, if you were wise, you wouldn't trust ANYBODY else to run a program for quitting alcohol. It takes an addict to understand addiction. Anybody else only has a 2nd-best idea of what that's like. Can a man every fully understand the pain that a woman feels when giving birth? No. Can someone who has never killed understand what it is like in battle? No. One can empathize, sympathize, and extrapolate so they have some idea, but it will never be quite the same.

I say Thompson is right when she says we need to achieve transparency for those years. We have a lot more today than we did a year ago, but it isn't all done yet. I have to agree with the transparency. Without the transparency, we fans will never KNOW enough to believe our current stars are clean.

But we don't need to completely purge those who were involved. Reform IS possible, and in this case, it is desirable. It takes a thief, or someone who thinks like a thief, to catch a thief. That's why the personality profiles of policemen are VERY much like the criminals they catch.

Which brings us back to what many people here have called for before: accountability, and transparency. Transparency for the past is no good without accountability for actions in the present. And when you can't have full accountability, and we know that drug testing will never be that good, then accountability in the present means that transparency for the past is essential.

I believe Lyne Bessette has also written about her perspective of the Jeanson years.

 

[Aleajactaest]

My first response was to show this to all those people talking about cleaning house throughout the past. As validation of what they think. Except I thought about it for a little while, and I realize there is a flaw in her thinking. It is right here: My first response is "this makes sense!" But, then, like I said, I thought about it. Let's replace the drugs mentioned with another - alcohol. Would you trust a reformed alcoholic to run a program for alcoholics? Notice I don't say EX-alcoholic, since people who have been dry for ever so many years don't allow themselves to say it that way. But, if you were wise, you wouldn't trust ANYBODY else to run a program for quitting alcohol. It takes an addict to understand addiction. Anybody else only has a 2nd-best idea of what that's like. Can a man every fully understand the pain that a woman feels when giving birth? No. Can someone who has never killed understand what it is like in battle? No. One can empathize, sympathize, and extrapolate so they have some idea, but it will never be quite the same.

I agree with much of her article and your analysis but I think the above metaphor is wrong.

Alcohol and recreational drug use have addictive qualities that make giving them up more difficult. (food for that matter falls into that category) Using PED's for most people tends to be limited to the period under which it gains you an advantage. I don't think that applies.

My issue with keeping them is ethical. If they can make the moral decision to do it once, I believe it reveals a willingness to ignore other rules of convenience when they too run counter to your goals. I don't think that anyone with a history of PED usage/tolerance etc could be associated with any new regime without there always being some doubt.

 

[dpcowboy]

Inga is right...and the conditions she describes for truly starting cycling again without the doping are correct...I think the key to her comments is that she accurately describes
the coaches, DS's, and trainers as "semi-repentant"....and that, my friends, is spot on.

Thousands of racing cyclists chose NOT to dope, and because of their personal moral courage, had to abandon their dreams of cycling, at least on the professional scene. How can anyone support or give any credit to any of these confessed dopers. They are immoral, unethical jerks, who, like a lot of convicts, finally feel guilty. Big deal...go crawl under a rock and find another means of employment.
I do not want to see one more article, book, interview, Gran Fondo, or reinstatement....just go away and find another path....that should be their punishment...to disappear.

 

[mountainrman]

I have long thought the arguments about "less doping in womens cycling" to be bull. And this bitterly proves the point.

I also think she was lucky rather than just well principled. She was born in an era that allowed her to fulfill some of her potential before the hard decisions came, like Andy Hampsten who could "decide not to play" after winning a giro and retire when faced with the choice.
Such as Tyler Hamilton who were in that sense entering at the worst time when doping was the majority choice. You cannot be blamed for being born when you were..

As to what to do about it - that is harder.

Don't think she should use her own anger to deny a future for her son, that gave her her own identity and she should trust her son to make the right decisions.

She should find a way to encourage him. It seems to me far fewer track cyclists have been involved in scandals over the years so maybe she could justify to herself encouraging him in that without sacrificing her beliefs.

Hopefully in another five years the problem in road racing will become minor. because of such comprehensive biometric testing catching cheats. It will never disappear completely.

 

[reginagold]

She has made a sound request not yet discussed in this thread. Do testing on all the stored samples and let's see who was and wasn't playing the Lance game.

She says placings and prize money were stolen from her, and now her entire career is being stolen from her as doper after doper pushes to sell their self serving message - everybody did it. So many, in fact, we need a Truth and Reconciliation program? Excuse me, voluntarily giving yourself an illegal sporting advantage equates with the murders and other human rights violations under apartheid?

 

[mountainrman]

She has made a sound request not yet discussed in this thread. Do testing on all the stored samples and let's see who was and wasn't playing the Lance game.

She says placings and prize money were stolen from her, and now her entire career is being stolen from her as doper after doper pushes to sell their self serving message - everybody did it. So many, in fact, we need a Truth and Reconciliation program? Excuse me, voluntarily giving yourself an illegal sporting advantage equates with the murders and other human rights violations under apartheid?

I think it would prove what we already suspect or know,that almost ALL were doing the same or similar except for the few old hands with extensive palmares who retired rather than got involved when the peloton speeded up in the mid / late nineties. That is the problem with blaming and sanctioning one man, or one team. It is unrepresentative. When they are all shown guilty what do you do?

It seems better to me draw a line in the sand at a much later date, say 2006 by which time more were hopefully racing clean - and then yes - retest all samples when major new breakthroughs in testing come.

 

[skippy]

Members of ALL Forums would do well to take what INGA has to say as just the tip of the Iceberg ! In the current atmosphere she has the courage to make CLEAR the extent of the Doping PROBLEM !

4050+ have signed on with http://www.changecyclingnow.org petition !

HAVE ANY OF YOU ?

Until critical mass is achieved phat & heinous will give us ALL the finger ! They think they are in an Impregnable fortress hidden behind the Constitution they have constructed !

Unless the Swiss Authorities act , they are going to enjoy passing out the " goodies " to the 42 Delegates that can influence their future well being ! Not too many of the 42 will act , in a way , that removes them from the swill trough , where they have their snouts firmly entrenched !

This forum is a joke for phats of aigle , bedtime dreaming material !

LETS GET TOGETHER and disabuse those that think Cycling Fans are POWERLESS and COMPLACENT !

Show support for ANY initiative that alerts the MEDIA to the unrest that exists . YOU can start by creating a better worded Petition than these :
http://www.change.org/petitions/wada-create-an-amnesty-in-all-sports …
&
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitio...eans-for-a-sports-amnesty-in-australia#invite …


http://www.facebook.com/AmnestyForAllSportsAthletesNow?skip_nax_wizard=true

 

[frenchfry]

I think it would prove what we already suspect or know,that almost ALL were doing the same or similar except for the few old hands with extensive palmares who retired rather than got involved when the peloton speeded up in the mid / late nineties. That is the problem with blaming and sanctioning one man, or one team. It is unrepresentative. When they are all shown guilty what do you do?

It seems better to me draw a line in the sand at a much later date, say 2006 by which time more were hopefully racing clean - and then yes - retest all samples when major new breakthroughs in testing come.

You are right, they were all doing the same thing.

Except of course those who weren't doing it.

Not to forget those who dropped out of the sport because they didn't want to do the same thing.

So in fact, you are totally out to lunch with your "all doing it" crap.There is nothing that plisses me off more than the "level playing field" "they were all doing it" doping apologists like you.

 

[sniper]

I think it would prove what we already suspect or know,that almost ALL were doing the same
..

not all were paying off the uci, intimidated opponents, pushed teammates to dope, put bets on their own performances, got early notifications about (ooc an ic) tests, or got private instructions on how to beat the tests. And not all lied about it under oath either.

Lance is going into the history books as one of the biggest dopers, cheats, frauds, and liars in the history of sports, if not the biggest.
That's an observation, not an opinion.

 

[hiero2]

I agree with much of her article and your analysis but I think the above metaphor is wrong.

Alcohol and recreational drug use have addictive qualities that make giving them up more difficult. (food for that matter falls into that category) Using PED's for most people tends to be limited to the period under which it gains you an advantage. I don't think that applies.

My issue with keeping them is ethical. If they can make the moral decision to do it once, I believe it reveals a willingness to ignore other rules of convenience when they too run counter to your goals. I don't think that anyone with a history of PED usage/tolerance etc could be associated with any new regime without there always being some doubt.

Addicts of alcohol and most rec drugs are seeking a phsychological outcome. I speak as one who had two alcoholic parents, my own difficulties with it, and a period in my youth when I preferred serious rec drugs - and denied alcohol. Later that changed, for a number of reasons. I tell you this to establish a certain level of my own "expertise" in the topic. I have also raced, and worked with racers who were much better and higher up the ladder than I. The desire to win is every bit as "addictive" as alcohol and most of the drugs we are discussing. Sure they can give it up. So can the alcoholic. So can the coke-head. Is the desire to win, at the top levels, less than the other internal pressures? From my observations, there is often not much difference. The sort of mental bending of natural urges that allow a person to think they are so important that drugs can be an answer in life for them - is, in my experience, very similar to the mental bending that occurs for athletes doing PEDs.

As for there being some doubt, I think you are absolutely right. But we should ALWAYS have the wariness of "some doubt" in our minds. And whether it is PEDs or coke, the person who has done that and been there will be better at recognizing another person who is NOW there, and NOW doing that.

Inga is right...and the conditions she describes for truly starting cycling again without the doping are correct...I think the key to her comments is that she accurately describes
the coaches, DS's, and trainers as "semi-repentant"....and that, my friends, is spot on.

Thousands of racing cyclists chose NOT to dope, and because of their personal moral courage, had to abandon their dreams of cycling, at least on the professional scene. How can anyone support or give any credit to any of these confessed dopers. They are immoral, unethical jerks, who, like a lot of convicts, finally feel guilty. Big deal...go crawl under a rock and find another means of employment.
I do not want to see one more article, book, interview, Gran Fondo, or reinstatement....just go away and find another path....that should be their punishment...to disappear.

I think you are absolutely correct that some of these folks are "semi-repentant". And, several ONLY confessed because if they didn't they were looking at jail charges against them! That does not also mean that others are NOT repentant. Given the circumstances, I don't think it automatically includes anybody just because they waited before speaking. What I want to see are people who say "I was wrong, I made a mistake, and I am working to not make mistakes now" - and honestly say that. Take, for instance, Tammy Thomas. I don't think she honestly says "I was wrong" even today! She is still, as nearly as I can see, in denial! And denial is a hallmark of addiction and serial behavior problems.

Compare George H to Landis, or Tyler. I've always liked George, but do you see any evidence he regrets his choices, and would make them differently if he had the chance? I don't. But I do see evidence that Landis and Tyler would take a different path if they could go back. But regardless of theses examples, SOME of the people who were in the "in-crowd" then, will be honestly repentant, and trying to help others not go there. And that also means some will be "semi-repentant".

She has made a sound request not yet discussed in this thread. Do testing on all the stored samples and let's see who was and wasn't playing the Lance game.

She says placings and prize money were stolen from her, and now her entire career is being stolen from her as doper after doper pushes to sell their self serving message - everybody did it. So many, in fact, we need a Truth and Reconciliation program? Excuse me, voluntarily giving yourself an illegal sporting advantage equates with the murders and other human rights violations under apartheid?

Agree - going back and testing a lot, or all, old samples could be useful. What Inga said she doesn't like is people now distrust HER results - since so many results were tainted. She objects to being painted with that brush.

I also agree that "everybody did it" is something of a denial/justification - and wasn't really the case. Yet, at the same time, we are hearing a similar story from those who didn't dope - "everybody was doing it - or enough people were doing it - so that I was no longer competitive!" Which leaves me thinking that the percentage that DIDN'T do anything must have been small. At the same time, I don't think EVERYBODY did it, that is also unrealistic to believe, and is disrespectful of many people who have come out and said "I didn't".

Your last sentence doesn't really make much sense. We were talking about one person being able to understand something they had never done. I didn't notice any mention of apartheid - although almost every "black" American I have ever known believes no white person can really understand what it's like to be black. So I suppose you might be mentally jumping from what I said to apartheid because of that. But your last sentence still doesn't make much sense.

 

[mountainrman]

You are right, they were all doing the same thing.

Except of course those who weren't doing it.

Not to forget those who dropped out of the sport because they didn't want to do the same thing.

So in fact, you are totally out to lunch with your "all doing it" crap.There is nothing that plisses me off more than the "level playing field" "they were all doing it" doping apologists like you.

You have no idea what I am. I am certainly not a doping apologist. I am seriously p*ssed at having watched a cynical farce. I own an anti doping website.

But I am a realist. What are you going to do when it tells us what we already probably know? That all were doing it until comparatively recently? Close down the sport?
The fact is a judicial system in any walk of life only works if most are law abiding people: the law FUNDAMENTALLY works by consensus. When most break the law it is anarchy and hard to escape anarchy.

There were a few who dropped out as young pros like Bassons. But very few.
We cannot go back and give him another shot. We can only try to prevent it happening again.

I also dislike the "holier than thou" statements from people and many journalists never faced with the same decisions: including the rideers who had already won clean substantiallY (if they did) before the peloton speeded up (the subject of this thread). At least they had the chance to win clean unlike the people they criticise.

Then the amateur cyclists never good enough to make pro for whom it was never an issue - NONE of them can say for certain what they would have done had they become junior pros at the time everyone there was already involved , the Tyler Hamiltons of this world - when they discovered all their idols were doing what they did. Most like you no doubt, would LIKE to think they would have made the right decision, but the statistics are very much against you, and fortunately you were never faced with the choice.

The problem we have with relativistic judgement designed to alllow reconciliation is the ridiculous situation now. The USPS key riders getting half the ban that Bassons just got for an admin problem dropping out of a race. Let us focus on "injustice now" rather than injustice of over a decade ago. Stripping armstrongs titles away gives undeserved legitimacy to the other title holders that preceded him many known and confessed dopers still have their "titles".

The best thing cycling can do is draw a line under that sleazy era at a date, and then be ten times more diligent and vigilant for events since. It might as well be the WADA SOL date. Just forget longer than 8 years ago.

Mostly replace UCI who presided over the farce - and strip away the doping authority from them.

As for subject of the thread, she should not let her anger ruin her son.
I suggested track cycling as a place that historically has been seemingly relatively clean.
Do others believe that track cycling has been relatively clean?

 

[ebandit]

secret race

You have no idea what I am. I am certainly not a doping apologist. I am seriously p*ssed at having watched a cynical farce. I own an anti doping website.

why the secrecy? what is your website...............would more hits not be

welcome?

have you offered inga a platform to speak?

it is not a 'holier than thou' attitude to speak up for clean riders who were

denied opportunity or to expect accountability for those who gained the most

from cheating?

don't you consider that members here have heard enough about your

grievance against usps riders who assisted usada

 

[frenchfry]

You have no idea what I am. I am certainly not a doping apologist. I am seriously p*ssed at having watched a cynical farce. I own an anti doping website.

But I am a realist. What are you going to do when it tells us what we already probably know? That all were doing it until comparatively recently? Close down the sport?
The fact is a judicial system in any walk of life only works if most are law abiding people: the law FUNDAMENTALLY works by consensus. When most break the law it is anarchy and hard to escape anarchy.

There were a few who dropped out as young pros like Bassons. But very few.
We cannot go back and give him another shot. We can only try to prevent it happening again.

I also dislike the "holier than thou" statements from people and many journalists never faced with the same decisions: including the rideers who had already won clean substantiallY (if they did) before the peloton speeded up (the subject of this thread). At least they had the chance to win clean unlike the people they criticise.

Then the amateur cyclists never good enough to make pro for whom it was never an issue - NONE of them can say for certain what they would have done had they become junior pros at the time everyone there was already involved , the Tyler Hamiltons of this world - when they discovered all their idols were doing what they did. Most like you no doubt, would LIKE to think they would have made the right decision, but the statistics are very much against you, and fortunately you were never faced with the choice.

The problem we have with relativistic judgement designed to alllow reconciliation is the ridiculous situation now. The USPS key riders getting half the ban that Bassons just got for an admin problem dropping out of a race. Let us focus on "injustice now" rather than injustice of over a decade ago. Stripping armstrongs titles away gives undeserved legitimacy to the other title holders that preceded him many known and confessed dopers still have their "titles".

The best thing cycling can do is draw a line under that sleazy era at a date, and then be ten times more diligent and vigilant for events since. It might as well be the WADA SOL date. Just forget longer than 8 years ago.

Mostly replace UCI who presided over the farce - and strip away the doping authority from them.

As for subject of the thread, she should not let her anger ruin her son.
I suggested track cycling as a place that historically has been seemingly relatively clean.
Do others believe that track cycling has been relatively clean?

But in your earlier post you said:

that almost ALL were doing the same or similar ..... That is the problem with blaming and sanctioning one man, or one team

I simply pointed out that they certainly weren't "all doing it", some weren't (or doing a lot less) and many dropped out so they wouldn't have to do it.

You keep coming back to the "only one man was sanctioned" concept, which of course totally ignores the many riders, including many of the elite, that have been sanctioned over the years. There was no special treatment for Armstrong, in fact the one startling point is that FINALLY he got the same treatment as many others in relation to his despicable behavior.

I tend to agree with you that some of those who received reduced sanctions got off easy, especially those like GH and LL, who only confessed because they were required to and really didn't deserve special treatment. Life isn't perfect though, and overall I think justice was done. Just because some got off lightly doesn't mean that another was treated too harshly.

In any case, I don't fall for your "I am really anti-doping" self justification. You use far too many circular arguements and twisted logic to be credible.

 

[mountainrman]

I tend to agree with you that some of those who received reduced sanctions got off easy, especially those like GH and LL, who only confessed because they were required to and really didn't deserve special treatment.

If you saw my comments on the relevant threads you will see that is my main gripe about the USADA sanctions - the likes of GH and LL got off far too easy: they were career dopers, who confessed when a gun had been held to their heads so had already confessed to a grand jury, confessed at a time that cost them little and confessed too late to be any real help. So - yes cut off a couple of years for the confession, but that is four years down to two.

It does not alter the fact that it is in essence too late to deal effectively with the world as it was over a decade ago. All the time and energy would go far better into looking at the period post WADA SOL - which is the limit on what the rules regard relevant, and see what other skeletons still lurk there. A great many. It seems to me too convenient that amongst the confessions they all magically stopped in 2006 post discovery. I doubt it.

 

[spetsa]

You have no idea what I am. I am certainly not a doping apologist. I am seriously p*ssed at having watched a cynical farce. I own an anti doping website.

aka a triathlon website? We all know they don't dope.

I don't fall for your "I am really anti-doping" self justification. You use far too many circular arguements and twisted logic to be credible.

Yes this. I wonder which thread will be next?

 

[mountainrman]

aka a triathlon website? We all know they don't dope.
Yes this. I wonder which thread will be next?

Keep to the subject which is Inga and her son.

My view on her blanket "test everything" it is too late to go raking up pre WADA SOL (what for example can looking at the Linda Mcartney team achieve now?)

But Ingas suggestion of retesting everything since that date with new tests as they come along has to be valuable as a threat and an actuality - although since the samples are limited retest should only be done when major breakthroughs in testing are made, to avoid either running out of sample, or the contest that samples were cross contaminated (which could be a valid defence).
The principle that an action can be started on later retest needs to be made part of the process. The problem is of course, providing adequate athlete protection. That means inviolate "b" or "c" samples only used for repeat tests for sanction. That means fractoins of the "a" sample must be used for all new tests - the remainder of "a" kept rather than destroyed. (or a protocol based on a "c")

In fact anything found in any sample with valid chain of custody must be up for sanction: it was patent nonsense that the plasticiser readings which hinted at blood doping on Contador's blood Clenbuterol sample were disallowed in Ashendens testimony on the basis of it being an arbitration which had to keep to the original charge and did not have power to add to the charges.

There is also a cycling rules problem in testing samples that are too old.. To sanction it has to be against the rules of the time - EPO was not illegal at one time, having too high a haematocrit was. Taking it might have been reprehensible, It was not (as far as I am aware) against the rules - t is hard to see how the rules can be changed in hindsight.

Biodegredation is also a problem. I first got interested in doping matters when international runner Diane Modahl - who I vaguely knew - I officiated at her club - was wrongly accused. And in her case biodegredation and poor custody were clearly the problem although the sport never did apologise for destroying both her career, her husbands career as a promoter and both of them financially. Anyone who knew Diane, knew she could not be guilty so the eventual vindication made with a thousandth of the publicity of her accusing was no surprise. So we must not risk false positives from biodegredation which going too far back certainly is an issue.

BTW - As always Clinic mudslinging is wrong and wishful thinking - typical clinic behaviour - dont like the argument, so go after the man not the ball. Armstrong would be proud of you for copying him.. But - There is not a single comment about triathlon on my site. It is mainly athletics which I adjudicated and was involved at a high level for a number of years - my son is an international athlete - and some cycling, no triathlon.. But keep to the subject both of you..

 

[spetsa]

..snip for the benefit of all....

Ah, yes, the good ole "c" sample. Without it we can't go backwards.

EPO use was legal.

TROLL

 

[mountainrman]

Ah, yes, the good ole "c" sample. Without it we can't go backwards.

EPO use was legal.

TROLL

Protocols are important for both parties. The B sample confirm A sample protocol is part of the code of sanction. Some or most A samples are destroyed on first testing, so currently the stores I would guess are possibly only unused B samples preventing the samples to be used for sanction.

So cycling needs to change its rules to allow samples to be retested.
To allow extensive banking for later testing, it may well need a C protocol introducing.
That is what needs fixing.
Not wasting time on an era long past when almost everyone was doping and WADA SOL says you cant sanction them anyway.


EPO first went on the WADA list in 1990?
Blood doping was made illegal in 1986?

Inga Thompson - subject of the thread - remember her? - began before all that.

Initially even Haematocrit back in the bad old days, only got a few day suspension despite it being obvious why it was so high. You can only penalise on the rules as they were , not as they are.

So it depends how far you want to go back to determine what you can test as per Ingas suggestion.
Samples do degrade. Proven. And can give false positives for such as testosterone. Proven.

Also protocols are there to protect from bad practise and it certainly has happened in multiple cases. You cannot assume the labs are universal "good guys" who are always right. History proves they are not.

Spetsa - do you want to discuss the matter at hand, or just insult people?

 

[reginagold]

OK, this is getting interesting. Why would one fear testing of all the old samples? Mountainrman says everybody doped and that "truth" necessarily drives what the options are as the sport tries to recover. But wait, Mountainrman says don't test the samples to answer the question of whether everybody doped because it's, well, not useful. And besides, Mountainrman knows everyone did dope, or they were just a weak amatuer.

Alternatively, Mountainrman is serving to protect a team and or riders who so far have remained below the radar and would be revealed by testing of the older samples.

Except none of the above is responsive to Inga's point that she and others competed clean at the highest levels and now the value her entire career of clean racing is being destroyed by those pushing the self serving mantra "everybody did it."

 

[mountainrman]

OK, this is getting interesting. Why would one fear testing of all the old samples? Mountainrman says everybody doped and that "truth" necessarily drives what the options are as the sport tries to recover. But wait, Mountainrman says don't test the samples to answer the question of whether everybody doped because it's, well, not useful. And besides, Mountainrman knows everyone did dope, or they were just a weak amatuer.

Alternatively, Mountainrman is serving to protect a team and or riders who so far have remained below the radar and would be revealed by testing of the older samples.

Except none of the above is responsive to Inga's point that she and others competed clean at the highest levels and now the value her entire career of clean racing is being destroyed by those pushing the self serving mantra "everybody did it."

A deliberate misreading of what I said.

My suggestion is we focus on what we can change - and do now - not things we cannot change from a decade ago.

Retesting all samples needs the rules to be changed if you want to sanction for them EVEN IF YOU WANT TO BE SURE THEY ARE POSITIVE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

! A great place to start when there are limited resources is to sort it out so you can test later.

And since I am netiher proffessional cyclist, nor team, nor advocate of one. It is not a self serving mantra. It is a mantra to cleanup a sport I love.

 

[reginagold]

A deliberate misreading of what I said.

My suggestion is we focus on what we can change - and do now - not things we cannot change from a decade ago.

Retesting all samples needs the rules to be changed if you want to sanction for them EVEN IF YOU WANT TO BE SURE THEY ARE POSITIVE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

! A great place to start when there are limited resources is to sort it out so you can test later.

And since I am netiher proffessional cyclist, nor team, nor advocate of one. It is not a self serving mantra. It is a mantra to cleanup a sport I love.

I've read pretty much all your posts so I'll claim to have a reasonable understanding of your point of view.

It seems impossible to create a sound future for professional cycling unless the scope of the problem has been accurately identified. Inga suggests a way forward. It need not be for sanctions. The samples have been saved specifically to allow for tests made available AFTER the samples were taken. That testing could occur for the good of the sport even if it is either not possible, or not desirable, to connect the results of the testing to individual riders for sanctioning purposes.

 

[mountainrman]

I've read pretty much all your posts so I'll claim to have a reasonable understanding of your point of view.

It seems impossible to create a sound future for professional cycling unless the scope of the problem has been accurately identified. Inga suggests a way forward. It need not be for sanctions. The samples have been saved specifically to allow for tests made available AFTER the samples were taken. That testing could occur for the good of the sport even if it is either not possible, or not desirable, to connect the results of the testing to individual riders for sanctioning purposes.

Testing for knowing the scale of a problem is what Michael Ashenden has done in the past: it was a journalist who connected names to samples in the "Armstrong case".

But that of course only shows which samples were "glowing" not who were drug takers, and from such as Jaksche testimony you can only conclude "most of them". If only we had a test for post glow microdosing of EPO. So with present testing what would it tell us?

Also - Testing old samples will not necessarily give reliable results - have you looked at the state of what you take out of your freezer after even three years?? All the cells lyse...and degradation happens.

So that is the reason I say focus past WADA SOL.

I also advocate we start to put in place the processes necessary to be able to sanction on the basis of old samples, but that will need changes to both rules and protocol.

Ingas point was she could no longer compete clean. So decided not to compete at all She came in at a time when it was possible to build up a palmares clean, and she had some results to show for it. , so they stole the end of her career,not all of it.

She was lucky to be born in that era. Had she been born five or ten years later, she would have faced Hamiltons position.

I wonder what she would have done then? And the answer cannot be assumed. The law relies on consensus. Once many or most break it there is anarchy - and most lose their inhibitions History proves it time and again..

Hopefully there is no longer anarchy now.
So the threat of we may test again even ten years from now...it would make a good threat but needs the protocol.

 

[reginagold]

As to whether "everybody" was doping...

150 samples from 1998 and 1999 TDFs were retested. Less then 10% percent of those samples tested positive for EPO. Sadly, most of that 10% turned out to belong to one rider.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/riders/2005/interviews/?id=damien_ressiot_05