Is The Clinic meant to be ANTI-doping?

[Bluenote]

From what I've seen, the Clinic isn't really much of a place to 'discuss' much of anything. Its more of a place where many have very hardened opinions and debate / attack each other from those positions. As polarized as Democrat vs. Republican.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of room for the middle ground, or for someone who is sorting out their thoughts. Maybe that is why relatively few post here?

 

[hfer07]

The Clinic to me is an open debate about highly doubtful performances and ludicrous PR claims on how "clean is cycling nowadays"

 

[laurel1969]

Its just a forum, but it is a strange little ecosystem that has formed. The "I'm more anti-doping than you" thing seems to be seized upon by a few people looking for an easy moral high ground from which they can throw stones down on others. Its a bit odd because cycling has always been a circus, and probably always will be. I think the outrage belies a bit of naivety.

 

[yespatterns]

For me, I've come to look at pro cycling as pure entertainment. I pretty much assume everyone dopes that wear big boy pants. Until the system changes, the riders won't either.in any event I'll enjoy what I can when I can, and complain about the rest here. After all, I gots to have my stories. So yeah, this is just a forum to discuss doping regardless of your position on it imho.

 

[sniper]

i do think anti-doping is what most clinic posters are (thinking only of those without an agenda).
but, importantly, being anti-doping doesn't mean being anti-the guys who dope. everybody with half a brain should be able to get into the skin of a proracer who's doping to achieve, maintain, or improve his contract.
the system is sick, the individual riders aren't per se.
it's not them who perpetuate the system.
if a procyclist came forward and explained how he's doping to make a living and is trying not to get caught, i reckon many here would have respect and understanding for that guy.
of course, there are clean heroes who deserve the biggest praise.
the tragedy of current-day cycling is that those clean heroes will likely remain unidentified.
imo we can judge and criticize the system and those in positions of power perpetuating that system.

 

[laurel1969]

Looking back into some of the threads there is some fascinating factual information that I personally didn't know previously.

 

[Granville57]

The world is anti-doping, which is why they find the topic distasteful enough to shout down anyone who brings it up.

There is some truth in this, which is really quite comical, sadly, because at the same time, much of "the world" very much embraces doping—as long as it's for their own benefit.

We are inundated with ads for "Low-T" and various other anti-aging therapies. So many people have no problem jacking themselves up on whatever they feel they "need" to "improve" themselves. But a pro athlete doing the same? The horror of it all!

The masses tend to be incredibly ignorant when it comes to doping, and most seem to have no idea how prominent it actually is across all sports. I read recently, on a completely non-sport-related forum, a comment from someone about cheating. They ended by suggesting that "even in the Olympics there are rumors of cheating." LOL. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

The sports media in the U.S. hasn't the slightest idea how to even approach the topic. You won't hear any candid and revealing discussions on ESPN about it. Bad for business. When the subject does come up, it's typically glossed over, simplified, and always tinged with a hint of feigned disbelief. Nobody wants the truth out there. The occasional scapegoat will rarely escape condemnation however.

Which I believe brings us back to the topic of this thread.
It seems that some people are so uncomfortable with the subject of doping that they just assume that if we have an entire sub-forum dedicated to this ghastly and unspeakable act, then the majority opinion must be anti-doping. Otherwise, what kind of misguided individual would even want to discuss such a thing?

I frequently see disparaging remarks about The Clinic in the PRR section. I understand that the topic can easily derail a thread, but adamantly avoiding the topic altogether is to ignore the reality of sport in general. I can still enjoy the racing, and have a preference for one team or rider over another, but that doesn't prevent me from viewing it with a critical eye, and questioning every result I see. I'm OK with that.

I am very interested in The Truth behind it all, but that often proves to be most elusive. I am entertained by the circus of ridiculous denials, intrigued by the political corruption, and quite curious about the science of both sides—the methods the dopers, and those charged with catching them.

That's why I come to The Clinic.

 

[RedheadDane]

I'm anti-doping. But I also believe that everybody deserves a second chance, so I'm supporting ex-dopers. It's when they gets busted for the second and third times it starts getting stupid.
As for "suspected dopers"; last time I checked you were innocent until proven guilty, and honestly; for some people here simply finishing a race seem to be an indicator of doping.

 

[Granville57]

As for "suspected dopers"; last time I checked you were innocent until proven guilty

And last time I checked, The Clinic was not a court of law. We convict no one...

yet.

 

[RedheadDane]

I just find the constant throwing around of "he's doped!" every time someone wins a race rather silly. Of course people are gonna win that's kinda the point of the racing.

 

[Granville57]

Of course people are gonna win that's kinda the point of the racing.

Which, coincidently, is also the point of doping.

 

[neineinei]

I just find the constant throwing around of "he's doped!" every time someone wins a race rather silly. Of course people are gonna win that's kinda the point of the racing.

The clinic was created so you wouldn't have to read those things in the other sub forums. Here you will have to cope with it.

Doping is a big part of sports. Anti-doping is very, very flawed. It's a fact that every time someone won something in cycling they were doped. And cycling haven't been able to convince people that it isn't so anymore.

 

[Gavandope]

No - but it would be nice if those who want to help cycling minimise its blood doping problem to give the sport a hand. I have to be realistic about the current situation and accept it though!

As an ex roid doper who knew what the clean times were for the drugs back in the 90's and physics geek the way they blood dope seems fairly straightforward to me in theory, but as I'm no biologist and Ashenden isn't a member of the clinic if there's any haematologists want to send me a pm they are more than welcome cos I wouldn't mind chipping in during my spare time. Though any help will probably have to come 'off the grid' from this place as the dopers no doubt read all this!

 

[mrhender]

I don't know what it originally was "meant to be".
I understand the logic of seperating it from the rest as it would probably interfere with and distort any discussion to a point where many posters would leave.

As i see it pro-cycling is a theatre. A theatre that finds it's truthfullness in some sort of consistency.
That consistency relies on the notion that what we see must be somehow believeable.
Believeble in a way that doping doesn't alter the final results "a lot more" than clean results in our imagination would play out.

This of course, has removed some of the charm when a new guy shows up and hands out a beating.
Especially when the "signs" of ability where not there...

Appreciating new-comers (riders) often comes with a natural scepticism expressed on different levels.
Furthermore there's the somehow pointless discussion of convicted/not convicted dopers as many acknowledge the label doesn't mean a thing.
Others use it as an argument in the hipocrisy discussion of "supporting dopers" or posting in this or that thread..

One thing that strikes me is the "things will never get better"/"doping will never go away" and "everyone is doped" argument.. Cause how can one undertake that argument while at the same time meaningfully scream DOPER in any given thread... What is the point of this singular attention when the general presumption is that everyone dopes.. It's seems to me a bit like scapegoating.

There's an inborn contradictment in the acceptance of doping as an infinite unavoidable fact. And the outburst resulting from certain performances/doping cases.
I am certainly guilty of above written, and am not aiming to offend anyone.
Merely taking the temperature to my own investement and observations.

I presume that a lot of people here have some sort of investment in the sport. This investment can be all gone if you allow yourself to get fooled.
That is why the conservative but nonetheless defensive position of former mentioned is so understandable..

 

[DirtyWorks]

There doesn't seem to be a lot of room for the middle ground, or for someone who is sorting out their thoughts. Maybe that is why relatively few post here?

Can you describe a middle ground?

IMO, there is room for participants sorting out their thoughts. When I read honest questions in threads I try to answer them briefly and then add some references.

My sense is some start posting largely broken ideas and then keep hammering away at them until exhaustion or the ban hammer drops. That activity really dampens any attempts to sort out the little bits of disparate information regarding doping in sport.

I'm glad that the first post was un-buried from the thread from which it came.

 

[Arnout]

If you were on the Cyclingnews forum before there was a clinic section, you'd understand the reason why this section was created. It was just unreadable.

 

[Bluenote]

Can you describe a middle ground?

IMO, there is room for participants sorting out their thoughts. When I read honest questions in threads I try to answer them briefly and then add some references.

My sense is some start posting largely broken ideas and then keep hammering away at them until exhaustion or the ban hammer drops. That activity really dampens any attempts to sort out the little bits of disparate information regarding doping in sport.

I'm glad that the first post was un-buried from the thread from which it came.

Well, one middle ground view is for someone to hold inconsistent views on dope / dopers. Like to think EPO is a bigger deal than testosterone, or to feel differently about Armstrong's doping vs. Merckx's.

Its become vouge in cycling and on message boards to be 'zero tolerance,' and holier than thou about anti-doping.

I'd rather talk to someone who could logically defend Merckx, even if I disagreed with them, than watch someone I agreed with on Armstrong use it to shout down / attack others.

 

[Gavandope]

Well, one middle ground view is for someone to hold inconsistent views on dope / dopers. Like to think EPO is a bigger deal than testosterone, or to feel differently about Armstrong's doping vs. Merckx's.

Its become vouge in cycling and on message boards to be 'zero tolerance,' and holier than thou about anti-doping.

I'd rather talk to someone who could logically defend Merckx, even if I disagreed with them, than watch someone I agreed with on Armstrong use it to shout down / attack others.

For cycling the tiny bit of andriol oil the riders use and knowing what dosages power users take in bodybuilding and power lifting etc it's probably beneficial whereas blood doping products/methods are the scourge in this sport by a country mile and have been since Miguel. Huge performance enhancement. Roids for gc are for recovery and to halt dropping testosterone levels, not increase them hugely.

Whereas if it was a power sports like 1-200m, rugby, gridiron etc it would be roids and hgh, Edgar and co wouldn't get a look in..

 

[Benotti69]

If you were on the Cyclingnews forum before there was a clinic section, you'd understand the reason why this section was created. It was just unreadable.

the PRR section is pretty unreadable in its current guise.........

 

[DirtyWorks]

Well, one middle ground view is for someone to hold inconsistent views on dope / dopers. Like to think EPO is a bigger deal than testosterone, or to feel differently about Armstrong's doping vs. Merckx's.

Here's one:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1577896&postcount=195
and the reply
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1578137&postcount=196

The ones with unyielding opinions not based on fact are right to be criticized.
It's okay to agree to disagree and it's done in this forum quite a bit.

I'd rather talk to someone who could logically defend Merckx.

What would that look like? It's an honest question. Do you mean "Merckx's era doping was not half as effective and oxygen vector doping."?

 

[Dr. Juice]

If you want to root for a rider, you have to accept doping. That doesn't mean you are pro doping. But in endurance sports ( or sports where pure physical power is required) it's impossible to have the cream of the cream clean.

The cream of the cream are the best riders among like 50 000 who train every day, most of them with experienced coaches, consuming the best nutrition,having very advanced training plans etc.

If you have such a huge factor as EPO in the sport, you know that a potentially Top 10 rider has no chance against those who don't use it. Even a potential GT winner will not have a chance for a podium spot.
The top riders always use EPO or transfusions at some point. It's impossible to win a GT nowadays clean.
When you know that most are using EPO and accept that as a fact then you can move on and think about ..what is cheating?

You know that the top guys cheat against the 10 % of clean riders. But you can not be sure that a midfield rider does not dope.
Does that mean we have put our heads into the sand and quit watching the sport? No, no one does.

What can we hope for? We can hope that the riders do it under medical supervision - low doses, no crazy cocktails, no crazy HCT, not "needle day in day out" . This is not contradictory to anti-doping.
The bio passport is not very effective against doping as a whole, but it ensures that 49 % HCT raises suspicion. They all have to microdose, they can't go over 50 %, they can't have big jumps in their blood profiles.
You won't see EPO deaths in professional cycling again. Or riders having to get up at night. This is very good. Risk minimisation.
I doubt that a low dose of EPO means risking your health ( rider's HCT goes under 40 %, just reset it to 43 with 1 shot) like in the 90's with 60% or the 00's with 50 % rule but no blood passport ( shooting up from 42 to 52 then take aspirine).
Or a small transfusion of 200 ml under medical supervision is that risky. Having a riders like Riccò doing self transfusions is another thing.

Education is equally important. Big investments on education. Prevent doping at junior or U-23 level is even more important than anti-doping in professional cycling. Everyone can become an elite rider without any sort of doping.
If an educated person makes it to pro cycling without doping, always giving it the best, training with 100% dedication and realises he can't be good enough to stay in pro cycling or to earn solid money, then makes the choice to use the juice under medical supervision like most others - you can't blame him.

We can also hope that corruption is eradicated from the sporting government and that everyone is on equal terms. No political moves etc.

Some of those things have been achieved in the last 10 years. Some not.
You can hope they invest on anti-doping and refine the tests not once in 5 years but every year - in order to further minimise EPO dosages. To a point that being clean is more attractive.

But 1 thing remains as a fact: the top end of elite level will NEVER be clean. Either quit watching or accept the basics of pro sports.

You are not a hypocrite if you are anti-doping and support a rider who dopes ( 99% support a doper) but comes across as a nice person. Cyclists are part of our society, not evil, even if most of them dope ( and cheat to a certain extent, but I explained that in the beginning)
The rules make the sport. The rules ensure cleaner cycling or not. Medical research and investment on anti-doping makes the sport healthier. Not the riders. They are not different from us as a society.

 

[DirtyWorks]

If you want to root for a rider, you have to accept doping. That doesn't mean you are pro doping. But in endurance sports ( or sports where pure physical power is required) it's impossible to have the cream of the cream clean.

Interestingly enough, the 2014 Giro was estimated to be very cleans. 2nd and lower performances at the TdF were clean-ish too. Why?

Also read this: http://veloclinic.com/imminent-arrival-reward-side-anti-doping/

The problems start at the federation. If the sport was interested in bringing some legitimacy to the sport, they could do it at almost zero cost. But, then the other IOC sports would be obliged to do the same.

 

[Bluenote]

Here's one:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1577896&postcount=195
and the reply
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1578137&postcount=196

The ones with unyielding opinions not based on fact are right to be criticized.
It's okay to agree to disagree and it's done in this forum quite a bit.



What would that look like? It's an honest question. Do you mean "Merckx's era doping was not half as effective and oxygen vector doping."?

I guess that and arguments that he never signed the WADA Code. So it would be sketchy to go back now and strip his titles.

The first argumemt is a quantitative one 'this offense is less bad than that one.'
The second is a technical one - he keeps his titles on technicalities, not sheer merit.

I'm not 100% convinced by either. But I'd rather talk to someone who could lay them out and defend them, than someone who quickly flips into self righteous attack of other posters mode.

 

[Gaul 58]

What is middle ground? Well mine might be called that as I see a graded scale of 'less dodgy' to 'very dodgy'. At the good end are Garmin and Sky who I think have a basic management philosophy of 'do not dope on this team' and at the other end is the management philosophy at Astana and Tinkoff-Saxo where VinoKurov and Riis urge their guys to soak themselves to the gills.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I'm not 100% convinced by either. But I'd rather talk to someone who could lay them out and defend them, than someone who quickly flips into self righteous attack of other posters mode.

Agree!!

10 chars