"It is time to allow doping at Tour de France"/Julian Savulescu thread

[adomluka]

Let's say the UCI goes along with something like this, how many riders will just go ahead pulling out syringes and saying 'it's about time'. No, there's gonna be a whole load of rider protests because there the ones always saying they're clean and support a drug-free sport.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Hmmm, you didn't quote a post. When I answer another post I usually quote it, but that's just one of the weird things I do.

"Health check" vs "sanction" definition when you get kicked out of the giro while leading with 3 stages left. Yes, that proves LA is on par with Pantani. Whatever.

No, it proves Pantani is on a par with LA!

I usually add quotes to my comments too - however I did not want this thread to turn in to another LA thread.

This was the original quote:

Sorry, I didn't know that Armstrong has admitted to using the substances you mentioned. Did he say if he used those substances to enhance his performances?
When it comes to doping Pantani takes the cake. Speaking with my friends who raced in US and Europe Pantani was basicly not the greatest rider unless he was doping. I believe he used many substances at once. Pantani an example of a top-fueler.....

This was my response:

Pantani - like Armstrong - had never tested positive for any PED and indeed like Armstrong has never had a sporting sanction brought against him.

By the criteria used by the poster then Pantani should get a free pass too.

 

[ChrisE]

As with everything in cycling you need to have the proper license.

Currently these run about $500,000, payable directly to the UCI. Make sure you put "Donation" on the check so there is no confusion when the media finds out 5 years later.

Here we go again. That $500k remark from that German UCI chick sure has legs.

 

[ChrisE]

No, it proves Pantani is on a par with LA!

I usually add quotes to my comments too - however I did not want this thread to turn in to another LA thread.

This was the original quote:
This was my response:

By the criteria used by the poster then Pantani should get a free pass too.

Pantani was caught in competition and punished. LA never has been. Big difference.

I agree this thread shouldn't go there, but I do enjoy the logic you guys go to to jam LA every chance you get.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Pantani was caught in competition and punished. LA never has been. Big difference.

I agree this thread shouldn't go there, but I do enjoy the logic you guys go to to jam LA every chance you get.

No - the original poster should have afforded the same 'logic' used to clear LA as he did with Pantani - where is the consistency in that as neither have ever been sanctioned.
Pantani was forced to take a 15 day break due as a health measure - unfortunately it coincided with the Giro.

Here is an rhetorical 'ethics' question.(probably for a different thread)
Do you think LA would have been allowed finish the Tour in 2005 by the Tour organizers had the Lemonde "Armstrongs Lies" article been published during the Tour?

 

[Race Radio]

Here we go again. That $500k remark from that German UCI chick sure has legs.

"That German Chick" is on the UCI board and head of it's ethics committee. The amount of the payoff was well known in the sport, even Armstrong's mechanic Juien Devries knew about.

 

[ChrisE]

No - the original poster should have afforded the same 'logic' used to clear LA as he did with Pantani - where is the consistency in that as neither have ever been sanctioned.
Pantani was forced to take a 15 day break due as a health measure - unfortunately it coincided with the Giro.

Here is an rhetorical 'ethics' question.(probably for a different thread)
Do you think LA would have been allowed finish the Tour in 2005 by the Tour organizers had the Lemonde "Armstrongs Lies" article been published during the Tour?

Again, we have a difference of opinion about what "officially" happened to Pantani in the giro and what it really was. Let's move on.

Are you seriously asking if Pantani failing, errr I mean taking a break in the 99 giro is on par with somebody being tossed out of a race due to a newspaper article? If so, I personally wouldn't think that is right but what ASO would have done is anybody's guess.

Doc, I'm a big due process guy. Rider takes test, fails test, rider has due process to insure result is legit, rider either then is sanctioned or is allowed to race. Nowhere in that process does "rider gets tossed out of race due to newspaper article" come into play. YMMV.

 

[ChrisE]

"That German Chick" is on the UCI board and head of it's ethics committee. The amount of the payoff was well known in the sport, even Armstrong's mechanic Juien Devries knew about.

Yes, and LA under oath denied it. You would have thought SCA in discovery (or whatever, I'm not a lawyer) would have requested proof if LA said something 1/10 of this number if they didn't believe it. Nobody else in the UCI has confirmed it. I even saw a post awhile back in another forum from Betsy when I was googling the subject (she does get around) not even going there. That says alot. It's hearsay, with no proof other than a few wagging tongues.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yet it's well documented that the drug culture in cycling existed long before this. And well before EPO (blood doping is actually pretty old) cyclists didn't believe it was possible to win without PEDs.

It's not that one can't practice the sport without PEDs--one could if it was possible to enforce a strict no doping policy. It's that nobody believes it is possible to be successful in cycling without PEDs. The rules on the books aren't enforceable, the code of ethics is ignored. When this is the case, is a compromise (for example, the author suggests returning to the 50 hct rule) so out of the question?

Is the highlighted above not the whole point - that it is in fact possible to complete the Tour clean.

The reason riders take PED's is not because it is physically impossible to ride the tour 'clean' but to gain an advantage over other competitors.

As to your last point on the 50% HCT rule - this does nothing for the spectacle as it only increases the overall speed, and it also offers those with a naturally low HCT an advantage over others with a naturally high HCT.

 

[tifosa]

Changing the rules will not change those who make every effort to skirt or abuse those rules.

"Rule avoidance" will still prevail. It's the mentality of cycling.

 

[buckwheat]

Yes, and LA under oath denied it.

Of course he would, he's a sociopath.

Jeez you're gullible. I'll bet if you have teenagers they are the most wonderful children in the world and they've never stuck their hands in the cookie jar! You believe their denials even though they have chocolate icing all over their hands and face.

Either that or you're on the Pharmstrong payroll?

 

[Race Radio]

Yes, and LA under oath denied it. You would have thought SCA in discovery (or whatever, I'm not a lawyer) would have requested proof if LA said something 1/10 of this number if they didn't believe it. Nobody else in the UCI has confirmed it. I even saw a post awhile back in another forum from Betsy when I was googling the subject (she does get around) not even going there. That says alot. It's hearsay, with no proof other than a few wagging tongues.

He said made a payoff ....err, "Donation" but he could not recall how much. He said it was for a specific testing machine, that cost close to $500,000, and was not even on the market when the "Donation" was given.

Considering Armstrong's history of lying I think we can all agree that sylvia schenck is the more believable source

 

[Race Radio]

Again, we have a difference of opinion about what "officially" happened to Pantani in the giro and what it really was. Let's move on.

Are you seriously asking if Pantani failing, errr I mean taking a break in the 99 giro is on par with somebody being tossed out of a race due to a newspaper article? If so, I personally wouldn't think that is right but what ASO would have done is anybody's guess.

Doc, I'm a big due process guy. Rider takes test, fails test, rider has due process to insure result is legit, rider either then is sanctioned or is allowed to race. Nowhere in that process does "rider gets tossed out of race due to newspaper article" come into play. YMMV.

Does any rational person think that a rider that

-Forges a prescription for a TUE after a positive test
-Team gets caught dumping 160 syringes and bags of dope.
-Hct jumps from 40 to 49.5 in the third week
-Test's positive for PED's on 6 retroactive tests
-Uses a banned doping doctor

Anyone thinks this rider would not be kicked out today? I think we can all agree that the incompetence and corruption of the UCI and the ASO is not what you rest your case on.

 

[poupou]

Does any rational person think that a rider that

-Forges a prescription for a TUE after a positive test
-Team gets caught dumping 160 syringes and bags of dope.
-Hct jumps from 40 to 49.5 in the third week
-Test's positive for PED's on 6 retroactive tests
-Uses a banned doping doctor

Anyone thinks this rider would not be kicked out today? I think we can all agree that the incompetence and corruption of the UCI and the ASO is not what you rest your case on.

+ no humanEPO in 2000 samples of the whole US Postal team (the so clean samples...) , everyting was cleaned with soap at that time. Maybe that could explain the showergate?

What about his illness during last TDF to explain his hct level?

 

[ChrisE]

He said made a payoff ....err, "Donation" but he could not recall how much. He said it was for a specific testing machine, that cost close to $500,000, and was not even on the market when the "Donation" was given.

Considering Armstrong's history of lying I think we can all agree that sylvia schenck is the more believable source

OK. Please provide a link where he said that. He said under oath he couldn't recall but denied it was 6 figures, and agreed on something with SCA lawyers it was in the $40k range when they suggested it. Oh, and that .ppt floating around the internet is not "proof" so don't waste your time with that.

And, just because he made a donation for something that costs more than his donation means nothing. I could have given the UCI $10 for that machine as well, so that means I gave them $500k?

We agree to disagree as we have done many times. Testimony under oath under the threat of perjury that is verifyable is more credible to me than what she says.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Again, we have a difference of opinion about what "officially" happened to Pantani in the giro and what it really was.

No, it's not a difference of opinion.
DR M states the actual truth and you give your spin on the truth, which turns out to false.

Of the two riders, in 1999, it was only Lance, who failed a dope test. "Caught in competiton", as you put it.
Luckily, he managed to use his "health issue", to stay in his race and avoid punishment, with a back dated TUE.

Still, a positive is a positive and Lance gave one, while Marco never did.

 

[ChrisE]

Of course he would, he's a sociopath.

Jeez you're gullible. I'll bet if you have teenagers they are the most wonderful children in the world and they've never stuck their hands in the cookie jar! You believe their denials even though they have chocolate icing all over their hands and face.

Either that or you're on the Pharmstrong payroll?

Gullible? Or don't believe everything that paints LA in the worse light.

I believe he doped just as much as you and RR and everybody else does. Difference is I haven't gone psycho with that obsession to the point any deductive reasoning skills are tossed aside.

Yes, I doubt the donation was $500k for the reasons I cited. If LA is reading he can send me a check for the good PR right now. Please PM me, Lance.

 

[ChrisE]

No, it's not a difference of opinion.
DR M states the actual truth and you give your spin on the truth, which turns out to false.

Of the two riders, in 1999, it was only Lance, who failed a dope test. "Caught in competiton", as you put it.
Luckily, he managed to use his "health issue", to stay in his race and avoid punishment, with a back dated TUE.

Still, a positive is a positive and Lance gave one, while Marco never did.

I'm sorry, silly me I forgot you guys run in packs and have eachother's backs. If one of you said the sun rose in the west this morning and I called BS on that, then y'all would be on me like stink on shyt. I get it. , but sometimes I can't help but push the envelope of conventional thinking here.

Yes MV, you win. I concede.

The back dated TUE was not discussed here; the issue was whether LA and Pantani were equal in terms of results of their doping as interpreted by the governing bodies (how's that? ). This thread has gone off topic so again I concede to whatever it is you guys have proven here on this subject.

 

[Digger]

Yes, and LA under oath denied it. You would have thought SCA in discovery (or whatever, I'm not a lawyer) would have requested proof if LA said something 1/10 of this number if they didn't believe it. Nobody else in the UCI has confirmed it. I even saw a post awhile back in another forum from Betsy when I was googling the subject (she does get around) not even going there. That says alot. It's hearsay, with no proof other than a few wagging tongues.

No he didn't.

 

[pmcg76]

Again, we have a difference of opinion about what "officially" happened to Pantani in the giro and what it really was. Let's move on.

Are you seriously asking if Pantani failing, errr I mean taking a break in the 99 giro is on par with somebody being tossed out of a race due to a newspaper article? If so, I personally wouldn't think that is right but what ASO would have done is anybody's guess.

Doc, I'm a big due process guy. Rider takes test, fails test, rider has due process to insure result is legit, rider either then is sanctioned or is allowed to race. Nowhere in that process does "rider gets tossed out of race due to newspaper article" come into play. YMMV.

If your all for due process, then you would have to accept that Pantani never tested positive. The Haematocrit test was never ever regarded as a drug test. It was a measure introduced by the UCI to ensure riders didnt endanger their own health by having too high a haematocrit level and only resulted in a 2 week rest period for the blood level to return to an acceptable level if they went above 50. It was not a suspension,

Now, you and I both know that anybody with a level of 50 in a 3 week race was more than likely doping and you seem to accept that is definitely true.

How is it so difficult for you to accept that the 6 samples containing EPO are equally viable. There are 6 simples containing EPO that have been identified as belonging to Lance, period. There is as much proof as doping as with those 99 samples as there is in a haematocrit level of above 50. In other words, neither are 100% full-proof.

People throw out the conspiracy theory against Lance but not against Pantani, Rasmussen. None of them ever tested positive but are all equally guilty in my eyes.

On the second part, wasnt Michael Rasmussen more or less forced to retire from the 07 Tour because of the harrasment from the media. It wasnt the UCI or ASO who threw him out, where was the due process. It all started because of a comment by Italian commentator Davide Cassani. Perhaps if the L'Equipe article had come out during the 05 Tour, there would have been a lot of pressure on Armstrong to quit.

 

[ChrisE]

Does any rational person think that a rider that

-Forges a prescription for a TUE after a positive test
-Team gets caught dumping 160 syringes and bags of dope.
-Hct jumps from 40 to 49.5 in the third week
-Test's positive for PED's on 6 retroactive tests
-Uses a banned doping doctor

Anyone thinks this rider would not be kicked out today? I think we can all agree that the incompetence and corruption of the UCI and the ASO is not what you rest your case on.

I don't know whether he would get kicked out or not, like I said. I can take issue with some of the things above and have before, but there is no point in doing that now.

 

[Digger]

OK. Please provide a link where he said that. He said under oath he couldn't recall but denied it was 6 figures, and agreed on something with SCA lawyers it was in the $40k range when they suggested it. Oh, and that .ppt floating around the internet is not "proof" so don't waste your time with that.

And, just because he made a donation for something that costs more than his donation means nothing. I could have given the UCI $10 for that machine as well, so that means I gave them $500k?

We agree to disagree as we have done many times. Testimony under oath under the threat of perjury that is verifyable is more credible to me than what she says.

That's an interesting comment, and a double edged sword for you.
You accept what Lemond, Betsy, Frankie, et al have said so? Nice one.

 

[ChrisE]

No he didn't.

The "I know you are but what am I defense". Prove your point by posting the transcript or something from LA in the press. Thanks.

On your second post, I wasn't aware that the people you cite were on his accounting team and had inside knowledge of what he did or didn't donate. Please provide a link showing their employment on the LA accounting team. That would be a headline grabber if you can prove that!

I am so willing to be proven wrong by you with these earth shattering revelations I am soiling my panties. Thanks.

 

[Digger]

I don't know whether he would get kicked out or not, like I said. I can take issue with some of the things above and have before, but there is no point in doing that now.

Considering you dismiss almost every piece of evidence that supports him having doped, how did you arrive at the conclusion he did in fact dope?

 

[Digger]

I know you are but what am I defense. Prove your point by posting the transcript. Thanks.

You made the original point, the onus is on you.