• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Kohl retires

Page 10 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
B.Rasmussen said:
If a young rider did that, he would just be called an untalented and lazy rider who is bitter he can't get a contract.

You mean Greame Orbee? You know, hour record holder who refused to dope, spoke out against the doping pandemic in cycling, and was promptly fired from his team, shunned from the sport, and driven to near suicide.

I'm just amazed at the people out there that just fell off the turnip truck and buy into the same UCI mantra that riders like Kohl, Jaksche, Manzano, Simeoni, etc. are liars and "bad apples" in a mostly clean sport.

jackhammer111 said:
i don't argue lance was clean. but when someone said the evidence was irrefutable i said the evidence was not. it isn't..

Did you read the Michael Ashenden interview, and the details he goes in to? What part of it do you dispute? How much evidence do you need?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Alpe d'Huez said:
Did you read the Michael Ashenden interview, and the details he goes in to? What part of it do you dispute? How much evidence do you need?

That is the interview that I have heard no refutation to in terms of the science. It is irrefutable evidence, but I guess maybe the guy has French heritage or something? Maybe he is just a hater who wants to sully Armstrong's name so cancer will never be cured? Yep, that's it, he is a cancer lover.....
 
May 1, 2009
149
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
Maybe he is just a hater who wants to sully Armstrong's name so cancer will never be cured? Yep, that's it, he is a cancer lover.....

Oh so now Armstrong is curing cancer? :rolleyes:

Stay tuned next : walking on water, loaves and fishes tricks...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
boalio said:
Oh so now Armstrong is curing cancer? :rolleyes:

Stay tuned next : walking on water, loaves and fishes tricks...

Your sarcasm detector isn't working.
 
Apr 12, 2009
1,087
2
0
Visit site
jackhammer111 said:
if you were taking amphetamines for joint pain, thinking to yourself they weren't enhancers you were completely self deluded.
i take no pleasure in saying that, but we know what amphetamines are and they ain't anti inflamitories.
if that's the kind of thing that goes on in the minds of dopers, then we're seeing a major element of the problem.

Before you say something know the full story amphetamines are used to keep you aware on the bike, so you can see all the moves being made, it can also raise your energy levels. The cortisone is to reduce joint pain, I know what I took, I know it was wrong, I didn't say that I wasn't wrong just the fact that I rode in the EPO era I saw teammates take it, I remember training in Colorado and the team doctors taking blood from riders, and give it back to them at the start of a big race. So unlike you I know what I'm talking about, maybe if you shut your mouth for a second You'll learn something.
 
Mar 10, 2009
504
0
0
Visit site
Sloterdijk said:
Rolf Aldag said something interesting last year: This time they should award the medals to the last three.

I'm seriously okay with that. Twenty three days in July (21 of those cycling), and they make it to Paris? Most of us would leap at the chance to participate in an event of this magnitude. An invite alone is huge. The Tour is icing on the cake, and for me, as much as I love cycling, I'd do it clean, I'd do it injured, I'd ride until my legs fell off. Sport for some is about the victory of competition--for others it's about victory alone. BIG difference. That difference = the impetus for doping, money, and power. When you risk giving up your averageness for a shot at victory, you lose SO much more than you would ever gain from doping, money, power. When you wake up in the morning and can no longer face yourself in the mirror, you plummet from average to pathetic.

Average cyclist or pathetic cyclist? I'd go with average. It's a character preservation move.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
franciep10 said:
Before you say something know the full story amphetamines are used to keep you aware on the bike, so you can see all the moves being made, it can also raise your energy levels. The cortisone is to reduce joint pain, I know what I took, I know it was wrong, I didn't say that I wasn't wrong just the fact that I rode in the EPO era I saw teammates take it, I remember training in Colorado and the team doctors taking blood from riders, and give it back to them at the start of a big race. So unlike you I know what I'm talking about, maybe if you shut your mouth for a second You'll learn something.

i'm very sorry if i hurt your feelings. it wasn't my intention to do so. i know you are very vulerable now that you've spoke up and i'm not trying to beat you up about it.
i know what amphetamines are. i've taken them. my most recent cortisone shots in both arthritic shoulders was less than a month ago. at my age i now have to do that or i can't ride. so i would say i too know what i'm talking about.
i'm not anti drug. quite the opposite. i believe it's your body, put in it what you want if you've done the homework.
drugs in competitive sport is a different matter.
i don't think there was anything wrong with the cort shots. it's not even banned now is it? it's not in american sport. cortisone shots are a medical treatment for joint inflammation.
maybe i'm wrong about the self deluded bit concerning the amphetamines. maybe they convinced you that they were for the joint pain. if they did they are immoral. i guess i should have asked you more about what you knew.
i'm sorry if my comments were hurtful.
 
Apr 12, 2009
1,087
2
0
Visit site
jackhammer111 said:
i'm very sorry if i hurt your feelings. it wasn't my intention to do so. i know you are very vulerable now that you've spoke up and i'm not trying to beat you up about it.
i know what amphetamines are. i've taken them. my most recent cortisone shots in both arthritic shoulders was less than a month ago. at my age i now have to do that or i can't ride. so i would say i too know what i'm talking about.
i'm not anti drug. quite the opposite. i believe it's your body, put in it what you want if you've done the homework.
drugs in competitive sport is a different matter.
i don't think there was anything wrong with the cort shots. it's not even banned now is it? it's not in american sport. cortisone shots are a medical treatment for joint inflammation.
maybe i'm wrong about the self deluded bit concerning the amphetamines. maybe they convinced you that they were for the joint pain. if they did they are immoral. i guess i should have asked you more about what you knew.
i'm sorry if my comments were hurtful.

did you read the post fully I said the amphetamine were for energy and to keep aware, not for inflammation, as for the hurt feelings part, it takes a lot more than your rambling to hurt my feelings.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
franciep10 said:
did you read the post fully I said the amphetamine were for energy and to keep aware, not for inflammation, as for the hurt feelings part, it takes a lot more than your rambling to hurt my feelings.

i read you original post completely which said
"I'm not gonna lie I used some stuff when I used to race, nothing like epo or testosterone but amphetamines and cortisone, not as a enhancer but just to supress the joint pains."

those are your words.
you linked them with the word "and" then said "not as a enhancer".

if that wasn't your point, what was it?
 
Apr 12, 2009
1,087
2
0
Visit site
jackhammer111 said:
i read you original post completely which said
"I'm not gonna lie I used some stuff when I used to race, nothing like epo or testosterone but amphetamines and cortisone, not as a enhancer but just to supress the joint pains."

those are your words.
you linked them with the word "and" then said "not as a enhancer".

if that wasn't your point, what was it?

well I was talking about the cortisone with the not as an enhancer, because as we know cortisone is a form of steroid, I didn't think anyone will link amphetamines and joint pain, next time I'll clean up my grammar
 
Jun 3, 2009
287
0
0
Visit site
tifosa said:
I'm seriously okay with that. Twenty three days in July (21 of those cycling), and they make it to Paris? Most of us would leap at the chance to participate in an event of this magnitude. An invite alone is huge. The Tour is icing on the cake, and for me, as much as I love cycling, I'd do it clean, I'd do it injured, I'd ride until my legs fell off. Sport for some is about the victory of competition--for others it's about victory alone. BIG difference. That difference = the impetus for doping, money, and power. When you risk giving up your averageness for a shot at victory, you lose SO much more than you would ever gain from doping, money, power. When you wake up in the morning and can no longer face yourself in the mirror, you plummet from average to pathetic.

Average cyclist or pathetic cyclist? I'd go with average. It's a character preservation move.

What about if it becomes clear to you that you cannot be clean and get that invitation? Not for even a shot at victory, just a shot at participating. Especially if it is not only what you love but have also based your whole life around?
 
Mar 10, 2009
504
0
0
Visit site
Not Riding Enough said:
What about if it becomes clear to you that you cannot be clean and get that invitation? Not for even a shot at victory, just a shot at participating. Especially if it is not only what you love but have also based your whole life around?

If it were me, I'd give up cycling and find a new career - a far better move than doping. You can't define your life by what you do for a living. You define your life by who you are as a person. If I quit cycling, If I gave up that invite to the Tour, I'm better off. The sport clearly doesn't need me when there are so many suckers lined up to take my place. Let those who are willing to dope become the victims of their moronic decisions. And when their doping becomes public information, let them become professional victims. I'll take my cycling as I do now: for pleasure, for love of the bicycle, for great rides with great friends, and for the faint glimmer of hope that the next Tour winner will win clean. However, at this point, I'll settle for celebrating the Lanterne Rouge. Rather to arrive dead last in Paris without doping and a clean conscience, than rise to the podium and pretend I'm invincible.
 
tifosa said:
If it were me, I'd give up cycling and find a new career - a far better move than doping. You can't define your life by what you do for a living. You define your life by who you are as a person.

I would strongly disagree with this statement. So would Karl Marx. So would a bunch of behaviourial psychologists.

As to all the ethical grandstanding, a few things. Ethics should be universal. If WADA made doping legal tomorrow, it would be ethical. Whereas if I killed someone without reason, that would always be wrong regardless of the laws. So for me doping is a somewhat arbitrary line drawing.

Secondly, I don't believe young men who race bikes to be any more morally deficient than the rest of us. If anything they are like monks in their devotion. That being the case, I think doping is primarily a rational expectations problem - a problem for the economists rather than the moralists.

Lastly, knowing this, and knowing I'm no different than any other human, I would never presume that faced with the doping question, I'd do anything other than what everyone else does.
 
Jun 3, 2009
287
0
0
Visit site
tifosa said:
If it were me, I'd give up cycling and find a new career - a far better move than doping. You can't define your life by what you do for a living. You define your life by who you are as a person.

Even if you don't define your life as being a cyclist (which I do think you could easily do), people do base their life around it. They make decisions at an early age, perhaps to concentrate more on training than education, they don't get normal work experience, they move countries, probably even choose personal relationships on the basis of what fits with the lifestyle.

With all this investment coupled with the limited easy career options, the choice of being clean or not cannot be as black and white as all that for them.
 
Mar 10, 2009
504
0
0
Visit site
hulkgogan said:
I would strongly disagree with this statement. So would Karl Marx. So would a bunch of behaviourial psychologists.

Fair enough. I don't care what Karl Marx would have thought, just as I don't care about a forensic behavioral psychologist's analysis of of what I stated. However, I do believe sport is metaphor for life. I do believe that decisions made in regard to sport reflect your character as much in the business world as in your personal life.


Not Riding Enough said:
Even if you don't define your life as being a cyclist (which I do think you could easily do), people do base their life around it. They make decisions at an early age, perhaps to concentrate more on training than education, they don't get normal work experience, they move countries, probably even choose personal relationships on the basis of what fits with the lifestyle.

With all this investment coupled with the limited easy career options, the choice of being clean or not cannot be as black and white as all that for them.

The choice to ride clean is personal. The impact of that decision, will carry over into your personal life. Like any decision, the ripple effect is obvious. Years ago, I made that decision. I decided not to turn pro when the message of working to "my potential" turned into the message of "You can't compete with those who will stop at nothing (use steroids) to win until you start playing their game." So I quit. Yes, I lost sponsors, I lost money, I felt that I let my coach down, I felt that I'd let my family down. I made the best decision for me. At least it was one I could live with every day for the rest of my life. And so far, 30 years later, I'm still good with that decision. And I still love to ride--at least I didn't let the sport take that from me.
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Visit site
hulkgogan said:
As to all the ethical grandstanding, a few things. Ethics should be universal. If WADA made doping legal tomorrow, it would be ethical. Whereas if I killed someone without reason, that would always be wrong regardless of the laws. So for me doping is a somewhat arbitrary line drawing.

+1. Well said. Athletes do all sorts of things - some healthy, some unhealthy, some dangerous, some safe - in pursuit of improvement and those that make money off of the efforts of these athletes have drawn a line to state that some of those things are illegal. Why is the line drawn where it is? Has it been drawn to eliminate only the most dangerous behavior? Clearly not: there have been dozens of pro cyclists hospitalized this year from injuries suffered in pursuit of glory, but I haven't head of one in recent years hospitalized because he took a banned substance that has damaged his health. This is not the late 80s where 20 or so cyclists died from improperly using epo.


tifosa said:
The choice to ride clean is personal. The impact of that decision, will carry over into your personal life. Like any decision, the ripple effect is obvious. Years ago, I made that decision. I decided not to turn pro when the message of working to "my potential" turned into the message of "You can't compete with those who will stop at nothing (use steroids) to win until you start playing their game." So I quit. Yes, I lost sponsors, I lost money, I felt that I let my coach down, I felt that I'd let my family down. I made the best decision for me. At least it was one I could live with every day for the rest of my life. And so far, 30 years later, I'm still good with that decision. And I still love to ride--at least I didn't let the sport take that from me.


You made a fine decision. But I think you should realize that it's apples and oranges compared to the choice today's pro male cyclist has to make. He's faced with a potential reward magnitudes greater than anything you had available to you. And because this is 30 years later, he's also probably risking a lot less as far as his health is concerned now that doctors have this stuff so controlled. And since he's a man he wouldn't be taking any substances that fundamentally change his appearance and behavior: It's an easier decision to turn down becomming Tammy Thomas when the upside is a reward far less than winning a Tour stage or a classic.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hulkgogan said:
I would strongly disagree with this statement. So would Karl Marx. So would a bunch of behaviourial psychologists.

As to all the ethical grandstanding, a few things. Ethics should be universal. If WADA made doping legal tomorrow, it would be ethical. Whereas if I killed someone without reason, that would always be wrong regardless of the laws. So for me doping is a somewhat arbitrary line drawing.

Secondly, I don't believe young men who race bikes to be any more morally deficient than the rest of us. If anything they are like monks in their devotion. That being the case, I think doping is primarily a rational expectations problem - a problem for the economists rather than the moralists.

Lastly, knowing this, and knowing I'm no different than any other human, I would never presume that faced with the doping question, I'd do anything other than what everyone else does.

In reality, you expose a difference between you and me. I don't grandstand about ethics, I believe in them, and that to put forth effort in applying them to my life is the point of life.

You on the other hand appear to believe in the satisfaction of the ego being primary to happiness and fulfillment.

Each person lives their lives according to their experience and conscience or lack thereof. We then surround ourselves (generally) with people who believe in a similar philosophy.

Who is "right?" I am not the judge of that.

What I can say is that I tried to live by the idea that to satisfy my ego was the point of life. It didn't work for me. I have found since dealing with the destruction I wrought in pursuit of ego, that to try to live by principles that run counter to that idea is challenging, but much more satisfactory to my conscience.

Were I faced with the necessity of doping to maintain my cycling career, I would choose another profession. There was a point in my life where I would have done the opposite. I am much more satisfied with my life now than I was then.

The other issue I have with doping is that it alters the natural competition of sport, and places in the hands of the practitioners who can afford the best program, laurels that are undeserved based upon their true level of talent.

We just fundamentally disagree from what I read, but hey, maybe you are right?
 
Apr 11, 2009
2,250
0
0
Visit site
hulkgogan said:
I would strongly disagree with this statement. So would Karl Marx. So would a bunch of behaviourial psychologists.

As to all the ethical grandstanding, a few things. Ethics should be universal. If WADA made doping legal tomorrow, it would be ethical.

...Lastly, knowing this, and knowing I'm no different than any other human, I would never presume that faced with the doping question, I'd do anything other than what everyone else does.

This seems to be a type of Ayn Randian argument applied to sport, that is, it's contingent and relativist.

I think economists should be kept out of these issues: sport has always been seen as something a little more significant than just winning (re the Olympic ethos, however flawed in practice). Sport has some sort of wider significance than itself. And that's important: it's the ultimate rationale against doping.

Sport is representative of larger things, not just the thing in itself: who can turn pedals in a circle fastest and longest, which is a pretty trivial thing in itself, let's face it. :D

There are wider issues at stake than cycling, and cycling should not be divorced from them. Look at Armstrong's cancer cause, however dubious his doping record (purported, proven, or whatever) or the tinge of potential hypocrisy vis a vis the latter. The point is he is appealing to something beyond cycling, whether right or wrong or hypocritical, or whatever. It's not that everybody should be riding for causes, which would be ridiculous, just that sport is representative of bigger things.

All of that wider appeal, or deeper significance, is lost if doping is treated as a fait accompli and as ethical because it were legalized. It would the de jure corruption of sport. It may be de facto corrupted already, but that doesn't mean we should go the whole hog.
 
Thanks for the replies. As is often the case on the web, people talk past each other.

For me these are profound statements about how people actually exist and interact in the world and prolly too abstract for a cycling forum.

"I don't care what Marx said". Hmm, too bad. Cause it's a really interesting way of postulating human identity. That our internal lives are an artifact of our external lives and not the other way around.

And to say cause it's sport, so you know, economics shouldn't count really strikes me as bizarre. Economics is just a tool for explaining how people make decisions in the world. People play sports. Whether they are buying a business or deciding what wheels to use for a time trial, the thought processes are the same.

For me, it's ethics that is the odd one out here, because they exist in abstraction and as such are rarely useful for explaining human behaviour in the material world.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hulkgogan said:
Thanks for the replies. As is often the case on the web, people talk past each other.

For me these are profound statements about how people actually exist and interact in the world and prolly too abstract for a cycling forum.

"I don't care what Marx said". Hmm, too bad. Cause it's a really interesting way of postulating human identity. That our internal lives are an artifact of our external lives and not the other way around.

And to say cause it's sport, so you know, economics shouldn't count really strikes me as bizarre. Economics is just a tool for explaining how people make decisions in the world. People play sports. Whether they are buying a business or deciding what wheels to use for a time trial, the thought processes are the same.

For me, it's ethics that is the odd one out here, because they exist in abstraction and as such are rarely useful for explaining human behaviour in the material world.

Too abstract? I wouldn't go around patting myself on the back too much if I were you.

As for Marx, you didn't discover him.

As for the postulations, well, philosophies of life are like......well, just because you have one............
 
Apr 11, 2009
2,250
0
0
Visit site
hulkgogan said:
For me, it's ethics that is the odd one out here, because they exist in abstraction and as such are rarely useful for explaining human behaviour in the material world.

An example: I didn't vote for Barack Obama--and this isn't a political thread--but you think Obama is not involved in an "ethical" exercise, whether one agrees with him or not? You think he's not motivated by his "ethical" vision and that this is not driving his behaviour? The human behaviour going on here motivated by "ethics" here is pretty significant, I would think.

You think that Islam, or Christianity for that matter, or Buddhism, can be explained as a series of costs and benefits predicated on utilitarian criteria? I think not. And you've just counted out the vast majority of the world's population.

Now, cyclists will make "economic" calculations as to costs and benefits of whether they get caught, but I would suggest a good many have foresworn doping as an ethical a priori decision. Not going there, not doing that, etc.

Of course the greatest Platonist abstraction of them all is mathematics, and it was pure mathematics that has generated much of modern physics, with observation (economic-type calculations) coming in a far distant second, third, or fourth. Quantum mechanics, the greatest achievement of science, is largely a creation of pure abstract math. And let me see, your TV, your IPod, and a whole host of things are based on quantum principles, derived from pure/abstract mathematics.

Much of reality is driven by abstractions, including human behaviour. The world would be a very "poor" place if we relied too heavily on "economic" explanations of costs and benefits.
 
stephens said:
This is not the late 80s where 20 or so cyclists died from improperly using epo.

While I have said myself that low-dosages of EPO under medical supervision are quite safe, the doping world doesn't operate in such a simple vacuum. In a broad view you are correct, but exceptions cannot be ignored. Hockey player Alexei Cherepanov recently collapsed and died, while on a doping program. There are potential serious ramifications from blood doping, in addition to potential bacterial poisoning, which is probably what affected Manzano and Simeoni, which could have lead to sepsis, shock and even death. Patrick Sinkewicz spoke of getting a re-injection of blood that "improperly" clotted. This could have killed him. There are also possibilities of circulatory system overloads, internal clotting, and metabolic shock.

O2 carriers and plasma expanders are now used more than ever before. These can be very dangerous as it's difficult to measure the correct dosage, especially as there are no studies done on perfectly healthy humans. This could lead to anything from simple fever, to platelet count, to short or even long term hypertension, Vasconstriction, kidney damage, or iron overloads. Informative pdf here.

Let's also look at the direction now where we recently were, but where we are headed. Gene doping. I'd suggest you take a look at this link.

The vector used for gene doping poses an immediate limitation and risk. The adenoviruses used as vectors are powerful virus which can trigger a systematic auto-immune response which may eventually kill an athlete. The integration of viral vectors into the human increases the risk of mutagenesis. Unregulated cell growth, toxicity due to chronic over expression of the growth factor protein and the development of a malignancy are possible. Manipulating HIFs can have problems because they stimulate genes that encode angiogenetic molecules and proteins involved in cell growth and division which may promote cancer growth and spread.