• 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!

Many will go down now

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
Visit site
sgreene said:
actual, official, undisputed evidence of doping

What does that even mean? Actual, official, undisputed?

Aren't the 1999 urine samples actual, as opposed to what?, imaginary, or virtual?

Undisputed? The only undisputed evidence is where the offender admits it. Would you call Landis's T/E ratio undisputed? Landis never gave up the fight AFAIK. Should one only ban dopers who admit to doping? 'Undisputed' is a useless criterion

Official? What about Riis? He was never officially sanctioned. He admitted doping in the 1996 TdF. Officially, he's still listed as the winner. What does that say about 'official'?

Ok, I will now stop feeding this troll.
 
Jun 19, 2009
36
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
Honestly, I don't think any of us really care whether or not you admit anything.

I think BroDeal wants me to. He still thinks insults are the way to go when posting. My question is: Do any of you hardcore doping cynics out there actually enjoy following pro cycling? How could you, if all the successful riders are doped? If you win, you are doped. If you beat someone who is caught doping, then you doped. Can Bradley Wiggins' Tour performance be explained without doping? Of course it can -- he's on Garmin, and everyone knows Garmin is the cleanest team in the peloton! How do we know that? Because they proclaim it the loudest! I'm not doubting Wiggins, I'm just illustrating the logic of the cynics.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
sgreene said:
I think BroDeal wants me to. He still thinks insults are the way to go when posting. My question is: Do any of you hardcore doping cynics out there actually enjoy following pro cycling? How could you, if all the successful riders are doped? If you win, you are doped. If you beat someone who is caught doping, then you doped. Can Bradley Wiggins' Tour performance be explained without doping? Of course it can -- he's on Garmin, and everyone knows Garmin is the cleanest team in the peloton! How do we know that? Because they proclaim it the loudest! I'm not doubting Wiggins, I'm just illustrating the logic of the cynics.

If we follow your logic - then we should not have a thread or even discuss Di Luca. He has only a non negative on his A sample, therefore we should reserve comment on him until the B sample results are known.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,654
2
0
Visit site
sgreene said:
I think BroDeal wants me to. He still thinks insults are the way to go when posting. My question is: Do any of you hardcore doping cynics out there actually enjoy following pro cycling? How could you, if all the successful riders are doped? If you win, you are doped. If you beat someone who is caught doping, then you doped. Can Bradley Wiggins' Tour performance be explained without doping? Of course it can -- he's on Garmin, and everyone knows Garmin is the cleanest team in the peloton! How do we know that? Because they proclaim it the loudest! I'm not doubting Wiggins, I'm just illustrating the logic of the cynics.

+1
According to these doping cycnics, doping is the sport not the actual cycling.
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
Visit site
auscyclefan94 said:
+1
According to these doping cycnics, doping is the sport not the actual cycling.

How many 'cycling fans' have I seen over the years turning their back on cycling because their favorite rider was caught. Call me a cynic, but I'm still watching it after >3 decades.

Let me add another thing: You won't solve the problem by ignoring it. Get yourself informed about doping practices, get a book from the library on physiology and biochemistry, so that you understand the basics. Learn what EPO, AICAR, PFCEs, HBOCs, hematide, insuline, HGH etc. are, learn how they affect cells, the body, physiology etc., in general, get a clue and then, maybe you will make a difference in the sport. For instance, it seems to me that the CN crew is reading the forum and it looks like they are waking up to the issue, asking questions, and maybe even doing some investigative reporting eventually. Maybe, in the end, we do get a cleaner peloton.
 
Jun 19, 2009
36
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
You are the one that insulted us when you barged in and begain calling everyone conspiracy theorists, so do not act shocked when you get treated in the same way you treated all of us.

Wow, I didn't realize that was an insult -- so sorry! However, I didn't call anyone a moron or an idiot, like you did. Well, I'm off now -- by the way, I just heard that Lance and Johan are in their top secret laboratory right now, figuring out how to out-dope Contador at the 2010 Tour and win! But to cover all bases, they are going to also pay off the UCI, ASO, WADA and Greg LeMond!
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
auscyclefan94 said:
+1
According to these doping cycnics, doping is the sport not the actual cycling.

I am very suprised at you for saying this.

Cycling is the sport! It is what I am passionate about - I have been involved in every area of cycling for 25 years.

Doping is ruining our sport. So I will always talk against doping.

However when I want to see a proper cycling race I go and help out at the local Junior events.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
sgreene said:
I think BroDeal wants me to. He still thinks insults are the way to go when posting. My question is: Do any of you hardcore doping cynics out there actually enjoy following pro cycling? How could you, if all the successful riders are doped? If you win, you are doped. If you beat someone who is caught doping, then you doped. Can Bradley Wiggins' Tour performance be explained without doping? Of course it can -- he's on Garmin, and everyone knows Garmin is the cleanest team in the peloton! How do we know that? Because they proclaim it the loudest! I'm not doubting Wiggins, I'm just illustrating the logic of the cynics.

If I have heard this ignorant tirade once I have heard it 100 times. I seriously believe that there is a fanboy handbook that gets passed out.
 
sgreene said:
Wow, I didn't realize that was an insult -- so sorry! However, I didn't call anyone a moron or an idiot, like you did.

Uh-huh. Ending a post with, "Conspiracy theorists - you need to get a life!," could not possibly be construed as insulting. :rolleyes:

Technically, I only called you a moron. I used the word idiotic to describe your posts and line of reasoning. :p
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,654
2
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
I am very suprised at you for saying this.

Cycling is the sport! It is what I am passionate about - I have been involved in every area of cycling for 25 years.

Doping is ruining our sport. So I will always talk against doping.

However when I want to see a proper cycling race I go and help out at the local Junior events.

Sorry, i didn't mean it directly to you or some other people. I meant it as a generalised comment as some 'trolls' out there only see the doping not the cycling.
 
Jun 19, 2009
36
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
Uh-huh. Ending a post with, "Conspiracy theorists - you need to get a life!," could not possibly be construed as insulting. :rolleyes:

Technically, I only called you a moron. I used the word idiotic to describe your posts and line of reasoning. :p

So you do consider yourself a conspiracy theorist? Anyway, I apologize. Will you "man up" and apologize for calling me a moron? I'd hate to see it end this way -- I do admire your passion for your position, whether I agree or not.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
auscyclefan94 said:
Sorry, i didn't mean it directly to you or some other people. I meant it as a generalised comment as some 'trolls' out there only see the doping not the cycling.

Certainly I agree that doping is discussed too much and often can get sidetracked on endless speculation.

I think the vast majority of posters here are objective in their posts.

Of course the sad reality is that as long as the riders continue to dope and the UCI is in charge of anti-doping it will always be an issue worthy of comment and debate.
 
Jun 19, 2009
36
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
Sure, I apologize for responding to your initial provocation by calling you a moron.

Your lines of reasoning were still bogus, though. :)

We can agree to disagree. I hope the day comes when all doping is detectable, and nobody will be able to get away with it. It's been fun "talking" to y'all.
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
Visit site
sgreene said:
We can agree to disagree. I hope the day comes when all doping is detectable, and nobody will be able to get away with it. It's been fun "talking" to y'all.

Don't leave the discussion. If you do, there will be an identical exchange and debate with someone else tomorrow under a different thread.

Wait, too late. I see there is a debate in another thread on whether or not pro cyclists have ever used corticosteroids.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
2
0
Visit site
sgreene said:
Once and for all, if any actual, official, undisputed evidence of doping by Contador, or Armstrong for that matter, ever emerges, I will happily admit I was wrong to all of you. In the meantime, we are all entitled to our opinions.

This is quite official evidence considering it is brought in by experts (scientists, ex- team mates), not just by frothing at the mouth fanboys. Undisputed evidence is a funny one, a lot of important evidence in life will be disputed (and that's a good thing), otherwise our judicial system would be a lot easier.

But some of these points are undisputed, namely the links between the people involved and JB's ignoring of Puerto (hiring Basso without blinking).

This is what makes it so dificult to hold a moral high ground position and call Doping Cynics "Conspiracy theorists", implying we have tinfoil hats and just make up stories.

The one thing going for Lance and AC is that they never got caught by a control (which in itself is debatable for Lance). But the trouble here is that indeed the big scandals are about people not getting caught by controls. Festina, Puerto, the Austrian blood ring, Rasmussen, Riis, the involved riders pass tests due to the nature of their doping. And the names involved? Basso, Ulrich, Jaksche, a complete Liberty Seguiros team (except AC) and that is just for starters.

So against a significant mountain of evidence, the defense of AC and LA is hinged on faith in the tests which has been proven to be definitely less than 100%.

Should they get the benefit of the doubt? Of course! However, I do think it would be a lot better for the sport if Puerto was being investigated to the ground and a more independant sport judicial body (CAS) doing the sanctioning instead of the UCI (or ISU or FIFA for that matter) deciding for themselves. The UCI rightly guards the image of Cycling and that conflicts with dope scandals. There must be a genuine wish for it "to go away" and that doesn't have to be nefarious. If true that there is a coverup, I understand Uci's logic behind trying to keep appearances up. It still doesn't make it right though.
 
As noted, it really is the UCI that can't be trusted very well, and they are indeed driven by money, and survival. By testing suspiciou" riders, they are creating rules as they go, as there is no defining parameter that qualifies one as "suspicious". This is what allows the UCI to pick and choose who they wish to test, and with the false negative ratio at what I figured to be 70:1, there's a lot of room for control there. I'm not saying that everyone at the UCI is corrupt, just that unlike the Italian police who operate under laws, and laws with a governing body above them that can hand down serious and severe punishment, the UCI pretty much answers to no one. Just a piissing match at times with other organizations.

I think BigBoat brought up a good point a few days ago that got lost here. 2007-2008 (maybe now) was a time of presumed heavy use of Dynepo. Though there is no test under WADA rules where one is considered positive for Dynepo, labs can generally tell with fair accuracy when one has used it. What happens when the Italian authorities get this feedback from their tests? Recall that when l'Affair Festina broke, the French police reportedly found extensive doping in those that were tested, but that doping was outside of the absurdly high standards set by the UCI to be considered positive.

Let's just hope that the Italian authorities do their job well, and the UCI is allowed to get involved until all of the testing is complete, and reports filed.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
2
0
Visit site
Alpe d'Huez said:
As noted, it really is the UCI that can't be trusted very well, and they are indeed driven by money, and survival.

They must keep the cash flowing into their baby, keeping (Pro) cycling strong. This is also in the interest of the pro-cyclists and organisers. Now the big problem is that this also makes them quite unsuited for self regulation. And as I said that dillema goes for all big sport organisations.

It seems impossible to have an independent unbiased sport organisation if it also has the responsibility for the commercial Pro section. These things must be split. In my eyes a structure should be like this:

1. A general cycling organisation (all levels) who just focusses on maintaining/creating the rules and general promotion of the sport to the public.
2. A pro organisation (man+ women) which promotes pro cycling, helps organising races etc.
3. An amateurs organisation for the lower levels (see #2)
4. Similar #2's and #3's for BMX and mountainbiking.
5. Same structures at a national level, depending on size (I can imagine Latvia without a separate pro section^^)

Besides that there should be a Wada/CAS like system with more teeth and more professionalism (the Wada crusade against the sports world is non constructive), backed by governments and all connected sports. Bans+big rulings sould be handled by this separate organization.

This would take away a lot of mixed interests.

However this is a pipe dream. No sports organization will agree to this as it's all about power. And for that matter the current WADA isn't much inspiring, their vested interests are into blowing up the problem so they can get more power. If a new super Wada-Cas should be formed I think it needs to have closer ties to the real judical system, less with the sport itself.
 
The outcome of all this was what, exactly? Who was doing the anti-doping testing at the Tour this year?

Whoever it was, there are two facts that are beyond dispute-

1) Armstrong "donated" $500,000 US dollars to the UCI so they could purchase anti-doping testing equipment a few years ago. Not a stretch to think that type of money buys a certain amount of "protection".

2) Armstrong is the cash cow that pro cycling desperately needs in this harsh economic climate, and despite how he behaves he'll always be protected. And so will his teammates. For example, how quickly was the Kloden thing swept under the rug after his name came up in the Freiburg Clinic doping scandal?

That's why I laughed at the Giro organizers(who blatantly went out of their way to keep their own country's National Champion* out of their race) when Armstrong behaved the way he did. They should of realized that if you're going to act like a prostitute, don't get upset when you get screwed REALLY REALLY HARD.:mad:

But this year that protection proved to be a double-edged sword for Lance. True there was no way he would of tested positive, but that also helped his teammate Contador. A drug scandal within the team would of been curtain for the ol' Radio Shack deal.

Contador got a free pass on Armstrong's rear end and they both know it. What I don't understand is how anyone could possibly think, unless there is a drug out there that can turn back the hands of time, that next year Saint Lance can win the Tour at age 39 with a bunch of aging domestiques and NOT be doping :confused:.

(*As a side note to this, Simeoni was suspended from racing 4 months for giving back the jersey. How' that for Italian justice?)