Master's Riders - Where's are the sanctions?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

laura.weislo

Administrator
Mar 4, 2009
137
1
8,830
jmax22 said:
Huh, difficult to see how USA Cycling would be able to keep positive tests for masters riders quiet. Lance is one thing, and can understand how that happened. But the rank-and-file?
Who said anything about USA Cycling? Who said anything about Lance? :confused:
 

laura.weislo

Administrator
Mar 4, 2009
137
1
8,830
JRTinMA said:
The rumor going around is a little different than what was posted. The rumor I heard is you can accept guilt and your ban and avoid the public outing. Some have suggested its a life time ban and not a two year first offense.

USA cycling does not have the time or resources to fight every Cervelo riding weekend warrior lawyer that's doped to the gills. If it's true it's fine by me, they are gone and their names while cool to know would have been meaningless to most.

It's just a rumor and the clinic is full of rumors that never came true. To those that **** on USA cycling this is not the Lisa V USAC, dopers are not welcome, ask Zirbell if you don't believe me.
It's certainly true that rumors are often not actually true. However, it's worth discussing whether it's ethically correct to allow dopers to quietly go away regardless of whatever federation might be in charge.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
laura.weislo said:
It's certainly true that rumors are often not actually true. However, it's worth discussing whether it's ethically correct to allow dopers to quietly go away regardless of whatever federation might be in charge.
From what I have heard the Masters racers here are well off financially. I would guess that if they were sanctioned they might fight it in court. Nobody in the anti doping has time or money for that.
 
Apr 10, 2009
594
0
0
laura.weislo said:
It's certainly true that rumors are often not actually true. However, it's worth discussing whether it's ethically correct to allow dopers to quietly go away regardless of whatever federation might be in charge.
There is NO WAY it is ethically correct that they be allowed "to go away quietly." They cheated, and with masters racers in particular, their ego is what made them do it, not the money. Public knowledge of their transgressions should be the way they are made to be held accountable. They received the accolades for their performance, they should have to endure the shame of their cheating.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
laura.weislo said:
Who said anything about USA Cycling? Who said anything about Lance? :confused:
So are you saying it is the British Federation?
The Australian Federation?
Spanish? Italian? Polish?

It may help the discussion/debate if you would "elaborate" or "substantiate" a bit more? Thanks!
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
laura.weislo said:
It's certainly true that rumors are often not actually true. However, it's worth discussing whether it's ethically correct to allow dopers to quietly go away regardless of whatever federation might be in charge.
"ethically correct"? I don't know. Expedient? Yeah, I think so. Looked what happened when a well-known pro was buying EPO from Joe Papp and USADA tried to suspend him? He beat the rap after hiring Howard Jacobs with daddy's money. That can't make USADA feel good about going to the mat over some masters dudes.

These guys have their own money. There's a lot of potential expense and not much upside to going the conventional route. I don't like it, but it's the expedient choice to make a deal, and these guys won't be racing any more.

Besides, do you think for a single second that these guys will remain "anonymous" in the coffee klatch that is amateur cycling? I mean, how long can you pretend to have "knee pain" or whatever? The doped cyclists will be outed regardless, particularly in these days of the internet.
 

laura.weislo

Administrator
Mar 4, 2009
137
1
8,830
Polish said:
So are you saying it is the British Federation?
The Australian Federation?
Spanish? Italian? Polish?

It may help the discussion/debate if you would "elaborate" or "substantiate" a bit more? Thanks!
Rumors are rumors, there's nothing to elaborate upon or substantiate at this point and it was probably not a good idea for me to tweet rumors. I'm just being part of the problem at that point...

But the fact is, Terminator is correct - USAC has nothing to do with deciding who gets tested and isn't responsible for determining who is guilty, USADA does all that. It used to be that way, kind of like the Spanish federation being responsible for whether or not Contador gets suspended and loses his Tour title for Clenbuterol. But for obvious reasons that changed.

But that's a discussion perhaps for another thread.
 
Nov 8, 2010
16
0
0
laura.weislo said:
Rumors are rumors, there's nothing to elaborate upon or substantiate at this point and it was probably not a good idea for me to tweet rumors. I'm just being part of the problem at that point...
.
The rumors are without grounds.

[added after deletion of blog post: "rumors" above references the rumors in North Carolina regarding the Carolina Masters team. It is difficult to imagine the poster of the Tweet was unaware of these, or that her Tweets could quite easily be read in the context of these rumors. ]

[link removed by mod as it links to a blog posting that doesn't address the OP or the above post]

Robert Kendrick
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Doofus said:
The rumors are without grounds.


[link removed by mod as it links to a blog posting that doesn't address the OP or the above post]

Robert Kendrick
Um, huh?

How does that demonstrate the rumors are "without grounds"?

I have a whole stack of letters like that. Does that mean everyone else who was tested at those same races is also clean? Not really...
 
Nov 8, 2010
16
0
0
The Tweet referenced in the OP was sufficiently vague to get the author off the hook, but perhaps just specific enough to be put in the context an ongoing flow of rumors in the Carolinas about Masters doping, and the unstated (in pixels) subjects of those rumors were riders on the Carolina Masters team.

Two of those riders e-mailed their USADA letters to me, since one or more of the rumor-spreaders posted comments on my blog post about the original testing in August, reitertaing the vague accusations.

The blog post was niether self-serving nor out of context. If the link was modded out, then it would be appropriate for the Tweet in the OP to be modded out as well, for it hardly qualifies as journalism from a CN staffer.
 
Jul 9, 2009
88
0
0
If this were true what would happen with the 3 guys that have already been outed? I would think they'd be a little upset about that.
 
mountaindew said:
If this were true what would happen with the 3 guys that have already been outed? I would think they'd be a little upset about that.
They are already p!ssed that Phil Zajicek was able to weasel his way out. I wonder if we will ever find out what excuse he used. Dog, mother-in-law, or other?

It will be interesting to see if Papp releases his list after his sentencing. A deal to leave quietly and not be outed seems a little iffy when "the List" could be released anyway.
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Doofus said:
The Tweet referenced in the OP was sufficiently vague to get the author off the hook, but perhaps just specific enough to be put in the context an ongoing flow of rumors in the Carolinas about Masters doping, and the unstated (in pixels) subjects of those rumors were riders on the Carolina Masters team.

Two of those riders e-mailed their USADA letters to me, since one or more of the rumor-spreaders posted comments on my blog post about the original testing in August, reitertaing the vague accusations.

The blog post was niether self-serving nor out of context. If the link was modded out, then it would be appropriate for the Tweet in the OP to be modded out as well, for it hardly qualifies as journalism from a CN staffer.
Hi Doofus,

The OP has already admitted that the post never should have been made, but the discussion that followed had valid angles to it.

You now added context to your own link that was missing to the post in which you posted the link.

It's why I said in a PM that I could see an angle in which it was done in good faith (pretty much the one you now clarified). But without argumentation why the link was actual relevant in your -first- post, just giving a link that sends people to the middle of a discussion on your own blog, that has no clear connection to our forum members here (unless people have been following the history of that thread on your own blog and make some assumptions to boot), it inevitably leads to people perceiving it as spamming and private blog advertising.

I already PMed you, when I made the edit, that you are welcome to contribute to the discussion here on the CN forum, just like everyone else. But that when you post links, especially in your first post, giving the actual reason why it is relevant is helpful to all.

Now we have the missing context and an explanation of its relevance that doesn't rely on people knowing more than is written here, and having read older post on your blog too, feel free to contribute the same link again.

Enjoy your days here on the CN forum. I am sure you will get some responses to the substance of it. I will stay out of that discussion.
 
Mar 10, 2009
210
0
0
I can see clearly now...

Doofus said:
The Tweet referenced in the OP was sufficiently vague to get the author off the hook, but perhaps just specific enough to be put in the context an ongoing flow of rumors in the Carolinas about Masters doping, and the unstated (in pixels) subjects of those rumors were riders on the Carolina Masters team.

Two of those riders e-mailed their USADA letters to me, since one or more of the rumor-spreaders posted comments on my blog post about the original testing in August, reitertaing the vague accusations.

The blog post was niether self-serving nor out of context. If the link was modded out, then it would be appropriate for the Tweet in the OP to be modded out as well, for it hardly qualifies as journalism from a CN staffer.
Thanks for the clarification Doofus. This would have made your initial post clear to me and I wouldn't have responded as I did.

Welcome to the forum, we all look forward to your participation and contribution.
 
Mar 26, 2010
92
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
yes and no. It's a valid criticism that the guy doesn't draw juniors. That's the "yes."

The "no." I view it as a chicken-egg problem where CBR is the out-resourced competitor to a federation that's not focused on growing membership. If CBR can make the numbers work, most SoCal racing will migrate to his federation based on his simple focus on making happy customers and providing strong cover for his volunteers/officials. The Juniors will then follow most events to CBR sanctioning and probably grow.

Important Note: A little change in participation between the federations work out to big changes because of the small number of Juniors.

This federation stuff is quite wonky and not on topic, so if you want to discuss it, then start a new thread about alternatives to USAC.
I know I'm continuing the off topic -- if there's a new thread, I'd like to take it there.

But while CBR does not have junior categories, it certainly draws juniors. And there's a reasonable argument that juniors, at least those that can hang safely, have more to gain by racing the categories than small junior fields.

There's also a good argument that USAC is not really interested in junior development.
 
Jul 22, 2009
205
0
0
PotentialPro said:
Your a bit low here, think about it this way: The masters races are easy, and you could do 3 events in one day. You win the 40ish masters race, there is $100 or so. You win the 30ish masters race, another $100, then pull a top ten or higher in the Pro 1-2, probably $200 or more at some events. You could potentially pull down $400 or more in one day, a two race day weekend, I know I could make my house payment that way. Race consistently and you have a pretty good thing going.
Did you ever hear of prize splits? Your potential $400 probably gets split among 3-5 team mates. Then subtract around $60 for the entry fees to those three races, gas, etc. That doesn't sound so lucrative to me.
 
Jul 22, 2009
205
0
0
slowoldman said:
I race every weekend against all the guys mentioned in this thread. There have been rumblings about "pharmaceutical help" for a while now. Who does it? Who doesn't? I don't know. [/B]
The guys you mentioned were top level racers "back in the day". Hell, Thurlow raced in the '84 Olympics. Are we supposed to be surprised that he's still good? I mean, who would have thought that somebody who raced in the Olympics might be a good bike racer? Even better than a bunch of hacks who started racing in their 30's? What a shock!!

Look, I've raced against these guys also. In fact, Thurlow has been my "nemesis" at masters nationals for several years. I just have a really hard time with the "evidence" of some riders doping is that he's "better than me". Clearly, anybody who beats me MUST be on dope.

And for the record, for what it's worth, I know for a fact that Thurlow got tested in 2007 at masters nationals when he won the road race. I also know that he was masters world champion one year and that they test the winners there so it is probably safe to assume that he got tested there also. For what it's worth.
 
Jul 22, 2009
205
0
0
D-Queued said:
Since we know that they are doping, let's get them exposed and out. Just getting them out doesn't help those that may have been wronged. Nor does it provide much of a disincentive to follow their practice.
We KNOW that they are doping? We do? Did I miss a memo some where?

So it's gone from Joe Papp's list reportedly has a number of masters racers on it (which I believe) to "we know that they are doping". Which riders do "we know" are doping so that I can update my results from last year???

On a side point about the alleged quiet retirements, if somebody can be proved to have bought epo or hgh, etc. from Joe Papp, can we prove they doped? Is it against USADA rules to have a cabinet full of epo, hgh if you don't take it? I ask this because maybe it's only against USADA rules to actually take it and how do you prove that rider X took epo last season if he never got drug tested, you just know he bought the stuff from Joe Papp? Maybe it wasn't worth wasting tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars chasing a bunch of guys who were going to use the Vandenbroucke defense ("it was for my dog"). Yeah, we know that excuse is a steaming pile, but how do we PROVE it?
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,499
0
0
Gordy Shields has been on a tear..they better test this guy before he breaks ever record in World Cycling..he has already shattered everything that was a US record. A true monster of bike racing..Thurlow may have Lance as a team mate and raced against Lemond but he can't hold Gordy's bags.
 
Apr 10, 2009
594
0
0
nslckevin said:
The guys you mentioned were top level racers "back in the day". Hell, Thurlow raced in the '84 Olympics. Are we supposed to be surprised that he's still good? I mean, who would have thought that somebody who raced in the Olympics might be a good bike racer? Even better than a bunch of hacks who started racing in their 30's? What a shock!!

Look, I've raced against these guys also. In fact, Thurlow has been my "nemesis" at masters nationals for several years. I just have a really hard time with the "evidence" of some riders doping is that he's "better than me". Clearly, anybody who beats me MUST be on dope.

And for the record, for what it's worth, I know for a fact that Thurlow got tested in 2007 at masters nationals when he won the road race. I also know that he was masters world champion one year and that they test the winners there so it is probably safe to assume that he got tested there also. For what it's worth.
I didn't mention Thurlow, did I? Read what I wrote and try not to take things out of context.
 
Jul 9, 2009
88
0
0
fatandfast said:
Gordy Shields has been on a tear..they better test this guy before he breaks ever record in World Cycling..he has already shattered everything that was a US record. A true monster of bike racing..Thurlow may have Lance as a team mate and raced against Lemond but he can't hold Gordy's bags.
You mean raced with Lemond? They were teammates on La Vie Claire.
 
Jul 22, 2009
205
0
0
mountaindew said:
You mean raced with Lemond? They were teammates on La Vie Claire.
He was also on the Subaru-Montgomery team with Armstrong when Lance was still an amateur.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
nslckevin said:
The guys you mentioned were top level racers "back in the day". Hell, Thurlow raced in the '84 Olympics.
The only rider on the '84 mens road team with a "guaranteed ride" was Alexi Grewal. He won the Olympic Trials and was untouchable.

It's been well documented that Eddie B called everyone together In L.A. and explained to them about the blood transfusion program they'd created with Ed Burke. Eddie made it quite clear to them that anyone who was not a team player on doing transfusions, would be an automatic contender for the "B team". I think all of our guys finished top-15. Three of them top-10.

You decide.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY