Poll: 4 Days to go. Should Boonen ride? yes/no

[Anonymous]

68 pecent so far in favor of Boonen on a forum that thinks Lance is a moral degenerate.

What if it has been Lance snorting coke? Oh, the place would have burned with outrage.

Do I need to point out the hypocrisy?

 

[Anonymous]

The analysis of his hair only showed trace amounts of the drug, which could have occurred by an environmental exposure

You're saying it was on his hair not in it? that's absurd.

Where do you stand on lance and 99 samples?

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

if he had a different job this wouldn't be such a big deal

he was skating on thin ice after the first time.

he then fell though the ice.

True. But he's still a huge talent at such a young age. There's still time to redeem himself. I'd say if anything happens again he'd be punished swiftly, even if it was out of competition.

 

[Jacques Tati]

68 pecent so far in favor of Boonen on a forum that thinks Lance is a moral degenerate.

What if it has been Lance snorting coke? Oh, the place would have burned with outrage.

Do I need to point out the hypocrisy?

Providing Lance took coke out of competition like Tom there shouldnt be a problem he should be allowed to ride. But people like you who cant see past the ends of their noses and find it impossible to seperate the criminal and sporting aspect will never see things any different.

 

[Anonymous]

Although I still don't buy the "Out of Competition" argument. He's a public figure and what he does in his private life still effects the fans and people around him in his public life. Especially when his use goes public.

Would you be so lenient if it were anyone else? Armstrong? Pres Obama? Cav? Valverde?

Whether they like it or not, they are "public figures" and if they do anything wrong the press will jump on it. Boonen needs to be more careful. This is hurting more than just himself.

 

[Jacques Tati]

68 pecent so far in favor of Boonen on a forum that thinks Lance is a moral degenerate.

What if it has been Lance snorting coke? Oh, the place would have burned with outrage.

Do I need to point out the hypocrisy?

As for Lance..poor chap he could be an angel with a halo and people would still see him as a moral degenerate. The blokes a **** and no matter what he does people are always gonna hate him.

 

[Jacques Tati]

Although I still don't buy the "Out of Competition" argument. He's a public figure and what he does in his private life still effects the fans and people around him in his public life. Especially when his use goes public.

Would you be so lenient if it were anyone else? Armstrong? Pres Obama? Cav? Valverde?

Whether they like it or not, they are "public figures" and if they do anything wrong the press will jump on it. Boonen needs to be more careful. This is hurting more than just himself.

What a load s**t.

 

[Cobber]

You're saying it was on his hair not in it? that's absurd.

Where do you stand on lance and 99 samples?

No, in his hair, but only small amounts. Hair samples give a wider view of drug use habits that may not be identified in urine/blood tests. Lefevere took a risk having the hair analysis done, since if Boonen was a habitual user, he would have tested positive for much larger amounts. Here is the link to the article http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/boonens-cocaine-use-thrown-into-confusion

However, the amounts of cocaine in Boonen's hair misses the point. My personal feeling is that he should not be excluded, even if the amounts were larger, because out of competition cocaine use is not against the rules of cycling and provides no performance enhancement. Lance's '99 samples are a tough (and different) issue. If they were definitely his samples (ie. confirmed match to his DNA by DNA fingerprinting) my feeling would be that riders have been suspended for much less. The rules of cycling state that you have to have 2 samples (A and B) test positive for performance enhancing drugs, but in recent years riders are been excluded based on very circumstantial evidence. If Lance's 99 blood samples tested positive on more than one occasion, there was no evidence of tampering with them and the blood was definitely his I would sanction him. I would feel the same way about anyone else - including riders I like!

 

[Anonymous]

True. But he's still a huge talent at such a young age. There's still time to redeem himself. I'd say if anything happens again he'd be punished swiftly, even if it was out of competition.

I agree completely that there's still plenty of time to redeem himself... starting in next years tour.

He didn't learn from the first one.

UCI need to put this in the rules.

If you want to use recreational drugs, which I'm not all that much against, pick a different job than being a professional athlete.

I'm surprised you can argue including him after posting that picture with kids.

I'd love to seem him battle cav too. But that's not reason enough.

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

I'm surprised you can argue including him after posting that picture with kids.

Yeah, I hear ya. It leaves a stinging sensation in my eyes looking at it. Personally, I would've suspended him the 1st time, but rules are rules, and technically, no matter what our opinions are, it was out of competition. So therefore, he rides.

 

[Anonymous]

No, in his hair, but only small amounts. Hair samples give a wider view of drug use habits that may not be identified in urine/blood tests. Lefevere took a risk having the hair analysis done, since if Boonen was a habitual user, he would have tested positive for much larger amounts. Here is the link to the article http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/boonens-cocaine-use-thrown-into-confusion

However, the amounts of cocaine in Boonen's hair misses the point. My personal feeling is that he should not be excluded, even if the amounts were larger, because out of competition cocaine use is not against the rules of cycling and provides no performance enhancement. Lance's '99 samples are a tough (and different) issue. If they were definitely his samples (ie. confirmed match to his DNA by DNA fingerprinting) my feeling would be that riders have been suspended for much less. The rules of cycling state that you have to have 2 samples (A and B) test positive for performance enhancing drugs, but in recent years riders are been excluded based on very circumstantial evidence. If Lance's 99 blood samples tested positive on more than one occasion, there was no evidence of tampering with them and the blood was definitely his I would sanction him. I would feel the same way about anyone else - including riders I like!

He could have done just a couple of lines, which isn't much in the context of most people in a single night of partying. The ideas of it being in a dring are a stretching things in the search for an excuse IMO. He ingested cocaine.

And I keep forgetting... IT'S THE THIRD TIME.

UCI new they couldn't prove that Lances 99 samples could not have been tampered with as they could have argued if they'd been tested in the first couple of years.

The independent report commissioned by UCI, the Vrijman report, said the samples couldn't be tied to any individual person.

Lance bashers of course hate this report but it was the basis on which UCI knew it wasn't possible to santion Lance on those samples.

Oh, and the A samples were long gone.

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I hear ya. It leaves a stinging sensation in my eyes looking at it. Personally, I would've suspended him the 1st time, but rules are rules, and technically, no matter what our opinions are, it was out of competition. So therefore, he rides.

No, the tour decides who rides.

I'd rather see this in UCI rules but the tour makes the call no?

Remember Astana?

 

[hfer07]

technically: he should be allowed to ride since he got busted in an out- of-competition test...
Politically: ASO now has "moral" issues with him but not with the 7 times tour winner and his rotten background... UCI always goes along with whatever makes them look "professional"...
Cycling wise: He should ride just for the spectacle...
morally: Who gives a damn about it nowadays?

Conclusion: Yes, he should be allowed to ride the tour

 

[Tusher]

Beautifully put.

Am I the only one who now always makes the word association 'Boonen' and 'Pantani'?

 

[Jasper]

Please Jackhammer, even though your analogy is pretty valid, don't turn this into another Armstrong thread. This one is about Boonen and his coke abuse, Lance's 99 testing samples have jack **** to do with this.



As far as Boonen riding the Tour is concerned, it's a tough call. One the one hand I'd love to see him start after all, because there's no technical ground to ban him, he is one of the most attractive riders in the peloton, and it might help the ASO tune down their random, arbitrary and often hypocrite rulemaking. But on the other hand, Boonen really needs to be put back with his feet on the ground. Everyone assumed that he would have learned his lesson after last years exclusion from the Tour. But then he just goes ahead and does it all over again. One slip up can be accepted, but the second time around it becomes more difficult to cope with, even though it technically has nothing to do with cycling itself. If he's allowed to race none the less, I'm afraid it might not be the best motivation to end his coke abuse once and for all.

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

I'll tell ya what. There's been a slew of Belgians that were accused, caught, and admitted to much worse than what Boonen is contending with now, and most, if not all, are still adored and revered by the fans. I can almost guarantee there would be riots in Flanders (including the kids in the pic) if some kind of overly harsh punishment came down on Tom for being stupid at a party, or club. From observing his career since the get go in '02, he's a smart enough guy, I think, and hope that he'll get over himself, pull his head out of his @ss, and not jeopardize is career anymore than he has. If he was ever forced to even sit out just Flanders and Roubaix, which is far more important to him than a green jersey or anything else, that would be a travesty.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I was reluctant to get involved in this thread however one point I think should be mentioned.

This argument by ASO has nothing to do with morals! It is all about the Tour portraying a 'clean' image to protect their commercial interest and 'show' a zero tolerence towards anyone associated with doping - even recreational.

Last year Stefan Schumacher was allowed to participate even though the previous year he was arrested for drink driving and in the subsequent results that he had also taken "recreational" drugs (amphetamines!!).

 

[Cobber]

He could have done just a couple of lines, which isn't much in the context of most people in a single night of partying. The ideas of it being in a dring are a stretching things in the search for an excuse IMO. He ingested cocaine.

And I keep forgetting... IT'S THE THIRD TIME.

UCI new they couldn't prove that Lances 99 samples could not have been tampered with as they could have argued if they'd been tested in the first couple of years.

The independent report commissioned by UCI, the Vrijman report, said the samples couldn't be tied to any individual person.

Lance bashers of course hate this report but it was the basis on which UCI knew it wasn't possible to santion Lance on those samples.

Oh, and the A samples were long gone.

Yes, it's his 3rd time NOT BREAKING THE RULES! Was it bad for his public image? - maybe.... bad influence on the kids that idolise him? - dubious. I don't see many kids going out and doing lines of coke because they want to be a good bike rider like Tom.

I agree with you regarding the Lance '99 samples. As I said, I would favor sanctioning him only if the samples were definitely his, had no evidence of tampering, and tested positive for performance enhancing drugs. But as I also said, other riders have been punished with similar evidence to these '99 samples!

 

[Jasper]

This argument by ASO has nothing to do with morals! It is all about the Tour portraying a 'clean' image to protect their commercial interest and 'show' a zero tolerence towards anyone associated with doping - even recreational.

But yet you can see a whole bunch of riders that have been associated with drugs and doping starting in Monaco: Klöden, Moreau, Paulinho, Millar, even Armstrong. But no Boonen. Where's the logic in that?


If only ASO could make a consistent decision and treat every rider equally - how painful it may be for cycling, the Tour and its image that ASO is so desperate to preserve - I could live with it, maybe even respect it. But this arbitrary punishing based on hypocrite and conflicting reasoning is just unacceptable.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But yet you can see a whole bunch of riders that have been associated with drugs and doping starting in Monaco: Klöden, Moreau, Paulinho, Millar, even Armstrong. But no Boonen. Where's the logic in that?


If only ASO could make a consistent decision and treat every rider equally - how painful it may be for cycling, the Tour and its image that ASO is so desperate to preserve - I could live with it, maybe even respect it. But this arbitrary punishing based on hypocrite and conflicting reasoning is just unacceptable.

I DO agree with you.... it is completely hypocritical and I too wish they would continue.

 

[Anonymous]

If they are allowing Armstrong in after all of the uproar over his 1999 positives, their rhetoric over Boonen is just plain stupid.

He coked up out of competition and they think that makes their image bad? I wonder what tales their hair samples would tell?

Let him ride and move on.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Hard to say, but I voted no. I won't lose sleep if he's in though.

I also take the opinion that if Boonen is in, Valverde should be in.

If we're going to better cycling, the problems these two have brought to the sport need to be shown in a much bigger light than the one that shines only on them.

 

[Anonymous]

purely on the drugs recreational v drugs enhancing yes he should be at the tour..

however, it doesnt to the sport any good him being busted, and making him realise its not acceptable by banning him from this years tour might be the kick up the **** he needs to stop being an idiot..

 

[elapid]

I find it interesting that ASO talk about banning Boonen for bringing the sport into disrepute for a positive out-of-competition test for cocaine, but that this same result is not released publicly in France. So French riders could be snorting to their heart's content out-of-competition and because no one knows it is OK for them to ride but not Boonen. Hypocrisy.

 

[krebs303]

The analysis of his hair only showed trace amounts of the drug, which could have occurred by an environmental exposure (ie. being in a room with people using), or drinking a drink with it. A couple of years ago, a rider (I think Gilberto Simoni - could be wrong) tested positive for coke after eating chocolates from Columbia. Additionally, there was recently a recall of Red Bull because it contained cocaine.

Just read an article on how little it takes to test positive for steroids from nutritional supplements. Could it be the same for other drugs.

http://www.slowtwitch.com/Training/General_Physiology/How_Much_is_Enough__893.html