Retroactive testing . The risks?

[Darryl Webster]

Theres a lot of talk of retroactivly applying the plastisiser test.
I have absalutly no doupt that such a measure would yeald an avalanche of possitives streching back as far as any samples in storage.
I`ve use hasnt been banned many years and has been commen practice in the tour probably as far back as the 60`s for clucose, saline and iron.
Though non of these are banned substances the delivery method now is.
Medical opinion is divided on wether iv application for recovery is better than oral adminstration and I`d guess many ds`s would believe iv method is best and though now breaching the regs not view it as doping.
And I`d agree.
Unless medical evidence is conclusive the severity of GT races makes use of iv delivery of none doping product an acceptable method in my view, unfortunatly.
I only form that view because GT`s put demands on riders no other races do, depleting reserves to unhealthy levals...which ultimatly is one reason doping has always been with the GT`s.
That point aside do we realy want to suspend as much as half ...maybe even more?..of the pro tour peloton?.
What might be a far better application of retro testing, one that ballances the interests of the sport and the persuance of cleaner racing but with a more complete understanding of the issues facing riders/ teams is to announce that as of any new test being available it will be added to the testing procedure... the substance will not be announced untill the first possitive test in a active rider and that when any rider does test possitive all of that riders samples in storage will be retro tested for everthing and with all the latest methods.
The riders position is somewhat like an arms race. Having possibly peeked with Uniballer the rd back is difficult....no one wants to lose the advantage unless there 100% confident the rest have to.
Possitives need to be dealt with in a way appropriete to any performance advantage the substance is known to give. Clearly blood transfussions and EPO deserve far more severe punishment than recreational cocaine or cannibis. That not endorsing there use its arguing for approprietness.
Accept were there use is a proven masking agent any drug on the list that DOESNT give a performance advantage shouldnt be on the list.
Landis made the comment that the list treats riders like idiots and I have to agree.
Final point..a few peeps seem to think DS`s dont always know who is doping on there team.
I`d say , from personal experiance ,in 99% of cases they do.
Regardless of that... make DS`s responsible for there team..( there happy to take the benifits!) ..by making them punishable in a big way that puts a lot of presure on them to make the team clean.
Finaly...if they decide to retro test for plastiserers...with such a big avalanche of possitives that would cause, they could take the oppertunity of an amnisty for all that give full disclosure.
Be a tough stance. ...and would take some recovering from. But hey, it does look like a nuts an bolts restoration is required eh?

 

[scribe]

I couldn't read all that if you paid me.

 

[The Mann]

I have absalutly no doupt

Jebus, if you want to voice your opinion it would be better done in a manner that other people can read.

 

[andy1234]

Jebus, if you want to voice your opinion it would be better done in a manner that other people can read.

Unlike the majority of posters on here, Darryl has the benefit of genuine experience in a lot of the topics discussed here. He didn't form his opinions sitting in front of the TV with a beer in his hand.

His spelling is ****e, but (some ) of his opinions are not, so relax hey?

BTW some of the most intelligent people I know are dyslexic.

 

[ultimobici]

I couldn't read all that if you paid me.

It's not that hard to read & understand the points Darryl made.

But then one might have problems if one speaks the other Webster's English!

 

[Darryl Webster]

Sorry about the gramer etc peeps..It was very late...I am mild dislexic and realy, a forum isnt somewhere I think peeps need be overly concerned about such matters...but theres always gonna be one or two who think theyve scored a point by pointing these things out..

Kinda reminds me of that saying , " Those who can do, those who cant teach"

 

[JPM London]

Lot of good points there, Darryl!

I think also there should be more focus on sample taking just for the sake of keeping and building a library so that further evidence is easy to gather. More samples, less of them actually tested.

Do tests more based on suspicions and not just based who won a stage or race.

I think it would be a hell of a lot more scary doping if you knew that you could be done for your whole career in one fell swoop instead of all the "Oh yeah, I did dope one time back in December, but I had a bad day and have now seen the light."

Stop testing samples just for the sake of testing them - test them when there's a good chance of finding something.

You know, cycling could use a good dose of the good old 80-20 rule...

 

[OneRaceWonder]

Accept were there use is a proven masking agent any drug on the list that DOESNT give a performance advantage shouldnt be on the list.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but you want to remove masks from the illegal substance list, if a lot of retrospective testing were to be done? Isn't this the same as saying; ok, if you tried hard to mask your juice, your clear...? Seems kind of strange to me... Again, sorry if I didn't get the point(english not my native lanuage).

 

[Darryl Webster]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but you want to remove masks from the illegal substance list, if a lot of retrospective testing were to be done? Isn't this the same as saying; ok, if you tried hard to mask your juice, your clear...? Seems kind of strange to me... Again, sorry if I didn't get the point(english not my native lanuage).

No, proven masking agents should stay on the list. But were a drug has no performace enhancing effects and no masking agent properties what pupose does it serve being on a list of peds?.
Answer is none other than to put athletes on an unrealistic pedastal of puritanisim.
The job of medical control is to find cheets not to make moral judgment on a persons personal choices.

 

[flicker]

No, proven masking agents should stay on the list. But were a drug has no performace enhancing effects and no masking agent properties what pupose does it serve being on a list of peds?.
Answer is none other than to put athletes on an unrealistic pedastal of puritanisim.
The job of medical control is to find cheets not to make moral judgment on a persons personal choices.

You know darryl many drugs can be mixed to achieve a powerful cocktail. I think if people want to charge they will figure out a way. Personally I understand the EPO blood doping in GTs. I think that it is safe when monitored by a Doctor.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

You know darryl many drugs can be mixed to achieve a powerful cocktail. I think if people want to charge they will figure out a way. Personally I understand the EPO blood doping in GTs. I think that it is safe when monitored by a Doctor.

The 'safety' of doping isn't the issue. The fact that doping is cheating IS. Darryl brought up some good points in regards to the ethical dilema of retro testing for plastic, although since IV use has been banned it WOULD undoubtedly result in a run on positives.

I like a previous poster's idea of using new testing to answer suspicious performances.

I am RETARDEDLY anti-doping, but can understand the necessity of rehydrating through a bag if you're racing a GT. To me, if you're dripping a bag of saline to hydrate after givin 'er for days in 40deg heat... Well, that's not really the problem...

 

[Irish2009]

Saying you think its ok to dope once its done safely is like saying its ok to rob someones property once its done safely. Doping robs the few clean riders a chance to win prize money, get better contracts, & robs young fans of the dream of competing at the top level without cheating.

 

[flicker]

Saying you think its ok to dope once its done safely is like saying its ok to rob someones property once its done safely. Doping robs the few clean riders a chance to win prize money, get better contracts, & robs young fans of the dream of competing at the top level without cheating.

Sorry I guess you are not watching pro-cycling.

I spoke with a frame builder who supplied frames to a TdF team at one time.

I asked him what he thought about doping. He looked at me with disgust and said" the team with the most effective doping program wins."

I think that is pro-cycling, always has been. EPO and HOMO.blood doping helps the guys get through GTs. I think if it is done properly it is not dangerous.

To me it is like abortions, not a good thing but if a woman decides to get one it needs to be done by a qualified doctor.

Young fans and racers need to know the truth about doping in cycling.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

To me it is like abortions, not a good thing but if a woman decides to get one it needs to be done by a qualified doctor.

Thank god you're not on your primary school's debating team! With logic like that you'd be stuck in the corner shoving crayons up your nose...

 

[lean mean &green]

Kinda reminds me of that saying , " Those who can do, those who cant teach"

good teachers are probably the most likely to be tolerant of your dyslexia.

 

[flicker]

Thank god you're not on your primary school's debating team! With logic like that you'd be stuck in the corner shoving crayons up your nose...

Theorize this: who do you want doing your next blood test or I.V. drip?

I will answer for myself a qualified professional, using sanitary equipment.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Theorize this: who do you want doing your next blood test or I.V. drip?

I will answer for myself a qualified professional, using sanitary equipment.

I know you're trying really hard present a logical argument FOR doping, so I'll slow it down a bit for you:

Regardless of who is administering, it is still doping.

You could be getting booted up by some junkie in Antwerp, or at the best clinic in the world. It is still doping.

It is doping. It is cheating.

I realize you might be getting lightheaded from the hypoxia induced from trying to breathe through all those crayons, but take it a bit easy. Wouldn't want you to poke your brain...

 

[flicker]

I know you're trying really hard present a logical argument FOR doping, so I'll slow it down a bit for you:

Regardless of who is administering, it is still doping.

You could be getting booted up by some junkie in Antwerp, or at the best clinic in the world. It is still doping.

It is doping. It is cheating.

I realize you might be getting lightheaded from the hypoxia induced from trying to breathe through all those crayons, but take it a bit easy. Wouldn't want you to poke your brain...

Even my Lord Lance Armstrong stated in the A&E Biography that the ancient OLYMPICS the first ones , the athletes were charged on cocaine.

I was shocked when cocaine, cannabis, and opiates were discovered in the mummies of EGYPT.

How did coca get to Africa? Why do people use drugs.

I know that you are way more intelligent than I am so answer me this. How do you stop people from using illegal drugs?

 

[BroDeal]

Theres a lot of talk of retroactivly applying the plastisiser test.
I have absalutly no doupt that such a measure would yeald an avalanche of possitives streching back as far as any samples in storage.

No. it would not because the retroactive testing would not be done as an organization that was serious about doping would apply it. The UCI will not pass a huge batch of old samples through the test and then let the chips fall where the may. Instead the UCI will selectively apply retroactive testing to riders who have already tested positive and are fighting the charge and to riders who have done something to p!ss off a cycling insider.

It is no accident that T. Dekker is the only rider to have been caught by retroactive testing. It is also no accident that the UCI refused to test 2008 Giro samples for CERA.

If the UCI would have used the carbon isotope test for testosterone on the 2006 Tour samples without the T:TE ratio screen then a lot more riders than Landis would have failed. Probably everyone in the top ten would have tested positive.

The UCI will do everything in its power to prevent a large number of riders from getting caught at once. It will simply applaud the new test, tell everyone how much progress is being made against doping, and bury the past in wishy washy statements about how cycling has changed without admitting how dirty it used to be.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Even my Lord Lance Armstrong stated in the A&E Biography that the ancient OLYMPICS the first ones , the athletes were charged on cocaine.

I was shocked when cocaine, cannabis, and opiates were discovered in the mummies of EGYPT.

How did coca get to Africa? Why do people use drugs.

I know that you are way more intelligent than I am so answer me this. How do you stop people from using illegal drugs?

The argument isn't about getting people to not use drugs (legal or otherwise). This isn't a forum about the cultural-social effects of using drugs.

This is a forum about ILLEGAL DOPING IN CYCLING.

I don't really care what YOU'RE jacked on. Hell, if I lived in a country with recreational-drug testing I'd be hooped. I love my weed...

Trying to say that our societies have always used drugs does not lend any credence to your argument that it should be allowed in sport.

Sport is an entity unto itself in the social sphere. There are different rules for sport, and different benefits. A few million euros to ride a bike or kick a ball - sport obviously has different rules.

I've done way too many rants on the ethics and nature of sport. Search for them if you're interested. If not, I still wish you well and really hope you don't get some form of crayon poisoning...

 

[flicker]

The argument isn't about getting people to not use drugs (legal or otherwise). This isn't a forum about the cultural-social effects of using drugs.

This is a forum about ILLEGAL DOPING IN CYCLING.

I don't really care what YOU'RE jacked on. Hell, if I lived in a country with recreational-drug testing I'd be hooped. I love my weed...

Trying to say that our societies have always used drugs does not lend any credence to your argument that it should be allowed in sport.

Sport is an entity unto itself in the social sphere. There are different rules for sport, and different benefits. A few million euros to ride a bike or kick a ball - sport obviously has different rules.

I've done way too many rants on the ethics and nature of sport. Search for them if you're interested. If not, I still wish you well and really hope you don't get some form of crayon poisoning...

lets' get back on track shall we? I think retroactive testing would probably have a very negative impact on cycling because, it could be targetted towards certain riders. I am going to say it again. You want the doping out of sport it shall take drastic measures. Retroactive testing will not answer anything as far as cleaning up the sport.

It brings in the fear factor, the paranoia but that has always been a factor in illegal drug use. Paranoia and fear only stop the drug users who are honest with themselves.

My analogy in rec drug use to PED use is true. Both dangerous both unethical living a lie etc.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

lets' get back on track shall we? I think retroactive testing would probably have a very negative impact on cycling because, it could be targetted towards certain riders. I am going to say it again. You want the doping out of sport it shall take drastic measures. Retroactive testing will not answer anything as far as cleaning up the sport.

Why would it have to be targeted towards certain riders?

If IV use is banned, it's banned. Everyone is in full awareness of what the rules are. If retro-testing ends up culling the majority of riders, so be it. How's that for a drastic measure.

These pole-smokers are getting paid a tonne to race their bikes, with that fat cheque comes responsibility. Follow the rules or get a foot in yer *ss!

This could be the first test to actually be inclusive enough to clean up the sport. Providing those in charge have the b*lls to stick to the rules and sanction the cheaters.

Retroactive testing really could do something to clean up the sport. It's up the heads of the governing bodies now...

 

[flicker]

Why would it have to be targeted towards certain riders?

If IV use is banned, it's banned. Everyone is in full awareness of what the rules are. If retro-testing ends up culling the majority of riders, so be it. How's that for a drastic measure.

These pole-smokers are getting paid a tonne to race their bikes, with that fat cheque comes responsibility. Follow the rules or get a foot in yer *ss!

This could be the first test to actually be inclusive enough to clean up the sport. Providing those in charge have the b*lls to stick to the rules and sanction the cheaters.

Retroactive testing really could do something to clean up the sport. It's up the heads of the governing bodies now...

This is what I hear from a pro in Europe. They get monthly IV or vitamen injections every month. If they do not they get sick. Mononucleosis.

This is a small time American riding for a French team. The pros get needles stuck in them, all the time.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

This is what I hear from a pro in Europe. They get monthly IV or vitamen injections every month. If they do not they get sick. Mononucleosis.

This is a small time American riding for a French team. The pros get needles stuck in them, all the time.

Interesting input from your American buddy. I managed to race internationally for a decade with no injections and never got mono. Mind you I was never spooked by having to provide a random sample, and obviously never tested positive.

DEHP won't show up from injections, anyway. Only the bagged goods, and they're on the list.

So, based on the prophilactic 'neccesity' of getting an IV and few shots every month (according to you and your source), the UCI et al should scrub this test even if proves riders are cheating?

 

[flicker]

Interesting input from your American buddy. I managed to race internationally for a decade with no injections and never got mono. Mind you I was never spooked by having to provide a random sample, and obviously never tested positive.

DEHP won't show up from injections, anyway. Only the bagged goods, and they're on the list.

So, based on the prophilactic 'neccesity' of getting an IV and few shots every month (according to you and your source), the UCI et al should scrub this test even if proves riders are cheating?

To me it goes back to what LeMond said about the Giro period. He was worn out and had what was it anIV or B vitiman iron injection, it brought him back to life. Since you have been a pro you probably know better than I. My info is from talking to pros ex pros things I have read etc. Are IVs completly banned from cycling now?