- Jun 16, 2009
python, why would you have a "not decided" option. If you are not decided then don't vote!
Yea i agree on some levels but the fact is they are human, they already have very very public lives and i think they deserve some privacy even if they do get an opportunity to dope. Hopefully they will be honest (yea i wish).Ferminal said:It's more to do with catching dopers at a time when they may actually test positive. 8-10 hours is plenty of time for someone to be microdosing EPO, every day of the Tour, without testing positive in any morning tests. If you give them a window of no tests, you're basically writing their doping regime for them.
because i wanted to see the proportion of those polarized by the radical proposal vs. not having decided.. also 3am was an arbitrary time i chose as it’s the middle of the sleep. some may feel undecided b/c of the timing and find the idea more acceptable if it was say 5 in the morn.auscyclefan94 said:python, why would you have a "not decided" option. If you are not decided then don't vote!
Surely that's like saying the death penalty is a deterrent for things like murder etc.?RdBiker said:If you can't test a rider between 22.00-6.00 that leaves and 8-hour window for drugs to get out of your system. IMO if you don't test the riders between certain hours it's almost like saying "ok, feel free to dope at that time you won't get caught"
It's a question about preventing doping vs. the comfort of cyclists. I've never ridden a 3-week tour so can't comment on the affect of waking up at nigh but before a 1-day race it wouldn't kill my performance - or the night after the race. I understand your concern for unfair disadvantages to those riders tested during the night but I feel that just the possibility of nigh-time testing could deter riders from using some substances. You don't need to test them every night.
A rider would certainly think twice before using a substance if he had even (only) a 2% possibility of getting caught vs. having 0-possibility of getting caught.
my neighbour had a shotgun. everytime there was a bank robbery the police called to his house and usually in the early hours of the morning to make sure he had it and it was not recently fired, result? he got rid of the shotgun;andy1234 said:Why on earth anybody would aspire to be a pro cyclist in this day and age is beyond me. No sportsperson should have to entertain this level of control, regardless of the reasoning behind it.
I can only assume that the 20 odd people who voted in favour of this BS wouldn't mind if the police regularly turned up at their house in the middle of the night to ensure that no laws are being broken?
Hmm...not really. I'd say more like having speed cameras deters from speeding. Or road-side police raids deter from driving while drunk.craig1985 said:Surely that's like saying the death penalty is a deterrent for things like murder etc.?
Is that the "police academy 7" school of law enforcement?Benotti69 said:my neighbour had a shotgun. everytime there was a bank robbery the police called to his house and usually in the early hours of the morning to make sure he had it and it was not recently fired, result? he got rid of the shotgun;
Cycling get rid of the doping.
no it is called eliminating the possibilities and leaving no stone unturned.andy1234 said:Is that the "police academy 7" school of law enforcement?
Assuming that your neighbour was not a known bank robber, that use of police resources is as brilliant as dope testing riders at 3am.
No, unless your neighbour had a criminal record, it's just harassment.Benotti69 said:no it is called eliminating the possibilities and leaving no stone unturned.
testing the suspected riders at odd hours puts the the likely hood of catching them in the favour of the testers and if you need your sleep more than you need dope you will not be a suspect; i suspect
not harrasment, if he lived with a certain radius of the crime it was standard police prodedure.andy1234 said:No, unless your neighbour had a criminal record, it's just harassment.
The majority of the pro field have no doping record so in a similar fashion, testing if this nature is also harassment.
Ok you have sold the whole idea to me....Benotti69 said:not harrasment, if he lived with a certain radius of the crime it was standard police prodedure.
blame the testers for the doping. if they dont test they dont dope right, like other sports where there is no testing there is no doping
no doping record because they hardly get tested and when they do they have plenty of notification and in case of surprise testing at home they have a 20 minute shower
who watches the watchmen...andy1234 said:Ok you have sold the whole idea to me....
I also think that all riders should be chaperoned by anti doping officials 24 hours a day. That will stop the doping.
In addition to that, the chaperones should have their own 24 hour chaperones, just in case they have been bribed.
Now we are really getting somewhere....
Can the kind of stuff they'd be looking for only be detected in urine? Would blood tests help?nslckevin said:This only works if you test every single rider in the race to keep it fair. Also, keep in mind that this will likely cost the rider at least an hour of sleep. And what about the poor ******* who got up to pee 20 minutes before they showed up. He might be up for hours trying to pee.