Walsh Says..................?

[King Boonen]

Tha anti-doping laws do cover this use of substances that are not on a list.

Only in the vaguest of terms and one's which are easily contestable in an Anti-Doping Tribunal

Say the **** what? Examples, please...

Don't you remember Valery Kaykov getting his anti-doping ban overturned?! No, neither do I.

Literally the first thing on the list...

 

[yaco]

Tha anti-doping laws do cover this use of substances that are not on a list.

Only in the vaguest of terms and one's which are easily contestable in an Anti-Doping Tribunal

Say the **** what? Examples, please...

Don't you remember Valery Kaykov getting his anti-doping ban overturned?! No, neither do I.

Literally the first thing on the list...

My post is strictly looking at the motivation of athletes who use substances,any substances, new fangled substances, new substances hot off the press, which are obviously not any WADA banned list - Some call this is doping - I don't - What I've posted is crystal clear.

 

[fmk_RoI]

What I've posted is crystal clear.

As clear as obsidian...

 

[yaco]

What I've posted is crystal clear.

As clear as obsidian...

Should be as clear as mud.

 

[fmk_RoI]

What I've posted is crystal clear.

As clear as obsidian...

Should be as clear as mud.

Simple question: was GW501516 on the banned list - a specific entry for GW501516 - when Kaykov was busted? Next question: in your humble and informed opinion, is GW501516 doping?

 

[deviant]

I'm with 'yaco' on this, if a food, substance, drink, chemical, medication etc isn't on a banned list then it's all good...crack on, a decent pro should use everything at their disposal up to the point of banned substances, if it's banned its doping and the athlete should be sanctioned accordingly.

 

[King Boonen]

Tha anti-doping laws do cover this use of substances that are not on a list.

Only in the vaguest of terms and one's which are easily contestable in an Anti-Doping Tribunal

Say the **** what? Examples, please...

Don't you remember Valery Kaykov getting his anti-doping ban overturned?! No, neither do I.

Literally the first thing on the list...

My post is strictly looking at the motivation of athletes who use substances,any substances, new fangled substances, new substances hot off the press, which are obviously not any WADA banned list - Some call this is doping - I don't - What I've posted is crystal clear.

I'm sorry, but the only thing that is clear is that you've either never actually looked at the document or you don't understand it.

 

[fmk_RoI]

I'm with 'yaco' on this, if a food, substance, drink, chemical, medication etc isn't on a banned list then it's all good...crack on, a decent pro should use everything at their disposal up to the point of banned substances, if it's banned its doping and the athlete should be sanctioned accordingly.

So you are all in favour of a culture of the pill and the potion, correct? There are zero issues with the substances in use from the birth of cycling in the c19th through to the advent of anti-doping in the 1960s, that substances like alcohol, amphetamines, caffeine, cocaine, digitalis, ether, heroin, hormones, nitroglycerine, opium, strychnine, their use was perfectly acceptable right up until the day they were banned, only became 'wrong' then?

 

[The Hitch]

What Walsh obviously means is where is the dodgy Dr now?...Leinders was sent packing early on, doesn't mean his methods aren't still being used but Fuentes and Ferrari were ever present clouds over cycling during that period...at the moment who and where is the boogeyman Dr?...we don't hear that kind of thing any more...you don't have to be a Sky fan to see Walsh's point.

Likewise where are the equivalent Swart, O'Reilly, Betsy type characters coming forward to speak about Froome?...again Walsh has a point, there were always rumours, witnesses etc willing to speak about Lance, not so much with Froome.

As much as the clinic loves to conflate US Postal with Sky there are massive differences, I'm not saying Froome is clean, far from it...but I do think things have moved on in a different direction, cleaner?...no, different drugs we don't yet know about?...that's more plausible for me.

The only people that get pinged for EPO these days are amateurs and second tier pros, the top riders are using something else in my opinion...for what it's worth, and it's only my opinion and carries about as much weight as the hysteria in here about motors...i reckon the top guys are in cahoots with proper doctors and using currently legal cocktails of various meds...see Sharapova and Meldonium although that's now banned...look at Telmisartan, Tramadol etc for what I'm thinking about...also bear in mind peptides that can't currently be tested for and regular compounds like GH and insulin that are still difficult to test for, I reckon that's the method these days...burn the fat off and then use prescription meds for enhanced tissue perfusion, enhanced cardiac function, blocking out the pain etc and you've got the latest 21st century pro cyclist.

You don't go from being a nobody to a Grand Tour contender in the blink of an eye on 'legal meds'. Such a drastic improvement requires some form of blood manipulation.

Exactly.
I swear, at some point in 2013 Sky hr told sent an email to the die hard fans telling them to use this "grey area" idea.

"It will make you look like you are open to the idea of Froome doping while still floating the idea that he had the potential to become the greatest cyclist ever without drugs", Fran Millar or some other fraud would have said.

 

[deviant]

their use was perfectly acceptable right up until the day they were banned, only became 'wrong' then?

Morally it's all wrong if you belief athletes should compete on nutrition and talent alone...however it's a sport with rules and if you don't break those rules I'm fine with athletes behaviour, if that means using legal meds that aren't banned yet like Tramadol, Telmisartan, Inhalers and Meldonium (i know that's now banned) then so be it.

 

[Electress]

their use was perfectly acceptable right up until the day they were banned, only became 'wrong' then?

Morally it's all wrong if you belief athletes should compete on nutrition and talent alone...however it's a sport with rules and if you don't break those rules I'm fine with athletes behaviour, if that means using legal meds that aren't banned yet like Tramadol, Telmisartan, Inhalers and Meldonium (i know that's now banned) then so be it.

I'm rather averse to turning doctors into drug dealers. IMO, if a doctor prescribes a drug without a legitimate medical reason, and/or that goes against what is in the best interest for their health, they should be suspended and their licence to practice in future subject to review by the BMJ.