Why I will always be a "fanboy" and proud of it

[TexPat]

OK, my definition for the purpose of responding to RR, did not include any substance that when absorbed into the body, could be said to alter the body's normal function. Being that pedantic I could have said that "blood" is a drug. My point was that EPO does not have the same physiological purpose as say methotrexate, or sulphasalazine or even ibuprofen and other such drugs, which are not produced naturally by the body, but that are ingested to alter the body's response to disease or inflammation. EPO supplementation is exactly that: supplementation of a naturally occurring protein. Hey, but something tells me I am teaching my grandmother to suck eggs here I was quite rightly, in my opinion being pedantic with RR as his vagueness, due in part to his inability to properly explore google, needed correcting.

I sort of agree with your interpretation of my post, but not entirely. I didn't mean that someone who responded less could make up for it by doping more, although that of course is an option. And even in a clinical setting, dosages naturally differ. Rather my point was, that in normal medical circumstances differences in response rate to EPO due to underlying extraneous factors are normally tackled by complimentary prescriptions.

My over all point remains this. Any PED user who is knowledgeable or "well" advised, as I would have thought was abundantly clear by cycling's recent history, can carry out the practices and use the PEDs they "need" to be competitive biologically, without undue fear of being detected.

Is that the voice of experience talking or did you get this information from Google?

 

[straydog]

Is that the voice of experience talking or did you get this information from Google?

Actually Tex would I have to be a user to have any knowledge? Or indeed any experience? In your eyes, do I have any other options?

Crikey, maybe I am just a dealer

 

[Race Radio]

A]Random babble

Typical troll post. Writes lots but say nothing, claim "Victory" while everyone laughs AT you.

 

[TexPat]

Perhaps it would be more manly if the so-called experts on the forum would show their credentials, rather than attack other people for there purported lack thereof.

Crikey, maybe you're just another Aussie.

 

[stephens]

Also, even two athletes doping to the same extent may have different risks of getting caught. Doping is not just about changing natural parameters, but also about doing it without being detected. One program may be superior to another by allowing an athlete to raise his parameters more without being detected.

We've been discussing the "level playing field" justification for doping illegality so your point doesn't factor in to that discussion because it only becomes true if the "doping" is illegal. I.e. it can't be justification for making it illegal.

 

[straydog]

Perhaps it would be more manly if the so-called experts on the forum would show their credentials, rather than attack other people for there purported lack thereof.

Crikey, maybe you're just another Aussie.

What, you mean like RR, despite never having shown his "credentials", attacking my "purported" lack of knowledge? I heartily concur.

Hey, Tex, whether I am "manly" enough for you or not, doesn't alter what I have to say. If you disagree with it, be my guest and refute it. Rather than just "attacking" my manliness or supposed lack of, why not try formulating an arguement?

The only thing I take issue with in what you have said is calling me an aussie

Dear god, you have no idea how far from the truth that is....lol

 

[Race Radio]

It's both. You seem to think that a protein can't be a drug.

Of course everyone responds to EPO to some degree, but everyone may not respond exactly the same to a given dose. EPO, like any hormone, acts on receptors, triggering a metabolic response. Individuals may differ with respect to the density of receptors on target cells, for example, as well as the affinity of the receptor for EPO, the metabolic response for a given degree of receptor binding, etc.

I think your point is that someone who responds less could in principle make up the difference by doping more, but that might increase the risk of getting caught. Also, even two athletes doping to the same extent may have different risks of getting caught. Doping is not just about changing natural parameters, but also about doing it without being detected. One program may be superior to another by allowing an athlete to raise his parameters more without being detected.

Agreed. Also there are many different possible areas of improvement, raising Hct alone is not a guarantee of success as each person processes this increased supply differently and reacts to the increase blood volume differently.

An interesting point about the oxygen vector drugs is they took a while before the doping doctors figured out how to used them to their maximum potential. One of the key parts of Ferrari and Cecchini's programs was the building of power and muscle mass in the months prior to a GT then trimming as much weight as possible while maintaining as much of this power as possible....something Clen works well for. Add to this products like Actovigen to make the blood "slippery", HGH for recovery, and the complexity of the program goes way beyond just EPO.

The ability to fine tune a program to what a rider responds best to while not getting caught is the magic.

 

[Race Radio]

We've been discussing the "level playing field" justification for doping illegality so your point doesn't factor in to that discussion because it only becomes true if the "doping" is illegal. I.e. it can't be justification for making it illegal.

Not exactly. Many have said that it was a level playing field because "Everyone doped" This is what I disagree with. Not only did everyone not dope but those that did dope did not react the same way to it, they did not have the same program, the same doctors, same budget.....and everyone did not get advanced notice of "Surprise" tests.

The level playing field is a myth no matter how it is spun

 

[TexPat]

To Straydog:
Whether or not you're manly makes no difference at all to me. However, a meaningful discussion requires some credibilty, which you seem to lack on account of your anonymity. That's my view. You could prove your worth if you were actually right about something. RR gets a free pass because he/she has a pretty good record of correctness. You just seem to attack, which is a sign of insecurity.
I didn't call you an Aussie.
And it's spelled,"a-r-g-u-m-e-n-t". Perhaps you'll run spellcheck next time, especially after your critique of CN's lack of a good copy editor.

 

[Race Radio]

What, you mean like RR, despite never having shown his "credentials", attacking my "purported" lack of knowledge? I heartily concur.

Hey, Tex, whether I am "manly" enough for you or not, doesn't alter what I have to say. If you disagree with it, be my guest and refute it. Rather than just "attacking" my manliness or supposed lack of, why not try formulating an arguement?

The only thing I take issue with in what you have said is calling me an aussie

Dear god, you have no idea how far from the truth that is....lol

Pat has been upfront as to who he is and his background. He and I have enough mutual friends that it would be simple for him to confirm mine.

You, on the other hand, have to be judged on your posts.......filled with insults, bait, and incomprehensible ramble it is no surprise you draw a response that you get. It is no wonder you keep getting banned.

 

[straydog]

One of the key parts of Ferrari and Cecchini's programs.....

The ability to fine tune a program to what a rider responds best to while not getting caught is the magic.

And you have seen their programmes I take it? Could you possibly eluciadate this claim with some evidence?

As to the second part...and your subsequent post. I am not entirely sure what you are disagreeing about.

And is part of your discomfort with doping based on the fact that certain riders had better programmes? As I have said before, you know some of them had better bikes too? And nicer team cars. And bigger budgets.

I don't think moral relativism is helping your arguement, and certainly doesn't promote "clean" cycling. You either condemn doping, in all it's guises, efficacious or not. Or you don't.

Oddly, you see, I think all forms of PED use are equally "bad". I just don't have a huge moral rage of indignation, and question someone's humanity, or their right to bear children, or wish r*pe on them if they make a choice to use them.

 

[Ferminal]

Not exactly. Many have said that it was a level playing field because "Everyone doped" This is what I disagree with. Not only did everyone not dope but those that did dope did not react the same way to it, they did not have the same program, the same doctors, same budget.....and everyone did not get advanced notice of "Surprise" tests.

The level playing field is a myth no matter how it is spun

If everyone was able to dope to the same level and get the same results, why would someone need to pay six figures to a doctor, and to keep them from working with one's rivals.

Which raises another issue - money. Most cyclists couldn't afford the 50-100k per annum which a top program is apparently worth.

Of course these things have already been discussed to great extent in this very forum.

 

[Velo Dude]

Well, of course. I don't think anyone has ever said anything to the contrary. But we are discussing the whole legitimacy of what is illegal and why (I say much of it is arbitrary), who should be the ones making those rules (I say the cyclists, not the suits) and the methods used to enforce the rules (which I find ridiculously intrusive and flawed by inaccuracies anyway).

I understand. But I think there are those who claim that doping should not be illegal because it does not result in an advantage for one rider over any other rider. I suspect that that is wrong, but I'm no doctor (nor have I played one on t.v.).

 

[stephens]

And I guess my point is that whether they do something or do nothing, there will be riders who have advantages over others that have nothing to do with training harder or smarter or riding better. So I don't think that line of reasoning should be used to support banning certain substances. (like i said, there are other reasons, but the level playing field and natural vs. unnatural arguments are not very satisfying when really examined).

 

[straydog]

To Straydog:
Whether or not you're manly makes no difference at all to me. However, a meaningful discussion requires some credibilty, which you seem to lack on account of your anonymity. That's my view. You could prove your worth if you were actually right about something. RR gets a free pass because he/she has a pretty good record of correctness. You just seem to attack, which is a sign of insecurity.
I didn't call you an Aussie.
And it's spelled,"a-r-g-u-m-e-n-t". Perhaps you'll run spellcheck next time, especially after your critique of CN's lack of a good copy editor.

Wow Tex...anonymity precludes credible discussion....you sure seem to take part in a lot of meaningless discussions on here then.

And unfortunately I can't afford a personal proof reader....so my bad, what are you going to attack next? My choice of font?

And do you really think I attack everyone? Really? You haven't read much of what I write here obviously. I may "attack" RR and Python from time to time, but I was under the illusion that they were able to defend themselves, but maybe not. In which case I will soft pedal them. Give them a "pass" as you say.

Tex, if you can't see why some people choose to maintain their anonymity (such as myself and RR and many others) on this website, then it is pointless me trying to explain why. If however you wish to know more about me and my "credentials", then please feel free to PM me any time...but no racy pics...ok?....and certainly no "manly" ones

 

[straydog]

Pat has been upfront as to who he is and his background. He and I have enough mutual friends that it would be simple for him to confirm mine.

You, on the other hand, have to be judged on your posts.......filled with insults, bait, and incomprehensible ramble it is no surprise you draw a response that you get. It is no wonder you keep getting banned.

Er....in his post he seems to not know if you are a guy or a girl. I would have hoped that wasn't in doubt.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Of course your points are clear and valid.

Tell me, since when did logic have any chance against Love?

Oh no, here we go, the CN forum Omerta is starting one of their group hugs.

While I didn't feel inclined to become overly involved in this particular thread, it is interesting to observe.

I will say that I think RR's point is valid in that if you give a group of riders an EPO dose of the same amount then you will see differences in its effectiveness throughout the group. Of course he likes to use this to claim that certain riders who have won a lot of TdF's must therefore be be one of the 'super assimilators'.

Stray Dog is essentially not disagreeing with that point, but he is claiming that any differences in absorbtion effectiveness can be overcome by just increasing the dose rate in those at the lower end of the scale and that eventually all will reach a saturation point, whereupon all will have the same hemo levels and therefore the same performance gains.

Were hemo levels the sole determinant of performance then this would be true but genetic factors also play a big role as does mental toughness. There are the Sean Kelly's of the cycling world who will just guts it out till the very end and then there are others who won't, regardless of any chemical advantage.

 

[TexPat]

Wow Tex...anonymity precludes credible discussion....you sure seem to take part in a lot of meaningless discussions on here then.

And unfortunately I can't afford a personal proof reader....so my bad, what are you going to attack next? My choice of font?

And do you really think I attack everyone? Really? You haven't read much of what I write here obviously. I may "attack" RR and Python from time to time, but I was under the illusion that they were able to defend themselves, but maybe not. In which case I will soft pedal them. Give them a "pass" as you say.

Tex, if you can't see why some people choose to maintain their anonymity (such as myself and RR and many others) on this website, then it is pointless me trying to explain why. If however you wish to know more about me and my "credentials", then please feel free to PM me any time...but no racy pics...ok?....and certainly no "manly" ones

Well, I almost sent you a PM, but my better judgment...

Here you go:

Let's have it.
What is it that you have to hide?

I reckon there are journos who lurk here who'd rather not reveal themselves. Fair enough. Having dealt with a few of them, I know the methods and recognize them.

Are you an expert on doping? A doctor?

Or merely an apologist for all of the crap that has ruined professional cycling?
You see for me, the instant I first heard "Everyone does it" was far worse than when I discovered Old Saint Nick's true identity.

If you want to be a fan of the sport or the athletes, that's your choice. I'd rather the whole thing be slightly less corrupt and slightly cleaner. I object to anyone who thinks that cycling is acceptable in its present state, which ironically is what's killing it. Not the folks behind the witch hunt.

 

[straydog]

Oh no, here we go, the CN forum Omerta is starting one of their group hugs.

While I didn't feel inclined to become overly involved in this particular thread, it is interesting to observe.

I will say that I think RR's point is valid in that if you give a group of riders an EPO dose of the same amount then you will see differences in its effectiveness throughout the group. Of course he likes to use this to claim that certain riders who have won a lot of TdF's must therefore be be one of the 'super assimilators'.

Stray Dog is essentially not disagreeing with that point, but he is claiming that any differences in absorbtion effectiveness can be overcome by just increasing the dose rate in those at the lower end of the scale and that eventually all will reach a saturation point, whereupon all will have the same hemo levels and therefore the same performance gains.

Were hemo levels the sole determinant of performance then this would be true but genetic factors also play a big role as does mental toughness. There are the Sean Kelly's of the cycling world who will just guts it out till the very end and then there are others who won't, regardless of any chemical advantage.

You see RR? Not that hard to understand.

Spartacus, the only thing that I would add is that I wasn't suggesting it was as simple just increasing dosage. There are plenty of practices and substances that will make up part of an athletes "preparation" other than EPO.

And you have hit the nail on the head. Trying somehow to insist that pharmacy is the only difference between athletes differing performance levels or abilities, is either willfully myopic or ignorant.

Really enjoyed the forum omerta group hug analogy by the way....very funny

 

[straydog]

Well, I almost sent you a PM, but my better judgment...

Here you go:

Let's have it.
What is it that you have to hide?

I reckon there are journos who lurk here who'd rather not reveal themselves. Fair enough. Having dealt with a few of them, I know the methods and recognize them.

Are you an expert on doping? A doctor?

Or merely an apologist for all of the crap that has ruined professional cycling?
You see for me, the instant I first heard "Everyone does it" was far worse than when I discovered Old Saint Nick's true identity.

If you want to be a fan of the sport or the athletes, that's your choice. I'd rather the whole thing be slightly less corrupt and slightly cleaner. I object to anyone who thinks that cycling is acceptable in its present state, which ironically is what's killing it. Not the folks behind the witch hunt.

Tex, I completely understand your reticence in sending me a PM, perhaps I will take that step as a gesture, but I hope you also understand why I am unwillingly to reveal too much personal information on a public forum of this nature.

I will share this though; my "career" has up until now been in the media. I am currently on what might be best described as a traveling sabbatical, which has included amongst a lot of places, the beautiful country where you are at present living. I am an ex athlete. And a present coach and age group competitor. I am not a doctor, and I am not an "expert" on doping, although I have gleaned a certain practical knowledge of it's practices both from my experiences as a junior in France and Europe and from information gleaned from friends who are still competing professionally.

And if it matters to you, I am clean.

I don't consider myself an apologist. I just don't have an emotive or moralistic reaction to the choices that some people make with regards to PED use and "cheating". I don't agree with it. But I understand it, and I certainly don't choose to hate anyone for it.

And unfortunately, perhaps unlike you, I heard a very long time ago that "everyone" was doing it. In fact, I witnessed it.

I don't think cycling is being killed. At all. But I genuinely think a "witch hunt" isn't going to help, and if anything is going to "kill" it, it will be that.

I hope cycling gets a lot less corrupt and a lot cleaner too. But do I think it will ever be completely clean? Of that I am not so sure.

 

[TexPat]

Tex, I completely understand your reticence in sending me a PM, perhaps I will take that step as a gesture, but I hope you also understand why I am unwillingly to reveal too much personal information on a public forum of this nature.

I will share this though; my "career" has up until now been in the media. I am currently on what might be best described as a traveling sabbatical, which has included amongst a lot of places, the beautiful country where you are at present living. I am an ex athlete. And a present coach and age group competitor. I am not a doctor, and I am not an "expert" on doping, although I have gleaned a certain practical knowledge of it's practices both from my experiences as a junior in France and Europe and from information gleaned from friends who are still competing professionally.

And if it matters to you, I am clean.

I don't consider myself an apologist. I just don't have an emotive or moralistic reaction to the choices that some people make with regards to PED use and "cheating". I don't agree with it. But I understand it, and I certainly don't choose to hate anyone for it.

And unfortunately, perhaps unlike you, I heard a very long time ago that "everyone" was doing it. In fact, I witnessed it.

I don't think cycling is being killed. At all. But I genuinely think a "witch hunt" isn't going to help, and if anything is going to "kill" it, it will be that.

I hope cycling gets a lot less corrupt and a lot cleaner too. But do I think it will ever be completely clean? Of that I am not so sure.

So you coach people, but have no moral objection to cheating? That's great.

Cheating is wrong.
Suppose your wife cheated on you; would you be emotive or moralistic?
Suppose you were cheated by a business partner; would you be emotive or moralistic?
Suppose you were an underfunded, but very talented athlete who couldn't gain entry to a good team because of your refusal to take PEDs; would you be emotive or moralistic?
Suppose you placed a bet on a cricket match and lost your **** because the match was fixed; would you be emotive or moralistic?

So, on the one hand you don't care that LA doped, yet you hope to see a cleaner cycling. How is this going to happen if there is no repercussions to be levied on the corrupt?

My reaction to cheating of any sort has always been moralistic. It was only when I was in the thick of it, that it became emotive.
Without morals we have nothing to hold us together as society.

 

[straydog]

So you coach people, but have no moral objection to cheating? That's great.

Cheating is wrong.
Suppose your wife cheated on you; would you be emotive or moralistic?
Suppose you were cheated by a business partner; would you be emotive or moralistic?
Suppose you were an underfunded, but very talented athlete who couldn't gain entry to a good team because of your refusal to take PEDs; would you be emotive or moralistic?
Suppose you placed a bet on a cricket match and lost your **** because the match was fixed; would you be emotive or moralistic?

So, on the one hand you don't care that LA doped, yet you hope to see a cleaner cycling. How is this going to happen if there is no repercussions to be levied on the corrupt?

My reaction to cheating of any sort has always been moralistic. It was only when I was in the thick of it, that it became emotive.
Without morals we have nothing to hold us together as society.

Tex, I think you misunderstand what I mean by moralisitic. Moralism refers to the tone people take in a discussion like this. In essence I mean, it just doesn't make me as angry as it clearly makes you. And I completely understand in your case why you are angry. Just as I understand someone's innate desire to seek advantage in sport. Do I object to it? Of course I do. But I wish them nothing more than a relevant sanction. Not death and destruction and the fiery pits. I am maybe more resigned to it than you is all.

The prospect of my wife cheating on me or vice versa is entirely different. And If I may say so, dragging anything remotely personal into this seems a bit....well....personal.

So to make it less so....If she cheated me at scrabble, I may get annoyed sure. If I lost money on a bet because of cheating? Or as has happened, someone I supported lost an event because of cheating. Yes, I was annoyed. But not unduly desirous of the cheats heinous downfall.

As for if I was an underfunded junior, which I was, who didn't get with the programme and so didn't make it, well honestly I think it would be too hard to prove. There are plenty of underfunded juniors who do make it clean. Plenty.

 

[straydog]

Without morals we have nothing to hold us together as society.

I agree to a certain extent, I would also add conscience and ethics, but if I was being moralisitc I would attempt to pressure you into living your life by my morals and my ethics and my conscience, whether you agreed with them or not. And that would be a society, but it would also be a dictatorship.

 

[stephens]

I just figure there are things worth getting really worked up about, and there are things that aren't. And in the grand scheme of things, "cheating" in cycling is a lot closer to cheating at scrable than it is to any of the real problems of the world that folks should be outraged by and motivated to solve instead.

 

[straydog]

I just figure there are things worth getting really worked up about, and there are things that aren't. And in the grand scheme of things, "cheating" in cycling is a lot closer to cheating at scrable than it is to any of the real problems of the world that folks should be outraged by and motivated to solve instead.

+1 Absolutely hits the nail on the head. Of course to some the fall out from being involved in cycling's doping culture will obviously be more vital, bit in essence I think you are completely correct.