Why is Doping Bad? It should be Legalized and here's Why:

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Alpe d'Huez said:
You don't really think people would stop at EPO, do you? Or at 50 hct, do you?

What about Cat 1's? Cat 5's?

My hct is naturally about 41. BroDeal's is about 50. What do we do then? Give him a TUE for expanders to keep things "fair"? Or is he just SOL?

Agree EPO is much safer than blood doping, but this is no answer. Turd's answer is the correct one, even if nearly impossible to get completely true.
I think BigBoat just falls into the realists' camp, given that illegal doping will never be defeated so it is pointless to put up this charade. And, in this sense, his suggestion is perfectly legitimate.

But most people can't handle such a reality, as it goes against everything they believe to be morally upstanding. But in this, they are reasoning much more with their sentimental selves, than rationally, because it is irrational to believe, let alone think, that doping can be defeated by the so-called anti-doping war.

It's the same with the so-called drug war in general. First of all because you can't force someone that wants to alter their mindset to not take drugs, simply because they exist. The moment something exists, people will take recourse to it, whereas the only way to make sure that they won't is to totally eliminate the supply. But there are too many special interests to do so, especially by the same governmental miltiary and police forces who are supposed to be in charge of making sure that the drugs don't hit the market in the first place. Money, money, money, money. And fun. Don't underestimate the good time aspect in why drugs will allways be popular. It's the same with doping with the various mafia suppliers, unscruppulous lab producers, corrupt medical administrators, slimmy rider agents, tangential payments, governing sport bodies who don't want the lid to be totally blown, covering-up courts, conflict of interests, ineffectiveness of the tests, etc., etc.

And they work, so will always be used. I have always though that a better, simple because more useful, way to deal with drugs is to simple legalize them. On the one hand, the market would finally be placed under the control of the legitimately elected governments and not, as it presently is, in the hands of the various mafia and paramilitary organizations. The taxing of legallized drugs, could then provide a financial source for drug education programs in the schools and, above all, sociallized detox centers for the adicts. It may not eliminate the problem, but it would treat it without the hypocricy which is leading countless numbers toward serious drug dependency as we get under the current situation, with the effect that, taking the moral taboo off drugs (like the alchohol drinking ages, which just creates more young achoholics) you eliminate the prohibition factor. Anytime government tries to prohibit something, for reasons of public morality, that often creates a psychological reason to do the thing that's being prohibited. Without it such a psychological factor is eliminated and probably a major stimulus to break the rules.

But it is the morality factor, which is hypocritical, that prevents any real good from being done.

In any case, I have to agree with BigBoat and consequently not with the UCI, which is an inept institution filled with hypocricy and thinks only of its own profit than what would actually be the corrageous and decent thing to do. The way doping, its cultural reality, is being effected under the current management, is that the best paid riders have access to the best products, doctors and in the end, lawyers, who make their lives infinately easier for them than the low paid athletes who are forced to take great sporting risks (and probably health ones as well).

Naturally there would be the same risks in legallized doping as their are in illegal doping. But no system is perfect, though the current one stinks and is destined to only get worse in the future.
 
Stani Kl&#233 said:
Anti-doping rules were introduced to protect rider health first. Sporting considerations about fair race results and equal chances came second.

EPO is not healthy, it has been shown to increase your chances of cancer. It comes with an FDA (the US pharmaceutical regulator) "black box" warning. It is graphically like a cigarette packet with a health warning. It's only licenced for very ill patients, for example undergoing chemotherapy or with chronic kidney failure because the benefits of the treatment outweigh the risks of getting cancer. And these warnings apply to regulated clinical trials with patients using the prescribed doses, not to team doctors injecting riders with insane doses.

The same goes to other drugs. Even the ones without warnings have issues if riders start taking risks. How long until some desperate rider meets a greedy doctor and a death occurs. No thanks, at least the present system of anti-doping controls is forcing riders to "dope clever" and not do anything crazy.

So I say no, we need a cleaner sport. We'll never get rid of cheating but we're close to levelling things with new tests, the passport, more police involvement etc.

I know some don't like the doping stories but instead of legalising it, reducing it is the way to go.
So "clever doping" can only take place under a current situation where riders have to hide to "cheat," seek whatever doctor is willing without a governing body certifying their credentials - but in a de-illigitimized doping system, with any rider having access to certified medics, he would be placing himself under greater risks? That just doesn't make any sense.
 
Mar 11, 2009
165
0
0
rhubroma, but if some riders would visit the certified doctors, then those wanting to cheat would visit the uncertified ones. The cheats would push things further but, a bit like a TUE exemption, could "pretend" they were using legalised doping methods.

Like I say, many doping products are dangerous. EPO increases your chances of cancer, growth hormones even more. A rider should not have to risk their health like this.

I'd be in favour of social experiments to look at legalising drugs like heroin and coke, under supervised situations but this is not the same as doping. A fiend looking for a high will commit crime to fund the addiction but once they get the fix, they will not do any more crime. A cheating athlete might use legalised doping but will top it up with something experimental, the "addicted fiend" just wants a fix but the athlete will always push for that advantage, it is an arms race.
 
Mar 17, 2009
98
0
0
I agree with BB here.

In my mind the 90s was the golden age for pro cycling and the end of (fairly) fair and even racing.

Why can't cycling be like triathlon, running, rowing, swimming etc where the athletes can still (and almost without exception) take the full benefit of EPO and be competing with a high crit without worrying about failing a test for it?

This is why I dislike the current doping controls in cycling - some get to go "all out" while others have to suffer from low crits, its just NOT fair at all. Cycling is not fair in this regard and it is IMO the anti-doping that is making things much worse CERTAINLY NOT better. The anti-doping is killing the sport IMO.

Obviously there is the issue of people seeing their heros dope and wanting to do the same which is not the end of the world but then not everyone is responsible. I just dislike how Joe public (and some cycling fans included) thinks that if you dope then that somehow makes things easier and you don't suffer of need to work hard anymore...
 
Jul 9, 2009
37
0
0
BigBoat said:
I see it differently actually. I dont see that their is a speed limit in Pro Cycling. For example, Dekker was far slower than Menchov and Evans 2 clean riders that beat all the best dopers. Armstrong is clean and was far faster than Basso and Ullrich who were blood dopers. Chris Horner is a clean rider but he went far faster than the guilty rider Jimmy Casper who finished last place in the Tour de France.

Sastre is clean and he is much faster than Ricco and Schumacher. Lance Armstrong says he knew Kohl doped because Kohl went from a donkey to a racehorse. Bradley Wiggins is a clean rider and he rides faster than Kolom did. Millar is now clean and he solod ahead of the pack at a far greater level than anybody else today. Cavendish is totally clean and is slightly faster sprinter than the previously suspended Pettachi who doped. Zabel used EPO but he was slower than Cippolini who was a clean rider.

Jesus Manzano was not a very good TDF rider, he only could get 40th or so overall. He used over 40 drugs and was still beat by top clean riders like Christian Vande Velde and Zubeldia who are clean.

Matt Decanio's Italian teamate took too much epo and had his hematocrit to high, he had to drain off 300ml of blood into a coke can so he could start a race. Decanio was a clean rider and beat him.

A clean Lance Armstrong dumped the doper Floyd Landis' 800cc blood refill down the toilet in front of Floyd during the 2004 Tour de France because Lance wanted his clean team to stay un-doped and Floyd to stay with Postal instead of Phonak. Floyd rode better the cleaner he got whereas the totally clean Lance Armstrong dominated the Tour de France 7 times.

Svein Tuft is a clean rider, he beat Schumacher and other dopers in the TT championshift despite finishing 26th years previous. So its possible to gain 20% horsepower clean.

Empirically, If there's no need for doping (this is very obvious based on all the clean champions like Lance Armstrong, Bradley Wiggins, and Christian Vande Velde) then there should be no objection to legalizing doping which does not hurt clean athletes. Dopers are slower than the top clean riders. Clearly doping hadicaps athletes, it is no kind of cheating.
I cannot believe that you are being serious!:eek: But where are the Smileys?:rolleyes:

To be honest: I sort of like Lance Armstrong and some other top riders... I'm impressed with the passion they ride, and how they prepare for a goal, and how they achieve it! Let's face it: LA may be one of the most talented riders, but he's definitely the most detailed and obsessed rider in the bunch - do you think he wouldn't include doping in his perfect preparation?

There's not the smallest doubt that they are NOT clean!
The difference is, that they have the budget to go for the "real deal", which is undetectable... As simple as that! Astana, Saxo and Columbia have about 90% Dopers... I couldn't even think of a clean rider at Saxo or Columbia! As a friend of mine said: Riders with Saxo are not as fast because they do funny survival camps in winter, but because Rihs has the best Doping program!

But you are right in saying that there are "Amateurs" who don't have a doctor or the budget to buy the real deal... So they do it like amateurs, from time to time, for big races, knowing that it could be tracable with a lot of bad luck... And then there is a handful of those who don't do anything... They can compete in small races, or 1-week-Tours where recovery is not so important...

I agree with those who say that at least 50 riders are doped... A friend of mine did the Giro clean, and finished somewhere between 50 and 60... Maybe there are some other clean riders in front of him, but they wouldn't do better than 30th or 40th I'd say!
The most obvious evidence is when a rider totally bonks in Week 2 or 3 of a grand tour... That's where doping makes the real difference!
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Hayden Roulston said:
important...

I agree with those who say that at least 50 riders are doped... A friend of mine did the Giro clean, and finished somewhere between 50 and 60... Maybe there are some other clean riders in front of him, but they wouldn't do better than 30th or 40th I'd say!
!
Holy $hit, thats some Marine core riding! Nothing?! Not even HGH?
 
How about you can dope as much as you want with certified UCI doctors present but the more you dope the bigger the handicap for the cleaner riders.:rolleyes:

Some sort of scale will help. ie.
clean --> start on zero
250ml of packed cells --> 10min handicap
500ml of packed cells --> 20min handicap
etc etc.

This way you can dope as little or as much as you want but you are penalised for it.

To make things even more level, everyone must be the same weight as the heaviest rider in the tour. ie probably B. Grabsch about 80kgs. Therefor Contador the 62kg climber will need 18kg of weights on his bike.:D

Man im Funny!!! Atleast i think so:D
 
Mar 10, 2009
207
0
0
Loving the master sarcasm of the "syllogisms" of BigBoat:D

Another more complex one, perhaps more of a quadratic equation, if I may, though possibly not a false one this time.

Road racers crave fame and great fortune (Insert witty "Except obviously MEDIOCRE CYCLIST'S NAME" here).
Successful road racing yields fame and great fortune.
Cheating sometimes yields successful road racing.
Cheating sometimes leads to being caught.
Being caught leads to infamy and misfortune.

Therefore, if there is more chance of cheating leading to success road racing than there is of being caught, as long as there is great fortune available, cheating will be the rational thing for a percentage of road racers to do.

The basics of the equation suggest that the only truely successful method by which you can eliminate cheating of this kind is to remove the main incentives for cheating - fame and fortune.

Of course that could have a rather negative effect in some senses. I am reminded of Anquetil at this moment. He decided against riding for a sixth win in the Tour, as he feared that by failing to win it he would damage his potential earnings and his repute would be diminished.

It does mean though that we would get a chance to see the long awaited battle for Tour supremacy between Alpe d'Huez and BroDeal!
 
Jun 21, 2009
847
0
0
am i right in thinking sarcasm (and banter for that matter) is not something americans get? i base this on my time on this forum
 
Apr 20, 2009
377
0
9,280
rhubroma said:
So "clever doping" can only take place under a current situation where riders have to hide to "cheat," seek whatever doctor is willing without a governing body certifying their credentials - but in a de-illigitimized doping system, with any rider having access to certified medics, he would be placing himself under greater risks? That just doesn't make any sense.
Actually it does. Cheaters have access to good doctors too. However, currently there are limits to the amount they can cheat, because any EPO, testosterone, steroids, etc that are detected will result in a positive. With 'legal' doping, the cheaters will not just dope up to the safe limit as determined by the certified doctor. Instead they will take more to have an edge over their competition. In other words, they will really risk their life to win. The one that risks the most will win (or die trying). So then you'd have to start testing for cheaters that go beyond the safe limits, but that is almost impossible, since so much is allowed.
 
Aapjes said:
Actually it does. Cheaters have access to good doctors too. However, currently there are limits to the amount they can cheat, because any EPO, testosterone, steroids, etc that are detected will result in a positive. With 'legal' doping, the cheaters will not just dope up to the safe limit as determined by the certified doctor. Instead they will take more to have an edge over their competition. In other words, they will really risk their life to win. The one that risks the most will win (or die trying). So then you'd have to start testing for cheaters that go beyond the safe limits, but that is almost impossible, since so much is allowed.
Well many have already gone beyond the safe limit and have died trying. So I don't think that changes whether doping is legal or not.

What does change with legalized doping is that the corruption and criminal organizations who supply the market would take a hit. Sure not all the corruption would be eliminated, but a good bit would. Would stabalize the corruption at a minimal level.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
rhubroma said:
I think BigBoat just falls into the realists' camp, given that illegal doping will never be defeated so it is pointless to put up this charade. And, in this sense, his suggestion is perfectly legitimate.

But most people can't handle such a reality, as it goes against everything they believe to be morally upstanding. But in this, they are reasoning much more with their sentimental selves, than rationally, because it is irrational to believe, let alone think, that doping can be defeated by the so-called anti-doping war.

It's the same with the so-called drug war in general. ......
I have reread your post - are you suggesting that recreational drug use is the same as PED's in sport?!
If that is the case then there is a massive difference - its a Friday so (hypothetical) if you want to go and do a line of coke or shoot some heroin then it doesn't effect me.

But if we are competitors in a sport and are at the same level and you start to dope then it does effect me. The advantage that you will get directly effects my livelihood - this then forces me to make a choice, dope or not dope.

As for your 'morals' and "hypocrisy' argument - all I can say is that I have no morals, so that probably does make me a hypocrite :cool:
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
WD-40. said:
I agree with BB here.

In my mind the 90s was the golden age for pro cycling and the end of (fairly) fair and even racing.

Why can't cycling be like triathlon, running, rowing, swimming etc where the athletes can still (and almost without exception) take the full benefit of EPO and be competing with a high crit without worrying about failing a test for it?

This is why I dislike the current doping controls in cycling - some get to go "all out" while others have to suffer from low crits, its just NOT fair at all. Cycling is not fair in this regard and it is IMO the anti-doping that is making things much worse CERTAINLY NOT better. The anti-doping is killing the sport IMO.

Obviously there is the issue of people seeing their heros dope and wanting to do the same which is not the end of the world but then not everyone is responsible. I just dislike how Joe public (and some cycling fans included) thinks that if you dope then that somehow makes things easier and you don't suffer of need to work hard anymore...
Firstly - anyone on this forum I believe knows that taking PED's is not a shortcut to specific and intensive training. Although you are correct that many 'average' sporting fans see it that way.

Your argument appears to suggest that the 90's was fairer because everyone had the same access to the drugs?
If so - again this is quite wrong imo. The riders react differently to the different drugs - see Alpe D'Huez post about Zulle earlier - and of course if you are a big fish then you can afford better 'preparation'.

But more importantly is the fact that many riders do not take PED's - I can't mention any name's as an example because quite simply they never make it to the elite level.
Their natural ability, dedication to training, motivation and sacrifice is no match for someone who is willing to the same and then dope on top of it.
That is the greatest injustice.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
But more importantly is the fact that many riders do not take PED's - I can't mention any name's as an example because quite simply they never make it to the elite level.
Their natural ability, dedication to training, motivation and sacrifice is no match for someone who is willing to the same and then dope on top of it.
That is the greatest injustice.
Bla bla bla ha ha. Some low dose HGH, or IGF-1, along with a jacked crit from blood doping and blood substitute like hemopure and they'd win big quickly if they have good talent.

http://www.northfieldlabs.com/polyheme.html

http://www.biopure.com
 
Mar 10, 2009
504
0
0
Turd Ferguson said:
Wouldn't also be a level playing field if everyone didn't use PED's?
The playing field will never be level - with or without PEDs. Your baseline is what you are born with and how you train to rise to that potential, unassisted by anyone or anything else. There will always be someone better, and someone worse. Given innate differences, the drugs do not "level" the playing field.

Born potential that one rises to will trump lesser riders.

Born potential that one rises to doped will trump lesser riders who dope.

Actually, born potential that one rises to doped, has more to do with greed and stupidity than ability. There is no cure for that. Even with drugs.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
BigBoat said:
Bla bla bla ha ha. Some low dose HGH, or IGF-1, along with a jacked crit from blood doping and blood substitute like hemopure and they'd win big quickly if they have good talent.

http://www.northfieldlabs.com/polyheme.html

http://www.biopure.com
Well blah blah blah... but you have conveniently ignored my opinion that many athletes do not want to take PED's and that those who do are depriving them of success and the associated benefits.

You started this thread "Why is Doping Bad? It should be Legalized and here's Why: " and I have put forth an opposite opinion - and your response is to advertise two places where people can get the dope??
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Well blah blah blah... but you have conveniently ignored my opinion that many athletes do not want to take PED's and that those who do are depriving them of success and the associated benefits.

You started this thread "Why is Doping Bad? It should be Legalized and here's Why: " and I have put forth an opposite opinion - and your response is to advertise two places where people can get the dope??
Okaaay, I'll stop messing about. Your right, its not fair one bit. But thats the way it is right now, its the way it will always be to some extent. Tools on here of course believe Wiggins towing the Pharmstrong/ Contradoper group up the mountain 7 stages into the TDF is a clean ride. As long as you have that you have hardcore doping because people will continue to buy a "clean" product.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
BigBoat said:
Okaaay, I'll stop messing about. Your right, its not fair one bit. But thats the way it is right now, its the way it will always be to some extent. Tools on here of course believe Wiggins towing the Pharmstrong/ Contradoper group up the mountain 7 stages into the TDF is a clean ride. As long as you have that you have hardcore doping because people will continue to buy a "clean" product.
Agreed - it is that way right now and always will be to some degree. My argument has been that it doesn't have to be and I would be against any thoughts on legalizing it.

I thought the bio-passport would really help clean things up - but I now believe it is not being used to 'catch' doper's only to limit their usage of PED's.
It would appear that the UCI have lost the will to continue in favor of their own commercial interests.

It will take another team to fold like Liberty did in the wake of OP before they sit up and take notice.
 
One problem with legalizing doping is that sport is often a way of living vicariously for the fans. This is especially true for cycling because most fans participate in the sport in some way or another. If doping is openly legalized then it breaks the connection between the fans and the pros.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
BroDeal said:
One problem with legalizing doping is that sport is often a way of living vicariously for the fans. This is especially true for cycling because most fans participate in the sport in some way or another. If doping is openly legalized then it breaks the connection between the fans and the pros.
I dont really think so...NFL football is mega-popular and everybody with a few brain cells knows the essence of the sport was constructed upon anabolic steroids & peptide hormones + vasilodators, morphine (beavis laugh). :)

I believe the average cycling fan says to themselves>>>

"Well Lance doped and probably dopes the same now as before...but are all his top competitors doped; heck ya!" ;

"If one of those cyclists has talent they'll get on a doping program and blood dope as they should (from age 16-18.)"
 
Jun 26, 2009
269
0
0
For me personally this is a very interesting topic for discussion. for many outsiders and people new to cycling there seems to be a perception that doping has somehow reached an alltime high in the sport. although no longer directly involved in racing i still have contacts on the inside. Compared to my experiences racing as a pro in the 80s it is nowhere near as bad now. We were using steroids for training and amphetamines for racing. Now the substances are more sophisticated but used by fewer people. As long as money and prestige is offered to people in return for athletic performance there will be those that will seek an edge on the opposition. If it could be safely overseen by medical professionals it would have to be better for the athletes health. But alas, its natural for man to find away to bend the rules no matter what they are.
 
BigBoat said:
I dont really think so...NFL football is mega-popular and everybody with a few brain cells knows the essence of the sport was constructed upon anabolic steroids & peptide hormones + vasilodators, morphine (beavis laugh). :)
I do not think the situation between American footbal and cycling is comparable.

First, I am not convinced that the average football fan has truly accepted that steroid use is rampant. The NFL still denies it. It was not that long ago I listened to baseball fans not only deny that steroids were a problem, but also deny that steroids would even help baseball players. In cycling, where we have much more evidence of widespread dope use, there are still a large number of naive or casual fans who refuse to believe that their favorite rider could ever dope.

Second, and most importantly, is the fans are different. Your typical nacho eating, gravy guzzling, beer drinking football fan has a weak connection to the sport. Maybe they played a long time ago when they were a kid, but watching football is almost entirely done at at distance with no participation from the fans. Cycling fans in America on the other hand, are mostly people who practice the sport in some way, many several times a week. What is more, the sport has become trendy in the middle and upper middle class by middle aged people who are trying to stay fit. Thus we have forty year olds who spend their summers carefully watching what they eat so they won't be murdered on the climbs during their group rides.

Legalize doping and you sever the connection between many of these "american style" cycling fans and the pros. I think we may have seen some of this on various cycling message boards over the last few years. It has been pretty common to see messages by people who have finally figured things out that they are done with pro cycling or consider it no different than pro wrestling.
 
Apr 20, 2009
667
0
0
beroepsrenner said:
For me personally this is a very interesting topic for discussion. for many outsiders and people new to cycling there seems to be a perception that doping has somehow reached an alltime high in the sport. although no longer directly involved in racing i still have contacts on the inside. Compared to my experiences racing as a pro in the 80s it is nowhere near as bad now. We were using steroids for training and amphetamines for racing. Now the substances are more sophisticated but used by fewer people. As long as money and prestige is offered to people in return for athletic performance there will be those that will seek an edge on the opposition. If it could be safely overseen by medical professionals it would have to be better for the athletes health. But alas, its natural for man to find away to bend the rules no matter what they are.
Thanks for this balanced and well reasoned perspective on this subject. I agree that doping is not as bad today as it has been. Anybody who was close to the riders and the sport in the late 80's / early 90's can testify to the fact that doping was rampant based on improving products and availability, and no reasonable means of detection. Blood doping which was prominent in the 50's and 60's is back only because drug testing is so much better.

If you want to talk about systematic team sponsored doping look no further than the 94 Fleche Wallonne where Ariostea got the dose right and Argentin, Berzin, and Furlan rode the peloton off their wheel and took all three podium spots. Or the 96 Paris Roubaix where Museeuw, Bortalami, and Tafi did the same for Mapei. Where the hell was the righteous indignation back then?

The UCI, realizing that they could not detect what was being used decided to implement the 50 Hematocrit rule as a means to keep the riders safe from their own devices and practices. This EXACTLY what the NFL does. They issue helmets and pads and test for drugs, but in the end it is largely ineffective, and most players retire as cripples. The average LIFESPAN of a former NFL player is 55 years (former lineman 52). These guys make a conscious choice to live a shorter life, and the latter years of it with disabilities. I don't see any organized efforts to change it... these guys are sports heros, and this is the most popular sport in the U.S.

I support all efforts to control drug use in the peloton, but hope that the UCI, WADA and the fans realize that it will never be eliminated. With that in mind what is the problem with establishing minimum blood values that keep the riders relatively safe, while reducing the pressure on the riders, and the career ending consequences of a doping positive.

I am hopeful that the Blood Passport system is the start of an effort moving in that direction. If we can keep them healthy enough to live a life after racing and not expire in the effort, why should we look to do more? Cheating is a component of human nature that will never be eliminated.

Understanding that Pro cyclists make the same choices as other professional sportsmen regarding the current and future health is the first step towards realizing the futility in attempting to achieve perfection in doping controls. As far as parity in the peloton... well that has been sorting itself out for far longer than any of us current fans of the sport have been around. I assume it will continue to do so.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Not Convinced

This EXACTLY what the NFL does. They issue helmets and pads and test for drugs, but in the end it is largely ineffective, and most players retire as cripples.
I dont see that retiring as cripples has any relation to drug use but from being hit so many times.
Blood doping which was prominent in the 50's and 60's is back only because drug testing is so much better
Effective Blood doping couldnt be done until much later, this is false. What evidence do you have of this?! I'm curious actually.

If you want to talk about systematic team sponsored doping look no further than the 94 Fleche Wallonne where Ariostea got the dose right and Argentin, Berzin, and Furlan
What Dr. Ferrari. :)

The UCI, realizing that they could not detect what was being used decided to implement the 50 Hematocrit rule as a means to keep the riders safe from their own devices and practices.
This meant nothing because riders continued to use epo past 50% and hemodilute down with saline, albumin, other blood volume expanders.

I am hopeful that the Blood Passport system is the start of an effort moving in that direction. If we can keep them healthy enough to live a life after racing and not expire in the effort, why should we look to do more? Cheating is a component of human nature that will never be eliminated.
The blood passport is a move in the wrong direction due to giving riders there normalized values to hemodilute back down to after autologous blood transfusion. Also, this dis-allows the majority of the pack to blood dope favoring large teams with medical know-how.
I support all efforts to control drug use in the peloton, but hope that the UCI, WADA and the fans realize that it will never be eliminated.
Dont try then, legalize doping.
 
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
big boat you are right about the NFL players being cripples because they are hit so many times. Of course Lyle Alzado was a different type of cripple that had nothing to do with getting hit. There are alot of others out there.
Also getting hit by a Defensive end who weighed 200 pounds with 5.0 40 speed in the early 60's is a hell of alot different than getting flattened by a human freight train of 300 lbs and 4.7 speed nowadays. Alot of the old cripples are due to poor surgical techniques. think of todays knee surgeries versus those of 30 years ago.
ANYWAY the human body is simply not designed to survive the impact of 2 artificially enhanced bodies colliding. Too much mass at too high of speed =more cripples.

As for cycling, if drugs were legalized how many Americans would want their kids to become cyclists? Your fan base would plummet. As was stated before a good percentage of the current fan base are people with healthy aspirations, attempting to lead healthy lifestyles who, if they have children, want to pass those values on to them.
Apparently your parenting runs more along the lines of
"Hey son how would u like to kick some tail in the TT tommorrow? I got a nice Belgian cocktail all mixed up for you, just like ol Eddy used"
"But Dad i just want to ride for fun..."
"You whiny little Nancyboy you'll take the shot and you'll like it mister!"
"Mommy Dads trying to stick me again"
"You want to win don't you? Man up and take it!"
"Man up? I"m only 9 :eek:"
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 12
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 9

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS