PDA

View Full Version : Cycling: The Dirtiest Sport Of Them All


Cindysphinx
07-05-2010, 08:56 AM
Did anyone catch Floyd Landis' allegations of doping in a recent Wall Street Journal article?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704911704575326753200584006.html

He says that he doped and Armstrong doped. To which I say: No kidding.

I honestly don't think there is a single clean rider in the entire Tour de France, and there is no way Lance Armstrong was clean either. How could someone win all those titles against guys who were doping if he wasn't doping also?

Anyway, Landis says the riders used to use EPO, but now there is a test to catch that. So they have gone back to giving themselves transfusions of their own blood.

Honestly, I think the rules should allow that. Yeah, it's icky. Yeah, it's doping. But they're going to do it anyway, and I doubt there are any adverse long-term health consequences from repeatedly drawing and taking your own blood.

maverick66
07-05-2010, 09:35 AM
Track and field is bad, So is Tennis,Soccer,Football,Baseball,Basketball, and any other major sport. Its just the way it is now a days.

Someone will argue I am wrong but they just have their head in the sand if they think the testing for PED's is anywhere close to the labs making them.

ollinger
07-05-2010, 09:37 AM
Doping increases the red blood cell volume (relative to plasma) since the red cells are re-infused after the body has replenished what was removed. This mimics the medical condition polycythemia vera, in which the body makes too many red cells on its own, a condition so hazardous that the treatment is usually periodic removal of a volume of red cells by phlebotomy. Adverse effects of polycythemia vera include stroke, heart attack, deep vein thrombosis, peptic ulcer and other conditions, sometimes fatal. You think the rules should permit this, sphinx?

ramseszerg
07-05-2010, 09:56 AM
"I doubt there are any adverse long-term health consequences from repeatedly drawing and taking your own blood."

hahaha nice.

PSNELKE
07-05-2010, 09:58 AM
Cycling is the reason why I hate and don´t watch Eurosport..
Instead of showing Giro d´talia instead of RG most of the time.

r2473
07-05-2010, 10:29 AM
Track and field is bad, So is Tennis,Soccer,Football,Baseball,Basketball, and any other major sport. Its just the way it is now a days.

Someone will argue I am wrong but they just have their head in the sand if they think the testing for PED's is anywhere close to the labs making them.

I'm just thankful that bodybuilding and boxing have manged to stay clean all these years.

But I am going to say that the sport that has been most affected by science and medicine is "being a hot chick".

mozzer
07-05-2010, 11:40 AM
Theres no denying that they are super humen athletes though.
Also, in what other sports would your whole team stop and wait for you if you fell? Do you see that in any athletics?

Cindysphinx
07-05-2010, 12:24 PM
Doping increases the red blood cell volume (relative to plasma) since the red cells are re-infused after the body has replenished what was removed. This mimics the medical condition polycythemia vera, in which the body makes too many red cells on its own, a condition so hazardous that the treatment is usually periodic removal of a volume of red cells by phlebotomy. Adverse effects of polycythemia vera include stroke, heart attack, deep vein thrombosis, peptic ulcer and other conditions, sometimes fatal. You think the rules should permit this, sphinx?

I dunno. For plasma donation, don't they remove your blood, spin out the red blood cells and then give it back to you?

How come blood tests don't detect this sort of doping?

I think it is possible to be the No. 1 player in the world in tennis and be clean.

I think it is completely impossible in cycling.

I always wonder whether Carl Lewis was clean. I kind of want to believe he was.

Cindy -- who will always believe FloJo was dirty and died young as a result

maverick66
07-05-2010, 12:36 PM
I think it is possible to be the No. 1 player in the world in tennis and be clean.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news for you Cindy but all the top players are taking stuff they are not supposed to. Its just a part of the sport now.

ProgressoR
07-05-2010, 01:15 PM
Hate to be the bearer of bad news for you Cindy but all the top players are taking stuff they are not supposed to. Its just a part of the sport now.

Wrong, I can guarantee I am not taking illegal substances. Mind you I am only ranked 14,462,765th in the world. But I reckon I can take out the guy above me sometime before end of the year.

jswinf
07-05-2010, 02:41 PM
^^^^Maybe if you hit the 'roids you could crack the top ten (million.) You're not tempted?

ollinger
07-05-2010, 02:55 PM
For plasma donation your red cells are put back IMMEDIATELY so your body hasn't had the opportunity to make more. Thus the ratio of red cells to plasma does not change. In doping, red cells are removed and stored in refrigeration. While in storage, your body replaces them both with red cells stored in the spleen, and newly manufactured ones, bringing your percentage of red cells (about 40-45% of blood volume, called the hematocrit) back to normal. Once back to normal, the stored red cells are added before the athletic event, giving you a HIGHER than normal hematocrit. Nothing is detectable. Officials could measure your hematocrit and see it is higher than normal, but they could not prove this didn't occur naturally.

West Coast Ace
07-05-2010, 03:26 PM
Hate to be the bearer of bad news for you Cindy but all the top players are taking stuff they are not supposed to. Its just a part of the sport now.No offense maverick, you make a lot of reasonable posts on this board and are one of the more solid members, but this is ridiculous. Please back up with data and/or a lot more clarification as to exactly what they're taking (I don't expect you to name names - but go ahead if you feel like it) - or withdraw.

Back to Cycling. When I heard years ago that a) it's really a team event - the top guy on each team is helped by his teammates; b) they would slow down/stop when one of the top guys got a flat so he could get back in the race, I didn't take it seriously as a real sport. Sure, I'm impressed someone can cover that much distance on a bike - but as far as competition, it's a joke. Then throw in the rampant drug use and I have no interest to follow it.

Cindysphinx
07-05-2010, 03:29 PM
For plasma donation your red cells are put back IMMEDIATELY so your body hasn't had the opportunity to make more. Thus the ratio of red cells to plasma does not change. In doping, red cells are removed and stored in refrigeration. While in storage, your body replaces them both with red cells stored in the spleen, and newly manufactured ones, bringing your percentage of red cells (about 40-45% of blood volume, called the hematocrit) back to normal. Once back to normal, the stored red cells are added before the athletic event, giving you a HIGHER than normal hematocrit. Nothing is detectable. Officials could measure your hematocrit and see it is higher than normal, but they could not prove this didn't occur naturally.

But if there is no way to detect it, why criminalize it? And if the hematocrit levels are not off the charts (near what can occur naturally), then how can it be so harmful?

It's not like these guys are dropping dead from this form of doping. That said, I do remember reading an article some years ago that said a lot of top racers were dropping dead (or having other problems) from using EPO.

Cindysphinx
07-05-2010, 03:31 PM
Back to Cycling. When I heard years ago that a) it's really a team event - the top guy on each team is helped by his teammates; b) they would slow down/stop when one of the top guys got a flat so he could get back in the race, I didn't take it seriously as a real sport. Sure, I'm impressed someone can cover that much distance on a bike - but as far as competition, it's a joke. Then throw in the rampant drug use and I have no interest to follow it.

I don't care for cycling, but the team concept doesn't bother me. I believe there are other cycling race formats that truly are individual.

Besides, it's a team. If they all decide to sacrifice themselves so that one guy can win, I don't have a problem with that. Still, I would have more regard for Lance Armstrong if he actually won all of those titles by his lonesome. I say the team won, not Lance.

West Coast Ace
07-05-2010, 03:36 PM
I believe there are other cycling race formats that truly are individual....Still, I would have more regard for Lance Armstrong if he actually won all of those titles by his lonesome.I agree. And I don't think a lot of the public knows it's a team - or how far the team concept goes. I do enjoy the Olympic cycling events where it it one on one.

OrangeOne
07-05-2010, 03:45 PM
Did anyone catch Floyd Landis' allegations of doping in a recent Wall Street Journal article?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704911704575326753200584006.html

He says that he doped and Armstrong doped. To which I say: No kidding.

Floyd was caught, properly caught, doping during the tour that he 'won'. His reputation is now dirt. He is pond scum. He now cannot make money from cycling, has no fame as a cyclist, and now seems to spout random stuff to grab a little fame every now and then.

I honestly don't think there is a single clean rider in the entire Tour de France, and there is no way Lance Armstrong was clean either. How could someone win all those titles against guys who were doping if he wasn't doping also?

How do you know the other guys are definitely doping? All of them?

How come Federer and Nadal win pretty much everything in tennis? They are the best at the game, and they surround themselves with the best.

I'm not saying Lance is 100% clean, it's just too hard to know. But to understand even a little about the tour is to know the following:

a. Lance geared his entire year around the tour. He effectively ignored the tour of spain and italy. This is like Federer never playing the Australian or the French (or playing them, in his grass-court shoes and with his grass-court tactics, just for training), and focusing the whole year on Wimbledon.

b. Lance assembled the best team money could buy. Cycling tours, for better or for worse, are team sports. I don't get why people find that abhorrent, it's just a fact. So many team sports are about buying the right players.

c. Lance was appropriately genetically gifted as an endurance cyclist - ridiculous aerobic capacity.

So you take one of the very best riders with amazing genetics, you give them the very best team every year, and they focus entirely on one race.

Not surprising he won some.

OrangeOne
07-05-2010, 03:53 PM
Back to Cycling. When I heard years ago that a) it's really a team event - the top guy on each team is helped by his teammates; b) they would slow down/stop when one of the top guys got a flat so he could get back in the race, I didn't take it seriously as a real sport. Sure, I'm impressed someone can cover that much distance on a bike - but as far as competition, it's a joke. Then throw in the rampant drug use and I have no interest to follow it.

The above is odd. There are hundreds of team sports out there, where people compete as a team. In many of them, one or two players are elevated massively above the team. In cycling, both the individual and the team are competing for the win.

As for b - it's sportsmanship. Pure and simple sportsmanship. It's like playing tennis, and allowing your opponent to have an injury time-out to have their ankle taped. It's a recognition that they are competing as athletes, and that the bike is just a piece of equipment. It's akin to saying 'no, that is your point, your shot was in". It's akin to saying 'my opponent is 10 mins late due to unforseen circumstances, but i'll not take a default as I'm here to compete on equal terms".

OrangeOne
07-05-2010, 04:01 PM
I don't care for cycling, but the team concept doesn't bother me. I believe there are other cycling race formats that truly are individual.

Some, but not as many as people think. Some of track racing is individual, and most mountain biking is individual too (but not all). There are time trials on the road that are individual, but they're not that common. Much of triathlon prohibits drafting, making the cycling component of that an individual challenge.

Besides, it's a team. If they all decide to sacrifice themselves so that one guy can win, I don't have a problem with that. Still, I would have more regard for Lance Armstrong if he actually won all of those titles by his lonesome. I say the team won, not Lance.In saying that, you're obviously partly correct. But to have more regard for him if....he wasn't competing in the sport he competes in? It's like saying 'I'd have more regard for Federer if he was a squash player, because they have it really tough'.

Ultimately, cycling team leaders are chosen because they are the strongest. Why? Because ultimately they have to ride alone. Their team supports them up to a point, but they have to then ride alone. Usually, in the toughest of tough situations. Up some of the steepest terrain imaginable, after riding 4 or 5 hours to get there. Off on a long breakaway at stupendous pace. The individual time-trial, something that has made or broken many riders' tours over the last few years, is entirely individual. To not recognise these massive individual components as the truly amazing is to not understand the sport.

I agree. And I don't think a lot of the public knows it's a team - or how far the team concept goes.

I don't think 'a lot of the public' realise many, many things, but one should not criticise something just as it's poorly understood. Anyone that cares to follow cycling for 10 minutes could learn entirely about the nature of the sport. It's the same as tennis, the public think it's about hitting winners, we know it's about consistency and placement, and letting the winners just happen.

I barely follow cycling anymore, but it's a shame to see it smacked around annually on here as the whipping boy of sports...

West Coast Ace
07-05-2010, 04:12 PM
We can agree to disagree...

There are hundreds of team sports out there, where people compete as a team.Let's start here. At least in the US - you don't list your location - they say '7 time Tour Winner, Lance Armstrong.' They don't name his team as having won 7 times, then list him as the captain. So you may know it's a team - but a lot of people don't.

And I won't even bring up the fact that the last stage is mostly ceremonial - they ride into Paris drinking champagne.

It's like playing tennis, and allowing your opponent to have an injury time-out to have their ankle taped.Bad analogy. A better one would be a broken string - and those points count. It's considered bad luck. Just like in racing - F1 doesn't slow down if someone has trouble getting their tire lugs fastened properly.

I'm sorry you think we're disparaging your 'sport' - but it's very flawed. At least compared to tennis. Again, we can agree to disagree.

OrangeOne
07-05-2010, 04:33 PM
We can agree to disagree...

Let's start here. At least in the US - you don't list your location - they say '7 time Tour Winner, Lance Armstrong.' They don't name his team as having won 7 times, then list him as the captain. So you may know it's a team - but a lot of people don't.

As I posted later, should we apologise and cater for every member of the public that wants the crib-note version of life? I don't think so. Of course Lance wins the tour - as I explained in a subsequent post - the truly amazing efforts are that of the individual, and the individual in crowned the winner. But team positions are also acknowledged (and can differ from the individual ratings unless I'm remembering incorrectly), and efforts of the team are acknowledged.

It'd somewhat surprise me that the teams of the riders are never mentioned in the US, as the major sponsor of Lance's team for much of his career was US Postal, a group who'd likely sponsor in return for the exposure they receive back home.

And I won't even bring up the fact that the last stage is mostly ceremonial - they ride into Paris drinking champagne.

Yes, it's actually a large problem for the tour. They drink so much that they have to fit training wheels on the bikes, and France often runs out of Champagne, what with 200 riders drinking Champagne instead of water for the day. Did you see the year that 7 of the riders actually had to stop and have a bit of a spew?

Or in actuality:

a. It's a PR shot, it's a sip of champagne, and it's only something the leader(s) of the winning team(s) do, after the result is beyond doubt. It's like the final 5 mins of a football / basketball / soccer game with one team leading by a simply impossible margin, you see a few things you wouldn't normally. It's one of the great things about the untimed nature of tennis, players are forced to compete until the final point.

b. It happens after 20 days of cycling THOUSANDS of miles.

c. Even though the race leader is usually known, the green jersey (a very prestigious award) - the sprint jersey - is often not decided until the finish line. Those guys aren't sipping anything on the final stage, it's the biggest moment of their year / career.

Bad analogy. A better one would be a broken string - and those points count. It's considered bad luck. Just like in racing - F1 doesn't slow down if someone has trouble getting their tire lugs fastened properly.


Actually, I thought about the broken string analogy. The problem is - under most circumstances (for a Pro, with unlimited access to restringing), a broken string is user-error. As is your tire-lug (wheel nut??) example. User error. Whereas a flat tire in cycling - in the circumstances we're discussing here - is almost universally simply bad luck. Hence my analogy.

I'm sorry you think we're disparaging your 'sport' - but it's very flawed. At least compared to tennis. Again, we can agree to disagree.

Why do you need to make it 'my sport'? I've cycled for about a decade, and played tennis for almost 3 times that length of time.

In my opinion, it's your opinions that are flawed, and some people are just not willing to understand the sport. Of course, we can agree to disagree.

Cindysphinx
07-05-2010, 07:59 PM
My husband is a big fan of the Tour. He makes the arguments that Orange One makes about doping.

What makes me think Armstrong is doping? Well, it is an endurance sport. When I think about endurance sports (say, marathons), it is rare for someone to dominate year after year. Has anyone ever won a marathon seven years in a row?

Does anyone really believe Armstrong could beat opponents who were doping if he didn't also dope?

raiden031
07-05-2010, 08:32 PM
My husband is a big fan of the Tour. He makes the arguments that Orange One makes about doping.

What makes me think Armstrong is doping? Well, it is an endurance sport. When I think about endurance sports (say, marathons), it is rare for someone to dominate year after year. Has anyone ever won a marathon seven years in a row?

Does anyone really believe Armstrong could beat opponents who were doping if he didn't also dope?

Considering he tested positive in samples from '99 for EPO, along with countless eye-witness accounts of his PED usage, I'd say there's at least a 90% chance he was dirty. Even though the case was thrown out, I still think its probably legitimate.

hollywood9826
07-06-2010, 05:47 AM
Considering he tested positive in samples from '99 for EPO, along with countless eye-witness accounts of his PED usage, I'd say there's at least a 90% chance he was dirty. Even though the case was thrown out, I still think its probably legitimate.

There is just as much evidence of him doping as there is with any other athelete. Basically articles would come out in Europe he would get all mad and sue the people. Then when everyone back in the US was saying "He couldnt have done it or he wouldnt fight it this hard" the lawsuit would get dropped before it went to trial.

So Ill take your 90% and raise it to 100%. You dont win that race 1 time in this day and age without doing that stuff.

TheJRK
07-06-2010, 07:38 AM
What??? A doping thread when the TdF is on TV? This has never happened before.

Until Lance has been caught, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Being an avid cyclist myself though, I wouldn't blame the guys on tour for taking something... that race is brutal.

Just get on an exercise bike and ride for 1 hour (if you can) and see what your watts/hr is... then watch the TdF and see what the pro's output is. Get back on your exercise bike and try to duplicate those results, even for 5 minutes.

YOU WILL DIE.

raiden031
07-06-2010, 07:43 AM
What??? A doping thread when the TdF is on TV? This has never happened before.

Until Lance has been caught, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Being an avid cyclist myself though, I wouldn't blame the guys on tour for taking something... that race is brutal.

Just get on an exercise bike and ride for 1 hour (if you can) and see what your watts/hr is... then watch the TdF and see what the pro's output is. Get back on your exercise bike and try to duplicate those results, even for 5 minutes.

YOU WILL DIE.

Lance has been caught.

albino smurf
07-06-2010, 08:03 AM
Landis needs to shut his mouth. He got busted so he wants to drag everyone down with him. Unfortunately for him, he is the only one found guilty. Sour grapes on his part.

813wilson
07-06-2010, 08:05 AM
Armstrong did not test positive in '99.

Cindy, comparing the TDF to marathons is a flawed analogy. Numerous runners have won marathons more than once - agreed, not seven in a row, though.

But consider: one can win the Tour w/out ever winning an individual stage of the race. Armstrong's best performance year was one where he one five of the 22(?) stages.

The times and "bonuses" are compiled throughout the race and the way it is measured is not always the exact difference between the 1st place finish and the last.

His lung capacity and VO2 Max are among the highest in the sport. Combine that with his heart rates - mid 30s at rest and 200 max and size and he is about perfect for cycling.

I'm not saying the sport is clean - but he's tested more than the others; so until he is "caught" I give him the benefit of the doubt.

TheJRK
07-06-2010, 08:16 AM
Cindy, comparing the TDF to marathons is a flawed analogy. Numerous runners have won marathons more than once - agreed, not seven in a row, though.

Cycling is a team sport, Lance had a great team (and domestiques) all those years he won. In a marathon, it's just you vs. 1000 other people.

In cycling, the winner will give the prize money to the rest of his team since he'll make more money off of endorsements anyway.

ollinger
07-06-2010, 08:29 AM
C-sphinx
Why ban something if it can't be detected? Because the governing body of cycling is not a court of law and can disqualify riders if there is enough reasonable evidence, such as a doctor and teammmate who report the doping. They don't need evidence that is utterly irrefutable. And they SHOULD disqualify them. A practice that is known to be seriously dangerous can't be condoned by the governing organization.

raiden031
07-06-2010, 08:31 AM
Armstrong did not test positive in '99.


In 2005, Armstrong's sample from '99 tested positive. Maybe it was mishandled, maybe it was irrelevant, but I'd say it most likely was a legitimate test that just happened to be thrown out. That coupled with all the witness accounts, and the nature of the sport, I'd say its pretty likely he was just as dirty as the rest.

r2473
07-06-2010, 08:36 AM
I'm anxiously awaiting the results of this provocative discussion as to whether Armstrong might have taken performance enhancers and if other athletes might possibly take performance enhancers.

This is a real nail biter.

If you get a minute, can you also answer these questions for me please? I have been asked these with some frequency lately and have no idea. Thanks.

1) Is the Pope Catholic?

2) Does a bear ***** in the woods?

albino smurf
07-06-2010, 09:00 AM
I'd like to know where the pope poops

813wilson
07-06-2010, 10:03 AM
In 2005, Armstrong's sample from '99 tested positive. Maybe it was mishandled, maybe it was irrelevant, but I'd say it most likely was a legitimate test that just happened to be thrown out. That coupled with all the witness accounts, and the nature of the sport, I'd say its pretty likely he was just as dirty as the rest.


It was not a legitimate test - which is why there was no additional action. A little more detail about "testing positive" .....

In '05, 12 samples from the 1999 race(120 + racers) were deemed to be positive. Of those, six were attributed to Armstrong. Interestingly, the other six samples(riders) were never identified.
The reason for the test, in the first place, was to perform additonal testing/dvelopment to prevent false positive reports. Because there was no secondary sample available - it can't be considered "positive".
L'Equipe's editor in chief Michel Dalloni has been out for Armstrong for years. He even wrote a novel - The Last Tour that completely parallels Armtrong and his team/support/ownership.

raiden031
07-06-2010, 10:09 AM
It was not a legitimate test - which is why there was no additional action. A little more detail about "testing positive" .....

In '05, 12 samples from the 1999 race(120 + racers) were deemed to be positive. Of those, six were attributed to Armstrong. Interestingly, the other six samples(riders) were never identified.
The reason for the test, in the first place, was to perform additonal testing/dvelopment to prevent false positive reports. Because there was no secondary sample available - it can't be considered "positive".
L'Equipe's editor in chief Michel Dalloni has been out for Armstrong for years. He even wrote a novel - The Last Tour that completely parallels Armtrong and his team/support/ownership.

I don't have a problem with the result being thrown out, but I still think his urine sample did fail the test because he is a cheater. So yeah I believe in innocence til proven guilty, but that doesn't mean I actually believe they are innocent.

hollywood9826
07-06-2010, 10:57 AM
It was not a legitimate test - which is why there was no additional action. A little more detail about "testing positive" .....

In '05, 12 samples from the 1999 race(120 + racers) were deemed to be positive. Of those, six were attributed to Armstrong. Interestingly, the other six samples(riders) were never identified.
The reason for the test, in the first place, was to perform additonal testing/dvelopment to prevent false positive reports. Because there was no secondary sample available - it can't be considered "positive".
L'Equipe's editor in chief Michel Dalloni has been out for Armstrong for years. He even wrote a novel - The Last Tour that completely parallels Armtrong and his team/support/ownership.

That sounds alot like Barry Bonds. He had grand jury testimony illegaly leaked claiming he didnt know what he was taking. And these guys wrote a book on nothing but heresay (Game of Shadows) about how he knowingly did the roids.

Yet Barry is thrown out of the game and made an example of and the public eye finds him guilty. Lance is still hearlded a hero and such a great human being.

Tehre is no doubt in my mind that both of them did stuff. Yet they are treated completly different.

There are three reasons I can think of why I think this happened.

1. Barry doesnt hide the fact that hes an A-hole and doesnt like the media. While Lance plays into thier hands and they think hes great, but behind the scenes hes an A-Hole. Advantge Lance

2. One of them had cancer and surviced and milked it for all it was worth. Advantage Lance

3. One of them was black. Advantage Lance.

Cindysphinx
07-06-2010, 11:11 AM
What??? A doping thread when the TdF is on TV? This has never happened before.

Until Lance has been caught, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Being an avid cyclist myself though, I wouldn't blame the guys on tour for taking something... that race is brutal.

Just get on an exercise bike and ride for 1 hour (if you can) and see what your watts/hr is... then watch the TdF and see what the pro's output is. Get back on your exercise bike and try to duplicate those results, even for 5 minutes.

YOU WILL DIE.

Exactly.

Which is why I think every last one of them is doping.

r2473
07-06-2010, 11:33 AM
That sounds alot like Barry Bonds.

Wait a second. Now you are suggesting that Barry Bonds took PED's?

OK. Slow down for a second and let me catch up here. This is groundbreaking stuff.

jswinf
07-06-2010, 03:01 PM
Yet Barry is thrown out of the game and made an example of and the public eye finds him guilty. Lance is still hearlded a hero and such a great human being.

.

You know, of course, that Barry wasn't officially thrown out of the game, just that all those major league teams independently decided not to offer him a contract (I'm sure there was no collusion going on, that would be illegal.) Maybe everybody doesn't know, though.

You make some good points. I've always been inclined to give Lance the benefit of the doubt, partially because I don't much give a hang about cycling. If he really has been a steady user of performance-enhancing substances, he's been darn good at it, lucky, and good at public relations. Maybe he's just a great athlete? Of course Pete Rose swore he never bet on baseball, Floyd Landis swore he didn't dope...

OrangeOne
07-06-2010, 03:08 PM
Exactly.

Which is why I think every last one of them is doping.

Because something is hard - everyone must be doping?

I know some pro / ex-pro riders (not TDF level, but some close, and some that level in other variants of the sport). Of course there are stories of the drugs, and the dirty riders that would take them. There are also stories of people with ethics and morals, and people who want to live a long, healthy life after cycling, people who were clean.

I fail to see why out of a sample of 200 - you claim 100% doping. 100%?

Remember the media - and there are hundreds / thousands of people covering the tour - are desperate for a scoop. If you think 200 people are doping - how exactly does only 1 or 2 get caught? Any media outlet that can get a photo of a drug, an empty syringe, a doctor acting inappropriately - is going to be in heaven during the tour. It'll give them a month or a year's worth of hits in a day. They'll get a whole team kicked out of the tour.

It's not just the (many, many) doping controls that police the riders, it's also the media, and even the fans.

To say that every TDF rider is doping is lunacy (possibly as much lunacy as to say that none are, but the number is closer to none than all).

r2473
07-06-2010, 03:13 PM
To say that every TDF rider is doping is lunacy (possibly as much lunacy as to say that none are, but the number is closer to none than all).

How many are doping do you think?

1%

2%

5%

10%

20%

40%

What do you think about other sports?

track & field

tennis

boxing

NFL football

etc?

Are you thinking it is the minority?

OrangeOne
07-06-2010, 03:19 PM
How many are doping do you think?

Out of all the athletes in all the sports in all the worlds?

72.

r2473
07-06-2010, 03:26 PM
Out of all the athletes in all the sports in all the worlds?

72.

Let's just concentrate on Earth for the moment.

Obviously, I was asking about TDF primarily (as that is what your quote references). Secondarily, I was interested in other popular sports, individually.

But, I guess we pretty much agree. I would put the number around 72% for most sports myself. Higher for some, lower for others. But 72% isn't a bad number overall.

Cindysphinx
07-06-2010, 05:30 PM
For figure skating, I would put the percentage of high-end participants (top 10 in each major country) at 2% (assuming you don't consider rhinestones to be doping).

For the Tour de France, I would put the percentage of participants in the 2010 race who are doping at 90%. The other 10% wanted to dope but couldn't get their shipment of testosterone patches through customs. I mean, it doesn't do much good to have just Armstrong doping. I assume his posse can't do him any good if they are at the bottom of the mountain sucking on oxygen tanks.

That's what I think.

r2473
07-06-2010, 05:40 PM
For figure skating, I would put the percentage of high-end participants (top 10 in each major country) at 2% (assuming you don't consider rhinestones to be doping).

I think it takes guts for even a gay man to wear some of the stuff I saw in the Olympics.

Most of the women look stunning however (for 14 year olds that is).

EP1998
07-08-2010, 02:43 PM
[QUOTE=OrangeOne;4844931]Because something is hard - everyone must be doping?

I know some pro / ex-pro riders (not TDF level, but some close, and some that level in other variants of the sport). Of course there are stories of the drugs, and the dirty riders that would take them. There are also stories of people with ethics and morals, and people who want to live a long, healthy life after cycling, people who were clean.

I fail to see why out of a sample of 200 - you claim 100% doping. 100%?

QUOTE]

A person can have "ethics and morals" and not be "clean." Once you get to a certain level in sports, you lose a lot of control over what goes into your body. So unless you don't go near a doctor, don't ingest anything or have any injections, you can never be sure.

OrangeOne
07-08-2010, 03:23 PM
For figure skating, I would put the percentage of high-end participants (top 10 in each major country) at 2% (assuming you don't consider rhinestones to be doping).

For the Tour de France, I would put the percentage of participants in the 2010 race who are doping at 90%. The other 10% wanted to dope but couldn't get their shipment of testosterone patches through customs. I mean, it doesn't do much good to have just Armstrong doping. I assume his posse can't do him any good if they are at the bottom of the mountain sucking on oxygen tanks.

That's what I think.

I think if you understood the tour a little more you'd know that the 'posse' does indeed end up left behind by the team leaders / specialist riders.

I know such a situation doesn't limit your scenario, and I know we sit at the polar opposite ends of the spectrum here. I hope you meet some amazing people that are, or have been, pro cyclists, and you get to know them well enough to find out more of the truth.

Here's the thing:

This almost feels like an 'ism'. Sexism, Racism, Cycle-ism? Ok, so I'm being extreme, but so are positions here.

I believe it's always wrong to tar everyone with a brush simply because some commit a crime. I firmly believe it's wrong to tar the whole sport of cycling because some dopes dope. I also firmly believe the doping isn't as 'beyond testing' as people say - if it were, how come some very, very high profile riders are getting caught - surely if anyone, they'd have access to the 'mysterious undetectable stuff'?

OrangeOne
07-08-2010, 03:24 PM
Most of the women look stunning however (for 14 year olds that is).

You know, that's a bit far isn't it? I had enough of an issue with your now-deleted post in another thread (and mustn't have been only me, as I didn't report it), and now this?

OrangeOne
07-08-2010, 03:29 PM
A person can have "ethics and morals" and not be "clean." Once you get to a certain level in sports, you lose a lot of control over what goes into your body. So unless you don't go near a doctor, don't ingest anything or have any injections, you can never be sure.

Time to read less John Grisham, or watch less CSI / House.

Any athlete who is choosing to stay clean, is also more than aware that they need to be meticulous about consumption. This is their career that has taken years and years of training.

What you are alleging there, by the way, doctors medicating people illegally / without their full knowledge and consent, and worse, without a condition requiring the medication....if and when it occurs would be enough to both have a doctor lose their licence to practice medicine and be jailed.

So you're proposing that both doctors and pro athletes - both are people who have to train for a decade to be 'qualified & effective' in their career - regularly risk this. I can see that the guy coming 3rd might want to come first (Landis). I can't see that the guy coming 56th would risk this to come 49th, and I can see very very few doctors with around 10 years of study risking a career and freedom...

r2473
07-08-2010, 03:54 PM
You know, that's a bit far isn't it? I had enough of an issue with your now-deleted post in another thread (and mustn't have been only me, as I didn't report it), and now this?

My posts get quietly deleted fairly often (so I'm really not sure what you are referring to).

EP1998
07-10-2010, 04:39 AM
Time to read less John Grisham, or watch less CSI / House.

Any athlete who is choosing to stay clean, is also more than aware that they need to be meticulous about consumption. This is their career that has taken years and years of training.

What you are alleging there, by the way, doctors medicating people illegally / without their full knowledge and consent, and worse, without a condition requiring the medication....if and when it occurs would be enough to both have a doctor lose their licence to practice medicine and be jailed.

So you're proposing that both doctors and pro athletes - both are people who have to train for a decade to be 'qualified & effective' in their career - regularly risk this. I can see that the guy coming 3rd might want to come first (Landis). I can't see that the guy coming 56th would risk this to come 49th, and I can see very very few doctors with around 10 years of study risking a career and freedom...


What a joke and stupid stereotypical comment; I dont actually watch House or CSI. What are you, twelve years old? Continuing a discussion with you wouldnt be the best use of my time, and by the way, you made all of the assumptions here including the use of the word "regularly."

jswinf
07-10-2010, 09:45 AM
It sounds like you need more "regularity," perhaps more fiber in your diet?

OrangeOne
07-10-2010, 10:02 AM
What a joke and stupid stereotypical comment; I dont actually watch House or CSI. What are you, twelve years old? Continuing a discussion with you wouldnt be the best use of my time,

Right, so you stopped at the off-the-cuff quip about watching too much tele-drama and didn't read the rest of my post? Or, perhaps more likely, you read the rest of the post and decided to ignore it as it had logical points in it that you simply couldn't debate? For the record, if you expect more than a joke or a stereotypical comment, maybe post something that is equally more than a stereotypical comment yourself, or even, post something that seems less of a joke.

and by the way, you made all of the assumptions here including the use of the word "regularly."You have a problem with the adverb? Or a problem with the fact that I said that the risk was indeed more than an instance? For doping to be effective it is rarely a one-off occurrence, in fact, for it to be in any way successful usually requires many instances just to understand how it affects the athlete in question. In many cases, it also requires a regime (eg. daily doping) to adjust baseline levels so that the doping doesn't appear as an outlier.

You can claim it's 'not the best use of your time' if you want, but remember: You were the one that put out the comment that doctors are doping elite athletes without their knowledge. You've done nothing to back it up, just thrown back some pointless word-play.

So let's end the word-play: Do you have any proof of multiple instances of doctors illegally doping elite athletes in 2010 (or thereabouts) - ie. doctors doping athletes without their knowledge?

OO.
....who is clearly a verbose 12 year old with a moderately decent knowledge of sport & doping.

EP1998
07-10-2010, 01:49 PM
Right, so you stopped at the off-the-cuff quip about watching too much tele-drama and didn't read the rest of my post? Or, perhaps more likely, you read the rest of the post and decided to ignore it as it had logical points in it that you simply couldn't debate? For the record, if you expect more than a joke or a stereotypical comment, maybe post something that is equally more than a stereotypical comment yourself, or even, post something that seems less of a joke.

You have a problem with the adverb? Or a problem with the fact that I said that the risk was indeed more than an instance? For doping to be effective it is rarely a one-off occurrence, in fact, for it to be in any way successful usually requires many instances just to understand how it affects the athlete in question. In many cases, it also requires a regime (eg. daily doping) to adjust baseline levels so that the doping doesn't appear as an outlier.

You can claim it's 'not the best use of your time' if you want, but remember: You were the one that put out the comment that doctors are doping elite athletes without their knowledge. You've done nothing to back it up, just thrown back some pointless word-play.

So let's end the word-play: Do you have any proof of multiple instances of doctors illegally doping elite athletes in 2010 (or thereabouts) - ie. doctors doping athletes without their knowledge?

OO.
....who is clearly a verbose 12 year old with a moderately decent knowledge of sport & doping.


Read my post and tell me where I said doctors were doping athletes without their knowledge. I never said that. You were the one that went there. All I said was that the only way to know 100 percent if you are clean is to never take anything or let anyone do anything. My point was that you can be an athlete with "morals and ethics" and get a tainted supplement. Or someone can make a mistake. You can do everything right and something can happen. I felt like that needed to be said in this thread. And you are not the only person with knowledge on this topic. Believe it or not when I posted to you in this thread I thought we might have an intersting discussion.

The House comment was unnecessary. That is not a surprise though, seems to happen to the women on this forum. When Canadian Chic made a comment about the Kardashian show people assumed she was jealous. So typical. If I say something I must have got it from a TV show. That combined with all of the assumptions you made without asking me what I meant just made me think, why bother?

EP1998
07-10-2010, 01:50 PM
It sounds like you need more "regularity," perhaps more fiber in your diet?

lol, that is pretty funny actually.

EP1998
07-10-2010, 01:54 PM
oh and by the way, there is actually a pending case where there might be an ethical issue with a doctor, so that is an interesting point you raised. I forgot about that, was thinking more about the mistakes scenario. Who knows what the facts will turn out to be in that case though.

OrangeOne
07-10-2010, 03:24 PM
Read my post and tell me where I said doctors were doping athletes without their knowledge. I never said that. You were the one that went there. All I said was that the only way to know 100 percent if you are clean is to never take anything or let anyone do anything.

"Reach a certain level in sports" + "Lose control over what goes into you body" + "Unless you don't go near a doctor"

^^Yes, I assumed that was what you meant. Sure, it was an assumption but it wasn't a long bow to draw.

My point was that you can be an athlete with "morals and ethics" and get a tainted supplement. Or someone can make a mistake. You can do everything right and something can happen. I felt like that needed to be said in this thread.

Ok. It is a point. I don't think it's a big point in this discussion, but that's imho.

And you are not the only person with knowledge on this topic.

Oh please. The only reason I said what I said there as a sarcastic quip in response to the 12 year old quip. I didn't say I was the only one. Me highlighting my own knowledge doesn't logically exclude others.

Believe it or not when I posted to you in this thread I thought we might have an interesting discussion.

Ok.

The House comment was unnecessary. That is not a surprise though, seems to happen to the women on this forum. When Canadian Chic made a comment about the Kardashian show people assumed she was jealous. So typical. If I say something I must have got it from a TV show.

Whoooah there. Back the truck up. Me quipping that your comments seemed TV-Drama-inspired is sexism? Where do I start?

a. I have no firm idea that anyone is a guy or a girl on here until they actually say so, and even then...

b. Guys don't watch too much TV too?

c. I watch house. Does that make me female? Or at least somewhat androgynous? I might have to stop watching it to protect my masculinity.

d. Seriously. I mean....Seriously?

Next time, please leave your irrelevant - to this discussion, anyways - agendas at the door. If you want to discuss sexism in and of itself, fine, I'll probably chime in. But don't spend time lecturing me about assumptions and then make a fat & juicy one yourself, and then let it spool up your own agenda and make accusations at me over it. It wasn't a sexist remark, and I resent the accusation that it was.

Cindysphinx
07-10-2010, 04:32 PM
OrangeOne, it is refreshing to know their are still people in the world who have faith in the honesty and integrity of their fellow men and women when millions of dollars in endorsements are at stake. It's kinda cute.

Really, now. Marion Jones doped for years and wasn't caught until her name turned up in BALCO's files. If she could do it, anyone could.

So you're proposing that both doctors and pro athletes - both are people who have to train for a decade to be 'qualified & effective' in their career - regularly risk this. I can see that the guy coming 3rd might want to come first (Landis). I can't see that the guy coming 56th would risk this to come 49th, and I can see very very few doctors with around 10 years of study risking a career and freedom...

Perhaps there are very few doctors willing to risk it.

You only need to find one.

And if you're an athlete, it's not like you face a firing squad if you get caught. You get a suspension and then you get to resume your career. I can see how someone who is No. 10 in the 100 m dash might dope to get to No. 1. Like I said, there are millions of collars at stake, and if you go to someone really really good you can pass endless drug tests and come up clean every time.

Like Marion Jones did.

OrangeOne
07-10-2010, 11:42 PM
OrangeOne, it is refreshing to know their are still people in the world who have faith in the honesty and integrity of their fellow men and women when millions of dollars in endorsements are at stake. It's kinda cute.

Wow, I've had my thoughts called cute and I've also been called effectively sexist in the one thread. That's a first. Remarkably, I don't feel patronised at all!

Really, now. Marion JonesI'm glad you bring her up in a post that includes your comment:

And if you're an athlete, it's not like you face a firing squad if you get caught. You get a suspension and then you get to resume your career.She went to jail. Ok, so it was for perjury, but it all started with the drugs, and stemmed from the drugs. The suspension you mention can end many careers. Many sports are putting tougher penalties in place. If an athlete is caught in the tour, the whole team can and often is booted - tens of millions of dollars are at stake.

If she could do it, anyone could. Disagree, she was already uber-elite. Your average competitor doesn't have the resources, pull, or access that she did. Again, doping (in a way to avoid being caught) is a science, and requires significant time, effort and resources to get it 'just right'.

--

Here's the thing. We are all presented with options every day in our life that represent ethical decisions, many that have financial outcomes. Some that risk our reputations too.

What am I saying? I'm saying anyone can choose to throw their morals out the window at any time, and earn more dollars in questionable ways. Why is it that you think that just because people become a professional athlete they are automatically willing to do this?

Remember, they're not just risking their career and reputation from friends and family, they're also risking the fame many crave so much, and potentially gaining a reputation of a different kind for life. I mean - do you think the average cyclist passes Landis in the street and waves a happy hello?

Dags
07-11-2010, 05:52 AM
OrangeOne, it is refreshing to know their are still people in the world who have faith in the honesty and integrity of their fellow men and women when millions of dollars in endorsements are at stake. It's kinda cute.

Likewise, it is depressing to know there are people who have such little faith in mankind that they make a sweeping assumption that every single competitor in a particular sport must be doping. Particularly when they seem to have little interest in or knowledge of said sport.

An open question to all: do you suspect that Lance Armstrong has been cheating (be it via drugs, blood transfusions or anything else that is prohibited) in the 2009 and/or 2010 TdF? A brief (or detailed if you prefer) description of why you hold your belief either way would be beneficial to discussion.

OrangeOne
07-11-2010, 03:43 PM
Likewise, it is depressing to know there are people who have such little faith in mankind that they make a sweeping assumption that every single competitor in a particular sport must be doping.

^^ Seconded, exactly my thoughts.

David_Is_Right
07-13-2010, 12:41 AM
Likewise, it is depressing to know there are people who have such little faith in mankind that they make a sweeping assumption that every single competitor in a particular sport must be doping.

Most of us don't take things on blind faith. Rather, reason and evidence.

Dags
07-13-2010, 10:20 AM
Most of us don't take things on blind faith. Rather, reason and evidence.

Unless you are able to provide evidence on each rider about whether they are clean or dirty, you will have to fill in the blanks with assumptions. Mine are as follows:

- based on the past number of riders who have tested positive and those who have admitted to doping, it seems likely that some participants in this year's race are also doping.
- there are some with a history of doping who have served a ban and are racing this year. Given their past deeds, I am as likely to believe that they are doping as I am that they aren't.
- the majority of the field are not covered by the above assumptions, and so I like to work from the premise that, in general, people are essentially good.

Based on this, I arrive at the opinion that there are likely to be some cheating in this year's Tour, but that the majority are clean. This position would of course be changed if evidence were provided to the contrary.

JohnnyCracker
09-30-2010, 05:34 AM
what do ya know...

Alberto Contador tested positive...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11441045

LameTennisPlayer
09-30-2010, 06:01 AM
what do ya know...

Alberto Contador tested positive...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11441045

yep, heard it on the news today also, a few hours ago

cucio
09-30-2010, 06:08 AM
Contador's official statement is that the substance comes from a contaminated steak (clenbuterol is used illegally to fatten up cattle for its ability to increase the muscle-to-fat body ratio.) The amount of substance detected could be compatible with this explanation.

But yeah, who knows? As soon as top money makes its appearance, all bets are off.

Then again, tests are getting extraordinarily precise (for good reason, since probably the cheaters employ clever methods to mask the PEDs) and accidental contamination is certainly possible. I have read somewhere that it is possible to detect infinitesimal residues of recreational drugs in the air or water of certain cities.

borg number one
09-30-2010, 06:13 AM
Cindysphinx, July 2010 was great timing for the start of this thread. So, we have Landis and now Cantador, among many other cyclists that have tested positive. What about Armstrong's past now? So, this does look like doping was and perhaps still is very rampant with cycling. Baseball, American Football, Cycling, as well as Olympic sports have all had major doping scandals. It looks like every major sport is dealing with PED's.

Here's another article: http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5632256&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

PINTO, Spain -- Three-time Tour de France champion Alberto Contador blamed contaminated meat Thursday for his positive doping test during this year's race, the latest blow to a sport battered by drug scandals.

The Spanish rider has been provisionally suspended after a World Anti-Doping Agency lab in Germany found a "very small concentration" of the banned substance clenbuterol in his urine sample on July 21 at the Tour, according to a statement from cycling governing body UCI.

"It is a clear case of food contamination," Contador told a news conference in his hometown near Madrid.

Contador said the meat was brought across the border from Spain to France on a rest day during the Tour at the request of the team's cook.

Contador said the meat was brought by a Spanish cycling organizer, Jose Luis Lopez Cerron. Cerron said earlier Thursday on Spanish radio that he was a friend of the team chef, who had complained of poor quality meat at the hotel where the team was staying.

Contador said he ate the meat on July 20 and again on July 21. He called the UCI's suspension of him "a true mistake."

Contador said he learned of the positive test on Aug. 24 and met with UCI doctors two days later.

"On the 26th we talked at length about how all this had happened. The UCI itself told me to my face that it was a case of food contamination," Contador said.

He said he has been in conversations with the UCI ever since "to handle this the most appropriate way possible and analyze it and see clearly that it is a case of food contamination in which I am the victim."

The UCI said the amount of clenbuterol in Contador's sample was "400 time(s) less than what the antidoping laboratories accredited by WADA must be able to detect."

Both Contador's A and B samples tested positive and the cyclist has been "formally and provisionally suspended," the UCI said.

With seven-time Tour champion Lance Armstrong now back in retirement, Contador is cycling's biggest star, so it could be devastating for the sport if the Spanish rider is proved to have cheated.

Bartelby
09-30-2010, 06:29 AM
I can't see that Contador's done anything wrong based on the evidence released so far.

ProgressoR
09-30-2010, 06:46 AM
didnt they find 1/400th of the amount of that substance required to make it illegal? such a small trace amount either means he is cheating and couldnt wipe all the traces or perhaps there is a logical innocent explanation.

Guess we shall see which view prevails...

cucio
09-30-2010, 06:49 AM
Contador's contaminated food: excuse or possibility? (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contadors-contaminated-food-excuse-or-possibility)

813wilson
09-30-2010, 09:28 AM
I'm not a fan of finding drugs in anyone's system, but there may be merit to his defense.
Contador took the lead in the Tour at Stage 15 and never gave it up.
The Tour rules stipulate that the stage winner and overall leader are tested each day. Stage 15 was run on the 19th of July. So he would have been tested on the 19th, 20th and the 21st is when they say he came up positive. Now I don't know when they test, but I believe it to be after each stage. If that is the case wouldn't that mean he was tested twice and then a third test was positive at the trace amounts stated?


It reminds me of Hingis. Her cocaine level was so small, she would not have been punished if she were in the US military.

Cindysphinx
09-30-2010, 01:52 PM
Oh, snap.

Yeah, cycling is the dirtiest sport of them all. Not one of those riders -- not one -- is clean.

Are we to believe that Contador never doped except this one time? Nope, this is just the one time he got caught.

Dirty, dirty, dirty.

Benhur
09-30-2010, 02:03 PM
Good, thorough article on this at Bicycling.com today:

September 30th, 2010
Contador Case Means Hard Choices for Anti-Doping

by Joe Lindsey
http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2010/09/30/contador-case-means-hard-choices-for-anti-doping/

See also: Clenbuterol use in the meat industry:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f00/web1/paluska.html

Dags
09-30-2010, 02:08 PM
Oh, snap.

Yeah, cycling is the dirtiest sport of them all. Not one of those riders -- not one -- is clean.

Are we to believe that Contador never doped except this one time? Nope, this is just the one time he got caught.

Dirty, dirty, dirty.

I really hope you never get called for jury duty.

OrangeOne
09-30-2010, 02:10 PM
Oh, snap.

Yeah, cycling is the dirtiest sport of them all. Not one of those riders -- not one -- is clean.

Are we to believe that Contador never doped except this one time? Nope, this is just the one time he got caught.

Dirty, dirty, dirty.

Here we go again.

You know what? The sentence there in red is as "dirty, dirty, dirty" - or moreso - than you are saying the sport is. Just because some riders are dirty does not in any way mean all are.

Why is it that people know that 'tarring everyone with the one brush' is an entirely wrong way to live, and yet because cycling has an element of cheating in it, people just feel ok to grandstand and write everyone off?

Then again, I suppose it's like all middle-aged female tennis players who go to tennis coaching. They're all sleazy hussies* who are only there to have illicit sexual relationships* with coaching staff and cheat on their boring, fat career-obsessed husbands.

Dirty, dirty, dirty.

*Old english chosen to keep the above board-appropriate. I'm sure most can substitute modern terms.

Benhur
09-30-2010, 02:18 PM
didnt they find 1/400th of the amount of that substance required to make it illegal? such a small trace amount either means he is cheating and couldnt wipe all the traces or perhaps there is a logical innocent explanation.

Guess we shall see which view prevails...

I think the actual amount is 1/40th of the minimum that testing labs are required to detect.
From what I've read, it has to be one of two things:

Either a transfussion from his own blood from a previous time, or food contamination. The food contamination is perfectly plausible, and cases of people becoming sick after eating meat contaminated with this substance have detected more than 200 times the amount found in Contador. What does not make sense is that he would knowinly take any while he knows he is being tested every day as long as he has the yellow jersey, which he got on the 19th. Also, such a trace amount would have no effect at all on performance.

OrangeOne
09-30-2010, 02:27 PM
What does not make sense is that he would knowinly take any while he knows he is being tested every day as long as he has the yellow jersey, which he got on the 19th.

But then we have the 'floyd' example, though admittedly he took what he took to regain the lead from memory.

Also, such a trace amount would have no effect at all on performance.

Agreed, unless he'd been masking it... if it can be masked?

If it really is from the meat, well, I pity pro athletes even more in regards to eating.

JohnnyCracker
09-30-2010, 03:03 PM
However, the UCI said the concentration found by the laboratory was estimated at 50 picograms - 400 times less than anti-doping laboratories accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) must be able to detect.

"This case required further scientific investigation before any conclusion could be drawn," the statement added.

50 picograms, 1/400 the amount WADA must be able to detect...
He deserves the benefit of the doubt until "further scientific investigation" says otherwise.

borg number one
10-01-2010, 07:10 AM
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2010/10/alberto-contador-drug-test-new-suspicion/1

The French sports newspaper L'Equipe has raised additional questions about the failed drug test of Tour de France champion Alberto Contador.

L'Equipe reports that tests undertaken on the Spaniard's urine sample from the tour detected the presence of a plastic component that is found in blood transfusion bags.

If true, it raises suspicions about whether the three-time Tour winner underwent an endurance-increasing blood transfusion before the July 21 drug test that revealed traces of the steroid Clenbuterol.

If only transfused blood was tainted with Clenbuterol that could explain why Contador didn't test positive for the steroid in previous days, when he was tested often. Contador has contended that the positive test for Clenbuterol was due to eating meat contaminated with the steroid, which sometimes is given to cattle.

L'Equipe says the method of testing for the plastic component hasn't been validated by anti-doping authorities yet.

UCI, the world governing body for cycling, and the World Anti-Doping Agency have refused to comment on the L'Equipe story.

(Via CyclingNews.com)

West Coast Ace
10-03-2010, 02:02 PM
So confusing... is the moral to the story:

Don't blood dope from a teammate who used 'roids?

A little tarnish for the Spaniards' otherwise incredible sports year.

r2473
10-03-2010, 02:13 PM
So confusing... is the moral to the story:

Don't blood dope from a teammate who used 'roids?

The moral of the story is that sports are nearly 100% clean. Always have been. If this weren't true, they would for sure all be caught.

Moral #2 is that those testing (and their partners in crime, the media) are unfairly targeting certain athletes, raising an unwarranted cloud of suspicion...........I always feel sorry for poor Barry Bonds. Not one shred of evidence linking him to steroid use (never tested positive to my knowledge), but yet everyone unfairly suspects him of wrong doing.

Cindysphinx
10-03-2010, 04:19 PM
This bad drug test from bad meat happened in the middle of the event. At a time when the racers are all traveling together and eating together.

It's a pity that the whole team ate that same tainted meat. I expect them all to test positive too. Then we will know that the meat was definitely to blame.

:huge eye roll :

West Coast Ace
10-03-2010, 04:40 PM
The moral of the story is that sports are nearly 100% clean.We can agree to disagree, at least when it comes to cycling. Too many have been caught.

...poor Barry Bonds...Thanks for the laugh.

Not one shred of evidence linking him to steroid use (never tested positive to my knowledge), but yet everyone unfairly suspects him of wrong doing.The grand jury testimony was not supposed to get out - but it did. In it he says he 'trusted' his trainer and 'didn't know' that they were steroids. But you're entitled to believe what you want to.

Also, if you look at pictures from his days on the Pirates and those from the Giants when he hit over 70 homers, and think that kind of muscle mass gain can be done cleanly, then I have to wonder what you know about weight training. You can't change your body type (google endomorph, ectomorph, and mesomorph if you're interested in getting educated). Nor is it easy to put on large amounts of muscle mass (BB allegedly came back with 30 lbs of muscle after only a 100 day offseason) after the age of 35. But again, believe what you want.

fundrazer
10-03-2010, 04:47 PM
This bad drug test from bad meat happened in the middle of the event. At a time when the racers are all traveling together and eating together.

It's a pity that the whole team ate that same tainted meat. I expect them all to test positive too. Then we will know that the meat was definitely to blame.

:huge eye roll :

The rest of Astana wasn't tested though, I forget exactly how it works but I think its the top 3 riders from the team are tested on the rest days. It's already been stated that Vino (contadors biggest helper besides Navarro) did not eat the meat. Vino also did not test positive.

Other interesting fact, not sure if it was mentioned though. They found traces of plasticizers also. This could possibly mean he was blood doping as plasticizers are found in IV bags, also found in food wrappers too I think.

r2473
10-03-2010, 04:56 PM
We can agree to disagree, at least when it comes to cycling. Too many have been caught.

Thanks for the laugh.

The grand jury testimony was not supposed to get out - but it did. In it he says he 'trusted' his trainer and 'didn't know' that they were steroids. But you're entitled to believe what you want to.

Also, if you look at pictures from his days on the Pirates and those from the Giants when he hit over 70 homers, and think that kind of muscle mass gain can be done cleanly, then I have to wonder what you know about weight training. You can't change your body type (google endomorph, ectomorph, and mesomorph if you're interested in getting educated). Nor is it easy to put on large amounts of muscle mass (BB allegedly came back with 30 lbs of muscle after only a 100 day offseason) after the age of 35. But again, believe what you want.

1) Sure, there are a few bad apples. But clearly, the infrequency of positive tests showing wrong doing says that sport is pretty much 100% clean.

2) I don't know of any test that proves BB took steroids.

3) Professional bodybuilders put on more than 30 lbs. of muscle. If you read stuff from the shows they compete in, it says that athletes are tested. Ronnie Coleman for example has never tested positive for steroids (to my knowledge). Therefore we have to conclude guys like Ronnie Coleman have never taken steroids. In fact, he says this himself.

West Coast Ace
10-03-2010, 07:02 PM
1) Sure, there are a few bad apples. But clearly, the infrequency of positive tests showing wrong doing says that sport is pretty much 100% clean.

2) I don't know of any test that proves BB took steroids.

3) Professional bodybuilders put on more than 30 lbs. of muscle. If you read stuff from the shows they compete in, it says that athletes are tested. Ronnie Coleman for example has never tested positive for steroids (to my knowledge). Therefore we have to conclude guys like Ronnie Coleman have never taken steroids. In fact, he says this himself.Point by point:

1) I guess you can disagree with Cindy and I on the meaning of a 'few'.

2) No kidding! MLB didn't test for 'roids - players' union wouldn't allow it.

3) Sorry, you're wrong. Ronnie competes in the 'wide open' bodybuilding - they don't test - it's assumed they all use. There is a bodybuilding org that is all clean - they test all the time - guys aren't nearly as massive. Go figure. And Ronnie was huge in his 20's - I challenge you to find proof that after the age of 35, Ronnie put on 30 lbs of muscle in 100 days and was tested clean. You won't - because it didn't happen.

But if you want to defend BB for whatever reason, I don't have a problem with it - I'm not sure he's going to be convicted - expect the Feds to get him for something else, like tax evasion. I'm actually torn on this - if they want to take huge health risks for millions of dollars, my Libertarian streak can't really argue with it. But here in the US (not sure from your avatar if you're from the UK or just like that pic) it is against the law.

r2473
10-03-2010, 08:25 PM
Ronnie competes in the 'wide open' bodybuilding - they don't test - it's assumed they all use.

I'm going from memory here, but I think guys like Coleman, Cutler, etc. are all IFBB pros. If you read the IFBB website, I am sure you will find that they claim to be drug free.

I'm not for sure if they test for "Olympia", but I know they used to. They caught people for diuretics a few times I remember.

r2473
10-04-2010, 02:53 PM
3) Sorry, you're wrong. Ronnie competes in the 'wide open' bodybuilding - they don't test - it's assumed they all use.

Jay Cutler (reigning Mr. Olympia) says that there is random testing and seems to say that he has never taken steroids.

5:44

http://blogs.canoe.ca/inyourgrill/special/bodybuilder-jay-cutler-one-on-one-2/

CP3
10-04-2010, 03:01 PM
Jay Cutler (reigning Mr. Olympia) says that there is random testing and seems to say that he has never taken steroids.

5:44

http://blogs.canoe.ca/inyourgrill/special/bodybuilder-jay-cutler-one-on-one-2/

You tell 'em!

A physique like this is easily obtainable through power bars, protein shakes and bean burritos. He might take a multivitamin or two, but that's it:

http://www.ronniecoleman.net/blueoleman0e5ce9d7.jpg

http://www.ronniecoleman.net/train1153.jpg

hollywood9826
10-04-2010, 03:08 PM
They claim to not use yet seem to take 3-4 month vacations to mayalsia right before the contest season starts.

As far as Bonds goes he didnt break the law if he was taking the cream and the clear because nobody besides the few people involved even knew what it was at the time. So something that the law doesnt know about cant be against the law.

In this mans case I belive the meat story. apparently the levels were so low that the other teamates to have easten it may not have spiked high enough to begin with. there natual level is propbably lower than contadors and didnt pass the threshold.

All these cyclyists use the undectable kind and are not dumb enough to take something that would be caught so easy.

CP3
10-04-2010, 03:11 PM
Are you a bodybuilder? Are you a professional athlete? Do you realize how grueling it is to train properly? OF COURSE they're going to go on vacations.

And why not train during those "vacations" as well?

If you are implying that they are attempting to duck testing, you are WRONG.

They claim to not use yet seem to take 3-4 month vacations to mayalsia right before the contest season starts.

As far as Bonds goes he didnt break the law if he was taking the cream and the clear because nobody besides the few people involved even knew what it was at the time. So something that the law doesnt know about cant be against the law.

In this mans case I belive the meat story. apparently the levels were so low that the other teamates to have easten it may not have spiked high enough to begin with. there natual level is propbably lower than contadors and didnt pass the threshold.

All these cyclyists use the undectable kind and are not dumb enough to take something that would be caught so easy.

West Coast Ace
10-05-2010, 12:06 PM
Jay Cutler (reigning Mr. Olympia) says that there is random testing and seems to say that he has never taken steroids.
You're usually such a solid poster. But you're so wrong on this...

even if there is random testing NOW, these guys became mutants by using every 'roid they could get their hands on... Now they just work out to maintain the mass they have. As CP3 said before his banning (que pasa?) you ain't getting that big on protein shakes.

r2473
10-05-2010, 12:33 PM
^^ I'm just messing around.

I'm sort of making fun of the crowd saying that without solid proof (meaning, positive tests / re-tests proving doping beyond a reasonable doubt), we cannot accuse anyone of doping. Taken to an extreme, this means we can't even accuse these cartoon-ish bodybuilders of doping (which is of course absurd).

Count me in the "most of the guys are doing it" crowd. But no, I have no solid "proof". Just circumstantial evidence and healthy suspicion.

Spokewench
10-05-2010, 12:43 PM
For plasma donation your red cells are put back IMMEDIATELY so your body hasn't had the opportunity to make more. Thus the ratio of red cells to plasma does not change. In doping, red cells are removed and stored in refrigeration. While in storage, your body replaces them both with red cells stored in the spleen, and newly manufactured ones, bringing your percentage of red cells (about 40-45% of blood volume, called the hematocrit) back to normal. Once back to normal, the stored red cells are added before the athletic event, giving you a HIGHER than normal hematocrit. Nothing is detectable. Officials could measure your hematocrit and see it is higher than normal, but they could not prove this didn't occur naturally.

There is a regulation in UCI cycling that if your hematocrit level is higher than a certain level, you are not allowed to compete. Does not matter if you put red blood cells (your own) or took EPO or whatever to increase the level.

r2473
12-09-2010, 01:44 PM
Contador’s lawyers using Gasquet’s cocaine defense

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=ap-doping-contador

dlk
12-09-2010, 01:51 PM
Wonder if I could get by with that at work? "That, is what heroin?" "Well I must have injested that with some tainted spaghetti from Afghanistan."

OrangeOne
12-09-2010, 01:52 PM
Contador’s lawyers using Gasquet’s cocaine defense

I kissed a girl and I lined it / the taste of her cocaine chapstick.
I kissed a girl just to try it / I hope WADA don't mind it.
It felt so wrong, it felt so right / Don't mean I got high tonight.
I kissed a girl and I lined it / Try prove it.

fundrazer
12-09-2010, 02:00 PM
Eh, kind of old news regarding Contador. His legal team has been pushing the accidental contamination since this went public. I think they also refer a case of a German table tennis player who tested positive for the same stuff, clenbuterol.

AllLeague
12-15-2010, 10:26 PM
Op: Reminds me of cross country a lot. People getting scratched, grabbed, pushed, and even spiked in the calf sometimes. Not fun, haha.

jamesblakefan#1
12-17-2010, 10:39 AM
MADRID (AP)—Rafael Nadal says he hopes that Alberto Contador’s doping case will be cleared up soon to stop the “tremendous damage” caused to all sports.

Nadal says on Spanish radio “all of this is horrible for other (athletes).”

The world’s top-ranked tennis player cites cycling as the sport most affected by doping, in which “cases arise constantly.” He says “it is tremendous the amount of damage this causes sport and the doubt it casts over other athletes.”

Contador, a three-time Tour de France champion, is under investigation for doping and faces a two-year ban.

http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/news?slug=ap-nadal-contador

Dedans Penthouse
12-17-2010, 11:24 AM
Look at the jerk on the left who's only concerned with "getting the shot" lol
http://bike-pgh.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/dirty-dozen-01.jpg
'Dirty Dozen' bike race, Canton Aveune, Pittsburgh, PA

813wilson
02-04-2012, 04:34 AM
Bump.

I guess it is okay to wear my Livestrong band again.....

http://cnnsi.com/more/news/20120203/lance-armstrong-investigation-dropped/?sct=hp_t2_a7&eref=sihp

Cindysphinx
08-24-2012, 03:18 PM
Bump!

This would be an excellent time for an "I told you so."

chrischris
08-24-2012, 03:26 PM
Though cycling is dirty , wrestling prolly is the most juiced 'sport' out there. Those guys are just not human looking.

Feña14
08-24-2012, 03:29 PM
This years winner is probably the only one you can be sure of being clean, it's good to see you can win the right way.

r2473
08-24-2012, 04:02 PM
Though cycling is dirty , wrestling prolly is the most juiced 'sport' out there. Those guys are just not human looking.

Gable wasn't "juicing".

Sander001
08-24-2012, 04:10 PM
Bump!

This would be an excellent time for an "I told you so."Choosing not to answer is not a crime, nor is it an admission of guilt. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
Sorry those are my western sensibilities, I know this is a multicultural board and I know there are all types of justice from over the world.

Cindysphinx
08-24-2012, 04:35 PM
Choosing not to answer is not a crime, nor is it an admission of guilt. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
Sorry those are my western sensibilities, I know this is a multicultural board and I know there are all types of justice from over the world.

I'm sorry to be the one to break it to ya, but he is Ever So Guilty.

Do you think that if Federer were wrongfully accused of doping that he would meekly walk away from his status as GOAT? You think he would for all time allow all he has achieved be taken away? You think he would allow himself to be declared the biggest, baddest doper the planet has ever seen?

Nope. A truly innocent athlete with the resources of a Federer or an Armstrong would fight something like this *to the grave.*

Armstrong has made the cold calculation to cut his losses. He would rather cling to a scintilla of public doubt rather than confess all -- or fight if there is really something to fight about.

Will the last person who believes Armstrong was clean please turn out the lights?

TomT
08-24-2012, 05:52 PM
I'm just thankful that bodybuilding and boxing have manged to stay clean all these years. :mrgreen: Yeah, and lacrosse. The jury is still out on cricket.

TomT
08-24-2012, 06:02 PM
I always wonder whether Carl Lewis was clean. I kind of want to believe he was.In another thread here at TT somebody said that Lewis failed several doping tests. I don't know, or care. To me, he looks like he's on drugs. (I use the Monty Python method: How do you know she's a witch? She looks like one!)

Sander001
08-24-2012, 06:05 PM
I'm sorry to be the one to break it to ya, but he is Ever So Guilty.

Do you think that if Federer were wrongfully accused of doping that he would meekly walk away from his status as GOAT? You think he would for all time allow all he has achieved be taken away? You think he would allow himself to be declared the biggest, baddest doper the planet has ever seen?

Nope. A truly innocent athlete with the resources of a Federer or an Armstrong would fight something like this *to the grave.*

Armstrong has made the cold calculation to cut his losses. He would rather cling to a scintilla of public doubt rather than confess all -- or fight if there is really something to fight about.

Will the last person who believes Armstrong was clean please turn out the lights?There are so many "what ifs" I could toss at you, you'd be writing a thesis.
It's not about whether you think he's guilty, it's about due process and proving one's guilt. What your opinion is, what my opinion is, is missing the point by 4.4 light years.
But once again, these are western principles.
"We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches; it's all ancient history. And then, before you can blink an eye, suddenly it threatens to start all over again."

TomT
08-24-2012, 06:13 PM
No offense maverick, you make a lot of reasonable posts on this board and are one of the more solid members, but this is ridiculous. Please back up with data and/or a lot more clarification as to exactly what they're taking (I don't expect you to name names - but go ahead if you feel like it) - or withdraw.

Back to Cycling. When I heard years ago that a) it's really a team event - the top guy on each team is helped by his teammates; b) they would slow down/stop when one of the top guys got a flat so he could get back in the race, I didn't take it seriously as a real sport. Sure, I'm impressed someone can cover that much distance on a bike - but as far as competition, it's a joke. Then throw in the rampant drug use and I have no interest to follow it.What about the wonderful scenery?

Cindysphinx
08-24-2012, 06:18 PM
There are so many "what ifs" I could toss at you, you'd be writing a thesis.
It's not about whether you think he's guilty, it's about due process and proving one's guilt. What your opinion is, what my opinion is, is missing the point by 4.4 light years.
But once again, these are western principles.

You cannot walk away from due process and then complain you were denied due process.

West Coast Ace
08-24-2012, 06:22 PM
Gable wasn't "juicing".Well played. Or Cael Sanderson.

I'm with Cindy. Lance's 'taking his ball and going home' play is pretty weak.

Sander001
08-24-2012, 06:24 PM
You cannot walk away from due process and then complain you were denied due process.Due process is where USADA is judge, jury and executioner?
You can't get any further away from due process than that.

t135
08-24-2012, 06:26 PM
He never failed a drug test and has fought this for years. Enough IS enough. It's a witch hunt with no hard evidence at this point.

Even if he did do it, he beat a bunch of other dopers to win. The playing field was level.

Its a shame so many athletes want to cheat to win. Whether Lance did it or not.

Bartelby
08-24-2012, 06:30 PM
Its not a crime nor an admission of guilt.

Choosing not to answer allows the adverse findings of fact to stand and for punishment to be handed out on the findings uncontested.

As an athlete he's subject to drug control agencies.

This has nothing to do with the criminal law from where your concepts derive.

Its got to do with natural justice: he's been apprised of the case against him and given an opportunity to rebut it and he refused.

He's been accorded natural justice.



Choosing not to answer is not a crime, nor is it an admission of guilt. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
Sorry those are my western sensibilities, I know this is a multicultural board and I know there are all types of justice from over the world.

Sander001
08-24-2012, 06:34 PM
Those concepts aren't derived from criminal law.

Bartelby
08-24-2012, 06:42 PM
'Innocent until proven guilty' is a concept invented by an English barrister in the late eighteenth century, from memory, and it is not really a concept on which any legal system is based.

There is no legal concept of innocence, you're the accused and you're either guilty or not guilty of a crime.

All the concept really means is that the onus of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case, the defence merely has to cast doubt.

Cindysphinx
08-24-2012, 06:43 PM
Lance is banking on the fact that there are a few people here and there who will believe him.

The man lacks integrity. I would never give a penny to his foundation.

I do have one live strong shirt that i received as a gift. It is a cool shirt. Fortunately the logo is tiny so i can keep wearing it.

West Coast Ace
08-24-2012, 06:46 PM
What about the wonderful scenery?The Travel Channel is 277 on DirecTV; Nat Geo is 276...

TomT
08-24-2012, 07:04 PM
Lance is banking on the fact that there are a few people here and there who will believe him.Perhaps. I, for one, neither believe nor disbelieve him.

The man lacks integrity.Perhaps. Again, I don't know. But he did, supposedly, nail an Olsen twin. I have to respect him for that. :)

I would never give a penny to his foundation.Nor would I. But then I wouldn't give a nickel to the American Cancer Society if they said that's all they needed to develop a cure.

TomT
08-24-2012, 07:08 PM
The Travel Channel is 277 on DirecTV; Nat Geo is 276...Thank you WCA. :) Will there also be drug-aided cycling competition?

West Coast Ace
08-24-2012, 07:15 PM
Thank you WCA. :) Will there also be drug-aided cycling competition?No, but I think some of the lions on Animal Planet have been juicing (282 on DirecTV). The zebras haven't stood a chance lately. They're talking about flying in Victor Conte...

Setmatch45
08-24-2012, 07:16 PM
wow pretty good stuff here. If we look at the common sense side of doping without getting into it to much as some of the info I have seen on this. Your heart is a muscle think of how much harder it has to work to move all the extra blood than take account the greuling event that the tour is. Lucky that the heart muscle does not just pop. Far more dangerous than most PED'S.

I also saw someone posted that it is good that bodybuilding and boxing have stayed clean. Wow that blows my mind bodybuilding is the worst sport for ped's by far. Boxing is just a total waste never watch it.

I would say we could make a few of the least toxic ped'd legal than make it so the people who want to use it could stick to the legal stuff so they don't do to much damage to themselves.

TomT
08-24-2012, 07:32 PM
No, but I think some of the lions on Animal Planet have been juicing (282 on DirecTV). The zebras haven't stood a chance lately. They're talking about flying in Victor Conte... :mrgreen: One might wonder what the general water-cooler talk among zebras (not to mention wildebeasts) is about Conte. Maybe they're just too busy dodging lions (and/or crocodiles).

By the way, thanks for the DTV channel references. I don't currently subscribe to that service, but perhaps it will be useful in the future.

West Coast Ace
08-24-2012, 07:39 PM
By the way, thanks for the DTV channel references. I don't currently subscribe to that service, but perhaps it will be useful in the future.For the 1st 8 days of the majors we get to choose from 5 different matches. Pretty awesome.

TomT
08-24-2012, 07:42 PM
wow pretty good stuff here. If we look at the common sense side of doping without getting into it to much as some of the info I have seen on this. Your heart is a muscle think of how much harder it has to work to move all the extra blood than take account the greuling event that the tour is. Lucky that the heart muscle does not just pop. Far more dangerous than most PED'S.

I also saw someone posted that it is good that bodybuilding and boxing have stayed clean. Wow that blows my mind bodybuilding is the worst sport for ped's by far. Boxing is just a total waste never watch it.

I would say we could make a few of the least toxic ped'd legal than make it so the people who want to use it could stick to the legal stuff so they don't do to much damage to themselves.I think we should make them all legal. Might help the economy. People dying from abuse would open up job opportunities. Plus there would be more work for chemists without the risk of long term incarcerartion.

TomT
08-24-2012, 07:44 PM
For the 1st 8 days of the majors we get to choose from 5 different matches. Pretty awesome.I'm currently using Comcast Cable. ESPN3 and ESPN2 do the same thing, I think. I'm so looking forward to the US OPEN. Very exciting. I'm rooting for the Fed.

Bagumbawalla
08-24-2012, 09:21 PM
As I was glancing through this discussion, I noticed someone expressing disbelief that an athlete could be "doped" without their knowledge. In the '70s many of the young women on the East German teams- especially the swim teams- were doped without their knowledge. If they became suspicious or refused to take the "supliments" they were simply dismissed from the team.

I assume that we are all more sophisticated these days.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/features/doping-for-gold/the-state-sponsored-doping-program/52/

Tennisman.de
08-25-2012, 01:25 AM
This years winner is probably the only one you can be sure of being clean, it's good to see you can win the right way.

Haha, and the earth is a disc. Dream on

Polaris
08-25-2012, 09:44 AM
I'm sorry to be the one to break it to ya, but he is Ever So Guilty.

Do you think that if Federer were wrongfully accused of doping that he would meekly walk away from his status as GOAT? You think he would for all time allow all he has achieved be taken away? You think he would allow himself to be declared the biggest, baddest doper the planet has ever seen?

Nope. A truly innocent athlete with the resources of a Federer or an Armstrong would fight something like this *to the grave.*

Armstrong has made the cold calculation to cut his losses. He would rather cling to a scintilla of public doubt rather than confess all -- or fight if there is really something to fight about.

Will the last person who believes Armstrong was clean please turn out the lights?

I'm with Cindy on this one. If he was clean, a guy like Armstrong would not let it go. Something tells me that we have not seen the end of this. There will be more revelations.


Sorry those are my western sensibilities, I know this is a multicultural board and I know there are all types of justice from over the world.

Your western sensibilities may be exactly what Armstrong's lawyers are banking on. It doesn't mean that you have to stop being an Armstrong fan. The fact that he beat the cancer and reached otherworldly levels of fitness is admirable enough without 7 Tours de France to go along with it.

Cindysphinx
01-15-2013, 04:55 PM
Bump!

Now would be the perfect time for a robust round of "I told you so."

:)

SLD76
01-18-2013, 04:52 AM
Floyd was caught, properly caught, doping during the tour that he 'won'. His reputation is now dirt. He is pond scum. He now cannot make money from cycling, has no fame as a cyclist, and now seems to spout random stuff to grab a little fame every now and then.



How do you know the other guys are definitely doping? All of them?

How come Federer and Nadal win pretty much everything in tennis? They are the best at the game, and they surround themselves with the best.

I'm not saying Lance is 100% clean, it's just too hard to know. But to understand even a little about the tour is to know the following:

a. Lance geared his entire year around the tour. He effectively ignored the tour of spain and italy. This is like Federer never playing the Australian or the French (or playing them, in his grass-court shoes and with his grass-court tactics, just for training), and focusing the whole year on Wimbledon.

b. Lance assembled the best team money could buy. Cycling tours, for better or for worse, are team sports. I don't get why people find that abhorrent, it's just a fact. So many team sports are about buying the right players.

c. Lance was appropriately genetically gifted as an endurance cyclist - ridiculous aerobic capacity.

So you take one of the very best riders with amazing genetics, you give them the very best team every year, and they focus entirely on one race.

Not surprising he won some.

ROFLMAO!

:lol::-D:)

I wonder where this apologist is now?

LMAO!

volleygirl
01-18-2013, 11:05 AM
ROFLMAO!

:lol::-D:)

I wonder where this apologist is now?

LMAO!

Its mindboggling isnt it? Perfect genetics? What hes genetically more likely to use PEDs than everyone else?

Dedans Penthouse
01-18-2013, 11:59 AM
Its mindboggling isnt it? Perfect genetics? What hes genetically more likely to use PEDs than everyone else?Maybe it means he's genetically hardwired to handle more PEDs than the average cyclocross juicer? :-)

-Cycling is a spinning class with syringes and a landscape.

-Lance once ate Crow and will now have to eat some more crow.

-Have to think that the chain-smoking, pseudo-sophisticated neurotics at L'Equippe threw an impromptu "Lance Busted!" party and are now in full sprawl across each other's desks having celebratory sex with their respective faces...

...anyway, that's my take...your mileage may vary.. ; )

_________________

NadalAgassi
01-18-2013, 12:56 PM
The whole Lance era of cycling and all its participients were a joke. That whole era should be flushed down the toilet like it didnt exist, and nobody from that era deserves to be even rated as a top 100 cyclist of all time. Lance even if he were clean was the most overrated cylicst in history anyway, a 1 trick pony who only excelled in 1 event (Tour de France), couldnt win jack all without the deepest team in cycling doing all the work for him, and in a weak era featuring none of the true talents of the sport seen past besides dopers. Even if he were clean I wouldnt rate him even top 10 all time.

813wilson
01-19-2013, 11:18 AM
Saw this on Facebook yesterday and thought it was kind of funny.

They should ban cycling from the sport of doping......