TRUE or FALSE

"MagillaGorilla" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

True or false....had Pedro Delgado (aka Deldopa) been tested under the
current WADA/UCI code, he would have been stripped of his Tour title in
'88 for testing positive for probenecid - a masking agent used to mask the
use of anabolic steroids?

(scroll down for answer)

How many people would have been stripped of wins and titles if WADA decides
altitude beds are banned?

Under the current WADA/UCI code, how many people that were busted for
caffeine in the past would NOT have been busted?

MagillaGorilla said:

True or false....had Pedro Delgado (aka Deldopa) been tested under the
current WADA/UCI code, he would have been stripped of his Tour title in
'88 for testing positive for probenecid - a masking agent used to mask
the use of anabolic steroids?

dumbass,

no [censored]. if he was found guilty he would've gotten a 10 min. penalty.
in fact I think that happened to theunisse in that same race for being
on steroids.

around the same time kim andersen tested positive so many times he was
given a lifetime ban ... that lasted only a few months.

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

MagillaGorilla said:

This is my point, Carl...the banned list is, for the most part,
arbitrary. So when people try to make it a good guys vs. bad guys, they
have no moral ground to stand on.

Baloney. If the rules are known in advance, then it's wrong to break
them. For me it's that simple. It's like cutting a course. Isn't the
course arbitrary? So are you saying if someone rides a shorter course
intentionally and gets away with it, it's no big deal? Baloney.

There's nothing inherently immoral about breaking rules that one does
not regard as fair or moral to begin with.

Breaking rules doesn't mean jack. Guys in NASCAR cheat on fuel
capacity, engine power output, etc., all the time. Baseball pitchers
scruff the ball. Baseball hitters cork their bats or lean into a pitch
to take a base. Basketball players intentionally foul or goaltend.
Hockey players check and use other dirty tactics. Boxers butt heads and
hold their opponents. And cyclists dope. All of these are rule violations.

Breaking rules is a part of every professional sport. And if you want
to win the Tour de France, you need to be on the juice. Otherwise, you
ain't doing no 7 watts/kg up the climbs.

Second, what separates most pro cyclists from your average Cat. 3 is not
training, but genetics. Why ban drugs when its totally legal to start a
race (or a career) with superior genetics? A rider with inferior
genetics can reason they need to "make themselves equal" just to
compete. And the top guys do it because they want to win. The rules
do not take into account that riders do not start witht he same
engines from a genetic standpoint, which makes the premise of fairness
and morals moot.

Magilla

MagillaGorilla said:

This is my point, Carl...the banned list is, for the most part,
arbitrary. So when people try to make it a good guys vs. bad guys, they
have no moral ground to stand on.

Baloney. If the rules are known in advance, then it's wrong to break
them. For me it's that simple. It's like cutting a course. Isn't the
course arbitrary? So are you saying if someone rides a shorter course
intentionally and gets away with it, it's no big deal? Baloney.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

MagillaGorilla said:

This is my point, Carl...the banned list is, for the most part,
arbitrary. So when people try to make it a good guys vs. bad guys, they
have no moral ground to stand on.

Baloney. If the rules are known in advance, then it's wrong to break
them. For me it's that simple. It's like cutting a course. Isn't the
course arbitrary? So are you saying if someone rides a shorter course
intentionally and gets away with it, it's no big deal? Baloney.

You mean bologna.

Certain rules can be broken and others should not be trespassed. Riding
a shorter course is gay and therefore no respectable cyclist does it.
But doping is regarded as copacetic at the pro level, so they all do it.
All top cyclists know the difference.

Magilla

MagillaGorilla wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Second, what separates most pro cyclists from your average Cat. 3 is
not training, but genetics. Why ban drugs when its totally legal to
start a race (or a career) with superior genetics? A rider with
inferior genetics can reason they need to "make themselves equal" just
to compete. And the top guys do it because they want to win. The
rules do not take into account that riders do not start witht he same
engines from a genetic standpoint, which makes the premise of fairness
and morals moot.

Dear Harrison Bergeron:

If what you say made any sense, it would be just as reasonable to handicap
all the riders with weights so that no matter what their absolute power
output they all had the same power per mass ratio.

Fairness in the context of athletic competition doesn't mean everyone has
an equal chance of winning, it means that the person with the best genetic
engine in terms of that particular sport is the most likely to win. That
"fairness" is governed by Nature and Nature isn't moral unless you believe
in a divinely guided universe.

--
Bill Asher

William Asher said:

MagillaGorilla wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Second, what separates most pro cyclists from your average Cat. 3 is
not training, but genetics. Why ban drugs when its totally legal to
start a race (or a career) with superior genetics? A rider with
inferior genetics can reason they need to "make themselves equal" just
to compete. And the top guys do it because they want to win. The
rules do not take into account that riders do not start witht he same
engines from a genetic standpoint, which makes the premise of fairness
and morals moot.

Dear Harrison Bergeron:

If what you say made any sense, it would be just as reasonable to handicap
all the riders with weights so that no matter what their absolute power
output they all had the same power per mass ratio.

Yeah, they should do that. I'll suggest it to the Mick next time I talk
to him.

Magilla

William Asher said:

MagillaGorilla wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Second, what separates most pro cyclists from your average Cat. 3 is
not training, but genetics. Why ban drugs when its totally legal to
start a race (or a career) with superior genetics? A rider with
inferior genetics can reason they need to "make themselves equal" just
to compete. And the top guys do it because they want to win. The
rules do not take into account that riders do not start witht he same
engines from a genetic standpoint, which makes the premise of fairness
and morals moot.

Dear Harrison Bergeron:

If what you say made any sense, it would be just as reasonable to handicap
all the riders with weights so that no matter what their absolute power
output they all had the same power per mass ratio.

Fairness in the context of athletic competition doesn't mean everyone has
an equal chance of winning, it means <SNIP>

Yes it does.

Magilla

MagillaGorilla said:

William Asher wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Fairness in the context of athletic competition doesn't mean everyone
has an equal chance of winning, it means <SNIP>

Yes it does.

You sound like you grew up in a commune where the games were all non-
competitive things like bouncing on a parachute. Athletics is not about
everyone having an equal chance, no matter what they told you between
bong hits while sitting around the campfire.

--
Bill Asher

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

MagillaGorilla said:

This is my point, Carl...the banned list is, for the most part,
arbitrary. So when people try to make it a good guys vs. bad guys, they
have no moral ground to stand on.

Baloney. If the rules are known in advance, then it's wrong to break
them. For me it's that simple. It's like cutting a course. Isn't the
course arbitrary? So are you saying if someone rides a shorter course
intentionally and gets away with it, it's no big deal? Baloney.

I think you could probably make three or four groups of of performance
enhancing things cyclists can and do use to get an advantage.

Outright rule bending or breaking
- Hitching a ride with the team car for too long
- Having a bike that's too light and hoping the officials don't check it.
- Adding weighted waterbottles during the downhill
- Getting pushes from a spectators
- Drafting a team car (works best in echelon position)
- Using durgs in the off season
- Using payoffs to get help from other teams during a race
- Excessive bumping, jostling, pinning in, changing your line at the finish

Getting around a rule
- Getting lots of handoffs of waterbottles going up a hard mountain, and
using them as push-offs.
- Questionable confidential exclusion certificates (inhalers, etc.)
- Masking techniques not prohibited - blood washing.
- Micro-dosing

Interpreting a rule strictly
- Rule is Hct must be under 50%. Prerace, dilute blood with saline.
- Tapering durg use to test negative the day of the comp

Doing things that are not prohibited yet or only available to wealthy teams
- Design a bike that's unusually aerodynamic (superman position)
- Designer durgs
- Skin suits
- Wind tunnel testing
- Hyperbaric chambers
- Cutting edge proprietary materials from a bike company
- Tents
- Filling the bike frame with helium. (j/k)

....and so on. There's probably more, including the support team spying on
competitors, using uppers, blocking riders with the team car, sabotaging
equipment (?), starting false rumors about another team.

That's just off the top of my head... ;-)

"nobody" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

MagillaGorilla said:

This is my point, Carl...the banned list is, for the most part,
arbitrary. So when people try to make it a good guys vs. bad guys, they
have no moral ground to stand on.

Baloney. If the rules are known in advance, then it's wrong to break
them. For me it's that simple. It's like cutting a course. Isn't the
course arbitrary? So are you saying if someone rides a shorter course
intentionally and gets away with it, it's no big deal? Baloney.

I think you could probably make three or four groups of of performance
enhancing things cyclists can and do use to get an advantage.

Outright rule bending or breaking
- Hitching a ride with the team car for too long
- Having a bike that's too light and hoping the officials don't check it.
- Adding weighted waterbottles during the downhill
- Getting pushes from a spectators
- Drafting a team car (works best in echelon position)
- Using durgs in the off season
- Using payoffs to get help from other teams during a race
- Excessive bumping, jostling, pinning in, changing your line at the
finish

Getting around a rule
- Getting lots of handoffs of waterbottles going up a hard mountain, and
using them as push-offs.
- Questionable confidential exclusion certificates (inhalers, etc.)
- Masking techniques not prohibited - blood washing.
- Micro-dosing

Interpreting a rule strictly
- Rule is Hct must be under 50%. Prerace, dilute blood with saline.
- Tapering durg use to test negative the day of the comp

Doing things that are not prohibited yet or only available to wealthy
teams
- Design a bike that's unusually aerodynamic (superman position)
- Designer durgs
- Skin suits
- Wind tunnel testing
- Hyperbaric chambers
- Cutting edge proprietary materials from a bike company
- Tents
- Filling the bike frame with helium. (j/k)

...and so on. There's probably more, including the support team spying on
competitors, using uppers, blocking riders with the team car, sabotaging
equipment (?), starting false rumors about another team.

That's just off the top of my head... ;-)

Skin Suits?

MagillaGorilla said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

MagillaGorilla said:

This is my point, Carl...the banned list is, for the most part,
arbitrary. So when people try to make it a good guys vs. bad guys, they
have no moral ground to stand on.

Baloney. If the rules are known in advance, then it's wrong to break
them. For me it's that simple. It's like cutting a course. Isn't the
course arbitrary? So are you saying if someone rides a shorter course
intentionally and gets away with it, it's no big deal? Baloney.

There's nothing inherently immoral about breaking rules that one does
not regard as fair or moral to begin with.

It certainly is immoral in a voluntary situation like sport. If the
athlete doesn't agree with the rules, don't participate.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

MagillaGorilla said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:15:16 -0500, MagillaGorilla
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>This is my point, Carl...the banned list is, for the most part,
>arbitrary. So when people try to make it a good guys vs. bad guys, they
>have no moral ground to stand on.

Baloney. If the rules are known in advance, then it's wrong to break
them. For me it's that simple. It's like cutting a course. Isn't the
course arbitrary? So are you saying if someone rides a shorter course
intentionally and gets away with it, it's no big deal? Baloney.

There's nothing inherently immoral about breaking rules that one does
not regard as fair or moral to begin with.

It certainly is immoral in a voluntary situation like sport. If the
athlete doesn't agree with the rules, don't participate.

Wrong. If the athlete doesn't like the rules s/he should break them,
and try to win as much money as s/he can before being DQ'ed. That's
what officials are for. If athletes didn't break rules there would be
no need for officials (or drug testers).

Athletes who break rules create jobs for officiala and drug testers
alike. Whereas athletes who play fair and never take drugs cause
unemployment and are therefore bad people.

Magilla

Mark VandenBerghe said:

Quoted message said:

Interpreting a rule strictly
- Rule is Hct must be under 50%. Prerace, dilute blood with saline.
- Tapering durg use to test negative the day of the comp

Doing things that are not prohibited yet or only available to wealthy
teams
- Design a bike that's unusually aerodynamic (superman position)
- Designer durgs
- Skin suits
- Wind tunnel testing
- Hyperbaric chambers
- Cutting edge proprietary materials from a bike company
- Tents
- Filling the bike frame with helium. (j/k)

...and so on. There's probably more, including the support team spying on
competitors, using uppers, blocking riders with the team car, sabotaging
equipment (?), starting false rumors about another team.

That's just off the top of my head... ;-)

Skin Suits?

Made from the skins of fellow competitors. You mean you haven't read
'Predator vs Alien, Dark Olympiad'?

nobody said:

- Adding weighted waterbottles during the downhill

I think its about time someone dropped some cyclists from the tower of
Pisa.

MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]> à écrit:

Quoted message said:

There's nothing inherently immoral about breaking rules that one does
not regard as fair or moral to begin with.

Breaking rules doesn't mean jack. Guys in NASCAR cheat on fuel
capacity, engine power output, etc., all the time. Baseball pitchers
scruff the ball. Baseball hitters cork their bats or lean into a
pitch to take a base. Basketball players intentionally foul or
goaltend. Hockey players check and use other dirty tactics. Boxers
butt heads and hold their opponents. And cyclists dope. All of these
are rule violations.

Breaking rules is a part of every professional sport. And if you want
to win the Tour de France, you need to be on the juice. Otherwise,
you ain't doing no 7 watts/kg up the climbs.

Second, what separates most pro cyclists from your average Cat. 3 is
not training, but genetics. Why ban drugs when its totally legal to
start a race (or a career) with superior genetics? A rider with
inferior genetics can reason they need to "make themselves equal" just
to compete. And the top guys do it because they want to win. The
rules do not take into account that riders do not start witht he same
engines from a genetic standpoint, which makes the premise of fairness
and morals moot.

Magilla

Yeah

Best post Davey saw in a long time

--
Davey, sitting Shiva
Saying Kaddish for about a couple
of hundred million Turkeys

In article <[email hidden]>,

Donald Munro said:

nobody said:

- Adding weighted waterbottles during the downhill

I think its about time someone dropped some cyclists from the tower of
Pisa.

Cyclists descend in a vacuum?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobsleigh#Sleighs_and_crews
http://kiat.net/olympics/history/winter/w06oslo.html

It's a good thing I'm not book-smart,

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

William Asher said:

MagillaGorilla said:

William Asher wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Fairness in the context of athletic competition doesn't mean everyone
has an equal chance of winning, it means <SNIP>

Yes it does.

You sound like you grew up in a commune where the games were all non-
competitive things like bouncing on a parachute. Athletics is not about
everyone having an equal chance, no matter what they told you between
bong hits while sitting around the campfire.

Taking bong hits is also a competitive event.

In article <[email hidden]>,

MagillaGorilla said:

And yes, the cars are suppose to be equal - at least in terms of engine
output.

No. There are no rules in NASCAR that say that engines may only create "x"
horsepower. There are rules about engine components, capacity and many other things,
but nothing at all about engine output. Perhaps you're thinking of IROC, where the
cars are (allegedly) equal.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?