David Millar busted.

Quoted message said:

Originally posted by Marty Wallace
http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/V4/L0/S18/E6083/sport_Lng0_Spo18_Evt6083_Sto605927.shtml

Yeah, cyclingforums were talking about him being "detained as a
witness".. whatever that means.

Could he be left out of the tour simply for being a 'suspected' doper?

l'equipe isn't exactly the most accurate reporter when it comes to
foreigners doping is it?

Wait and see I guess..

hippy

--

In article <[email hidden]>,

hippy said:

Yeah, cyclingforums were talking about him being "detained as a
witness".. whatever that means.

If you mean cyclingnews, they've now gone with the l'Equipe story: <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/jun04/jun25news2>

Quoted message said:

Could he be left out of the tour simply for being a 'suspected' doper?

Yes, the tour organisation would drop him like a hot cake. All the other
French teams have already signed an agreement to the effect that they
will drop anyone under suspicion.

Quoted message said:

l'equipe isn't exactly the most accurate reporter when it comes to
foreigners doping is it?

It seems to do a pretty good job of getting hold of confidential papers
from the French police.

What with all this, plus the American track and field lot, it could end
up a much smaller Olympics.

--
Shane Stanley

Must say that this is very surprising news about David Millar and him
fessing up to the use of EPO ... I guess the story will continue to unfold
in the coming few days ...

Looks like Bradley McGee might have a free run to that prologue yellow
jersey and this time wont need a derailled chain to help him!

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

Quoted message said:

http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/V4/L0/S18/E6083/sport_Lng0_Spo18_Evt6083_Sto605927.shtml

Quoted message said:

Must be that time of the year.

Marty

According to cycling forums quoting l'equipe, Millar has now admitted to
using EPO.

The big mouth from Britain is in more trouble than the early settlers.
At least Brad McGee won last years TdF prologue fair and square.

Milla rshould be wiped out of the sport for life, especially after his
vehement denials when the Cofidis affair first broke. What's the bet he
gets a 2 year slap on the wrist from UCI.

BTW when are we going to get the names of the "other five" in the AIS
affair? Or do we have to wait and see which ones grow pony tails?

--

"Spider1977" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

According to cycling forums quoting l'equipe, Millar has now admitted to
using EPO.

The big mouth from Britain is in more trouble than the early settlers.
At least Brad McGee won last years TdF prologue fair and square.

Milla rshould be wiped out of the sport for life, especially after his
vehement denials when the Cofidis affair first broke. What's the bet he
gets a 2 year slap on the wrist from UCI.

BTW when are we going to get the names of the "other five" in the AIS
affair? Or do we have to wait and see which ones grow pony tails?

The names of the "other five" have been out for a couple of days now. You
obviously don't read newspapers.

Marty

Quoted message said:

Originally posted by Marty Wallace

Quoted message said:

"Spider1977" wrote in message BTW when are we going to get the names
of the "other five" in the AIS affair? Or do we have to wait and see
which ones grow pony tails?

The names of the "other five" have been out for a couple of days now.
You obviously don't read newspapers.

Well I don't.. so who are they?! :P

hippy

--

hippy said:

Quoted message said:

Originally posted by Marty Wallace

Quoted message said:

"Spider1977" wrote in message BTW when are we going to get the names
of the "other five" in the AIS affair? Or do we have to wait and see
which ones grow pony tails?

The names of the "other five" have been out for a couple of days now.
You obviously don't read newspapers.

Well I don't.. so who are they?! :P
hippy

Kelly, Lancaster, young-guy-Jobe?, Brown (who wrote in the Age today he
wasnt even in the state last year!!!) and Eadie supposedly

Sounds like the lad is lashing out, purely to make himself look
less stupid!

--

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Originally posted by Marty Wallace

Quoted message said:

"Spider1977" wrote in message BTW when are we going to get the names
of the "other five" in the AIS affair? Or do we have to wait and see
which ones grow pony tails?

The names of the "other five" have been out for a couple of days now.
You obviously don't read newspapers.

Well I don't.. so who are they?! :P

hippy

Former world champion cyclist Shane Kelly is among five cyclists named by
disgraced former teammate Mark French as having injected legal vitamin
supplements at the Australian Institute of Sport in Adelaide.

The other cyclists named by French in his statement to the Court of
Arbitration for Sport were Olympic hopefuls Sean Eadie, Jobie Dajka, Graeme
Browne and Brett Lancaster.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/24/1088046228556.html

Marty

Spider1977 said:

Milla rshould be wiped out of the sport for life, especially after his
vehement denials when the Cofidis affair first broke. What's the bet he
gets a 2 year slap on the wrist from UCI.

Have you never made a mistake in your life? A two year ban from
performing the one activity to which you have dedicated your life,
eliminating the sole form of income you earn, is more than a 'slap on
the wrist'. I'm as down on drug cheats as anyone else, but the riders
are only one aspect of a bigger picture. Life bans for them are
draconian.

How about as well as disciplining riders, we move the focus to the
organisations that encourage it. Directeur-sportif? Coach?
Manager? Soigneur?

--

Roadie_scum said:

Have you never made a mistake in your life? A two year ban from
performing the one activity to which you have dedicated your life,
eliminating the sole form of income you earn, is more than a 'slap on
the wrist'. I'm as down on drug cheats as anyone else, but the riders
are only one aspect of a bigger picture. Life bans for them are
draconian.
How about as well as disciplining riders, we move the focus to the
organisations that encourage it. Directeur-sportif? Coach?
Manager? Soigneur?

On your first point - please get real. These guys are told and told
about the risks they take both with their health and their careers.
Cycling is becoming an international joke and is now rightly viewed as a
pariah among sports. I find this extremely disappointing.

On your second point I entirely agree with you - give them life bans as
well. It's the only way to clean up the whole mess.

--

Quoted message said:

Originally posted by Spider1977 On your first point - please get real.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I am real G.
These guys are told and told about the risks they take both with their
health and their careers.
Maybe, but this doesn't mean that the punishment should exceed the crime
if they do transgress. Also, does the importance of this to you mean you
think they shouldn't get life bans if they can show they haven't
received education, or worse and quite likely, were part of a structure
which actively encouraged doping?
Cycling is becoming an international joke and is now rightly viewed as a
pariah among sports.
I'm not sure about this. Most people I speak to think that drugs in
sport are a bad thing, but not that it tarnishes only cycling. BALCO?
Ever seen Inga de Bruyn's expanding jawline? The number of 100m sprint
(running) olympic finalists with braces? (7/8)
And drugs don't tarnish the performances of those of us who are clean
either (at whatever level of the sport we compete).
I find this extremely disappointing.
If it were entirely true, so would I. To the extent that doping occurs,
yes, it is very disappointing.
On your second point I entirely agree with you - give them life bans as
well. It's the only way to clean up the whole mess.

I don't believe that my point was that officials and directors should be
given life bans. Financial penalties would likely be more effective.
Life bans negate the possibility of redemption for anyone; they might be
appropriate in the most extreme cases, but they offer negligible value
as a deterrent and there's no reason the punishment shouldn't fit the
crime in sport.

--

In article <[email hidden]>, usenet-
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Re: Drug-taking:

Cycling is becoming an international joke and is now rightly viewed as a
pariah among sports. I find this extremely disappointing.

Is this because more testing and investigation of cyclists takes place
than in other sports?

Cases in point: English Rugby World Cup team - why did they look so much
more "CUT" than other teams? Was it just the shirts?
American Football: do that many men really grow that big and
strong?
American Basketball: how tall?
Who was that Dutch female swimmer - so quick to soften her jawline
by letting her hair out of her cap?
The Irish female swimmer?
100m athletics track sprinter - which one?
Power Lifters?
What's the story with bodybuilders and Hollywood leading men?
The huge Australian heavyweight weightlifting Gold medallist (tuna
fisherman) who went back to being a "90lb weakling" after he finished
competition?

So you say: where's your proof? That's right - because cycling seems to
do more to catch some of its "cheaters" than other sports.

Sometimes it appears there is really only one clean rider in the pro
peloton?

--
Mark Lee

Mark Lee said:

In article <[email hidden]>, usenet-
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Re: Drug-taking:

Cycling is becoming an international joke and is now rightly viewed as a
pariah among sports. I find this extremely disappointing.

Is this because more testing and investigation of cyclists takes place
than in other sports?

Cases in point: English Rugby World Cup team - why did they look so much
more "CUT" than other teams? Was it just the shirts?

Was it a good/bad/different training program? Did they do a higher level
of endurance training to cut their body fat instead of the
strength/speed/agility based programs that most rugby players do? Did
they consume totally legal fat-metabolisers?

Quoted message said:

American Football: do that many men really grow that big and
strong?

No, they just wear a lot of padding. When you see them without their
padding on they're not that impressive. The dead giveaway that they're
not that huge is their legs.

Quoted message said:

American Basketball: how tall?
Who was that Dutch female swimmer - so quick to soften her jawline
by letting her hair out of her cap?

Do you mean Inge de Bruen? She's not very pretty, is she. That's
probably why she never got much publicity except for winning races. Was
she really letting her hair out of her cap to soften her jawline? Dunno
about you but I wouldn't care much about how I looked after winning a
huge race. For a start, I'm a triathlete and the first thing I do when I
hit the beach is rip off my goggles and cap. They're uncomfortable, the
goggles are great for underwater but not good on land and the swim cap
gets very hot. It's also the first thing I do at the end of a swim
session. I don't give a [censored] about softening my jawline.

Quoted message said:

The Irish female swimmer?

For a chick, I'm huge, particularly for a distance athlete. I don't use
drugs, never have and never will. It's all left over from when I was
fighting, and lifting weights, and gets maintained with a light
conditioning session once a week.

Quoted message said:

100m athletics track sprinter - which one?

They have been tested, they have been found wanting...

Quoted message said:

Power Lifters?

Yeah they scare me. They all put their joints at risk so that they have
to lower the bar less e.g. in the bench where they arch their backs as
much as possible. They should all be taking glucosamine.

Quoted message said:

What's the story with bodybuilders and Hollywood leading men?

Brad Pitt was airbrushed in Troy. Sorry girls, I know, I too wanted to
believe.

Quoted message said:

The huge Australian heavyweight weightlifting Gold medallist (tuna
fisherman) who went back to being a "90lb weakling" after he finished
competition?

Yeah that one is a bit sus, don't know the reference, maybe he got CFS
or something?

Quoted message said:

So you say: where's your proof? That's right - because cycling seems to
do more to catch some of its "cheaters" than other sports.

Sometimes it appears there is really only one clean rider in the pro
peloton?

--
Mark Lee

It's a sad thing to say but I guess it's a good thing. I mean, it's bad
if the sport gets portrayed badly as a result but it's great that
they're actually doing the testing, checking people out and punishing
them. Hopefully they can clean the sport up.

That being said I really don't think it's fair to question/test people
based on their appearances. Most drugs these days are a lot more hi-tech
than just making women look more masculine, etc., and really, do we need
to rub it in their faces any more? They know they ain't models, they're
athletes.

T

Quoted message said:

Originally posted by Tamyka Bell

Quoted message said:

Cases in point: English Rugby World Cup team - why did they look so
much more "CUT" than other teams? Was it just the shirts?

Did they consume totally legal fat-metabolisers?

Is there such a thing? I thought they were all simply amphetamines?

Quoted message said:

It's a sad thing to say but I guess it's a good thing. I mean, it's bad
if the sport gets portrayed badly as a result but it's great that
they're actually doing the testing, checking people out and punishing
them. Hopefully they can clean the sport up.

Sort of.. if they keep finding cheats, people will lose all respect for
the sport and not trust future performances. How do we know, once
positive results stop being found, that the athletes haven't simply
discovered a non-detectable drug? Once the sport is tarnished, like
cycling has been, there will, for a long time, remain an element of
doubt about the riders..

hippy

--

In article <[email hidden]>,

hippy said:

How do we know, once
positive results stop being found, that the athletes haven't simply
discovered a non-detectable drug?

None of the current "scandals" involve positive drug tests anyway --
they're all based on admissions, phone taps, searches, etc. The
expression "I've never tested positive" is becoming one of the most
meaningless in sport.

--
Shane Stanley

Tamyka Bell said:

Quoted message said:

The huge Australian heavyweight weightlifting Gold medallist
(tuna fisherman) who went back to being a "90lb weakling"
after he finished competition?

Yeah that one is a bit sus, don't know the reference, maybe he got CFS
or something?

That was Dean Luken (sp?)

He 'got' 7 years for Amphetmine importing/trafficking Hence his loss
of weight.

--

hippy said:

How do we know, once positive results stop being found, that the
athletes haven't simply discovered a non-detectable drug? hippy

Most drugs are non-detectable over a certain time-frame. Exogenous EPO
can't be detected by any current test after about 2 weeks. Riders go to
Spain, or Mexico, South America or Asia, shoot up and train, and come
back in a little while to race and test totally clean. Athletes don't
need to discover non-detectable drugs when they can second guess the
testers and it clears their system quickly anyway. And don't think that
because the drugs leave their system they are no longer an advantage -
drug takers increase their capacity to train, and so get fitness
benefits that last much longer than the time it takes the drugs to leave
their body.

And then there are the 'non-detectables' like insulin-like growth
factors and human (and other forms of) growth hormones. There are also
many other borderline cases like testosterone and some anabolics which
are detectable in certain dosages over certain timeframes.

I say blood and urine test every athlete once a week every week from 6
weeks out from Athens until they have competed, and see who wins then.
Maybe that's not practical, but if the testers want to get smart, pre-
competition testing for some athletes is essential in the 6-1 week prior
time period.

--

Quoted message said:

Originally posted by Roadie_scum

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I say blood and urine test every athlete once a week every >week from 6
weeks out from Athens until they have competed, >and see who wins then.
Maybe that's not practical, but if the >testers want to get smart, pre-
competition testing for some >athletes is essential in the 6-1 week
prior time period.

With a seemingly impossible task like this, would it be better to just
let athletes free-for-all?

If it's so easy to cheat and "test clean" - why spend all this money on
testing? Why not just let them all do whatever they want and risk their
own lives?

They are still catching people so maybe druggie prep isn't quite at 100%
yet - the athletes need more practice with quantities and timeframes?
Once they start pooling data though, they are going be totally
undetectable and then it'll take huge dollars to reveal the cheats..

It's all so frustrating (for me at least!) to see some people getting
away with it and some being caught. Either test them so often there is
no chance of cheating or don't test at all! Arr!

Maybe all future Olympics should be like Big Brother... lock all the
athletes in a building with enough food and drink for a year and don't
let anything else in. They train for 12 months with what they've got
'inside' and then they compete. It would be similar to having control
tyres and control engines as in some forms of car racing...

--

hippy said:

Maybe all future Olympics should be like Big Brother... lock all the
athletes in a building with enough food and drink for a year and don't
let anything else in. They train for 12 months with what they've got
'inside' and then they compete. It would be similar to having control
tyres and control engines as in some forms of car racing...

Brilliant!

But they'd probably go tribal and eat each other for post-ride protein-
loading...

--