If Lance DID dope

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

Quoted message said:

If evidence shows up that Lance did use EPO pre-cancer but not after,
therefore not in any of his Tour de France wins...does it really matter?

I'm pretty sure that Lance used EPO as part of his cancer treatment.
I'm also pretty sure I saw on ads for Procrit.
----------------
Alex

Alex Rodriguez said:

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

Quoted message said:

If evidence shows up that Lance did use EPO pre-cancer but not after,
therefore not in any of his Tour de France wins...does it really matter?

I'm pretty sure that Lance used EPO as part of his cancer treatment.
I'm also pretty sure I saw on ads for Procrit.
----------------
Alex

So, do you think that had anything to do with how fast he climbs, 7
years later?

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

Quoted message said:

If evidence shows up that Lance did use EPO pre-cancer but not after,
therefore not in any of his Tour de France wins...does it really matter?

Of course it does. It makes him a liar and a cheat. Further, you would never
have strong enough evidence for him being clean if it can be shown that he
ever doped. It does not matter when doped. Unless he admits it on his own,
any evidence of doping in the past fortifies suspicions that he is doping
now.

Quoted message said:

Is digging for all this dirt going to help anyone (exept for the people
sellig books)?

I am not sure who will benefit since I don't have all of the information. Do
you? If all it does is "sell books", why do you care?

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

Quoted message said:

Alex Rodriguez said:

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

Quoted message said:

If evidence shows up that Lance did use EPO pre-cancer but not after,
therefore not in any of his Tour de France wins...does it really matter?

I'm pretty sure that Lance used EPO as part of his cancer treatment.
I'm also pretty sure I saw on ads for Procrit.
----------------
Alex

So, do you think that had anything to do with how fast he climbs, 7
years later?

That is not really a straight forward question but I do see your point. It
helped him recover, so yes it did. He was entitled to take it, if that is
what you really mean to ask. Any cyclist that is ill deserves all of the
medicine and technology that anyone else who is sick would receive.

"Chris" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

If evidence shows up that Lance did use EPO pre-cancer but not after,
therefore not in any of his Tour de France wins...does it really
matter?

Of course it does. It makes him a liar and a cheat. Further, you would
never have strong enough evidence for him being clean if it can be
shown that he ever doped. It does not matter when doped. Unless he
admits it on his own, any evidence of doping in the past fortifies
suspicions that he is doping now.

Quoted message said:

Is digging for all this dirt going to help anyone (exept for the
people sellig books)?

I am not sure who will benefit since I don't have all of the
information. Do you? If all it does is "sell books", why do you care?

Well, if someone made stuff up to get rich at your expence, would you care?

Also, if Lance used EPO on Motorola but has since sworn it off and didn't
use it to win his Tours why does it matter. It may mean he *was* a cheat
but he isn't now or even recently.

What you're saying then is that if someone (anyone) ever does anything
wrong they can never, ever be forgiven of it even if they quit whatever it
was they were doing on their own accord.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

snip<
What you're saying then is that if someone (anyone) ever does anything
wrong they can never, ever be forgiven of it even if they quit whatever it
was they were doing on their own accord.

I do think that policy needs to be implemented. It would send the message
that you only have one chance. Risk it and you are out for good.

Ken

In article <[email hidden]>,

IMKen said:

Quoted message said:

What you're saying then is that if someone (anyone) ever does anything
wrong they can never, ever be forgiven of it even if they quit whatever it
was they were doing on their own accord.

I do think that policy needs to be implemented. It would send the message
that you only have one chance. Risk it and you are out for good.

How fast can Jesus climb L'Alpe d'Huez?

Max
--

"IMKen" <[email hidden]> wrote in .com>...

Quoted message said:

"Charlie C." <[email hidden]> wrote .1.4...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

snip<
What you're saying then is that if someone (anyone) ever does anything
wrong they can never, ever be forgiven of it even if they quit whatever it
was they were doing on their own accord.

I do think that policy needs to be implemented. It would send the message
that you only have one chance. Risk it and you are out for good.
Ken

Assuming two things:

- the tests are 99.99% accurate for the substance they're looking for
(false positives can never convict someone)
- the athlete ADMITS taking illegal performance enhancging drugs

-Ken

IMKen said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

snip<
What you're saying then is that if someone (anyone) ever does anything
wrong they can never, ever be forgiven of it even if they quit whatever it
was they were doing on their own accord.

I do think that policy needs to be implemented. It would send the message
that you only have one chance. Risk it and you are out for good.

You are such a dope.

JT

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

Quoted message said:

What you're saying then is that if someone (anyone) ever does anything
wrong they can never, ever be forgiven of it even if they quit whatever it
was they were doing on their own accord.

The question of sports-doping is a bit more complex, is it not? Some
illegal enhancers can and do have lasting if not permanent effects.
Anabolic steroids for example. EPO, probably not, but do we know this
for sure?

And what about downstream, tertiary effects? Rider X takes EPO for
three years early in his career while his twin brother does not. Rider
X kicks butt and gets himself a nice slot on a high budget team where
he is paid to ride, gets all the best soigners and coaching,
dieticians, Euro-racing experience, etc. His brother does not get the
results and the sweet team ride, works part time at Home Depot and
gets to race domestically when he can afford it. Soon, he washes out
of cycling and goes to law school. Later on, Rider X fesses up to
earlier cheating but says "hey I've been clean for the past 5 years,
though" and everyone say oh, okay, no prob, nice that you are so
honest.

Is this fair? Should he be "forgiven"?

Substitute intent instead of accident in the Lance story and we'd have
an interesting debate. Suppose an aspiring racer found a mystery
compound or treatment which made his body waste and did bad stuff to
his red count. He then goes to the Drs who prescribe a course of EPO
for the red count and steroids for the muscle wasting. Whenever the
Docs allow, the racer goes back to training. Eventually, the Docs
decide he's better and take him off the EPO and 'roids. So now we have
a racer who has dropped a whole bunch of weight off his frame and then
built his body back up with steroids and EPO in the context of
bike-specific training. Sounds like a good way to build a champion to
me.

Lance isn't a cheater for having gotten cancer and having this plan
happen to him by accident. But I would like some more detail on the
overlap of his EPO (and other therapeutic) treatment post cancer and
his getting back to training, myself.

"Charlie C." <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

What you're saying then is that if someone (anyone) ever does anything
wrong they can never, ever be forgiven of it even if they quit whatever it
was they were doing on their own accord.

You sound like you're about to tell your wife you've been cheating on her.

She'll answer 'Yes. Why?'.

You'll say 'No reason'.

"Max Chuang" <mach@[nospam]csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

IMKen said:

Quoted message said:

What you're saying then is that if someone (anyone) ever does

anything

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wrong they can never, ever be forgiven of it even if they quit

whatever it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

was they were doing on their own accord.

I do think that policy needs to be implemented. It would send the

message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that you only have one chance. Risk it and you are out for good.

How fast can Jesus climb L'Alpe d'Huez?

Max
--

9000000 vm/s

In article <[email hidden]>,

[email protected] (Max Chuang) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

IMKen said:

Quoted message said:

What you're saying then is that if someone (anyone) ever does anything
wrong they can never, ever be forgiven of it even if they quit whatever it
was they were doing on their own accord.

I do think that policy needs to be implemented. It would send the message
that you only have one chance. Risk it and you are out for good.

How fast can Jesus climb L'Alpe d'Huez?

Manzano dropped out the stage before L'Alpe d'Huez last year.

--
tanx,
Howard

So far, so good, so what?

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

IMKen said:

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

Quoted message said:

>
snip<
What you're saying then is that if someone (anyone) ever does anything
wrong they can never, ever be forgiven of it even if they quit whatever

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

was they were doing on their own accord.

I do think that policy needs to be implemented. It would send the

message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that you only have one chance. Risk it and you are out for good.

You are such a dope.

JT

Why is he a dope?

JT, are you worried about yourself or a good friend? I still say kick
the cheaters out for life.

Ken

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

IMKen said:

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

Quoted message said:

>
snip<
What you're saying then is that if someone (anyone) ever does anything
wrong they can never, ever be forgiven of it even if they quit whatever

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

was they were doing on their own accord.

I do think that policy needs to be implemented. It would send the

message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that you only have one chance. Risk it and you are out for good.

You are such a dope.

JT

[email hidden] (mike taffe) wrote in message news> Substitute intent instead of accident in the Lance story and we'd have

Quoted message said:

an interesting debate. Suppose an aspiring racer found a mystery
compound or treatment which made his body waste and did bad stuff to
his red count. He then goes to the Drs who prescribe a course of EPO
for the red count and steroids for the muscle wasting. Whenever the
Docs allow, the racer goes back to training. Eventually, the Docs
decide he's better and take him off the EPO and 'roids. So now we have
a racer who has dropped a whole bunch of weight off his frame and then
built his body back up with steroids and EPO in the context of
bike-specific training. Sounds like a good way to build a champion to
me.

Lance isn't a cheater for having gotten cancer and having this plan
happen to him by accident. But I would like some more detail on the
overlap of his EPO (and other therapeutic) treatment post cancer and
his getting back to training, myself.

No, sounds like a way to build a champion for at most a season. EPO
and steriods have lasting effects compared to caffeine, but they
aren't permanent.

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

Quoted message said:

"Chris" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

If evidence shows up that Lance did use EPO pre-cancer but not after,
therefore not in any of his Tour de France wins...does it really
matter?

Of course it does. It makes him a liar and a cheat. Further, you would
never have strong enough evidence for him being clean if it can be
shown that he ever doped. It does not matter when doped. Unless he
admits it on his own, any evidence of doping in the past fortifies
suspicions that he is doping now.

Quoted message said:

Is digging for all this dirt going to help anyone (exept for the
people sellig books)?

I am not sure who will benefit since I don't have all of the
information. Do you? If all it does is "sell books", why do you care?

Well, if someone made stuff up to get rich at your expence, would you

care?

It depends on the specifics. I care about Lance because he is the largest
single icon of my chosen sport.

Quoted message said:

Also, if Lance used EPO on Motorola but has since sworn it off and didn't
use it to win his Tours why does it matter. It may mean he *was* a cheat
but he isn't now or even recently.

It may, but that is not a logical interpretation.

Quoted message said:

What you're saying then is that if someone (anyone) ever does anything
wrong they can never, ever be forgiven of it even if they quit whatever it
was they were doing on their own accord.

No, I am not. I am saying that with the situation the way it is with EPO,
learning someone was a user in the past is one more data point that
indicates current use. The situation you want to describe can not
realistically exist. If there was *proof* of reform that would be different.
I can't imagine any such proof and the strongest evidence of reform is to
volunteer your past errors and then state when it ended. If he were to get
caught, of course it is in his best interest to simply *then* claim "yeah,
sure I did it then but you can't prove, I mean I never did it for the Tour".
If you can't see the difference then you don't understand anything I have
said. Too bad for you.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

snip<
What you're saying then is that if someone (anyone) ever does anything
wrong they can never, ever be forgiven of it even if they quit whatever

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

was they were doing on their own accord.

I do think that policy needs to be implemented. It would send the

message

Quoted message said:

that you only have one chance. Risk it and you are out for good.

Ken

I only agree because there is no way to confidently keep past cheaters
honest. It would be as if we allowed rapists to go free without any way to
know if they will attack again. Most jurisdictions require very strict
tracking, thank God. There is no way to do this currently with EPO cheats.
If this changes then we can reconsider what the appropriate punishment is
under those new circumstances. As it is now, there are people back from
suspension that are still assumed to be doping by the majority of followers
of cyclesport (although not by me). That alone is reason enough to ban until
proof of innocence is possible.

"K. J. Papai" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"IMKen" <[email hidden]> wrote in .com>...

Quoted message said:

"Charlie C." <[email hidden]> wrote .1.4...

Quoted message said:

>
snip<
What you're saying then is that if someone (anyone) ever does anything
wrong they can never, ever be forgiven of it even if they quit

whatever it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

was they were doing on their own accord.

I do think that policy needs to be implemented. It would send the

message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that you only have one chance. Risk it and you are out for good.
Ken

Assuming two things:

- the tests are 99.99% accurate for the substance they're looking for
(false positives can never convict someone)
- the athlete ADMITS taking illegal performance enhancging drugs

-Ken

Duh, so punish those that want to "come clean" and confess? OK Ken.

Some wisely point out that perhaps having amnesty for a period that allows
dopers to come forward and assist the UCI in assuring that most if not all
are clean may be the only realistic chance at changing things from what we
have now. The worst aspect of the situation now is that it really is almost
foolish for a rider to come forward, and the public perception is that most
endurance athletes use "miracle dope" to cheat. The races are no longer seen
as heroic but rather as something anyone who prepares properly (by doping)
can endure. Cycling is interesting to more people than ever but in many
cases this is not a good thing to happen.