Eliminate Dope Testing in Pro Cycling

Zub, you are the weakest link and eliminated for being retarded, goodbye.

JC

[email hidden] (J DASH ME) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Zub, you are the weakest link and eliminated for being retarded, goodbye.

Actually, you're the poster child for my position. Look where you are
today. You're an excellent athlete who is intelligent enough to
realize that taking dope has long-term negative effects that aren't
worth the risk or the benefits. You got into the sport when you were
young, probably believing that it was "clean" for the most part and
that the most naturally-talented and well-trained rider would prevail.

But when you got to the international big leagues, something happened.
You didn't progress to the very top. You were talented enough to grab
a win here and there, but despite your superior abilities, training,
and ambition, it didn't happen. You realized that it was due to
something else - dope - and you railed against it. You believed the
marketing on dope testing that it would "purify" the sport and
convinced yourself it would work so that you could achieve your goals.
You desperately wanted to salvage the work you'd put into the sport.

But it was a false dream. You saw guys you knew were dirty pass test
after test, winning races you knew that you could have won. You saw
some of your friends get falsely accused of doping (due to testing
errors and unreliable tests) and have no way of fighting it. You saw
more and more money go towards paying for testing, more and more
sponsorships dry up as athletes were branded as "cheaters". You became
disillusioned.

What if you'd looked the pro side of the sport with your eyes wide
open from the start? Knowing that drug use was part of the sport and
keeping on a level playing field? You'd have likely used your
intellect and said, "this is stupid, I'm going to get a degree and go
into a profession where I don't have to dope to compete". You'd have
known.

Zub

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (J DASH ME) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Zub, you are the weakest link and eliminated for being retarded, goodbye.

Actually, you're the poster child for my position. Look where you are
today. You're an excellent athlete who is intelligent enough to
realize that taking dope has long-term negative effects that aren't
worth the risk or the benefits. You got into the sport when you were
young, probably believing that it was "clean" for the most part and
that the most naturally-talented and well-trained rider would prevail.

But when you got to the international big leagues, something happened.
You didn't progress to the very top. You were talented enough to grab
a win here and there, but despite your superior abilities, training,
and ambition, it didn't happen. You realized that it was due to
something else - dope - and you railed against it. You believed the
marketing on dope testing that it would "purify" the sport and
convinced yourself it would work so that you could achieve your goals.
You desperately wanted to salvage the work you'd put into the sport.

But it was a false dream. You saw guys you knew were dirty pass test
after test, winning races you knew that you could have won. You saw
some of your friends get falsely accused of doping (due to testing
errors and unreliable tests) and have no way of fighting it. You saw
more and more money go towards paying for testing, more and more
sponsorships dry up as athletes were branded as "cheaters". You became
disillusioned.

What if you'd looked the pro side of the sport with your eyes wide
open from the start? Knowing that drug use was part of the sport and
keeping on a level playing field? You'd have likely used your
intellect and said, "this is stupid, I'm going to get a degree and go
into a profession where I don't have to dope to compete". You'd have
known.

Zub

Actually, you are partly right BUT still, mostly wrong.

I got 5th in the Olympics - 100 percent clean. Almost had a medal, pretty
happy with that. Wouldn't have been happy if I won and took [censored]. Just won
the World Cup in Moscow last month so "still standing, still strong" and the
sport gets cleaner every month. They are catching so many guys now that
"depends diapers" are selling like mad cuz all the cheats are [censored] their
pants. Four years ago, check out how many people they were busting - now look,
virtually every week there is a new list of the recently suspended.

New testing is working and catching up!!!

The dark evil days are coming to an end and that is why I have my young Team.
They will have a much cleaner and safer time to race than me.

I have survived probably the biggest doping phase of this sport (1995-2004) and
I am happy with the decisions I have made.

USADA and WADA still don't do things exactly the way I would but they are
improving.

As for those guys that fail drug tests and claim that they are falsely labeled,
I say [censored]. I seriously doubt it. I have been tested since 1985, have
been on the NAN list since then and I have never failed a test. How can I pass
a 100+ tests without a false positive?

You say that things are significantly better than 4 years ago in dope
testing and that "virtually every week there is a new list of the
recently suspended". This overstates the case, certainly for US
cycling. Here's a link to the latest report for 2004 sanctions at
USADA:
http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/resources/press_releases/USADAsanctions101904.pdf

In all of 2004, through October 19th, only 4 US cyclists received any
sanctions at all. One wasn't even a US citizen (Jeanson), and the
USADA's response to her case was extremely inconsistent with other such
cases (warning for what has been a suspension in other cases). Another
case was a warning for a inadvertant OTC drug use mistake (Zajicek). As
for the two EPO cases, Sbeih would have challenged the result if he
could have forked over $50K+ to mount a challenge.

While there have been a couple of more sanctions since this report (and
one was for THC, hardly a performance-enhancing drug), it's nothing
like the "one a week" situation you describe. If you expand it to
world-wide use in cycling, it still does not approach this level. It's
likely an increase over four years ago, but considering the increased
emphasis and expanded testing, it's hardly a groundswell.

As for your never having a false positive and your doubt that such a
thing is even possible, it's hard to know what to think here, since
contesting a positive test result is extremely difficult and expensive
under the current system. Don't forget that over the time that you've
been tested (since '85), only in the past few years have tests with
serious issues regarding sensitivity and selectivity (e.g. EPO test,
HGH test) have been implemented. I suspect that the majority of your
100+ negative results predate the current period, so the apparent risk
today of a false positive may be greater than your record indicates.
Zub

Every week on cyclingnews.com they list the new sanctions in the news.

Four years ago, maybe there was a single person caught a month.

I agree with J-ME. Cheaters are on the run right now. They'd be
really frigging stupid to think they can beat the current system. In
the past, testing proceedures were announced well in advance, and in
baby-steps. Then Tyker suddenly gets [censored]-slapped and everything gets
turned upside down for them.

I say: Keep the pressure up.

Quoted message said:

I agree with J-ME. Cheaters are on the run right now. They'd be
really frigging stupid to think they can beat the current system.

<snip>

Dumbass -

Someone always has a way to beat the system. That's the way it's been,
the way that it is and the way it always will be.

The only thing the system can control is the degree of the cheating. It
cannot eliminate it. If the system becomes aware of some new method or
substance, it means that a group has already been using it with
impunity.

K. Gringioni.

On 12/08/2004 03:19 PM, in article
[email hidden], "J DASH ME" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Every week on cyclingnews.com they list the new sanctions in the news.

Four years ago, maybe there was a single person caught a month.

So, J-dash-me ...

When are we going to see sanctions against the most vocal Amercian cyclist
who has admitted to doping? Since a public admission is seen as the same
thing as a postiive dope test, I expect to hear of DeCanio's suspension any
day now.

After all, shouldn't the rules be applied fairly and equally to all riders
who have doped?

--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash

Steven L. Sheffield said:

On 12/08/2004 03:19 PM, in article
[email hidden], "J DASH ME" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Every week on cyclingnews.com they list the new sanctions in the news.

Four years ago, maybe there was a single person caught a month.

So, J-dash-me ...

When are we going to see sanctions against the most vocal Amercian cyclist
who has admitted to doping? Since a public admission is seen as the same
thing as a postiive dope test, I expect to hear of DeCanio's suspension any
day now.

After all, shouldn't the rules be applied fairly and equally to all riders
who have doped?

Fairly is not the same as equally. Someone who volunteers that he/she
doped should be treated much more leniently than someone caught.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

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

Quoted message said:

Dumbass -

This has always struck me as the pot etc.

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Fairly is not the same as equally. Someone who volunteers that he/she
doped should be treated much more leniently than someone caught.

JT

In some cases, yes. I don't see much difference between a person that
confesses when caught and someone that feels they are the next on the
list. No more innocence or contrition - just a bit less backbone.

Someone that volunteers before they make any lists or feel the heat,
yes.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

In article <[email hidden]>,

Curtis L. Russell said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Fairly is not the same as equally. Someone who volunteers that he/she
doped should be treated much more leniently than someone caught.

JT

In some cases, yes. I don't see much difference between a person that
confesses when caught and someone that feels they are the next on the
list. No more innocence or contrition - just a bit less backbone.

I think that he was not talking of someone who "feels they are next on
the list" but of someone like Jerome Chiotti.

jyh.

--
=====================================================================
jean-yves herve' /\
Department of Computer Science \/ e-mail --> [email hidden]
and Statistics /\
University of Rhode Island \/ Tel. --> (401) 874-4400
Kingston, RI 02881-0816 /\ Fax. --> (401) 874-4617
USA \/
=====================================================================

Millar admitted to doping, and got thrown out of the sport for 2
years. What's to stop the federation from doing the same to Decanio?
That's if he races again or takes out a license.

Tom