LANDIS DECISION DUE

datakoll said:

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/sports/sports-cycling-doping-landis.html

That little write up was the most informative and concise summary of
the whole deal I've seen yet.

Joseph

email hidden said:

datakoll said:

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/sports/sports-cycling-doping-landis.html

That little write up was the most informative and concise summary of
the whole deal I've seen yet.

One of the claims there is that testosterone can speed up recovery
after exercise. Aside from the one article that was quote by the group
nutcake, there doesn't seem to be any reliable claims of such things.

As I said before, if you cannot demonstrate reliable scientific
studies that show such actions you should not be able to press charges
against people as if beliefs were proof.

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

Quoted message said:

email hidden said:

datakoll said:

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/sports/sports-cycling-doping-landis.html

That little write up was the most informative and concise summary of
the whole deal I've seen yet.

One of the claims there is that testosterone can speed up recovery
after exercise. Aside from the one article that was quote by the group
nutcake, there doesn't seem to be any reliable claims of such things.

Trying to prove/disprove that testosterone is performance enhancing is
silly. Having testosterone, not produced by your body, in your sample is
against the rules. The "Why would I take testosterone when it doesn't do
anything" defense is stupid.

Quoted message said:

email hidden said:

datakoll said:

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/sports/sports-cycling-doping-landis.html

That little write up was the most informative and concise summary of
the whole deal I've seen yet.

One of the claims there is that testosterone can speed up recovery
after exercise. Aside from the one article that was quote by the group
nutcake, there doesn't seem to be any reliable claims of such things.

As I said before, if you cannot demonstrate reliable scientific
studies that show such actions you should not be able to press charges
against people as if beliefs were proof.

Testosterone is an anabolic steroid - it does precisely that. What's
more Jesus Manzano, Sinkabitch, and Joe Papp all state that using
testosterone patches is commonplace in pro cycling. For you to come in
here and claim testosterone doesn't help is irrelevant.

The fact is, cyclists take it and they claim it helps them. End of
argument.

Magilla

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

email hidden said:

On Sep 17, 3:37 pm, datakoll <[email hidden]> wrote:

>http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/sports/sports-cycling-doping-landis.html

That little write up was the most informative and concise summary of
the whole deal I've seen yet.

One of the claims there is that testosterone can speed up recovery
after exercise. Aside from the one article that was quote by the group
nutcake, there doesn't seem to be any reliable claims of such things.

Trying to prove/disprove that testosterone is performance enhancing is
silly. Having testosterone, not produced by your body, in your sample is
against the rules. The "Why would I take testosterone when it doesn't do
anything" defense is stupid.

Then why not determine that vitamins not obtained through your food are the
same sort of additive? Or minerals? Or any number of things that people take
simply because they believe it makes them better despite evidence that it
does absolutely nothing?

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Sep 17, 11:29 am, "[email hidden]"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
> On Sep 17, 3:37 pm, datakoll <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/sports/sports-cycling-doping-landis.html
>
> That little write up was the most informative and concise summary of
> the whole deal I've seen yet.

One of the claims there is that testosterone can speed up recovery
after exercise. Aside from the one article that was quote by the group
nutcake, there doesn't seem to be any reliable claims of such things.

Trying to prove/disprove that testosterone is performance enhancing is
silly. Having testosterone, not produced by your body, in your sample is
against the rules. The "Why would I take testosterone when it doesn't do
anything" defense is stupid.

Then why not determine that vitamins not obtained through your food are
the same sort of additive? Or minerals? Or any number of things that
people take simply because they believe it makes them better despite
evidence that it does absolutely nothing?

Are they on the banded list?

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

email hidden said:

On Sep 17, 3:37 pm, datakoll <[email hidden]> wrote:

>http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/sports/sports-cycling-doping-landis.html

That little write up was the most informative and concise summary of
the whole deal I've seen yet.

One of the claims there is that testosterone can speed up recovery
after exercise. Aside from the one article that was quote by the group
nutcake, there doesn't seem to be any reliable claims of such things.

As I said before, if you cannot demonstrate reliable scientific
studies that show such actions you should not be able to press charges
against people as if beliefs were proof.

Testosterone is an anabolic steroid - it does precisely that. What's more
Jesus Manzano, Sinkabitch, and Joe Papp all state that using testosterone
patches is commonplace in pro cycling. For you to come in here and claim
testosterone doesn't help is irrelevant.

The fact is, cyclists take it and they claim it helps them. End of
argument.

What he said.

Cycling has a long tradition of riders trying to get an edge by using
substances. Time and science have proven that many of the substances were
not performance enhancing, with many actually hurt performance. The result
of these attempts to gain an edge was to develop a list of prohibited
substances. It doesn't matter if the substance didn't help performance...it
matters if it is on the list.

Testosterone was on the banned list in 2006. If Floyd used it during the
2006 cycling season, he cheated. Playing the "testosterone doesn't help
cyclists" card is simply a game of three card monty.

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

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Then why not determine that vitamins not obtained through your food are
the same sort of additive? Or minerals? Or any number of things that
people take simply because they believe it makes them better despite
evidence that it does absolutely nothing?

Are they on the banded list?

Frank, are you being purposely evasive? How did anything get on the banned
list? Remember when caffeine was on the banned list? And salbutomol which is
so commonly prescribed for asthmatics?

Why the scum-sucking jackasses here were complaining when those sprays were
made legal.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Testosterone is an anabolic steroid - it does precisely that.

OK Genius - what is "that"?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What's more Jesus Manzano, Sinkabitch, and Joe Papp all state that using
testosterone patches is commonplace in pro cycling. For you to come in
here and claim testosterone doesn't help is irrelevant.

The fact is, cyclists take it and they claim it helps them. End of
argument.

What he said.

Cycling has a long tradition of riders trying to get an edge by using
substances.

Again - caffeine? Vitamins? Minerals of various sorts? There's no doubt that
E-caps give you a BIG boost. Legal or illegal simply because they're
encasulated and are available in food?

Quoted message said:

Time and science have proven that many of the substances were not
performance enhancing, with many actually hurt performance. The result of
these attempts to gain an edge was to develop a list of prohibited
substances. It doesn't matter if the substance didn't help
performance...it matters if it is on the list.

You would have made a good Nazi.

Tom Kunich said:

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

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Then why not determine that vitamins not obtained through your food
are the same sort of additive? Or minerals? Or any number of things
that people take simply because they believe it makes them better
despite evidence that it does absolutely nothing?

Are they on the banded list?

Frank, are you being purposely evasive? How did anything get on the
banned list? Remember when caffeine was on the banned list? And
salbutomol which is so commonly prescribed for asthmatics?

Why the scum-sucking jackasses here were complaining when those sprays
were made legal.

Cyclists use caffeine for performance enhancement. The stuff on the
banned list is there for a reason.

Do you really beleive 30% of the cyclists in the Tour de France have
clinical asthma or are simply getting TUE's to cover for their doping
intentions?

Magilla

MagillaGorilla said:

Cyclists use caffeine for performance enhancement. The stuff on the
banned list is there for a reason.

Caffeine hasn't been on the banned list for 3 or 4 years.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Frank Drackman said:

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

Quoted message said:

email hidden said:

On Sep 17, 3:37 pm, datakoll <[email hidden]> wrote:

>http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/sports/sports-cycling-doping-landis.html

That little write up was the most informative and concise summary of
the whole deal I've seen yet.

One of the claims there is that testosterone can speed up recovery
after exercise. Aside from the one article that was quote by the group
nutcake, there doesn't seem to be any reliable claims of such things.

Trying to prove/disprove that testosterone is performance enhancing is
silly. Having testosterone, not produced by your body, in your sample is
against the rules. The "Why would I take testosterone when it doesn't do
anything" defense is stupid.

I have always been fascinated by that argument.

"I am innocent. Why would I do anything so stupid?"

It's beautiful.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press said:

I have always been fascinated by that argument.

"I am innocent. Why would I do anything so stupid?"

It's beautiful.

Ask OJ.

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

Quoted message said:

Cyclists use caffeine for performance enhancement. The stuff on the
banned list is there for a reason.

Caffeine? Banned list?

Quoted message said:

Do you really beleive 30% of the cyclists in the Tour de France have
clinical asthma or are simply getting TUE's to cover for their doping
intentions?

I have a buddy who seems to have one of those leg artery restrictions like
O'Grady, Bobby Lea, Ryan Cox, and numerous other riders have suffered from.
It onl shows up during/after hard, hard efforts. If he was simply your man
on the street, there would be no symptoms whatsoever. Even on the bike, he
has to achieve a certain level of fitness before the restriction becomes a
problem (numbness in leg, decrease of power in leg). He is looking into
having it surgically corrected during the off season.

What % of the general population has that arterial restriction? What % of
top level cyclists? Does the general population monitor their health and
address health issues to the same degree as top level cyclists? If the
general population were to exercise to the same degree and intensity as top
level cyclists, I wouldn't be surprised if 30% of them had EIB.

Carl Sundquist said:

What % of the general population has that arterial restriction? What % of
top level cyclists? Does the general population monitor their health and
address health issues to the same degree as top level cyclists? If the
general population were to exercise to the same degree and intensity as top
level cyclists, I wouldn't be surprised if 30% of them had EIB.

Perhaps related, note the TV ads for medicine to treat "restless
legs".

Even at the "elite parking lot level", especially in cold, wet
weather, listen to the hacking. "Don't slip in the floogies". Does
salbutamol (or other similar-use substances) help? You take it and
hope.

There isn't a solution to the "doping problem", including trying to
intimidate by making examples of those *accused* of using banned
substances. --D-y

Carl Sundquist said:

What % of the general population has that arterial restriction? What % of
top level cyclists? Does the general population monitor their health and
address health issues to the same degree as top level cyclists? If the
general population were to exercise to the same degree and intensity as top
level cyclists, I wouldn't be surprised if 30% of them had EIB.

http://www.bc.lung.ca/mediaroom/news_releases/nr_6_2006.html
Quoted:

dramatic increase in the incidence of asthma in our country over the
last decade has been blamed, in part, on environmental factors. Smog
and tiny sooty particles pose particular problems for asthma
sufferers. Besides triggering attacks, breathing in ozone can singe
your lungs much like sunburn, and repeated exposure over years can
cause permanent lung damage.

You can find plenty of reading out there linking the decline in air
quality to the increase in asthma. I'd be hard pressed to come up with
any human beings who move more air through their lungs, for a longer
period of time, than pro cyclists.
So yeah, 30% sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Bill C

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

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

Why the scum-sucking jackasses here were complaining when those sprays
were made legal.

Cyclists use caffeine for performance enhancement. The stuff on the
banned list is there for a reason.

Speaking of the devil.

Of course with the brain of a small mammal you avoid the fact that caffeine
occurs naturally in many foods and drinks and that you achieve your maximum
boost from caffeine from the amount in about one cup of coffee. Of course
that didn't keep some people from shoving caffeine suppositories up their
butts but then that just turns people like magilla on. The effect was to not
make one wit of difference in their performance while threatening their
lives from stroke.

Hey, if people like magilla want to kill themselves I'm all for it.

Quoted message said:

Do you really beleive 30% of the cyclists in the Tour de France have
clinical asthma or are simply getting TUE's to cover for their doping
intentions?

In case you've missed the studies I'm sure that you can look them up from
your high position. In fact outdoor athletes who are exposed to allergens a
great deal of the time and who breath these in deeply and who otherwise eat
very clean and healthy foods develop a much higher rate of asthma than the
general population.

But then it doesn't really matter to you does it? Because you aren't
motivated by any real knowledge, only by the ability to read contrarian
views of the world around you. And since you don't have the ability to
determine up from down you actually believe it.

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Frank Drackman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Cycling has a long tradition of riders trying to get an edge by using
substances.

Again - caffeine? Vitamins? Minerals of various sorts? There's no doubt that
E-caps give you a BIG boost. Legal or illegal simply because they're
encasulated and are available in food?

Right, Mallejac, Simpson, Riviere...they were on vitamins.
pl

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Then why not determine that vitamins not obtained through your food are
the same sort of additive? Or minerals? Or any number of things that
people take simply because they believe it makes them better despite
evidence that it does absolutely nothing?

Are they on the banded list?

Frank, are you being purposely evasive?

Not at all

How did anything get on the banned

Quoted message said:

list? Remember when caffeine was on the banned list? And salbutomol which
is so commonly prescribed for asthmatics?

I don't care how it got on the list. If any rider wants to challenge the
list they can. It is not a credable defence to challenge the effectiveness
of a substance after you have been caught with it in your urine.

Quoted message said:

Why the scum-sucking jackasses here were complaining when those sprays
were made legal.