Restating the obvious

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"benjo maso" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

(snip)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I think the Festina affair opened the door for targeting cycling.

I'm afraid you're wrong. The first time bicycle racing was subjected to
a police raid was already in 1965. From the beginning of an anti-doping
legislation on bicycle racing has always been targeted. Actually, even
before. For instance, the proposed statute of the first Belgian
anti-doping law (also in 1965) began with the statement that is was
"prohibited for participants in bicycle races or other sports
competitions to avail themselves of stimulating agents".

IIRC Benjo, you are a sociologist. Can you explain why cycling would be
focused on like that? Was it a reflection of the status of cycle racing
in Belgium at the time or was it related to a particular incident?

I have already tried to explain it before (see
http://groups.google.nl/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_thread/thread/3c46b1fbd3b81440/e7305136e1ddf59d?lnk=st&q=helsinki+benjo&rnum=4&hl=nl#e7305136e1ddf59d).

Ah yes, I remember that post. Thanks for the reminder and link.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>That, and the public arrogance/denial of cyclists and the UCI that there
>was/is a signifiicant problem in the sport.

Of course they denied. Whet else could they do? And let's be fair, for
more than twenty years it has been very effective.

> It's not as though the Italian raid on the riders hotels during the
> Giro didn't find anything. Riders jumping out of windows was, shall we
> say, startling.
>
> My point in all of this is simply that the UCI has done no better than
> other sporting federations and worse than some in at least
> acknowledging the problem and coming to grips with it in a direct,
> above board manner. Unfortunately, I don't see the situation changing
> now that Pat McQuaid is at the helm.

There is not much the UCI can do. Its authorities have come to grip with
"the problem" already a long time ago. Which means that they are well
aware that it cannot be solved. As long as there are effective
performance enhacing products which are not or not yet detectable or as
long as there are clever doctors capable of finding ways to use them
with hardly any risk to be caught, the possibility that the bicycle
racing - or any other sports for that matter - can ever be clean is an
illusion.

I agree that cheaters will always be ahead of the curve. I'm not
convinced that allowing sportspeople to use anything they like is what I
would want today given the increasing dangers of the treatments being
used. The imposition of the WADA ban system may help in the long run. We
could always make the athletes have 35 hour a week, real jobs as a
precondition to competing and make them Brundage amateurs. ;-)

I'm not too happy about it neither - I mean about a wide-spread use of
products which are so effective that it's impossible to be a top-athlete
without using them (and unfortunately that's how it is since the early
1990's). But there are so many things in this world I am not too happy
about, but have learned to accept them. And I'm also convinced that the
present anti-doping policy to destroy bicycle racing to save it is much
worse than allowing the use of it.

What can one say?

B. Lafferty said:

Quoted message said:

I hope the above satisfies your definition of non-weaseling.

Bob Schwartz said:

He asked a very direct question. You gave him a very indirect,
weaseling answer.
That's but one of the reasons people think you're a douchebag.

Thats still beats a turd sandwich:
http://www.tv.com/douche-and-turd/episode/372423/summary.html

B. Lafferty said:

What can one say?

"Call off the dogs".

Thanks to Benjo for taking the time to post here. A voice of reason.

Has [censored] Pound been tested recently? Can't we catch him with a call
girl or choir boy or a bag of small-denomination unmarked bills?
Something? --D-y

B. Lafferty said:

Quoted message said:

What can one say?

Quoted message said:

"Call off the dogs".

VDB must be making a(nother) comeback.

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

What can one say?

"Call off the dogs".

Thanks to Benjo for taking the time to post here. A voice of reason.

Has [censored] Pound been tested recently? Can't we catch him with a call
girl or choir boy or a bag of small-denomination unmarked bills?
Something? --D-y

Benjo's basic position is that doping can't be stopped, so it should be
allowed--I hope I haven't terribly mis-stated his position. I have two
objections to giving in to the dopers. The risk of death or shortened
lifespan is increasing with the drugs being abused. It makes for boring
racing. The latter it is open for debate. I think it would be difficult to
argue against the first, and no, I don't think informed consent is the
answer.

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

Quoted message said:

What can one say?

Quoted message said:

"Call off the dogs".

VDB must be making a(nother) comeback.

IIRC, he is currently looking to join a Pro Tour team for next year. He
must have found a new veterinarian.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

What can one say?

"Call off the dogs".

Thanks to Benjo for taking the time to post here. A voice of reason.

Has [censored] Pound been tested recently? Can't we catch him with a call
girl or choir boy or a bag of small-denomination unmarked bills?
Something? --D-y

Benjo's basic position is that doping can't be stopped, so it should be
allowed--I hope I haven't terribly mis-stated his position.

Not terribly, but it should have mentioned another point: that the positive
effects of all those attempts to stop doping shrink into insignificance when
compared with the negative effects.

Quoted message said:

I have two objections to giving in to the dopers. The risk of death or
shortened lifespan is increasing with the drugs being abused.

Exactly, when abused... especially when it happens in secrecy, without the
consult of a doctor. All those riders who experimented with epo at the end
of the 1980;s and beginning of the 1990's with fatal results would be alive
if they could have asked advise to a specialist. Without the anti-doping
policy Pantani would have been alive.... Sure, the use of drugs can be
detrimental at the long term, just like smoking or drinking alcohol.

Quoted message said:

It makes for boring racing.

How???

Quoted message said:

The latter it is open for debate. I think it would be difficult to argue
against the first, and no, I don't think informed consent is the answer.

It's certainly not the perfect answer, but sometimes one has to choose the
lesser of two evils.

Benjo

benjo maso said:

Quoted message said:

It makes for boring racing.

How???

Dumbass -

Lafferty consistently makes that erroneous point because he doesn't
really understand bike racing (the racing itself, not the politics).

thanks for your input,

K. Gringioni.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty wrote:

> What can one say?

"Call off the dogs".

Thanks to Benjo for taking the time to post here. A voice of reason.

Has [censored] Pound been tested recently? Can't we catch him with a call
girl or choir boy or a bag of small-denomination unmarked bills?
Something? --D-y

Benjo's basic position is that doping can't be stopped, so it should be
allowed--I hope I haven't terribly mis-stated his position.

Not terribly, but it should have mentioned another point: that the
positive effects of all those attempts to stop doping shrink into
insignificance when compared with the negative effects.

Quoted message said:

I have two objections to giving in to the dopers. The risk of death or
shortened lifespan is increasing with the drugs being abused.

Exactly, when abused... especially when it happens in secrecy, without the
consult of a doctor. All those riders who experimented with epo at the end
of the 1980;s and beginning of the 1990's with fatal results would be
alive if they could have asked advise to a specialist.

I agree that some would be alive. However, not all of the effects are know
about using many substances on healthy athletes. As one example, HgH given
to a healthy person will weaken the left ventricle of the heart
significantly increasing the risk of a heart attack. No doubt some riders
will accept that risk as some have accepted acromeglia as an occupational
hazzard to be treated by dentists and podiatrists. I wonder too if the
winner will simply be the rider willing to risk more in a medical/helth
sense than other competitiors.

Quoted message said:

Without the anti-doping policy Pantani would have been alive....

That's really an unknown

Quoted message said:

Sure, the use of drugs can be detrimental at the long term, just like
smoking or drinking alcohol.

Except that you buy butts and booze which are, whether rightly or wrongly,
legal to sell and use as intended. Not so with PIDs. I understand you want
to make it all legal which will moot that objection. However, the long term
effects of smoking and alcohol are known, unike many of the drugs used today
for doping.

I also object to allowing it because you will still have suspect winners who
are simply ahead of the PID curve. I'd like the winners to be placing on
ability rather than an unknown chemical advantage.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It makes for boring racing.

How???

We've debated that here at rbr over the past year or so. IMO, doping is
bringing a great number of riders to a relatively equal level where the
peloton is too big as the end of a race nears and attempts to break away are
increasingly pointless given the ability of doped riders to chase down their
fellow dopee.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The latter it is open for debate. I think it would be difficult to argue
against the first, and no, I don't think informed consent is the answer.

It's certainly not the perfect answer, but sometimes one has to choose the
lesser of two evils.

Life is about choices like that. I'm just not willing to choose the evil
you prefer--at least not for now.

Quoted message said:

Benjo

And Henry is still trying to figure out which riders were Campionissimos now
that he's learned what the word means.

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

Quoted message said:

benjo maso said:

Quoted message said:

It makes for boring racing.

How???

Dumbass -

Lafferty consistently makes that erroneous point because he doesn't
really understand bike racing (the racing itself, not the politics).

thanks for your input,

K. Gringioni.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
>> What can one say?
>
> "Call off the dogs".
>
> Thanks to Benjo for taking the time to post here. A voice of reason.
>
> Has [censored] Pound been tested recently? Can't we catch him with a call
> girl or choir boy or a bag of small-denomination unmarked bills?
> Something? --D-y
>
Benjo's basic position is that doping can't be stopped, so it should be
allowed--I hope I haven't terribly mis-stated his position.

Not terribly, but it should have mentioned another point: that the
positive effects of all those attempts to stop doping shrink into
insignificance when compared with the negative effects.

Quoted message said:

I have two objections to giving in to the dopers. The risk of death or
shortened lifespan is increasing with the drugs being abused.

Exactly, when abused... especially when it happens in secrecy, without
the consult of a doctor. All those riders who experimented with epo at
the end of the 1980;s and beginning of the 1990's with fatal results
would be alive if they could have asked advise to a specialist.

I agree that some would be alive. However, not all of the effects are
know about using many substances on healthy athletes. As one example, HgH
given to a healthy person will weaken the left ventricle of the heart
significantly increasing the risk of a heart attack. No doubt some riders
will accept that risk as some have accepted acromeglia as an occupational
hazzard to be treated by dentists and podiatrists. I wonder too if the
winner will simply be the rider willing to risk more in a medical/helth
sense than other competitiors.

To what extent is it different from the present situation?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Without the anti-doping policy Pantani would have been alive....

That's really an unknown

It's not completely certain, of course not. But it's quite possible - and
any people who knew him have said so - that he was more or less hounded to
death. Anyhow, it's certain that the doping-hunters have deprived bicycle
lovers of a lot of exciting racing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sure, the use of drugs can be detrimental at the long term, just like
smoking or drinking alcohol.

Except that you buy butts and booze which are, whether rightly or wrongly,
legal to sell and use as intended. Not so with PIDs. I understand you
want to make it all legal which will moot that objection. However, the
long term effects of smoking and alcohol are known, unike many of the
drugs used today for doping.

Sure. It would be stupid to put HgH and whatever ion the free market - like
cigarettes or wine and whisky.

Quoted message said:

I also object to allowing it because you will still have suspect winners
who are simply ahead of the PID curve. I'd like the winners to be placing
on ability rather than an unknown chemical advantage.

I'm afraid that's even in the 19th century bicycle racers already used all
the kinds of doping they could find. Perhaps they wouldn't in a perfect
world, but as long as it doesn't exist, we have to face reality.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It makes for boring racing.

How???

We've debated that here at rbr over the past year or so. IMO, doping is
bringing a great number of riders to a relatively equal level where the
peloton is too big as the end of a race nears and attempts to break away
are increasingly pointless given the ability of doped riders to chase down
their fellow dopee.

It is not only pure speculation that doping is bringing a great number of
riders to a relatively equal level but not very likely either. Doping
doesn't change men in robots. They are still men with different abilities,
different talents, different dispositions, different outlooks and besides,
as any doctor knows, the same product has usually quite different effects on
different people. It's quite possible that some riders are ranking higher on
the list than they would ever have had in a world without doping (and the
other way around), but that's a different matter.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The latter it is open for debate. I think it would be difficult to argue
against the first, and no, I don't think informed consent is the answer.

It's certainly not the perfect answer, but sometimes one has to choose
the lesser of two evils.

Life is about choices like that. I'm just not willing to choose the evil
you prefer--at least not for now.

Of course, you don't have to. But I'm only afraid that the evil you prefer
in the near future will get even worse.

Benjo

Benjo, My thoughts are that we need to have doping regulations. But
they have to be more faultless than Caesar's wife. Unfortunately too
many of the latest testing procedures are open to interpretation and
are not scientifically infalible.

I'm not sure how you can prevent 100% of drug abuse in any professional
sport where so much of an individual's personal wealth might be at
threat, but better to let questionable cases slide than to claim that
you're being "fair" when you aren't.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I agree that some would be alive. However, not all of the effects are

know about using many substances on healthy athletes. As one example,
HgH given to a healthy person will weaken the left ventricle of the heart
significantly increasing the risk of a heart attack. No doubt some riders
will accept that risk as some have accepted acromeglia as an occupational
hazzard to be treated by dentists and podiatrists. I wonder too if the
winner will simply be the rider willing to risk more in a medical/helth
sense than other competitiors.

Quoted message said:

To what extent is it different from the present situation?

The result may not be all that different. However, I'm not willing to take
the position that everything is open when the winner may well still be the
rider with just the latest dope that nobody else has scored yet.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Without the anti-doping policy Pantani would have been alive....

That's really an unknown

It's not completely certain, of course not. But it's quite possible - and
any people who knew him have said so - that he was more or less hounded to
death. Anyhow, it's certain that the doping-hunters have deprived bicycle
lovers of a lot of exciting racing.

If you mean that we were denied Pantani's panache, I agree to an extent.
But it wasn't just the doping athorities, there was something in his
character that allowed him to be beaten down whereas riders line Virenque
and Zulle simply came through and probably just moved on to microdosing EPO
or autologous transfusions. If anything the authorities probably hastened
what would have been triggered by something else later like retirement.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sure, the use of drugs can be detrimental at the long term, just like
smoking or drinking alcohol.

Except that you buy butts and booze which are, whether rightly or
wrongly, legal to sell and use as intended. Not so with PIDs. I
understand you want to make it all legal which will moot that objection.
However, the long term effects of smoking and alcohol are known, unike
many of the drugs used today for doping.

Sure. It would be stupid to put HgH and whatever ion the free market -
like cigarettes or wine and whisky.

Quoted message said:

I also object to allowing it because you will still have suspect winners
who are simply ahead of the PID curve. I'd like the winners to be placing
on ability rather than an unknown chemical advantage.

I'm afraid that's even in the 19th century bicycle racers already used all
the kinds of doping they could find. Perhaps they wouldn't in a perfect
world, but as long as it doesn't exist, we have to face reality.

Absolutely, but the the changes in doping over the past 15 years are of
another order of magnitude. Cocaine, strychnine and speed seem so quaint
now. The risks are far greater now, IMO, and I am not ready to say win
and/or die should be allowed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> It makes for boring racing.

How???

We've debated that here at rbr over the past year or so. IMO, doping is
bringing a great number of riders to a relatively equal level where the
peloton is too big as the end of a race nears and attempts to break away
are increasingly pointless given the ability of doped riders to chase
down their fellow dopee.

It is not only pure speculation that doping is bringing a great number of
riders to a relatively equal level but not very likely either. Doping
doesn't change men in robots. They are still men with different abilities,
different talents, different dispositions, different outlooks and besides,
as any doctor knows, the same product has usually quite different effects
on different people. It's quite possible that some riders are ranking
higher on the list than they would ever have had in a world without doping
(and the other way around), but that's a different matter.

We'll just have to disagree on this. I wonder how a rider with roughly
equal ability racing with a natural hematocrit in the mid 40s would do
against someone with a natural of 53% like Cunego just as I wonder how a
certain rider with a VO2Max of 82 would do in the Tour if it were a truly
level playing field.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The latter it is open for debate. I think it would be difficult to
> argue against the first, and no, I don't think informed consent is the
> answer.

It's certainly not the perfect answer, but sometimes one has to choose
the lesser of two evils.

Life is about choices like that. I'm just not willing to choose the evil
you prefer--at least not for now.

Of course, you don't have to. But I'm only afraid that the evil you prefer
in the near future will get even worse.

Worse in what sense? More deaths or business problems for the sport?

Quoted message said:

Benjo

benjo maso said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>>
>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>
>>> What can one say?
>>
>> "Call off the dogs".
>>
>> Thanks to Benjo for taking the time to post here. A voice of reason.
>>
>> Has [censored] Pound been tested recently? Can't we catch him with a call
>> girl or choir boy or a bag of small-denomination unmarked bills?
>> Something? --D-y
>>
> Benjo's basic position is that doping can't be stopped, so it should be
> allowed--I hope I haven't terribly mis-stated his position.

Not terribly, but it should have mentioned another point: that the
positive effects of all those attempts to stop doping shrink into
insignificance when compared with the negative effects.

> I have two objections to giving in to the dopers. The risk of death or
> shortened lifespan is increasing with the drugs being abused.

Exactly, when abused... especially when it happens in secrecy, without
the consult of a doctor. All those riders who experimented with epo at
the end of the 1980;s and beginning of the 1990's with fatal results
would be alive if they could have asked advise to a specialist.

I agree that some would be alive. However, not all of the effects are
know about using many substances on healthy athletes. As one example, HgH
given to a healthy person will weaken the left ventricle of the heart
significantly increasing the risk of a heart attack. No doubt some riders
will accept that risk as some have accepted acromeglia as an occupational
hazzard to be treated by dentists and podiatrists. I wonder too if the
winner will simply be the rider willing to risk more in a medical/helth
sense than other competitiors.

To what extent is it different from the present situation?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Without the anti-doping policy Pantani would have been alive....

That's really an unknown

It's not completely certain, of course not. But it's quite possible - and
any people who knew him have said so - that he was more or less hounded to
death. Anyhow, it's certain that the doping-hunters have deprived bicycle
lovers of a lot of exciting racing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sure, the use of drugs can be detrimental at the long term, just like
smoking or drinking alcohol.

Except that you buy butts and booze which are, whether rightly or wrongly,
legal to sell and use as intended. Not so with PIDs. I understand you
want to make it all legal which will moot that objection. However, the
long term effects of smoking and alcohol are known, unike many of the
drugs used today for doping.

Sure. It would be stupid to put HgH and whatever ion the free market - like
cigarettes or wine and whisky.

Quoted message said:

I also object to allowing it because you will still have suspect winners
who are simply ahead of the PID curve. I'd like the winners to be placing
on ability rather than an unknown chemical advantage.

I'm afraid that's even in the 19th century bicycle racers already used all
the kinds of doping they could find. Perhaps they wouldn't in a perfect
world, but as long as it doesn't exist, we have to face reality.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> It makes for boring racing.

How???

We've debated that here at rbr over the past year or so. IMO, doping is
bringing a great number of riders to a relatively equal level where the
peloton is too big as the end of a race nears and attempts to break away
are increasingly pointless given the ability of doped riders to chase down
their fellow dopee.

It is not only pure speculation that doping is bringing a great number of
riders to a relatively equal level but not very likely either. Doping
doesn't change men in robots. They are still men with different abilities,
different talents, different dispositions, different outlooks and besides,
as any doctor knows, the same product has usually quite different effects on
different people. It's quite possible that some riders are ranking higher on
the list than they would ever have had in a world without doping (and the
other way around), but that's a different matter.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The latter it is open for debate. I think it would be difficult to argue
> against the first, and no, I don't think informed consent is the answer.

It's certainly not the perfect answer, but sometimes one has to choose
the lesser of two evils.

Life is about choices like that. I'm just not willing to choose the evil
you prefer--at least not for now.

Of course, you don't have to. But I'm only afraid that the evil you prefer
in the near future will get even worse.

Benjo

I understand your concerns, but how long do you think it would take
the tabloid press to start running sensational stories on the new arena
bloodsport, the drug cocktails the riders were taking, the doctors who
were willing to push it farther, the feature pieces on the latest
genetic doping mods for the riders.
I think the press would, rightly, report what's going on and then
sensationalize it as "Drugged Races of Death" where the riders willing
to go out the farthest without dying win.
I just can't see that being better than what we have now. Maybe the
Belgian and Dutch press would go that route, but I'll guarantee the US,
British, and some of the German and Canadian press sure as hell would.
You'd have every mother's group screaming to protect their children
and the majority of politicians racing to shut the sport down for good
IMO. At least all of that would be absolutely guaranteed to happen
here.
Bill C

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

Quoted message said:

benjo maso said:

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

Quoted message said:

"benjo maso" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>>
>> <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:[email hidden]...
>>>
>>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>>
>>>> What can one say?
>>>
>>> "Call off the dogs".
>>>
>>> Thanks to Benjo for taking the time to post here. A voice of reason.
>>>
>>> Has [censored] Pound been tested recently? Can't we catch him with a call
>>> girl or choir boy or a bag of small-denomination unmarked bills?
>>> Something? --D-y
>>>
>> Benjo's basic position is that doping can't be stopped, so it should
>> be
>> allowed--I hope I haven't terribly mis-stated his position.
>
> Not terribly, but it should have mentioned another point: that the
> positive effects of all those attempts to stop doping shrink into
> insignificance when compared with the negative effects.
>
>> I have two objections to giving in to the dopers. The risk of death
>> or
>> shortened lifespan is increasing with the drugs being abused.
>
> Exactly, when abused... especially when it happens in secrecy, without
> the consult of a doctor. All those riders who experimented with epo at
> the end of the 1980;s and beginning of the 1990's with fatal results
> would be alive if they could have asked advise to a specialist.

I agree that some would be alive. However, not all of the effects are
know about using many substances on healthy athletes. As one example,
HgH
given to a healthy person will weaken the left ventricle of the heart
significantly increasing the risk of a heart attack. No doubt some
riders
will accept that risk as some have accepted acromeglia as an
occupational
hazzard to be treated by dentists and podiatrists. I wonder too if the
winner will simply be the rider willing to risk more in a medical/helth
sense than other competitiors.

To what extent is it different from the present situation?

Quoted message said:

> Without the anti-doping policy Pantani would have been alive....

That's really an unknown

It's not completely certain, of course not. But it's quite possible - and
any people who knew him have said so - that he was more or less hounded
to
death. Anyhow, it's certain that the doping-hunters have deprived bicycle
lovers of a lot of exciting racing.

Quoted message said:

>Sure, the use of drugs can be detrimental at the long term, just like
>smoking or drinking alcohol.

Except that you buy butts and booze which are, whether rightly or
wrongly,
legal to sell and use as intended. Not so with PIDs. I understand you
want to make it all legal which will moot that objection. However, the
long term effects of smoking and alcohol are known, unike many of the
drugs used today for doping.

Sure. It would be stupid to put HgH and whatever ion the free market -
like
cigarettes or wine and whisky.

Quoted message said:

I also object to allowing it because you will still have suspect
winners
who are simply ahead of the PID curve. I'd like the winners to be
placing
on ability rather than an unknown chemical advantage.

I'm afraid that's even in the 19th century bicycle racers already used
all
the kinds of doping they could find. Perhaps they wouldn't in a perfect
world, but as long as it doesn't exist, we have to face reality.

Quoted message said:

>> It makes for boring racing.
>
> How???

We've debated that here at rbr over the past year or so. IMO, doping
is
bringing a great number of riders to a relatively equal level where the
peloton is too big as the end of a race nears and attempts to break
away
are increasingly pointless given the ability of doped riders to chase
down
their fellow dopee.

It is not only pure speculation that doping is bringing a great number of
riders to a relatively equal level but not very likely either. Doping
doesn't change men in robots. They are still men with different
abilities,
different talents, different dispositions, different outlooks and
besides,
as any doctor knows, the same product has usually quite different effects
on
different people. It's quite possible that some riders are ranking higher
on
the list than they would ever have had in a world without doping (and the
other way around), but that's a different matter.

Quoted message said:

>> The latter it is open for debate. I think it would be difficult to
>> argue
>> against the first, and no, I don't think informed consent is the
>> answer.
>
> It's certainly not the perfect answer, but sometimes one has to choose
> the lesser of two evils.

Life is about choices like that. I'm just not willing to choose the
evil
you prefer--at least not for now.

Of course, you don't have to. But I'm only afraid that the evil you
prefer
in the near future will get even worse.

Benjo

I understand your concerns, but how long do you think it would take
the tabloid press to start running sensational stories on the new arena
bloodsport, the drug cocktails the riders were taking, the doctors who
were willing to push it farther, the feature pieces on the latest
genetic doping mods for the riders.
I think the press would, rightly, report what's going on and then
sensationalize it as "Drugged Races of Death" where the riders willing
to go out the farthest without dying win.
I just can't see that being better than what we have now. Maybe the
Belgian and Dutch press would go that route, but I'll guarantee the US,
British, and some of the German and Canadian press sure as hell would.
You'd have every mother's group screaming to protect their children
and the majority of politicians racing to shut the sport down for good
IMO. At least all of that would be absolutely guaranteed to happen
here.
Bill C

But if we put Prozac in the drinking water supply, everything would come out
OK. :-)

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

Quoted message said:

Benjo, My thoughts are that we need to have doping regulations. But
they have to be more faultless than Caesar's wife. Unfortunately too
many of the latest testing procedures are open to interpretation and
are not scientifically infalible.

I'm not sure how you can prevent 100% of drug abuse in any professional
sport where so much of an individual's personal wealth might be at
threat, but better to let questionable cases slide than to claim that
you're being "fair" when you aren't.

I agree with you that doping regulations must be more or less perfect to
function. Unfortunately, they never will be, not only many of the latest
testing procedures are open to interpretation and
not scientifically infallible, but also because there have always been
products which are not yet detectable and I'm afraid there will always be
(after all, finding infallible testing procedures takes time). Some
examples: steroids: first used in 1954, detectable in 1976. Testosterone:
first used in 1952, detectable in 1982. Epo: first used in 1987, detectable
in 2000. HgH: first used in 1980, not yet detectable. DynEpo: first used in
2001 or 2002, not yet detectable, etc., etc. So how can tests be effective
when there are several performance enhancing products cannot be detected?
All you need is a clever doctor. No wonder that topriders are never testing
positive in the last ten or fifteen years (I think poor Tylor Hamilton is
the only exception).

Benjo

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

Quoted message said:

benjo maso wrote:

(snip)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course, you don't have to. But I'm only afraid that the evil you
prefer
in the near future will get even worse.

Benjo

I understand your concerns, but how long do you think it would take
the tabloid press to start running sensational stories on the new arena
bloodsport, the drug cocktails the riders were taking, the doctors who
were willing to push it farther, the feature pieces on the latest
genetic doping mods for the riders.
I think the press would, rightly, report what's going on and then
sensationalize it as "Drugged Races of Death" where the riders willing
to go out the farthest without dying win.
I just can't see that being better than what we have now. Maybe the
Belgian and Dutch press would go that route, but I'll guarantee the US,
British, and some of the German and Canadian press sure as hell would.
You'd have every mother's group screaming to protect their children
and the majority of politicians racing to shut the sport down for good
IMO. At least all of that would be absolutely guaranteed to happen
here.

You are quite right: although the overwhelming majority in the "traditional"
bicycle countries don't hardly care if riders are using performance
enhancing products yes or no, in the "new cycling world" it's quite
different. What's more, persuing the present policy makes it every day more
difficult to change course and it's indeed quite possible that we have
already passed the point of no return. Alas.

Benjo

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I agree that some would be alive. However, not all of the effects are
know about using many substances on healthy athletes. As one example,
HgH given to a healthy person will weaken the left ventricle of the
heart significantly increasing the risk of a heart attack. No doubt some
riders will accept that risk as some have accepted acromeglia as an
occupational hazzard to be treated by dentists and podiatrists. I wonder
too if the winner will simply be the rider willing to risk more in a
medical/helth sense than other competitiors.

Quoted message said:

To what extent is it different from the present situation?

The result may not be all that different. However, I'm not willing to
take the position that everything is open when the winner may well still
be the rider with just the latest dope that nobody else has scored yet.

It gives him a edge, sure. But not more than that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Without the anti-doping policy Pantani would have been alive....

That's really an unknown

It's not completely certain, of course not. But it's quite possible - and
any people who knew him have said so - that he was more or less hounded
to death. Anyhow, it's certain that the doping-hunters have deprived
bicycle lovers of a lot of exciting racing.

If you mean that we were denied Pantani's panache, I agree to an extent.
But it wasn't just the doping athorities, there was something in his
character that allowed him to be beaten down whereas riders line Virenque
and Zulle simply came through and probably just moved on to microdosing
EPO or autologous transfusions. If anything the authorities probably
hastened what would have been triggered by something else later like
retirement.

It's true that he was very vulnerable, probably much more than Virenque or
Zülle (difficult to say because they haven't been persecuted the way Pantani
has). But it's quite possible that nobody would have never known if the
coirconstances would have been different.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Sure, the use of drugs can be detrimental at the long term, just like
>smoking or drinking alcohol.

Except that you buy butts and booze which are, whether rightly or
wrongly, legal to sell and use as intended. Not so with PIDs. I
understand you want to make it all legal which will moot that objection.
However, the long term effects of smoking and alcohol are known, unike
many of the drugs used today for doping.

Sure. It would be stupid to put HgH and whatever ion the free market -
like cigarettes or wine and whisky.

Quoted message said:

I also object to allowing it because you will still have suspect winners
who are simply ahead of the PID curve. I'd like the winners to be
placing on ability rather than an unknown chemical advantage.

I'm afraid that's even in the 19th century bicycle racers already used
all the kinds of doping they could find. Perhaps they wouldn't in a
perfect world, but as long as it doesn't exist, we have to face reality.

Absolutely, but the the changes in doping over the past 15 years are of
another order of magnitude. Cocaine, strychnine and speed seem so quaint
now. The risks are far greater now, IMO, and I am not ready to say win
and/or die should be allowed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> It makes for boring racing.
>
> How???

We've debated that here at rbr over the past year or so. IMO, doping is
bringing a great number of riders to a relatively equal level where the
peloton is too big as the end of a race nears and attempts to break away
are increasingly pointless given the ability of doped riders to chase
down their fellow dopee.

It is not only pure speculation that doping is bringing a great number of
riders to a relatively equal level but not very likely either. Doping
doesn't change men in robots. They are still men with different
abilities, different talents, different dispositions, different outlooks
and besides, as any doctor knows, the same product has usually quite
different effects on different people. It's quite possible that some
riders are ranking higher on the list than they would ever have had in a
world without doping (and the other way around), but that's a different
matter.

We'll just have to disagree on this. I wonder how a rider with roughly
equal ability racing with a natural hematocrit in the mid 40s would do
against someone with a natural of 53% like Cunego just as I wonder how a
certain rider with a VO2Max of 82 would do in the Tour if it were a truly
level playing field.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> The latter it is open for debate. I think it would be difficult to
>> argue against the first, and no, I don't think informed consent is the
>> answer.
>
> It's certainly not the perfect answer, but sometimes one has to choose
> the lesser of two evils.

Life is about choices like that. I'm just not willing to choose the
evil you prefer--at least not for now.

Of course, you don't have to. But I'm only afraid that the evil you
prefer in the near future will get even worse.

Worse in what sense? More deaths or business problems for the sport?

Worse in the sense that if it continues the're will be no future for bicycle
racing on the road (which has always been dependent on the good will of the
authorities who did or did allow it to use public roads for a race). There
is no deny that nowadays doping is not only dominating the sports itself,
but also more and more the way it's seen by the public. Like a 85 years old
French ex-rider said to me not so long ago: ten, fifteen years ago people
asked me how the Tour was in the 1940's and 1950's, what I knew about Coppi,
Bartali or Bobet. But these days people are only asking what kinds of doping
we used.

Benjo

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Benjo, My thoughts are that we need to have doping regulations. But
they have to be more faultless than Caesar's wife. Unfortunately too
many of the latest testing procedures are open to interpretation and
are not scientifically infalible.

I'm not sure how you can prevent 100% of drug abuse in any professional
sport where so much of an individual's personal wealth might be at
threat, but better to let questionable cases slide than to claim that
you're being "fair" when you aren't.

I agree with you that doping regulations must be more or less perfect to
function. Unfortunately, they never will be, not only many of the latest
testing procedures are open to interpretation and
not scientifically infallible, but also because there have always been
products which are not yet detectable and I'm afraid there will always be
(after all, finding infallible testing procedures takes time). Some
examples: steroids: first used in 1954, detectable in 1976. Testosterone:
first used in 1952, detectable in 1982. Epo: first used in 1987,
detectable in 2000. HgH: first used in 1980, not yet detectable. DynEpo:
first used in 2001 or 2002, not yet detectable, etc., etc. So how can
tests be effective when there are several performance enhancing products
cannot be detected? All you need is a clever doctor. No wonder that
topriders are never testing positive in the last ten or fifteen years (I
think poor Tylor Hamilton is the only exception).

Benjo

It look as though you can add Heras to that short list. Sad.

Bill C said:

I understand your concerns, but how long do you think it would take
the tabloid press to start running sensational stories on the new arena
bloodsport, the drug cocktails the riders were taking, the doctors who
were willing to push it farther, the feature pieces on the latest
genetic doping mods for the riders.
I think the press would, rightly, report what's going on and then
sensationalize it as "Drugged Races of Death" where the riders willing
to go out the farthest without dying win.
I just can't see that being better than what we have now. Maybe the
Belgian and Dutch press would go that route, but I'll guarantee the US,
British, and some of the German and Canadian press sure as hell would.
You'd have every mother's group screaming to protect their children
and the majority of politicians racing to shut the sport down for good
IMO. At least all of that would be absolutely guaranteed to happen
here.
Bill C

Bill, please. Turn down the emotion, you're not thinking straight.
A couple of points:

- Bike racing, even in the Age of LANCE, is on the fringe in the US.
If no one cares about the body count in football what makes you think
a sport like cycling is even on the long range scanners?
- The stuff you describe sounds a lot like cycling in the early 90s.
What you are saying is a lock to happen did not happen. Even the
death of a high profile athlete like FloJo didn't matter to her
sport.
- You're talking like this problem is unique to cycling. WTF, where
have you been during the BALCO mess?

If this were earlier in the year I would tell you to relax, crack
open a beer and turn the TV to the Red Sox, checking out all those
people in the stands clamoring to shut down that drug ridden sport.

Bob Schwartz