Restating the obvious

Bob Schwartz said:

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

Your going to tell me that Pound wouldn't scream bloody murder, the
IOC wouldn't drop the sport, and all the moral pontificators wouldn't
get in on it. How many proven deaths due to steroids do they have
documented? Not a lot as far as I can tell, but that doesn't stop the
politicians from seizing on a feel good issue with a few families to
raise hell. That's why Baseball is finally taking some heat despite
incredible amounts of money donated to politicians and Pacs.
Did you miss all the heat that the Ultimate Fighting Championships
(UFC) got even though their safety record was much better than boxing.
Lots of States had moved to ban it, it had hit the Congressional radar,
and there were tons of anti-violence groups raising holy hell about it
due to the perception, not the reality. Luckily they got new ownership
who had good PR skills, worked with the State athletic boards and
boxing commissions and were able to stay in business.
None of the sports has openly allowed doping except Bobdybuilding
earlier on and they ended up in the wringer along with Vince McMahon
about steroids with the Dept.of Justice and Congress critters.
This would be the equivalent in public opinion here of legalizing hard
drugs. [censored] we have hysteria over weed, you really think there wouldn't
be hell to pay over college teams hiring doctors to shoot up the kids,
or kids being told they have to dope to make the team?
I know a lot of that [censored] is going on now, but it doesn't have the
public sanction that Benjo is talking about.
In a lot of ways I agree with him. I just don't think it's possible to
do.

Damn I've either got to come live where you do, or become less of an
information junkie.
Right now there's hell to pay in a fight over a new low power radio
station, which i theory was supposed to allow free access to all of the
community, but in reality is way out on the left fringe for here which
is way out. Now we've got charges of racism, falsification of
ducumentation for the license and funding, it got community support in
the run up from a fairly wide group of people, 1/3 of whom were
immediately run out including the board members who are all slamming
each other. Looks like they may very well lose the license and have to
shut down until they can sort it out. This is based in a community
center and the people who have been forced out are claiming to have
been intimidated and forced off of public property so they are
threatening to sue the city and this is a pretty minor example of life
here.
If a bear farts in the woods one of our news outlets or activist
groups on some side of the issue grabs it and runs with it for some
reason or other. We're also back in the preliminary stages of arguing
about the damn beaver again too. Our current election is pretty quiet
though since there hasn't been any real diversity of political opinion
expressed here in well over a decade and there wasn't much left then.
Bill C

B. Lafferty said:

"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]...
>
> "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?

>> 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.

>>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.

> 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.

>>> 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.

>>> 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. :-)

Now that's not a bad suggestion, but it'd have to be something like
laudanum to even begin to have an effect up this end of the Valley, or
on Congress. Sometimes I feel like I need it though. Fortunately I
don't let it get me really hostile anymore. I just keep thinking about
moving out into the boonies and doing my thing.
Bill C

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Now that's not a bad suggestion, but it'd have to be something like
laudanum to even begin to have an effect up this end of the Valley, or
on Congress. Sometimes I feel like I need it though. Fortunately I
don't let it get me really hostile anymore. I just keep thinking about
moving out into the boonies and doing my thing.
Bill C

Cross-bow, assault rifle or blow gun? Seriously, we should discuss my Yurt
in the wilderness idea some time.

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Now that's not a bad suggestion, but it'd have to be something like
laudanum to even begin to have an effect up this end of the Valley, or
on Congress. Sometimes I feel like I need it though. Fortunately I
don't let it get me really hostile anymore. I just keep thinking about
moving out into the boonies and doing my thing.
Bill C

Cross-bow, assault rifle or blow gun? Seriously, we should discuss my Yurt
in the wilderness idea some time.

Actually that kinda matches my thoughts. I've always said that it
needs to be at least the range of a .30-06 from anyone else with trees
in between. If I need to finish something up I want to be able to run a
saw or grinder at 11:00 at night without hassles. I want to play around
with the kids on dirtbikes and not worry about the [censored]. I used to
be able to sit on my brothers back steps and plink with a .22 just for
fun. There was nothing out behind the house except fields and swamp for
a couple of miles. That works for me.
Haven't done anywhere near enough hiking, camping, fishing,
snowshoeing, and it's been at least 10 years since I bow hunted and 15
with a gun.
That yurt sounds really good.
Bill C

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

> But if we put Prozac in the drinking water supply, everything would
> come
> out
> OK. :-)
Now that's not a bad suggestion, but it'd have to be something like
laudanum to even begin to have an effect up this end of the Valley, or
on Congress. Sometimes I feel like I need it though. Fortunately I
don't let it get me really hostile anymore. I just keep thinking about
moving out into the boonies and doing my thing.
Bill C

Cross-bow, assault rifle or blow gun? Seriously, we should discuss my
Yurt
in the wilderness idea some time.

Actually that kinda matches my thoughts. I've always said that it
needs to be at least the range of a .30-06 from anyone else with trees
in between. If I need to finish something up I want to be able to run a
saw or grinder at 11:00 at night without hassles. I want to play around
with the kids on dirtbikes and not worry about the [censored]. I used to
be able to sit on my brothers back steps and plink with a .22 just for
fun. There was nothing out behind the house except fields and swamp for
a couple of miles. That works for me.
Haven't done anywhere near enough hiking, camping, fishing,
snowshoeing, and it's been at least 10 years since I bow hunted and 15
with a gun.
That yurt sounds really good.
Bill C

Check out http://www.pacificyurts.com/

In article
<[email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
I think Nordic Skiing has also been
pro-active but that may just be because of an entire national team being
caught and suspended (Norway?) recently.

That does not qualify as pro-active.

Quoted message said:

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

Heh.

--
Michael Press
The rest of the world.

B. Lafferty said:

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

Except for us cyclists:

http://www2.netdoor.com/~bill/prosurv/roadrage.html

Bob Schwartz said:

I did look up the Ultimate Fighting Championships. That's where I
found this which I present as testimony to the value of research:

http://www.ufc.tv/index.cfm?fa=OctagonGirl.GalleryImgDetail&aid=2804&catid=7

Dumbass,

Please don't bury this kind of thing at the bottom of a long post.

They sorta remind me of Carolina Panthers cheerleaders.

Robert Chung said:

Bob Schwartz said:

I did look up the Ultimate Fighting Championships. That's where I
found this which I present as testimony to the value of research:

http://www.ufc.tv/index.cfm?fa=OctagonGirl.GalleryImgDetail&aid=2804&catid=7

Dumbass,

Please don't bury this kind of thing at the bottom of a long post.

They sorta remind me of Carolina Panthers cheerleaders.

It really is worth watching if you like martial arts. It's officially
billed as "mixed martial arts" but has pretty much been become a blend
of Gracie Jiu-jitsu, Muaythai, and the hard styles.
Then the ring card girls aint too shabby either.
Bill C

In article <[email hidden]>, "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bob Schwartz said:

I did look up the Ultimate Fighting Championships. That's where I
found this which I present as testimony to the value of research:

http://www.ufc.tv/index.cfm?fa=OctagonGirl.GalleryImgDetail&aid=2804&catid=7

Dumbass,

Please don't bury this kind of thing at the bottom of a long post.

They sorta remind me of Carolina Panthers cheerleaders.

Heh, that's the kind of Ultimate Fighting lotsa guys want to see.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2216124

--
tanx,
Howard

The sheriff is near...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Bill C wrote:
..

Quoted message said:

Then the ring card girls aint too shabby either.
Bill C

those women (in bob's link) are much much much more attractive than i
ever would have expected from ring card girls (my only experience in the
past with that sorta thing has been boxing ring girls, who i found not
soooo attractive...)

surprised,
h

Howard Kveck said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bob Schwartz said:

I did look up the Ultimate Fighting Championships. That's where I
found this which I present as testimony to the value of research:

http://www.ufc.tv/index.cfm?fa=OctagonGirl.GalleryImgDetail&aid=2804&catid=7

Dumbass,

Please don't bury this kind of thing at the bottom of a long post.

They sorta remind me of Carolina Panthers cheerleaders.

Heh, that's the kind of Ultimate Fighting lotsa guys want to see.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2216124

--
tanx,
Howard

The sheriff is near...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Love the bar bathroom stall that's class. I've heard that Stearn,
Penthouse, and a bunch of others are throwing money at them. Could be a
great business move for them. I think I'll pass though.
Bill C

h squared said:

Bill C wrote:
.

Quoted message said:

Then the ring card girls aint too shabby either.
Bill C

those women (in bob's link) are much much much more attractive than i
ever would have expected from ring card girls (my only experience in the
past with that sorta thing has been boxing ring girls, who i found not
soooo attractive...)

surprised,
h

Still a fairly small company with really good management, and does NOT
want to get tagged with the boxing [censored].
Nice, but short on muscle for me.
Just as a flashback for Jet, and for comparison:
http://www.bodybuildbid.com/articles/msolympia/rachel-mclish.html
Bill C

In article <[email hidden]>,

benjo maso 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

There is a grim issue I have with your position, Benjo: if you are going
to allow some "therapeutic" level of doping, why do you think the
problem of a level playing field gets easier?

In any imaginable scenario, there will be some sort of limit placed on
the amount of each goody that the rider can use. Maybe they'll have
dosage limits for steroids and HGH, and Hct limits for EPO and other
forms of blood doping.

But, excepting maybe Hct percentages, how do you keep the riders within
the specified limits? Don't you just create a peloton that is much more
drugged-up than today, but still with some cheaters (or if you prefer,
super-dopers) in the middle?

For any line you care to draw, there will surely be riders quite happy
to cross it. Of course, they'll be even harder to detect in some ways.
Did the rider go 10 mcg/kg/d over the approved dosage? Who knows? Sounds
like some pretty tricky testing is in order.

Do you think that the same peloton which you assert has embraced a
culture of cheating will suddenly embrace a culture of self-restraint,
as long as they are allowed some of their goodies?

We may not be able to prevent 100% of drug abuse, but at least we can
try to prevent 100% drug abuse.

This argument makes me despair about whether there is any future
whatsoever for pro cycling. I'd be sad if it collapsed, for sure. But
what would really sadden me is if it took amateur cycling with it. I've
gone back and forth over this, and I've decided that if I could only
have one (and the doping debate may make this non-academic) I choose
amateurs.

You know why? Some amateurs might dope, because they're idiots, just
like some guys will violate the yellow-line rule, or be poor sports in
myriad ways. But at the amateur level, it's about roughly competitive
groupings, competing against your personal benchmarks, and having fun. I
can live with those as essential antidotes to the problem of doping, at
least in the amateur levels.

Of course, [censored] Pound seems to be acting like the worst friend a foe of
doping could have. I like his ideas, really I do: keeping current
samples securely for 10 years, so that if we come up with a test for
present dope in the future (as happened with EPO) we can use it? Good
idea! Accusing Lance of being a doper based on a test that can't
possibly meet WADA standards? Bad idea! Asserting a firm belief that
sport should create a culture of clean competition? Good idea! Wildly
asserting that sport X is insincere about doping control, because they
catch so many dopers? Bad idea.

I'm serious about throwing out pro competition. I think the ProTour is a
good idea, I think that the doping controls are getting pretty serious
(they've nailed, rightly or wrongly, several of the top riders in the
sport in the last few years, including Hamilton, Heras, Museeuw, Millar,
and lots more; if they're insincere about doping control, they have a
funny way of showing it).

The real trick, of course, is to force the _economics_ of doping to
fail. If you start fining riders major, income-proportionate dollars for
positive tests, you might get results. If you start requiring mandatory
retroactive nullification clauses for doping violations in ProTour rider
contracts, and then fine back the salary plus more from the team, too,
you'll have some teams keeping a pretty keen eye on their riders' drug
habits. If you start keeping those samples for 10 years, regressively
testing them with neat new tests, and then suing riders for prize money
when they come up positive, you'll get dopers to sit up and take notice.

Scary? You bet. In practice, you'll probably want to err on the side of
letting marginal (but likely dopey) cases through the net in the
interests of mercy and sensible caution. But these and other measures
could remove the economic advantages of doping which likely drive a lot
of doping. And creative testing regimens can increase both the certainty
of being caught and the uncertainty of being caught, if you know what I
mean.

So, what's it to be?

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

benjo maso 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

There is a grim issue I have with your position, Benjo: if you are going
to allow some "therapeutic" level of doping, why do you think the
problem of a level playing field gets easier?

In any imaginable scenario, there will be some sort of limit placed on
the amount of each goody that the rider can use. Maybe they'll have
dosage limits for steroids and HGH, and Hct limits for EPO and other
forms of blood doping.

But, excepting maybe Hct percentages, how do you keep the riders within
the specified limits? Don't you just create a peloton that is much more
drugged-up than today, but still with some cheaters (or if you prefer,
super-dopers) in the middle?

For any line you care to draw, there will surely be riders quite happy
to cross it. Of course, they'll be even harder to detect in some ways.
Did the rider go 10 mcg/kg/d over the approved dosage? Who knows? Sounds
like some pretty tricky testing is in order.

Do you think that the same peloton which you assert has embraced a
culture of cheating will suddenly embrace a culture of self-restraint,
as long as they are allowed some of their goodies?

We may not be able to prevent 100% of drug abuse, but at least we can
try to prevent 100% drug abuse.

This argument makes me despair about whether there is any future
whatsoever for pro cycling. I'd be sad if it collapsed, for sure. But
what would really sadden me is if it took amateur cycling with it. I've
gone back and forth over this, and I've decided that if I could only
have one (and the doping debate may make this non-academic) I choose
amateurs.

You know why? Some amateurs might dope, because they're idiots, just
like some guys will violate the yellow-line rule, or be poor sports in
myriad ways. But at the amateur level, it's about roughly competitive
groupings, competing against your personal benchmarks, and having fun. I
can live with those as essential antidotes to the problem of doping, at
least in the amateur levels.

Of course, [censored] Pound seems to be acting like the worst friend a foe of
doping could have. I like his ideas, really I do: keeping current
samples securely for 10 years, so that if we come up with a test for
present dope in the future (as happened with EPO) we can use it? Good
idea! Accusing Lance of being a doper based on a test that can't
possibly meet WADA standards? Bad idea! Asserting a firm belief that
sport should create a culture of clean competition? Good idea! Wildly
asserting that sport X is insincere about doping control, because they
catch so many dopers? Bad idea.

I'm serious about throwing out pro competition. I think the ProTour is a
good idea, I think that the doping controls are getting pretty serious
(they've nailed, rightly or wrongly, several of the top riders in the
sport in the last few years, including Hamilton, Heras, Museeuw, Millar,
and lots more; if they're insincere about doping control, they have a
funny way of showing it).

The real trick, of course, is to force the _economics_ of doping to
fail. If you start fining riders major, income-proportionate dollars for
positive tests, you might get results. If you start requiring mandatory
retroactive nullification clauses for doping violations in ProTour rider
contracts, and then fine back the salary plus more from the team, too,
you'll have some teams keeping a pretty keen eye on their riders' drug
habits. If you start keeping those samples for 10 years, regressively
testing them with neat new tests, and then suing riders for prize money
when they come up positive, you'll get dopers to sit up and take notice.

Scary? You bet. In practice, you'll probably want to err on the side of
letting marginal (but likely dopey) cases through the net in the
interests of mercy and sensible caution. But these and other measures
could remove the economic advantages of doping which likely drive a lot
of doping. And creative testing regimens can increase both the certainty
of being caught and the uncertainty of being caught, if you know what I
mean.

So, what's it to be?

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

HOLY [censored] POTY! Hands down folks! We have a winner!

Ryan that's a pretty rare level of thoughtfulness and reasoning for
rbr as far as I'm concerned. That could've come from Henry when he
bothers to waste time thinking about cycling issues and isn't jerking
chains.
Bill C

Bill C said:

Did you miss all the heat that the Ultimate Fighting Championships
(UFC) got even though their safety record was much better than boxing.
Lots of States had moved to ban it, it had hit the Congressional radar,
and there were tons of anti-violence groups raising holy hell about it
due to the perception, not the reality.

dumbass,

the perception and the reality is that it's very gay.

benjo maso said:

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.

dumbass,

that's why Mapei and Festina are no longer in the sport.

it doesn't matter what schmoes on the street think, they aren't making
the money decisions, even euro sponsors shy away from cycling when
there's doping scandals.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

benjo maso said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Benjo

There is a grim issue I have with your position, Benjo: if you are going
to allow some "therapeutic" level of doping, why do you think the
problem of a level playing field gets easier?

[Ryan ranty rants]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, what's it to be?

Quoted message said:

HOLY [censored] POTY! Hands down folks! We have a winner!

Ryan that's a pretty rare level of thoughtfulness and reasoning for
rbr as far as I'm concerned. That could've come from Henry when he
bothers to waste time thinking about cycling issues and isn't jerking
chains.
Bill C

Thanks for the compliment. With the exception of the new economic ideas
bolted on, this is the same loony rant I post every few months here.

-RjC.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Dans le message de
news:[email hidden],
amit <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

benjo maso said:

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.

dumbass,

Neither original nor polite.

Quoted message said:

that's why Mapei and Festina are no longer in the sport.

Could you be wrong ? Festina remains a general sponsor, just not of a
separate team.

Quoted message said:

it doesn't matter what schmoes on the street think, they aren't making
the money decisions, even euro sponsors shy away from cycling when
there's doping scandals.

Schmoes on the street are the ones who buy or don't buy. Sponsors come and
go, taking advantage of what's there at the moment, for as long as it is
profitable. Too bad Cinzano and Ricard are gone...
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

amit said:

Bill C said:

Did you miss all the heat that the Ultimate Fighting Championships
(UFC) got even though their safety record was much better than boxing.
Lots of States had moved to ban it, it had hit the Congressional radar,
and there were tons of anti-violence groups raising holy hell about it
due to the perception, not the reality.

dumbass,

the perception and the reality is that it's very gay.

Is that bad?
Bill C