Take 80 to 100 Wasps....

B Lafferty said:

....and call me in the morning.

From CyclingNews:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/feb05/feb06news
July 2, 2003

Museeuw: "A wasps' nest, can you work one out? I'm leaving on

Wednesday for

Quoted message said:

a training camp. I have no sight of the wasp. I have no control until

28/7."

Quoted message said:

Landuyt: "Now I would take 80-100 wasps and at the start of the

training

Quoted message said:

camp a minimum of 40 and maximum of 60 wasps. Then completely clean

from

Quoted message said:

19/7. It has to be in the inner tube. Test with washing machine."

Museeuw: "Subcutaneously or in the nose?"
Landuyt: "Always intravenously with wasp. Otherwise bingo. So

certainly

Quoted message said:

intravenously."

--
How strange when an illusion dies, it's as though you've lost a

child.--Judy

Quoted message said:

Garland

That's going to be pretty tough to explain, or explain away, even with
no positive test. It's not concrete proof but it's pretty damn
convincing. For me this is worse than Hamilton if his is proven, or
even anything close to this level of proof. Hamilton was/is a good
human interest story, especially for Americans, but Musueew is a legend
with the results to validate it. Now those results have to be, at the
very least, marked with an asterisk. The only thing you can say is that
it's pretty much a given that he wasn't the only one on those podiums
who was doping.
Bill C

Bill C said:

B Lafferty said:

....and call me in the morning.

From CyclingNews:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/feb05/feb06news
July 2, 2003

Museeuw: "A wasps' nest, can you work one out? I'm leaving on

Wednesday for

Quoted message said:

a training camp. I have no sight of the wasp. I have no control until

28/7."

Quoted message said:

Landuyt: "Now I would take 80-100 wasps and at the start of the

training

Quoted message said:

camp a minimum of 40 and maximum of 60 wasps. Then completely clean

from

Quoted message said:

19/7. It has to be in the inner tube. Test with washing machine."

Museeuw: "Subcutaneously or in the nose?"
Landuyt: "Always intravenously with wasp. Otherwise bingo. So

certainly

Quoted message said:

intravenously."

--
How strange when an illusion dies, it's as though you've lost a

child.--Judy

Quoted message said:

Garland

That's going to be pretty tough to explain, or explain away, even with
no positive test. It's not concrete proof but it's pretty damn
convincing. For me this is worse than Hamilton if his is proven, or
even anything close to this level of proof. Hamilton was/is a good
human interest story, especially for Americans, but Musueew is a legend
with the results to validate it. Now those results have to be, at the
very least, marked with an asterisk. The only thing you can say is that
it's pretty much a given that he wasn't the only one on those podiums
who was doping.

That's the point I've been trying to make every damn time I bother to post in
this group: There are no asterisks because everybody would have an asterisk. It
ain't cheating if everybody does it. Look at that thread about Lance and the
Hour - do you suppose Armstrong should take as much speed as Eddy did.

Cycling has had a drug problem for over 100 freeking years.

If we want it to come clean we stop fussing, worrying and persecuting who and
what and when in the PAST and mover forward with the intent and rules that
support clean racing in the future.

In the past the technology didn't exist that could catch all the cheats, it is
now a lot closer. Let's worry about what we can now control and the future
instead of flogging an unfortunate past about which we can do nothing but insult
the memory of the greats.

Ron

RonSonic said:

It
ain't cheating if everybody does it.

that isn't the definition of cheating.

Quoted message said:

If we want it to come clean we stop fussing, worrying and persecuting

who and

Quoted message said:

what and when in the PAST and mover forward with the intent and rules

that

Quoted message said:

support clean racing in the future.

that sounds like a concrete solution. i can't believe the UCI hasn't
figured this out.

Quoted message said:

In the past the technology didn't exist that could catch all the

cheats, it is

Quoted message said:

now a lot closer.

blood doping, epo, aranesp actually make someone significantly better.
speed, steroids, don't have nearly as much of an impact on endurance
performance.

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

Quoted message said:

B Lafferty said:

....and call me in the morning.

From CyclingNews:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/feb05/feb06news
July 2, 2003

Museeuw: "A wasps' nest, can you work one out? I'm leaving on

Wednesday for

Quoted message said:

a training camp. I have no sight of the wasp. I have no control until

28/7."

Quoted message said:

Landuyt: "Now I would take 80-100 wasps and at the start of the

training

Quoted message said:

camp a minimum of 40 and maximum of 60 wasps. Then completely clean

from

Quoted message said:

19/7. It has to be in the inner tube. Test with washing machine."

Museeuw: "Subcutaneously or in the nose?"
Landuyt: "Always intravenously with wasp. Otherwise bingo. So

certainly

Quoted message said:

intravenously."

--
How strange when an illusion dies, it's as though you've lost a

child.--Judy

Quoted message said:

Garland

That's going to be pretty tough to explain, or explain away, even with
no positive test. It's not concrete proof but it's pretty damn
convincing. For me this is worse than Hamilton if his is proven, or
even anything close to this level of proof. Hamilton was/is a good
human interest story, especially for Americans, but Musueew is a legend
with the results to validate it. Now those results have to be, at the
very least, marked with an asterisk. The only thing you can say is that
it's pretty much a given that he wasn't the only one on those podiums
who was doping.
Bill C

When you look at the rest of the published conversations from CN and
consider that this is a very small portion of the phone taps, there is
little doubt that the Lion of Flanders is really the Liar of Flanders. But
then, amongst the top pros, who isn't (excepting the US riders, domestic and
Euro, of course)

B Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

B Lafferty said:

....and call me in the morning.

From CyclingNews:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/feb05/feb06news
July 2, 2003

Museeuw: "A wasps' nest, can you work one out? I'm leaving on

Wednesday for

Quoted message said:

a training camp. I have no sight of the wasp. I have no control until

28/7."

Quoted message said:

Landuyt: "Now I would take 80-100 wasps and at the start of the

training

Quoted message said:

camp a minimum of 40 and maximum of 60 wasps. Then completely clean

from

Quoted message said:

19/7. It has to be in the inner tube. Test with washing machine."

Museeuw: "Subcutaneously or in the nose?"
Landuyt: "Always intravenously with wasp. Otherwise bingo. So

certainly

Quoted message said:

intravenously."

--
How strange when an illusion dies, it's as though you've lost a

child.--Judy

Quoted message said:

Garland

That's going to be pretty tough to explain, or explain away, even with
no positive test. It's not concrete proof but it's pretty damn
convincing. For me this is worse than Hamilton if his is proven, or
even anything close to this level of proof. Hamilton was/is a good
human interest story, especially for Americans, but Musueew is a legend
with the results to validate it. Now those results have to be, at the
very least, marked with an asterisk. The only thing you can say is that
it's pretty much a given that he wasn't the only one on those podiums
who was doping.
Bill C

When you look at the rest of the published conversations from CN and
consider that this is a very small portion of the phone taps, there is
little doubt that the Lion of Flanders is really the Liar of Flanders. But
then, amongst the top pros, who isn't (excepting the US riders, domestic and
Euro, of course)

Well gee whiz, now that you are starting to get this figured out why not drop
your silly crusade of slurs and sneers and get a decent hobby. Maybe something
simple like following bicycle racing. It's a great sport and far more
interesting than the moral preening over drug use.

Ron

Luke said:

In article <[email hidden]>, RonSonic

Quoted message said:

That's the point I've been trying to make every damn time I bother to post in
this group: There are no asterisks because everybody would have an asterisk.

No asteriks need be appended if, indeed, the cheaters are first among
equals. But, first should it not be established that they are?

Quoted message said:

It
ain't cheating if everybody does it. Look at that thread about Lance and the
Hour - do you suppose Armstrong should take as much speed as Eddy did.

Cycling has had a drug problem for over 100 freeking years.

If we want it to come clean we stop fussing, worrying and persecuting who and
what and when in the PAST and mover forward with the intent and rules that
support clean racing in the future.

Let's make a distinction between a persecution and an examination of
the truth--what's to fear from revealing the cloistered realities of
the pro peleton? If the Lion--or others--resorted to chemical courage
let it be known. After all, one cannot build toward 'clean racing in
the future' without determining the constitution and scope of the filth
pervading it today. And the how the transgressions are addressed today
figures into shaping that future.

Quoted message said:

In the past the technology didn't exist that could catch all the cheats, it is
now a lot closer. Let's worry about what we can now control and the future
instead of flogging an unfortunate past about which we can do nothing but
insult
the memory of the greats.

Ron

'Insult the memory of the greats!!??' <roll of the eyes> Yes, let not
the legacies of these gods suffer from unflattering truths.

They were great because they were great. Yep, they were also doped up. So was
the competition.

Now, does it matter what happened when? I think it doesn't. Oh, it gives
amusement to Lafferty and a life to Matt D for the rest of us and the sport
itself, nada.

Develop a sound, effective anti-doping program that the riders are comfortable
with and go from there.

Ron

"Wasps"?? "Washing machine"?? I don't see what the big deal is, Museeuw could
just say that he was thinking of opening a laundromat, or taking up beekeeping
as a hobby, after he retired. And his doctor was helping him out. Yeah,
that's it, beekeeping and laundromats. Nothing wrong with that. Those
cyclists like good quality honey, and they need clean clothes. . .

J. Spaceman

--
My email address ([email hidden]) is fake. Email sent to it
will only get caught in my spam tarpit.

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, RonSonic

Quoted message said:

That's the point I've been trying to make every damn time I bother to
post in
this group: There are no asterisks because everybody would have an
asterisk.

No asteriks need be appended if, indeed, the cheaters are first among
equals. But, first should it not be established that they are?

Here's the scoop - at the very end of his career Museeuw doesn't know how to
dope and is getting exact instructions.

Obviously those here who say everyone is doping just can't seem to add 2 and
2 together without getting 7.

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

Quoted message said:

Well gee whiz, now that you are starting to get this figured out why not
drop
your silly crusade of slurs and sneers and get a decent hobby. Maybe
something
simple like following bicycle racing. It's a great sport and far more
interesting than the moral preening over drug use.

Ron

It was a much greater and more interesting sport before the advent of EPO
and the other drugs of the past 15 years plus the resurgence of both forms
of blood doping. The problem is there for all to see. It's not about
slurs........the truth is not a slur. It is a great sport that is being
destroyed by cheats. Your attitude doesn't do anything to solve the
problem.

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

Quoted message said:

Luke said:

In article <[email hidden]>, RonSonic

Quoted message said:

That's the point I've been trying to make every damn time I bother to
post in
this group: There are no asterisks because everybody would have an
asterisk.

No asteriks need be appended if, indeed, the cheaters are first among
equals. But, first should it not be established that they are?

Quoted message said:

It
ain't cheating if everybody does it. Look at that thread about Lance and
the
Hour - do you suppose Armstrong should take as much speed as Eddy did.

Cycling has had a drug problem for over 100 freeking years.

If we want it to come clean we stop fussing, worrying and persecuting
who and
what and when in the PAST and mover forward with the intent and rules
that
support clean racing in the future.

Let's make a distinction between a persecution and an examination of
the truth--what's to fear from revealing the cloistered realities of
the pro peleton? If the Lion--or others--resorted to chemical courage
let it be known. After all, one cannot build toward 'clean racing in
the future' without determining the constitution and scope of the filth
pervading it today. And the how the transgressions are addressed today
figures into shaping that future.

Quoted message said:

In the past the technology didn't exist that could catch all the cheats,
it is
now a lot closer. Let's worry about what we can now control and the
future
instead of flogging an unfortunate past about which we can do nothing
but
insult
the memory of the greats.

Ron

'Insult the memory of the greats!!??' <roll of the eyes> Yes, let not
the legacies of these gods suffer from unflattering truths.

They were great because they were great. Yep, they were also doped up. So
was
the competition.

Now, does it matter what happened when? I think it doesn't. Oh, it gives
amusement to Lafferty and a life to Matt D for the rest of us and the
sport
itself, nada.

Develop a sound, effective anti-doping program that the riders are
comfortable
with and go from there.

That the riders are comfortable with? Most of them have been quite
comfortable over the past 15 years. Where have you been?

You might also want to consider that the level of doping since the advent of
EPO has made performance enhancement much more pronounced than in the quaint
old days of Coppi, Simpson, Jacques et al. And, at least those guys were
honest enough to admit that they juiced.

Re: "Here's the scoop - at the very end of his career Museeuw doesn't
know how to
dope and is getting exact instructions"

Possibly. But another explanation may be that he had only just changed
to aranesp (ie darbopoietin) from something else (eg erythropoietin)
and may be unsure of the new drug's dosages and the timing of the
drug's desired effect.

B Lafferty said:

It was a much greater and more interesting sport before the advent of

EPO

Quoted message said:

and the other drugs of the past 15 years plus the resurgence of both

forms

Quoted message said:

of blood doping.

dumbass, that's where you're wrong. as i've said here before, in
cycling as in rock'n'roll the best performances are drug performances.

pantani's blistering mtn attacks, furlan's poggio ascent, vdb's LBL
win, perhaps moose's greatest wins. when milaneza was tearing it up at
paris nice a couple years ago everyone was talking about their panache
etc. but it was the EPO.

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, RonSonic

Quoted message said:

That's the point I've been trying to make every damn time I bother to
post in
this group: There are no asterisks because everybody would have an
asterisk.

No asteriks need be appended if, indeed, the cheaters are first among
equals. But, first should it not be established that they are?

Here's the scoop - at the very end of his career Museeuw doesn't know how

to

Quoted message said:

dope and is getting exact instructions.

If that is the case, then his silence about all this doesn't really make
sense. I would expect that Museeuw would be willing to admit his doping use
if it was just a fraction of his career, because it would not taint his most
important achievements. Given his status, most people in his home country
would have given him the benefit of the doubt. But in reality, because he
will not admit anything, they suspect the worst. I understand why.

Quoted message said:

Obviously those here who say everyone is doping just can't seem to add 2

and

Quoted message said:

2 together without getting 7.

'Everyone' is probably an overestimation, but there are many indications
that doping among pro cyclists is the norm rather than the exception. This
suspicion is often viewed as a hostile accusation against some or all
riders, which is bound to include the favorites that were assumed to be
clean or even considered to be paragons of virtue. But the doping hasn't
made me feel different towards any rider; I don't view either Hamilton or
Museeuw in a different way and can still respect what they did. The doping
problem appears to be bigger than any individual pro rider, so there is very
little to be gained by accusing or defending any individual and then
shouting victory when you're proven right. Doping issues should not become
an arena for other sentiments.

"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" schreef:

Quoted message said:

If that is the case, then his silence about all this doesn't really make
sense. I would expect that Museeuw would be willing to admit his doping use
if it was just a fraction of his career, because it would not taint his most
important achievements. Given his status, most people in his home country
would have given him the benefit of the doubt. But in reality, because he
will not admit anything, they suspect the worst. I understand why.

But I don't understand you. Cycling fans in his home country are aware doping
use is all around. That's what they basicly expect, and they don't bother.

What puzzles me and others is indeed the very fact the Museeuw at that age was
getting clued in and behaved so amateurishly about it. That makes me 'suspect'
he was rather clean-ish in his prime.

What you would expect about admitting etc. is not relevant either. Being Dutch
you must have seen lots of TV-interviews. Did he ever appear to be fitting in
your logic or the common sense?

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

Quoted message said:

B Lafferty said:

It was a much greater and more interesting sport before the advent of

EPO

Quoted message said:

and the other drugs of the past 15 years plus the resurgence of both

forms

Quoted message said:

of blood doping.

dumbass, that's where you're wrong. as i've said here before, in
cycling as in rock'n'roll the best performances are drug performances.

pantani's blistering mtn attacks, furlan's poggio ascent, vdb's LBL
win, perhaps moose's greatest wins. when milaneza was tearing it up at
paris nice a couple years ago everyone was talking about their panache
etc. but it was the EPO.

And groups of 30-40 riders in the closing kilometers of classics. Lead
peolotons of 20+ riders going over all the cols in the TdF as if they were
rolling hills and not major climbs. Riders with non-climbers height to
weight ratios able to climb like true climbers. Like Herrars said, when he
saw guys with fat asses passing him on major cols like he was standing
still, he knew the new drugs were responsible and that it was time to
retire. We can disagree, but I think there is a major difference in the
racing pre and post EPO and one difference is that the racing has become
more boring, set piece riding.

In article <[email hidden]>, RonSonic

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

'Insult the memory of the greats!!??' <roll of the eyes> Yes, let not
the legacies of these gods suffer from unflattering truths.

They were great because they were great. Yep, they were also doped up. So was
the competition.

Now, does it matter what happened when? I think it doesn't.

Perhaps we share the same sentiments: Although I think it does matter
in the sense that openly acknowledging the extent and history of a
problem better informs the strategy designed to address it; as you, I
don't believe the lustre of the palmares of Merckx, Anquetuil, et al,
will be tarnished. Times and standards were different then: present-day
competition is more sophisticated and regulated. Kinda makes ya yearn
for a simpler era....

Quoted message said:

Oh, it gives
amusement to Lafferty and a life to Matt D for the rest of us and the sport
itself, nada.

Develop a sound, effective anti-doping program that the riders are comfortable
with and go from there.

Ron

Unfortunately, the numbing regularity of doping scandals indicates that
the peleton seems quite comfortable in accommodating the problem. I
wonder if consensus among the riders regarding an anti-doping
initiative is at all possible. No, the time for diplomacy is over.
There's no time like the present for cheaters to appreciate that they
must suffer the consequences of breaking the rules.

luke

"Van Hoorebeeck Bart" <[email hidden]> schreef in
bericht news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" schreef:

Quoted message said:

If that is the case, then his silence about all this doesn't really make
sense. I would expect that Museeuw would be willing to admit his doping

use

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

if it was just a fraction of his career, because it would not taint his

most

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

important achievements. Given his status, most people in his home

country

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

would have given him the benefit of the doubt. But in reality, because

he

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

will not admit anything, they suspect the worst. I understand why.

But I don't understand you. Cycling fans in his home country are aware

doping

Quoted message said:

use is all around. That's what they basicly expect, and they don't bother.

Well, as I understood it from newspapers and what I saw on Belgian TV, he
would have met with a lot mroe understanding had he been as open as, say Ben
Berden. Perhaps because people already suspect pro riders to dope, and are
willing to believe Museeuw if he claims he did it just a few times to keep
up with the best at the end of his career.

And people do bother - unless I am gravely mistaken, the sanction put on
Museeuw did come as a shock.

Quoted message said:

What puzzles me and others is indeed the very fact the Museeuw at that

age was

Quoted message said:

getting clued in and behaved so amateurishly about it. That makes me

'suspect'

Quoted message said:

he was rather clean-ish in his prime.

Rather cleanish? Relatively clean? That's saying a lot when in a strict
sense a single use of a forbidden product, even if its effects are minimal,
can cost a rider years of his career. Ofcourse it is possible that Museeuw
behaved like a beginner, but it does raise questions about how experienced
dopers would act.

Quoted message said:

What you would expect about admitting etc. is not relevant either. Being

Dutch

Quoted message said:

you must have seen lots of TV-interviews. Did he ever appear to be fitting

in

Quoted message said:

your logic or the common sense?

He appeared to be meeting his lawyer's wishes. Also, I think his actions
make most sense if he has been doping to some extent most of his career.
Rather cleanish, I would agree.

RonSonic said:

In the past the technology didn't exist that could catch all the cheats, it is
now a lot closer.

It's touching to see such idealism still exists.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:13:12 +0200, Donald Munro <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

RonSonic said:

In the past the technology didn't exist that could catch all the cheats, it is
now a lot closer.

It's touching to see such idealism still exists.

That's "a lot closer."

No it won't ever happen. Perhaps there'll come a time when you submit a DNA
sample with your license application and any blood test result that is
inconsistent with that DNA profile will be considered a positive.

Even then there'll be a work-around.

Ron