Tour de Dope

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

Quoted message said:

"This year's Tour has lost at least two teams, the winners of four stages
and the overall leader."

Precisely why I refused to even watch the tour this year although I love
the sport and a close friend calls to tell me how exciting it has been
this year(before the scandals). Maybe they need to add a red jersey for
the teams or players that have been caught and make them to continue but
ride in shame. It will be interesting to see what happen within the sport.
Will the dollar signs and prestige continue to drive the riders to side
with the Valdermort, dark lord.

You been watching HP with the grandkids again Doug? 😉

Quoted message said:

You would think they would at least learn to store their own blood for the
drink that refreshes during the race. How dumb can you get..............
Rhetorical. I hear Vince McMann wants to purchase the Tour and make it
part of the WWF non-sport circus.

-Doug

Yea, the doping scandal in cycling is a goddamned mess. Last year I was a
Floyd fan - had been before that when he was a domestic for Armstrong, and I
was excited to hear about his comeback breakaway mountain stage victory and
was looking forward to watching it on tape, but by the time I got the tape
from my cousin, the scandal had broken and my enjoyment of that stage was
ruined.

The one thing is that the testing organizations aren't exactly above
reproach either, both in their public pre-judgments in some cases, and in
altering the scientific parameters of tests in other cases. I also thing
that some of the tests are on a poor scientific footing anyway: biology
isn't rocket science; it's far more complicated! The idea that testing is
accurate and straightforward in all cases *and* above politics is wrong, and
the public doesn't understand that.

But really, exactly how dumb could Vino be to use someone else's blood?!
Mistake of the wrong blood bag perhaps. In any case I didn't really like him
anyway, nor did I like Rasmussen, though he was kicked out for failing to
give his whereabouts accurately, not a positive drug test. I think this
points to the future of anti-doping - the big brother system.

You'd have to track the athletes like criminals, with monitoring whereabouts
24/7, and weekly (or more frequent) testing, etc. The tests themselves will
never catch every substance, and if they're being altered to catch more
people based on that desire and not on science, that's a guilty until proven
innocent system and who wants that really. While it's true there are few
examples of false positives so far, without science, politics and special
interests will take over as they always do in practice and in law.

Going back in time - was Hinault a doper? Merckx? Armstrong? In the early
years of the tour de France, they would stop at pubs and get tanked (go
figure). Doping has always been in sport, though now with medical science
where it is, it has changed, yes. I hate to think a big brother society for
athletes is the only way to go, but the other choice is to let them
experiment and just stop publicizing it.

-Tony

Unfortunately lots of cheaters in all professional sports,
including running (sprinting). Frank Shorter,. an early US
marathon superstar, is adviser to the main world testing
agency. I heard him talk about it last year. He thinks
the tests are starting to beat the cheaters now and we
are seeing the results.

Quoted message said:

Doug said:

"This year's Tour has lost at least two teams, the winners of
four stages and the overall leader."

Precisely why I refused to even watch the tour this year although
I love the sport

OK, but I take the 180 degree opposite view: I think it's terrific
that the sport and some of its teams and individuals have gotten
really and truly serious about the problem. If I had the slightest
glimmer of interest in the sport I'd be far more interested in
watching now than in years past, when doping was obviously prevalent
and ignored.

I think the TdF needed a few years like this to come out cleaner on
the other side.

And whatever you think of the treatment of the athlete, his team
yanking Rasmussen near the end, in the lead, sends an enormously
bigger PR message to the casual or non-fan like me. If they'd
prevented him from starting it would've never appeared on my radar (if
I'd heard about it at all, wouldn't have recognized Rasmussen's name
or standing within the sport); but the way it went down, it sends a
message that "they" are absolutely not messing around.

Tony said:

nor did I like Rasmussen, though he was kicked out for failing to
give his whereabouts accurately, not a positive drug test. I think
this points to the future of anti-doping - the big brother system.

He broke the rules, four times. That plus whatever else they learned
was apparently enough for his team, and it's enough for me as an
ignorant bystander.

And circumstantially, given the nature of his actions and evasions,
I'm happy to conclude he very probably doped.

I firmly believe in "presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt" as a cornerstone around which to build a legal
system - a compulsory legal system ruling over everyone, with the
power to kill or incarcerate for life. For smaller groups with
voluntary participation and specific agendas, like say a revenue-
generating sport with a (justifiably) severely damaged image, that can
be a tad weak. Or if you're really married to that phrase for every
situation then be prepared for the "reasonable doubt" standard to vary
substantially.

Yeah, I hope the process (scientific and human) continues to be
perfected to reduce false positives, catch more cheaters, and minimize
intrusiveness wherever possible. Yes, the whole thing is rather
unfortunate.

No, I wouldn't prefer to "let boys be boys" and let 'em slug and drug
it out, such that the Faustian winner is whoever's willing to
sacrifice the most long term health - and maybe take on the highest
risk of short-term fatality too - to optimize his body as a machine on
this day or these weeks.

I applaud cycling for being aggressive about this while the American
major sports have their heads in varying depths of sand (or other
places the sun also don't shine).

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Doug said:

"This year's Tour has lost at least two teams, the winners of
four stages and the overall leader."

Precisely why I refused to even watch the tour this year although
I love the sport

OK, but I take the 180 degree opposite view: I think it's terrific
that the sport and some of its teams and individuals have gotten
really and truly serious about the problem. If I had the slightest
glimmer of interest in the sport I'd be far more interested in
watching now than in years past, when doping was obviously prevalent
and ignored.

I think the TdF needed a few years like this to come out cleaner on
the other side.

And whatever you think of the treatment of the athlete, his team
yanking Rasmussen near the end, in the lead, sends an enormously
bigger PR message to the casual or non-fan like me. If they'd
prevented him from starting it would've never appeared on my radar (if
I'd heard about it at all, wouldn't have recognized Rasmussen's name
or standing within the sport); but the way it went down, it sends a
message that "they" are absolutely not messing around.

Tony said:

nor did I like Rasmussen, though he was kicked out for failing to
give his whereabouts accurately, not a positive drug test. I think
this points to the future of anti-doping - the big brother system.

He broke the rules, four times. That plus whatever else they learned
was apparently enough for his team, and it's enough for me as an
ignorant bystander.

We don't know much yet, except that a former rider who now works as a
journalist thinks he saw rasumssen in italy. We'll see. And four violations
is blatant, though then why did they (his team and the Danish cycling
federation) even let him start the tour in the first place? All that was
known beforehand, and should have been known by the tour de France as well,
though they claim they're not involved with testing. In any case I'm not
saying he's innocent, or necessarily should be presumed innocent, but when
rumor and innuendo rule the day, no part of the system is workable in my
opinion.

For example, last year one could argue they got it right when they didn't
allow ullrich or basso to start the tour because of operation puerto, but at
that point there was no more proof against them than there ever was against
one Lance Armstrong. There were always rumors out there about Armstrong
being associated with Dr. Ferrari, among others. (Lance always claimed he
was using Dr. Ferarri for his unique training methods, and that is possible
though it can certainly be questioned). So while in retrospect it looks like
a good move to have kicked them out, I think it started a bad precedent
where guilt by association (did you see "Good Luck and Goodnight"?) rule the
day.

Quoted message said:

And circumstantially, given the nature of his actions and evasions,
I'm happy to conclude he very probably doped.

I firmly believe in "presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt" as a cornerstone around which to build a legal
system - a compulsory legal system ruling over everyone, with the
power to kill or incarcerate for life. For smaller groups with
voluntary participation and specific agendas, like say a revenue-
generating sport with a (justifiably) severely damaged image, that can
be a tad weak. Or if you're really married to that phrase for every
situation then be prepared for the "reasonable doubt" standard to vary
substantially.

Yeah, I hope the process (scientific and human) continues to be
perfected to reduce false positives, catch more cheaters, and minimize
intrusiveness wherever possible. Yes, the whole thing is rather
unfortunate.

No, I wouldn't prefer to "let boys be boys" and let 'em slug and drug
it out, such that the Faustian winner is whoever's willing to
sacrifice the most long term health - and maybe take on the highest
risk of short-term fatality too - to optimize his body as a machine on
this day or these weeks.

I applaud cycling for being aggressive about this while the American
major sports have their heads in varying depths of sand (or other
places the sun also don't shine).

I'd agree with this, though have they done it in the best way to set
precedent for other sports? I think not. If you're going to really go big
brother on athletes, design a program for that, pay the athletes a base
salary to submit to it, and then build it carefully based on science, make
it's rules transparent, and keep out the politics as much as possible. With
each country having it's own doping controls and of course politics, the
current system is set up for continuing chaos.

-Tony

Tony said:

In any case I'm not saying he's innocent, or necessarily should
be presumed innocent, but when rumor and innuendo rule the day,
no part of the system is workable in my opinion.

Agreed.

But from back here in the peanut gallery, this doesn't look like a
case of rumor an innuendo ruling the day at all. Dude's not being
punished because casual observers like me think we smell a rat; he was
yanked because he violated a clear rule four times, very black and
white.

Again I won't argue passionately over the manner in which he was
yanked. That's a lot murkier, not so black and white. But whether
through intent or coincidence, it could hardly have been timed more
effectively for PR purposes.

Quoted message said:

Lance always claimed he was using Dr. Ferarri for his unique training
methods

cough cough dirty texan cough

Quoted message said:

So while in retrospect it looks like a good move to have kicked them
out, I think it started a bad precedent where guilt by association
(did you see "Good Luck and Goodnight"?) rule the day.

I can't argue the specifics of that case, which I didn't follow.

But I'm uncomfortable with a McCarthyism comparison.

I really doubt I'm much if any less concerned about individual
liberties, governmental bullying, guilt by insinuation, witch hunts
etc. than you when it comes to citizens of this country (or people at
large anywhere). Believe me, this sort of concern is way way way up
on my list.

But enormous difference in my book between that war/smear campaign
against members of our society at large for their political beliefs,
and a few dozen of the top athletes who *choose* to compete for the
big bucks and thereby agree to play by the rules. And who furthermore
are choosing a pursuit where, like it or not, they'll be role models
for zillions of kids.

And if cleaning up the sport means a few false positives, that's
unfortunate; but I say it's a calculated risk the riders take. If I
imagine myself a gifted young cyclist (or say miler), I'd vastly
prefer a scenario where I've got a 2% chance of being barred from
competition for a couple years over a false positive vs. one where I
felt doping was mandatory to compete. As a spectator it's also an
easy choice for me.

Quoted message said:

If you're going to really go big brother on athletes, design a program
for that, pay the athletes a base salary to submit to it, and then build
it carefully based on science, make it's rules transparent, and keep out
the politics as much as possible.

Sure, most of that sounds good to me.

But why a base salary? Why should the compensation model be changed
just because the athletes must bear some burden of proof of their
compliance with the rules?

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

Quoted message said:

Tony said:

In any case I'm not saying he's innocent, or necessarily should
be presumed innocent, but when rumor and innuendo rule the day,
no part of the system is workable in my opinion.

Agreed.

But from back here in the peanut gallery, this doesn't look like a
case of rumor an innuendo ruling the day at all. Dude's not being
punished because casual observers like me think we smell a rat; he was
yanked because he violated a clear rule four times, very black and
white.

It was last year more than this when they yanked riders based on rumor only.
Rasmussen should never have started the tour this year, I agree with that.

Quoted message said:

Again I won't argue passionately over the manner in which he was
yanked. That's a lot murkier, not so black and white. But whether
through intent or coincidence, it could hardly have been timed more
effectively for PR purposes.

Quoted message said:

Lance always claimed he was using Dr. Ferarri for his unique training
methods

cough cough dirty texan cough

Quoted message said:

So while in retrospect it looks like a good move to have kicked them
out, I think it started a bad precedent where guilt by association
(did you see "Good Luck and Goodnight"?) rule the day.

I can't argue the specifics of that case, which I didn't follow.

But I'm uncomfortable with a McCarthyism comparison.

I really doubt I'm much if any less concerned about individual
liberties, governmental bullying, guilt by insinuation, witch hunts
etc. than you when it comes to citizens of this country (or people at
large anywhere). Believe me, this sort of concern is way way way up
on my list.

But enormous difference in my book between that war/smear campaign
against members of our society at large for their political beliefs,
and a few dozen of the top athletes who *choose* to compete for the
big bucks and thereby agree to play by the rules. And who furthermore
are choosing a pursuit where, like it or not, they'll be role models
for zillions of kids.

For most of the support cyclists, it's not big bucks like in the major
sports in the USA. While I agree that athletes choose to participate in
sport, and they do agree to live within the testing rules, many riders got
yanked last year on rumor alone, and guilty or not, I don't think that's
right. Another example is that a rider isn't supposed to be judged guilty
until the "B" sample is tested and confirms the "A" sample result. When a
rider tested positive this year (not Rasmussen or Vino since Vino's "B"
sample isn't back yet), not only was he yanked immediately (maybe this is
the current TDF rule, not sure), his team said they wouldn't even request
that the "B" sample be tested. I just think you have to keep it as it was
designed because of testing issues. As the testing rules are written, to
ensure accuracy of both the sample and the test, you don't make any
judgement until the "B" sample is tested - that's how the system is supposed
to operate, but that rule isn't being followed. An atmosphere of hysteria
has taken over. In Floyd Landis' case, the tests were complicated, and it
appears that the French lab may not have followed procedure appropriately -
so what do you do - call him guilty? The public thinks all the tests are
clearcut and definitive, but in many cases they're not.

Quoted message said:

And if cleaning up the sport means a few false positives, that's
unfortunate; but I say it's a calculated risk the riders take. If I
imagine myself a gifted young cyclist (or say miler), I'd vastly
prefer a scenario where I've got a 2% chance of being barred from
competition for a couple years over a false positive vs. one where I
felt doping was mandatory to compete. As a spectator it's also an
easy choice for me.

I disagree. Would you feel the same if you got a false positive for opiates
from eating a sesame seed bagel before being tested at work? This happens
fairly frequently to many US workers that are required to take drug tests as
part of their jobs.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you're going to really go big brother on athletes, design a program
for that, pay the athletes a base salary to submit to it, and then build
it carefully based on science, make it's rules transparent, and keep out
the politics as much as possible.

Sure, most of that sounds good to me.

But why a base salary? Why should the compensation model be changed
just because the athletes must bear some burden of proof of their
compliance with the rules?

Yea, I don't know if compensation makes sense, but I also think it's bearing
more than some burden of proof. Registering your whereabouts and giving up
your blood/urine weekly - yielding to big brother as though you were a
chronic substance abuse / sex offender - is a steep price to pay for
participation in sport.

-Tony

Tony S. said:

In the early
years of the tour de France, they would stop at pubs and get tanked (go
figure).

Perfickerly lochical... Hic! #%-S

"Tony S." <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I disagree. Would you feel the same if you got a false positive for
opiates from eating a sesame seed bagel before being tested at work? This
happens fairly frequently to many US workers that are required to take
drug tests as part of their jobs.

I think you mean Poppy Seeds? My favorite kosher bakery snack is filled
with a poppy seed compote -- I keep ordering more and more and more.... :-)

"steve common" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Perfickerly lochical... Hic! #%-S

Hiking and biking the year thru, are we?

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

Quoted message said:

"Tony S." <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I disagree. Would you feel the same if you got a false positive for
opiates from eating a sesame seed bagel before being tested at work? This
happens fairly frequently to many US workers that are required to take
drug tests as part of their jobs.

I think you mean Poppy Seeds? My favorite kosher bakery snack is filled
with a poppy seed compote -- I keep ordering more and more and more....
:-)

Yea, poppy, not of the Afghan vareity.

-Tony

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

Quoted message said:

"Tony S." <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I disagree. Would you feel the same if you got a false positive for
opiates from eating a sesame seed bagel before being tested at work?
This happens fairly frequently to many US workers that are required
to take drug tests as part of their jobs.

I think you mean Poppy Seeds? My favorite kosher bakery snack is
filled with a poppy seed compote -- I keep ordering more and more and
more.... :-)

And all this time I thought you trained hard. 🙂

-Doug