VDB

Tom said:

Never seen VDB's wife, so can't comment on that one.

http://www.p-magazine.com/pages/02foto/shoots/Sarah_Pinacci/

--
E. Dronkert

DepartFictif said:

Wow. You seem to know a lot about it. With comments like that I'm
surprised you haven't got a job at the UCI.
So... if that is what cheating is, then LA cheated when he cut that
corner in 03... yet the commissaires decided it wasn't "cheating" as he
didn't get an "unfair advantage". I'm sorry, I'm lost an confused,
could you try and explain to me one more time what cheating is.

yes, it was but that's where the judgement call comes in.

sometimes riders get away with taking an illegal feed or drafting a
vehicle and sometimes they don't.

same with doping.

but it's still cheating.

That's nice...

Tom

PS: Much better than Ms. Crow, although I believe that she's not bad
looking either.

Photographer: Come on, show me, show me, yeah yeah yeah BEAUTIFUL,
baby. OK, move over to that chair...

Mrs. VDB: Wait, it uh, it looks like a toilet...

P: Oh yeah...the dumbasses at rbr will love that! Just pretend your
flushing the dog's drugs down... and looking hot for the coppers!
Awriiiight beautiful.

drafting isn't really in the same league. That's just how you get back
after a flat, that really isn't cheating.But anyway. The point I
wanted to bring up, was that is lots/most/all/a majority (whatever) or
riders are "doping" then it is a level playing in some respects.

I don't think you should "I HATE DOPERS". You first need to think
about how and why they may take banned products, think about more than
just black and white, it really isn't that simple and it isn't fair to
a lot of riders (including those "cheats"😉.

The federations etc don't sent out a clear message. Most of you are
basing your ideas of dopers on a moral standpoint. It is very
difficult for a rider to know what is and what isn't morally OK.

A very simple example: Pseudoephedrine was banned last year, a rider
could have tested positive for it, been labeled a cheat, an evil
person, had his/her face brandished around in the papers and on the
news, and been called a "cheating doper" by all you guys... however
this year Pseudoephedrine is one of the products that has been removed
from the list.. so this year that very same cheating, doping, dirty
rider, could/would be called, clean, great or even used as an example
to kids of what the true meaning of sport is etc. This is just a very
simple example of how athletes get mixed messages from federations and
agencies. Most of you guys here are americans, so you might like
this.. Creatine (that a lot of you use I'm sure) that can also be found
in SoBe drinks is/was a banned substance in most of Europe. "Y'all"
probably think of creatine like you do sugar, but in Europe there was a
time when creatine was one of the many things all these "cheats" were
taking... it was even thought of as a masking agent at one time
(eh?!)... so where does an athlete get this great moral stance you all
assume they should all base their lives and jobs on?
These are futile examples, but they are examples of products on the
banned list, and therefore constitute "DOPING"... surly you can all see
how these simple things can/could/do lead to further confusion with
regards to athletes and doping.

It's all very well getting all high and mighty about doping.. but I'm
sure you have all been "doped" at some point. I'm sure a lot/most of
you have taken Sudafed, Strepsils or even coffee and done a race
without thinking twice about what you had taken, when, and how much...
technically... although you weren't taking EPO, HGH, actovegin or any
of the other products you probably think of when you use the term
"doping"... technically... you could still very well have been "doped"
should you have undergone a test.

All I'm saying is that you first have to truly understand the situation
before anything can be done about it. If everyone simply goes around
pointing fingers and insulting people, then nothing is ever going to
change.

And I'm not even going to mention the argument that some forms of
"doping" are healthier for riders undergoing the rigors of a full
season, or the argument that your doctor gives you medicines when you
are sick and I'm sure you never ask him if they are safe for you long
term. Some of these rider are in exactly the same situation; they sit
in front of a Doctor who tells them they are anemic due to the racing
(or whatever) and that they should take "x, y, z".

Life ain't simple. It require some thought!

DepartFictif said:

drafting isn't really in the same league. That's just how you get back
after a flat, that really isn't cheating.

well according to the rule book it is cheating under any circumstances.
how it's enforced is another matter.

Quoted message said:

But anyway. The point I
wanted to bring up, was that is lots/most/all/a majority (whatever) or
riders are "doping" then it is a level playing in some respects.

that might be the moral rationale for doping, but that doesn't mean
it's not "cheating".

Quoted message said:

I don't think you should "I HATE DOPERS". You first need to think
about how and why they may take banned products, think about more than
just black and white, it really isn't that simple and it isn't fair to
a lot of riders (including those "cheats"😉.

i don't think the problem of doping is simple, but it think the answer
to the question "what is doping?" is simpler. sure there's all kinds of
technicalities about levels and prescriptions and whatnot, but it's
simply what's spelled out in the rule book.

Quoted message said:

The federations etc don't sent out a clear message. Most of you are
basing your ideas of dopers on a moral standpoint. It is very
difficult for a rider to know what is and what isn't morally OK.

i don't put that much moral stake in it. it's like chopping someone in
a sprint, if you do it, you might get away with it, or you might get
caught. if yo do it a lot, it's likely at some point you'll get caught.
but it's something a lot of normal non-evil people would do if they
really wanted to beat the other guy.

Quoted message said:

A very simple example: Pseudoephedrine was banned last year, a rider
could have tested positive for it, been labeled a cheat, an evil
person, had his/her face brandished around in the papers and on the
news, and been called a "cheating doper" by all you guys... however
this year Pseudoephedrine is one of the products that has been removed
from the list.. so this year that very same cheating, doping, dirty
rider, could/would be called, clean, great or even used as an example
to kids of what the true meaning of sport is etc.

yes. absolutely. if the rules say it's okay, it's not cheating.

some NFL players openly use substances that are banned by the IOC, but
it's legal in their sport and they are admired for using painkillers or
whatever to stay on the field. but that game has different rules.

Quoted message said:

It's all very well getting all high and mighty about doping.. but I'm
sure you have all been "doped" at some point. I'm sure a lot/most of
you have taken Sudafed, Strepsils or even coffee and done a race
without thinking twice about what you had taken, when, and how much...
technically... although you weren't taking EPO, HGH, actovegin or any
of the other products you probably think of when you use the term
"doping"... technically... you could still very well have been "doped"
should you have undergone a test.

uh yeah, but doping is only cheating in my opinion if it breaks the
rules. my coffee might break the rules if i drank it with my butt,
bugno-style.

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

Quoted message said:

Doesn't doping = cheating? If so, then you hate dopers. Because they
are cheaters. I don't like them either, but then again, I guess I don't
take this stuff as serious as you do.

I don't like cheaters, but I don't hate them. They're human beings caught
up in a system in which cheating is the norm and they feel they must do it
to be competitive.

Quoted message said:

VDB is not any different than any
of the other sanctioned dopers in the pro peloton, although, he does
seem to have some more serious mental health issues than the rest,
except for maybe Pantani, and he's no longer around to kick when down.

Thanks you for agreeing.

Quoted message said:

Armstrong's "positive finding" as you call it is very much in question.
I know maybe not to you, but to most of the rest of the world it is,
and believe me when I say, I'm not a very big Armstrong fan at all. The
entire EPO testing process is under indictment after it has been proven
to not be accurate (the Belgian tri guys who got off). The testing,
while the best that we have right now, I think needs to be re-tooled,
and re-evaluated. The testers and the labs are saying, but it's the
best, it's accurate, and then you have findings to the contrary. Why
can't these guys admit that possibly they may be wrong and need to do
some more work on it to make it airtight?

Nothing is ever airtight in life. Right now Sir Lance has a positive
finding in his urine for EPO. Let me know when that goes away.

Quoted message said:

Never seen VDB's wife, so can't comment on that one.

How long have you been following pro cycling?

Quoted message said:

Tom

In article
<[email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

Nothing is ever airtight in life. Right now Sir Lance has a positive
finding in his urine for EPO. Let me know when that goes away.

Problem here is that the protocol used to obtain this
finding is not enough to sanction Armstrong, but it is
enough to smear his reputation forever. Since the test was
not within the rules established, the publication of the
finding is cheating by WADA and UCI. They broke the rules;
who will sanction them?

--
Michael Press

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

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

Nothing is ever airtight in life. Right now Sir Lance has a positive
finding in his urine for EPO. Let me know when that goes away.

Problem here is that the protocol used to obtain this
finding is not enough to sanction Armstrong, but it is
enough to smear his reputation forever. Since the test was
not within the rules established, the publication of the
finding is cheating by WADA and UCI. They broke the rules;
who will sanction them?

And if the test is valid and conducted properly from a scientific
perspective thereby assuring to more than a reasonable certainty that the
positive finding is valid, how would the truth smear ones reputation? It
would simply reveal the rider for what he or she is--a cheat and a liar.

Quoted message said:

--
Michael Press

Quoted message said:

uh yeah, but doping is only cheating in my opinion if it breaks the
rules. my coffee might break the rules if i drank it with my butt,
bugno-style.

Dumbass,
If you're really like coffee enemas, caffeine and pseudoephedrine are
unbanned so go ahead and indulge yourself. Personally I prefer a sudafed
washed down with a red bull.

To clarify, when I write, "reform of the entity," the "entity" in
question is the testing facility. The guy here is not in a position to
claim "my duty as a lab technician is to pro cycling," it's beyond the
scope of his role as a purported whistleblower.

Bill C said:

The wishing him well is based on something called compassion. He's
definitely had some real mental and emotional issues to deal with, and
it's not like he's a violent criminal, so I'd like to see him get it
together and maybe get some wins.

Didn't he brandish a gun at his beautiful wife around a year ago?

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

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

The wishing him well is based on something called compassion. He's
definitely had some real mental and emotional issues to deal with, and
it's not like he's a violent criminal, so I'd like to see him get it
together and maybe get some wins.

Didn't he brandish a gun at his beautiful wife around a year ago?

I think he fired it into the air to get her attention.

Hmm, commenting upon the grammar of an rbr post that begins with the
words: "C'mon, dude....' That's a bit like putting in a [sic] while
responding to somebody's post-it message, isn't it? Extra points: can
you find the sentence fragments in this paragraph? Yer a smart fella.

As I understand it, you're saying that lab results, if conducted
according to laboratory standards, should be fair game for public
consideration. The legality, contractual or otherwise, of the release
does not matter. Since no sanction is involved, and no stated burden
of proof really exists, the public can do with the information as it
pleases, however that may affect the accused.

I'm not a fan of this approach in this case because the lab is putting
out:

1. highly technical evidence that most people don't have the time or
background to weigh very accurately and

2. evidence whose validity has been questioned. The public does not
have the authority to make any kind of <i>real</i> inquiry that the lab
followed claimed standards.

It's not that I don't think folks are smart enough to make such an
evaluation in the right circumstances, it's that I don't think most
people have the time or level of interest to do so. They'll just
believe whomever they wish to believe.

I know that you're distressed that some people make up their minds
because of what they wish to believe, rather than actual facts. I'd
like to ensure that what is represented as fact, IS fact. You place a
great deal of faith in the representations of the lab and the paper. I
have not done as much research on this as you have, I will concede that
much.

Kyle Legate said:

Bill C said:

The wishing him well is based on something called compassion. He's
definitely had some real mental and emotional issues to deal with, and
it's not like he's a violent criminal, so I'd like to see him get it
together and maybe get some wins.

Didn't he brandish a gun at his beautiful wife around a year ago?

I'd completely forgotten about that, but it also seems to be linked to
his mental health issues from what I could find about it. Even given
that incident I don't really think he's a criminal. He shouldn't be
allowed anywhere near guns legally and I don't know how the police
followed up on it, but I'd suspect they dealt with it through court
ordered psych treatment.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that even in that state
something inside him kept him from acting on those violent impulses.
When you're dealing with documented medical issues that are under
treatment I think that you have to make some allowances.
I know I'm weaseling, but nothing involving any of this kind of stuff
is clear cut or easy.
Does anyone know what did happen related to this?
Bill C