Page 3 - Do you have to use perfromance enhancers to be a pro?

20-05.-2005, 09:37 PM	#31
Brizza Registered User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Newcastle, Australia Posts: 334	Re: Do you have to use perfromance enhancers to be a pro? Keep the personal comments to a minimum please. Some of us read your comments looking for facts and debate, we don't need to put up with abuse from either side. I think my mum told me "if you havn't got anything nice to say; then don't post"

22-05.-2005, 12:38 AM	#33
Brizza Registered User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Newcastle, Australia Posts: 334	Re: Do you have to use perfromance enhancers to be a pro? Sorry mate. While these is a possibility that a couple of riders have dopped and given that Australian are randomly drug tested and given 48 hours to announce any positive A results until the body announces it for them, I seriously doubt dopping is a major problem in Australian cyclists. Eadie had enough trouble after someone posted a banned substance to him. He has personally told me about the random testing and monitoring Australians are required to undertake.

22-05.-2005, 03:30 PM

#34

toa

Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2004

Posts: 103

Re: Do you have to use perfromance enhancers to be a pro?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brizza

Sorry mate. While these is a possibility that a couple of riders have dopped and given that Australian are randomly drug tested and given 48 hours to announce any positive A results until the body announces it for them, I seriously doubt dopping is a major problem in Australian cyclists.

Eadie had enough trouble after someone posted a banned substance to him. He has personally told me about the random testing and monitoring Australians are required to undertake.

Yearh, the Australian Sports Drug Agency(ASDA), is doing pretty good.
Some data from selected national anti-doping agencies:

USA Antidoping agency(UASDA): 7.600 tests totalt, 3.700 out of competition(OOC). US population: 295.000.000
Australian Sports Drug Agency(ASDA): 6.600 tests totalt, 4.100 OOC. Australian population: 20.000.000
Anti Doping Denmark(ADD): 2.100 tests total, 1.400 OOC (extrapolated from 2003 numbers). Danish population: 5.000.000

(All data from relevant bodie's 2004 anual reports, obtained from their respective websites. Population numbers from CIA factbook

)

Knowing that the number of active athletes dosn't scale even remotely close 1:1 with population, well if you were the speculative type you probably couldn't help wondering what UASDA really wants to get out of its work: Fewer OOC tests than Australia and just over 2½ times as many OOC as a country 59 times it's size

24-05.-2005, 03:01 PM

#36

toa

Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2004

Posts: 103

Re: Do you have to use perfromance enhancers to be a pro?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyer

If it makes you feel better to quote the test statistics, then great. But your testing stats are flawed.

No they are not flawed. Since I only used them to give praise to the Austrailian amount of OOC tests and point a finger at USADA for a relative low number of tests, both OOC and IC, compared to the Danish effort.
Nothing more nothing less.
The numbers were not used to "prove": "Australians are more clean than American athletes, and the Danes are by far the cleanest" nor were they used for "Look how many tests are being done, the athletes must be clean".
In the future please try not to let your anti-doping enthusiasm get the better of you into reading hidden messages

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyer

btw: None of your testing or USADA testing tests for the most powerful drugs used by today's elite athletes. So they can test until the cows come home, those product will not appear in your statistics.

Just a few examples, still not detectable:
....
designer Nandrolone (THG or other)

Actually USADA issued 4 suspensions in 2004 for exactly THG:

John McEwen - 2 years suspension
Melissa Price - 2 years suspension
Kevin Toth - 2 years suspension
Regina Jacobs - 4 years suspension

More testing statistics, "why" you ask...don't know...numbers are great (hehe

)

Cycling was the third most tested sport by USADA in 2004, almost 7% af all USADA tests performed in 2004 were done on cyclists.
Cycling was the second most tested sport by ASDA in 2004, almost 8% af all ASDA tests performed in 2004 were done on cyclists.
Number of cyclists tested in 2004: USA - 526, Australia - 522.

(Again all data taken from respective bodies 2004 reports.)

Last edited by toa : 24-05.-2005 at 03:34 PM.

24-05.-2005, 11:29 PM	#38
Brizza Registered User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Newcastle, Australia Posts: 334	Re: Do you have to use perfromance enhancers to be a pro? I hope you realise there are more than 5 members to the AIS cycling squads.

25-05.-2005, 09:43 AM	#41
Brizza Registered User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Newcastle, Australia Posts: 334	Re: Do you have to use perfromance enhancers to be a pro? I'm just concerned by your willingness to paint a broad picture that all AIS athletes are doppers. French and associates were dopping while in Europe, does this make all AIS athletes doppers? I'm not saying there arn't doppers out there (and I agree the TDF covers it up) but we can't make broad statements that certain bodies produce doppers.

25-05.-2005, 03:44 PM	#43
Brizza Registered User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Newcastle, Australia Posts: 334	Re: Do you have to use perfromance enhancers to be a pro? And that's reason enough to abuse the image of all athletes from their country?

26-05.-2005, 03:56 AM

#44

Dead Star

Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2004

Location: South Wales

Posts: 794

Re: Do you have to use perfromance enhancers to be a pro?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brizza

And that's reason enough to abuse the image of all athletes from their country?

Apart from Millar he hasn't touched the British yet

26-05.-2005, 04:41 AM

#45

VeloFlash

Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2003

Posts: 696

Re: Do you have to use perfromance enhancers to be a pro?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyer

I do. That is why I am convinced that there are dozens of doped AIS athletes.

In an earliy post you speculated that maybe a 'couple' of AIS were dopers.

But we already know there are far more than that.

Mark French ratted out five others (names not released for obvious political reasons in an Olympic year)

So that makes 6, unless 3-time Champion French is to be discredited as any rat might be.

Then your friend Sean Eadie and his Pituitary Gland juice issue.

Then the 1994 World Champion Shane Perkins, a confirmed doper at the Los Angeles Worlds. A Gold Metal winning 200 meter sprinter, now DQed.

Then the bi-polar suffering ex-trackies, Neiwand & Pate.

Hell, that is 10 dopers and I haven't even got started with deep research.

None of the 2004 Juniors went positive for drugs until Perkins did months after his Gold Medal in LA.

And we do NOT test them for the drugs that are abused. hGH, insulin, some EPOs, designer THG/nandrolone. So no conclusions can be made.

So the tests are meaningless and unhelpful.

To the extent that the public actually believes that 48 hour testing somehow prevents cheating, it actually aids the cheaters by adding cover.

Now wonder Lance Armstrong supports WADA, yet loathes Richard Pound.

Flyer, you have gone off half-cocked and speculated over the sacrificial lynching of one rider that there exists a systemic doping program within the AIS.

Sport in Australia is assisted by taxpayer funding through a body known as the Australian Sports Commission (ASC). They provide individual and sporting organisation funding (about 75 different sports). All funding is based on a zero tolerance drug policy. If an individual or a sports organisation gets caught doping or being party to doping their funding is withdrawn. This happened with weight lifting.

The Australian Sports Drugs Agency (ASDA) is the independent body that is the bloodhound for ASC anti drugs policy and pioneered this role in world sport. It is only the recent establishment of WADA that enforced countries to follow what Australia has been carrying out for about 20 years.

The AIS is funded and managed through the ASC and is accountable to the ASC and their political masters. The government controls the appointment of ASC Commissioners (management). Generally, politicians are not sports orientated except towards elections and for photo opportunities. They take great glee, as in the French case, of using parliamentary privilege (not legally accountable) to expose events if they are not of the political colours of the government.

Your allegation that AIS is part of an organised doping system is absurd given the structure and enforced policies of that organisation. If an athlete dopes in Australia it would be a personal decision using private resources.

__________________
VF

"Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode