Bravo **** Pound

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>,
[email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:

>> Excluding racers from the Tour for (supposedly; were these coded
>> names?) being on a list?
>> Wow, that would make setting someone up so easy-- you might not even
>> have to have any doping actually taking place! But who cares, as we
>> fight against the scourge of drugs!
>>
>> Dork Pound is selling an illusion. Some foolish people are buying it.
>> Big, big problem.
>>
>> The line "I had to burn that village to save it" offered by another
>> poster really sums up the insanity. Refers to another situation where
>> piling up bodies didn't solve any problems, if you'll remember.  --D-y
>
> What the hell do you propose?  WADA and the UCI are not even doing the
> "full-court-press" on doping yet, but big names are getting nabbed.
> WADA even has the right to target specific riders, yet they don't even
> bother to do so. They don't need to.  The fish practically jump into
> the net!

Leaving aside anyone else, Ivan Basso has been kept out of racing since
the beginning of July because a name which someone wrongly thought to be
the name of his dog was found on a list. That's a /very/ different thing
from failing a blood test, and definitely doesn't count as 'jumping in
the net'. Indeed the only person who, on the evidence available to us so
far, seems to have 'jumped into the net' this year is Landis, although
others do have questions to answer.

But, as I've said elsewhere, Pound isn't a cyclist. He doesn't care what
happens to cycling, and if what happens to cycling is very bad and very
unpleasant indeed, that gives him a bigger stick to shake at other
sports. You really need to take everything WADA say about cycling with a
bushel of salt.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us
;; many useful objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets.
;; Imagination without skill gives us modern art.
;; Tom Stoppard, Artist Descending A Staircase

 

[Ernst Noch]

benjo maso wrote:
> "Ernst Noch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>>> "Tom_A" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Velo Reaper wrote:
>>>>>> Sounds like he let it all hang out in an op-ed piece bashing Floyd and
>>>>>> USADA. While many won't like the message, messenger or delivery, he's
>>>>>> right. He's speaking the cold hard truth about the current state of
>>>>>> affairs in cycling which he likens to "excrement".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sing it brother.
>>>>> Yep...nothing like doing everything you can to maintain the
>>>>> impartiality of the process.
>>>> AFIK, Pound does not sit as a CAS arbitrator. I have to think his IOC
>>>> supporters have ok'ed his public polemics as part of his official
>>>> functions.
>>>>
>>>> And he's right about cycling having become like excrement fit to be
>>>> flushed.
>>>>
>>>>> Excellent job.
>>>>>
>>> Considering how many storms Pound has weathered over the past 6 years,
>>> I'd say it is a fair bet that the IOC must have given him quite a bit
>>> of free-reign to do and say what he wants. They must have quite a bit
>>> of faith in him if they can ignore the NHL, Lance Armstrong, numerous
>>> other sports organizations, etc.
>>>
>>> Pound wins. He gets what he wants. Unfortunately, we're left with a
>>> doping penalty process that no one but he respects.
>> He's playing a role which the IOC needs. Imagine professional (olympic)
>> sports without a WADA which constantly plays the hardliner against doping.
>> 2 times a year trainers, teams, athletes get busted by government
>> organizations. For the public professional sports as a whole (as opposed
>> to only, say, cycling) becomes synonymous with an organized criminal
>> underground occupied with producing, distributing and consuming illegal
>> substances.
>> All the actions of Pound, including the finger pointing against cycling,
>> fit perfectly to a strategy of damage control from the IOC. Being unable
>> to really solve the problem of doping endangering its position, they have
>> created a scenario where they at least can distance themselves from doping
>> as far as possible.
>
>
> He is playing the role the IOC (or at least some of its leaders) think they
> need. But those anti-doping hunters should try to be a little more lucid,
> considering what's happening with cyclism, Cyclism is possibly the main
> target for the anti-doping politics, with disastrous results. A necessary
> condition for such a politics to be effective is that the risk of being
> caught should be much higher than the possibility of taking advantage of it.

I'm more cynical here.
- They know they won't eradicate doping
- They know they will always be less successful than the government
agencies in hitting dopers/corrupt docs/drug dealers. That is because
dopers will always be able to stay under certain limits, or use drugs
which are undetectable or not yet on the list. But these drugs are in
most cases illegal to possess or sell as a non-medic or scientist, so
the police is in a much better position to bust dopers (and has more
resources and tools at hand).

Therefore, the politics you outline above are not their first priority,
their first priority is to keep distance to doping. Ergo Pound.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> > Dork Pound is selling an illusion. Some foolish people are buying it.
> > Big, big problem.
> >
> > The line "I had to burn that village to save it" offered by another
> > poster really sums up the insanity. Refers to another situation where
> > piling up bodies didn't solve any problems, if you'll remember. --D-y
>
> D-y,
>
> What the hell do you propose? WADA and the UCI are not even doing the
> "full-court-press" on doping yet, but big names are getting nabbed.
> WADA even has the right to target specific riders, yet they don't even
> bother to do so. They don't need to. The fish practically jump into
> the net!

WADA has the power, you mean?

What exactly would a full court press be?

"Targeting", like Marion Jones? I know I keep bringing that up, but so
much of the Pound method is intimidation-- stupid-long suspensions
designed to end careers, secret protocols. Combined with really poor
testing accuracy, which encourages, if not forces, riders to dope,
where is the moral high ground *really*?

> I don't think the goal is to have official WADA testing "clean up" the
> sport. The goal is to show the UCI (and the teams) that testing is
> their own job to do, and they'd best get on with doing it.

Which is just another dodge-- putting the monkey on someone else's
back, when the testing is so faulty that some claim "everyone dopes',
but very few get caught by testing.
Do you admire WADA for this? I think it's just dirty politics.

> I think Pound is trying to say: "clean your own house so we don't have
> to do it for you"

How exactly would Pound go about cleaning house, pray tell?

It's an unsolveable problem.

People are currently up in arms about this. I think there has been a
lot more notice and completely justified concern that school-age kids
are doping to get ahead in their sports, too.

Having already said I don't see a solution, I'd much rather see the
great emphasis placed on manufacturers and suppliers, not on
scapegoating athletes, which is really counterproductive-- unless you
share Lafferty's vision of the Tour de France as a series of parking
lot crits. --D-y

 

[benjo maso]

"Ernst Noch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> benjo maso wrote:
>> "Ernst Noch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>>>> "Tom_A" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> Velo Reaper wrote:
>>>>>>> Sounds like he let it all hang out in an op-ed piece bashing Floyd
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> USADA. While many won't like the message, messenger or delivery,
>>>>>>> he's
>>>>>>> right. He's speaking the cold hard truth about the current state of
>>>>>>> affairs in cycling which he likens to "excrement".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sing it brother.
>>>>>> Yep...nothing like doing everything you can to maintain the
>>>>>> impartiality of the process.
>>>>> AFIK, Pound does not sit as a CAS arbitrator. I have to think his IOC
>>>>> supporters have ok'ed his public polemics as part of his official
>>>>> functions.
>>>>>
>>>>> And he's right about cycling having become like excrement fit to be
>>>>> flushed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Excellent job.
>>>>>>
>>>> Considering how many storms Pound has weathered over the past 6 years,
>>>> I'd say it is a fair bet that the IOC must have given him quite a bit
>>>> of free-reign to do and say what he wants. They must have quite a bit
>>>> of faith in him if they can ignore the NHL, Lance Armstrong, numerous
>>>> other sports organizations, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Pound wins. He gets what he wants. Unfortunately, we're left with a
>>>> doping penalty process that no one but he respects.
>>> He's playing a role which the IOC needs. Imagine professional (olympic)
>>> sports without a WADA which constantly plays the hardliner against
>>> doping.
>>> 2 times a year trainers, teams, athletes get busted by government
>>> organizations. For the public professional sports as a whole (as opposed
>>> to only, say, cycling) becomes synonymous with an organized criminal
>>> underground occupied with producing, distributing and consuming illegal
>>> substances.
>>> All the actions of Pound, including the finger pointing against cycling,
>>> fit perfectly to a strategy of damage control from the IOC. Being unable
>>> to really solve the problem of doping endangering its position, they
>>> have created a scenario where they at least can distance themselves from
>>> doping as far as possible.
>>
>>
>> He is playing the role the IOC (or at least some of its leaders) think
>> they need. But those anti-doping hunters should try to be a little more
>> lucid, considering what's happening with cyclism, Cyclism is possibly the
>> main target for the anti-doping politics, with disastrous results. A
>> necessary condition for such a politics to be effective is that the risk
>> of being caught should be much higher than the possibility of taking
>> advantage of it.
>
> I'm more cynical here.
> - They know they won't eradicate doping

I wish it was true. But I'm afraid that like any fanatics, some of them -
the others mighty be just pretending - think that at the end their illsuion
will come true.

> - They know they will always be less successful than the government
> agencies in hitting dopers/corrupt docs/drug dealers. That is because
> dopers will always be able to stay under certain limits, or use drugs
> which are undetectable or not yet on the list.

Again and again I heard anti-doping hunters admit that there is still a gap
between the using of illicit products and the possibility to detect them,
but - and especially in the last two or three years - they are also claiming
te gap is shrinking. And I'm afraid they are really believing it.

> But these drugs are in
> most cases illegal to possess or sell as a non-medic or scientist, so
> the police is in a much better position to bust dopers (and has more
> resources and tools at hand).

Which is of course why the role of physicians allowed to write prescriptions
is becoming more and more important. There has been a time that the team
doctors or "trainers" did it themselves, but now they are delegating it more
and more. Of course, the arrest of Fuentes must have been a blow, but it
seems there are more "institutions".

> Therefore, the politics you outline above are not their first priority,
> their first priority is to keep distance to doping. Ergo Pound.

Perhaps their first priority is to keep the anti-doping policy alive and
flourishing. It its giving them a power they probably wouldn't even have
dreamt of .

Benjo

 

[RonSonic]

On 15 Aug 2006 09:53:39 -0700, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>B. Lafferty wrote:
>>> A bicycle race need not be that complicated. Find a nice closed loop
>> (parks and college campuses abound with them) and arrange for early Sunday
>> morning usage.
>
>Or a weekday night, given the right course. Stalled housing
>developments can be great (possible free portapottys).
>
>> It would be nice to see racing club
>> structure move toward a more communal non-elite sponsor driven
>> organizational model as well.
>
>FWIW:
>http://www.violetcrown.org/
>
>There's an old line that gets used from time to time:
>
>(Q) "What do I get for joining VC?"
>(A) "NOTHING!"
>
>"Rider reimbursement" btw is gas money. I got $50 one year when I went
>to road nats.
>
>Just to say, a healthy perspective on a hobby/avocation/passtime.
>Contrast to the local "elites" (gag me) is very noticeable.
>
>(to the point):
>But that's for us who are pros away from the bike.
>
>Driving away sponsors from pro teams is stupid, any way you try to
>slice it.
>
>You diss "omerta" but it worked better than what they're doing now.
>
>Excluding racers from the Tour for (supposedly; were these coded
>names?) being on a list?
>Wow, that would make setting someone up so easy-- you might not even
>have to have any doping actually taking place! But who cares, as we
>fight against the scourge of drugs!

In fact.... If I were selling doping products / services I'd be sure to put more
obvious codenames on the books than the sport could ever afford to bust. Give
'em the tac nuke of busts - tac nuke hell, mutual assured destruction. I don't
need to sell 'em anything to put their names and my recommendations on the
ledger.

>Dork Pound is selling an illusion. Some foolish people are buying it.
>Big, big problem.

Ooops. That'd make me safe from UCI, but WADA would go ahead and shut down the
entire sport on the basis of my crooked accounting procedures, so it wouldn't
help me.

Ron


>The line "I had to burn that village to save it" offered by another
>poster really sums up the insanity. Refers to another situation where
>piling up bodies didn't solve any problems, if you'll remember. --D-y

 

[Donald Munro]

[email protected] wrote:
> People are currently up in arms about this. I think there has been a
> lot more notice and completely justified concern that school-age
> kids are doping to get ahead in their sports, too.

School-age kids recreational drug usgae dwarfs their performance
enhancement doping.

> unless you share Lafferty's vision of the Tour de France as a series of
> parking lot crits.

crit-pro would like that.

 

[Donald Munro]

benjo maso wrote:
> I hope that **** Pound won't read this, but - as I wrote two weeks ago -
> ex-pro Mariano Martinez, winner of the polka dot jersey in 1978, always
> slept with his wife the day before an important mountain stage, being
> convinced the increase of testorone helped him to climb better. He even
> conceived his daughter the day before a Puy-de-Dôme stage. Strangely enough
> he didn't win. .

I would have thought the optimal strategy would be a Dennis Mitchell
routine 2 nights before the stage that would allow the bodies
super-compensation to overproduce testosterone. Perhaps further research
should be conducted in order to optimise the peaking process and, as I
possess a selfless dedication to the cause of science, I would even
volunteer myself as a test subject.

 

[Cyrus De Kline]

RonSonic:
> On 14 Aug 2006 16:14:38 -0700, "CowPunk" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >It seems that people forget these guys have families and mortgages just
> >like everyone else. I would even go so far as to say that most Dr's
> >and
> >scientist are more corrupt and unethical than your average blue-collar
> >guy.
>
> Did you catch that Bob Roll interview from another thread. Very interesting the
> way he brought the subject of social class into this. That cycling is a working
> man's game and they are indeed considered beneath the writers, promoters,
> doctors and just about everyone else in that orbit.
>
> Ron

In another article I read, the author called it something like "a clash
of cultures" in between cycling sport and the olympic movement. The
olympic movement always claimed the moral high ground, praising values
like fairness and sport as way of increasing public health. Cycling,
however has older roots: in the professinal sports of the 19th century.
"Health risks" were never an issue in the dangerous and extreme
endurance races (including "real" six-days). Pro cycling became
somewhat a science of turning the body into a racing machine.
Only in the 1960s the olympic guys began to apply "moral pressure", as
they wanted to sell sport as a clean and healthy thing to everyone (and
find potent sponsors).

Not that olympic sports _were_ cleaner than cycling, but image is
everything.
And in cycling, the "health risk" of crashes, etc is still considered
higher than the risks associated with doping by many.

 

[meb]

Stu Fleming wrote:


> Several professional footballers, George Best included, have had
> competitions from time to time to see who can have sex (not with each
> other, obviously) the closest to kick-off time. I think the record is
> around 30 seconds prior.
>
> The practicalities of this are left as an exercise for the reader.
> (oh heather, please tell me you are reading)

1. the winner must have been the footballer equivalent of a sprinter?
(i don't know anything about football)

2. why have i wasted so much time paying attention to bicycle racers and
not footballers?

heather
3. i mostly always read your posts, dumbass

So any of these footballers end up late like Delgado?

 

[MMan]

Donald Munro wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > People are currently up in arms about this. I think there has been a
> > lot more notice and completely justified concern that school-age
> > kids are doping to get ahead in their sports, too.
>
> School-age kids recreational drug usgae dwarfs their performance
> enhancement doping.

.... which is in turn dwarfed (in amount and harmfulness) by prescribed
chemical lobotomies like Ritalin.

 

[MMan]

Cyrus De Kline wrote:
> In another article I read, the author called it something like "a clash
> of cultures" in between cycling sport and the olympic movement. The
> olympic movement always claimed the moral high ground, praising values
> like fairness and sport as way of increasing public health. Cycling,
> however has older roots: in the professinal sports of the 19th century.
> "Health risks" were never an issue in the dangerous and extreme
> endurance races (including "real" six-days). Pro cycling became
> somewhat a science of turning the body into a racing machine.
> Only in the 1960s the olympic guys began to apply "moral pressure", as
> they wanted to sell sport as a clean and healthy thing to everyone (and
> find potent sponsors).
>
> Not that olympic sports _were_ cleaner than cycling, but image is
> everything.

In the 1960s? The image then, strongly based on fact, was of Soviet
Bloc female athletes so juiced on testosterone they looked like male
body-builders. Remember Irina Press and the East German swimmers that
"Surly" Shirley Babakoff complained about?

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:40:28 +0200, Donald Munro
<[email protected]> wrote:

>School-age kids recreational drug usgae dwarfs their performance
>enhancement doping.

As opposed to performance enhancing drugs for recreational sports.
That starts in the 30s.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[[email protected]]

Donald Munro wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > People are currently up in arms about this. I think there has been a
> > lot more notice and completely justified concern that school-age
> > kids are doping to get ahead in their sports, too.
>
> School-age kids recreational drug usgae dwarfs their performance
> enhancement doping.

Of course. But steroids are _bad_ for you... --D-y