Do you think lance is doping? yes or no

[Louvain]

If anyone is european or just lives there, you will know how darn easy it is to find quality steroids/growth stuff/etcetera, AND the proper information to test negative. And yes, the pressure to win is enough 'cause' If technology and science can be applied to what a cyclist mounts, it can be applied directly to the cyclist him/herself.

Believe me, it's easier to get professionally manufactured PED's in most parts of Europe than in the USA. And as with all else in life, a few extra zeros in your bank account makes it absurdly easy.

 

[Roadie_scum]

While your conclusions in the first paragraph are but an opinion, I whole-heartedly concur with the second paragraph. He is and will continue to be missed. I didn't mean to imply that your comprehension was lacking. It just seemed that you were blowing past the intent of my comment in order to find something to take exception to.

Of course it's an opinion. It's 'just an opinion' that David Millar intentionally used EPO to improve his chances of winning the world championships TT last year, as he confessed to. It's 'just an opinion' that Adam Bergman took EPO, although his positive test makes it more likely. With a positive test or a confession, the chances of those statements being true increase markedly and it becomes more difficult to rationally explicate the circumstances without concluding that dope was used.

Similarly, the circumstances surrounding Pantani increase the probability he was taking EPO chronically so much that there are few if any other rational explanations. Pantani's Haematocrit was elevated far, far beyond natural levels - while a raised crit 'indicates' rather than confirms drug taking, an extreme elevation, and volatility rather than a reasonably steady crit make it much more likely that an exogenous aid (EPO) was used. It is also relevant that these values were tested in season - when 'on form' lower crits should be recorded due primarily to increased blood volume, also due slightly to increased turnover of red cells in intense cariovascular activity. Crits are generally lower in summer too. Finally, the medical problems (failure to manufacture red cells properly) described in Pantani are most likely caused by chronic EPO abuse - this process is beginning to be described in literature regarding renal failure patients, and is similar to other situations where endogneous hormones are added to with exogenous products (eg insulin supplementation in non-diabetics, heroin addiction leading to failure of endogenous opiate production). Given these factors increase the probability of Pantani having used EPO drastically, I can see no explanation beyond the fantastical that would exonerate him. I would be very interested to see an alternative explanation, but I haven't yet and these factors have been discussed publicly for some time now.

I'd say the same logic is employed when someone calls Millar or Bergman a doper. We didn't perform the tests. Most of us aren't endocrinologists and can't explain exactly how the tests employed pinpoint drug taking in Bergman's case. We weren't there when Millar confessed either. But given our knowledge of the situation, doping is by far the most plausible explanation - so convincing a case can be made that it extends beyond the balance of probabilities - it is a near certainty.

I'm not actually taking exception to anything you said really - I just think that Pantani's EPO use is more relevant to a discussion of doping than his cocaine use after he became unlicensed.

 

[Saucy]

Iban Mayo... yes
Lance... maybe
Ullrich... maybe
Beloki... probably
Tyler Hamilton... probably not
Pantani (when he was around)... yes
Simoni... yes
Anyone else... haven't formed an opinion yet... I'd rate them a maybe.

I just read on the Vuelta site that Floyd Landis is Amish!!! Seeing as how the amish are opposed to any technological progress I think you should add Floyd as a "probably not".

Wow. How does some Amish kid end up in the seedy world of professional bicycle racing. It boggles the mind.

Believe me, it's easier to get professionally manufactured PED's in most parts of Europe than in the USA.

It sounds like you have first-hand experience! Any stories to tell us?

It seems to me that the US is just as involved in organized doping as much as anywhere else and I can't imagine that its difficult to find PEDs in the US (not that I've tried). Professional bicycle racing happens to be centered in Europe so I think the impression is that the Europeans are more advanced, but I don't think that is the case in other sports.

 

[Beastt]

Of course it's an opinion. It's 'just an opinion' that David Millar intentionally used EPO to improve his chances of winning the world championships TT last year, as he confessed to. It's 'just an opinion' that Adam Bergman took EPO, although his positive test makes it more likely. With a positive test or a confession, the chances of those statements being true increase markedly and it becomes more difficult to rationally explicate the circumstances without concluding that dope was used.

Similarly, the circumstances surrounding Pantani increase the probability he was taking EPO chronically so much that there are few if any other rational explanations. Pantani's Haematocrit was elevated far, far beyond natural levels - while a raised crit 'indicates' rather than confirms drug taking, an extreme elevation, and volatility rather than a reasonably steady crit make it much more likely that an exogenous aid (EPO) was used. It is also relevant that these values were tested in season - when 'on form' lower crits should be recorded due primarily to increased blood volume, also due slightly to increased turnover of red cells in intense cariovascular activity. Crits are generally lower in summer too. Finally, the medical problems (failure to manufacture red cells properly) described in Pantani are most likely caused by chronic EPO abuse - this process is beginning to be described in literature regarding renal failure patients, and is similar to other situations where endogneous hormones are added to with exogenous products (eg insulin supplementation in non-diabetics, heroin addiction leading to failure of endogenous opiate production). Given these factors increase the probability of Pantani having used EPO drastically, I can see no explanation beyond the fantastical that would exonerate him. I would be very interested to see an alternative explanation, but I haven't yet and these factors have been discussed publicly for some time now.

I'd say the same logic is employed when someone calls Millar or Bergman a doper. We didn't perform the tests. Most of us aren't endocrinologists and can't explain exactly how the tests employed pinpoint drug taking in Bergman's case. We weren't there when Millar confessed either. But given our knowledge of the situation, doping is by far the most plausible explanation - so convincing a case can be made that it extends beyond the balance of probabilities - it is a near certainty.

I'm not actually taking exception to anything you said really - I just think that Pantani's EPO use is more relevant to a discussion of doping than his cocaine use after he became unlicensed.

It's a nice job of attempting to cloud the pond but if you look closely, you can still see to the bottom. Opinions backed by confessions and positive test results become more than opinions because they are opinions accompanied with positive test results and confessions just as a suspicion confirmed with an action becomes more than just suspicion.

Certainly his EPO use is more relevant but since I lacked the information you had on the subject and preferred not to attempt to manufacture specific information, I applied what information I did have. The last information I had read suggested only an elevated hematocrit level and lacked any hard data or compounding medical information to aid in substantiation. Hence my comment regarding the difference between utilization of performance enhancing drugs and other illicit drug use.

 

[Roadie_scum]

It's a nice job of attempting to cloud the pond but if you look closely, you can still see to the bottom. Opinions backed by confessions and positive test results become more than opinions because they are opinions accompanied with positive test results and confessions just as a suspicion confirmed with an action becomes more than just suspicion.

So what do opinions become when they are factually backed?

I would submit they are still opinions, though more likely to be true. There are still alternative explanations in all the situations we covered - Bergman's sample was tainted or switched, Millar confessed under duress. I just think that on the probabilities and given a correct analysis of the other opinions that can be reasonably held (eg doping labs don't normally get it wrong, Millar had too much to lose to confess under duress) the obvious explanation is also the likely one. That's what rationality is - weighing up opinions and their factual basis, applying commonsense, experience, etc. Sometimes the process falls down (there is a finite probability in every situation that the fantastical explanation will turn out to be true). I don't lose sleep over that. If you say in every situation - 'yes but that could be wrong' (which is what I think you might mean by saying 'just an opinion') you negate the ability to weigh probabilities and act rationally. The important thing isn't that you might be wrong, it's what the chances of you being wrong are.

 

[Roadie_scum]

The important thing isn't that you might be wrong, it's what the chances of you being wrong are.

Actually, the consequences of being wrong should also be considered if you plan to act on an opinion. My bad...

 

[Louvain]

The only factual truth that may be discerned is that on a professional level too much money is at stake and therefore secrecy is the norm. BUT, on a personal note, if one sees the riders and knows how good each guy can ride, a noticeable difference is exactly that - darn noticeable! This isn't good day / bad day stuff. It's quite evident because of the various factors influenced - race strategy, physical appearance, temperament, etcetera.

What I find interesting is why so many non-pro cyclists see doping in a negative light. It's the natural outgrowth of competition and will become even more difficult to detect with the advance of medical science. The audience may or may not accept this as fact, but only those that are willing to use their bodies in an experimental manner should judge the right and wrong. Our attitude toward doping is presently based on (1) the need to maintain an equal footing for all pros and (2) the very tainted notion that top riders are demi-gods. Perhaps this attitude, this simplistic ethical stance may change with time. But, rest assured, the clandestine nature of manipulating our bodies in order to win will never go away.

 

[Roadie_scum]

The only factual truth that may be discerned is that on a professional level too much money is at stake and therefore secrecy is the norm. BUT, on a personal note, if one sees the riders and knows how good each guy can ride, a noticeable difference is exactly that - darn noticeable! This isn't good day / bad day stuff. It's quite evident because of the various factors influenced - race strategy, physical appearance, temperament, etcetera.

This is true in extreme cases, but dietary and training manipulations can also have extreme effects on body composition, muscle type and ability. What these manipulations can't do is lead to enlarged jaws and changed bone structures, or non-functioning bone marrow.

What I find interesting is why so many non-pro cyclists see doping in a negative light. It's the natural outgrowth of competition and will become even more difficult to detect with the advance of medical science. The audience may or may not accept this as fact, but only those that are willing to use their bodies in an experimental manner should judge the right and wrong. Our attitude toward doping is presently based on (1) the need to maintain an equal footing for all pros and (2) the very tainted notion that top riders are demi-gods. Perhaps this attitude, this simplistic ethical stance may change with time. But, rest assured, the clandestine nature of manipulating our bodies in order to win will never go away.

Although some versions of the ethical argument against doping are simplistic, it is not simplistic in itself. There are less and more complex versions. While fair play or equality is one notion that merits consideration in the doping debate, the health of the riders and the ability of those that want to to compete without placing one's health at risk are equally if not more important. I certainly don't view riders as demi-gods.

 

[Louvain]

I agree with everything you wrote. What I failed to mention is the old argument concerning INTEGRITY - of the rider in particular, of the sport in general. There are instances when one is apt to compromise more than we normally do. The reasons are boundless. That is why I mention that a rider is the one to choose. Outside influence, on the pro circuit, simply isn't enough. The pressure to perform, let alone win, is enough to drive one beyond reason and into the arms of the 'doctor'. Another thing to consider is injury. The recuperation process may be quickened. Take that a bit further and consider the relatively short career of a pro. I'm not trying to justify the use of anything outside of what you mention (Diet/Training/Sports Science) but doping is always going to be an alternative, a choice - a crippling and sometimes deadly choice, but one nonetheless.

The only reason behind my use of the term demi-god has more to do with the marketing of sports professionals and how it distorts reality beyond the minds of many - specially the young.
Thank you for your comments. And I personally hope the testing can keep up with the creating.

 

[Beastt]

So what do opinions become when they are factually backed?

I would submit they are still opinions, though more likely to be true. There are still alternative explanations in all the situations we covered - Bergman's sample was tainted or switched, Millar confessed under duress. I just think that on the probabilities and given a correct analysis of the other opinions that can be reasonably held (eg doping labs don't normally get it wrong, Millar had too much to lose to confess under duress) the obvious explanation is also the likely one. That's what rationality is - weighing up opinions and their factual basis, applying commonsense, experience, etc. Sometimes the process falls down (there is a finite probability in every situation that the fantastical explanation will turn out to be true). I don't lose sleep over that. If you say in every situation - 'yes but that could be wrong' (which is what I think you might mean by saying 'just an opinion') you negate the ability to weigh probabilities and act rationally. The important thing isn't that you might be wrong, it's what the chances of you being wrong are.

I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that if I said, "hello", you'd attempt to argue the point.

 

[Roadie_scum]

I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that if I said, "hello", you'd attempt to argue the point.

But we were getting on so well in the nutrition threads...

No biggie, I'm just a pedantic nit-picker with strong beliefs and so are you. I think we have more in common than you think.

 

[Virenque]

I didnt read previous posts, just the title made me lough
I am sure that all riders, participating in Tour, are doping. Tour de France is the hardest race in calendar and to win that race, you just cant do it without doping! I heard a lot what riders in much lower categories are doing if they want to go fast and thats the highest category, so...

And why doping controls showed that all are clean? Because they are using doping for training. And, for example (if there is anyone who dont know that hehe), EPO can be detected in just 72 hours after using it, growth hormone cant be detected with these tests.

 

[Beastt]

But we were getting on so well in the nutrition threads...

No biggie, I'm just a pedantic nit-picker with strong beliefs and so are you. I think we have more in common than you think.

Oh, I'm quite certain we have much in common. Perhaps that's why certain behaviors appear fairly transparent. Nobody can spot fear as well as a paranoid or know cold like an Eskimo... so to speak.

 

[Beastt]

I didnt read previous posts, just the title made me lough
I am sure that all riders, participating in Tour, are doping. Tour de France is the hardest race in calendar and to win that race, you just cant do it without doping! I heard a lot what riders in much lower categories are doing if they want to go fast and thats the highest category, so...

And why doping controls showed that all are clean? Because they are using doping for training. And, for example (if there is anyone who dont know that hehe), EPO can be detected in just 72 hours after using it, growth hormone cant be detected with these tests.

Could you offer your qualifications for substantiation of the above claims? I suspect your first name isn't "Richard".

 

[Louvain]

I'm curious, are you guys (RoadieScum or Beastt) attorneys?

 

[Beastt]

I'm curious, are you guys (RoadieScum or Beastt) attorneys?

Though I have some background in the legal field, I've not had to stoop that low.

No, I'm not an attorney.

 

[Virenque]

Could you offer your qualifications for substantiation of the above claims? I suspect your first name isn't "Richard".

And my second isnt "Virenque"

 

[Beastt]

And my second isnt "Virenque"

Hence my inquiry as to your qualifications. Otherwise we'd all know what your qualifications were.

 

[tamman2000]

I didnt read previous posts, just the title made me lough
I am sure that all riders, participating in Tour, are doping. Tour de France is the hardest race in calendar and to win that race, you just cant do it without doping! I heard a lot what riders in much lower categories are doing if they want to go fast and thats the highest category, so...

Do you think the drugs make you super man?

David Millar has admitted to doping, but, if you believe his story, he did not dope until after the 2001 tour de france (which he rode). He also feels that he could have won the TT championships without EPO (but does he really know...). He has riden clean and doped, he is qualified to report on the benifits of the drugs. He says they help, but they don't make a huge difference. He has also stated that the difference between Lance and the next best riders is way more than could be explained by dope (he thinks that if lance is doping, he would still be winning clean).

 

[Roadie_scum]

I'm curious, are you guys (RoadieScum or Beastt) attorneys?

Sadly, worse. I'm not even a qualified asshole - I'm studying to be one.