Don't Ask Lance's Team

[Doug Taylor]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:28:49 -0700, Kurgan Gringioni
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> You weren't annoyed when three or four crucial riders (including the
>> yellow jersey), and one important team, left in the middle of the
>> race? If you say no, I seriously doubt you.

>Dumbass -
>
>
>No, I wasn't annoyed.
>
>Since I don't have illusions about drug use in professional athletics
>or society at large why would I? I accept the reality.

You have nerves of steel and balls of brass, dude, ready and able to
take in stride life in all its absurdity and insanity. Either that or
you're another rbr bodhisattva. Good for you. Pat yourself on the
back. You da man.

>Does it ever occur to you that not everyone has the same worldview as
>yourself?

Yeah, it did. I thought it sucked. I seriously doubt I am alone in
that world view.

 

[Bill C]

On Jul 30, 12:50 pm, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> So what has to be figured out if there is anyway of effectively and
> fairly enforcing the rules.
>
> Good luck.

That's what most of us are looking for. I wouldn't have included you
in that group. Fair, honoring the contracts, verifiable, transparent,
due process, aren't things I would associate with what you've had to
say.
Same problem, same cops, worse jurisprudence. I assume you advocate
at least 5 year bans for spitballs, corked bats, chop blocks, out of
spec race cars, etc???
Bill C

 

[[email protected]]

On Jul 30, 11:50 am, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> The sport will never go back to the good old days when nobody cared.

That's admitting that Omerta worked, Doug. (<g>)
>
> So what has to be figured out if there is anyway of effectively and
> fairly enforcing the rules.

I think we need different rules.

If you've really been a fugitive from justice for 40 years (ouch?),
I'd guess you'd be sympathetic to that line of reasoning.

--D-y

 

[Doug Taylor]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:32:44 -0700, Bill C <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Jul 30, 12:50 pm, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> So what has to be figured out if there is anyway of effectively and
>> fairly enforcing the rules.
>>
>> Good luck.
>
>That's what most of us are looking for. I wouldn't have included you
>in that group. Fair, honoring the contracts, verifiable, transparent,
>due process, aren't things I would associate with what you've had to
>say.

Let me summarize:

Sports cannot operate without rules (unless you want a "Chinese
Downhill" http://www.tahoe-world.com/content/view/6319/37/)

Bicycle racing has many rules, equipment related as well as athlete
related, etc.

It's too late to go back to not enforcing rules against the use of
performance enhancing drugs: WADA is now embedded in the sport; most
of the public is against it; some European countries have outlawed it;
the press is all over it like flies on ****.

Consequently, it follows that the rules must be enforced.

Currently, they are enforced in an inconsistent, half assed, and
unfair manner. What I think is unfair is while the entire peloton now
dopes, smart dopers are rewarded while stupid ones are punished.
E.g.: Lance was a smart doper: he was never caught and won 7 TdF's.
Vino was a stupid doper: he got caught using an easily detectable
blood transfusion, and a great rider is now toast.

So what is needed is a consistent and fair enforcement of the rules.
In a perfect world, there would be perfect and easily administered
tests that would catch every possible banned drug. But the world is
not perfect, and so we are stuck in a dilemma.

It is very difficult to conceive how the rules could be enforced in a
manner that even a majority could agree with. You would have to
appease the two extremes of the "due process bleeding hearts" (who
have no problem with cyclists lawyering up and pulling Floyd
Landis-like circus trials) and the zero tolerance nazis (who would
punish even inadvertent use of over the counter medications which have
nothing to do with performance enhancement).

That's the "good luck" part.

Somebody came up with amnesty now, and lifetime ban later as a policy.
So far, that is the best I've heard.

You got something better?

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:32:44 -0700, Bill C <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Jul 30, 12:50 pm, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> So what has to be figured out if there is anyway of effectively and
>> fairly enforcing the rules.
>>
>> Good luck.
>
>That's what most of us are looking for. I wouldn't have included you
>in that group. Fair, honoring the contracts, verifiable, transparent,
>due process, aren't things I would associate with what you've had to
>say.
> Same problem, same cops, worse jurisprudence. I assume you advocate
>at least 5 year bans for spitballs, corked bats, chop blocks, out of
>spec race cars, etc???

Of course! Please think of the children! Won't someone please think
of the children?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 03:23:11 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Finally, you are in denial if you just **** on the point of the Boston
>>> Globe article Lafferty posted.
>>
>>You mean like Dan Rather's claim that although those so-called memos about
>>Bush were fraudulent they were really true?
>>
>>Yeah, if there's one group of people that have shown themselves to be
>>honest, trustworthy and reliable it's the news media - especially when
>>we're
>>learning about how Linsey Lohan is getting an abortion.
>
> Can you say "non-sequitur"?

What's the matter? Can't decifer the posting letting you know that only
animals get led around by the nose like you're allowing yourself?

> Did anyone ever tell you what a lame tool you are?

Yeah, lots of people here but none brave enough to say it to my face. Guess
that puts your in a general catagory of whimps.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"mal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:_r5ri.749$Kk4.163@trndny09...
>>> .......Despite the massive fallout from doping at this year's Tour, some
>>> teams still clam up when it comes to talking about drug use in the
>>> sport.
>>
>> It sure must turn you on to be so frightened of the truth.
>
>
> Who's truth and what truth?
>
> Truth defined by the Boston Globe, **** Pound?
>
> If this wasn't about sponsorship money, it'd be a non issue.
>
> The mistake here is that the revisionist history is coming from the
> outside not the inside.
>
> As soon as they realize that DP and others are not about cycling, but
> about a personal agenda, they can try to get on top of the sport.

I'm afraid that you're right.

> And where is David Millar coming from? No one likes a hematocrit
> hypocrite.

well, you have to remember that there are no critics as harsh as past
offenders.

 

[RonSonic]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:06:40 -0400, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:32:44 -0700, Bill C <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Jul 30, 12:50 pm, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So what has to be figured out if there is anyway of effectively and
>>> fairly enforcing the rules.
>>>
>>> Good luck.
>>
>>That's what most of us are looking for. I wouldn't have included you
>>in that group. Fair, honoring the contracts, verifiable, transparent,
>>due process, aren't things I would associate with what you've had to
>>say.
>
>Let me summarize:
>
>Sports cannot operate without rules (unless you want a "Chinese
>Downhill" http://www.tahoe-world.com/content/view/6319/37/)

Make a pretty fair replacement for WADA and the CAS, dope testing by combat.

>It is very difficult to conceive how the rules could be enforced in a
>manner that even a majority could agree with. You would have to
>appease the two extremes of the "due process bleeding hearts" (who
>have no problem with cyclists lawyering up and pulling Floyd
>Landis-like circus trials) and the zero tolerance nazis (who would
>punish even inadvertent use of over the counter medications which have
>nothing to do with performance enhancement).

The first thing about the rules is that they be seen to be enforced consistently
upon all parties. Some variables are hard to control, like the varying response
to doping by the different national bodies. Others are essential to credibility.
Lab and other leaks to the press have to stop That's the first thing. The lab
work and its administration have to be a hell of a lot better than what the
Landis case showed. Penalties have to be realistic in comparison to the offense
and other professional sports. Directors of WADA, UCI and the major promoters
have to start thinking things through and acting like businessmen with a trust
instead of a pack of squabbling princelings. Apparently even **** Pound has seen
the need to moderate his mouth.
>
>That's the "good luck" part.
>
>Somebody came up with amnesty now, and lifetime ban later as a policy.
>So far, that is the best I've heard.
>
>You got something better?

Why life? The four year protour ban is about the same thing and it isn't
working. Like law enforcement a high likelihood of being caught is more
deterence than a draconian penalty. All the career ending penalties do is give
the rider an incentive to lawyer up and deny everything. The retroactive
penalties have a similar problem.

I say demand something reasonable and get it rather than insist on perfection
and being disappointed.

Ron

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jul 30, 11:50 am, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The sport will never go back to the good old days when nobody cared.
>
> That's admitting that Omerta worked, Doug. (<g>)

Allow me to sing my tedious refrain: quite a few promising cyclists died
in their sleep during the blissful Omerta Years. Some take this as an
argument in favour of medically-supervised doping (the Fuentes Gambit),
but I suspect that the dose-response effect may be intractable, and
quite different from how straight training (or a training diet) works.

> > So what has to be figured out if there is anyway of effectively and
> > fairly enforcing the rules.
>
> I think we need different rules.
>
> If you've really been a fugitive from justice for 40 years (ouch?),
> I'd guess you'd be sympathetic to that line of reasoning.

I am suspicious that we are experiencing the storm before the calm. That
is, there are a lot of riders suddenly getting busted, but we're also
hearing much less equivocation or "it's bad he got caught" type of
comments from the non-caught riders. Instead, we get expressions of
outright disgust for caught teammates (cf. Rabobank and the "I guess he
was chicken" quote from Boogerd).

I made a bad, and unintentional joke about "new blood" in the peloton,
but the metaphor may be more true than the literalism. This may be the
last gasp before a lot more riders make the calculation that the odds no
longer favour the doper.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

 

[[email protected]]

On Jul 30, 3:06 pm, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

> Currently, they are enforced in an inconsistent, half assed, and
> unfair manner. What I think is unfair is while the entire peloton now
> dopes, smart dopers are rewarded while stupid ones are punished.
> E.g.: Lance was a smart doper: he was never caught and won 7 TdF's.
> Vino was a stupid doper: he got caught using an easily detectable
> blood transfusion, and a great rider is now toast.
>
> So what is needed is a consistent and fair enforcement of the rules.
> In a perfect world, there would be perfect and easily administered
> tests that would catch every possible banned drug. But the world is
> not perfect, and so we are stuck in a dilemma.

Why is it unfair that smart dopers are not caught and
stupid ones are? It doesn't achieve the goal of a
dope-free sport, but since we don't live in a perfect
world, a dope-free sport is unattainable. Catching
the dumb or obvious dopers makes doping harder and
means that people have to resort to less effective
methods. That's not a bad thing.

I think dope becomes a major sporting problem when it
becomes so effective that it turns the event into a
farce. The usual rbr example of this is the Gewiss-Ballan
1-2-3. It is likely that before the 50% hematocrit
criterion, EPO was so effective that the only limit
was doctoring expertise and riders' regard for their
health, or lack thereof. That was a bad situation.
That approached the level of actual donkeys being
turned into racehorses, and it meant athletes were
risking their health.

The 50% crit limit and later the EPO test reduced
the advantage that anyone could gain from dope, so
that the sport was not clean, but it was a more
even sporting competition - donkeys couldn't any
longer beat racehorses. It's true that a smart doper
could still dope, and that a rider with the cash
to pay Ferrari had an advantage. (OTOH, a rider
with the cash for wind tunnel tests and altitude
tents also has an advantage, legally.) But in
order to stay under the radar, the dope had to be
more subtle, which means less effective, which means
more of a race.

However, catching dumb dopers - or guys dumb enough
to use a doctor who goes too far, like Fuentes - has
legitimate effects. It means they can't take easy
but very effective short cuts, like blood packing that
is easily detectable.

I agree that consistent enforcement of the rules is
desirable, but that means treating everybody who gets
caught consistently. The fact that V got caught and
A did not is not inconsistent, unless you have
evidence that they were actually doing the same thing.
It might be unfair that A is smarter than V, but V
violated the Don't Do Stupid **** rule. Life is
unfair, but that rule is actually pretty consistent.

Ben

 

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Jul 30, 10:47 am, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:28:49 -0700, Kurgan Gringioni

>
> >Does it ever occur to you that not everyone has the same worldview as
> >yourself?
>
> Yeah, it did. I thought it sucked. I seriously doubt I am alone in
> that world view.



Dumbass -


That wasn't your point.

You said that if I said I really didn't care, you would doubt me.
Basically you were saying that you couldn't believe that someone could
have that opinion.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

 

[Morten Reippuert Knudsen]

[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

> However, catching dumb dopers - or guys dumb enough
> to use a doctor who goes too far, like Fuentes

To me it doesn't seem that Fuentes wen't too far, his little buisness
was just uncovered. Very few of his clients ever tested positive except
from two who mixed op their blogbags. Fuentes clients passed EPO tests
for years.

--
Morten Reippuert Knudsen <http://blog.reippuert.dk>

Merlin Works CR-3/2.5 & Campagnolo Chorus 2007.

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:09:43 -0700, Bill C <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Please show me ANY "war on drugs" that has been won? Lots of
> >collateral damage, lots of people's rights violated, lots of people
> >jailed and there are more users now than ever.
> > Good business model.
>
> As a pot smoker for approximately 40 years, I have no sympathy for
> anybody's "War on Drugs."
>
> I wonder what that has to do with performance enhancement cheating in
> sports? Sorry, but I don't think that cheating is "victimless" -
> even if everybody does it. But my opinion is beside the point.
>
> The point is that WADA has inserted itself into professional cycling
> and they are not going away. It wasn't my idea - but it's a fact.
>
> So you can whine complain ***** moan and flame away, but you're stuck
> with them, and a current system of enforcement in cycling that is
> inconsistent, arbitrary, capricious, and unfair.

You are whining, complaining, *****ing, moaning and
flaming right here. Furthermore you are extremely
judgmental.

Look at this thread. Look at other threads you entered
or initiated. Even when folks respond equably you
castigate them for their plain expressions of their
opinions.

--
Michael Press

 

[Donald Munro]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Another thing - leaking information should net a lifetime ban from any
> office in the sport whatsoever including sweeping up the GU packets.

Its good to hear the UCI has such influence on EU labour lawmakers.

 

[Donald Munro]

Michael Press wrote:
> Look at this thread. Look at other threads you entered
> or initiated. Even when folks respond equably you
> castigate them for their plain expressions of their
> opinions.

But he's right and we're wrong. I hear witch dunking may replace cycling
as an official Olympic sport in Beijing.

 

[[email protected]]

On Jul 31, 12:05 am, Morten Reippuert Knudsen<[email protected]>
wrote:
> [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> > However, catching dumb dopers - or guys dumb enough
> > to use a doctor who goes too far, like Fuentes
>
> To me it doesn't seem that Fuentes wen't too far, his little buisness
> was just uncovered. Very few of his clients ever tested positive except
> from two who mixed op their blogbags. Fuentes clients passed EPO tests
> for years.
>

That's the point, he was uncovered because he went too far.
It may seem like a circular definition, but his operation
was likely to get caught eventually - too many cyclists
making trips to a certain apartment, bags full of blood
all in one location, dopey codenames.

For example, Ferrari got busted with his little codebook
full of asterisks, but everything was circumstantial
(I mean, I don't believe he was innocent, but the evidence
wasn't going to send him to prison). You don't see
Ferrari getting oopsed in an apartment full of blood bags.
That is probably one reason LANCE was paying him the
big bucks - discretion. Hell, even innocent people
could benefit from discretion, if there were any.

Ben
Tony Soprano sez, don't **** where you eat.

 

[Donald Munro]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> What's the matter? Can't decifer the posting letting you know that only
> animals get led around by the nose like you're allowing yourself?

There's too many decibals for me to decifer.

 

[Donald Munro]

[email protected] wrote:
> For example, Ferrari got busted with his little codebook
> full of asterisks, but everything was circumstantial
> (I mean, I don't believe he was innocent, but the evidence
> wasn't going to send him to prison). You don't see
> Ferrari getting oopsed in an apartment full of blood bags.
> That is probably one reason LANCE was paying him the
> big bucks - discretion. Hell, even innocent people
> could benefit from discretion, if there were any.

Discretion is an expensive commodity these days.

 

[RonSonic]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:01:03 +0200, Donald Munro <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Tom Kunich wrote:
>> Another thing - leaking information should net a lifetime ban from any
>> office in the sport whatsoever including sweeping up the GU packets.
>
>Its good to hear the UCI has such influence on EU labour lawmakers.

Well, we are talking about a sensible enforceable drug policy that tries to keep
competition more dramatic than the court cases. So why not throw in an easter
bunny also while we're at it.

Ron

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 31, 6:50 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> I hope to meet you someday Howard.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Hey Tom
> Real tough guys don't need to posture and threaten anyone.

I'm not threatening him. I want a picture of Howard to post so that everyone
can see who has been posting his stuff. It's amazing to meet some of the
people who post here the way they do. Sheffield is actually a pretty nice
guy in person. Too bad his postings are braindead. Mike Jacoubowsky is just
as straight up in person as he is here. But the loudest mouth from a couple
of years back is a little weasel who used this group to try to find some
manliness that he lacked in spades in person.

That's mostly why they are the faces that never made it to Ken's site.