How can there be a few positives every year at the TdF, and not one in four years at the ToC? I knew the labs in France were corrupt (i.e. Landis situation), but this makes it that much more obvious.
How come no drug busts in four years of Tour of California?
- Thread starter No_Positives
- Start date
Nobody cares mate. No one. Its about as exciting on a world scale as the Tour Down Under. No very. No one dopes at the tour of Cali because none of them care at all. At all.
Except Levi. Cos he knows he cant win anything in Europe.
Check out the excitement of the Tour of Cali.
Go Levi Go. Go Levi Go. Go.
I gotta sit down.
Except Levi. Cos he knows he cant win anything in Europe.
Check out the excitement of the Tour of Cali.
Go Levi Go. Go Levi Go. Go.
I gotta sit down.
In the recent past, they were no test in ToC, just **** in a cup and then the **** was poured in the water by the good US labs!
The perfect job for a perfect lab, never dragged in the mud by a doped rider or athletes, the best way to avoid problem and to appear clean.
The perfect job for a perfect lab, never dragged in the mud by a doped rider or athletes, the best way to avoid problem and to appear clean.
You're right. Last year there were no tests at the ToC. Bit hard to have a drug bust when you're not testing.poulidor said:
Hold on here, aren't there internal testing programs???? Aren't all the pro tour and continental teams participants in the bio passport???? Those two avenues alone should be sufficient to detect doping by the cheaters. Who says there's no testing...whiteboytrash said:
Good call. With any luck, they'll start dropping like the Dutch cyclists in the early '90s.IH8LANCE said:
Hey, why not just let them beat each other with bats and crowbars on the way to the top? Why not, you say? Because it's a ****ing sport, and without rules, it devolves into apes beating each other with their fists.
Campybob would think otherwise, but once again Santa didn't bring him new legs for Christmas.
[jimmypop said:
I don't miss them. Do you?
I like it! I like it!
No, it doesn't. The goal will still be to ride a bike from point A to point B faster than everyone else. Besides, watching apes beat each other with their fists would still be exponentially more entertaining than competitions that exclude the best riders because they are under suspicion for the sheer audacity of having any success whatsoever, bookended by esoteric discussions about the inherent arbitrariness of doping protocols, which do not identify the doping riders - merely the riders unfortunate enough to fail one.
Many vocations aren't good for you. Many people work in dangerous conditions and risk their life and limb, and the risk is deemed acceptable because the products/services provided are in demand. Well, a lot of people want to watch the spectacle of cycling, which is infinitely more entertaining when the competitors are doped up and superhuman. Hey, if a few of them overdo it and die as a result, they get the fringe benefit of being mourned and martyred. Hell, Pantani was doped to the gills and keeled over, and the Giro dedicates a mountain stage to him every year as a result. Instead of living a long life of having to answer meaningless questions about whether his successes were the result of modern chemistry, he avoided it all by dying and becoming a fondly-remembered icon. Not a bad deal.
Let 'em dope.
Ah that's it, then. You want other people to risk life and health because you aren't being sufficiently entertained. Nice.IH8LANCE said:
Hey, here's a suggestion: why don't you go out and get yourself some EPO, pump your crit up to ~60 or so, go for a ride, and entertain yourself? Or are you too chickenshit?
I don't "want" them to dope. I want to give them the option, partly for my own entertainment and partly because doing so would annoy the hell out of those who obsessively whine about it as a means of rationalizing why their favorite riders suck.Leafer said:
If juicing up on EPO were necessary to maximize my performance in sitting around with a bag of pretzels and a beer I might consider it.
As we know, having balls is not a prerequisite to using dope as a means to cycling superstardom. In the meantime, I think it's funny that you're suggesting because I don't use EPO, this somehow disqualifies me from preferring that others be permitted to do so. For what I want to accomplish in life, doping will not help. So what's your point?Leafer said:
Finally, this **** about doping killing cyclists, etc. etc. yada yada is nonsense. Abusing the substances is what kills people. You people say Armstrong's the biggest doper of them all -- he's healthy as a horse, wins what he sets out to win, and gets all the chicks. If the only reason he's a winner is because he's the biggest doper, by your theory he should be dead. Doping, when done properly under the supervision of people who know what they are doing, maximizes performance no different than proper training and nutrition.
Regulate it if you must, but let 'em dope.
Similar threads
