How you like Them Apples?

[Ron Ruff]

On Oct 2, 11:03 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> ideally, but within the top tier of riders in-competition tests will
> only catch reckless or desperate dopers.

Oh well... a good reason to reduce penalties.

> ramping up the out-of-competion tests was a smart move and it catches
> dopers before they win something big and you have the PR fiasco of
> having to re-adjust the results.

This will certainly help but I have no illusions about eliminating
doping from cycling or any other sport. The harder you make it the
greater the benefit of getting away with it.

> but what about the riders implicated in festina, puerto, oil for
> drugs, millar, etc. that have never tested positive ?

The only thing that makes sense to me is to forget about it. As far as
the UCI is concerned only failed tests should be admissable as
evidence of doping. In other words they should write their rules
accordingly, while improving and increasing the frequency of testing.
If a rider has broken a law, then *those* authorities may prosecute if
they wish. This is the only reasonable way to end the circus IMO (or
at least take some of the steam out of it).

 

[Ewoud Dronkert]

Howard Kveck wrote:
> Not DPIANA? (**** Pound Is A Nifong Asshole)?

Aw, now that poor girl has to live with that.
http://pertama.netdns.net/maid_detail.cgi?MAID_ID=5065


--
E. Dronkert

 

[Kyle Legate]

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
>> Not DPIANA? (**** Pound Is A Nifong Asshole)?
>
> Aw, now that poor girl has to live with that.
> http://pertama.netdns.net/maid_detail.cgi?MAID_ID=5065
>
>
I find your web surfing habits disquieting at times.

Shucks, she's married.

 

[[email protected]]

On Oct 3, 8:57 am, Ron Ruff <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Oct 2, 11:03 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > ideally, but within the top tier of riders in-competition tests will
> > only catch reckless or desperate dopers.
>
> Oh well... a good reason to reduce penalties.
>
I'm also not in favour of harsh penanlties, but that's the price of
playing along with WADA.

> > ramping up the out-of-competion tests was a smart move and it catches
> > dopers before they win something big and you have the PR fiasco of
> > having to re-adjust the results.
>
> This will certainly help but I have no illusions about eliminating
> doping from cycling or any other sport. The harder you make it the
> greater the benefit of getting away with it.

The way I posed the question was : "what would you do as the head of
the UCI ?". i also don't have illusions about eliminating doping, but
I wouldnt actually say that.

cycling's biggest problem is not the doping itself, but the PR
fallout.

> > but what about the riders implicated in festina, puerto, oil for
> > drugs, millar, etc. that have never tested positive ?
>
> The only thing that makes sense to me is to forget about it. As far as
> the UCI is concerned only failed tests should be admissable as
> evidence of doping. In other words they should write their rules
> accordingly, while improving and increasing the frequency of testing.

but that is very lousy PR, though that is exactly what the gov. bodies
tried to do.

at the beginning of this season all the puerto riders, incl. ullrich
were cleared to race, but other bodies (most notably CONI)
intervened.

this just sends the message that the UCI can't control cycling and has
a laissez-faire attitude to doping. other doped-up leagues like the
NFL have done a better job of convincing the public they have a handle
on things.

 

[Donald Munro]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> This will certainly help but I have no illusions about eliminating
> doping from cycling or any other sport. The harder you make it the
> greater the benefit of getting away with it.

You could even argue that it makes the playing field less "fair"
because only the really well heeled can afford to dope with the
newest undetectable stuff as opposed to when everyone is doing
it. A bit like only the rich being able to get a good lawyer to
defend them.

 

[Donald Munro]

[email protected] wrote:
> The way I posed the question was : "what would you do as the head of
> the UCI ?". i also don't have illusions about eliminating doping, but
> I wouldnt actually say that.

An interesting question on how to play devils (or, from the dope
crusaders point of view, angels) advocate. How about:

Reduce the number of banned drugs to stuff that really works eg EPO
and stuff that is really harmful. Get rid of that dumb WADA unified
code where you can get banned for a performance degrading drug (like
marijuana)

Allow "recovery" orientated drugs up to some given blood concentration
level eg testosterone or Jack Daniels or even low concentrations
of some steroids.

Legislate cross testing by different labs for positive tests, perhaps
split both A and B samples into two lots to be sent to different labs
and if the labs results don't agree then its considered negative.

Only use peer reviewed tests (where has Mayo's test gone ?)

Insert suggestion here.

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
> > The way I posed the question was : "what would you do as the head of
> > the UCI ?". i also don't have illusions about eliminating doping, but
> > I wouldnt actually say that.
>
> An interesting question on how to play devils (or, from the dope
> crusaders point of view, angels) advocate. How about:
>
> Reduce the number of banned drugs to stuff that really works eg EPO
> and stuff that is really harmful. Get rid of that dumb WADA unified
> code where you can get banned for a performance degrading drug (like
> marijuana)
>
> Allow "recovery" orientated drugs up to some given blood concentration
> level eg testosterone or Jack Daniels or even low concentrations
> of some steroids.
>
> Legislate cross testing by different labs for positive tests, perhaps
> split both A and B samples into two lots to be sent to different labs
> and if the labs results don't agree then its considered negative.
>
> Only use peer reviewed tests (where has Mayo's test gone ?)
>
> Insert suggestion here.

I still think it'd be a good idea if teams or riders held onto a (third) sample of
their own, as a means to discourage lab manipulation.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?