T
Tim Lines
Guest
Chris wrote:
> "Tim Lines" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:b_UOc.191819$%_6.160553@attbi_s01...
>
>>Chris wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>No. These assumptions are reasonable only if you buy in to other
>
> assumptions
>
>>>about using results as an indication of doped vs. clean riders.
>>
>>You misunderstood. My assumption is that by the end of the TdF, the GC
>>contenders have been frequently enough tested that they've been dope
>>free for 3+ weeks. That assumption might be wrong. I'd be interested
>>in hearing why you think that's the case.
>>
>>Another assumption is that the effects of whatever drug would decrease
>>over a 3+ week period.
>>
>>Bottom line is that I theorize that the final time trial of the TdF this
>>year was about as free from the influence of doping as anything we're
>>likely to see.
>
>
> That is interesting since the last ITT of the 2003 Tour was probably won by
> a cheater that did not test positive. That is the claim of several witnesses
> against David Millar, and he may have already conceded that he did dope *for
> that stage*. I could be wrong on the cofession though.
I've read very little about the specifics of Millar's confession. If
that's what he confessed, it would be interesting to know how he cheated
and beat the tests. Everything I've said is absolute **** if A) there
exists a usable way of fooling the tests and B) the cyclists trust that
method enough to risk their careers on it.
>
> In any case, being drug free for 3 weeks and free from the effects of drugs
> are 2 *entirely different* issues and that is what my point was. In fact,
> cyclists can use EPO for the entire pre-season and have some benefit through
> the entire year. It may not show up in HCT, but training with EPO will allow
> at the very minimum a much fresher mental state while in competition.
Your argument for a psychological benefit after the physical affects
have worn off is new to me. It makes some sense, although I can also
make sense of someone making a large deal out of a slight reduction in
physical ability. I'm thinking that guys who can't deal with that don't
last very long at the pro level anyway, though. That reduction would be
just another thing to fight through or ignore as suits the individual taste.
> Those
> that have to compete may be at a disadvantage simply because they had to
> work so much harder to get their fitness. It may not even make a difference
> in the results but it is still a factor to consider. My point in all of this
> is that the rules need to be enforceable and consistent. As of now they are
> not.
Sounds like a good idea to me. A good first step would be to determine
whether holes in enforcement exist and what they are.
--
--------------------
Remove CLOTHES to reply
> "Tim Lines" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:b_UOc.191819$%_6.160553@attbi_s01...
>
>>Chris wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>No. These assumptions are reasonable only if you buy in to other
>
> assumptions
>
>>>about using results as an indication of doped vs. clean riders.
>>
>>You misunderstood. My assumption is that by the end of the TdF, the GC
>>contenders have been frequently enough tested that they've been dope
>>free for 3+ weeks. That assumption might be wrong. I'd be interested
>>in hearing why you think that's the case.
>>
>>Another assumption is that the effects of whatever drug would decrease
>>over a 3+ week period.
>>
>>Bottom line is that I theorize that the final time trial of the TdF this
>>year was about as free from the influence of doping as anything we're
>>likely to see.
>
>
> That is interesting since the last ITT of the 2003 Tour was probably won by
> a cheater that did not test positive. That is the claim of several witnesses
> against David Millar, and he may have already conceded that he did dope *for
> that stage*. I could be wrong on the cofession though.
I've read very little about the specifics of Millar's confession. If
that's what he confessed, it would be interesting to know how he cheated
and beat the tests. Everything I've said is absolute **** if A) there
exists a usable way of fooling the tests and B) the cyclists trust that
method enough to risk their careers on it.
>
> In any case, being drug free for 3 weeks and free from the effects of drugs
> are 2 *entirely different* issues and that is what my point was. In fact,
> cyclists can use EPO for the entire pre-season and have some benefit through
> the entire year. It may not show up in HCT, but training with EPO will allow
> at the very minimum a much fresher mental state while in competition.
Your argument for a psychological benefit after the physical affects
have worn off is new to me. It makes some sense, although I can also
make sense of someone making a large deal out of a slight reduction in
physical ability. I'm thinking that guys who can't deal with that don't
last very long at the pro level anyway, though. That reduction would be
just another thing to fight through or ignore as suits the individual taste.
> Those
> that have to compete may be at a disadvantage simply because they had to
> work so much harder to get their fitness. It may not even make a difference
> in the results but it is still a factor to consider. My point in all of this
> is that the rules need to be enforceable and consistent. As of now they are
> not.
Sounds like a good idea to me. A good first step would be to determine
whether holes in enforcement exist and what they are.
--
--------------------
Remove CLOTHES to reply
