More information for doping apologists



antoineg

New Member
Jun 13, 2003
247
0
0
A very well written article by Prentice Steffen on velonews.com:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7039.0.html

Hopefully a few more blind, deaf and dumb among us who continue to hold out on the reality of doping in cycling will read and, in conjunction with all the other information out there, re-evaluate their cycling idolatry little by little.
 

Saucy

New Member
Feb 21, 2004
278
0
0
Isn't Prentice Steffen the one who alleged that he was approached by Tyler Hamilton and Marty Jemison to begin a doping program when he was USPS' team doctor (a claim TH denied)? Interesting that he is coming out with an article when Tyler is in trouble.

Embarrassingly enough, our sport's own Union Cycliste Internationale became the last international governing body to sign. It was only under threat of exclusion from the '04 Games that the UCI signed, and it did so only on the very last day possible. Talk about a reluctant participant.

That is embarassing and just makes the sport look bad. Why is UCI so resistant?

I agree that the "XX hasn't tested positive so he must be clean" is the weakest argument out there. As it says in the article, its virtually meaningless.
 

markfarnsworth

New Member
Apr 18, 2003
11
0
0
We also have the problem of people who test positive and then LIE about it in the face of the facts. People like this can make others loose confidence in the testing programs. I know I guy who failed a drug test a little while ago and decided to lie in the face of the facts.

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t180129.html

The problem is that there is not enough testing in the sport. I think that any race that has a prize purse worth over $2,000.00 should have drug testing. We should also have a rule that outlaws cash prizes in any race that does not have drug testing. In addition we should have lots of random out of compition testing. The UCI should pay for all this by taxing the riders. Lance could afford to pay a few million to help defray the costs. With enough testing expecially out of season testing the sport might be salvaged.

-Mark
 

Spider1977

New Member
Jul 19, 2003
446
0
0
I have been riding for a little over a year now as cross training for rowing. Although it seems the riding is becoming my primary sport. Anyway when I went to the rowing club tonight all my buddies were joking about what drugs I was on and when I had my last transfusion etc. Sad, but cycling is becoming a laughing stock amongst sportsmen and it will soon translate into a loss of credibility and popularity.

I have consistently said that anyone found guilty of doping should be kicked out for life. I don't care how much of a nice guy/girl they are (or appear to be). Once a cheat, always a cheat.
 

markfarnsworth

New Member
Apr 18, 2003
11
0
0
Spider1977 said:
I have been riding for a little over a year now as cross training for rowing.

I also ride a bike is for cross training. My main sport is inline speed skating. Speed skating is way better then cycling because the sport is more pure in terms of athletics. Drugs exist in speed skating but the problem is MUCH worse in cycling.

-Mark
 

run_and_ride

New Member
Aug 6, 2004
47
0
0
You do mean the same TH that just tested positive twice for blood doping? I will take Prentice Steffen's word over his any day.

Saucy said:
Isn't Prentice Steffen the one who alleged that he was approached by Tyler Hamilton and Marty Jemison to begin a doping program when he was USPS' team doctor (a claim TH denied)? Interesting that he is coming out with an article when Tyler is in trouble.



That is embarassing and just makes the sport look bad. Why is UCI so resistant?

I agree that the "XX hasn't tested positive so he must be clean" is the weakest argument out there. As it says in the article, its virtually meaningless.
 

ed073

New Member
May 19, 2004
1,528
0
0
49
antoineg said:
A very well written article by Prentice Steffen on velonews.com:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7039.0.html

Hopefully a few more blind, deaf and dumb among us who continue to hold out on the reality of doping in cycling will read and, in conjunction with all the other information out there, re-evaluate their cycling idolatry little by little.


A good read.
 

closesupport

Banned
Jul 18, 2004
1,064
0
0
ed073 said:
A good read.
Hmmm! i guess, like it states a medic can clear up traces of EPO within 12/14hours with a transfusion of sailine, GH pretty much untracable...

i wonder which the drugs of choice would be for class athletes.
 

Flyer

Banned
Sep 20, 2004
2,961
0
0
Saucy said:
Isn't Prentice Steffen the one who alleged that he was approached by Tyler Hamilton and Marty Jemison to begin a doping program when he was USPS' team doctor (a claim TH denied)? Interesting that he is coming out with an article when Tyler is in trouble.


John Kerry hopeful:

It is not all "interesting" that Prentice came forward as Tyler got caught cheating (twice) because he DID NOT!!! He came forward months ago---before the TDF and the summer Olympic Games. But nobody but me was paying attention---or too busy screaming curse words at Greg LeMond for saying the same exact thing about yellow band man, Lance Armstrong.

Prentice was silenced for many years by Tailwind Sports legal team---or so I heard---. Somehow Prentice has been indemnified sufficiently to be quoted in David Walsh's new book; LA Confidential, the secrets of Lance Armstrong.

In any case, both Tyler and Lance are there own worst enemies. Nothing Prentice says can change the facts and the medical waste turning up in dumpsters all over Europe. (even on the open roads themselves)


That is embarassing and just makes the sport look bad. Why is UCI so resistant?


UCI resistent??? They fully support the promoters and the corporate advertisers. Else there would be no "professional sport". Besides, they cannot test for anemia, muscular dystrophy, and growth hormones anyway. So other than shorten the race mileage---what else can they do? DQ a rider for life??

Watch, David Miller will be back very soon.


I agree that the "XX hasn't tested positive so he must be clean" is the weakest argument out there. As it says in the article, its virtually meaningless.
I agree, but politics and corporate sponsorship pressures rule the day!!! Three failed blood tests and one tainted sample---and yet no compliance action taken by IOC or UCI. UCI threw the ball to USADA despite Tyler not racing in the USA for years.

Tyler may keep his Gold Medal, whilst having his own wife and father lie for him publicly. I am so proud of his manly behavior.

Tyler is probably guilty of far worse doping than just blood transfusions.


Next doping bust candidate please.

Pro cycling is so patheticly sad. These guy are nobody's heroes.
 

Flyer

Banned
Sep 20, 2004
2,961
0
0
markfarnsworth said:
Atheletes with "class" don't do drugs!
Agreed. Wholeheartedly!!

And those would be non-professional amateur athletes competing on pure love for the sport. These are the classly ones.

The long-term pros must dope, else they wash out, exhausted and demoralized.

Are the team managers and doctors lacking class too?? Not Prentice Steffen.

You see what happened to USPO's Prentice Steffen when he showed class???

Termination, that's what. So much for his ER trauma medicine ideas. The USPO patients/riders knew more about dope than their Doctor did.
 

Flyer

Banned
Sep 20, 2004
2,961
0
0
Spider1977 said:
I have been riding for a little over a year now as cross training for rowing. Although it seems the riding is becoming my primary sport. Anyway when I went to the rowing club tonight all my buddies were joking about what drugs I was on and when I had my last transfusion etc. Sad, but cycling is becoming a laughing stock amongst sportsmen and it will soon translate into a loss of credibility and popularity.

I have consistently said that anyone found guilty of doping should be kicked out for life. I don't care how much of a nice guy/girl they are (or appear to be). Once a cheat, always a cheat.
Well written!!

I heard a rumored leak from the BALCO dispositions. An NFL football player remarked, after first signing off on his indemnity-from-prosecution-agreement, that a miraculous thing happens to an athlete after he/she takes their first steroid drug, he/she becomes immediately transformed into a pathological liar.

Sounds logical to me!!! I would never trust anything these guys or their wives say publicly. It all staged and scripted.

The presumption that 100% of UCI cyclists are illegal doping is a very reasonable position to take. And the reverse quite unreasonable just given the 2004 confessions and premature deaths.
 

Saucy

New Member
Feb 21, 2004
278
0
0
Flyer said:
I agree, but politics and corporate sponsorship pressures rule the day!!! Three failed blood tests and one tainted sample---and yet no compliance action taken by IOC or UCI. UCI threw the ball to USADA despite Tyler not racing in the USA for years.

Tyler may keep his Gold Medal, whilst having his own wife and father lie for him publicly. I am so proud of his manly behavior.

Tyler is probably guilty of far worse doping than just blood transfusions.


Next doping bust candidate please.

Pro cycling is so patheticly sad. These guy are nobody's heroes.

Hey, Flyer. Not sure why you responded so strongly to my post as I am in agreement with a lot of what you say and agree with many of your posts in other threads about the doping issue. I guess my phrasing was a little off.

My "why is UCI resistant" post was kind of being rhetorical as I am well aware of their attempts to cover up the doping issue in the sport. But in their attempts to sweep everything under the carpet they just make the sport look worse, so I am questioning the public relations aspect of their decision. I guess I should have elaborated on this.

As far as Prentice Steffen, yes I know that he came out a while ago about the TH story (although I only first heard about it during the '04 TDF). Again, I wasn't suggesting that he was being opportunistic. I just thought the timing for this recent article was odd considering the events of the last week. I am not questioning his credibility. In fact, after reading his article and reviewing his credentials I think its safe to say that he is very credible and his claims about TH and MJ seem much more likely to be true, in my mind at least.

And yes, I am still hopeful about Kerry. I am as delusional as some of the Tyler supporters! :D
 

Flyer

Banned
Sep 20, 2004
2,961
0
0
Saucy said:
Hey, Flyer. Not sure why you responded so strongly to my post as I am in agreement with a lot of what you say and agree with many of your posts in other threads about the doping issue. I guess my phrasing was a little off.

My "why is UCI resistant" post was kind of being rhetorical as I am well aware of their attempts to cover up the doping issue in the sport. But in their attempts to sweep everything under the carpet they just make the sport look worse, so I am questioning the public relations aspect of their decision. I guess I should have elaborated on this.

As far as Prentice Steffen, yes I know that he came out a while ago about the TH story (although I only first heard about it during the '04 TDF). Again, I wasn't suggesting that he was being opportunistic. I just thought the timing for this recent article was odd considering the events of the last week. I am not questioning his credibility. In fact, after reading his article and reviewing his credentials I think its safe to say that he is very credible and his claims about TH and MJ seem much more likely to be true, in my mind at least.

And yes, I am still hopeful about Kerry. I am as delusional as some of the Tyler supporters! :D
Saucy:

Thank you for your remarks. I think it is fair to say that I am over-zealous in this continuing athlete performance doping----and major adverse health affected problem in most big-money sports---which includes cycling.

Sorry for any harshness.

We do still have hope.
 

JohnO

New Member
Jul 5, 2003
1,495
0
0
markfarnsworth said:
I also ride a bike is for cross training. My main sport is inline speed skating. Speed skating is way better then cycling because the sport is more pure in terms of athletics. Drugs exist in speed skating but the problem is MUCH worse in cycling.

-Mark

That's because there is more money involved in cycling. If the financial rewards for winning at speed skating were as lucrative as they are in professional cycling, you'd see a lot more juiced up skaters.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Todays Sunday Times carries an excellent interview by David Walsh ( the bloke who Armstrong claims is lying !) with **** Pound of WADA.

Pound states in the interview that he was not surprised that certain athletes chose not to compete in Athens because the tests undertaken by WADA are a lot more stringent that the absentee-landlord the UCI. Pound states that he is unhappy with the UCI and their so-called dope testing program. Pound contends that the UCI are complicit in covering up the problem in cycling.
Pound makes a very interesting point though - he states that professional sport has been ambivalent to the drug problem. He states that professional sport have always pushed for "higher,faster, stornger" whereas traditionally
amateur events like rowing, have always taken a more rigid line to the doping issue.
Pound also states that Hamilton's gold medal is essentially valueless.
 

Spider1977

New Member
Jul 19, 2003
446
0
0
It's interesting that times for rowing events are largely unchanged over the past 20 years. In that time boats and oars have changed from wood to carbon and blade technology has changed. Yet people still find rowing races interesting and exciting.

Recently in an interview with Pound in Procycling, UCI President Verbruggen told Pound that "If people want a tdeF at 42 kph, there's no way the riders can do it without 'preparation'." Well I want to know which people told Mr Verbruggen they want a race at 42kph. I'd be happy if they went along at much less than that, provided the racing was interesting and we knew that the riders were doing it on their own merits.
 

closesupport

Banned
Jul 18, 2004
1,064
0
0
Spider1977 said:
It's interesting that times for rowing events are largely unchanged over the past 20 years. In that time boats and oars have changed from wood to carbon and blade technology has changed. Yet people still find rowing races interesting and exciting.

Recently in an interview with Pound in Procycling, UCI President Verbruggen told Pound that "If people want a tdeF at 42 kph, there's no way the riders can do it without 'preparation'." Well I want to know which people told Mr Verbruggen they want a race at 42kph. I'd be happy if they went along at much less than that, provided the racing was interesting and we knew that the riders were doing it on their own merits.
if i new for certain that other riders prepered for races like i do for rides, then i'd be prepered to race, but feeling that others are doping and have an unfair advantage over me, then i am very reluctant to race.

in my opinion, if you ain't prepared to dope, then don't race. whats the point, my chances of winning races are probably very narrow anyway, but with other using performance enhancing substances, my chances are probably even less.
 

Roadie_scum

New Member
Nov 14, 2003
1,288
0
0
closesupport said:
if i new for certain that other riders prepered for races like i do for rides, then i'd be prepered to race, but feeling that others are doping and have an unfair advantage over me, then i am very reluctant to race.

Doping is definitely not a (large) problem at club level - have a go at racing, don't let fear hold you back. You'll also take great pleasure in beating athletes you know have doped. One of the great things is that riders who dope at reasonably low levels of the sport (eg before elite 2) are generally idiots with no idea how to train. You can beat them by being smart with nutrition and preparation.

in my opinion, if you ain't prepared to dope, then don't race. whats the point, my chances of winning races are probably very narrow anyway, but with other using performance enhancing substances, my chances are probably even less.

Bite me. I race clean.
 

li0scc0

New Member
Sep 20, 2004
189
0
0
closesupport said:
if i new for certain that other riders prepered for races like i do for rides, then i'd be prepered to race, but feeling that others are doping and have an unfair advantage over me, then i am very reluctant to race.

in my opinion, if you ain't prepared to dope, then don't race. whats the point, my chances of winning races are probably very narrow anyway, but with other using performance enhancing substances, my chances are probably even less.
For many people, doping is their excuse. Thus, like many on here, you claim it impossible to win if you don't dope. Not doping is an excuse to: 1) Not race, 2) Not train hard enough for racing.
Then, if and when they do race, they simply claim that the difference is doping.
Put in the effort and be the best you can be. And if you don't win, don't blame drugs, or lack thereof. This sport is too fun NOT to try, so get off the sidelines.