Spanish Drug Policy Changing

[B Lafferty]

From VeloNews today:
Spain takes tough line on doping
Government officials in Spain - long regarded as a country with a soft
policy on doping in sport - may begin seeking jail time for those caught
using and distributing performance-enhancing drugs.

On Friday, Spain's Cabinet focused almost entirely on drafting the outlines
of the National Anti-doping Plan.

The 59 measures passed are characterized by Spain's Sports Council as
"conclusive and with no return." Included is a new anti-doping law that
would change the penal code so that doping can be treated as a crime, and
the creation of what would be Spain's first anti-doping agency.

Until now, the only person sanctioned in a doping case has been the athlete,
but the new plan envisages punishment of coaches and doctors. Doping will be
considered a crime, and those found guilty could be sent to jail rather than
simply being fined http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/7559.0.html



Consider this along with the comments of the judge in the Manzano case
reported in ProCycling:

"There is no case to answer because these type of activities are not
included in the penal code," judge Maria Antonia de Torres Diez-Madronero
was quoted as saying by sports daily AS on Thursday.

Former Kelme rider Jesus Manzano had said the use of banned substances such
as the endurance booster EPO (erythropoietin) and practices such as blood
transfusion had been routinely used while he rode for the team.

Although Spain has no specific anti-doping laws, the judge opened an
investigation into the allegations in April last year because of a possible
breach of existing public health legislation.

Manzano, who announced he will appeal against the decision, said the ruling
showed the lack of institutional will to investigate doping in sport and
also demonstrated the need to introduce new legislation to help deal with
the problem.

"It is clear that they don't want to investigate these things," he said.
"Spain needs a specific law in this area."

Spain's sports minister Jaime Lissavetzky has said the government is working
on the introduction of a new anti-doping code and is hoping to publish its
findings in the near future.

Kelme sporting director Vicente Belda said the judge's ruling exonerated his
team of the accusations.

"It proves that none of the people who were accused were guilty of
anything," he was quoted as saying by AS.




Lastly recall the comments by ***** Voet in "Breaking the Chain" about Spain
being the source for doping products in the 1990s due to its lax drug laws.



Good changes.
--
How strange when an illusion dies, it's as though you've lost a child.--Judy
Garland

 

[Bill C]

B Lafferty wrote:
> From VeloNews today:
> Spain takes tough line on doping
> Government officials in Spain - long regarded as a country with a
soft
> policy on doping in sport - may begin seeking jail time for those
caught
> using and distributing performance-enhancing drugs.
>
> On Friday, Spain's Cabinet focused almost entirely on drafting the
outlines
> of the National Anti-doping Plan.
>
> The 59 measures passed are characterized by Spain's Sports Council as

> "conclusive and with no return." Included is a new anti-doping law
that
> would change the penal code so that doping can be treated as a crime,
and
> the creation of what would be Spain's first anti-doping agency.
>
> Until now, the only person sanctioned in a doping case has been the
athlete,
> but the new plan envisages punishment of coaches and doctors. Doping
will be
> considered a crime, and those found guilty could be sent to jail
rather than
> simply being fined
http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/7559.0.html
>
>
>
> Consider this along with the comments of the judge in the Manzano
case
> reported in ProCycling:
>
> "There is no case to answer because these type of activities are not
> included in the penal code," judge Maria Antonia de Torres
Diez-Madronero
> was quoted as saying by sports daily AS on Thursday.
>
> Former Kelme rider Jesus Manzano had said the use of banned
substances such
> as the endurance booster EPO (erythropoietin) and practices such as
blood
> transfusion had been routinely used while he rode for the team.
>
> Although Spain has no specific anti-doping laws, the judge opened an
> investigation into the allegations in April last year because of a
possible
> breach of existing public health legislation.
>
> Manzano, who announced he will appeal against the decision, said the
ruling
> showed the lack of institutional will to investigate doping in sport
and
> also demonstrated the need to introduce new legislation to help deal
with
> the problem.
>
> "It is clear that they don't want to investigate these things," he
said.
> "Spain needs a specific law in this area."
>
> Spain's sports minister Jaime Lissavetzky has said the government is
working
> on the introduction of a new anti-doping code and is hoping to
publish its
> findings in the near future.
>
> Kelme sporting director Vicente Belda said the judge's ruling
exonerated his
> team of the accusations.
>
> "It proves that none of the people who were accused were guilty of
> anything," he was quoted as saying by AS.
>
>
>
>
> Lastly recall the comments by ***** Voet in "Breaking the Chain"
about Spain
> being the source for doping products in the 1990s due to its lax drug
laws.
>
>
>
> Good changes.
> --
> How strange when an illusion dies, it's as though you've lost a
child.--Judy
> Garland

Sweet, Now let's see i they actually enforce the laws. The world is
littered with laws written for propaganda purposes noone enforces
except when it's politically expedient.
Bill C

 

[Kurgan Gringioni]

Sandy wrote:
>
> Why in the world does anyone care about these cheaters ? Well, to
answer my
> own question, it's because they are easy and vulnerable targets, and
doing
> to can divert attention from matters of real consequence. I read the
Dik
> Pound interview, where he thinks the entire world, including rebel
> territories of Sri Lanka and the Philippines, will root out this
drastic
> evil. Horseshit. Few really care about sports fraud, and those that
do are
> more likely fat and sitting in front of the tube, nursing their
feeble
> illusions (your current signature inspires).


Dumbass -

I concur.

 

[B Lafferty]

"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "B Lafferty" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de :
> news:t%[email protected]...
>>
>> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> Good changes.
>>>> --
>>>> How strange when an illusion dies, it's as though you've lost a
>>> child.--Judy
>>>> Garland
>>>
>>> Sweet, Now let's see i they actually enforce the laws. The world is
>>> littered with laws written for propaganda purposes noone enforces
>>> except when it's politically expedient.
>>> Bill C
>>>
>> That's always true. I wonder how much of this flows from the comments
>> made by the Spanish judge in the Manzano case. Also, how does this work
>> in relation to European Community Law? Sandy?
>
> Frankly, I am more concerned about buying shoe covers that don't act like
> bladders and collect all the rain, like in this morning's 95km training
> ride, in snow, hail and eventually a thuderstorm.

Go to http://www.burley.com/products/raingear/default.aspx?p=Shoe+Covers&i=3
and riding in the rain will be fun for you.


>
> The new Euro constitution may offer more light on the rights of an
> accused, and provide significantly more protection for offenders than the
> laws in place in France and Italy of today. I personally think that
> taking away a guy's right to work is much too severe, given the context.
> Especially contrary to law (while it has not been tested) is the capacity
> of an organizing body to suspend riders, pending investigation. There is
> the right of an employer to suspend an individual for cause, pending
> review, but the UCI is Swiss, and that country ain't part of Europe, in a
> manner of speaking. A neat puzzle for conflicts of laws hobbyists like me
> ...
>
> Why in the world does anyone care about these cheaters ? Well, to answer
> my own question, it's because they are easy and vulnerable targets, and
> doing to can divert attention from matters of real consequence. I read
> the Dik Pound interview, where he thinks the entire world, including rebel
> territories of Sri Lanka and the Philippines, will root out this drastic
> evil. Horseshit. Few really care about sports fraud, and those that do
> are more likely fat and sitting in front of the tube, nursing their feeble
> illusions (your current signature inspires).
>
> What we are experiencing is the unmasking of these illusions, and they key
> is that the riders we want to love aren't really perfect. So they dope,
> they play with starlets while leaving wife and children at home, they fix
> races (doesn't "giving someone a stage win" qualify as sports fraud ?).
> The worst of all is that we wish secretly that we were capable of doing
> these things - either winning, or engaging in attractive vices. We just
> don't get the quality of illusion we once had, because journalists have to
> make their money and reputations, too.

Judy Garland had it right.

>
> It was not a pleasant ride today. I had a coffee at the end at home - my
> drug of choice. Fix the waterlogged booties, and you have done more for
> cycling that jailing all the drug pimps. Fix your personal goals within
> your personal capacity, working hard, and forget about the concoctions
> that idiots will put into their bodies. I don't really think these guys
> care at all about being role-model athletesé They're in it for the money,
> so let them do as they please. Just wait until genetic engineering
> becomes affordable !

I'd like to discuss the widows and orphans once you've got the new booties
and are in a better mood. You and the coffee remind me of the remake of
Godzilla with the French guy always trying without success to get a decent
cup of coffee in NYC.
Conflicts of laws is enough to fry the brain. I'll stay away from that on
this issue.

 

[Robert Chung]

Sandy wrote:
> Frankly, I am more concerned about buying shoe covers that don't act
> like bladders and collect all the rain, like in this morning's 95km
> training ride, in snow, hail and eventually a thuderstorm.

We got the thunderstorm and hail in mid-afternoon (fortunately for me,
after my ride was finished). I've given up on shoe covers. Now I use
these:
http://www.google.com/froogle?q=sealskinz&btnG=Search+Froogle

 

[[email protected]]

Sandy wrote:

> I personally think that taking away a
> guy's right to work is much too severe, given the context.

Me too but "context" is broad. Context of perhaps either jumping on the
doping bandwagon or being left behind, is that what you mean?

Especially
> contrary to law (while it has not been tested) is the capacity of an
> organizing body to suspend riders, pending investigation.

Now there's a useful "test". As long as we're testing and testing...

> Why in the world does anyone care about these cheaters ? Well, to
answer my
> own question, it's because they are easy and vulnerable targets, and
doing
> to can divert attention from matters of real consequence.

And as has been noted, "matters of real consequence" who can fight
back, on more than one level. "Easy pickings" are much more attractive
especially when appealing to an unthinking public.

> I read the Dik
> Pound interview, where he thinks the entire world, including rebel
> territories of Sri Lanka and the Philippines, will root out this
drastic
> evil. Horseshit. Few really care about sports fraud, and those that
do are
> more likely fat and sitting in front of the tube, nursing their
feeble
> illusions (your current signature inspires).

I don't think "they", by and large, have the "illusions" you are
supposing (relatively fat, watching tube is of course correct).
Virenque is a racing hero. I heard his applause, the loudest for any
rider(and of a different timbre)including Armstrong (next loudest), at
the start house in Luxembourg (TdF Prologue), '02. I suggest a
realistic basis for this approbation, since the Virenque doping story
was hashed out well before that time. Maybe "they" are sometimes a lot
smarter than given credit for. Perhaps there's some "outlaw" appeal
mixed in as well, but maybe racing fans want to hear more about racing
than doping. Maybe, in agreement with part of what you're saying, the
police raids on racers' hotels and so forth are not as popular with the
public as some of the "enforcers" would like.

> What we are experiencing is the unmasking of these illusions, and
they key
> is that the riders we want to love aren't really perfect.

I never thought they were perfect, at least past the age of 12 or so...
Even Babe Ruth's foibles were well known, back in the 20's. Ditto for
Mantle even in the uptight American 50's; Namath, of couse used his
off-field fame to sell shaving cream, just to mention a couple of US
athletes. Performance, not perfection expected. And Anquetil? How much
press scrutiny did he enjoy away from the bike? No similarities to
Namath?

> So they dope,

Both for fun and profit.

(snipped starlets)

>they fix
> races (doesn't "giving someone a stage win" qualify as sports fraud
?).

No. (Or, maybe "Only in Italy"?)

The
> worst of all is that we wish secretly that we were capable of doing
these
> things - either winning, or engaging in attractive vices.

Done both, at least on the local level, and before I got married,
thanks, at least for the vice part. (Never had to talk into a bunch of
microphones and camera lights, or sign autographs for hours, either. Ok
by me.) Inspiration from the greats, but also obvious limits, reality.

> We just don't get
> the quality of illusion we once had, because journalists have to make
their
> money and reputations, too.

Again, I think you're wrong about the illusions, or at least their
universality, but right about journalists, or at least a few of them
(and some others connected with sport), sacrificing (along with a few
athletes), "the way things were" for something new and more
profitable-- to them, of course; while selling the illusion that sport
will ever be made "clean". --TP

 

[matabala]

"B Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> From VeloNews today:
> Spain takes tough line on doping
> Government officials in Spain - long regarded as a country with a soft
> policy on doping in sport - may begin seeking jail time for those caught
> using and distributing performance-enhancing drugs.
>
> On Friday, Spain's Cabinet focused almost entirely on drafting the
> outlines of the National Anti-doping Plan.
>
> The 59 measures passed are characterized by Spain's Sports Council as
> "conclusive and with no return." Included is a new anti-doping law that
> would change the penal code so that doping can be treated as a crime, and
> the creation of what would be Spain's first anti-doping agency.
>
> Until now, the only person sanctioned in a doping case has been the
> athlete, but the new plan envisages punishment of coaches and doctors.
> Doping will be considered a crime, and those found guilty could be sent to
> jail rather than simply being fined
> http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/7559.0.html
>
>
>
> Consider this along with the comments of the judge in the Manzano case
> reported in ProCycling:
>
> "There is no case to answer because these type of activities are not
> included in the penal code," judge Maria Antonia de Torres Diez-Madronero
> was quoted as saying by sports daily AS on Thursday.
>
> Former Kelme rider Jesus Manzano had said the use of banned substances
> such as the endurance booster EPO (erythropoietin) and practices such as
> blood transfusion had been routinely used while he rode for the team.
>
> Although Spain has no specific anti-doping laws, the judge opened an
> investigation into the allegations in April last year because of a
> possible breach of existing public health legislation.
>
> Manzano, who announced he will appeal against the decision, said the
> ruling showed the lack of institutional will to investigate doping in
> sport and also demonstrated the need to introduce new legislation to help
> deal with the problem.
>
> "It is clear that they don't want to investigate these things," he said.
> "Spain needs a specific law in this area."
>
> Spain's sports minister Jaime Lissavetzky has said the government is
> working on the introduction of a new anti-doping code and is hoping to
> publish its findings in the near future.
>
> Kelme sporting director Vicente Belda said the judge's ruling exonerated
> his team of the accusations.
>
> "It proves that none of the people who were accused were guilty of
> anything," he was quoted as saying by AS.
>
>
>
>
> Lastly recall the comments by ***** Voet in "Breaking the Chain" about
> Spain being the source for doping products in the 1990s due to its lax
> drug laws.
>
>
And almost immediately, Communidad Valenciana (ex-Kelme) go on the attack in
the Ruta del Sol, coincidence? plus ca change!

Nasty Sunday ride in 33. Rain, wind, crevaison (obligatoire), no shoe
covers known to man would have helped.

 

[Ewoud Dronkert]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:56:27 +0100, Robert Chung wrote:
> We got the thunderstorm and hail in mid-afternoon (fortunately for me,
> after my ride was finished).

We got it at 20,000 feet, returning from sunny Alicante (nice on-topic
twist). My bike survived the trip, but then it wasn't a Bianchi. They
are appalling.

> I've given up on shoe covers. Now I use these:
> http://www.google.com/froogle?q=sealskinz&btnG=Search+Froogle

Do you have an extra pair of (bad weather-) shoes? I won't fit in mine
with thick socks. I think the best way is to give up on the idea of
keeping dry. Keeping warm is enough, and windstopper shoe covers do that
for me in rain at 5 degrees C if I keep riding at 34+ km/h. If not, or
colder, I can't see the point and don't go out. If still required to do
so for some reason, there's always the neoprene shoe covers.


--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

 

[Robert Chung]

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:56:27 +0100, Robert Chung wrote:
>> We got the thunderstorm and hail in mid-afternoon (fortunately for me,
>> after my ride was finished).
>
> We got it at 20,000 feet, returning from sunny Alicante (nice on-topic
> twist). My bike survived the trip, but then it wasn't a Bianchi. They
> are appalling.

Shouldn't matter. Didn't you know that there's an implicit five-year
warranty on bike frames in the EU?

>> I've given up on shoe covers. Now I use these:
>> http://www.google.com/froogle?q=sealskinz&btnG=Search+Froogle
>
> Do you have an extra pair of (bad weather-) shoes? I won't fit in mine
> with thick socks.

When I first got here I used Look cleats on road shoes, but we lived on
the 7eme etage and I had to climb the stairs (to understand why, here's a
picture of the elevator:
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/elevator.jpg). After a fall on the
stairs I switched to MTB shoes. A side effect is that they have enough
room for (marginally) thicker socks.

 

[Carl Sundquist]

"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> > We got it at 20,000 feet, returning from sunny Alicante (nice on-topic
> > twist). My bike survived the trip, but then it wasn't a Bianchi. They
> > are appalling.
>
> Shouldn't matter. Didn't you know that there's an implicit five-year
> warranty on bike frames in the EU?
>

That's all durable goods, not just bike frames.

 

[gym gravity]

MagillaGorilla wrote:

>
> Cocaine, heroin, and pot aren't performance-enhancing drugs in cycling.
> Those drugs are basically recreational drugs that cyclists happen to
> take. But nobody wins races on that junk.

it just makes long training rides more fun.

 

[Bill C]

> >
>
> Cocaine, heroin, and pot aren't performance-enhancing drugs in
cycling.
> Those drugs are basically recreational drugs that cyclists happen
to
> take. But nobody wins races on that junk.
>
> You just proved KG's argument.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Magilla

That's ******** and you know it. Eddy Merckx and Tom Simpson, along
with a large portion of that generation of racers were just taking the
stuff because they were recreational druggies? Anything that will take
the edge off of the pain will allow you to push harder and longer,
combine that with epo or blood doping and you've got one hell of a
potent cocktail for winning races. On a massively smaller scale I would
load up on anti-inflammatories and pain killers before going to the gym
because it would let me work that much harder before I either fell
over, or puked from the pain and effort.
Cyclists are NOT using hard drugs just for the hell of it for the most
part in spite of what you and Kurgan seem to believe is the case. There
may very well be some who are, but I would say that it is a
significantly smaller percentage compared to the general population.
Again bicycle racing is a specialised subset of society with it's own
attributes and culture. My argument with doping is:
1. That it creates an uneven playing field and this encourages people
who otherwise wouldn't use dangerous controlled drugs to do so.
2. If we don't address it we are going to end up alienating sponsors
who really are trying to sell this as a sport that encourages good
health and fitness. Bodybuilding took this route and rode the fitness
boom for a little bit until the drugs kept it out of the Olympics, and
the perception that it is filthy with drugs and unhealthy shoved it
back into it's little dark niche. This could happen to cycling pretty
easily.
As for what people in society choose to do that endangers there lives,
that's their call. The fact that someone, even if it's someone I know
well ODs that doesn't have a direct negative effect in the activities
that I choose to pursue whereas someone doping in the sport does.
You two keep trying to make simplistic assertions that equate
compartmented specialized activity with day to day life and they are
not comparable except as one being a subset of the other.
Bill C

 

[Bill C]

[email protected] wrote:
> Sandy wrote:
>
> > I personally think that taking away a
> > guy's right to work is much too severe, given the context.
>
> Me too but "context" is broad. Context of perhaps either jumping on
the
> doping bandwagon or being left behind, is that what you mean?
>
> Especially
> > contrary to law (while it has not been tested) is the capacity of
an
> > organizing body to suspend riders, pending investigation.
>
> Now there's a useful "test". As long as we're testing and testing...
>
> > Why in the world does anyone care about these cheaters ? Well, to
> answer my
> > own question, it's because they are easy and vulnerable targets,
and
> doing
> > to can divert attention from matters of real consequence.
>
> And as has been noted, "matters of real consequence" who can fight
> back, on more than one level. "Easy pickings" are much more
attractive
> especially when appealing to an unthinking public.
>
> > I read the Dik
> > Pound interview, where he thinks the entire world, including rebel
> > territories of Sri Lanka and the Philippines, will root out this
> drastic
> > evil. Horseshit. Few really care about sports fraud, and those
that
> do are
> > more likely fat and sitting in front of the tube, nursing their
> feeble
> > illusions (your current signature inspires).
>
> I don't think "they", by and large, have the "illusions" you are
> supposing (relatively fat, watching tube is of course correct).
> Virenque is a racing hero. I heard his applause, the loudest for any
> rider(and of a different timbre)including Armstrong (next loudest),
at
> the start house in Luxembourg (TdF Prologue), '02. I suggest a
> realistic basis for this approbation, since the Virenque doping story
> was hashed out well before that time. Maybe "they" are sometimes a
lot
> smarter than given credit for. Perhaps there's some "outlaw" appeal
> mixed in as well, but maybe racing fans want to hear more about
racing
> than doping. Maybe, in agreement with part of what you're saying, the
> police raids on racers' hotels and so forth are not as popular with
the
> public as some of the "enforcers" would like.
>
> > What we are experiencing is the unmasking of these illusions, and
> they key
> > is that the riders we want to love aren't really perfect.
>
> I never thought they were perfect, at least past the age of 12 or
so...
> Even Babe Ruth's foibles were well known, back in the 20's. Ditto for
> Mantle even in the uptight American 50's; Namath, of couse used his
> off-field fame to sell shaving cream, just to mention a couple of US
> athletes. Performance, not perfection expected. And Anquetil? How
much
> press scrutiny did he enjoy away from the bike? No similarities to
> Namath?
>
> > So they dope,
>
> Both for fun and profit.
>
> (snipped starlets)
>
> >they fix
> > races (doesn't "giving someone a stage win" qualify as sports fraud
> ?).
>
> No. (Or, maybe "Only in Italy"?)
>
> The
> > worst of all is that we wish secretly that we were capable of doing
> these
> > things - either winning, or engaging in attractive vices.
>
> Done both, at least on the local level, and before I got married,
> thanks, at least for the vice part. (Never had to talk into a bunch
of
> microphones and camera lights, or sign autographs for hours, either.
Ok
> by me.) Inspiration from the greats, but also obvious limits,
reality.
>
> > We just don't get
> > the quality of illusion we once had, because journalists have to
make
> their
> > money and reputations, too.
>
> Again, I think you're wrong about the illusions, or at least their
> universality, but right about journalists, or at least a few of them
> (and some others connected with sport), sacrificing (along with a few
> athletes), "the way things were" for something new and more
> profitable-- to them, of course; while selling the illusion that
sport
> will ever be made "clean". --TP

I get really tired of the argument that just because something can't
be made 100% we shouldn't try to do anything about it. This seems to be
a recurring that some people keep trumpeting. Let's just ignore it, and
rationalize it away. That's a sad ass excuse for people who usually
claim to care too. They are so paralyzed by their own fear of getting
dirty while doing something that they are willing to stand by and do
nothing while applauding themselves for staying clean.
Nothing is ever 100% successful, but in a lot of cases even a 10%
improvement is better than doing nothing.
Bill C

 

[Kurgan Gringioni]

Bill C wrote:
>
> Pot Belge is loaded with drugs that are either commonly abused,
and/or
> incredibly deadly. These are the same drugs. How are cocaine,
> amphetamines and heroin in cycling less dangerous than those in
normal
> life?



Ignoramous -

The thing you don't realize about Pot Belge is that it was mostly
recreational. The state-of-the-art performance enhancer in that mix was
EPO, the rest was for fun.

Let me repeat: if you were really interested in saving lives, you'd
start with alcohol and nicotine, killers of very large numbers of
people (>350,000/year) because they are socially acceptable.

Widows and orphans, my ass.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

 

[gym gravity]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

>
> Let me repeat: if you were really interested in saving lives, you'd
> start with alcohol and nicotine, killers of very large numbers of
> people (>350,000/year) because they are socially acceptable.
>

just curious, does nicotine actually hurt or is it the delivery methods?

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On 14 Feb 2005 10:40:03 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Let me repeat: if you were really interested in saving lives, you'd
>start with alcohol and nicotine

I think its the tars that kill them - the nicotine just keeps pulling
back people that should know better...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Bill C]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> >
> > Pot Belge is loaded with drugs that are either commonly abused,
> and/or
> > incredibly deadly. These are the same drugs. How are cocaine,
> > amphetamines and heroin in cycling less dangerous than those in
> normal
> > life?
>
>
>
> Ignoramous -
>
> The thing you don't realize about Pot Belge is that it was mostly
> recreational. The state-of-the-art performance enhancer in that mix
was
> EPO, the rest was for fun.
>
> Let me repeat: if you were really interested in saving lives, you'd
> start with alcohol and nicotine, killers of very large numbers of
> people (>350,000/year) because they are socially acceptable.
>
> Widows and orphans, my ass.
>
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.

EPO in the 1970s??? That's news to me. I can't decide if you're being
intentiaonally ignorant or not. In life in general, if someone chooses
to damage their health by taking recreational drugs that is their free
choice and that is up to them. I can live with the fact that they have
chosen slow suicide. In bicycle racing, which yet again, is a subset of
the culture with it's owns rules. With things as they are now, racers
feel that they are compelled to use doping agents because they perceive
that to be the only way to win. Therefore by allowing pervasive doping
I am creating a climate in which people feel they need to dope to
compete. The difference here is that in life I am not compelling anyone
to take the drugs, in cycling I am giving them what they perceive as
three choices, do drugs and be competitive, don't and fail, or quit.
This is really very simple.
Bill C

 

[[email protected]]

Bill C wrote:

(I wrote about "selling the illusion that sport will ever be made
"clean".
Bill C. responded):

> I get really tired of the argument that just because something can't
> be made 100% we shouldn't try to do anything about it. This seems to
be
> a recurring that some people keep trumpeting. Let's just ignore it,
and
> rationalize it away. That's a sad ass excuse for people who usually
> claim to care too. They are so paralyzed by their own fear of getting
> dirty while doing something that they are willing to stand by and do
> nothing while applauding themselves for staying clean.
> Nothing is ever 100% successful, but in a lot of cases even a 10%
> improvement is better than doing nothing.

I'm not in the "do nothing" camp. I don't like the grandstanding and
personal nature of the "war on dope", I don't like the secret
protocols, and I don't like the pile of athlete bodies left behind. I
think I've been pretty clear about that and have also offered a
comparison to another public entertainment held in a competitive arena
(NASCAR) where rules violaters are punished, not excluded (effectively)
forever. Somehow, NASCAR keeps its sponsors and doesn't get the nasty
black eye that "running an oversize engine" gets in other sports.
Apples and oranges to some extent, but the point remains that the
method WADA is using to "clean up" sport is hurting sport, too. OK with
Pound, he's got his... --TP

 

[[email protected]]

Bill C wrote:

(I wrote about "selling the illusion that sport will ever be made
"clean".
Bill C. responded):

> I get really tired of the argument that just because something can't
> be made 100% we shouldn't try to do anything about it. This seems to
be
> a recurring that some people keep trumpeting. Let's just ignore it,
and
> rationalize it away. That's a sad ass excuse for people who usually
> claim to care too. They are so paralyzed by their own fear of getting
> dirty while doing something that they are willing to stand by and do
> nothing while applauding themselves for staying clean.
> Nothing is ever 100% successful, but in a lot of cases even a 10%
> improvement is better than doing nothing.

I'm not in the "do nothing" camp. I don't like the grandstanding and
personal nature of the "war on dope", I don't like the secret
protocols, and I don't like the pile of athlete bodies left behind. I
think I've been pretty clear about that and have also offered a
comparison to another public entertainment held in a competitive arena
(NASCAR) where rules violaters are punished, not excluded (effectively)
forever. Somehow, NASCAR keeps its sponsors and doesn't get the nasty
black eye that "running an oversize engine" gets in other sports.
Apples and oranges to some extent, but the point remains that the
method WADA is using to "clean up" sport is hurting sport, too. Of
course, that's OK with Pound, he's got his... --TP

 

[Bob Schwartz]

Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> I get really tired of the argument that just because something can't
> be made 100% we shouldn't try to do anything about it. This seems to be
> a recurring that some people keep trumpeting. Let's just ignore it, and
> rationalize it away. That's a sad ass excuse for people who usually
> claim to care too. They are so paralyzed by their own fear of getting
> dirty while doing something that they are willing to stand by and do
> nothing while applauding themselves for staying clean.
> Nothing is ever 100% successful, but in a lot of cases even a 10%
> improvement is better than doing nothing.
> Bill C

As someone that has jousted with you on this, I just want to state that
I do not hold the position that we should do nothing because nothing
can be done. My position is that the return for a serious anti-doping
effort in cycling does not justify the cost of that effort. Especially
when you consider alternative uses for those resources.

I believe that's Henry's view as well.

Bob Schwartz
[email protected]