Who Best To Fight Doping?



Status
Not open for further replies.
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
Not Hein from what Gaumont says:

"It may be that 90% of the cyclists are not clean," he said. "I can't blame them; we are the
victims of a rotten system. We are under enormous pressure from sponsors, we have to get
results, and at a certain point we feel obliged to go under." He added that the tests currently
used were not combating the problem. "You can get round drug controls easily. What we can't get
round is the police, customs, phone taps. If only the police and legal systems are fighting
doping, that's a pity."

Full article at: http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cycling/story/0,10482,1132084,00.html
 
B

Benjo Maso

Guest
"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Not Hein from what Gaumont says:
>
> "It may be that 90% of the cyclists are not clean," he said. "I can't
blame
> them; we are the victims of a rotten system. We are under enormous
pressure
> from sponsors, we have to get results, and at a certain point we feel obliged to go under." He
> added that the tests currently used were not combating the problem. "You can get round drug
> controls easily. What we can't get round is the police, customs, phone taps. If only the police
> and legal systems are fighting doping, that's a pity."
>
> Full article at: http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cycling/story/0,10482,1132084,00.html

You're quite right: the way Verbruggen is fighting doping is a disgrace indeed. And it could be so
easy to make an end to the use of illicit products. First of all, he has to mutiply the numer of
controls. Because using doping during training is at least as important as during races, every rider
should be controlled at least twice a week. And not professionals. It's well known that the use of
illicit products is also rampant among amateurs, juniors, etc., so everybody with a license should
be tested every three or four days. But that is not sufficient. We all know that there are products
on the doping list that cannot be traced in urine or blood. So every rider should be under constant
surveillance. Not only by one one or two policemen, because we cannot be sure that cops are all
immune to the temptation to take bribes; riders should also be filmed and monitored 24 hours a day.
Tapping the phones of Museeuw and other Belgian riders was all right, but cannot be more than a
first step. Simple, isn't it? But Verbruggen is apparently not even prepared to consider them. It's
downright shame!

Benjo Maso
 
D

Davey Crockett

Guest
"benjo maso" <[email protected]> writes:

> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Not Hein from what Gaumont says:
>>
>> "It may be that 90% of the cyclists are not clean," he said. "I can't
> blame
>> them; we are the victims of a rotten system. We are under enormous
> pressure
>> from sponsors, we have to get results, and at a certain point we feel obliged to go under." He
>> added that the tests currently used were not combating the problem. "You can get round drug
>> controls easily. What we can't get round is the police, customs, phone taps. If only the police
>> and legal systems are fighting doping, that's a pity."
>>
>> Full article at: http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cycling/story/0,10482,1132084,00.html
>
>
> You're quite right: the way Verbruggen is fighting doping is a disgrace indeed. And it could be so
> easy to make an end to the use of illicit products. First of all, he has to mutiply the numer of
> controls. Because using doping during training is at least as important as during races, every
> rider should be controlled at least twice a week. And not professionals. It's well known that the
> use of illicit products is also rampant among amateurs, juniors, etc., so everybody with a license
> should be tested every three or four days. But that is not sufficient. We all know that there are
> products on the doping list that cannot be traced in urine or blood. So every rider should be
> under constant surveillance. Not only by one one or two policemen, because we cannot be sure that
> cops are all immune to the temptation to take bribes; riders should also be filmed and monitored
> 24 hours a day. Tapping the phones of Museeuw and other Belgian riders was all right, but cannot
> be more than a first step. Simple, isn't it? But Verbruggen is apparently not even prepared to
> consider them. It's downright shame!
>
> Benjo Maso
>
>
You gonna pay the cost of all that **** dude?
--
le Vent a Dos Davey Crockett Six-Day site: http://members.rogers.com/sixday/sixday.html
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
Interesting, isn't it, that when the Cofidis crew (past and present) starts talking about blood
packing with friendly transfusions and that it was done during the 2003 Tour, Hein suddenly
announces that an Australian developed test will now be used to spot the practice and, for health
reasons, suspend the riders as with a high hematocrit. I find it unbelievable that the UCI did not
have any idea what was going on at the Tour in 2003.

Can someone please explain the internal politics of the UCI that allows this moron Verbruggen to
continue as UCI President to the detriment of cycling as a competitive sport?

Thanks in advance for the explanation.

"benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
berlin.de...
>
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Not Hein from what Gaumont says:
> >
> > "It may be that 90% of the cyclists are not clean," he said. "I can't
> blame
> > them; we are the victims of a rotten system. We are under enormous
> pressure
> > from sponsors, we have to get results, and at a certain point we feel obliged to go under." He
> > added that the tests currently used were not combating the problem. "You can get round drug
> > controls easily. What we can't get round is the police, customs, phone taps. If only the police
and
> > legal systems are fighting doping, that's a pity."
> >
> > Full article at: http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cycling/story/0,10482,1132084,00.html
>
>
> You're quite right: the way Verbruggen is fighting doping is a disgrace indeed. And it could be so
> easy to make an end to the use of illicit products. First of all, he has to mutiply the numer of
> controls. Because using doping during training is at least as important as during races,
every
> rider should be controlled at least twice a week. And not professionals. It's well known that the
> use of illicit products is also rampant among amateurs, juniors, etc., so everybody with a license
> should be tested
every
> three or four days. But that is not sufficient. We all know that there are products on the doping
> list that cannot be traced in urine or blood. So every rider should be under constant
> surveillance. Not only by one one or two policemen, because we cannot be sure that cops are all
> immune to the temptation to take bribes; riders should also be filmed and monitored 24 hours a
> day. Tapping the phones of Museeuw and other Belgian riders was
all
> right, but cannot be more than a first step. Simple, isn't it? But Verbruggen is apparently not
> even prepared to consider them. It's
downright
> shame!
>
> Benjo Maso
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
OK, 52 weeks in the year, three times a week, $30 per test = $4600 per rider per year. Let's see,
there are about a thousand riders in 1, 2 and 3 so that makes only $4.65 million. plain old
pocket change.

"benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
berlin.de...
>
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Not Hein from what Gaumont says:
> >
> > "It may be that 90% of the cyclists are not clean," he said. "I can't
> blame
> > them; we are the victims of a rotten system. We are under enormous
> pressure
> > from sponsors, we have to get results, and at a certain point we feel obliged to go under." He
> > added that the tests currently used were not combating the problem. "You can get round drug
> > controls easily. What we can't get round is the police, customs, phone taps. If only the police
and
> > legal systems are fighting doping, that's a pity."
> >
> > Full article at: http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cycling/story/0,10482,1132084,00.html
>
>
> You're quite right: the way Verbruggen is fighting doping is a disgrace indeed. And it could be so
> easy to make an end to the use of illicit products. First of all, he has to mutiply the numer of
> controls. Because using doping during training is at least as important as during races,
every
> rider should be controlled at least twice a week. And not professionals. It's well known that the
> use of illicit products is also rampant among amateurs, juniors, etc., so everybody with a license
> should be tested
every
> three or four days. But that is not sufficient. We all know that there are products on the doping
> list that cannot be traced in urine or blood. So every rider should be under constant
> surveillance. Not only by one one or two policemen, because we cannot be sure that cops are all
> immune to the temptation to take bribes; riders should also be filmed and monitored 24 hours a
> day. Tapping the phones of Museeuw and other Belgian riders was
all
> right, but cannot be more than a first step. Simple, isn't it? But Verbruggen is apparently not
> even prepared to consider them. It's
downright
> shame!
>
> Benjo Maso
 
B

Benjo Maso

Guest
"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Interesting, isn't it, that when the Cofidis crew (past and present)
starts
> talking about blood packing with friendly transfusions and that it was
done
> during the 2003 Tour, Hein suddenly announces that an Australian developed test will now be used
> to spot the practice and, for health reasons,
suspend
> the riders as with a high hematocrit. I find it unbelievable that the UCI did not have any idea
> what was going on at the Tour in 2003.
>
> Can someone please explain the internal politics of the UCI that allows
this
> moron Verbruggen to continue as UCI President to the detriment of cycling
as
> a competitive sport?

Verbruggen is doing exactly what he is supposed to do - favoring the interests of everybody involved
in the bicycling business - and he's doing very well. Why do you think he's relected again and again
and why they even offered him the directorship of the Tour de France? Of course he knows what's
going on in bicycle racing, but he is certainly not willing to stir up the hornest's nest even more.
He isn't so naive to think that the "war on doping" can be won and is certainly not prepared to
contribute to the "destroying bicycle-racing to save it" strategy which is going on right now.

Benjo Maso
 
B

Benjo Maso

Guest
"Davey Crockett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]rs.com...
> "benjo maso" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Not Hein from what Gaumont says:
> >>
> >> "It may be that 90% of the cyclists are not clean," he said. "I can't
> > blame
> >> them; we are the victims of a rotten system. We are under enormous
> > pressure
> >> from sponsors, we have to get results, and at a certain point we feel obliged to go under." He
> >> added that the tests currently used were not combating the problem. "You can get round drug
> >> controls easily. What we can't get round is the police, customs, phone taps. If only the police
and
> >> legal systems are fighting doping, that's a pity."
> >>
> >> Full article at: http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cycling/story/0,10482,1132084,00.html
> >
> >
> > You're quite right: the way Verbruggen is fighting doping is a disgrace indeed. And it could be
> > so easy to make an end to the use of illicit products. First of all, he has to mutiply the numer
> > of controls. Because using doping during training is at least as important as during races,
every
> > rider should be controlled at least twice a week. And not professionals. It's well known that
> > the use of illicit products is also rampant among amateurs, juniors, etc., so everybody with a
> > license should be tested
every
> > three or four days. But that is not sufficient. We all know that there
are
> > products on the doping list that cannot be traced in urine or blood. So every rider should be
> > under constant surveillance. Not only by one one
or
> > two policemen, because we cannot be sure that cops are all immune to the temptation to take
> > bribes; riders should also be filmed and monitored 24 hours a day. Tapping the phones of Museeuw
> > and other Belgian riders was
all
> > right, but cannot be more than a first step. Simple, isn't it? But Verbruggen is apparently not
> > even prepared to consider them. It's
downright
> > shame!
> >
> > Benjo Maso
> >
> >
> You gonna pay the cost of all that **** dude?

Nobody can, and certainly not the UCI. And that's just the point.

Benjo Maso
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Can someone please explain the internal politics of the UCI that allows
this
> moron Verbruggen to continue as UCI President to the detriment of cycling
as
> a competitive sport?

How about the fact that he's about 35 times brighter than you are?
 
G

Gwhite

Guest
"B. Lafferty" wrote:
>
> Not Hein from what Gaumont says:
>
> "It may be that 90% of the cyclists are not clean," he said. "I can't blame them; we are the
> victims of a rotten system. We are under enormous pressure from sponsors, we have to get results,
> and at a certain point we feel obliged to go under." He added that the tests currently used were
> not combating the problem. "You can get round drug controls easily. What we can't get round is
> the police, customs, phone taps. If only the police and legal systems are fighting doping, that's
> a pity."

I wouldn't even buy the cop a cup of coffee and a doughnut for taking the time to bust some jock
doper. Why should tax dollars be spent there? Wait, I think George Bush knows.
 
B

Benjo Maso

Guest
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> OK, 52 weeks in the year, three times a week, $30 per test = $4600 per
rider
> per year. Let's see, there are about a thousand riders in 1, 2 and 3 so
that
> makes only $4.65 million. plain old pocket change.

The number of professionals only is already almost 2000 (see
http://www.uci.ch/english/road/rankings/rank_2003/indexJm.htm). There capacity of the existing
laboratories is much too small to deal with so many tests.

Benjo Maso
 
H

Howard Kveck

Guest
In article <[email protected]_ti.com>,
gwhite <[email protected]_ti.com> wrote:

> "B. Lafferty" wrote:
> >
> > Not Hein from what Gaumont says:
> >
> > "It may be that 90% of the cyclists are not clean," he said. "I can't blame them; we are the
> > victims of a rotten system. We are under enormous pressure from sponsors, we have to get
> > results, and at a certain point we feel obliged to go under." He added that the tests currently
> > used were not combating the problem. "You can get round drug controls easily. What we can't get
> > round is the police, customs, phone taps. If only the police and legal systems are fighting
> > doping, that's a pity."
>
>
> I wouldn't even buy the cop a cup of coffee and a doughnut for taking the time to bust some jock
> doper. Why should tax dollars be spent there? Wait, I think George Bush knows.

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war31.html

--
tanx, Howard

"I'm not lying, I'm writing fiction with my lips!" Homer Simpson

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
D

Davey Crockett

Guest
"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> writes:

> "benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> berlin.de...
>>
>> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Interesting, isn't it, that when the Cofidis crew (past and present)
>> starts
>> > talking about blood packing with friendly transfusions and that it was
>> done
>> > during the 2003 Tour, Hein suddenly announces that an Australian
> developed
>> > test will now be used to spot the practice and, for health reasons,
>> suspend
>> > the riders as with a high hematocrit. I find it unbelievable that the
> UCI
>> > did not have any idea what was going on at the Tour in 2003.
>> >
>> > Can someone please explain the internal politics of the UCI that allows
>> this
>> > moron Verbruggen to continue as UCI President to the detriment of
> cycling
>> as
>> > a competitive sport?
>>
>>
>> Verbruggen is doing exactly what he is supposed to do - favoring the interests of everybody
>> involved in the bicycling business - and he's doing very well. Why do you think he's relected
>> again and again and why they
> even
>> offered him the directorship of the Tour de France? Of course he knows what's going on in bicycle
>> racing, but he is certainly not willing to stir up the hornest's nest even more. He isn't so
>> naive to think that the "war
> on
>> doping" can be won and is certainly not prepared to contribute to the "destroying bicycle-racing
>> to save it" strategy which is going on right
> now.
>>
>> Benjo Maso
>
> I agree with you that he's doing what he considers to be in the best business interest of those
> who control the sport. That's why I referred to him as destroying cycling as a competitive sport.
> However, if he continues on this path, there may well come a day when the business will be
> destroyed as well. Sponsors are already wary of entering a sport with so much drug use/negative
> publicity. It won't get better, especially with guys like **** Pound keeping Hein in his sights.
>
>
Pound is a Power-Hungry Money-Grabbing ******. He could care less what happens to cycling, or any
sport for that matter, as long as he can control what is going on and fill his own pockets at the
same time.

It's time Hein told him to go get lost. At least the IOC had enough guts to send him on his way.

If you wanna know what kind of garbage Pound is, read his book ''Stikeman-Elliot, The first
50 Years''

Then search Google for ''ioc canada business''

Shoot, I'm disgusted that Pound is a member of the same profession as myself (He fronts as a Lawyer,
but started his career as an Accountant)

--
le Vent a Dos Davey Crockett Six-Day site: http://members.rogers.com/sixday/sixday.html
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
"benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Interesting, isn't it, that when the Cofidis crew (past and present)
> starts
> > talking about blood packing with friendly transfusions and that it was
> done
> > during the 2003 Tour, Hein suddenly announces that an Australian
developed
> > test will now be used to spot the practice and, for health reasons,
> suspend
> > the riders as with a high hematocrit. I find it unbelievable that the
UCI
> > did not have any idea what was going on at the Tour in 2003.
> >
> > Can someone please explain the internal politics of the UCI that allows
> this
> > moron Verbruggen to continue as UCI President to the detriment of
cycling
> as
> > a competitive sport?
>
>
> Verbruggen is doing exactly what he is supposed to do - favoring the interests of everybody
> involved in the bicycling business - and he's doing very well. Why do you think he's relected
> again and again and why they
even
> offered him the directorship of the Tour de France? Of course he knows what's going on in bicycle
> racing, but he is certainly not willing to stir up the hornest's nest even more. He isn't so naive
> to think that the "war
on
> doping" can be won and is certainly not prepared to contribute to the "destroying bicycle-racing
> to save it" strategy which is going on right
now.
>
> Benjo Maso

I agree with you that he's doing what he considers to be in the best business interest of those who
control the sport. That's why I referred to him as destroying cycling as a competitive sport.
However, if he continues on this path, there may well come a day when the business will be destroyed
as well. Sponsors are already wary of entering a sport with so much drug use/negative publicity. It
won't get better, especially with guys like **** Pound keeping Hein in his sights.
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
"Davey Crockett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]rs.com...
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > "benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> > berlin.de...
> >>
> >> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > Interesting, isn't it, that when the Cofidis crew (past and present)
> >> starts
> >> > talking about blood packing with friendly transfusions and that it
was
> >> done
> >> > during the 2003 Tour, Hein suddenly announces that an Australian
> > developed
> >> > test will now be used to spot the practice and, for health reasons,
> >> suspend
> >> > the riders as with a high hematocrit. I find it unbelievable that
the
> > UCI
> >> > did not have any idea what was going on at the Tour in 2003.
> >> >
> >> > Can someone please explain the internal politics of the UCI that
allows
> >> this
> >> > moron Verbruggen to continue as UCI President to the detriment of
> > cycling
> >> as
> >> > a competitive sport?
> >>
> >>
> >> Verbruggen is doing exactly what he is supposed to do - favoring the interests of everybody
> >> involved in the bicycling business - and he's
doing
> >> very well. Why do you think he's relected again and again and why they
> > even
> >> offered him the directorship of the Tour de France? Of course he knows what's going on in
> >> bicycle racing, but he is certainly not willing to
stir
> >> up the hornest's nest even more. He isn't so naive to think that the
"war
> > on
> >> doping" can be won and is certainly not prepared to contribute to the "destroying bicycle-
> >> racing to save it" strategy which is going on right
> > now.
> >>
> >> Benjo Maso
> >
> > I agree with you that he's doing what he considers to be in the best business interest of those
> > who control the sport. That's why I referred
to
> > him as destroying cycling as a competitive sport. However, if he
continues
> > on this path, there may well come a day when the business will be
destroyed
> > as well. Sponsors are already wary of entering a sport with so much
drug
> > use/negative publicity. It won't get better, especially with guys like
****
> > Pound keeping Hein in his sights.
> >
> >
> Pound is a Power-Hungry Money-Grabbing ******. He could care less what
happens to cycling, or any sport for that matter, as long as he can control what is going on and
fill his own pockets at the same time.
>
> It's time Hein told him to go get lost. At least the IOC had enough guts
to send him on his way.
>
> If you wanna know what kind of garbage Pound is, read his book
''Stikeman-Elliot, The first 50 Years''
>
> Then search Google for ''ioc canada business''
>
> Shoot, I'm disgusted that Pound is a member of the same profession as
myself (He fronts as a Lawyer, but started his career as an Accountant)

I gather that you don't like Mr. Pound. Like him or not, I'm happy he has Hein in his sights. Hein
could be up front and just say that he prefers to turn a blind eye toward doping and let the riders
continue doping as they are.
 
B

Benjo Maso

Guest
"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> berlin.de...
> >
> > "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Interesting, isn't it, that when the Cofidis crew (past and present)
> > starts
> > > talking about blood packing with friendly transfusions and that it was
> > done
> > > during the 2003 Tour, Hein suddenly announces that an Australian
> developed
> > > test will now be used to spot the practice and, for health reasons,
> > suspend
> > > the riders as with a high hematocrit. I find it unbelievable that the
> UCI
> > > did not have any idea what was going on at the Tour in 2003.
> > >
> > > Can someone please explain the internal politics of the UCI that
allows
> > this
> > > moron Verbruggen to continue as UCI President to the detriment of
> cycling
> > as
> > > a competitive sport?
> >
> >
> > Verbruggen is doing exactly what he is supposed to do - favoring the interests of everybody
> > involved in the bicycling business - and he's
doing
> > very well. Why do you think he's relected again and again and why they
> even
> > offered him the directorship of the Tour de France? Of course he knows what's going on in
> > bicycle racing, but he is certainly not willing to
stir
> > up the hornest's nest even more. He isn't so naive to think that the
"war
> on
> > doping" can be won and is certainly not prepared to contribute to the "destroying bicycle-racing
> > to save it" strategy which is going on right
> now.
> >
> > Benjo Maso
>
> I agree with you that he's doing what he considers to be in the best business interest of those
> who control the sport. That's why I referred
to
> him as destroying cycling as a competitive sport. However, if he
continues
> on this path, there may well come a day when the business will be destroye
d
> as well. Sponsors are already wary of entering a sport with so much drug use/negative publicity.
> It won't get better, especially with guys like
****
> Pound keeping Hein in his sights.

If Verbruggen had really done his utmost to stir the hornest's nest, the sponsors would already have
gone a long time ago. It's far from certain if he can reallt stem the tide, but in any case he's
donibng what he can. Of course he knows that a lot of people are disbelieving and even ridiculing
him, but as long as he can keep the image of bicycle racing as clean as possible, he doesn't care.
That's the reason why people in the business have such a high opinion of him.

Benjo Maso
 
B

Benjo Maso

Guest
"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> berlin.de...
> >
> > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > OK, 52 weeks in the year, three times a week, $30 per test = $4600 per
> > rider
> > > per year. Let's see, there are about a thousand riders in 1, 2 and 3
so
> > that
> > > makes only $4.65 million. plain old pocket change.
> >
> >
> > The number of professionals only is already almost 2000 (see
> > http://www.uci.ch/english/road/rankings/rank_2003/indexJm.htm). There capacity of the existing
> > laboratories is much too small to deal with so
> many
> > tests.
> >
> > Benjo Maso
>
> There are a couple of approaches that could be taken if the UCI does in
fact
> want to test.
> 1. Focus your testing on the top 500 or so riders by subjecting them to frequent out of
> competition tesing.
> 2. Randomly test a lower percentage of amateurs and lower level professionals.
>
> Then you could, and this is what I support, let them use whatever they
want
> provided they sign informed medical consents for each
preparation/procedure
> (with wive's given a copy?). Set up a fund for widows and orphans with contributions from the UCI
> and a percentage from each team's sponsorship money.

Last year there have been already 8500 tests (in all sports) in France. They hope to reach the 9000
level this year. But they are already reaching the maximum capacity of French laboratories. You
probably know that they don't have the facilities to test more than 50 % of all the urine samples
taken from cyclists for EPO. But would it help if they were capable of doubling or tripling the
number of tests? Almost certainly not. Until now the robbers have always been at least one step
further than the cops. In the mean time, the negative effects of the "war on doping" have been
infinitely greater than the positive. Even if right now 5 % of the culprits are caught instead of
the 0,5 % of ten or fifteen years ago (and that is a very optimistic estimation), what does it
matter? In the mean time the image of cycling is tarnished for a very long time, perhaps for ever.
For instance, twenty years ago Lance Armstrong would have been a hero for all cycling fans. But now
he is nicknamed "robocop" in Italy and France, because in spite of al his claims hardly anyone can
believe that his abilities are not artificially cultivated. If they are right cycling is only a
joke, if they are wrong it's a tragedy. How much "healthier" was the situation thirty or forty years
ago, when Coppi and Anquetil admitted that they were taking doping and nobody cared.

Benjo Maso
 
D

Dan Connelly

Guest
benjo maso wrote:

> Last year there have been already 8500 tests (in all sports) in France. They hope to reach the
> 9000 level this year. But they are already reaching the maximum capacity of French laboratories.
> You probably know that they don't have the facilities to test more than 50 % of all the urine
> samples taken from cyclists for EPO. But would it help if they were capable of doubling or
> tripling the number of tests? Almost certainly not. Until now the robbers have always been at
> least one step further than the cops. In the mean time, the negative effects of the "war on
> doping" have been infinitely greater than the positive. Even if right now 5 % of the culprits are
> caught instead of the 0,5 % of ten or fifteen years ago (and that is a very optimistic
> estimation), what does it matter? In the mean time the image of cycling is tarnished for a very
> long time, perhaps for ever. For instance, twenty years ago Lance Armstrong would have been a hero
> for all cycling fans. But now he is nicknamed "robocop" in Italy and France, because in spite of
> al his claims hardly anyone can believe that his abilities are not artificially cultivated. If
> they are right cycling is only a joke, if they are wrong it's a tragedy. How much "healthier" was
> the situation thirty or forty years ago, when Coppi and Anquetil admitted that they were taking
> doping and nobody cared.

This is flawed analysis. Even if nobody is caught, it doesn't mean the tests are ineffective. There
are boundaries on what can be done w/o being caught. Riders will approach this boundary, and not
cross it. Increased diligence can actually reduce, rather than increase, the rate of positives, as
the risks of crossing the boundary becomes unacceptable. It's all about risk management. There's an
inverted U curve. Lowest risk -- little danger, so few lose. Middle risk -- some danger, but still
acceptable risk, so there's a significant loss rate. High risk -- unacceptable risk, so few lose.

Would Armstrong be a hero 20 years ago? Maybe. But maybe he wouldn't even win in an environment of
more liberal supplementation.

The "see no evil" attitude is embraced by US professional (and when they can get away with it,
international sports). Is this better? I don't think so. Dubya even thinks so.

Dan
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
"benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> If Verbruggen had really done his utmost to stir the hornest's nest, the sponsors would already
> have gone a long time ago. It's far from certain if he can reallt stem the tide, but in any case
> he's donibng what he can.

By not doing all that he could, he almost ended the Tour de France in 1998 with the Tour's major
sponsors threatening to quit if the drugs issue wasn't delt with. This, after years of Hein denying
that there was a widespread EPO/drugs problem in the sport. Also, that was after years of claiming
that those caught using drugs were losers and minor riders acting on their own in an unorganized manner-----
and he's using much the same line with the present and former Cofidis riders. The Festina Affair
blew the lid off that one for Hein.

Mr. Squinzi (sp?) and the French investigating magestrate in the Festina affair certainly don't
agree that Hein is and has been dong all that he can to combat drug use.

> Of course he knows that a lot of people are disbelieving and even ridiculing him, but as long as
> he can keep the image of bicycle racing as clean as possible, he doesn't care. That's the reason
> why people in the business
have
> such a high opinion of him.

Perhaps that is his method of operation. But it isn't working and cycling now has the worst
reputation in sport for doping. Nice work Hein!
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
"Dan Connelly" <[email protected]_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> benjo maso wrote:
>
> > Last year there have been already 8500 tests (in all sports) in France.
They
> > hope to reach the 9000 level this year. But they are already reaching
the
> > maximum capacity of French laboratories. You probably know that they
don't
> > have the facilities to test more than 50 % of all the urine samples
taken
> > from cyclists for EPO. But would it help if they were capable of
doubling or
> > tripling the number of tests? Almost certainly not. Until now the
robbers
> > have always been at least one step further than the cops. In the mean
time,
> > the negative effects of the "war on doping" have been infinitely greater than the positive. Even
> > if right now 5 % of the culprits are caught
instead
> > of the 0,5 % of ten or fifteen years ago (and that is a very optimistic estimation), what does
> > it matter? In the mean time the image of cycling
is
> > tarnished for a very long time, perhaps for ever. For instance, twenty
years
> > ago Lance Armstrong would have been a hero for all cycling fans. But now
he
> > is nicknamed "robocop" in Italy and France, because in spite of al his claims hardly anyone can
> > believe that his abilities are not artificially cultivated. If they are right cycling is only a
> > joke, if they are wrong
it's
> > a tragedy. How much "healthier" was the situation thirty or forty years
ago,
> > when Coppi and Anquetil admitted that they were taking doping and nobody cared.
>
> This is flawed analysis. Even if nobody is caught, it doesn't mean the
tests
> are ineffective. There are boundaries on what can be done w/o being caught. Riders will approach
> this boundary, and not cross it. Increased diligence can actually reduce, rather than increase,
> the rate of
positives,
> as the risks of crossing the boundary becomes unacceptable. It's all
about
> risk management. There's an inverted U curve. Lowest risk -- little
danger,
> so few lose. Middle risk -- some danger, but still acceptable risk, so
there's
> a significant loss rate. High risk -- unacceptable risk, so few lose.
>
> Would Armstrong be a hero 20 years ago? Maybe. But maybe he wouldn't even win in an environment of
> more liberal supplementation.
>
> The "see no evil" attitude is embraced by US professional (and when they can get away with it,
> international sports). Is this better? I don't
think
> so. Dubya even thinks so.
>
> Dan

I would add that the timing of the tests is critical, if one wants to continue testing. Most of the
tests (perhaps 80%) should be unannounced and out of competition. KNowing that there will be testing
at a competition means that only the stupid and those who make a timing mistake are going to get
caught, assuming that there is a test for what they are using. And a two year suspension for the
first offense followed by a lifetime ban for the second is needed as well. Comments from people like
Hein Verbruggen saying that two years is too much as it will end a career, are not helpful if the
goal is to stop drug use by testing.
 
B

Benjo Maso

Guest
"Dan Connelly" <[email protected]_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> benjo maso wrote:
>
> > Last year there have been already 8500 tests (in all sports) in France.
They
> > hope to reach the 9000 level this year. But they are already reaching
the
> > maximum capacity of French laboratories. You probably know that they
don't
> > have the facilities to test more than 50 % of all the urine samples
taken
> > from cyclists for EPO. But would it help if they were capable of
doubling or
> > tripling the number of tests? Almost certainly not. Until now the
robbers
> > have always been at least one step further than the cops. In the mean
time,
> > the negative effects of the "war on doping" have been infinitely greater than the positive. Even
> > if right now 5 % of the culprits are caught
instead
> > of the 0,5 % of ten or fifteen years ago (and that is a very optimistic estimation), what does
> > it matter? In the mean time the image of cycling
is
> > tarnished for a very long time, perhaps for ever. For instance, twenty
years
> > ago Lance Armstrong would have been a hero for all cycling fans. But now
he
> > is nicknamed "robocop" in Italy and France, because in spite of al his claims hardly anyone can
> > believe that his abilities are not artificially cultivated. If they are right cycling is only a
> > joke, if they are wrong
it's
> > a tragedy. How much "healthier" was the situation thirty or forty years
ago,
> > when Coppi and Anquetil admitted that they were taking doping and nobody cared.
>
> This is flawed analysis. Even if nobody is caught, it doesn't mean the
tests
> are ineffective. There are boundaries on what can be done w/o being caught. Riders will approach
> this boundary, and not cross it. Increased diligence can actually reduce, rather than increase,
> the rate of
positives,
> as the risks of crossing the boundary becomes unacceptable. It's all
about
> risk management. There's an inverted U curve. Lowest risk -- little
danger,
> so few lose. Middle risk -- some danger, but still acceptable risk, so
there's
> a significant loss rate. High risk -- unacceptable risk, so few lose.

Sure. But fortunately or unfortunately there are always products that can be detected. Here is a
little history of doping: amphitamines: first used in 1936, detected in 1968. Steroides: 1954 and
1976. Testerons: 1952 and 1982. Diuretics (masking use of doping): 1966 and 1986. Epo: 1987 and
2000. HGH: 1980, not yet. "Natural"cortocoides: 1960, not yet. DynEpo: 2001, not yet. Etc., etc.

>Would Armstrong be a hero 20 years ago? Maybe. But maybe he wouldn't even win in an environment of
>more liberal supplementation.

Why not?

>
> The "see no evil" attitude is embraced by US professional (and when they can get away with it,
> international sports). Is this better? I don't
think
> so. Dubya even thinks so.

It has nothing to do with "see no evil". But if the negative effects of the "war or doping" are
stronger than the positive effects (which is the case right now), the problem should be
reconsidered.

Benjo Maso
 
Status
Not open for further replies.