Who Best To Fight Doping?



Status
Not open for further replies.
if the drug problem is cleaned up then sponsors would not be scared off by a drug problem.

John Bickmore
 
benjo maso wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Sure, there's a delay, but eventually the use of these substances is stopped. Would it be worse if
everything were available? That's the key question.

>>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?

Who comes out on top depends on the doping environment. Pantani 1995-1998 is a trivial example. Did
you see the 1995 Worlds? For example, an advantage of having lived at altitude was chemically
eliminated.

> 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.

The negative effects come from the revelation that doping is being used. It is very much a case of
"see no evil", to reduce the knowledge of doping by reducing the testing. If it was a discussion of
reducing lab testing costs, or rider rights to privacy (how many here would allow themselves to be
tested at random, whether at work or not?), that would be a different matter.

Dan
 
Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> schreef in berichtnieuws
[email protected]...
> ...Pantani 1995-1998 is a trivial example...

An example of what?
 
Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
> Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> schreef in berichtnieuws
> [email protected]...
>
>>...Pantani 1995-1998 is a trivial example...
>
>
> An example of what?
>
>

Of a rider who would not normally be a GC threat winning major stage races, and competing for a
world championship at like 2600 meters
w/o any specific altitude training or background.

Dan
 
"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> benjo maso wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> Sure, there's a delay, but eventually the use of these substances is stopped.

Stopped? Take amphitamines for instance: they are still very popular. Besides, it;s like the Hydra:
as soon as one head is cut off, there appear several new heads.

Would it be worse if everything were available? That's the key
> question.

Well, let;s give it a try :)

>
> >>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?
>
> Who comes out on top depends on the doping environment. Pantani 1995-1998 is a trivial example.
> Did you see the 1995 Worlds? For example, an advantage of having lived at altitude was chemically
> eliminated.

How do you know? Have you seen the dossiers of Conconi, Ferrari, etc.? But 20 years ago the role of
doping was much less important as it is today. Of course, at least 90 % was taking something, but
for riders whio were really "clean" it was still possible to compete. Not anymore in the 1990's when
talented riders like Gilles Delion, Edwig van Hooydonk, Eddy Bouwmans or Breukink (who has seen the
light after the PDM-case) became suddenly second or third raters.

>
> > 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.
>
> The negative effects come from the revelation that doping is being used. It is very much a case of
> "see no evil", to reduce the knowledge of doping by reducing the testing. If it was a discussion
> of reducing lab testing costs, or rider rights to privacy (how many here would allow themselves to
be
> tested at random, whether at work or not?), that would be a different matter.

So was it in the 1960's. If they listened to Anquetil, bicycle racing would have been in much better
conditions.

Benjo Maso
 
"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
> > Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> schreef in berichtnieuws
> > [email protected]...
> >
> >>...Pantani 1995-1998 is a trivial example...
> >
> >
> > An example of what?
> >
> >
>
>
> Of a rider who would not normally be a GC threat winning major stage races, and competing for a
> world championship at like 2600 meters
> w/o any specific altitude training or background.
>
> Dan

Likewise Mr Barnie 60%.
 
"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Weighted by the number of UCI points, with replacement.

If you want to see some real results do this: test the top 15 riders at the 20 mile to go mark. Only
at the big races.

That is the most cost effective way to shut down the doping.

The problem, regardless of Brian's thesis that everyone is doping, is that there are a dozen gifted
bicycle racers in the world and they all need teams that can keep up with them. As Lance and Johann
have shown, they buy riders capable of doing that (Azevedo and Beltran are gifted racers by
themselves). Most of the other teams have to haggle over the others capable of supporting their
team leaders.

Otherwise inferior racers (yeah, inferior like the best from their countries but not another
Ullrich) can only perform and therefore keep their jobs by hitting the needle. You see the same
thing with second tier racers that are getting older - they can only perform up to salary with
the drugs.

If you want to get rid of the drugs in racing you have to catch the riders who HAVE to use the drugs
to keep their jobs. And those are the top gregarios that are there in the final 20 or 30 miles of a
long race to support their team leaders.
 
B. Lafferty wrote:
> Sponsors are already wary of entering a sport with so much drug use/negative publicity.

I don't think that drug use offends the sponsors as much as negative publicity about drug use. In
fact, if drug use results in wins the sponsor gets positive publicity from (hidden) drug use. A
cynical person (hi there) would design testing protocols not so much to prevent drug use or to
protect the health of the riders but to prevent the embarrassment of sponsors.
 
Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> schreef in berichtnieuws
[email protected]...
> Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
> > Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> schreef in berichtnieuws
> > [email protected]...
> >
> >>...Pantani 1995-1998 is a trivial example...
> >
> >
> > An example of what?
> >
> >
>
>
> Of a rider who would not normally be a GC threat winning major stage races, and competing for a
> world championship at like 2600 meters
> w/o any specific altitude training or background.

I don't think Pantani's talent should be doubted. In a competition that was 100% clean (himself
included), he would have won, too, and I even bet it would have been the tour and giro again in the
same year.

It's sad to see such a great rider fade away rather than with a gracious goodbye.

Jonathan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads