"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