"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:
>
> > 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