# just who is clean?



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

The past couple nights I've been riding the trainer while watching the 2003 Tour stage that Tyler won. I was honestly thrilled down to my bones that he was able to win a mountain stage with a broken collarbone. Tyler was basically a hero to me. I couldn't believe the heart it took to keep riding and doing well, much less win a stage. Needless to say I'm disappointed in the evidence of his blood doping this year. I know the jury is still out but to me, a big fan, he sure looks guilty. He looked even more guilty after his teammate was the only other person caught so far, and the revelations that the Phonak team was warned earlier in the year about blood abnormalities.Until then, I doubt that I thought much about whether he was a clean rider or not. I assumed he was, although I wondered how he could go on while in obvious pain.

Having said that I gotta wonder if anyone is clean in this sport. Are guys taking stuff that isn't yet detectable? Are they given stuff that they don't know what it is but they trust their trainers and doctors? There was an article in the latest Newsweek or Time that I skimmed last night that had a chart of drugs that baseball and track stars were supposedly taking. Some were detectable but some WEREN'T. Are cyclists taking the same things? Designer drugs that the vampires cannot find? Is there anyone in this sport who in your heart you believe to be clean?

My nomination is Bobby Julich. He was selected "Comeback of the Year" by VeloNews. To me, he just seems like the type to not resort to cheating. I have no evidence other than a belief in his character. Am I off base?

Secondly, if everyone is cheating, what's a clean rider to do???


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

What is there to say when you go on "belief in his character" in deciding whether a rider is clean or not? After all, a lot of people thought Hamilton was a pretty classy guy and gutsy rider...until he tested positive.


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

mohair_chair said:


> What is there to say when you go on "belief in his character" in deciding whether a rider is clean or not? After all, a lot of people thought Hamilton was a pretty classy guy and gutsy rider...until he tested positive.


well, then I guess there is no point. I guess they should just say, take whatever you want because we can't detect everything. Might as well just throw up your hands and say it's not working. As someone who believes in fair play (who doesn't really - I'm sure Tyler, Perez, Virenque, Museeuw, Millar, etc, etc would say they do) I'm really disheartened.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

*Me*

The only person that I am sure is clean is me. Now, I guess that most of my riding buddies and most of the people reading this are clean, too. There may even be some pros that are clean. The only person that any of us can be sure about is oneself. The bottom line is that when it comes to competition lots of people, even people who seem like good guys, will cheat if they think that they will not be caught. This is true not only in sports, but school, business and all other places where people compete. Other people who are not cheats by nature, will be tempted in extraordinary circumstances (such as Jonathan Vaughters, who has written that he would have taken banned substances when he had his TdeF bee sting if his team would have let him, which apparently it did not). 

Bobby Julich probably is a good candidate for being drug free. I say this not because he is a good guy, but his two best years, 1998 and 2004, are the years in which there appears to have been the biggest crackdowns on doping.

Now if everyone is doping, what is a clean guy to do? Do the best you can, but make sure that you have a backup job when you get fired as a pro racer because you can't keep up with the people that are juiced.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

gregario said:


> well, then I guess there is no point. I guess they should just say, take whatever you want because we can't detect everything. Might as well just throw up your hands and say it's not working. As someone who believes in fair play (who doesn't really - I'm sure Tyler, Perez, Virenque, Museeuw, Millar, etc, etc would say they do) I'm really disheartened.


It is fairly pointless, especially when you discuss it in the abstract. We don't know if everyone is doping. We can't tell if they are taking undetectable stuff. All we know is who was caught, and that's a very small, statistically insigificant percentage of pro riders. So what do you do? I guess you can give up on the sport. Or you can throw up your hands and hope the riders are clean. There aren't a whole lot of options.


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

mohair_chair said:


> It is fairly pointless, especially when you discuss it in the abstract. We don't know if everyone is doping. We can't tell if they are taking undetectable stuff. All we know is who was caught, and that's a very small, statistically insigificant percentage of pro riders. So what do you do? I guess you can give up on the sport. Or you can throw up your hands and hope the riders are clean. There aren't a whole lot of options.


yeah, i am just venting. I like following the sport, reading the magazines, watching the races. I'd just like to think that the riders are not cheating. I hope it's a level playing field. Folks at work know I'm a cyclist and follow the sport. I have gotten tired however defending the riders when news of doping hits the papers. I usually say that I don't like it but I think many of them do dope.


----------



## joe friday (Jun 15, 2003)

Oh, there are lots of pro's who are clean! Lemond, Garin, Cornet, Trousselie..hehehe


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

*Hardly anybody at the top*

None of the top pros are clean, that goes for Lance and Jan. Most of the pros have used at one time or another.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Possibly Chris Boardman - but then he was never a true contender in the big Tours. But it is hard to think that any of the top pros are clean - simply because the sport is so hard that most doping is not for a direct increase in power but to help better recuperation, increased endurance and thus an ability to train more effectively.


----------



## topcarb (Aug 27, 2004)

i saw flanders, gent-wevelgem, and roubaix first hand this year, and couldnt imagine how these guys take the suffering they do. ...it occurred to me if they dope, it wouldnt surprise me a bit, just surviving those races seemed impossible, let alone making the final selection. I dont know how they go from Flanders on Sunday, to GW on Wednesday, then Roubaix, then...and on and on.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

I am clean as a whistle. And only a Cat 4. Hmmm, maybe its time for a trip to Belgium for some wasps and stingers. . .


----------



## Henry Chinaski (Feb 3, 2004)

Bianchigirl said:


> Possibly Chris Boardman - but then he was never a true contender in the big Tours. But it is hard to think that any of the top pros are clean - simply because the sport is so hard that most doping is not for a direct increase in power but to help better recuperation, increased endurance and thus an ability to train more effectively.


I think Boardman was probably a huge doper. My guess is that Obree was clean, though.


----------



## torquecal (Nov 9, 2002)

*The tough part....*

is telling when someone is "caught." Pretty easy to say when someone fails a test and then confesses, or when the test is corraborated with phone taps and/or eyewitness accounts. More and more difficult when the test itself has some difficulties.

Good point about the options though, there aren't many. Give up on the sport because of doping? Personally I couldn't do that.

The way I see it we're going to see a lot more of this. Drugs get more and more designer, tests get more and more esoteric and microscopic. This can only lead to arguments and disagreements among fans and lawsuits and denials among competitors and organizations. Will I stop loving a good muddy Paris-Roubaix because of accusations? No





mohair_chair said:


> It is fairly pointless, especially when you discuss it in the abstract. We don't know if everyone is doping. We can't tell if they are taking undetectable stuff. All we know is who was caught, and that's a very small, statistically insigificant percentage of pro riders. So what do you do? I guess you can give up on the sport. Or you can throw up your hands and hope the riders are clean. There aren't a whole lot of options.


----------



## BAi9302010 (Mar 7, 2002)

Henry Chinaski said:


> I think Boardman was probably a huge doper. My guess is that Obree was clean, though.


Boardman was clean. It was widely known before the Festina crackdown that he was possibly the only rider in the top 100 ranked riders in the world to be clean. The reason he was never a real contender for the tour was that his body just couldn't handle 3 weeks of racing and recovery (he was successful in shorter stage races though).

Graeme Obree quit the only pro team he ever joined after only a month or two in early 1995 (I believe it was le groupemont, built around Luc Leblanc) because they required all riders to give something like 3 grand for medical products. When he refused to do it he was approached by Leblanc and another top rider on the team (I can't recall who it was) and recieved a tongue lashing from them.

David Moncoutie (tour stage winner this year) IS clean, no question. Francois Migraine, the owner of Cofidis has said before that he is the only rider on his team that he can 100% guarantee free of performance enhancing drugs or practices, and has said that he is the only rider he would stick his neck out for under any circumstances. Moncoutie doesn't even get involved in legal practices that could be considered sketchy, such as restoring glycogen levels after a race/stage with an I.V. etc. 

From what I've read, in Europe Mario Cipollini is well known to be clean and just incredibly naturally talented.

Anyways, those are just a few successful riders and I'm sure there are more.


----------



## BAi9302010 (Mar 7, 2002)

btw, the reason why Chris Boardman retired was that he had a bone conditon that was easy to fix, it just required a medication banned by the UCI.


----------



## P-Quoddy (Oct 25, 2004)

gregario said:


> The past couple nights I've been riding the trainer while watching the 2003 Tour stage that Tyler won. I was honestly thrilled down to my bones that he was able to win a mountain stage with a broken collarbone. Tyler was basically a hero to me. I couldn't believe the heart it took to keep riding and doing well, much less win a stage. Needless to say I'm disappointed in the evidence of his blood doping this year. I know the jury is still out but to me, a big fan, he sure looks guilty. He looked even more guilty after his teammate was the only other person caught so far, and the revelations that the Phonak team was warned earlier in the year about blood abnormalities.Until then, I doubt that I thought much about whether he was a clean rider or not. I assumed he was, although I wondered how he could go on while in obvious pain.
> 
> Having said that I gotta wonder if anyone is clean in this sport. Are guys taking stuff that isn't yet detectable? Are they given stuff that they don't know what it is but they trust their trainers and doctors? There was an article in the latest Newsweek or Time that I skimmed last night that had a chart of drugs that baseball and track stars were supposedly taking. Some were detectable but some WEREN'T. Are cyclists taking the same things? Designer drugs that the vampires cannot find? Is there anyone in this sport who in your heart you believe to be clean?
> 
> ...



It amazes me how people will reply with "XXX rider *IS* doping." or XXX rider *IS/WAS* clean, no question."
They say all this without any solid proof either way, based on personal biases. Or they based their statement on the fact the rider never tested positive. Well, the vast majority of pro riders have never tested positive. How can you take two riders who haven't tested positive and say only one of them is clean? If you set aside any test results and assess the character of Boardman vs. Hamilton vs. Lemond vs Lance vs Julich vs Miller,, who would you _guess_ would be likely to dope?
It seems like we make assumptions of guilt based on character, then we get all scornful and embittered when tests refute our assumptions. 
I


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

Henry Chinaski said:


> I think Boardman was probably a huge doper.


No. Boardman is a very good guess for a clean rider. The prevalence of doping in the
pros disgusted him.

Julich is a poor choice. He first made good in '98, a year when teamwide doping was
still the norm. He then fell off the map and only reemerged when he joined Riis and
his team of magic career resurrection.

Aside from riders like Christophe Bassons, it would be hard to choose anyone in the
last ten years with any confidence. Pretty much everyone who is not doping will not
secure another contract. They will be forced out of the sport quietly, unlike Bassons,
who had Armstrong tell him to drop out of the Tour and the sport because Bassons
being clean was drawing too much attention to drug use and was destroying the
sport. Hmmm, where have we heard that before?


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

yes, Armstrong's treatment of Bassons was another Simeoni sized joke - guess Mr Zipped Lips just loves that omerta, doesn't he?


----------



## wzq622 (Aug 3, 2004)

*meh*

the pro's gotta do what they gotta do. at their level of fitness, it's reeeeally hard to improve. that's where the drugs come in. how can they exceed 100% w/o chemical aids? they gotta keep the paychecks coming and if they dont deliver the goods, then they dont get paid.

i could care less if pros dope. to me, it makes no difference. theyre still doing things i could never achieve. i would never use drugs, but then again, i dont make millions of dollars doing something i love. 




if you think drugs and blood doping is bad, wait a few yrs for genetics to catch up.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

*Oops, I did it again.*



Utah CragHopper said:


> No. Boardman is a very good guess for a clean rider. The prevalence of doping in the
> pros disgusted him.
> 
> Julich is a poor choice. He first made good in '98, a year when teamwide doping was
> ...



Just because Boardman was "disgusted" by the "prevalence of doping in the pros" doesn't mean he was innocent himself. I recall that David Millar also spoke out many times about doping in the sport and he never tested positive either. BUSTED!


----------



## Trekkie (Dec 31, 2004)

not only do I not care, and not only do they do amazing things, but if they all take drugs, it does even out the playing field.Though i would be dissapointed if Lance got caught. Not that I condone it, but, all's fair in love and war. Unless there is a fool-proof way to detect these things, the witch hunt needs to stop; all or nothing.

But as I said, even if they do all dope, isn't the excitement and the competition amazing?


----------



## Chainstay (Mar 13, 2004)

*Doping ruins the excitement and competition - it's wrong*



Trekkie said:


> not only do I not care, and not only do they do amazing things, but if they all take drugs, it does even out the playing field.Though i would be dissapointed if Lance got caught. Not that I condone it, but, all's fair in love and war. Unless there is a fool-proof way to detect these things, the witch hunt needs to stop; all or nothing.
> 
> But as I said, even if they do all dope, isn't the excitement and the competition amazing?


Doping seriously detracts from the sport for me. Are we testing teams of riders and coaches or teams or riders and pharmacologists? It's not a level playing field when it comes to who has the best cheating technology. 

The health consequences are also an issue. Sports achievement is about fitness and a lot of doping is dangerous to the health of the athlete. I find it distatsteful that this is being done and that elite athletes are the ones that are selling out their health for success. I lose respect.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*why do we care?*

Why is it so important for utter strangers who owe you squat to act in a way which most do not?

IMO, I find it very very hard to believe that these folks dope with believeing that there will be no personal consequences. Its really in any sport and in any country.

The sad part and the part thats really hurtful is that most people walk around believing that if they dope, they will do better and be the next big thing. Doping is noit a magic bullet, you actually have to have talent and train and in some cases, I believe, yes, dope. However this prevailing myth of dope being a silver bullet is doing nothing to solve the problem in any sport.

When I lifted for years, I knew what my body type was, I knew what my strengths and weaknesses were as far as form, physical limits etc etc.However, there was always some genius who would come in the gym and say I want a back like Yates or arms like Arnold etc etc. So, they doped. They would never have that form they desired because they would literally have to have surgery to change their body shape to even have anything near that result. BUT they luckily read enough health mags to believe that if you train real hard and use anything you can eat or inject, you too can...........

Desire to succeed is not rational.There is nothing except hopefully an informed public that is going to finally say, hey I dont want to see almost every talented player in the Majors have multiple 50+ HR seasons. I am not waiting personally. So, its time to go for a ride.


----------



## hrv (Dec 9, 2001)

*That's society, correct?*

As we watch the Tour on tv, sandwiched in between ****** and (insert your favorite pharmaceutical here) commercials, we're reminded how doped up our society really is. I mean people are eating anti-depressants like candy these days! At the same time, we want to see athletes pushing the envelope more and more each day. We expect almost super-human performance from the racers. Like others have stated here, they have to be on the edge of what's humanly possible without assistance, even given, for the majority I would guess, their superior genetics. 

Maybe I'm way off in that there is no correlation between drugs and society as a whole and
athletes using performance enhancing 'stuff'. But part of me believes it is a situation way more complex than what seems at face value a 'just say no' scenerio. Time will tell, and I'll still watch every d#@mn bit of racing I can get on the airwaves!

hrv


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

so let's say that the sport gives up the fight and allows doping to 'level the playing field'. When do we start riders on their pharmaceutical programme - when they turn pro, if they're good juniors, if they show promise when they're 5?


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*oh no*



Bianchigirl said:


> so let's say that the sport gives up the fight and allows doping to 'level the playing field'. When do we start riders on their pharmaceutical programme - when they turn pro, if they're good juniors, if they show promise when they're 5?


Golly, that would mean that people try to be responsible for their own personal actions.IMPOSSIBLE......


----------



## technocycle (Oct 29, 2004)

gregario said:


> The past couple nights I've been riding the trainer while watching the 2003 Tour stage that Tyler won. I was honestly thrilled down to my bones that he was able to win a mountain stage with a broken collarbone. Tyler was basically a hero to me. I couldn't believe the heart it took to keep riding and doing well, much less win a stage. Needless to say I'm disappointed in the evidence of his blood doping this year. I know the jury is still out but to me, a big fan, he sure looks guilty. He looked even more guilty after his teammate was the only other person caught so far, and the revelations that the Phonak team was warned earlier in the year about blood abnormalities.Until then, I doubt that I thought much about whether he was a clean rider or not. I assumed he was, although I wondered how he could go on while in obvious pain.
> 
> Having said that I gotta wonder if anyone is clean in this sport. Are guys taking stuff that isn't yet detectable? Are they given stuff that they don't know what it is but they trust their trainers and doctors? There was an article in the latest Newsweek or Time that I skimmed last night that had a chart of drugs that baseball and track stars were supposedly taking. Some were detectable but some WEREN'T. Are cyclists taking the same things? Designer drugs that the vampires cannot find? Is there anyone in this sport who in your heart you believe to be clean?
> 
> ...


I personally think it is only a matter of time until everyone has their day and gets caught. Recently, 9 riders in the Vuelta a Guatemala tested positive. Virtual unknowns 

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/jan05/jan01news

Matt Decanio came out last summer and spoke about the wide-spead use at the US level, and lets face it, there is no money at the US level and riders are risking it (Adam Bergman, Jelly Belly, 2nd in NRC points until he was caught). 

What I am saying, is that if guys are risking their life and career at the lower level D3 & D2 to make to big time, then I would have to assume that some would continue to us at the D1 level. For some, it is a matter of just being able to finish, but others, by using puts them over the edge and into victory.

Regardless if Tyler was using 2003, to go solo and win a stage with a broken collar bone is amazing. No matter what he was on, I do not think there is any steriod, blood doping, etc that will take away that pain for 3 long weeks. Tyler is still a hero in my book. I think he just fell into the trap that a lot of the riders have fallen into.


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

technocycle said:


> I personally think it is only a matter of time until everyone has their day and gets caught. Recently, 9 riders in the Vuelta a Guatemala tested positive. Virtual unknowns
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/jan05/jan01news
> 
> ...


You're last paragraph brings up a very valid point. These guys have to have the talent to begin with. I don't think that a Cat 3 rider can turn into a top Euro pro simply by doping. I mean, these guys are out training, watching what they eat, etc, etc...they just don't simply shoot up and enter a race. You have to give them some credit for their achievements. I just wish there was no cheating.


----------



## technocycle (Oct 29, 2004)

gregario said:


> You're last paragraph brings up a very valid point. These guys have to have the talent to begin with. I don't think that a Cat 3 rider can turn into a top Euro pro simply by doping. I mean, these guys are out training, watching what they eat, etc, etc...they just don't simply shoot up and enter a race. You have to give them some credit for their achievements. I just wish there was no cheating.


I do agree. I have friends that ride at the us pro D3 level and train there butts off and eat right. But I think for some, they hit a point where they know they are at their peak and feel they need something to get them over the edge. It happens in all sports. I have seen it first hand at the high school and college level and it is sickning that people will go to these lengths for a win.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

I always thought it was the financial incentives but I can't imagine they're huge when you're at D3 level either in Europe or the US. I read somewhere that each year there are a number of positive tests during the Etape du Tour - is it doping just to survive the physical challenge? Or simply to get an edge even when you're riding as an amateur? Is it just sheer competitiveness on some riders' part that drives them to dope?


----------



## technocycle (Oct 29, 2004)

Bianchigirl said:


> I always thought it was the financial incentives but I can't imagine they're huge when you're at D3 level either in Europe or the US. I read somewhere that each year there are a number of positive tests during the Etape du Tour - is it doping just to survive the physical challenge? Or simply to get an edge even when you're riding as an amateur? Is it just sheer competitiveness on some riders' part that drives them to dope?


A lot of D3 riders in the US do no even get a so-called salary. They will give a salary, but deduct your bike, clothing, race fees and hotels and travel. So basically, you get to ride for free, but if you want to have an apartment, car, cell phone etc, you need a part-time job or rich parents.

I know a D3 rider who actually rode for a team that gave him a monthly check on top of all the freebies. His monthly check was for just over $400. That is sad. An overweight relief pitcher for the Phillies can have a 2-6 record and still make a few hundred, if not million a year.

Once rider reach the D2 level or D1 level they actually get a somewhat respectable salary and possibly endorsements beyond the freebies. That is why I think guys dope at the lower level, in hopes to make the big time. Once they get to the big time, I think it makes the difference of being a nobody in the peleton or a somebody.


----------



## P-Quoddy (Oct 25, 2004)

Chainstay said:


> Doping seriously detracts from the sport for me. Are we testing teams of riders and coaches or teams or riders and pharmacologists? It's not a level playing field when it comes to who has the best cheating technology.
> 
> The health consequences are also an issue. Sports achievement is about fitness and a lot of doping is dangerous to the health of the athlete. I find it distatsteful that this is being done and that elite athletes are the ones that are selling out their health for success. I lose respect.


I can't really see how doping has taken away the excitment. The '03 Tour was called the most exciting in years. For all we know, Lemond, Fignon, and Hinaut could have been doped during their battles, but it didn't make them any less exciting. What happens if we find out all of them were doped. Will people say, "I wasn't _really _feeling excited then."


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

ttug said:


> Golly, that would mean that people try to be responsible for their own personal actions.IMPOSSIBLE......


No, it does the opposite. When a twelve year old shows a little promise and his
parents or coach give him drugs, he'll be too young to appreciate the ramifications
of what he is doing. That's why we have a minumum drinking and smoking age.

Just how responsible for their own actions are the drugged up fourteen year old girls
who compete in Olympic gymnastics?


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

Trekkie said:


> not only do I not care, and not only do they do amazing things, but if they all take drugs, it does even out the playing field.Though i would be dissapointed if Lance got caught. Not that I condone it, but, all's fair in love and war. Unless there is a fool-proof way to detect these things, the witch hunt needs to stop; all or nothing.


And what do you say to Andy Hampsten, who IMHO should have won the 
'92 Tour? Uh, sorry, dude. All's fair in love and war; you should have doped.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

Bianchigirl said:


> I always thought it was the financial incentives but I can't imagine they're huge when you're at D3 level either in Europe or the US.


It is financial incentives in the U.S. There is hardly any money in the U.S. scene.
You get a lot of people who once had plans to make it big in Europe, but they
either didn't have the genetics or didn't feel comfortable in a non-american
environment. All of a sudden they find themselve twenty-eight or thirty years
old and no career to fall back on. 

You have pros and demi pros who make less than they would if they worked part
time at McDonalds. Or you have the thirty-two year old Cat 1 guy who works as
a mechanic at a bike shop.

It is a desperate financial situation for most. And there is almost no testing in 
domestic U.S. cycling. It is pretty amazing that anyone has been caught at all. 
From what I've heard the total number of drug controls for U.S. cycling was
less than four dozen last year. They don't have any money to do testing.

Look at Team Subway. They don't pay you to be a pro racer. You pay them.
They try to paper over the rediculousness by saying it is an opportunity for their
riders to gain experience getting personal sponsorship.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Thats a funny story*



Utah CragHopper said:


> No, it does the opposite. When a twelve year old shows a little promise and his
> parents or coach give him drugs, he'll be too young to appreciate the ramifications
> of what he is doing. That's why we have a minumum drinking and smoking age.
> 
> ...


This is ironic in a sad way really. The 14 year old is not. THE PARENTS ARE. Last I checked, kids get high and booze it at every age. However, once parents get involved or for that matter stay involved, the instances of this decrease. Laws are great, enforced laws are better. Parents who actually raise their kids, yes, thats even better than a law that gets broken every day. 

Worse yet, kids get told to get involved in sports to get away from drugs. Wow, that worked miracles huh? If you allow your 14 year old to have that done to them and you consented, then the issue is a parental one. Put the parent away or fine them. The child is not in an environment where they are safe. They go to a relative or state home.

Example

Locally we had all sorts of problems with car jackings by teens. All the teens stealing cars for joy rides etc etc. How did the problem get mitigated to point where its not a real crisis anymore? They put the parents in jail and the kids in a state home. In short, the parents had to become parents. They even made the parents pay for damages etc etc. Can you imagine that? Parents being responsible in regards to the actions of their children? Its almost as if, they had to actually raise their children...


----------



## Trekkie (Dec 31, 2004)

hrv said:


> As we watch the Tour on tv, sandwiched in between ****** and (insert your favorite pharmaceutical here) commercials, we're reminded how doped up our society really is. I mean people are eating anti-depressants like candy these days! At the same time, we want to see athletes pushing the envelope more and more each day. We expect almost super-human performance from the racers. Like others have stated here, they have to be on the edge of what's humanly possible without assistance, even given, for the majority I would guess, their superior genetics.
> 
> Maybe I'm way off in that there is no correlation between drugs and society as a whole and
> athletes using performance enhancing 'stuff'. But part of me believes it is a situation way more complex than what seems at face value a 'just say no' scenerio. Time will tell, and I'll still watch every d#@mn bit of racing I can get on the airwaves!
> ...


I think you're right. I think something like more than half of the people in the country are in jail on drug charges. Why hsould sports be any different? I remember in the last state of the union address, the president made a committment to getting drugs out of sport. He used Tom Brady as an example of an athlete leading the way. I think that you are right; there is a correlation between society's drugs and sports's drugs. But before sports can be dealt with, society must be as well. But as long as we're committing, and as long as we're at the top of the sport in cycling, and we've got issues surrounding our own riders, maybe it's time for America to take a side in the sport and start demanding more vigorous testing, and higher standards from our own athletes.


----------



## Trekkie (Dec 31, 2004)

Utah CragHopper said:


> And what do you say to Andy Hampsten, who IMHO should have won the
> '92 Tour? Uh, sorry, dude. All's fair in love and war; you should have doped.


Point taken.
I do still feel like the laws are unfairly enforced. That's the witch hunt I was talking about. For instance, the Yellow Jersey is always the most heavily concentrated on in the Tour. But look at the overwhelming evidence that Lance is clean. What was the bigger story two Tours ago? Lance's fifth (which was damn near inevitable, hindsight being what it is) or Tyler's fourth place with the big ol' crack in his collarbone? Now look at what's coming out about Tyler. Who knows, maybe if Tyler had been tested better in the Tour, he would have been caught before the Athens TT. There's very little equality in the rules. Sure, doping's bad, but while it's tearing the sport one way, the poor oversight is tearing it the other. How do you mishandle an olympic blood test?


----------

