# Dara Torres



## I am The Edge (Jul 27, 2004)

Doped to the gills.

Your thoughts?


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

Call me crazy, but I thought they tested these Olympic swimmers.


----------



## jupiterrn (Sep 22, 2006)

I'm a doper, you are a doper, wouldn't like to be a doper too. Be an epo, shoot up Dr Epo of yeah. Maybe and call me crazy but just maybe one person could win without you all thinking they doped.


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

No. First of all, I don't believe there is enough motivation to dope for women's swimming. Secondly, she volunteered for some enhanced doping control program for the Olympics.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

filtersweep said:


> No. First of all, I don't believe there is enough motivation to dope for women's swimming.


Why not? One of the American female swimmers was kicked out before the Olympics started for doping. 

Dara Torres has a lot of money to be made by winning in these Olympics....Swimmer retires to start a family, loses the weight by swimming again, becomes world class again in her early 40's....the story many, many women want to hear and follow. Then add in some Jenny Craig commercials, etc....and there is plenty of reasons to dope...Read $$$$$$....especially if she has the right people around here that can help keep things from being detected.

Never underestimate the desire to make money through athletics and using doping as a way to get there.

Whether she has doped or not....who knows but herself and those around here...but there will always be suspicion, same with Phelps.


----------



## jupiterrn (Sep 22, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> Why not? One of the American female swimmers was kicked out before the Olympics started for doping.
> 
> Dara Torres has a lot of money to be made by winning in these Olympics....Swimmer retires to start a family, loses the weight by swimming again, becomes world class again in her early 40's....the story many, many women want to hear and follow. Then add in some Jenny Craig commercials, etc....and there is plenty of reasons to dope...Read $$$$$$....especially if she has the right people around here that can help keep things from being detected.
> 
> ...



You of all people to say this surprises me Wookie. I have heard you tell your story several times about losing weight via hard work and diet. Are you winning any races? Are you a doper? Or is it all a sham and you lost the weight by gastric bypass? Hmmmm?


----------



## I am The Edge (Jul 27, 2004)

filtersweep said:


> No. First of all, I don't believe there is enough motivation to dope for women's swimming. *Secondly, she volunteered for some enhanced doping control program for the Olympics.*



which means nothing other than she volunteered.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

jupiterrn said:


> You of all people to say this surprises me Wookie. I have heard you tell your story several times about losing weight via hard work and diet. Are you winning any races? Are you a doper? Or is it all a sham and you lost the weight by gastric bypass? Hmmmm?



LOL...I'm far from world class at anything. If she was winning local swimming competitions or even state level competitions that would be one thing. Even beating younger swimmers at that level.

However, we are talking the "Highest" level of competition. She decides to retire, have a kid, then swim to lose the weight and suddenly is world class again? She got the itch, it's obvious. The question is whether she's doing anything extra, and whether she did anything extra to begin with long ago.

My stance on world class athletes has and will always be "They all Dope!" for the simple fact that all top tier athletes are ultra competitive and don't like to lose. Name the sport and they have dopers. Heck they had to DQ a shooter for PED's from the Olympics! If somebody they were beating all the sudden is beating them by large margins because they are doping...to keep winning one must do the same.

In the end, those that don't want to do it get dropped, or those that the doping is just to obvious or they get caught end up dropping from the top levels of the sport....those that want to and can properly hide it stay on and stay at the top levels.

Again, never underestimate what $$$$ will do to somebody and if everybody else is doing it, it's easy to justify to ones self.

As has been mentioned in another thread doping happens at the basic armature level, high school levels, middle school levels and by many just to look better (Hollywood is one of the biggest abusers of HGH out there). If those guys are willing to do it....Top pro athletes are willing to do it. Not only never should we underestimate what $$$$ plays in their decisions but their ego....they don't like to lose...at all!!!!

On a side note.....Say what you will about my weight loss, I've delt with it before. When I was in college many people though I was using 'roids because of my strength and size (benched 455 and squatted over 600)...people made assumptions, such is life. 

But again, I was far from a world class athlete and to tell you the truth if it was the difference between me being an also ran college athlete and making an Olympic team you bet your butt I would have taken them. Call me what ever you want, but at least I'm honest about it.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*apples and oranges..*



jupiterrn said:


> You of all people to say this surprises me Wookie. I have heard you tell your story several times about losing weight via hard work and diet. Are you winning any races? Are you a doper? Or is it all a sham and you lost the weight by gastric bypass? Hmmmm?


Losing weight is tough, but decreasing already world class times after retirement, childbirth, and middle age? I don't feel bad at 43 but I don't feel like I'm 16 either...

Performance and asthetics may or may not coincide. There have been many great athletes who didn't appear to be all that athletic. 

I saw an NBA highlight recently from the Magic Johnson/ Larry Bird era and was shocked at the difference in appearance between the players of that era and todays players. What it's due to in basketball, I don't know. Supplemental training or "supplements?"


----------



## jupiterrn (Sep 22, 2006)

I am sorry to hear that. Some folks always accused me in high school of steroid use. Pissed me off to no end. I got big because I went to the gym everyday after school for 2 hours and worked my butt off. Had I not slacked off who knows what would have happened. I agree that in every level of sports there are dopers, 1/4 of my high school football team WAS on steroids in the late 80's, easy to get in Texas. All I am saying is that every once in a while a phenom comes along. Micheal Jordon didn't even make his high school basketball team. I choose not to be so skeptical. I know like you what the body is capable of with dedication and hard work. By the way, congrats on the hard work.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Very few swimmers are getting rich swimming. For every Phelps hitting the cash cow, there are a thousand others who will disappear into obscurity, or if they are lucky, the history books. So saying money is a motivation for doping in swimming is not realistic. There's no exit strategy. There's no professional tour. There's no exhibition circuit. Except for the Olympics, there's little or no prize money. The only ones making real cash are phenoms like Phelps, and the attractive ones like Amanda Beard or Summer Sanders. Outside of the phenoms, elite level swimmers can make money from sponsorships, but that is largely spent on coaching, travel, food and rent. Few elite swimmers actually have jobs! So let's come back to reality for a moment. The biggest motivation for most swimmers is not money. It's the glory that comes from winning races, making the national team, setting records, and getting an Olympic medal.


----------



## jupiterrn (Sep 22, 2006)

lookrider said:


> Losing weight is tough, but decreasing already world class times after retirement, childbirth, and middle age? I don't feel bad at 43 but I don't feel like I'm 16 either...
> 
> Performance and asthetics may or may not coincide. There have been many great athletes who didn't appear to be all that athletic.
> 
> I saw an NBA highlight recently from the Magic Johnson/ Larry Bird era and was shocked at the difference in appearance between the players of that era and todays players. What it's due to in basketball, I don't know. Supplemental training or "supplements?"


You do have to admit though, our knowledge base for how the human body functions and what can help has grown quite a great deal. Not too many years ago you were told not to drink water during sports because it would give you cramps. I think we are pretty close to the plateau of what the human body is capable of without "supplements" but then again no one thought we would break the 4 minute mile either. Training has gotten better, more focused. How many of us has our pedal stroke analyzed in a wind tunnel or our swim stroke after every meet. Just saying we need to do the best we can to keep the sports clean but if the athlete does all the test required and passes maybe we should take their word for it.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

mohair_chair said:


> Very few swimmers are getting rich swimming. For every Phelps hitting the cash cow, there are a thousand others who will disappear into obscurity, or if they are lucky, the history books. So saying money is a motivation for doping in swimming is not realistic. There's no exit strategy. There's no professional tour. There's no exhibition circuit. Except for the Olympics, there's little or no prize money. The only ones making real cash are phenoms like Phelps, and the attractive ones like Amanda Beard or Summer Sanders. Outside of the phenoms, elite level swimmers can make money from sponsorships, but that is largely spent on coaching, travel, food and rent. Few elite swimmers actually have jobs! So let's come back to reality for a moment. The biggest motivation for most swimmers is not money. It's the glory that comes from winning races, making the national team, setting records, and getting an Olympic medal.


Two things:

1) Dara Torres has received a lot of attention going into the games and stands to make a fair amount of money after the Olympics, especially with the success she has had.

2) Part of the money aspect is doing what you want to do, not what you have to do. All of the guys at the Olympics would rather be training/competing in their sport than sitting behind some desk being told what to do by some lame duck boss.

Pretty much every athlete at the games will make more money than the average person if they are smart as they will use their Olympic games as a stepping stone to coaching, better jobs, etc. down the line. Even if it's a 50K -60K a year job doing what they enjoy compared to a 30K a year job that sucks....it's worth it.

I do agree that the fame aspect has a lot to do with it. Many of the athletes have supersized ego's that don't fly in the "working" world, and honestly without those egos they don't get to where they are because that's one of the big things that drives them to win.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

jupiterrn said:


> I am sorry to hear that. Some folks always accused me in high school of steroid use. Pissed me off to no end. I got big because I went to the gym everyday after school for 2 hours and worked my butt off. Had I not slacked off who knows what would have happened. I agree that in every level of sports there are dopers, 1/4 of my high school football team WAS on steroids in the late 80's, easy to get in Texas. All I am saying is that every once in a while a phenom comes along. Micheal Jordon didn't even make his high school basketball team. I choose not to be so skeptical. I know like you what the body is capable of with dedication and hard work. By the way, congrats on the hard work.


It was never a problem for me, I just went along with business as usual. There was no way to prove that I was clean...other than my diet which consisted of midnight runs to the local "Circle K" for a Quart of Chocolate Milk and 2 large Moon Pies (love those things  ).

I knew guys in middle school, high school and college that were using 'roids which was their choice. I knew I was never going to be an "Elite" level athlete and in reality couldn't have afforded any PED's even if I wanted to take them :blush2: 

I do agree there are phenom's out there...but for every one of those there are more in other parts of the country and the world and eventually talent and hard work only takes you so far. 

I've seen people that could do crazy things....heck, people were amazed at most of the stuff I could do and that didn't just include lifting and throwing things...I had a 10' standing long jump, 36" vertical leap (at 250 pounds), was very quick and could pick up just about any athletic event quickly.....but again, for all my athletic abilities I was never going to be an "Elite" athlete at anything.

I guess over time, having both competed and followed multiple sports I've become cynical about the performances I see these days knowing how easy it is to dope and not get caught even with testing.

In the end I don't care because I just want to watch incredible performances, as do most other people. I don't really care that athletes are doping, I just wish they would be truthful about it and not hide behind "I've been tested more than anybody" or "I volunteered for more testing"....when we all know how easy it is to pass a test with a good doping routine.

When I watch football I want to see bone crushing hits, break away speed, leaping catches, 70 yard throws, moves that juke players out of their shoes....etc.

If I watch the Tour (or any bike race) I want to see guys that can climb 8% grades at 17 mph...not 7 mph like I do. I want to see sprints at 50 mph, I want to see guys dominate.

I know doping is going on, you know doping is going on...it will never go away regardless of the amount of testing that takes place and people just need to come to terms with that. In the end it's entertainment and we want to be entertained by super human performances not athletes that are "Just a bit better than us".


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Wookiebiker said:


> Pretty much every athlete at the games will make more money than the average person if they are smart as they will use their Olympic games as a stepping stone to coaching, better jobs, etc. down the line. Even if it's a 50K -60K a year job doing what they enjoy compared to a 30K a year job that sucks....it's worth it.


A lot of the elite swimmers had full ride scholarships to top level colleges, and most got their degrees. So it's highly likely that they are already going to make more money than the average person down the line, just doing an ordinary job. A Stanford degree, for instance, is worth a lot. 

I used to work with a guy who was an Olympic shotputter. He actually did it "professionally" for a few years, traveling around Europe, not making a whole lot of money, but making enough in appearance fees and sponsorships to compete and live the life he wanted to live, until the day came when he was ready to move on to a real job. He became a salesman, and a good one, too. That is the story of almost all Olympic athletes. You chase the dream, but the dream is rarely about money.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

mohair_chair said:


> A lot of the elite swimmers had full ride scholarships to top level colleges, and most got their degrees. So it's highly likely that they are already going to make more money than the average person down the line, just doing an ordinary job. A Stanford degree, for instance, is worth a lot.
> 
> I used to work with a guy who was an Olympic shotputter. He actually did it "professionally" for a few years, traveling around Europe, not making a whole lot of money, but making enough in appearance fees and sponsorships to compete and live the life he wanted to live, until the day came when he was ready to move on to a real job. He became a salesman, and a good one, too. That is the story of almost all Olympic athletes. You chase the dream, but the dream is rarely about money.


The only "Hammer throwing" coach I had made the Olympic team in 1980 - the boycott year, then was the alternate in 1984. He chased the dream, but never actually made it. He was still competitive on a national level well into his late 30's. He used it as a way to make money through college coaching and the jobs he was able to get through that. He never made huge money, but it was better than what he would have made without his athletic career.

And yes, a college degree will take them a long ways...but it's never a guarantee, just like everything else in life. Everybody that works in my program has to have a college degree but they are only making $11.22 an hour to start and they don't move up far from there. So making 50K - 60K a year and doing something you enjoy compared to $11.22 an hour at a dead end job is worth the extra effort...and if need be the use of PED's.

The simple fact is many athletes may not even know they are taking PED's. There was an article on CNN's website about a former East German female shot putter. She was fed so many 'roids back in the 80's that she basically became a male and ended up having a sex change due to the changes her body went through. Her coach told her they were "Vitamins"...where have we heard that before? B12 shots anybody?

Many times athletes don't ask what they are, they just ask why they are taking them....which many times the response is they will help you recover, or they are vitamins or some other stupid excuse. Now that doesn't excuse the athlete from not knowing whats going in their body, but many times they don't have the time or desire to care.


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2008)

I am The Edge said:


> Doped to the gills.
> 
> Your thoughts?


Yeah, probably - at least with roids (though b/4 the games, not during - so she won't get caught). This isn't to say she hasn't worked her tail off - she has for sure.


----------



## cpark (Oct 13, 2004)

I am The Edge said:


> Doped to the gills.
> 
> Your thoughts?


Call me naive but you are innocent until proven guilty in my book.
So, I would say no.......


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

Wookiebiker said:


> Why not? One of the American female swimmers was kicked out before the Olympics started for doping.
> 
> Dara Torres has a lot of money to be made by winning in these Olympics....Swimmer retires to start a family, loses the weight by swimming again, becomes world class again in her early 40's....the story many, many women want to hear and follow. Then add in some Jenny Craig commercials, etc....and there is plenty of reasons to dope...Read $$$$$$....especially if she has the right people around here that can help keep things from being detected.
> 
> ...


Torres grew up a pampered princess in Beverly Hills. She lives in a fancy house in Florida and drives fancy cars. Earlier in her career she was known for being undisciplined in her training--even with making multiple Olympic teams.

Jessica Hardy, the swimmer that got kicked off the team before the games, is at a completely different point in her life. She's half Torres age and undoubtedly without Torres' money.

That being said, I do know Torres has a TUE for an asthma inhaler.


----------



## I am The Edge (Jul 27, 2004)

i say she has/is using hgh.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

cpark said:


> Call me naive but you are innocent until proven guilty in my book.
> So, I would say no.......


I'm not sure exactly what happened with Marion Jones but I believe she admitted she unwittingly took steroids as part of a plea in which she was also charged in a check fraud case. Nothing was proven regarding the steroids. If she didn't plea to it, I think they were going to throw the book at her on all the counts...

This whole idea of proving something in a concrete way beyond any and all doubt is a childish supposition. There is way more than enough evidence to convict many of these people, including Armstrong in a court of law, because they are beyond a reasonable doubt guilty.. That's the standard.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

jupiterrn said:


> You do have to admit though, our knowledge base for how the human body functions and what can help has grown quite a great deal..


I don't know about that. In cycling specifically, talent was revealed quite early, in the early twenties, before the EPO years. LeMond was only thirty and he said he was in better shape than he had been in after the accident, and he couldn't keep up. LA won four of his TdF after that age..



jupiterrn said:


> Not too many years ago you were told not to drink water during sports because it would give you cramps...


I graduated HS in '82 and that was considered a myth all through Jr. High and HS even in my sport, wrestling. We were dehydrating ourselves like crazy but were cognizant of the fact we should be drinking as much water and electrolytes as possible, even in the late 70's. Gatorade was big at that time... I'd say that not drinking water to avoid cramps thing change in the late 60's or early 70's at the latest..



jupiterrn said:


> I think we are pretty close to the plateau of what the human body is capable of without "supplements" but then again no one thought we would break the 4 minute mile either. Training has gotten better, more focused. How many of us has our pedal stroke analyzed in a wind tunnel or our swim stroke after every meet. Just saying we need to do the best we can to keep the sports clean but if the athlete does all the test required and passes maybe we should take their word for it.


Ok, but how can we trust any of these people? How about someone like FloJo? She's running in the mid 22's for 200 meters in '84 and then she runs 21.34 in the '88 Olympics. In '84 she didn't even run the 100. FloJo just seems like an obvious case of doping and even a doped up Marion Jones didn't really approach Flo Jo's times... FloJo also talked about consulting with Ben Johnson and Charlie Francis on training.. She weighed under 130 and she said she was sqatting 350 for reps. I don't know. 

I trust the David Walsh test a little more. You have to believe what you are seeing. He saw guy like LA going up mountains after Festina, and they weren't even breathing hard. Also, we have a few guys on here that were college runners and field athletes. When you get these guys who were in that arena saying drugs are pervasive, I think that carries some weight. While people like Wookiebiker say they might not be elite, they are close enough to see and know, what is real, and what is not... Even though LeMond was a freak, he suffered a great deal in some of his TdF's and was dropped. Plus there is no talk of him or people like Hampsten being jacked up. Armstrong said he had bad days but, what were there two or three in 7 years? I watched that Morzine finish, Joux Plane, he was dropped but he didn't look all that bad....

Btw, Michael Jordan didn't make his HS varsity as a sophomore, but it was acknowledged that he was a fantastic player even then, and it's said the JV outdrew the varsity games when he played. He was still a little small as a Soph and the Varsity coach wanted him to get his confidence and dominate... His Junior and Senior years he was well on his way to becoming a legend. After his senior year he went to the all star camps and a big time recruiter asked a scout how James Worthy was doing at Carolina. The scout said forget Worthy, there's a guy here named Michael Jordan who's going to be the next Oscar Robertson. This idea that Michael Jordan was an average player at any time is bs.....


----------



## mgeoffriau (May 6, 2007)

This is merely an aside, but it's an interesting piece of information for those who doubt the saturation of doping culture in sports:

I went to school (and later worked with) a friend who was a marginal baseball player. When I say marginal, I mean, he barely made the team at a private college with a student body of around 2000 students, playing in NAIA.

He told me that his first semester on the baseball team, he had at least 4 other players approach him with offers to put him in contact with a supplier. We're talking about a team full of guys that will never even sniff Double-A baseball. A couple of these guys have played on independent league teams. One guy got drafted and played 2 seasons in low Single-A.

It's EVERYWHERE. At this point, I believe that every single world-class athlete is doping in some form or another, with very rare exceptions.


----------



## Sojourner2005 (May 16, 2008)

Why is anyone asking about Torres when Michael Phelps just captured his 7th gold? Yes she is excelling at 41 yrs of age but Mr. Phelps is absolutely DESTROYING other world class athletes (except for tonight's race), that according to almost everyone on this page, takes the same drugs as he does? People in the know say that we cannot even imagine what it takes pysically to do what he has done thus far. We are seeing outstanding performances of people who 30 yrs ago would have been considered past their prime and excelling at 41 doesn't really seem that strange to me anymore. Yes, she stands to make more $$ but as mentioned above she comes from money so that might not necessarily be her prime motivation. As she said, she knew the bulls-eye would be on her, they test her and Phelps under every know program and then some and that`s about all she can do. It is impossible to prove a negative, so both people are in a no-win situation.Only they and their coaches know for sure, and until proven otherwise, passing judgement makes no sense at all.
¨
:edited because I do tend to go on


----------



## Cyclo-phile (Sep 22, 2005)

I'm getting tired of reading the crap that is spewed out in this forum, so this'll be my last post here. Call me naive, but I believe these athletes are competing clean until I see concrete evidence showing otherwise.

Comparing Dara Torres' comeback to Wookie's is apples and oranges. She was a gold medal winning athlete before childbirth. She worked hard and got herself back into top physical condition. Combine that with the discipline and perspective that typically come with age, and I can see her competing at her current level cleanly.

There are numerous anecdotes of women coming back stronger after having a child. One example that comes to mind is a good friend of mine. She was a strong Cat. 2 roadie that chose to raise a family rather than make the jump to NRC. She was on the bike a few weeks after giving birth. Before her daughter had turned 2 my friend was racing in the cyclocross world championships. I can say with full confidence that my friend does not use PED's.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

While my opinion is that most cyclist use to some extent, I have an easier time believing Torres is clean. I have been swimming for the last 3 years. Time and time again, I'm told form is the most important thing about swimming. Sure epo could help, I think "IF" she is using something, its during training. 

I take a triathlon clinic every fall/winter at a local DIV II college. Many who attend are former collegate swimmers. The fastest swimmer there is a fellow triathlete, Ann who swam the freestyle in college. She is 46 years old. During one of our weekly races, a daughter of one of the regulars was there. A 16 year old female who qualified for the state championship. She won our informal 1000 fs race that week, but only beating Ann by 2 body lengths. I'm 100% positive neither is on any peds.

My point is that it may be easier to be competive at swimming beacause form is such an important part of swimming. Janet Evans was on some stupid celeb circus show. She is still in amazing shape. She is actually younger than Torres. It wouldn't surprise me if she tries to make a comeback for London 2012.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> While my opinion is that most cyclist use to some extent, I have an easier time believing Torres is clean. I have been swimming for the last 3 years. Time and time again, I'm told form is the most important thing about swimming. Sure epo could help, I think "IF" she is using something, its during training.
> 
> I take a triathlon clinic every fall/winter at a local DIV II college. Many who attend are former collegate swimmers. The fastest swimmer there is a fellow triathlete, Ann who swam the freestyle in college. She is 46 years old. During one of our weekly races, a daughter of one of the regulars was there. A 16 year old female who qualified for the state championship. She won our informal 1000 fs race that week, but only beating Ann by 2 body lengths. I'm 100% positive neither is on any peds.
> 
> My point is that it may be easier to be competive at swimming beacause form is such an important part of swimming. Janet Evans was on some stupid celeb circus show. She is still in amazing shape. She is actually younger than Torres. It wouldn't surprise me if she tries to make a comeback for London 2012.


I think the difference with Torres and Evans is that Evans' times were falling off while she was still competing. Her body at 16 was vastly different than it was later in her career. While Torres condition is sharply different, I don't think her general body outline is. She's stripped away a lot of the fat that was concealing her muscles.

This is just speculation but I would think that Evans' VO2 max decreased significantly when her body changed. She still had basically the same fuel delivery system in a much bigger vehicle..


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Cyclo-phile said:


> I'm getting tired of reading the crap that is spewed out in this forum, so this'll be my last post here. Call me naive, but I believe these athletes are competing clean until I see concrete evidence showing otherwise.
> 
> Comparing Dara Torres' comeback to Wookie's is apples and oranges. She was a gold medal winning athlete before childbirth. She worked hard and got herself back into top physical condition. Combine that with the discipline and perspective that typically come with age, and I can see her competing at her current level cleanly.
> 
> There are numerous anecdotes of women coming back stronger after having a child. One example that comes to mind is a good friend of mine. She was a strong Cat. 2 roadie that chose to raise a family rather than make the jump to NRC. She was on the bike a few weeks after giving birth. Before her daughter had turned 2 my friend was racing in the cyclocross world championships. I can say with full confidence that my friend does not use PED's.


Why do you huff and puff? Your friend was a strong Cat 2 roadie. Is it possible that there is less competition in cyclo cross than on the road? Is it possible that women's sports are still just developing while competition among men is more mature? I don't doubt that your friend is competitive without PED's but there is tons and tons and mountains of evidence of what has been going on systematically with PED's since the 60's at least. Look at the systemic doping of E. German swimmers at the 76 Olympic, and this is an incontrovertible, concrete, irrefutable fact. Blood doping American cyclists at the 84 Olympics, well they admitted to it. Mark Gorski, a member of that team was with USPS for how long. Then you have Carmichael, Bruyneel, I mean please. 

I _will_ call you naive, but to label evidence as crap, is exactly how you have come to be labeled naive....There is no concrete evidence against Marion Jones and Flo Jo. You want to go on record and state they were clean? Marion Jones admitted guilt as part of a plea deal to avoid a long sentence in the pen. Otherwise that *NEVER* comes out...


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

People should do a little reseach before they spout off.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1819129_1819134_1825304,00.html



> So now for the trickier question — how is a middle-aged body faster and stronger now than it was 20 years ago?"I knew I was going to be under a lot of scrutiny because I'm 40 and I'm doing this," she says. Questions had swirled around her last Olympic effort, in 2000 at age 33, when she also qualified in the 50m by breaking an American record. Test me, test me, she insisted, telling USA Swimming to check anything, any time. It complied, subjecting her to urine analyses throughout the summer of 2007. But Torres realized that peeing wasn't going to be enough. "Who's going to believe me if I'm just getting a urine test?" she asks.
> 
> That's when she decided to contact Travis Tygart, ceo of the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), the independent body charged with conducting random drug testing of U.S. elite athletes. "She showed up without a lawyer, without an agent, without a coach," says Tygart of their two-hour meeting at USADA's offices in Colorado Springs last fall. "And withstood probably the worst cross examination of any of the other athletes. I kept asking her, 'Why should I believe you?'" Torres offered samples of whatever Tygart might need to help prove her drug-free status — DNA, hair, blood, urine.
> 
> ...


Morons.:mad2:


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2008)

BikinCO said:


> People should do a little reseach before they spout off.
> http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1819129_1819134_1825304,00.htm
> 
> Morons.:mad2:


So they are developing a blood passport system - long term this will help. How long has Torres been in the study?

BTW, there are ways around even biomarker tracking if you have the $$s for a really good "doctor".


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

Cyclo-phile said:


> I'm getting tired of reading the crap that is spewed out in this forum, so this'll be my last post here. Call me naive, but I believe these athletes are competing clean until I see concrete evidence showing otherwise.....


Dude, don't act like we are crazy to be suspicious of Torres. What she is doing is remarkable- and never seen in a sprinting event of any sport at her age/ with her comeback. To not keep your eyes open that doping is a MAJOR concern in pro sports, and that she COULD be doping is very naive. 

Don't forget that a woman who made the olympic team passed doping controls at the US olympic trials, then failed a unscheduled random drug test a couple weeks later. I wish it wasn't the case, but passing a doping test doesn't mean you don't dope.


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

Kestreljr said:


> Don't forget that a woman who made the olympic team passed doping controls at the US olympic trials, then failed a unscheduled random drug test a couple weeks later. I wish it wasn't the case, but passing a doping test doesn't mean you don't dope.


You are aware that she is one of a dozen or so US athletes that are in a special anti doping program that uses hair and blood samples give every 2-3 weeks and are checked against base line markers. She also agreed for some of her blood samples to be frozen and tested in future years as new tests become available. So she is not just passing another dope test.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

BikinCO said:


> So she is not just passing another dope test.



Yes she is. When did these bio-markers first start being taken? 6 months, a year ago? The beneficial effects to get her back up to world competing standards could have been dosed out starting 2-3 years ago. Was anyone testing her then?

You are right, this is the latest, greatest doping test out there. But guess what, last years test was the "latest greatest" and next years will be even better. I am quite well read on these test, but I don't believe they tell you much if the athlete took anything pre-testing.


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

Kestreljr said:


> You are right, this is the latest, greatest doping test out there. But guess what, last years test was the "latest greatest" and next years will be even better. I am quite well read on these test, but I don't believe they tell you much if the athlete took anything pre-testing.


Which makes the fact that she is letting them freeze her blood samples for the next generation of test and the ones after that and after that......a pretty good reason to believe that she is not doping. It is hard to hide when you don't know what or how the test in the future will work.

I guess you are not as well read as you think.:idea:


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

BikinCo said:


> I guess you are not as well read as you think.:idea:


Nice personal shot there- way to go. 

I read that, but I am still not buying. I have seen new doping test come- promise that they catch everyone- then you find out there is a way around them in a couple of years. Maybe I am wrong, I hope I am wrong, but I bet I am not.


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

Kestreljr said:


> I read that, but I am still not buying. I have seen new doping test come- promise that they catch everyone- *then you find out there is a way around them* in a couple of years. Maybe I am wrong, I hope I am wrong, but I bet I am not.


But if the samples are frozen today and tested years later it will be hard for the athlete to find a way around it, don't you think?


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

BikinCO said:


> But if the samples are frozen today and tested years later it will be hard for the athlete to find a way around it, don't you think?


There is no way to test for autologous blood doping.

What makes you think the frozen samples will actually be tested? Sports don't even have the money to do adequate testing with today's samples. Do you think that sometime in the future they will budget a metric buttload of money to test old samples and embarrass the sport?


----------



## 97G8tr (Jul 31, 2007)

Ok, you cynics need to get a life. Dara doesn't need money. Her Dad owned the Aladdin casino as well as others in Vegas.

Strike #1 for those that say $$$ motivates the individual (Dara) to dope
Strike #2 for those that say, age etc., and her times show she is doping...she has a full time nutriotionist, coach etc, that she pays for out of pocket
Strike #3 - she is a 5x time Olympian...she never got out of shape and is a diet and fitness fanatic...

Get over the 'everyone dopes' and realize that some people are simply genetic and physical 'freaks' that put the whole package together.:thumbsup:


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> There is no way to test for autologous blood doping.
> 
> What makes you think the frozen samples will actually be tested? Sports don't even have the money to do adequate testing with today's samples. Do you think that sometime in the future they will budget a metric buttload of money to test old samples and embarrass the sport?


She has gone out of her way to provide proof that she isn't doping, including subjecting her samples to future scrutiny, but for you it's not enough. What could possibly be sufficient proof for you that she isn't doping?


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

mohair_chair said:


> She has gone out of her way to provide proof that she isn't doping, including subjecting her samples to future scrutiny, but for you it's not enough. What could possibly be sufficient proof for you that she isn't doping?


Being ten years younger and not in a sport where everyone dopes and the dope is not so effective would be a good start.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

97G8tr said:


> Ok, you cynics need to get a life. Dara doesn't need money. Her Dad owned the Aladdin casino as well as others in Vegas.
> 
> Strike #1 for those that say $$$ motivates the individual (Dara) to dope
> Strike #2 for those that say, age etc., and her times show she is doping...she has a full time nutriotionist, coach etc, that she pays for out of pocket
> ...


Wow. Some people are gullible.

Evidently people don't dope to win, regardless of the money available. Evidently other athletes don't have the same type of coach and nutritionist. Evidently people who never got out of shape and are fitness fanatics don't dope. 

Every doper has a cover story about why they don't need to use drugs.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> Being ten years younger and not in a sport where everyone dopes and the dope is not so effective would be a good start.


She lives in Coral Springs Fl. Those anti aging regimens and clinics are a big thing down here and HGH is a major part of that. 

In one of Realgains posts he mentioned that increased vascularity was a side effect of HGH and after an interview and seeing those veins and that neck, and also hearing that raspy voice, I have some doubts....

Then again, she volunteered to get the most rigorous tests so, it's hard to say. If she's not clean, she's also a sociopath..

At this point these games are irrelevant. 

I think I might just watch Little League and pick up basketball. You think those are clean?


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

*Interesting speculative thread....*

Funny how some get so bent out of shape at the mere suggestion that maybe some of these amazing, common sense defying feats of athletic prowess may only be possible with a pharmaceutically aided training regime. 

I'll digress and tell a completely speculative aside...I worked as a ski instructor back in the late 90's with a kid that was 18 at the time. He had been a pretty darn good hockey player since he was yeah high to a grasshopper, his father had played a few years as a utility player for either the Toronto Maple Leafs or the Detroit Red Wings. He had played in the competitive leagues that develop future pros as well as had a scholarship to play hockey at a large US University. He had played with and partied with a lot of guys that had gone on to land jobs in the NHL. (He talked about Eric Lindros being dumber than a box of rocks but one hell of a player, etc.) He walked away from the sport and when I asked him why he said 1 - he was simply burned out from it (and, no, his parents had never pushed him to play at a high level) and 2 - (this was told to me very "matter of factly") he realized that if he wanted to continue on to the next level (for him, a real shot at landing a pro contract down the road) he would have to start on a steroid program. He seemed totally nonchalant about this and simply stated that he didn't want to do it. But he wasn't shocked or particularly disturbed by the fact that it was the obvious next step he would have had to take. When I asked him if steroid abuse was widespread in the junior levels of hockey he looked at me like I was stupid for asking the question. 

So there, that's my digression. I am skeptical of any and all athletic achievements in this day and age in any sport. I'm doubly skeptical when a middle aged athlete is performing at or above their peak level in their mid to late twenties or very early thirties.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> Being ten years younger and not in a sport where everyone dopes and the dope is not so effective would be a good start.


Wow, two fallacious statements and an impossible standard of proof. You hit the trifecta.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

97G8tr said:


> Ok, you cynics need to get a life. Dara doesn't need money. Her Dad owned the Aladdin casino as well as others in Vegas.
> 
> Strike #1 for those that say $$$ motivates the individual (Dara) to dope
> Strike #2 for those that say, age etc., and her times show she is doping...she has a full time nutriotionist, coach etc, that she pays for out of pocket
> ...



So basically you are saying:

1) People who have money don't have a need to make more money? What about the Enron CEO's? Worldcom? Why does Bill Gates still try and make money? He's worth Billions....because it's how they compare themselves against one another.

For people that have money, making more is a huge motivating factor in doing better.

2) You don't think the other athletes at the Olympics have their own coaches, nutritionists, massage therapists? LOL...Most if not all have to pay for that out of their own pockets as well.

3) So once you are an Olympian your performance never degrades? A 5 time Olympian is better now that she's in her 40's than ever before? If you bothered to watch athletics performance starts to degrade pretty rapidly in every sport after the age of 35 or so, even for the genetically gifted. 

Nobody like Bonds would use PED's because their performance was decreasing and they wanted to break a record would they? I mean after all he had plenty of money, was already a hall of fame'er, had everything he needed to live a very good life...but...looking at the evidence he's a huge abuser of PED's. 


Think what you want, I'll think what I want. When I see a performance such as hers, Phelps or anybody else that is so far ahead of others in their sport, it raises huge doubt with me. Knowing people that have used 'roids and other PED's to increase their performance as early as middle school just reinforces my attitude toward the professional level of sports.

As has been stated by many that knew people that had a chance at going to the next level...they all have doping regimes whether it's team driven or individual driven.

The future is genetic manipulation before birth...which will open a huge can of worms because at that time PED's may not be needed, they will be born with a genetic advantage that equals or betters that of PED's. Then what?


----------



## 97G8tr (Jul 31, 2007)

So then...there can not be any spectacular or singular performances by aging athletes? Michael Jordan anyone? Even as he retired, unretired, etc., he was still playing at a level on par with most of his peers. Dara swam a 50m sprint...not too far a distance IMO...if she was 2nd in a 400 I'd have more doubts, but thats just me.

Money is a motivator for many...usually those that never 'had' it previously. Again, just my experience. Family money tends to change things..trust me.

Also," 2) You don't think the other athletes at the Olympics have their own coaches, nutritionists, massage therapists? LOL...Most if not all have to pay for that out of their own pockets as well." whats your point? Mine was that she has a full time nutritionist, etc., NOT as part of a club etc, but as her own individually selected 'team' to help her performance..again, I'm sure you'll say 'uh,huh...'special team'.  

Believe what you will....I think that someone with your size (wookie) and your previous athletic endeavors 'doped'....you can't fool me...all that hard work to get down from your muscle laden days...uh, huh..never did any andro, right?!?   See what I'm getting at? There are always skeptics...per your own admission you've been outside the bell curve as well...how/why should we trust what _you_ say?!? 

Comparing Dara to Bonds isn't even close. Bonds was a megalomaniac obsessed with his place in the record books. Dara has never won an individual gold...ever. I think he silver goes even further to show she was clean, otherwise she would have beat that 16yo by a body length..

I partied with a 4time Olympic gold medalist while at UF...only thing I knew she was on was tons and tons of hard work..I guess, I was fooled - she musta been on something. Had to be.  

Crooked..by your own statement..if you race pro 1/2 why should I believe you if you had an otherworldly day at the races? Prove it. Prove to me why I should believe you are clean.


----------



## mikeman (Sep 17, 2005)

I am The Edge said:


> Doped to the gills.
> 
> Your thoughts?


Probably. My thoughts are as follows:

PEDs exist. We know this to be absolutely true.

We know PEDs increase performance, if they did not improve performance no regulatory authority would be interested in testing. We also would probably not call them PEDs.

Athletic acheivement continues to improve over the course of history. The exact whys are many.

Some athletes use PEDs. We know this, as there are too many positives for them all to be the result of faulty testing or false positives.

There is money to be made in PEDs, if there is a sufficiently large market. With the number of sportsdocs getting busted one could assume they are not in it as a personal charity case. Witness the kind of money Tyler Hamilton is alleged to have paid Dr. Fuentes.

If no one was using PEDs the market would dry up and the sellers/distributors/sportsdocs would be doing something else. Pure economics at work here.

Therefore, if we know some athletes are using based on evidence of doping (testing positive, getting caught with the goods etc) it would be very difficult to assume that only the wanna bes are using PEDs. It just makes no sense that if we believe athletes are using, that only the lesser performers are using, and that even after taking the PEDs, they continue to fall short of the upper tier of their sport. 

It is just illogical that with what we know about PEDs and sports to believe that none of the gold medalists in the Beijing Olympics are doped. It just defies logic. We know in cycling that virtually every team takes advantage of every known non-PED related advantage it can reasonably afford. We have aslo seen the evidence of wide ranging team management administered doping programs (Festina for example). While we know that the dope testing infrastructure has improved, we also have seen evidence of new and improved doping products emerge (see CERA). If the only dopers are the pack fodder that would be the biggest case of "adverse" selection I have seen. It would just not compute for me.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

The problem with your logic is that if you truly understand these sports, you can't just substitute the word "cycling" with "swimming" and have it make sense. Cycling is an endurance sport, whereas the swimming events that people like Phelps and Torres do are sprints. Most are in the two minute range, and the longest (400IM) is still less than 5 minutes. Torres does the 50m, an event that lasts roughly 25 seconds, making it a totally anaerobic effort. There is nothing in cycling that compares to that, and EPO and blood doping aren't going to help.


----------



## mikeman (Sep 17, 2005)

mohair_chair said:


> The problem with your logic is that if you truly understand these sports, you can't just substitute the word "cycling" with "swimming" and have it make sense. Cycling is an endurance sport, whereas the swimming events that people like Phelps and Torres do are sprints. Most are in the two minute range, and the longest (400IM) is still less than 5 minutes. Torres does the 50m, an event that lasts roughly 25 seconds, making it a totally anaerobic effort. There is nothing in cycling that compares to that, and EPO and blood doping aren't going to help.


So there are no PEDs that benefit performance in anaerobic sporting contests. Oh I must have been mistaken. Nevermind. Oh wait, Marion Jones comes to mind, and wait its coming, wait for it....the East German womans swimmers. 

Ok smarty pants, name a sport where someone has not been caught using performance enhancing drugs. 

Oh and I forgot, whats her name Michelle Smith was it who won the golds in swimming who was on everyone's radar screen in swimming a couple of Olympics back. 

No Mohair, I think my logic works just fine. While I did not say Dara Torres is a doper, I did say she probably is a doper at some level, whether it is HGH or whatever.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

Except for one event the – 50m free - swimming is an Aerobic event - so swimming and cycling have a lot in common as do their training methods. A VERY well trained athlete can maybe go about 40 seconds totally anaerobic. By far and away an epo like drug would be the drug of choice for swimmers even those that are swimming 100 meters. Interesting that Dara swims the 100 as well. Some of the best all out sprinters will do the 50 on only 1 breath (the one they take just before starting). Breathing makes one a little less aerodynamic in the water. Very good 100m sprinters will take only a few breaths 3-6 during their race. 200m swimmers will quickly go to every breath or every-other breath.


----------



## jgrantv10 (Nov 17, 2005)

Actually, the problem with your logic is that it is not logic - at least not in the way most people understand logic which would be "reason conducted according to a strict set of principles of validity". Your argument goes something like this (necessarily reduced for brevity): Dopers are a valid set greater than 1. Swimmers are a valid set greater than 1. Some swimmers are members of the set dopers of the set swimmers. Dara Torres is a member of the set Swimmers. Therefore, Dara Torres is a member of the set dopers. That isn't even a logical fallacy, it is just invalid.

Mind you, I am definitely in the camp of the skeptics. I find her performances eyebrow raising to say the least. I'm borderline cynical at this point, but that doesn't mean we should cast reason to the wind. The "evidence" you cite may be just cause for suspicion but that is very far from establishing a logical conclusion. I understand that this may sound a bit nit-picky, but I find that sweeping conjecture does little to advance the dialogue about doping in sport. It is rhetorically polarizing and muddies the waters of reasonable debate. Similar "logic" is the foundation of our current foreign and domestic security policies. I can't say the dialogue surrounding those programs are very elevated.

Oh, and for what it is worth, you are spot on that swimming has plenty of doping black eyes. When was the East German swim team controversy - '72, '76? In any event, before most of these athletes we are talking about were born.


----------



## mikeman (Sep 17, 2005)

jgrantv10 said:


> Actually, the problem with your logic is that it is not logic - at least not in the way most people understand logic which would be "reason conducted according to a strict set of principles of validity". Your argument goes something like this (necessarily reduced for brevity): Dopers are a valid set greater than 1. Swimmers are a valid set greater than 1. Some swimmers are members of the set dopers of the set swimmers. Dara Torres is a member of the set Swimmers. Therefore, Dara Torres is a member of the set dopers. That isn't even a logical fallacy, it is just invalid.
> 
> Mind you, I am definitely in the camp of the skeptics. I find her performances eyebrow raising to say the least. I'm borderline cynical at this point, but that doesn't mean we should cast reason to the wind. The "evidence" you cite may be just cause for suspicion but that is very far from establishing a logical conclusion. I understand that this may sound a bit nit-picky, but I find that sweeping conjecture does little to advance the dialogue about doping in sport. It is rhetorically polarizing and muddies the waters of reasonable debate. Similar "logic" is the foundation of our current foreign and domestic security policies. I can't say the dialogue surrounding those programs are very elevated.
> 
> Oh, and for what it is worth, you are spot on that swimming has plenty of doping black eyes. When was the East German swim team controversy - '72, '76? In any event, before most of these athletes we are talking about were born.


Look this is not a court of law. This is a forum where people are expressing opinions, and there will never be the level of proof required by a court of law unless we capture the dopers sticking the proverbial needle in their ass. I did not intend my initial post to follow logic as a discipline. However, after reading my post tell me where I am wrong to think there is a probability of a 41 year old swimmer needing to use PEDs to set personal best times in swimming years, which are also not only world class, but which put her in the elite of the elite. She is a bloody silver medalist. Spitz, far better at his sport than Torres was unable to acheive the relative competitive level that Torres did. Are you telling me it was her training regimen? If people are using PEDs at the top levels of sport, how come so many Americans are unable to turn off their gullible button and see things the way they are. How is it Ullrich is a doper, but St Lance walks in the eyes of those who must have more "proof"? Put down the Kool Aid and the take off the blinders, its time to take your head out of the sand and deal with it.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

mohair_chair said:


> The problem with your logic is that if you truly understand these sports, you can't just substitute the word "cycling" with "swimming" and have it make sense. Cycling is an endurance sport, whereas the swimming events that people like Phelps and Torres do are sprints. Most are in the two minute range, and the longest (400IM) is still less than 5 minutes. Torres does the 50m, an event that lasts roughly 25 seconds, making it a totally anaerobic effort. There is nothing in cycling that compares to that, and EPO and blood doping aren't going to help.


If I remember correctly Marion Jones was caught using EPO...which by all means is an endurance PED, but she is a "Pure" sprinter competing in an event that lasts roughly 11 seconds.

The simple fact is a PED like EPO allows the power athletes...i.e. sprinters....to work out longer and harder, thus increasing their speed and power.

EPO works with the power guys as well. If one can workout for 3 hours with no EPO, but then take EPO and do 5 hour workouts of the same intensity my guess is they are going to improve in their performance.

Then add in a bit of HGH for recovery and muscle building and the sprinters get "MUCH" faster...and yes, that includes sprints in the pool.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

97G8tr said:


> Crooked..by your own statement..if you race pro 1/2 why should I believe you if you had an otherworldly day at the races? Prove it. Prove to me why I should believe you are clean.



Well, first off I don't race pro 1/2...never have. I also didn't compete at the D1 level of athetics...so strike two on your assumption.

I had some pretty good athletic abilities, some might consider borderline elite with my strength, speed and agility when in college...but I was far from an elite athlete as far as my field performance went.

Currently, I'm a CAT 4 roadie though mostly due to lack of races and an expert class MTB'er. I had the 25th best time at the state ITT's and was a good 5.5 minutes off of the best time (though I should have been closer to 4 minutes behind...lack of caloric intake and dehydration killed my time)....so I'm far, far, far from "Elite" status when it comes to cycling and at 37 years of age, I don't see it getting any better any time soon as I'm more on the downhill slide these days.

The reality in this day and age is that everybody at the elite level of athletics should/is basically considered a doper. Only the athlete knows whether they are clean and even then they don't. Many times the coaches/trainers/team doctors give them pills to take and the athletes don't question what they are and when they do they are just vitamins or B12 (LOL, again where have we heard that before?).

In fact there was a story on CNN's web site last week about the 1984 East German female shot put Olympic champion. The coaches were feeding her so many 'roids that she basically turned into a man and ended up having a sex change due to it. She didn't know she was taking them and she was told they were vitamins.

It happens and many times the athletes don't even know it...so they think they are clean when they are not. Then in the case of athletes like Marion Jones, they know it but deny it even after they are caught.

There are many reasons for taking them...but most of all, it's to win! Money or not. The ego is a huge things for these guys and winning is everything and many times money comes with winning as a byproduct of winning.

Such is life....believe what you want, choose to ignore the facts, call me a doper...(LOL!) what ever helps you sleep at night and gets you through the day.


----------



## jgrantv10 (Nov 17, 2005)

[Edit: Oops. Moved to the appropriate place in the thread. Sorry.]


----------



## jgrantv10 (Nov 17, 2005)

Exactly right, this isn't a court of law. I certainly never suggested that people who post stuff on The Unter-webs be subject to the same burden of proof. All I'm asking for is clear reasoning. I pointed out exactly why your "logic" was flawed. I don't feel compelled to repeat the same demonstration. But let me take your latest post as example of the danger of flawed logic and conjecture. In your response you lumped together those who aren't convinced of Torres's doping with those that aren't convinced of Lance's. Why you assume those that reserve judgement on Torres would do the same with Lance only you can know but the evidence certainly wouldn't lead me to make that error of equivalence. One can look at specific points of data for Lance (post-dated TUE's, positive B sample for '99, etc.) and reasonably conclude that Lance doped. Again, perhaps not up to the same burden of proof as required in a court of law, but one can make a logical inferrence from the available data that Lance doped. Ditto Landis. We might have a rich discussion about the quality of the tests, blah, blah blah, but it would be foolish to say that one couldn't reasonably infer from the data that FL doped. For my money, I would add everyone solidly implicated in OP to the list of those one might reasonably infer doped. Is much of the evidence circumstantial? You bet. But reasonable people make such inferrences in good faith all of the time. I certainly do. However, no such evidence exists for Torres. You made a fallacious claim of association (itself a logical fallacy) which, to my mind, tarnishes more substantiated claims of doping. My appeal isn't to turn a blind eye, it is to increase the credibility of the anti-doping cause by not crying wolf every time an athlete performs well. Keep your suspicions. I share them wrt Torres. But direct the torches and pitchforks to those who we can logical infer doped, not just suspect.


----------



## mikeman (Sep 17, 2005)

jgrantv10 said:


> Exactly right, this isn't a court of law. I certainly never suggested that people who post stuff on The Unter-webs be subject to the same burden of proof. All I'm asking for is clear reasoning. I pointed out exactly why your "logic" was flawed. I don't feel compelled to repeat the same demonstration. But let me take your latest post as example of the danger of flawed logic and conjecture. In your response you lumped together those who aren't convinced of Torres's doping with those that aren't convinced of Lance's. Why you assume those that reserve judgement on Torres would do the same with Lance only you can know but the evidence certainly wouldn't lead me to make that error of equivalence. One can look at specific points of data for Lance (post-dated TUE's, positive B sample for '99, etc.) and reasonably conclude that Lance doped. Again, perhaps not up to the same burden of proof as required in a court of law, but one can make a logical inferrence from the available data that Lance doped. Ditto Landis. We might have a rich discussion about the quality of the tests, blah, blah blah, but it would be foolish to say that one couldn't reasonably infer from the data that FL doped. For my money, I would add everyone solidly implicated in OP to the list of those one might reasonably infer doped. Is much of the evidence circumstantial? You bet. But reasonable people make such inferrences in good faith all of the time. I certainly do. However, no such evidence exists for Torres. You made a fallacious claim of association (itself a logical fallacy) which, to my mind, tarnishes more substantiated claims of doping. My appeal isn't to turn a blind eye, it is to increase the credibility of the anti-doping cause by not crying wolf every time an athlete performs well. Keep your suspicions. I share them wrt Torres. But direct the torches and pitchforks to those who we can logical infer doped, not just suspect.


I did not say she used. Only that I would probably suspect her, based mostly on the fact that she was never a gold medal threat in individual events in Olympics past. Now at 41 she is the favorite in the 50 Freestyle. Her previous gold medals were won in relays. She was nearly 20 years older than the entire field in the 50. She also dropped the 100, even though she won that event in the Olympic Trials. A large body of very suspicious events related to her performance. Did you get a look at her physique? Does it look natural to you. Have you seen pictures of her in years past. Just not buying the dream as painted by NBC and the MSM.


----------



## jgrantv10 (Nov 17, 2005)

And I would agree...pretty suspicious.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

jgrantv10 said:


> And I would agree...pretty suspicious.


geez you went to a lot of trouible to agree with the guy... but just for fun... if my set of swimmers is a certain % doped (an important point for which you leave out) than it would be quite logical to infer that a certain swimmer is also doped. I believe the whole field of statistics is built on this idea based on sample size, validity of testing, etc... indeed the whole field of drug testing is built on statistics.

curious at what % it would seem logical to infer that there is a good chance the swimmer is doped, 10%, 20%?

For example 4 out of 5 TDF winners from 96 - 06 are proven dopers with what degree of confidence could one say that the 5th was also doped? Strictly statistically speaking of course?


----------



## jgrantv10 (Nov 17, 2005)

Well. I agree with his last post that her strong performance in context (age, time off, etc.) makes me suspicious. That is quite different from it "defying logic" that she isn't doping. As i said, I am suspicious as well, I just don't think the cause of anti-doping is served well by viewing the circumstances of every strong performance with the same level of incredulity.


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

Pablo said:


> Call me crazy, but I thought they tested these Olympic swimmers.


HGH is nearly undetectable after 3 days or so. It would describe her "masculinization" for sure. She also got an exemption for an asthma drug which increases lung capacity with no prior history of asthma before (it also can be a masking agent for other performance enhancing drugs). I'd say she is suspect for doping. I know she trains hard, but you'd have to have amazing genes to get that cut at her age and gender without some chemical assistance. Call me skeptical.


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> The problem with your logic is that if you truly understand these sports, you can't just substitute the word "cycling" with "swimming" and have it make sense. Cycling is an endurance sport, whereas the swimming events that people like Phelps and Torres do are sprints. Most are in the two minute range, and the longest (400IM) is still less than 5 minutes. Torres does the 50m, an event that lasts roughly 25 seconds, making it a totally anaerobic effort. There is nothing in cycling that compares to that, and EPO and blood doping aren't going to help.


The extra muscle from HGH will though.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

jgrantv10 said:


> Well. I agree with his last post that her strong performance in context (age, time off, etc.) makes me suspicious. That is quite different from it "defying logic" that she isn't doping. As i said, I am suspicious as well, I just don't think the cause of anti-doping is served well by viewing the circumstances of every strong performance with the same level of incredulity.


After reading some of realgains stuff re HGH and hearing her raspy voice, I definitely have some doubts.... That and the physiques of Phelps and Torres. Particularly from the neck up....


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2008)

Bocephus Jones II said:


> HGH is nearly undetectable after 3 days or so. It would describe her "masculinization" for sure.


I thought HGH wasn't detectable at all (at least in terms of sanctioned WADA tests)?


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

AJL said:


> I thought HGH wasn't detectable at all (at least in terms of sanctioned WADA tests)?


pretty much...HGH is also sometimes used to mask steroid use.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

Bocephus Jones II said:


> HGH is nearly undetectable after 3 days or so. It would describe her "masculinization" for sure. She also got an exemption for an asthma drug which increases lung capacity with no prior history of asthma before (it also can be a masking agent for other performance enhancing drugs). I'd say she is suspect for doping. I know she trains hard, but you'd have to have amazing genes to get that cut at her age and gender without some chemical assistance. Call me skeptical.



Holy crap. That's not a swimmer, that's a man, baby. From the neck up she looks like a clean shaven dude.


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

Wookiebiker said:


> If I remember correctly Marion Jones was caught using EPO....


She wasn't caught, i.e. never tested positive. Evidence was uncovered (records and such) that proved strong evidence that she used EPO and all the other drugs. I think Kelli White was the one who helped uncover it all.

I know this wasn't your point but it's an important distinction to make.

Anyway, regarding Dara Torres: her partner is an endocrinologist and she has considerable financial resources. Think about that. Personally, I think that she has a lot of help in manipulating her body using something however, I don't think that she is taking any conventional drugs. Maybe genetic doping, maybe just intense manipulation of her body's system using certain foods, chemicals, and other products, but not the stuff that we all know about and probably nothing that's actually on the banned list (yet). 

And for the record, just because it's not on the banned list, that doesn't necessarily make it okay. I remember having to sign a WADA document that not only would I not take any banned substances but also not violate the spirit of the anti-doping rules. I'm sure that she had to sign a similar document.


----------



## cocoboots (Apr 13, 2006)

marion jones tested positive in 2006 at the track championships, but her B came back negative so she was cleared.


----------



## dclee (Nov 16, 2004)

Sprinter Calvin Harrison, in testimony in a court case, credit the use of EPO and HGH to taking him to the next level in the running world. The use of epo in particular was said to have allowed him to train more and recover quicker - after starting his use of the drug his times dropped significantly. 

Anyone who says that there is no benefit for a sprinter in using EPO is directly contradicting sprinting athletes who have used, and benefitted, from the drug. The balco records and subsequent testimonry indicated that epo use was standard practice for the 100 metre runners under Conte's care - i.e. Marion Jones, Tim Montgomery, and Kelli White. 

Summary of Pettigrew's testimony here: http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/trackandfield/news/story?id=3408040
Article on White noting epo use was part of the program: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/20/1085028470073.html?from=storylhs


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Great post!*



Sherpa23 said:


> She wasn't caught, i.e. never tested positive. Evidence was uncovered (records and such) that proved strong evidence that she used EPO and all the other drugs. I think Kelli White was the one who helped uncover it all.
> 
> I know this wasn't your point but it's an important distinction to make.
> 
> ...


Particularly the last paragraph. I read the lengthy NYT article which brought attention to Torres for those out of that loop. If the endocrinologist partner was mentioned, I missed it, but in your post it jumped right out at me. Violating the spirit of the rules! I think you're right on the money. If you're taking anything other than normal food and maybe a couple of vitamin supplements, maybe a multi vitamin like a one a day or centrum, you're no doubt violating the spirit. The athletes know this, the whole spaghetti and water cliche.

On internet forums, there are people with doper's mentalities and Bassons mentioned the doper's mentality in the Walsh book. One of his teammates crashed and some capsules fell out of his pocket. The rider said they were caffeine, but so what? He's going to boost up his caffeine to the level 10 of cups of coffee! Gimmee a break...

I was taking Andro gel on a lark. I had a hard to reach infection, which the urologist originally thought might be testicular cancer. I was involved in a very stressful relationship, and a testoterone test revealed a low normal level of T, so this doctor who was into experimenting prescribed a patch, then Andro gel had just come out so I moved over to that for 3 months or so. The patch didn't seem to do much, but the Andro gel was very effective. We have people on here who seem to think it's ok for athletes to use Testosterone for recovery. *Not!* First of all, for endurance athletes, or most any athlete, *recovery* is the whole enchilada. If you have the physical capacity to keep up, the TdF is a test of recovery...

Anyway, on a pretty low dose of T, you walk around in a perpetual pumped state and I wasn't even working out. I'm pretty lean and get pumped pretty quick from doing like one set of curls. That's what it's like all the time, and this is pretty low dose $hit. 

I was completely clueless when it came to the power of some of these drugs. The antibiotic, Cipro, was also crazy. The doctor gave me a prescription for 10 pills, one a day I believe and I asked him if it was enough. He laughed at me. I understood why when I saw the size of the effing things. He said they would be in my system for quite a while after the course of treatment. I also looked in the PDR and it mentioned that Cipro could cause ruptured tendons from forces generated from exercise. I laughed (uneasily) when I saw that the potentially exposed anthrax victims might have to take a months long course of this crap. The friggin cure is pretty bad.

I think the athletes justify something like the "Clear" in their own mind, by saying that it's just a drop under their tongue...LOL. Then they see how little HGH they need and they justify it They also justify the needles because replacement of fluids by IV has become common.. 

After one makes all these little "justifications" the cumulative effect can be to become extra terrestrial. It's sad, and it's doping too!


I read about some of the people here, speculating when Floyd is coming back or whether LA could have won again with a weak field. Who cares? It's a game, and they are both on drugs to sustain those performances. If you like biking or running or playing whatever sport, do it for your sake, for your enjoyment, compete against yourself and others honestly.

Some here say they're thirty pounds overweight, and yet they're concerned about these people who are all doped up, where they are in their life, or career; they're fans, which is derived from fanatic. Like it's great to be where LA is or LeMond or Floyd. For one reason or another, these are disturbed people with problems like everyone else. A lot of these superstar athletes are on par with someone with a disorder like anorexia. The number of injections, and transfusions, the 12,000 calorie a day diet,(if true, literally insane). And we get people on here who want to see the performances resulting from that kind of regime..It's absurd.

From this kind of ridiculous mentality, we get H.S. athletes (wrestlers) losing 10 to 12 pounds in two days so they can drop from 126 to 114. I was doing this kind of thing regularly from 15 years old and even earlier. 30lbs overweight someone was talking about here!!!!!! I don't think that person has a clue as to what I'm saying.. I'm talking about a ripped 126 pound kid with like 5% body fat at most, losing 10lbs of water in two days...Your stomach is so flat your hip bones are jutting out and you can't even push your stomach out past an extremely sucked in level. Your pants are falling off and you can't talk easily because your tongue is sticking to your teeth and the inside of your mouth. The coaches laughed at this insanity... You're 15 and if you don't make weight or get your a$$ kicked these pricks are questioning your manhood.....It's pathetic now, but when you're in this environment, it makes an impression and you believe it...

My father, a scholorship wrestler at Syracuse, 2nd in National AAU's., was like, big deal, it's a wrestling match. Thank God, he had perspective.. He was very annoyed with the weight cutting as was my mother...I looked like a POW at times. This is a game..

Fan boys, let me break some news, none of the $hit matters. Ride your bike and stop and smell the roses... You're going to go on some crazy strict regimen to be 1,751st in the world, rather than 2,122nd?


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

lookrider said:


> I read about some of the people here, speculating when Floyd is coming back or whether LA could have won again with a weak field. Who cares? It's a game, and they are both on drugs to sustain those performances. If you like biking or running or playing whatever sport, do it for your sake, for your enjoyment, compete against yourself and others honestly.
> 
> Some here say they're thirty pounds overweight, and yet they're concerned about these people who are all doped up, where they are in their life, or career; they're fans, which is derived from fanatic. Like it's great to be where LA is or LeMond or Floyd. For one reason or another, these are disturbed people with problems like everyone else. A lot of these superstar athletes are on par with someone with a disorder like anorexia. The number of injections, and transfusions, the 12,000 calorie a day diet,(if true, literally insane). And we get people on here who want to see the performances resulting from that kind of regime..It's absurd.
> 
> ...


Why dont you take some of your own advice.....re read that last paragraph. Your are stating to not worry about what the pros do, just ride. I agree. But you seem REALLY concerned about what Lance does/did. Does that make you a LA fan? You took an obivious shot at me about being an overweight cyclist who doesnt care if LA or FL or any of these guys (or gals) dope. I can give a rats ass about LA's health. If he is dumb enough to dope to the gills, and ends up killing himself beacause of it. Thats on him. One of the anti LA guys said that pro cyclists could chose another line of work if they dont want to dope, again I agree. Doping is a part of the pro cycling culture. It will never go away. It seems like its cleaner now, but after the CERA busts....is it really?? 

I enjoy riding my bike. I enjoy watching pro cycling. If doped up cycling is more entertaining, thats fine by me. Baseball was almost dead til McGuire and Sosa had the roid'ed up HR race. Ask the fans of baseball what they would rather see, 20hr's a season clean? Or 50+ HR's on roids (with many 500ft+ HRs). 

Funny that somebody who says "None of this $hit matters" posts an awful lot in the Doping forum. 2000+ posts, looks like most are in here and PO.


----------



## 97G8tr (Jul 31, 2007)

lookrider said:


> Particularly the last paragraph. I read the lengthy NYT article which brought attention to Torres for those out of that loop. If the endocrinologist partner was mentioned, I missed it, but in your post it jumped right out at me. Violating the spirit of the rules! I think you're right on the money. If you're taking anything other than normal food and maybe a couple of vitamin supplements, maybe a multi vitamin like a one a day or centrum, you're no doubt violating the spirit. The athletes know this, the whole spaghetti and water cliche.
> 
> On internet forums, there are people with doper's mentalities and Bassons mentioned the doper's mentality in the Walsh book. One of his teammates crashed and some capsules fell out of his pocket. The rider said they were caffeine, but so what? He's going to boost up his caffeine to the level 10 of cups of coffee! Gimmee a break...
> 
> ...



Lookrider, the wrestling thing is no big deal. It has been going on for years and will continue to. 20 years ago I did the same thing...in JUNIOR HIGH. I was 13!!! What is your point?

There are genetic folks that respond to stimulus....period. In Jr. High we had a 160lb guy that would drop to 147 or was it 145lb wt. He would dip, spit and vomit to make weight and still would wrestle like an animal. He also benched 225 for reps and could do 255 - 3x. He was borderline bulimic but his body still responded to a ridiculous amount of punishment. There ARE exceptions to every rule...thats why they are anomalies....even World Record holders...er...dopers...what-the-feck-ever. I've known and met my fair share of genetic 'freaks'..D1 football, basketball, baseball, swimmers etc. The top tier simply had a better GOD given talent.

Next thing you guys will say is that all of the D1 receiver/DBs in the country that run legit 4.3's are doped.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

97G8tr said:


> Lookrider, the wrestling thing is no big deal.


No, a highly trained Univ. of Michigan wrestler dropped dead, from cutting weight and that was one of a rash of them a few years ago. A US Olympic boxer couldn't fight because he stopped sweating trying to cut weight and couldn't make it. If you think it's no big deal it speaks volumes about your intelligence.



97G8tr said:


> It has been going on for years and will continue to. 20 years ago I did the same thing...in JUNIOR HIGH. I was 13!!! What is your point?


I was around wrestling from 6 years old. Yeah, I lost a little weight in Jr. High, but you're not going to lose that much when you weigh less than 90lbs. It's even more idiotic in Jr. High though, and the primary fools are the coaches who should know better...My point? My point is this, know it all, that all perspective in regard to what amounts at most to "Games" has gone out the friggin window...



97G8tr said:


> There are genetic folks that respond to stimulus....period.


What performance enhancing effects are seen from dehydrating yourself? What kind of training stimulus is that?




97G8tr said:


> In Jr. High we had a 160lb guy that would drop to 147 or was it 145lb wt. He would dip, spit and vomit to make weight and still would wrestle like an animal..


And it's absurd for him to do that. BTW, I was losing just as high a % of my weight as your friend...



97G8tr said:


> He also benched 225 for reps and could do 255 - 3x. He was borderline bulimic but his body still responded to a ridiculous amount of punishment...


Have you ever considered that he remained strong *in spite *of his asinine training?



97G8tr said:


> There ARE exceptions to every rule...thats why they are anomalies.......


Dehydration hurts everyone to a greater or lesser degree without exception.



97G8tr said:


> even World Record holders...er...dopers...what-the-feck-ever........


Are you frustrated by your inarticulateness.



97G8tr said:


> I've known and met my fair share of genetic 'freaks'..D1 football, basketball, baseball, swimmers etc. The top tier simply had a better GOD given talent.........


And what's _your_ point? This has anything to do with the *fact* that many of top level athletes _are_ doping and engaging in idiotic, counter productive training routines, and the fact that they are doping illustrates a crazy overemphasis on "games" throughout many cultures.

BTW, if one needs to drop 10 or 15 pounds off their trained weight, to get into a lighter weight class, they're probably not all that good in the first place...



97G8tr said:


> Next thing you guys will say is that all of the D1 receiver/DBs in the country that run legit 4.3's are doped.


Well, a lot of 40 times _are_ known to be hyped. Jerry Rice was a 4.6 guy and yet I _never_ saw anyone catch him from behind.

Look, I'm significantly older than you, maybe you're still in your sports idol phase, and it's just ridiculous all this fawning(by grown men and women) over these people who are swimming, running, cycling and lifting weights, and in many cases are doped to the gills.

1997 Gator? You're from Florida. If that's the case, let me inform you that NY wrestling, especially in the 60's, 70's and 80's is vastly superior to Florida's.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> Why dont you take some of your own advice.......


Yup I do.



Bry03cobra said:


> re read that last paragraph. Your are stating to not worry about what the pros do, just ride. I agree..


Yeah, If you're going on some ridiculous supplement program, this crap from GNC, NO explode or some bs, you're kidding yourself... You're the one concerned about whether Floyd comes back and if he's too old and all that nonsense.. Pro cycling is like bodybuilding or pro wrestling at this point. After it being pointed out that F Landis took more HGH than Clinger thought humanly possible, it matters in the least what this guy does?



Bry03cobra said:


> But you seem REALLY concerned about what Lance does/did...


Despite all the evidence he's a fraud, the idolaters _are_ kind of annoying..



Bry03cobra said:


> Does that make you a LA fan?...


Not a fan. 



Bry03cobra said:


> You took an obivious shot at me about being an overweight cyclist who doesnt care if LA or FL or any of these guys (or gals) dope.?


One of my best friends is about 50lbs overweight and he's so concerned about it, and if he wants to lose it, I hope he does for his sake, but it's his issue and it really doesn't matter in the least, or mean anything at all... I just think you're out of touch a little about the supposedly superhuman capabilities of people like LA. We've got guys on this forum who've run 29 min for a 10k which is pretty spectacular, However that and 3 bucks will get them a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Then you have people coming on here and saying the guy running a 2:50 marathon and his 18 min 5k's are somehow evidence of him having some crazy abilities. It's laughable. Like I alluded to, I've run a lot of 17 min 5k's. It basically doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot in the big picture, especially in regard to being a predictor of super human genetic potential... To someone who can't break 21 minutes it might be impressive... The problem here is you bring in r-Epo and it skews the whole picture. You get mediocre guys, who suddenly become world beaters, and on top of the cheating, they turn out to be horrible human beings cloaking themselves in charity...



Bry03cobra said:


> I can give a rats ass about LA's health. If he is dumb enough to dope to the gills, and ends up killing himself beacause of it. Thats on him. .


Kind of ironic to say that about the cancer fighting icon.




Bry03cobra said:


> One of the anti LA guys said that pro cyclists could chose another line of work if they dont want to dope, again I agree..


That was Realgains quoting Alex Zulle. Why do you agree with this? LeMond, who has never been accused of doping by anyone in the know, didn't want to choose another line of work at 30 years old. You heaped nothing but scorn and unfounded accusations on LeMond.



Bry03cobra said:


> Doping is a part of the pro cycling culture. It will never go away...


It won't go away if people accept it, and heap criticism on a guy who won't or can't attack on some crazy climb, and insist on comparing clean pros to scumbags like LA. It won't go away if they label LeMond a whiner because he tells the truth.





Bry03cobra said:


> I enjoy riding my bike..


Very good. Your condition will continue to improve.



Bry03cobra said:


> I enjoy watching pro cycling. If doped up cycling is more entertaining, thats fine by me...


See this is the problem. I don't enjoy watching doped up freaks climbing up mountains without opening their mouths to breathe.



Bry03cobra said:


> Baseball was almost dead til McGuire and Sosa had the roid'ed up HR race. Ask the fans of baseball what they would rather see, 20hr's a season clean? Or 50+ HR's on roids (with many 500ft+ HRs). ...


And what a pathetic scene McGwire made before Congress and Sosa acting like he didn't speak English. Baseball was fine in the 70's and I remember Reggie Jackson almost hit one out of Tiger Stadium in the '71 all star game. Also Mickey Mantle may have been on the sauce, but I don't think that guy was on the juice and he hit some tape measure shots. How about Willie Mays and Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson, those kinds of players. Roberto Clemente was a pretty exciting player too....Joe Di Maggio?????



Bry03cobra said:


> Funny that somebody who says "None of this $hit matters" posts an awful lot in the Doping forum. 2000+ posts, looks like most are in here and PO.


I have to be persistent to drive those points home to those of little understanding.....


----------



## 97G8tr (Jul 31, 2007)

Lookrider, I don't give a rip about wrestling. I was just using anecdotal examples to say that there ARE genetic 'freaks'..my case in point was the 160lb guy that could press 225 numerous times. He was 14!!

As far as Jerry Rice goes...he had game speed but he really wasn't that fast. He played in era when the speed of the game isn't nearly what it is today. The Univ. of Florida football team has 3 guys currently who run the 100 under 10.2. I guess they dope. Or what about the new freshman who is 5'11, 302lbs and runs a 4.97 40yd dash? Yea, look at his body and tell me he 'dopes'. Get. Over. It.

Or how about my college roommate that was 6' and 215 that pressed 335 for reps, was white and ran a 4.5 and could have played in D1 as a safety, but played soccer instead. His Dad was an All American point guard for Southern Miss in the 60s...maybe he doped b/c you can't get anywhere with genetics without it, right?? 

Its a big world. There will always be suspicion as long as there are skeptics (sic). Your age, since your significantly older than me being 35, might prevent you from getting your head around that there are simply aberrations to the human gene pool. Yes, they may push themselves to absurdity, and yes, some may dope, but I refuse to believe that the majority of them do. Call it preservation of an ideal or what have you. 'Doping' around here gets thrown around when someone takes Nyquil. Whatthefeckever. I guess the creatine, protein whey etc that I took to make me a whopping 170lb cast iron rod in college makes me a doper too.:cryin:


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

lookrider said:


> Not a fan.


------------------
It was you that stated FAN=FANATIC








lookrider said:


> Kind of ironic to say that about the cancer fighting icon.


------------------ 
Say what you will about LIVESTRONG. It IS an insparation to NON cycling fans who have a fight with cancer ahead of them or a family member. The average american doesn't know about his doping accuations. My opinion is that What LA does to himself is his business. 

I'm anti-abortion. Do I think it should be outlawed....no. Its not my bussiness to tell somebody what to do with their body. (I have a different view on smoking...which costs taxpayers millions in treatments due to smoking related illness)





lookrider said:


> That was Realgains quoting Alex Zulle. Why do you agree with this? LeMond, who has never been accused of doping by anyone in the know, didn't want to choose another line of work at 30 years old. You heaped nothing but scorn and unfounded accusations on LeMond.


----------------------
The statement about changing careers was brought up by another poster. It was posted that if a rider can't keep up clean, he should find another job rather than use PED's. If a rider finds himself spending half his life racing, he may risk using to "make it" as a pro. I don't know what I would do if it was me, but I understand their decision. 

LeMond got caught up in the transition to the EPO era. The Lemond post was started to question wether or not he was really clean. To say your 100% sure he was clean is absurd. Maybe he was bitter beacause his body didn't agree with some of the PED's others were using. What do I think? He PROBABLY was clean. There is no real smoke with Lemond. But am I 100% sure, no. There is plenty of smoke with LA, more than likely he used....but again, am I 100% sure he did, No. Their is 0% fact is what I had posted, just MY opinion. 







lookrider said:


> Very good. Your condition will continue to improve.


---------------------
My conditioning is fine. I ride LOTS. My job makes eating well difficult. I'm fit, just need some pounds off. 








lookrider said:


> And what a pathetic scene McGwire made before Congress and Sosa acting like he didn't speak English. Baseball was fine in the 70's and I remember Reggie Jackson almost hit one out of Tiger Stadium in the '71 all star game. Also Mickey Mantle may have been on the sauce, but I don't think that guy was on the juice and he hit some tape measure shots. How about Willie Mays and Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson, those kinds of players. Roberto Clemente was a pretty exciting player too....Joe Di Maggio?????


--------------------
I agree about Mcguire and Sosa but What your missing is that kids today didn't care about baseball. Baseball is a older persons sport. Attendance was down. The interest in "X" sports is killing LL baseball. If it wasn't for Mcguire and Sosa baseball was in serious trouble.


----------



## mikeman (Sep 17, 2005)

lookrider said:


> Yup I do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bravo, nicely articulated Look! Both hands raised on all points.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

lookrider said:


> Not a fan.


You obsess about LA, rant about LA, and post about LA all the time. Does someone who isn't a fan do that? You're definitely a fan. A different kind of fan, but definitely a fan.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

perhaps he's just an image of a fan, not an actual fan.

<center><img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/MagrittePipe.jpg" width="299" height="209"></center>


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

He's a fan in the same way that some atheists turn atheism into a religion.


----------



## mikeman (Sep 17, 2005)

97G8tr said:


> Lookrider, I don't give a rip about wrestling. I was just using anecdotal examples to say that there ARE genetic 'freaks'..my case in point was the 160lb guy that could press 225 numerous times. He was 14!!
> 
> As far as Jerry Rice goes...he had game speed but he really wasn't that fast. He played in era when the speed of the game isn't nearly what it is today. The Univ. of Florida football team has 3 guys currently who run the 100 under 10.2. I guess they dope. Or what about the new freshman who is 5'11, 302lbs and runs a 4.97 40yd dash? Yea, look at his body and tell me he 'dopes'. Get. Over. It.
> 
> ...


Yeah I suspect the 5'11 302lb guy who runs under a 5 second 40 is doping. Back in the 1960s there was one guy in all of PRO football who weighed over 300lbs and he was well over 6 ft tall (Roger Brown). You can look it up. Please explain all of the guys north of 300 lbs who play pro football and run faster than players of 20 to 30 years ago. It is no miracle, its called PEDs. 

True story here, my brother was in med school back in the late 1980s and as an Oakland As fan, said straight out Jose Canseco was doing roids. How did he know? Well seems Jose has an identical twin brother who weighed 50lb less and old Jose could outrun him by a long shot. He did not even need any more evidence than that, as well as the rediculously high level of aggressive behavior, pimply face etc that were other signs of steroid use. Now that old Jose copped a guilty on that one, it is no mystery to me as to why some of these freaks exist. Its the miracle of modern PEDs. Do I need to mention Tony Mandarich and what happened when he stopped using roids and where his career went after that?


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

mikeman said:


> Yeah I suspect the 5'11 302lb guy who runs under a 5 second 40 is doping. Back in the 1960s there was one guy in all of PRO football who weighed over 300lbs and he was well over 6 ft tall (Roger Brown). You can look it up. Please explain all of the guys north of 300 lbs who play pro football and run faster than players of 20 to 30 years ago. It is no miracle, its called PEDs.


 Not ALL of the players today are using ILLEGAL ped's. Please explain how players in the NBA and NFL are taller now than then. Its possible the hormones in our food source has something to do with bigger and TALLER people today than back then. Are training methods and equipment better now than 40 years ago?? 



mikeman said:


> True story here, my brother was in med school back in the late 1980s and as an Oakland As fan, said straight out Jose Canseco was doing roids. How did he know? Well seems Jose has an identical twin brother who weighed 50lb less and old Jose could outrun him by a long shot. He did not even need any more evidence than that, as well as the rediculously high level of aggressive behavior, pimply face etc that were other signs of steroid use. Now that old Jose copped a guilty on that one, it is no mystery to me as to why some of these freaks exist. Its the miracle of modern PEDs. Do I need to mention Tony Mandarich and what happened when he stopped using roids and where his career went after that?


Tony Mandarich was a 1st round flop. There are Plenty of those that were not using roids. Plenty of QB flops, roids had nothing to do with Mandarich, now Bozworth, ya got me there......


----------



## 97G8tr (Jul 31, 2007)

mikeman said:


> Yeah I suspect the 5'11 302lb guy who runs under a 5 second 40 is doping. Back in the 1960s there was one guy in all of PRO football who weighed over 300lbs and he was well over 6 ft tall (Roger Brown). You can look it up. Please explain all of the guys north of 300 lbs who play pro football and run faster than players of 20 to 30 years ago. It is no miracle, its called PEDs.
> 
> True story here, my brother was in med school back in the late 1980s and as an Oakland As fan, said straight out Jose Canseco was doing roids. How did he know? Well seems Jose has an identical twin brother who weighed 50lb less and old Jose could outrun him by a long shot. He did not even need any more evidence than that, as well as the rediculously high level of aggressive behavior, pimply face etc that were other signs of steroid use. Now that old Jose copped a guilty on that one, it is no mystery to me as to why some of these freaks exist. Its the miracle of modern PEDs. Do I need to mention Tony Mandarich and what happened when he stopped using roids and where his career went after that?


THE 1960s? You guys are un-fn-real.:mad2: That is 40yrs ago. Give me a break. I can't debate relevance when you include in your sample outlyers that are so far out of the range that they are simply silly.

Tony Mandarich as the ONLY guy in college who could run a 4.6 at 315. That was 1991. I'm talking about a guy that runs a 4.9-5.0 and doesn't look like a bodybuilder.

You guys continue to cite absurd examples to a common example. How about Warren Sapp? Anthony McFarland? Shall I go on? Both of these guys were 6'-1, 300lbs with incredible mobility.

I stand by my point - there are aberations to the norm. They are called the outstanding athletes. They separate themselves in huge events/venues. It is called...*gasp* TALENT.:mad2:


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

Wookiebiker said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1) Dara Torres has received a lot of attention going into the games and stands to make a fair amount of money after the Olympics, especially with the success she has had.
> 
> ...


Did anyone catch the interview with Torres' agent (he also reps Luiken)? He reckons that Torres, as a result of her age/motherhood and the associated demographic, could be an earner along the lines of Sharapova. I must confess that I saw this on "Access Hollywood's Olympics" or whatever it's called. He said that she was a gamble because of her age but that if she did pull off Olympic success it would be her age that would make her "hit really big" in terms of sponsorship and advertising revenue . Just some more info to chew on...


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

97G8tr said:


> THE 1960s? You guys are un-fn-real.:mad2: That is 40yrs ago. Give me a break. I can't debate relevance when you include in your sample outlyers that are so far out of the range that they are simply silly.
> 
> Tony Mandarich as the ONLY guy in college who could run a 4.6 at 315. That was 1991. I'm talking about a guy that runs a 4.9-5.0 and doesn't look like a bodybuilder.
> 
> ...


I hear the Brooklyn Bridge is up for sale again...you might be interested :thumbsup: 

The NFL is the worst place to go if you want to try and prove there are incredible "clean" athletes. That league is so loaded with PED's it's not even funny. The difference is when somebody turns up positive nobody cares because they know they are already doing PED's and their suspensions are so light nobody notices they are even gone.

The simple fact when it comes to PED's and the NFL...if you are not already doing them you are not doing everything you can to help the team and chances are you will be started on a program or you won't be with the team long.

Those guys are freaks to begin with, then add in the PED's and you get true freaks. There are so many drugs running through those guys systems it's amazing they haven't all died already. Ever wonder why so many ex-pro players die at younger than normal ages?

Anybody wonder about Favre's great comback...declining numbers for years then at 38 has one of, if not the best year of his career? Hmmmmm.....:idea:


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*most NFL players*



Wookiebiker said:


> I hear the Brooklyn Bridge is up for sale again...you might be interested :thumbsup:
> 
> The NFL is the worst place to go if you want to try and prove there are incredible "clean" athletes. That league is so loaded with PED's it's not even funny. The difference is when somebody turns up positive nobody cares because they know they are already doing PED's and their suspensions are so light nobody notices they are even gone.
> 
> ...



started doping in High School, especially linemen and linebackers


many players from the 60s and 70s have serious health issues due to the stuff they took during that era, like East German Swimmers

all big time pro sports (NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB) are doping havens, they don't test and they don't punish

dope saved baseball


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> I hear the Brooklyn Bridge is up for sale again...you might be interested :thumbsup:
> 
> The NFL is the worst place to go if you want to try and prove there are incredible "clean" athletes. That league is so loaded with PED's it's not even funny. The difference is when somebody turns up positive nobody cares because they know they are already doing PED's and their suspensions are so light nobody notices they are even gone.
> 
> ...


What you are saying may be true with guys using WHILE in the NFL, but you ignore the fact that people in general are bigger and faster than they were 40 years ago. Look at the heights of players now. There are 6'5 point guards now. 7 foot centers is the norm, wasnt Wilt the tallest player in his era. He dominated 6 7' centers. You also need to look at whats illegal to the NFL. I would think many of the things thats banned in cycling, is fine to use in the NFL. 

And Farve, he had a nice team around him last year. The last few years before that he was an INT machine. If PED's make a player not force passes, then he may be on PED's. Painkillers, maybe (he had a prob with those before). But PED's NO. Chad Pennington and Arron Rodgers wil both have better seasons than Farve will with the Jets.


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

Bry03cobra said:


> Tony Mandarich was a 1st round flop. There are Plenty of those that were not using roids. Plenty of QB flops, roids had nothing to do with Mandarich, now Bozworth, ya got me there......


As an MSU grad of that era I will tell you that roids had EVERYTHING to do with Mandarich excelling in college and flopping in the pros once he stopped using.

My oh my, how this tread has digressed!


----------



## 97G8tr (Jul 31, 2007)

Wookiebiker said:


> I hear the Brooklyn Bridge is up for sale again...you might be interested :thumbsup:
> 
> The NFL is the worst place to go if you want to try and prove there are incredible "clean" athletes. That league is so loaded with PED's it's not even funny. The difference is when somebody turns up positive nobody cares because they know they are already doing PED's and their suspensions are so light nobody notices they are even gone.
> 
> ...


Wookie, I think I was misunderstood. I don't think the NFL is clean by any stretch. I was using former college lineman that were 6'-6'-1" and 300ish that had great mobility prior to UF's signing of our freshman that was/is the same size. What I was getting at is that the NFL and sports in general has seen bigger/larger/faster athletes over time. 

The same can be said of swimming...


----------



## mikeman (Sep 17, 2005)

97G8tr said:


> THE 1960s? You guys are un-fn-real.:mad2: That is 40yrs ago. Give me a break. I can't debate relevance when you include in your sample outlyers that are so far out of the range that they are simply silly.
> 
> Tony Mandarich as the ONLY guy in college who could run a 4.6 at 315. That was 1991. I'm talking about a guy that runs a 4.9-5.0 and doesn't look like a bodybuilder.
> 
> ...


Oh yeah Warren Sapp would never do anything illegal. Oh wait for it, WRONG. So the increase in huge football players is the increase in freaks? So from one player in the 1960s to over 350 today. Please explain that kind of increase in 1 generation. That is the province of all kinds of crazy stuff these guys are willing to do for the money involved. 

Oh and for the idiot who thinks that Mandarich was anything other than a steroid problem, do some research. The guy was a steroid monster, not just some run of the mill first round wash out. Oh and Bosworth is not that hard to spell, so try to at least get it right. 

As for the talent thing, one could make the case since there were far fewer teams and larger scholarship numbers on collegeT football back in the 1960s and 1970s, that the game was more elite than it is today. 

As far as the fat guys running under 5 second forties, that is precisely the guys who are doing roids. The Nate Newton types, who gain ridiculous amounts and get faster at the same time. Get your head out of the sand the NFL is the biggest abusing group of steroids outside of the bodybuilding or pro wrestling arena.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

I deleted my comments, I'm not going to start name calling like you did Mikeman.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> You obsess about LA, rant about LA, and post about LA all the time. Does someone who isn't a fan do that? You're definitely a fan. A different kind of fan, but definitely a fan.


Honestly, I just enjoy some of the arguing games. 

In the lounge when someone suggested that a 17 year old kid who exposes himself to the USPS mail woman was engaging in harmless fun, I objected and that led to a knockdown drag out thread that was eventually locked.

Anyway, you can always get a ridiculous argument from the LA defenders or doping apologists in general........


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

lookrider said:


> Honestly, I just enjoy some of the arguing games.
> 
> In the lounge when someone suggested that a 17 year old kid who exposes himself to the USPS mail woman was engaging in harmless fun, I objected and that led to a knockdown drag out thread that was eventually locked.
> 
> Anyway, you can always get a ridiculous argument from the LA defenders or doping apologists in general........


Lookrider,
I have disagreed with you often on doping and LA. I stated in an above post my stance on abortion. 90% of my posts are done on my blackberry and have ZERO fact behind them, they are my opinion. Thanks for disagreeing with me, but not making personal attacks........About your above statement, I think I may be one of the apologists you speak of. I feel that I'm a LA fan (not a fanatic though), my opinion on his and the EPOers of his era differ than yours though.


----------



## mikeman (Sep 17, 2005)

Bry03cobra said:


> I deleted my comments, I'm not going to start name calling like you did Mikeman.


If calling someone an idiot over thinking Tony Mandarich washed out over anything other than not doing steroids anymore is calling names, I most humbly apologize. However, like Lookrider, maybe may age has put me in a place where I do not idolize athletes anymore. Looking 50 in the eye, I have seen a lot and know if it looks to good to be true, it probably is absolutely not true. In addition, the idea the LA should be given the courtroom standard, "beyond the shadow of a doubt" is beyond preposterous. LA fanboys will never accept it unless they actually see LA live taking it in the arse. Oh and his Foundation does not give him a free pass on his doping hypocrisy. In fact is makes him a big ass. Ever notice that like Pigpen in Peanuts with his cloud of dirt travelling along with him, LA has a similar cloud that follows a distinct pattern. No one will ever prove what he did, but those who do not choose to drink the Kool Aid know the score. Gotta respect all the others who came clean. Even Virenque cleans up better than LA as we move forward.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

mikeman said:


> Oh and his Foundation does not give him a free pass on his doping hypocrisy. In fact is makes him a big ass. Ever notice that like Pigpen in Peanuts with his cloud of dirt travelling along with him, LA has a similar cloud that follows a distinct pattern. .


 What are you saying here? You got on me for spelling "The Boz's" name wrong, is that proper english above? And I'm sorry I'm not up on my history of players from the 80's. 

I have said before, my opinion is that LA doped. Do I know for sure, No. While I accept that there is doping, and I don't deny that's its going on, you didn't touch on how people are just bigger and more athletic today then back 30-40 years ago. People are taller now as well. Are many of them doped up? For sure. But many are more naturaly talented then those from years ago.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> Are many of them doped up? For sure. But many are more naturaly talented then those from years ago.


I'm not buying this whole thing about athletes being more naturally talented now.

here's a sampling of athletes from bygone era's who could not only compete now but be dominant figures.. I think you lack perspective and knowledge of these eras.

Many, many, boxers

Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Robinson, La Motta, Leonard, Hearns, Hagler, Duran.....Sweet Pea in his prime, these guys would be all time greats 50 years from now.

T&F

Jesse Owens, Wilma Rudolph, many of the male sprinters from the '68 Olympics and that era, Evelyn Ashford, Jim Ryun, Steve Scott, Coe, Ovett, Cram, Rono, Shorter, Rogers, Bikila,

Baseball,

I don't know if you realize this, but Bobby Bonds was a much better athlete than his son. He ran like a 9.4 100 yards in H.S. in the early 60's. He was one of the greatest athletes in CA H.S. history but was derailed by a drinking problem and crazy expectations when he got to the big leagues. He was supposed to be the next Willie Mays.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

lookrider said:


> I'm not buying this whole thing about athletes being more naturally talented now.
> 
> here's a sampling of athletes from bygone era's who could not only compete now but be dominant figures.. I think you lack perspective and knowledge of these eras.
> 
> ...


I know nothing about T&F, can't comment there. MMA has almost killed boxing. Boxing won't be around 10-20 years from now. 

Baseball will be mostly foreign players soon. Kids today don't play baseball. I drive by fields today, they're empty. I see more kids on BMX bikes and skateboards than playing baseball. The sports that will survive in the US are football and basketball. Either sport can be played with as little as 3 people. If you drive by any court here in the philly aera, there is 50-100 people playing Bball. That's what the athletes are playing.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> I know nothing about T&F, can't comment there.


I was just trying to rebut your statement about athletes being more naturally talented today. I also believe the mid to tail end of the baby boom generation (born between '46 to '64) was much more competitive than it is today.



Bry03cobra said:


> MMA has almost killed boxing. Boxing won't be around 10-20 years from now.


The best pure boxers, wrestlers, judo players, etc would dominate MMA if they focused on it. Right now you have wrestlers who were just ok in college doing very well in MMA. You get someone like Mayweather with a year of ju jitsu and wrestling training and these guys wouldn't touch him.. MMA guys are tough as hell but I don't think they are as skilled as the guys who focus on the more traditional sports. Plus MMA is really brutal. I'm not saying boxing isn't, and I may be wrong, but I see MMA as having peaked...

Next time you see this Uriah Faber fight, notice how he shuffles his feet before a shot at the legs. That kind of telegraphing is really bad and he's gotten tagged a couple of times because of it. I'm not saying he's not a bada$$, but top level wrestlers and boxers pick that stuff apart...



Bry03cobra said:


> Baseball will be mostly foreign players soon. Kids today don't play baseball. I drive by fields today, they're empty. I see more kids on BMX bikes and skateboards than playing baseball. The sports that will survive in the US are football and basketball. Either sport can be played with as little as 3 people. If you drive by any court here in the philly aera, there is 50-100 people playing Bball. That's what the athletes are playing.


That's a shame. These kids on skateboards are nuts though. The learning curve seems to include a lot of injuries. I see these kids practicing and I'd like to tell them they're going to be 40 before they know it and it's nice to walk without arthritis....


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> I know nothing about T&F, can't comment there. MMA has almost killed boxing. Boxing won't be around 10-20 years from now.
> 
> Baseball will be mostly foreign players soon. Kids today don't play baseball. I drive by fields today, they're empty. I see more kids on BMX bikes and skateboards than playing baseball. The sports that will survive in the US are football and basketball. Either sport can be played with as little as 3 people. If you drive by any court here in the philly aera, there is 50-100 people playing Bball. That's what the athletes are playing.


Baseball will not survive? Ha! You obviously do not come from any place that has a respectable baseball team.

Boxing is still huge, just less so in the US than it was when Mohammad Ali was around. Will cycling die in 10-20 years now that Lance doesn't race?

Do all people from PA think like this?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Just curious*



iliveonnitro said:


> Baseball will not survive? Ha! You obviously do not come from any place that has a respectable baseball team.
> 
> Boxing is still huge, just less so in the US than it was when Mohammad Ali was around. Will cycling die in 10-20 years now that Lance doesn't race?
> 
> Do all people from PA think like this?


You're in Chicago? A lot of kids playing ball there? I have no idea myself. I'm in S. Florida and I think it's doing well. Big Latin influence down here though...

Yeah, I don't see boxing going away...I heard they had some controversy with the scoring system in the Olympics. A lot of Americans used Olympics success as a spring board to a pro career.


----------



## mikeman (Sep 17, 2005)

lookrider said:


> I'm not buying this whole thing about athletes being more naturally talented now.
> 
> here's a sampling of athletes from bygone era's who could not only compete now but be dominant figures.. I think you lack perspective and knowledge of these eras.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the support Look. I did not want to get into it with the young uns, but there is a tendency to deride players of bygone eras by younger people today. Koufax and Gibson pitched into the Tom Seaver/Steve Carleton/Jim Palmer era. While they did not quite overlap with Clemons and Maddux, they clearly would have held there own. I would submit that in baseball the records of hitters have been inflated not just by steroids, but by the incredible dilution of pitching talent. Yes I said it, these so called bigger faster guys are not more talented.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

mikeman said:


> Thanks for the support Look. I did not want to get into it with the young uns, but there is a tendency to deride players of bygone eras by younger people today. Koufax and Gibson pitched into the Tom Seaver/Steve Carleton/Jim Palmer era. While they did not quite overlap with Clemons and Maddux, they clearly would have held there own. I would submit that in baseball the records of hitters have been inflated not just by steroids, but by the incredible dilution of pitching talent. Yes I said it, these so called bigger faster guys are not more talented.


No, you're right, I think the younger ones have gotten softer....

Yeah, Koufax, and Gibson, these guys would be legends making 30 million a year if they played now.. What,did Koufax throw in the high 90's for complete games?????

People like Joe Montana were multisport stars their whole athletic lives. He was also a basketball star and a 6'10" high jumper I believe...

People like Michael Jordan understand how great these guys like Jerry West and Oscar Robertson were..


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

lookrider said:


> You're in Chicago? A lot of kids playing ball there? I have no idea myself. I'm in S. Florida and I think it's doing well. Big Latin influence down here though...
> 
> Yeah, I don't see boxing going away...I heard they had some controversy with the scoring system in the Olympics. A lot of Americans used Olympics success as a spring board to a pro career.


We're home to the Cubs and White Sox. There are a lot of little kids who have heroes they want grow up to be like in this city.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

iliveonnitro said:


> Baseball will not survive? Ha! You obviously do not come from any place that has a respectable baseball team.
> 
> Boxing is still huge, just less so in the US than it was when Mohammad Ali was around. Will cycling die in 10-20 years now that Lance doesn't race?
> 
> Do all people from PA think like this?


Baseball is no longer an olympic sport after this oly. The phillies are on pace to set attendance record this season, but they are still #2 to the eagles. Inner city kids are not playing baseball. The kids in the burbs are playing soccer. I was probably overstating the futures of boxing and baseball, but I don't see a rise in popularity of either. 

As far as the Lance comment goes, was cycling ever big in the USA? Its a euro sport, what an american does there doesn't matter. Cycling will continue to be a nitch sport here. 

Baseball players are MUCH softer then years ago. How many complete games do ya see today?? Not many. And when was the last time ya saw a 3 inning save? If doping is to blame for the faster players, wouldn't there be much better pitching too?(Complete games and no-hitters)


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> Baseball is no longer an olympic sport after this oly. The phillies are on pace to set attendance record this season, but they are still #2 to the eagles. Inner city kids are not playing baseball. The kids in the burbs are playing soccer. I was probably overstating the futures of boxing and baseball, but I don't see a rise in popularity of either.
> 
> As far as the Lance comment goes, was cycling ever big in the USA? Its a euro sport, what an american does there doesn't matter. Cycling will continue to be a nitch sport here.
> 
> Baseball players are MUCH softer then years ago. How many complete games do ya see today?? Not many. And when was the last time ya saw a 3 inning save? If doping is to blame for the faster players, wouldn't there be much better pitching too?(Complete games and no-hitters)


Who are the Phillies? 

Baseball isn't a sport in the olympics anymore because most people, like the US, do not send their all-star players. They're too busy making tens of millions of dollars back home to be bothered with some piece of metal that won't get them anything but some extra bragging rights after retirement. They have contracts and team managers forcing them to stay at home. Softball won't be a sport because the US just dominates it. The IOC basically said the sports are just "too american" for other countries to compete.

To your comment on my comment: Cycling was the biggest spectator sport in america in the 1920s and 1930s. Although heavy in the continent, it's not just a euro sport. It's one of the top 10 (maybe even top 5?) most followed sports in the world. Hardly a niche sport.


----------

