# Was Andy just TOO good?



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

Was Andy S. just too good? He looked like he was just playing around yesterday- jumping from here to there, going to the back of the pack, accelerating up to the front, etc... 

He either the most talented non doping climber I have ever seen live, OR something else-- that will go unmentioned, because it is not fair to make a allegation with no evidence. But come on!

EDIT: Forgot about the doping forum... moderators please remove. I am in moreon.


----------



## mikeman (Sep 17, 2005)

Maybe! The following is from the running text of today’s race on www,cyclingnews.com. Very interesting! I hope that there is no smoke or fire in this case. If cycling were not in enough trouble already.

14:41 CEST 
L'Equpe is reporting that French customs agents have stopped and searched the car of Johnny Schleck, father of Fränk and Andy. We will keep on top of this story and have more as soon as we can.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

mikeman said:


> Maybe! The following is from the running text of today’s race on www,cyclingnews.com. Very interesting! I hope that there is no smoke or fire in this case. If cycling were not in enough trouble already.
> 
> 14:41 CEST
> L'Equpe is reporting that French customs agents have stopped and searched the car of Johnny Schleck, father of Fränk and Andy. We will keep on top of this story and have more as soon as we can.


French media have reported they found nothing according to Philippec


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Kestreljr said:


> Was Andy S. just too good? He looked like he was just playing around yesterday- jumping from here to there, going to the back of the pack, accelerating up to the front, etc...
> 
> He either the most talented non doping climber I have ever seen live, OR something else-- that will go unmentioned, because it is not fair to make a allegation with no evidence. But come on!
> 
> EDIT: Forgot about the doping forum... moderators please remove. I am in moreon.


Not just Andy...but the whole team :blush2: and yes, this post will likely be moved.

People are saying that Sastres climb up Alp D'uez was within normal abilities for a good climber, but looking at the top 30 it's riddled with dopers and suspected dopers both above and below him.

Then take into account CSC has the #1, #2 on GC...the best Young Rider (white jersey) and are whooping up on the team competition it just makes you wonder how one team is completely dominating the best riders in the world.

Say what you will, but there is as much suspicion around CSC as there was around Festina and USPS/Discovery with Lance. The question is will they get caught like Festina or will people just talk about it like USPS/Discovery?


----------



## fleck (Mar 25, 2005)

was this after sastre jumped? If so i'm guessing he was just holding back because the last thing he should have been doing is giving evans another reason to up the pace.
he might have felt fresh with better legs then the evans (as shown at other climbing stages) but felt compelled to hold the reigns.


----------



## gray8110 (Dec 11, 2001)

Wookiebiker said:


> People are saying that Sastres climb up Alp D'uez was within normal abilities for a good climber, <strong style="color:red;">but looking at the top 30 it's riddled with dopers and suspected dopers both above and below him.</strong>


I don't see this looking at the top 30 from yesterday. In fact, aside from Valverde's possible association with Puerto, I don't see any names in the top 30 that have been directly linked with doping - even by circumstantial association. The only reason that I see to say there are dopers in the top 30 is that they are pro cyclists. In the past that would have been enough to convince me. I will admit that CSC's dominance and their ability to have 5 or 6 riders left in a lead group of 20 is suspicious, but I'm not willing to spew accusations based on that — yet.

I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say based on what I know, that top 30 is pretty damn clean.

<span style="color:#4d4d4d;">From Cyclingnews
-------------------------------------------------
1 Carlos Sastre (Spa) CSC-Saxo Bank 6.07.58 (34.32 km/h)
2 Samuel Sanchez Gonzalez (Spa) Euskaltel - Euskadi 2.03
3 Andy Schleck (Lux) Team CSC - Saxo Bank 
4 Alejandro Valverde Belmonte (Spa) Caisse d'Epargne 2.13
5 Frank Schleck (Lux) Team CSC - Saxo Bank 
6 Vladimir Efimkin (Rus) AG2R La Mondiale 2.15
7 Cadel Evans (Aus) Silence - Lotto 
8 Denis Menchov (Rus) Rabobank 
9 Christian Vande Velde (USA) Team Garmin-Chipotle p/b H30 
10 Bernhard Kohl (Aut) Gerolsteiner 
11 Roman Kreuziger (Cze) Liquigas 3.11
12 Tadej Valjavec (Slo) AG2R La Mondiale 3.36
13 Stéphane Goubert (Fra) AG2R La Mondiale 3.50
14 David Moncoutié (Fra) Cofidis - Le Crédit par Téléphone 4.57
15 Nicolas Vogondy (Fra) Agritubel 5.16
16 Sandy Casar (Fra) Française des Jeux 5.25
17 Dmitriy Fofonov (Kaz) Crédit Agricole 5.28
18 Damiano Cunego (Ita) Lampre 5.32
19 Amaël Moinard (Fra) Cofidis - Le Crédit par Téléphone 5.40
20 Kim Kirchen (Lux) Team Columbia 6.01
21 Mario Aerts (Bel) Silence - Lotto 
22 Kanstantsin Siutsou (Blr) Team Columbia 6.08
23 Alexandre Botcharov (Rus) Crédit Agricole 6.59
24 Pieter Weening (Ned) Rabobank 9.22
25 Gorka Verdugo Markotegi (Spa) Euskaltel - Euskadi 
26 David Arroyo Duran (Spa) Caisse d'Epargne 10.12
27 Laurent Lefèvre (Fra) Bouygues Telecom 
28 Koos Moerenhout (Ned) Rabobank 10.17
29 Sylvester Szmyd (Pol) Lampre 10.42
30 Cyril Dessel (Fra) AG2R La Mondiale 10.44</span>


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

fleck said:


> was this after sastre jumped? If so i'm guessing he was just holding back because the last thing he should have been doing is giving evans another reason to up the pace.
> he might have felt fresh with better legs then the evans (as shown at other climbing stages) but felt compelled to hold the reigns.



It was the entire climb! Every time someone went- he floated up to them, had a chat (as they wheezed and spit of exhaustion) and then would go back to his brother to say "He just attacked, I talked to him, he looks exhausted, I like cheese burgers, lets watch a movie tonight, don't forget to take your meds."


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

gray8110 said:


> I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say based on what I know, that top 30 is pretty damn clean.


I think wookie was saying that Sastre's time was in the top 30 of all time- not of yesterday's competition.


----------



## shades9323 (Apr 30, 2006)

gray8110 said:


> I don't see this looking at the top 30 from yesterday. In fact, aside from Valverde's possible association with Puerto, I don't see any names in the top 30 that have been directly linked with doping - even by circumstantial association. The only reason that I see to say there are dopers in the top 30 is that they are pro cyclists. In the past that would have been enough to convince me. I will admit that CSC's dominance and their ability to have 5 or 6 riders left in a lead group of 20 is suspicious, but I'm not willing to spew accusations based on that — yet.
> 
> I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say based on what I know, that top 30 is pretty damn clean.
> 
> <span style="color:#4d4d4d;">From Cyclingnews


I think he was talking about top 30 all time.

Andy is over 9 minutes down. I don't think he is doping, unless he started mid tour.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

shades9323 said:


> Andy is over 9 minutes down. I don't think he is doping, unless he started mid tour.


Or unless team strategy called for Andy to not push the pace in the first mountains, so that he could loose a few minutes and would be an unmarked man and thus able to help his team for the second set of mountains.


----------



## rollinrob (Dec 8, 2002)

Kestreljr said:


> I think wookie was saying that Sastre's time was in the top 30 of all time- not of yesterday's competition.


 It should be the Alp has only been ridden up during the race what 30 -40 times?


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

rollinrob said:


> It should be the Alp has only been ridden up during the race what 30 -40 times?


And every time they race it there are 150 finishers, so there are thousands of finishing times... his was in the top 30.


----------



## shades9323 (Apr 30, 2006)

Kestreljr said:


> Or unless team strategy called for Andy to not push the pace in the first mountains, so that he could loose a few minutes and would be an unmarked man and thus able to help his team for the second set of mountains.


That would be pretty odd of a team that has tight internal doping controls to have a stategy that involves doping!


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

shades9323 said:


> That would be pretty odd of a team that has tight internal doping controls to have a stategy that involves doping!


Welcome to pro cycling.


----------



## gray8110 (Dec 11, 2001)

Kestreljr said:


> I think wookie was saying that Sastre's time was in the top 30 of all time- not of yesterday's competition.


Ahh... this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez#Ascent_times 

That list is bogus below the top 10 - it's omitting a whole bunch of results from the 2004 TT. And there are a ton of riders that finished between 40 & 45 minutes not just in the TT, but also just came behind the leaders on road stages.

That said, Sastre won from the lead group (not the breakaway like Scheck's '06 win) His time is one of the slowest winning times in the last 20 years.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

gray8110 said:


> I don't see this looking at the top 30 from yesterday. In fact, aside from Valverde's possible association with Puerto, I don't see any names in the top 30 that have been directly linked with doping - even by circumstantial association. The only reason that I see to say there are dopers in the top 30 is that they are pro cyclists. In the past that would have been enough to convince me. I will admit that CSC's dominance and their ability to have 5 or 6 riders left in a lead group of 20 is suspicious, but I'm not willing to spew accusations based on that — yet.
> 
> I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say based on what I know, that top 30 is pretty damn clean.


I was talking top 30 all time.....as others mentioned. If you take out the 2004 ITT they did he has the 13th fastest time up Alp D'uez and those with faster times in front of him have all either been found to have doped or are highly suspected...as well as those behind him.

If people are going to say...Look at Lance and who he beat. All he beat doped, so he must have doped. You must use the same logic here. If Sastre is putting up numbers like those on that climb and he has the 13th fastest time "Of All Time" up that climb one has to question the performance....whether clean or not, it's questionable...especially in this day and age.


----------



## gray8110 (Dec 11, 2001)

Kestreljr said:


> And every time they race it there are 150 finishers, so there are thousands of finishing times... his was in the top 30.


The problem is that there is no one officially timing the climb and there is no "agreed on" official start to the climb so these stats are a bit meaningless. People are calculating these times by using a stopwatch to the video.

Additionally, if you can trust the data, even with "thousands" of finishers on the Alpe, it isn't that out of the ordinary to expect one winner (Sastre) out of 26 winners on the mountain to have one of the 30 fastest times.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

gray8110 said:


> The problem is that there is no one officially timing the climb and there is no "agreed on" official start to the climb so these stats are a bit meaningless. People are calculating these times by using a stopwatch to the video.
> 
> Additionally, if you can trust the data, even with "thousands" of finishers on the Alpe, it isn't that out of the ordinary to expect one winner (Sastre) out of 26 winners on the mountain to have one of the 30 fastest times.


All good points, and Sastre might be legit. However, *Andy is the focus for me.* I think Andy could have peddled backwards and gotten up the hill faster then Sastre did. I think Andy could have taken a unicycle up the mountain yesterday and beat them. He was the most impressive rider on the mountain. If you go back and count, I bet he responded to at least 20 attacks, and never looked even close to tested.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

gray8110 said:


> The problem is that there is no one officially timing the climb and there is no "agreed on" official start to the climb so these stats are a bit meaningless. People are calculating these times by using a stopwatch to the video.
> 
> Additionally, if you can trust the data, even with "thousands" of finishers on the Alpe, it isn't that out of the ordinary to expect one winner (Sastre) out of 26 winners on the mountain to have one of the 30 fastest times.


Don't just look at the results...look at the time. And yes, there is an agreed upon starting place where they measure the time for the climb...hence the times! I don't know the exact place, but it's been mentioned many times before.

Sastres time was only 2 minutes off a doped to the gills Pantani and Lances ITT time (with fresh legs. He's right in there with Ullrich, ahead of Vinikourov (spelling), and ahead of many other proven or suspected dopers.

I guess he's just that good and did it clean showing non dopers can beat dopers  

As for the teams doping controls...LOL! Any team can say they are doing something to control doping...which is exactly what they are doing IMO...controling the amounts so they don't get caught that is!

But then, I'm extremely cynical in this day and age of pro cycling. It's not that I don't love to watch them ride, I just don't think any of them are truly "Clean". And that includes Garmin/Slipstream, Highroad/Columbia and CSC.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Kestreljr said:


> All good points, and Sastre might be legit. However, *Andy is the focus for me.* I think Andy could have peddled backwards and gotten up the hill faster then Sastre did. I think Andy could have taken a unicycle up the mountain yesterday and beat them. He was the most impressive rider on the mountain. If you go back and count, I bet he responded to at least 20 attacks, and never looked even close to tested.


I would agree...but I have to wonder if the team has a system going on, when you look at the overall teams performance you have to sit back and wonder  

#1, #2 overall GC and another sitting just outside of the top 10. Leader of the best young rider category, leading the Team Catagory...totally dominating the mountains and I'd almost bet they all have better than normal ITT's on Saturday.


----------



## gray8110 (Dec 11, 2001)

Kestreljr said:


> I think Andy could have taken a unicycle up the mountain yesterday and beat them. He was the most impressive rider on the mountain. If you go back and count, I bet he responded to at least 20 attacks, and never looked even close to tested.


I agree, it's hard to have an objective eye towards the way he rode yesterday (and on Prato Nevoso) and not be a little suspicious. The optimist in me looks at the way Contador attacked Rasmussen on the Peyresourde last year... none of the attacks that Schleck responded to yesterday were of that ferocity. That may or may not mean anything.

The Schlecks (both of them) were running interference and making it hard for other riders to attack - wearing them out. Seeing how many riders got dropped early and came back (and got dropped again and came back) the pace in that group wasn't high.


----------



## MellowDramatic (Jun 8, 2006)

God, you guys speculate more than CNN.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

joehartley said:


> God, you guys speculate more than CNN.


Yeah, you are probably right. Doping isn't really a problem anymore in pro cycling. And this tour has been totally clean. I don't know what I was thinking?


----------



## litespeedchick (Sep 9, 2003)

Absolutely. He either has the greatest poker face in the history of cycling, or he's gonna win the Tour 5 times. Or...bad news will come to us soon....

Did you notice him take time to shove one of the guys running along side the riders?


----------



## shades9323 (Apr 30, 2006)

What happened with CSC's suprise doping tests when they entered Italy?


----------



## coop (Jun 8, 2008)

I'll be the optimist because frankly i've become bored with being a pessimist. Andy is clean, there I said it! When the Saunier Dopval boys were in the race no on could go mano y mano with them. The one person who tried, Frank, was being played with like kid with a booger, and then he was simply dispatched like said booger. Meanwhile, Andy was having a bad day (Hmm, VDV, Menchov, Evans all had "off" days). When the Alps came around Andy obviously found his form, but was out of contention and therefore alowed to rain havoc on the peloton. Face it, the kid can climb.

I believe he is an extremely talented rider who is most likely clean, and will win a couple of TDF's. Sad part number one is that with the playing field being leveled out and riders racing on their own natural abilities (remember, I'm an optimist now), any rider who is clearly better than others will be under suspicion.
Sad part number two is that Frank will most likely never wear the Yellow again and from here on out will be Andy's biatch.:cryin:


----------



## gray8110 (Dec 11, 2001)

Wookiebiker said:


> Don't just look at the results...look at the time. And yes, there is an agreed upon starting place where they measure the time for the climb...hence the times! I don't know the exact place, but it's been mentioned many times before.


That list is bogus, even the Wikipedia page admits it. Read the whole wikipedia entry... there is a good deal of disagreement. And again, no one times the climb - even the TT in 2004 had almost 2k of flat and no one timed the climb itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_D'Huez#Fastest_Alpe_d.27Huez_ascents

Again, even if the data, is accurate, comparing times up a climb, to assess the likelihood of doping is treading some unsteady ground. You can't deduce doping - this isn't Sherlock Holmes. Look at the way the chase group raced yesterday - they lost two minutes because of the constant attacks and counter attacks - if they had ridden a steady pace, that time gap would have been smaller. Compound that by all of the different races that have been run on the mountain and you just can't make the comparison. The mountain isn't raced in a vacuum and unless it is a time trial, no one race has the same conditions as another. 

If you want to take it a bit farther, his VAM was 1655 meters per hour... another stat I don't really buy into as an indicator of doping. That's a bit higher than the numbers guys were seeing in the Pyrenees and starting to tread some ground that expects might call suspicious, but it's not in the 1800 range like some of the superhuman efforts that've been seen in the past by Basso, Simoni, Armstrong and Pantani.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

They weren't really "surprise" tests but rather, the continuation of the random+targeted tests that the AFLD has been doing given that the TDF is being held under the auspices of the French Cycling Federation and not the UCI. Since the AFLD cannot do tests in Italy, they negotiated with CONI so that they would take over the testing while the race was in Italy. Thus the tests by CONI and not AFLD. But back to your question, the results aren't in yet.


----------



## wmayes (Aug 8, 2007)

No one in the tour is doping, it is only B-12 and Lidocaine.....Sincerely, R. Clemens


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

gray8110 said:


> even the TT in 2004 had almost 2k of flat and no one timed the climb itself..


Get your facts straight. 



cycling news said:


> Stage 16 - July 21: Bourg d'Oisans - Alpe d'Huez ITT, 15.5 km
> Results
> *1 Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal p/b Berry Floor 39.41* (23.44 km/h)
> 2 Jan Ullrich (Ger) T-Mobile Team 1.01
> ...





wiki said:


> Fastest Climbs up the Alpe d'Huez
> Rank Time Name Year
> 1 37' 35" Marco Pantani 1997
> *2* 37' 36" Lance Armstrong 2004 *
> ...


those times are 2mins off because the ITT wasn't the official climb for the alpe d'huez. They have a standard climb, it is timed, and they know the results.


----------



## gray8110 (Dec 11, 2001)

Kestreljr said:


> those times are 2mins off because the ITT wasn't the official climb for the alpe d'huez. They have a standard climb, it is timed, and they know the results.


I didn't say anything to the contrary... I am well aware that the TT times on the wiki are adjusted for that flat 2k. The point is the climb itself is not timed. Find an official result list (NOT Wikipedia) produced by the TDF and you'll prove me wrong - it doesn't exist. This list was made by journalists and fans watching the video - it is bogus. To the same point - if you look at the results from the '04 TT, nearly everyone in the top 20 would have fit within the time range on that list... yet the list only has a handful of guys from '04. 

Straight from the wiki
--------------------------
<em>These variations in the distance for timing the climb have led to an ongoing debate as to the fastest times. For example, the 'official' record of Marco Pantani of 37'35" has been cited by sources such as UK-based Procycling magazine, and World Cycling Productions - publishers of the Tour de France series of DVDs hosted by Phil Liggett and the magazine Cycle Sport. In his biography of Marco Pantani,[3] Matt Rendell notes the following for Pantani's times: 1994 - 38'00"; 1995 - 38'04"; 1997 - 37'35". The Alpe d'Huez tourist association describes the climb as 14.454km and also lists Pantani's 37'35" (avg. 23.08kph) as the record.[4]

Other sources, however, list Pantani's times from 1994, 1995 and 1997 as the fastest, based on alternative - and argued to be more accurate - timings adjusted for the 13.8km.[5] Such sources list Pantani's time in 1995 as the record at 36'40". In "Blazing Saddles", Rendell has changed his view and lists it as 36'50"[6] as does CyclingNews.[4] Second, third, and fourth fastest are Pantani in 1997 (36'45"), Pantani in 1994 (37'15") and Jan Ullrich in 1997 (37'30"). Lance Armstrong's time from 2004 (37'36") makes him only the fifth fastest, highlighting how the 1990s saw notably faster ascents than other eras.</em>


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Room 1201 said:


> French media have reported they found nothing according to Philippec


So philippec is French media? 

Contador is a great climber too actually if it's the same case.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*the 'heads of state'*

chase group up Alpe d'Huez wasn't going that fast
if they had been hammering

Menchov would have never clawed back
Montcoutie would not have been able to attack
AG2R would not have been leading the chase

Andy did a massive job policing the group

great team tactics,though it hurt his brother's shot at winning


----------



## somdoosh (Jul 21, 2008)

If we accept it as axiomatic that no one can do well in the Tour de France without doping, why bother having it?

I know of no other sport where the fans and aficionados seem to prefer lackluster performances and denigrate those who succeed wildly, with the possible exception of the Chicago Cubs.

I accuse everyone who slings around doping accusations of being dopes themselves.


----------



## giovanni sartori (Feb 5, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> chase group up Alpe d'Huez wasn't going that fast
> if they had been hammering
> 
> Menchov would have never clawed back
> ...


Finally! After how many posts someone states the obvious!


----------



## justinb (Nov 20, 2006)

somdoosh said:


> If we accept it as axiomatic that no one can do well in the Tour de France without doping, why bother having it?
> 
> I know of no other sport where the fans and aficionados seem to prefer lackluster performances and denigrate those who succeed wildly, with the possible exception of the Chicago Cubs.
> 
> I accuse everyone who slings around doping accusations of being dopes themselves.



+1

Seriously, why even watch the sport?


----------



## giovanni sartori (Feb 5, 2004)

justinb said:


> +1
> 
> Seriously, why even watch the sport?


Hilarious, but so true about the Cubs. Bravo.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

somdoosh said:


> If we accept it as axiomatic that no one can do well in the Tour de France without doping, why bother having it?
> 
> I know of no other sport where the fans and aficionados seem to prefer lackluster performances and denigrate those who succeed wildly, with the possible exception of the Chicago Cubs.
> 
> I accuse everyone who slings around doping accusations of being dopes themselves.


The reason....Time and time again riders have proven that doping is basically the norm and not the exception when it comes to cycling. They haven't given us any reason to believe they are clean. They profess cleanliness then turn in a positive test...then deny, deny, deny...then admit they doped!

What makes you think this years tour is clean? There have already been 3 riders kicked out for doping, one team left due to it and another lost it's main sponsor.

In this day and age of cycling you must assuming the worst before you can conclude the best.

Personally....I love to watch cycling, doped up or not. I even prefer the doped up riders because I want to see superhuman performances. I just want them to be honest about it.

When it comes to every other pro sport...they are all using something. Football....Huge amounts of HGH, EPO, Testosterone, Amphetamines, etc...Baseball, that ones already been proven. Golf, there are questions about players starting to use HGH and already using drugs that calm them and allow them to focus.

You name the sport and there are cheaters looking to gain an edge, regardless of the doping controls put on the sport. It's just the way it is when it comes to money and fame...anybody that thinks differently is honestly...nieve or just doesn't want to believe the truth.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Wookiebiker said:


> When it comes to every other pro sport...they are all using something. Football....Huge amounts of HGH, EPO, Testosterone, Amphetamines, etc...


EPO in the NFL? 

Thats the firt time I have heard ANYONE mention that one.
Yes, the NFL has a steriod problem like every other sports including swimming.
I know a few ex-NFL players and heard of most stuff guys have used/tried using. But never EPO.

Football in full of the usual stuff. Anabolics streiods, HGH, IGF-1 and Amphetamines among the other stuff that no one knows about or experimental Nutritional stuff that no one knows about yet that mimics many drugs. Kinda like the EAS flack years ago that the NFL swept under the rug.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

*If ANY rider on CSC get's busted...*

Riis should lose his license to own/direct any team even a amatuer on back in Denmark wher ever he is from.

He is a ADMITTED doper and if his team/rider get's caught he should get a lifetime ban. I don't wnat to hear about ït was news to me", "We had no idea crap". Done!

Same with GARMIN or Columbia. One positive rider and the whole program, managers and owners get a lifetime ban for pedaling this whole "clean racing crap."


----------



## gray8110 (Dec 11, 2001)

DIRT BOY said:


> EPO in the NFL?
> 
> Thats the firt time I have heard ANYONE mention that one.
> Yes, the NFL has a steriod problem like every other sports including swimming.
> I know a few ex-NFL players and heard of most stuff guys have used/tried using. But never EPO...


I haven't heard it either, but I can see where it might make sense for wide receivers and defensive backs who are effectively sprinting for 5-10 seconds at a time 40 or 50 times a game. If you look at the cocktail of stuff that track sprinters (running) have admitted to using (including EPO), I don't see any reason that a football player wouldn't benefit. The improved endurance, higher LT and improved VO2 max could be beneficial.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

DIRT BOY said:


> Riis should lose his license to own/direct any team even a amatuer on back in Denmark wher ever he is from.
> 
> He is a AMITTED doper and if his team/rider get's caught he should get a lifetime ban. I don't wnat to hear about ït was news to me", "We had no idea crap". Done!
> 
> Same with GARMIN or Columbia. One positive rider and the whole program, managers and owners get a lifetime ban for pedaling this whole "clean racing crap."


That's a bit extreme, however it would be very very bad for the sport if a rider from any of those three teams came up positive in the next couple years. Right now we can at least pin our hopes on these "biological profiles" and all that jazz.

Of course it could also be the perfect cover for team wide, systematic doping year round.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Einstruzende said:


> That's a bit extreme, however it would be very very bad for the sport if a rider from any of those three teams came up positive in the next couple years.


Why? I say ban his arse! The guy admiteed cheating and lost his title. So say his rider(s) get busted for cheating as well why not? I would NEVER believe he would no nothign about it. Once a cheat always a cheat IMO!

Now just waiting for David Milar?


----------



## gray8110 (Dec 11, 2001)

DIRT BOY said:


> Riis should lose his license to own/direct any team even a amatuer on back in Denmark wher ever he is from.
> 
> He is a AMITTED doper and if his team/rider get's caught he should get a lifetime ban. I don't wnat to hear about ït was news to me", "We had no idea crap". Done!
> 
> Same with GARMIN or Columbia. One positive rider and the whole program, managers and owners get a lifetime ban for pedaling this whole "clean racing crap."


I struggle with this - I have my doubts about CSC, and maybe I should about Garmin and Columbia. You're assuming that the team is central to any doping in those cases - if the team is doping riders, of course the management should be removed from the sport permanently. If a rider pulls the wool over the eyes of a clean team like Garmin, I don't think that the team should be punished because of a flaw in their anti-doping program. If the internal testing (which is supposedly done by a 3rd party in all cases) is corrupt and nothing more than a facade - there's not much hope.


----------



## akrafty1 (Apr 10, 2006)

It was nice seeing a group going up the climb, attacking, and none really getting the upper hand on the other. Other than Sastre that is. And that was no blistering, constant surging, redlining attack. He went and rode a constant tempo. I think he put all the eggs in the one basket and got the win with out too much expenditures on the prior stages. Evans however is a little worn from his time in yellow and a little too much time in the red.

But then again what do I know.


----------



## DRLski (Apr 26, 2003)

what's the point of even following pro cycling if people immediately assume that everyone who's doing good is doping? Heck, there's been a lot of riders caught who weren't in the top GC as well.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

DIRT BOY said:


> EPO in the NFL?
> 
> Thats the firt time I have heard ANYONE mention that one.
> Yes, the NFL has a steriod problem like every other sports including swimming.
> ...


For the same reason sprinters like Marion Jones were using it. It gives you the ability to train longer and harder, even for the power athletes it's quite useful.

If you are struggling to train for 3 hours...can take some EPO and that allows you to train for 4 hours at a higher intensity you will make significant gains....regardless of whether you are lifting weight, sprinting or riding a bike.

People just associate EPO with cycling and endurance sports however it has the ability to give huge gains to strength/power athletes and the leagues don't test for EPO so it's pretty much safe for them to use because they know they won't get caught since they are not testing for it.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

DRLski said:


> what's the point of even following pro cycling if people immediately assume that everyone who's doing good is doping? Heck, there's been a lot of riders caught who weren't in the top GC as well.


I assume every professional athlete is doping on one level or another. The better the athlete the better the PED's. Just look at sports, all sports and tell me there isn't a PED problem in any of them.

Does that stop me from watching? Not a chance. I love the sport and as I've mentioned I'd rather just let them do what ever they want to their bodies because I want to watch superhuman performances...I just want them to be honest about it.

The reason it's not a big deal in American Sports (i.e. Football and Baseball) is because the average fan doesn't care. They want to see huge hits in football, super speed, crazy catches, etc. In Baseball they want to see home runs, big catches at the wall, etc. A bunch of singles to win a game is boring and fans just won't go watch that type of ball.

However, in cycling people want the sport to be "Pure" which it will "NEVER" be...it's a pipe dream to even think it will be. Heck even armatures are using PED's to win local races (regardless of sport). Why would the pro's who have so much on the line be any different?


----------



## trihiker (Mar 29, 2005)

Hey everyone, look at the bright side. On a positive note, Cunego must indeed be doping-free, since he has totally sucked. Can't climb, can't attack, can't ride tempo, can't keep up with the Schlecks. He's riding like a human


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

gray8110 said:


> I struggle with this - I have my doubts about CSC, and maybe I should about Garmin and Columbia. You're assuming that the team is central to any doping in those cases - if the team is doping riders, of course the management should be removed from the sport permanently. If a rider pulls the wool over the eyes of a clean team like Garmin, I don't think that the team should be punished because of a flaw in their anti-doping program. If the internal testing (which is supposedly done by a 3rd party in all cases) is corrupt and nothing more than a facade - there's not much hope.


I have no issues with CSC or anyone right now.

But if Garmin and Colombia and goign to campaign on this whole clean racing mantra crap, they BETTER have a grip and eye on everything these guys do in season and under the guidence.

Having a member of thier team busted IMO would hurt the sport beyond repair and would make gaining a sponsor almost impossible.

They preach clean racing and they get busted. Then they are their WHOLE orginization is a SHAM. I am sorry but that's the way it is.

JV or Bob can tell us all the crap they want. But don't get caught!! Beacuse if they do, they they wre just blowing smoke up are backsides!


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Wookiebiker said:


> I assume every professional athlete is doping on one level or another. The better the athlete the better the PED's. Just look at sports, all sports and tell me there isn't a PED problem in any of them.
> 
> Does that stop me from watching? Not a chance. I love the sport and as I've mentioned I'd rather just let them do what ever they want to their bodies because I want to watch superhuman performances...I just want them to be honest about it.
> 
> ...


You nailed it there. I and I agree with you. Look at the last Olyimpics the whole Chinese swmming team was busted for HGH.

Every sport will always have a PED issues. It's been this way since the dawn of time and always will.

Look, a US swimmer just got busted and now will miss the Olyimpics!
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/swimming/news/story?id=3502790


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

DIRT BOY said:


> Why? I say ban his arse! The guy admiteed cheating and lost his title.


Should Jonathon Vaughers be banned from Garmin as well then?


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

trihiker said:


> Hey everyone, look at the bright side. On a positive note, Cunego must indeed be doping-free, since he has totally sucked. Can't climb, can't attack, can't ride tempo, can't keep up with the Schlecks. He's riding like a human


I might actually agree with that  

Going from a pre-race favorite to not being able to do anything says a lot. He's just trying to make it to the finishline alive I think


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Kestreljr said:


> Should Jonathon Vaughers be banned from Garmin as well then?


If his rider(s) get busted? Hell Yes! You preach this "cean racing"crap, you BETTER make sure your team is clean!

That would be a HUGE and possibly a death blow to the sport when it comes to major sponsorship.

Was JV and admitted cheater/doper? I know he was @ USPS. So if you want to beleive they were dirty. Then it's almost as bad for him.


----------



## Bertrand (Feb 1, 2005)

No dope for Cunego, but prolly too much Valpolicella and spaghetti alla carbonera last night. He was the last over the line today.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

DIRT BOY said:


> Was JV and admitted cheater/doper? I know he was @ USPS. So if you want to beleive they were dirty. Then it's almost as bad for him.


If you read interviews with him he says something to the extent of: "I can't say on the record that I am a doper, but I won't deny it either. Please understand where I am, and please read between the lines." Or he will say "I won't lie to you, but I cannot answer that question." 

I respect both of them for their honesty, but I have mixed feelings about what level he and riis should be held accountable for their riders. It should be case by case- if some rider has a private doctor, and privately finances his doping with some high tech methods, I would hate to see the team director get punished.


----------



## gray8110 (Dec 11, 2001)

DIRT BOY said:


> JV or Bob can tell us all the crap they want. But don't get caught!! Beacuse if they do, they they wre just blowing smoke up are backsides!


Conceptually, I don't disagree with you. If their methods of assuring the team is clean are good, but someone sneaks by, yes it does irreparable damage to the sport, but I don't think punishing the innovative manager that tried to clean up the sport solves anything either.

The problem I have is that riders have shown that they can bypass the tests in the past. The new longitudinal techniques that the teams with internal testing are employing may turn out to be completely useless. I don't know. What if a rider gets busted by the team (like Gonchar did last year for his suspicious blood values prior to the tour)? Garmin sells their clean team concept on more than just testing. They almost make it seem like a rider shouldn't have the opportunity to dope.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Kestreljr said:


> > If you read interviews with him he says something to the extent of: "I can't say on the record that I am a doper, but I won't deny it either. Please understand where I am, and please read between the lines." Or he will say "I won't lie to you, but I cannot answer that question."
> 
> 
> Ok, he did. That's fine. Did the what I want to hear.
> ...


----------



## bnoojin (Mar 24, 2002)

*Andy/Frank=Miguel/Prudencio*



coop said:


> I'll be the optimist because frankly i've become bored with being a pessimist. Andy is clean, there I said it! When the Saunier Dopval boys were in the race no on could go mano y mano with them. The one person who tried, Frank, was being played with like kid with a booger, and then he was simply dispatched like said booger. Meanwhile, Andy was having a bad day (Hmm, VDV, Menchov, Evans all had "off" days). When the Alps came around Andy obviously found his form, but was out of contention and therefore alowed to rain havoc on the peloton. Face it, the kid can climb.
> 
> I believe he is an extremely talented rider who is most likely clean, and will win a couple of TDF's. Sad part number one is that with the playing field being leveled out and riders racing on their own natural abilities (remember, I'm an optimist now), any rider who is clearly better than others will be under suspicion.
> Sad part number two is that Frank will most likely never wear the Yellow again and from here on out will be Andy's biatch.:cryin:



I agree. Andy's just that good. I think CSC is clean. I don't believe O'Grady or Julich or others would be a part of the team if it wasn't.

But, I believe of the Schleck bros. Andy will be the stage racer and Frank will be more of a classics rider/stage hunter. plus Frank will work for Andy in future Tours in the same way Prudencio Indurain worked for his younger and more talented brother Miguel. I read interviews years ago where Frank was saying his brother was more talented so I don't think he's bitter at all. stage racing is not really his forte, but he does have an Amstel Gold win and was very close on LBL.


----------



## akrafty1 (Apr 10, 2006)

mmmmmmmmmm Valpolicella. Great stuff.


----------



## spinwax (Nov 28, 2007)

Maybe Pro cycling should go the way of professional body building? I am not sure of the acutal names of the classes, but in professional body building they have an open class where they do not test for drugs and the body builders are fricken humongous. They also have a natural class where the guys and gals are ripped but nothing like the open pros. 

There can be two winners every yr. 

1. Unlimited class. Allow every type of illegal drug available. It would be hilarious to see these guys muscles exploding up the Alp D, and blood coming out of their ears. 

2. Au naturale. No use of anything. Slower times, but it would be real.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

Bertrand said:


> No dope for Cunego, but prolly too much Valpolicella and spaghetti alla carbonera last night. He was the last over the line today.


Bad crash actually. But hey, maybe it's both.


----------



## jhamlin38 (Oct 29, 2005)

As for peds in other sports... I'd like to know what soccer players from Spains La Liga are on the OP list. When I think of EPO in sport, Cycling gets the headlines, but probably just to keep the Pro footballers OUT of the headlines, cause that's were the REAL money is.
Those guys run up to 10k per game, with up to 30 percent at full blast. 
I'd wonder what would happen to Tierry Henry, Raul, or Ronaldinho (now at acmilan) if they were implicated in a doping scandal.


----------



## karatemom (Mar 21, 2008)

Cunego has been sucking, but it's kinda turned me into a real fan, since he must be clean (he's riding like he's clean). Which is kind of a sad reflection on the state of procycling. Does anyone else think David Millar is still doped to the gills and just blowing sunshine up everyone's butts?


----------



## mikeman (Sep 17, 2005)

No look at his performance. No dope there. In fact, I would be surprised if Garmin/Chipotle were as a group or individually doping as they have very low expectations as to what constitutes success.


----------



## bbgobie (Aug 13, 2007)

Here's the thing. 
Most in this discussion can admit most cyclist in the past doped lets call this group A.

Now take a step back and have a deep breath. Who are the most likely coaches, managers and best qualified people to run a team in sport? Could it be people who have experience at the top level? We'll call them group B

Group A & B are the same group... so by definition you won't have a group C of experienced riders/managers who have never been involved with doping.

JV, and Riis having doped in the past does not make their cycling tactics, preparing their teams, and ability to manage less. It means they have a checkered past, as do many riders.

Since I'm unaware of any free countries that put you to jail for LIFE for any crime. For example, write some fake checks, go to jail a few years, your out after. You've served your time, and the governement has programs to help you integrate. Why should these 2 people be any different? 

A person can commit murder in the US and be in jail less time than these guys will get crucifixed. Lets put it in perspective here.

I'm sure most people here at some point in their lives can recount when they might have stole some candy as a kid, looked over and cheated on a math test, or had a nice peak when that hot blonde bent over!


----------



## fleck (Mar 25, 2005)

bbgobie said:


> had a nice peak when that hot blonde bent over!


i'd argue that taking a peak is NOT cheating!
I might be married but i'm not dead


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

bbgobie said:


> Here's the thing.
> Most in this discussion can admit most cyclist in the past doped lets call this group A.
> 
> Now take a step back and have a deep breath. Who are the most likely coaches, managers and best qualified people to run a team in sport? Could it be people who have experience at the top level? We'll call them group B
> ...


 Sorry, but not even CLOSE to being the same thing. These are jobs we are talking about. Not their lives. There are THOUSANDS or riders willing to take their place and ride clean.
Cycling wants to clean up? Well make it work, say 10 yr bans. Past dopers managing team dopers, 20 yrs


----------



## bbgobie (Aug 13, 2007)

Cycling isn't these peoples jobs?
I didn't know the Schlecks went home and delivered pizzas.

I can garauntee the % of cheaters in some way or form in the typical Univ/college course rivals that of pro cycling. These people get jobs and paid based on those results. Fairly similar to me.
Same with lying on a resume...

There are a thousands of people who didn't cheat, and didn't get as good a mark, or didn't lie on their resume.... cyclists are human.

Is the person who cheated on a math test 10 years prior no longer fit to be manager in a company?

Its entertainment, and the doping lookout is just another soap opera to watch!
Lets just enjoy the tour.


----------



## coop (Jun 8, 2008)

DIRT BOY said:


> Sorry, but not even CLOSE to being the same thing. These are jobs we are talking about. Not their lives. There are THOUSANDS or riders willing to take their place and ride clean.
> Cycling wnats to clean up? Well make it work, say 10 yr bans. Past dopers managing team dopers, 20 yrs



DIRT BOY, Let me ask you something, and this goes for everyone else. Was there doping in cycling when you first became a fan. The answer is a resounding yes! Quit being so over-dramatic and acting like this is something new. Like sombody did doghnuts in their car on your brand new lawn. Do we want to clean up the sport, I know I'd like to see it, but punish the riders for their actions not the entire sport. I'd say right now they're doing a good job with the 2 year suspension. Maybe put in another 2 year probationary period where they are tested weekly as well as random. If a team or manager show a systematic doping program then you go after them. As it stands now, name one other sport where the punishment is as heavy as cycling. People in real life are often forgiven for being stupid, intentional or not. Are cyclist beyond reproach?

As far as your claim of thousands of riders willing to take their place, well I for one really don't want to watch a watered down pro caliber event - I'm old enough to remember the NFL's scab season, it wasn't pretty.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

coop said:


> As it stands now, name one other sport where the punishment is as heavy as cycling.


Track and Field....There you go  They are as hard or more so than Cycling when it comes to dopers.


----------



## coop (Jun 8, 2008)

Wookiebiker said:


> Track and Field....There you go  They are as hard or more so than Cycling when it comes to dopers.



Good point, Do you have any idea what there suspension is? I believe it's 2 years just like cycling but I'm not sure. But even then, you have what is probably THE most doped sport in track and field and they still don't do lifetime bans do they? The other thing is that they go after individuals and not entire organizations. Can you imagine when (not if) the first track and field athlete gets popped at the olympics and the IOC would try and ban the entire US track federation.


----------



## ToF (Jan 18, 2008)

bbgobie said:


> Here's the thing.
> Most in this discussion can admit most cyclist in the past doped lets call this group A.
> 
> Now take a step back and have a deep breath. Who are the most likely coaches, managers and best qualified people to run a team in sport? Could it be people who have experience at the top level? We'll call them group B
> ...


Good points (although going to prison and a ban can hardly be compared). I am all for extremely harsh punishments for current and recent offenders, and if a management link can be shown, I think the punishment should be that much greater for the management- to the criminal level even. But I wonder about the old offenses. One of the problems has been the "code of silence." If there was some level of amnesty for older admissions (say 10 years or more?) wouldn't that help break the code of silence?


----------



## jsedlak (Jun 17, 2008)

Wait... I don't get it...

I thought the whole goal of CSC was to lay low and then pounce in the Alps...

So isn't this what they did? Wouldn't it be understandable the the entire team which has done nothing the entire race up to this point have more strength? It seems to me that other teams, teams that led out for sprints and/or had to carry the yellow did not do so well.

Let me put it another way, if everyone in the top group was doping, why was Sastre the only one who could attack so easily and for so long?



By the way, I am in favor of lifetime bans for anyone caught doping. If they are serious about cleaning up the sport, they need to do it full blown. If you're stupid enough to dope, you are out. Go get a desk job. I have never doped and never will dope no matter what level of athleticism I am at. It is just more fun challenging the real human body and seeing what it can do. It isn't fun watching super man bash building after building without any consequence.


----------



## ToF (Jan 18, 2008)

Wookiebiker said:


> Track and Field....There you go  They are as hard or more so than Cycling when it comes to dopers.


I just heard one of our Olympic swimmers got busted and its a 2 year ban. See if this sounds familiar "coach is shocked", "no one can believe its true- she is such a nice and honest person" "its all a big mistake and the testing must be flawed..." blah blah
We cycling fans have been there done that.....


----------



## AndrewM (Jul 22, 2008)

Why dont we just let them all use whatever means they choose to be the best they can be?

We allow every single other thing under the sun, but..........

Can we possibly say that these athletes are "natural" anyway?

There are so many chemicals, processes and training techniques that are added to such a high degree by quite unnatural means... 

How about this... ONLY water and natural food is allowed during a race? no more gels, no more gatorade, etc etc etc


----------



## ToF (Jan 18, 2008)

AndrewM said:


> Why dont we just let them all use whatever means they choose to be the best they can be?
> 
> We allow every single other thing under the sun, but..........
> 
> ...


Well everything we eat and drink are chemicals technically, even "natural" foods right? THe difference is the body needs to replenish itself of various nutrients, etc.- cytomax and gels are an efficient way to do that and allow your body to perform to the best of its _natural_ ability, wherein EPO and the like are artificial boosters and stimulants, creating an unatural result. At least thats how I see it. If we did this then only the richest and best at doping would ever win.
EDIT: Hey maybe they should all start drinking red bull on those agonizing climbs and time trials: http://www.backpacker.com/blogs/333 _"Red Bull found to mitigate pain"_


----------



## AndrewM (Jul 22, 2008)

I guess I just feel like sports now are more about getting away with it vs not doing it.

If a cyclist uses substances in the off season but stops just early enough to get away with a "clean test" is he cheating any less?

By trying to control it to such a degree, and issuing such harsh penalties but yet people still try to get away with it, that proves two things to me 1- people DO get away with it, 2-obviously the pay off is worth the risk.


----------



## MellowDramatic (Jun 8, 2006)

Kestreljr said:


> Yeah, you are probably right. Doping isn't really a problem anymore in pro cycling. And this tour has been totally clean. I don't know what I was thinking?


There's an old saying that I was once told, and it went something like this: don't assume; it makes an ass out of u and me. I'm far from naïve when it comes to professional cycling...maybe I'm wrong to believe that things are looking up, but I do believe they are. It's sad that every time someone talented comes along, someone inevitably jumps to the conclusion that they just have better drugs. Congratulations on being that guy. 

For the record, I think it's hilarious that many of the folks who throw these allegations around are the same ones that mindlessly defend Lance anytime something comes up about him. Not saying that that's what you would do; I just find it ironic in a frustrating, how-the-hell-do-you-think sort of way.


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

joehartley said:


> There's an old saying that I was once told, and it went something like this: don't assume; it makes an ass out of u and me. I'm far from naïve when it comes to professional cycling...maybe I'm wrong to believe that things are looking up, but I do believe they are. It's sad that every time someone talented comes along, someone inevitably jumps to the conclusion that they just have better drugs. Congratulations on being that guy.
> 
> For the record, I think it's hilarious that many of the folks who throw these allegations around are the same ones that mindlessly defend Lance anytime something comes up about him. Not saying that that's what you would do; I just find it ironic in a frustrating, how-the-hell-do-you-think sort of way.


I really do like Carlos Sastre. He is very humble and just works his arse off. I actually got to chat with him during one of their rest day rides during their winter training camp last Feb. However, he did come up during a pretty nasty era in pro cycling and rode with Kelme. I guess nothing would surprise me but until then I still dig his vibe!


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

serbski said:


> I really do like Carlos Sastre. He is very humble and just works his arse off. I actually got to chat with him during one of their rest day rides during their winter training camp last Feb. However, he did come up during a pretty nasty era in pro cycling and rode with Kelme. I guess nothing would surprise me but until then I still dig his vibe!


He rode with ONCE, not that it's any better though.


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

Ugh, you're right. I was thinking of the other quiet likeable Spaniard, Roberto Heras. You are very correct and, gawd, ONCE were just a total drag other than their use of Looks and Giants (when compact frames blew people's minds). I would bet the farm that Sastre was up to as much no good as anyone while at ONCE but I try to have faith that some of the "older" guys (like some at Garmin, Columbia, CSC) have decided to move forward and join clean teams seeing that they've lived through the off-the-hook dirty years and were never pinched ...


----------



## Chef Tony (Mar 2, 2004)

Getting back to Andy S. & the stage... 
I agree he was the most animated of the group, but IIRC, he, frank & Sastre all worked less on the earlier climbs while Voigt, Cancellara et. al drilled it, so its reasonable that he was fresher. And except for AG2R he was the only one on the Alpe with teammates to ride for. Once Sastre went up the road, it was good tactics for him to mark the group & protect the yellow jersey.
Was he doping? I don't think so. But while I wait for the test results I'll decide based on what I saw in the stage.

The yellow jersey group wasn't going so fast considering- look how menchov & sanchez caught back on, and Kirchen made up some time too. And when that group crossed the finish line they all looked exhausted.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

coop said:


> Good point, Do you have any idea what there suspension is? I believe it's 2 years just like cycling but I'm not sure. But even then, you have what is probably THE most doped sport in track and field and they still don't do lifetime bans do they?


They do lifetime bans or less. Justin Gatlin, former 100m champ got an 8 year ban, which they did to effectively end his career. 




> The other thing is that they go after individuals and not entire organizations. Can you imagine when (not if) the first track and field athlete gets popped at the olympics and the IOC would try and ban the entire US track federation.


Not true, coach trevor graham recieved a lifetime ban from track and field.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Kestreljr said:


> They do lifetime bans or less. Justin Gatlin, former 100m champ got an 8 year ban, which they did to effectively end his career.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't confuse people with the facts!


----------



## coop (Jun 8, 2008)

DIRT BOY said:


> Don't confuse people with the facts!



I assume your post was directed at me. Well my hyper-sensitive friend, I'm not above listening to facts. That's why I sometimes write my sentences in the form of question, they even have these cool little things you can put at the end so that those reading can know that you're asking one. ?????

I was given a response to my question, and basically it proves that even in track there is no consistency. If you google track and field suspension you see 1 year, 2 years, Gatlin's 8 year ban (apparently downgraded to 4 years according to Yahoo news, Jul14). Selective targeting it seems. Cycling at least has a standard 2 year ban. 

In addition, track rarely goes after more than the athelete. You do have cases were a coach is prosecuted as someone explained to me, but I doubt you'll see the entire Santa Monica Track Club disbaned if one of their atheletes gets busted, as you propose we do with cycling.

Past offenses are just that, let's learn from them and move on. Concentrate on cleaning up the future of the sport, and in my opinion they're making progress.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

coop said:


> In addition, track rarely goes after more than the athelete. You do have cases were a coach is prosecuted as someone explained to me, but I doubt you'll see the entire Santa Monica Track Club disbaned if one of their atheletes gets busted, as you propose we do with cycling.


Coop, there are no teams in track, unless you included colleges. And yes, colleges can be punished as teams for drug violating offenses by runners. (such as not getting invitations to conference championships, or NCAA finals as well as the NCAA reducing the number of scholarship athletes a school can have in extreme cases.) 

There are new forms of training teams developing in distance events- such as Hanson running, and the jury is still out on how they will handle drug abuses with these loosely affiliated teams. (Many of the runners get a stipend, but they may live all over the country and not ever see each other or their coach outside of competitions.) 

All in all, track is regarded as more extreme with their punishments then cycling is. They will often ban the offending runner for the number of years it would take them to be too old to compete.


----------



## coop (Jun 8, 2008)

Kestreljr said:


> Coop, there are no teams in track, unless you included colleges. And yes, colleges can be punished as teams for drug violating offenses by runners. (such as not getting invitations to conference championships, or NCAA finals as well as the NCAA reducing the number of scholarship athletes a school can have in extreme cases.)
> 
> There are new forms of training teams developing in distance events- such as Hanson running, and the jury is still out on how they will handle drug abuses with these loosely affiliated teams. (Many of the runners get a stipend, but they may live all over the country and not ever see each other or their coach outside of competitions.)
> 
> All in all, track is regarded as more extreme with their punishments then cycling is. They will often ban the offending runner for the number of years it would take them to be too old to compete.



I'm not certain of santioned professional season, but there are club teams in track. For instance the Santa Monica Track Club, and they do race a "season" vs other clubs. My point was that if Joe Blow from SMTC gets caught doping should you punish the entire club? Unless you can prove organized and systematic doping from any team (cycling or track), punishment should go to the individual. I'm not in favor of a lifetime ban for first time offenders. Repeat offenders, different story. As far as a team; if a team has multiple infractions then they should go on some sort of mandated drug program or be prohibited from certain events. Like Astana, oops, thread just got new life! 

The sport is in the process of cleansing itself right now. Sponsors aren't going to take a lot of shite. No sponors no money, no money no riders, no riders no race. Give it time to work with what is in place.


----------



## physasst (Oct 1, 2005)

*I've*



DIRT BOY said:


> EPO in the NFL?
> 
> Thats the firt time I have heard ANYONE mention that one.
> Yes, the NFL has a steriod problem like every other sports including swimming.
> ...



heard that too....

specifically for wide recievers, corners, safeties and even running backs. 

The NFL's biggest problem however, comes in the use of narcotic pain killers.


----------



## teoteoteo (Sep 8, 2002)

I've heard Brunyeel talk about how Andy is the brother with the real future. Only time will tell, but he was giving the guy great praise.


----------

