# Double Standard?



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Okay just curious. When people see Sagan kick ass the "he must be doping" threads start. While he obviously did dope, back during the "Magnificent Seven" days many did not want to hear "Armstrong never tested positive" they said he doped....

Marianne Vos however wins in Road, Cross, Track and MTB racing. This week she wins with Euro to West Coast USA Jet lag to boot. Where are the same accusations?


----------



## Slartibartfast (Jul 22, 2007)

No one cares?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

One of my friends posted something on facebook claiming that Merckx was the greatest. Another asked, "What about Marianne Vos?" 

I scanned the thread and could see that a debate ensued, with talk of comparing apples to oranges, women's sports not getting the support, women's equality, and on and on. I stopped reading because when it comes to women's cycling:


Slartibartfast said:


> No one cares


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

Vos must be doping, because she's faster than me. (Everyone faster than me MUST be doping)


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Slartibartfast said:


> No one cares?


Very misogynistic of you.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

I think Slartibartfast kinda hit it on the head ... the simple fact is very few people care about women's cycling (or any women's sport aside from maybe tennis).

For some reason though, people tend to give female athletes the benefit of the doubt when it comes to using PED's ... when the reality is, there is just as much reason to use them there as in men's sports, though the money tends to be much less most of the time.

I read several cycling sites ... and see here win, pretty much anything she enters ... and often have the thought she is doped to the gills, but I don't post about it because ... honestly, I don't really care.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

badge118 said:


> Very misogynistic of you.


As wookie said, most people don't care. How many WNBA games do you watch?

I thought only Sagan was misogynistic these days.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Wookiebiker said:


> I think Slartibartfast kinda hit it on the head ... the simple fact is very few people care about women's cycling (or any women's sport aside from maybe tennis).
> 
> For some reason though, people tend to give female athletes the benefit of the doubt when it comes to using PED's ... when the reality is, there is just as much reason to use them there as in men's sports, though the money tends to be much less most of the time.
> 
> I read several cycling sites ... and see here win, pretty much anything she enters ... and often have the thought she is doped to the gills, but I don't post about it because ... honestly, I don't really care.


Well from a sporting perspective women's sports should be even more under the radar. There was zero testing back in the day and they point to this as one of the sources of the now seemingly unbreakable women world record times.

I guess what I should say is "if the people on this forum and elsewhere actually care about clean sports...care to learn about both. If not GTFO." The reason being that if you don't care you essentially create a professional sport that is also a free real world testing ground for PEDs.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

badge118 said:


> I guess what I should say is "if the people on this forum and elsewhere actually care about clean sports...care to learn about both. If not GTFO." The reason being that if you don't care you essentially create a professional sport that is also a free real world testing ground for PEDs.


Well ... that's the problem.

The reality is most people seem to care about Lance doping, not others doping ... hence the reason most doping threads end up being a Lance bashing session.

People state they want clean sports, but when you really look at it (not just cycling) ... people don't want it, they just want the appearance of it. They want to see grand performances, they want to be entertained by people doing unimaginable things. As long as it "Appears" to be clean or their favorite athletes are not turning positives, they are good with it.

Again ... when it comes to women's sports ... very few care if they are doping or not. For that matter, very few even know when/where they are racing/playing and you would be lucky to find somebody that can actually name a female athlete outside of tennis, golf or soccer.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

I have seen people ask if she's clean. I think there is a whole Vos thread over on the clinic.

The doping forum here has gotten pretty quiet post 'Oprah Confession.' Lots of interest in Lance, much less interest in other things doping. 

I do think doping is a bit harder for women. 
1) too many steroids turns you into a she male and messes up your health (see Tammy Thompson).
2) there is less money in women's cycling, so it's harder to afford / justify a program. 

But I'm sure women's cyclists dope. I wouldn't be shocked to discover that various to women did. But I couldn't tell you for certain which ones do.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Bluenote said:


> I have seen people ask if she's clean. I think there is a whole Vos thread over on the clinic.
> 
> The doping forum here has gotten pretty quiet post 'Oprah Confession.' Lots of interest in Lance, much less interest in other things doping.
> 
> ...


Kinda to address you and Wookie together I think you point something out, albeit perhaps indirectly/unintentionally that I have said for sometime. At least in the US doping in cycling was almost Universally focused on LA. Hell the stuff regarding Landis and Hamilton seemed to be focused on "see they doped so LA had to dope to." A system based on such animosity rather than emotionless logic and properly articulated evidence is doomed.


----------



## Slartibartfast (Jul 22, 2007)

badge118 said:


> A system based on such animosity rather than emotionless logic and properly articulated evidence is doomed.


See, nobody cares about other American cyclists, at least not much. Just like we don't care about the women. We care about Lance because he won big, and we care about the big Euro-names because they're big winners too, in the afterglow of Lance's Tours: Contador, Gilbert, Sagan, Basso, the Schlecks, etc. Landis, Hamilton... maybe we used to care... same with Hincapie, Leipheimer, VDV. Oh, and we care about LeMond. As for the rest, we Americans just don't care very much. At least that's the cynical viewpoint... Well, actually it's my own viewpoint.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

I'm surprised no one has brought up the queen of *all* doping: France's Jeannie Longo.


Ditched three out-of-competition drug tests and her coach/husband gets busted with EPO claiming it was for his own use. What happens to her? Nothing.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

cda 455 said:


> I'm surprised no one has brought up the queen of *all* doping: France's Jeannie Longo.
> 
> 
> Ditched three out-of-competition drug tests and her coach/husband gets busted with EPO claiming it was for his own use. What happens to her? Nothing.


Yeah, but she wasn't mean like Lance, so it's ok.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

badge118 said:


> Kinda to address you and Wookie together I think you point something out, albeit perhaps indirectly/unintentionally that I have said for sometime. At least in the US doping in cycling was almost Universally focused on LA. Hell the stuff regarding Landis and Hamilton seemed to be focused on "see they doped so LA had to dope to."  A system based on such animosity rather than emotionless logic and properly articulated evidence is doomed.




It appears you've just described pro cycling in general.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Yeah, but she wasn't mean like Lance, so it's ok.



Ah; Good point.


----------



## Slartibartfast (Jul 22, 2007)

cda 455 said:


> I'm surprised no one has brought up the queen of *all* doping: France's Jeannie Longo.
> 
> 
> Ditched three out-of-competition drug tests and her coach/husband gets busted with EPO claiming it was for his own use. What happens to her? Nothing.


Well, I guess the authorities don't even care about the women. It's a pity, because they're very compelling from a sporting standpoint. Just no as compelling as the dudes.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

spade2you said:


> Yeah, but she wasn't mean like Lance, so it's ok.


And this has so much to do with many things. Landis? People were more than ready to cut his throat because he was, to an extent following in Lance's mind set. He was brash, and oh "so American". Tyler though people cut more slack. He was nice, all smiles, Tug boat died. It wasn't until the whole "chimera" absorbed twin, sci-fi BS that people finally almost had to say "wtf?"

How many people are looking to question Indurain? If anyone benefited from EPO it would be him, even more so than LA, when you look at their performance. As much as people try to pooh pooh LA's relationship with Ferrari, Indurain was a "pupil" of Conconi, the "proto-Ferrari." But Indurain is a nice, mild manner, quite smiler. 

If anything I think the last decade has told me the following about doping in Pro-Sport.

1. get licensed in a country where sports doping is not a crime (those wire taps can be pesky).
2. be nice, smile for the cameras, say little or nothing of any substance.
3. if a teammate gets popped, when his ban is over if he is looking for a job, give him one.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I'm more annoyed with the soap opera than the actual doping. To be blunt, honest, and offend as many people as possible, I don't trust Lance or anyone who went against him. I've dealt with enough shady people in my life to be able to sense that I'm surrounded. Hell, my boss lied to us last week with a straight face without hesitation. I smelled it from a mile away. Everyone who went against Lance gave me that vibe. Revenge or something to gain, nothing more.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

spade2you said:


> I'm more annoyed with the soap opera than the actual doping. To be blunt, honest, and offend as many people as possible, I don't trust Lance or anyone who went against him. I've dealt with enough shady people in my life to be able to sense that I'm surrounded. Hell, my boss lied to us last week with a straight face without hesitation. I smelled it from a mile away. Everyone who went against Lance gave me that vibe. Revenge or something to gain, nothing more.



Um; And Pharmstrong is not shady  ?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

cda 455 said:


> Um; And Pharmstrong is not shady  ?


Reread my post. I don't trust any of them. I could go into reasons but I have better things to do than arguing with a bunch of ad hominem.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

spade2you said:


> I'm more annoyed with the soap opera than the actual doping. To be blunt, honest, and offend as many people as possible, I don't trust Lance or anyone who went against him. I've dealt with enough shady people in my life to be able to sense that I'm surrounded. Hell, my boss lied to us last week with a straight face without hesitation. I smelled it from a mile away. Everyone who went against Lance gave me that vibe. Revenge or something to gain, nothing more.





spade2you said:


> Reread my post. I don't trust any of them. I could go into reasons but I have better things to do than arguing with a bunch of ad hominem.


You said you didn't trust him.


You didn't describe him as shady like you did the others. That's why I asked.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

badge118 said:


> Very misogynistic of you.


So you must be watching all the big women's races then?


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

cda 455 said:


> Jeannie Longo


Bingo, biggest doper ever.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> So you must be watching all the big women's races then?



Whoa; There are races involving big women  ?!!


Like an amazon cat. race or something  ?!


----------



## clonechemist (Sep 8, 2006)

If you don't even trust the people you know well, why are you wasting time trying to have a discussion on an internet message board?



spade2you said:


> Reread my post. I don't trust any of them. I could go into reasons but I have better things to do than arguing with a bunch of ad hominem.


----------



## clonechemist (Sep 8, 2006)

To complain that 'minor' doping offenses don't cause the holier-than-thou uproar we saw for Lance, is akin to complaining that jaywalking should be a capital offense.

If Vos is doping, the relatively small amount of money and fame she is gaining through doping minimizes the offense. In the same vein, the people she is allegedly cheating out of money and fame, are not losing out to the same degree as a men's domestique who could be a GC star if only he would dope. This point is similar to, but very importantly different from, the argument that we don't care whether Vos is doping because 'no one cares' about women's cycling.

I don't want to watch any spectacle that effectively contributes to a culture of athletes killing themselves for the purpose of winning.


----------



## clonechemist (Sep 8, 2006)

badge118 said:


> Well from a sporting perspective women's sports should be even more under the radar. There was zero testing back in the day and they point to this as one of the sources of the now seemingly unbreakable women world record times.
> 
> I guess what I should say is *"if the people on this forum and elsewhere actually care about clean sports*...care to learn about both. If not GTFO." The reason being that if you don't care you essentially create a professional sport that is also a free real world testing ground for PEDs.


If you hang around here long, you will realize that a sizable portion of people posting in the doping forum (certainly Wookie for one) actually don't care about clean sports.

Another sizable chunk (ie Spade2you) seem to be agnostic about doping, but DO care a lot about railing against anyone who ever called out one doper, yet does not spend their remaining life calling out every other potential doper.

A third population here ostensibly 'cares' about clean sport, but mostly just seems interested in accusing anyone who wins a race of doping.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

clonechemist said:


> I don't want to watch any spectacle that effectively contributes to a culture of athletes killing themselves for the purpose of winning.


So why are you watching sports at all? Even heavy endurance sports like cycling and running have studies that show they are actually reducing their lifespan due to the sheer volume of work they are doing to be world class ... thus killing themselves to win.

Then look at other sports like football ... they are killing themselves in multiple ways.

Most top level sports tend to leave their athletes somewhat crippled after they end their career ... just go look at pro basketball players or other athletes ... they tend to have joint issues, back problems and many other physical problems.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> So you must be watching all the big women's races then?


I watch all the ones I can find. Maybe because one of the major female races has happened in my backyard, Philly. Guess what some of us do. Assumption (on your part) is the mother of all **** ups.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

cda 455 said:


> I'm surprised no one has brought up the queen of *all* doping: France's Jeannie Longo.
> 
> 
> Ditched three out-of-competition drug tests and her coach/husband gets busted with EPO claiming it was for his own use. What happens to her? Nothing.


Personally, I think she's likely a doper. 

Have you ever considered that part of why Lance got busted is because he was lousy at covering it up? That he left a big flaming pile of evidence? 

There are lots of others who likely doped. But if they were savy enough to leave little evidence, keep a step between themselves and the illegal stuff like selling or transporting drugs, etc... They sometimes get away with it. 

It's possible her husband was buying that EPO for her. But it's hard if not impossible to actually prove.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

spade2you said:


> Yeah, but she wasn't mean like Lance, so it's ok.


You clearly don't know much about Jeannie, not a warm and fuzzy person at all.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

badge118 said:


> Very misogynistic of you.


For serious? 

Just because women are *generally* not as interesting as men on a bike, and we tend to not watch them, doesn't mean we "hate" women. Are we all haters of the mentally challenged because we don't care about the special olympics too? I'd love to care about everything, but maybe you noticed people tend to have lives and only so much spare time.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

clonechemist said:


> If you hang around here long, you will realize that a sizable portion of people posting in the doping forum (certainly Wookie for one) actually don't care about clean sports.
> 
> Another sizable chunk (ie Spade2you) seem to be agnostic about doping, but DO care a lot about railing against anyone who ever called out one doper, yet does not spend their remaining life calling out every other potential doper.
> 
> A third population here ostensibly 'cares' about clean sport, but mostly just seems interested in accusing anyone who wins a race of doping.


You forgot the fourth group. The ones who think the UCI is either incompetent or malfeasant. Who think cycling can't be truly clean with the current leadership at the helm.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

32and3cross said:


> You clearly don't know much about Jeannie, not a warm and fuzzy person at all.


I haven't met her and really don't care about rider personalities. Given the massive doping and her personality, where is the outrage?


Also, how many people would be complaining if this thread were about a double compact?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

clonechemist said:


> If you don't even trust the people you know well, why are you wasting time trying to have a discussion on an internet message board?


Because messing with insecure middle aged men who usually resort to ad hominem attacks is kinda fun.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

cda 455 said:


> Um; And Pharmstrong is not shady  ?


I think his point is to say in some situations there are NO "good guys." Think Sammy the Bull. Did we say "hey he is a hero for testifying against Gotti." No we said "he is a **** bird who killed like 20 people who just happened to testify against Gotti."


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

badge118 said:


> I think his point is to say in some situations there are NO "good guys." Think Sammy the Bull. Did we say "hey he is a hero for testifying against Gotti." No we said "he is a **** bird who killed like 20 people who just happened to testify against Gotti."


Ivan Gotti?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Bluenote said:


> You forgot the fourth group. The ones who think the UCI is either incompetent or malfeasant.


Yes they are.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Cableguy said:


> For serious?
> 
> Just because women are *generally* not as interesting as men on a bike, and we tend to not watch them, doesn't mean we "hate" women. Are we all haters of the mentally challenged because we don't care about the special olympics too? I'd love to care about everything, but maybe you noticed people tend to have lives and only so much spare time.


First the special Olympics are very different. Second if BALCO showed us anything is that the doping of male and female pro-athletes is intimately connected. You have NO prayer of winning the war against males doping if you do not show equal interest in female pros doping. A double standard of this type is down right destructive. IMO if you want to to take a moral high ground and gnash teeth over Armstrong or the next rider people love to hate, you have to address female doping as well. Moral high ground is not something you can vacate at your convenience.

As for time. If you have the time to read Cycling News daily and Velonews daily and/or monthly, you have the time to keep up with women's cycling because they provide all the coverage you need right there.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

spade2you said:


> Ivan Gotti?


lol 10/char


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Reread my post. I don't trust any of them. I could go into reasons but I have better things to do than arguing with a bunch of ad hominem.





spade2you said:


> Because messing with insecure middle aged men who usually resort to ad hominem attacks is kinda fun.


So which is it?


Having a problem making up your mind?


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

badge118 said:


> You have NO prayer of winning the war against males doping if you do not show equal interest in female pros doping. A double standard of this type is down right destructive.


If anything it should be the other way around, but either way I don't understand this argument. From 1) a doping control standpoint, there's more incentive to enforce the rules and develop tests as the sport becomes more popular and there's more money involved. And men's cycling has all of that over women's. From 2) a doping mentality standpoint, I don't think you can equate men and women. More specifically, if women's cycling was as popular as men's, I'm pretty sure a lot less women would cheat as compared to men. There's biological differences. But even if that wasn't the case, changing the doping mentality of women and men cyclists is *still* different because as pointed out men have more on the line, namely money and fame. So if you somehow changed the doping mentality of women so that not a single one chose to cheat (arguably impossible), doing that with men is still a different story.



badge118 said:


> As for time. If you have the time to read Cycling News daily and Velonews daily and/or monthly, you have the time to keep up with women's cycling because they provide all the coverage you need right there.


Well, it takes time to read an article. Let's say you go there and plan to spend 5+ minutes reading stuff, but no articles pop out at you... instead of clicking an article you're not interested in (i.e. an article on women's cycling), you move on to a different activity. Maybe with unlimited time you'd read every single article but that's not the real world.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

cda 455 said:


> Having a problem making up your mind?


Oooohhhhh, good one! You should neg rep me or result to some ad hominem.


Meanwhile, I gots ta ride.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Cableguy said:


> If anything it should be the other way around, but either way I don't understand this argument. From 1) a doping control standpoint, there's more incentive to enforce the rules and develop tests as the sport becomes more popular and there's more money involved. And men's cycling has all of that over women's. From 2) a doping mentality standpoint, I don't think you can equate men and women. More specifically, if women's cycling was as popular as men's, I'm pretty sure a lot less women would cheat as compared to men. There's biological differences. But even if that wasn't the case, changing the doping mentality of women and men cyclists is *still* different because as pointed out men have more on the line, namely money and fame. So if you somehow changed the doping mentality of women so that not a single one chose to cheat (arguably impossible), doing that with men is still a different story.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it takes time to read an article. Let's say you go there and plan to spend 5+ minutes reading stuff, but no articles pop out at you... instead of clicking an article you're not interested in (i.e. an article on women's cycling), you move on to a different activity. Maybe with unlimited time you'd read every single article but that's not the real world.


how is it the other way around? The disinterest in women's cycling was/is also reflected by the UCI. In doing so they have essentially created a free real world testing for dope. What works what doesn't, what can beat the tests what doesn't etc. 

You real need to learn something about both doping and sociology.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

badge118 said:


> The disinterest in women's cycling was/is also reflected by the UCI.


Yes, but how is this preventing "winning the war against males doping" as you said?



badge118 said:


> In doing so they have essentially created a free real world testing for dope. What works what doesn't, what can beat the tests what doesn't etc.


I don't understand what you're saying here ("a free real world testing for dope"?)


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Cableguy said:


> Yes, but how is this preventing "winning the war against males doping" as you said?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand what you're saying here ("a free real world testing for dope"?)


essentially this. Any drug or performance enhancing technique can look great in a lab but then fail IRL. A "legal" example are those breath right strips. They do indeed open the nasal passages as advertised, so one would think they would help performance. They don't however because at the high end where you need the extra oxygen you are breathing through your mouth. Concept and testing in controlled environments vs real world.

The same is true of PEDs. Some drugs look great in a lab but in the field do not live up to expectations. Then you have testing. With the less frequent testing by authorities you can tweak doses, figure out the proper cycles etc. Another analogy would be weapons. One day look up the M-16. It did great in testing and it was adopted. However the Military altered the gun powder used to one that was cheaper but burned dirtier, it was then deployed to SE Asia without cleaning kits, based on how easy it was to keep clean with the other powder and in controlled environments. The moisture, dirty powder and no cleaning kits created a disaster. They chromed the chamber, issued cleaning kits and added a forward assist.

Women sports are the same. First you have athletes tested less often which allows for new drugs effectiveness to be more easily tested. Then it is simply a mattered of understanding the testing protocols and adapting the dosage through trial and error to maintain a level of effectiveness while at the same time minimizing detection. If you are subject to a lot of testing you do not have as much luxury in terms of this trial and error (men) however with a lack of testing you have it (women).

Thought this would be pretty obvious.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

If I understand your long answer above, you're basically saying because women are tested less than men, women will as a result try newer, more cutting edge drugs/techniques? First of all, I don't think that is actually true at all... again, it would be the other way around as men have more incentive to cheat. There is more fame and money as a reward in men's cycling. My intuition tells me the doping methods in women's cycling simply mirrors that of men's. And there is no stopping new drugs and techniques from being tested outside of official races anyways. Second, even if that were true, as soon as you started testing women as much as men they would just cheat in the same way as men... so how does this help win the doping war against cycling for men (which was the original question)?


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

read about the BALCO case. Also being involved in law enforcement I see the numbers from things commonly referred to as CompStat. You can see how crimes migrate and evolve. You see how a string of burglaries occurred in a high crime area that borders an affluent area and then expands. The High Crime area acted as sort of a training ground. No alarm systems, not unusual for people to be out and about at odd hours, police having to respond call to call with less time for proactive stops etc. 

Once they have it down you suddenly see a surge in burglaries in the more affluent areas. They have their methods honed and can move more quickly so now it it is worth the risk for a bigger score. You see this with people who are high school drop outs and likely addicted to illegal drugs.

It is logical, something I rely more than a gut feeling, to apply the same logic to other anti-social acts and due to the anti-doping rules, PEDs use does count as an anti-social act. The fact that there is more money, prestige, less "real" risk (no jail time, chance of being shot etc.) and that the people involved are typically more educated that they would use similar if not superior methods of experimentation and women's sports (as we saw with BALCO) is a good place to start

As for your last bit, you miss the training ground part. If you remove the training ground that women's cycling likely is, then as the testing measures get better it is harder to develop new doping methods and products to beat them. It is indeed a war that never ends BUT right now the PEDs side advances faster than the testing side. If you attack the real life laboratory (for lack of a better term) that less tested sports provide, then you reduce the lead that the dopers have over the testers.

In the end though you can boil it down to this. Saying "who cares about women athletes doping" is akin to saying "who cares about black criminals in a poor area preying on other blacks." The last bit would go over like a fart in church if anyone ever had the balls to actually say it.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

True. In my opinion, doping among female elite athletes is just a prevalent, yet garners much less attention or thought.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

badge118 said:


> If you remove the training ground that women's cycling likely is...


While there is truth to this, I think if you could graph the origination of new drugs and doping techniques, the women's cycling "training ground" would be a very small slice of the pie. This "training ground" is just one little door to doping advancement. If you shut it, all the other doors will just get used a bit more.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

cda 455 said:


> I'm surprised no one has brought up the queen of *all* doping: France's Jeannie Longo.
> 
> 
> Ditched three out-of-competition drug tests and her coach/husband gets busted with EPO claiming it was for his own use. What happens to her? Nothing.


Absolutely. Longo is the elephant in the corner of the room. I remember there was a thread awhile back asking who you would like to see busted as a doper. I don't think I commented at the time but for me the clear answer would be Longo.
I know Nicole Cooke got some mileage from her comments on Lance but I'd like to know what she thinks about the pre-eminent female cyclist in the post war period. Longo's as big a fraud as Lance, but since it's women's cycling and frankly not too many people care, she gets a free pass. Women's track and field is as full of dopers as men's since the rewards for female athletes are quite substantial.


----------

