# NEWS FLASH: Basso admits involvement in Puerto scandal



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

[SIZE=-1]Italian cycling star Ivan Basso admitted to the anti-doping prosecutor of the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) on Monday that he was involved in the _Operación Puerto_ blood-doping scandal.

 [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]CONI said the 29-year-old rider came to their offices of his own accord and offered to cooperate with their investigation and clarify his part in the scandal.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Basso, last year's Giro d'Italia winner and a pre-race favorite for the 2007 Tour de France, is one of dozens of riders implicated in the doping affair, which erupted before last year's Tour de France when Spanish police uncovered an alleged blood-doping network run by doctor Eufemiano Fuentes.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Police discovered bags of blood and doping products on a raid on Fuentes's laboratory in Madrid, along with codenames of cyclists and documents that suggested the doctor had been paid to manipulate and store blood. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Basso's implication in the scandal cost him his place at the Tour.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Last week Basso parted company with the Discovery Channel team after CONI had called him to a hearing to answer doping charges. Until now, he had protested his innocence. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Basso was initially acquitted by CONI of any involvement in the scandal due to what Italy's governing body for sport described as insufficient evidence.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]But CONI reopened its investigation after unearthing new evidence. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Last year's Tour de France also ended in controversy when American winner Floyd Landis tested positive for a skewed testosterone-epitestosterone ratio. [/SIZE]
_[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]_

__

After following this guy for years as one of my favotite riders, all I can say is SCUM BAG and stupid liar!!


----------



## mr meow meow (Jan 29, 2004)

*It's all over now!!*

With Basso's admitting involvement how long before the flimsy defenses of all the others fall? Hamilton, Valverde and the lot will soon go down.


----------



## Icculus (Mar 14, 2007)

It will be interesting to see what else comes to light in the next several months. Do we really think that everybody is clean?


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

mr meow meow said:


> With Basso's admitting involvement how long before the flimsy defenses of all the others fall? Hamilton, Valverde and the lot will soon go down.


Yep, Now let's get Jan to tell the truth.

ALSO, if these guys were TRULY pushed and almost forced by sponsors/teams or directors, I hope a big name like Ivan will tell all!

Sure, you don't have top but if the pressure is their and it's your lively hood sometime you must make the wrong choices.


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

Icculus said:


> It will be interesting to see what else comes to light in the next several months. Do we really think that everybody is clean?


Quite the opposite. I think the ones who are clean are in the minority.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Takes a man (and an impending criminal investigation ) to own up to his mistakes.

Jakshe, Landis, Ulrich, Hamilton, Valverde, (dare I say Armstrong??) etc... take note.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Bocephus Jones II said:


> Quite the opposite. I think the ones who are clean are in the minority.


Sadly, it's the name of the game in big-time sports today! If there is cash and glory, there are drugs...


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Also, Equipe is reporting that Basso has agreed to fully collaborate with CONI <i> and </i> the italian judge in charge of the criminal proceedings in return for a lesser sanction that will allow him to ride the Giro in 2008. I wonder if that arrangement will fly w/ the UCI which has a minimum sanction of 2 yrs out of competition and 4 yrs before getting back on to a ProTour team? Also, will Basso be ratting out the riders he crossed paths w/ in Fuentes' waiting room??


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

nothing manly about it-he was offered a 1 year ban instead of 2 if he confessed. I don't really understand how it is up to individual countries to decide suspension terms.


----------



## allons-y (Nov 15, 2006)

you are suprised that a cyclist was doping.....

implying you believed him when he said he didnt dope....

i have a bridge for sale you might be interested in.....pm me


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

allons-y said:


> you are suprised that a cyclist was doping.....


 No! BUT for some strange, strange reason I was hoping he was innocent!

How much are you asking for that bridge?

Yah, I should no better. Almost everyoe at the top of their sport has at some point. The financial rewards and the glory is just too high not too. If you competition is doing it, you are almost forced too. Then again no one has a gun to your head!


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

DIRT BOY said:


> No! BUT for some strange, strange reason I was hoping he was innocent!
> 
> How much are you asking for that bridge?
> 
> Yah, I should no better. Almost everyoe at the top of their sport has at some point. The financial rewards and the glory is just too high not too. If you competition is doing it, you are almost forced too. Then again no one has a gun to your head!


As bad as doping is in cycling I'm guessing most sports like American football and baseball have even worse problems.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Bocephus Jones II said:


> As bad as doping is in cycling I'm guessing most sports like American football and baseball have even worse problems.


 Yep! It's just most the public who enjoys these sports and their leagues just stick thier head into the sand.

The NFL and MLB are at the top!


----------



## mquetel (Apr 2, 2006)

philippec said:


> Also, Equipe is reporting that Basso has agreed to fully collaborate with CONI <i> and </i> the italian judge in charge of the criminal proceedings in return for a lesser sanction that will allow him to ride the Giro in 2008. I wonder if that arrangement will fly w/ the UCI which has a minimum sanction of 2 yrs out of competition and 4 yrs before getting back on to a ProTour team? Also, will Basso be ratting out the riders he crossed paths w/ in Fuentes' waiting room??


McQuaid is barking about that already (from cyclingnews.com):

_Cyclingnews spoke with UCI president Pat McQuaid about the speculated deal, and McQuaid was surprised. "There is no provision for a reduced sentence," he said. "The WADA rules apply and the minimum sentence is two years, whether it is for admittance or non-admittance of an offence. The only time when you get less than two years is if you can prove it was mistaken or it was taken in foodstuffs, that kind of thing. But if you have been willingly involved in a doping activity, it is two years."_


----------



## sbindra (Oct 18, 2004)

*Rat?*

I return for a lenient sentence, will he be the OP rat that blows the whole thing wide open? Even if Basso does not have knowledge of other riders that doped, WADA is still stumbling in the dark to put together the pieces. If you can get 1 rider to cooperate and lay out how the doping was done (i.e. how the system worked), you'll have a road map to take down everyone else. Even without knowledge of what other riders did, he'll enable WADA to figure it out and so I presume that is why they may offer to be lenient.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

just saw the McQuaid reaction: Will this be the final straw that breaks the WADA back-if the leading guys are implicated -- Valverde is next to go down -- will individual licensing countries try to part ways with WADA rules re reduced suspensions/offers?


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

philippec said:


> Also, Equipe is reporting that Basso has agreed to fully collaborate with CONI <i> and </i> the italian judge in charge of the criminal proceedings in return for a lesser sanction that will allow him to ride the Giro in 2008. I wonder if that arrangement will fly w/ the UCI which has a minimum sanction of 2 yrs out of competition and 4 yrs before getting back on to a ProTour team? Also, will Basso be ratting out the riders he crossed paths w/ in Fuentes' waiting room??


Article 266 of the UCI's Anti-Doping Rules provides:

"The Hearing Panel may also reduce the period of ineligibility in an individual case where the License-Holder has provided substantial assistance which results in discovering or establishing an anti-doping rule violation by another Person involving Possession under article 15.6.2 (Possession by Rider Support Personnel), article 15.7 (Trafficking), or article 15.8 (administration to a Rider). The reduced period of Ineligibility may not, however, be less, in principle, than one-half of the minimum period of ineligibility otherwise applicable. If the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility is a life-time, the reduced period under this Article may be no less than 8 (eight) years."

Although this does not address the ProTour team issue, by Basso's coming clean on the eve of this year's Giro, he probably could ride in next year's Giro if his period of ineligibility were reduced pursuant to Article 266. Given that Basso met with the authorities with his lawyers, my guess is that a plea deal already has been negotiated.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

It will be interesting to hear the Lance apologists come out of the woodwork now. Let's see.....is there anyone that challenged him in his 7 tour wins that hasn't been implicated/caught doping? I guess he was so much stronger naturally that everyone else needed to dope to keep up. LOL

Len


PS..they are still amazing athletes doped or not.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Len J said:


> It will be interesting to hear the Lance apologists come out of the woodwork now. Let's see.....is there anyone that challenged him in his 7 tour wins that hasn't been implicated/caught doping? I guess he was so much stronger naturally that everyone else needed to dope to keep up. LOL
> 
> Len
> 
> ...


Len, don't be a hater -- studies have irrefutably proven that high-cadence spinning trumps all -- even doped up low cadence adversaries!  Get w/ the program here!


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*Damn.....*



philippec said:


> Len, don't be a hater -- studies have irrefutably proven that high-cadence spinning trumps all -- even doped up low cadence adversaries!  Get w/ the program here!


I forgot about the cadence thing...thanks for setting me straight......he is a god!:mad2: 

Len


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Good work Mark... looks like McQuaid needs to hire an attorney to do his own internal fact-checking before he speaks off the cuff. I here that Aigle is a great place to live ...


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Len J said:


> It will be interesting to hear the Lance apologists come out of the woodwork now. Let's see.....is there anyone that challenged him in his 7 tour wins that hasn't been implicated/caught doping? I guess he was so much stronger naturally that everyone else needed to dope to keep up. LOL
> 
> Len
> 
> ...


Yep. Look personally, Amstrongs recovery treatment for cancer made him stronger than he ever was and over the field. Now he was on a huge drug routine to recover form cancer. No doubt in my mind that those HUGE amount of drugs he took made him the rider that we saw. Now over a 7 year period?
Good genetics or not. super human has he naturally is, it's time to say that we was probaly inloved with doping at some type of level even after cancer treatments.

Or these guys the last 7 years are the biggest wimps we have ever seen and were beat mentally befire the racing started.


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

everyone who said i was crazy for saying he made it look all too easy in the 2006 giro and wasn't even out of breath on the mountains - You all need to take it all back !  






DIRT BOY said:


> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Italian cycling star Ivan Basso admitted to the anti-doping prosecutor of the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) on Monday that he was involved in the _Operación Puerto_ blood-doping scandal.
> After following this guy for years as one of my favotite riders, all I can say is SCUM BAG and stupid liar!!


----------



## erik99 (Apr 18, 2005)

*Why should we believe a Basso confession either?*

....I mean, how many times did he lie to his team boss's face (CSC and Discovery) by emphatically stating he had no involvement in Puerto??? He's a complete POS....he'll now say whatever they want to hear to save his own arse.

<Basso poster in the basement is being ripped up>


----------



## tricycletalent (Apr 2, 2005)

erik99 said:


> ....I mean, how many times did he lie to his team boss's face (CSC and Discovery) by emphatically stating he had no involvement in Puerto??? He's a complete POS....he'll now say whatever they want to hear to save his own arse.
> 
> <Basso poster in the basement is being ripped up>


Yeah, why shouldn't he lie and cheat and lie some more? To prevent you from tearing up his poster? Boo hoo, my hero doped. Guess it says more about you and your needs for somebody to look up to. That does not make Basso a POS. Moron.


----------



## erik99 (Apr 18, 2005)

tricycletalent said:


> Yeah, why shouldn't he lie and cheat and lie some more? To prevent you from tearing up his poster? Boo hoo, my hero doped. Guess it says more about you and your needs for somebody to look up to. That does not make Basso a POS. Moron.


Well, maybe in your world lying and cheating are OK....it's nice to insult someone's character without knowing them, eh? And who said he was my hero?

Best of luck to you.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

presumably he would provide them with insider information that corroborates involvement (such as details involving payments etc that are not part of public knowledge). 

Discovery isn't a victim here-they were betting that OP was closed, not that this was a clean guy


----------



## tricycletalent (Apr 2, 2005)

erik99 said:


> Well, maybe in your world lying and cheating are OK....it's nice to insult someone's character without knowing them, eh? And who said he was my hero?
> 
> Best of luck to you.


In _my_ world? In the _real_ world, lying and cheating happens, whether you find it OK or not. Actually, the more posters you have in your basement of grand tour contenders, the more interest shown by the public, the stronger the need to dope.

The notion that your personal ethics should have anything to do with that says a lot about your character, without even knowing you.


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

So, does the extra-terrestrial lose his Giro title? Gibo was right after all...


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

But wait -- doesn't Discovery bear some responsibility in all this? After all, they (Stapleton/Bruynel) "stared him in the eyes" and saw that he was telling the truth re. Puerto. (cough...justlikePutin... cough). Nevermind that last bit....

In other news, Johan Bruynel has just announced that the team fortune-teller/clairvoyant has been sacked. Bruynel stated "Obviously we are dismayed that the stare-down with Basso proved mis-leading but we have taken action to ensure that such a situation will not be replicated in the future". According to Bruynel, all Team Discovery riders will be asked if they were in any way involved with Dr. Fuentes. Their answers will be either confirmed or refuted by a magic 8-ball. Bruynel stated "Team Discovery has always been at the forefront of the fight against doping and our investment in this high tech anti-doping tool just goes to highlight how seriously we take this fight". Mattel Corporation, producer of the Magic 8-ball could not be reached to confirm rumors that they might take over as the team's main sponsor when Discovery's contract comes to a close this July.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

Well, yea I suspect that they'd strip him of his Giro win. After all some of the evidence seems to point at Basso doping during the race (I remember a part about him finishing 16 seconds down on the stage winner).


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

That would make 2 out of 3 GTs last year have "winners" who didn't get to enjoy what winning should have given them.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

Einstruzende said:


> That would make 2 out of 3 GTs last year have "winners" who didn't get to enjoy what winning should have given them.



That would be three-in-a-row if you start with the 2005 Vuelta.


----------



## mquetel (Apr 2, 2006)

Einstruzende said:


> That would make 2 out of 3 GTs last year have "winners" who didn't get to enjoy what winning should have given them.


If Vino gets caught out with OP... we could have a trifecta!


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

tricycletalent said:


> the more posters you have in your basement of grand tour contenders, the more interest shown by the public, the stronger the need to dope.



uhh...what?


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Einstruzende said:


> That would make 2 out of 3 GTs last year have "winners" who didn't get to enjoy what winning should have given them.


err... by "winning", I assume you mean "doping"?


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

philippec said:


> err... by "winning", I assume you mean "doping"?


Yea, most likely.

I'm just glad Basso is going to fess up. Our American brethren would like to think everyone is ignorant. They could have "saved" themselves already (like Millar).

Shame of it is that the only reason Basso is going to cooperate is because he knows there will be a DNA test, and he doesn't want to end up like Ullrich.

Also, I think Bettini is going to get bitten by this. Now _that_ makes me a sad panda.


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

*Grazie, Ivan.*

Also, I hate you.

But it appears you have a lot more guts -- how do you say that in Italian? -- than a whole lot of other riders today. Doping could spell the demise of the whole sport of cycling, and I'm pretty angry about your being part of it. You were always the nice guy, the gentleman, with quiet confidence and seemingly endless strength.

Today (at least it appears) that you've admitted that some of that strength came from doping. While "shame on you" doesn't begin to cover the way that doping is stabbing this beautiful, epic sport in the eye with an icepick, top-level riders admitting to doping is going to be essential to cleaning this sport up. You had nothing to gain and everything to lose, and you're still doing the right thing. 

So, thank you, Ivan Basso. I might be the only one that does so.

But when I think of the courage it takes to stand before the firing squad and admit everything, I am impressed. The only thing to gain is a partial absolution of a guilty conscience -- it's clear that it's not just you, Ivan, but when the only reward for confessing is execution, what ELSE could we expect besides the <i>omerta</i> that has plagued the peloton? It's the prisoner's dilemma but worse. If everyone denies it, some riders will be banned, some will be cleared, and everyone will go about their merry doping way. If some riders confess, they will be banned, and still, others will be cleared, and go about their merry doping way.

But that will change, in part because of your confession, (if it ends up being as complete as it appears, I might add), and in part because of progressive practices of teams like America's Slipstream and Germany's T-mobile. The teams I've mentioned are the way of the future, as are penalties by the UCI against <i>teams</i> whose riders dope, but clearing up the past to pave the way for a clean future lies with riders like you. It is not enough for a rider to be banned, under protest, by a mess of confusing scientific evidence. 

What we need are confessions, and for names to be named. 
---

Sure, it looks like perhaps he negotiated a reduced sentence, if it'll stick. If so, that's what needs to happen to help with the cleanup, I think. Riders just aren't going to up and "do the right thing" for nothing...


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Einstruzende said:


> Also, I think Bettini is going to get bitten by this. Now _that_ makes me a sad panda.


agreed: sad panda squared....


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

Is there any reason to believe that doping is'nt just as rampant in the one-day Classics as in the Grand Tours?


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

Argentius said:


> ...
> 
> But when I think of the courage it takes to stand before the firing squad and admit everything, I am impressed. The only thing to gain is a partial absolution of a guilty conscience -- it's clear that it's not just you, Ivan, but when the only reward for confessing is execution, what ELSE could we expect besides the <i>omerta</i> that has plagued the peloton? It's the prisoner's dilemma but worse. If everyone denies it, some riders will be banned, some will be cleared, and everyone will go about their merry doping way. If some riders confess, they will be banned, and still, others will be cleared, and go about their merry doping way.
> ..


Argentius, there is no courage here. If he doesn't do this (confess), then he will be found guilty via DNA, and the punishment and public opinion will be much more severe. There is nothing to celebrate here, other than the fact that at least OP wasn't damaging innocent people.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

Pablo said:


> Is there any reason to believe that doping is'nt just as rampant in the one-day Classics as in the Grand Tours?


I have the wool pulled over my eyes.

Actually, I just rationalize to myself that when these guys are riding a single day race, that it would be possible to do without drugs. You don't need to recover then do it again the next day.

Foolish, yes. I just want to believe


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*its the good ship lollipop*

As of this "startling" revelation, I think its not a huge jump in logic here to make the assertion that yes, the minority do not dope.

As others have noted, within the last gew GT's we have had several if not all of the top 3 contended on the basis of doping.

2006 TDF
2006 Giro
2005 Vuelta


SO, where does this put the TDF from 1999-2005 being dominated by Mr Lance Deadwrong????? You got me. All I know is that while my self esteem is not wrapped up in who doped or did not or if any of these folks were my heroes.....It is bitterly disappointing and at some point leaves me incredulous that the athlete is at many times elevated and made the victim as he felt pressured. So what? Everyone feels pressure.

Myself, I am not at all surprised. I am however very very nterested in names like Hincapie, Valverde, Vinokourov, Hamilton etc etc etc being looked at very closely. This will be the kiss of death for this sport over the next 3 years.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Allow me to paraphrase a book I have read: "The first shall be last and the last shall be first" ... that is all.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Hincapie--all I can say is in the 05 tour he climbs like a mountain goat and is looked at as a possible tour contender for 06. After the 06 tour starts with Ullrich/Basso etc getting tossed, Hincapie is one of the riders that completely disappear and can't explain their poor performance. There were a lot of riders who couldn't explain their poor tour performances last year...(including Levi)


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

ttug said:


> Myself, I am not at all surprised. I am however very very nterested in names like Hincapie, Valverde, Vinokourov, Hamilton etc etc etc being looked at very closely.


There's a sacred cow on RBR if there ever was. 

But what's to make us think that the runners up are clean?


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

I kinda still think there is.

Like I said, to have a mess of science convict you despite your abject denials (missing twin! etc etc) is one thing, but I really think fessing up is harder.

I mean, Ullrich was convicted via DNA and still (via his legal team) issues denial statements of some kind or another...

And, not just admitting it but, if Basso really names names, it might be a big step in turning the tide against doping.

On closer inspection (the reduced sentence, which I didn't thnk was possible) there may be some self-interest here, but I think he's serving the sport, too... maybe I just want to see some good here.


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

Argentius said:


> there may be some self-interest here, but I think he's serving the sport, too... maybe I just want to see some good here.


There's nothing wrong with looking for good, but this is deathbed repentence if there ever was.


----------



## wyomingclimber (Feb 26, 2004)

*Is this the greatest strategic move in history?*

Tell me where my logic has gone astray.

Basso sits around his villa sipping chianti for a year and ending the careers of the majority of his serious competition, then returns in 2008 to dominate a decimated peloton and win every race on the calendar.

When I saw a pic of his attorney a year ago, I knew Basso was going to come out okay...


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

stevesbike said:


> Hincapie--all I can say is in the 05 tour he climbs like a mountain goat and is looked at as a possible tour contender for 06. After the 06 tour starts with Ullrich/Basso etc getting tossed, Hincapie is one of the riders that completely disappear and can't explain their poor performance. There were a lot of riders who couldn't explain their poor tour performances last year...(including Levi)


LALALALALA!!!

I can't hear you!!!


----------



## Guest (May 7, 2007)

SilasCL said:


> LALALALALA!!!
> 
> I can't hear you!!!


LOLz!!!


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

stevesbike said:


> Hincapie--all I can say is in the 05 tour he climbs like a mountain goat ...


Along with the conqueror of the mighty Mt. Ventoux, Eros Poli


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

asgelle said:


> Along with the conqueror of the mighty Mt. Ventoux, Eros Poli


since when is "loosing 15 minutes on a climb"=mountain goat?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

den bakker said:


> since when is "loosing 15 minutes on a climb"=mountain goat?


Check the record books.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

asgelle said:


> Check the record books.


I know Eros Poli won but it was not because of superior climbing skills, rather a huge lead at the base.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

den bakker said:


> I know Eros Poli won but it was not because of superior climbing skills, ....


My point exactly.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

asgelle said:


> My point exactly.


ok I have no clue what you are talking about then.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*Hooray for Ivan!*

Hooray for Ivan confessing. Hopefully he will inspire the others to go ahead and confess and allow cycling to move on. Yes, his doping was wrong, but Yes he has done the right thing. The other's need to follow his lead and get this over with.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

And if the other's do follow his example then his suspension should be mitigated by opening the door for the other's to come.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

I wonder about some of you. I am no advocate of doping by any means, but you still have to understand the other side.

Often, in cycling, the difference between making $50k/yr or $2 million +bonuses/yr is that the latter dope. How many of you, if pressured and coerced with $2+ million/yr vs being a mediocre domestique, would take the chance by taking EPO? Or, how many of you would dope in order to be a full-time cyclist and have the best job in the world? To all of these ProTour riders, the only thing they've ever known and will ever know is cycling...many cannot afford to lose a contract in racing.

These guys spent tens of thousands on drugs but made millions in return. Or they spend thousands in drugs and get to keep their job, their life. Think Pantani...eventually it caught up to him and he felt as if he had nothing left to live for. It's probably not even "the best dopers win," but rather it still comes down to genetic ability and talent, as they're all on the same drugs.

I still don't believe in doping, but desperate times call for desperate measures and I certainly understand their situations.


----------



## iherald (Oct 13, 2005)

I'd dope in a second. Heck, I'd dope just to have a chance to ride in the Tour. 

It must be hard to be clean and not able to win, and think that the main reason is because the guy ahead of you is doping (whether he is or not, I don't know).


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

dagger said:


> Hooray for Ivan confessing. Hopefully he will inspire the others to go ahead and confess and allow cycling to move on. Yes, his doping was wrong, but Yes he has done the right thing. The other's need to follow his lead and get this over with.


Many people here appear to believe that a great purge within cycling can somehow cure the sport of doping. I can't think of a single reason to believe that this is true. A decade of increasingly stringent anti-doping measures indicates that there is only one way to eliminate doping, and that's to eliminate professional cycling. Which appears to be the strategy the institutions of cycling have adopted. Why cycling fans would celebrate the successes of that strategy is not obvious to me.

Many other major professional sports demonstrate daily that the existence of doping does NOT have to be either a major health problem or a major PR problem. Can cycling do this? Not, it appears, so long as Pat McQuaid and the zealots with which he is allied are in charge. Sad, because I really like this sport.


----------



## erol/frost (May 30, 2004)

Not sure what to make of all this but hopefully something good emerges in the end for cyclings well-being in the long run.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*Well*



harlond said:


> Many people here appear to believe that a great purge within cycling can somehow cure the sport of doping. .


I hope that I am not "putting words into your mouth" regarding your possible "putting words in my mouth" but who is celebrating a purge of cycling?

I am celebrating and feel much better that even though his back was against the wall at least Basso decided to go ahead and be done with it. He didn't chose to insult us with a continued line of stupid defenses and stall tactics sooo...for that I am celebrating. In his badness there was a little goodness. Hooray for that .


----------



## physasst (Oct 1, 2005)

iherald said:


> I'd dope in a second. Heck, I'd dope just to have a chance to ride in the Tour.
> 
> It must be hard to be clean and not able to win, and think that the main reason is because the guy ahead of you is doping (whether he is or not, I don't know).



Amen brother, amen, I'd like to think that I would be morally superior enough not to give into temptation, but man, that's a LOT of money....I just don't know if I would or not...:thumbsup:


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

harlond said:


> Many other major professional sports demonstrate daily that the existence of doping does NOT have to be either a major health problem or a major PR problem. ....Sad, because I really like this sport.


 What is sad is that someone might actually want cycling to somehow aspire to the sterling example given by the NFL and Pro Baseball. 

Sad indeed.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

Argentius said:


> I kinda still think there is.
> 
> Like I said, to have a mess of science convict you despite your abject denials (missing twin! etc etc) is one thing, but I really think fessing up is harder.
> 
> ...


Sprots fraud is a criminal offense in Italy hes only doing this to reduce his possible conviction. 

I will bet he dosn't name and names that we havn't already heard i.e. my guess is he names Funetes someone whe already know iis "guilty" but is protected from any further punishment. This has nothing to do with helping the sport.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Pure them all*



harlond said:


> Many people here appear to believe that a great purge within cycling can somehow cure the sport of doping. I can't think of a single reason to believe that this is true. A decade of increasingly stringent anti-doping measures indicates that there is only one way to eliminate doping, and that's to eliminate professional cycling. Which appears to be the strategy the institutions of cycling have adopted. Why cycling fans would celebrate the successes of that strategy is not obvious to me.
> 
> Many other major professional sports demonstrate daily that the existence of doping does NOT have to be either a major health problem or a major PR problem. Can cycling do this? Not, it appears, so long as Pat McQuaid and the zealots with which he is allied are in charge. Sad, because I really like this sport.


ARE YOU NUTS?????

The health problems of doping are by and large the problem of the riders who for whatever reason/s decided to cheat. Nobody said, here is the needle, take it now or we kill the dog. Lets face it, thats what it is. They cheated. Period. Wipe them out of the race, eliminate them from the sport and yes, you will still have dopers, but you will also have the faint glimmer of respect that the sport needs. This is fast becoming very much like unlimited body building where they have essentially said, OK, you are an unlimited class athlete and you do supplements. In short, you cheat. In fact, all the freaks who cheat, get respect because...drum roll please.......they compete with the other freaks.  

Money, you mean people do desperate things for money? Wow, never heard that before. Come on, lets get some nads for the folks who actually dont dope. Send a very clear message, you dope, you get caught, you are gone. That not only sends tghe hey they mean iot message but all this BS about monety? Hey how about you dope, your career is over so BAM, NO INCOME, NO MONEY, NO SPONSORS and wow, you dont dope.

Will this work in perfection and in total? Oh hell no. 

Folks will still dope. It is the nature of any competetive effort to have folks who cheat. It happens. It is not fair. It is not nice. BUT the worst thing of all here is not the cheating, the worst is the freakish excuse making. Nobody is at fault, its the system man...... WRONG, athletes dope, they perform with an advantage when doped, you wanna dope, gerat, do it in an unlimited league or not in this sport.


----------



## Rouleur (Mar 5, 2004)

*No good comes out of doping admissions!*

Richard Virenque (and his Festina teammates), Jesus Manzano and David Millar, and now Ivan Basso. Am I missing anyone? These admissions are vastly outnumbered by the typical response of "innocence" of those accused of doping. And for that matter, no wholesale change for the better will ever follow a doping scandal. Even if ALL of the top guys in our sport get sent up the river, doping will persist. Work in a Belgian factory or ride Tour of Flanders. No contest. Win the Tour de France or finish 10th. No contest.

When the stakes are high enough cheating will take place. I will completely admit that when I turn a blind eye, cycling is more enjoyable as a fan of pro cycling. As a bike racer, I don't like the idea that I'm lining up against doping pro's at a Pro-I/II crit. 

However as an American and having raced for over 15 years, it's only bad for our sport when guys like Tyler and Floyd get busted. The sport loses fans and sponsorship.

Doping is part of pro cycling and always will. All of these guys are guilty. What is more ridiculous is the sanctimonious posturing that directors and race organizers take when the poop actually hits the fan.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

ttug said:


> ARE YOU NUTS?????


NO, I'M REALISTIC!!!!!!!! And I've seen the "benefits" of stringent anti-doping measures to date.



ttug said:


> The health problems of doping are by and large the problem of the riders who for whatever reason/s decided to cheat. Nobody said, here is the needle, take it now or we kill the dog. Lets face it, thats what it is. They cheated. Period. Wipe them out of the race, eliminate them from the sport and yes, you will still have dopers, but you will also have the faint glimmer of respect that the sport needs. This is fast becoming very much like unlimited body building where they have essentially said, OK, you are an unlimited class athlete and you do supplements. In short, you cheat. In fact, all the freaks who cheat, get respect because...drum roll please.......they compete with the other freaks.


I'm not convinced it's cheating. On the other hand, I'm persuaded that doping is widespread in all major professional sports, but most of them seem to cling to a "faint glimmer of respect." Why couldn't that be true for cycling?



ttug said:


> Money, you mean people do desperate things for money? Wow, never heard that before. Come on, lets get some nads for the folks who actually dont dope. Send a very clear message, you dope, you get caught, you are gone. That not only sends tghe hey they mean iot message but all this BS about monety? Hey how about you dope, your career is over so BAM, NO INCOME, NO MONEY, NO SPONSORS and wow, you dont dope.
> 
> Will this work in perfection and in total? Oh hell no.


Who are these "folks who actually don't dope?" What reason is there to believe that your elevated sanctions will have any effect at all? Like you say and for the reasons you identify, people will dope. The hope of eliminating doping is a pipe dream, as you admit. The question thus is how best to deal with it. No one who actually likes professional cycling could reasonably believe that the current way of dealing with doping is anything but a disaster. 



ttug said:


> Folks will still dope. It is the nature of any competetive effort to have folks who cheat. It happens. It is not fair. It is not nice. BUT the worst thing of all here is not the cheating, the worst is the freakish excuse making. Nobody is at fault, its the system man...... WRONG, athletes dope, they perform with an advantage when doped, you wanna dope, gerat, do it in an unlimited league or not in this sport.


If the worst thing is freakish excuse making, seems like that can be eliminated without resorting to the scandal-creating and largely ineffective measures that are now in place. Indeed, the freakish excuses would be largely curtailed almost immediately by reducing the sanctions for doping. If the suspension is for 30 days, the rider's interest would not be served by freakish excuses. Freakish excuse making and persistent incredible claims of innocence make sense ONLY when the sanction is severe. The system you propose is guaranteed to keep the freakish excuses alive.




philippec said:


> What is sad is that someone might actually want cycling to somehow aspire to the sterling example given by the NFL and Pro Baseball.
> 
> Sad indeed.


Yeah, it's terrible that for the sport I love I want the focus to be on the competition rather than the pharmaceuticals. It's terrible that when the sport is held up to ridicule and contempt on all sides, and has been for a decade, I consider the example of sports that are NOT ridiculed and condemned as perhaps worthy of emulation. It's terrible that I don't support the continued prosecution of a futile war on doping whose main (certainly not only) casualty seems to be the sport itself. I guess I'd be a better person if I was more willing to take pride in the empty appearance of moral rectitude that the sport's leaders affect, compared to the lowlifes running the NFL and MLB. But I'm not. Sad indeed.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*nope, I disagree*



harlond said:


> NO, I'M REALISTIC!!!!!!!! And I've seen the "benefits" of stringent anti-doping measures to date.
> 
> I'm not convinced it's cheating. On the other hand, I'm persuaded that doping is widespread in all major professional sports, but most of them seem to cling to a "faint glimmer of respect." Why couldn't that be true for cycling?
> 
> ...


The freakish excuse maiking exists at any sanction level. Sure, harsh sanctions will drive up the freak show factor. Why not? Hey its great reading in the press. BUT, they still make it all up now and they will continue to do so at any sanction level.. So, IMO, I do not see a gee, if we take it easy approach as working. If anything, they come back, they still dope, they still win etc etc etc Nuke em. Get them out of the sport. Riders incredible desire to be innocent is hardly a character pursuit.They want the money. They want to win.So, they cheated. Not a big news flash here. Greed sucks.

You dope you are a cheater period. Sadly, if you dope it is by no means the promise of performing any better at all. In fact, you just might do worse. OR even better get a weird form of blood cancer and the whole world bemoans your doped out loss.

Having a bad day, but tomorrow you want to be great, so, by some miracle, you come out and clean the clocks of everyone in the peleton and win a huge mountain stage in a virtually solo fashion the VERY NEXT DAY....Bring that to me all natural.....NO. You cheated.

So, here I am waiting on how this could be considered not cheating or not so very bad really. As to who this non doping group could be, the nice guy inside says, well gosh, how about the guy who does not dope Yeah, sound a bit like a tautology to me....The guys who do not dope are the folks who actually do not ingest the products....Novel idea.

BUT the sardonic person will say, Hey Mister, the folks who dont dope are the ones who do not get caught.......:thumbsup:


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

dagger said:


> Hooray for Ivan confessing. Hopefully he will inspire the others to go ahead and confess and allow cycling to move on. Yes, his doping was wrong, but Yes he has done the right thing. The other's need to follow his lead and get this over with.


No, he did what he needed to do to survive. You think it's coincidence that he did this BEFORE the Giro? He's going to cop a bargain that'll reduce his sentence so he can lineup for the 08 Giro.


----------



## kmac (Feb 13, 2007)

I understand that there are many opinions on any subject, but I don't understand those of you who seem to think that doping is ok. It is cheating. The basic underlying tenant of sports is competition, to see which person is best. Not to see which Doctor is best. And for those who seem to think that its ok because its a really cool job to have and lots of money is at stake, does this logic only apply to sports? Or, if I make a lot of money, can I cheat on my taxes because I think everyone else is too? If the hot girl at the bar smiles at me, can I cheat on my wife because it would be cool to be able to get her? Ethics is not doing what you are supposed to do when everyone is watching. Ethics is doing what you are supposed to do when no one is watching. If you think doping is ok, are you saying that if the options are the sport gets taken down by this or the sport goes on with doping, then you'll take a doped up sport? If those are the options, I think I'll get on my bike and go for a ride. If the sport can't exist without cheating, I can still enjoy the thrill of riding my bike, and doing the best that I can.


----------



## artnshel (Jun 29, 2004)

I think this one admission is going to turn Pro Cycling on its ear. Lots of riders are implicated in Puerto. One admits it's true and they all go down. Are any named riders on the start list for the Giro?

The bright side of this for Basso is if he made a deal and can race again next year then he was very smart.

It is unfortunate that there is so much focus on doping in cycling. I'm not sure I'd mind if we had a 'Top Fuel' class. It also seems unjust to have the inquiries drag on but I think that is what got Basso to come clean. He comes clean now and knows when he can race again. Otherwise who knows how long things drag on?

It is a great sport.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

I'm not surprised Basso finally fessed up. He never looked at all comfortable saying his denials and tried to avoid saying anything specific when he did.

I don't care if they dope or not, I just want to see the best riders racing and forget all this foolishness about the cleanliness or sanctity of sport. I don't care if Salma Hayek lights one up, or Rocky takes roids so why care about pro cyclists?


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

I don't understand how people can see this as so black and white. Even without doping at the highest level it's still a contest of medical doctors, physiologists, psychologists, support staff, suppliers, consultants, post race IVs, vitamins and other legal ergogenic aids, power meters, performance testing, altitude tents, etc. Where is the black and white line that so many seem able to divine in that huge tangle of things that already take a modern athlete's performance so far from what could be called a natural product of their ability and dedication?

It is also mystifying how anyone can still think prohibition is a viable strategy for defeating any problem. It has never worked and human nature being what it is it never will and unless cycling alters course from this ridiculous zero tolerance idea there will be nothing left.


----------



## rssljhnsn (Jul 5, 2003)

*Ante up...*

Any bets on who paid off that Spanish judge to try and sweep OP under the carpet?


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*oh really*



terzo rene said:


> I don't understand how people can see this as so black and white. Even without doping at the highest level it's still a contest of medical doctors, physiologists, psychologists, support staff, suppliers, consultants, post race IVs, vitamins and other legal ergogenic aids, power meters, performance testing, altitude tents, etc. Where is the black and white line that so many seem able to divine in that huge tangle of things that already take a modern athlete's performance so far from what could be called a natural product of their ability and dedication?
> 
> It is also mystifying how anyone can still think prohibition is a viable strategy for defeating any problem. It has never worked and human nature being what it is it never will and unless cycling alters course from this ridiculous zero tolerance idea there will be nothing left.


I find it amusing that people never run out of ways to tell a lie.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*no....*



artnshel said:


> I think this one admission is going to turn Pro Cycling on its ear. Lots of riders are implicated in Puerto. One admits it's true and they all go down. Are any named riders on the start list for the Giro?
> 
> The bright side of this for Basso is if he made a deal and can race again next year then he was very smart.
> 
> ...


This is a wonderful sport and it is getting destroyed by con artists who are by and large athletes and coaches and their docs who try to skimp the tests.

Face it, we love the sport becuase we also ride and its fun. There is no joy in the freaks who dope and their apologits. The sport has to be taken for real again and the only way you do it is clean house. Folks get hurt? Careers get ended? Too bad so sad.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*and??????*



Rouleur said:


> Richard Virenque (and his Festina teammates), Jesus Manzano and David Millar, and now Ivan Basso. Am I missing anyone? These admissions are vastly outnumbered by the typical response of "innocence" of those accused of doping. And for that matter, no wholesale change for the better will ever follow a doping scandal. Even if ALL of the top guys in our sport get sent up the river, doping will persist. Work in a Belgian factory or ride Tour of Flanders. No contest. Win the Tour de France or finish 10th. No contest.
> 
> When the stakes are high enough cheating will take place. I will completely admit that when I turn a blind eye, cycling is more enjoyable as a fan of pro cycling. As a bike racer, I don't like the idea that I'm lining up against doping pro's at a Pro-I/II crit.
> 
> ...


They all doped. they all had coaches who knew or ignored it.

This is the best thing for the sport. Build a bridge and get over it.


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

Rouleur said:


> Richard Virenque (and his Festina teammates), Jesus Manzano and David Millar, and now Ivan Basso. Am I missing anyone? These admissions are vastly outnumbered by the typical response of "innocence" of those accused of doping. And for that matter, no wholesale change for the better will ever follow a doping scandal. Even if ALL of the top guys in our sport get sent up the river, doping will persist. Work in a Belgian factory or ride Tour of Flanders. No contest. Win the Tour de France or finish 10th. No contest.
> 
> When the stakes are high enough cheating will take place. I will completely admit that when I turn a blind eye, cycling is more enjoyable as a fan of pro cycling. As a bike racer, I don't like the idea that I'm lining up against doping pro's at a Pro-I/II crit.
> 
> ...


No, it's crappy that they cheated...it's good that they were caught.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

it could get interesting if the UCI starts to dangle reduced suspensions over Basso's head for some info re Riis and other team directors. Did Riis and Basso have some implicit agreement about his doping etc. How could a DS watch Basso at last year's Giro and not know the guy was doing more than intervals?? 

I think there is a real move to clean up the sport with some teams making real steps toward cleaning up their teams. If clean riders start calling out cheats, that would be a big step forward. Sure, there may always be cheaters, but that's a lot different than an entire culture of cheating from the top all the way down.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

kmac said:


> I understand that there are many opinions on any subject, but I don't understand those of you who seem to think that doping is ok. It is cheating. The basic underlying tenant of sports is competition, to see which person is best. Not to see which Doctor is best. And for those who seem to think that its ok because its a really cool job to have and lots of money is at stake, does this logic only apply to sports? Or, if I make a lot of money, can I cheat on my taxes because I think everyone else is too? If the hot girl at the bar smiles at me, can I cheat on my wife because it would be cool to be able to get her? Ethics is not doing what you are supposed to do when everyone is watching. Ethics is doing what you are supposed to do when no one is watching. If you think doping is ok, are you saying that if the options are the sport gets taken down by this or the sport goes on with doping, then you'll take a doped up sport? If those are the options, I think I'll get on my bike and go for a ride. If the sport can't exist without cheating, I can still enjoy the thrill of riding my bike, and doing the best that I can.


Who here has said doping is OK? Big, big difference between condoning doping and concluding that the current system is a failure that disserves the sport, the fans, and the riders. Similarly, big, big difference between condoing doping and suggesting that doping and cheating are not the same thing. So who here said doping was OK?


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

ttug said:


> The freakish excuse maiking exists at any sanction level. Sure, harsh sanctions will drive up the freak show factor. Why not? Hey its great reading in the press. BUT, they still make it all up now and they will continue to do so at any sanction level.. So, IMO, I do not see a gee, if we take it easy approach as working. If anything, they come back, they still dope, they still win etc etc etc Nuke em. Get them out of the sport. Riders incredible desire to be innocent is hardly a character pursuit.They want the money. They want to win.So, they cheated. Not a big news flash here. Greed sucks.


It seems to me you're not willing to admit the logical consequences of your own factual premises. You clearly recognize that human nature being what it is, there is no way to prevent people from doping. But that doesn't stop you from proposing the continued pursuit of proven ineffectual means for eliminating doping. In any event, I disagree with you. Take Shawn Merriman. Sure, he claimed his test results reflected bad supplements. But he didn't press the point, he accepted his punishment (albeit after appealing so as to ensure that his suspension did not prevent him from playing in the critical Denver game). His case did not become a knock-down drag-out affair over the integrity of the system, as is true of practically every cycling case. Hamilton's and Landis's cases are black eyes for the sport and system no matter the outcome. Not so of Merriman's case.



ttug said:


> You dope you are a cheater period.


I don't worship at Dick Pound's shrine and I don't think UCI has any more moral authority than a slug, so I think this is BS. YMMV.



ttug said:


> Having a bad day, but tomorrow you want to be great, so, by some miracle, you come out and clean the clocks of everyone in the peleton and win a huge mountain stage in a virtually solo fashion the VERY NEXT DAY....Bring that to me all natural.....NO. You cheated.


I'm not a believer in Landis's innocence, but I also haven't seen evidence that his performance that day is explainable only by the violation he's accused of. Maybe it is, I don't know, point me to the evidence.



ttug said:


> So, here I am waiting on how this could be considered not cheating or not so very bad really. As to who this non doping group could be, the nice guy inside says, well gosh, how about the guy who does not dope Yeah, sound a bit like a tautology to me....The guys who do not dope are the folks who actually do not ingest the products....Novel idea.


It's not the definition that is the problem. It's identifying them. Name them for us. Or see the other thread here that more or less concludes that identifying the "clean" riders either can't be done or equates being clean with not winning.



ttug said:


> BUT the sardonic person will say, Hey Mister, the folks who dont dope are the ones who do not get caught.......:thumbsup:


Isn't that exactly where we've been for ten long years? Think of the many, many threads here that consider every victory evidence of doping and every poor performance evidence of non-doping. Thanks UCI, what a great outcome, what stewardship.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Rouleur said:


> Richard Virenque (and his Festina teammates), Jesus Manzano and David Millar, and now Ivan Basso. Am I missing anyone? These admissions are vastly outnumbered by the typical response of "innocence" of those accused of doping. And for that matter, no wholesale change for the better will ever follow a doping scandal. Even if ALL of the top guys in our sport get sent up the river, doping will persist. Work in a Belgian factory or ride Tour of Flanders. No contest. Win the Tour de France or finish 10th. No contest.
> 
> When the stakes are high enough cheating will take place. I will completely admit that when I turn a blind eye, cycling is more enjoyable as a fan of pro cycling. As a bike racer, I don't like the idea that I'm lining up against doping pro's at a Pro-I/II crit.
> 
> ...


I completely agree. Everyone, included the sanctimonious posters on this forum, were perfectly happy when everyone was doping and nobody was getting busted. It was a brain dead move to ever try and catch people with the tests and at this point I don't really see any way to escape the return of cycling to the dark ages of no money and no TV.

Regarding one day races and doping, another of Simoni's recent entertaining quotes was that it was ridiculous to think shortening the tours would reduce doping since everyone knew it was much easier to evade the controls in one day races. Museeuw was his example.


----------



## Walt12 (Jan 4, 2007)

Inconsistency among the jurisdictional authorities is a problem. Compare the French codified approach to the (until now(?)) laissez-faire approach of the Italians. Not to mention the lack of clear leadership amongst the sporting bodies with a stake in all this (WADA, UCI, the promotors).

Given this, is it any wonder that even with the paltry methods we do have for detection, enforcement has such a patchy record over the years?

The sport is rotten with doping, maybe no more so than other pro-sports, but the point is that WADA has set it's store on cleaning up Olympic sports, and cycling is to be it's first monument (ok maybe that's a bit OTT, but anyway ...).

Where to from here? Sponsors hold the key ... they desert the sport and it's game over. No big money = no pressure to win = no point in taking the health risk.


----------



## kmac (Feb 13, 2007)

harlond said:


> Who here has said doping is OK? Big, big difference between condoning doping and concluding that the current system is a failure that disserves the sport, the fans, and the riders. Similarly, big, big difference between condoing doping and suggesting that doping and cheating are not the same thing. So who here said doping was OK?



I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, but it seems like many of the people in this discussion are saying that they don't care that some riders are doping. 

I also do agree with you that the current system is a failure and that it seems more designed to get certain people (hello Mr. Pound) in the newspapers.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*you have a point*



harlond said:


> It seems to me you're not willing to admit the logical consequences of your own factual premises. You clearly recognize that human nature being what it is, there is no way to prevent people from doping. But that doesn't stop you from proposing the continued pursuit of proven ineffectual means for eliminating doping. In any event, I disagree with you. Take Shawn Merriman. Sure, he claimed his test results reflected bad supplements. But he didn't press the point, he accepted his punishment (albeit after appealing so as to ensure that his suspension did not prevent him from playing in the critical Denver game). His case did not become a knock-down drag-out affair over the integrity of the system, as is true of practically every cycling case. Hamilton's and Landis's cases are black eyes for the sport and system no matter the outcome. Not so of Merriman's case.
> 
> I don't worship at Dick Pound's shrine and I don't think UCI has any more moral authority than a slug, so I think this is BS. YMMV.
> 
> ...


Do I think UCI or DICK (note all caps) Pound have a point. No. In fact, They are doing what they do to save face, not riders lives.

Do I agree with them? No. Not the person. HOWEVER, to the point, WHO GIVES A TOSS about Merriman or really any other stand up guy who doped. They doped. Game over. Career done. What is so hard about this?

Yeah, sure, everyone wants to know wow, why are you so anti doping? Its not that I have this hero thing or that my rider let me down..No. Look at what these folks earn. Look at what they say. Look at the total stupidity. It is all BS. All of it.10 long years, and you think I am sardonic all of that time. No sir, I am not. I believed and still do that if you have the talent and if you train, you should get what you try to earn. Thats all. That is it. You deserve nothing except the fruits of your effort. 

All of this show me the evidence after lab after lab after lab has in the stupidest of ways leaked the data and then we feel sorry for the lack of rider privacy or the lack of professionalism of the lab? It is a point, yes, BUT they doped.If you want to bake a cake, you have to break eggs. 

I respect your opinion, thats great, but dont ever come to tell me about all of the swell athletes who are just great people because in reality, I am not there to be a fan of the person. I like the sport. I want a clean sport where my kids can see the ethic of honest efforts being just that honest. If I want a friend, I pick up the phone and call someone or talk to my wife.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

ttug said:


> All of this show me the evidence after lab after lab after lab has in the stupidest of ways leaked the data and then we feel sorry for the lack of rider privacy or the lack of professionalism of the lab? It is a point, yes, BUT they doped.If you want to bake a cake, you have to break eggs.


The point for me isn't about rider's privacy but when you have the lab being as unprofessional as the one in the Landis case, all it does is throw the validity of the test out the window. By not having tight regulations followed, the eggs you break are the tests themselves. And without them, no one can be caught.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*good question*



harlond said:


> Who here has said doping is OK? Big, big difference between condoning doping and concluding that the current system is a failure that disserves the sport, the fans, and the riders. Similarly, big, big difference between condoing doping and suggesting that doping and cheating are not the same thing. So who here said doping was OK?



Actually, get off of his back and read the posts.

People who post that they would be tempted or that they would dope just to ride in the TDF...I dont know about you but thats NOT the way to say, yeah, I dont want to dope.

It says, yeah, I would dope to ride a race and yeah I might dope to get all the bucks. So yeah, thats a few inches short of a glowing endorsement. DOPING IS CHEATING. Pound it out your a55 if you dont like hearing that. I lifted for years, guys doped to get stronger. They got stronger faster. Recovered faster. They cheated. The drugs they popped were illegal. They took the drugs to get an unnatural advantage that they could not get through work. SO Instead of having the guts to say, I dont have it, I do not have the talent at this level. THEY DOPED. They are cowards. 

Want it clear cut? Here you go: Grow some balls and make up your mind. Otherwise, you are a waste of my time by trying to assuage your feelings of inadequacy by not being able to face the fact that if you dont have a natural talent to compete and take a drug to do so, you cheat, you dope, you are a fraud.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*and*



Henry Porter said:


> The point for me isn't about rider's privacy but when you have the lab being as unprofessional as the one in the Landis case, all it does is throw the validity of the test out the window. By not having tight regulations followed, the eggs you break are the tests themselves. And without them, no one can be caught.


So do we wait for another riding great to show up dead in a hotel room after coking up? OR do we actually create a test protocol and follow it? Wow great choices.

I do however agree, I do not however, think its just OK to say, hey, those guys at the lab are not being respectful of me or very professional, so, the ests are all wrong. No. They suck as professionals, oh yeah. BUT, how about those tests......


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

Devil's advocate point: Natural talent is largely based off the luck of being born with the right genetic makeup. You could argue that doping evens out this variation and allows a more fair playing field. 

As a novice scientist I really am beginning to think that it's impossible to keep up with the dopers. Obviously in America most audience members are in denial about it and that's the way it will be. Cycling has violated the fallacy that we are on top of doping and appears to be paying the price for that. The majority of th epublic just doesn't want to know. While I agree with ttug's main point, it's not worth getting upset over imo.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

harlond said:


> Yeah, it's terrible that for the sport I love I want the focus to be on the competition rather than the pharmaceuticals. It's terrible that when the sport is held up to ridicule and contempt on all sides, and has been for a decade, I consider the example of sports that are NOT ridiculed and condemned as perhaps worthy of emulation. It's terrible that I don't support the continued prosecution of a futile war on doping whose main (certainly not only) casualty seems to be the sport itself. I guess I'd be a better person if I was more willing to take pride in the empty appearance of moral rectitude that the sport's leaders affect, compared to the lowlifes running the NFL and MLB. But I'm not. Sad indeed.


I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you have indeed only been following the sport for a decade or so ... perhaps since 1999? If I am wrong, excuse what follows but let me give you a bit of perspective from someone who has actually cheered Merckx from the roadside and who first watched the TDF in person in 1968 (holding my Grand-pa's hand!). This sport has always had a problem with doping -- and while you seem to have a black or white perspective that it should be everything or nothing (in your case, "let'em dope!"), most of the cycling public in the world (of which the cycling public in N. Am is but a small minority) still follows the sport more than the pharmaceuticals -- you should see the crowds on the side of the road here in France, in Italy, in Belgium. Does this mean they don't care that the riders are doping? No -- I have consistently found that the fans all <i>want</i> to see clean riders and support the efforts of the UCI, WADA, federations like the FFC and teams like FDJ, Bouygues and now Telecom and Slipstream. And believe me, I have spoken to a lot of people at races and around the races and have generally been steeped in the cycling world for the past 25 years. Perhaps you believe that the treatment of the sport in the US ("contempt and ridicule"?) is universal. It is not ... and far from it.

So I will assume that the perspective that you have is based on your limited experience and exposure to this sport -- it is yours, it is probably generally in line with what you have seen and experienced but it in no way is reflective of how most people around the world view the sport and its ongoing problems with doping. In my view ... your perspective is also wrong. Let's talk about it in, say, 15 years ....if you are still following this sport.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

I totally agree with you TR, this is not a black and white issue. In cycling as in all sports and everyday life in general, you will always get people who try to take shortcuts. The sad part is that many of them actually succeed in doing so.
I'm actually old enough to have lived through the entire Ben Johnson fiasco, here in Canada, during and after the 1988 Seoul Olympics. Big Ben, as he used to be called, ran a record breaking 9.79 sec in the 100m sprint final. Two days later, surprise, surprise, he tested positive for stanozolol (an anabolic steroid). Denial after denial and a few months later he spills the beans on doping in track and field. All of his records are stripped and he goes off to live his life into obscurity. Fast forward to today and the 100 m record stands at 9.78 sec. and not a single question is being raised by anyone.
And then they say that cycling has a problem.


----------



## kyler2001 (Sep 8, 2005)

In today's Cycling News in an an article entitled "Bugno: Teams Need To Pay" http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may08news2 they say

_Bugno's comments seemed to be directed at Discovery Channel. "Is it possible that the teams and those who share a room with him [Basso's teammates] don't know anything?_

Why would Bugno’s comments be directed towards Discovery when his [Basso] bags of blood marked “Barillo” was given to Dr. Fuentes during his time with CSC (2006?)? If anything questions should start pointing back to Riis. Don’t tell me Riis new nothing about what his top rider was doing...


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

philippec said:


> I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you have indeed only been following the sport for a decade or so ... perhaps since 1999?


Incorrect. I've been actively following since 1986 and I've read quite a bit about earlier times. Your knowledge and experience are greater, but neither that nor my nationality is a sufficient reason to attribute my views to ignorance.



philippec said:


> If I am wrong, excuse what follows but let me give you a bit of perspective from someone who has actually cheered Merckx from the roadside and who first watched the TDF in person in 1968 (holding my Grand-pa's hand!). This sport has always had a problem with doping -- and while you seem to have a black or white perspective that it should be everything or nothing (in your case, "let'em dope!"),


I'm aware of this history. I most definitely do not have a black or white perspective, and indeed, from your comments criticizing my reference to the NFL and MLB, I would have thought that was true of you. Nor am I, as you suggest, in favor of a "let'em dope" approach. I've addressed this topic a lot, and I don't see how anyone could reasonably construe anything I've said as an "everything or nothing" perspective. Instead, I am in favor of an approach that recognizes the near impossibility of eliminating doping and that seeks to manage the problem without engaging in the destructive methods that characterize doping zealots like Dick Pound. You have contempt for the NFL and MLB, and of course they're far from perfect, but their approach is more realistic and less destructive than WADA's and UCI's. And I'm no expert on FIFA, but my impression is that the NFL and MLB are ahead of FIFA in doping control. Maybe if I had mentioned FIFA you wouldn't think me so provincial and uninformed.



philippec said:


> most of the cycling public in the world (of which the cycling public in N. Am is but a small minority) still follows the sport more than the pharmaceuticals -- you should see the crowds on the side of the road here in France, in Italy, in Belgium.


Well, I'd love to see the crowds. I follow the sport, too, but it takes a lot of wading through doping news to do so. And then when major star after major star is sidelined by doping accusations or convictions and every race winner is immediately accused of doping, well, I'd prefer it was otherwise.



philippec said:


> Does this mean they don't care that the riders are doping? No -- I have consistently found that the fans all <i>want</i> to see clean riders and support the efforts of the UCI, WADA, federations like the FFC and teams like FDJ, Bouygues and now Telecom and Slipstream. And believe me, I have spoken to a lot of people at races and around the races and have generally been steeped in the cycling world for the past 25 years. Perhaps you believe that the treatment of the sport in the US ("contempt and ridicule"?) is universal. It is not ... and far from it.


As you say, I may be just an ignorant American, but I get my cycling news from Australian and European sources as well as American. I can't read _L'Equipe_, so my impression that it has quite an extensive focus on doping could well be wrong and simply reflect the fact that only its doping stories get picked up in the English-language media. Still, there hardly seems to be a shortage of doping news in the European media.



philippec said:


> So I will assume that the perspective that you have is based on your limited experience and exposure to this sport -- it is yours, it is probably generally in line with what you have seen and experienced but it in no way is reflective of how most people around the world view the sport and its ongoing problems with doping. In my view ... your perspective is also wrong. Let's talk about it in, say, 15 years ....if you are still following this sport.


You have a real talent for dripping condescension. But I am not persuaded by what you've said.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

ttug said:


> So do we wait for another riding great to show up dead in a hotel room after coking up? OR do we actually create a test protocol and follow it? Wow great choices.
> 
> I do however agree, I do not however, think its just OK to say, hey, those guys at the lab are not being respectful of me or very professional, so, the ests are all wrong. No. They suck as professionals, oh yeah. BUT, how about those tests......


Yeah how about those tests.

Sh!tty science that would not hold up in any real world lab.
Protocals violated left and right so that the out come is in shadow. Leaks. Career building moves (Catlin). 

Im all for catching the chearters but really the tests they are using and the way they are applying them means that some of the results have big question marks over them. And your "gotta break some eggs if you wanna bake a cake" BS works great if your not the egg - no one thats innocent should be falsly punished.

If you look at a case like Landis's and say that the testing was done well enough to be convincing your just dim witted, not saying he's innocent just they did a piss poor of catching him. Don't worry they are going to rail road his verdicte right through some people will be happy that they caught a doper some of us will always wonder, too bad they couldn't get it so we could know.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

So just like I predicted yesterday (not that it was hard).

Basso names no names (tho he does throw out some smear statements at large)

Basso protects his Giro win (the doping was intended for the tour)

Basso is try to get a reduced sentence (Already talking about his return)

The best and latest claim - there was no real doping he was just trying to to dope but never got around to it in his words hes "always won clean" 

Maybe Gibo will drop by his house and punch him in the stomach.


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2007)

It's pretty lame - I hope CONI really grows a set and makes him tell all or no deal.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*I agree*



32and3cross said:


> Yeah how about those tests.
> 
> Sh!tty science that would not hold up in any real world lab.
> Protocals violated left and right so that the out come is in shadow. Leaks. Career building moves (Catlin).
> ...


OK, so what would you do?

I mean really. I am not saying that these are great tests. They are not. Hence, the sarcasm which did not come out in my post.

When is enough enough. Where do you draw a line? WHEN do you say, hey you know what, this has to stop. If we keep going at this rate, there will never be a cheater, there will be bad tests and the whole world says, well, gee, its just the way it is.

No. Not for me. You want to call BS. OK. Why dont we all watch the news conference when our man sits there and will tell the whole world he just tried to cheat but didnt really. What a crock. Tell you what, lets go the current method and just cheer along as nobody gets caught because boo hoo, their privacy was not respected. Big deal, so what who cares. They are frauds.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*how about that*



32and3cross said:


> So just like I predicted yesterday (not that it was hard).
> 
> Basso names no names (tho he does throw out some smear statements at large)
> 
> ...


It was not hard to predict at all. Just as you said.

How about that. How about he wins the 08 Giro? Why not?


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

ttug said:


> OK, so what would you do?


get better tests - are soem gonna slip through the net while you do sure but then some already have - hell alot already have



ttug said:


> I mean really. I am not saying that these are great tests. They are not. Hence, the sarcasm which did not come out in my post.


No their not



ttug said:


> When is enough enough. Where do you draw a line? WHEN do you say, hey you know what, this has to stop. If we keep going at this rate, there will never be a cheater, there will be bad tests and the whole world says, well, gee, its just the way it is.
> 
> No. Not for me. You want to call BS. OK. Why dont we all watch the news conference when our man sits there and will tell the whole world he just tried to cheat but didnt really. What a crock. Tell you what, lets go the current method and just cheer along as nobody gets caught because boo hoo, their privacy was not respected. Big deal, so what who cares. They are frauds.


Uh we'er talking about entertainment not child molsters here. Yes it would be nice if we could stop cheating and drug use in this sport. But since cheating and drug use are rampent in society at large lets not get too bent up out of shape. As far as invasion of privacy - what ever profession you work in, I am am sure there are some cheats in there somewhere so you won't mind if we bust right in and start rooting around in your life, hey maybe you can even get strung up for something you didn't do.

As far as Basso the man is a lamer no one in their right mind buys that crap hes shoveling about not really cheating and being clean for the Giro.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

harlond said:


> I've been actively following since 1986 and I've read quite a bit about earlier times. Your knowledge and experience are greater, but neither that nor my nationality is a sufficient reason to attribute my views to ignorance.


As I said -- I was going out on a limb. Obviously I was wrong. However, I don't believe being American automatically makes one ignorant of all things cycling -- skewed perhaps since it isn't a sport as well covered as here -- but certainly not ignorant.



harlond said:


> You have contempt for the NFL and MLB, and of course they're far from perfect, but their approach is more realistic and less destructive than WADA's and UCI's. And I'm no expert on FIFA, but my impression is that the NFL and MLB are ahead of FIFA in doping control. Maybe if I had mentioned FIFA you wouldn't think me so provincial and uninformed.


I disagree with you -- I do not believe the UCI's or WADA's approach (should I add ASO as well?) is less realistic and more destructive than the NFL, MLB or FIFA approaches to doping. I believe cycling as a sport will be stronger, not weaker, because of their actions.



harlond said:


> Well, I'd love to see the crowds. I follow the sport, too, but it takes a lot of wading through doping news to do so.


Not here it doesn't. 



harlond said:


> And then when major star after major star is sidelined by doping accusations or convictions and every race winner is immediately accused of doping, well, I'd prefer it was otherwise..


Of course we all wish it were otherwise -- and with the fear of a Puerto-like denouement -- perhaps the stars will be less likely to dope in the first place.



harlond said:


> As you say, I may be just an ignorant American, ..


I did not say that -- I am American too... there are statistically the same prportion of ignorant Americans as in other countries.



harlond said:


> but I get my cycling news from Australian and European sources as well as American. I can't read _L'Equipe_, so my impression that it has quite an extensive focus on doping could well be wrong and simply reflect the fact that only its doping stories get picked up in the English-language media. ..


Yes, you are wrong.



harlond said:


> You have a real talent for dripping condescension. But I am not persuaded by what you've said.


Dripping with condescension? No. Condensation perhaps as I am making home preserves today. I understand that you remain unpersuaded -- however, I do not agree with your assertion that Puerto and the UCI's actions are destroying the sport -- as I said, we'll see in 15 years.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*cycling will not be destroyed*



philippec said:


> Dripping with condescension?.


The current situation is not going to destroy cycling. There are 1,000's of kids lined up at races every weekend who are dreaming of their chance to race professionally.

Philippe wasn't being condescenscious, he was saying that only time will tell and that your views will change with time.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Ok*



32and3cross said:


> get better tests - are soem gonna slip through the net while you do sure but then some already have - hell alot already have
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So, the justification is since it happens everywhere else, who cares? That is just as lame as any excuse that any rider has yet proferred in the sport thus far. That rates right up there with the insulin was for my dog.......Its just everywhere in society. So, do you live in some enclave where evefryone gave up and stopped trying. Count me out.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

philippec said:


> I did not say that -- I am American too... there are statistically the same prportion of ignorant Americans as in other countries.


 Unfortunately that assertion is not validated by test scores.

It's likely that cycling will survive pretty well in Europe, but the glory days of watching live Euro cycling on US TV were already fading before these rounds of scandals so the US prognosis is pretty grim unless rights fees are drastically cut to the point where it could be profitable at less than half a ratings point and without an American victor.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

ttug said:


> So do we wait for another riding great to show up dead in a hotel room after coking up? OR do we actually create a test protocol and follow it? Wow great choices.
> 
> I do however agree, I do not however, think its just OK to say, hey, those guys at the lab are not being respectful of me or very professional, so, the ests are all wrong. No. They suck as professionals, oh yeah. BUT, how about those tests......


Do you have any scientific training? My point was that without "professionalism" the tests are no longer valid. They mean nothing. It seems to me that you have little understanding of how difficult it is to create these tests and then the importance of doing everything by the book. I have no interest in anyone getting off by unprofessional lab workers but the fact is that the tests they offer are worthless unless care is taken. 

If someone decides to coke up and then overdoses, it's on them. No one is responsible for saving people hell bent on destruction.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

ttug said:


> So, the justification is since it happens everywhere else, who cares? That is just as lame as any excuse that any rider has yet proferred in the sport thus far. That rates right up there with the insulin was for my dog.......Its just everywhere in society. So, do you live in some enclave where evefryone gave up and stopped trying. Count me out.


Actually none of my statments excuse the riders who cheat, I just don't agree with you that the testers get a pass on doing it right because your pissed off.

Do you live in enclave where people who you agree with don't have to do their jobs right. Count me out.


----------



## nostromo (Apr 1, 2006)

The sad thing is Basso's sister so hot, were not gonna see so much of her know.

Oh yeah and all the doping 'n thats bad.


----------



## tricycletalent (Apr 2, 2005)

*delusional?*



ttug said:


> ...
> Yeah, sure, everyone wants to know wow, why are you so anti doping? Its not that I have this hero thing or that my rider let me down..No. Look at what these folks earn. Look at what they say. Look at the total stupidity. It is all BS. All of it.10 long years, and you think I am sardonic all of that time. No sir, I am not. I believed and still do that if you have the talent and if you train, you should get what you try to earn. Thats all. That is it. *You deserve nothing except the fruits of your effort.*


Tell me exactly how being born with a genetic advantage in responding to training stimuli has anything to do with own effort.


----------



## tricycletalent (Apr 2, 2005)

*Eye-opener of the ignorant?*



ttug said:


> OK, so what would you do?


That is the point. There ain't nothing you can do, whether you are willing to accept it or not. Unless you are willing to use tests where you can't be sure if a positive is a true positive (low specificity], and where the true positives often are negative (low sensitivity). Combine that with the fact that a high specificity has a negative influence on the sensitivity in general and vice versa. Then you have a dilemma.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*ok*



Henry Porter said:


> Do you have any scientific training? My point was that without "professionalism" the tests are no longer valid. They mean nothing. It seems to me that you have little understanding of how difficult it is to create these tests and then the importance of doing everything by the book. I have no interest in anyone getting off by unprofessional lab workers but the fact is that the tests they offer are worthless unless care is taken.
> 
> If someone decides to coke up and then overdoses, it's on them. No one is responsible for saving people hell bent on destruction.


So, in order to have a say in the ethics of an athlete you have to be a scientist? How about in order to say anything about pro cycling you have to be a pro cyclist? Well, time to close the cake hole then. Not a standard you want to use. 

Nobody would ever be responsible with that definition. Thats pretty slick. Nobody is responsible, nobody can do anything and that just the way it is.

If I had a garden, that would be a weed which you yank out and throw away.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*oh no*



tricycletalent said:


> Tell me exactly how being born with a genetic advantage in responding to training stimuli has anything to do with own effort.


Why dont you tell me?

I mean here I am all deluded that if you work hard, train hard you should do the best you can. IF you have better genetics...thats swell. HOWEVER, you still have to train, you still have to condition yourself.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*sure*



32and3cross said:


> Actually none of my statments excuse the riders who cheat, I just don't agree with you that the testers get a pass on doing it right because your pissed off.
> 
> Do you live in enclave where people who you agree with don't have to do their jobs right. Count me out.



I dont have to agree, yes, the jobs should be done right, HOWEVER, I do have that singular quality of NOT giving up and saying oh well. Thats like walking out a 7-11 in tears because the waiter didnt refill your water glass. Its a 7-11, what do you want? These are tests. They do or do not work. Get the ones that do. BUT dont get jaded and say yeah, it just haoppens. That means you gave up. That makes you a bigger loser than the cheater at the line.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

ttug said:


> So, in order to have a say in the ethics of an athlete you have to be a scientist? How about in order to say anything about pro cycling you have to be a pro cyclist? Well, time to close the cake hole then. Not a standard you want to use.


I simply asked that question to see whether you understood basic principals of science. Testing is supposed to equal truth and it doesn't when it isn't done properly. That's not something that's hard to understand. 

I fail to understand why you don't even attempt to understand other's posts. I never said that you couldn't discuss the ethics of athletics if you weren't a scientist. You are simply taking bits out of people's posts and running with it to wherever you please instead of taking the time to examine someone else's thoughts. I find your posts emotionally immature and rude so I am taking leave of this discussion with you.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

ttug said:


> I dont have to agree, yes, the jobs should be done right, HOWEVER, I do have that singular quality of NOT giving up and saying oh well. Thats like walking out a 7-11 in tears because the waiter didnt refill your water glass. Its a 7-11, what do you want? These are tests. They do or do not work. Get the ones that do. BUT dont get jaded and say yeah, it just haoppens. That means you gave up. That makes you a bigger loser than the cheater at the line.


Since you can't seem to grasp what any one is saying ebyond what you want them to be saying, your not worth talking too.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*make a deal*



Henry Porter said:


> I simply asked that question to see whether you understood basic principals of science. Testing is supposed to equal truth and it doesn't when it isn't done properly. That's not something that's hard to understand.
> 
> I fail to understand why you don't even attempt to understand other's posts. I never said that you couldn't discuss the ethics of athletics if you weren't a scientist. You are simply taking bits out of people's posts and running with it to wherever you please instead of taking the time to examine someone else's thoughts. I find your posts emotionally immature and rude so I am taking leave of this discussion with you.


I find your posts to be fine. If however, when you ask a question, you are not prepared for the answer, dont ask the question. Those bits I take are all of the BS that people push out and when you see its BS, cry me a river.

Young men take stupid risks and take stupid drugs to me a "better athlete". Young men die young. Put whatever label you weant on it, but thats a fact jack.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*no*



32and3cross said:


> Since you can't seem to grasp what any one is saying ebyond what you want them to be saying, your not worth talking too.


Look, you seem like anice person. I am a bit biased on this topic for reasons I would not really wish to go into.

Lets just say that you want it both ways and life is not like that.

You want to be anti doping and yet you also want to I guess attempt to be sophisticated by not really taking a side. Thats just weakly. IF you think doping is bad, hey thats fine. You think doping is the new way to go, thats great too.

IF you cant make up your mind and think its OK to not care at all but hey its only a game based on fraud and endangered health no biggy, well, I dont agree.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

The rumors appear to be coming true - Elisa Basso is about to get into serious hot water over supplying dope to fitness centers. I wonder what Eddy Mazzoleni is going to get in trouble for? It's a family affair...


----------

