# Stapleton calls on people to look to the future, not the past



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

Good advice from Bob Stapleton...



> Landis' presence at the Amgen Tour of California somewhat overshadowed the actual racing. Tony Martin's stage victory and Michael Rogers' defense of the overall race lead made it a great day for HTC-Columbia, yet most media reports focused on Landis.
> 
> HTC-Columbia team owner Bob Stapleton offered support to Landis but called on people to look forward and move on from the past.
> 
> ...


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/landis-makes-an-appearance-at-the-amgen-tour-of-california


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

wow, 1998 called. They want their argument back. 
Together with Basso, a class rider in the new clean generation if I recall correctly.


----------



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

den bakker said:


> wow, 1998 called. They want their argument back.
> Together with Basso, a class rider in the new clean generation if I recall correctly.


After those previous scandals there was a hope that the morals of the sport would change. 

But this time they're not relying on the rider's good will. They have a system that is squeezing doping itself - the window to dope is getting smaller and smaller due to the blood passport. 

I agree with those that say the sport has moved on and it doesn't serve any good purpose to have this spectacle clouding out everything. If Floyd feels some personal release in admitting to his doping then that's great, but it really isn't necessary to take down the sport with him by focusing on the past and getting the police involved.

We are talking about sport here after all. It's not fair on the clean riders today. I bet if we could poll them they would be against this.

If you don't like Armstrong then don't buy his stuff or support him - but don't ruin cycling just to get at one man.

Look what Floyd has done to the ToC?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Right, this financial bubble is different. 
It's the same people running the show, the same sh!t will happen again. 
I thought the major doping problems ended with the EPO test? That's what I was told. 




Rex Hunter said:


> After those previous scandals there was a hope that the morals of the sport would change.
> 
> But this time they're not relying on the rider's good will. They have a system that is squeezing doping itself - the window to dope is getting smaller and smaller due to the blood passport.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

den bakker said:


> Right, this financial bubble is different.
> It's the same people running the show, the same sh!t will happen again.
> I thought the major doping problems ended with the EPO test? That's what I was told.


The blood passport is better than any test. It's already ensured that there is a much more level playing field at the top end of the sport - the results are there. This technology is improving every year. 

There is no need to go back a decade from a different era just because people have a grudge against a hand full of riders and one rider in particular.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

Rex Hunter said:


> The blood passport is better than any test. It's already ensured that there is a much more level playing field at the top end of the sport - the results are there. This technology is improving every year.
> 
> There is no need to go back a decade from a different era just because people have a grudge against a hand full of riders and one rider in particular.


Why does this last sentence really sound to me like "too big to fail"?


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Rex Hunter said:


> The blood passport is better than any test. It's already ensured that there is a much more level playing field at the top end of the sport - the results are there. This technology is improving every year.
> 
> There is no need to go back a decade from a different era just because people have a grudge against a hand full of riders and one rider in particular.


Wait, what results from the blood passport? Have any riders been suspended due to their blood passport fluctuations?


----------



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> Wait, what results from the blood passport? Have any riders been suspended due to their blood passport fluctuations?


We can already see that hematocrit levels are well below 50% mark - very different to the previous era - which means the riders are being extremely cautious. Pellizotti of course has been suspended whilst an investigation is going on this year. Riders are taking note. 

This after only two years of data. It's a system that by it's nature gets better every year, and has vastly leveled the playing field. 

Let the sport clean itself up now and end the witch hunt against riders from the past. Where does it end?

It is said that Eddie Mercx introduced Armstrong to doping - are we going to arrest him?

Lets have a south african post apartheid approach and not a McCarthyite purge.


----------



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

orange_julius said:


> Why does this last sentence really sound to me like "too big to fail"?


Most people agree that operation puerto has gone on too long and too much time has past, and that is only going back to 2006. So we now want to rake even further back over stuff that may or may not have been going on eight years ago?

I'm afraid this is not about anti doping for a lot of people. They despise Armstrong and his charity and want to see him taken down at all costs. They're quite happy for all the other alleged dopers on Landis list to go free as long as they testify against Armstrong - that gives the game away.

These people are not fans of the sport - they have a vendetta against one person.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Rex Hunter said:


> Most people agree that operation puerto has gone on too long and too much time has past, and that is only going back to 2006. So we now want to rake even further back over stuff that may or may not have been going on eight years ago?
> 
> I'm afraid this is not about anti doping for a lot of people. They despise Armstrong and his charity and want to see him taken down at all costs. They're quite happy for all the other alleged dopers on Landis list to go free as long as they testify against Armstrong - that gives the game away.
> 
> These people are not fans of the sport - they have a vendetta against one person.


You forgot they love cancer as well.  
by the way, values were well below 50% before the blood pass. (50% is a red herring anyway and not what the blood pass is about. But you knew that of course).


----------



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

den bakker said:


> You forgot they love cancer as well.


But they are pretty loony. Do you ever read the clinic over at cycling new? There is no doubt a lot of these guys would rather ban pro cycling than leave Armstrong alone. I was just reading a comment from "Dr. Maserati" that Lance was even responsible for reducing the Tour of Ireland from five days to three - these are some hardcore cranks. 



> by the way, values were well below 50% before the blood pass. (50% is a red herring anyway and not what the blood pass is about. But you knew that of course).


But they could go to that level with impunity if they chose to and many did - now nobody does. There is an argument that they should have left that rule and stop testing for EPO - which would make it fairer and make for more exciting racing other three weeks, but I digress...


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Rex Hunter said:


> Good advice from Bob Stapleton...


I think the words Stapleton and good advice divorced themselves after he cleared Basso as being clean after "looking him in the eyes".


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Rex Hunter said:


> We can already see that hematocrit levels are well below 50% mark - very different to the previous era - which means the riders are being extremely cautious. Pellizotti of course has been suspended whilst an investigation is going on this year. Riders are taking note.


We can see that? Who are _we_? I don't have access to Contador's, DiLuca's or Valverde's blood passport, do you? They tested for 50% hematocrit for a while now, well before the biological passport. One has nothing to do with the other.


> This after only two years of data. It's a system that by it's nature gets better every year, and has vastly leveled the playing field.


You say all this with a lot of certainty, considering there have been no doping convictions from this new system. If the playing field is level, why are the same riders winning that won before the biological passport?



> Let the sport clean itself up now and end the witch hunt against riders from the past. Where does it end?
> 
> It is said that Eddie Mercx introduced Armstrong to doping - are we going to arrest him?
> 
> Lets have a south african post apartheid approach and not a McCarthyite purge.


You say to end the witch hunt against riders from the past. Only one guy on Landis' list is a rider from the past, everyone else currently races professionally.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

SilasCL said:


> You say to end the witch hunt against riders from the past. Only one guy on Landis' list is a rider from the past, everyone else currently races professionally.


But Landis has no information on those riders after 2006?

So wouldn't their current passport testing be acceptable enough to prove their lack of doping?


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

robdamanii said:


> But Landis has no information on those riders after 2006?
> 
> So wouldn't their current passport testing be acceptable enough to prove their lack of doping?


By your warped logic they never tested positive, so they never doped, ergo all statements by Floyd are irrelevant.

Have fun going down that road.


----------



## JimT (Jul 18, 2007)

I think it cycling should forget the past and look towards the future. Digging up old bones just hurts the future of the sport. 

I guess to put it simply-those who doped in the past got away with it. Those racing now if they get caught they will be punished.

I think that would be best for cycling but the doping forum would be less active


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

JimT said:


> I think it cycling should forget the past and look towards the future. Digging up old bones just hurts the future of the sport.
> 
> I guess to put it simply-those who doped in the past got away with it. Those racing now if they get caught they will be punished.
> 
> I think that would be best for cycling but the doping forum would be less active


again, that is a recipe for chaos. you can't forgive the sins of the past just because addressing them is somehow "hurting the sport". beyond that, what about those in that era who _have_ paid a price? how do you propose making them right?


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

BTW, why are you reposting this drivel from your 88th banned troll account at cyclingnews' forum?

You won't get nearly as much attention here.


----------



## DZfan14 (Jul 6, 2009)

Stapleton makes a ton of sense there.

I am very interested in what Floyd has to say. His timing and motive are really suspect however. 

Looking at it objectively, I can't believe that Floyd cares as much about the future cycling as he cares about lashing out and airing skeletons since he couldn't get his way.


----------



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> We can see that? Who are _we_? I don't have access to Contador's, DiLuca's or Valverde's blood passport, do you? They tested for 50% hematocrit for a while now, well before the biological passport. One has nothing to do with the other.


Unless AC and others have a permenent hematocrit of close to 50% then they simply could not get away with it. There is no doubt the passport has created a more level playing field. 



> You say all this with a lot of certainty, considering there have been no doping convictions from this new system. If the playing field is level, why are the same riders winning that won before the biological passport?


Some are, some aren't. Some are winning by less, some are closer to winning. 

Riders already have been suspended based only on their profile. I'm not saying cheating is not going on but it has to be at a far lower level than in the past. Good news. The passport is getting better every year. 



> You say to end the witch hunt against riders from the past. Only one guy on Landis' list is a rider from the past, everyone else currently races professionally.


They are all allegations from the early part of this decade, and he appears to be trying to get them all immunity if they testify against Armstrong. Clearly it's a vendetta. 

Landis should blame himself for his own predictament and not try to drag down the sport to get out Armstrong.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

It reminds me of the Congressional hearings about steroids where they called a bunch of baseball players in to try to get them to confess about past use...even though they were talking about what they can do to prevent future use among kids.


----------



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

Similar remarks from Hincapie today:



> “Whoever wants to talk about something eight years ago, fine, they can waste their time on that,” Hincapie said. “I want to talk about the future of the sport and the sacrifices we put into it.”
> 
> Hincapie addressed the accusations, saying he was disappointed to learn what Landis had accused him of, claims that included blood doping.
> 
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/sports/cycling/24cycling.html?ref=sports


----------



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

Rex Hunter said:


> Similar remarks from Hincapie today:


So he's not saying what Landis is saying isn't true just that we should forget about it and assume today's sport is clean despite the fact that riders keep getting busted on almost a weekly basis, which is pretty much how it's been since ~2005 when dope testing first started to get somewhat serious?


----------



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

Dwaynebarry said:


> So he's not saying what Landis is saying isn't true just that we should forget about it and assume today's sport is clean despite the fact that riders keep getting busted on almost a weekly basis, which is pretty much how it's been since ~2005 when dope testing first started to get somewhat serious?


You could spin it like that. But I think his remarks and the remarks from others in the article show that nobody is about to "crack" and "spill the beans", and that there is genuine annoyance across the peloton at Landis remarks. Especially from the cleaner teams who know good work has been done in recent years and will be ruined by a witch hunt into the practises from eight years ago. 

Basically the peloton is standing up as one and saying a big "NO!" to Landis.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

Rex Hunter said:


> Basically the peloton is standing up as one and saying a big "NO!" to Landis.


Wow, Omerta still lives on in the pro peleton. I'm shocked, absolutely shocked :wink:
*
*


----------



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

AJL said:


> Wow, Omerta still lives on in the pro peleton. I'm shocked, absolutely shocked :wink:
> *
> *


It's not just the peloton. It's the clean establishment in cycling, the riders that have struggled to change the sport, the teams that have no needle policies, and most importantly the fans themselves. 

We have all united together to say enough is enough.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Rex Hunter said:


> Similar remarks from Hincapie today:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/sports/cycling/24cycling.html?ref=sports


It's not like Hincapie has anything at stake here. 
Any other comments from neutral sources? Say Armstrongs mom?


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

Rex Hunter said:


> It's not just the peloton. It's the clean establishment in cycling, the riders that have struggled to change the sport, the teams that have no needle policies, and most importantly the fans themselves.
> 
> We have all united together to say enough is enough.


Why would clean riders need to have any concern about what FL is saying


----------



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

AJL said:


> Why would clean riders need to have any concern about what FL is saying


Because it will ruin the sport and turn it into a witch hunt. Their clean rides at the ToC have already been overshadowed by Landis spiteful behaviour. 

Also, many clean riders today, like Hincapie himself, may well have come into contact with doping in the past when everyone was doing it. To go back and rake over what happened in the past will ruin their reputations - they may as well never have gone clean. What about Vaughters and his clean Garmin team? All that will be for nothing. 

Are we going to arrest Eddie Mercx for introducing Armstrong to Dr Ferrari?

No. The sport has changed. It's time we moved on. 

That's why there is a united front against Landis from all sections of the cycling world.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

So in short, Hincapie wants it shut down because it would show all his victories were done cheating?



Rex Hunter said:


> Because it will ruin the sport and turn it into a witch hunt. Their clean rides at the ToC have already been overshadowed by Landis spiteful behaviour.
> 
> Also, many clean riders today, like Hincapie himself, may well have come into contact with doping in the past when everyone was doing it. To go back and rake over what happened in the past will ruin their reputations - they may as well never have gone clean. What about Vaughters and his clean Garmin team? All that will be for nothing.
> 
> ...


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

Rex Hunter said:


> Similar remarks from Hincapie today:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/sports/cycling/24cycling.html?ref=sports


Saying that "I work hard therefore I deserve this is" is besides the point. This is very typical excuse that is floated again and again. 

Almost nobody accuses Hincapie or Armstrong or Landis or Basso or Vinokourov of not working hard. But what about the clean guys who work even harder (gasp!) yet are/were marginalized because of the cheaters? I know several people who have lost to (then future) convicted dopers. 

Typical evolution of arguments of apologists:
1. He/they passed so many dope tests without testing positive.
2a. He/they may have tested positive and had the conviction thrown out of technicality, but everybody else was doping too.
2b. He/they work damn hard, therefore they deserve it (conveniently forget the possibility of clean riders who worked even harder).
3. Let's forget about the past and focus on the future. 

What's the fourth stage?


----------



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

den bakker said:


> So in short, Hincapie wants it shut down because it would show all his victories were done cheating?


Or it will taint his clean victories as doped.


----------



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

orange_julius said:


> Saying that "I work hard therefore I deserve this is" is besides the point. This is very typical excuse that is floated again and again.


I think by "hard work" he means he's been riding clean for years, like Armstrong, and this garbage from years ago - when all the GC teams were doing it so it made little difference to the overall results - will ruin their hardwork at turning around the sport. 

Whatever way we look at this, there is just nothing good that can come from lynching great riders.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Rex Hunter said:


> Or it will taint his clean victories as doped.


well that's the problem of being a cheating [email protected] now is it not?


----------



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

I'd put good money on the fact that the only years Armstrong was riding clean was during his retirement and maybe this year, now that the heat is on.

I really doubt he took that beating by Contador last year lying down. His blood passport vaules certainly didn't suggest he was doing it on bread and water alone.

But he's old and he's restricted now in his preparation. The old days of the wild west of doping are over.


----------



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

Rex Hunter said:


> I think by "hard work" he means he's been riding clean for years, like Armstrong, and this garbage from years ago - when all the GC teams were doing it so it made little difference to the overall results - will ruin their hardwork at turning around the sport.


This is one of the reasons I'd love to know the truth, just pure curiosity.

Do you think every team was preparing all (or most) of their ridings with blood doping and/or EPO? How was it that a team could ride on the front day after day and still have multiple domestiques pulling on the last climb, not the least of whom was a rouleur like George Hincapie, and burn off all but the best riders in the race before they pulled off.


----------



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

Rex Hunter said:


> Or it will taint his clean victories as doped.


What makes you think he has any of those? When do you think he stopped?


----------



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

Dwaynebarry said:


> I'd put good money on the fact that the only years Armstrong was riding clean was during his retirement and maybe this year, now that the heat is on.
> 
> I really doubt he took that beating by Contador last year lying down. His blood passport vaules certainly didn't suggest he was doing it on bread and water alone.
> 
> But he's old and he's restricted now in his preparation. The old days of the wild west of doping are over.


He numbers last year were certainly clean at the Giro, where he got 12th without trying and in a tour where we now know most of the top guys were doping. And LA did this after almost four years out from GT riding. His numbers at the Tour were also explainable. 
http://www.localcyclist.com/2009/09/lance-armstrong-meets-biopassport-tour-hgb-explainable/

The fact is Armstrong is a great rider. It would be a tragedy not just for the sport, but also for him personally if this stuff from years ago were to taint him in some way. As fans of the sport we should not allow it.


----------



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

Dwaynebarry said:


> What makes you think he has any of those? When do you think he stopped?


2005-06


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

Rex Hunter said:


> I think by "hard work" he means he's been riding clean for years, like Armstrong, and this garbage from years ago - when all the GC teams were doing it so it made little difference to the overall results - will ruin their hardwork at turning around the sport.
> 
> Whatever way we look at this, there is just nothing good that can come from lynching great riders.


Very good, you moved from stage 2b to stage 3 in one post. Are you saying that Hincapie is saying, "I am clean now so please leave me alone and stop asking me about my (alleged) past doping"? 

And please do not use "lynching" where it is not nearly the order of magnitude of what that word means.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

Rex Hunter said:


> He numbers last year were certainly clean at the Giro, where he got 12th without trying and in a tour where we now know most of the top guys were doping. And LA did this after almost four years out from GT riding. His numbers at the Tour were also explainable.
> http://www.localcyclist.com/2009/09/lance-armstrong-meets-biopassport-tour-hgb-explainable/
> 
> The fact is Armstrong is a great rider. It would be a tragedy not just for the sport, but also for him personally if this stuff from years ago were to taint him in some way. As fans of the sport we should not allow it.


How many times do you want to spin the "too big to fail" angle? I and many people love the sport regardless of Armstrong, and my love of the sport makes me want all this doping issue to be revealed as much as possible. 

If you need Armstrong to love the sport, then what can I say? I love and believe in the sport enough that I have faith in its survival, and that it will even thrive, despite the possibility that its most well-known rider end up being exposed as a cheat. 

If Armstrong did end up being convicted of cheating, the only tragedy is that it weren't caught sooner, before he became "too big to fail".


----------



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

orange_julius said:


> Very good, you moved from stage 2b to stage 3 in one post.


I was drawing conclusions the same way you were doing. 



> Are you saying that Hincapie is saying, "I am clean now so please leave me alone and stop asking me about my (alleged) past doping"?


For himself and for the sport in general these days. 



> And please do not use "lynching" where it is not nearly the order of magnitude of what that word means.


No, some people DO want to lynch these riders at all costs, especially Armstrong. They have nothing better to do with their lives than preach negativity and hate. You must have seen them.


----------



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

orange_julius said:


> How many times do you want to spin the "too big to fail" angle?"


Just because you've got some sexy soundbite from the financial crisis doesn't mean I have to agree with you. 

We're talking about seeing things in the context of the eras in which they took place without smearing a whole generation of riders.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Rex Hunter said:


> Just because you've got some sexy soundbite from the financial crisis doesn't mean I have to agree with you.
> 
> We're talking about seeing things in the context of the eras in which they took place without smearing a whole generation of riders.


So how do we compensate Basso?


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

Here is my question when it comes to George, if, as the anti-LA people say, LA had the best dope and that's why he won, why didn't George win more? Wouldn't LA want his most trusted lieutenant to be as strong as possible, getting wins in classics to keep him happy and make the team look better?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Perico said:


> Here is my question when it comes to George, if, as the anti-LA people say, LA had the best dope and that's why he won, why didn't George win more? Wouldn't LA want his most trusted lieutenant to be as strong as possible, getting wins in classics to keep him happy and make the team look better?


Maybe he truly sucks off the juice? Might explain his small group finishes this year


----------



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

Perico said:


> Here is my question when it comes to George, if, as the anti-LA people say, LA had the best dope and that's why he won, why didn't George win more? Wouldn't LA want his most trusted lieutenant to be as strong as possible, getting wins in classics to keep him happy and make the team look better?


He must have given him the old manky dope at the bottom of the draw.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

den bakker said:


> Maybe he truly sucks off the juice? Might explain his small group finishes this year


Try reading the question again.


----------



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

den bakker said:


> Maybe he truly sucks off the juice? Might explain his small group finishes this year


Undisputedly clean numbers at last year Giro when he was just using the race to get back into form. He still finished 12th, which is not bad for a grand tour.

Also blew most riders away at the tour of flanders this year. Not bad for a 38 year old.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Rex Hunter said:


> Undisputedly clean numbers at last year Giro when he was just using the race to get back into form. He still finished 12th, which is not bad for a grand tour.
> 
> Also blew most riders away at the tour of flanders this year. Not bad for a 38 year old.


Hincapie ended 12 in the giro?


----------



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

den bakker said:


> Hincapie ended 12 in the giro?


Was talking about LA.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Rex Hunter said:


> Was talking about LA.


one trick pony?


----------



## Rex Hunter (Apr 7, 2010)

den bakker said:


> one trick pony?


The remarks I was replying to seemed to be about Armstrong, don't you think? 

But as for other riders, you may note that the socalled anti doper crowd hate riders who have been clean for all of their careers, like Evans, Wiggins and Cavendish, even more than they hate LA!

That should tell you something. They're not interested in a clean sport which is why they don't care about burning the sport down.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Rex Hunter said:


> The remarks I was replying to seemed to be about Armstrong, don't you think?
> 
> But as for other riders, you may note that the socalled anti doper crowd hate riders who have been clean for all of their careers, like Evans, Wiggins and Cavendish, even more than they hate LA!
> 
> That should tell you something. They're not interested in a clean sport which is why they don't care about burning the sport down.


well this post told me something all right.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

Rex Hunter said:


> The fact is Armstrong is a great rider. It would be a tragedy not just for the sport, but also for him personally if this stuff from years ago were to taint him in some way. As fans of the sport we should not allow it.


Well, he should never have stood up and said that he has never doped if it's not the truth. If it comes out that he has, well he's then he's a lying piece of shite just like Floyd.

Actually, I prefer that road cycling just pulls out of the the Olympics. Then there's no need for testing and everyone can get back to racing. Maybe just test for hematocrit, just so things don't get to crazy.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Did I have a post deleted in this thread or did I just forget to hit submit?


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

orange_julius said:


> Almost nobody accuses Hincapie or Armstrong or Landis or Basso or Vinokourov of not working hard. But what about the clean guys who work even harder (gasp!) yet are/were marginalized because of the cheaters?


Orange Julius - playing devil's advocate here. Normally people think that riders dope so they don't have to work as hard. Have you considered the opposite - that riders dope (at least in off-season) so they can work harder than their bodies will allow them? Many of the recovery drugs are used specifically for this purpose - so you can go out there and work even harder.
If we value hard work, should the use of these agents be allowed, on ethical grounds that they enable people who have the will to do extra hard work to overcome some natural limitations their body places on them?


----------



## jsrscbr (Jan 27, 2009)

*This conspiracy is bigger than I thought*

People are really getting paranoid. Caution strong language maybe NSFW


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

SilasCL said:


> Did I have a post deleted in this thread or did I just forget to hit submit?


Or #3 did the server eat it- it was a bit wonky earlier today I think.


----------



## crashtestdummy (Apr 11, 2007)

2004 tdf stg 17

Ullrich, Basso, Kloden, Landis...Armstrong?

Not sure if this stuff should be dug up or not, maybe just clean up and move on
Keep testing and hope for the best, don't think any of the future stars of the sport would want to get labeled as a doper after this whole Landis mess.


----------

