# why is doping bad?



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

pretend I'm a child. not a difficult thing to do if you know me.

give me the case against PED's. 

thanks.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

btw, I mean within the context of pro cycling.

I don't really givadam about high school testosterone problems.


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

Shouldn't you be riding the trainer, or researching pharmacists?


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

Many people think it's bad due to the possible health problems it can lead to.
However, I am anti-doping myself, simply because the genuine clean competitors deserve a fair and level playing field.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Creakyknees said:


> I don't really givadam about high school testosterone problems.


Clearly dude. 

Everyone responds differently to drug-therepy. No types of Steriods, or blood manipulation is the same or equal for that matter. And most top athletes will NOT want to be a users. Do you think Lance _wants_ to inject 4-times a day??

Types of doping give different results for _*ProCycling*_. Steroids will give a small increase (like 2%) in VO2 max. Corticoids too. Those are recovery drugs to improve training. You can train all you want and recover instantly the next day, but if your natural VO2 max isnt high enough it doesnt F-matter how much your training.

Amphetamines; all that stuff gives marginally slight increases in power output. They decrease pain, and help someone lose weight. So maby zero gain in power, but an increase in "stamina." 

Blood doping will give a *huge *boost, perhaps a 20% gain in power at FTP. Not all blood doping methods are equal. There is many different ways to store someone's blood and not all of them are as good as the next. If some of the red blood cells die off, than the effectiveness of it diminishes drastically. Not every medical support will be equal. Not everyone's body will respond the same to the high heamatocrit and some people have naturally higher heamatocrit's than others so they wont be able to get as much a percentage increase without risking a heart attack like the NHL wannabe kid on that other thread. Windsor Spitfires captain _Mickey Renaud was another one that died 7 months ago._









Or Alexei Cherepanov, yet another 19 year who didnt respond well to the drug-therepy the rest of his team was on.



















There is other blood-methods. Haemoglobin-based oxygen carriers (HBOCs) like Hemopure®, or Oxyglobin®. Studies have been conducted and show these have little effect but do increase oxygen carrying capacitiy of the blood.










No blood doping methods will be equal and not everyone responds the same to blood doping. Jesus Manzano tried Oxyglobin®. during the first mountain stage of the 2003 Tour de France and ended up with 6 heart attacks in the Emergency Medivac Chopper.

EPO is by far the most effective method for doping in any endurance based event, whether it be Cycling, running (Any distance really), Swimming, Triathlon, Soccer, Hockey, and speed skating and or Inline racing. There are many different EPO products from many different manufacturerers and they are not NEARLY equal. Some are better than others, just like some athletes are naturally better than others. 



THere is Amgen, of THousand Oaks, California. They produce drugs like:

EPOGEN, 
NEUPOGEN G-CSF, ENBREL, INFERGEN, ENBREL, SENSIPAR (cinacalcet HCI) , AraNESP (darbepoetin alfa)





































I'm not banned yet!


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2009)

Creakyknees said:


> pretend I'm a child. not a difficult thing to do if you know me.
> 
> give me the case against PED's.
> 
> thanks.


Are you into the liquor again tonight?


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

kytyree said:


> Are you into the liquor again tonight?


well sure, but I wasn't when I posted the OP.

srsly, I'm looking for evidence. my personal bias is that these pro's are over 21 and are of age to consult with an MD and sign a consent form. prove to me that's a bad idea.


----------



## crit_specialist (Mar 21, 2008)

*the problem with PEDS*

1. encouraging people to experiment with medication without the help of a doctor is dangerous. Even if there is less side effects with today's PEDs compared to yesterday we still dont know for sure what the long term effects are going to be.

2. PEDS are destroying the image of our sport. How are we going to get sponsors to come to cycling if the sport is perceived to be all about weird blood doping and drugs.

3. when a young rider gets his or her hands on the PEDS and gets results and launched into pro cycling they risk serious emotional and mental health problems when they reach the limits of their potential and realize that they will never get results with out drugs. I'm talking about frank vandenbroucke and Geneviève Jeanson.

4. Sports stops being a meritocracy based on talent, strategy and guts and becomes a secret arms race between competing dirty doctors, drug manufactures, and those with the means to pay for the science and biochemistry stuff. The new athlete is also one who has the ability to respond to the medication the right way. As stated many times on this forum no 2 riders will respond the same way to the drugs. there are certain people out there who will improve more with the drugs compared to others. Fans will watch the race and say rider X won because he/she could climb and TT better then everyone else but it could be that rider X responds to the medication better then everyone else!


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2009)

Creakyknees said:


> well sure, but I wasn't when I posted the OP.
> 
> srsly, I'm looking for evidence. my personal bias is that these pro's are over 21 and are of age to consult with an MD and sign a consent form. prove to me that's a bad idea.



I think you're right, the riders could probably be "healthier" if with the help of a doctor they could manage certain parameters while training and racing. The problem would be that if some things were legal they would still have to monitor everyone. For every rider who took some ped's under medical supervision to avoid getting sick and overtrained there would be 10 who were on the verge of death and using the doctor to keep one foot out of the grave while striving for super human performance.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

If one advocates lying, cheating and stealing as well as other completely fraudulent activities there is nothing at all wrong with doping..


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

kytyree said:


> I think you're right, the riders could probably be "healthier" if with the help of a doctor they could manage certain parameters while training and racing. .


Thats fine and good but if you allow drug use that increases the tolerance of the testing. :thumbsup: 

It increases the average performance levels of a level of competition and encourages doping among new athletes without the means or financial means to see a _good doctor_. :thumbsup: 

Remember Roid Landis' 11:1 TE ratio? He was getting away with that pre-Tour no doubt when he donated his blood to himself. :thumbsup: 










He was positive for the respitory stimulant nikethamide (C10H14N2O) as well. No doubt they found MANY other drugs. I would be curious about ALL his positives and what his heamatocrit was too.  

Here watch Him and the Medical "service"

rolleyes: What I found disturbing was that the majority of the blame went to the _emergency service and paramedics _and not to his team which clearly was and IS taking part in systamatic doping. The defibulator was not working, but he was revived twice anyways. It almost sounded like to me; they deliberately let him die to make a statement about what is happening.

*Myocardial Ischaemia *in a 19 year old?  

They then say he had *myocarditis*.:thumbsup: 

Between those two they said he had *hypertrophic cardiomyopathy *(HCM).[ :thumbsup: 

WHY so many different _stories_?

I'm no doctor or RN or EMT for that matter, I'm sure RealGains would comment on this if he wasnt under a _life-time ban_.

_"The new regulations require two properly staffed ambulances to be on duty at all KHL games, and call on the federal ministry of health to raise the standards governing what equipment is mandatory in ambulances."_ 

-BY MICHAEL OBERNAUER 
DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER 

Why dont they try blood testing?


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2009)

lookrider said:


> If one advocates lying, cheating and stealing as well as other completely fraudulent activities there is nothing at all wrong with doping..



None of those would be factors if it was authorized.


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2009)

> Thats fine and good but if you allow drug use that increases the tolerance of the testing.


How is the gist of that any different from what I said in total, you chose to only quote (read?) one sentence.



> It increases the average performance levels of a level of competition and encourages doping among new athletes without the means or financial means to see a good doctor.


In our hypothetical discussion we are legalizing doping, so we must be ok with it or we wouldn't have done so. No matter what the rules are there will always be those who do things behind close doors in an improper manner the rules of a sport like cycling won't change this. 

Without the financial means to see a good doctor? I am not going to get into a health care system discussion but that is ridiculous. If you have somehow managed to get into bicycle racing without the ability to be provided some form of medical care you have put the cart before the horse. And cycling can't be responsible for solving societies woes. 



> Remember Roid Landis' 11:1 TE ratio? He was getting away with that pre-Tour no doubt when he donated his blood to himself.


No, frankly I do not. Nor do I ever remember myself being acquainted with his blood values. And I can't say I have any idea how that applies to the topic at hand. 


:thumbsup: By the way that is not punctuation.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Doping, especially blood vector doping, distorts results. PEDs effects each athlete differently with wide variables in improvement. They also cost money so access is limited to those who can afford a program. 

Does anyone really think that Riis, Indurain, or Armstrong would have won a single Tour without the advent of EPO in the peloton? No way.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

The only reason I can come up with is most athletes think more is always better and don't know when to stop. The rest of the arguments are moralistic rather than medical.

Certainly in adolescence and earlier many PEDs can have serious side effects and should be avoided, but that doesn't stop "real" doctors from prescribing HGH to kids at their parents' urging so they can play basketball or volleyball. So get with the program wuss!


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

By Example! 
And the only way that kid's gonna give a damn is if he/she has respect for the example giver. And the giver has to show that kid the same respect.
Kids are being told what to do and how to act by everyone they speak with, parents, peers, teachers. Kids get tired of everyone telling them what to do so eventually they are going to do what they think they have to do to prove their Worth.
That decision is going to be made based on those that they have or have no respect for.

If that child respects you and the example that you set is a good one the chances of that kid making good decisions are good.
If respect isn't shared with that child he/she will go elsewhere for that respect and will make decisions that may be contrary to what is right. And that could happen no matter how much right thinking you try and pound into that kids head.

I don't know if there is a good case against PEDs.
But there is the pride that comes from accomplishment with ones natural ability. That comes with the fact that there's more to life than just winning.


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2009)

bigpinkt said:


> Doping, especially blood vector doping, distorts results. PEDs effects each athlete differently with wide variables in improvement. They also cost money so access is limited to those who can afford a program.
> 
> Does anyone really think that Riis, Indurain, or Armstrong would have won a single Tour without the advent of EPO in the peloton? No way.



When we are talking about professional cycling teams with million dollar budgets I don't see how the cost or access to ped's is a factor.

Riis, Indurain, Armstrong or anyone else's prior performance in the Tour has no relevance to the discussion at hand.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

kytyree said:


> When we are talking about professional cycling teams with million dollar budgets I don't see how the cost or access to ped's is a factor.
> 
> Riis, Indurain, Armstrong or anyone else's prior performance in the Tour has no relevance to the discussion at hand.


Cost is indeed a factor. While cost have come down in the last two years thanks to China a program of EPO/Test/HGH/Cortisone was over $2,000 per month....that is per rider. Doping is not limited to the ProTour. Some of the dirtiest riding in the sport was/is the Italian U23 scene.....how does a rider get a pro contract? 

You must have missed the point about Riis, etc. The fact is each athlete responds differently to PED's and the variable is huge. Some see little or no increase others see 20% improvement.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

kytyree said:


> None of those would be factors if it was authorized.


Authorized? You're joking! 

Absurd premise.

Just play video games or jacks or something......

There seems to be a lot of borderline sociopaths out there these days.....


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

velodog said:


> I don't know if there is a good case against PEDs..


There is no greater argument against PED's than the subjective moral code that one lives by. 

If you're a human being it's pretty much the only issue that matters.

Hopefully when I pass, I won't have been a complete pos and will have attained a fully actualized state we call maturity.


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2009)

lookrider said:


> Authorized? You're joking!
> 
> Absurd premise.
> 
> ...



I'm not joking I fail to see how lying, cheating, or fraudulent activity could ever happen if we are talking about something they were allowed to do. If they could do whatever they wanted how would that ever turn into cheating?

How does having a hypothetical discussion about ped's make me a sociopath? Don't try and interpret my morals or force your social positions on me when we aren't even discussing reality.


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2009)

lookrider said:


> There is no greater argument against PED's than the subjective moral code that one lives by.
> 
> If you're a human being it's pretty much the only issue that matters.
> 
> Hopefully when I pass, I won't have been a complete pos and will have attained a fully actualized state we call maturity.



So where did you draw this moral line in the sand? Can I take an aspirin, chemo, testosterone if my body quits making enough? 

Again that's forcing your morals on everyone else. Personally I would never use _illegal_ ped's and race, but if they decide that certain things were going to be legal when used under proper supervision at the professional level, I don't care. And I fail to see how the _sanctioned_ use of ped's would be immoral.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

kytyree said:


> I'm not joking I fail to see how lying, cheating, or fraudulent activity could ever happen if we are talking about something they were allowed to do..


My mind was on the original post before the thread was hijacked.



kytyree said:


> If they could do whatever they wanted how would that ever turn into cheating?..


I don't know about you, but I try to live within my own ethical parameters.



kytyree said:


> How does having a hypothetical discussion about ped's make me a sociopath?


I qualified my use of "sociopath."



kytyree said:


> Don't try and interpret


Whether you like it or not, we're always interpreting things.



kytyree said:


> my morals or force your social positions on me when we aren't even discussing reality.


Force? Do I really have the power to do that here?

Do you make a habit of considering ridiculous hypotheticals?


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2009)

I have no problem with you living within your ethical parameters but in no way should you expect anyone else to tote around your moral compass.

If your mind was on the original post then why did you quote me?

I see four more words and some dots after "sociopath", hardly a qualification.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

kytyree said:


> So where did you draw this moral line in the sand? Can I take an aspirin, chemo, testosterone if my body quits making enough?


You can basically do whatever you want.:lol: 

Do I need to tell you what's ethical and what's not? 

If one doesn't know, they may be a sociopath.



kytyree said:


> Again that's forcing your morals on everyone else.


Sorry my opinions threw off your equilibrium. You're free to make your own decisions though, and I'm free to offer commentary.



kytyree said:


> Personally I would never use _illegal_ ped's and race, but if they decide that certain things were going to be legal when used under proper supervision at the professional level, I don't care.


I as well as many others *do* care. IMHO it devalues accomplishment.




kytyree said:


> And I fail to see how the _sanctioned_ use of ped's would be immoral.


That's your limitation and that's where we differ. Steam on.:thumbsup:


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2009)

You can view it as devaluing accomplishment, but when applied properly it could actually make said accomplishment safer for everyone involved by helping to manage the health of the participants.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

kytyree said:


> I have no problem with you living within your ethical parameters but in no way should you expect anyone else to tote around your moral compass.


It's *my* moral compass, however I think many of the regulars on here who know the truth about the dopers share it to a great degree. Everyone makes their bed and must lie in it though.

Some people admire Armstrong. Other's, whose opinions I respect, see him as a sad pathetic figure.



kytyree said:


> If your mind was on the original post then why did you quote me?


Because I'm somewhat incredulous at the things people consider.



kytyree said:


> I see four more words and some dots after "sociopath", hardly a qualification.


Seems and borderline are words that qualify. If you want to squeak under the threshold of what qualifies as a sociopath, that's your prerogative.

It's a public opinion board and you're free to identify with any sentiments you'd like to, or to dismiss them if you'd like.

Then again, if the shoe fits......


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2009)

lookrider said:


> You can basically do whatever you want.:lol:
> 
> Do I need to tell you what's ethical and what's not?
> 
> ...


The how about the next time I offer an opinion on a hypothetical topic you refrain from referring to me as a sociopath?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

kytyree said:


> The how about the next time I offer an opinion on a hypothetical topic you refrain from referring to me as a sociopath?


As I stated, I qualified the remark, but if the shoe fits, you're free to wear it.

I also wasn't aware my opinions required a censor.

The Chinese say the yi leads the chi.

Except for crimes of passion performed spontaneously, most infractions are carefully thought out.

Sorry my thoughts give you pause....:yikes:


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2009)

Your posts are starting to ramble as if you're on some ped's.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

kytyree said:


> You can view it as devaluing accomplishment, but when applied properly it could actually make said accomplishment safer for everyone involved by helping to manage the health of the participants.


You're funny.

An experiment with lab rats isn't really much of an accomplishment, is it?

Manage the health of the participants???

I'm thinking of my conscience, my soul, eternity, the infinite, and the absolute.

It *seems* you're thinking of trivial technicalities that would enable one to skirt morals in order to obtain the fleeting flattery of others.

Winning a bike race can be a nice thing but making oneself Pharmstrong is delusional. Being honest with yourself is much better...

It's apparent we view life very differently!


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2009)

Who said anything about lab rats?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

kytyree said:


> Your posts are starting to ramble as if you're on some ped's.


To each his own..

And BTW, you're the one who would consider taking PED's depending on the standards set....


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2009)

lookrider said:


> To each his own..
> 
> And BTW, you're the one who would consider taking PED's depending on the standards set....



Actually in a controlled, legal, govt sanctioned program under the medical supervision of a doctor I am the one who did take ped's, there is no consider to it. They worked, I lived and I would do it again under the same circumstances because I like being alive and that is the difference they can make.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

kytyree said:


> Who said anything about lab rats?


You're doing a great job illustrating our differing outlooks.:thumbsup: 

I never really understood the whole GNC thing, but it's becoming clearer...


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2009)

lookrider said:


> You're doing a great job illustrating our differing outlooks.:thumbsup:
> 
> I never really understood the whole GNC thing, but it's becoming clearer...



I didn't know you could get dexedrine at GNC, they have really broadened their horizons.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

kytyree said:


> Actually in a controlled, legal, govt sanctioned program under the medical supervision of a doctor I am the one who did take ped's, there is no consider to it. They worked, I lived and I would do it again under the same circumstances because I like being alive and that is the difference they can make.


Well, you've just confirmed we're very different people.


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2009)

lookrider said:


> Well, you've just confirmed we're very different people.



And you have confirmed that you are more than willing to pass judgement on me for a situation you know almost nothing about.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

kytyree said:


> And you have confirmed that you are more than willing to pass judgement on me for a situation you know almost nothing about.


Enlighten me.

I do think PED taking Pro cyclists are akin to Lab rats though. Just because they can justify it in their own minds doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

You're the one saying taking PED's is ok under certain conditions. 

My judgement tells me it's not ok to take PED's for athletic competition.

So yeah, I'm passing judgement. 

I'm not condemning you though. 

Life is an evolutionary process and you're free to change your mind and actions at any time..


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2009)

> My judgement tells me it's not ok to take PED's for athletic competition.
> 
> So yeah, I'm passing judgement.
> 
> I'm not condemning you though.


I have not taken any illegal ped for any purpose and certainly not for athletic competiton. 



> Enlighten me.


It would surprise me if someone strongly against the use of ped's to get to the top of Mt Ventoux first would be fine with the govt sanctioned use of ped's to perform better in combat but our govt (US) has been doing so since WWII (IIRC) and I am one of those who has participated.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

kytyree said:


> I have not taken any illegal ped for any purpose and certainly not for athletic competiton.
> 
> 
> 
> It would surprise me if someone strongly against the use of ped's to get to the top of Mt Ventoux first would be fine with the govt sanctioned use of ped's to perform better in combat but our govt (US) has been doing so since WWII (IIRC) and I am one of those who has participated.


First of all, you're trolling for an argument.

Secondly, we're pretty far afield from PED use in cycling.


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2009)

lookrider said:


> First of all, you're trolling for an argument.
> 
> Secondly, we're pretty far afield from PED use in cycling.



Took you long enough to figure that out, I wouldn't have come to this particular part of the forum for anything else.

So are you ok with the sanctioned use of ped's for the purpose of defeating our enemies around the world but not for the purpose of maintaining an athlete's health over the course of a month long tour?


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

kytyree said:


> So where did you draw this moral line in the sand? Can I take an aspirin, chemo, testosterone if my body quits making enough?


:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: 

-You can take whats not on the banned list; cheater.  


If you legalize it, you give the green light for kids to use drugs. If the pro ranks are controlled, kids arn;t juiced to oblivion to get there. :thumbsup: 

You have a group of about 1,000 Pro riders in Europe actually making $$ Versus 60,000+ young amateur and juniors. The pro ranks set the example. If a kid's hero isnt juiced up, he might be less likely to want it. What are you going to do? Test all those amateurs "elites??"


Standard clinical procedure for hGh in young people is 2 years of testing to see if the body doesnt produce growth hormone and then 2 months of testing to make sure you dont have cancer; obvious. These are powerful hormones. Sick people need these drugs. * skeletal abnormalities (i.e., kyphosis, scoliosis, and genu valgum). Not healthy young athletes. Drugs dont belong in sport. Abusing these drugs can cause problems like_ Intracranial hypertension _ Which basically means _fluid pressure in you skull increases_

Anyways, any dumb person can use them if they can get them. No doubt they will be hesitant to consult, "medical supervision." If I asked my doctor if I SHOULD USE Growth hormone, I wonder what he would say?

















_"People ride their bikes all the way accross the country for pleasure, they dont need drugs."_

-Greg LeMond :thumbsup:


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

kytyree said:


> You can view it as devaluing accomplishment, but when applied properly it could actually make said accomplishment safer for everyone involved by helping to manage the health of the participants.



You assume there is the ability to control the doping in thousands of individuals?

Before you said quote, _"For every rider who took some ped's under medical supervision to avoid getting sick and overtrained there would be 10 who were on the verge of death and using the doctor to keep one foot out of the grave while striving for super human performance."_

WTF?? Are you using right now?










Thats the "accomplishment."

The drugs did it, not you. :idea:

Someone who views doping as an accomplishent is fake and only views themselves as a character.

Gee, I'm NOT over-trained right now, and _I dont need drugs to stay that way_. *If you cant race without becoming sick than your not healthy enough to race and you cant sign your medical waiver.*
Sociopaths tend to reform late in life though Perhaps there is hope.

Do you believe in God?


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

_"I have no problem with you living within your ethical parameters but in no way should you expect anyone else to tote around your moral compass."_


So allowing athletes to dope takes away rights of other athletes to not dope and be competive. I see the list of banned substances on WADA and it appears you sign off on a "moral compass." If you break that, its called fraud.
*
A major personality behavior trait in a sociopath is the violation of the rights of others. This can appear as a disregard for the physical or sexual wellbeing of another.*


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

kytyree said:


> Your posts are starting to ramble as if you're on some ped's.


Thats called being a troll, and a creep. :yikes: 



_"Actually in a controlled, legal, govt sanctioned program under the medical supervision of a doctor I am the one who did take ped's, there is no consider to it. They worked, I lived and I would do it again under the same circumstances because I like being alive and that is the difference they can make."_

What does THIS mean?  


Take a look in the mirror :devil:


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

_"I'm not joking I fail to see how lying, cheating, or fraudulent activity could ever happen if we are talking about something they were allowed to do. If they could do whatever they wanted how would that ever turn into cheating?"_



If theft was legal, if murder was legal, then I guess shooting someone and taking all your money, their car keys, their house keys; going to their home and robbing their family; *would all be okay. *

AM, I missing something   

Oh sorry, is my punct-uation too F-d up for you?


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

kytyree said:


> None of those would be factors if it was authorized.


Yep!!! What difference does it make if its under medical supervision or not?? Its all about winning. The one who pushes it the farthest wins.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

kytyree said:


> Took you long enough to figure that out, I wouldn't have come to this particular part of the forum for anything else.


What can I say.



kytyree said:


> So are you ok with the sanctioned use of ped's for the purpose of defeating our enemies around the world but not for the purpose of maintaining an athlete's health over the course of a month long tour?


You're putting words in my mouth and trolling.

The doping forum is about PED's in cycling. This isn't the PO forum.

I made my point, what's yours?


----------



## Guest (Jan 2, 2009)

If you made your point I don't know where or what it was.

And if you want to talk about doping in cycling you can start by climbing down off your moral high horse.

I put no words in your mouth, I asked a question.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

kytyree said:


> If you made your point I don't know where or what it was..


That PED use in pro sports is fraud.



kytyree said:


> And if you want to talk about doping in cycling you can start by climbing down off your moral high horse...


Saying sporting fraud is wrong puts me on a moral high horse?



kytyree said:


> I put no words in your mouth, I asked a question.


You're right, I read it quickly and incorrectly, however I won't answer as it is irrelevant to the question on this forum and I don't feel like debating politics here.

I will say that that it's obvious that riding a bike at fairly high intensities for more than 2000 miles over 3 weeks is a patently unhealthy competition, and a chief component of that competition is the ability to stay healthy despite the ridiculous stresses that type of exercise places on your system.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

crit_specialist said:


> As stated many times on this forum no 2 riders will respond the same way to the drugs. there are certain people out there who will improve more with the drugs compared to others.



I'm not saying I'm for doping, but...

I've never been persuaded by that particular argument. Face it, no 2 riders will respond to _anything_ the same way. Some have to train twice as hard to make the same gains. Some have various genetic advantages or disadvantages. But we don't ban certain training programs or certain foods or whatever just because some will gain more advantage from them than others. 

The safety argument is also less than convincing. This is professional sports after all. Even with all the doping, cycling would be much safer than many other professional sports. Why must cyclists not be allowed to risk their lives for "glory", when many other sportsman do and are celebrated for it?


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

I have a few personal reasons that I don’t like the idea of dope in cycling. These are just my reasons, so feel free to disagree: 

- I'm sick of watching riders ride mountains looking like they are out for an evening stroll. They have perfect form and look like they aren't even working. I love seeing the old videos from Lemond's era back, where you can tell the riders are suffering like dogs. It makes the whole sport seem more human and less extra terrestrial. 

- I'll be perfectly honest, I would love to ride as a professional someday, and through testing I know I have the physical potential. In the next few years as I pursue my dreams and ambitions, I want to know that if I fail it was ME and me alone that was not good enough. I don’t want to wonder how good I would have been if either I had done drugs or how good in relation to everyone else I would have been had they not been on drugs. 

- I also dislike losing idols/heroes in sport. The first Tour de France I ever watched was the 2006 iteration. Watching Landis on stage 17 was inspiring for me and he was really the first sporting figure that I really admired. His drug case was pretty devastating to me at the time because I had no prior knowledge of how dirty pro cycling was/is. I would love if someday I could stop second guessing the exploits of pro riders and see truly amazing human efforts, not doped up machines riding the big ring up a mountain. 

These of course are just my opinions/pipe dreams so take them with a grain of salt.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> I've never been persuaded by that particular argument. Face it, no 2 riders will respond to _anything_ the same way. Some have to train twice as hard to make the same gains. Some have various genetic advantages or disadvantages. But we don't ban certain training programs or certain foods or whatever just because some will gain more advantage from them than others.


Tell us, what training method or food can result in a 15% improvement of a highly trained professional athlete?


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> Tell us, what training method or food can result in a 15% improvement of a highly trained professional athlete?


15%? Try 31% from Pharmstrong. :mad2:


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

kytyree said:


> If you made your point I don't know where or what it was.
> 
> And if you want to talk about doping in cycling you can start by climbing down off your moral high horse.
> 
> ...


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> Tell us, what training method or food can result in a 15% improvement of a highly trained professional athlete?


Huh? What's that got to do with anything? The point wasn't a comparison between drugs and training or food. I was commenting on people saying that drugs should be banned because they work better for some athletes than others and therefore aren't "fair". I was just pointing out that the same is true of training methods or food or amount of sleep or whatever - some benefit more than others using the same methods - and so that particular argument against allowing PEDs isn't a very good one.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

pacificaslim said:


> Huh? I was commenting on people saying that drugs should be banned because they work better for some athletes than others and therefore aren't "fair". I was just pointing out that the same is true of training methods or food or amount of sleep or whatever - some benefit more than others using the same methods - and so that particular argument against allowing PEDs isn't a very good one.


Is that Illiterate, or just being an _idiot_? :hand:


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> Huh? What's that got to do with anything?


It has everything to do with this discussion.



pacificaslim said:


> I was commenting on people saying that drugs should be banned because they work better for some athletes than others and therefore aren't "fair". I was just pointing out that the same is true of training methods or food or amount of sleep or whatever - some benefit more than others using the same methods


You analogy to food and training is not valid because they do not produce the same level of improvement to a highly trained athlete. Please tell us of these new training methods and food that can show a 20% improvement for a highly trained professional athlete? They do not exisit. 

EPO CAN provide this level of improvement, and even more, to some Pro riders. No amount of training or diet could win Riis the Tour, but EPO vaulted him from a water carrier to a star. 

Doping distorts results.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> It has everything to do with this discussion.
> 
> You analogy to food and training is not valid because they do not produce the same level of improvement to a highly trained athlete. Please tell us of these new training methods and food that can show a 20% improvement for a highly trained professional athlete? They do not exisit.
> 
> ...


Dude...let's try this one more time. They weren't talking about the advantage dopers get over non-dopers. The argument was that you can't make doping legal and let everyone do it because some riders respond to the drugs better than others and so the playing field would be unlevel. My response was...so what: there is nothing level about the playing field even without drugs. People are different and have different genetic make up that gives them certain advantages even with only currently legal substances and training methods. Therefore the un-equal-response argument for banning drugs is a lame argument.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

pacificaslim said:


> Therefore the un-equal-response argument for banning drugs is a lame argument.


Secrets of The Dead On PBS, State Sponsored Doping, Billions of dollars in Medical Supervision











gene Doping coming up.










Have FUN bro. :thumbsup: 

Half the Raleigh team died from EPO.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

Well, certainly the "people die" argument is a better one than the "some people respond better on drugs than other people do" argument. Though I suppose fans of auto racing, boxing, mma, bull fighting, surfing, and all the other sports in which pros die chasing glory may not see the "because some people die from it" argument to be a winner either.


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

F1nut said:


> . . .
> 
> Half the Raleigh team died from EPO.


Would you care to elaborate on this?


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

pacificaslim said:


> Well, certainly the "people die" argument is a better one than the "some people respond better on drugs than other people do" argument. Though I suppose fans of auto racing, boxing, mma, bull fighting, surfing, and all the other sports in which pros die chasing glory may not see the "because some people die from it" argument to be a winner either.


He didnt respond well to drug therepy. He's dead.










Neither did he. 





















:thumbsup: 

No Formula 1 driver has died since 1994.

How many Nascar Driver died in the last 5 years? Does NASCAR advertise itself with safety features (_Car of Tommorow_) or death?



This Driver Survived without a scratch. _He walked away and joked about it to TV_.

I count 24 boxers that have died in the ring, EVER.

We have had more than 100 "mysterious" Procycling deaths encounting. I guess cycling should be proud of it using _your logic_

Many more in amateur competition.

I google Pro Surfing deaths and I find one murder case.


_Between 1987, when EPO became available in Europe, and 1990, 18 Dutch and Belgian cyclists died suddenly._

These riders also dead: 

Daniel Bennett 
Johan Sermon 
Michel Zanoli
Jose Maria Jimenez
Marco Rusconi 
Marco Ceriani 
Denis Zanette 
Fabrice Salanson
Marco Pantani
Nick Raganit 
Joachim Halupczok 
Kurt Jensen
Tom Simpson
Mike Janelle
James Kennedy 
Johannes Draaijer


I guess cycling just has more drugs, and more death. :blush2: Cycling has tested positive more than any other sport. We have over 1,150 positive tests encounting. 

_German TV in general doesnt agree with doping. Jan Ullrich is a national joke in his own country. ZDF doesnt agree with doping. 
l'EQUIPE doesnt agree. WADA doesnt agree. The UCI doesnt agree. Telekom, T-Mobile didnt agree. Tour de Georgia couldnt be run. AT&T didnt agree. Dodge didnt agree. Ford didnt agree. Gerolsteiner didnt agree. The Sunday Times doesnt agree. Fox doesnt agree. ESPN doesnt agree. Spanish Law Enforcement didnt agree. Italian Law Enforcement didnt agree. Interpol doesnt agree. The US Drug Enforcement Agency doesnt agree. Borack Obama doesnt agree. John MCcain didnt agree either. Frankie Andreau doped and he doesnt agree. Willy Voet doesnt agree. David Walsh doesnt agree. Paul Kimmage doesnt agree. Matt Rendal doesnt agree. Marion Jones doesnt agree with doping. The NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB, IOC, Nascar, F1, Major league soccer all have testing. Golf and Rugby too._

Empirically, evidence suggests that 100% of society doesnt agreee with illegal controlled substance use.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

pacificaslim said:


> My response was...so what: there is nothing level about the playing field even without drugs. People are different and have different genetic make up that gives them certain advantages even with only currently legal substances and training methods. Therefore the un-equal-response argument for banning drugs is a lame argument.












They must agree with variable response to blood doping huh.  










He must have felt fortunate for all his goals had been met as he lay dying of heart failure.

He was headed for "the top", I guess he was a super responder. .










Pantani was very much satisfied with how it all went.

I support you, "Just do it."


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> Dude...let's try this one more time. They weren't talking about the advantage dopers get over non-dopers. The argument was that you can't make doping legal and let everyone do it because some riders respond to the drugs better than others and so the playing field would be unlevel. My response was...so what: there is nothing level about the playing field even without drugs. People are different and have different genetic make up that gives them certain advantages even with only currently legal substances and training methods. Therefore the un-equal-response argument for banning drugs is a lame argument.


The only thing "lame" is your argument. Sports should be about who is the most naturally talented, who trains the smartest and the hardest.....not who responds best to synthetic stimuli like dope.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*tough question*

I think the easy answer is that it kills young cyclists.

However, as I have said, just create a league where you can dope and most of this would dry up.

Call it the unlimited league and move on. Kids will still die, people will always dope, but in this instance, yes there re examples where an unlimited league, can and will say, you dope, its all on you. Yes, I consider bodybuilding to be a sport and yes, it has worked there.


----------



## jibboo (Jan 1, 2008)

> These riders also dead:
> ...
> Mike Janelle
> ...


Not attributed to doping.

Dave.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> The only thing "lame" is your argument. Sports should be about who is the most naturally talented, who trains the smartest and the hardest.....not who responds best to synthetic stimuli like dope.


Yes, perserverance with some dreaming, faith and hope mixed in. Some people believe in poetry, others don't.

Thankfully I believe in the hokey stuff as I think you do also.

The sad thing in all this is that people like Pharmstrong and Tyler have exploited belief and faith.

Oh well, the softest pillow is a clear conscience.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

ttug said:


> Call it the unlimited league and move on. Kids will still die, people will always dope, but in this instance, yes there re examples where an unlimited league, can and will say, you dope, its all on you. Yes, I consider bodybuilding to be a sport and yes, it has worked there.


We've had that in the past with athletes like Tammy Thomas:










Perhaps she didnt understand Amnesty International's code:  










HBOC's and Biopure products are now all detectable, I guess we should have 20 deaths per week on the field now; with no testing:










Ultimate Man competition is illegal, dogfighting is illegal, animal cruelty is illegal.

Blood manipulation is illegal.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> The only thing "lame" is your argument. Sports should be about who is the most naturally talented, who trains the smartest and the hardest.....not who responds best to synthetic stimuli like dope.


If you think I disagree with that, you've jumped to conclusions you shouldn't have. All I've done here is comment on some of the arguments that are made and how they sound. None of that has anything to do with my personal feelings on doping, which of course I'm against.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)




----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

Dude, your schtick is getting old pretty fast. Could you try some actual discussion instead of this incessant barrage of lame-o agitprop collages? Kthnxby.


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

Still waiting....


----------



## Exciton (Aug 8, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> The only thing "lame" is your argument. Sports should be about who is the most naturally talented, who trains the smartest and the hardest.....not who responds best to synthetic stimuli like dope.


I guess no one here disagrees with your opinion but the keyword in your sentence is "should". Today we are unfortunately in a situation where a number of substances are illegal yet without an effective way of testing for it. 

But if you did legalize doping, it would be even greater fun to watch the races: Riders would be going 35km/h on the steepest climbs ... of course some would collapse left and right from strokes and heart failures but that would just add to the excitement. After a race or a stage the team doctor of the winning team would be approached by the journalists in order to explain what mixture he would be giving his riders to win (or minimize the number of casualties).
It would bring a whole new dimension to cycling, no?  

On a more serious note: It seems to me that the anti-doping agencies is really the weaker part in the doping war. There is simply too much money and too big a risk-taking appetite among athletes to effectively fight doping. Sure, a small battle was won with Cera during the TdF. But what about all the other EPO variants and the false negatives in regular epo testing? And why was there no back testing on the Giro blood samples? 
I see no reason to believe that there is less doping now in the peloton -- just different and maybe slightly more moderate than in the easy-going '90s.


----------



## hooj (Apr 8, 2006)

Someone already mentioned that doping is bad because some individuals using doping will force others to use doping as well if they want to compete. Someone will make an ignorant comment after this about training, nutrition, equipment etc. and I don't feel that I'm capable of having a decent conversation with people who think that way seriously or just to make fun of the whole issue.

It's not that doping would be that dangerous. I know very well what drugs, how much and when to use, and quite frankly in most cases the risks are smaller than risks guys take in normal road races. I'm fine with taking the risks to win, but doping is wrong kind of a risk and it's such a huge factor, that it will force others to follow. No matter whether it's allowed or forbidden.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Sorry, I forgot about you.... "rogger" Maybe God did too? You have a point, one of them died from EPO, the rest from.... Other stuff... AND it wasnt half the team, It was from a Ti-Raleigh picture I was looking at in a bike show. Half from the picture are dead. Sorry.

Ti-Raleigh's Trail:

Died Young:

*Bert Oosterbosch* died in 1989, Quote from Willy Voet on the 1982 Grand Prix des Nations: Oosterbosch came in 18th at more than 2.5 minutes behind the winner Bernard Hinault even though he was expected to do well. Voet said: "Oosterbosch was flat from the start due to the _Synacten_ he had taken. The drugs initially blocked his ability to work hard. An hour after the injection it started working as planned and his tempo increased."








Seemed happy enough _before he was dying_.

-*Bert Pronk* Just dead.










-*Gerrie Knetemann *_("Knetemann died while riding his bike. He collapsed from a heart attack with friends in Bergen, the Netherlands_.") Aged 53.

Colin Davison dies riding, aged 57.

*Johan van der Velde*:

Not dead yet but has had Addiction to amphetamines and a lifelong habit of petty theft.

Look at former Ti-Raleigh rider Dave Lloyd's website, He is quote: "a qualified Haematologist." David "Coaching"

*"In the space of four years, Dave's athletes have won 40 National Road, Track and TT Medals, 1 BBAR Senior Gold , 1 BBAR Junior Gold, 7 National Master's Medals, 5 World Championship Master's Medals, 2 World Cup Medals and 1 World Cup Championship and a "World Hour Record"... PLUS 6 National Records and literally hundreds and hundreds of PB's ..."*

What does Heamotology have to do with Coaching people?

Atleast he makes it blatantly obvious and doesnt live in cowardly, empty, denial.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

I want to ask a question to Exon, and rogger; _Do you think I should have to accept my own premature mortality to race a bicycle competitively in professionals?_

I'll make it more direct, should _anyone_ have to accept increased death as part of competition?

When one of you answers, or both; we can be done with this uber-long thread. You can end it, not I.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

F1nut said:


> I want to ask a question to Exon, and rogger; _Do you think I should have to accept my own premature mortality to race a bicycle competitively in professionals?_
> 
> I'll make it more direct, should _anyone_ have to accept increased death as part of competition?
> 
> When one of you answers, or both; we can be done with this uber-long thread. You can end it, not I.


If you consider that some sports have long term risks associated, the life expectancy of an NFL player is about 55 years! Not just from the drugs, but all those hits do life shortening damage to internal organs, especially the brain. Lots of athletes are willing to take that risk


----------



## Exciton (Aug 8, 2008)

F1nut said:


> I want to ask a question to Exon, and rogger; _Do you think I should have to accept my own premature mortality to race a bicycle competitively in professionals?_
> 
> I'll make it more direct, should _anyone_ have to accept increased death as part of competition?
> 
> When one of you answers, or both; we can be done with this uber-long thread. You can end it, not I.


Even apart from doping I think you face an increased mortality rate as a professional bicyclist. Just think of the very large numbers of riders that have been killed or invalidated during races or training.

To your other question: There should be no drugs in sport! Every athlete should train to maximize their own genetic potential and compete without use of illegal pharma.
However, in the real world: 
1) there is sooo much money to be made and glory to be won if you win a big race instead of finishing in the middle of the peloton. 
2) The effect of doping is as you know enourmous. And the effect is so big that a clean rider no matter how talented can not beat a less talented but doped rider. 
3) There are still plenty of ways to cheat without being caught. Heck, there are even plenty of false negatives in a standard EPO test!
Given 1)-3) the rational choice for a rider is still to dope!

To this you can add that:
4) there is limited upside and less resources in fighting doping and that some of the key persons that should be whole-hearted supporting the fight against doping are at best hesistant (eg. why has there been no back testing for Cera?)
5) There are large number of substances coming out that each require their own test.
Testing for Cera was a success but what about all the other epo variants?
And what happens when Cera becomes illegally produced in China without the tracking molecule?

Given the points above, I am fairly pessimistic about getting a clean sport. And if we allow ourselves to think a bit out of the box for solutions, one solution would in fact be to allow the product that are currently on the doping list. After all what is on that list and hence called doping is in the end a political decision. Of course there would be the risk that riders would die from abuse but there is also the chance that some of these substances could actually do some good (for instance for recovery/restitution).
If doping products were legalized we might even see a lot pharmaceutical companies wishing to sponsor/support bicycling. A lot of these companies are eager to develop products that support a given lifestyle rather than cure a specific disease and TdF would be a great place to promote for instance a product for better restitution.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Exciton said:


> And what happens when Cera becomes illegally produced in China without the tracking molecule?


CERA doesn't have a tracking molecule. It is traceable because of a feature of its make up which by coincidence is trackable.


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

F1nut said:


> Sorry, I forgot about you.... "rogger" Maybe God did too? You have a point, one of them died from EPO, the rest from.... Other stuff... AND it wasnt half the team, It was from a Ti-Raleigh picture I was looking at in a bike show. Half from the picture are dead. Sorry.
> 
> Ti-Raleigh's Trail:
> 
> ...


So again I ask you to enlighten me, which one died of EPO? Just curious...


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

F1nut said:


> Marion Jones doesnt agree with doping. The NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB, IOC, Nascar, F1, Major league soccer all have testing. Golf and Rugby too


Marion Jones only changed her tune once she'd been caught. US sports - don't make me laugh. Football????????????? 2006 World Cup had NO blood tests because they were too expensive!!!!!!!


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

ultimobici said:


> Marion Jones only changed her tune once she'd been caught. US sports - don't make me laugh. Football????????????? 2006 World Cup had NO blood tests because they were too expensive!!!!!!!


What is your point?

Overtly, Marion Jones has always been against doping.

Was she doing it covertly? Of course.

I acknowledge LA is explicitly against doping. 

Is he weak? Affirmative.

The United States of America is explicitly against heroin use and production and yet U.S. soldiers walk by huge poppy fields every day in Afghanistan. The U.S. and it's allies know the exact locations where over 90% of the worlds opium is produced and yet we aren't eradicating those fields. Why, because heroin use isn't bad?

I don't understand what you're laughing about.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*I was with you until the end of your post.*



Exciton said:


> Given the points above, I am fairly pessimistic about getting a clean sport.


I'm not pessimistic about a clean sport at all. When you realize that we, the cycling public, are the sport. 

If however, we choose to support people like Pharmstrong, who obviously doped, and personally attack LeMond, a voice in the wilderness for transparency, _then_ we are in trouble.



Exciton said:


> And if we allow ourselves to think a bit out of the box for solutions, one solution would in fact be to allow the product that are currently on the doping list..


Bad idea. The items on the list are eminently reasonable.



Exciton said:


> After all what is on that list and hence called doping is in the end a political decision...


Every decision made in life by more than one person is a political decision. Doesn't mean it's not the best possible decision for all concerned though.



Exciton said:


> Of course there would be the risk that riders would die from abuse but there is also the chance that some of these substances could actually do some good (for instance for recovery/restitution)..


Pro cycling Grand Tours are contests of speed and attrition. The whole point is to find out the fastest guy with the strongest constitution. Then when that is done, mature people go on with the work of life.



Exciton said:


> If doping products were legalized we might even see a lot pharmaceutical companies wishing to sponsor/support bicycling. A lot of these companies are eager to develop products that support a given lifestyle rather than cure a specific disease and TdF would be a great place to promote for instance a product for better restitution.


Do you really want to see that kind of "support." I don't. What next?


----------



## Exciton (Aug 8, 2008)

lookrider said:


> I'm not pessimistic about a clean sport at all. When you realize that we, the cycling public, are the sport.


Well, I was talking about pro cycling and there I really see no end to the drug abuse. 
I am not worried about drug abuse among sport cyclists (although that certainly happens too).



lookrider said:


> Bad idea. The items on the list are eminently reasonable.


Yes, they probably are. But the problem is that there is no way to test for a lot of these substances. 
Next year we will probably see Pharmstrong win TdF yet again and LeMond and the rest of us can just shake our heads .... so again what do we do?


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

rogger said:


> So again I ask you to enlighten me, which one died of EPO? Just curious...



Oosterbosch for sure.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Unless you consider a kilo of coke over a couple days performance enhancing Pantani's death had nothing to do with PEDs. Jimenez was also unrelated.

If riders don't look like they are suffering it's because they aren't racing very hard, not because they are doped up - unless they are the only doped rider in the bunch. Blame the controlled racing of the Armstrong era for that appearance, not doping. There are plenty of examples of seriously doped riders suffering in the 90's. Virenque in a TdF TT where he could barely stand up at the finish is one that comes to mind.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Exciton said:


> Well, I was talking about pro cycling and there I really see no end to the drug abuse.
> I am not worried about drug abuse among sport cyclists (although that certainly happens too).


Fair enough. It's hard to solve these problems for reasons that aren't directly doping related. What I'm talking about is the audience/fan base, of cycling at large.

Jimmy Carter made a very telling comment a while ago. He said that Americans were going to get a POTUS as good as its people. 

I think cycling is getting champions as morally upstanding as its audience members. Those audiece members are largely moral relativists who justify doping based on considerations such as money and "everybody else is doing it."





Exciton said:


> Yes, they probably are. But the problem is that there is no way to test for a lot of these substances.
> Next year we will probably see Pharmstrong win TdF yet again and LeMond and the rest of us can just shake our heads .... so again what do we do?


Make LeMond President of the UCI.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

lookrider said:


> If however, we choose to support people like Pharmstrong, who obviously doped, and personally attack LeMond, a voice in the wilderness for transparency, _then_ we are in trouble.


FWIW, it's possible to agree with LeMond that doping is bad and still criticize him for his public behavior where he comes off as such a whining jerk. It's also possible to be against doping and still respect Armstrong for the overwhelming positive impact his life has had on society as a whole. One could even make a strong case that whatever it was you think he did to win, legal or not, has proven to be totally worth it (to the rest of us) considering the good he's been able to do with the fame that winning brought him. In other words, maybe negative for a bicycle race, but a positive for society over all.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> FWIW, it's possible to agree with LeMond that doping is bad and still criticize him for his public behavior where he comes off as such a whining jerk. It's also possible to be against doping and still respect Armstrong for the overwhelming positive impact his life has had on society as a whole. One could even make a strong case that whatever it was you think he did to win, legal or not, has proven to be totally worth it (to the rest of us) considering the good he's been able to do with the fame that winning brought him. In other words, maybe negative for a bicycle race, but a positive for society over all.


Soooo, 

cheating and lying is ok as long as you do something else to balance it out? At what point does it not become ok? What is the formula? When is the "Tipping point" when someone someones negitive actions overwhelm their positive ones? 

Pointing out the issues in our sport and trying to do something about them equals "whining jerk"? Could you give an example of his statements that are so objectionable?

I am sure that people like Emma, Betsy, Bassons, Simeoni, Mike Anderson would disagree with you.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> ...cheating and lying is ok as long as you do something else to balance it out? At what point does it not become ok? What is the formula? When is the "Tipping point" when someone someones negitive actions overwhelm their positive ones?


That's for each to decide. I'm not one to believe in absolutes. I was just trying to give you some explanation for Armstrong's continued popularity and respect from society. If your main focus is whether someone followed the rules of a sport, then you will likely come to a different conclusion than one who looks at a larger picture or doesn't even care that Lance was a cyclist. But don't be so surprised that people still like the guy. Some will like him because of his work outside of cycling, and some will even respect his cycling accomplishments, arguing that everyone around him was doing the same thing so he was no worse a cheater than his competition. 




> Pointing out the issues in our sport and trying to do something about them equals "whining jerk"? Could you give an example of his statements that are so objectionable?


It's not the statements, it's the delivery. That recent press conference where he "attacked" Lance and just wouldn't shut up and realize it was not the time or place was ridiculously childish. No class.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> That's for each to decide. I'm not one to believe in absolutes. I was just trying to give you some explanation for Armstrong's continued popularity and respect from society. If your main focus is whether someone followed the rules of a sport, then you will likely come to a different conclusion than one who looks at a larger picture or doesn't even care that Lance was a cyclist. But don't be so surprised that people still like the guy.


The Halo provided by cancer is no surprise. This is a cycling doping forum where we discuss doping in cycling so you could expect that we would be more interested in his fraud then his foundation.




pacificaslim said:


> It's not the statements, it's the delivery. That recent press conference where he "attacked" Lance and just wouldn't shut up and realize it was not the time or place was ridiculously childish. No class.


It appears you are basing your views on press releases and not fact. He did not "attack" Armstrong. You can watch the video here. His questions were calm and thought out.






In fact Lemond's participation was cleared in advance with Lance's press person, Mark Higgins, it was not an "Attack". To Armstrong's credit they arranged for LeMond to have a seat near the front of the room and Lance let him have the first question.

The topic of the press conference was the Lance/Catlin internal testing program. Lemond asked a very valid question about how/if they would incorporate power figures into the internal program. Garmin and Columbia already do this and most think it is a key ingredient for any internal testing program. For asking these legitimate questions Lemond is labeled a fool.

meanwhile the results of this press conference have been NOTHING. It has been over 4 months and Catlin and Armstrong are still "negotiating" and the "complete transparency" and "Anywhere, anytime" testing never materialized.......it appears the real fools were those fans who thought that Lance would actually follow thru with his promises.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

*It wasnt whining.

Basing solid facts (500 watts at FTP isnt possible with an 82 VO2 max and 74kg) and then suggesting that an outside authority(catlin) keep track of Lance's power values is not whining in my frank opinion. He talked about doping, thats not whining. *

*Entire Teams have been racing the Tour de France totally clean on nothing but caffeine. He said teams have been trying their hardest. Thats not whining, thats a fact. Thats the closest he got to whining for the whole deal, towards the end when Lance started cutting him off.*


whine   /ʰwaɪn, waɪn/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hwahyn, wahyn] Show IPA Pronunciation 
verb, whined, whin⋅ing, noun 
–verb (used without object) 1. to utter a low, usually nasal, complaining cry or sound, as from uneasiness, discontent, peevishness, etc.: The puppies were whining from hunger. 
2. to snivel or complain in a peevish, self-pitying way: He is always whining about his problems. 
–verb (used with object) 3. to utter with or as if with a whine: I whined my litany of complaints. 
–noun 4. a whining utterance, sound, or tone. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin: 
bef. 1150; ME whinen (v.), OE hwīnan to whiz; c. ON hvīna


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

terzo rene said:


> Unless you consider a kilo of coke over a couple days performance enhancing Pantani's death had nothing to do with PEDs. Jimenez was also unrelated.
> 
> If riders don't look like they are suffering it's because they aren't racing very hard, not because they are doped up - unless they are the only doped rider in the bunch. Blame the controlled racing of the Armstrong era for that appearance, not doping. There are plenty of examples of seriously doped riders suffering in the 90's. Virenque in a TdF TT where he could barely stand up at the finish is one that comes to mind.


Where's the drug addiction coming from? :mad2: 

Pharmstrong?

You must lust after Nascar, Watch that #48 Lowes Chevy go, go go go!!! :thumbsup:

Of course, Jimmy Johnson will live decades longer than Pharmstrong!


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*all????*



F1nut said:


> We've had that in the past with athletes like Tammy Thomas:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, not all are. If they were, well........gee, the head just swims.

However, I stated bodybuilding had success, not utopia. I do not get into the ultimate man etc etc thing. Of course, some folks say these are fringe sports and yet, it is human life.

The deal with any crusade is to recall, the reluigion of a crusade at times precludes the rational mind of science. 

Lifetime bans and yeah, lots of tough love (read as lawsuits) will be in order.


----------



## Exciton (Aug 8, 2008)

lookrider said:


> Make LeMond President of the UCI.


Now, THAT is a very good suggestion!
If he then could persuade the pharmaceutical companies to put tracking molecules in all the products on the doping list, we might actually make some real progress.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

ultimobici said:


> CERA doesn't have a tracking molecule. It is traceable because of a feature of its make up which by coincidence is trackable.


All animal based EPO is detectable. Dynepo is human based cells. Cera is animal based, those riders that used it took a risk. What they were trying to do is keep their Rectics up as they doped with their own blood and avoided suspicion. THE CERA is longer lasting so they could use it less. ( convenience) Schumacher, Ricco, etc all took to much. There was never any tracking modules. THe companies that make these drugs would never agree to that because its way to expensive. If one is using animal based epo, they have to microdose it. The logical deal is to use the human epo(Dynepo.) I wish they would test for total blood volume instead of red cell produce.

As far as eliminating testing, what so they can use HBOC's again and keep crit at 60% to sleep with and improve recovery? Real smart if you dont value your own life.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Irony*



F1nut said:


> *It wasnt whining.
> 
> Basing solid facts (500 watts at FTP isnt possible with an 82 VO2 max and 74kg) and then suggesting that an outside authority(catlin) keep track of Lance's power values is not whining in my frank opinion. He talked about doping, thats not whining. *
> 
> ...


The funny thing is that the people accusing LeMond of whining are really the .......................They are the ones who allow the status quo to remain in effect. This chamois sniffing, bowing down to Pharmstrong is pathetic... Since when the hell did telling the truth(and it's obvious here) and speaking truth to power become whining?

Everything Pharmstrong has done in life is based on his fraud..

An athletic legend calling BS on cheating and he's whining. Now I've heard everything.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

lookrider said:


> Since when the hell did telling the truth(and it's obvious here) and speaking truth to power become whining?


It has nothing to do with the content: it's the delivery. It's the repetition and argumentative and accusatory language and refusal to stop speaking when asked to that makes someone appear classless. And there has always often been a bit of sour grapes or something in the way that LeMond talks of Armstrong and cycling of his (and this) era, as if Greg wished he had remained the face of American cycling, as if he sees himself as the last real cyclist. But whatever it is, I can only report my honest feelings about how his behavior has rubbed me. It's silly to somehow try to make that assessment into a matter of fact or fiction that you can try to convince me I'm wrong about. How I feel about a man's behavior is simply my opinion. If you feel differently, that's great. I'm a few years younger than LeMond and so I grew up with him as my cycling hero, and still to this day find his accomplishments on the bike to be more impressive to me than Armstrong. But off the bike? It's a different story to me.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> It has nothing to do with the content: it's the delivery..


Are you a manager for a major corporation, because that's the same kind of BS they shovel out? That you have to tell the truth in some PC way or the truth is negated. At any rate, there was nothing wrong with the delivery and your prejudices are showing. Otherwise how could you be blinded to the sewer that LeMond has shown you?



pacificaslim said:


> It's the repetition..


I don't see the dopers turning themselves in. Obviously he has to repeat himself if corrective actions aren't taken to rectify obvious fraud.



pacificaslim said:


> and argumentative and accusatory language..


The dopers led by LA are denying the obvious truth, it takes two to argue and I don't see LeMond being a quitter and why the hell should he stop?

Accusatory language, no fffinngg kidding! He's making ACCUSATIONS!



pacificaslim said:


> and refusal to stop speaking when asked to that makes someone appear classless..


What's classless is fraud followed by coverups and threats to ones livelihood. Did you see how Pharmstrong tried to take the mic from Caitlan and even Caitlan had the good sense not to give it to him.?



pacificaslim said:


> And there has always often been a bit of sour grapes or something in the way that LeMond talks of Armstrong and cycling of his (and this) era, as if Greg wished he had remained the face of American cycling, as if he sees himself as the last real cyclist..


Nope, you're drinking in the LA propaganda and don't realize how this whole thing started when the Pharmstrong/Ferrari connection was revealed by Walsh.. LeMond responded to a question about that connection put to him by Walsh. And why the f$ck shouldn't he respond?



pacificaslim said:


> But whatever it is, I can only report my honest feelings about how his behavior has rubbed me. It's silly to somehow try to make that assessment into a matter of fact or fiction that you can try to convince me I'm wrong about. How I feel about a man's behavior is simply my opinion. If you feel differently, that's great. I'm a few years younger than LeMond and so I grew up with him as my cycling hero, and still to this day find his accomplishments on the bike to be more impressive to me than Armstrong. But off the bike? It's a different story to me.


How do you feel about Armstrong destroying the careers of those who've crossed him, that's ok? As long as it doesn't interfere with the Liggett/Sherwen/Roll/Nike/Oakley/Cancer Charity coverup money making machine?

And your feelings are a major part of what's wrong with things in general..

When this faux civility replaces truth telling it places us in the major trouble which we find ourselves in.

I feel bad you have such delicate sensiblities.... You're supposed to learn the value of pointing out the emperor isn't wearing any clothes when you're a child...


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

lookrider said:


> When this faux civility replaces truth telling it places us in the major trouble which we find ourselves in.


And what trouble is that? Has Armstrong or any of the other alleged dopers caused you or your loved ones any actual harm? (It's clear he's improved the lives of many, and accused of 'destorying' a few careers, but only the former has touched me personally). Are you sure it isn't you that has the delicate feelings that have been hurt when you found out the illusion wasn't real? 

Overall, it's pretty silly for any of us non pro cyclists to be speaking so forcefully on this issue. It's the racer's sport and it's their health. Until they take control on this issue, their behavior will continue to be at odds with the wishes of the organizers and those that profit off the cyclists efforts (sponsors, etc.). It's pretty clear that as a group, as a 'culture', the riders aren't yet interested in completely giving up performance enhancing substances. Maybe someday.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Oy veh!*



pacificaslim said:


> And what trouble is that?


Take a look around at the world and see the kind of damage done because people were too timid to speak the truth to power. If you don't understand the significance of _The Emperor's New Clothes_ and that the child in it hadn't learned the sophisticated form of lying which many here seem to have mastered, it's beyond my powers of reason to explain it to you.



pacificaslim said:


> Has Armstrong or any of the other alleged dopers caused you or your loved ones any actual harm? (It's clear he's improved the lives of many, and accused of 'destorying' a few careers, but only the former has touched me personally).


Yup....this kind of $hit hurts everyone, even if one isn't smart enough to know it.



pacificaslim said:


> Are you sure it isn't you that has the delicate feelings that have been hurt when you found out the illusion wasn't real?).


Yes.....



pacificaslim said:


> Overall, it's pretty silly for any of us non pro cyclists to be speaking so forcefully on this issue.


Really? You know that I don't have any elite athletes in my family or among my friends?

Also this is the doping forum. And why in the hell do you think that Pharmstrong protests his innocence so strongly..

TO STATE THE OBVIOUS, IT'S BECAUSE HIS CAREER, REPUTATION HIS GOODWILL, AND HIS CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES WOULD BE RUINED FOREVER!

WHY DO YOU THINK ARMSTRONG IS WORTH MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND IS AN ICON. IT'S BECAUSE HE'S SEEN AS A HERO BY MANY UNSUSPECTING PEOPLE . THAT MEANS THEY FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT HIM...

SO IN LIGHT OF THAT, PEOPLE WHO DO KNOW THE TRUTH, AREN'T ENTITLED TO FEEL DISGUSTED AND WRONGED BY HIS FRAUD AND DECEPTION?

SEE WHAT STACY MC ILVANE HAD TO SAY ABOUT HIS FRAUD, AND SHE'S HIS FRIEND AND CONFIDANT.



pacificaslim said:


> It's the racer's sport and it's their health..


Nope, it's a public health issue. BTW, doesn't LeMond as a cycling great, have both the right and obligation to be a caretaker of cycling's legacy, and to set it on a correct course in the U.S? How can he do that with the rampant corruption of USA Cycling?



pacificaslim said:


> Until they take control on this issue, their behavior will continue to be at odds with the wishes of the organizers and those that profit off the cyclists efforts (sponsors, etc.). It's pretty clear that as a group, as a 'culture', the riders aren't yet interested in completely giving up performance enhancing substances. Maybe someday.



How in the hell are they going to take control if one of the legends of the sport, who knows the truth, keeps quiet about it?

But according to you, he's whining. Nice....


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

I've said enough. And all I can ask you is to allow me to have my own opinion and don't feel so offended that it isn't the same one you have that you feel the need to argue with me. Thanks.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> I've said enough..


Ok



pacificaslim said:


> And all I can ask you is to allow me to have my own opinion..


I don't have the capability of putting a chip in your head.




pacificaslim said:


> and don't feel so offended.


Offended? I'm perplexed...but anyway, why would anyone be concerned with what I feel about someone elses opinion.




pacificaslim said:


> that it isn't the same one you have that you feel the need to argue with me..


It takes two to tango.. Anyway, as opposed to corporate America, appearances aren't all that important here.



pacificaslim said:


> Thanks.


No problem. If you have any opinions you feel the need to air, you can be sure to get an unvarnished, truthful assesment of them from me ..


----------



## bikeman68 (Feb 10, 2009)

Heres a simpler question:
After Lance Armstrong losing a testicle from his trial with cancer, how do you explain him coming back to top level without some kind of testosterone "boost" to compensate for the significant loss? He needs his own natural full testosterone production to build his significant strength and recovery, his athletisism in general. There must have been some kind of bio engineering from the most brilliant scientific minds huh?


----------



## bikeman68 (Feb 10, 2009)

*easy going 90's?*

If anything, the "easy going 90's" were really the wide open 90's!
Pros were getting more and more potent doping from sketchy souces, while the dope testing was far less sohisticated than now.Johan Museew admitted to using growth hormone, conveneiently at the last year or so of his carreer, to help him win the big classics from his heyday in mid 90's to 2002.
Speed killed Tom Simpson in the '67 TDF


----------



## coasterbrake (Jun 10, 2006)

velodog said:


> By Example!
> And the only way that kid's gonna give a damn is if he/she has respect for the example giver. And the giver has to show that kid the same respect.
> Kids are being told what to do and how to act by everyone they speak with, parents, peers, teachers. Kids get tired of everyone telling them what to do so eventually they are going to do what they think they have to do to prove their Worth.
> That decision is going to be made based on those that they have or have no respect for.
> ...


+1, finally someone who gets it, this is the answer with the most meaning yet.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

this is why doping is bad
https://www.bicycle.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/tammy-thomas.jpg


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

loudog said:


> this is why doping is bad


Fixed that for you Loudog.....yes that is a woman.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

^what i find truly amazing about that photo, and others of her, is that she competed despite hugely obvious masculinization. the power of denial is strong and the desire to win is even stronger. she looks so freakishly terrible is unreal.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

Doping is bad. Period. Nobody wants to see a race that rewards the athlete who has the best drugs, best doctors, etc. That's not sports. It's who has the most money.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

The problem with that is you need to objectively explain how that's different from rewarding who has the best foods, vitamins, allowed supplements - all three of which still require the best doctor to figure out - then the best coach to plan training, the best equipment to race on, etc. So even without "doping", the one with the most money still has a huge advantage.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> The problem with that is you need to objectively explain how that's different from rewarding who has the best foods, vitamins, allowed supplements - all three of which still require the best doctor to figure out - then the best coach to plan training, the best equipment to race on, etc. So even without "doping", the one with the most money still has a huge advantage.


Please show me a vitamin or food that when taken by a highly trained professional athlete will result in a 3% improvement in one and a 15% improvement in another.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> Please show me a vitamin or food that when taken by a highly trained professional athlete will result in a 3% improvement in one and a 15% improvement in another.



You should try some NO Explode! My average speed went from 30kph to 40kph in a week. Of course you may only get a 1 kph benefit.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

Drugs make a huge difference. Vitamins, not so much.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> Please show me a vitamin or food that when taken by a highly trained professional athlete will result in a 3% improvement in one and a 15% improvement in another.


Please show me the studies that the drugs we are talking about do that. I don't subscribe to the "super responder" theory because I've never seen any science to back it up.

As for the effectiveness of intake of _legal_ substances, many a race has been won or lost by the 10-20% performance difference from what a rider ate or drank (and enough or not enough of both) during and before the race. Contador lost Paris-Nice this year for perhaps that very reason.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> Please show me the studies that the drugs we are talking about do that. I don't subscribe to the "super responder" theory because I've never seen any science to back it up.
> 
> As for the effectiveness of intake of _legal_ substances, many a race has been won or lost by the 10-20% performance difference from what a rider ate or drank (and enough or not enough of both) during and before the race. Contador lost Paris-Nice this year for perhaps that very reason.



So they're not doping?:idea: 

Anyway, the super responder idea is proven all the time with drugs. Just the difference between cancer patients who respond to drugs and survive and those that do not and die.

My friend had leukemia in the mid 90's and he told me the exact same thing, that if his treatment didn't work, he would not go thru a second course of chemo, it either works or it doesn't.

So based on Contador at Paris-Nice, you're classifying food and water as performance enhancing substances?

I'll tell you this, if you don't drink during a 5 hour stage when temps are above 90 degrees F, your performance will suffer a lot more than 10 to 20%. What you're trying to prove with this point is beyond me though.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

What I was commenting on was the idea that it is only illegal drugs that can make one guy 20% faster than another guy. This is clearly not true.

Cancer treatment and athlete performance are two different things. If there are actual performance tests with epo usage (for example), I'd like to see if they back up the "super resonder" theory.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> What I was commenting on was the idea that it is only illegal drugs that can make one guy 20% faster than another guy. This is clearly not true.
> 
> .


Just because you have not read the studies does not mean that they are not true. Your ignorance is not proof.

Here is a study on Sildenafil (******)

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/6/2031

*analyses revealed two subject groups, sildenafil responders and nonresponders, who improved time-trial performance by 39% (P < 0.05) and 1.0%, respectively.*

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060624120556.htm

_*these improvements occurred largely because some people achieve major gains with sildenafil at altitude while others improve much less or not at all*_

The study have been replicated twice with the similar results. It was no surprise when Gerolsteiner rider Andrea Moletta's father was caught with a car load of the stuff at the Giro last year

There have also been studies on EPO that show a similar difference between responders and non responders

Here is a good review of one of the studies that focused on improvement 
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html

Here is a good review of two of the more well know studies on EPO and improvement

http://miketnelson.blogspot.com/2008/07/does-epo-enhance-performance.html

Note the Balsom et al. showed a improvement of endurance performance that varied per athlete (9 to 17%). Australian researchers did a larger study with higher level athletes and show similar results 6-19%


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> Just because you have not read the studies does not mean that they are not true. Your ignorance is not proof.


I'm not sure what that comment has to do with the quote of mine you pasted above it. But maybe you intended to reply about the super responder question instead? I made absolutely no claims that the super-responder theory has been proven wrong. I just said I wanted to see the science behind that theory. So in that regard, thanks for the links. No thanks for the attitude though.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> I'm not sure what that comment has to do with the quote of mine you pasted above it. But maybe you intended to reply about the super responder question instead? I made absolutely no claims that the super-responder theory has been proven wrong. I just said I wanted to see the science behind that theory. So in that regard, thanks for the links. No thanks for the attitude though.


I apologize for my terse response

You wrote that it was "Clearly not true" that "illegal drugs that can make one guy 20% faster than another guy"

It clearly is true and I provided some studies that prove it is clear.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> You wrote that it was "Clearly not true" that "illegal drugs that can make one guy 20% faster than another guy"
> 
> It clearly is true and I provided some studies that prove it is clear.


Ah, I see where you've misunderstood. Read it again. I wrote: "What I was commenting on was the idea that it is only illegal drugs that can make one guy 20% faster than another guy. This is clearly not true."

The key word is _*only*_. I was making the case that legal substances and legal methods can also have that effect. I even provided an example of how races are won and lost because of mistakes in the taking in of totally legal substances.

My intention was to argue against the idea that the reason certain substances are illegal is that they can have a much greater effect on performance than the legal substances. Somebody said something like epo is illegal because it can help you 10-20% and vitamins are legal because they only help a little bit. I think this is not a good argument for banning certain substances (since we'd have to place food and water on the banned list then!).

There must be another reason to make certain substances illegal: I think the only reasonable one is concern for the athletes health. Though I'm still open to changing my mind on this "fairness" argument after looking more into the super-responder theory.


----------

