# Legal PEDs



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

It occurs to me that there is a substantial lack of information on research that may have been done on legal performance enhancing drugs? Seems likely that every pro athlete would be interested in that information but unlikely to share their knowledge?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Lose weight and increase your cadence.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

SwiftSolo said:


> Seems likely that every pro athlete would be interested in that information...


Pro athletes don't pay for research though, and government's tend not to like to waste their money on trivial research. Additionally, almost any drug that has performance advantages is banned, and many that don't have any are banned too. That being said caffeine isn't banned and it is performance enhancing.


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

I agree. It if is legal, it probably doesn't do much to enhance performance.






Dwayne Barry said:


> Pro athletes don't pay for research though, and government's tend not to like to waste their money on trivial research. Additionally, almost any drug that has performance advantages is banned, and many that don't have any are banned too. That being said caffeine isn't banned and it is performance enhancing.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

Willy Voet has commented on Creatine, i.e. how potent it is, in comparison to trying to eat that much in steak for example. He alludes to how much sports medicine and science has advanced in some respects. Paul Kimmage has mentioned the idiocy of trying to gulp down a heavy steak and rice at 6am, when the body would seriously struggle to digest it at all, thus negating it's value to a large extent.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Most of us non-users find that during certain events we've felt like superman and others we could hardly get out of our own way. Our results substantiated how we felt as well. 

Seems to me that knowing the chemistry variations involved would have a lot of value and may not be that difficult to isolate. If I were a top contender in a big event, it may be worth it to spend $250,000 to gain information that others may not have.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> That being said caffeine isn't banned and it is performance enhancing.


It was up until a couple years ago. They removed it citing that it's too prevalent in society to eliminate effectively.


----------



## jupiterrn (Sep 22, 2006)

I take a multivitamin with Iron, does that count?


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Pro athletes don't pay for research though, and government's tend not to like to waste their money on trivial research. Additionally, almost any drug that has performance advantages is banned, and many that don't have any are banned too. That being said caffeine isn't banned and it is performance enhancing.


If memory serves me correctly, Armstrong/Discovery spent a lot of money of wind tunnel R&D. I'd be shocked if every major team was not spending money on legal PEDs R&D (or at least--not illegal PEDs).


----------



## Circlip (Jul 26, 2005)

And you don't think the medical/health industry and educational institutions worldwide haven't already spent untold billions of dollars in research trying to answer the question of what makes people healthy and physically capable? But $250,00 is going to find a magic bullet solution? I must admit I'm stunned by your line of thinking, as if you actually believe what you're writing is some profound and meaningful idea.



SwiftSolo said:


> Most of us non-users find that during certain events we've felt like superman and others we could hardly get out of our own way. Our results substantiated how we felt as well.
> 
> Seems to me that knowing the chemistry variations involved would have a lot of value and may not be that difficult to isolate. If I were a top contender in a big event, it may be worth it to spend $250,000 to gain information that others may not have.


----------



## WeakMite (Feb 20, 2005)

prayer
;-)


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Circlip said:


> And you don't think the medical/health industry and educational institutions worldwide haven't already spent untold billions of dollars in research trying to answer the question of what makes people healthy and physically capable? But $250,00 is going to find a magic bullet solution? I must admit I'm stunned by your line of thinking, as if you actually believe what you're writing is some profound and meaningful idea.


Mate,

The question of what makes people "healthy and physically capable" is not related to the question. The question is what makes the same healthy and physically capable person stronger and more capable on one day than he is the next (short of illegal PEDS). If you read the original post I related that some days we feel like superman and other days we feel far less capable. I was talking about the same person with all obvious factors being the same. We have all experienced this without any obvious differences in training or diet. I'm especially interested in what is different on those few days each year when we feel extraordinary. 

It occurs to me that study of the blood chemistry of the same individual related to that individuals daily performance is what teams must study. It would be beneficial to ingest whatever is legal that will adjust blood chemistry to match those days of extraordinary performance. 

It seems probable that a individual program of this type could be completed for $250,000, expecially if a number of individuals tested was a team of 10 or $2.5 million.


----------



## Circlip (Jul 26, 2005)

SwiftSolo said:


> The question of what makes people "healthy and physically capable" is not related to the question. The question is what makes the same healthy and physically capable person stronger and more capable on one day than he is the next (short of illegal PEDS).


Sure, there's no relation whatsoever between those 2 questions.  



SwiftSolo said:


> It occurs to me that study of the blood chemistry of the same individual related to that individuals daily performance is what teams must study. It would be beneficial to ingest whatever is legal that will adjust blood chemistry to match those days of extraordinary performance.
> 
> It seems probable that a individual program of this type could be completed for $250,000, expecially if a number of individuals tested was a team of 10 or $2.5 million.


Even outside the realm of pure health sciences and medecine, there's countless millions, even billions of dollars at play in the world of pro sports and also within nationally funded high performance athletic programs. Then you think that you're on to some stunning and original concept that can be solved for $250,000 per athlete? Major pro sports teams would easily spend 10 times that per athlete if there was some realistic chance of unlocking some magic code to performance. People dedicate their lives to studying this topic, but you think there's quick and easy answer that would only cost $250k? Give your head a shake.


----------



## fuzz-tone (Sep 29, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> It seems probable that a individual program of this type could be completed for $250,000, expecially if a number of individuals tested was a team of 10 or $2.5 million.


You greatly over-estimate how far $250k will get you when it comes to medical research.
Even with unlimited funds, there is no guarantee that there would be any answers with regards to pushing the limits of human physical ability or recovery. I'm sure research is being done, but it's not by anyone who thinks they're going to pay X and receive an answer that will give them an edge nobody else knows about.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Lance's coach, Dr Ferrari, has said that "if it doesn't show up in the drug controls, then it's not doping,"

Good thing WADA does not share that view but it gives you an idea of what some people think Legal PED's are.

As for the wind tunnel.....marketing stunt for a few hours a year.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> Lance's coach, Dr Ferrari, has said that "if it doesn't show up in the drug controls, then it's not doping,"
> 
> Good thing WADA does not share that view but it gives you an idea of what some people think Legal PED's are.
> 
> As for the wind tunnel.....marketing stunt for a few hours a year.


Geez,
I almost forgot that everything is a conspiracy.

America's Cup racing is a much lower profile sport than cycling. Individual campaigns spend millions in tunnels attempting to reduce drag. Since a half of one percent improvement in speed equates to a 880 yard advantage in a century (all other things being equal) I suspect there may be a little more to it than your vision will allow you to see.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> Geez,
> I almost forgot that everything is a conspiracy.
> 
> America's Cup racing is a much lower profile sport than cycling. Individual campaigns spend millions in tunnels attempting to reduce drag. Since a half of one percent improvement in speed equates to a 880 yard advantage in a century (all other things being equal) I suspect there may be a little more to it than your vision will allow you to see.


The only good conspiracy is a French conspiracy.

The budget of the top Americas cup team is close to $100,000,000......about 10x a good Pro Tour team. My information about windtunnel marketing comes from a person from Trek who was in the room.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Circlip said:


> Sure, there's no relation whatsoever between those 2 questions.
> 
> 
> 
> Even outside the realm of pure health sciences and medecine, there's countless millions, even billions of dollars at play in the world of pro sports and also within nationally funded high performance athletic programs. Then you think that you're on to some stunning and original concept that can be solved for $250,000 per athlete? Major pro sports teams would easily spend 10 times that per athlete if there was some realistic chance of unlocking some magic code to performance. People dedicate their lives to studying this topic, but you think there's quick and easy answer that would only cost $250k? Give your head a shake.


Mate,
While you obviously have a degree in "medecine", you may fall a smidgen short in your knowledge of medicine (I know, the i and the e are really close together on your keyboard). 

Take a deep breath and consider what was actually asked. 

Nearly every person on this forum has a form of blood testing and analysis completed every year during their physical exam. My guess is that pro cycling teams have been doing testing and analysis for a while to answer the question I've asked.

You have every right to take a shot at my intelligence for asking a serious question on the Dope forum. If it ain't related to one of them there pro sicling consperacies, you're not a gonna find notin hear. 

My bad for not asking this question on one of the serious forums.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> Mate,
> While you obviously have a degree in "medecine", you may fall a smidgen short in your knowledge of medicine (I know, the i and the e are really close together on your keyboard).
> 
> Take a deep breath and consider what was actually asked.
> ...


Are you actually capable of a serious discussion? Instead of baiting and insulting other posters you may actually try to discuss a topic intelligently.


----------



## fuzz-tone (Sep 29, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> Are you actually capable of a serious discussion? Instead of baiting and insulting other posters you may actually try to discuss a topic intelligently.


Not unlike the people who are here constantly throwing out accusations and insults at pros and the forum members who defend them, and then playing the "victim card" when somebody here challenges thejm, or throws some of their mud back at them.


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

I have found through though research and testing that my performance is much better when going downhill with the wind to my back than it is uphill and into the wind. 

I will do all my future races downhill and with a tailwind. My competitors will have to go the opposite direction.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> Are you actually capable of a serious discussion? Instead of baiting and insulting other posters you may actually try to discuss a topic intelligently.


My bad for expecting you to see anything negative in circlip's (AKA digpink) post.

For the record, I typically expect an expert in medicine to know how to spell it. 

You practice the axiom "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull$hit" but it fools nobody.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

SwiftSolo said:


> Mate,
> 
> The question of what makes people "healthy and physically capable" is not related to the question. The question is what makes the same healthy and physically capable person stronger and more capable on one day than he is the next (short of illegal PEDS). If you read the original post I related that some days we feel like superman and other days we feel far less capable. I was talking about the same person with all obvious factors being the same. We have all experienced this without any obvious differences in training or diet. I'm especially interested in what is different on those few days each year when we feel extraordinary.
> 
> ...


There is an exciting field of science called biology, in which billions of dollars are spent annually to discover how the human body works. Beyond the basic science funded at universities, there are private pharmaceutical companies spending tons of money on research. Big discoveries, like EPO, HGH, IGF, and lots of other things are made on a regular basis. All of them are illegal PEDs. The same would be true of any wonder drug invented by a protour team.

Lastly, a couple million bucks is nothing. You would probably want 100 million to start a drug research program.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

SilasCL said:


> There is an exciting field of science called biology, in which billions of dollars are spent annually to discover how the human body works. Beyond the basic science funded at universities, there are private pharmaceutical companies spending tons of money on research. Big discoveries, like EPO, HGH, IGF, and lots of other things are made on a regular basis. All of them are illegal PEDs. The same would be true of any wonder drug invented by a protour team.
> 
> Lastly, a couple million bucks is nothing. You would probably want 100 million to start a drug research program.


Somehow I must not be making this clear. We are not talking about a universal wonder drug or perhaps any drug at all. We are talking about the individual team members ideal legal blood chemistry and how to maintain it--perhaps through constant diet adjustments. The assumption is that each team member may need different adjusments from the others and even from himself--week to week.

As stated before, all of us have had extraordinary days that we could not attribute to diet or training. If that was indeed the result of a particular blood chemistry it would be good to try to duplicate it. Two variables: First, it may well be different for each person and second, it may not be related to blood chemistry alone. 

It is certain that if I were going to cough up 15 million to put a team together, I would be testing their blood chemistry. The attempt would be to game the system by knowing more about my team members' blood than any of the other teams and to do everything legally possible to adjust that chemistry to match the chemistry of their best sessions. Testing would be done in conjunction with testing tor illegal PED's 

Again, THIS IS NOT RELATED TO A ONE PILL SUITS ALL PHARMACEUTICAL METHOD, but rather the various adjustments that individual members can make to their intake to take them to what has been shown to be legally ideal for that individual.


----------



## Circlip (Jul 26, 2005)

SwiftSolo said:


> Somehow I must not be making this clear.


Yes, you are making your opinion and the general concept very clear. You are just having problems accepting the fact that people are not agreeing with you.



SwiftSolo said:


> We are not talking about a universal wonder drug or perhaps any drug at all. We are talking about the individual team members ideal legal blood chemistry and how to maintain it--perhaps through constant diet adjustments. The assumption is that each team member may need different adjusments from the others and even from himself--week to week.


That IS a "magic pill" even being customized to a specific individual.



SwiftSolo said:


> If that was indeed the result of a particular blood chemistry it would be good to try to duplicate it. Two variables: First, it may well be different for each person and second, it may not be related to blood chemistry alone.


You seem to discount the non-trivial issues involved with the second variable you describe above, when in fact that is probably a showstopper.



SwiftSolo said:


> The attempt would be to game the system by knowing more about my team members' blood than any of the other teams and to do everything legally possible to adjust that chemistry to match the chemistry of their best sessions.


If it's all that simple then you have a goldmine of a business opportunity waiting for you that reaches far beyond the boundaries of pro cycling into much more lucrative areas. Let us know how that works out for you and your investors, OK? Call me from the hot tub on your new yacht.



SwiftSolo said:


> Again, THIS IS NOT RELATED TO A ONE PILL SUITS ALL PHARMACEUTICAL METHOD, but rather the various adjustments that individual members can make to their intake to take them to what has been shown to be legally ideal for that individual.


See previous comments above.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

SwiftSolo said:


> Somehow I must not be making this clear. We are not talking about a universal wonder drug or perhaps any drug at all. We are talking about the individual team members ideal legal blood chemistry and how to maintain it--perhaps through constant diet adjustments. The assumption is that each team member may need different adjusments from the others and even from himself--week to week.
> 
> As stated before, all of us have had extraordinary days that we could not attribute to diet or training. If that was indeed the result of a particular blood chemistry it would be good to try to duplicate it. Two variables: First, it may well be different for each person and second, it may not be related to blood chemistry alone.
> 
> ...


So your fictional program is based on the assumption that we all have great days and they are due to our blood chemistry, which should be easy to alter through some kind of legal methods. Fails on all accounts really.

The idea that above baseline performance is due to some mysterious factor is something you would have to prove. There's no reason to believe it so far. It's much simpler to assume it is due to obvious variables such as training load and quality of rest.

Second, you assume that the performance boost is physiological in nature. It could just as easily be mental, there are some days where you wake up on the wrong side of the bed and any training you do will also be poor.

Lastly, even if these good and bad days were purely physiological, you assume that there would be easy and legal means to alter them. I'm sure most professional riders are taking a multivitamin, and iron supplements when blood tests show them to be necessary. Other than that, I can't think of any legal methods for improving blood chemistry for aerobic exercise.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

SilasCL said:


> So your fictional program is based on the assumption that we all have great days and they are due to our blood chemistry, which should be easy to alter through some kind of legal methods. Fails on all accounts really.
> 
> The idea that above baseline performance is due to some mysterious factor is something you would have to prove. There's no reason to believe it so far. It's much simpler to assume it is due to obvious variables such as training load and quality of rest.
> 
> ...



First, you must be responding to someone elses post or you didn't read mine. 

Second, apparently you've never had a day or week during training that your results fell well outside of known factors such as training load and quality of rest? I'd suggest that you are unusual.

Third, I have no idea how long it would take to see a desired change in blood chemistry through injestion of the appropriate legal components but I would suggest that it is not only possible, but probable. 

The notion that science invents anything though scientific discovery is mostly a myth. Most improvement in nealy all fields that involve a change in belief start with a hunch, move on to anecdotal evidence, progress to empirical evidence through testing-- at which time society accepts/adopts the change. At that point, science attempts to explain what has be proven empirically and that proof becomes the scientific evidence. So, most often, research is a process of using a scattergun approach to find solutions. Much has been accomplished through sports related research that originated at the team or individual level and not through traditionally paid research.

Major competition often involves 20 great minds attempting to legislate bulletproof rules and 200 great minds attempting to get around those rules legally. To suggest that TDF teams are not attempting to legally improve blood chemistry beyond vitimins is well outside of what I can believe. My guess is that every aspect of competition is analyzed and manipulated to the very edge of what is legal (and in some cases--beyond).


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

SwiftSolo said:


> Third, I have no idea


Finally something we can agree upon.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

SilasCL said:


> I can't think .


yeah,
that's pretty obvious mate!


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Circlip said:


> Yes, you are making your opinion and the general concept very clear. You are just having problems accepting the fact that people are not agreeing with you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, blood analysis by lab techs is a complicated concept mate! 

On the other hand, if you ever get a physical exam you'll likely find that you'll be able to pay off your fairly comprehensive blood testing by the time you retire (assuming you're not over 17 now)!


----------



## fuzz-tone (Sep 29, 2008)

The world is round.

Ok, go. Somebody cop an attitude and start disagreeing with me.


----------



## WeakMite (Feb 20, 2005)

> Legal PEDs


I think Sven Nys drinks tea made from the urine of himalayan muskoxen. 
;-)


----------



## z rocks (Sep 9, 2007)

No legal PED is going to come anywhere near the jackedness that EPO/CERA etc affords its followers. Performance enhancing DRUG. Drugs get banneduh.

Live and ride within your means.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

Man, you guys are harsh. And the one-track mind doesn't help: It seems to me the OP is talking about something very different than you are arguing against.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> Man, you guys are harsh. And the one-track mind doesn't help: It seems to me the OP is talking about something very different than you are arguing against.


Not at all. You and the OP have missed the point that the only extraordinary thing athletes are supposed to be doing is training their extraordinary physiologies. 


It's not a contest of who can take some mysterious elixir to jack themselves. You've got to take the advice of z rocks and live and ride within your means and that's as good as it gets.

Or roll the dice with your health and inject some EPO and risk pudding blood while pursuing your PR's that no one cares about anyway.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

This thread is laughably bad. The whole premise is misguided.

First of all, normal health is just that, normal. This idea that someone will be motivated to make a "legal" PED that will prevent you from cracking on the 3rd or 4th climb of a day in which you've been riding for 4 or 5 hours is just too ridiculous to contemplate. Anything that can be created that will have that kind of an effect will soon be deemed illegal and for good reason. The body has many mechanisms which protect itself from unhealthy physical exertions and many of these things that override those mechanisms have pretty bad side effects up to and including death. The human body isn't designed to run marathons everyday, intensive weight sessions for 2 or 3 hours twice a day, 6 days a week, riding a bike 100 miles a day fast for a month straight, stuff like that. Go ahead and try it, you'll break down in short order.

Normal health is not riding a bike for 5 or 6 hours a day, that is physical fitness which is a completely different thing than health. They don't necessarily go hand in hand but coincide often.

Normal health is feeling ok, normal reflexes, blood pressure, blood chemistry, muscle tone, walking up a couple flights of stairs without overtaxing yourself, lifting moderately heavy stuff, moving quickly to cross a street when you have to, stuff like that. You know, the stuff the doctor checks for on a physical. You can be quite fit but with high BP and high cholesterol, clogged coronary arteries, the doctor doesn't give a damn how fit you are if you're unhealthy. Look at Alberto Salazaar for goodness sakes.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

The ignorance displayed here by the dope forum regulars has to be the result of drugs. To follow this rather stupid logic you'd have to believe that diet makes no difference. I know, now you'll say that a good diet is all you can do and we all know that there are only good and bad diets--nothing in between and nothing left to discover. 

It is clear why you guys think everyone is doping. You've yet to meet anyone in your circle who's not on crack. My original premise about losers trying to bring down winners remains completely intact. Any of you guys ever had a job or do you just lurk around the dope forum looking for dealers?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> The ignorance displayed here by the dope forum regulars has to be the result of drugs. To follow this rather stupid logic you'd have to believe that diet makes no difference.


I love hyperbole born of frustration. Of course it makes a difference. Will it enable Pharmstrong to go from his pretty good workout of 359 watts for 46 minutes to around 500 at FTP? Why don't you answer that?



SwiftSolo said:


> I know, now you'll say that a good diet is all you can do and we all know that there are only good and bad diets--nothing in between and nothing left to discover.


You mean a discovery to prevent cracking on La Toussuire? Anything that could do that would be illegal. If you don't have any vitamin or mineral deficiencies you probably have a pretty good diet.



SwiftSolo said:


> It is clear why you guys think everyone is doping.


Remember LA's farewell speech on the podium in 2005. How much do you want to bet all those guys on the podium were doping?

Ok, so we got those three, then a bunch of contenders get thrown out in 2006 before the race even starts, then the winner of that race is disqualified, then the leader gets thrown out in 2007 and the eventual winner who hung with the doped up leader is under a cloud of suspicion which also hung over about 50 other top contenders at least. Then in 2008 we get up bunch of climbers thrown out who had won stages. 

I forget, where does Vino fit in here. Anyway you get the picture, it does look like a lot of top guys are doping, but I won't engage in your hysterical *everyone,* although by the looks of it, it seems like most.

Here's a question, who would you put substantial money on that's not doping?

It would give you pause at least?

We know Riis doped, Pantani, Virenque, Zulle, Indurain didn't dope, did he? Hahhh..



SwiftSolo said:


> You've yet to meet anyone in your circle who's not on crack..


Actually, most in my circle drink too much, crack? No.



SwiftSolo said:


> My original premise about losers trying to bring down winners remains completely intact.


Losers? Are you not satisfied with natural, normal, performance? Is your performance not measuring up? Do you need a boost? I'm just trying to inform you that unless one has deficiencies, nothing legal will give the desired effect.

*Final question, who's ignorant?*




SwiftSolo said:


> Any of you guys ever had a job or do you just lurk around the dope forum looking for dealers?


I won the lottery Saturday night.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

lookrider said:


> I love hyperbole born of frustration. Of course it makes a difference. Will it enable Pharmstrong to go from his pretty good workout of 359 watts for 46 minutes to around 500 at FTP? Why don't you answer that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lookrider, try to focus for a minute. This thread had nothing to do with Armstrong. It also had nothing to do with illegal PEDs-- who was using them and who was not.

Instead, it had to do with the question that many of us ask regarding unexplained extraordinary (for us) events. Events where training and rest were within the norm. The theory was that comprehensive analysis of blood chemistry during such days or events may prove valuable for future events. For most minds, this is not that difficult to understand.

Your fear in even acknowledging that competitors have good and bad days (outside of illegal doping) is understandable. It does not fit into your protocol for determining the guilt of riders.

I have to admit that you are consistent. If a riders does better than you think he should, he is unquestionably guilty of doping. If he does worse than you think he should, all the other riders are doping. It's a nice tidy treadmill--like a hampster in a cage.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> Lookrider, try to focus for a minute.


Ok.



SwiftSolo said:


> This thread had nothing to do with Armstrong.


Armstrong's not human? He hasn't held himself out as the template of what's possible if you perservere, work hard, cover all the bases, and *believe.* It was implicit in that final speech on the podium that he, Basso and Ullrich were clean, and it was obvious that all three finished the race and their worst days in that race were better than most of our best days, so maybe they had a little insight into what you're getting at.



SwiftSolo said:


> It also had nothing to do with illegal PEDs-- who was using them and who was not.


No, the way I took it, it had to do with your misguided search for a possible fountain of youth, some kind of manna from heaven.



SwiftSolo said:


> Instead, it had to do with the question that many of us ask regarding unexplained extraordinary (for us) events. Events where training and rest were within the norm. The theory was that comprehensive analysis of blood chemistry during such days or events may prove valuable for future events. For most minds, this is not that difficult to understand..


I understood and I also understood that you had no idea philosophically or practically what the implications of your desires are. Obviously, at this point in time, everything that counts towards performance, can't be counted. Think about that for a second. The ramifications of being able to account for everything that matters performance wise are terrifying because at that point we are reduced to being machines. Right now, whether we are machines or not, is up for debate. When we can understand, at a cellular level and even smaller than that, how our bodies *exactly* respond to external stimuli, it is over for humanity as we know it.



SwiftSolo said:


> Your fear in even acknowledging that competitors have good and bad days (outside of illegal doping) is understandable. It does not fit into your protocol for determining the guilt of riders...


Oh, believe me, that's not my fear. My fear is whether I'm going to hell or not, and trying to get out of my own personal hell while I'm here. The guilt or innocence of these guys is just a distraction from what I'm supposed to be doing, althougth it is very clear most of these guys are cheating. I also don't think athletic competition is all that important but I'm spending a decent amount of time here. It's kind of like filling up on junk food and candy for the mind being on this forum. I have to spend less time here.

A question, with proper understanding of the totality of how the body works, do you think physical immortality is within the realm of possibility? After all we could pile up one *good day* after another and never break down. We would have an understanding of what we don't know now.



SwiftSolo said:


> I have to admit that you are consistent. If a riders does better than you think he should, he is unquestionably guilty of doping. If he does worse than you think he should, all the other riders are doping. It's a nice tidy treadmill--like a hampster in a cage.


How riders are doing, good or bad, is fairly irrelevant to me. What does bother me is their bald faced lying while being confronted with overwhelming evidence.

Your hamster in a cage analogy might be a good one though. My fear is that we may all be hamsters in a cage. These guys have turned themselves into lab rats and then are trying to convince us that their "accomplishments" mean something.

I'm desperately clinging to the idea that if they win with honor, their accomplishments really do mean something other than merely winning a bike race. Do you understand the distinction. You're looking for high octane fuel. I'm looking for hope, faith, perserverance, belief, trust....all subjective human constructions that make us more....well, human.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

Despite the tone of these conversations I do think most of us are on common ground – with this one major difference – which has to do with perspective.

Common ground – Doping – for athletic gain - is bad, dopers are cheaters.

Perspective: One camp thinks LA is doped and could have only won doped and that there is virtually no possibility that he won un-doped. I call this camp the pessimistic camp – all winners since about GL were doped – period end of discussion. Any evidence to the contrary makes you the enemy, stupid, a LA lover and doped yourself, etc., etc… To them – WHEN he is caught he should suffer the most worst of punishments – including the destruction of all his good work from his cancer foundation which after all is based upon a big lie. 

The other camp – thinks that the probability was high that LA was doped but are optimistic that that he wasn’t. They are waiting for ALL the evidence before making their decision. I call this camp the optimistic camp – they are hopeful but realistic about LA. To them IF he is caught he should be treated like all the other dopers who have been caught – but this does not make him any less or more human than the rest of us and after all he still has the good work of his cancer foundation. 

It is the half full half empty, left vs. right argument. 

Some of the hatred towards this man is just pathologic in nature (IMHO). Here is a guy who was essentially on his death bed because of cancer – he had one thought – kill it and live to ride another day, kill it and live to ride another day, kill it and live to ride another day… This is an amazing feat of perseverance and a testament to the human spirits will to survive. 

So imagine what this means to a 7, 10, 50 or 80 y.o. who has just been diagnosed with this disease – if LA’s story helps save or brings peace of mind to just one of these people – then what he has done – even IF done with dope has been worth it – PERIOD. I challenge any of you to tell some little kid who looks up to LA that his dream of survival is a sham cause the guy who did it took some dope.

So to those of you who say LA could never have won the TdF because his VO2M was only 83.8 or that he can only hold at best 5.1w/kg. I say so F^@King what the dude should never have won cause he should be dead. And he isn’t dead cuase he comes from a long line of animals that know how to push every boundary – the good ones and the bad ones. 

Here is some of the irony I see in these posts, a guy who harps on LA has a sig that says “do something, even if it is wrong” but he hates the Livestrong motto. And the very drugs that helped keep LA alive are used by guys to win races… 

..and I say to myself... its a wonderful world….


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> Despite the tone of these conversations I do think most of us are on common ground – with this one major difference – which has to do with perspective.
> 
> Common ground – Doping – for athletic gain - is bad, dopers are cheaters.
> 
> ...


You forgot another group, those that willfully ignore mountains of evidence that Lance doped because of his cancer work. In the face of overwhelming evidence they usually revert to the "everyone was doing it" excuse that got us all in trouble as kids. I see the irony in those who attack and defame anyone who questions the various lies of their hero, pretending that theirs is the higher ground. 

I am an optimist. I believe the sport is crawling out of a black hole. Two steps forward, one step back.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

lookrider said:


> Ok.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


While I agree with your claimed objective, I have real issue that your approach does anything to cause any movement in that direction. There are systems in place to deal with cheating. Those systems nearly always provide for hearing both sides in an open forum. Rarely does any process use the results of anonomous and unsubstantiated claims as you would have us do. Not only is that your MO but you want to do this absent any opportunity for the accused to respond or to cross examine. Yours is the world of lynch mobs. If you truly wanted to move toward fairness, You'd be ragging on the hearings system in an effort to get it changed--not on competitors who have never been found guilty in any legal process.

Your "fountain of youth" analogy is absurd. Legal gains in performance are not fountains of youth. The point that each of us have experienced extraordinary performance days outside of known variables excapes few. Consider that choosing to use only vo2max from 4 months ago may fall short of real world racing. The fact is that most of us have gone through these exceptional performance days and it deserves study. My guess is that teams at the top level have been quietly analizing this kind of data for some time. 

I'm the first to agree that the Ricco and Rasmussen style performances are not likely ever going to come from from any combination of training, diet and legal PEDs. From the time I first watched those performances (and a couple of others) it seemed somewhat obvious that these guys were probably juiced. I'll wait for the "couple of others" to get caught------- they will get caught.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> I'm the first to agree that the Ricco and Rasmussen style performances are not likely ever going to come from from any combination of training, diet and legal PEDs. From the time I first watched those performances (and a couple of others) it seemed somewhat obvious that these guys were probably juiced. I'll wait for the "couple of others" to get caught------- they will get caught.


Any of Armstong's performances give you the same feeling? His VAM's were faster and W/kg bigger.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*You know*



safetyguy said:


> Despite the tone of these conversations I do think most of us are on common ground – with this one major difference – which has to do with perspective.
> 
> Common ground – Doping – for athletic gain - is bad, dopers are cheaters.
> 
> Perspective: One camp thinks LA is doped and could have only won doped and that there is virtually no possibility that he won un-doped. I call this camp the pessimistic camp – all winners since about GL were doped – period end of discussion. Any evidence to the contrary….


Other than negative drug controls, there is no evidence to the contrary. Negative drug controls don't mean much as neither Riis or Marion Jones were caught.



safetyguy said:


> makes you the enemy, stupid, a LA lover and doped yourself, etc., etc… To them – WHEN he is caught he should suffer the most worst of punishments – including the destruction of all his good work from his cancer foundation which after all is based upon a big lie.


Where are you getting this crap from. The point is the apologists enable LA to hide behind his good works and make his fraud unassailable.



safetyguy said:


> The other camp – thinks that the probability was high that LA was doped but are optimistic that that he wasn’t. They are waiting for ALL the evidence before making their decision. I call this camp the optimistic camp – they are hopeful but realistic about LA. To them IF he is caught he should be treated like all the other dopers who have been caught – but this does not make him any less or more human than the rest of us and after all he still has the good work of his cancer foundation. ….


Less or more human? You know it was Simoni who labeled Basso's performance extraterrestrial. I'm not the one looking for elixirs for super human performance. 



safetyguy said:


> Some of the hatred towards this man is just pathologic in nature (IMHO). Here is a guy who was essentially on his death bed because of cancer – he had one thought – kill it and live to ride another day, kill it and live to ride another day, kill it and live to ride another day… This is an amazing feat of perseverance and a testament to the human spirits will to survive. .


BS, miserable "quitters" live and valiant heroic people die when fighting cancer. Either the drugs work, or they don't, even Armstrong says that.



safetyguy said:


> So imagine what this means to a 7, 10, 50 or 80 y.o. who has just been diagnosed with this disease – if LA’s story helps save or brings peace of mind to just one of these people – then what he has done – even IF done with dope has been worth it – PERIOD. I challenge any of you to tell some little kid who looks up to LA that his dream of survival is a sham cause the guy who did it took some dope..


Don't you think you're give Pharmstrong a little too much credit here in who survives and who doesn't.



safetyguy said:


> So to those of you who say LA could never have won the TdF because his VO2M was only 83.8 or that he can only hold at best 5.1w/kg. I say so F^@King what the dude should never have won cause he should be dead. And he isn’t dead cuase he comes from a long line of animals that know how to push every boundary – the good ones and the bad ones. ..


Taking drugs to combat cancer and taking drugs to commit fraud are two different things. I have enough sense to make that distinction, do you?



safetyguy said:


> Here is some of the irony I see in these posts, a guy who harps on LA has a sig that says “do something, even if it is wrong” but he hates the Livestrong motto. And the very drugs that helped keep LA alive are used by guys to win races…
> 
> ..and I say to myself... its a wonderful world….


You asked me not to comment on Flo Jo so I refrained from doing so, because even though thinking people know I'm right on that one, I didn't want to hurt your delicate feelings with the *truth* of the matter.

I don't hate Pharmstrong, I feel sorry for him and the blind followers who need to believe in an illusion.

"Do something, even if it's wrong" was a joke uttered by one of my co workers, mocking the people we worked for. That was because, where I worked, you couldn't even take a friggin second to catch your breath and had to always be looking like you were doing *something* to keep these pieces of $hit off your backs and prevent them from threatening your job.

Do you know Larry Holmes famous quote, "he couldn't even carry my jockstrap." Well it's tough to have your job threatened every single friggin day by people that can't do that and are completely oblivious.

You know, how you live your life counts for a lot. As MLK Jr. said, "longevity has it's place." Survival isn't everything, otherwise we'd put cockroaches on a pedestal.

People are a lot stronger than you think they are and this phony hero isn't necessary for their survival in a battle with severe illness.

There is no hatred toward Armstrong, just clear eyed analysis.

Your belief in him and your need for idolatry is what's pathological and your hyperbole in distorting arguments is juvenile.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Wake up....*



SwiftSolo said:


> While I agree with your claimed objective, I have real issue that your approach does anything to cause any movement in that direction.


My approach? Your approach hides the truth under the bed. You claim we have the same objective. I don't think so. Looking for some kind of "legal ped" seems kind of like a dopers mentality to me. 



SwiftSolo said:


> There are systems in place to deal with cheating..


I don't know if you noticed but they're not working. Ever hear the expression, "the fox is guarding the hen house." In Public accounting they call the guidelines, "Professional Ethics." When I asked some Arthur Andersen guys about "Professional Ethics" in regard to Enron, they laughed. You see what I'm getting at about your contention that systems are in place.



SwiftSolo said:


> Those systems nearly always provide for hearing both sides in an open forum. Rarely does any process use the results of anonomous and unsubstantiated claims as you would have us do...


Anonymous? Where do you think I get my information from? This stuff has been publicized all over the place from named sources.. Secondly I don't have any power to do anything to Pharmstrong except to sway opinion on him on this forum.



SwiftSolo said:


> Not only is that your MO but you want to do this absent any opportunity for the accused to respond or to cross examine....


Oy veh, have you read any of Pharmstrongs interviews like the one where he denies talking to his best friend Kevin Livingston about the details of the Ferrari investigation where Livingston had been named as a person of interest in the investigation.




SwiftSolo said:


> Yours is the world of lynch mobs. If you truly wanted to move toward fairness, You'd be ragging on the hearings system in an effort to get it changed--not on competitors who have never been found guilty in any legal process.....


Anyone who tells the truth in this situation is a loser, even Lemond who is demonstrably not a loser. You're the one who engages in name calling and character assasination based on nothing.

So you were marching in the streets proclaiming OJ's innocence when people still believed he was guilty despite his acquittal?




SwiftSolo said:


> Your "fountain of youth" analogy is absurd. Legal gains in performance are not fountains of youth. The point that each of us have experienced extraordinary performance days outside of known variables excapes few. Consider that choosing to use only vo2max from 4 months ago may fall short of real world racing. The fact is that most of us have gone through these exceptional performance days and it deserves study. My guess is that teams at the top level have been quietly analizing this kind of data for some time.


"Dopers mentality." Twenty to Thirty percent gains don't happen to elite athletes who have been training for years. Doesn't happen. Your slip is showing.



SwiftSolo said:


> I'm the first to agree that the Ricco and Rasmussen style performances are not likely ever going to come from from any combination of training, diet and legal PEDs. From the time I first watched those performances (and a couple of others) it seemed somewhat obvious that these guys were probably juiced. I'll wait for the "couple of others" to get caught------- they will get caught.


I'll let this guy answer for me. He only knows elite cyclists from all around the world.



bigpinkt said:


> Any of Armstong's performances give you the same feeling? His VAM's were faster and W/kg bigger.


Armstrong only finished one of his first tours before he got cancer and he placed 36th in that one.

That doesn't ring any alarm bells with you?

From the time he was 18 he was working with Carmichael who settled out of court with Greg Strock for $20,000 because he injected Strock with cortisone.

Did he inject Strock once or many times? If it was only once why did he settle for $20,000? Answer, because everyone knows he works with Armstrong and people would draw the logical connection.

In '95 Pharmstrong starts working with Ferrari and shows up in training camp big as a house and able to "rip the cranks off a bike like never before" according to Andreu. Why would Andreu say anything? He only has his whole career to lose.

Armstrong pays Ferrari, I don't know, 20% of his salary so he can prescribe intervals? Maybe EPO because, after all, it's no more dangerous than OJ if used properly, and it's the abuse that's dangerous.

*WAKE UP!!!!*:sad: :sad: :sad: ut: ut:


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

lookrider said:


> I don't know if you noticed but they're not working. Ever hear the expression, "the fox is guarding the hen house."


Well, the problem just may be that you are wishing for something out of pro cycling that neither the foxes nor the hens themselves seem to want. So I guess you're simply s-out-of-luck.

If the riders wanted out of the PED use, they could get out by cleaning themselves up and then "outing" those who continue to use. The organizers and sponsors could clean it up by some sort of testing, maybe the methods proposed here. The fans could even end it by starting to give a damn. 

So apparently status quo is fine with most people actually involved in racing. And as I've said before, who am I (or you guys, or retired pros for that matter) to demand otherwise. I'll just watch. And enjoy it just the same.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

lookrider said:


> My approach? Your approach hides the truth under the bed. You claim we have the same objective. I don't think so. Looking for some kind of "legal ped" seems kind of like a dopers mentality to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK, try real hard to focus this time. THIS THREAD WAS NOT ABOUT ARMSTRONG. IT IS AND WAS ABOUT WHAT TEAMS ARE DOING TO ENHANCE PERFORMANCE LEGALLY THROUGH DIET AND SUPLIMENTS.

You claim that doing anything is cheating. Apparently adjusting your diet is cheating? How aobut vitamins? If yes, how many and what kind? 

If cycling authorities are indeed making inroads into illegal PEDs be assured that legal PEDs are the wave of the future. Every athlete who could ever hope to win has always looked for the "magic" combination of foods and legal supplements to provide any possible legal advantage. To not engage in this process is to be too stupid to hope to find the finish line.

One more time, you do not need a 30% advantage to win. You need a .000000003% advantage. 

Incidentally, there will always be a small minority of court cases that fail justice and there will always be lunitics who point to them as evidence that the system is a failure and lynching without trial is the answer.

If you choose to respond, perhaps you could try to do a whole paragraph without mentioning Lance. I'm getting real suspicious.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

lookrider said:


> Your belief in him and your need for idolatry is what's pathological and your hyperbole in distorting arguments is juvenile.


Please let's keep ad hominem comments out of discussion. You're colouring people's idolatry of a personality figure as pathological and yet, judging from your previous comments, you're religious and worship a god!? People have differing opinions, there is no need to disrespect others just because of their beliefs/opinions.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

function said:


> Please let's keep ad hominem comments out of discussion. You're colouring people's idolatry of a personality figure as pathological and yet, judging from your previous comments, you're religious and worship a god!? People have differing opinions, there is no need to disrespect others just because of their beliefs/opinions.


_Quote:
Originally Posted by safetyguy
Some of the hatred towards this man is just pathologic in nature (IMHO)._ 

This guy is creating straw men for ad hominem comments. You don't have a problem with those?

Because someone is blinded by celebrity and power doesn't mean I shouldn't call them on it?

Religious beliefs and idolatry are two very different things...


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> OK, try real hard to focus this time. THIS THREAD WAS NOT ABOUT ARMSTRONG. IT IS AND WAS ABOUT WHAT TEAMS ARE DOING TO ENHANCE PERFORMANCE LEGALLY THROUGH DIET AND SUPLIMENTS..


That's been looked into. Take a Centrum.





SwiftSolo said:


> You claim that doing anything is cheating. Apparently adjusting your diet is cheating? How aobut vitamins? If yes, how many and what kind? ..


Never said such hysterical things.. 



SwiftSolo said:


> If cycling authorities are indeed making inroads into illegal PEDs be assured that legal PEDs are the wave of the future. Every athlete who could ever hope to win has always looked for the "magic" combination of foods and legal supplements to provide any possible legal advantage. To not engage in this process is to be too stupid to hope to find the finish line...


You mean like Mickey Mantle and Babe Ruth? Is alcohol a performance enhancer because those guys were pounding all the time? Frank Shorter was going to try carbo loading but he got a little light headed going thru the depletion stage. At that point he washed down a handful of M&M's with a glass of gin.. Satchel Paige's advice was to stay away from the fried foods because they "angry up the blood." He also said the "social ramble just ain't restful." That there is some good advice. If you have the talent like Paige or Lemond, it reveals itself without taking "legal ped's. If you only have middling talent like LA, you get yourself a doping doctor...



SwiftSolo said:


> One more time, you do not need a 30% advantage to win. You need a .000000003% advantage. ...


Then why did your hero Lance employ Ferrari? Got it in....:yikes: 



SwiftSolo said:


> If Incidentally, there will always be a small minority of court cases that fail justice and there will always be lunitics who point to them as evidence that the system is a failure and lynching without trial is the answer....


Incidentally, a lot of the dopers were caught by criminal investigations, not doping controls. Also, if you're indirectly going to try to insult me, learn how to spell. It's lunatic, and supplement. They have supplements for brain function also but I don't know what % of improvement you're looking at there, 3 trillionths is kind of small though.



SwiftSolo said:


> If you choose to respond, perhaps you could try to do a whole paragraph without mentioning Lance. I'm getting real suspicious.


Why? Lance is a cheat and it annoys the idolaters that some of us know it. Why are you getting suspicious and of what?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> Well, the problem just may be that you are wishing for something out of pro cycling that neither the foxes nor the hens themselves seem to want. So I guess you're simply s-out-of-luck..


Integrity and sportsmanship. Sorry to wish for outlandish unattainable things. With sentiments like those you've offered I understand the popularity of pro wrestling and bodybuilding.



pacificaslim said:


> If the riders wanted out of the PED use, they could get out by cleaning themselves up and then "outing" those who continue to use...


Really? Like Kimmage, Lemond, Bassons, Simeoni, Vaughters, and Andreu. Weren't most of those guys attacked by Pharmstrong either directly or indirectly?




pacificaslim said:


> The organizers and sponsors could clean it up by some sort of testing, maybe the methods proposed here...


That's reasonable but then you have the Tour banning Astana last year and coming under criticism from jerk offs like Bruyneel. Not that that asshat would answer any specific direct questions.



pacificaslim said:


> The fans could even end it by starting to give a damn. ..


Yes, the American fans can take their noses out of LA's a$$. The European fans know it's a joke. Why do you think many of them are screaming "doper" at Pharmstrong and drawing syringes in the road and writing LANCE EPO?



pacificaslim said:


> So apparently status quo is fine with most people actually involved in racing..


Well, I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say that most people, Pro cyclists, writers, and other people who make their living off Pro cycling, *like getting paid.* When those in power threaten those paychecks, most of the underlings shut up. Wasn't there talk of Pharmstrong buying the Tour organization? What a nightmare that would be for Cycling.



pacificaslim said:


> And as I've said before, who am I (or you guys, or retired pros for that matter) to demand otherwise..


Who the hell is Barack Obama, GW, and Clinton for that matter? Who is anybody? If you want to be ineffectual in your affairs or anything you care about, that's your business.



pacificaslim said:


> I'll just watch. And enjoy it just the same.


Not me, the only thing that matters at this point is who has the best medical team.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

*Allow me to jump in for a second...*



safetyguy said:


> Some of the hatred towards this man is just pathologic in nature (IMHO). Here is a guy who was essentially on his death bed because of cancer – he had one thought – kill it and live to ride another day, kill it and live to ride another day, kill it and live to ride another day… This is an amazing feat of perseverance and a testament to the human spirits will to survive.


Truly is a remarkable story, no doubt. However, LA also had access to some of the best medical care in the world. Now, does the average US citizen or human for that matter, have the same access to top medical care? 



safetyguy said:


> So imagine what this means to a 7, 10, 50 or 80 y.o. who has just been diagnosed with this disease – if LA’s story helps save or brings peace of mind to just one of these people – then what he has done – even IF done with dope has been worth it – PERIOD. I challenge any of you to tell some little kid who looks up to LA that his dream of survival is a sham cause the guy who did it took some dope.


An even more remarkable story may have been, I did PED's before, it MAY have given me the disease, I came back from my deathbed and 
a) FINISHED the TDF 
b) won a WC title 
c) won a spring classic 
d) won a stage(s) at the world's toughest stage race 
e) all of the above
f) some of the above
But this time I did it clean. Don't do drugs!



safetyguy said:


> So to those of you who say LA could never have won the TdF because his VO2M was only 83.8 or that he can only hold at best 5.1w/kg. I say so F^@King what the dude should never have won cause he should be dead. And he isn’t dead cuase he comes from a long line of animals that know how to push every boundary – the good ones and the bad ones.


See above. Much more remarkable story IMO and honest. Instead we get litigation, gag orders, PR campaigns and false hope.
At least say "no comment" and fade off into the sunset a la Miguel Indurain.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

lookrider said:


> That's been looked into. Take a Centrum.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are doing better (only mentioned LA a couple of times). 

Hey, I heard that your idol (Greg) took an aspirin to relieve his headache and enhance his performance. What a friken doper, huh! 


Because you and your dope forum regulars obviously have no idea whatever about what is going on regarding research, this forum is a waste of time --except for losers who get their kicks trying to bring down winners. 

Get some help boys!


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

Let’s see I believe LA did all those things pre-cancer… and he does say he did all of these things clean... 

Some of you are saying he could not have POSSIBLY done them un-doped. I and others have said he that given he existing evidence the probability was high that he was indeed (illegally) doped but the possibility exists that he was not. We are (at least I am) simply waiting for him to get caught and to see the evidence BEFORE we convict the man in court or by the appropriate governing/sanctioning body. 

Er… wait a second, LA already went to court and settled just after testimony concluded for – $7.5m! Of course the SCA suddenly turned into LA idolizers like me. Even with all their evidence they were obviously worried they would loose up to $15M – They must have thought - given the evidence - they made a good settlement for ½ that amount (and I would agree with them).

But of course everything LA says = Lie. All other allegations and sources= truth. 

Speaking of probability and possibility – does it not seem interesting that this man has managed to elude EVERYONE (the best and the brightest who are trying to catch him – which must meanshe is better and brighter, no?). I would think the probability low for this but (but possible). 

What makes the LA case so interesting (to me) is that if he was doped for his 7x wins why he would risk it all again given the additional scrutiny?

Oh, and big mig has not faded off into the sunset – he is still huge in Europe and Spain (just not in the U.S.).


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

lookrider said:


> You asked me not to comment on Flo Jo so I refrained from doing so, because even though thinking people know I'm right on that one, I didn't want to hurt your delicate feelings with the *truth* of the matter.


Didn't ask you to do it for my feelings but "thanks" anyways, takes a lot of class to not comment about a woman who is dead...

...and I am not sure why I every doubted that you and other "thinking people" have the "truth" about this woman.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> You are doing better (only mentioned LA a couple of times).


Well, I try to live on my own terms and by my own rules when possible and legal. 



SwiftSolo said:


> Hey, I heard that your idol (Greg) took an aspirin to relieve his headache and enhance his performance. What a friken doper, huh! ).


He's not my idol but I do admire the guy. He could go with the flow and make millions more by buddying up to LA. He chooses to tell the truth to the detriment of his income and his popularity amongst the uninformed masses.



SwiftSolo said:


> Because you and your dope forum regulars obviously have no idea whatever about what is going on regarding research,


That's what you come here for, to find out about pills and injections you can take to ride your bike faster? My advice is to go to all the pharmaceutical company websites. (start with Amgen and Roche)

here's a link

http://www.roche.com/investors/ir_update/inv-update-2006-07-10b.htm

That'll help you boost the octane, you can worry about recovery later.



SwiftSolo said:


> this forum is a waste of time --except for losers who get their kicks trying to bring down winners.


What did you expect? I didn't know the Doping Forum could be construed as pro PED use. Just as every war movie, is an anti war movie the Doping Forum, is in fact anti doping, at least I think it is. Then again, maybe I'm wrong as the moral climate seems to have shifted in favor of anything goes.

About bringing down winners. Is Bjarne Riis a winner or loser IYHO? He himself said he wasn't a worthy champion but apparently too much time had passed to strip him of his crown.



SwiftSolo said:


> Get some help boys!


With what? Well anyway, I hope the link provides the kind of info you're looking for.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> Er… wait a second, LA already went to court and settled just after testimony concluded for – $7.5m! Of course the SCA suddenly turned into LA idolizers like me.
> Speaking of probability and possibility – does it not seem interesting that this man has managed to elude EVERYONE (the best and the brightest who are trying to catch him – which must meanshe is better and brighter, no?). I would think the probability low for this but (but possible).


The SCA case was about contract law, not doping. The way the agreement was written Lance could have shot up in front of them and still got the cash 

Your obsession with protecting the honor of Wonderboy is adorable, but misguided. The "Never tested positive" defense has long since be dropped.....Riis, Ulrich, Marion Jones, exposed the inadequacy of that system long ago.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> Er… wait a second, LA already went to court and settled just after testimony concluded for – $7.5m! Of course the SCA suddenly turned into LA idolizers like me. Even with all their evidence they were obviously worried they would loose up to $15M – They must have thought - given the evidence - they made a good settlement for ½ that amount (and I would agree with them).


The only issue the SCA settled was whether LA was recognized as the TdF champion, and all the governing bodies said he in fact was the champion so therefore SCA was obligated to pay him. The arbitrators drew no conclusions whatsoever on any of the evidence brought before them.

I believe after initially taking away Riis' '96 title, he was reiinstated as champion because too much time had elapsed from the time he won until he admitted he took EPO and HGH. I may be wrong though.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/04/sports/EU-CYC-Tour-de-France-Riis.php


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

Using your very own standards for champion just out of curiosity - who IYHO - won the 1996 TdF? How bout 97, 98...


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*easy answer*



safetyguy said:


> Using your very own standards for champion just out of curiosity - who IYHO - won the 1996 TdF? How bout 97, 98...


ITS A DRAW BECAUSE THEY ALLLL DOPED.

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*oh, dont forget*



bigpinkt said:


> The SCA case was about contract law, not doping. The way the agreement was written Lance could have shot up in front of them and still got the cash
> 
> Your obsession with protecting the honor of Wonderboy is adorable, but misguided. The "Never tested positive" defense has long since be dropped.....Riis, Ulrich, Marion Jones, exposed the inadequacy of that system long ago.


Virengue never tested positive either.

AFTER he admitted doping he then WON VENTOUX, by BEATING LA....and they ALL CLAPPED!!!!

I detest Virengue because he could have rolled over and really opened but instaed, he just extends that bony index finger after a win...the same finger, I want to break off and oh never mind.

The deal is, IMO, they all doped. Lets face it shall we?

A guy, who nearly croaks from cancer, given less than 50% odds of surviving, comes back and wins the TDF SEVEN TIMES IN A ROW. OK, thats fine, hey why not?

His rival in the climbs, a Mr Pantani, who could climb very very well, tests at a 60% crit level. AFTER having a car accident, which nearly results in the LOSS OF HIS LEG. He then is found DEAD in a hotel room after a coke overdose, with enough barbies to kill a man 3 times his size. OH WELL.

Hoe about the overall GT cantender, Jan? Banned from competition for use of ecstasy, his sprint king team mate, admits doping, admits there is a program and races. OH WELL. THEN, here we go, Jan wins a TDF a Tour of Spain is a TT champion, is German champion and comes from East Germany where it is well known that doping was systemic and virtually state approved. ALL of which he does, while being far larger and heavier, and muscular than most of his compatriots. 

NOW, tell me, give that to me all natural........

*OH HELL NO*


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

ttug said:


> Virengue never tested positive either.
> 
> AFTER he admitted doping he then WON VENTOUX, by BEATING LA....and they ALL CLAPPED!!!!
> 
> ...


And your point is?

There were large numbers of champions who used blood vector doping, but only one has a cult of obsessed fans who ignore reality and believe in miracles.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*not that guy*



bigpinkt said:


> And your point is?
> 
> There were large numbers of champions who used blood vector doping, but only one has a cult of obsessed fans who ignore reality and believe in miracles.


IMO, they all doped. Miracles are swell, but sorry, at a certain point, its a tad obvious.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

Here's the problem: If they all doped, then the biggest argument against doping - that it is unfair to competition - vanishes. 

I know some will say that it is still unfair because the drugs help some more than they help others (i.e. lance takes drugs and gets 20% better while another guy takes drugs and only gets 15% better). But that line of reasoning ignores the fact that everything humans do has the potential to help some individuals more than others. Some are born with more talent, some respond to working out more than others, some need more sleep, a different diet, etc. 

Anyway, without the "unfairness" argument, all we are left with is arguments about the health of cyclists and many of us realize that that is a choice they must make for themselves. _Again, if they refuse to condemn each other, then who am I to do so! _ (and no, former cyclists condemning current cyclists doesn't count). Professional athletes in some other sports risk their lives to a much greater degree than cyclist do by doping, and yet many fans continue to respect those sportsmen and do not call for increased safety in those sports.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> Here's the problem: If they all doped, then the biggest argument against doping - that it is unfair to competition - vanishes.
> 
> I know some will say that it is still unfair because the drugs help some more than they help others (i.e. lance takes drugs and gets 20% better while another guy takes drugs and only gets 15% better). But that line of reasoning ignores the fact that everything humans do has the potential to help some individuals more than others. Some are born with more talent, some respond to working out more than others, some need more sleep, a different diet, etc.
> 
> Anyway, without the "unfairness" argument, all we are left with is arguments about the health of cyclists and many of us realize that that is a choice they must make for themselves. _Again, if they refuse to condemn each other, then who am I to do so! _ (and no, former cyclists condemning current cyclists doesn't count). Professional athletes in some other sports risk their lives to a much greater degree than cyclist do by doping, and yet many fans continue to respect those sportsmen and do not call for increased safety in those sports.


The unfairness argument has not vanished. If you cannot understand the difference between natural stimuli and unnatural stimulants then I am not sure if you will ever understand. In theory sport is supposed to be about who is most naturally gifted, who has trained the hardest and the smartest.....not who responds best to an injection. 

We are talking about highly trained, professional, athletes. Please tell us of some natural training or nutritional supplement that provides a 20% improvement in one professional athlete and a 5% improvement (or death) to others?

The willingness for the obsessed to bend their morals as they struggle to excuse/ignore the actions of their hero is impressive. When faced with overwhelming evidence they revert back to the 7th grade excuse of "everyone else was doing it"


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> The unfairness argument has not vanished. If you cannot understand the difference between natural stimuli and unnatural stimulants then I am not sure if you will ever understand. In theory sport is supposed to be about who is most naturally gifted, who has trained the hardest and the smartest.....not who responds best to an injection.
> 
> We are talking about highly trained, professional, athletes. Please tell us of some natural training or nutritional supplement that provides a 20% improvement in one professional athlete and a 5% improvement (or death) to others?
> 
> The willingness for the obsessed to bend their morals as they struggle to excuse/ignore the actions of their hero is impressive. When faced with overwhelming evidence they revert back to the 7th grade excuse of "everyone else was doing it"


Don't be ridiculous. It is only you who thinks this has anything to do with heros. I've stated many times I am of Lemonds era and value his accomplishments more than anyone since. This is NOT about Lance.

You can draw the line where you want and say what sport is supposed to be about _for you._ The rest of us are free to disagree. Perhaps some of us see it as quite arbitrary, what substances athletes are allowed to put in their bodies and by what actions they are allowed to increase their fitness or performance thresholds. Or perhaps we simply choose to leave all those decisions to someone else and simply look at who is at the starting line, and who has been declared by the organizers to be a legitimate participant, and then accept that the one who crosses the line first is the winner no matter what rumours (or "evidence") being tossed about by those who are not the decision makers about who races and who is a cheater.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> And your point is?
> 
> There were large numbers of champions who used blood vector doping, but only one has a cult of obsessed fans who ignore reality and believe in miracles.


Just a fun play on words...

"There were large numbers of champions who used blood vector doping, but only one has a cult of obsessed fans who ignore all the others and believe he is guilty before all the evidence is in."


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Sheryl said:


> What did you expect? I didn't know the Doping Forum could be construed as pro PED use. Just as every war movie, is an anti war movie the Doping Forum, is in fact anti doping, at least I think it is. Then again, maybe I'm wrong as the moral climate seems to have shifted in favor of anything goes.
> 
> .


Try to get a grip Sheryl. Vitamins are PEDs--it's the only reason they exist. Advil and your regular Bayer aspirin are PEDS--also the only reason they exist. Why hell, even your birth control pills are PEDs (you rarely see a pregnant chick on the podium).

Lance has moved on. Do the same!


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> We are talking about highly trained, professional, athletes. Please tell us of some natural training or nutritional supplement that provides a 20% improvement in one professional athlete and a 5% improvement (or death) to others?


OK - I am being a bit extreme here but what the heck. Gatorade (or name you favorite hydration supplement) - in a small percentage of elite athletes makes them extremely sick - thus lowering their performance to the point they cannot continue. In another it gives them ~ 3-5% increase in their performance (on a real hot and humid day). The delta in performance would be much greater than 20%.

To be really extreme let's use water - in one athlete (who is extremely dehydrated before taking our natural supplement) - a 20% increase, in another only slightly dehydrated - a 5% increase (you didn't really specify the conditions big). 

OK I am being silly but I think the original point is that an athlete can optimize their training and performance with the correct blend of nutrition, training and rest. Now I don't know what the increase could be. Certainly you cannot argue with this (I doubt 20% though). And may I point out if an athlete can be a super responder to an banned substance than it is possible for an athlete to be a super responder to a nutritional (or so called natural) supplement.

And - since I can't help myself from a speculative staindpoint- what if (*JUST WHAT IF*) LA is a super responder to cancer treatment - maybe to the point it increased his ability (neurologically speaking) to deal with lactic acid at a perceived level. In other words the lactic acid is there but it just doesn't feel like it to him. 

Just speculating - no need to flame - unless you are pre-disposed to and just can't help it - perhaps you are an anti-super-responder to to the possibility that LA did not dope.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

Heck, I'm still wondering what the evidence is for this "super-responder" theory in the first place. If two guys really did take the same thing, and perform differently, how was it determined that it was their response to the PED that accounted for the difference? (and not just their training, some other health factor, the amount of effort they felt like giving, or whatever.) And where the hell did these 5% and 20% numbers get pulled out from?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> You can draw the line where you want and say what sport is supposed to be about _for you._ The rest of us are free to disagree. Perhaps some of us see it as quite arbitrary, what substances athletes are allowed to put in their bodies and by what actions they are allowed to increase their fitness or performance thresholds. Or perhaps we simply choose to leave all those decisions to someone else and simply look at who is at the starting line, and who has been declared by the organizers to be a legitimate participant, and then accept that the one who crosses the line first is the winner no matter what rumours (or "evidence") being tossed about by those who are not the decision makers about who races and who is a cheater.


This is not a line I have draw, it is one society has draw. If you want to say that sport is about who responds best to dope you are free to think that is a good idea. The majority of the population will disagree with you


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> OK - I am being a bit extreme here but what the heck. Gatorade (or name you favorite hydration supplement) - in a small percentage of elite athletes makes them extremely sick - thus lowering their performance to the point they cannot continue. In another it gives them ~ 3-5% increase in their performance (on a real hot and humid day). The delta in performance would be much greater than 20%.
> 
> To be really extreme let's use water - in one athlete (who is extremely dehydrated before taking our natural supplement) - a 20% increase, in another only slightly dehydrated - a 5% increase (you didn't really specify the conditions big).
> 
> ...


water and Gatorade are substances that are available to everyone and do not cost $1,000 per month. If you have two highly trained professional athletes and you give them Gatoraid are they going to drop 5 minutes all their time up Alp D Huez?


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

If society was as adamant about this as you are, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in. The status quo reflects were society has drawn the line. If you wish to move that line, great. It'd be fine with me as well. But recognize that it is you that is in the minority, as a crusader against PEDs and against Armstrong.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> Try to get a grip Sheryl. Vitamins are PEDs--it's the only reason they exist. Advil and your regular Bayer aspirin are PEDS--also the only reason they exist. Why hell, even your birth control pills are PEDs (you rarely see a pregnant chick on the podium).
> 
> Lance has moved on. Do the same!


So I guess if we apply this logic to other things, a little punk who robs a convenience store for $100 is the same as a mass murderer like Pinochet? They're both criminals thus should be treated the same?


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> water and Gatorade are substances that are available to everyone and do not cost $1,000 per month. If you have two highly trained professional athletes and you give them Gatoraid are they going to drop 5 minutes all their time up Alp D Huez?


Let's try one more time--not that it is likely to make a difference.

We are not talking about taking 5 minutes off the climb up D Huez or any other climb. The assumption is that at some point they will indeed get a handle on illegal (usually dangerous) drugs. At that point (if not already), cyclists will be more focused on looking for every healthy / legal way to enhance performance. They will be/ are looking to be.0000003% faster than any of the other legal / clean climbers or sprinters.

With that in mind, I wondered why on some single and some multi day events we feel unexplainably strong while following our normal lead-in training program. It occured to me that I'd like to know what is going on physiologically during those events so that I might duplicate it at will by manipulating my diet, my intate of supplements, and anything else in my environment that leads to that kind of performance (legally and without risk to my health).

If I find this combination, what are the odds that I'm going to share the information with my competitors? The answer (for me at least) is zero---and that is knowing, what works for me may not work for them.

So the question from the beginning was, How much money and research time is spent by teams to try to understand the physiology of individual members in an attempt to enhance their performance---outside of personalized physical training regimens. I realize that most teams use sports psychologists, but I'm talking about personalized research.

I used this forum under the belief that there may be someone here with some understanding of this issue. Obviously a mistake. It appears that "knowledge" here is limited to "Lance is a criminal and should be hung immediately without a trial". Probably a smidgen short of the intellectual level I'd hoped for and maybe not the answer to every single question.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

MG537 said:


> So I guess if we apply this logic to other things, a little punk who robs a convenience store for $100 is the same as a mass murderer like Pinochet? They're both criminals thus should be treated the same?


He's unaware there's a list of banned substances.

I don't know if he's aware that each 500mg aspirin gives a .5% increase in performance.:wink: 

P.S. Jack Daniels boosts Testosterone.

So swifty, go out, get loaded, and then for your hangover take a handful of aspirin.

No really don't do it, I'm really just being sarcastic, don't do it because I'm concerned for your well being. Really.

Just ride your bike. If you get up to a ranking of 2,756th in the world that's pretty good.

Currently I'm lying in 6,251st so see, you're beating me.:lol: :lol: :yesnod: :yesnod: :biggrin5: :smilewinkgrin: :smilewinkgrin: :hand: :hand: :cornut: :cornut: :smile5: :ihih:


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> They will be/ are looking to be.0000003% faster than any of the other legal / clean climbers or sprinters..


Don't you think you're taking this too far? If you could control your body to a percentage point, that would be pretty impressive.



SwiftSolo said:


> With that in mind, I wondered why on some single and some multi day events we feel unexplainably strong while following our normal lead-in training program...


You do realize, you're getting into Dr Frankenstein stuff here. Too many variables though. Maybe your pillow has too much dust mite excrement in it, and you had an allegic reaction, causing irritation and inflamation in your bronchial tubes, and your body overreacted fighting the allergen. Maybe you didn't sleep well..

Even more directly, maybe your wife served you with divorce papers that morning and your mental state has driven your testosterone levels down and your cortisol levels up. This is not a joke. One's mental state has a tremendous influence on their hormone levels.




SwiftSolo said:


> It occured to me that I'd like to know what is going on physiologically during those events so that I might duplicate it at will by manipulating my diet, my intate of supplements, and anything else in my environment that leads to that kind of performance (legally and without risk to my health)....


I think it's occurred to a lot of people.

The ability you think you have to control your environment is a little extreme, no?




SwiftSolo said:


> If I find this combination, what are the odds that I'm going to share the information with my competitors? The answer (for me at least) is zero---and that is knowing, what works for me may not work for them.....


This *psychological ploy* has been used forever in athletics. 

The idea that I have some training secret that you don't. 

Ben Hogan's *SECRET.* Tiger Woods is using it very effectively now. You see how he doesn't talk about his training. Not that he's doing anything special, in fact he probably injured himself last year by idiotic training, but if he plants a thought in the oppositions head, *it can psych the opposition out.*

Looks like you fell for this kind of thinking.



SwiftSolo said:


> So the question from the beginning was, How much money and research time is spent by teams to try to understand the physiology of individual members in an attempt to enhance their performance---outside of personalized physical training regimens. I realize that most teams use sports psychologists, but I'm talking about personalized research......



And the answer is, *Not enough to matter* because other entities are spending far more than bike teams could ever hope to spend.




SwiftSolo said:


> I used this forum under the belief that there may be someone here with some understanding of this issue. Obviously a mistake. It appears that "knowledge" here is limited to "Lance is a criminal and should be hung immediately without a trial". Probably a smidgen short of the intellectual level I'd hoped for and maybe not the answer to every single question.


No one here has more understanding than the large Pharmaceutical companies or research centers at universities or totalitarian regimes which used to exist as E. Germany or the former Soviet Union. Even with all their knowledge there's huge gaps.

In those gaps there are a lot of fatal diseases and birth defects.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> ....So the question from the beginning was, How much money and research time is spent by teams to try to understand the physiology of individual members in an attempt to enhance their performance---outside of personalized physical training regimens. I realize that most teams use sports psychologists, but I'm talking about personalized research.....
> 
> .


So shouldn't this question have been posted under the "Training, Nutrition" forum on this site?


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*because*



MG537 said:


> So shouldn't this question have been posted under the "Training, Nutrition" forum on this site?


Because somebody mentioned Lance Armstrong............


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

MG537 said:


> So shouldn't this question have been posted under the "Training, Nutrition" forum on this site?


No, because it specifically eliminates training from the equation (as I've stated perhaps 5 times). It also specifically eliminates generic testing of the masses because we are talking about a specific type of person doing a specific type of training (road biking--as opposed to other sports--even mountain biking).

To answer the others:

We have the ability to control what we take in both orally and, to a large degree, mentally. 

Those who are suggesting that it is not worthwhile to attempt to understand the physiology of athletes on their few extraordinary days simply have no understanding of successful competition. 

The obvious mistake was mine because I assumed someone here might have some knowledge and also have the ability to segregate their hatred of Lance from a subject unrelated to illegal PEDs.

Drug companies lack one key element in doing this kind of research--- road bikers who've just had an extraordinary day and knowledge of their blood chemistry both before and after their ride on that extraordinary day. Team physicians do have that access.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> No, because it specifically eliminates training from the equation (as I've stated perhaps 5 times). It also specifically eliminates generic testing of the masses because we are talking about a specific type of person doing a specific type of training (road biking--as opposed to other sports--even mountain biking).
> 
> To answer the others:
> 
> ...


Everything that counts, can't be counted. Even if one lived in a hermetically sealed room where the air was filtered and every molecule ingested were monitored we could not determine exactly what's going on in the body. Then the psychological impact of that kind of sequestered existence would influence the body. Even one's thoughts can have a large degree of impact on chemical balances and performance. Certainly more than this .000003 nonsense. There are still mysteries out there thank GOD!

Early in this thread another poster recommended that you give your head a shake. I think that may be a good idea.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> No, because it specifically eliminates training from the equation (as I've stated perhaps 5 times). It also specifically eliminates generic testing of the masses because we are talking about a specific type of person doing a specific type of training (road biking--as opposed to other sports--even mountain biking)...


While you eliminated the "training" part you ignored the "nutrition" part of the forum I recommended.
The full forum name is "Racing, Training, Nutrition, Triathlons".
I still believe you can post your original question there and ask away about how many pounds of parsley one has to consume along with legal nutritional supplements in order to fully control his/her body and blood flow on race day and whether or not such a diet can be customized to boost your performance by x number of percentage points.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

lookrider said:


> Everything that counts, can't be counted. Even if one lived in a hermetically sealed room where the air was filtered and every molecule ingested were monitored we could not determine exactly what's going on in the body. Then the psychological impact of that kind of sequestered existence would influence the body. Even one's thoughts can have a large degree of impact on chemical balances and performance. Certainly more than this .000003 nonsense. There are still mysteries out there thank GOD!
> 
> Early in this thread another poster recommended that you give your head a shake. I think that may be a good idea.


Mate, 
There's a fundamental understanding among successful competitors in all sports. The R&D does not have to be perfect----in fact, it can be awful as long as it's less awful than all the other riders' research. 

I 've been around long enough to understand why you don't understand.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> If society was as adamant about this as you are, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in. The status quo reflects were society has drawn the line. If you wish to move that line, great. It'd be fine with me as well. But recognize that it is you that is in the minority, as a crusader against PEDs and against Armstrong.


So when Rassmusen showed up at the start the day before he was kicked out of the Tour, and he was booed relentlessly, that was society saying that dope was ok? When he won a stage and was booed by the majority of the crowd as he crossed the line those were actually cheers? Just because bad things continue to happen doesn't mean that society approves. The number of fans and participants that approves of doping is the minority. Where is this vast, silent majority of people like yourself who approve of dope?


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> So when Rassmusen showed up at the start the day before he was kicked out of the Tour, and he was booed relentlessly, that was society saying that dope was ok? When he won a stage and was booed by the majority of the crowd as he crossed the line those were actually cheers? Just because bad things continue to happen doesn't mean that society approves. The number of fans and participants that approves of doping is the minority. Where is this vast, silent majority of people like yourself who approve of dope?


Actually I don't think society gives a sh!t as long as they're entertained. "Bread and circus" as the Romans used to say.
If society actually cared then NFL games would be played in half empty stadiums. 
In the cycling world, Trek, Specialized, Scott etc. wouldn't be the hot commodities that they are.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

MG537 said:


> Actually I don't think society gives a sh!t as long as they're entertained. "Bread and circus" as the Romans used to say.


So, how does that fit into the picture of people shouting "doping pigs" after groups of cat2-4 riders out training in europe in the period 1998-2000? It must be the apathy shining through.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> So when Rassmusen showed up at the start the day before he was kicked out of the Tour, and he was booed relentlessly, that was society saying that dope was ok? When he won a stage and was booed by the majority of the crowd as he crossed the line those were actually cheers? Just because bad things continue to happen doesn't mean that society approves. The number of fans and participants that approves of doping is the minority. Where is this vast, silent majority of people like yourself who approve of dope?


Yes compared to the those in It. worshiping Pantani (or now Basso) - or those in Fr. worshiping RV... what does that say about society. Come May all of Italy will be rooting for Basso.

What does it say of society that turns out in the 10's of thousands in the street each day to watch the (dope show) tour or to 100 million who will watch the Superbowl in a few weks....


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

den bakker said:


> So, how does that fit into the picture of people shouting "doping pigs" after groups of cat2-4 riders out training in europe in the period 1998-2000? It must be the apathy shining through.


Just because some may have shouted that, it doesn't mean that the vast majority of the public cares. People still tune into the TdF every July in many parts of the world. In many parts of Europe other cycling competitions are still broadcast on national television stations. 
There may be statistics out there on declining viewership and if you have them please post them for educational purposes or any poll numbers indicating that the public is walking away from cycling due to its doping problems.
Hell, other sports probably have even bigger problems than cycling. Think NFL or why not track and field. Yet the public keeps on coming back for more.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

MG537 said:


> Just because some may have shouted that, it doesn't mean that the vast majority of the public cares. People still tune into the TdF every July in many parts of the world. In many parts of Europe other cycling competitions are still broadcast on national television stations.
> There may be statistics out there on declining viewership and if you have them please post them for educational purposes or any poll numbers indicating that the public is walking away from cycling due to its doping problems.
> Hell, other sports probably have even bigger problems than cycling. Think NFL or why not track and field. Yet the public keeps on coming back for more.


viewing of TdF in germany fell from 2.5 million in 2005 to 1.5 million in 2006. 
Tour de flanders was down by 77% in the same time span. 
france: 4.3 million viewers in 2005, 3.6 million in 2006. 
readers of LÈquipes had only one bike rider among the top 30 french athletes ever. And it was not Hinault.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*My friend....*



SwiftSolo said:


> Mate,
> There's a fundamental understanding among successful competitors in all sports. The R&D does not have to be perfect----in fact, it can be awful as long as it's less awful than all the other riders' research.
> 
> I 've been around long enough to understand why you don't understand.


It appears that you've never taken a biology class. This might give you a clue..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_homeostasis

This is as good as it gets, right here. 

The stuff that does work, like to make you feel like you are on your best day all the time, is banned, and can kill you because it interferes with homeostasis.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

lookrider said:


> It appears that you've never taken a biology class. This might give you a clue..
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_homeostasis
> 
> ...


What do you mean lookrider? Drinking to much water can disturb homeostasis AND KILL YOU - I don't see your point.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> What do you mean lookrider? Drinking to much water can disturb homeostasis AND KILL YOU - I don't see your point.



I know you have no idea whatsoever what I mean. I'll break it down for you.

If you feel ok, healthy, no distress, not physically uncomfortable, that's it, that's the best you're going to be.

Now you can train to expand your capabilities, but the whole idea of training is to introduce stress(exercise) in hopes that your body will adapt to that stress to regain balance and be able to cope with such stressful episodes in the future.

Sometimes you get a headache and you may take a pain reliever. Sometimes you may have sore legs or a stiff back. These things aren't controllable all of the time because the mechanisms are not *completely* understood. Do you know what the butterfly effect is? It's based on an idea known as sensitive dependence on intial conditions. Tiny differences in input can make a gigantic differences in output. Hence, a butterfly flapping its wings in Beijing can cause a snowstorm in New York two weeks later.

We can predict the weather, but only up until a certain point, then other factors come into play which we were unaware of and/or didn't account for because our instruments weren't sensitive enough measure things that matter yet go unmeasured.

This is what is meant by not everything that counts can be counted.

How many cells are in the human body and what are their interactions amongst themselves and outside stimuli? Even the best science can only make a gross analysis of everything that's going on.

As for your water scenario. Physically and psychologically healthy normal people who are not under duress, will not drink too much water. It just won't happen.

Now if you put a person under duress, either physically or psychologically they may drink too much water, but it is the stress that has destroyed the balance, not the person's action of trying to restore balance by drinking water. And yes, running a marathon, or riding a century is stressful for most people, and can cause overwhelming duress in others.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> Yes compared to the those in It. worshiping Pantani (or now Basso) - or those in Fr. worshiping RV... what does that say about society. Come May all of Italy will be rooting for Basso.
> 
> What does it say of society that turns out in the 10's of thousands in the street each day to watch the (dope show) tour or to 100 million who will watch the Superbowl in a few weks....


You will have a hard time finding an Italian that think that Pantani and Basso were not dopers. All of Italy will NOT be cheering for Basso. He was not popular prior to being exposed and he is less popular now...... I lived and raced in Italy. Still go there 1-2 times a year. Basso, and his silly excuses, are a joke. 

If you think that people showing up to cheer on a sport that they love equals approval for doping you clearly do not get it. 

I think you misunderstand what I post here. I completely understand what drives riders to dope. What I dislike is that some of them invent crazy lies to try to cover up their actions. They enlist gullible fans to spread their myth. As long as their are suckers willing to believe their garbage the sport will never change.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> Yes compared to the those in It. worshiping Pantani (or now Basso) - or those in Fr. worshiping RV... what does that say about society. Come May all of Italy will be rooting for Basso.....


You're making stuff up. What you're saying above is like saying all Americans will be worshipping Pharmstrong. Ok, a lot of people may still worship Pharmstrong, *but* if they knew Armstrong was guilty of the same transgressions as both Pantani and Basso are, would they feel the same way? Before you answer in the affirmative, if that was the case, why does Pharmstrong keep issuing such strong denials?

Here's the answer, because *he knows, that if it came out that he's a doper, he'd be done, his TdF wins gone, and his LAF the object of ridicule.*

*People do care.*



safetyguy said:


> What does it say of society that turns out in the 10's of thousands in the street each day to watch the (dope show) tour or to 100 million who will watch the Superbowl in a few weks....


It says they want to believe. You know, you doping apologists are something. The other day you challenged me to take away the *HOPE* of some older person or kid with cancer who believed in Armstrong. Now you're saying that people know and don't care. 



safetyguy said:


> Despite the tone of these conversations I do think most of us are on common ground – with this one major difference – which has to do with perspective.
> 
> Common ground – Doping – for athletic gain - is bad, dopers are cheaters.
> 
> ...



*You* answered yourself. People do care. They want to have hope. They believe in Armstrong, and you even acknowledged that yourself...

Armstrong even tried this optimistic/ pessimistic bs you're trying to shovel here with that bs speech on the last podium where he said he felt sorry for the people who didn't believe.

I hate to sound sexist here, but you sound like a chick who keeps harping, 'you're so negative.' Here's news for you, being informed and knowing what the truth is, isn't being pessimistic or negative.

Pathetic all the way around.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

lookrider said:


> It appears that you've never taken a biology class. This might give you a clue..
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_homeostasis
> 
> ...


Here we go!

Did anyone, anyone at all, say that the idea was to feel like your best day all the time. Let me know who that was.

Instead, consider that the objective is to coordinate the variables of that best day so that you could duplicate it on race day or race week (legally).

You've somehow concluded this in not a nobel objective and that ignorance should be the standard--- that teams should not be engaged in such research. 

You continue to troll Red Herring in an effort to disguise your objective.

Incidentally, we do agree that illegal doping is bad for the sport, bad for society, and bad for the individual. We completely disagree on the effective way to bring about change.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> Instead, consider that the objective is to coordinate the variables of that best day so that you could duplicate it on race day or race week (legally).


Not for nothing, but isn't everyone involved in Pro cycling or any other professional sport doing exactly what you're proposing *already?*

The drug issue aside, isn't LA known for being meticulous and leaving nothing to chance? Isn't he the template for winning the Tour and never having a bad day?

The problem you're not accounting for is that there are so many variables and you're overestimating our ability to account for those variables and their weight in the whole picture.

When we get to the day where we can get the whole mechanized picture, the winning athlete is just a soulless machine.

You really haven't thought this through.


----------



## Circlip (Jul 26, 2005)

MG537 said:


> how many pounds of parsley one has to consume along with legal nutritional supplements in order to fully control his/her body and blood flow on race day and whether or not such a diet can be customized to boost your performance by x number of percentage points.


Hey, parsley might work for your individual physiology but it didn't do a thing for me. After much experimentation it became apparent that my best performances occurred after eating 1.5 kiwis 3x per day at precisely 3:12am, 9:39am and 6:40pm, followed 8 minutes later by 300g of red beets. The problem was that if I didn't scratch my nuts for a cumulative total of between 3-5 minutes in the 24 hours directly preceding consumption of the kiwis and red beets then it threw the whole equation off and I had to substitute brussel sprouts in place of the beets.

Yes, there was no question that this combination produced my winning performances. Blood chemistry influenced soley by external nutrition was the primary determinant in my performance. There is no chance that my blood chemistry was affected by anything else other than what I ate and drank, and there was no chance that any other billion random factors had anything to do with it.

My research and concepts is in this area are cutting edge science. No one has ever thought of it before, and there are definitely not countless commercial firms or educational institutions already researching anything similar to this, because the research money available within the sport of cycling dwarfs any of these other interested parties.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

Circlip said:


> There is no chance that my blood chemistry was affected by anything else other than what I ate and drank, and there was no chance that any other billion random factors had anything to do with it.


Yes, and there was no chance that the performance of certain cyclists is affected by anything other than the drugs they took, right? It couldn't have been any other billion random factors like training, talent, determination etc. It's always the drugs, right? 

If it's always the drugs, then it ought to be possible that it was the kiwis!


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

Hey lookrider... I have a two simple questions for you:

Do you Hope LA is caught and found guilty of doping?

And how is it you know the "truth?"


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

den bakker said:


> viewing of TdF in germany fell from 2.5 million in 2005 to 1.5 million in 2006.
> Tour de flanders was down by 77% in the same time span.
> france: 4.3 million viewers in 2005, 3.6 million in 2006.
> readers of LÈquipes had only one bike rider among the top 30 french athletes ever. And it was not Hinault.


...and what conclusion will you draw when this years numbers increase because the worlds greatest doper (according to some of you) rides the TdF?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> ...and what conclusion will you draw when this years numbers increase because the worlds greatest doper (according to some of you) rides the TdF?


People look at car crashes and freak shows, doesn't mean they approve of them though.

That's if you're right and more people want to watch Pharmstrong.

Also, you wrote in a previous post, while you think he doped, you're waiting for all the evidence to come in because you're in the optimistic crowd, as opposed to the pessimistic ones. 

That was in the same post as taking away cancer victims hope, but otoh, no one cares if these guys dope or not...


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> Yes, and there was no chance that the performance of certain cyclists is affected by anything other than the drugs they took, right? It couldn't have been any other billion random factors like training, talent, determination etc. It's always the drugs, right?
> 
> If it's always the drugs, then it ought to be possible that it was the kiwis!


Let's ask Pharmstrong, he could barely finish the Tour before he hired Ferrari..


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> Hey lookrider... I have a two simple questions for you:
> 
> Do you Hope LA is caught and found guilty of doping?


Nah! What I'm really hoping for is that his true talent reveals itself meaning, he'll crack on one of the big climbs if he tries to hang with the leaders. 

If he's not jacked he'll be lucky to get in the top 25.

You know, you ask a very odd question which puts the onus on me for wanting to see the truth while you get to be some kind of good guy. 

It's like someone sees that Bonds is obviously doped and is attacked for calling a spade a spade. This is what happened to LeMond btw and is unforgivable.



safetyguy said:


> And how is it you know the "truth?"


Because of the way the world works. Just like when you know your kid was in the cookie jar and he denies it but has chocolate all over his face.

Basically there's too much evidence to deny and there's too many people putting their livelihoods and reputations on the line for nothing.

LA's denials are also absurd and you add all that to the Walsh books and logical people have no reasonable doubt he's dirty.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> You will have a hard time finding an Italian that think that Pantani and Basso were not dopers. All of Italy will NOT be cheering for Basso. He was not popular prior to being exposed and he is less popular now...... I lived and raced in Italy. Still go there 1-2 times a year. Basso, and his silly excuses, are a joke.


I did not mean literally "ALL" but there is no arguing that he has many, many fans - and yes I would agree with you that most Italians think Pantani and Basso were dopers - but then still like them and want to see (Basso) race. BTW I lived in Italy (and also competed there) for three years and think I understand the flavor of the country. And no, I never met Dr. Evil.



bigpinkt said:


> If you think that people showing up to cheer on a sport that they love equals approval for doping you clearly do not get it.


I don't think this nor did I say it. I do think it is somewhat telling about their ambivalence towards it however.



bigpinkt said:


> I think you misunderstand what I post here. I completely understand what drives riders to dope. What I dislike is that some of them invent crazy lies to try to cover up their actions. They enlist gullible fans to spread their myth. As long as their are suckers willing to believe their garbage the sport will never change.


I think I do understand what you are saying and would agree with your above comment... I will say it again - I think in all probability that LA doped - my issue is that he has not been found guilty of doping and therefore should be treated as such. Unfortunately many on this form do not respect this position and seek to ridicule those that do. 

I just wonder what those folks are going to do if LA wins 1 or more grand tours and is not found guilty of anything - I doubt they will change their tune. Speaking for myself if LA is caught and found guilty of a doping violation I will be the first in line to say he justifiably deserves his punishment, the end of his career, reputation and the LAF (but I will take no pleasure in it at all)...

...respect


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

lookrider said:


> Let's ask Pharmstrong, he could barely finish the Tour before he hired Ferrari..


...wouldn't be because the cancer he had was disrupting his homeostasis...


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> ...wouldn't be because the cancer he had was disrupting his homeostasis...


Actually, no. The cancer was diagnosed on 10/2/96.

That explains the '96 Tour. How about '93, '94, and '95?


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

Lance is being tested regularly. I did a quick glance at his twitter thing and he announces it. They've come by twice in the last 24 hours even! 

A question to those who think he is dirty. Do you think he fails these tests but the powers that be falsely claim he is ok just because he is Lance? Or do you somehow think he is cheating in a way that none of these people can figure out? Both seem absurd to me.

Until a rider fails an official test and is officially declared to be in violation, then I will continue to consider him a legitimate competitor. Isn't this the reasonable thing to do?


----------



## Circlip (Jul 26, 2005)

pacificaslim said:


> Yes, and there was no chance that the performance of certain cyclists is affected by anything other than the drugs they took, right? It couldn't have been any other billion random factors like training, talent, determination etc. It's always the drugs, right?


Who is talking about training, talent, determination or drugs? This thread is about legal PEDs. I was diligent about scratching my nuts as prescribed, and the performances followed. Didn't you read my post?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> Lance is being tested regularly. I did a quick glance at his twitter thing and he announces it. They've come by twice in the last 24 hours even!
> 
> A question to those who think he is dirty. Do you think he fails these tests but the powers that be falsely claim he is ok just because he is Lance? Or do you somehow think he is cheating in a way that none of these people can figure out? Both seem absurd to me.
> 
> Until a rider fails an official test and is officially declared to be in violation, then I will continue to consider him a legitimate competitor. Isn't this the reasonable thing to do?


http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=3836955

Do you consider Riis, Marion Jones, Basso, Millar, "legitimate?" None of them failed an official test either..

If you ever get the chance to talk to Lance, ask him about why, when he came back, was 6.7 w/kg no longer the magic number? 

What do you think he'll say?


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

At the time they were competing, I did. They were not declared by their sporting bodies to be in violation. So would I have been to do so? To me, determination of cheating either need to come from the athlete themselves, or from the body in charge of enforcing the rules of their sport, or I suppose from a court of law. Reporters and people on the internet do not count for me. Sorry.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> At the time they were competing, I did. They were not declared by their sporting bodies to be in violation. So would I have been to do so? To me, determination of cheating either need to come from the athlete themselves, or from the body in charge of enforcing the rules of their sport, or I suppose from a court of law. Reporters and people on the internet do not count for me. Sorry.


So Michelle Smith didn't cheat at the time of the Atlanta Olympics?

Walsh correctly pointed out that one and was met with almost universal hatred from the people of Ireland.

So I guess you thought OJ was innocent of murder?

This kind of opinion is what's aka a cop out.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

lookrider said:


> http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=3836955
> 
> Do you consider Riis, Marion Jones, Basso, Millar, "legitimate?" None of them failed an official test either..
> 
> ...



Yes I did think Riis and the others to be legitimate until it was proven to be not so (even though I had my suspicions).

Again, using your criteria who then is the legitimate TdF champion from 1996 - 2005? Really in all seriousness who is the winner of these races - since you know the "truth" please bless the rest of us with it.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> Yes I did think Riis and the others to be legitimate until it was proven to be not so (even though I had my suspicions)..


It was never "proven" Riis, Jones, Basso or Ullrich doped while they were competing. They confessed in the face of police investigations.



safetyguy said:


> Again, using your criteria who then is the legitimate TdF champion from 1996 - 2005? Really in all seriousness who is the winner of these races - since you know the "truth" please bless the rest of us with it.


Do you think you got me? Maybe Julich won in '98, he was pretty pissed about Hamilton's positive at the Olympics. Do you think Hamilton deserves the gold?
We know Pantani's whole career was based on EPO but he didn't test positive in '98.

Do you think the E. German women should keep their golds and Shirley Babashoff denied her 4. Oh, that's right, you would think she's a loser and the E. Germans are winners although there's thousands of pages of documentation and the muscle bound proof you could see with your own lying eyes right in front of you.


Lame, Lame, Lame.....Keep searching for those Legal Ped's though.:frown2: :eek6: :lol: :lol: :yikes: :yikes: :sad: :sad: :crazy: :crazy: ut: ut:


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

lookrider said:


> It was never "proven" Riis, Jones, Basso or Ullrich doped while they were competing. They confessed in the face of police investigations.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No body is trying to get you this is just a discussion...

I looked at 98 too and had the same thought as you - one could make the argument that Julich won in 98. Wonder why he has never said anything or why you have never treated the other top three in 98, or 97 & 96 like you treat LA. No doubt E.German women were doped... So again I ask you - since you have the truth - who is the winner of these races? 

Legal PED - Caffeine - it was illegal just a few years ago. I do use it when competing and it does work at about 5 mg/kg (maybe I am a super responder to caffeine).


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> Wonder why he has never said anything or why you have never treated the other top three in 98, or 97 & 96 like you treat LA.


Pantani is dead and everyone knows his whole career was based on drugs, Riis admits he's not worthy, Virenque is a laughingstock, Ullrich is disgraced and hiding and not opening his mouth much, I mean, are you joking.

Anyone who has questioned LA is an effing troll and then he tries to destroy their careers and their lives. The guy is a completely hypocritical scumbag. Really, questioning people's faith in that bs speech on his last podium. He feels bad if they can't believe. F&ck him. Listen to the Stacy Mc Ilvaine tape. Does that clear things up for you?




safetyguy said:


> So again I ask you - since you have the truth - who is the winner of these races?


That's the sad part. From '91 to 2005 everyone of the guys on the podium was probably dirty. Does your Armstrong apologist stance allow you to see that the word definitely applies to him.

I ask you, what is your point here? That because most were doing it, it's ok?




safetyguy said:


> Legal PED - Caffeine - it was illegal just a few years ago. I do use it when competing and it does work at about 5 mg/kg (maybe I am a super responder to caffeine).


Pills?, I drink it , but if I never drank it, I don't think I'd need it.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

lookrider said:


> Not for nothing, but isn't everyone involved in Pro cycling or any other professional sport doing exactly what you're proposing *already?*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Mate,
The most educated among us likely know about 10% of what there is to know about this subject (the rest of us know 8%). Teams of very specialized high performance athletes with team physicians on hand are likely an ideal position to take this knowledge to 11% (a 10% advantage over everyone else). The notion that the medical research community is currently very knowledgable is laughable (compared to what we will know in ten years).

The idea that knowledge will diminish the sport is the attitude of Ludites. Drive and desire are likely to remain the key.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

lookrider said:


> So Michelle Smith didn't cheat at the time of the Atlanta Olympics?


I said I considered those athletes legitimate when they were competing, meaning at that time there was nothing to convince me they weren't legitimate. That doesn't mean that I now consider their performances at that time legitimate - if they've now confessed or been proven to have cheaten then that's a different story. But my point is that without such OFFICIAL proof from the sporting body, or a confession from an athlete, I will refuse to play the speculation game and declare an athlete a cheater. Again, if his sport doesn't consider him/her to be so, who the hell am I as a simple fan to do so? I haven't done the drug tests - they have. I'll let them figure it out and keep my interest in the sport to who crosses the line first.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> I said I considered those athletes legitimate when they were competing, meaning at that time there was nothing to convince me they weren't legitimate. That doesn't mean that I now consider their performances at that time legitimate - if they've now confessed or been proven to have cheaten then that's a different story. But my point is that without such OFFICIAL proof from the sporting body, or a confession from an athlete, I will refuse to play the speculation game and declare an athlete a cheater. Again, if his sport doesn't consider him/her to be so, who the hell am I as a simple fan to do so? I haven't done the drug tests - they have. I'll let them figure it out and keep my interest in the sport to who crosses the line first.


Here's the problem, what you say is good as far as it goes, but whole sports smell rotten, a distinguished journalist, whose job it is to investigate these things does so, and he comes under incredible personal attack. Walsh has a great batting average and has never been proven wrong in any of his allegations. Who's leading the attack? Pharmstrong? Why? He's never tested positive? Pharmstrong granted Walsh an interview in 2001 during which Pharmstrong spewed complete nonsense and Walsh called him on it.

People like Walsh, Lemond and Kimmage have exposed what's under the rock of Pro Cycling and have *NEVER* been discredited. NEVER!

They've made tons of accusations and EVERYTHING they say has been borne out.

*Why the heck is the magic number no longer 6.7 watts per kg.?*

In his idiotic Guardian interview of just a few months ago, Pharmstrong made the absurd claim that humans have evolved recently. Then what are they, regressing now because 5.7 w/kg will win the tour just 4 years later?

So if you want to play the Ostrich game fine. Just don't argue that these guys are clean while you enjoy the Professional Bodybuilding equivalent of what is known as cycling.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

I've never argued they are clean: I've only said that it is not my declaration to make. I refuse to have an opinion on it simply because I don't feel I have a the right to do so. It's for their sporting authority or the athletes to decide, not the general public who is out of the loop (and this includes reporters and former pros who are not officials).


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

pacificaslim said:


> I've never argued they are clean: I've only said that it is not my declaration to make. I refuse to have an opinion on it simply because I don't feel I have a the right to do so. It's for their sporting authority or the athletes to decide, not the general public who is out of the loop (and this includes reporters and former pros who are not officials).


You seem to be presupposing that the UCI is a paragon of virtue here. The UCI is a disgrace and has been since it's formation. Hein Verbruggen - just google him and corruption. And 500,000 dollars in 1999 will get you an exemption to post-date a TUE in the Tour de France. Money talks - the UCI, by applying strictly the anti-doping laws, are only shooting themselves in the foot. The big scandals have come about from police investigations and the ASO. 
So, by all means, wait for the governing authorities....enjoy the sand, but mind your eyes whilst buried in it.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

MG537 said:


> So I guess if we apply this logic to other things, a little punk who robs a convenience store for $100 is the same as a mass murderer like Pinochet? They're both criminals thus should be treated the same?


Is the title of this thread Illegal PEDs or is it Legal PEDs? Maybe go back and have another look, mate.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

lookrider said:


> Here's the problem, what you say is good as far as it goes, but whole sports smell rotten, a distinguished journalist, whose job it is to investigate these things does so, and he comes under incredible personal attack. Walsh has a great batting average and has never been proven wrong in any of his allegations. Who's leading the attack? Pharmstrong? Why? He's never tested positive? Pharmstrong granted Walsh an interview in 2001 during which Pharmstrong spewed complete nonsense and Walsh called him on it.
> 
> People like Walsh, Lemond and Kimmage have exposed what's under the rock of Pro Cycling and have *NEVER* been discredited. NEVER!
> 
> ...


Let me see if I understand. You believe that cycling authorities are doing a really poor job of catching dopers. Because of that you believe that a better system of determining guilt or innocence would be to let the anonymous dope forum posters make the decision without a hearing and without the inconvenience of cross examination or rebuttal? Would you have us all vote or would you personally chose who could be on the lynch mob?

I'm not sure what country you're from but, in the civilized world, we use a system of imperfect courts to handle these matters.


----------



## Exciton (Aug 8, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> Let me see if I understand. You believe that cycling authorities are doing a really poor job of catching dopers.


Cycling authorities ARE really doing a really poor job of catching dopers as was documented last year by a Danish research study 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Exciton said:


> Cycling authorities ARE really doing a really poor job of catching dopers as was documented last year by a Danish research study
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum


That points to the difficulty of determining who's doping and I think that is understood.

The dope forum regulars think the authorities are all corrupt and therefore only they are in a position to determine with certainty who is doping. They employ the science of heresay, inuendo, and the obviously fabricated testimony of bitter has-beens and failing tabloids to determine the guilt of pro riders. Because anyone who has ever been within a mile of a bike shop is guilty, their task really comes down to "how guilty".

It should be pointed out that there is one exception for whom they have scientific evidence of irrefutable innocence. He even has the obligatory French sounding name.


----------



## Exciton (Aug 8, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> That points to the difficulty of determining who's doping and I think that is understood.
> It should be pointed out that there is one exception for whom they have scientific evidence of irrefutable innocence. He even has the obligatory French sounding name.


The link I provided is evidence that riders can still get away with using doping. And given the enormous boost to performance, endurance and restitution, the rational choice for a rider is unfortunately still to dope. It is also evidence that the typical rider phrase "I have never tested positive" does not mean anything. 

In the last years most top riders have been busted for doping usage. Yet there is one rider who consistently has been beating all the other top riders (who of course had increased their performance by 10+% using doping). This guy (with an American sounding last name)has had close collaboration with the best doping doctor and he has produced Watts which are absolutely inconsistent with this vo2Max. 
A number of people who have nothing to gain but a lot to lose have pointed out that this particular rider is doping. And in fact his blood samples from the '99 TdF showed EPO abuse but of course that was just a French conspiracy, right? 
And the people pointing out that he is doping are just bitter, right?


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Exciton said:


> The link I provided is evidence that riders can still get away with using doping. And given the enormous boost to performance, endurance and restitution, the rational choice for a rider is unfortunately still to dope. It is also evidence that the typical rider phrase "I have never tested positive" does not mean anything.
> 
> In the last years most top riders have been busted for doping usage. Yet there is one rider who consistently has been beating all the other top riders (who of course had increased their performance by 10+% using doping). This guy (with an American sounding last name)has had close collaboration with the best doping doctor and he has produced Watts which are absolutely inconsistent with this vo2Max.
> A number of people who have nothing to gain but a lot to lose have pointed out that this particular rider is doping. And in fact his blood samples from the '99 TdF showed EPO abuse but of course that was just a French conspiracy, right?
> And the people pointing out that he is doping are just bitter, right?


If by " most top riders have been busted for doping usage" you mean by the dope forum regulars, you are correct (everyone who rides a bike is guilty). If you mean busted by cycling authorities, you are pretty far off base. List the top 20 riders in last years TDF and tell me how many and what percentage have ever been busted by the authorities.

Your observation that "the rational choice for a rider is unfortunately still to dope" assumes that nobody has any principles and that everyone is willing to sell out for a relatively small amount of money. That may be the case where you come from, but with the exception of attorneys, politicians, and writers with books or news papers to sell, that is still pretty rare around here. Most will not sell out their long term health for short term gain.

It is difficult to argue that "most top riders have been busted for doping usage" out of one side of your mouth and that "riders can still get away with using doping" out the other. Clearly, some do get away with it for a while, but the odds of eventually getting caught are very high and the damage to reputations is irreparable. It is a stupid decision by any measure.


----------



## Exciton (Aug 8, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> If by " most top riders have been busted for doping usage" you mean by the dope forum regulars, you are correct (everyone who rides a bike is guilty). If you mean busted by cycling authorities, you are pretty far off base. List the top 20 riders in last years TDF and tell me how many and what percentage have ever been busted by the authorities.



Have you paid any attention to what has happened in the pro cycling world? Landis and Hamilton were busted in regular doping controls. Landis would probably have gotten away with it if he had not busted his testosterone level through the roof.
Basso, Ullrich and Rasmussen are examples of riders that have never tested positive and they have only been caught by accident. They might therefore well have gotten away with it.
Schleck paid money to Fuentes account yet appears to get off the hook with some really lame story about a training program.



SwiftSolo said:


> Your observation that "the rational choice for a rider is unfortunately still to dope" assumes that nobody has any principles and that everyone is willing to sell out for a relatively small amount of money. That may be the case where you come from, but with the exception of attorneys, politicians, and writers with books or news papers to sell, that is still pretty rare around here. Most will not sell out their long term health for short term gain.


Are you living with your head buried in the sand?
There is plenty of evidence that many athletes don't care too much about the long term health risk. Just look at track sprinters or even better at players in NFL.
Even without money and glory some people might actually still dope in cycling; Just take a look at your local gym and you will probably see a lot of wannabees using roids to boost their ego although everyone knows roids are really dangerous and certainly much more dangerous than most of the doping stuff used in pro cycling.
So stop attacking my personal moral for pointing out something which is really obvious to any objective observer.



> Clearly, some do get away with it for a while, but the odds of eventually getting caught are very high


Can you back that statement up with evidence? 



> It is a stupid decision by any measure.


So riders that are doping are just plain stupid ??

Do you think that for instance Museeuw and Riis would agree with that point of view?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

SwiftSolo said:


> List the top 20 riders in last years TDF and tell me how many and what percentage have ever been busted by the authorities.


1 Lance Armstrong (USA) Discovery Channel 
2 Ivan Basso (Ita) Team CSC X
3 Jan Ullrich (Ger) T-Mobile Team X
4 Francisco Mancebo (Spa) Illes Balears-Caisse d'Epargne 
5 Alexandre Vinokourov (Kaz) T-Mobile Team X
6 Levi Leipheimer (USA) Gerolsteiner 
7 Michael Rasmussen (Den) Rabobank X
8 Cadel Evans (Aus) Davitamon-Lotto 
9 Floyd Landis (USA) Phonak Hearing Systems X
10 Oscar Pereiro Sio (Spa) Phonak Hearing Systems 
11 Christophe Moreau (Fra) Credit Agricole X
12 Yaroslav Popovych (Ukr) Discovery Channel 
13 Eddy Mazzoleni (Ita) Lampre-Caffita X
14 George Hincapie (USA) Discovery Channel 
15 Haimar Zubeldia (Spa) Euskaltel-Euskadi 
16 Jörg Jaksche (Ger) Liberty Seguros-Würth X
17 Bobby Julich (USA) Team CSC 
18 Oscar Sevilla (Spa) T-Mobile Team 
19 Andrei Kashechkin (Kaz) Credit Agricole X
20 Giuseppe Guerini (Ita) T-Mobile Team 
looks pretty clean to me.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> Your observation that "the rational choice for a rider is unfortunately still to dope" assumes that nobody has any principles and that everyone is willing to sell out for a relatively small amount of money. That may be the case where you come from, but with the exception of attorneys, politicians, and writers with books or news papers to sell, that is still pretty rare around here.


I don't know why I suspect this, but aren't you in the financial services industry?

Wall Street people are pretty smart. They sell out for a large amount of money.

Hey, you take what you can get, right?


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

den bakker said:


> 1 Lance Armstrong (USA) Discovery Channel
> 2 Ivan Basso (Ita) Team CSC X
> 3 Jan Ullrich (Ger) T-Mobile Team X
> 4 Francisco Mancebo (Spa) Illes Balears-Caisse d'Epargne
> ...


You must have watched a different TDF than I did last year. I'd have to admit that yours would have been much more entertaining than the one I watched (but mine was real)


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

SwiftSolo said:


> You must have watched a different TDF than I did last year. I'd have to admit that yours would have been much more entertaining than the one I watched (but mine was real)


ah misread your post. 
Convenient people were thrown out during the tour in 08 so they did not figure in top 20


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Exciton said:


> Have you paid any attention to what has happened in the pro cycling world? Landis and Hamilton were busted in regular doping controls. Landis would probably have gotten away with it if he had not busted his testosterone level through the roof.
> Basso, Ullrich and Rasmussen are examples of riders that have never tested positive and they have only been caught by accident. They might therefore well have gotten away with it.
> Schleck paid money to Fuentes account yet appears to get off the hook with some really lame story about a training program.
> 
> ...


You also must have watched a different TDF last year than me.

At the gym I use I'd guess that less than 5% are using roids (if they are they're not working that well). 

How do you point to the large number of dopers who've been caught and have certainty that you can get away with doping in the same breath. I know, you have to include the nonsense you read on the dope forum or in the tabloids and assume that it is impossible to have a good performance without doping. This is the same mentality that insists that successful businessmen must have cheated because clearly a few have been caught. It is the belief system of losers.

Let me state categorically that winners do not cheat. You can not stand on the top step of a podium, knowing that you cheated, and feel like a winner. Most of us learn this when we're ten. Losers never learn it. Dopers are losers and yes, the are just plain stupid if they're ingesting drugs that are known to cause health problems.

Again, if you subtract everything you've read that was not subject to rebuttal and cross examination, you are left with speculation, fabrication, revenge, and compensation for poor performance, plus an attempt by the unprincipled to sell their story.


----------



## Exciton (Aug 8, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> How do you point to the large number of dopers who've been caught and have certainty that you can get away with doping in the same breath. I know, you have to include the nonsense you read on the dope forum or in the tabloids and assume that it is impossible to have a good performance without doping.


I gave you a link to a peer-reviewed, scientific paper pointing our the failures of the current test system. Let me just cite their conclusion : "CONCLUSION: this study demonstrates a poor agreement in test results comparing two WADA-accredited laboratories. Moreover, after the initial rHuEpo boosting period the power to detect rHuEpo misuse during the maintenance and post periods appears minimal."
So why do you go on about hearsay and tabloids?




> Let me state categorically that winners do not cheat. You can not stand on the top step of a podium, knowing that you cheated, and feel like a winner.


Your definition of a winner is from the rest of the world. For everyone else the winner is the first one across the line. The inner mental state of the athlete is not part of the equation.



> Again, if you subtract everything you've read that was not subject to rebuttal and cross examination, you are left with speculation, fabrication, revenge, and compensation for poor performance, plus an attempt by the unprincipled to sell their story.


Again I provided a link to a scientific publication demonstrating the failure of the current test system. So why do you go on talking about speculation and fabrication? 

Are you at all familiar with the terms "peer-reviewed, scientific publication"?


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

So what's your point? That it's basically impossible to scientifically prove that people are cheating, so it's better to just let public opinion decide who is cheating?


----------



## Exciton (Aug 8, 2008)

pacificaslim said:


> So what's your point? That it's basically impossible to scientifically prove that people are cheating, so it's better to just let public opinion decide who is cheating?


My post was in response to this statement : "Let me see if I understand. You believe that cycling authorities are doing a really poor job of catching dopers."

Ideally UCI would persuade all pharmaceutical companies producing substances that can be used for doping and persuade them to add tracking molecules to their products. With that in place it should be fairly easy to catch dopers (at least until the products are illegally copied and produced by companies that don't add tracking molecules).
Unfortunately I don't see that happening and the quality of the test system seems far behind the dopers as evidenced by the link in my previous post.

It is VERY unfortunate that a number of substances are illegal and yet there exist no test to check whether a rider has used it or not. This casts a cloud of suspicion on all riders guilty or not. A possible solution would be to only prohibit substances for which a test actually exists (I'll probably be flamed now for that suggestion  )


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Exciton said:


> I gave you a link to a peer-reviewed, scientific paper pointing our the failures of the current test system. Let me just cite their conclusion : "CONCLUSION: this study demonstrates a poor agreement in test results comparing two WADA-accredited laboratories. Moreover, after the initial rHuEpo boosting period the power to detect rHuEpo misuse during the maintenance and post periods appears minimal."
> So why do you go on about hearsay and tabloids?
> 
> 
> ...


Are you familiar with the marker program and other efforts that have been used to catch riders like Ricco?

You continue to talk about all of the riders who've been caught out one side of your mouth and to point out the impossibility of catching rider/dopers out the other. Choose one!

You may have trouble with this but a majority of rational people (winners) will not risk the disgrace associated with being caught doping for 15 minutes of glory. 

I suspect that most of those who've been caught in complex doping schemes also abuse recreational drugs and alcohol.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Exciton said:


> Ideally UCI would persuade all pharmaceutical companies producing substances that can be used for doping and persuade them to add tracking molecules to their products.  )


Seems to me that Ricco was caught this past year with that program. Remember, a number were tested for this marker. It is doubtful that the authorities are likley to produce a list of the companies who are cooperating in that program--nor should they.

Clearly they will be moving toward agreement on sample storage for a number of years and requireing agreements that put riders at substantial financial risk if testing technology produce positives during that time. (By "they" I mean sponsors)


----------



## Exciton (Aug 8, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> Are you familiar with the marker program and other efforts that have been used to catch riders like Ricco?


Are you suggesting that a molecular marker was added to CERA?



> You continue to talk about all of the riders who've been caught out one side of your mouth and to point out the impossibility of catching rider/dopers out the other. Choose one!


There is really no paradox here. I have shown you scientific evidence that there is a small risk of getting caught in a doping test. If you do multiple tests, the risk of course becomes larger and in particular if a rider administrates his own doping program without expert advice. If the timing and dosing of doping is done by a top doping doctor like for instance Ferrari, the risk is really very, very small. Just think of Rasmussen, Ullrich and Basso who were only caught by accident.




> You may have trouble with this but a majority of rational people (winners) will not risk the disgrace associated with being caught doping for 15 minutes of glory.


So no winner of TdF between Big Mig and Sastre? That is new to me ....

And now you have added rationality to the definition of a winner ... Can you decide on a unique definition or will you keep adding new dimensions? Well, it does not matter, for your definition of a winner is not the definition used by the rest of the world. To the rest of the world, the winner is the first one across the line.
That is also why doping is so widespread not only cycling but in other sports as well. A point which you have just ignored.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Exciton said:


> Are you suggesting that a molecular marker was added to CERA?


I think you'll find that Ricco was caught on EPO (with a marker). 
Regarding the definition of "winner"--does your's simply list those who cross first and include those who are doping? If it does, you may be a little "different" than most (you may want to keep Floyd high on that list of winners). Also, if that is your definition, why are you concerned about illegal PEDs. 

Storing split samples under multiple (credible) jurisdictions for a few years while the marker program becomes more universal should help. The likelyhood of developing other detection methods is pretty high over the next few years as well and pro riders likely know it. 

QUOTE]


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> I think you'll find that Ricco was caught on EPO (with a marker).
> Regarding the definition of "winner"--does your's simply list those who cross first and include those who are doping? If it does, you may be a little "different" than most (you may want to keep Floyd high on that list of winners). Also, if that is your definition, why are you concerned about illegal PEDs.
> 
> Storing split samples under multiple (credible) jurisdictions for a few years while the marker program becomes more universal should help. The likelyhood of developing other detection methods is pretty high over the next few years as well and pro riders likely know it.
> ...


A "Marker" was not inserted into CERA and there is no, nor will there ever be, a "Marker Program"


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> A "Marker" was not inserted into CERA and there is no, nor will there ever be, a "Marker Program"


You're suggesting that Ricco was not caught with the marker program with EPO?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

bigpinkt said:


> A "Marker" was not inserted into CERA and there is no, nor will there ever be, a "Marker Program"


http://tour-de-france.velonews.com/article/80701/roche-no-marker-in-new-epo-drug


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> You may have trouble with this but a majority of rational people (winners) will not risk the disgrace associated with being caught doping for 15 minutes of glory..



Rational people? You think the majority of elite athletes are rational people? There have been many surveys done where they're asked if they would take a drug that would make them a champion but that would kill them in something like 5 or 10 years. A large majority said they would.



SwiftSolo said:


> I suspect that most of those who've been caught in complex doping schemes also abuse recreational drugs and alcohol.


A lot of elite athletes drink too much and take recreational drugs. Why wouldn't they? They're in a drug saturated culture. I think you have things backwards in your mind. You're injured so you get a shot wherever. You have pain so you take pills. You want to get stronger, faster, and have more endurance, guess what? You think it's a great leap to abuse recreational drugs?

Your naivete is both disconcerting and amusing.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

lookrider said:


> Rational people? You think the majority of elite athletes are rational people? There have been many surveys done where they're asked if they would take a drug that would make them a champion but that would kill them in something like 5 or 10 years. A large majority said they would.


Is that decision really irrational? Our culture has taught us to value quantity rather than quality of life (thanks to the health care and insurance industries most likely), but it sure doesn't seem to be something that is programmed in our dna. We are risk takers, by nature, and live in the here and now. I'm not surprised.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> Is that decision really irrational?


Yes, where there's life there's hope. Trading your life for some short lived fame is irrational to me. Especially when that fame is acheived by nefarious means.



pacificaslim said:


> Our culture has taught us to value quantity rather than quality of life (thanks to the health care and insurance industries most likely), but it sure doesn't seem to be something that is programmed in our dna.


A lot of people still go to church or classify themselves as spiritual. I'm a man. Despite what was said in Network, the whole point of my life is to go against the "primal forces of nature," and be led by a higher power, rather than be guided by the biological impulses of my machine. 



pacificaslim said:


> We are risk takers, by nature, and live in the here and now. I'm not surprised.


And immoral cheater by nature too?


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

lookrider said:


> A lot of people still go to church or classify themselves as spiritual. I'm a man. Despite what was said in Network, the whole point of my life is to go against the "primal forces of nature," and be led by a higher power, rather than be guided by the biological impulses of my machine.


And you were the one who brought up rationality? Surely belief in a higher power that is separate and apart from our biology is the most irrational belief of all. I'll stick with the science and a naturalistic world view. Feel free to follow your myths, but if that's really where you're coming form in all of this debate, we'll never agree so you might as well give it up.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> And you were the one who brought up rationality? Surely belief in a higher power that is separate and apart from our biology is the most irrational belief of all. I'll stick with the science and a naturalistic world view. Feel free to follow your myths, but if that's really where you're coming form in all of this debate, we'll never agree so you might as well give it up.


I knew what I wrote would get me in trouble, and I agree with some of your points. I agree that it's the most irrational belief of all, *BUT,* it separates us from the rat, the weasel and the snake.:wink: :wink: :yikes:  :wink: :wink: :ciappa: :ciappa: :ciappa: 

OTOH, the more you know, the less irrational it is. I'm not saying any more because I'm writing something about that very point. It's kind of obvious though anyway, if you know about religion.

We may never agree, but I'm not giving up either.

I guess, on a certain level, survival of the fittest makes sense, and morals are entirely subjective.

I'll be a human and choose to use my *GOD given talents,* and agree with those who believe similiarly, while you fight over the bones with the other dogs and enhance yourself as you deem necessary.:lol: :lol: :lol: :yesnod:


----------

