Doping

I've always thought the idea of 2 Olympics/Tours/whatevers, a clean one and a dirty one would be awesome. It would let athletes try and get the best drug cocktail for their physiology and my god, it would be awesome (plus slightly disgusting) to watch. Bring it on.

Actually, how far do we have to go down the GC to find a non-doper?

You won't find one. I wasn't riding this time.

So is this why everybody's leaving Riis' team? Was the news of Contador's positive already going round on the grapevine? It's just been puzzling me a bit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdPOn0HmdQ&ob=av2e

So thats how all of the Belgians have done so well!

Yeah, seems harsh. They should just dock him 40 seconds.

Yeah, but then He wouldn't have -

Oooooohhh right I getcha.

leave the poor junkies alone and enjoy the show. legalise doping and stop wasting time... there has always been and will always be doping and more money can only make it worse. the pharmaceutical industry could offer great sponsorship.

are we talking moral stances or bodily harm? in terms of morality, riding an hour record in mexico is a form of doping, as is riding a cardboard bike, or sleeping and eating properly... in terms of bodily harm, blood doping can't be compared to taking steroids (does that make it more acceptable?). the most immoral cheating is wheel sucking and that's one of the fundamentals of bike racing. the problem isn't the doping, the problem is the inhuman racing/training calendar.

Hmmm…

You're being very polite BMMF.

I'd say that was 100% bullshit.

Yep, must be a doper. I've not heard such claptrap for a long time, even on this forum, which is full of it.

, the problem is the inhuman racing/training calendar.

according to Fignon's book, races have got significantly shorter since his day, and no longer offer a natural selection process by endurance, meaning that more riders are able to be there by the end..

Well, I thought that maybe somewhere in that confused rant was a point that I made ages ago, about dope being technology, and the nebulous distinctions that are made between differing forms of performance-enhancing 'science'. I understand the concerns over riders' health and well-being in regards to in vivo technology, although I still think that if the UCI tolerated all drugs/physiological 'strategies', but made up as many stringent rules governing the use of them as they did about saddle setback and tube profiles, it *could *work.

But then there will always be people who will risk their health and lives just to win a bike race, if the podium consists of the three bravest drug experimenters then it's a sad day.

You can find those people down the clubs you used to frequent on any Saturday night.

There is a difference between drinking and smoking, though. One can be done safely even though it has the potential for harm, one is always harmful when used as directed. One of the rationales of anti-doping is that drugs are potentially harmful even when used properly, and it is unreasonable to expect every participant to expose themselves to such potential harm just to be on a level playing field. Therefore, even a toleration of 'safe' PEDs would necessarily be accompanied by a prohibition on unsafe ones, or unsafe dosing regimes of those which are considered safe at some level, so the testing regime would still need to be just as extensive (and expensive) as it is now, just with different lists and thresholds, and people would still cheat, still get caught, and we'd still be waiting to find out who really won this year's Tour.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/34-arrested-in-spanish-clenbuterol-investigation

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-opts-not-to-ride-oviedo-criterium

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/34-arrested-in-spanish-clenbuterol-investigation

Anybody else find it particularly convenient that El Plod chose now to make arrests in what has been a long term investigation?

But there's still the possibility of an *anything goe*s 'league', for those who are driven to do whatever it takes to go faster, longer, harder...

But there's still the possibility of an *anything goe*s 'league'

Well, there is the issue of criminal law restricting the misuse of drugs in most countries, but aside from that there is nothing to stop somebody from setting up such a league right now - just put up some money, organise some races and publicise the fact that they are run under different rules from the UCI circus. I can't see many people taking it up, but I don't object if some entrepreneur proves me wrong.

It should be sponsored by the pharmaceutical companies :)

Yes, because they are not in enough trouble already over encouraging off-licence prescriptions.

Ricco has signed up to be coached by Sassi....

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ricco-confirms-collaboration-with-sassi-for-2011

American marathon runner banned for EPO doping confesses after 6 years of denials and reveals culture of doping in distance running, motivated by guilt to come clean.

Bio Passport catches Igor Astarloa and UCI belatedly gives out 2 year ban and e35000 fine

Hadn't won since 2004 and is still cheating in 2009? If he can't win by cheating then how much better is Fabian clean???

http://supersport.com/cycling/international/news/101201/Astarloa_banned_for_two_years_fined_for_doping

maybe he's just a bit shit

Just watched the Inside Sport piece about Marion Jones. Feel no better about Sport.

Armstrong about to crack.

recent comments:

"I won the Tour de France seven times and I think I won it because we changed the way people in cycling do business. And I'm not going to dance around the fact there has been plenty of questions about that."