All of the recent revelations as well as the obvious "Performance gains" over the last 15 years or so got me thinking about an alternative to the current doping & testing mess we've been in. It's all too obvious that the dopers have continually found ways to stay ahead of the testers, the testing bodies have been incredibly frustrated, the public has gotten jaded to the point where all the conversation is about the enhancements and none about the racing itself.

In addition, it seems it's going to get worse as we enter the dawn of genetic engineering.

So what if, instead of making enhancements illegal, why not put maximum hard ceiling on certain easily measured attributes. For instance, if your hemocrit level exceeds x% you can't race for x period of time.....no exceptions. (Kind of like a govoner on the throttles in Nascar). I'm sure there are a limited number of easily measurable attributes that are key indicators of performance capability....name them, set hard limits, and get out of the chase the latest drug hamster treadmill.

The advantages, as I see them, would be:

1.) Easy to monitor
2.) Transparent to administer
3.) Racers that train the hardest and are mentally the toughest would still win.
4.) Motivation to find a chemical solution would drop...you only need to get to the limit.
5.) Easier for the medical community to keep the riders safe.
6.) Puts the focus back on the racing
7.) Acknowledges that what we ask these guys to do over a year is extreme.
8.) Prepares for genetic manipulation by keying on the drivers to perfomrmance (sorta like horespower limits).

Think about the tour Riss won...it was incredibly entertaining (which BTW is what this is all about)....even though it turned out they all were doping.

I think it's time to change the focus from pretending that only a few dope and that all efforts are being taken to catch them to limiting the benefits of the doping.

What say you?

Len

If doping were legal, it wouldn't be a fair competition amongst the best riders. It would be a competition of who has the best doctors and who has the best drugs. The Tour de France would be decided between the Pharmaceutical companies.

I agree and put most of my thoughts on the subject in this thread: http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=95742

If doping were legal, it wouldn't be a fair competition amongst the best riders. It would be a competition of who has the best doctors and who has the best drugs. The Tour de France would be decided between the Pharmaceutical companies.

If you allowed doping, but did not allow competitors to exceed certain measurable characteristics (a la Hemocrit), you would be leveling the playing field and stoping the pharmacutical domination that we (Obviously) have had since 1990.

Measure the results of doping not for the specific methods.

Len

You've neglected the most basic reason why doping shouldn't be legal: guys like Fuentes don't give a crap about riders' health. They can say what they are providing is as safe as OJ, but it's pretty clear these guys were hopped up on a wicked cocktail of drugs, including hormonal replacement ones Fuentes as a gyno prescribed for women. All bets are off re what long-term abuse of these will result in, what interactions may be among them etc. Diabetes, cancer, who knows? It's not right that a kid who wants to race has to decide between doing well and a long, healthy life. Look at football for how guys on roids age.

You've neglected the most basic reason why doping shouldn't be legal: guys like Fuentes don't give a crap about riders' health. They can say what they are providing is as safe as OJ, but it's pretty clear these guys were hopped up on a wicked cocktail of drugs, including hormonal replacement ones Fuentes as a gyno prescribed for women. All bets are off re what long-term abuse of these will result in, what interactions may be among them etc. Diabetes, cancer, who knows? It's not right that a kid who wants to race has to decide between doing well and a long, healthy life. Look at football for how guys on roids age.


Who honestly cares? They already do it not knowing the long term consequences.

What's different about riders doping when compared to the people that:


Smoke? They know it's going to shorten their life and kill them.
Over eat? They know they are shortening their life and limiting their ability to do anything.
Do Recreational Drugs? They know they are not good for them, addictive and will kill them
Drink too much? The know eventually it will kill them and if the drive while drunk can not only kill themselves but others.


The simple fact is life is all about choices and it's the ones you make that dictate your life. If you want to be a top level pro in any sport the likelihood that you will have to use PED's is very high assuming you want to continue to compete at the pro level....Regardless of sport.

Making them legal in competition in reality levels the playing field because they all have maximums of which they can achieve, and the PED's can bring everybody to the same level in the pro ranks. This makes the winner the one that is the most determined, handles pain the best, etc.

It doesn't effect the amateur levels because the rules are different from amateur's to pro's in pretty much every sport. You enforce the "NO DRUGS" at the amateur level. Those that rise to the top of the amateur level have the option of going to the pro level, where it will be expected that they use PED's. If they don't want to, then they don't sign with a team and stay an amateur their whole life. It's a choice and a price they pay for not wanting to do PED's. As it stands now, at the pro level, if you're not using PED's you're not going to stay there very long, if make it at all.

In my experience, from multiple message boards online and discussion with team colleagues, I draw the conclusion that cycling fans who compete themselves are the ones who most strongly oppose to liberalizing doping.

Hobby riders "live in the future." A huge part of their competing motivation resides in wishful thinking. They tell themselves that they can be good by only increasing the effort, and usually have a very little analytic approach to what talent is. Talent is a lot less visible on a bike, than when playing basketball where you can compare heights.

Seeing as Hobby Bobby has these dreams of riding in the pro rank, but simultaneously has no wish to stuff his body with potentially harmful substances, he has no choice but opposing doping.

I don't see no reason to belittle Hobby Bobby for this, he needs his drive in order to compete, and he needs competition as a motivation to train. Because Hobby Bobby keeps imagining himself as a pro, and the world is full of Hobby Bobbies, there is a lot of resistance towards doping.

As a matter of fact, the best thing would just be if people kept on doping, but somehow could avoid getting exposed by the coppers. Everybody would be happy, Bobby would still have a push to compete, and the Pros would keep on injecting every potential performance enhancer there is, without anybody noticing. Youngsters won't find out till they turn pro, so kiddos won't be susceptible to the same pressure to dope, they will just quit when they realize how much they suck. Hopefully keep on exercising though.

If you allowed doping, but did not allow competitors to exceed certain measurable characteristics (a la Hemocrit), you would be leveling the playing field and stoping the pharmacutical domination that we (Obviously) have had since 1990.

Measure the results of doping not for the specific methods.

Len


I don't understand what you mean here. Legalizing EPO doesn't level the playing field at all, in my opinion. All you do then, is make the Tour de France race into a race of which team has access to the best drugs and best Pharmaceutical support. I liken it to Formula One, where the races are now determined on who has the best equipment, not necessarily the best drivers.

the top of the amateur level have the option of going to the pro level, where it will be expected that they use PED's. If they don't want to, then they don't sign with a team and stay an amateur their whole life. It's a choice and a price they pay for not wanting to do PED's.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

"If you don't wanna risk you life and long term health then tough luck buddy, this is entertainment son, get with the program!" "And kids, parents, are you listening? Keep it in mind coz if you don't wanna be hopped up and breathing fire to do what you love, you're gona be a loooooser all your life!"

Think to the end about what you are saying.

I don't understand what you mean here. Legalizing EPO doesn't level the playing field at all, in my opinion. All you do then, is make the Tour de France race into a race of which team has access to the best drugs and best Pharmaceutical support. I liken it to Formula One, where the races are now determined on who has the best equipment, not necessarily the best drivers.

I want to level the playing feild.

Let's say that hemocrit is a good measure that defines cycling performance (I know, I'm simplifying for the sake of explanation)......if you set an absolute upper limit of say 50% & measures and tested to that level repeatedly. (Simple measurement, irrefutable) teams & cyclists would only be motivated to obtain methoods that would get them to that level......there would be no incentive to get above it (Too easy to get caught). Everyone (or a large majority), would go into a race with fairly equal levels.....How does that make the field uneven?

IMO, The Pharma arms race would stop.

Maybe you define 3 to 5 measurable performance parameters......Anyone over these limits can't race...period. It would be like horsepower limitations in car racing.

What else you are missing is that what you are afraid of already exists......the team with the best doctors is already winning....I'm trying to propose something that changes that.

Len

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

"If you don't wanna risk you life and long term health then tough luck buddy, this is entertainment son, get with the program!" "And kids, parents, are you listening? Keep it in mind coz if you don't wanna be hopped up and breathing fire to do what you love, you're gona be a loooooser all your life!"

Think to the end about what you are saying.

Can't you see that the pro ranks are already riddled with doping?.....it's the only way these guys do what they do.

Your assumption that bringing it out in the open would make it worse is laughable.

len

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

"If you don't wanna risk you life and long term health then tough luck buddy, this is entertainment son, get with the program!" "And kids, parents, are you listening? Keep it in mind coz if you don't wanna be hopped up and breathing fire to do what you love, you're gona be a loooooser all your life!"

Think to the end about what you are saying.

Well, that is pretty much the way it already is, no matter what you think is stupid, Mr. Hurryup.

If you allowed doping, but did not allow competitors to exceed certain measurable characteristics (a la Hemocrit), you would be leveling the playing field ....
That about sums up our current situation. Doping IS in a strange way legal, so long as you don't exceed certain measurable characteristics.

Make doping legal and I will be done with this sport, never watch it again.

Cycling with be nothing but shallow entertainment.

Maybe you are happy for it to be reduced to that?

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

"If you don't wanna risk you life and long term health then tough luck buddy, this is entertainment son, get with the program!" "And kids, parents, are you listening? Keep it in mind coz if you don't wanna be hopped up and breathing fire to do what you love, you're gona be a loooooser all your life!"

Think to the end about what you are saying.


As others have mentioned.....It already happens that way, it's just not discussed publicly. If you are on a team, any team and doing OK without taking PED's the coaches are going to suggest you step up to help the team. Many times the athletes don't even bother asking what's going in them, the doctors just tell them it will make them recover faster, get up the hills faster, etc.

If a rider isn't willing to do that, then they are not benefiting the team and they are dropped, until they either give up or give in.

You are correct though...It is entertainment and there is a lot of money in entertainment. That leads to competition, which leads to PED's and stardom. But generally with stardom comes the crash when all the back door secrets come out.

All we are saying it make it legal to a point. It's the riders choice then and they can decide what they want to do.

Those that claim if PED's are made legal they won't ever watch the sport again....Why watch it now? We already know teams have organized doping systems in place for the entire team. What are you going to watch? Football....LOL. How about Baseball....LOL. Hockey....Same thing. Soccer....Can you say EPO? Track and field....Same thing. Auto racing....Crew cheifs get caught all the time cheating.

Name a sport and there are cheaters all over the place. Name a team sport and there will be organized PED programs for teams. Why bother watching sports at all? Because we as fans like to see amazing superhuman performances, which is what we get when PED's are involved/allowed.

As others have mentioned.....It already happens that way, it's just not discussed publicly. If you are on a team, any team and doing OK without taking PED's the coaches are going to suggest you step up to help the team. Many times the athletes don't even bother asking what's going in them, the doctors just tell them it will make them recover faster, get up the hills faster, etc.

If a rider isn't willing to do that, then they are not benefiting the team and they are dropped, until they either give up or give in.

You are correct though...It is entertainment and there is a lot of money in entertainment. That leads to competition, which leads to PED's and stardom. But generally with stardom comes the crash when all the back door secrets come out.

All we are saying it make it legal to a point. It's the riders choice then and they can decide what they want to do.

Those that claim if PED's are made legal they won't ever watch the sport again....Why watch it now? We already know teams have organized doping systems in place for the entire team. What are you going to watch? Football....LOL. How about Baseball....LOL. Hockey....Same thing. Soccer....Can you say EPO? Track and field....Same thing. Auto racing....Crew cheifs get caught all the time cheating.

Name a sport and there are cheaters all over the place. Name a team sport and there will be organized PED programs for teams. Why bother watching sports at all? Because we as fans like to see amazing superhuman performances, which is what we get when PED's are involved/allowed.

WWF is entertainment. I do not want cycling to be like that.

If any time in the future I have a kid and he/she wants to get into cycling, I do not want his/her future to be one of injecting god knows what. No way! What kind of example is that to kids; you are not going to be good enough unless you do a deal with Mephistopheles we are telling them?

Good luck in establishing your future pharmaceutical utopia . I hope you choke on an asprin.

I still don't get why you think legalizing EPO would make things more "fair". In my estimation, it makes things even more unfair. Sure, you can control parameters such as hematocrit and the other variables like you say, but even then you still can't control what substances an athlete takes.

Should we rename the Tour de France to be the Tour de Drugs? Because that is what you are suggesting. Forget about the athletes. This race is about who has the best drugs. In 1999 or 2000, Armstrong was tested positive for Actovegin, which was then so new of a drug it wasn't even on the banned substances list. What you are suggesting is that we make the race into who can get the newest, best drugs.

You've neglected the most basic reason why doping shouldn't be legal: guys like Fuentes don't give a crap about riders' health. They can say what they are providing is as safe as OJ, but it's pretty clear these guys were hopped up on a wicked cocktail of drugs, including hormonal replacement ones Fuentes as a gyno prescribed for women. All bets are off re what long-term abuse of these will result in, what interactions may be among them etc. Diabetes, cancer, who knows? It's not right that a kid who wants to race has to decide between doing well and a long, healthy life. Look at football for how guys on roids age.


If legal then the riders can exercise free will and seek consult from doctors who do. What children do to their bodies is a concern and fortunately they have parents who are responsible for their well being. Adults who choose to harm themselves are of no particular concern of mine. If they choose to not take the risk and not ride as professionals that's just fine... and again, none of my business.

Make doping legal and I will be done with this sport, never watch it again.

Cycling with be nothing but shallow entertainment.

Maybe you are happy for it to be reduced to that?

is that, & has been for at least 17 years, if not lnoger.

Len

That about sums up our current situation. Doping IS in a strange way legal, so long as you don't exceed certain measurable characteristics.

Yes! That is precisely how it is now. IMO the sport would benefit greatly by simply admitting that doping is widely done and cannot be stopped, and make the positive test the *only* violation, with suspensions much reduced. No more big court battles or headlines. You get DQ'd and suspended for a month or two.

BTW I think a lot of you are way overestimating the benefit that this stuff has. A few percent in max power or recovery is extremely important to a top pro... that is why they *must* dope to be competitive... but it isn't going to turn a domestic into a champion. The playing field will be basically level, since everyone will have access to the same methods.

By making the test the only standard, it effectively keeps Wada and the UCI and the press from worrying about what's in your hotel room or your doctor's office. We also need to stop ruining these guy's careers just because they got caught doing something that everyone else is doing. Let's admit the obvious, and get on with the racing...

In 1999 or 2000, Armstrong was tested positive for Actovegin, which was then so new of a drug it wasn't even on the banned substances list. What you are suggesting is that we make the race into who can get the newest, best drugs.

So Armstrong won all those Tours because he always had better drugs than anyone else? I very much doubt it. He had the attitude and drive that no one else had. He deserved those wins, doping or not.

All of the recent revelations as well as the obvious "Performance gains" over the last 15 years or so got me thinking about an alternative to the current doping & testing mess we've been in. It's all too obvious that the dopers have continually found ways to stay ahead of the testers, the testing bodies have been incredibly frustrated, the public has gotten jaded to the point where all the conversation is about the enhancements and none about the racing itself.

In addition, it seems it's going to get worse as we enter the dawn of genetic engineering.

So what if, instead of making enhancements illegal, why not put maximum hard ceiling on certain easily measured attributes. For instance, if your hemocrit level exceeds x% you can't race for x period of time.....no exceptions. (Kind of like a govoner on the throttles in Nascar). I'm sure there are a limited number of easily measurable attributes that are key indicators of performance capability....name them, set hard limits, and get out of the chase the latest drug hamster treadmill.

The advantages, as I see them, would be:

1.) Easy to monitor
2.) Transparent to administer
3.) Racers that train the hardest and are mentally the toughest would still win.
4.) Motivation to find a chemical solution would drop...you only need to get to the limit.
5.) Easier for the medical community to keep the riders safe.
6.) Puts the focus back on the racing
7.) Acknowledges that what we ask these guys to do over a year is extreme.
8.) Prepares for genetic manipulation by keying on the drivers to perfomrmance (sorta like horespower limits).

Think about the tour Riss won...it was incredibly entertaining (which BTW is what this is all about)....even though it turned out they all were doping.

I think it's time to change the focus from pretending that only a few dope and that all efforts are being taken to catch them to limiting the benefits of the doping.

What say you?

Len
Wouldn't this plan just shift the focus to drugs that can't be monitored? Who knows what the riders would be doing to get an advantage. Sounds like more of the same...

...the truly gifted endurance athlete that doesn't want to risk his health by injecting all kinds of drugs but wants to compete on a level playing field? I mean a rare physical specimism with a VO2 max of 95 that puts him in the rarified air of championship caliber. But he doesn't want to have to use pharmacuticels(sp?). He's just SOL? So sports then become about being willing to risk your health through drug usage just to compete? And it would do nothing to stop the 'drug arms race' with everyone looking for the next better chemical.
Sports, at their most basic level, are about training and tuning and honing a HEALTHY body to preform and compete. Athletic activity is supposed to be a phycically healthy endeavor.
I cannot support legalizing drug usage to improve performance in any form. Even if, as many people think, it can't be stopped.

And there was a champion cyclist with a VO2 max of 95 that had his career abruptly ended when parts of the peloton around him 'went EPO'. We're all cheated when doping enters any sport. Can we stop it? I have my doubts. But should we bother to try. IMO hell YES!

Can we stop it? I have my doubts. But should we bother to try. IMO hell YES!

Grant me the strength to change the things I can, accept the things I can't, and the wisdom to know the difference...

None of us *want* doping in cycling... and neither do the riders who *are* doping. But the only way to stop it is to have draconian laws that will *scare* a good number of the riders into riding clean... but then the "cheaters" will have an even greater advantage! We have to do something else if we want the sport to survive.

WWF is entertainment. I do not want cycling to be like that.

If any time in the future I have a kid and he/she wants to get into cycling, I do not want his/her future to be one of injecting god knows what. No way! What kind of example is that to kids; you are not going to be good enough unless you do a deal with Mephistopheles we are telling them?

Good luck in establishing your future pharmaceutical utopia . I hope you choke on an asprin.

All sports are entertainment, regardless of whether the outcome is predetermined or not.

If you don't want your kids to be injecting God knows what, then I would steer them away from sports at the competitive level and that includes all sports. People seem to think Cycling is the only sport with a problem....It's all sports.

Sports as fitness is a great way for a family to do things together, but on a competitive scale you will always have cheaters.

Heck I remember back to little league football and there was at least one individual that was already using steroids at the age of 12. His father saw a pro future for his kid and wanted to make sure he had all the advantages possible. Let me tell you, at 12, the kid was a monster. Unfortunately he only reached about 5' 8" tall and never got much better than he was at 12 because he had already screwed up his body.

I'll make sure to think of you when I'm choking on my asprin :thumbsup:

Wouldn't this plan just shift the focus to drugs that can't be monitored? Who knows what the riders would be doing to get an advantage. Sounds like more of the same...

what I'm thinking is, instead of trying to monitor the method, monitor the result.

Power at LT above a certain level for a certain period of time.....illegal
Hemocrit above a certain level......illegal
etc, etc.

Basicially, everyone would (conceivably start with similar "Engines" and desire and work ethic, tactics and mental fortitude and teamwork would win....

May be a pipe dream, but if you think we have a problem now, wait until genetic engineering....something different has to be tried.

Len

I cannot support legalizing drug usage to improve performance in any form. Even if, as many people think, it can't be stopped.

And there was a champion cyclist with a VO2 max of 95 that had his career abruptly ended when parts of the peloton around him 'went EPO'. We're all cheated when doping enters any sport. Can we stop it? I have my doubts. But should we bother to try. IMO hell YES!

And while "we" try, the sport is still dirty, your champion cyclist example is at a disadvantage nevertheless, and the ones losing out are the honest and the ones lacking contacts. When have "we" tried enough, then?

Wouldn't this plan just shift the focus to drugs that can't be monitored? Who knows what the riders would be doing to get an advantage. Sounds like more of the same...

Yes, it would, but these drugs are nowhere nearly as powerful as tampering the hematocrit. The hkt can easily be controlled at a level which is more responsible as regards the health.

Most drugs used while preparing for competition would still be used, but in-competition drugs could still be controlled, like amphetamines. Or not, just let's have a free-for-all.

what I'm thinking is, instead of trying to monitor the method, monitor the result.

Power at LT above a certain level for a certain period of time.....illegal
Hemocrit above a certain level......illegal
etc, etc.

Basicially, everyone would (conceivably start with similar "Engines" and desire and work ethic, tactics and mental fortitude and teamwork would win....

May be a pipe dream, but if you think we have a problem now, wait until genetic engineering....something different has to be tried.

Len

What you are suggesting is akin to IROC....where everyone is using the same car/engine etc. I think everyone is forgetting about Jesus Manzano, the Kelme rider, that broke the story about organized doping. Nobody seems to be listening. He offered real world suggestions to help stop doping but everyone labelled the guy a heretic and called him a lier. Its all about the bottom line and thats money. Look at the war between the UCI and ASO right now. Those guys don't care about the riders.

Every time I hear the suggestion of legalizing drug use as a way to clean up the sport it makes me want to puke. This is a short sighted view without any real thought behind it. The long term effects of using this stuff has been well documented and its bad.

"Legalized cheating" is not the solution. An athlete that is naturally gifted will not get the same benefit as an inferior athlete. Peformance enhancing drugs only help an athlete that is lacking in that particular area. As human beings we are individually different. Some people are so much more naturally gifted that there is no comparison. Its been documented that there are individuals with naturally high hematocrits or high levels of testosterone.

So what do you in that case? Because they naturally exceed your set of parameters, do you give them drugs to make them less gifted??? Exclude them from racing completely?? Get real....winning in sports should always be about the athlete that rises to the occasion through natural ability, training and determination.

Power at LT above a certain level for a certain period of time.....illegal

Those kind of rules will not work... even if you could prevent people from going easy during the test. You can't make good performance illegal.

I think everyone is forgetting about Jesus Manzano, the Kelme rider, that broke the story about organized doping. Nobody seems to be listening. He offered real world suggestions to help stop doping

Please tell us.

"Legalized cheating" is not the solution.

I think you are missing the point... my point anyway. The riders really have no choice but to dope if they want to win or in some cases just be competitive... and the reason is that testing is incapable of keeping dope out of the peleton. Yes, maybe Superman can stay clean and still win, and good for him.

So what possible method do you propose to eliminate doping? I can't imagine anything that would work. Some of us are being practical and offering ideas given the state of reality... not some fantasy wish. Unless you can offer an alternate that passes the logic test, it isn't helpful to keep wishing that the drugs would just go away. We all wish that.

The riders really have no choice but to dope if they want to win or in some cases just be competitive... and the reason is that testing is incapable of keeping dope out of the peleton. Yes, maybe Superman can stay clean and still win, and good for him.

So what possible method do you propose to eliminate doping? I can't imagine anything that would work. Some of us are being practical and offering ideas given the state of reality... not some fantasy wish. Unless you can offer an alternate that passes the logic test, it isn't helpful to keep wishing that the drugs would just go away. We all wish that.


I disagree wholeheartedly. Although testing methods aim to make the race fair be eliminating EPO use, what you are suggesting by legalizing EPO is to make the race even more unfair. This, in no way, levels the playing field. It makes it more unlevel.

Do you want the Tour de France to be decided by those who have access to the best and newest drugs? Those teams and star athletes with the biggest budgets have access to the best doctors and newest drugs. You eventually have a situation where you have the winner is the athlete with the most money. Rich get richer, poor get poorer.
:frown2:

Legalised doping will kill cycling mark my words.

It will be nothing but a full blown freak show.

I dread to think to what extremes drug users will go......if there is any money or fame left in the sport to win?

what you are suggesting by legalizing EPO is to make the race even more unfair. This, in no way, levels the playing field. It makes it more unlevel.

The 50% hematocrit rule will stay in place, plus any tests they may come up with in the future to detect EPO, and if a rider has detectable EPO in their system, they will be suspended.

So what is the problem?

Do you want the Tour de France to be decided by those who have access to the best and newest drugs?

Of course not... *nobody* wants that! Why does everyone seem to think I'm pro doping? I just want to save the sport! Are my posts really that hard to understand? I feel like I'm in the twilight zone...

So, what you want is for the sports governing bodies to legalize EPO and legitimize cycling kind of like how bodybuilding is a legitimate sport. You want to make cycling into a fair and legitimate free-for-all steroid freak show where any any decent athlete can make up for his lack of talent, by doping. Right?

Why would you bother with setting any legal hematocrit levels at all if you are going to make EPO legal? Are you trying to make dosing safe or something? And don't you think you should be a doctor if you were going to be making these widesweeping generalizations on EPO safety?

Why would you bother with setting any legal hematocrit levels at all if you are going to make EPO legal? Are you trying to make dosing safe or something? And don't you think you should be a doctor if you were going to be making these widesweeping generalizations on EPO safety?

Exactly, cycling becomes a sport where the guy who wins is the one who is willing to take the most risks with their life/health, by taking the most EPO (or whatever) in potentially more and more high doses. From this perspective it becomes a competition in recklessness.

Better to try and tackle the doping problem. This is a worthy exercise even if we can only mitigate the level and prevalance of doping and stop this great sport from becoming a freak show.

I am done with this thread now.

Exactly, cycling becomes a sport where the guy who wins is the one who is willing to take the most risks with their life/health, by taking the most EPO (or whatever) in potentially more and more high doses. From this perspective it becomes a competition in recklessness.

Better to try and tackle the doping problem. This is a worthy exercise even if we can only mitigate the level and prevalance of doping and stop this great sport from becoming a freak show.

I am done with this thread now.

if you can't see that, you need to open your eyes. 40 years of attempted doping controls has got us where we are today.......absolutly no control.

It can't beany worse than it is today, and it has the chance (which current methods don't) of making it better....or at least safer for the athletes.

Get you head out of the sand.
len

Legalizing drug use in cycling will never happen. There is a perception that the majority of the public believe most athletes are clean. This perception will need to be maintained to attract sponsorship from Corporations. The first item to be pulled when a rider is publicly perceived as doping...sponsorship is pulled. Why is it pulled? Because a corporation wants to maintain an image that they only support what the public majority wants and that is "clean" sports. Or at least to have athletes that don't get caught but will still be a billboard for their advertising dept. Now, if the majority of the public showed support for doping, then a corporation would might look at showing support of a publicly known "doper".

Cheers,
Mike

It can't beany worse than it is today, and it has the chance (which current methods don't) of making it better....or at least safer for the athletes.

That you are contradicting yourself and do not know it is interesting.

You say cheats will always find a way to beat the system, ergo rules cannot be made because they will always be broken, now you talk about controlling doping to make it safer, when your own logic dictates that athletes will always break rules. No way will it be safer, someone is always going to push the risk a little higher, and you are endorsing this reckless behavior! Shameful!


Get you head out of the sand.
len

Better to try and fail than to not try at all, and do something for the most negative and fear driven reasons; becasue we cannot stop it!

End of discussion.

That you are contradicting yourself and do not know it is interesting.

You say cheats will always find a way to beat the system, ergo rules cannot be made because they will always be broken, now you talk about controlling doping to make it safer, when your own logic dictates that athletes will always break rules. No way will it be safer, someone is always going to push the risk a little higher, and you are endorsing this reckless behavior! Shameful!



Better to try and fail than to not try at all, and do something for the most negative and fear driven reasons; becasue we cannot stop it!

End of discussion.

My point has been and remains consistant.

Dopers have consistantly demonstrated their ability to stay ahead of the tests....look at the puerto outcomes and compare them to the testing results of the same athletes if you don't believe me. Consequently, let's stop trying to test the methods and rather test the results. It's easier, it's more foolproof, and it acts to keep the athletes safer. The only one's benefiting from the current system are the teams.

If you don't get this...too bad. What's shameful is doing the same thing over and over again & expecting a different result. The fact remains that very few cheaters are currently caught by drug testing. But go ahead and believe we are doing the right thing.


You have to get out of the clouds and come on into the real world...drug testing ain't working, hasn't worked, and as long as this is a big money sport it will never work....but if we test tangible results of doping we have a chance.

Len

We are in the twilight zone, Len. No matter how many ways we try to explain it, people perceive nearly the opposite of what we write. It is surreal for sure.

We are in the twilight zone, Len. No matter how many ways we try to explain it, people perceive nearly the opposite of what we write. It is surreal for sure.


I agree with you both.....I don't think of any cyclists in the pro peloton as "clean". I have for the last year at least always thought that the winner of any event was simply the best doper. It doesn't lessen their accomplishment because everyone else is doping too. And for who ever mentioned it as entertainment...it already is...I look at pro cycling as entertaining...exactly akin to the WWF...just without all the butt grabbing. I say screw it, let em do whatever the hell they want. They're adults.

We are in the twilight zone, Len. No matter how many ways we try to explain it, people perceive nearly the opposite of what we write. It is surreal for sure.
That's how most of these threads go. Few people seem to read and comprehend. They also tend to 'respond' when they should really be making their own new point. If you want to really see this in action, join a PO thread and either 1) offer policy suggestions, or 2) argue for compromise or common ground.

I have for the last year at least always thought that the winner of any event was simply the best doper. It doesn't lessen their accomplishment because everyone else is doping too.



That's the doper's excuse. The excuse that I can win and it is fair that I use EPO because so does everybody else. Umm, no it isn't fair. It most certainly isn't. 1) Not everyone dopes. Maybe all the top guys, but not everyone. 2) Hypothetically, even if (for sake of argument), that everyone DID dope, then the doper's excuse still doesn't hold water. Some athletes benefit more from EPO use than others.

Performance = Ability + EPO

If ability is talent + hard work, who is to say that just because 2 riders of equal ability take the same amount of EPO, that they will be equal in performance after all is said and done? Some athletes benefit more from EPO dosing then others.

and it acts to keep the athletes safer.

Prove it.

I agree with Len and rruff. Athletes who have enough money will always find better drugs and stay ahead of the tests. If we just keep the parameters in place, I believe it won't matter as much.

Hello, the tour de france is already won by the team with the best doping program.

If you legalize doping, the majority of the sponsors will drop out and the sport will be done.

If you want to test absolute levels of hemocrit or whatever, then the dopers and scientists will just focus on ways to mask those levels.

There's no easy solution to this. We're talking about people having the privilege to ride bikes for a living. Who can blame them for doing everything they can to sustain their livelihoods?

Maybe the best we can hope for is that all the crap coming out in the past year will shame/scare the majority of the riders into cleaning up and self-governing.

Doping should be illegal. Why? These guys should struggle, sweat and suffer during these races because they are human. When these guys climb mountain passes without even breaking a sweat it makes them seem inhuman. Mechanical. Robot-like.

The attraction to this sport is to see these guys suffer and then overcome the pain through sheer courage and determination. We all know the pain. We've all suffered yoyo-ing off the back of a group, finally getting dropped. It's important to me to know that they feel the same pain I do and that they have it in them to ride through it.

Clean racing keeps this sport human. For me it takes the soul out of the sport to watch a bunch of junked up automatons crank their way up a mountain pass.