[hanp]

See the above question.

[jjbrr]

definitely.

[Aberlour10]

Most of the top profs were dopped. How could Lance beat them all in the french mountains so many times if he would be clean?. Such natural supermen are possible, but only in Hollywood movies, not in the real life.

[hrothgar]

Aberlour10, on Jul 8 2010, 06:04 PM, said:

Most of the top profs were dopped. How could Lance beat them all in the french mountains so many times if he would be clean?. Such natural supermen are possible, but only in Hollywood movies, not in the real life.

Agreed


(Even if we assume dopping, its still a remarkable performance)

[Hanoi5]

I don't know much about the subject but if it is true then cycling as a sport is a joke.

[kfay]

Aberlour10, on Jul 8 2010, 10:04 AM, said:

Most of the top profs were dopped. How could Lance beat them all in the french mountains so many times if he would be clean?. Such natural supermen are possible, but only in Hollywood movies, not in the real life.

This is obvious

[hotShot]

Doping is a common practice in most sports (esp. professional sports),

Athletics, Cycling, ...., Soccer and "name your favorite sport here"

Dominating a sport where most of your competitors where proved to be doping, raises suspicion.

[Codo]

Is the pope a catholic?

Of course he used dope.

One problem is: Sometimes it is legal to use doping:

If you suffer from Asthma, you are allowed to take some lung medicin which makes it easy to breath. Funnily 70 % of all cycling profs suffer from asthma.
Honi soit qui mal y pense...

If you had been in trouble with a big disease, (Cancer f.e.) you may be allowed to use some medication which helps against pain. Luckily these medicine may well improve other parts of your body too. At least these products help you to survive the big pain you have whil practicing cycling or while climbing the Alpes.

So this is legal doping and of course they all use at least these products if possible.

And of course there is more to it. I stopped watching cycling after I realized how much doping is involved and that "our" heros (Ulrich and Zabel) doped.

[Hanoi5]

Quote

I stopped watching cycling after I realized how much doping is involved and that "our" heros (Ulrich and Zabel) doped.

But how did you realize that!? So, do some bridge players get Ritalin prescriptions from their shrinks in order to fare better? Or is it worse than that?

[mike777]

This type of topic comes up all the time.


I dont get what is so wrong with taking chemicals to improve.

I think people forget, foods are just chemicals...water is just chemical.


If the stuff is bad or does not work then that is an argument for better chemicals not zero.

If you say we are dependent on chemicals, well we are.


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


Asprin improves performance so ban that?
Are you going to ban all vitamins or just some that may really work and not kill you?
---------------


Perhaps the easiest way to stop cheating is to makeit legal.

It aint cheating if it is legal.

[MickyB]

If he was, it makes his decision to return more bizarre IMO.

[jjbrr]

A more interesting question is whether or not we will be able to prove it conclusively.

[cherdanno]

MickyB, on Jul 8 2010, 10:31 AM, said:

If he was, it makes his decision to return more bizarre IMO.

More bizarre things have happened:
- I do think doping cyclists honestly consider themselves innocent - and in a way that's fair. At least in the late 90s (some would say until today) everybody knew that everybody was doping, so it was fair game, and they were just keeping up a public face of not using it since otherwise the sport wouldn't be able to sell to sponsors. I found it quite telling that when an athlete was caught doping, other athletes would react outraged, while when a cyclist was caught doping, his colleagues complained that it's always cycling that gets targeted, there is doping in other sports too, etc.
- Maybe he just wants to prove to history that he could dominate both in the era of doping, and in the era when doping became too dangerous (conserving blood samples seem to increase the risk by a lot).
- It doesn't make sense for him anyway - more to lose than to win for him IMO.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jul 8 2010, 06:31 PM, said:

This type of topic comes up all the time.

I dont get what is so wrong with taking chemicals to improve.

I think people forget, foods are just chemicals...water is just chemical.

If the stuff is bad or does not work than that is an argument for better chemicals not zero.

Question 1: Please define the word "Improve" as it applies to doping. In particular, please explain how you would characterize a drug that has a significant positive impact on performance but significant increases your chance of contracting serious medical conditions.

Question 2: Do you know what the expression "prisoner's dilemma " refers to?

Question 3: Do you understand how "prisoner's dilemma" applies to doping?

[shyams]

I believe he did not.

If multiple doping tests over a long-ish career showed nothing, then he did not use performance enhancers. Simple.

When he won so many TdF Yellow jerseys in a row, there was little doubt that the anti-doping guys would gun for him. Yet, they found nothing...

[Phil]

Yes it wouldn't surprise me.

He also a jerk and I have personal knowledge about this. I'm willing to cut him a little slack because of the cancer thing, but no one is above these regulations.

[Lobowolf]

hrothgar, on Jul 8 2010, 11:10 AM, said:

mike777, on Jul 8 2010, 06:31 PM, said:

This type of topic comes up all the time.

I dont get what is so wrong with taking chemicals to improve.

I think people forget, foods are just chemicals...water is just chemical.

If the stuff is bad or does not work than that is an argument for better chemicals not zero.

Question 2: Do you know what the expression "prisoner's dilemma " refers to?

Question 3: Do you understand how "prisoner's dilemma" applies to doping?

Mike, don't answer those!

[Aberlour10]

shyams, on Jul 8 2010, 11:33 AM, said:

If multiple doping tests over a long-ish career showed nothing, then he did not use performance enhancers. Simple.

This is not so simple thing.

We talk here mainly about blood-doping, especially EPO, that was for a long time hard to prove, since there is synthetic EPO in the market, it is still not so easy.
The top profs had been catched not by this proof but by the data and blood found by "famous" Dr Fuentes in Spain.

[hotShot]

shyams, on Jul 8 2010, 05:33 PM, said:

I believe he did not.

If multiple doping tests over a long-ish career showed nothing, then he did not use performance enhancers. Simple.

When he won so many TdF Yellow jerseys in a row, there was little doubt that the anti-doping guys would gun for him. Yet, they found nothing...

You could get EPO from somewhere between 1985 (when it could be produced) and 1989 when it was approved.

Doping tests to find EPO are available since 2002, but they only worked within a few days after a big injection. Dopers have learned years ago that if you take EPO in several small doses, even the optimized enhanced tests from today will only get a "positve" result if taken within 4-6 hours after the injection. Drinking a lot of water directly after the injection will reduce the risk of a positive test to almost zero.

So for more than 10 years EPO was usable without any risk of discovery, after that some modifications of EPO were available that could not be found and the technique of small doses was used.

With the right know how you can pass any doping test there is.

[luke warm]

mike777, on Jul 8 2010, 10:31 AM, said:

This type of topic comes up all the time.


I dont get what is so wrong with taking chemicals to improve.

I think people forget, foods are just chemicals...water is just chemical.


If the stuff is bad or does not work then that is an argument for better chemicals not zero.

i'm down with this... better living (and athletics) through chemistry

Lobowolf, on Jul 8 2010, 12:13 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 8 2010, 11:10 AM, said:

mike777, on Jul 8 2010, 06:31 PM, said:

This type of topic comes up all the time.

I dont get what is so wrong with taking chemicals to improve.

I think people forget, foods are just chemicals...water is just chemical.

If the stuff is bad or does not work than that is an argument for better chemicals not zero.

Question 2: Do you know what the expression "prisoner's dilemma " refers to?

Question 3: Do you understand how "prisoner's dilemma" applies to doping?

Mike, don't answer those!

LOL