the 5 names
|
schleck93 |
Posted on 17-06-2009 16:59
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3715
Joined: 04-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Herrera did stop his carrer because of doping, not because he couldn't keep up clean (he was 99% sure doping too). But because EPO made it possible for Indurain to get his 80 kg ass up the mountains faster than him.
BenBarnes wrote:
Thor wears a live rattlesnake as a condom.
|
|
|
|
Alesle |
Posted on 17-06-2009 17:04
|
Stagiare
Posts: 192
Joined: 30-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
About Caucchioli, from Lampre's homepage
Today, Wednesday June the 17th 2009, team Lampre-NGC has been informed that Uci notify to cyclist Pietro Caucchioli a warning about a potential anti-doping rule violation, infraction pointed out by the analysis of the data collected in Biological Passport.
Caucchioli himself has notified the team Lampre-NGC, giving to the team doctor (Doctor Carlo Guardascione) all the data Uci sent him.
"Referring to the documents received, the value that brought to a warning about a potential anti-doping rule violation concerns a blood test taken in September 2008 before Tour de Pologne, when the cyclist wasn't in Team Lampre-NGC - Doctor Guardascione explained - While in 2009, also considering the data we collected, there aren't anomalies and sanitary behaviour of the athlete has been correct".
Waiting for further communications by the National Federation about disciplinary proceedings, Team Lampre-NGC has suspended Caucchioli, according to the employment contract and to the internal rules of the team. |
|
|
|
chrica04 |
Posted on 17-06-2009 18:01
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 853
Joined: 23-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Except for Hamilton, Americans are clean |
|
|
|
Gustavovskiy |
Posted on 17-06-2009 18:09
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6036
Joined: 20-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
I can see Prudhomme smiling to himself about non-inviting Fuji
and I believe Diquigiovanni is now eaven with Katusha 2-2!
@Ildabaoth: I see this new achievment as a satisfying development in the fight against doping. Regarding Ruben's post I feel more encouraged to watch cycling and believing in truth in this sport. I'm also aware that this isn't heaven and there's still work to be done to overcome all the barriers to find and punish cheaters. So I don't care if they're middle-peloton or world-star riders, to me one less doped rider in the peloton is a step forward to achieve a clean sport!
|
|
|
|
knasen |
Posted on 17-06-2009 18:17
|
Domestique
Posts: 416
Joined: 28-09-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
I would be more interesting to see the riders who only has semi suspect values. The are probably better at the doping bit, and there you can learn more how they did it to catch more "semi suspect" riders. |
|
|
|
JustinWK |
Posted on 17-06-2009 18:19
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2613
Joined: 30-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
I'm afraid everyone dopes, some just do it better than others and don't get caught.
Dwight K. Schrute: 'I'm not a hero. Im just a mere defender of the office. You know who is a hero? Hiro from Heroes. That's a hero. And Bono'.
|
|
|
|
Dan_Grr |
Posted on 17-06-2009 19:08
|
Domestique
Posts: 641
Joined: 11-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Cunego is clean: he sucks. |
|
|
|
Arnout |
Posted on 17-06-2009 21:13
|
Under 23
Posts: 82
Joined: 03-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Ildabaoth wrote:
I normally don't talk about doping. It's kind of an useless subject. However, today I'm quite talkative. First of all, I think that the peloton is cleaner in a general way. However, I still believe that top riders are still doping, even if in an smaller scale. And I still believe that top riders get a double advantage: first of all, they are protected by the UCI, so they can dope without a lot of risk (it is always strange that only a few top riders are caught, when you could think that there is a higher percentage of doping between the elite), and second of all, they can use higher quality of doping (in terms of detection probability and enhancing properties).
I feel it is a shame when a lot of european fans think that south american cyclists are doping in a higher scale that european ones (normally the expression is kind of "south american dopehead" or something like that). If that was the case, you would find it weird that in the present you can't find any south american rider in the elite, while in the 80's there were quite a few, like Parra, Herrera, Wilches. What happened after that? Did south americans lose their climbing abilities? Did europeans magically got better via training? I myself can't accept that south american riders who grew up in mountains, weight less than 55 kg and have trained more than their previous generation mates are suddenly beaten up by heavier europeans in their pwn speciality (while still sucking at TTs, btw).
I'm not defending in any way doping of south americans. I really dismiss Botero and Rujano (Gobernación del Zulia is one of the teams which didn't even sign the ethical pact with the UCI, for example), and I still think south americans dope too, but I'm afraid that this supposed fight against doping it's just taking away some middle class riders while keeping the whole problem, specially the fact that you are just ignoring some riders who can have access to better doping techniques and, in my opinion, that is even more unfair with riders from emerging countries than no fight against doping at all. That is not the way things should be done, I think.
Interesting point. At least your last sentence is very interesting. Because I think doping cannot be completely banned from the sport, ever. It is simply too expensive to take many samples from the riders under the top (say, the ProContinental teams) or divisions below the ProContinental Tour. This way, there will always be a gap where doping is possible and where doping is nearly impossible. There are two solutions for this problem. Invest loads of money to test every cyclist, including junior riders, or do not test at all. And I think the latter option is the best one. It saves you money, it saves you the bad image of the sport and it brings you spectacular cycling. Everything the cycling watchers want. I would vote for it.
Besides that, the doping tests are still very arbitrary. When I read the comments of Kohl "I doped since I was 19" questions come up. Is it honest to dopers who get caught that other dopers will never be caught? And is it honest if non - dopers who are risk averse will always have less chances to win races and perform well? If you legalise doping, all this problems will be history.
To react on your point about the South - Americans, I think there are more reasons for this. The anti doping things are not the only things going on in the peloton. In recent years, cycling in Europe professionalized. Personal trainers are finally busy with all kind of statistics and test values of cyclists to find out the ideal frequency, to get to 100% of form at the exactly right moment. That is also why we see such close races all over the year, everyone now gets nearly the same preparation so everyone can perform even (except for the mental part and the thing which is called talent). And I can easily imagine this process has not yet started in South America. We see very inconsistent rides from all South - Americans in Europe (except from Soler who allways crashes. Sorry bad joke) and I think that is because the riders in that country still do not use trainers, schemes and stuff like that as much as European riders (except for the French). |
|
|
|
mpritch |
Posted on 17-06-2009 21:36
|
Under 23
Posts: 78
Joined: 06-11-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
So you're saying, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em?
You make good points about fairness of the dopers who get caught and the dopers who slip through the cracks. That isn't fair to either party. But, if you start condoning doping you open the doors, ethically, to a lot of problems.
I'm not even talking a slippery slope argument of some fictitious future involving muscle replacement surgeries or anything sci-fi like that. I'm saying immediately, if you legalize doping, in theory, you would be saying that the only way you CAN become the best is if you alter your physiology in some way. The purity of the sport would be lost and the athlete would be "forced" (through the innate human desire to be the best) to embrace potentially less proven methods of doping.
Currently there a few relatively safe doping methods. They a somewhat safe because of the strict regulations they have to account for if they are going to go undetected. If you lift the ban on doping, can you imagine the sort of experimental doping procedures cyclists would embrace?
Keep the ban. Keep cracking down on doping. |
|
|
|
Arnout |
Posted on 17-06-2009 21:57
|
Under 23
Posts: 82
Joined: 03-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Fair point that is. It is indeed a problem that cyclists will always look for the edges. They will do that now with illegal doping, they will do the same if doping is legalized. The one big advance is that everyone then has in principle the same chances. And even in the dopingyears of the late nineties noone died because of doping, and infamous doping users like Bjarne Riis still seem to be resonably healthy (expect his overweight of course).
A partial solution would be extensive and expensive doping education for every cyclist by local doctors and by special UCI doctors, instead of the now very expensive laboratoria. This way the UCI can freely control the doping usage of every cyclist because it is not illegal but at the same time watch for the health of the cyclist and advice him on which doping is a harm for the health and what doping is not.
And if a cyclist deliberately chooses to not follow the advice of the doctor, there can still be possibilities to take him out of action to save his life.
The doping tests are not and will never be watertight. Remember the Rasmussen case. His blood values were never over 50 (which is illegal) but were 40 in the beginning of the Tour and higher at the end of the Tour, which is virtually impossible if you don't doping. But no action is possible. Which is so unfair that the only option I see is to legalize doping to a certain extent. You can even say that riders can dope to a certain level (say the 50 level) so everyone can at least dope to the same extent. Now some riders do with success and some don't want to take the risk. Which is unfair.
Oh and about the doping thing. Why is artificial fluid food not illegal and EPO is? EPO is maybe used more in daily life than the first substantion, and the first substantion is more performance - enhancing than EPO. So where is the boundary? |
|
|
|
issoisso |
Posted on 17-06-2009 22:01
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Arnout wrote:
And even in the dopingyears of the late nineties noone died because of doping
Yes they did. Usually after retiring. Simply because most of the stuff they're on causes addiction and they can't let go.
Or in the case of most substances, these substances have negative side effects that have to be fought with other substances....substances that are impossible to quit all of a sudden. Once you quit, you fall into a severe depression and either die of heart problems or commit suicide.
The cases are numerous.
Heck, one guy died during a dentist appointment. |
|
|
|
Ad Bot |
Posted on 24-11-2024 08:25
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
IP: None |
|
|
Eddy Merckx |
Posted on 17-06-2009 22:09
|
Under 23
Posts: 69
Joined: 20-05-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Good points by Arnout.
Anyway i think that the fight against doping in both terms of out of race controls and under race should be continued under strict terms/rules, they should also have/find a better system for out of competion controls.
Edited by Eddy Merckx on 17-06-2009 22:11
|
|
|
|
schleck93 |
Posted on 17-06-2009 22:11
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3715
Joined: 04-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Fignon has just be declared with cancer due to doping, Anquetil died of cancer along wiht many other cyclists from the 60's. Sastres brother in-law died of doping use.
BenBarnes wrote:
Thor wears a live rattlesnake as a condom.
|
|
|
|
Bosskardo |
Posted on 17-06-2009 22:19
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1559
Joined: 07-04-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
schleck93 wrote:
Fignon has just be declared with cancer due to doping, Anquetil died of cancer along wiht many other cyclists from the 60's. Sastres brother in-law died of doping use.
You sure. He said a week ago that it wasn´t due to doping.
|
|
|
|
schleck93 |
Posted on 17-06-2009 22:21
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3715
Joined: 04-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
I'm not 100% sure, but there could be a diffrence between what is reality and what you say.
BenBarnes wrote:
Thor wears a live rattlesnake as a condom.
|
|
|
|
Arnout |
Posted on 17-06-2009 22:28
|
Under 23
Posts: 82
Joined: 03-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
Arnout wrote:
And even in the dopingyears of the late nineties noone died because of doping
Yes they did. Usually after retiring. Simply because most of the stuff they're on causes addiction and they can't let go.
Or in the case of most substances, these substances have negative side effects that have to be fought with other substances....substances that are impossible to quit all of a sudden. Once you quit, you fall into a severe depression and either die of heart problems or commit suicide.
The cases are numerous.
Heck, one guy died during a dentist appointment.
That's the case with amfetamines, but not with things that actually work, say CERA. |
|
|
|
issoisso |
Posted on 17-06-2009 22:34
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Arnout wrote:
issoisso wrote:
Arnout wrote:
And even in the dopingyears of the late nineties noone died because of doping
Yes they did. Usually after retiring. Simply because most of the stuff they're on causes addiction and they can't let go.
Or in the case of most substances, these substances have negative side effects that have to be fought with other substances....substances that are impossible to quit all of a sudden. Once you quit, you fall into a severe depression and either die of heart problems or commit suicide.
The cases are numerous.
Heck, one guy died during a dentist appointment.
That's the case with amfetamines, but not with things that actually work, say CERA.
Actually, no.
EPO in its several forms, for example, tend to make you very anxious and aggressive, and SSRIs are needed to combat that.
Try using SSRIs, then going cold turkey. You'll kill yourself very shortly. |
|
|
|
Arnout |
Posted on 17-06-2009 22:48
|
Under 23
Posts: 82
Joined: 03-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Ah that's why Evans always gives headbangs!
Well as far as I know (or knew) EPO is completely without sideeffects because it is simply injecting new blood which happens every day in hospitals. But if indeed all working doping has serious side effects then my idea can be considered as bad.
Guess there are no real solutions to the problem. But I woud like to see just cycling with riders, doped or not, doing spectacular stuff and commentators who are talking about cycling and not about doping. I was watching the English Eurosport in the Giro because I was fed up with the Belgians once again, and when Cunego dropped they said. "Well there goes Cunego, he is not performing as well as he did in 2004. Which may be a good sign actually". That's the stuff I hate and don't want to hear. That's why I love the commentary on the NOS (Dutch television). They never recognize anyone, they seem to have never heard from replays, they always get confused from them, but at least they don't talk about doping but about cycling. Unless of course someone is caught the other day. |
|
|
|
issoisso |
Posted on 17-06-2009 22:52
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Arnout wrote:
Ah that's why Evans always gives headbangs!
That's an original theory if I ever read one
Arnout wrote:
Well as far as I know (or knew) EPO is completely without sideeffects because it is simply injecting new blood which happens every day in hospitals. But if indeed all working doping has serious side effects then my idea can be considered as bad.
EPO has the side-effects that I mentioned above. They're due to hyper-oxigenation of certain parts of the brain.
In the words of a certain investigator who decided to test himself by riding Alpe'Huez first clean, then on EPO: "I felt like I wanted to kill the road with my bike. The road was steep but I felt like it was flat"
Edited by issoisso on 17-06-2009 22:53
|
|
|
|
Oliuj |
Posted on 17-06-2009 23:13
|
Under 23
Posts: 61
Joined: 28-09-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Arnout wrote:
Ah that's why Evans always gives headbangs!
Well as far as I know (or knew) EPO is completely without sideeffects because it is simply injecting new blood which happens every day in hospitals. But if indeed all working doping has serious side effects then my idea can be considered as bad.
Guess there are no real solutions to the problem. But I woud like to see just cycling with riders, doped or not, doing spectacular stuff and commentators who are talking about cycling and not about doping. I was watching the English Eurosport in the Giro because I was fed up with the Belgians once again, and when Cunego dropped they said. "Well there goes Cunego, he is not performing as well as he did in 2004. Which may be a good sign actually". That's the stuff I hate and don't want to hear. That's why I love the commentary on the NOS (Dutch television). They never recognize anyone, they seem to have never heard from replays, they always get confused from them, but at least they don't talk about doping but about cycling. Unless of course someone is caught the other day.
You're very wrong. EPO has many side effects. Just read this article
https://www.indian...paper1.pdf
It's about the side effects of EPO and amphetamines |
|
|