Aquarius wrote:
I would be pleased if it was. He's been mocking anything that could be useful to catch dopers, opposing everything he could that was going the good way, it would be a good thing if he got caught.

jacknic wrote:
So pro cyclists are the only people in the world who is to be considered guilty until proven innocent?

That makes no sense. What can a rider do other than giving negative doping tests? If the test is negative, the rider is clean. Simple as that.


I'm not saying that none of the guys are on anything other than mineral water. I just choose to believe that the likes of Thomas Lövkvist and Linus Gerdeman are sincere when they speak out against the dopers. I choose to blieve that the mentality in the peloton is changing, and that the younger guys use a different moral code than the older guys.

Jape wrote:


Nonsense, he opposed to DNA cause it would only be usable for when a blood bag is found and we all know how many blood bags have been matched since 2006. The other thing he opposed to is giving up a year's salary in case of a positive test. With the current 'guilty until proven innocent' mentality i can see some correlation between the two. Seeing everything as either black or white is more a prove of being desperate than being strict. If there were more cyclists with some balls like bettini i'd bet the current ASO/UCI battle would have been a different one.

Yeah, if a test is negative the guy is clean. How many positive case did Festina have ? One (Moreau with steroids at the Critérium International 1998). How many of them took dope and were tested frequently ? The whole team but Bassons.

jacknic wrote:


So what you are saying is that even though the majority of riders tests negative on a regular basis, they are still dopers based on the fact that Confidis and Festinas riders did not test positive 10 years ago? When the effort against doping were not as massive as today?

How can a rider possibly prove his innocence if you don't regard the doping tests as valid? He can't.

Jape wrote:
That's the whole point, at this point in time you don't need a positive A or B test to be marked as a doper, hmm his lower jaw has a big shape: he must be doped, hmm he didn't rider for 4 weeks after race X (L'Hottelerie): he must be doped, Hmm you were named in Opercion Puerto (Davis): no PT team (if any at all) for you next year.

As for the DNA and wage arguments. I could say the same for something like phone tabs, why would i have something to fear if i didn't do anything criminal, cause i simply don't want my phone to be tabbed, why would it be suspicious if a cyclist has some principals when the majority of the normal population has the same. And again, how many cyclists have been found guilty since 2006 by their DNA, 0.0. Once there is a doping case against someone they should be obliged to give DNA if it would help in the investigation. I'm just opposing to your logic that when someone does not agree with some proposed measures he must surely be doped.

We had something like three or four positive cases during the last TDF. Vino, Moreni, and maybe a couple of others ?
Do you really think only 2 to 5 riders were doped on the 189 who started (I know that all of them weren't tested, but still) ?

At least until last year (it's still hard to say for this season), there was a wide half of the peloton (more likely more than two thirds) that were still using dope.

What I mean about controls is that there are many ways to cheat them. The fact it turns out to be negative proves nothing, at least not much.

jacknic wrote:
[quote]We had something like three or four positive cases during the last TDF. Vino, Moreni, and maybe a couple of others ?
Do you really think only 2 to 5 riders were doped on the 189 who started (I know that all of them weren't tested, but still) ?

Jape wrote:
Correct me if i'm wrong, but Bettini isn't against every single doping measure. He wouldn't go along with the DNA testing, but said that if a court requested his DNA he'd provide it.

Jape wrote:
Now, don't get me wrong, i'm not italian nor an oustpoken Bettini fan, but marking someone as doper cause he refuses to give up a year's salary or based (also signed the whole charter except for that passage) on 'the people' he worked with in the past is a step too far for me. I mean what do you suggest, banning riders on a wattage calculation or the trainers they've used. Only viable option is having rules and act according to them.

jacknic wrote:
You say this as if it was fact. What are you basing your claim that half of maybe two thirds of the riders are dopers? That there were three guys who were busted (Vino, Sinkewic and Moreni)? That makes three out of some 180 riders. That certainly does not ad up to nearly half.

Who are the other 90+ dopers in the peloton then? Contador has been linked to operation Puerto-was he on dope? Klôden and the other Astana guys? Mauricio Soler because he came out of nowhere. Linus Gerdemann for having a large jaw?

The fact is that you can't know for sure until someone is busted in possesion of dope or in a doping test.

The director of the WADA-accredited Swiss Laboratory for Analysis of Doping in Lausanne, Switzerland, has told Belgian newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws that he believed there was still widespread doping in the Tour de France this year. "47 out of 189 riders raced on blood transfusions or EPO," Martial Saugy alleged. "We have been able to show this from the samples taken at the health controls."

Still, Saugy added that these test results did not fulfil the requirements to be declared as 'positive'. "It is appalling, but we find so many test results that undoubtedly point to manipulation," he continued. "But there is a big difference between a suspicious sample and one that can be declared positive."

Saugy also found indications for the use of testosterone and growth hormone. "Especially the latter product is very popular at the moment," he added. "As soon as there will be a water-proof test for growth hormone, it will show that 80 percent [of the peloton] is taking it. I am disillusioned: the use of growth hormone is as bad as was the use of EPO and blood doping in the 90's."

Crommy wrote:
Hey, I actually nearly remembered something completely

jacknic wrote:

You say this as if it was fact. What are you basing your claim that half of maybe two thirds of the riders are dopers? That there were three guys who were busted (Vino, Sinkewic and Moreni)? That makes three out of some 180 riders. That certainly does not ad up to nearly half.

Who are the other 90+ dopers in the peloton then? Contador has been linked to operation Puerto-was he on dope? Klôden and the other Astana guys? Mauricio Soler because he came out of nowhere. Linus Gerdemann for having a large jaw?

The fact is that you can't know for sure until someone is busted in possesion of dope or in a doping test.

Jape wrote:Now, don't get me wrong, i'm not italian nor an oustpoken Bettini fan, but marking someone as doper cause he refuses to give up a year's salary or based (also signed the whole charter except for that passage) on 'the people' he worked with in the past is a step too far for me. I mean what do you suggest, banning riders on a wattage calculation or the trainers they've used. Only viable option is having rules and act according to them.

The director of the WADA-accredited Swiss Laboratory for Analysis of Doping in Lausanne, Switzerland, has told Belgian newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws that he believed there was still widespread doping in the Tour de France this year. "47 out of 189 riders raced on blood transfusions or EPO," Martial Saugy alleged. "We have been able to show this from the samples taken at the health controls."

I'll never be able to bring such a proof, so theoretically I could be wrong every single time I'm assuming a rider is doped. I might be selfish but I doubt I'm wrong very often.
Just because I'll never be able to bring a lethal proof, should this mean I should act and speak as if I was blind and assume that all of them are clean ?