JimmyNH

Man, you've got destructive evidence for every case.
OK, let me elaborate on the Prohibition analogy. For ease of reference - let's call it USAAA (US Anti-Alcohol Agency ). The goal of USAAA was noble - eradicate drinking, right? Everybody knows alcohol is bad for you (except that CalamariChris guy who once rode GMR powered by Patron tequila and still kicked my arse). What did USAAA actually achieve? People kept drinking. They drank even stuff that they wouldn't ever drink in normal circumstances. Legitimate businesses were destroyed and the empty space was filled by the mafia. The quality of booze went down, tax revenue went down, crime went up, etc, etc, etc.
Same with doping. It's not good for you, but people do it anyway. I must emphasise again - they are not cheaters because they all do it. Because it's illegal, athletes often don't seek (or can't afford) the services of a qualified doctor, so they do it themselves. Most (if not all) of the deaths caused by doping are exactly because of that "do-it-yourself" business. The quality of the dope is often pretty crap, because of inadequate storage or transportation. Amgen loses business (but still sponsors the Tour of CA), the mafiosos benefit. Verstaan nou?
Are we going to go for a ride and beer some day, bro? I see you on Rick's e-mail list for all these masochistic rides that I have no intention of doing. Let's do something saner before the weather gets crappy.

cruiserhead

The fallacy that legalizing doping will level the playing field is just that.
Ignoring the entire fact that this would punish honest athletes; instead of "equalizing", it simply puts the advantage to the one with the deepest pockets and access to the latest pharm.
You think rampant, misguided drug use would decline if you made it legal? There would be so much more unqualified, self-administered drug use.
All of that is red-herring hypothetical because there is no "fairness" in doping. Never has been and never will be.

The system is corrupt and the foxes have been minding the hen house. You clean up the corruption.
The fact that honesty and integrity in this sport are so lost that there has to be a discussion about it is sad.
This is the cost of corruption run amok. It diminishes the sport.

calamarichris

Except that people don't drink alcohol to get smarter, faster, or better looking. They derive no benefit from drinking alcohol. Also, there was no USAAA--it was another of those brief moments of collective insanity, spearheaded by religious zealots.
I strenuously disagree that they all do it. What about the Wiggins', the Jens', Sastres', and the guys who have been clean because they took the rules seriously? These guys should have been the Armstrongs, Ullrichs, Pantanis, Riis', and Bassos. And once the cheaters are weeded out, they will be.
It looks like there's a possible Pie Ride coming up on the first weekend of November, but that's probably not sane enough for you. Where are you thinking of riding?

I still feel like my analogy made a lot more sense than yours did. Besides, a little alcohol is good for you.

Mr. Beanz

Jimmy seems to know an awful lot about doping issues. Not to mention he smoked all his rivals by a big margin on his last Ride Around the Bear.

Most guys carry an ipod strapped to their arm, upon closer insepction of the posted image, that does not look like an ipod to me!



jimmyns by mrbeanz1, on Flickr

zenout

No sponsorship if doping is allowed.What corporation would ever go near that?

Angio Graham

how about we make it criminal and authorize and create a wing of new law enforcement unit under the Obamacare Act ?

FBAPI = Federal Bureau of Athletic Doping Investigation

CbadRider

If this turns into a political thread about healthcare and the government, it goes to P&R.

JimmyNH

It IS an ipod, dammit! You evil Beanz. C'mon, what do you say? You always have some wise words for the masses.

Angio Graham

Well the USADA is government and using drugs is a health issue.

JimmyNH

You contradict yourself, bro. First you said "They derive no benefit from drinking alcohol", then "a little alcohol is good for you". C'mon, make up your mind! I reckon even a little bit more alcohol is good for you - it makes other people more interesting.
Hey Chris, I'm picking on you because I know you and I know you are a great guy. Let me try to explain again why I compare this witch-hunt to the Prohibition. Because it leads nowhere. The Prohibition didn't stop drinking, all these ADAs won't stop doping. They can test as much as they want, the guys will keep doping. The only solution to the problem I see, is legalizing all doping substances. This way the athletes will get proper medical supervision which will help minimize or even maybe eliminate some of the negative effects of doping. The money will go to legitimate businesses instead to the mafiosos, so I expect that some of the money will be used towards research for safer, less harmful and less addictive PEDs. Until they find the perfect one that is as clean as water and it makes you climb up those hills as if you've got a jet engine in your arse.

calamarichris

Wrong again, Angio. USADA is a non-governmental, not-for-profit organization.
I humbly ask the mod squad to keep an eye on this newcomer and penalize him or her with deletions, suspensions and/or banning instead of punishing us all by removing pertinent conversations between productive & cooperative members of the community, that were unfortunately corrupted his/her political BS.
Thanks!

GP

they're an ngo.

Angio Graham

dont they get funding from the US government ?

KiddSisko

Always good to see BF tackling the hard issues of cycling. Me? Given that doping at the pro level is a 2 - 3 % performance enhancement, I think we (those of us who don't take PED's, that is) should all celebrate the fact that we suck 2 - 3 % less when compared with our heroes in the pro ranks. That's actually good news!

bhkyte

Apparently the tour du france speed is now slower ( about 5%) than it was in 2002. The is based on a comparison taking all factors like wind, incline and so forth in to account.
The watts per hour that cyclist put out is much more physiologically compatable with a cyclist who is does not need to take drugs. This was ocording to a professor on a programme on BBC radio four the other day.
So this expert concluded that cycling has become cleaner.
I am dissappointed than Armstrongs team mates seem to decide they were "bullied" in to taking drugs. They could always go to another team ?

zenout

What would be different on another team?

hamster

There's no money. At the federal level, domestic non-defense, non-safety-net spending in general, and law enforcement in particular, has long been the red-headed stepchild of the government. Did you ever wonder why the richest country on Earth can't seem to win the war on drugs, or even to make a dent in the supply of pot and meth? The entire budget of the Drug Enforcement Administration is about 0.07% of total federal spending.

bhkyte

One of my enduring memoires is during the tour Lemond speaking to a motorcycle cameraman, LEmond spoke in around four languages telling the rider he was dangerous and they are going to hurt someone. Once he understood the rider moved away.

That is quite impressive in my book.

chefxian

Question: Since they are stripping Lance of his wins. What happens then in the record books? I mean if most of the other guys were dopers that had been on the podium in the past? I;m disappointed because this makes America look bad in International cycling but how does the UCI address this? Just rewrite all the books?

JimmyNH

Good question - and it just shows how pathetic the UCI decision is. As for making American cycling look bad, probably you're right as far as all these gullible people are concerned. For the rest - it makes USADA and UCI look bad. These guys live back in the dark ages when they were stoning people for doing what everybody else was doing. Just that back then, ordinary people had more common sense and when that dude stepped up and said "let those who are free of sin cast the first rock", nobody was arrogant enough to do it. If that were to happen today, Maria Magdalena would have been so fokken stoned.

Sorry bro, I reckon you should wait at least another 5 years to make this statement for Sastre. As for Wiggins, you’ll have to wait until around 2020.

calamarichris

What a cynical outlook you have Jimmy. I don't think it makes the USADA & UCI look bad at all. They're doing what they have to do to clean up the sport. Not really sure how Magdalena fits into this, and I don't believe Wiggins or Sastre doped, considering Wiggins' strident anti-doping stance ever since we all learned his name, and Sastre's winning (and not by much) by his team's dominance and not by his own. And Cancellara? You believe he doped too? You really think there are no clean riders in the Peloton?

And I don't think this makes US cycling or American cyclists look bad, anymore than Armstrong's winning made us all look like supermen.

chefxian

And I don't think this makes US cycling or American cyclists look bad, anymore than Armstrong's winning made us all look like supermen.[/QUOTE]

The only reason I dont agree with this is the fact that Armstrong bullied his way around for a long time. Then after he steps down another cyclist wins(Landis) and gets caught doping. I mean the US has sorta been a high road appearing country in world sports. Not saying the US has never had dopers in their sports (The runners come to mind) but I am trying to illustrate a point that globally we should have been better than that. I mean the Euros hated when Lemond won so I am afraid that now any race we race people will always say "that guy is doping".

calamarichris

Perhaps I just fell victim to the CBS-Sports / World Cycling Productions propaganda, but everything I saw suggests Lemond was loved in France.
In fact, in Belgium & Holland too. I was riding and racing there from 88-91, and as soon as they found out I was American, the Dutch & Belgians all asked me if I knew him. Heck, at my second race in Belgium THEY SHOVED ME UP TO THE FRONT OF THE START LINE. It was horrifying. I begged for them to let me go to the back, told them "Je ne suis pas un superstar comme Lemond!! En ik been geen superstar kijk Lemond!!" They weren't laughing, they weren't being ironic, they were convinced I was another one of these demigod Americans like Lemond. I quickly shattered that illusion by heroically getting dropped less than 8 laps later, and they STILL clapped for me without a hint of irony or snideness.

chefxian

Guess you should have worn that La Vie Claire kit. That would would have got em.

calamarichris

Haha--naaah. I was a serious, hardcore racer back then, and left my LVC jersey back home with my medals and my Traci Lords Penthouse. I only wear LVC jerseys now that I've embraced my inner poser.
Sure wish I'd had a line on some dope, amphetamine, or EPO or something back then, not to win, just to escape the humiliation of being dropped like a rock that day.