And who is that supposed to be, a rider who finished in 98th place? I firmly believe that all of the top riders have taken something illegal or did something illegal to get an advantage in all of the races of the past 20 years or so. And because every rider did/does it, they don’t really feel guilty about it, it’s just part of the job. And there is no way that is going to change, because the doping agencies will always be a step behind the new development in the doping scene and the temptation is just too big.
Well if that is what they have to do then they should do that i.e. keep going through the ranks until somebody clean is found.
You either have everybody doping up or nobody doping up. The problem for me is the extreme dishonesty of somebody who is supposed to be a role model.
And who is that supposed to be,…[/quote]
One of the French media has now come up with “the top finisher who never got mentioned in a doping affair” :
1999: Daniele Nardello (7e du Tour).
2000: Daniele Nardello (10e du Tour).
2001: Andreï Kivilev (4e du Tour).
2002: Carlos Sastre (10e du Tour).
2003: Haimar Zubeldia (5e du Tour).
2004: Carlos Sastre (8e du Tour).
2005: Cadel Evans (8e du Tour).
Almost certainly true. There is some disquiet over Sky’s 1-2 in this year’s Tour. I can’t be bothered to dig all that up, but it’s out there if you search for it.
Is taking steroids really “cheating” anyway? I don’t understand why it’s such an emotive issue for so many people. Is slamming coffee when you have a test to cram for cheating? What about porn stars that use viagra? Actors that use botox? How about those that have better trainers and nutritionists? That’s surely not fair. How about musicians or other performers that take beta blockers to control the physical symptoms of nervousness? Damn those cheaters, they should all be banned for life if not thrown in jail.
Read this; outsideonline.com/fitness/Dr … l?page=all
A really good insight to what happens if you take steroids, HGH etc…
Read this; outsideonline.com/fitness/Dr … l?page=all
A really good insight to what happens if you take steroids, HGH etc…[/quote]
Really, that’s a good piece of journalism. Thanks for sharing.
That article makes blood doping look a lot more dangerous than steroids. Here’s some good insights too:
But then again, there’s the danger of roid rage
Another sad day will be when Usain Bolt gets caught.
Of course doping is unfair. It’s entirely against the rules, for one, and it’s getting an unfair advantage over those who are good enough to be at the top without doping. It’s cheating, and until such point as it is made legal (if ever), it’s fair and just that the suckers who get caught get stripped of all they’ve earned with the help of doping.
It is no defense to say that most cyclists do it: for one, that’s simply pointing out that all dopers are equal cheats, and it is not at all true that all cyclists cheat, for another. Some do, but these days it is the majority who don’t. Some teams have a policy of doping (never an open one, of corse), and the team managers and DSs and doctors on those teams should be stripped of the right to be associated with UCI forever too. People like Johan Bruyneel and Eufemiano Fuentes spring immediately to mind but there are others…
Read this; outsideonline.com/fitness/Dr … l?page=all
A really good insight to what happens if you take steroids, HGH etc…[/quote]
That makes an interesting change from the “steroids are, like, bad, mmkay kids?” articles you usually read. I’m surprised to learn it’s not actually illegal to prescribe steroids etc off-label in the US. I was under the impression doctors could get into deep trouble for this.
The article rings true: I noticed the doctor told him that the biggest danger with steroids (as long as you’re getting clean needles) is that you’ll get to like them. Many years ago I tried nandrolone and stanozolol, mostly out of curiosity. I discovered the main side effects (for me) are that you feel horny and hungry, neither of which is of any benefit when you’re in your 20s, but the (intended) results simply don’t justify the financial outlay. As Steviebike’s journalist points out, it’s more fun if you know the results are down to your own hard work, not technology. Any professional sportsman (a real professional) must surely feel the same way.
I watch all the cheating with a perverse sense of interest. I want to know how, why and what. I’ve never taken anything that made me better and as a cyclist I have no interest or reason to, it would be laughable. But the thought of taking steroid or HGH for some other reason would be fine, as in a medical need and the line is grey there. If you race at such a high level and race for long periods, it would be impossible to recover… I really don’t want to cast judgements.
The documentary was really good. Thanks for posting it LouisFriend. I suggest everyone to take a watch it’s a real eyeopener.
The one thing no one wants to do is bust this problem open and talk about it – without recrimination. The omertà code amongst athletes is protecting them as far as they’re concerned. It’s easy to be a sports fan and say doping is bad and anyone cheating should be out. I don’t make my living in such an environment and I imagine it must be intense and the pressure great.
Reasons for doping:
- Being obsessed with winning (as opposed to just having fun doing sports)
- Doing sports professionally (trying to make a living)
- Trying to become a super star (big money and celebrity status)
- Searching for glory (with the support of one’s home country)
I think in many cases athletes’ have no other choice than taking performance enhancing drugs, if they want to win, especially in the main sports where big media attention guarantees big money if being successful and the competition is much tougher than in minor sports, such as archery. Don’t think archers take HGH’s to improve their eye-sight, or do they?
I can imagine that knowing or assuming that the competitors dope and don’t get caught is a huge motive for athlete’s to do the same, especially if it means the difference between getting payed or rewarded for years and years of hard work and not being recognized at all. So on some level I can understand their decision and even symphatize with them.
I think many athletes are more concerned with being caught than with any possible side effect. Health risk wise it’s like a mountaineer taking the risk of falling down a cliff during an attempt to reach the peak of a high mountain. It’s a risk a mountaineer will be aware of but one he’s is willing to take to reach his goal.
Don’t think guilt because of cheating is a major factor in the decision to take or not take performance enhancing drugs, but even for those who are successful in the end (winning and not getting caught) it must feel awful to have done it with the help of drugs.
While the perceived need to dope may be higher in cycling as it is far and away the toughest major sport around, don’t for a minute think that it’s restricted to cycling. Cycling just happens to have the most proactive anti-doping organizational structure, and tests most, prosecutes most, and puts most into the detection of new substances and methods of cheating.
Olympic track and filed comes a close second, followed at increasing distances by codes like swimming, weightlifting, etc.
Professional football, baseball, basketball, and golf are distant losers in the practice, while many other sports have no testing at all.
{mistake}
Three thoughts.
-
No one should cheat, but what is cheating? I mean, who writes the lists? I read a good article on the BBC website where some bloke from a university somewhere compared THG use to living at altitude and weight training. All ways to make your body unnaturally better. Who decides what is allowed and what is banned? Why is caffeine, creatine, or indeed water, allowed? OK that last one was a bit OTT.
-
What a lot of money is wasted on trying to catch dopers. They’ll always be one step ahead and as such, the richest blokes can afford the best doctors, which further slants the playing field. Open it up, stop testing altogether and then the playing field is level. It is the only way it can be. As for people risking their health… so are a lot of other sportsmen like MotoGP racers, freeedivers, mountaineers, the list goes on. Not using drugs maybe, but risking everything to achieve a goal. Tour de Lance did actually cycle round France seven times. Ben Johnson did actually run 100m in 9.78 secs or whatever it was.
-
I’m glad he’s been caught. If it’s a witch hunt, he’s a witch. I don’t like his holier than thou attitude to it all, and I don’t like the fact that a lot of poorer people got caught and he got away with it because he’s rich and well connected, and has a dog who can produce piss samples to all and sundry on request. On the other hand, the 7 blokes who get elevated to TDF champ were all probably doping too. I mean, you can’t finish second in the TDF without doing something illegal. Maybe they should make it easier then people wouldn’t be so inclined to cheat.
To me, a professional means you do something to get money. It’s about earning a living, not being a good person. I’m a professional teacher and I do my job to the point at which I can get the maximum amount of money for the least amount of work. If I though getting juiced up would tip the balance further in my favour, I’d consider it. Would that make me a good role model to my students? No, but the reason I teach them is to get paid, not to make them like me or think I’m a hero. I think sportsmen are the same, they are acting purely for personal gain of some description or another - money, fame, ego, who knows? I’m pretty sure none of them are doing it for the fans, as they often claim!
http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2011/landiskimmage
Long read on the rise and fall of Floyd Landis, from his own words (2011 interview). Lots of juice (pun intended) on everyone, of course LA included.
Not to forget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophe_Bassons, who got a raw deal for speaking out against doping in TdF, especially from LA trying to bully him on the famous Alpe d’Huez climb.
So… didn’t they test Armstrong and the other cyclists around the time of the TdF?
If they tested old blood samples for substances that weren’t illicit at the time, isn’t that kind of “ex post facto”?
Of course he was tested regularly, but:
He often had advance warning (30min) of many tests. That gave him enough time to take action, if required e.g. dilute his blood using saline solution.
He was also using masking agents, provided by the wily Dr. Ferrari. These helped him to avoid positive samples.
He did test positive at least twice, despite all this, but used his influence over the UCI to have the positives ‘poured down the sink’, as it were.
It’s not my understanding that they’ve done this. The USADA case rests upon a combination of eye-witness testimony from 1999-2005, and analysis of Armstrong’s blood passport from Comeback 2.0 (his return to cycling in 2009, after his initial retirement).
Expect more from the USADA shortly.
I read somewhere that every time a UCI tester went to his ranch in Texas to teat him, he always made them wait an hour and got some frozen piss of one of his mates, then gave that to the tester instead of his own.