# ITV4's review of doping issues, broadcast on the TdF rest day



## suzeworld (10 Jul 2013)

Did you see this programme?

What did y'all think of this three handed debate? .. Miller, Brailsford and Kimmage offering contrasting views on what the Lance era's legacy was and what the future of clean riding means .. 

I thought it was interesting to get the issues summarised this way, maybe regular forum members think they'v heard it all before? 

I have this weird double think about doping .. I wish they didn't do it, wish things were cleaner, and feel sad that the sport has got this spotted past and all that -- but still loving it in all its murkiness .. 

Even Lance, I can get so mixed up, alternating between recalling the amazing thrill I used to get seeing him on Tour stages,and how he personally inspired me when I got my own cancer diagnosis ... and then that dreadful feeling of a personal deceit when I realised his mantra about "I'm on my bike, what are you on ... " was not actually true .. sickening ..


----------



## jazzkat (10 Jul 2013)

At least it's being talked about in the open more.
My feeling is that while there is big bucks some people will try to cheat. I'd love cycling to be clean, but it's got to be tackled head on with some serious consequences. Was it Brailsford or Boardman that said having it written into contracts and so could be sued, would create self policing. At least someone would be seriously hit if they broke the rules. 
I think you get rid of the dark stuff if you shine light on it, keep talking about doping in the open, it can't make the past go away but it might make the future brighter.


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Jul 2013)

I thought it was a snappily put together presentation, bringing together very different three points of view that, despite their individual shortcomings, offered some insight. It wasn't obscure, nor was it patronising.


----------



## tmesis (11 Jul 2013)

I agree with the idea of writing clauses in contracts stating that the team can go after dopers for their past wages, plus damages for any reputational damage caused to the team and sponsors. If the financial risks are high, the law of diminishing returns kicks in.


----------



## suzeworld (11 Jul 2013)

I thought the difference between Brailsford's Zero Tolerance and Miller's rehabilitation model was interesting. Millar making the point that zero tolerance works against shining a light on it, encourages silence and that Mafia-style closed shop.


----------



## oldroadman (11 Jul 2013)

jazzkat said:


> At least it's being talked about in the open more.
> *My feeling is that while there is big bucks some people will try to cheat.* I'd love cycling to be clean, but it's got to be tackled head on with some serious consequences. Was it Brailsford or Boardman that said having it written into contracts and so could be sued, would create self policing. At least someone would be seriously hit if they broke the rules.
> I think you get rid of the dark stuff if you shine light on it, keep talking about doping in the open, it can't make the past go away but it might make the future brighter.


 
Exactly. The difference with cycling is that the sport is open about the problem and working to deal with it, make it as difficult as possible for anyone to use illegal techniques. I wish all professional (and some amateur) sports took such a strong line, because as you said, big bucks = temptation. But sadly some of them simply do an ostrich impersonation and pretend that there is no problem, which of course would be the case when you are not looking for it, or adequately testing, or have a very strong ethos.


----------



## smutchin (11 Jul 2013)

tmesis said:


> I agree with the idea of writing clauses in contracts stating that the team can go after dopers for their past wages, plus damages for any reputational damage caused to the team and sponsors. If the financial risks are high, the law of diminishing returns kicks in.


 
This absolves teams of their responsibilities. Teams need to be held more accountable for the behaviour of their riders. Look at Vini Fantini - two riders caught in the Giro, but despite all kinds of dodgy rumours about the team, they essentially get off scot-free because "the riders were acting alone". Which smells very funny to me.

It's unfair on the riders too, and a retrograde step. It's always been the way in pro cycling that riders are essentially left to their own devices by the team and just told when and where to turn up and race. This is why riders like David Millar have succumbed to the pressure to dope... If teams expect a certain level of performance from their riders, but don't provide the support networks, what do the teams expect? And if you continue to only punish riders when they're caught, not the team, where's the incentive for the team to properly police them?


----------



## tmesis (11 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> This absolves teams of their responsibilities.


 
If the team sue the rider, and they've been complicit in the doping, the rider will surely draw on this fact to lessen/nullify the damages. If the team don't sue the rider because they're afraid of what might come out, the sponsors can sue the team. It was the legal process that finally blew open the US postal case as, when push came to shove, riders would rather admit doping that do time for perjury.


----------



## smutchin (11 Jul 2013)

tmesis said:


> If the team sue the rider, and they've been complicit in the doping, the rider will surely draw on this fact to lessen/nullify the damages.


 
I'm thinking more of cases where the team's complicity is passive - where they aren't directly facilitiating or encouraging doping but also aren't doing enough to prevent it going on within the team.

To be specific, I'm thinking of AG2R.

It's far too easy for teams to say "he was acting alone" and wash their hands of the problem.

I didn't see the programme so I don't know to what extent this matter was covered, but since David Millar was involved, I assume he talked about the Garmin philosophy of having a central team base and proper support for riders so there isn't the same temptation - or need - for Garmin riders to make the mistakes he made.


----------



## smutchin (11 Jul 2013)

Also, even if a team is actively complicit, they're probably sensible enough these days to do it in a way that makes it hard for riders to prove. I can't imagine any current team is overtly running a USPS-style team-sponsored doping program. And I can well believe that some riders would be stupid enough to go along with any attempts to conceal team involvement - even to the extent of signing anti-doping clauses in their contracts that explicitly absolve the team of all responsibility if they are caught.


----------



## Hont (11 Jul 2013)

jazzkat said:


> My feeling is that while there is big bucks some people will try to cheat.


 
It doesn't even need that, sadly; some people will cheat just for glory. But I agree that there will always be some who try to cheat in professional sport.


----------



## Cycling Dan (11 Jul 2013)

They keep saying that drugs are bad but only poor news crew and journalists deal in absolutes.


----------



## suzeworld (11 Jul 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> They keep saying that drugs are bad but only poor news crew and journalists deal in absolutes.


I do not understand your point. R u saying the whole drug use issue is not black n white?


----------



## Cycling Dan (11 Jul 2013)

suzeworld said:


> I do not understand your point. R u saying the whole drug use issue is not black n white?


Yep, it's all grey. A lot in between. It's not just black and white.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (11 Jul 2013)

suzeworld said:


> I do not understand your point. R u saying the whole drug use issue is not black n white?


The underlying issue - dope or no dope - is fairly black and white. However, the blurry bits come when you try to eradicate doping. There's the idealistic, almost black and white, approach of Sky which can reinforce the omerta. And there's the more pragmatic approach of truth and reconciliation chez Millar/Garmin, designed to bring things out in the open. The end is the same, the means are very different.


----------



## Cycling Dan (11 Jul 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> The underlying issue - dope or no dope - is fairly black and white. However, the blurry bits come when you try to eradicate doping. There's the idealistic, almost black and white, approach of Sky which can reinforce the omerta. And there's the more pragmatic approach of truth and reconciliation chez Millar/Garmin, designed to bring things out in the open. The end is the same, the means are very different.


Even to use or not is grey for me. Not so much visable in the TDF teams but for other sides of cycling some teams have vastly larger amounts of funding. So they have a unfair advantage as they can spend more on bikes and support there team better through training and real life support to further the training. Doping could then be considered fair in order to give the team of lesser funding to ability to become competitive again. Also there are types of doping which is legal in the sport. Its possible for a team to go into the mountains for a few months to increase there red blood cell count naturally. This is very expensive and a less off team may not be able to do this. So they use blood doping which is taking blood out to increase red blood cell out and then placing it back. Is this fair that one team can do this and another cant? Is it right for one team to dope to become just as competitive as its rival? Bare in mind the first example of the mountains is legal but the second is not. Both of which do the same thing.

Its all grey.


----------



## lukesdad (11 Jul 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Even to use or not is grey for me. Not so much visable in the TDF teams but for other sides of cycling some teams have vastly larger amounts of funding. So they have a unfair advantage as they can spend more on bikes and support there team better through training and real life support to further the training. Doping could then be considered fair in order to give the team of lesser funding to ability to become competitive again. Also there are types of doping which is legal in the sport. Its possible for a team to go into the mountains for a few months to increase there red blood cell count naturally. This is very expensive and a less off team may not be able to do this. So they use blood doping which is taking blood out to increase red blood cell out and then placing it back. Is this fair that one team can do this and another cant? Is it right for one team to dope to become just as competitive as its rival? Bare in mind the first example of the mountains is legal but the second is not. Both of which do the same thing.
> 
> Its all grey.


 I couldn't of said it better myself Bravo! As ive said many times before drugs are the symptom Money is the disease. Riders will risk a lot including their health to be successful the greater the rewards the greater risks they will be prepared to take. In this era of 'clean competition' the success of one team stands out like a Beacon. If they planned it such they probably could have one this years tour with anyone of 4 riders from the squad, simply because they have the resources other teams don't. You may or may not agree but if the other teams fall further behind there will only be one result, that being the cancer we all like to be rid of.


----------



## SWSteve (11 Jul 2013)

re: black/white with doping. I don't think it's as simple as it's made out to be. Doping is black and white, but cheating wasn't. I have to say I can see how ex-cyclists/dopers can say how they didn't cheat. If everyone, and it seems almost everyone, was doping - then how can it be cheating?

I don't think doping is right in any modern sport, there should be appropriate punishments. Everyone seems to have forgotten Rio Ferdinand forgetting to visit doping at the Man U training ground and then getting a ban.

Cycling's view of "Oh he cheated years ago, but it's fine now so we'll let him race again - but as a reminder we've stripped him of his titles" isn't fair. These guys take places in teams which could be used by those who haven't ever doped and want to take their dream to the next level - and chances are they could make a good run of it.

Make it difficult for teams to bring ex-dopers to meeting and it'll soon stop, it should be as much their fault as the racers. I've said before how I like Sky's policy on doping - If you've seen it happen with the team you raced for/managed, you're off - and frankly they're doing alright without it.

Doping is too often spoken about as something that used to happen, this obviously isn't the case. Shouldn't more be done about it


----------



## Crackle (11 Jul 2013)

There's no grey area when it comes to doping or cheating, which is doing something outside the rules.Often, that means risking your health and by association, example and influence, letting others think it's OK to do the same.

Having a competitive advantage due to having more resources is a different matter, an interesting debate possibly but it's not cheating, even if it may encourage others to do so, they're still cheating. Someone will always gain an advantage somehow (see F1) but cheating to keep up is not the answer and if I'm honest it's not really that grey to work it out either.

Chris Boardman used to train at altitude in his spare bedroom.


----------



## rich p (11 Jul 2013)

Sky may have put money into the sport and upped the ante in terms of rider support, innovative specific training, medical support and equipment but most of those pathways have been available to all teams for years. Cycling teams and DS's chose to take a get-on-with-it philosophy as long as you turn up fit for the race. It was a revolution waiting to happen and modern methods were the driver, not money.
In terms of money spent on riders, it's not as if they went out and bought the best. Apart from Wiggins, who nobody even gave a prayer of winning the TdF when it happened, they haven't spent shedloads. Froome would have been as cheap as chips as he was a virtual unknown, Porte was drifting at Saxo and was available to anyone etc. Stannard, Knees, Pate, Eisel, Siutsou, Dowsett, Swift, JTL, etc weren't expensive buys. It is hardly the Man City of pro cycling.


----------



## smutchin (11 Jul 2013)

Garmin have been the main drivers of change in philosophy regarding team ethics and practices.

And you only have to look at the differing fortunes of Garmin and AG2R in recent times to see the benefits of that philosophy. 

See also Belkin, who might never have lost the lucrative Rabobank sponsorship if the team had been run more along Garmin lines. (And it's coming to something when a bank can take the moral high ground.)

You can't just blame lack of resources.


----------



## lukesdad (11 Jul 2013)

I think Alex Dowsett s face said eveything about resources on commenting on Froomes TT bars 12 K that would have probably covered europcars entire hotel bill for the 1st week of the tour!

Modern methods by the way cost money,lots of money.


----------



## Noodley (11 Jul 2013)

Such a shame that ITV did not get either Liggett or Sherwen to contribute their views...that would have been fun


----------



## lukesdad (11 Jul 2013)

Noods !!!!!!!!!!


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (11 Jul 2013)

lukesdad said:


> Noods !!!!!!!!!!


He's broken the *sterix machine!


----------



## smutchin (11 Jul 2013)

lukesdad said:


> Modern methods by the way cost money,lots of money.


 
True. But money isn't the whole story. If it were, BMC and Katusha would win everything.


----------



## SWSteve (11 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> True. But money isn't the whole story. If it were, BMC would win everything.


 
If they've got so much money why have they got the worst kit going? It's terrible


----------



## lukesdad (11 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> True. But money isn't the whole story. If it were, BMC and Katusha would win everything.


 Are you forgetting Sky s links to the British track programme Smutchers.


----------



## rich p (11 Jul 2013)

lukesdad said:


> I think Alex Dowsett s face said eveything about resources on commenting on Froomes TT bars 12 K that would have probably covered europcars entire hotel bill for the 1st week of the tour!
> 
> Modern methods by the way cost money,lots of money.


Any pro teams budget is huge, even Europcar's, but the real reason that Sky is winning this TdF, so far, with Froome is that they invested wisely on his potential, not that he has pricey TT bars!


----------



## SWSteve (11 Jul 2013)

i wish I had a pair of bars that cost £12,000, then I could flog them to get a beautiful Bianchi and not feel bad about going n+1 after 5 months


----------



## Cycling Dan (11 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> Any pro teams budget is huge, even Europcar's, but the real reason that Sky is winning this TdF, so far, with Froome is that they invested wisely on his potential, not that he has pricey TT bars!


 
However with the money they have they can invest in a better trainer and programs etc. Even send him to the hills of fark knows where to practice where another team may not be able too.


----------



## lukesdad (11 Jul 2013)

Lets not get confused between a teams budget and a teams resources.


----------



## rich p (11 Jul 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> However with the money they have they can invest in a better trainer and programs etc. Even send him to the hills of f*** knows where to practice where another team may not be able too.


They chose to spend the money on sophisticated training which the other teams are now beginning to follow, after years of being stuck in a rut, in much the way British football stagnated while being overtaken by continental teams.
Investing wisely.


----------



## Cycling Dan (11 Jul 2013)

lukesdad said:


> Lets not get confused between a teams budget and a teams resources.


 
Either one ,it relays back to what I originally said. Is it wrong for a team to dope to become competitive again vs a rival which outranks it in both areas. Fact is most teams will dope but legal or illegal doping being the question.


----------



## smutchin (11 Jul 2013)

lukesdad said:


> Are you forgetting Sky s links to the British track programme Smutchers.


 
I was talking about Garmin, not Sky. I'm not sure what your point is.


----------



## lukesdad (11 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> Any pro teams budget is huge, even Europcar's, but the real reason that Sky is winning this TdF, so far, with Froome is that they invested wisely on his potential, not that he has pricey TT bars!


 i wasn t suggesting it was, europcar will be pleased to find they re a pro team now.


----------



## lukesdad (11 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> I was talking about Garmin, not Sky. I'm not sure what your point is.


You ve got me now I thought you were talking about BMC and Katusha ?

....and budgets ,no ?


----------



## lukesdad (11 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> They chose to spend the money on sophisticated training which the other teams are now beginning to follow, after years of being stuck in a rut, in much the way British football stagnated while being overtaken by continental teams.
> Investing wisely.


 Investing wisely indeed, mainly with huge lumps of dosh gathered from the national lottery and british taxpayer.


----------



## lukesdad (11 Jul 2013)

Rich half the people instigating and conducting these programmes are not paid by sky.


----------



## rich p (11 Jul 2013)

lukesdad said:


> i wasn t suggesting it was, europcar will be pleased to find they re a pro team now.


In that case I missed your point about the tri-bars costing £12k.
True about Europcar not be Pro but what was the point in comparing them though?


----------



## rich p (11 Jul 2013)

lukesdad said:


> Rich half the people instigating and conducting these programmes are not paid by sky.


Froome, Knees, Eisel, Porte, Siutsou, Pate etc didn't come up thru BC though.


----------



## lukesdad (11 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> In that case I missed your point about the tri-bars costing £12k.
> True about Europcar not be Pro but what was the point in comparing them though?


 Dowsetts face have you been drinking ?


----------



## oldroadman (11 Jul 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Either one ,it relays back to what I originally said. Is it wrong for a team to dope to become competitive again vs a rival which outranks it in both areas. Fact is most teams will dope but legal or illegal doping being the question.


 
Yes it is wrong to use illegal substances. And should be hammered - 5 years first time, life for a second at a minimum. Career ending suspension for a first offence for most riders. Plus the teams and their management to be heavily penalised, to focus the minds of those supposedly in charge of their riders. Loss of World Tour licence for 2 years would make some of the less "interested" management think.
Investment in proper structured training and, for instance, altitude work which does not have to cost a fortune, but requires a large amount of dedication and application. To suggest it is too expensive for €12 million euro budget teams is nonsense. Hotels at altitude can be cheap if you book the place out of season, which is when a lot of the work gets done. What is needed by some teams is a shift in mindset, where the team takes responsibility for rider training, welfare, nutrition, individual programmes and monitoring them (all easy with technology, and does not just say "be at the start of xyz race ready to go in x months". That was the old way, and look where it got "traditional" teams.
Sky and Garmin are examples of changing the paradigm.


----------



## rich p (11 Jul 2013)

lukesdad said:


> Dowsetts face have you been drinking ?


Is that it????
Blimey, I'd be better off having a debate with the headcam man that training at altitude is the same as blood doping and I'm steering well clear of that cul-de-sac!!!!
p.s. yes, of course I've been drinking.


----------



## lukesdad (11 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> Froome, Knees, Eisel, Porte, Siutsou, Pate etc didn't come up thru BC though.


 No they didn't but they're reaping the benefits of a decade of investment.


----------



## 400bhp (11 Jul 2013)

Never mind the doping piece, I like Boardman's piece in each show about the effects of drag. Essentially little intellectual digs at the non-sky teams indifference to the science around wind resistance.


----------



## lukesdad (11 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> Is that it????
> Blimey, I'd be better off having a debate with the headcam man that training at altitude is the same as blood doping and I'm steering well clear of that cul-de-sac!!!!
> p.s. yes, of course I've been drinking.


 Did you not see the interview ?


----------



## smutchin (11 Jul 2013)

lukesdad said:


> No they didn't but they're reaping the benefits of a decade of investment.


 
Tbh, I'd rather my taxes went into funding a successful international pro cycling team than propping up thieving bastard banks.


----------



## rich p (11 Jul 2013)

lukesdad said:


> No they didn't but they're reaping the benefits of a decade of investment.


I suspect that we're never going to agree on this one. I see new investment in cycling and sensible training methods as a good thing instead of the previous laissez-faire approach where Bertie was encouraged to spend his wages and dope on steak...
Trolling - please ignore me!


----------



## 400bhp (11 Jul 2013)

Kimmage really got stuck into Astana's manager. Mentioned his name quite a few times.

Surely a matter of time before the wheels fall off that team isn't it?


----------



## lukesdad (11 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> I suspect that we're never going to agree on this one. I see new investment in cycling and sensible training methods as a good thing instead of the previous laissez-faire approach where Bertie was encouraged to spend his wages and dope on steak...
> Trolling - please ignore me!


 I agree wholeheartdly, my point is are the other teams going to catch up or are they going to take another route ?
To go back to the dowsett interview he was talking about the Pinarello s both teams used, and various components for the TT and said they had to use the sponsors bars ( which i gather he thought were pretty crap) then inferred that sky had no such worries and dropped in the 12k


----------



## smutchin (11 Jul 2013)

lukesdad said:


> You ve got me now I thought you were talking about BMC and Katusha ?
> 
> ....and budgets ,no ?


 
Well, I made a post about Garmin's modern methods, shortly after which you made a post about modern methods costing money, so I assumed you were responding to my comments. Maybe I've got my wires crossed.

Anyway, I picked on Garmin rather than Sky precisely to avoid getting sidetracked by a discussion of funding and resources, because that isn't really the point. The mention of BMC and Katusha was an admittedly somewhat oblique way of highlighting the fact that Garmin are far from being the richest team in the peloton.

Other teams - again, I'm thinking specifically of AG2R - could follow the Garmin example if they wanted to.


----------



## lukesdad (11 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> Tbh, I'd rather my taxes went into funding a successful international pro cycling team than propping up thieving b****** banks.


 Or for that matter a Bank propping up a team of thieving b****** dopers ?


----------



## lukesdad (11 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> Well, I made a post about Garmin's modern methods, shortly after which you made a post about modern methods costing money, so I assumed you were responding to my comments. Maybe I've got my wires crossed.
> 
> Anyway, I picked on Garmin rather than Sky precisely to avoid getting sidetracked by a discussion of funding and resources, because that isn't really the point. The mention of BMC and Katusha was an admittedly somewhat oblique way of highlighting the fact that Garmin are far from being the richest team in the peloton.
> 
> Other teams - again, I'm thinking specifically of AG2R - could follow the Garmin example if they wanted to.


Ah but this is the crux isn't it which way are they going to go, they could all say feck it we going the europcar way and not compete, or go back to their old ways and try and compete, or try to go the sky or garmin way. Anyway I fear the next decade of GTs maybe somewhat predictable


----------



## Cycling Dan (12 Jul 2013)

oldroadman said:


> Yes it is wrong to use illegal substances. And should be hammered - 5 years first time, life for a second at a minimum. Career ending suspension for a first offence for most riders. Plus the teams and their management to be heavily penalised, to focus the minds of those supposedly in charge of their riders. Loss of World Tour licence for 2 years would make some of the less "interested" management think.
> Investment in proper structured training and, for instance, altitude work which does not have to cost a fortune, but requires a large amount of dedication and application. To suggest it is too expensive for €12 million euro budget teams is nonsense. Hotels at altitude can be cheap if you book the place out of season, which is when a lot of the work gets done. What is needed by some teams is a shift in mindset, where the team takes responsibility for rider training, welfare, nutrition, individual programmes and monitoring them (all easy with technology, and does not just say "be at the start of xyz race ready to go in x months". That was the old way, and look where it got "traditional" teams.
> Sky and Garmin are examples of changing the paradigm.


 
What I said applies less to TDF teams but more cycling as a whole. Look at semi pro or pro but not TDF standard. You will see the divisions much more clearly.


----------



## smutchin (12 Jul 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> However with the money they have they can invest in a better trainer and programs etc. Even send him to the hills of f*** knows where to practice where another team may not be able too.



Tenerife schmenerife! Andy Rihs is currently building a state of the art new cycling base on the moon - ultimate altitude training! 

They should ban this kind of nonsense.


----------



## Cycling Dan (12 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> Tenerife schmenerife! Andy Rihs is currently building a state of the art new cycling base on the moon - ultimate altitude training!
> 
> They should ban this kind of nonsense.


 
You missed my point entirely.


----------



## suzeworld (13 Jul 2013)

Noodley said:


> Such a shame that ITV did not get either Liggett or Sherwen to contribute their views...that would have been fun


Good point, are they totally complicit in all the doping of the past?


----------



## suzeworld (13 Jul 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Either one ,it relays back to what I originally said. Is it wrong for a team to dope to become competitive again vs a rival which outranks it in both areas. Fact is most teams will dope but legal or illegal doping being the question.


It maybe part of the question, but the line is drawn and one side is legal, the other isn't, so all players should stay on the right side.

The other part of the question is the riders' health. Pushing their body with training and diet takes enough of a toll; who knows what impact the illegal options have on their bodies AND the pressure to use is well enough described in various riders' biographies, it is not really a free choice if you are told you can't ever win unless you join the doping train.

BUT if the prevailing culture is not to do it, then it is easier for everyone to not do it which is healthier for the individual, if nothing else.


----------



## Cycling Dan (13 Jul 2013)

suzeworld said:


> It maybe part of the question, but the line is drawn and one side is legal, the other isn't, so all players should stay on the right side.
> 
> The other part of the question is the riders' health. Pushing their body with training and diet takes enough of a toll; who knows what impact the illegal options have on their bodies AND the pressure to use is well enough described in various riders' biographies, it is not really a free choice if you are told you can't ever win unless you join the doping train.
> 
> BUT if the prevailing culture is not to do it, then it is easier for everyone to not do it which is healthier for the individual, if nothing else.


One counter to that is it could and should be the riders once choice. They should be informed of any and all side effects and what it does. Of course that's a counter to the free will argument. The rider may not know all the information. 
Lastly being harmful is in no means a requirement to make a drug illegal. Sure it has side effects but everything does. A lot of the time it's illegal as the drug is seen to give a unfair advantage. Safe or not is very much the campaign line for Americans on weed. Weed on te whole is much safer than alcohol but its still illegal. Of course that depends on whom you ask. Pro or anti weed. Ok off track now.


----------



## smutchin (13 Jul 2013)

Yeah, that's fine if what you want to see is lots and lots and lots of athletes dropping dead by their mid-30s.


----------



## Cycling Dan (13 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> Yeah, that's fine if what you want to see is lots and lots and lots of athletes dropping dead by their mid-30s.


Most of them dope now. Not many of them are dead. A lot of the illegal methods are impossible to detect. Blood doping being one of them. Also if they are going to dope they are going to have the people with the know how to give the person the drug so risk should be at a mim.
At the end of it all there are a lot of ifs and buts. For, aginsts, it's not black and white like I said at the start.


----------



## smutchin (13 Jul 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> A lot of the illegal methods are impossible to detect. Blood doping being one of them.



You might want to check a few facts before continuing this discussion.


----------



## Cycling Dan (13 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> You might want to check a few facts before continuing this discussion.


Rather than a lot I should have put most of which are used. Which is why there is no absaloute proof Armstrong doped - in terms of proof from science of him doping- if that makes sense. With blood doping for example you can do it naturally which is legal but expensive. In turn there is no way to tell the difference if you we're to do blood tests as all it would show is a increased red blood cell count.


----------



## smutchin (13 Jul 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Also if they are going to dope they are going to have the people with the know how to give the person the drug so risk should be at a mim.



No, what will happen is they'll take the risks anyway because they'll consider the potential gains worthwhile. 

Does the name Florence Griffith Joyner mean nothing to you?


----------



## smutchin (13 Jul 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> there is no absaloute proof Armstrong doped - in terms of proof from science of him doping



I think you've just scientifically proved that you are a nobber.


----------



## Cycling Dan (13 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> No, what will happen is they'll take the risks anyway because they'll consider the potential gains worthwhile.
> 
> Does the name Florence Griffith Joyner mean nothing to you?


This is very much all he said she said. No proof at all and ME said drugs were not involved in her death. I can't explain the increased performance but again there was no proof of illegal drug use.


----------



## smutchin (13 Jul 2013)

Go on, keep digging.


----------



## Cycling Dan (13 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> Go on, keep digging.


Anyhow I'm not defending drugs use but nor am I against them. It's a grey area and I don't see it as black and white which is what I said at the start. Many for and vs, lots of ifs and buts. Drug use is bad and good. It's not either or. You have to evaluate for that person ad decide which side it learns to the most.


----------



## Crackle (13 Jul 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Rather than a lot I should have put most of which are used. Which is why there is no absaloute proof Armstrong doped - in terms of proof from science of him doping- if that makes sense. With blood doping for example you can do it naturally which is legal but expensive. In turn there is no way to tell the difference if you we're to do blood tests as all it would show is a increased red blood cell count.


You need to do a bit more reading up on this because you are not making sense, in fact you're factually wrong and as such, no meaningful discussion can be had.


----------



## Cycling Dan (13 Jul 2013)

Crackle said:


> You need to do a bit more reading up on this because you are not making sense, in fact you're factually wrong and as such, no meaningful discussion can be had.


Which bit being wrong exactly. The blood doping part is correct of course some parts of blood doping is detectable by antigens and co count but that does not work for all versions of blood doping. I specifically talking about one kind where you can do it naturally eg being on top of a mountain and artificially were you cant tell if it was naturally done or artificially. I don't remember the name of the specific blood doping though(trying to find my a2 bio book for it). Lastly there is no scientific proof Armstrong did doping- of course we know he did- team testimony and confession.


----------



## smutchin (13 Jul 2013)

Moderators - please shut down this thread now, for the sake of everyone's sanity.

(Is "Lance never tested positive" the cycling forum equivalent of Godwin's law?)


----------



## Crackle (13 Jul 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Which bit being wrong exactly. The blood doping part is correct of course some parts of blood doping is detectable by antigens and co count but that does not work for all versions of blood doping. I specifically talking about one kind where you can do it naturally eg being on top of a mountain and artificially were you cant tell if it was naturally done or artificially. I don't remember the name of the specific blood doping though(trying to find my a2 bio book for it). Lastly there is no scientific proof Armstrong did doping- of course we know he did- team testimony and confession.


Leaving aside that there are non-admissable positives, leaving aside that proof takes many forms, not just a positive test, there are ways of telling when blood is re-introduced, even if it's your own blood, this is one of the things the bio-passport can pick up on, reticule levels etc... Armstrong's own 2010 passport levels were highly suspicious if not conclusive.

We also know that doping doesn't affect every rider in an equal way. There is evidence now that riders are taking drugs which have not been approved for clinical use and which cause cancers. Do you really think allowing drug use to 'even things up' is wise. Before the 50% haemocrit level, riders were dying in their sleep. The team managers used to wake them up in the night and get them on a static trainer. Is this a vision of sport which sits fine with you, one you'd be happy to introduce your son or daughter or friend too?

I think I understand the point you're trying to make but as fa as I'm concerned there is no grey area. We've also done this several times in racing, which is why I sound a bit weary.


----------



## smutchin (13 Jul 2013)

User said:


> no evidence her epileptic fit which killed her was caused by steroid abuse....



On the one hand, Dan's saying there's no scientific proof Lance doped and we only know he doped because he confessed. 

On the other hand, there's no scientific proof Flo Jo doped so she must have been clean.

Does nothing seem slightly odd about that line of reasoning to you?

I've had enough of rehashing these tired old arguments, so for that reason, ah'm oot.


----------



## rich p (13 Jul 2013)

Any sensible posters should vacate this thread asap.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (13 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> Any sensible posters should vacate this thread asap.


 

Even a feckin' eejit would bail out.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (13 Jul 2013)

User said:


> bail if you must, yet I'll wait for that link...


Waiting for links can sometimes be fatal....


----------



## Cycling Dan (13 Jul 2013)

Crackle said:


> Leaving aside that there are non-admissable positives, leaving aside that proof takes many forms, not just a positive test, there are ways of telling when blood is re-introduced, even if it's your own blood, this is one of the things the bio-passport can pick up on, reticule levels etc... Armstrong's own 2010 passport levels were highly suspicious if not conclusive.
> 
> We also know that doping doesn't affect every rider in an equal way. There is evidence now that riders are taking drugs which have not been approved for clinical use and which cause cancers. Do you really think allowing drug use to 'even things up' is wise. Before the 50% haemocrit level, riders were dying in their sleep. The team managers used to wake them up in the night and get them on a static trainer. Is this a vision of sport which sits fine with you, one you'd be happy to introduce your son or daughter or friend too?
> 
> I think I understand the point you're trying to make but as fa as I'm concerned there is no grey area. We've also done this several times in racing, which is why I sound a bit weary.


 
There are most certainly some very dangerous drugs out there which should be no where near anything however there are some with "acceptable" risk. Now acceptable will vary person to person so " on that word. If a drug was specifically made to even the playing field then maybe we could see its introduction into the playing field. As you inadvertently made the point drugs legal or not can be very dangerous.
Although one argument for drug use is that ultimately as long as the person is told of any possible outcome if they so choose to still take the drug then that is their choice.
At the end of it all no matter how much you want it to be fair is never going to be fair. You can push it along but in due course someone is going to have a great advantage than you. One doorway is the use of drugs. Some drugs will be safer than others, some given development and research could have mim effects. Its all if this, if that.
I think the general point i'm trying to make is that its going to happen whether we like it or not. All out prohibition never works so we might as well control it. Even then that's not what i would personally want.
Really there is no definitive right answer. You want to look for the best compromise. Drugs are always going to be there and banning them is not a solution but a delay tactic. Its a circle of never ending unfairness. Fact is... there is no solution only compromises. Do one thing there is a never ending knock on effect. Do another and you go the opposite way. In both directions people are going to use. To level the playing field or to gain a further advantage. Its all a bit much to fathom


----------



## lukesdad (14 Jul 2013)

........ and you lot thought I was bonkers !


----------



## Crackle (14 Jul 2013)

lukesdad said:


> ........ and you lot thought I was bonkers !


We know you're bonkers, we didn't think.


----------



## suzeworld (15 Jul 2013)

Just watching them climb Mont Ventoux yesterday reminded me of the time I got to see three stages of the tour, including a stint on this iconic climb.

It was 2009. That was the one with a time trial around Lac Annecy when Armstrong made his come back, and fell out with Contador. Those two dopers came first and third with anothet possible doper, Andy Schleck, in second place. Wiggo was 4th, denied his first podium placing by this gang of cheats.

So it is for him, and all the other displaced winners that I think doping is not just a personal choice.

It ducks the point to say it's all about compromise. It isn't, it is about a race with its own set of rules, which every one had to work within. Same as you cannot turn up and race it with a 50cc engine strapped under your saddle. Boundaries have to be drawn and efforts made to enforce them, or everyone gets forced to dope to stand any chance of winning.


----------



## oldroadman (15 Jul 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Rather than a lot I should have put most of which are used. Which is why there is no absaloute proof Armstrong doped - in terms of proof from science of him doping- if that makes sense. *With blood doping for example you can do it naturally which is legal* but expensive. In turn there is no way to tell the difference if you we're to do blood tests as all it would show is a increased red blood cell count.


 
Check facts again. Completely wrong and illigal. Re-transfusing your own blood taken earlier is detectable by comparing cell age from a blood sample.


----------



## Noodley (16 Jul 2013)

I don't think facts matter to Knows-Bugger-All-About-Pro-Race-Cycling-Dan


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Jul 2013)

so what did people think of the programme, then..........?


----------



## lukesdad (16 Jul 2013)

Crackle said:


> We know you're bonkers, we didn't think.


Thinking does tend to hurt some on here.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (16 Jul 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> so what did people think of the programme, then..........?


Back on topic, eh? For what it's worth, I thought the programme did a very good job of presenting different points of view about the way forward. For this to be on national free-to-air TV was also very welcome. 

I'm not sure how recent Brailsford's interview was, though. It now looks like he's coming to terms with the fact that his riders are very close to cycling past the credibility barrier.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (17 Jul 2013)

Never mind the program, this is a sobering read: http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/philippe-gaumont-the-life-and-times-of-an-enfant-terrible


----------



## smutchin (17 Jul 2013)

Great piece. Rather chilling. And terribly sad.


----------



## johnr (19 Jul 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> so what did people think of the programme, then..........?


 I was struck by the absence of any discussion of the role of journalist-commentator-apologists in muddying the waters, obstructing investgations and ostracising brave colleagues who took a principled stance... but then ITV4 does employ one of the gultiest parties.


----------

