Contador fails drug test

[Ball]

I know some people have argued that seeing as so many riders seem to dope, and need to dope in order to cope with the rigours of professional racing, why not just allow doping. I don't think I could agree with that, but what I would like to know is how much of an effect do these drugs have?

It's very easy to imagine that a rider takes something like clenbuterol and then flies uphill 10 times quicker than everyone else. But they obviously aren't superman pills, and there must actually be quite a fine line between those drugs and the other thousands of supplements and permitted drugs that are taken by athletes everywhere.

Then again, I assume there is a huge amount of science and testing that goes into regulating the sport, and I can only hope that the reasons for some drugs being banned and others not are profound and not arbitrary.

 

[biking_fox]

Some more details from Cycling news

De Boer also calls into question the lab's declaring an Adverse Analytical Finding for such a low amount, and argues that 50pg is 180 times less than the amount shown to induce physical effects by the drug.

Now all we need is a decent source for that 180[sup]th[/sup] of the active level - a quote from his defense expert won't cut it.


Why do journalists on science stories never site their sources properly.?

 

[Smokin Joe]

I know some people have argued that seeing as so many riders seem to dope, and need to dope in order to cope with the rigours of professional racing, why not just allow doping. I don't think I could agree with that, but what I would like to know is how much of an effect do these drugs have?

Greg Lemond, who won had three Tours says that when EPO became commonplace in the peloton he was struggling to keep up on the flat stages.

I've heard that EPO makes about 10% difference, which is a huge amount among riders of fairly similar ability.

 

[zacklaws]

Well if the source of the doping came from meat, then this might account for why I have good days out on the road. All I have to do is work out is Greggs sausage rolls more performance enhancing than Couplands, or could it be Morrissons frozen sausages are better than Netto's. Now I know what I have been missing out on, the cake stop, sausage rolls maybe.

I shall have to alter my training diary to state where I bought my meat from and what it was.

 

[gavintc]

I know some people have argued that seeing as so many riders seem to dope, and need to dope in order to cope with the rigours of professional racing, why not just allow doping. I don't think I could agree with that, but what I would like to know is how much of an effect do these drugs have?

It's very easy to imagine that a rider takes something like clenbuterol and then flies uphill 10 times quicker than everyone else. But they obviously aren't superman pills, and there must actually be quite a fine line between those drugs and the other thousands of supplements and permitted drugs that are taken by athletes everywhere.

Then again, I assume there is a huge amount of science and testing that goes into regulating the sport, and I can only hope that the reasons for some drugs being banned and others not are profound and not arbitrary.

All very well, but if it was acceptable (encouraged) practice at the highest level, it would quickly filter down to the lower amateur levels of the sport. I would not be happy if a 16 yr old aspiring Cavendish replacement was required to be on some enhancing agents to win a junior race.

 

[John the Monkey]

It's very easy to imagine that a rider takes something like clenbuterol and then flies uphill 10 times quicker than everyone else. But they obviously aren't superman pills, and there must actually be quite a fine line between those drugs and the other thousands of supplements and permitted drugs that are taken by athletes everywhere.

Then again, I assume there is a huge amount of science and testing that goes into regulating the sport, and I can only hope that the reasons for some drugs being banned and others not are profound and not arbitrary.

Science of Sport: The Effect of EPO on Performance

Science of Sport: The Drugs Work, But by How Much?

Are both decent starting points.

 

[ColinJ]

Well if the source of the doping came from meat, then this might account for why I have good days out on the road. 

And why I have so many bad ones, not having eaten meat for 25 years!

 

[Ball]

Science of Sport: The Effect of EPO on Performance

Science of Sport: The Drugs Work, But by How Much?

Are both decent starting points.

Thanks. Will read with interest later.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

The 18th Amendment to the US constitution mandated 'The Noble Experiment' It ended in failure and the 21st Amendment was passed 13 years later. Prohibition simply does not work.

As with Americans and alcohol so with pro-tour riders and drugs. All that prohibtion does is drive it underground and ensure that a lot of eneregy and resources goes into hiding the worng doing from the authorities.

What is the philosopical basis for insisting on 'clean' sports? Drugs are a technology, technology is used to bring about incremental improvements in performance, by banning certain technologies which are easily hidden and widely available we invite exactly the problems we have.

 

[philipbh]

Drugs are a technology, technology is used to bring about incremental improvements in performance, by banning certain technologies which are easily hidden and widely available we invite exactly the problems we have.

But with a more robust testing scheme - the cheaters could be rooted out and dealt with more quickly

With riders being banned quickly (for whatever length of time according to the nature of the abuse) this would discourage the drug abusers

Its a bit mad that it takes this long for the results of tests to come out - the Li FuYu case has been around since March / April

He tested positive for a banned substance - take the sanction and get on with your life vs. suspension and then back dated bans or back racing next week on a time served basis

 

[Flying_Monkey]

The 18th Amendment to the US constitution mandated 'The Noble Experiment' It ended in failure and the 21st Amendment was passed 13 years later. Prohibition simply does not work.

As with Americans and alcohol so with pro-tour riders and drugs. All that prohibtion does is drive it underground and ensure that a lot of eneregy and resources goes into hiding the worng doing from the authorities.

What is the philosopical basis for insisting on 'clean' sports? Drugs are a technology, technology is used to bring about incremental improvements in performance, by banning certain technologies which are easily hidden and widely available we invite exactly the problems we have.

IMHO, the social prohibition argument doesn't hold here. 'Sports' are defined partly by the fact that they have rules that are not the normal rules of society around them. They are disciplines. This is the basis for insisting on 'clean sports'. If you want a market-based competition between pharmaceutical (and soon, genetic and nanotech) companies in which the qualities of the rider become increasingly irrelevent, then your solution is great. If you want to make the young men and women involved expendable tools of this competition, then your solution is also great.

But I don't think I like either of those outcomes.

 

[Hont]

Can't believe that there's a debate on making doping legal. Hasn't this been done to death already?

The contaminated blood bag theory has changed my mind somewhat. That seems very plausible, especially considering that Contador (and Schleck for that matter) both seemed to go much better after the rest days. Need the experts to tell us whether it makes scientific sense, but it certainly makes cognitive sense.

And I agree - the denials, the explanations, the pointing to food, contamination, spiking, mishandling - we've been here before. But then Diane Modahl was saying the same things, and she was proven right in the end.

Just trying to keep an open mind - even though history indicates I should do otherwise.

 

[e-rider]

IMHO, the social prohibition argument doesn't hold here. 'Sports' are defined partly by the fact that they have rules that are not the normal rules of society around them. They are disciplines. This is the basis for insisting on 'clean sports'. If you want a market-based competition between pharmaceutical (and soon, genetic and nanotech) companies in which the qualities of the rider become increasingly irrelevent, then your solution is great. If you want to make the young men and women involved expendable tools of this competition, then your solution is also great.

But I don't think I like either of those outcomes.

Yes, but it would open up the sport at a professional level to more people as natural ability and hard work would become less important - even fat blokes could ride the TdeF along as they were taking the hits!

 

[e-rider]

Can't believe that there's a debate on making doping legal. Hasn't this been done to death already?

The contaminated blood bag theory has changed my mind somewhat. That seems very plausible, especially considering that Contador (and Schleck for that matter) both seemed to go much better after the rest days. Need the experts to tell us whether it makes scientific sense, but it certainly makes cognitive sense.

And I agree - the denials, the explanations, the pointing to food, contamination, spiking, mishandling - we've been here before. But then Diane Modahl was saying the same things, and she was proven right in the end.

Just trying to keep an open mind - even though history indicates I should do otherwise.

perhaps that has something to do with resting?

 

[ColinJ]

What is the philosopical basis for insisting on 'clean' sports?

How about the fact that it makes it possible for 'clean' athletes who value their health to stand a chance of winning?

When great riders like Andy Hampsten and Greg Lemond were getting dropped by doped-up 'average' pros it makes a joke of the sport. 

If you say that anything goes, you have the people who are literally willing to die to win winning (and dying)!