Doping and Cheats

[User]

 

[ColinJ]

Oh OK. So the realisation that someone has taken a doping product and died will stop other young men from doing the same will it? Yep, that should do it. I wonder no one else thought of trying the 'look how bad it is for you, you don't want to be doing that' approach. Maybe you could suggest the same approach to the Government about smoking, drinking, casual sex, cannabis use, drink driving, mobile usage while driving, speeding, not using the green cross code, and on and on and on.... The reason that it will not deter other people from doping is as simple as the reason that cigarettes still sell by the van load, despite being covered in pictures of diseased lungs. Anyone, and I am definitely saying that this young man was, who decides to dope things they will not get caught, either by the authorities or the grim reaper.

(a) I don't like the tone of your response to my opinion.

( I think you undermine your own argument.

(c) I'm not going to discuss it further. My original post was all I had to say on the subject.

 

[yello]

On the question of the verdict, any fan of cycling would surely be in denial if EPO didn't cross their mind upon hearing this news.

I'm inclined to agree with this, more's the pity. I think it's a fan's awareness of the realities of what goes on and, to some degree, its prevalence. Whether that makes me cynical or realistic, or indeed both, I don't know. I'd honestly prefer not to think such things.

I also think it perfectly okay and understandable to speculate. So long as we all know that's what we're doing. I think we can share our thoughts on the subject without it being (or interpreted as being) disrespectful.

I do respect the father's wishes for their to be no autopsy. That's the family's call and I don't see that they are under any obligation to answer questions for cycling or its fans. I also don't read anything sinister into their decision and take it at face value. That leaves the rest of us with our own thoughts and opinions.

Personally, I acknowledge the Quatar doctors' opinion and think that Nolf's death was just a simple and tragic natural end to a promising life and career.

 

[Skip Madness]

I don't doubt this statement, I was responding to your statement that you would 'want to know if someone was giving my son dope' On many levels, they do not "give" it. Someone makes a conscious decision, we are not talking about the late 1960s and Russian gymnasts and shot-putters here.

I am not quite sure what you mean by:

On many levels, they do not "give" it.

On one very important level, someone does give it. The supply reacts to the demand, otherwise riders (not necessarily Nolf, of course) would never actually get their hands on the stuff. Riders must take responsibility - that goes without saying - but so must the people who supply their substances. If I suspected my son had taken EPO, say, I would want to make damned well sure I found out who was handing it out.

Having said all that, I nevertheless understand and respect Nolf's family's desire not to drag things out.

 

[wafflycat]

On one very important level, someone does give it. The supply reacts to the demand, otherwise riders (not necessarily Nolf, of course) would never actually get their hands on the stuff. Riders must take responsibility - that goes without saying - but so must the people who supply their substances. If I suspected my son had taken EPO, say, I would want to make damned well sure I found out who was handing it out.

Having said all that, I nevertheless understand and respect Nolf's family's desire not to drag things out.

+1

 

[User169]

Doping products are not given, they are paid for.
Doping products are not given, they are requested.
Doping products are not given, they are administered to willing recipients.

OK - agreed.

Still, I think it would be good to know who is selling (and where they get if from) and who is administering.

 

[gillan]

maggot

i think you are speaking out of turn..

doping products are paid for however......

in festina (if not many more) the payments were systematic. if you didn't join in you were ostracised by your team mates (a la obree). If you're a young and impressionable pro who may even have had a poster of some of your new team mates on your wall, that is a powerful incentive to conform to the norm. Lets not fool ourselves...it was the cultural norm to dope in the pro scene. It takes time for a whole culture to change (look at our bankers/bonuses and MPs/expenses). What is under discussion is that these external forces can sway a young mind and that the systematic use of these products should be addressed. This is specifically so now due to the new testing that's in place. You actually need help from a whole range of people to navigate the system and not get caught

If you had sacrificed the majority of your life for something like these young guys do you may not take such a black/white line on the matter...

If cycling is to convince the world (public/sponsors/young competitors) that it has changed then it must adress this issue. I can understand the parents view however lets not confuse this with grief. Its too soon to expect a parent to come to terms with the bigger picture and nor should they have to...the death of a child is enough

it is for the authorities however to determine how an apparantly fit young man died in an unexplained way and if any others are at risk of the same fate...christ look at the speculation over yon cricket boy, they had the mafia and eastern betting syndacates involved. Without the full autopsy we may still not have known the actual cause of death...how does that void help anyone?

this is the responsible thing to do

its not a blame game...its trying to shift a slow moving culture

I suppose you'd have been at Pantanis funeral shouting cheat at his parents

 

[Skip Madness]

Doping products are not given, they are paid for.

Paid for by athlete, given by supplier.

Doping products are not given, they are requested.

Requested by athlete, given by supplier.

Doping products are not given, they are administered to willing recipients.

A willing recipient still needs to be given it. I do not understand why you are playing with language here, the concept is fairly straightforward - it is a two-way transaction. The first wrong (requesting and being prepared to pay for performance-enhancing drugs) does not excuse the second wrong (being prepared to supply performance-enhancing drugs without taking into account - or simply ignoring - the possible ill effects).

So if your son was taking EPO, I suggest that the first person you should confront is your son, not the supplier, he should be second on your list.

I meant if my son had died as a result (sorry, I did not make that clear). I cannot really confront a dead person. I can confront the person who was willing to supply him with drugs he had not been prescribed and which carry a known threat when misused.

Oh, and no-one is handing out, they are selling it to cheats.

I did not mean literally handing it out for free - but they are supplying dangerous drugs without concern for the effects they have.

 

[kennykool]

well said Gillan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[gillan]

maggot

its not puerile

you're calling them cheats

they do not think they are cheats, arguably they are not cheats when they are all doing it

looking from the outside in you can use this term. The cheating is more complicated. You may feel cheated by pantani or by Virenque or by Basso, other's don't. The cheating would have been in your head because you may have believd they were clean. It's more difficult to use it from within the sport. There is still a high degree of respect amongst armstrong, pantani, basso, ullrich etc even although there are allegations of doping. Nobody thinks the others 'cheated' them

you can shoult cheat from the sidelines however until the competitors think they are being cheated you won't get a cultural change

found guilty of cheating? armstrong?

 

[gillan]

exactly........trying to get an unfair advantage

when the whole top ten of the tour is doping, who exactly has got an advantage over who?

You only need to go back a few years to see O'Grady dedicating his stage win to the recent 'drugs cheat' Millar....not much disdain there then. Basso's got a team, as does Hamilton as does Landis as does nearly every doper who has returned as long as they were young enough. Disdain

Again, if they all went round the gallibier, who would have cheated who?

I'm not saying things are not changing (Millar etc) but that its a slow process and by focussing on the young individuals caught in the headlights of the pro peleton, the bigger picture is being ignored

re armstrong, Millar never tested postive, the festina boys never tested positive, ullrich (daft recreational drugs notwithstanding) never tested postive, basso never tested positive

not being caught does not equate to not having doped

 

[gillan]

no you wouldn't have felt cheated because your team leader would have been doping, you would probably have known about it and you would have shared the win bonuses that they earned

Your team doctor and soigneur would also probably have been up to their necks in ti, as well as the DS

so....not that bothered at all really

Ask Pieper

the UCI have been asleep at the wheel

I don't disagree with your aims...just your rather fundamentalistic approach

the drug agencies have known for a while not to target the dope smoker who scores an 8 quid bit if they want to succeed in their 'war'

 

[Tetedelacourse]

User76 - life bans etc - read your own explanation as to why peope cheat. If you believe one you can't support the other.

Gillan - if an unfair advantage is gained then it's cheating. Do you believe every pro is doping? If not then someone in the peloton is being cheated. In fact, scrap that. We know that people respond differently to PEDS so they might all be doping but someone who doesn't respond well to it (Zabel?) is at an unfair disadvantage to someone who does (Ricco?). And anyway if someone breaks the rules, then the rule-breaker is cheating. Whether you think it complex, endemic, simple or institutional, it's cheating.

 

[CotterPin]

Aren't we being cheated when we marvel at a epic achievement that is later discovered to have been chemically assisted? Or are we all too cynical now so our immediate reaction is they must be doping? In which case is not the entire sport in a cheap and tawdry place?

 

[gillan]

tete

yup....

however the culture until very very recently has seen the dopers and the non-dopers as very happy bedfellows. They guys who weren't doping did not really get that upset. Those that did have been very quickly ostracised from the bunch.

That would tend to suggest pro cyclists either dope or don't feel THEY are being cheated by those that do

this seems to be changing in the last season or two although with the way that ricco and peiplo so brazenly acted, who knows