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

[threebikesmcginty]

Any sensible posters should vacate this thread asap.

Even a feckin' eejit would bail out.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

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

Waiting for links can sometimes be fatal....

 

[Cycling Dan]

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]

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

 

[Crackle]

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

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

 

[suzeworld]

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]

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]

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

 

[dellzeqq]

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

 

[lukesdad]

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

Thinking does tend to hurt some on here.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

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]

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]

Great piece. Rather chilling. And terribly sad.

 

[johnr]

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.