Haven't weighed in on the topic and probably won't again. I'm a FOP age grouper and as far as my personal view on doping myself I think Ray Browning in the interview last week summed up how I feel - I've never had a training week, race, season, or even day where I felt like I did everything perfectly, whether it be dieting, following my program, pacing, etc., so I feel like taking drugs to improve myself rather than just work harder would be a waste. I imagine most other age groupers feel the same way, what makes these threads heat up is the moral issue, which is where my view differs.

I think the morality/social stigma around PEDs is absurd. People take these drugs to improve themselves, sometimes performance, but the largest part of the market is people who don't compete and do them to look better. It's hard to say whether this is dangerous as legality/social issues prevent long term studies, but there are plenty of bodybuilders from the 60s and 70s growing old these days, and it's safe to say they put 100s of times over what the average anabolic steroid using gym rat puts in their body. The health issue I would be concerned about is safety in the labs the drugs are being made, which I assume is out of garages and whatnot since the market is there, as with any illicit drug, and cutting down the substances with other dangerous chemicals is extremely profitable for dealers and labs.

Meanwhile I can go to any convenience store and buy any type of poison to destroy my liver, get in my car and crash into a cyclist, smoke with my infant in the room, and this behavior is not only socially acceptable, it's advertised everywhere! Instead of our tax money going towards education to stop it, it's used to prosecute Barry Bonds because he may have had higher than average free test levels which allowed him to hit a small ball a few hundred feet with a stick too easily 10 years ago.

Banning/illegalizing every PED and treating any accused user like a leper will just cause this secretive and dangerous doping, vindictive accusations, new dangerous drugs, and other sick behavior to continue. I can't really see it ever being accepted though, and there will never be enough testing or accurate enough testing to stop it, so the cycle will likely continue with the sport, the athletes, and the fans all losing. Very sad, luckily for me I'm having a great time racing drug free and will continue to do so as long as triathlon still exists.

---

---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.onelesshiker.com
http://www.twitch.tv/1horsepower

Dan,

How much more difficult has Lance made your job as an admin of this forum??

---

_________________________________________________
When all is said and done. More is usually said than done
Ba Ba Booey

A well written article or oped piece Dan. While I might disagree with some aspects of it, those are little more than minor quibbles. Hopefully this single thread will serve the purpose you intended.

As far as the use of PED's in triathlon, I certainly hope that they can be kept to a minimum (there is no way you can completely eradicate their use). my concern about these things is no longer the pro's but rather the age groupers. And it was my cat that convinced me of this ... really.

Just read this
http://velonews.competitor.com/...id-verbruggen_240537
Now when I read your piece and I quote "I have seen at close quarters organizations that appear heavily board-driven, and I have seen those ruled by an executive strongman. I am not on the inside of USADA, but from the outside looking in it seems to me to be in that latter category. I hope that a new set of board members, just seated, cause USADA to strike a proper balance between executive power and board supervision."/
That part of your passion on this is so exactly what has happened to the UCI does not happen with USADA I get. But the tone of your article seem to take this oppertunity to point out more flaws with USADA than any emphasis on how it has just been very succesful in bringing charges against 6 and sanctions against more that have provided evidence and admitted their own culablity. Probably through hindsight the most succesful convictions on anti doping for a long time. Knowing how polarizing the subject is, it just seems to me that your article seems to give those emotionally invested for Mr. Armstrong, more pins to hang their hat, with no kudo's on how they have followed what is currently in place admirdly...As in no leaks of the report yet. They seem to have been very professional with the pressure.
I must also be honest that due to my own bias I probably am not looking through a clear prisim. ...................Thanks for the oppertunity to express my "opinion".

I really like that all the nonsense will be confined to one thread. Here's a partial list of my doping discussion gripes:

Many in the press and on this forum seem to think that the more vocal someone is about the wrongness of drugs, the more "anti-doping" they are, and that this some how confers upon them a special holy status. Talk is cheap, and I'm sure any sensible adult could think of at least one person who failed to practice what they preached. In addition, being in favor of tough sanctions doesn't make one less likely to dope either. Now if a pro athlete were to turn in a current teammate or team manager or some such thereby losing their job I'd be impressed.

There is a huge lack of charity where many people are assumed to be guilty of doping or complicit in doping with out any solid evidence. It seems there are those on this forum who think virtually everyone who is faster than he or she is doping. This is pretty pathetic. If you're going to accuse someone of something like that the evidence should be super solid. Think innocent until proven guilty. I could say the same thing about course cutting in a different thread perhaps.


There are even posts criticizing athletes for not being vocal enough against doping. No one really has an obligation to use their platform to push a particular message. While discouraging other athletes from doping is a laudable objective, there are many other possible uses for a platform. Furthermore, not everyone is naturally outspoken. None of that makes you pro doping.


I think doping is a fascinating topic of discussion, but a few nitwits really bring the level down with endless pages of drivel. While I can easily ignore it, I'm sure I'm missing some real gems. I therefore appreciate quality coverage outside the forum.

Dan--

Pretty well-reasoned take on things, IMO. I agree that it would appear that doping, itself, is fundamentally a moral dilemma. At which point, you're always going to have those who favor power/winning over the moral choice of right versus wrong.

This is, where I think, the anti-doping authority needs to be resolute, and it boils pack to your point about process: if indeed we are going to be the ones crusading for the higher ground, you best be doing it with 100% certainty, with a process that is transparent and consistent across the board. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect that this is where your issue with USADA is in its current iteration?

I tried to open up more discussion about who should be paying for anti-doping before, as it would appear that under the USAT umbrella, the onus is on the race director alone to either pay out of pocket, or charge his participants more for anti-doping measures. I think it's flawed, and think it is also flawed that USADA will be focusing the majority of efforts around ITU/Olympic athletes. By and large, I think we as participants will be paying more in some part, but I'd also like for that to be handled through USAT and sanctioning, rather than on an individual race or race series basis.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Hmmm, not sure but pretty certain that most people would not consider it to be acceptable to smoke in a room with an infant...maybe 20+ years a go but not today, at least amongst the younger generation. Plus, plowing into a cyclist, or anyone, in a car is also not acceptable where I am from....and pretty sure I haven't seen any of this behaviour advertised...where are you from???!! Finally, that's why it's called a 'poison'...a substance that causes a detrimental effect (injury) to a biological organism. So indeed you are right that you can ingest a poison but you could also just shoot yourself or wrap a rope around your neck...however, all of these tools are used primarily for other reasons than to harm other humans or yourself (except for the gun one). In the case of alcohol it is very much a social drug that in moderate quantities is completely safe, however, with anything in life, excessive consumption has side effects. Suffice to say, none of your arguments are relevant to the PED discussion.

Anyway, I understand where you are coming from but you are limiting your argument to just steroids. Also, most steroids, including anabolics that you allude to, are definitely not 'safe' like you seem to think. Also, PEDs cover a substantially wider scope of drug classes than just steroids and most of these are much riskier...http://www.mayoclinic.com/...ancing-drugs/HQ01105. Society in general has to decide whether they want sports that are open and thus are going to have very high health risks (people are still going to be looking for an edge) and be cool that their kids may want to go into this or they want the sports to be regulated (and indeed, perhaps less 'spectacular') but a lot safer. There is no middle ground...either you regulate strongly or you don't. You seem to be cool with the latter, which is fine. However, I would not feel comfortable with my kids entering sports in that sort of environment and think most of society would feel the same. So that then raises the next prospect...the kids/parents that don't give a shit being the only ones to encourage it (most great sportsmen are introduced to their sport at a very young age through their parents/school). Will society look down on these parents...probably. Then what happens to school sport programs? This will all lead to various changes regarding the professional side of things (on and off the field).

Oh, if its not clear, I don't believe a clean athlete can be competitive in this sort of pharmacologically enabled environment, especially if it is completely open (and if it's not then what's the point?).

"if indeed we are going to be the ones crusading for the higher ground, you best be doing it with 100% certainty, with a process that is transparent and consistent across the board. I suspect that this is where your issue with USADA is in its current iteration?"

first, let me tell you the battle i think we're facing. there's a gentleman on this forum that read what i wrote about USADA today, and saw it entirely through the prism (it seems to me) of what i said about USADA that is negative. he picked out the negative, ignored the rest, and decided that this is my monolithic view, while my view if you read the piece is anything but monolithic. the fellow who wrote that is invited to correct my view if he thinks i've mischaracterized it.

now, i'm already getting hate mail from the other side. it didn't take long. this is because i see neither lance armstrong, nor usada, as either the second coming of christ or the antichrist. in fact, i see each entity as largely good, mostly good, but flawed in their own ways. i see myself that same way, by the way. i see armstrong's flaw as a moral flaw, i see USADA's problems as mostly mechanical (and therefore easily fixable), but i think they've got their blind spots as well.

first, it's demeaning for USADA to say this is a voluntary commercial arbitration you and i enter into by virtue of signing the waiver of a local 10k. let's just dispense with that, okay? that's like the horseshit that driving is a privilege and not a right. no. it's a right that can be taken away if you either: A) don't have the requisite skills or, B) eff up behind the wheel. joining USADA as a peer in commercial arbitration is something millions of people do every year but almost no one knows he's doing it. so, let's be real, okay?

second, there are issues that are discussed in the legal analysis of USADA v jenkins, and in the dissenting arbitrator's opinion in USADA v gatlin, and in the federal judge opinions during both USADA v gatlin and armstrong v USADA. note that in both those federal cases, the judges CORRECTLY determined that USADA has jurisdiction. nevertheless the judges had some words, i don't know that USADA has ever felt the need to make changes accordingly.

mostly, tho, there needs to be a mechanism for self-improvement. when the body is stressed, it improves as a result of the stress. when slowtwitch is stressed, it improves as a result of the stress. the question is: does anyone see that USADA is improving as a result of the stress? is there that mechanicsm? of course, if you don't think USADA needs to improve you'll see it as a moot point.

i answered these questions not because i want to harp on USADA, rather because you asked the questions. if you'd noted that i wrote that USADA did many things well, efficiently, and so forth, and you wanted me to list those things, i would have been happy to do so and i still would be happy to do so. however, the very fact that i listed items that could use improvement will bring the charge that i'm anti-USADA and therefore pro-doper or at least unhelpful to the cause. and this is our biggest problem: choose USADA, choose armstrong, line up 100 percent behind one or the other. that's the choice presented to us by the loudest voices.

i happen to think if you improved what's wrong with guantanamo you help, not hurt, the war on terror. i think if you fix what's wrong with the affordable health care act you help, not hurt, improving our health care. if you fix what's wrong with USADA you help, not hurt, the anti-doping effort.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"How much more difficult has Lance made your job as an admin of this forum?"

moderating the forum is not that big a deal. the problem is that it's just so much easier to hate everything about lance, or hate everything about USADA, or hate everything about obama, or romney, or congress, or the government, and the loudest voices drown out everyone else, and you're in league with the antichrist if you are not squarely behind the guy or the thing for which the bullies advocate. if you're not 100 percent behind anything, which is my case, then you're in no man's land and everybody's shooting. but i'm not complaining. i can always flip down the lid on the laptop and go for a run.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I don't think it's as black and white as you make it. There are many sports that, by their very nature, are far more harmful to a child/adult than occasional doping. Taking steroids occasionally to speed recovery from an injury could be done safely yet would put you offside in a doping test. On the other hand playing football at a high level has been far more harmful to many athletes due to brain injuries received while training and playing.

Well Dan, wherever you stand I think you do one hell of a job running this joint. Don't know how much you hear that.

Keep up the great work!!

---

_________________________________________________
When all is said and done. More is usually said than done
Ba Ba Booey

Thanks for the reply...

I pretty much wholeheartedly agree with your points. I think that the system, as it is, has flaws. This doesn't mean that the fight isn't worth it; rather, it can be retooled to better fit the intended purpose of eradicating doping from the sport.

I'm of the opinion, whether rightly or wrongly, that USADA may have picked the wrong battle to fight (in re: LA). I fear that they lost in the court of public opinion so quickly that it will be difficult for the general public to be convinced of the good it is serving.

I think that we (referring to all stewards of the sport) will see sr changes going forward, as I'd mentioned in my prior post.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

"moderating the forum is not that big a deal. the problem is that it's just so much easier to hate everything about lance, or hate everything about USADA, or hate everything about obama, or romney, or congress, or the government, and the loudest voices drown out everyone else, and you're in league with the antichrist if you are not squarely behind the guy or the thing for which the bullies advocate. if you're not 100 percent behind anything, which is my case, then you're in no man's land and everybody's shooting. but i'm not complaining. i can always flip down the lid on the laptop and go for a run."


1. I have been following these threads, and admit to reading mostly Dan's posts, and skimming (at best) the rest.
2. I have now come to understand Dan's frustation as an appeal to naunce and thoughtfulness. That's naive. Those appeals rarely work when the audience gets large, n < population of slowtwitch. It is a frustration that is seasonally appropriate and predicatable. Commentators have been bitching about un-nuanced partisanship since, and including, the founding fathers (actually, a lot earlier than that).
3. re point #1, I don't care about point #2 -- do you know how hard it is to find an educated, nuanced and thoughtful, not to mention principled, voice on the internet . . . let alone anywhere? It is as pleasurable to read Dan's editorials and think hard about them as it must be annoying for Dan to deal with the blowback -- unlike an NYT editorialist, Dan built, runs, and is obligated to his forum. When he says he can just close his laptop and go for a run . . .that's irony, perhaps to himself.
4. So cheers to the quixotic pursuit of the long view, and to the generosity of sharing it for free. I sincerely appreciate it.

well, shit howdy, thanks bud.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I'm going ahead and admit I know little of the legal mechanics behind WADA, the various NADAs (that's the acronym for USADA and their brethren in other countries, right?), the IOC, and the various governing bodies. But I have a question anyways.

How tightly are the rules and mechanics governing the various NADAs coupled? So to what extend is USADA allowed to make up its own processes under the international umbrella? Because that would control USADAs ability to perform self-improvement, would it not? And if USADAs hands are tied, what tree would we need to start barking up to to improve processes? WADA? IOC?

Also, is this a USADA specific "issue" or are "we" aware of messed-upness in other countries? I know that the Spanish guys have had their problems, but were those a result of mis-application of internationally defined processes or do they really fly by the seat of their red-and-gold nationalistic pants?

I really don't want to become an expert in all of this, but it seems to me that framing this in a US-specific context may be too limited. On the other hand, fixing (if indeed it needs fixing) the US situation may cue others to start addressing their issues as well. Expecting blowhards like IOC and WADA (or even worse UCI) to address these issues almost seems like a non-starter to me; in hindsight it's almost a miracle they got this setup off the ground in the first place.

---

Citizen of the world, former drunkard. Resident Traumatic Brain Injury advocate.

Ok, here we go, as we discussed during our call:

You know that your lengthy editorials are fun to read if someone is an anti doping nerd like me but they just don't work with the average reader.

I'm still not sure if you

1) disagree,
2) don't care or
3) really don't get it.

---

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK

To : first, let me tell you the battle i think we're facing. there's a gentleman on this forum that read what i wrote about USADA today, and saw it entirely through the prism (it seems to me) of what i said about USADA that is negative. he picked out the negative, ignored the rest, and decided that this is my monolithic view, while my view if you read the piece is anything but monolithic. the fellow who wrote that is invited to correct my view if he thinks i've mischaracterized it.

I think you are referring to me and I think I posted in a way that is misunderstood, though I am guilty of bias. I apologize if you feel I was only picking out the negative. If I read that piece without the hoopla of Mr. Armstrong I honestly think I would say it is a great piece and more positive than negative. I think that with the emotion of both sides right now, and the great critisism of USADA by many, that the piece will fuel more those that are condemning USADA. I may be very wrong. I do believe that there is always room to improve the process. I see where you pointed out how they are needed, how they need to improve but also not giving them much kudo's. I do not know Mr, Tygart, but with the fueled emotion, to put that you see him as leading possibly to overbearing, at this time was unnecessary. With that said, with the link I posted I definetly see the need to champion having a balanced board.
To close, if I came across guilty of being percieved of strongly critizing your view, I apologize. There needs to be voices on and from both sides to bring balance. I think you are fair in your points and presentation. ..... I just feel in the small picture of the past couple months and couple going forward, USADA, under the current process has done an outstanding job and that has not been recognized enough........Thanks again. I have enjoyed this forum since 2003 and hope to for a long time forward.
It will be interesting for me to reread some of these responses from myself a couple of months from now to see how biased i have been..More importantly I will take your advice from another thread.........time to get busy training and building for next years goals. Good health and happy training to you this year Mr. Slowtwitch,,,,and to yours....................Kenney Cottrell

I thought the Op Eds were good and the USADA remarks were balanced. With any entity there are things done well and things that can be done better. Pointing out each is fair and necessary when improvement can be made. Having said that, I can see how Dan would feel like he standing squarely in the middle of the DMZ.

Mr. Empfield -

I read them both, and above all I commend the stance in both very much. However, while your "anti-doping" OpEd was smartly constrained and tightly written, I was disappointed to see that you still imply that Mr. Tygart is a CEO run amok. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but what troubled me was the lack of facts included to back it up. He may very well have the backing of the full board, and certainly nothing has been shown to indicate the USADA board is anything other than such. That's the defense Lance's team used to refer to Tygart, but there's simply no proof of such.

I also still would like to see details on why you think an industry run testing program would be any more successful than the UCI, as both have the same vested interest in fast results, which leads to rooting for the appearance of clean racing rather than actually clean racing.

This is tough because obviously the USADA is a US entity and a lot of Americans are understandably patriotic when it comes to LA and don't understand/like why they are pursuing him so thoroughly. In the US I can definitely see it being near a 50:50 split and perhaps on LA's side (especially in the wider non-sporting public). However, on a world-wide basis I think it is much more skewed the other way i.e. LA deserves this treatment.

Now some countries (Spain springs to mind in cycling) maybe quite biased towards their athletes and give them the benefit of doubt, etc, and either do nothing, very little or be lenient...but then the rest of the world sees through this quite easily and I think I would be right in saying they have less respect for the doping controls performed by that national USADA equivalent (especially after reading The Secret Race). Then you have a country like the UK that is at the opposite end of the spectrum and actually damages its chances in the Olympics for example (at least until the recent ruling) by banning athletes ruthlessly with very little, if any, leniency. I think USADA is correct in what it's doing and is not following what went on in the 80s and 90s where the US turned a blind eye to the numerous positive tests turned up by its athletes (easy to see the names with a quick google search and it has been posted on this forum in other threads). I know the US is very insular in general but I think this gains the US a lot of respect towards its anti-doping controls that may have taken a hit from previous years. Anyway, obviously just my opinion and of course the USADA could always be improved and so forth, but it's a start and will improve.

Can you just lock the thread after Travis T? Can't be beat.

Because it was FTW

---

Susan Harrell
http://www.endurancezone.com

"I think you are referring to me"

no, i wasn't referring to you. the fellow to whom i was referring posted a little higher up in the thread. still, thanks for your comments.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

This is where you are wrong I think. USADA did not pick this battle (among others), they just are about fighting drugs in sport, and it just happened that the US postal team had a very organized doping programme, and they happened to have lots of witnesses ready and happy to testify to it (very rare if you consider the general omerta in sport related to doping, and made even harder considering LA's financial power and his past actions). Then, all indications so far point to the fact that they have followed due process. Let's see what this week will bring.

I'm afraid that when/if the UCI decides to appeal, many will take this as a conclusion that there were flaws in the process, and disregard the overwhelming (by now) truth, that Lance Armstrong, Johann Bruyneel, Dr. Ferrari and Del Moral were involved in severe doping offenses.

If the anti/doping agencies were into witch/hunting and disregarded process, I can tell you that many more doping cases would have surfaced by now. Take the example of the passport. Why haven't we seen athletes being charged based on the passport yet? Because anti-doping agencies fear it would be dismissed by courts. Sometimes scientific evidence does not equal legal evidence. So the passport is more a tool that allows you to target testing of the athletes. You know that X is most probably doping, so you will try to target her/him in testing and test him at an opportune time so that you may catch him/her. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to catch dopers, with micro-dosing and the likes. The best time to catch them would be to test during the night, but we are not really allowed to do that, imagine, there are already so many complaints about testing and how it ruins the life and privacy of athletes. You wouldn't believe how many athletes already complain when they have to report to an in-competition test (done the day before the competition or two days out), or more to the point, people in their entourage.

Anyway, like I wrote to Dan the other day, people have no idea how difficult it is to work within this background. There are already so many internal hurdles that people in anti-doping have to clear, so let's not make in any more difficult than it needs to be for them to do a good job. For once, you have an anti-doping organization that had the green light to do their job, and they did.

"still imply that Mr. Tygart is a CEO run amok"

i don't have it in front of me, but i believe what i wrote is that i've seen both board-driven companies and CEO-driven companies, and my impression is that it's the latter. i don't think he's run amok. i think he's the front guy. he's the decider in chief. me too.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"How tightly are the rules and mechanics governing the various NADAs coupled? So to what extend is USADA allowed to make up its own processes under the international umbrella?"

pretty much no variance allowed. for example, i asked travis tygart directly, if we are going to test AGers, why don't we stretch our dollars by scaling down the panel to the big stuff? let's not test for the stuff that is inconsequential to triathlon. like pot.

he replied that he has no freedom in that regard whatsoever. i think he would have liked to agree with me. that was the sense i got. but he had no way, as a WADA signatory, from veering from WADA's banned list at all, and the testing for everything on it.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

After reading your article, I found your words restrained on the USADA board, its previous, and only Chairman (Dr. Cohen), and his direction of the USADA.

...imho, it was certainly not under the best "captain of the ship" under his leadership, lacking the needed drive against PEDs spending too much time/effort/money on L.A. for instance, instead of education, and testing of athletes as they move up the performance chain, it would seem that the USADA under his leadership became too focussed on what has already happened, instead of what is happening now, and in the future....All Elite level/Professional sports are dirty to some extent, some more than others, money is not the issue whether an athlete takes PED's or not, it is the culture of that individual sport that pressures athletes into stepping over the line, but we must break the chain earlier, and make sure the next generation will see staying clean as the norm, not an option....if this means reaching down into high schools, college athletes then this is what they must do.

I'm hoping that Ed Moses as the new chair, will be able to steer the USADA ship in a more positive direction, and prevent at least in the public eye, the perception that they are focussed on a few individuals, instead of all athletes.

---

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>X
If you run long enough....something is bound to happen

One exception, when the code doesnt specify one way or the other on the NADA's ability, the common legal practices governing the NADA's country can be invoked, at least as it was explained to me.

Just so I'm clear does that mean that everytime anyone is drug tested by USADA (or any other NADA) they test for absolutely every thing on the banned list?

---

Styrrell

And just when I thought I was important ;o( Do have a suggestion though, if you ever do get to charge for this service, you can advertise by giving a free thread for those to read before they pay......you know, the dirty little secrets one

What are you running in ? Hoka's, Vibrams, NB minimus, Nike Free, Newtons, Brooks Pureconnect, Saucony Kinvara?

We want to know and how your injury that you alluded to is coming along?

OK, carry on with the rest of this thread, but you wanted us to talk about sport, so I want to hear a report from the run that happened after the laptop lid was shut. I bike commuted home, after shutting the laptop with my rig that is a tri bike but with 32 mm comfort tires per Greg Kopecky's suggestions of building a comfortable training set up. I guess it helps to have a frame with no cut out.

"Just so I'm clear does that mean that everytime anyone is drug tested by USADA (or any other NADA) they test for absolutely every thing on the banned list?"

that's my understanding. unless USADA is being used in some other way. for example, if they were the testing vendor for, say, the NFL, then they're going to test for what the NFL wants. but it's my understanding that as a WADA signatory they are not allowed to offer a stripped-down panel (anti-doping lite) if it's a federation test. that doesn't mean every single banned drug gets tested. archery and shooting would have a different panel, as i understand it. we, in endurance sports, would never use a beta blocker. but a shooter would. however, we couldn't ask for a different panel than USADA would require for other triathlons.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

==> Hoka's

they tell me i have a tear in my medial meniscus. can go in and clean it up. trying not to do that yet. am running with physio tape. going to see how that works.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

What tri bike can fit 32mm tires? Particularly what tribike brake and fork?

---

Styrrell

If USADA follows the same process followed by AFLD, the first step is a screening process to detect if there is a doping substance.
The second is a more in depth process to detect what substance was used if the first test came back positive. Usually it's a combo
of spectrography and chromatography.

---

--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fmcoaching.com / http://elpasotricoaching.wordpress.com

Here is some interesting feedback....newtons mega forefoot cushioning, vibrams not. When I warmup in vibams zero knee pain from last year's injuries (OK, maybe not zero, but almost zero). When I run with newtons, (or any cushion shoe), pain in my left injured knee till I get through the first 10 minutes (or I lubricate my knees by warming up on the bike). My doc says that there is some evidence that our muscles do the work to properly function and provide the right "cushioning" when we have better feedback from the ground....when the shoes are heavily padded, our muscles don't works as well. Think "thump thump thump" vs legs acting like springs (ex: wearing track or cross country spikes). Food for thought.

Having said that, once I am warmed up I am faster on cushioned shoes than vibrams...except if I run intervals on grass. Then faster on vibrams....not sure how anyone runs with vibrams on pavement....great training/technique tool for running on grass.

Dev

I seriously can't get why anyone cares anymore. Really the races happened, they are over, and most every cyclist that ever competed doped at one time or another. The USADA isn't ever going to be at the TdF, so they really don't have any input into how the race is run. This really is a case of one man using a legal means to try and make a big reputation for himself. He went out of his way to give pardons to a large group of dopers to get the one guy that would make him famous.

It would be a lot like me making a deal with all the other triathletes competing in my next race so I could get the overall win even though I'm fat and slow. Sure it'd cost me a lot of money since I don't have dirt on all the other athletes, but it's basically the same logic applied in a totally different way.

---

--------------------------------------------------------

You will remain the same person, before, during and after the race. So the result, no matter how important, will not define you. The journey is what matters. ~ Chrissie W.

He gave out no pardons. They're getting sanctioned.

Rumor and innuendo. Anthony doesn't know who did/didn't get pardoned. You don't know who's getting sanctioned.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

People are actually sending hate mail to you? Over LA and USADA? I think one would really have to mentally unstable to go as far as sending hate mail.

---

_________________________________
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.

Vaughters isn't everyone else is. Count on it.

"I seriously can't get why anyone cares anymore."

The next time you are invited to a party, upon first entering the room I suggest you not walk up to the first small cluster of people you see and loudly declare that you don't care about what they are talking about, and that you don't get why they care. Just politely listen for a minute or two and then wander over to the next group and see if maybe the subject matter they are discussing is more to your liking.

I recall reading an article about UCI doping control testing. It stated that not all the urine tests are for EPO. I'll try to find the article.

Either way, unified tests - justified or not - are just another reason why we need to get the large events to do their own testing. And given that events prefer clean appearance over real cleanliness, it's on other stakeholders to put pressure on them (mainly athletes and journalists).

---

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK

Welcome back!

I seriously can't get why anyone cares anymore.

I would respectfully suggest, that if you start to take this attitude or view of things, even one thing, you get out on a slippery slope. If this is "OK", where will you draw the next line?

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

This is absolutely true, I can't cite an article, but I can cite the following:

- The lance armstrong tests results posted by the athlete himself that show he was tested at different times for different things. As Dan himself said, when USADA and other NADA's act as testing contractors they can test for things other than what the NADA normally tests for. In this case, Lance was tested in some cases for the full panel, in other cases, EPO specifically, and in other cases, he was given blood profile tests for the UCI (Now WADA) Passport

- Vaughters has publicly gone at length into the various tests on twitter, indicating flatly that many/most pee tests done in cycling are not for EPO.

Thanks. I thought it was on INRG but I just emailed with him and he said no.

---

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK

But this is not the area that worries you, right? I understood that the area that worries you with regards to USADA's processes is what happens after the chemical geeks determine that your pee is tainted: how you get charged, when evidence is presented, and how non-analyticals are handled. Or am I misunderstanding you?

I agree that scaling down the panel for the purpose of AG testing would be useful. But I think that at this point there are two discussions, both worthwhile having, that pollute each other: one is whether or not Lance's bust was "righteous" to use your words, and one is how to deal with AG testing. The first deals with the legal edges of the currently existing process, while the second is basically breaking new ground - I don't think there's a lot of thinking being put into non-elite testing in any sports but cycling and triathlon.

---

Citizen of the world, former drunkard. Resident Traumatic Brain Injury advocate.

You lost me here......you talking about LA or TT making deals.....

Steve the line is drawn at personal responsibility. And no one in these cases has been very honest or responsible for their own actions. Some people are out to make fame and fortune for themselves and others are out to cover their assets. If there were no money involved no one would care. As a result I really don't care much either. The fact that ST needed one more thread about all this BS is very disappointing.

And the entire plea bargain process of getting sports to testify against other sports for special deals is wrong. It's morally bankrupt so claiming this is being done to clean up the sport decades after the fact is BS. It's BS when DAs and lawyers do this in any case. It's about a payday then too just on a smaller scale.

Take money out of the equation and no one cares except the competitors, kind of like your local Sprint TRI.

---

--------------------------------------------------------

You will remain the same person, before, during and after the race. So the result, no matter how important, will not define you. The journey is what matters. ~ Chrissie W.

The cutting edge of sport is about finishing first and not testing positive. The moral arguments for racing clean are all sound, but we need to be realistic. The more money there is in a sport, the more likely you are to see efforts made to beat the system.

If an undetectable illegal substance is created that improves cycling performance by 5%, I think it is naive to believe that 90% of the TdF peloton won't be using it within a year. Any athlete taking the moral high ground faces a tough reality - either improve their performance 5% by natural means (not gonna happen), take the substance, or find a new job. Then suppose that 5 years later we develop a technology to detect this new substance. Unless we have samples for the entire peloton for the past 5 years, it is probably best to not start testing old samples....

For me, a sport is defined by its rules and its technologies for enforcing the rules. Over any given season, the objective is to finish first while passing all tests for rule enforcement that are present at the time. Changing the rules or improving the enforcement technology will change behavior, but the game will be the same. Over any season, an athlete is either "clean" or "dirty" within the scope of current detection technology. If something is undetectable, I believe everyone at the front will be doing it. This is just being realistic.

I applaud efforts to improve the system to test more frequently and more thoroughly. It makes cheating harder. The result will be a cleaner sport, though probably with more sophisticated cheaters.

Is USADA gaining financially by bring about doping charges on LA or any other athlete for that matter?

"I think that at this point there are two discussions, both worthwhile having, that pollute each other: one is whether or not Lance's bust was "righteous" to use your words, and one is how to deal with AG testing."

yes, you're absolutely right. but i think there is one unifying issue: the lack of a dialogue, the lack of a check and balance, and the lack of any impetus to change that dynamic (at least until now). there have been many qualified, objective, no-skin-in-the-game descriptions of changes in the process of results management that speak to the need of some sprucing up. i think it would be nice to see those things considered and talked about not just by others talking to USADA, but by USADA answering back in an in instructive way. for example, if one of your arbitrators pens a dissenting opinion, i don't know that the best response to that is to change your arbitration rules so that dissenting opinions are not allowed.

otherwise, USADA's ombudsman is absolutely useless. he is an athlete ombudsman, but not an organizational ombudsman. let me tell you what an ombudsman does. i'm going to demonstrate.

"We have royally, as an organization, screwed the pooch in the messaging and handling of how we're going to deal with lance threads!"

that's what an ombudsman does. he speaks this truth about his own organization's mistakes. neither WADA nor USADA have that.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Well in my opinion then anyone who found to use PEDs should recieve a lifetime ban. Maybe harsher punishments would be the deterent.

I think you can set up a system whereby cheating in some way is very very risky. According to TH book, when he was riding it wasn't very risky at all.

I always get back to banning the management. Most or even none of the riders are sophisticated enough to dope without support of the team, in one way or another. And until , well, now, and thats really maybe now. Teams management has been under no threat whatsoever if a rider is caught.

So why wouldn't I as a Team owner, encourage riders to blood boost. The chances of them getting caught are small and if they do get caught, they get fired and i hire another guy. Its an inconvenience but not a big deal.

---

Styrrell

I'm having a hard time following your arguments. I see them as:

1) It happened in the past so it does not matter.
- I would respond that if we do not demonstrate that there are consequences for cheating, then there is no deterrent from cheating
2) Everyone is in it for the money
- Then why are AG'ers doping?
3) If you get rid of the money, only the athletes care (so it's not only about the money!)
- Exactly. The athletes will always care and THAT is why anti-doping efforts matter.

The fact is that for competition to be legitimate, you have to stop cheaters. If you do not stop the cheaters, there is no point in having a competition at all.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

Sounds good for pro cycling. What about AG triathlon?

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

Link please.

---

__________________________________________________
Follow my blog - Follow me on Twitter - Facebook Page
Powered by Accelerate3

"The cutting edge of sport is about finishing first and not testing positive. The moral arguments for racing clean are all sound, but we need to be realistic. The more money there is in a sport, the more likely you are to see efforts made to beat the system."

i keep hearing it's money. but i don't know that this is the prime motivator. it's obviously not in AG racing. in pro racing, when i think of these cyclists, i don't think of them a choosing between $100,000 annual earnings and $500,000. i think they probably start doping when it's a $30,000 year, when they're between 18 and 22, with no education and no mentoring and no foundation, no sense of self, to withstand that pressure. they have no sense of whether the money for them is going to improve or not. they just want to finish higher and they're being told that this is what it takes, this is how it's done, everybody does it, don't be the only fool in the peloton.

what i do not see AT ALL at ANY level is any kind of outreach. for example, i've had several - many, actually - young pro athletes live with me over the years from time to time. i NEVER talked to ANY of them about doping, at least not that i remember. it just wasn't on my radar.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Just being picky here, but Bruyneel has not been convicted of any doping offenses, and your statement above appears to be in violation of slowman's death sentence rule.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Like many folks, this whole situation got me thinking. I like the current/temporary new rules. The forum looks a lot cleaner, and I see more "real" triathlon discussion happening.

As for the moral debate - it's a doozy. Given that most of us are many arms' lengths away from the problem (armchair QBing... from down the street, around the corner, and in the next county) - I hope we can at least keep our heads about us. The situation will ride itself out. My sense - and correct me if I'm wrong - is that there is a tone in your writing of "Shit fellas, this is important, but ain't the end of the world. Our primary function here is a gathering place and open discussion forum about triathlon. It's getting too damn messy lately because of a single subject and select group of very vocal people. Cut that shit out." No more, no less.

But some people seem to think that's an attitude which is merely an attempt to skirt the real, apparently life-threatening issue, which is at hand (LA). Bleh. I can't get in to that debate. Just can't. So - consider this a sincere thanks for attempting to moderate an intelligent discussion on the matter.


Lastly, the situation really reminds me of this quote, below. Perhaps the surfacing of this entire 'scandal' was just a necessary stirring of the pot. And perhaps we all just need to shut the laptop lid and go for a run.

"There's always the same amount of good luck and bad luck in the world. If one person doesn't get the bad luck, somebody else will have to get it in their place. There's always the same amount of good and evil, too. We can't eradicate evil, we can only evict it, force it to move across town. And when evil moves, some good always goes with it. But we can never alter the ratio of good to evil. All we can do is keep things stirred up so neither good nor evil solidifies. That's when things get scary. Life is like a stew, you have to stir it frequently, or all the scum rises to the top." - Tom Robbins

Dan, I read yesterday's op-ed by you.

We've hashed through all of this already many times, but I'd like to make my position perfectly clear, fwiw (not much):

1. I oppose the use of drugs without a physician's prescription and approval. Doctors are and should be the gatekeepers for most of these substances. Your personal health issues should be between you and your doctor. No organization should tell you you can't compete because you are taking a prescribed medication. I regard the freedom of association to be absolute. (This is not the current legal thinking, btw. You can associate, but you can't take drugs and associate, is the current view. I happen to disagree.)

2. We are in a brave new world of manipulation of the physical characteristics of our bodies. We must adapt our organizational requirements to these changes including accepting that there are some things we cannot change. I believe drug use will never be stamped out for a variety of reasons, but mostly because the drug users can get away with it now. Some day, we won't be able to tell, except possibly by performance results, that physical manipulation has occurred and we will be back at square one.

3. The Wars on Drugs have been a collosal failure. They are a remnant of the same thinking that brought us Prohibition. We have wasted trillions of dollars and countless lives in these wars. Some people were given life sentences for simple possession here of marijuana. Parts of Mexico are full-fledged war zones because of these wars. When will people realize the wars are not worth it? The cost is too high and the benefit too low. I'd rather have my roads and air quality fixed than have purity in sport. It's that simple for me. This is simple pragmatism for a country with limited resources, but one trying to be everything for everyone. And marijuana as a PED? Credibility is destroyed with this approach. The illusion of protecting sports' purity is simply that-an illusion.

4. In a perfect world, we would have purity in sport. Until then, please do not support the Drug Warriors.

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

And yet to those raised with a strong sense of values (by all accounts Landis), it still happens, or at least happened.

In my opinion, and based on the information available about many cyclists heard from their managers, coaches, and in some cases themselves; 18 is very likely 2 years later than they're starting assuming they show high potential. Im not citing names, or trying to impinge on anyone's name; merely suggesting that there are a lot of vague missives from those in the sport that it's happening even before theyre out of high school.

Translated: We can't catch them all, so fuck it why even try.

So...everyone speeds, yet they still give speeding tickets. Why even try?
We catch maybe 15% of shoplifters, which means 85% get away with it. Why even try?
Businesses and individuals dodge taxes and payments with impunity yet we still catch a few of them. Why even try anymore?

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

You're mistaken on that one. Without money involved, people still dope. And without money involved, people who care for a clean sport, well, still care.

---

--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fmcoaching.com / http://elpasotricoaching.wordpress.com

Busted!

---

--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fmcoaching.com / http://elpasotricoaching.wordpress.com

"I oppose the use of drugs without a physician's prescription and approval. Doctors are and should be the gatekeepers for most of these substances. Your personal health issues should be between you and your doctor."

i have heard of a coach who routinely sends his charges to an anti-aging clinic. it really has nothing to do with health. everything to do with performance. these aren't pros. or top AGers. it's just MOPers, BOPers. i think we should contemplate what happens if that becomes the norm - the price of excellence.

i hear you loud and clear on the blurring of the lines. for example, i think WADA had a hard time figuring out what to do about platelet rich plasma. it wasn't a performance enhancer, rather a therapy for faster recovery from an overuse injury (if it works). nevertheless, it is blood manipulation. but you're not reinjecting your own RBCs, just your platelets.

i know that the world is becoming more complicated. i see the day when doping becomes an issue of gene manipulation and then, man, i don't know what you do about that. but i also see the day when i can by a drone off amazon. hell, i can probably do that now. yes, the world is changing, and i'm ready to talk about all those changes. i'm just not ready to usher in those changes.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

http://www.cyclingnews.com/...for-refusing-to-dope

"is that there is a tone in your writing of..."

zactly.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Not to mention that speaking out usually yields nothing good unless there are major changes coming. Look at Christophe Bassons. He was
ostracized by his own team, then retired. But yes, some do care about clean sport. And it's refreshing.

---

--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fmcoaching.com / http://elpasotricoaching.wordpress.com

No doubt that is true, but that is foremost an issue for the health policy community, imho. And, how do you know the prescription drug had no therapuetic uses? This is the nub of it. Do we let WADA or the doctors decide what is allowed? As noted above, the current policy is you can dope but you can't dope and race. It's a hopelessly UNSUSTAINABLE position.

To Devlin:

Speeders are everywhere, despite the efforts to crack down. This has been a cultural revolution "driven" in large part by crowded highways, overworked Americans, and impatience. The solution will be automated cars and they are coming.

Tax dodgers are everywhere, and they even run for President. Are you prepared to pay more more to your local government to increase spending on police officers and the IRS to increase oversight of tax dodgers? I didn't think so.... I think spending money on WADA is worse than buying dope. At least the doper gets a transitory benefit.

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

Hi Dan

You can also copy/paste your reply to my comment here:

[***UNLIMITED SPACE***]

:)

Thanks

Uli

---

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK

Love this quote from the article as it rings so true:

What do you make of those who make the conscious and wise decision to not dope, and end up never having the chance to
give it a real try, despite plenty of talent? You know...the victims...Are they just collateral damage?

---

--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fmcoaching.com / http://elpasotricoaching.wordpress.com

Which is why I keep saying that if you are going to take out one champion, then you need to go back and look into taking out every champion.....because when Merckx was a young cyclist, he has the example of the peers of Anquetil, and when Hinault and Fignon were young cyclists they had to beat the peers of Merckx and when Delgado and Indurain were young cyclists, they had to beat Hinault and Fignon and when Ullrich and Lance were young cyclists they needed to beat the likes of Indurain.....and so on. Every generation of young cyclists is motivated by moving up the standings to beat the champions of their time and then they are faced with getting on the same program as the champions of their time....

I remember watching an interview of a 22 year old Lance in 1994 on French TV at the Tour....Indurain was something like his 6 minute man in an ITT and blew by Lance like he was cyclotourist in Paris Brest. Lance just shook his head, and said, "these guys are superman". Anyway, this plays exactly into your point. As I said in another thread, when guys like Taylor Phinney and Teejay see Contador flying up the mountain, what type of questions do they have in their head? I'm not saying they are doping, I'm saying that when they see the champion of the day doing it "a certain way", then they have to ask themselves, "is that the train I need to get on to succeed?".

If you do the right thing a thousand times a day and get no benefit did you err? Honesty has always been its own reward, even when honesty costs money, prestige, and power. Why is this different?

Obviously, not cheating is the right thing to do. I don't advocate cheating. I advocate honesty, which is totally missing in this debate.

The True Believers are not being honest, and they have wrestled the debate to the ground with the thick arms of the Beast of Fairness. Fairness is a fairy tale. Do you think anyone in the NBA, NFL, or MLB believe in fairness and honesty? Not many....

The people who support drug testing and the War on Drugs are idealists wearing rose colored glasses. They come from all political pursuasions, classes, and religions. They are everywhere and bring prejudice and blindness to everything they touch.

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

Well, thanks for putting all of us idealists in our place, and for being able to read our minds about being honest.
Good thing there are people like you around to keep us in check...

---

--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fmcoaching.com / http://elpasotricoaching.wordpress.com

Hi Dan -

I have a couple of concerns in regards to your approach with the Lance and USADA topics.

1. Many athletes have gone through the USADA process. Nobody was fighting USADA with fire for them if it was deemed unfair. But it seems that because it is now Lance Armstrong, the process is no longer deemed fair and must be questioned.
2. When an athlete chooses not to fight an anti-doping agency, the verdict is that they are guilty. Every athlete has agreed to abide by that rule when they take part as professional athletes in a sport recognized by WADA. Therefore, Lance is sending a message, because he agreed to the terms, that he is now deemed guilty. This brings me to my next point of concern, and one that many on here will likely disagree with. Why does Slowtwitch report on Lance's races when he is now deemed a cheater by a recognized and established anti-doping agency? Does this not provide adulation for someone that is not deserving? I understand the race results must be reported, but why not simply mention his name in the results and focus the report on the legitimate athletes? I, for one, got sick seeing his pictures plastered across the Superfrog report.

Perhaps something to think about...or perhaps not.


I can only imagine the challenge of managing a website like this and a very active forum, and I am not trying to discredit your efforts in any way.


Thanks

---

________________
Adrian in Vancouver

"how do you know the prescription drug had no therapuetic uses? This is the nub of it. Do we let WADA or the doctors decide what is allowed?"

i recognize the problem. i don't have an easy solution, except to say that NADOs are not at war with doctors. they employ doctors, to adjudicate therapeutic use exemptions. if your testosterone is at 250ng/dl, and mine is at 500, the anti-aging doctor may well prescribe testosterone to us both. but only one of us needs it. the system does work assuming USADA correctly recognizes the delta between your needs and mine. i don't see it as a big difference from what's going on right now, where your insurance carrier or HMO has a gatekeeper authorizing care.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I believe you are confusing news with what is and not fair/morally exceptable. CNN reports news every day that we don't like. The Economist does. BBC news does, Al Jazeera does (I'm probably slipping into Lavendar room here, but a large part of the world views Al Jazeera the same was as we view CNN or BBC). Anyway, we don't have to like the news for it to be reported on. Lance racing in a triathlon is a biggest triathlon news from last weekend rightly or wrongly. We don't need to like the news, but in my view ST has to accept that it is triathlon related news and present what happened. That's all. In terms of editorial content and OpEd stuff, ST can totally chooose to either ignore, it, bash it or even support it. I don't really care what ST does there as it is up to the ST editiorial team to decide (well, actually I do care what they do there, but it is not my call). But as a media outlet, my view is ST needs to report the news. Just like the New York Times does, or Sports Illustrated does.

How is this unsustainable? It makes perfect sense to me. Performance enhancing drugs are not detrimental to sport unless the person using them competes. What is the alternative?

Regarding Androgel and the like, which is what I assume is what we're talking about here, my doctor friends tell me they have guys asking about it every day (not usually athletes) and they always talk the patients out if it because of all the harmful side effects.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

Don't put words in my mouth. You have no clue what I would and would not be willing to pay for. If it was effective, sure I'd pay extra. Up to a certain limit, I would not impoverish myself for it. If you told me I was going to take an extra $1200 hit on my taxes with the opportunity to pay it off over a year, because they were going to completely revamp the tax codes, I'd be lining up for it.

You can bury your head in the sand all you want, however.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

Well, I have consistently tested very low for T for over 10 years, but have refused to go on the patch or get shots. I don't trust the drugs having seen what the doctors did with female hormones. I'd probably end up with cancer if I did, so I'd rather be old and slow than fast and dying. Why racers will use all these drugs and shorten their lifespans or endanger their health is beyond me but suggests that sound thinking is sorely lacking. Many of the them have embraced a different sort of Beast, but it is they who get eaten.

I simply don't think there is a place for WADA to decide whether you or I should get a TUE. It's none of their damned business in a free country. Why give up the freedom to use our bodies as we please, at least in this small area? Sheezh, people drop freedoms like they are pennies.... What would you give up to race? The tyranny of Fairness, Dan, is not an ugly necessity, IMHO.

Btw, despite some criticisms, I think yesterday's article was well argued.

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

Edit - not sure what happened to this part of my first paragraph - anyway...

Anti-doping education is definitely something that needs to be improved, however to say that there is no effort at all at any level is simply false. WADA and many NADA's have outreach for athletes and coaches; there is a full outreach program available from WADA (below) and there are also many resources that can be used by those involved in sport to educate themselves as to the WADC. For example, a very useful video regarding the anti-doping control process - http://www.youtube.com/...91F&feature=plcp.

http://www.wada-ama.org/outreach/

I think that it is unfortunate that while hosting young professional athletes that doping wouldn't have been something that you decided to speak to them about.

Shane

"Many athletes have gone through the USADA process. Nobody was fighting USADA with fire for them if it was deemed unfair. But it seems that because it is now Lance Armstrong, the process is no longer deemed fair and must be questioned."

armstrong is not the first to employ his legal strategy. look at usada v gatlin, and there are plenty of others. what's different is that armstrong is beloved in popular culture, and that's created a sort of binary choice: armstrong or USADA. pick one. that's made it a complex discussion, because nobody on one side will stand for any critique of his side nor any praise for the other.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

This is not realistic. USADA are in the process of prosecuting an extremely high profile case in both the federal courts and arbitration. During the course of this process they have had to fight jurisdictional issues with the UCI, face attacks from politicians, engage in PR battles for public opinion and square off against some of the best, most expensive and well connected law firms in the country. The tiniest smidgen of self criticism would be used by any number of these groups to take USADA to the mat and under the circumstances could very well jeopardize the existence of the organization. Right now, if USADA was anything less than 100% committed to the duly established and LAWFUL process they would be incompetent. A lawyer in private practice would probably be sued for malpractice if they made that type of concession. When you are under the gun like those guys are it is not the time for self reflection.

Will they revisit the process when the smoke has cleared? I bet there'll be conversations. But even if they make changes I highly doubt they get rid of the arbitration provision which seems to be your big bone. Maybe they'll change the rules of the arbitration to make them more "fair", probably not. As you know just about every contract you enter has an arbitration provision. You may not like them but an agreement is an agreement. The courts have upheld them a bazillion times before Armstrong came along. Arbitration is faster, less expensive (saving your tax dollars) and although I am no authority and keeping in mind that there are certain parameters established by WADA for which USADA is merely the enforcement mechanism, I don't know of an athlete who has been unduly convicted. Do you?

I'm not sure you forum newbies should be allowed to participate in these serious discussions ;)

---

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)

I was looking for information on making flat coke.

---

--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fmcoaching.com / http://elpasotricoaching.wordpress.com

Zing. Yeah, he's definitely back.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

It's unsustainable because medical advances are killing the testing as we speak. It's a war between testing and masking, new agents and old tests, biomedical engineering and an out of date meme. If the world's fastest male and female sprinters mate and produce a super-child is that cheating? If eating plant X is proven to increase T by 40% is that cheating? Why isn't caffeine cheating? Why isn't ibuprofen cheating? Should Tinley be allowed to race since he now has an artificial hip (assuming he wanted to, which he doesn't I hear). Yes, artificial lines have been drawn but they are constantly moving, but moving BEHIND the new technologies. A true rifleman can hit a moving target, but a bureacrat can't hit a still one. Why give up your freedom over your body to a blind, deaf and dumb bureacrat?

And, I race just fine without androgel. At 70 I could use about 500mgs a day. ;) I'm old but I'm slow.....

Oh, and you make my argument about the doctors. They ARE proving to be a pretty good barrier to widespread T use at least. Why not trust our doctors over WADA? I have a personal relationship with my doctor and almost NONE with WADA (and would have it be zero if it were up to me).

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

Yes, but what if you knew they would test your samples 10 years later...?

The problem with the system the USADA uses is that it is basically impossible to get a TUE for anything. I have a friend who in his late 20's was having health issues and had his testosterone tested at well below 200ng/dl. He needed supplementation just to get back to normal but was still denied a TUE when he applied for it despite significant documentation from his doctor. When you can't get a TUE for something that is medically necessary the system is fucked.

---

__________________________________________________
Follow my blog - Follow me on Twitter - Facebook Page
Powered by Accelerate3

After I've made millions and the statute of limitations has run? ;)

But, yes, this is a legitimate issue and has been raised in the LA case. Perhaps the SOL should be 50 years? It would take the bureaucrats that long to catch up anyway.

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

"Why does Slowtwitch report on Lance's races when he is now deemed a cheater by a recognized and established anti-doping agency? Does this not provide adulation for someone that is not deserving?"

this was a difficult issue inside Slowtwitch. it caused a lot of hand wringing inside our editorial offices. the discussion went like this: would we be covering superfrog live if lance wasn't there? no. so, altho we covered the F1 race live, on that same course, the day before, and it would have been very easy for us to cover the superfrog race live as well, we chose not to.

we initially decided not to even write a story about superfrog, because we had never done so in the past. however, in the end, we reported on superfrog because the strength of the men's field pretty much dictated the need for coverage according to our own standards. we also published a photo gallery of the race, but we were careful that the gallery should be representative of how we'd shoot that race regardless of who won it.

this was a 51/49 decision for us all weekend long.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Why is a restriction on racing while taking PED's more of a limitation on your freedom than any other rule? "What!? I can't ride my Harley for the bike leg!?!?! This is America, godammit!!"

Racing on PED's has a negative effect on other people. This is precisely the kind of situation where a good libertarian would consider creating a rule.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

"I have a friend who in his late 20's was having health issues and had his testosterone tested at well below 200ng/dl."

i field a lot of emails, in confidence, from folks in this precise situation. i don't counsel them. but i ask them to keep me apprised of their situation. one of these days i'm going to write a story about some of these circumstances. it's very interesting.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Check out new guy... Second day on the forum and he's an expert [/pink]

**edit** someone already beat me to this lame joke. Note to self: read the thread first jackass...

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

I'm not a libertarian, but a pragmatist and a believer that we should have sole custody of our bodies. Riding a motorcyle doesn't go to those two issues, so it would not be an issue. I'm not opposed to all rules, but simply drug testing.

Why are you concerned with fairness? Does Wall Street compete fairly? Does the NFL compete fairly? What about politicians? Which of our many leaders you could choose from, excepting a few religious leaders, competes fairly? Does China compete fairly?

I'd say fair competition is AWOL in America.

--Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

If a situation like this does not qualify for a TUE what exactly does and what is even the point of have that option available? The TUE option is thrown around on here a lot as the saving grace for anyone who needs to take a banned substance for a legitimate reason but I honestly have never heard of one being granted and if the situation I'm aware wouldn't qualify I'm not sure anything would.

---

__________________________________________________
Follow my blog - Follow me on Twitter - Facebook Page
Powered by Accelerate3

You're aware that there are people outside of America who still believe in fairness?

---

--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fmcoaching.com / http://elpasotricoaching.wordpress.com

Would you please stop saying no one? There are some of us who are happily willing to give at least a little on either side.

There is something outside of America?

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Yes, I am aware that many people believe in some variation of fairness. But what a Wall Street or Fleet Street trader thinks is fair and what I think is fair are two different kettles of fish. V. Putin thinks arming Syria is fair. Iran thinks having a nuclear weapon is fair since Israel has a few. Some Pop Warner leaguers have a very warped view of fairness, IMHO.

Maybe what America needs is to settle on a definition of fairness and then follow it? Good luck with that approach. I think that's what this election is all about.

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

Honestly, I find the attitude of Robert disheartening. The argument that life isn't fair so who cares about doping is just preposterous.

---

--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fmcoaching.com / http://elpasotricoaching.wordpress.com

Interesting, I have not seen you give very much.

But to your point Francois knocked me around for a few days a while back and since I was tired of being bludgeoned to death I conceded that much of what he was saying made sense.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

So you have the cynical view that since human nature is fucked up we might as well give up? Thanks for clarifying, now your arguments make sense.

---

--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fmcoaching.com / http://elpasotricoaching.wordpress.com

Excellent points.

Is one person on this board willing to admit he/she got a TUE for T, EPO, or HGH?

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

But what a Wall Street or Fleet Street trader thinks is fair and what I think is fair are two different kettles of fish

_____________

Isnt that why there is this WADA and USADA standard? So that's what's been accepted as "fair" is it not by world standards, athletes, federations, etc?

---

------------------
@brooksdoughtie
USAT-L2,Y&J; USAC-L2
http://www.aomultisport.com

Well, good point! (Don't you just hate that? ;) )

The problem is that what is fair was decided by bureacrats and politicians. Does it make sense for MJ to be classified as a PED? Of course not, but the politicians thought it was fair. Do you think it's fair? I think it's idiotic.

When we can vote on what's fair, we will have a very different system, I'm sure. And Dan is doing a bang up job creating the atmosphere where fruitful discussions can occur and changes can be made. I hope most of the people here realize what an enormous asset someone like Dan is to an athletic community. (I'm on the same page as Dan on this general point, but we disagree on the details.)

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

I've come around to Mr. Empfield's approach that some changes would be good to the USADA process. I dont neccesarily agree on the specific ones he's pointed out, though if he can offer some facts behind the ones I disagree with, I might be swayed. Further, I agree very much with most of what his initiative is trying to do with anti-doping, Im just very concerned about an industry consortium of vendors who make money off falling records and fast times are the right people to adjudicate and sanction doping offenses.

No process is perfect so conceding this is not a whole lot. Dan's biggest beef with USADA is that they aren't willing to concede this point. I definitely agree on this one.

He who is no longer with us also refused to concede this point.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

I've moved along a similar trajectory myself.

---

Citizen of the world, former drunkard. Resident Traumatic Brain Injury advocate.

"Would you please stop saying no one?"

you're right. i apologize.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Surely if you want changes in the anti-doping process petitioning USADA is a waste of time since they are bound to follow the WADA code. A NADA cannot implement stronger doping controls than what is in the WADA code, see for example the British Olympic Association's rule that anyone with a serious doping conviction could not represent Great Britain at the Olympic Games, which was overturned at the CAS as it was non-compliant with the WADA code.

If you want change in the anti-doping process then WADA is where you need to go, in fact I believe they are reviewing the code at the moment.

Hi Dan -

I appreciate your response and I admire your efforts in trying to find the right path through this. There are no easy decisions here. That is what is unfortunate. It would be easy for me to make the call, but that would make me the court of one, and that obviously would not be right. I just wish everyone agreed with me ;)

---

________________
Adrian in Vancouver

And as Dan has pointed out, USADA has little or no wiggle room. They are a WADA signatory, they have to follow WADA's rules; the little wiggle room they have is around the specific prosecutorial processes not called out in the code. They don't get to decide which drugs are in scope or out of scope. I'd be happy to concede that some drugs on the list aren't PEDs, and that they could be removed from the list as long as there was a rule added by USAT (and other NGOs across the world) that being under the influence of alcohol or any drug that gives the race director cause to fear for the safety of that racer or other racers can immediately DQ that racer prior to or during the race. I really don't care whatsoever if john Q triathlete tokes up every weekend, or even every day as long as they aren't lining up on race day inhibited, same with alcohol or any other drug that doesn't increase performance. Of course, I dont want them doing that stuff and going out and training, but they're adults and until it endangers me, they can do what they want.

I think they should leave the banned list just the way it is. If Joe Schmoe wants to smoke some reefer well fine but he needs to know there are consquences to smoking and be willing to accept those consequences. Illegal drugs are, wel,l illegal and it doesn't look good in any sport for anyone to come up positive for any drugs performance enhancing or not.

and so ends competitive moutain biking and surfing. they were fun while they lasted.

ditto freestyle skiing.

And just how exactly do those sports end by having illegal substances on a banned list? Don't want to get caught and want to compete? Then don't do illegal drugs. Its really simple. I am guessing there are little to no drug testing in those sports.

So you basically don't believe in a representative democracy?

aaaand.....that effectively kills the thread and makes it LR material.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

Does any American believe in representative democracy when it comes to issues they disagree with? BaucusCare, military funding, global warming, tax policy, you name it. The truth, which is supported by ample evidence, is that our representatives are asleep at the switch. At the rate at which our freedoms are being eviscerated by our representatives, it won't be long before our right to vote them out will be taken away. For instance, Obama has presided over the largest increase in wiretapping of US citizens of any President. And he's supposedly a LIBERAL! Good grief, what would the conservatives do? Also, please do not conflate disagreement over a single policy with my views on our republican form of government.

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

orphious wrote:

I think they should leave the banned list just the way it is. If Joe Schmoe wants to smoke some reefer well fine but he needs to know there are consquences to smoking and be willing to accept those consequences. Illegal drugs are, wel,l illegal and it doesn't look good in any sport for anyone to come up positive for any drugs performance enhancing or not.

Except WADA's list applies even in countries where the drugs aren't illegal. Go race ITU in the European countries where pot and other drugs are legalized, and think about how careful you have to be not to have some in your system. Visiting whole parts of town might be hard. That's why I can see an issue. I know people see it as morality due to the difference in laws, but there is absolutely a safety component to it.

Leave the illegal drug fight to the government. They are doing such a good job. No need to include it on a banned list that forces it to be included on a test panel that just ups the overall cost.

---

__________________________________________________
Follow my blog - Follow me on Twitter - Facebook Page
Powered by Accelerate3

Yeah but its AMERICA! The only country that matters.

---

__________________________________________________
Follow my blog - Follow me on Twitter - Facebook Page
Powered by Accelerate3

But should pot heads represent the sport of triathlon? Just look at Micheal Phelps when he was popped for MJ. He didnt fail a drug test it was the incriminating photo of him doing it and he was banned for 3 months. My kids swim. They know who Micheal Phelps is and look up to him. I do not want them to think its is ok because if Phelps did it then its ok. You represent more than yourself when you become pro so illegal drugs should be on hte list just for that reason alone.

I hope you realize how weak your argument is when you are equating removing pot from the banned list to making potheads the face of triathlon. It is not a performance enhancer nor universally illegal. It is a government issue and if you feel so strongly about it make sure to vote for more government control over people's lives.

---

__________________________________________________
Follow my blog - Follow me on Twitter - Facebook Page
Powered by Accelerate3

 I am saying I dont want illegal drugs removed from the banned list because they have no place in any sports. If the govt wants to legalize then fine... no longer banned a substance. Until that time...if you want to compete dont smoke the reefer.

Go back and read what pick6 wrote and understand there are other countries with different laws besides the U.S. WADA does not solely exist for one country.

---

__________________________________________________
Follow my blog - Follow me on Twitter - Facebook Page
Powered by Accelerate3

LOL. Nice, 'Merica - sun's out; guns out!

That said, The USA provides much of the global leadership in so many areas, it's hard to overemphasize their influence. I don't know the exact numbers but there are countries where pot is decriminalized, including at least partially in the US. Yet it's still on the list. I'd like to think it, and any other potentially impairing drugs are on there for safety reasons rather than moral ones, and rather than try to leave it to the NGOs the doctors (who unlike politicians or lawyers) do actually know whats better for us, included them to keep us all from getting seriously hurt by a coked up guy on the course. There are a couple top level cyclists popped for coke including Boonen; if i were at that level I know I wouldnt want a guy all extra twitchy riding next to me on some impossibly narrow mountain pass with a sheer cliff 5 feet away from us.

I read that but the arguement is still the same. Its on the banned list so dont do it. I would feel the same way if they put alcohol on the list.

We should steer the thread back on topic to PEDs tho. This arguement is for another thread..... ; )

Along the same lines: Also coming--unless the rules are changed--is the day when we are forced to choose between (1) embracing technology that could enable us to live longer and healthier vs. (2) continuing to compete legally in this sport. Are we going to revisit our fundamental philosophical assumptions about how to define illegitimate doping, or are we going to bury our heads in the sand while rational people who care about their lives leave the sport?

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

Stop trying to change the argument when you are losing. No one is saying "do pot even though it's on the banned list". The discussion was why it shouldn't be on there in the first place.

@pick6 I agree with you that no ones wants toked up athletes on the race course but you have to take a commen sense approach to this as well. The banned list and the associated rules are directed at the elite athletes. The only person dumb enough or uncaring about their performance to be smoking a bowl on race morning isn't someone who is ever going to be subject to one of these tests. It's just a morality play to have it on the list. I think pot is disgusting but I find banning something just because somebody finds it wrong based on their own belief set just as bad.

---

__________________________________________________
Follow my blog - Follow me on Twitter - Facebook Page
Powered by Accelerate3

i still think the case of tiger woods is germane here. the guy had laser surgery done on his (already pretty good) eyes, and became better than 20/20. that kind of acuity is hugely helpful for a golfer (or a baseball player - just ask ted williams).

should that be legal? is it 'doping?'


-mike

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

Yes, I still believe in representative democracy when I don't agree with the outcome of decisions made by government officials or government-funded agencies. I tend to blame the represented as much, or maybe more, than their representatives for the state of things.

But how do you expect him to win if he doesn't change the argument?!?

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Which is why I say we ask WADA to remove anything that is not a PED; legal, or illegal. And that then any drug; legal, or illegal that's effects/side effects make racing unsafe to a Safety List that allows automatic DQ from the race at any time before, during, or after. IF a RD see's someone they think is visibly risking the safety of themselves or other racers, they should have binding rules to support them in removing that racer that doesnt just amount to their discretion. I dont want some BOP getting fired for toking up heavy with his buds the night before races, but I also dont want him racing with impaired ractions either (and Ive seen friends hit the bowl hard and go to school the next day still a mess. Not my thing but I saw it).

Oh shit. I forgot about that important rule of debate.

---

__________________________________________________
Follow my blog - Follow me on Twitter - Facebook Page
Powered by Accelerate3

I might be in trouble there. I tend to start partying after big races and being the lightweight that I am it doesn't take long for me to be threatening other racers with atrocious dance moves.

---

__________________________________________________
Follow my blog - Follow me on Twitter - Facebook Page
Powered by Accelerate3

I think the pot debate is not the big issue here, but fwiw I agree with you. Insofar as it's illegal as a recreational drug in most countries, and we want our kids to have good role models in their sports stars, it should be on the list of banned substances. But I certainly understand the counter-argument(s).

But if we separate pro testing vs amateur testing, pot becomes even less of an issue because what we need for amateur testing is event organisers to pay USADA to test their events (as Uli did for Gran Fondo NY), and in doing so can request specifically what they want to test for, presumably primarily EPO and certain steroids. This negates the argument by amateur athletes that they shouldn't have to be concerned about pot smoking, because they won't be tested for it. Only the pros would be.

The harder question remains how do we persuade those event organisers to pay USADA to test amateur athletes, and I commend Dan and others on this site for their efforts in this regard. The problem of amateur doping is likely to escalate dramatically in the next few years if nothing is done to combat it, imo.

The question of professional athlete dope testing in triathlon also remains unsatisfactory, but at least there is some testing at all. But clearly, much more can and should be done.

Finally I would say that I agree with Robert on one point only. That is, that it is incredibly hard to catch PED users, and will remain so. But where I wholeheartedly disagree with him is that this is a reason to throw up our hands and give up. I am on the edge of being a Vegas qualifier and so if I work my ass off for months to try to qualify I want to know that I'm not wasting my time because someone else is liberally taking EPO. Fine, they have to live with themselves when they make that decision, including the possible health risks, but that doesn't mean I'm not affected too. But this presents difficulties in the sense that if amateurs know they will only get tested on race weekends, they can take EPO for months in advance of an 'A' race and then turn up 'clean.' And OOC random testing for amateurs is clearly prohibitive from both an expense and ethical perspective. But at least the likelihood of being tested on race weekend (for the elite AGers) may deter some of the potential cheaters.

This is what I care about. I could honestly care less how, what and when LA doped and who all he pushed around to keep it hidden so he could win his races. The huge amount of money that went into chasing him down could have funded a robust AG testing program for years and removed the entire debate that's going on in another thread of how to pay for AG testing. The news that will shortly come out about LA and others may serve to slow doping in the pro ranks somewhat but I think that ship has already sailed. The current news focus only serves to inform AG'ers of how much these drugs can do for you while highlighting the fact that it is practically impossible to get busted for them.

---

__________________________________________________
Follow my blog - Follow me on Twitter - Facebook Page
Powered by Accelerate3

Good luck with Vegas, Kay! Hope you make it, but the women's ranks are now highly competitive. Now I don't worry about being chicked, but being grand-chicked. Thankfully, Sister Madonna Buder is single, or I'd have probably been great-grand-chicked. ;)

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

Agreed. This was one of my main takeaways from The Secret Race. That is, how easy it is to take EPO and certain steroids without detection (i.e. how soon afterwards you would show up clean in a dope test). The only reason that guy got busted at GF NY is because he never expected to podium and get tested. If WTC announces that it will test all Vegas and Kona qualifiers, athletes who are taking PEDs will have to be more careful with their timing, but it probably doesn't deter them from taking them in the first place. Depressing and I don't have an answer.

Oh, I've been there. The fond memories of college; but I meant that you could be DQed after if the RD had proof you were being dangerous leading up to or during the race.

Being dangerous to your personal reputation by looking ridiculous after a race shouldn't be an issue :D

Thanks! My daughter is 9 and hasn't lost a race yet after six or seven triathlons. In her last race she even beat all the 10-11 year old boys and girls... So now I worry about when I'll be 'daughtered' by her! Of course, the truth is I can't wait, assuming she keeps enjoying the sport.

That's very exciting, I know. My daughter was beating all the boys on her swim team as an 8 year old. Of course, by the time she was 12 they were beating her in all strokes, save breast.

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

An excellent question. My personal opinion is that if doping is defined in a reasonable way, then no, that shouldn't be considered doping, because it adds to overall quality of life. But if you were to apply the same principles to it that are currently applied to questions about doping in general, it might very well be construed as doping. As technology continues to develop at an accelerating pace, I think that we'll see more and more issues along those lines. Will triathlon, cycling, and other sports be trying to cling to a twentieth-century technological level that the rest of the world has left behind?

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

I disagree. Things are changing; WADA has taken over results management of UCIs passport (and any sport with passports as I understand it); EPO tests are improving, and the reduction in speed of ascents year over year in grand tours is indicative of a decrease in doping, even with an increase in aerodynamics and equipment. common fans are raising money to support an unemployed journalist and former cyclist in a lawsuit against the UCI and have raised about 50k in about a week. People are calling for change in UCI leadership. That will make a huge impact if it occurs.

You should do more research. His initial LASIK surgery, he was legally blind without contacts/glasses. The second one was to repair the deficiencies that were causing him squinting and headaches, which is common within 7-10 years after the initial correction.

I am very nearsighted (20/200 combined) and I correct to 20/15 with contacts. I suppose I should compete without corrective lenses.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

Just replying to the thread in general:

But I've always wondered why there is such a push for amateur drug testing in triathlon and not (from what I can tell, or see) in other participatory sports. For example, running/marathoning... (or maybe there is, or there already is amateur testing, and I just don't know about it. if so feel free to call me out)

Is it because people want to qualify for the world championships so badly, and they want to make sure everyone is clean? What about qualifying for the Boston Marathon? Why is there no push to drug test people who qualify for that? (I know Boston used to be based on qualifying time alone, but in recent years that's changed and there is a competitive element to it)

What makes triathlon so special? 99% of people who enter a triathlon are just there for the fun of it. Just like running. I'm honestly curious as to why we don't see such a big call to action in other sports. Is it solely because of Kona and Vegas? Again, feel free to call me out if I'm way off.

Quote: "let me tell you what an ombudsman does. i'm going to demonstrate. '"We have royally, as an organization, screwed the pooch in the messaging and handling of how we're going to deal with lance threads!'"

Dan,

I read something like this message before, maybe upthread, maybe in your op-ed. I have to say, it was the most transparent I've seen you be about the recent difficulties at Slowtwitch. Often, when reading someone who is trying to say a few conflicting things at once, their message sounds anxious, defensive, contradictory. I'm not sure if that was the case with your posts recently, but something seemed off, as if you have been distracted while posting. Usually, you're so on point.

So, first, thanks for this post, an "aha" moment for me, a longtime member, and a really welcome one. To be frank, it kind of saved the whole thing from being a wreck.

Second, though, and please tell me if I'm crossing a line, can you say why your messaging and handling of how you're dealing with Lance threads has been confusing or, to paraphrase, screwed up? I wouldn't have asked if you hadn't brought it up; if that's a bridge too far, I understand. You've been forthcoming and I appreciate that.

Great forum, great site. Great post (above). Thanks for all three.

Andrew Moss

---

__________
"At the end he was staggering into parked cars and accusing his support-van driver of trying to poison him." A description of John Dunbar in the 1st Hawaii Iron Man

Yet it's impossible for someone who's t-levels are well below 200ng/dl to get a TUE despite needing supplementation to function normally day to day.

---

__________________________________________________
Follow my blog - Follow me on Twitter - Facebook Page
Powered by Accelerate3

Its "doping" if the PGA says it is. I don't think it should be made illegal, but if they make it illegal then yeah it is. its interesting what another poster said about alcohol. I don't take any pills except rarely when it perscribed, most pain meds for an operation. No vitamins, so supplements etc. But if alcohol was put on the banned list out of competition, then yes, I'd still have beer now and again (and again) and I'd still compete.

---

Styrrell

Well, in keeping with the golfing analogies, would/should they then consider glasses/contacts as performance enhancers?

Thanks for what it's worth, I probably wouldn't have commented if you said "practically no one" because there isn't a lot of compromise going around here, though this thread has stayed fairly civil. TravisT and a few others are working the middle ground a bit. A big part of the issues Im seeing with doping is the fact that people feel so defeated by it.

And so it goes. I'm surprised it took 7ish pages for someone to start bringing up every outlying procedure and saying "What about this? What about that? Why isn't X and Y illegal?"

The WADA list is the WADA list. If you don't like something on it, such as marijuana, start a campaign to have it taken off. Get off your ass and do something. Similarly, if you think something SHOULD be on the list but isn't, start a campaign.

The discussion is NOT about what should or should not be on the list. The conversation is (or at least was) how do we most effectively enforce the list in existence?

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

John, I agree with your line of thinking....kinda my point in my previous post, as this is descending into the realm of the ridiculous.

But, I suppose, what else is new?

And that a lot of people just don't care at all, at least on the AG side. From the other doping thread currently active, a few quotes:


John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

And it's been appealed as far as it can be? Every avenue has been exhausted? Then you're right, the system completely failed this person so the whole thing should be scrapped.

From my experience getting a TUE (Admittedly for a much lesser medication) was much simpler.

Me: I think I need a TUE
USADA: Great, we'll mail you the forms
Me: Hey, doc, need these forms filled out.
Doc: No problem.
Me: Here's my forms, USADA.
USADA, Great, here's your TUE.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

It's pretty easy for a good age group runner to qualify for Boston. I've done it without really trying too hard. But qualifying for Vegas is much harder, and Kona is pretty much beyond my reach.

To be clear, I agree testing protocols - especially the passport - are having more success at the pro level. In this particular case I was referring to amateur testing. My point being that what I learned from The Secret Race was that it's easy (for amateurs) to take EPO and not be detected. Books like this are highly interesting/entertaining, but also educational to those who might not otherwise have doped at the amateur level.

Absolutely a TUE for simple medication is not an issue. But I'd like to hear from anyone who is actually been able to get a TUE for something like test or steriods. There are legitimate uses for these drugs and some people actually need them to function day to day and still want to compete. Judging from what I know first hand it is impossible get a TUE for one of those "worse" drugs and that is a problem.

---

__________________________________________________
Follow my blog - Follow me on Twitter - Facebook Page
Powered by Accelerate3

For which drug? Asthma meds? Cortisone cream?

In my experience, no one gets a TUE for the true performance enhancers. Maybe someone who's had both testicles shot off might be a candidate, but I am wondering if you are the first we've heard about?

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

Asthma. I stated it was a simpler med. (And changed, so no longer TUE necessary).

What is your experience that "no one" gets a TUE for the true performance enhancers? What is on that list? How many do you know that have tried?

Do I know of any personally? No. But I also don't know anyone in that kind of disease state either, so I don't know of anyone that has tried.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

Agreed, and admittedly you have the experience that I don't.

But, they outline the method and conditions by which a TUE for testosterone can be given. If the athlete has followed that, and the TUE has been denied, then it should be able to be appealed to a higher authority, although I don't know the oversight structure well enough to know which that would be. I would imagine WADA/CAS, but I don't know for sure.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

I do know someone first hand who needed it for severe health issues. They exhausted all their options and were still denied. That is a problem with the system.

---

__________________________________________________
Follow my blog - Follow me on Twitter - Facebook Page
Powered by Accelerate3

Agreed. See my post above, I would think (Although again, I am murky on the command structure above USADA) that there is somewhere that it could be appealed.

So, if it's broken what can we do to fix it, rather than talk about how unjust it is? If there is no appeals process, lobby for one. If there is one and it failed, pursue it legally. YAHOO.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

I do. It's called OOC testing. Cheating OOC takes a quite significant amount of criminal energy that will tale away any joy left of racing.

---

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK

I disagree. If there is an OOC / IC testing protocol, it will be difficult to get away with EPO, because if you dont know when the test is, you wont know when you can take it safely. Im not advocating for OOC for everyone, just top AG in a cross spectrum across USAT AG All Americans and honorable mentions (or whatever the second level is).

Pros have popped for EPO and they have top level doping doctors supporting them. Pros can handle microdosing and getting away with it with lots of support, amateurs would be significantly challenged to put that kind of process together to avoid OOC.

THIS.

That's the ticket. The mere chance of being tested would be a huge deterrent. It's always interesting when (very, very occasionally) USADA shows up at a random bike race and the guys killing it suddenly suck.

"can you say why your messaging and handling of how you're dealing with Lance threads has been confusing or, to paraphrase, screwed up?"

probably in part because i've been pretty darned conflicted about all this myself. but i think it's a combination of a few things. first, my moderation on this is based on my attempt to just keep to our longtime forum rules. it's hard to talk about lance and doping against the backdrop of our forum rules, the chief of which, in this case, is that you can't accuse somebody of doping unless they have been so-judged by the relevant authorities. that's worked nicely in the past, but has been hard for our readers to negotiate around in the current climate.

second, i came home from interbike sick, and had to spend a week not swimming, cycling, and running and that week (last week) with you folks, without the intermittent swim and bike, etc., throughout the day, was a rough go. i'm sure i was not in my right mind.

now, completely off topic, but relevant to your post, my right hand man (woman) charlee went to see the doggy lord about 3 weeks ago and that's been a rough go. probably through me off my game.

finally - and you can call me incredibly naive for taking until very recently to realize this, and you would be right - i didn't grasp that it was not possible to nuance the lance issue AT ALL. it's like nuancing abortion. or climate change. no can do. it's verdun, and the french are in the french trench and the germans are in the german trench and machine guns are overheating and mustard gas is tearing at everybody's lungs and i'm standing in no man's land like rodney king asking if we all can't get along, and then i'm surprised (like an idiot) when i'm getting strafed from both directions.

not complaining. just answering your question as best i can.

in short, that's it.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

That was awesome.

So I guess you hear me LOUND AND CLEAR where I am coming from and don't feel the need to reply any longer.

Got it.

---

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK

Sorry for quoting this entire post. I'm going to take a little bit of the opposite stance, but I'd ask a couple of questions, and provide a couple of examples. The first question is should this person be racing in the first place if they have a 'severe health issue'? The second is does this person have enough history of testing to determine what their 'baseline' level of whatever hormone or substance they are deficient in?

I know two professionals who have had the same scenario. I do not know if one of them tried to get any TUEs for the medication needed to remedy their adrenal, etc. issues. He simply stopped racing, judged it better to get healthy before racing again. The second tried to get a TUE and either was denied or didn't go through quite enough channels. He opted to go ahead with the medication AND go ahead an race...based on my reading of his blog. He was 'randomly' tested last year at a race, tested positive, and is now serving a ban. So, that goes to my first question in that should an athlete really be racing in the first place? Not for fear of being drug tested and subsequently being banned for a positive test, but from a 'severe health condition' point of view. In all honesty, if faced with the same situation, I would write USAT or whoever my NGB was and not necessarily ask for a TUE, but instead ask for a stay of my professional license so that I could get healthy and then return to racing.

Secondly, it's like someone mentioned in a post above. I have a testosterone level of 'x' and yours is 'y'. Maybe they are both normal, maybe mine is normal and yours is low normal. At what point can you say that you need supplementation. What if yours has always been low normal? What if your snapshot in time shows that you are severely deficient, but you have no idea what your level was when healthy? So, now you are supplementing and you are suddenly the high end of normal. What then? Are you cured and suddenly recovering, racing, etc. faster than you might have been before because instead of being on the low end of normal you are now at the high end of normal? I think that we've all read enough lately about how certain baseline levels respond much better than others. So, if you are typically low-normal on some level and suddenly go to high normal you are going to get a much better effect than someone who is normal high normal and goes to slightly higher normal. It's really all math.

These are hypotheticals. But, the endurance population doesn't necessarily fit into the 'normal' category on so many levels. And, I'm just trying to make the point that while it might be a bit of a hole in the system, I can see why it would be nearly impossible to get a TUE for a true 'performance enhancer' as mentioned above.

---

Brandon Marsh - Website | @BrandonMarshTX | RokaSports | 1stEndurance | ATC Bikeshop |

"The mere chance of being tested would be a huge deterrent. "

I suspect that is a bit of wishful thinking on the part of those of us who wish to see AG testing. And surely it will deter a few. But the ego is a funny thing and will drive us to extremes. I suspect there would still be a larger swath than we'd care to admit of determined cheaters for whom OOC testing is nothing more than a speed bump they are willing to risk. By and large I suspect it is mostly the same group that are doping today. After all, there is a pretty good blueprint out there throughout various interwebz for those who wish to dope and escape detection.

"Cheating OOC takes a quite significant amount of criminal energy that will tale away any joy left of racing."

But for those so determined to dope, "joy of racing" doesn't mean the same thing it means to many of us. In fact, the thrill of winning or of finding performance levels never seen before has a special allure that feeds the ego. Tyler's accounts in his book confirmed this aspect for me.


You know I agree with you on AG testing. I just think we ought not fool ourselves to think there is any moral or ethical wedge we can leverage. It's just a matter of fact situation that ought to be created. For this subset of AG racing we've determined matters, we're going to test in and out of competition. If we catch you, here are the consequences. We're going to do our best to catch you.


Deterrence? Not so much. We all have those things in our lives that we do despite the consequences of getting caught (speeding anyone?). For some people, doping falls in that list whether you or I can wrap our brains around it or not.

True for some but not true for others. You'll never catch or deter all but it does work like a charm. We had some interesting DNFs and DNSs at our event.

---

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK

Thanks, Dan, for that very thoughtful reply.

Andrew Moss

---

__________
"At the end he was staggering into parked cars and accusing his support-van driver of trying to poison him." A description of John Dunbar in the 1st Hawaii Iron Man

With the cost and effort involved there will be some people who think it's worth the effort at first, but to the AG athlete who has to work, deal with kids and family and still make sure to stay on doping program it will become too much of a hassle. And the testing is smart enough to catch long time cheats, because it happens all the time, even in the pro ranks.

What is OOC? I googled but all I got is Out of Competition? Is this right?

Correct.

Shane

So in ohter words they show up to your house and ask you to pee in a cup? Hmmmm interesting.

How hard do you think doping is? Cost, maybe. But actually doping is merely maintaining a schedule and sticking a needle in at certain times. Less arduous than IDDM.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

As long as your body likes the schedule. Otherwise you might get serious health issues if you are lucky or don't wake up one morning.

---

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK

Well, yes, there is that. But IMHO, you rolls the dice, you takes your chances. Darwinism in action, and I'm all for Darwinism.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |