As the winner, maybe they could invite him here for an AMA.

What could go wrong ?

Michi did an AMA here 10 years ago, and it went OK. But some folks can't let go. If you have that big an issue with it, maybe you should contact WADA??



https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...tions_here_P4885704/

oh I remember the thread, I was kidding.

Our opinion on "it went OK" differs.

Check out Sam long and Cody beals IG. they both seemed to *miss congratulating him.

---

http://www.TriScottsdale.org

Yea, “it differs” a bit. Just a bit.

I ask this as a genuine question, I’m not totally sure what my own opinion is.

Do people deserve a second chance? His doping infringement was, what, two decades ago? He served his ban, let him be.

Orrrr….yes, let him be as a human being, but not in professional sport.

I can argue it both ways. Interested to hear what side of the fence others are on.

My opinion has not changed in 10 years.

Own up to your mistake, show a bit of regret and you deserve a second chance

https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...tring=weiss#p4886198

I'm with you. The guy made a bad choice a long long time ago. If he's clean now and he served his penance then he gets to do whatever's coming to him. Do not get mad at the person because the rules don't have the same pound of flesh that you're looking for. Lobby for rule change that is a lifetime ban. People make mistakes and make bad choices and they pay the price, this desire to see someone continually be punished for something they did a long long time ago makes no sense to me

Whatever the WADA and the governing body of Triathlon allow is okay with me. The dude was a tool for doping but smarter people than me say that he has done his time and can race. No amount of bitching will change that.

The most shocking thing to me about those results is that Sam Long can't win a "B" Ironman,especially one with a stupidly short swim.
( and before you all freak on me,I like Sam)
.

Would you let someone that’s a registered sex offender due to a conviction 10 years ago babysit your child? If no, why?

Yes, I believe people definitely deserve second chances. I find the insinuations that he is still cheating and this entire thread to be rather mean spirited. There is no evidence of any cheating here. I was under the impression we didn’t do this on ST.

No one is banned for life in my book for doing anything. People can change.

That might sound idealistic but I’m sticking to it.

yes that went 100 percent as dan had planed it...

Lol. Sure the exact same thing. Have a good day

Which posts contain insinuations that he is still cheating?

Are you familiar with analogies?

That’s a ridiculous analogy. Maybe if you had said if a friend slept with another friend’s wife would you trust him with your wife. Maybe not, but I also wouldn’t say he isn’t allowed to be around any women the rest of his life.

Doping is not even close to child molestation, rape or murder stop making these horrible comparisons.

Those newborns really are a nuisance aren’t they

What is the greatest, most egregious offense in the world of endurance sport?

Whatever that analogy is, use that.

ETA - you used "child molestation" and "rape," not me. I just said sex offender.

Being a sanctimonious prick is almost as bad as being an unrepentant doper. But fortunate for both of you they are both can be forgivable.

I do not think he should be allowed to be a professional athlete. He can compete in his age group, at most, but earning money and sponsorships with a doping ban on his record is, in my opinion, lame. I believe most professionals that have raced in the same field as him (which is most professional triathletes at this point) would probably agree. Jason Pohl would have an IM victory so his credit, Sam Long would have his Kona spot, and Cody Beals would have a podium finish. Just from this weekend. Now go back through his history since his joke of an AMA and see how many careers his results have affected over that period. It's gonna be a big number.

Good edit. I see you're a "forgive and forget" type. Serves you well I'm sure.

In addition to what others have said about showing remorse. Another common complaint people have is that as long as athletes keep training they are still reaping the benefits of doping. I think the let him be as a human being but not in professional sport side works for this, despite the fact you’re destroying this person’s livelihood, but they cheated so maybe they had it coming? For example if I dope like crazy for two years with no racing, then stop doping and start racing I will show as clean despite having a huge advantage. I think there’s some legitimacy to this argument but am unsure how to prevent it.

Yup he suffered the consequences of his actions and served his ban. Same for you I’ll forget you exist and the next time I see a post from you I won’t hold it against you that you equated cheating in a sport to being a sex offender against a child.

This is a well posed question and I also wrestle with the issue. One way I answer it is to think of myself as the person who made the mistake. While much depends on the nature and extent of the violation, I’m pretty sure I’d feel I deserve a second chance.

When did he say child molester again...?

But besides the semantic issue, I don't know how people can ignore the fact that doping gains can last for life.

I'm okay letting the guy live his life, but it shouldn't be in professional sport anymore.

---

Too old to go pro but doing it anyway
http://instagram.com/tgarvey4

I don't think every doping violation should result in a lifetime ban, but that should 100% be on the table. Racing at a pro level isn't a right. No one is entitled to competing. If you've shown you're willing to cheat then no, I don't think anyone owes them forgiveness or a second chance.

This isn't even factoring in the potential physical benefits that stick around years after the doping.

This is a completely different situation from felons and such getting a second chance at living a decent life. No one is entitled to be a pro. Take that away if they break the trust.

---

Benjamin Deal - Professional - Instagram - TriRig - Lodi Cyclery
Deals on Wheels - Results, schedule, videos, sponsors

I for one am not angry at Weiss but I choose to boycott his sports career until one of us kicks the bucket or he quits triathlon. (Not that it matters to anyone). Rules are rules, he can race, but public attitudes towards him racing can and perhaps should be different from his legal situation.

---

"FTP is a bit 2015, don't you think?" - Gustav Iden

apples and oranges....

---

"one eye doubles my eyesight, so things don't look half bad" John Hiatt

What a horrendous analogy.

I think that deserves a retraction.

In my case I like to think I'd pick another sport or something. Move on. CrossFit is fun.

you leave Brett Sutton out of this

---

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

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

Excellently played.

I agree that he can race but IMHO once a doper always a doper. And I find it annoying that at 42 years of age even with a short swim he manages 4h01m on the bike and 2h39m in the marathon and he is no Frodeno. Please someone tell me that it was short for my peace of mind.

That was what we call a "really bad analogy".

A professional athlete wanting to push boundaries to win is very human and quite common.

Wanting to diddle kids is unnatural and a perversion of human nature.

But yes, back to your question, it is still an analogy...

-bobo

---

"What's good for me ain't necessarily good for the weak-minded."

I’m not a fan of Weiss and I don’t believe he should be allowed to race as a pro. Especially considering he has never seemed to fully own up to it publicly.

But I would rather focus our energy on those that are currently skirting the system and have yet to be caught or outed publicly. They are out there, the system just needs to get better.

---

blog

Double letters

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

This is by far the worst analogy. Really? Doing PEDs is a as bad as raping a kid? You have issues dude.

As for the guy, I mean, he did his time. Not a fan of him, but if he is being tested as much as other guys and stays negative....let him race. I agree with stevej, I think it is more important to focus on improving the system to catch more offenders.

As someone else posted, Sam Long has a lot of work to do if he can't even win against a b level field with a reduced swim. M Weiss is a beast of an athlete, but a long way from the a list.

Sex offender does not necessarily mean pedophile; it also includes sexual assault, public lewdness, online "misbehavior" perhaps?

Either way, I'd say "nope, you're not coming to my house, or anywhere near it"

****

As far as PEDs go, I heard a take on Pablo Torre's new podcast last week from Dan LeBatard

"With all the outrage against A-Rod over his PED use, all he had to do to fix his image was to start dating J-Lo"

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

this is where i land on it.

it's absolutely true that according to the rules of the sport at the moment, he's perfectly within his rights to race.

but personally, i wish he wouldn't. my feeling is that when he doped - not in an 'accidentally took non-drowsy cold medication' way - he breached the trust of our community. i feel the same way about lance (and about brett sutton, for that matter). i don't specifically wish him ill, and wouldn't begrudge him going off and being an account or plumber or whatever, but my feeling is that our sport should be closed off to people who have damaged it.

---

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

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

The rules are the rules, and all the rules are rules. Including both the rule that forbids banned substances and and the rule that allows you to compete once you have completed your ban.

If you do not like some of those rules, just lobby to try having them changed.

I’ve never said anything in this thread about “diddling kids” but you keep reading what you want to read.

It seems the second half of the year didn’t go as well as the first half. All the residuals he had from getting coached by Dan Plews seemed to have faded. Maybe time to get a coach again?

Can you point to where I made some assertion about “raping a kid?” I’ll wait. But also, you’re gross.

I'm amazed he did so well. It's not like he cleans up at most races. He often DNFs with various excuses from the impressions I've gotten.

He is supposed to be a great bike, but again, that's been very inconsistent lately from the little I've paid attention.

So, it's great for him and his family to have a good result.

Surprised Sam Long didn't win this one, but he had mentioned in the past he had some metabolic issues at the full distance. It's a shame he didn't stick with Plews (who was not advocating keto training, but 2-3 initial lower carb weeks, which would have obviously impacted Sam's oceanside 70.3 race) to see how he could transform his metabolism full Ironman.

Anyway, I think I'm more curious to see how Sam will do in Kona than Weiss, but it's still impressive to see him get the win.

Regarding doping, we all probably have that inner voice wondering if they are all doing it, and only a small group get caught. So I don't take much stock in indignation at this case. It's totally not fair, presuming there are clean top level athletes out there, for me to have to suspend disbelief in this way. But we all know how difficult it is to actually catch someone, so it seems likely it's either very wide spread or the sporting world is blessed with a high number of extremely ethical top performers.

Weiss is a great example of a failed system that constantly gets put on display. I think spending some energy on a reminder of who he is is not a bad thing.

So what? I'm still very allowed to think the rules are wrong, want them to change, and criticize the fact that dopers are allowed to compete.

Complete strawman. No one is saying it's against the rules for him to compete. We're saying it sucks, and that it should be.

What's are your feelings on the actual point of this post? Do you agree with the rule that allows him to compete? I don't.

---

Too old to go pro but doing it anyway
http://instagram.com/tgarvey4

Not sure where you live, but here in Canada:
sex offender means a person who is subject to an order or to an obligation under section 490.019 or 490.02901 of the Criminal Code , section 227.06 of the National Defence Act or section 36.1 of the International Transfer of Offenders Act . ( délinquant sexuel) sexual offence against a child
So now you are defending sex offenders to try to justify your silly analogy...dude..you have issues.

K I’ll keep waiting for you to point out where I said raping a kid. Which even feels gross to type.

And I will keep pointing out at what it means to be a registered sex offender here in Canada =o)

I think it's a horrible analogy to simply try to make your point. But anyway, it's what came to your mind. We can agree to disagree.

Well this thread has taken kind of a weird turn, but amongst the child sex offender analogies I appreciate the thoughtful replies. I think this one best sums up where I land up on it too.

assuming that this is where you got that from, you've either misread or misrepresented the definition. 'sexual offense against a child' is the next definition down in the list, alphabetically, and you've lumped it in here.

anyway quit derailing things.

---

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

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

He *did* pick another sport...

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

I wouldn’t say this is derailing it shows the spectrum. Anytime doping is brought up here it seems inevitably someone makes a horrible analogy to a felony, in this case being a sex offender in relation to children.

It shows there is a wide range of beliefs on where cheating in a sport lies with some not caring alol the way to others putting it on the level of sex offense and murder (separate post).

Clearly some (including myself) think putting doping anywhere near crimes against humanity like sex offenses and murder is repugnant.

Take away that analogy and the conversation is totally reasonable.

I just don't like how people aren't treated equally, and also treated badly even when having served their penalty.

For those who can't understand WHY he would dare cross that line.......it was 20 years ago in a sport that you made a choice to either dope, or go back to working on the farm, etc. The entire peloton was doped. Every so called 'darling' of pro cycling eventually was outed as a doper.....

I don't think that should disqualify him for life from other sports, especially when we seem to celebrate other former pro cyclists joining the sport, just because 'they didn't test positive' (neither did lance...). Jalabert, Vino, etc. And to be clear, I don't believe Michi ever 'tested positive' either. I believe he was given a 2 year ban for his association with a blood doping clinic based on testimony. Now, do I think he doped? Of course. But he served his penalty.

People who have a huge prob with him should go protest at WADA's offices. I think it looks horrible on other pro's being rude to him for something that happened literally 20 years ago in a different sport, for which he served his punishment. Whether it be a well known pro like Beals, or a complete unknown like Ben. They should respect their peers and the rules IMHO. I also think it was horrible for a age grouper to be yelling obscenities at him a few years ago at one of the races. I hope Michi got a good punch in.

Meh. In the same way that there are pros out there who are unliked for reasons other than doping, no one is entitled to my (or anyone's) respect just because they race at a high level. It might be something of a high horse, but frankly it's not that hard to not cheat. This horse has plenty of space on it. You better believe I'm going to be upset if Collin Chartier comes back after his ban and starts winning again. You've got a million other jobs and lifestyles out there available to you, no need to pick the one where you got in trouble for attempting to cheat your 'co-workers' out of money and success.

---

Benjamin Deal - Professional - Instagram - TriRig - Lodi Cyclery
Deals on Wheels - Results, schedule, videos, sponsors

I completely disagree with your conclusion, and already explained why in another comment so I won't rehash all that. But to your new point of other successful dopers, just because other people celebrate them doesn't mean you can say "we." We all don't. I don't.

And I have stated my opinion on the rules to people that have influence over them, but obviously they have no reason to care what I think. "Protest WADA" is a pretty cheap out. It's completely legitimate to not like the rules as they stand, and to also not like the fact that there is not much most of us can do about it but express our opinions when the conversation comes up.

But when was Beals rude? Because he congratulated the second place finisher for a good race? Seems pretty neutral to me.

---

Too old to go pro but doing it anyway
http://instagram.com/tgarvey4

Sorry if I was wrong there, I was going by what someone else posted on the forum about Beals and another pro 'forgetting' to congratulate him.

I think he's just friends with the guy who came in 2nd, so he posted a pic with the both of them.

I don't think it's entirely a coincidence that the are a lot of people not talking about who came in first, but it's not exactly a slight. And if it is a protest, it's about as mild as it gets.

And as for Ben, I think he's completely within bounds to state his opinion on doping and dopers. A very legitimate way to try to control the current problem is dealing with the rule that lets dopers hang around. Also, it's the lowest horse ever to claim someone is high on it.

Don't cheat, dislike cheaters. That's all it takes to be welcomed onto it.

---

Too old to go pro but doing it anyway
http://instagram.com/tgarvey4

“IF”

That’s why he doesn’t deserve it. You will never know. Once a cheater always a cheater.

When spouses cheat… it’s never 1x. It’s the 1x they got caught….

---

http://www.TriScottsdale.org

If a friend slept with another friends wife… that’s not the only one. That’s the point. That’s just the one he was caught with

---

http://www.TriScottsdale.org

I thought it was a good one!

---

USAT Level II- Ironman U Certified Coach

Why do comments like this pop up so early in doping threads on slowtwitch? Is it because doping is widespread (pros + AGers) & accepted throughout the sport? Let's not be naive -- you reap the benefits of doping long after you're done cheating. I'm sick of hearing that these people have big aerobic engines and were already good. So what. There are people doing things right that deserve to make a podium or grab a KQ or whatever over these guys. You can get really good at triathlon by putting in the work. It's a joke to normalize this stuff. It's not normal to cheat & then keep competing. We should make it as uncomfortable as possible for these people to stick around the sport.

THIS

10000000000X THIS

---

http://www.TriScottsdale.org

I think because this is likely the best "compromise" overall.

WADA or any world authority is not going to implement an lifetime ban for this type of infractions, they just aren't. There are too many layers to it, that they could never really implement an true 1 strike and your out plan. I think it's easy to say create that type of policy, but then there are all kinds of "doping" busts that aren't equal. Thus why they have made it stronger sentence but also have the ability to "work" with the athlete in the event they admit and work with authorities. And let's be real, all the other pros are doing is giving the guy the cold shoulder. That's about all they can do, now how the "fans" react to dopers, is another story. But that's also kinda where the athlete kinda has to "know the room". Obviously no one wants any chirping at another person to cross the line, so as long as it pretty much stays clean, I think that's just the reality that ex dopers have to face. Again I'm not suggesting anything turn physical or people get into other people's face, but if you hear the chirping from others, I think that's just kinda part of doing sport as an ex doper. A shoulder shrug can go a long way in those instances.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

-- you reap the benefits of doping long after you're done cheating.

Not asking sarcastically: do you mind pointing out at a study supporting this? It is well known that steroid abusers, for example, will often struggle the rest of their lives with low testosterone levels, organ damage, high blood pressure, etc. So definitely not steroids. Will EPO keep your hematocrit above say 50% years after using it?

"New (old now) research suggests that athletes who use steroids for a short period can benefit for their entire careers."

https://www.bbc.com/...environment-24730151

"The Norwegians believe that their research calls into question the current proposal from the World Anti Doping Agency (Wada) to raise the penalty for dopers from two years to four.

"In science if you cheat, you are out for life, and my personal view is that it should be similar for athletes," he said."

---

Too old to go pro but doing it anyway
http://instagram.com/tgarvey4

The study indicates that this was "proven" in mice. And if it "could be proven in humans" (which wasn't as part of the study). What are your thoughts?

At the very least it's not like the time you're able to train harder and more just disappear from your athletic history. I can't make claims that the direct effect of the drugs or transfusions remain, but the fitness benefits which matter over years still benefit the athlete.

---

Benjamin Deal - Professional - Instagram - TriRig - Lodi Cyclery
Deals on Wheels - Results, schedule, videos, sponsors

"Researchers found that power lifters who have stopped taking steroids had an advantage in their sport years after they stopped using the drugs."

My thoughts are that you are likely not genuinely curious and you're "just asking questions" to try to defend ex dopers. And I'm not as forgiving as you and many others in here.

Maybe you are, but I'm just skeptical of all the leniency in this thread.

---

Too old to go pro but doing it anyway
http://instagram.com/tgarvey4

you got to come back to ST!!

Probably posted later, but Long credits weiss for being stronger and he has the full podium shot

Not defending them. But I am trying to have a fair discussion about whether convicted athletes deserve a second chance or not. On the one hand I think everyone deserves a second chance, on the other hand I am skeptical about their results since there is a chance they could be playing dirty again.

I would argue that triathletes and other endurance athletes don't use steroids to bulk up (heck if someone needs to use steroids to build the physique of a professional triathlete, chances are this athlete does not have the genes to be a pro) However, endurance athletes have used steroids to keep lean muscle while shedding fat (i.e. get ripped..a convicted female runners comes to mind) during heavy volume. Whether the mouse on study extrapolates to humans or not, the steroid effect goes away when the cycle is off, check any bodybuilding/fitness discussion forums

It seems as if the effect of EPO starts wearing off after about four weeks (quick Google, Pitsiladis study.. actually seems like the study was funded by WADA). Do we know of another study challenging the Pitsiladis results indicating that blood boosting effect of EPO stays years after a cycle?

I don't think folks are implying that. I think they are saying the extra amount of training/recovery the athlete was able to do while using said drugs, can have a long lasting benefit. I could be mistaken though!

The research outcomes aren't uniequivocal but they are pretty clear. Use of steroids increases athletic performance for the test of your life. It's not a hard conclusion to draw either. You don't just gain size of muscle cells, you gain quantity of muscle cells. It takes a lot for your body to reduce the actual number of muscle cells. Someone with 110 cells is always going to have a higher ceiling than someone with 100.

It stands to reason that any promising young athlete should be exposed to a few off-seasons of steroids use before they are subject to biological passport or OOC testing. It's unethical of course, but with the potential reward it's hard to imagine 100% (or 90%, 80%) of athletes/coaches saying no to the opportunity.

The data driven sanction is lifetime ban for steroids. That's obviously untenable. Stimulants, EPO, blood transfusions, etc all can have their own sanctions.

Stop defending dopers.

Yes, there are studies that show this but use common sense. If you dope & get more fit than you would have been without doping, then you're, you know, more fit. That sticks with you.

What's the point of doing the prove it thing here? It ignores a good chunk of my original post. I'm spending my time condoning dopers -- not looking for an out for them.

Again, can you please provide a link to this "research" that it is not the one study done on mice? Most studies I have come across indicate serious long term health issues from steroid abuse. Low testosterone, heart failure, kidney issues, etc. Also, there are plenty of documentaries about former steroid abusers struggling with these issues and they can't even function. I am happy to stand corrected and learn something but y'all got nothing.

FWIW, Michael Weiss got busted for blood busting in 2005.

Sam was part of a group of athletes that wound up doing some bonus miles on the bike, from what I've understood from people that were there.

To the thread generally -- knock the sex offender stuff off. Save it for when we have a Sutton thread. The apt analogy here is committing some type of fraud.

Love, Management

---

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

To me it reminds me of an 100m dash. You can't tell me a doped athlete regardless of when they got popped isn't starting with a head start. 10 years ago it may have been an 8m head start, but even now if it's as little as 2m that's still a unfair head start.


He was also banned what in the 2 year ban timeline, as I think the 4 year bans came in around what 10 years ago or so? So he likely never took any real "time off" from training.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

His Strava file indicates an 180 km and seems the same distance as Weiss?

Did Sam get a kona slot?

Everyone has bad days especially after three races and the last one ill and all that travel. Me likely did very good giving his health right now.

---

Technique will always last longer then energy production. Improve biomechanics, improve performance.
http://Www.anthonytoth.ca, triathletetoth@twitter

For a lot of people it depends if he's likeable or not. Not saying if that's a good or bad way to judge it but it is what it is.

i suspect a bit of low dose juice is probably better for your health when doing 20 + hours training than not - avoids anemia

This has been discussed as naueseum in this forum and if you can’t be bothered to search to find what is at this point considered generally accepted that’s on you. It is accepted that doping provides long term benefit to the user. Just accept that and move on.

playing devils advocate here, this is an over generalisation. You cant just take dope and then get good. You have to be doing high level or doper level training, maybe training in excess of doper level.

I heard an interview with one of the jumbo trainers on the Real Coaching podcast. The gist of the relevant part was that in the past cycling was over reliant on 'medical aspects' - getting HCT and HGB at the limits - without optimising training, weight, recovery and nutritional aspects.

I infer now that these non-medical aspects have improved considerably and the riders are a bit more professional in this regard. Training in a much more polarised way consistently and recovering better. & the extent to which the medical aspects layer on top of that can be left to people's own assessments.

He doesn't want to accept it. He's going out of his way to deny it and excuse doping. Not worth responding to him anymore.

---

Too old to go pro but doing it anyway
http://instagram.com/tgarvey4

are you now the boss of this forum champ? someone just wants to understand something better and you act like the king ?

Like I said, it's not unequivocal but it's also not a hard conclusion to draw. There's two types of muscle growth, hypertrophic (growth of existing muscle cells) and hyperplasic (creation of new muscle cells). It's incredibly difficult to create new muscle cells in adults (hyperplasia), yet that is a common outcome in steroid users.

Likewise, when muscles atrophy it's largely due to the shrinking of cells, not a reduction in the number of cells, especially when residence training is continued. Therefore it stands to reason that artificially increasing the number of muscle cells is a process that is effectively irreversible and allows a unique pathway to further growth available only to those who used the steroids.

One of a few studies that shows hyperplasia as a marked outcome of AAS use below. There's not going to be long term steroid use studies on humans for ethical reasons, so throwing out conclusions because of lack of unethical studies is a bit of a force.

None of this is groundbreaking research.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10589853/

Sure “champ.”

.
.
Missed his Kona slot which is why I guess he did the race to begin with. He mentioned before the 70.3 worlds that he was going to wrap his season early but probably decided to try for an early Kona slot at this race. Bummer that he missed it.

Can't Ironman, Challenge and any other company running a sporting event have a rule that anyone with a WADA doping violation (or above a specific category of violation) is not eligible for any prize money or awards? They'd still be following the WADA code, and not handing out longer bans, but also removing one of the incentives for the cheaters to cheat again.

in my ideal world those who doped would not need to be banned - the shame of cheating would make staying in the sport unbearable. No sponsors, no training partners, no invitations to do anything related to the sport. It used to be like that in my initial sport (track and field). Now it is just an occupational setback.

---

And the question remains. where were you.

I'm sure they could, I mean private organizations as long as they aren't pretty much discriminatory can come up with any rules they want. I still think not all doping issues are the same, and so then do you want to get in the weeds of grading doping violations? Is it a sweeping generalization rule that ANY doping violation removes you forever? So that's just a whole lot of can of worms, so I generally think these organizations will just say "whatever WADA says goes".

And no I'm not saying they don't care about doping by behaving in that manner. I actually think it's probaly the easiest from a biz standpoint to kinda stay out of the weeds of that issue.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I'd argue not really, but I get your point about the infraction being from his MTB days.

I agree with you here. It's tough for a private organization to set separate rules when something like WADA exists.

Even if they did agree that there are lifetime ban worthy offenses, finding the line is tough. To me, there are clear lifetime worthy offenses like Colin Chartiers's, but I also can see that offenders like Starky didn't cross the same line.

If there was a hypothetical line, I'd be willing to set it farther from clean than I'd like just to be sure. Maybe at something like EPO blood doping and other things that have no other purpose in sport besides cheating.

All just hopes and dreams though. If WADA doesn't do it, it's not going to happen.

---

Too old to go pro but doing it anyway
http://instagram.com/tgarvey4

I've probably written something similar before on ST about Weiss but I can say from all my interactions over the years with Weiss that he is probably one of the nicest pro triathletes you will ever meet. In an era where narcissism and fake nice play well, I can honestly say that Weiss is a just a genuinely nice guy. Now being a nice guy doesn't excuse the doping obviously, but one thing is clear to me about Michi. He just loves sport. He breathes it. What is he to do at this point? Go back to the age-group ranks? I'm sure the age-groupers, many whom are doping right now, would love that *pink*.

I think Michi knows he isn't a threat at Kona so at this point he is just doing this to prove to himself what is possible and I'm more than ok with that. He has served his time. If he was due a lifetime ban, we should fix the system, and also fix moto/medias in races too while we are at it, otherwise let the man race. He may have not told the whole story, frankly can't remember it that well, but he came on here and took his beatings. Maybe for legal reasons he couldn't say certain things, but he made an effort which runs contrary to many others.

---

---

Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset

Different sports may have different factors to all of this as well - I think finding a line is very difficult / impossible

Triathlon is traditionally viewed as a more individual sport, but is this same life time ban logic applicable to more team dominant sports, like football (soccer) or cycling? Thinking back to an era in cycling where it is acknowledged that doping was wide spread, there would be many pressures from all angles on riders to dope. But a lifetime exclusion only really punishes the individual and won't deter the system / machine that sits around all of this.

The top level athletes (including triathletes) have team and federation doctors that work with them and there should be some responsibility on the doctor to only prescribe substances that will not result in a violation (whether that is because they are not on the prohibited list yet, they are undetectable in certain dose) and to keep up with latest information. I have heard the view held by some is that anti doping means not that you don't dope at all, but that you don't get caught doping - it is only doping when you get caught

Recent positive doping from a diuretic from a Jumbo Rider - Michel Hessmann of Jumbo-Visma Suspended (bicycling.com). If he is on the old school cycling cocktail (blood bags, low dose anabolics and cortisone, EPO) and to 'those who know' that really means the diuretic is concealing the old school cycling drugs, should he also get a lifetime ban?

No one really talks about the role of sponsors in all of this - but its a 2 way street as the sponsors get more money from the high profile athletes (who are 'clean' but otherwise doing other world performances)

I'll be honest, hearing this from you has more of an impact on my opinion than any of the comments that are trying to argue that doping benefits don't last. I trust your instincts when it comes to this sport. Still, I think I'm being pretty objective.

I'm not trying to make any personal claims about Weiss, unless saying that the rules are bad is personal. I believe you that he's a nice guy. But that doesn't alter my opinion that we should want to fix the system around drug testing and punishment. It's not about the person, it's about the system.

And no, he's not a threat in Kona, but Sam Long still wanted to qualify, and now he didn't. That's a material career impact.

I'm sure there are other bad things too, like motos, but listing them doesn't change how I think about this individual topic.

---

Too old to go pro but doing it anyway
http://instagram.com/tgarvey4

Good points and it brings up another thing I wish the sporting world could do, ban doctors & coaches (and other supporting personnel) that knowingly supply athletes with illegal supplements.

I am aware that's even greyer and more difficult to set the line sometimes, but I have a feeling there are other Salazar's out there that are better at staying out of the spotlight.

---

Too old to go pro but doing it anyway
http://instagram.com/tgarvey4

What the hell are you writing here???

He’s nice so ….
He’s not going to win so…
Other could be doing to so…
Motos so…
Not sure the story was but hear is my opinion.

Dopers should be banned for life. My Opinion.

Dopers if not banned for life under the rules can return to sport after their suspension. Fact

He falls into the second category.

Everyone in a competition has to play but the exact same rules or else it isn’t sport. Just sometimes a rule help others more the some and sometimes the rules maybe flawed but are still followed. Therefore not broken. This is were an organization like pto that is so anti doping should be pushing for stronger regulations and penalties.

Carry on everyone.

---

Technique will always last longer then energy production. Improve biomechanics, improve performance.
http://Www.anthonytoth.ca, triathletetoth@twitter

Yeah, I sort of understand why someone who knows Weiss personally might try to be sympathetic to him in this thread, and that's fine, but there's a whole lot of whataboutism and hypotheticals in Thomas's post. And that's silly.

---

"FTP is a bit 2015, don't you think?" - Gustav Iden

Replying in general, and take my apologies if this has already been anwered:

Are there any studies that SHOWS (no guesstimating, please) that doping, heavy stuff like either EPO or Blood, has a long lasting performance enhancements??


If that is the case, then I don´t see, how anybody can argue/defend that these people (like Weiss, Jalabert, Vino) has a place in our sport, not on AG- and not on Pro-level. Just full ban for life - full stop.


I am training and racing here in Europe with a handful of people (AG today) that we know are convicted dopers, but 10-15 years back, some are Operation Puerto. They all perform really well today (say 5+ w/kg on the bike), even if they are not very serious with their training. It´s fishy!

So I can train now for my race in two years and then concentrate on other stuff? How wrong was Bannister!

 

operation puerto.... you must be hanging with some hard core people.... they will have great training and performance lifestyle tips that are not just dope specific. you know these people basically give up so much of their lives for sport and their reputations, so they know a thing or two about training too.

an earlier post made the point that some sciencey stuff shows steroids can lead to increase in the number of muscle cells - but no longer term study on humans that steroids increase performance for ethics.

EPO and blood doping temporarily boost your red blood cell levels - that of itself wont lead to long lasting performance enhancements. but if it lets you train 25 hours a week during the peak years of your physical life, you are going to have a higher ceiling if you take a break and then come back.

it is all about the red blood cell levels - I have heard someone say that they can do their same power on a bike when they used to train 1000kms a week versus now when they train on average 5 hours and keep high blood levels. I think they can probably do the same 5 minute power but not the same 30 minute power

I think the analogy is that you take a d1 or former oly swimmer. take them out of the pool for a decade and they still get back in and very quickly find form again. but its the high previous training level and aerobic base which is relevant, not the juicy juice

The brackets in the title.

Ok so “none” and that’s not what the brackets are for. Thanks for playing.

I changed the thread title. Because that's what the title infers, whether intentionally or not.

If you want to discuss that, DM me.

---

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

That's dumb. Y'all can infer whatever you want to infer I suppose. But I definitely was not implying that he is still taking drugs. I doubt he's that stupid.

You didn't clean up ALL of the reply/quote subject title lines, FYI.

I might be dumb, but I'm not a dweeb
Just a sucker with no self-esteem

So concludes today's 90s music reference in a post.

And yeah, agreed on the second part of your post.

---

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

what about a the REAL AMA THREAD with micheal weiss ....

Yeah hard to say where they would draw the line. Past EPO offense, lifetime ban? Starky cold medicine offense, 2 years and everyone still loves him??

For Michi, I'm ***guessing*** if there were a sliding scale, he would possibly land on the more lenient side, only because he didn't test positive for anything, he was found guilty of being associated with a blood clinic based on testimony of someone else (this based on my google-fu skills, please correct me if I am wrong). Who knows. Anyone remember Ivan Basso, 'attempted doping'.....lol.

I don't want to get into the big argument of whether or not PED's benefit someone 15 years later, but I'd bet Armstrong's remaining testicle that your above statement is 99.99% because of genetics. Same reason they were able to make it to the pro ranks to begin with. Even without the drugs, those guys/gals at the euro pro level are genetic freaks.

there are 2 possibilities:
1) he did not want to dope himself and somebody hid the banned substance in his drink (or something like that)
2) he did it intentionally. In this case I ask you: if he realized that he needed doping to compete, how can he win now without doping?

Certainly so! Its good people with "normal" lives today, but still - you can´t help wondering how "talent alone" can keep them at such high performance with 2-3 easier rides a week.

I'm trying to get a read on how you truly feel about all this. Are you saying you will, or won't, use Michi's coaching services??

Of course he did it intentionally. But to answer your question - different sport in a different time. Not excusing it, just saying.

Only if he promises to give me a trucker hat.

Well that was a better reply than I was expecting... ;)

How can there to be studies on this? It's would never get past an ethics board. "My proposal is to give 20 recreational (can't be pro) athletes a doping regimen with known poor health outcomes and revisit them in 10-15 years to study any lasting effects. Not lasting effects on health, but on athletic performance". Good luck with that.

So you're left studying athletes who have a doping conviction against those who don't, which leaves a ton of variables on the board. The other option is connecting the dots between a bunch of animal and human studies that cover the suspected pathways to the lasting advantage.

Add to it that doping is not some monolith. There's strong evidence to suggest that steroids carry a lasting advantage for many years after use. There is little reason to believe that blood transfusions carry an advantage beyond a few days. Now you need 10-15y studies on a rainbow of substances.


Throwing out conclusions because there's not an exact study is a backwards way of working. You seek to prove/disprove your hypothesis by finding related studies that strengthen or weaken the case. There's no study showing that hitting your hand with a specific hammer leads to injury, but you can find adjacent studies about blunt force trauma that strengthen that hypothesis.

No - I was not seeking to try any hypothesis. I was asking IF there are studies on this. And yes, it is true that doing such is not easy. However, lots of other studies have been done on long term performance medicine over the years.

What I WAS saying, is that I find it odd that people that I train with, can keep being so strong many years after they stopped doping.
Whether that is due to their born-with talent or the long-terms effect their body has "gained"... I can´t conclude on that.

I agree with you. Well said. He got caught, served his penalty, came back and won. I hate dopers of course, but he played by the book, so...

With regard to your last sentence (which I agree with)...
It appears that many don't like "the book" and won't, or, can't re-write the "book." Perhaps all that remains is acceptance, albeit begrudgingly.

---

I saw this on a white board in a window box at my daughters middle school...
List of what life owes you:
1. __________
2. __________
3. __________

Shame is relatively effective sometimes.

High level pros lurk this forum. If Mr. Weiss sees the thread it's worth it to me.

This is by far the wildest answer to such a simple question lol

He simply asked (and I did too) if there are any studies demonstrating that blood boosting PEDs have a long term lasting effect. A quick review, some common sense and empirical evidence indicates that the answer is NO. Athletes have to keep using this stuff to keep high hematocrit. There is a reason Willy Voet got caught with a truckload of this stuff on his way to the TDF.

Meanwhile, the rules are still the rules, if your do not like them divert your efforts to changing them. How people come here roasting athletes that are now following the rules is beyond me.

x2

I would say yes and no. He can race because the rules say he can race. In that aspect no one is limiting his ability to do that by “roasting” him as you put it. No where in the rule book does it say you have to high five with fellow podium winners. If you want to ignore him, you can ignore him etc. while you each celebrate your result. There’s no rule that says pros have to like each other.

So if you’re standing on the “rules are rules” that’s just not always a hill I’d necessarily want to stand and scream from the mountain top on certain infractions.

There’s a reading the room aspect that imo “rules are rules” doesn’t take into consideration. I think it’s obvious these type of infractions will always be a sore spot for others in the sport. I think in that aspect you just have to put your head down, and ignore the “roasting”. I would think coming back with “rules are rules” to the “roasting” is likely only going to show lack of understanding. Thus it’s almost best to just roll with it, even if you get “roasted”. Clapping back rules are rules just makes it worse for yourself.

ETA: And no I'm not suggesting "harassment" be allowed in these instances, but no where is that being shown to be the case atleast now 10+ years later with the commentary.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

There's strong evidence to suggest that steroids carry a lasting advantage for many years after use. There is little reason to believe that blood transfusions carry an advantage beyond a few days. Now you need 10-15y studies on a rainbow of substances. //

You are falling into the old trap of thinking only about the drugs effect on race day. Of course all drugs will clear the system at different times, but dont be fooled in just thinking that a high HCT% is just a Raceday benefit. For endurance athletes the main advantage of the common drugs used is for recovery. They allow one to train harder for longer, over and over. This leads to building muscle memory and an advanced quickness in the sports, which then translate to faster races without any of the drugs in their systems.


As an older athlete who knows a ton of others like me, I have found that the speed you achieved in your youth, does have a translation decades later. One could be 20 years from their last performances, and with a little bit of training, rocket through the levels to be within some % of their old selfs. If your old self was a 5 minute runner, then you may get to 6 minutes rather quickly, while someone new to running may never get there no matter how hard they try. It is getting back to that old muscle memory that enables swimmers who have been out of the water for 30 years, to get back in for a couple months and leave most AOS swimmers who have trained hard for 2 decades in the dust.


So taking all these cases into account, it seems quite logical to me that someone who used drugs, any drugs to train harder and get faster, would also retain some of that advanced muscle memory too. I really dont see how a study could be done on this either, there is just no base cases to compare to, and the differences are quite small. If you doped as a pro and got a 5% advantage, how are you going to measure that 20 years later, assuming they are still not doping? So blood bags or EPO absolutely make athletes able to train harder and faster, and more often, so in the same category of steroids or T..You dont have to retain the higher HCT% to call upon the muscle memory it built during the training season..

bingo. i come down on two places here:

a) as monty says, the 'benefit' of the drugs isn't just their continuing presence in your bloodstream. it's the training load (and subsequent physiological adaptations) that they allowed you to take on. getting to spend even a little while training at the levels that modern drugs allows would be a great advantage.

see this article if you're wondering what some of those advantage look like for an amateur, middle-aged endurance athlete. https://www.outsideonline.com/...rformance/drug-test/

b) whether the drugs still benefit you after you're done your ban isn't the most important thing. in fact, even if the drugs never benefitted you at all, the point is that they're banned. so taking them is wrong - really, really wrong - and that's a breach of the sport community's trust.

---

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

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

Not for nothing, but it *is* worth noting that Weiss - and we're still talking about Weiss, right? - wasn't accused of, or sanctioned for, drug use. The allegation that led to his suspension was that Bernard Kohl had seen him in the same lab that Kohl himself was using to bag blood for later use. That is the full extent of the charges, and the publicly available evidence laid against him. There is no question that blood doping is - and was - a banned process, and 100% cheating, but it seems important to point out the actual basis for Weiss' ban given some of the content of this thread.


...and yes, I know the obvious response to this is something along the lines of "come on, do you really believe that that's all that..."
To which... kinda? Yuck, but maybe?

I've been around long enough to have heard athletes from the Eddy B blood doping days in cycling expound at length upon the difference, and it's clear that they have at least convinced themselves there is a difference. More to the point, though, this forum has long had a policy against levelling non adjudicated doping claims upon athletes. Perhaps this is parsing that policy a bit finely but I think it applies, at least to the extent that we should note that Weiss is - at least implicitly - here being assumed guilty of offenses he was never even formally accused of.

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

He is a euro so the policy does not apply, same for any AG cross fitters who go faster than people on ST

I'd never forgive an unrepentant doper. An early step in being forgiven is owning up to what you did wrong. This is fundamental.

---

http://www.jt10000.com/

absolutely correct, and bears repeating. thanks.

---

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

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

so do you believe michi was a clean athlete?

When did you stop beating your spouse?

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

In races? Never.

not necessarily responding to you specifically, but to the folks in general regarding dopers and apologies.

I would love it if an athlete, in any sport, that gets pinched for doping would simply get up and have the balls to say the truth....yes I did a cost benefit analysis and decided that doping and making big big bags of money far outweighed the miniscule chance of getting busted, so you can take your apologies and gather them up with your show horses and unicorns and go off in your own little world.

To me, there are a ton of things that people legitimately are owed an apology. I just don't think this is one.

---

"one eye doubles my eyesight, so things don't look half bad" John Hiatt

Depends on the people. I'd agree generally about most of us. But since in the somewhat zero-sum world of endurance competition prize money and endorsements, the big bags of money of a doper would take money away from clean competitors (assuming clean pros exist, and I think they do), the clean pro might be interested in an apology.

Fair point. In hindsight, my frame of reference was geared more to "fans".

---

"one eye doubles my eyesight, so things don't look half bad" John Hiatt

Just a general reply, as I often debate this in my head about the return to competitive sport after doping violation. My closest experience was when I did Kona in 2004, the year that women's winner Nina Kraft was later suspended and stripped of her title because of a positive EPO test. After rereading the following article, I still go back and forth. Kraft admitted to the offense after being caught, then wanted, and needed to be involved in the sport, and continued to give back to the sport after she retired. It made me also think of Collin Chartier, who after his ban was announced, on Jack Kelly's podcast, said he would never return to the sport. People are on both sides of the fence on this. I get both sides.


https://triathlonmagazine.ca/personalities/remembering-triathlete-nina-kraft/

One thing that often doesn't come up in the "should dopers be allowed to return" is false positives. The EPO test in particular is somewhat subjective. I don't know the exact science behind it, but the number positive A / negative B tests for EPO doesn't instill confidence.

How accurate does a test need to be to give a lifetime ban? Surely we can ban for life after a 90% certainty test. 95%? 99%?

In the 30+ years I've been watching pro cycling and other endurance sports, I've never heard of this. Maybe it doesn't make the news?

Edit - OK, quick google search shows a few examples over the past 10+ years.

So you don't really know how it works...yet you are arguing that it "doesn't instill confidence"?

If you don't know how it works (I don't either) then we can't really have an intelligent argument about the accuracy of it.

in my experience, the folks who are really against doping and i mean, *i can out-doper you*. i don't care how anti-doping you are, it's not enough for me. you're still in league with the dopers because you aren't as anti-doping as i am. that kind of person. the anti-doping cancel culture folks who shut down any conversation about doping because to even talk about it is to sanction it. that's the person whose door needs to get a knock from a DCO.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Well that's just not true. You can have an discussion about the outcomes without a full understanding of the process. We do this all the time with aerodynamics right here. Someone does Chung testing (correctly) and finds their new position is 10w faster but doesn't understand the specifics of why it's faster. Do we invalidate the test result because they don't understand high level aerodynamics?

i can honestly say that:

if i got to the point where i was one of the best in the world at sport but never quite actually nailed it and got the results i wanted and i was presented with an opportunity to use a PED and was convinced that my chances of getting caught were quite low

i'd have a pretty hard time saying no. the vanity of the result and recognition might outweigh the hypothetical shame and disgrace of getting caught.

that being said, i'd like to think that i'd give it a real hard think and i'd like to think that i'd turn it down.

that all being said, if you get a penalty and a ban for using a PED (and let's be honest, the chances that m. weiss wasn't a little dirty are pretty low given the testimony and circumstances), i don't think you should get to be a pro anymore.

i don't care about whether michi weiss should be allowed race or not. i care about how we treat each other here in the marketplace of ideas. it's not anti-doping talk that i mind. i hope we will never get inured to doping. i hope we always maintain our strident reaction to doping. what i mind are the anti-doping fascisti.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

The reward is high, the risk is low. Just read about some new woman’s world record in track and first thoughts were about doping. Not a day went by in the TdF where I didn’t wonder if it was clean. Listening to various training techniques, diets, etc., from professionals and wonder are these just smoke screens to hide that the real performance gains are from doping. Still have the Carmichael cycling videos that he touted as Lance’s method for achieving cycling glory!

The damage is done. Professional body building forums had conversations like these years ago, guess which side won out.

the same Norwegian scientists that did the steroid research, had previously published a study identifying how the muscle memory works.. and already in 2010 had hypothesized,

Quote:

because anabolic steroids facilitate more myonuclei, nuclear permanency may also have implications for exclusion periods after a doping offense.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20713720/


The subsequent paper that mathematics mentioned above, just served to confirm the hypothesis. I find this persuasive.

Quote:

They found that three months after the drug was withdrawn, their muscles grew by 30% after six days of exercise. A control group of mice saw growth of just 6% in the same time period.
"It is rare to have data that clear cut, I was pretty satisfied with that," Prof Kristian Gundersen, from the University of Oslo, told BBC News.

That theory also works for non-steroidal doping - because the doping lets you train harder for longer, that training is going to affect the myonuclei too, and those effects last. Even if it's not specifically the myonuclei, as you say the experience of athletes has always been that the training effects do last.


Even so I can't support lifetime bans. Those would be a good idea if we had perfect tests for doping, but it runs into the same problem as capital punishment, human justice is fallible.

Sadly, I echo your comments and will add in my AG I look at some results the same way.
I recently commented to a buddy about the winning time in my AG at a "big" event - we both agreed, "that seems reasonable."
It shouldn't be that way, I know.

---

I saw this on a white board in a window box at my daughters middle school...
List of what life owes you:
1. __________
2. __________
3. __________

Donald Trump has entered the chat.

Well I lean on the side of do the crime, do the time and lets move on especially as he was never caught having doped.

I did get to have Dinner with Weiss in and post Kona a few years back and as a human being and nice guy he is thoroughly both. He was super friendly, more interested in me the average age grouper, my race and my experiences. He was having dinner with friend, I said hi and Weiss insisted I join them. I automatically had my reservations about him after reading the ST forum uproar post the Diamondback Andean launch I was in Kona for where I first learnt about him several years earlier but after finding what a nice guy he was I walked away a fan.

In 2005 when his conviction was from basically all pro cyclists that were competitive were doping and it was accepted practice amongst them. Imagine being a kid dreaming of being a pro cyclist but when you get there maybe 10+ years later seemingly having one option to live your dream. Lance worked out he had to dope and dragged the rest of the team with him. Frankie Andreu during this time had promised not to dope and lied to his wife about it because the other option was quit. Funny how she forgave him... Easy for the ST forum here to judge and everyone welcome to their opinion but the system is in place, he served his time, lets carry on. Continue to bitch on here if it makes you feel good.

I did a 70.3 a few weeks ago and seems drafting is accepted practice amongst a majority of AG'ers racing for a ranked position. Is 5' in a penalty box accepted penance? Or is Lionel cheating by breaking the rules to make a pass for advantage a life time of ST bitching? Where do we draw the line??? Why does I'm racing to make a living weigh heavier than I'm doing this for fun and see where I rank amongst my peers? To me no it doesn't. Cheating is cheating but doping on here seems to carry so much more weight.

My 2c...

Who asked for this. Why are we doing this?

"The people who like me support me, and the others? They can f*** off. How many years now? Twelve. I mean come on, if you need to [use that to] justify that I beat you, you are weak in my opinion.”


Arrogance. Forget the nice guy narrative. The article tries to make it unclear if he was doping & wants us to feel bad about him having to try to fight the charges. Dude was beating a prime Lance on the bike & had ties to one of the dirtiest labs out there. His own governing body convicted him. The quotes don't read as innocence when he basically says he would be an idiot to still be doping. But then there's this, “I think I trained too intensely when I was younger, but I’ve also had sports scientists tell me that having that anaerobic capacity helps me now as an older athlete." There you go to the people who don't think cheating has impacts well past whatever window it occurred in. Gaining fitness, illegally, matters. I just don't get the point of this article. Heming covers the elite side of the sport. Why do Weiss a solid here when his doping stuff has resurfaced after he's rattled off some wins at age 42? It should be as uncomfortable as possible for guys like Weiss to show up at events. That doesn't happen when we try to explain away his choices. That doesn't put pressure on people to not cheat moving forward.

Clearly, the editors over at Triathlete did.


Because people will read it.


Pretty clear that you get to make that decision of whether to make things more or less comfortable for Weiss based on how you read it. You're either going to sympathize with his position or you're going to get angrier.

I thought Tim did a really good job with it. Weiss is, as always, pretty much an open book with his quotes, which is also nice (from an editorial standpoint, anyways) -- but it certainly makes him polarizing.

---

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

Frankly, this thread and general community dialogue on doping clearly demonstrates interest in him and this topic so I think we sorta asked for it in an indirect way.

I honestly thought the article did a decent job of framing the whole story around the fact that he is a convicted doper. Perhaps could have done better there but not a bad job in my opinion. Didn't try to hide or gloss over it, or defend it. I think it just told his side of the story. It isn't an opinion piece where they can have carte blanche to attack him, it's an interview.

I thought it was interesting to read. Doesn't change my opinion on him, but just additional perspective on who this guy is at this point in his life and what he's like. And yeah, sounds kinda like a tool to me.

I am the edgy guy, I want to polarize. Love me or hate me... I don’t want to be Mr. Nice Guy – that’s not why I’m doing it. I’m doing it because I love sports, I love to train and I love the process and, of course, at the end of the day, I want to win.”

no surprise he visited humanplasma then.

"The people who like me support me, and the others? They can f*** off.”

I’ll f*** off then thanks.

So his past he didn’t actually test positive but just for the process of storing blood. IE connecting the dots to doping which was all illegal.

So he says he would be an idiot for doping now or that he’s passed X anoint of tests each year.

All of that reasoning in an era where micro dosing has now become basically the confirmed method of doping. Combine that with the required non testing daily time period for when athletes can’t be tested….

Who would be the idiots again?

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Couldn't disagree more & I'm sick of the institutions in this sport, Slowtwitch included with posts like this, normalizing doping. The article doesn't read as neutral. It reads as leave the good guy doper alone -- the good guy doper who visited Humanplasma, who beat a doped to the gills Lance, who has reaped the benefits in this sport by cheating his way to becoming a world class cyclist. "I’ve also had sports scientists tell me that having that anaerobic capacity helps me now as an older athlete." It's not good journalism to downplay that stuff & ask if we're being too mean to the guy because he went through a divorce & has kids & because it was expensive to fight his case after he got caught cheating. We don't need this article. Condemn dopers. Don't cover them. Call them out at races. Ask them tough questions at press conferences.

You can’t cover the sport without covering dopers. And that sometimes means talking to them, hearing their stories, and letting the public come to conclusions.

The sport isn’t ever going to have a pro career death penalty for a doping first offense.

You’ll note that I haven’t touched anything you’ve said in this thread. More than welcome to voice your frustration of Weiss’s existence in the sport here. But if he wins a race that we’re covering, we can’t ignore it.

---

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

You don’t win the PR war by being convicted of doping issues and then tell the public to F off if they don’t like you moving forward.

It doesn’t matter if people should have let it go or not, when you’re a convicted doper you basically have to take it for the rest of your career. IE put your head down and shut up. (Apologize, take your penalty, just shrug when you get called a doper…..if you come back certainly don’t tell people to F off….that’s a terrible look) It only then makes people think your still a “cheat” by the arrogance attitude you just displayed.


So some on here talked about the “good guy” that he is….that article completely removed that from the conversation. Even if the article is slanted towards the “pettiness” that people may still feel towards him. You lose all benefit of doubt when you get convicted of cheating.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I respectfully disagree. Of course a triathlon magazine can ignore an ex doper. Publish the results. End of.
I hate dopers; I hate non-repentant dopers and I particularly hate arrogant, non-repentant ex dopers. Even if they are very good guys...

I mean if he wins a race, we’re not going to write a story that says “Sam Long ‘Wins’ Maryland” and not say his name.

I don’t think we’d, say, have him on our podcast, though.

I just think a story like this will enhance polarization. There’s not going to be a middle ground with him anymore. Which, look, a sport can always use a couple of villains.

---

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

Except the people that hate him will still hate him and those that don’t hate him frankly won’t give a F bc it’s not directed at them.

So there is actually no PR upside to pander to the people who are going to spew venom at him by putting his head down and licking their boots. All they will do in that instance is kick him in the face.

I think what angers people the most is that he doesn’t give a toss about their anger at him. Nothing leads to a meltdown more than someone not being impacted by their hate.

Sponsors tend to care how their representatives conduct themselves....just saying....

I would think when you as an athlete are quoted as saying F off to anyone, if your in anyway within said industry, you "take notice". Which is why I thought it actually makes him look more arrogant and poorly than if he just said, "I can't change people's opinion, I can only move on and do the best I can". The "arrogance" in the athlete comes out with quotes like that, which he or others may or may not care. As Ryan said maybe he's just taken on the bad boy role fully now.

ETA: But yes to your point if you don't like him before, he's not going to win you over regardless, and if others don't care either way...they don't care that he told anyone off. I still think when your a convicted doper, you kinda gotta just "take it" for the rest of your career from fans/athletes if you want to keep going in sport. You dont get to tell others to F off as some act of bravery, or a cute "put down" to the people who still care all these years later. It just makes you generally likely look worse as a person when you resort to that muck.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Then let the villains of the sport be Laidlow/Long types.

& I agree with the above. I wouldn't have posted the article if he hadn't made arrogant comments. Telling folks to f off versus saying you can't change what people think of you is different imo. I've heard that he's a nice guy & all that, almost as an excuse to not bring up his doping, but that's not how he's coming across.

&, yes, Slowtwitch has to print the results, sure. But Slowtwitch can write every single time that he's a convicted doper. He shouldn't have to feel good looking at his results on here. The way that you're phrasing things has no way for me to tell where you're at with cheating in the sport. For me, there's no grey area. We know pros down through the age group ranks are doping & that we don't test enough. We know that people micro dose. Maybe the sport will never have a zero tolerance policy but we can make sure people who are caught know how we feel about them.

you have successfully established your bona fides as the most ardent anti-doper of all the anti-dopers, thereby shaming the anti-dopers who aren't quite as anti-doping as you are. bravo.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

A previous poster made the commment that he doesn't care that people are still angry at him. I would actually point to his own comments of telling them to F off and move on as evidence to the contrary. So I think this article is proving that even 10 years later the likely right amount of pressure is being felt by an convicted doper. So in that aspect I think anti doping is likely winning out, and no I dont think we need to acknowledge an convicted doper in every race report to shame them. That's a slippery slope I dont think you want to go down in terms of what violations would merit acknowledge and what wouldn't (doper vs drafter etc).

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Ullrich & Basso got kicked out of the 2006 TdF for that. We all know why people store blood :)

How do we get to a place where the anti doper is the one being called out?

"you have successfully established your bona fides as the most ardent anti-doper of all the anti-dopers, thereby shaming the anti-dopers who aren't quite as anti-doping as you are. bravo."

I don't know what the right answer is, read Nina Kraft died aged 51 and a few other sad doping stories and get that it's not as simple as crime done, serve life bans. Having said that how can we be anything but anti-doping, suppose the nuance is in how we go about that.

Don't think we should be painting the target on the anti doper, no matter how strident they are.

My feelings on being mad at these guys that get busted: fair enough, they are creating a life threatening, career damaging moral hazard for themselves and everyone else who competes.

The other aspect of this... it feels unfair to torch and pitchforks the ones who get caught if it's highly likely many others are also violators or have been in the past.

Weiss is a case who was not even caught, but was allegedly informed on. I point this out not to give him room to claim innocence, but rather to show how even this "doper" many are ready to crucify didn't fail a test (if I'm reading this right).

So it just feels very unbalanced to go all in on hating the one guy who never tested positive (which could be said for the vast majority of the rest of the field), but was found out through circumstantial evidence.

If it's the case, as many of us suspect that a lot of the pro field has violated the drug rules at some point in their career, and they just haven't been informed on, its just feels unbalanced to burn the one guy at the stake when many of the people in the crowd are also guilty.

Some days, I think it's just all hard work over time added up. And others I think it's that, plus some strategic help with a secret doctor. And I wonder at when we see various athletes struggling for multiple races or a season if they are just laying low and not taking any risks trying to compete clean, and suddenly they realize they need the extra help and boom we see some big results again.

This is obviously one of the issues of doping, is that it taints the entire field. But until the tests are actually catching people consistently, there will always be this suspicion and it feels unbalanced to ignore the likely reality. Again, remember the guy this thread is about would be just as clean as everyone else if someone didn't point a finger at him.

Curious what to mood is for a FB thread (below) like this one where AG women racing in Kona and also part of the Triforwomen FB page openly recommend and admit to Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) (Testosterone) almost as their right of passage with aging regardless of the WADA/USADA. Some women call it out and others just brush it off. Certainly as a male if I mentioned this omission in a public forum I would be getting pulled at a race or even a OCT which would be warranted.

https://www.facebook.com/...752/?mibextid=W9rl1R

The mood? The gut response is modern female privilege means males get called out for male privilege especially if you criticize the choices of women that have any possibility of connecting to health.

The reality? If it's necessary or prevents detrimental damage to their health according to a physician, science, their experience, then I think they'd be crazy to abstain from doing it to avoid testing positive in an amateur race. Obviously, I'd hope they get whatever approval they can, but given a choice between navigating a difficult bureaucratic mess and doing what's best for your health, choose the latter.

My personal thoughts on Testosterone therapy is a dear friend of mine has been on it for years and it's caused an INSANE amount of damage to his body. He insists he needs it for other reasons, but I see the surgery after surgery and health and heart issues he's developed and I'm very suspicious of habitual long term treatments.

So I hope these women don't get stuck in a cycle of feeling it's necessary for their health as they damage their health.

The crazy part is that and this is something I've theorized about dopers since this thread was formed.....What really "negative" do dopers experience beyond the ban (which again now with a 4 year ban atleast can put a big dent in a athlete's career).

It made me chuckle when you described it as him being "burned at the stake", yet here he is talking about his now what 10+ year tri career. What really negativity has happened to him, other than being banned for whatever year length he was banned (I think the 4 year ban only happened within the last 10 years so after his sanction). It's not like he came back and his peers crashed him out at every race, to teach him a lesson. So he has to deal with some jeers every now and then from a fellow pro or fan, or have to read about. Being debated on some internet forum or being boo'd at podiums pretty much has been basically the biggest mental hurdles he's had to deal with right?

So again I started to think about it, what really negative is there for doping, if you get past the mental anguish you likely have to deal with from fans/peers + the ban. Which again atleast now a 4 year ban puts a bigger limit into a career, but there's certainly not close to athlete's being burned at the stake. It is nothing close to that characeterization.

(Please note I'm not somehow trying to reason that doping should be allowed...and I get it, the mental anguish can certainly be a real issue for some people.....which is why in the Colin Chartier case, you heard people talk about making sure not to harm himself beacuse he may have let down so many people or angered so many).

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Hyperbole I suppose should be illegal.

The real personal cost to the doping is all kinds of long term health psychological and immune issues they'll never be able to clearly connect the dots to, but surely there's a toll. It always comes with a price. And they're paying it, like it or not.

I guess my point was, this article is highlighting just how successful of a career he's had as a "doper". It's more or less superficial wounds that dopers have to deal with when they come back. So beyond the ban length, which to WADA's credit, 4 years atleast is a good chunk of most athlete's life time, dopers are pretty much treated with kids gloves in their comebacks.

So with how poorly doping controls are in endurance sports (testing is really expensive and the tri pro ranks is certainly very vast between IM / ITU athletes) there really isn't that big of a deterrent for someone to then go down the doping rabbit hole if they can reason it in their head. Which basically means the only real solution is lifetime ban but that'll never be implemented for various legit reasons.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

we get there when the anti-doper is criticizing other anti-dopers for not being as anti-doping as he is.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Dark Prediction: How about a future where there is a WOKE Movement for Ex-Dopers, and we need to feel sorry for them, and LA gets his wish to be Pres of the USA ??

I can see it happen ...

I guess that the athletes not doing it. And the people that think they are not doing it.

there's a third way and it unfortunately doesn't happen much, in this arena, or medicine, education, science, politics and other endeavors important to us: you work to change a process (when needed) while (in the main) trusting the process and honoring those in charge of executing the mission.

the process in this case calls for dopers to serve bans. once the ban is over they can race. it is not the job of race directors or federation officials or the editor of this site to create his or her own process to satisfy the mighty justice that beats in the chest of the more pure and righteous anti-doper.

the great irony is that the ultra-ardent anti-dopers - in my experience - are only ultra-ardent toward the dopers they don't know. anti-doping ardency tracks with proximity. the closer you are to someone caught in an anti-doping snare the more likely you are to take the side of the doper (because you're certain your doper friend can't possibly be a doper, because you know him and he'd never do that). instead, maybe we - again - just trust the process. but for the point of this thread, i don't mind vigilantism. what i mind is castigating those who choose not to engage in your vigilantism. your expression (whomever "you" are) of anti-doping is not the required expression that we all should be forced to take.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Amen

You do realise that female HRT is Eostrogen or progesterone or both. Not testosterone so not banned. Infact it would be something similar given to the athletes like Caster to lower her T.

Nicely put and well said: I'm of the same mind.
But let's also keep in mind ad infinitum the lasting albeit incremental damage that athlete caused to their sport by their choices/actions.

Agree. But I wrote HRT not Female HRT and do know the difference.

I never did research on him. Just jumped in the boat with all the haters. Reading the article, it says he was never positive, just accepted the ban because he couldn't afford the additional two year battle and losing another 100k...ish. Idk, seems like a tough decision but can't blame him.

---

http://www.sfuelsgolonger.com

I'd like to think that's true for most of the people on this thread, because - frankly - I'm appalled that anyone thinks the standard of evidence in the Weiss case is in any way compatible with the punishment so many would like to see applied. It's just kind of bananas.

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

Dan, thanks for being consistently thoughtful, humane, and reasoned.

---

Aaron Bales
Lansing Triathlon Team