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