Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Doping and Anti-Doping
Quote | Reply
A couple of OpEd pieces i've been farting around with for some weeks now are live on the front page, in anticipation of USADA's upcoming handing off of its Armstrong file to the UCI, and anticipation of any announcement it makes appertaining to the hand-off (if any).

As promised, we'll try ONE thread on this, I think it's unfair for these things to show up on the home page and for you not to be able to talk about it. But, it's this ONE thread, not the first of many, we're going to see how this goes. If you want to talk about Lance Armstrong in this thread in the context of doping and anti-doping, okay (provisionally). But, we're family here. No food fights. No Lance lover/Lance hater fights.

I'm also applying a sort of modification to the classifieds forum rule. If I see that your only posts are about Lance and doping (either pro or anti Lance) you haven't earned the right to converse with these folks on such a heated topic, especially if you've got strong opinions that will be displayed in anything like a caustic manner. Be very careful about what you write if you're new here.

Mostly, behave as if you're in the same room as the person to whom you're talking, that each of your grandmothers is there, and that they're grading you on comportment over content.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Last edited by: Slowman: Oct 1, 12 14:51
Quote Reply
Re: Doping and Anti-Doping [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Haven't weighed in on the topic and probably won't again. I'm a FOP age grouper and as far as my personal view on doping myself I think Ray Browning in the interview last week summed up how I feel - I've never had a training week, race, season, or even day where I felt like I did everything perfectly, whether it be dieting, following my program, pacing, etc., so I feel like taking drugs to improve myself rather than just work harder would be a waste. I imagine most other age groupers feel the same way, what makes these threads heat up is the moral issue, which is where my view differs.

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

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

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

---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.onelesshiker.com
http://www.twitch.tv/1horsepower
Quote Reply
Re: Doping and Anti-Doping [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dan,

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

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

Quote Reply
Re: Doping and Anti-Doping [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
A well written article or oped piece Dan. While I might disagree with some aspects of it, those are little more than minor quibbles. Hopefully this single thread will serve the purpose you intended.

As far as the use of PED's in triathlon, I certainly hope that they can be kept to a minimum (there is no way you can completely eradicate their use). my concern about these things is no longer the pro's but rather the age groupers. And it was my cat that convinced me of this ... really.
Quote Reply
Re: Doping and Anti-Doping [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Just read this
http://velonews.competitor.com/...id-verbruggen_240537
Now when I read your piece and I quote "I have seen at close quarters organizations that appear heavily board-driven, and I have seen those ruled by an executive strongman. I am not on the inside of USADA, but from the outside looking in it seems to me to be in that latter category. I hope that a new set of board members, just seated, cause USADA to strike a proper balance between executive power and board supervision."/
That part of your passion on this is so exactly what has happened to the UCI does not happen with USADA I get. But the tone of your article seem to take this oppertunity to point out more flaws with USADA than any emphasis on how it has just been very succesful in bringing charges against 6 and sanctions against more that have provided evidence and admitted their own culablity. Probably through hindsight the most succesful convictions on anti doping for a long time. Knowing how polarizing the subject is, it just seems to me that your article seems to give those emotionally invested for Mr. Armstrong, more pins to hang their hat, with no kudo's on how they have followed what is currently in place admirdly...As in no leaks of the report yet. They seem to have been very professional with the pressure.
I must also be honest that due to my own bias I probably am not looking through a clear prisim. ...................Thanks for the oppertunity to express my "opinion".
Quote Reply
Re: Doping and Anti-Doping [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I really like that all the nonsense will be confined to one thread. Here's a partial list of my doping discussion gripes:

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

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


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


I think doping is a fascinating topic of discussion, but a few nitwits really bring the level down with endless pages of drivel. While I can easily ignore it, I'm sure I'm missing some real gems. I therefore appreciate quality coverage outside the forum.
Quote Reply
Re: Doping and Anti-Doping [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dan--

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, if its not clear, I don't believe a clean athlete can be competitive in this sort of pharmacologically enabled environment, especially if it is completely open (and if it's not then what's the point?).
Quote Reply
Re: Doping and Anti-Doping [rrheisler] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"if indeed we are going to be the ones crusading for the higher ground, you best be doing it with 100% certainty, with a process that is transparent and consistent across the board. I suspect that this is where your issue with USADA is in its current iteration?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Doping and Anti-Doping [Turd Ferguson] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"How much more difficult has Lance made your job as an admin of this forum?"

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


Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Doping and Anti-Doping [Magwister] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Magwister wrote:
There is no middle ground...either you regulate strongly or you don't. You seem to be cool with the latter, which is fine. However, I would not feel comfortable with my kids entering sports in that sort of environment and think most of society would feel the same. So that then raises the next prospect...the kids/parents that don't give a shit being the only ones to encourage it (most great sportsmen are introduced to their sport at a very young age through their parents/school). Will society look down on these parents...probably.
I don't think it's as black and white as you make it. There are many sports that, by their very nature, are far more harmful to a child/adult than occasional doping. Taking steroids occasionally to speed recovery from an injury could be done safely yet would put you offside in a doping test. On the other hand playing football at a high level has been far more harmful to many athletes due to brain injuries received while training and playing.
Quote Reply
Re: Doping and Anti-Doping [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
"How much more difficult has Lance made your job as an admin of this forum?"

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

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

Keep up the great work!!

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

Quote Reply
Re: Doping and Anti-Doping [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks for the reply...

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

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

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

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


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

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Doping and Anti-Doping [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:

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

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


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

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

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

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

Citizen of the world, former drunkard. Resident Traumatic Brain Injury advocate.
Quote Reply
Re: Doping and Anti-Doping [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
from Slowman in another thread wrote:
on another note, you'll notice there is a doping thread. it's there because of the OpEds i wrote. funny thing, because i know you (!), and i actually wrote the response in advance to what i expected you to write in that thread! however, you didn't respond. if you'd like, i'll publish the response, and you can tell me if i'm correct ;-)

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

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

I'm still not sure if you

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

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK
Quote Reply
Re: Doping and Anti-Doping [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
To : first, let me tell you the battle i think we're facing. there's a gentleman on this forum that read what i wrote about USADA today, and saw it entirely through the prism (it seems to me) of what i said about USADA that is negative. he picked out the negative, ignored the rest, and decided that this is my monolithic view, while my view if you read the piece is anything but monolithic. the fellow who wrote that is invited to correct my view if he thinks i've mischaracterized it.

I think you are referring to me and I think I posted in a way that is misunderstood, though I am guilty of bias. I apologize if you feel I was only picking out the negative. If I read that piece without the hoopla of Mr. Armstrong I honestly think I would say it is a great piece and more positive than negative. I think that with the emotion of both sides right now, and the great critisism of USADA by many, that the piece will fuel more those that are condemning USADA. I may be very wrong. I do believe that there is always room to improve the process. I see where you pointed out how they are needed, how they need to improve but also not giving them much kudo's. I do not know Mr, Tygart, but with the fueled emotion, to put that you see him as leading possibly to overbearing, at this time was unnecessary. With that said, with the link I posted I definetly see the need to champion having a balanced board.
To close, if I came across guilty of being percieved of strongly critizing your view, I apologize. There needs to be voices on and from both sides to bring balance. I think you are fair in your points and presentation. ..... I just feel in the small picture of the past couple months and couple going forward, USADA, under the current process has done an outstanding job and that has not been recognized enough........Thanks again. I have enjoyed this forum since 2003 and hope to for a long time forward.
It will be interesting for me to reread some of these responses from myself a couple of months from now to see how biased i have been..More importantly I will take your advice from another thread.........time to get busy training and building for next years goals. Good health and happy training to you this year Mr. Slowtwitch,,,,and to yours....................Kenney Cottrell
Quote Reply
Re: Doping and Anti-Doping [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I thought the Op Eds were good and the USADA remarks were balanced. With any entity there are things done well and things that can be done better. Pointing out each is fair and necessary when improvement can be made. Having said that, I can see how Dan would feel like he standing squarely in the middle of the DMZ.
Quote Reply
Re: Doping and Anti-Doping [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
A couple of OpEd pieces i've been farting around with for some weeks now are live on the front page, in anticipation of USADA's upcoming handing off of its Armstrong file to the UCI, and anticipation of any announcement it makes appertaining to the hand-off (if any).

As promised, we'll try ONE thread on this, I think it's unfair for these things to show up on the home page and for you not to be able to talk about it. But, it's this ONE thread, not the first of many, we're going to see how this goes. If you want to talk about Lance Armstrong in this thread in the context of doping and anti-doping, okay (provisionally). But, we're family here. No food fights. No Lance lover/Lance hater fights.

I'm also applying a sort of modification to the classifieds forum rule. If I see that your only posts are about Lance and doping (either pro or anti Lance) you haven't earned the right to converse with these folks on such a heated topic, especially if you've got strong opinions that will be displayed in anything like a caustic manner. Be very careful about what you write if you're new here.

Mostly, behave as if you're in the same room as the person to whom you're talking, that each of your grandmothers is there, and that they're grading you on comportment over content.

Mr. Empfield -

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

I also still would like to see details on why you think an industry run testing program would be any more successful than the UCI, as both have the same vested interest in fast results, which leads to rooting for the appearance of clean racing rather than actually clean racing.
Quote Reply
Re: Doping and Anti-Doping [rrheisler] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This is tough because obviously the USADA is a US entity and a lot of Americans are understandably patriotic when it comes to LA and don't understand/like why they are pursuing him so thoroughly. In the US I can definitely see it being near a 50:50 split and perhaps on LA's side (especially in the wider non-sporting public). However, on a world-wide basis I think it is much more skewed the other way i.e. LA deserves this treatment.

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

Because it was FTW

Susan Harrell
http://www.endurancezone.com

Last edited by: seh: Oct 1, 12 19:19
Quote Reply
Re: Doping and Anti-Doping [Kenney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"I think you are referring to me"

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


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

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

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

Anyway, like I wrote to Dan the other day, people have no idea how difficult it is to work within this background. There are already so many internal hurdles that people in anti-doping have to clear, so let's not make in any more difficult than it needs to be for them to do a good job. For once, you have an anti-doping organization that had the green light to do their job, and they did.
Quote Reply
Re: Doping and Anti-Doping [pick6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"still imply that Mr. Tygart is a CEO run amok"

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


Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply

Prev Next