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.