Has anyone read Voet's book and do you think it is accurate?
Triathlon Forum
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: Willey Voet [bike55]
[ In reply to ]
yes and yes... accurate as of the time it was written. but it's gotten much harder to be a doper in the peloton, and it's gotten much easier for the sport of cycling to circumvent an athlete's due process and presumption of innocense: the team bans you upon the production of an A sample, and you can't race if you're not on a team (cycling itself doesn't have to ban you for you to be banned).
it's therefore become problematic to dope nowadays, and i don't think it's nearly as prevalent as it was in voet's day.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
it's therefore become problematic to dope nowadays, and i don't think it's nearly as prevalent as it was in voet's day.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Re: Willey Voet [bike55]
[ In reply to ]
yes, i read it. yes, it is accurate, as it was corroborated by other sources. while cyclists asked to testify during the case itself perjured themselves without hesitation.
and i would highly disagree that it has become harder to be doper. the dopers are nearly always 5 steps ahead of the testers.
and there is little true desire to catch the dopers, as the whole sport would be effectively shut down. note the very few positives, while the percent of pro athletes (cyclists) who "imbibe" is quite vast. and we fans still seem to enjoy watching the dopers ride and readily buy the sponsors' products.
not sure about all this? read below:
http://velonews.com/news/fea/10633.0.html
Where would you want to swim ?
and i would highly disagree that it has become harder to be doper. the dopers are nearly always 5 steps ahead of the testers.
and there is little true desire to catch the dopers, as the whole sport would be effectively shut down. note the very few positives, while the percent of pro athletes (cyclists) who "imbibe" is quite vast. and we fans still seem to enjoy watching the dopers ride and readily buy the sponsors' products.
not sure about all this? read below:
http://velonews.com/news/fea/10633.0.html
Where would you want to swim ?
Re: Willey Voet [Greg x]
[ In reply to ]
"i would highly disagree that it has become harder to be doper."
if you finished in the top-10 in the TdF last year, what was your chance of non-starting this year's TdF because of a doping infraction or scandal? when has that ever happened?
i'm not saying that doping has become less prevalent, altho i think it probably is less prevalent. i'm saying it's become much harder to be a doper (and remain employed on a team).
since you highly disagree with that, i can only assume there are other years where there have been as many or more riders sanctioned for doping than in 2006. which years were those?
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
if you finished in the top-10 in the TdF last year, what was your chance of non-starting this year's TdF because of a doping infraction or scandal? when has that ever happened?
i'm not saying that doping has become less prevalent, altho i think it probably is less prevalent. i'm saying it's become much harder to be a doper (and remain employed on a team).
since you highly disagree with that, i can only assume there are other years where there have been as many or more riders sanctioned for doping than in 2006. which years were those?
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Re: Willey Voet [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
as we both know, there is a dearth of accurate information on this topic out there. but it is also a bit of semantics:
so, humor me and say, in 2006, yes there were indeed the greatest no. of riders sanctioned for doping in (or leading up to) the TdF. but say that also in that year there were 83.6 % of the riders in the peloton taking at least one banned substance once or more during (or in preparation for) the TdF.
then, say, in 2005, there were less riders sanctioned for doping in the TdF. but say that also in that year there were only 74.2 % of the riders in the peloton taking at least one banned substance during the TdF.
so, has it become harder, or easier to be doper?
depends if you define 'harder/easier' by the no. caught, or the no. actually doing it.
for me, the no. actually doing it is the critical one, and given the ridiculously half-hearted attempt to catch dopers in pro cycling, the no. caught does not seem to be a very good indicator at all of the no. actually doing it.
Where would you want to swim ?
so, humor me and say, in 2006, yes there were indeed the greatest no. of riders sanctioned for doping in (or leading up to) the TdF. but say that also in that year there were 83.6 % of the riders in the peloton taking at least one banned substance once or more during (or in preparation for) the TdF.
then, say, in 2005, there were less riders sanctioned for doping in the TdF. but say that also in that year there were only 74.2 % of the riders in the peloton taking at least one banned substance during the TdF.
so, has it become harder, or easier to be doper?
depends if you define 'harder/easier' by the no. caught, or the no. actually doing it.
for me, the no. actually doing it is the critical one, and given the ridiculously half-hearted attempt to catch dopers in pro cycling, the no. caught does not seem to be a very good indicator at all of the no. actually doing it.
Where would you want to swim ?
Re: Willey Voet [Greg x]
[ In reply to ]
"so, has it become harder, or easier to be doper?"
if you want to construct a completely fictitious construct, with absolutely no evidence to support it whatsoever, then yes you'd be right.
but if you want to take the actual evidence available to us, which is that there are MANY more riders in the peleton getting popped for drugs now than there were a decade ago (voet's era), and considering the fact that no one is safe (landis, ullrich, basso, hamilton, winners of other grand tours, and on and on), then i think it's harder to go to sleep at night in 2006 with confidence than it would've been in 1998.
i agree with you that it's not necessarily cycling that's going to get you. it's more than likely going to be a border agent, or a police raid. that's not the point. what's truest is that any protection afforded you by your team, your sponsor, your cycling federation, your national olympic committee, is gone. yes, you can still take drugs, but the new reality is that an undetectable substance is scant protection against getting caught.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
if you want to construct a completely fictitious construct, with absolutely no evidence to support it whatsoever, then yes you'd be right.
but if you want to take the actual evidence available to us, which is that there are MANY more riders in the peleton getting popped for drugs now than there were a decade ago (voet's era), and considering the fact that no one is safe (landis, ullrich, basso, hamilton, winners of other grand tours, and on and on), then i think it's harder to go to sleep at night in 2006 with confidence than it would've been in 1998.
i agree with you that it's not necessarily cycling that's going to get you. it's more than likely going to be a border agent, or a police raid. that's not the point. what's truest is that any protection afforded you by your team, your sponsor, your cycling federation, your national olympic committee, is gone. yes, you can still take drugs, but the new reality is that an undetectable substance is scant protection against getting caught.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Re: Willey Voet [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
perhaps.
i am not so sure. an excellent book i read written by a highly-qualified physician employed by the US olympic team (the usoc, i think) seemed to suggest that such 'protection' will never really be 'gone'. it is not that they 'protect' you. it is that they want medalists at any cost (according to the source), and a lot of "looking the other way" takes place. and i would imagine that the US is not unique in this regard.
i wish you are right. perhaps you are. my limited knowledge of human nature suggests to me that this is not going to end (or get better) any time soon ...
Where would you want to swim ?
"it is that they want medalists at any cost (according to the source), and a lot of "looking the other way" takes place."
that is the reasoning behind the formation of USADA, so that the USOC would not have the dual role of providing olympic medals and then sanctioning the athlete who might produce those medals. many countries emulate this model nowadays.
it's also the idea behind the formation of WADA, so that a lab sends a positive result to WADA, bypassing olympic committees.
there are some problems in the execution of this, and triathlon is perhaps as good an example as you can find: there were 74 "adverse findings" in triathlon worldwide last year, and i've been able to account for 6 of them so far. the ITU is the only entity besides WADA given all these results, and they are just very frankly not telling the world where these adverse findings occurred, and how they were handled.
but as for cycling, my point was and still is this: the security you might've had a decade ago is no longer there. your chances of getting caught are much higher. you may still choose to dope, but your insulation from disaster is thinner than it ever was.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
that is the reasoning behind the formation of USADA, so that the USOC would not have the dual role of providing olympic medals and then sanctioning the athlete who might produce those medals. many countries emulate this model nowadays.
it's also the idea behind the formation of WADA, so that a lab sends a positive result to WADA, bypassing olympic committees.
there are some problems in the execution of this, and triathlon is perhaps as good an example as you can find: there were 74 "adverse findings" in triathlon worldwide last year, and i've been able to account for 6 of them so far. the ITU is the only entity besides WADA given all these results, and they are just very frankly not telling the world where these adverse findings occurred, and how they were handled.
but as for cycling, my point was and still is this: the security you might've had a decade ago is no longer there. your chances of getting caught are much higher. you may still choose to dope, but your insulation from disaster is thinner than it ever was.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman