Quote: “Technically, what Tyler and Santi are alleged to have done does NOT involve PEDs.”
TriBriGuy,
Although different activities, both are strictly forbidden according to UCI rules and constitute cheating.
The UCI point is that in light of these three incidents in one season, something foul is taking place at Phonak.
Its kind of like where there’s smoke, there’s fire. In this case, the UCI may be on to something, rather than on something.
This is one more incident that causes one to stop and reflect, why would someone who has reached the highest levels of cycling risk getting caught by drug testing? Why would they risk tarnishing their reputation in the sport and sporting world? Why would they jeopardize their future earnings potential? Why would they place all their past achievements and accolades in question?
They would have to know that as one becomes more successful, one is subjected to more scrutiny. Why then would they engage in “cheating” of this nature unless they were convinced they could not be discovered and had been engaged in this behavior and undiscovered for some length of time causing them to believe that their “cheating” was undetectable.
Oooops. A cheater is a cheater is a cheater. I have read the posts of many who are disgusted with the athletes who try to obtain an illegal advantage by disregarding the rules for fair competition. I don’t hear such forgiveness suggested for the triathletes who draft in non-draft legal events. No suggestions are offered that they really aren’t drafting and aren’t really cheating.
Actually, there have been substantially more deaths in cycling than in bodybuilding. I would estimate that in the last two years there have been more deaths in cycling than in the last ten years of bodybuilding.
Bodybuilding has more problems when a competitor begins using diuretics to shed all the water just before a show.
Plain old steriods are not nearly as dangerous as what a lot of cyclists are using these days.
What is confusing is that the defense mounted by those falsely positive are as strong and passionate as those who are really positive. So who are we to believe.
“Technically, what Tyler and Santi are alleged to
have done does NOT involve PEDs.”
Gee, thanks Mister Science tell me more, because I had no idea what PED means. How about an explanation of why most PEDs don’t actually have a distinctive smell.
I know this is subtle, but maybe I was getting at, if someone is going to have a homologous blood transfusion, they probably are using PEDs too.
The element of the argument that is at least mildy persuasive is the call by Tyler and his people for more testing of this blood, not less. Would a re-examination of the same sample by another laboratory confirm the initial findings or refute them? I dunno.
Someone tell me why I am being no naive about this one.
I agree. The other thing that bothers me is that Tyler alleges that the tests done on his A sample at the Olympics first had 2 negatives and only after a “panel of experts” was brought in was it determined to be positive. If this test is supposed to be so sound and has been used for several years for other means, why did it produce 2 negatives on the same sample? Is it being left to interpretation and there will be a different outcome based on who is doing the analysis?
My first reaction to another was “Fifteen minutes are up, lets get on”, but with the evil twin posts and scooby doo references, I have been cracking up, so I guess this must continue.
So, should we expect a new Polka Dot leader in a few years? King of the suicide mountain brake aways? We will miss you Richard. Just got my Festina watch back from the jewler, it quit the same day Richard anounced his retirement, creepy.
I am not disagreeing with the UCI point that all are wrong and contrary to the spirit of sport. Just the use of the acronym PED to describe Tyler and Santi’s alleged actions. Blood doping does not involve PEDs. It is still wrong and rightly banned by the UCI and other sports’ governing agencies.
WAS TYLER’S TEST CONCLUSIVE is my question or was it riddled with false positives?
I’ve never seen his results of course, but I am pretty familiar with the technique behind the test. I have a real hard time imagining how a false positive test would happen. False negatives, yes. Postives… I highly, highly doubt it.
“I know this is subtle, but maybe I was getting at, if someone is going to have a homologous blood transfusion, they probably are using PEDs too.”
While this may seem a reasonable assumption to make, such sweeping generalizations are rarely accurate. Would you also assume the converse of your assumption is also true?
I am not, nor have I ever pretended to be “Mr. Science.” I DO, however, take issue with imprecise language usage. Ignorant discourse leads to ignorant decisions and/or assumptions. I am not excluded from improper language usage. Indeed, I’ve been taken to task here and elsewhere for just the same. I am better for it.
Improper word selection is confusing at best, downright harmful at worst. One needs only look at reports from recent military actions for rampant examples of poor word choice in describing events. Its gotten better with the embedding process, but they(reporters) still misuse a lot of military terms.
Language is important. Consider all of the extra work you have had to do when someone has misunderstood you because they didn’t understand a word as you used it.
Unfortunately for you this was not improper word selection. Merely improper interpretation of what was said on your part. You believe I was stating that blood transfusions are PEDs, when I wrote, wake up and smell the PEDs, when I was not.
Again Mr. Science, thanks for the lecture.
So your think it is unlikely that someone who would resort to illicit blood transfusions to win, would not cross that line and additionally be using PEDs?