USADA Banned Armstrong new Doping Allegations

horse · **Joined:** Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:09 pm **Posts:** 150

Good post.
Problem is when it comes to keeping populations fed and supermarket shelves stocked what option is there other than to provide junk and fast foods. They will put and print a plethora of complicated ingredients on the food label. So basically you are on your own in determining what you eat.

In Europe, taking measures to increase performance is not that big a deal. It is a cultural thing, in that the individual knows what they are doing and how to solve their problem. And it's not really a step that far to resort to PEDs. Bear in mind also, it is not possible to perform at a certain level or beyond on "Mineral Water" alone. It is a matter of weighing Pros and Cons. It's kind of naive to say, he's a doper and so a cheat.

sawyer · **Posted:** Thu Sep 27, 2012 11:57 am

tymon_tm wrote:

i'd even go that far to claim this food engineering thing has greater impact on human health than taking PEDs or other forms of doping.
allmost everything we eat is somewhat artificial. maybe some of you are familiar with a French film L'Aile ou la Cuisse with Louise de Funes. it's a comedy about a gastronomy expert that faces the company producing 'plastic' food. turns out, some 30 years after the movie was made, we're not that far from said company's production methods. as i've read and heard, in some cases, especially involving high temperatures, the food structure turns into an uneatable form of plastic, that our body doesn't digest. think of french fries for example. we eat that stuff every single day, while athletes take doping for like a decade? we talk about negative impact of doping over a plate of fake meat and laboratory- grown potatos...

While you might be correct, your point is totally irrelevant to the Armstong situation.

The point is that there have to be rules in sport, otherwise the very concept of sport is uttterly meaningless. To break those rules in a way that gives you a significant advantage undermines the principle of fair competition, for which the line has to be drawn somewhere, even if we all know it's an imperfect world.

ultimobici · **Posted:** Thu Sep 27, 2012 1:20 pm

horse wrote:

Good post.
Problem is when it comes to keeping populations fed and supermarket shelves stocked what option is there other than to provide junk and fast foods. They will put and print a plethora of complicated ingredients on the food label. So basically you are on your own in determining what you eat.

In Europe, taking measures to increase performance is not that big a deal. It is a cultural thing, in that the individual knows what they are doing and how to solve their problem. And it's not really a step that far to resort to PEDs. Bear in mind also, it is not possible to perform at a certain level or beyond on "Mineral Water" alone. It is a matter of weighing Pros and Cons. It's kind of naive to say, he's a doper and so a cheat.

It's a cultural thing? The biggest sporting fraud of all time is a predominantly American endeavour, if I'm not mistaken.

pastronef · **Posted:** Thu Sep 27, 2012 1:22 pm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087 ... %3Darticle

events drop their USAtriathlon license to have Lance at the start

sawyer · **Posted:** Thu Sep 27, 2012 1:35 pm

ultimobici wrote:

horse wrote:

Good post.
Problem is when it comes to keeping populations fed and supermarket shelves stocked what option is there other than to provide junk and fast foods. They will put and print a plethora of complicated ingredients on the food label. So basically you are on your own in determining what you eat.

In Europe, taking measures to increase performance is not that big a deal. It is a cultural thing, in that the individual knows what they are doing and how to solve their problem. And it's not really a step that far to resort to PEDs. Bear in mind also, it is not possible to perform at a certain level or beyond on "Mineral Water" alone. It is a matter of weighing Pros and Cons. It's kind of naive to say, he's a doper and so a cheat.

It's a cultural thing? The biggest sporting fraud of all time is a predominantly American endeavour, if I'm not mistaken.

LOL, yes. Assume you mean those 7 years between 1999 and 2005 when the TdF was not contested and instead they had a charity bike ride / sportif type thing around France that culminated in a stars and stripes parade on the champs-elysee?

artray · **Joined:** Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:08 pm **Posts:** 1366

It was a very fast charity ride .

prendrefeu · **Posted:** Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:36 pm

I got 99 pages but the USADA result ain't one.

maquisard · **Posted:** Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:46 pm

The general impression is that USADA are making a mess of this. In a game in which due process and procedures are everything this is not a good thing.

djconnel · **Posted:** Thu Sep 27, 2012 10:32 pm

The USADA is facing the daunting challenge that in this instance the judge and defendant are one in the same. If it was simply about Armstrong there would have been no problem.

swinter · **Posted:** Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:06 am

sawyer wrote:

tymon_tm wrote:

i'd even go that far to claim this food engineering thing has greater impact on human health than taking PEDs or other forms of doping.
allmost everything we eat is somewhat artificial. maybe some of you are familiar with a French film L'Aile ou la Cuisse with Louise de Funes. it's a comedy about a gastronomy expert that faces the company producing 'plastic' food. turns out, some 30 years after the movie was made, we're not that far from said company's production methods. as i've read and heard, in some cases, especially involving high temperatures, the food structure turns into an uneatable form of plastic, that our body doesn't digest. think of french fries for example. we eat that stuff every single day, while athletes take doping for like a decade? we talk about negative impact of doping over a plate of fake meat and laboratory- grown potatos...

While you might be correct, your point is totally irrelevant to the Armstong situation.

The point is that there have to be rules in sport, otherwise the very concept of sport is uttterly meaningless. To break those rules in a way that gives you a significant advantage undermines the principle of fair competition, for which the line has to be drawn somewhere, even if we all know it's an imperfect world.

The claim that genetic engineering of food is more dangerous than doping is questionable, to say the least. Got any science on that? Because EPO is implicated in cancer (they've stopped giving it to cancer patients for that reason) and has been known to kill people.

To be clear: I am decidedly not a fan of genetically engineered food. (We've killed the taste of things.) But the real health concern with agribusiness is not genetic engineering, but factory-farming and overuse of antibiotics.

maquisard wrote:

The general impression is that USADA are making a mess of this. In a game in which due process and procedures are everything this is not a good thing.

That's not my impression. My impression is that McQuaid is using the delay to game public opinion.

Let's wait until we see the report before we jump to conclusions.

From cyclingnews:

Quote:

A source close to the case told Cyclingnews Wednesday that "information kept coming in, hence, the delay in getting the dossier to the UCI." . . .

"It is not surprising that UCI would send a press release out attempting to undermine and question the substance of our case," USADA CEO Travis Tygart stated. "It is also troubling that they would claim to have had no contact with us which is inaccurate. As they know we will be providing them the 'reasoned decision' no later than October 15 through the process and at that time the questions contained in their publicly released statement today will be answered."

tymon_tm · **Joined:** Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:35 pm **Posts:** 862

i have no proof to back this claim in my sleeve, but i believe you can easily find interesting things on that matter in the internet. i just don't store or link everything i find interesting for the sole purpose of quoting the source in a forum discussion

that said, think about it: if you modify food to the extent it becomes indigestible, the result is you start to accumulate all those substances in your body. i'm no expert on this, but i suppose making a dump out of your body is a straight path to cancer

how does this relate to doping or Armstrong? i believe we should look at this case, and doping in sport in general, from a perspective. what is it that allows doping (= cheating) to take place on a daily basis, in any discipline you name? how does the cult of absolute winners and striving to perfection through illegal and potentially dangerous means corresponds with behaviour patterns of 'civilians' - white collars, clerks, politicians..? what sacrifices are we ( the spectators = those who decide where to spend our money) willing to make in order to 'clean up' sport from doping - would we appreciate less intensive and far less exciting show on tv? is it even possible these days to remove or at least limit the illegal practices from sport if we face them in nearly all aspects of our lifes on a daily basis? are we, as a society, ready to admitt it's mainly our fault such things as doping in cycling exists? i very much doubt it. we may debat how evil Armstrong is and condemn his actions but in the end, we all go back to our holy lifes, cheating in taxes, downloading music from the internet, voting for idiots who don't know why plane windows don't open, or are ready to declare a war just for the sake of keeping their jobs, buying gadgets manufactured by children and so on... give me a break. the level of hypocrisy in the Armstrong case, in fact - in any doping case - is just beyond any decency. it's not that i find it ok what Armstrong did, but lets not play the zillionairs on a fancy fundraising somewhere in a club med, eating lobsters, drinking cristal and writing 1000$ checks for the starving kids

artray · **Joined:** Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:08 pm **Posts:** 1366

tymon_tm "what sacrifices are we ( the spectators = those who decide where to spend our money) willing to make in order to 'clean up' sport from doping"
Fans will not make any sacrifice . There happy to sit there and watch every race they can and only condem there heros when they get caught. The fans know they are watching a sport where doping is rife and yet when race day comes they still turn out to watch. I am amazed by fans reaction when they find out so and so has been doping :lol:

Its cycling. It has been going on for a hundred years and your still shocked by a doped rider. I say lets get off the riders backs .It would take a massive breakthrough in technology or a massive culture change to stop a rider doping .
" the level of hypocrisy in the Armstrong case, in fact - in any doping case - is just beyond any decency."
Well said tymon_tm

swinter · **Posted:** Fri Sep 28, 2012 7:39 pm

random readings on the internet are not a terribly reliable source. the best science reports that I have seen indicate that genetically engineered do not pose any current health hazards. overuse of antibiotics (and pesticides) are the real hazards.

I agree with much of your second paragraph, though. as Walt Kelly famously said (via Pogo): "We have met the enemy and he is us."

prendrefeu · **Posted:** Fri Sep 28, 2012 7:48 pm

tymon_tm wrote:

how does this relate to doping or Armstrong? i believe we should look at this case, and doping in sport in general, from a perspective. what is it that allows doping (= cheating) to take place on a daily basis, in any discipline you name? how does the cult of absolute winners and striving to perfection through illegal and potentially dangerous means corresponds with behaviour patterns of 'civilians' - white collars, clerks, politicians..? what sacrifices are we ( the spectators = those who decide where to spend our money) willing to make in order to 'clean up' sport from doping - would we appreciate less intensive and far less exciting show on tv? is it even possible these days to remove or at least limit the illegal practices from sport if we face them in nearly all aspects of our lifes on a daily basis? are we, as a society, ready to admitt it's mainly our fault such things as doping in cycling exists? i very much doubt it. we may debat how evil Armstrong is and condemn his actions but in the end, we all go back to our holy lifes, cheating in taxes, downloading music from the internet, voting for idiots who don't know why plane windows don't open, or are ready to declare a war just for the sake of keeping their jobs, buying gadgets manufactured by children and so on... give me a break. the level of hypocrisy in the Armstrong case, in fact - in any doping case - is just beyond any decency. it's not that i find it ok what Armstrong did, but lets not play the zillionairs on a fancy fundraising somewhere in a club med, eating lobsters, drinking cristal and writing 1000$ checks for the starving kids

You may be interested in the first part of this program:
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/27/151315301/our-buggy-brain, first part: "Why do we cheat"

swinter · **Posted:** Sat Sep 29, 2012 1:01 am

Tapeworm wrote:

You haven't been to many trials then?

Experience tells me no-ones credibility is beyond question, and it takes the slightest of cracks to then cast doubt, and the evidence effctively expunged.

I have. I've done them. This is one of the more naive statements I have seen on this board.

The law does not work like that. Neither in theory, nor in fact.

J-Nice is quite correct.

USADA Banned Armstrong new Doping Allegations

Who is online