Tough On Doping, Tough On The Causes Of Doping: In The Beginning Was The UCI

Oh BTW Monty, this one’s got bad fish. But I ain’t got round to that book you mentioned (Riders? Lace? Will check back later) so no lit references in this one :(

But just saved the file. Looking forward to it. Thanks fmk :)

My favourite Hein quotes:

“Contrary to the hare-brained insinuations, peddled here and there, the UCI did not wait until the 1990s to fight against doping.”

“These few lines only give an imperfect summary of the efforts the UCI has incessantly made to fight against doping, virtually since it first appeared as a real threat to the health of riders and the ethics of the sport. But they are enough to radically counter the slanderous utterances of some who would like to delude people into believing that the highest instance of cycling has watched without reacting (and what’s more, shown leniency to) the birth and development of doping”

Absolutely no shame.

Also, loved footnote 34.

alcohol is not a stimulant, therefore the footnote should say “alcohol and stimulants” or “alcohol in conjunction with stimulants” not “alcohol and other stimulants”… though I suppose “alcohol (mistakenly believed to be a stimulant) and other stimulants” would possibly be historically accurate.

As a vasodilator for smaller vessels / at lower doses, I suppose alcohol could be used primarily to boost delivery of the rest of the “cocktail.”

RE: ""what with all the fuss about LA""

~ HO~HO, the way it was, is, and always shall be for the distant future.

The man has become a inhuman magnet for equal measures of the human condition, love and hate.

However, I would like to include Albertus Contador, indeed, any cyclist who has ever run afoul of the Rube Goldberg designed drug testing apparatus in my response.

Simply and irrefutably put, there is nary a single spokesman or organization who can speak with authority that is respected.

Why these jughaids, who are constantly feuding against each other when not herding up cyclists to be tested, branded, and classified as fit for viewing consumption or put in the holding pen until being put down, how they scratched these jughaids scratched their way to the top positions of authority is the origin of any crimes.

The closest thing to the experts are the Doc Feelgoods, trainers, and cyclists as to how these some hundred substances affect performance and they ain’t talkin’ unless they become felons and then hired by WADA. The scientific studies are poor and limited and decades from holding any scientific merit.

Taking the case of Contador, highly promoted as the answer to the Lance dilemma, talk about a cyclist paying a heavy price for a specious test of an exotic substance!

A year is a decade in a pro cyclist’s career, and the judges no better qualified than the witch hunters of the Inquisition.

Use suspensions for the most egregious cases. In Contador’s case, it seems at best a minor infraction that could easily be explained away as accidental. There should be a formula established that deducts seconds from a rider’s time dependent up the nature of the banned substance and the amount over.

Keep in mind most everyone on this board could not pass the typical drug screen of a pro cyclist without a good long cleansing overseen by a reputable trainer because the list of the banned is so long and pervasive, and good luck finding a reputable trainer

By formulaic time deduction, Contador would pay a time penalty which may or may not alter his podium finish. That’s only fair until the science catches up.

~Ho~Ho, so away I go to my favoured predilections, so there’s your immediate answer to the current intractable dilemma.