Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

[Joeblake]

[Dr_Mutley]

thanks... that makes for interesting reading.... lots missing!

[Joeblake]

thanks... that makes for interesting reading.... lots missing!

Joe

[ColinOldnCranky]

O'Grady is a disgrace and should be stripped of all awards...... A crime unpunished goes unnoticed.

Ricky

I think O'Grady is brave to come clean and makes him even more of a champion in my eyes.

I'm old school I was raised to have honesty,integrity,ethics and know right from wrong. So thanks Mum and Dad for giving me that upbringing of being tough on me with no second chances it's made me a better person today and I'm pleased when looking back on my childhood you did......

Ricky

I am even older school I expect. And I too eschew the use of PEDs. However I not sure if it a strong moral compass or simply because even with my blood stream foll of EPO and a quart of steroids squeezed into my arm there are still not to many cyclists that I am going to beat.

[ColinOldnCranky]

O'Grady is a disgrace and should be stripped of all awards...... A crime unpunished goes unnoticed.

Ricky

I think O'Grady is brave to come clean and makes him even more of a champion in my eyes.

I hope this statement is made out of lack of information and not from fan-boy mentality.

In my understanding he came clean only as the story was breaking. His name was on a list of cheats and suspected cheats from the French Senate that became known on Wednesday. I have no idea how much of an inkling any of the riders would have had of the possibility before then but the anouncement was expected before Sunday. His surprise retirement on Sunday as rumours abounded of an impending French senate anouncement on dubiuos riders makes it all seem overwhelmingly the result of expectation of being named. Especially in his case as he had signed a contract extension only a month before .

But, right now, if you did cheat and something came up that required you to publicly deny it then you would be a bigger fool than a drug cheat to deny it. Of late the odds seem to be very much against maintaining the lie once it is out there and a smart person would front up as soon as possible.

I see little reason to offer the benefit of the doubt to Stuart O'grady any more than to a host of others, regardless of any past admiration I may have had.

Please tell me Captain taht you were unaware of all this because we had enough fan boys for Lance without trying to build another martyr.

[foo on patrol]

A sad day really, so many supporters and wannabees let down! You have a choice and don't give me this shat of..........if you want to compete against the others, you need to also cheat, BS!

If I can't do things on my own will power and ability, then I don't do it, simple really.

Foo

[Dr_Mutley]

Imagine if Jens sample was "found" and came up as an adverse finding? Cycling would end!!!

[toolonglegs]

I dunno...if an ex heroin user who had been convicted was teaching my kids, I wouldn't assume they were being given drugs. Maybe an extreme example but....

Would you be happy for him to be your kids ethics teacher then?

There is nothing like a reformed smoker to be heavily anti-smoking though.

True... grumpiness has passed. I understand why he did it ... and I may have done the same in his position, the actual doping in the 90's doesn't really bug me. It is just the playing us for fools with the half baked confessions that is my issue.

[thecaptn]

O'Grady is a disgrace and should be stripped of all awards...... A crime unpunished goes unnoticed.

Ricky

I think O'Grady is brave to come clean and makes him even more of a champion in my eyes.

I hope this statement is made out of lack of information and not from fan-boy mentality.

In my understanding he came clean only as the story was breaking. His name was on a list of cheats and suspected cheats from the French Senate that became known on Wednesday. I have no idea how much of an inkling any of the riders would have had of the possibility before then but the anouncement was expected before Sunday. His surprise retirement on Sunday as rumours abounded of an impending French senate anouncement on dubiuos riders makes it all seem overwhelmingly the result of expectation of being named. Especially in his case as he had signed a contract extension only a month before .

But, right now, if you did cheat and something came up that required you to publicly deny it then you would be a bigger fool than a drug cheat to deny it. Of late the odds seem to be very much against maintaining the lie once it is out there and a smart person would front up as soon as possible.

I see little reason to offer the benefit of the doubt to Stuart O'grady any more than to a host of others, regardless of any past admiration I may have had.

Please tell me Captain taht you were unaware of all this because we had enough fan boys for Lance without trying to build another martyr.

Lack of imformation maybe, read it in the age today. I still refuse make any judgement on SOG (not short for son of god), much less sink the boots in. We all make mistakes.
Definately not a fan boy either, I thought he was a golfer before this

[clackers]

Imagine if Jens sample was "found" and came up as an adverse finding? Cycling would end!!!

I would need counselling.

But he's the ultimate team player, and if his DS asked him to get on the gear to help out his colleagues ....

[yarravalleyplodder]

so looking at that chart its interesting to see O'Grady had an adverse reading and then a few days later it was negative.

would that support his claim he did it before the tour and not during?

I am pleased to see McEwan's was negative, I guess I can live in hope that he was clean.

[trailgumby]

so looking at that chart its interesting to see O'Grady had an adverse reading and then a few days later it was negative.

would that support his claim he did it before the tour and not during?

Maybe. Or it might have inspired it.

It strikes me as odd, though, that his sample was Adverse so far into the event. Doesn't fit at all with how I'm led to understand the "glowtime" works for EPO from Tyler Hamilton's book, even if it was injected subcutaneously.

I don't believe he's telling the whole truth by a long shot, and that disappoints me a great deal.

[toolonglegs]

No...half life of epo is short, 6-9 hrs IV and 24 sub cut.... be long gone by the 14th day

[Joeblake]

Imagine if Jens sample was "found" and came up as an adverse finding? Cycling would end!!!

I would need counselling.

But he's the ultimate team player, and if his DS asked him to get on the gear to help out his colleagues ....

Hopefully, he'd just say "Shuddup DS!!"

Joe

[cyclotaur]

No...half life of epo is short, 6-9 hrs IV and 24 sub cut.... be long gone by the 14th day

So ... what does the 'Suspect' result followed by two negatives a few days later indicate ?

Interesting that Zabel, Ullrich and Pantani have consistently positive results. Also that sampling seems fairly arbitrary in those days ie. O'Grady in Yellow for 3 days early on but not tested until he won Stage 14.... and Herve (French rider from Festina !) was not tested at all. Hincapie looks 'clean' ....

[AUbicycles]

It is just the playing us for fools with the half baked confessions that is my issue.

This is also as @BastardSheep suggested and I agree that the attitude to doping (by cheats) has as much to do with it as the doping itself.

[Joeblake]

I my lifetime I've met far more liars than dope takers.


Joe

[Alex Simmons/RST]

so looking at that chart its interesting to see O'Grady had an adverse reading and then a few days later it was negative.

would that support his claim he did it before the tour and not during?

No, quite the opposite. EPO (used in that form) is only detectable by such testing within ~ 3 days of use. He claimed to have only used before the tour and then smashed the drugs the day Festina affair broke, which was a week before the day of his positive test sample. As for the negative results after that, they were not really completely negative, more the levels had dropped to the then early threshold for a "negative" indicating that there was still persistent use through the tour and for his stage win. Today such levels would be flagged as an adverse finding, leading to sanction.

These were not formal doping control tests, but retesting of samples using new test techniques developed some years later.


A 1998 professional rider doping? Meh. Not right nor condoned but in context, I understand why many riders succumbed (and a lot didn't and left the sport because they refused to partake, and we've never heard of them).

However lying to us today about it all (and the past 12 months with all the opportunity to advise the right people and help the cause), that's for me is the real let down.

[Nobody]

Doomed to fail

Professor Hanneman's conclusion is gloomy. The research, he says, “suggests that the current system of anti-doping testing is inadequate to eliminate doping. It appears that anti-doping policies are in place more for perception, to show that the right thing is being done. In practice, based on these estimates, the anti-doping system is doomed to fail.”

http://road.cc/content/news/89328-anti- ... says-study" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[MichaelB]

....

A 1998 professional rider doping? Meh. Not right nor condoned but in context, I understand why many riders succumbed (and a lot didn't and left the sport because they refused to partake, and we've never heard of them).

However lying to us today about it all (and the past 12 months with all the opportunity to advise the right people and help the cause), that's for me is the real let down.

My feelings exactly.

Would have had much more respect had he fessed up earlier.

[AUbicycles]

The idea of an amnesty comes up again and again. Lets say there was an amnesty which saves riders from suspension or bans (and perhaps therefor riders who are later found guilty have even harsher penalties).

Would an amnesty work - would someone who has been lying take this opportunity? The answer has a lot to do with the consequences - an enforcable penalty like a suspension is only part of the story and an athelete is also considering the overall shame of being outed, reputation against the public and in the peloton, potential liabilities and potential lost chances.

Raise the ban or suspention to 5 years (starting from the time of the decision) and this is a pretty serious penality that will kill any career changes (as opposed to two years from the time of the crime).

Pure speculation, though I could imagine a number of riders who have been (eventually) caught who would not have used an amnesty - it becomes a permanent state of denial.

[find_bruce]

Just like Zabel - I used epo in 1996 & never again

Jeez - you too Bruce?

Thanks for the laugh Ron - I missed this earlier.

In related news, Zabel has now admitted to being a liar - "I used EPO in 1996 & never again" has become "I used EPO from 1996 until I realised I could get caught when I switched to blood doping. I also used cortisone"

"Above all I wanted to keep my life, my dream job as a pro cyclist," said Zabel. "I loved it so much, this sport, the traveling. This egoism, it was simply stronger."

What strikes me is that there is no reason reported for why he claims to have stopped in 2003 - surely what stopped a doper from doping would have relevance today. Perhaps the truth lies elsewhere in that his previous confession was in 2007 - 11 years after 1996 & he has now extended that to 2003 - 10 years ago. Perhaps in 2018 he will admit to doping up until retiring in 2008.

[RonK]

Just like Zabel - I used epo in 1996 & never again

Jeez - you too Bruce?

Thanks for the laugh Ron - I missed this earlier.

In related news, Zabel has now admitted to being a liar - "I used EPO in 1996 & never again" has become "I used EPO from 1996 until I realised I could get caught when I switched to blood doping. I also used cortisone"

Yeah, puts lie to the common claim that "I only did it once, and only a little bit".

I think I admired Zabel almost as much as I admired O'Grady once. I'm still trying to come to terms with O'Grady's confession and don't know my response yet, other than extreme disappointment

There are aspects of O'Grady's career that are not changed by
doping. For example the courage to return after some of the horrendous crashes and injuries he has had cannot be injected.

Like I said - still trying to work out my response.

[Jean]

....

A 1998 professional rider doping? Meh. Not right nor condoned but in context, I understand why many riders succumbed (and a lot didn't and left the sport because they refused to partake, and we've never heard of them).

However lying to us today about it all (and the past 12 months with all the opportunity to advise the right people and help the cause), that's for me is the real let down.

My feelings exactly.

Would have had much more respect had he fessed up earlier.

+1

so looking at that chart its interesting to see O'Grady had an adverse reading and then a few days later it was negative.

would that support his claim he did it before the tour and not during?

Maybe. Or it might have inspired it.

It strikes me as odd, though, that his sample was Adverse so far into the event. Doesn't fit at all with how I'm led to understand the "glowtime" works for EPO from Tyler Hamilton's book, even if it was injected subcutaneously.

I don't believe he's telling the whole truth by a long shot, and that disappoints me a great deal.

To be fair to SOG (if his story is true, and I, like many, have my doubts), trying to pin down the moment when he 'smashed the vials' is rather pointless at this point. It was more than a decade ago and human memory is a bloody hopeless thing at details like that - just ask any copper or judge. Can you remember much of anything of detail from a decade ago? He might be lying, or he might genuinely remember it happening that way when in fact he did the deed later or any number of other permutations.

The idea of an amnesty comes up again and again. Lets say there was an amnesty which saves riders from suspension or bans (and perhaps therefor riders who are later found guilty have even harsher penalties).

Would an amnesty work - would someone who has been lying take this opportunity? The answer has a lot to do with the consequences - an enforcable penalty like a suspension is only part of the story and an athelete is also considering the overall shame of being outed, reputation against the public and in the peloton, potential liabilities and potential lost chances.

Raise the ban or suspention to 5 years (starting from the time of the decision) and this is a pretty serious penality that will kill any career changes (as opposed to two years from the time of the crime).

Pure speculation, though I could imagine a number of riders who have been (eventually) caught who would not have used an amnesty - it becomes a permanent state of denial.

An amnesty or 'truth & reconciliation council' might work, but I would be surprised if it really did the trick. There will be no magic bullets with this. Giving past riders or still riding old pros the opportunity to explain the events of the last two decades might make us feel better and bring out some useful things, but not everyone will play along. Can anyone imagine someone like Big Mig coming forward unless something comes to light that implicates him? No such thing has turned up so far and it seems unlikely it will. Besides, that doesn't do much for the guys who are doing it now or might do it in the future. Will the commission be perpetual?

Ultimately the 'solution', such as it is, is cultural change in the pro ranks backed up by vigilance in testing, continued scientific work on identifying new methods and penalties that matter. We might be getting there, we might not. Will such a scheme stamp it out? Of course not, someone will always try to find a way around and will succeed, even if only temporarily. Where does that leave us? I think we simply have to accept that we follow a sport that is beautiful in many ways, but like all other professional sports has it's grubby and sordid side (name me one that doesn't have scandal in it's history). Doping revelations will continue on and off, forever. Hopefully the point can be reached where they are the exception rather than the rule.

[siennatrack]

Just using the words drugs, doper,injecting all go hand in hand with another word called addiction and from past knowledge you dont just stop an addiction
over night so if this is the case how on earth can we even consider giving any rider with past convictions a position of authority in any professional or amateur teams is beyond me ,i'm sure in the public sector you cant get a job in schools or many other government jobs with past drug convictions so which one is it are they drug addicts or good guys that took drugs?