go to:
http://www.bikereg.com/events/register.asp?eventid=3193
and click on confirmed rider list.
As this year's NY Marathon gives you an opportunity to compete with Lance, this event gives puts you on the playing field with Tyler.
Registration closes tomorrow, July 5th.
Tyler Hamilton is registered to ride Newton's Revenge
Tue, 07/04/2006 - 2:24pm
Tue, 07/04/2006 - 4:06pm
#1
And why would I want to compete against a cheater?
It's imperative for everyone to stop giving this guy attention. It feeds into his notion that he's some sort of underdog fighting the system, and that he can get by with love and support from his fans, his community.
Please, please ignore him. Maybe he'll just sit back and let the remainder of his suspension pass quietly.
Tue, 07/04/2006 - 5:38pm
#2
Laundry
Kick 'em when they're up,
Kick 'em when they're down!
Tue, 07/04/2006 - 6:31pm
#3
cheating
The notion of what constitutes cheating has not been satisfactorarily defined.
Tyler might have had a transfusion, but his hematocrit was still within the normal range. He might have only attempted to level the playing field. In the scheme of things his attempts at cheating might actually prove to be megre.
If we all could actually see the truth as we aspire to, my guess is that we would be shocked as to how far off our current perspective is. I have no doubt it would deeply offend your sense of modesty. And change your concept of piety.
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 5:00am
#4
"What an excellent statement and view, and I would also like to add many persons implicated in the ""Operacion Puerto"" have maintained their innocence. I would ask that we afford them the opportunity to defend themselves from what might be the product of poor intelligence. Remember, we were all so sure there were WMD’s, so lets not start bombing the cyclist yet."
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 5:29am
#5
Hank, let me see if I understand what you're saying.
We don't really know what cheating is.
What Tyler was doing wasn't so bad. Because he wasn't cheating as blatantly as the others, it's okay.
I should just get off my high horse, and accept the reality that cheating is rampant in bike racing.
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 6:13am
#6
my response
"Do you really think all these cyclists want to destroy their bodies? Most likely they went into this sport as you did. But as they committed to professional racing, people unleveled the playing field. Your average talented athlete had to make a decission; either compete at a disadvantage or go the next step. Some people don't respond to hypobarric conditions to raise their hematocrit. Whatever the reason, reasonable people are put into a situation which none of us would want to be in.
A few NYCC members were talking just the other day about this. Perhaps the solution would be to allow competitors to raise their hematocrit under medical supervision to a certain level. It would be safe and level the field. EPO is safe when used correctly.
We are not talking about murderers, these ""criminals"" are destroying themselves. And that is the opposite of what an athlete intuitively does."
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 7:01am
#7
They are not only destroying themselves, they are also destroying the sport.
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 11:16am
#8
Do you miss seeing Basso and Ullrich compete in the TdF?
"I do. What proof do you have that they are ""destroying themselves""? Other than the idea that the current crop of ""clean"" TdF racers are greatly stressing their bodies 6 hours a day for the next 3 weeks and doing so at the great risk of bodily injury. It's my opinion that the UCI, WADA and LeMonde are doing a much better job of destroying the sport."
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 2:37pm
#9
"UCI, WADA, and LeMonde didn't suspend Basso, Ullrich, Mancebo, and half the Astana-Wurth squad. Their TEAMS did. Big-company sponsors (or anyone else who can afford the $8- to $30 million annual budget of a UCI Pro team) won't want to get within 100 miles of this sport if it continues on its current path -- whether or not the riders are ""destroying themselves."" That's why the directeurs sportif took such draconian action.
Whether or not you believe that blood-doping is dangerous to the riders is irrelevant. It's cheating. Period. It's the cheating -- the dirty, scandal-laden image the sport is developing -- that's destroying professional cycling. I don't think blood-doping is any worse than cutting a corner on a course. They're both forms of cheating, and anyone guilty of either should be punished.
My understanding is that Ullrich was suspended not because he definitely doped, but because the Spanish Ministry of Sport provided unassailable evidence that Ullrich lied -- on a signed statement to his team, no less -- about his relationship with Dr. Eufemiano Fuentes. What was he hiding? Why did he lie? What would you do if you were the T-Mobile DS? It sucks that Jan's not there, but he did it to himself. Let's hope that in the aftermath T-Mobile (or anyone else) doesn't pull a Liberty Seguros. Phonak has a guy with a very legitimate shot at winning the GC this year. Oh, and who by the way won three huge races earlier in the season. And Phonak is GONE after this season. I wonder why . . .
--DvB"
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 8:17pm
#10
Destroying the Sport
"Jacques Anquetil once said ""the Tour de France is not won on mineral water alone"". Eddie Merckx failed three drug tests: 1969 Giro di Italia, (Reactivan) DQed; 30 day suspension 1973 Tour of Lombardie, (Ephedrine); DQed from race 1977 Fleche Wallone, (Permoline).
Sabino Padilla's paper on Indurain's 1996 Hour Record offers some very compelling evidence of systematic doping by the cycling's top stars. Padilla provides documented data on the physical characteristics of Merckx, Moser, Obree, Indurain, Rominger and Boardman:
Cyclist Distance Date Mass, kg CX, m2 Power, W
Merckx 49.432 10/25/1972 72 0.2618 380
Moser 51.151 1/21/1984 76 0.2481 400
Obree 52.713 4/27/1994 71 0.172 359
Indurain 53.04 9/2/1994 81 0.2441 510
Rominger 55.291 11/5/1994 65 0.1932 456
Boardman 56.375 9/6/1996 69 0.1838 462
His primary conclusion was that even in an aero position, Indurain's large body presented much more resistance than the others, accept for Merckx and Moser who did not employ aerobars, although Moser's bicycle and position were radical in 1984. The use of aerodymanic equipment and position has obscured the fact that something else is going on.
When normalized for power to weight ratio, the following is obtained:
Cyclist W/Kg
Merckx 5.3
Moser 5.3
Obree 5.1
Indurain 6.3
Rominger 7.0
Boardman 6.7
Both Merckx and Moser set their records at altitude in Mexico City, which at 8000 feet would present about a 10% power loss. Hence, Merckx and Moser's sea-level power was around 5.8 W/Kg, 9% less than Indurain, 15.5% less than Boardman, and 21% less than Rominger. Only the amateur Obree has a power-weight ratio consistent with Merckx and Moser, and by employing a radical position he was able to set an hour record. One can only conclude that Indurain, Rominger and Boardman all employeed some type of hematocrit manipulation when setting their records."
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 7:02am
#11
dope
If athletes at the pro level are allow to dope then why not at the amateur level or kids in school . Doping changes the sport entirely . It’s not a sport but a freak show. Plus it’s not just EPO they take HGH ,steroids , stimulants , ect . EPO was not design for same guy so that he can up a mountain fast , but for very sick people . So how do you know it’s safe for athletes ?
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 7:29am
#12
safety
What makes you think consuming EPO under a doctor's supervision is any less safe for cyclists than it is for cancer patients, like Lance for that matter?
Is it any less safe than descending down an alpine at great speed with virtually no protection? How about racing in downpours or excessive heat or riding over cobbles or racing nearby PMU finger waving fans.
Or how about a sedentary life of sitting on a couch in front of the tv sucking down beer, pork skins and hot dogs. Is that safe? EPO does help heart attack patients recover from sickness and its application is used for something largely preventable. I doubt the cyclists doctors are as overworked as those stimulant popping interns administering the epogen treatments.
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 10:14am
#13
"Ah, the ""no one gets hurt, so it's not a crime"" defense. How about the idea that, as sports figures, they are being held up as role models? Christy is correct that they are destroying their sport.
""...people unleveled the playing field.""
The playing field is unlevel to begin with, in that some people are physiologically better suited for bike racing. Their VO2 max is higher, their physique is leaner, their parents were both natural athletes. There are other differences, too. Some people have kids and demanding jobs; others have more time to train. Some people can afford nicer equipment, better wheels. Does any of that justify doping?
""Perhaps the solution would be to allow competitors to raise their hematocrit under medical supervision to a certain level. It would be safe and level the field. EPO is safe when used correctly.""
Are you serious? How about potential medical liability? Who would pay for this? Bike racing is for the most part a shoestring operation, both for promoters and teams. Or would this proposed program be just at the elite level? And what's to stop racers at the lower levels from trying to get their share, too?
And please, cite some medical information that backs up your assertion that EPO is safe. For who? Under what circumstances? And how about the longterm effects?
You bring up my reasons for competing. I do this for fun, not for money. It's not my job. People who race day in, day out, for the better part of the year, face entirely different pressures. While I understand how one could justify doing drugs, that doesn't make it right. When I line up against national-level riders, it would be nice to believe that they don't have some sort of pharmacological assistance.
"
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 10:55am
#14
2p
One of the most amazing things I ever saw was Ben Johnson winning the 100m at the Olympics. He was of course stripped of his title for testing positive for some banned substance.
Even though athletes take whatever substances to make them go longer/faster they still have to have the skill and the dedication to train / race.
I say let them take whatever they want. It's their bodies and as long as everyone understands the risks then why not? (I'm sure someone will tell me why not.)
We develop refined fuels to make the racing cars go faster so why not the cyclists engine?
note: I don't take anything except caffeine and hammer gel before you start ripping into me:-)
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 11:42am
#15
Doping
"""I say let them take whatever they want. It's their bodies and as long as everyone understands the risks then why not?""
Because it's competition. Athletes not willing to endanger their health by taking banned substances would be at an unfair disadvantage.
""Chainwheel"""
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 4:25pm
#16
7 times
it would seem that one can win the toughest race on the planet without taking performance enhancing drugs. So where is the unfair disadvantage?
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 8:53pm
#17
Wow. That is either one of the most naive posts I've ever read on the internet. Or an exceptionally clever joke. I hope the latter.
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 11:48pm
#18
aye right.
anyway.....a serious topic like this is no place for humour.
u r a bus!
Do rally drivers get tested? or is it just the cars?
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 11:08am
#19
the defense
"Let's be very clear and specific here. To be banned by WADA, a drug has to meet at least two of three criteria: it must enhance performance, be harmful to health and be against the spirit of sport.
EPO is a controlled substance that is regulated by government bodies. Public and private money funds its development and it is rigorously (at least suppose to be) tested before it is made widely available to the public.
It helps cancer and heart patients recover as well cyclists. It is also a very costly drug only likely to be used by professional teams. The drug manufacturers and the doctors who prescribe them are responsible for its safe use.
Its risk to cyclists is much less than they endure participating in the sport. I don't know of a cyclist that has died or been debilitated from EPO, do you? I do know of cyclists whom have died from injury. Statistically, pro cycling is more dangerous than NASCAR racing. One has already argued those PED drugs would be even safer to consume, if they were not done so in a clandestine fashion.
Notably the nay sayers here have yet to state what those risks are. Water by the way is a performance enhancer and the risk of achieving a hypertonic state is very real. Maybe consuming water should be banned.
Since prove-to-me-it's-unsafe drugs like EPO are banned from cycling, there is no public knowledge base or research available that may be of benefit of for future cyclists, pro or otherwise. Unlike certain PEDs, pro cyclists are the ones that first test out that high zoot equipment that's on your current bike.
EPO increases one's hemocrit level. Past drug tests did not detect the actual existence of EPO. Instead, the test checked to see if your hemocrit level simply was above 50%.
Statistically, having a hemocrit level above 50% is possible. It just puts you at the tail end of the bell curve. If you naturally have a high hemocrit level, exercising 6+ hours a day, like a professional cyclist does, will raise the hemocrit level even further. So in this case, a pro cyclist's career would be ruined not due to a false positive test result, but a flat out faulty test. Isn’t that against the spirit of the sport?
One can achieve higher hemocrit levels by sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber or just live and train in the Colorado Rockies.
So which of the two criteria have been violated?
Perhaps, the drug test has become more sophisticated to actually detect the existence of EPO. I haven't kept up with these details, but I vaguely seem to recall this is the case. Anyway, it is beside the point.
Point is, yesterday it was EPO, todays ""undetectable” is human growth hormone. Tomorrow's wonder performance enhancer will be gene therapy. When that comes into full bloom, all bets are off. There will be absolutely no feasible test to detect such performance enhancement and your argument will become pointless.
Innovation will still occur and pro cyclists and the public at large will benefit.
"
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 12:41pm
#20
Peter,
Do you endorse cheating in other sports? What about insurance fraud and turnstile jumping?
Using PED's is no different than using 108 octane gas in a race car when the rules stipulate max 104 octane.
I'm not opposed to PED's (primarily) because they might hurt the cyclists or their feelings. I'm against them because they're a method of cheating. Cheating is cheating.
- Christian
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 1:01pm
#21
cheating and PED
There's a couple of issues here:
1) what constitutes cheating
2) how to detect cheating
My contention is that with respect to PEDs, debating 1) will eventually be mooooooooot due to 2) not being possible.
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 2:42pm
#22
I think we agree that gene doping will be difficult if not impossible to detect. That said, simply giving up on any drug testing protocol because it is difficult to enforce seems a pretty poor response to me. Mail fraud, spam, and terrorism are also difficult to detect and defeat. Very few people argue we should stop trying there.
- Christian
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 4:45pm
#23
Eventually it will be impossible to detect. As of now, in my opinion, it is getting quite hard to effectively do so. So much so, I think it is doing more harm than good for the sport.
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 3:22pm
#24
Peter, are you serious?
"Hello Peter,
In no particular order I’ll answer some of your questions and respond to some of your statements. [Peter's comments are in red.]
What makes you think consuming EPO under a doctor's supervision is any less safe for cyclists than it is for cancer patients, like Lance for that matter?
Risks that the FDA and a physician deem acceptable for a cancer patient are not necessarily acceptable for a healthy individual. Blood clots that can cause cardiac arrest and stroke are well known side effects of EPO and these risks are higher for endurance athletes. Read this for more info: http://www.rice.edu/~jenky/sports/epo.html
Or, better yet, follow your own advice and do a search on side effects of EPO. The above article was the fourth result of my google search. I’m sure you can find many, many more articles to convince you of EPO’s dangers to pro cyclists.
Its risk to cyclists is much less than they endure participating in the sport. I don't know of a cyclist that has died or been debilitated from EPO, do you?
Here’s one quote from the link above: “Additional dangers of EPO include sudden death during sleep, which has killed approximately 18 pro cyclists in the past fifteen years, and the development of antibodies directed against EPO. In this later circumstance the individual develops anemia as a result of the body’s reaction against repeated EPO injections.”
Or how about a sedentary life of sitting on a couch in front of the tv sucking down beer, pork skins and hot dogs. Is that safe?
Probably not, which is why you won’t find a doctor prescribing such a lifestyle. This justification for allowing cyclists to use EPO is silly at best.
EPO is a controlled substance that is regulated by government bodies. Public and private money funds its development and it is rigorously (at least suppose to be) tested before it is made widely available to the public.
I would argue that controlled substances, by definition, aren’t widely available to the public. They are controlled substances in part because of the risks. [Obviously there are certain controlled substances that are easily obtainable from drug dealers. However, I don’t think EPO is one the drugs you can go find on the street tonight.]
In any case, your statement is a ludicrous argument for allowing cyclists to use EPO. There are many FDA approved controlled substances that have legitimate medical uses that no doctor responsible doctor would prescribe to a healthy patient.
The drug manufacturers and the doctors who prescribe them are responsible for its safe use.
So, Peter, do drug manufacturers and doctors consider it safe to prescribe EPO to healthy patients? Amgen, which developed EPO, was the primary sponsor for the Tour of California earlier this year. Here’s what they had to say about EPO.
“We worked long and hard to develop these medicines to help patients fighting serious illness,” said Amgen scientific director Steve Elliott. Elliott is the inventor of Aranesp and has worked closely with the IOC to develop tests to detect improper use of Amgen’s medicines. “Doping is dangerous and unhealthy. This sponsorship provides us with an opportunity to combat the inappropriate use of our vital medicines and to educate athletes, both amateurs and professionals, of the potential dangers of misusing drugs of any kind.”
Notably the nay sayers here have yet to state what those risks are.
See above.
Water by the way is a performance enhancer and the risk of achieving a hypertonic state is very real. Maybe consuming water should be banned.
Wow Peter. This is thought provoking. Forget all my other arguments. You’ve convinced me.
"
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 5:52pm
#25
misusing drugs
"The link you provided opens with, ""Pharmacological cheating in sports is not a new phenomenon."" He throws out unsupportive claims like, ""Additional dangers of EPO include sudden death during sleep, which has killed approximately 18 pro cyclists in the past fifteen years..""
Where's the footnotes supporting his claim? Why is this number approximate? Were these pro cyclists under a doctor's supervision? (Answer: not likely) Hmm, details are lacking and he certainly did not address the incentives behind taking EPO. It certainly lacks objectivity and rigor and would be laughed at an academic peer review.
Regarding the Amgen comments, he stated, ""...potential dangers of misusing drugs of any kind."" The operative word here is misuse.
As for water, try not consuming any this weekend on a club ride. Would you not be better off consuming some water to enhance your performance? What constitutes performance enhancement that is considered cheating is not always so simple to define. The WADA rules, i.e. 3 criteria are very general.
Furthermore, consuming anything in excess is not good. This is true for EPO as you correctly site as well as consuming water, a non-controlled substance. There was a discussion about a club member here who became seriously ill consuming too much water on a club ride or maybe it was the Montauk century.
I'm sure you know all about the dangers of ""hypertonic state"". I had a long enlightening discussion of afterwards with my wife whose an RN and works with EPO on a daily basis. Such knowledge is not even common among the medical profession, including the doctors she polled.
Your patronizing tone is not appreciated.
"
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 9:35pm
#26
Here we go again...
"Peter, you write:
Where's the footnotes supporting his claim? Why is this number approximate? Were these pro cyclists under a doctor's supervision? (Answer: not likely) Hmm, details are lacking and he certainly did not address the incentives behind taking EPO. It certainly lacks objectivity and rigor and would be laughed at an academic peer review.
I can’t vouch for the claims of Dr. Jenkins but here’s his bio: http://www.rice.edu/~jenky/biopage.html
And no, I haven’t verified that this person actually exists. However, I’ll put my money on his claims rather than your claims. Here is a claim you make about EPO.
Its risk to cyclists is much less than they endure participating in the sport.
Where are the footnotes supporting your claim? If one believes Phil Liggett (see below) it may be that a cyclist using EPO is more likely to die from EPO induced heart failure than from cycling.
Here’s a link to an article on the Outside Magazine website about the premature deaths of cyclists. http://outside.away.com/outside/news/200406/cycling_epo_1.html
It lists names. Here’s one quote from the article.
“Writing in a London newspaper, Phil Liggett, the veteran cycling broadcaster, pointed out that as many as 100 international racers have died prematurely during the past decade, most from heart attacks. The likely cause, Liggett argued, was the ongoing abuse of EPO, a synthetic and stealthy version of a hormone that spurs red-blood-cell production and thus boosts endurance.”
Yes, yes, Peter, I know that this isn’t scientific evidence.
You write:
Regarding the Amgen comments, he stated, ""...potential dangers of misusing drugs of any kind."" The operative word here is misuse.
Where is the footnote supporting your claim that the operative word is misuse? Did you speak with Elliott? Are you somehow interpreting his statement to imply that doping is not a misuse of EPO? Do you have any evidence that the FDA and/or Amgen believe that using EPO to enhance athletic performance is an appropriate use of EPO?
Your claim that misuse is the operative word is mind boggling. His first two sentences are far more relevant to the discussion of cyclists using EPO. I’ll quote his second sentence again. “Doping is dangerous and unhealthy.”
You write:
As for water, try not consuming any this weekend on a club ride.
Peter, no one will take you seriously if you continue to equate water and EPO.
"
Thu, 07/06/2006 - 9:02am
#27
In case it was not clear to you already, I am arguing that EPO be used with medical supervision. When properly used it is safe; making it illicit for some whereby it is used underground is not safe. All you have proven is the latter to which there is no disagreement.
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 7:09pm
#28
Many deaths have been 'attributed' to EPO use. Also, there are athletes whose 'natural' hemocrit is above the 50% level. They are 'registered' as such. This was discussed during the coverage of the Winter Olympics.
Here's a link that discusses EPO use and fatalities:
http://www.salon.com/health/feature/1999/04/21/cycling/print.html
Best,
Jeff
And, just for fun, here's a link discussing 'the dark side of Epoetin' lest we, along with Dr. Ferrari, make too many assumptions about its safety.
Thu, 07/06/2006 - 8:51am
#29
safety and cheating issues addressed
“…close to 100 percent of the riders in recent Tours de France were using illegal substances. Their drug of choice was EPO (erythropoietin, which acts like the synthetically produced PFC but is a naturally occurring substance). Quinet estimates that because of EPO, as many as 80 riders died in the 1980s and '90s, their doped-up blood coagulated to stone….”
And of those 80 riders, how many of them were TdF racers? Probably none. If there was I’m sure he would have indicated such. TdF elite pro racers are either well off financially or race for teams that are the same – and are under the close care and supervision of doctors. Additionally, before competing in the tour the riders are subject to medical screenings by other doctors.
It those domestic pro riders, that are just getting by financially on teams with a shoestring budget that are dying. Most likely they are not under medical supervision. Please document a case of a racer dieing from EPO that was under medical supervision.
If you still want to argue that EPO is unsafe – fine. For the sake of argument, I’ll side with you. Your anti PED stance is still greatly flawed.
Here’s why. It took what the better part of a decade to come up with a test that can detect EPO usage. Meanwhile cyclists were using this drug. Now that there is a test for EPO, cyclists will move onto some other undetectable and experimental drug without medical supervision or a knowledge base of medically professional experience.
For example, for argument sake, that undetectable drug maybe say some other PFC variant (e.g. Procrit vs. Amgen). As you cite, it proved quite dangerous for Mauro Gianetti. I then argue drug testing for PEDs is making it more dangerous for cyclists pushing them to seek out riskier performance enhancements.
Like other sports, pro cyclists have been taking PEDs since the sports inception. Testing will always be a step behind pharma innovations. Aside from the testing itself, it does not address the true incentive to take PEDs as Neile has pointed out. As tough as cycling’s anti-doping rules are, they cannot ever be tough enough to dissuade doping. There’s simple so much more money in the sport now then in the past. Put yourself in the shoes of a pro cyclist and you do the risk vs. reward calculus math!
The article you state mentions the lack of medical controls. I am in full support of medical controls at the elite pro level. WADA and other’s attempts to catch dopers will always be a wack-a-mole game because the economic incentives are overlooked.
One way to address such was what was suggested in Hank’s posting. Allow for medically supervised and controlled PED consumption. And regulate it, too. For instance, make it illegal to dope using blood other than one’s own blood, which is surely a much riskier proposition.
If you allow doping with your own blood, with medical supervision, then there is no need to take EPO or to take some illicit, experimental drug. In other words there is no further performance enhancement to be gained using supplemental doping methods.
There is an upper bound to which blood doping will work and if done under medical care and supervision, it is safe (and much safer than the risks inherent in the sport itself). There are plenty of financial and medical knowledge resources to make this happen and work effectively at the elite level.
Doping using one's own blood is an option and EPO is another. Both are commonly used in medical practice quite successfully for some time. I'll let you quibble the details which alternatives are best to implement and which are not.
If every one in the TdF peloton has a hemocrit level at 50%, then that is not cheating – that’s a level playing field.
Additionally, the advances sport medicine practice and experiences gained at the elite pro level may trickle down to lower leve
Fri, 09/08/2006 - 7:55am
#30
We don't really know what cheating is.
"Apparently, according to this BBC article, WADA is not so sure of such themselves:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/5325262.stm
I agree we really don't know what cheating is. When you are suspended and your reputation is smeared immediately right from the get go for 2 years before there's any highly suspect due process (see artcle, in part), if you want to call it that- in my book that's cheating someone from earning a living.
Most notable quote from the article, ""They always talk about holding athletes to the highest standards - but they need to follow their own rules."""
Fri, 09/08/2006 - 10:53am
#31
That's all well and good, but the evidence that Tyler Hamilton cheated is, well, unestimably vast.
Fri, 09/08/2006 - 11:04am
#32
"Seems so. But graves are full with individuals who were ""false positives"" in capital punishment cases, even with our presumed innocence which WADA doesn't recognize.
Tyler knows. And, of course, the Shadow."
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 8:30am
#33
Amen! No better time for Tyler to come clean and tell it like it is in the peloton. It's time for the charade, both his and cycling's, to end.
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 11:50am
#34
Reply to Fendergal
"Hank wrote ""compete with"", not ""compete against"""
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 10:59am
#35
Great Performances: Whiteface
Hank - I heard you had a great time up Whiteface - personal best by far. Congratulations.
Now, please tell me you were not taking performance enhancing drugs, or EPO!?
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 11:24am
#36
The answer
His hard work and dedication paid off well. If anyone here would be qualified/justified in taking PEDs, it would Hank. I mean that in a good way* as he's addressed other areas of improvement. He's as lean as could be and as aerobically fit as possible (or close to it).
In short, it's not what he was taking, but rather what he was not taking - as in 10 to 15 pounds of extra weight! It truly was a great performance.
* am not endorsing it.
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 12:09pm
#37
something to read
Article from someone that actually tried this stuff and wrote about it.
http://outside.away.com/outside/bodywork/200311/200311_drug_test_10.html
http://outside.away.com/outside/news/200406/cycling_epo_1.html
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 12:27pm
#38
not with a doctor's supervision
"The second article implies the amateur cyclist's death was caused by drug use, without any details, proof or otherwise. He then writes ""..[Pantani's] career had been destroyed by doping allegations."" They weren't allegations, using his litmus test, it was proved that he did in fact dope.
For both individuals, they were using the substances without a doctor's supervision.
"
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 3:57pm
#39
Caffeine pre race/ beer post race (nm)
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 7:26pm
#40
Whiteface
Hank's results were outstanding: personal best time, second in classification for both bike, run and combined. Even the bike was legal...
Wed, 07/05/2006 - 12:26pm
#41
This isn't interesting
Not to be too simplistic or cynical, but isn't this simply an economic decision?
There's plenty of people in NYCC who'll max out their Visa to take four pounds off the chassis, but I don't know anyone who'll spend that *and* risk ruining the engine just to keep up with a club ride or improve their time at a no-purse event.
But if the incentive is international fame plus millions in sponsorships vs. an anonymous hand-to-mouth existence ... then the only barrier is logistical ... jeopardizing their health or getting caught and winding up with an *ignominious* hand-to-mouth existence.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=ignominious
FWIW, I've pretty much given up on spectator sports.
