11/21/24
June 30, 2006
He's in...no, wait, he's out. : Two days after being cleared by Tour de France officials to compete in this year's Tour, Ullrich was suspended by T-Mobile team officials. Ullrich and teammate Oscar Sevilla, who was also suspended, were named (among others) in articles by El Pais as being implicated in a Spanish doping investigation.
posted by lil_brown_bat to other at 05:16 AM - 58 comments
I feel like flinging a curse, but I don't know where to point it. Hopefully there really is more to this than being "named in a Spanish probe as having contact with a doctor charged in connection with alleged doping" according to a radio station report and a newspaper article. It will all come out eventually, I am sure. ... and what year did that Ullrich file photo come from? Jeez.
posted by Amateur at 07:32 AM on June 30, 2006
Amateur, T-Mobile booted Pevenage too. I probably should have said that in my FPP. Whatever there is to it, I have to think it's something that they, at least, consider really serious, to do that kind of thing right before the Tour.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:58 AM on June 30, 2006
posted by BikeNut at 08:00 AM on June 30, 2006
Is the whole damn sport just crooked? Terrible news.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:14 AM on June 30, 2006
Yes, T-Mobile is making noises like they have good evidence against their own riders (and manager). That's not (yet) proof, though, and they may just be playing safe. Certainly it would be an even bigger disaster for the sponsors if they had to pull riders (or the whole team) out after the Tour had already begun. I find it difficult to write much here because this all just makes me feel low. God knows I read a lot of news about doping in sports, and most of it doesn't phase me much. But this one is different for me. I admit that I only became a Tour fan because of Lance Armstrong, so all you real cycling fans can heap scorn upon me as you see fit. But however it happened, the Tour is now a spectacle that I look forward to with great anticipation every year. It comes in somewhere just behind the World Series as "must-watch" TV. I have a dream of one day going to watch it in person. Today I feel like I've been punched in the gut.
posted by Amateur at 08:18 AM on June 30, 2006
Well said, Amateur. Does anyone have a complete list of those barred?
posted by 86 at 08:22 AM on June 30, 2006
Basso and Mancebo are out now... yet Vinokourov and the entire Astana-Wurth are still in. This is now an absolute joke. Ban all professionals and fill the Tour with 200 club riders, it's the only way to ensure a clean race. This whole situation makes me feel like shit, it really does. It's a farce. Cycling simply cannot go on like this. It'll just be a repeat of 1998. A couple of individuals will be thrown out, but the whole stinking system will remain. People like Manolo Saiz, Dr Fuentes and Vincente Belda will all worm their way back in and in a few years it'll all happen again. It's sickening. Prison sentences for dopers!
posted by afx237vi at 08:22 AM on June 30, 2006
86: Astaná-Würth: Michele Scarponi, Marcos Serrano, David Etxebarria, Joseba Beloki, Angel Vicioso, Isidro Nozal, Unai Osa, Jörg Jaksche CSC: Ivan Basso Caisse d'Epargne-Illes Balears: Constantino Zaballa Saunier Duval: Carlos Zarate AG2R: Francisco Mancebo T-Mobile: Jan Ullrich, Oscar Sevilla Phonak: Jose Enrique Gutierrez, Jose Ignacio Gutierrez Comunidad Valenciana: Vicente Ballester, David Bernabeu, David Blanco Rodriguez, Jose Adrian Bonillla, Juan Gomis Lopez, Eladio Jimenez, David Latasa, Javier Pascual, Ruben Plaza, J.Luis M. Jimenez Unibet.Com: Carlos Garcia Quesada Retired/suspended riders: Roberto Heras, Angel Casero, Santiago Perez, Tyler Hamilton They were named on Spanish radio this morning. There's more to come.
posted by afx237vi at 08:24 AM on June 30, 2006
Is the whole damn sport just crooked? Considering only WADA-administered drug tests, positive test rates in cycling were the highest of all Olympic sports in 2005, at 3.8%. They were also highest in 2004, at 4.6%, and in 2003, at 4.0%. These numbers include all disciplines in cycling (road, track, mountain). So, yes, cycling is dirty. What this means in terms of the actual number of cheating athletes, and the numbers for the top professional road racers is impossible to say. But it certainly puts a lower bound on the numbers. I am working on a blog post about the WADA stats; I wrote an earlier one that used stats provided by the UCI and the other IFs. In that series cycling looks a lot better, coming in sixth-worst of Olympic sports at less than 1%. World Anti-Doping Agency Stats here.
posted by Amateur at 08:32 AM on June 30, 2006
This sucks! I've been a long-time supporter of Armstrong and have admired riders like Basso and Ullrich for years. I've tried tellling myself that the rumors surrounding Armstrong were just that, but with this news it has to make one wonder. How pervasive is doping in professional cycling? It truly is a shame and it has certainly tarnished a magnificent sport and its premier event. But, on the bright side, it opens up the competition and we'll see some fresh faces wearing yellow this year (hopefully not dopers).
posted by willthrill72 at 08:38 AM on June 30, 2006
But, on the bright side, it opens up the competition and we'll see some fresh faces wearing yellow this year (hopefully not dopers). Naive. All the riders implicated so far come from one clinic in Madrid. That's over 50 riders who have had their name associated with blood doping. Who on earth knows how many clinics there are? Basso and Ullrich are just unlucky that their doctor was dumb enough to accept a breifcase full of €60,000 (cash) in a public restaurant.
posted by afx237vi at 08:43 AM on June 30, 2006
How pervasive is doping in professional cycling? Remember what happened in the early 90s to womens' athletics records after the collapse of the Eastern Bloc? Welcome to Le Tour Des Domos.
posted by etagloh at 08:51 AM on June 30, 2006
Who on earth knows how many clinics there are? Cynical. Natural, but cynical.
posted by Amateur at 08:53 AM on June 30, 2006
Can a cycling enthusiast explain why one of the leading athletes would wear a skin-tight hot pink uni? Is there a point at which an outfit is so flamboyant that it circles all the way around and becomes hypermacho?
posted by rcade at 08:56 AM on June 30, 2006
Fearless prediction: expect at least one smug, sweeping, and inappropriate statement from Dick Pound this afternoon.
posted by Amateur at 08:56 AM on June 30, 2006
Stupid question: Why is doping barred in international competition? I mean, cyclists can take any number of other supplements to help their training. Can eat whatever they want. Eat 50 kilos of protein a day. But no to Hgh. I'm confused as to the exact reasoning behind why? If anything, why not just say, "OK, you can take your stupid hgh and whatever doping drug you want!" At least that way we know they're on even playing field. Oh, and thanks for posting your blog Amateur. Interesting stuff there!
posted by jmd82 at 09:08 AM on June 30, 2006
I've followed cycling for over 25 years, and I've never been more dismayed and discouraged about the state of the sport. What amazes me is there are no statements from presumably "clean" riders and their teams criticizing the dopers. Or is it that there are no truly clean riders?
posted by BikeNut at 09:08 AM on June 30, 2006
Stupid question: Why is doping barred in international competition? I mean, cyclists can take any number of other supplements to help their training. Can eat whatever they want. Eat 50 kilos of protein a day. But no to Hgh. I'm confused as to the exact reasoning behind why? Umm, death? Seriously, it's for health reasons. Here's an article explaining it. Lets people take what they want and hundreds of people each year would simply kill themselves trying to win.
posted by afx237vi at 09:13 AM on June 30, 2006
Why is doping barred in international competition? That would require a long answer, I think. As long as I'm doing some self-promotion here (and thanks for the compliment), I have also written a bit about the purported logic of WADA's Prohibited List, and the problems raised thereby. afx is correct that hazard to health is part of the equation, but I don't think that really explains the whole story. I am not a supporter of the "let-em-take-whatever-they-want" solution, personally. Extend that to other rules and it looks a bit ridiculous. e.g. "The officials are missing several offside calls a game, so I think we should abolish the offside rule. Then nobody will be breaking the rules any more, and the playing field will be level." The solution is more effective enforcement. Easy to say, perhaps impossible to do in this case. Certainly I feel a bit discouraged on that front today.
posted by Amateur at 09:21 AM on June 30, 2006
rcade, to answer your questions --- No, and no.
posted by 86 at 09:40 AM on June 30, 2006
why not just say, "OK, you can take your stupid hgh and whatever doping drug you want!" At least that way we know they're on even playing field. It wouldn't be an even playing field. Some doctors and pharmacists are better than others. Québec's resident Tour expert, Pierre Foglia, has long maintained that only a few guys, always close to "la lanterne rouge", ride clean. "On ne gagne pas le Tour à l'eau claire."
posted by qbert72 at 09:48 AM on June 30, 2006
"On ne gagne pas le Tour à l'eau claire." Seems to be the case.... Paging Lance. I'm seriously having doubts about his cleanliness. But that's all it is - just doubts. I really don't follow this closely enough to confirm them. And frankly, I'd just as soon rather not.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:58 AM on June 30, 2006
I understand that athletes should not be killing themselves to win. However, I think there comes a point when the hoopla over doping overshadows the sport. That's wrong. The Tour de France is not winnable based solely on taking HGH, EPO, or some other substance. Organizers should do what they can to keep the race clean, but using far-reaching investigations (not trials or convictions) to boot most of the top riders (and big names) is too much. I have an interest in the Tour, but all the names I know are gone. Is this good for the sport? I don't think so.
posted by bperk at 10:24 AM on June 30, 2006
Is this good for the sport? I don't think so. In the short run, no, but it probably is in the long run. Baseball is going through the same growing pains in establishing a hard core zero tolerance policy. I think you have to take out some big fish to hammer the point home.
posted by BullpenPro at 10:45 AM on June 30, 2006
This is ridiculous. Now every single rider in the Tour will be under (more) suspicion. afx has the right idea: Ban all professionals and fill the Tour with 200 club riders. I feel bad for Vinokourov (if he is truly clean), but his team needs to go. If Astaná-Würth participates, the entire race is a farce.
posted by dusted at 11:25 AM on June 30, 2006
If you base the integrity of your sport on the ability to keep out doping, then you are in big trouble. There is no way to get doping out of a sport, even if you have a zero-tolerance policy.
posted by bperk at 11:34 AM on June 30, 2006
There is no way to get doping out of a sport, even if you have a zero-tolerance policy. True. You don't have to get doping out of the sport, though. You only have to get the perception that there is doping out. Look how happy everyone was with Lance and McGwire et al. before we suspected this at all. A zero-tolerance policy will return the focus to the field, unfettered by the notion of cheating. Look, already, at the public perception of Albert Pujols under the league's new steroid policy -- the first "clean" superstar in years. Right?
posted by BullpenPro at 11:42 AM on June 30, 2006
The Tour has had a long-standing policy of zero-tolerance and had a huge drug scandal in 1998. So, is the Tour cleaner today than it was then?
posted by bperk at 11:58 AM on June 30, 2006
I'm not sure what "zero-tolerance" means in this context, really. What would you suggest as a definition? The problem is, of course, that there is no way to know if any sport is cleaner or dirtier than it used to be. And for some people, even a complete absence of positive tests wouldn't convince them of anything ... except that the tests are 100% ineffective.
posted by Amateur at 12:14 PM on June 30, 2006
If I may chime in on the "ethics" of the ban on drugs, jmd82's question really isn't that stupid. Amateur is right on the mark that this requires far more than a short, simple answer ... which is why this post isn't a response to Amateur (you definitely are working this problem out! ... stellar work). The question about the "stupidity" of the ban should not be measured against its ineffectiveness (again, Amateur nailed it with the "you don't abolish the offside rule" argument ...) although, it is important to note that articles like the one afx posted suggesting that banning drugs will save athletes' lives is incredibly flawed ... since countless deaths resulting from, or accelerated by, drug use have occurred while the ban has been in effect. The "stupidity" of the ban is evident when the numerous contradictions are made evident about what is banned and what is not and for what reasons. I'm just one voice in a chorus that is singing about how "unhealthy" high performance sport is from a variety of perspectives, and how the motivations of those in favor of banning drugs are often almost completely contradictory. The questions we need to ask aren't (only) whether or not we should ban drugs in sport (I'm 100% behind folks, like Amateur, who are asking how we can make a ban effective, to keep athletes "healthy" and safe and the games we play fair). The questions we need to ask are about our values. "We don't have a drug problem, we have a value problem." Athletes don't make the decision to use drugs in a moral vacuum. There are moral, social, and cultural pressures for athletes to do what they do. As long as there is only one maillot jaune to be worn in Paris after 21 days on the road ... there will be people who try to gain an advantage over their competitors ... drugs and other. That's the reality we are forced to deal with. The politics of dealing with it have left a stain on the sport of cycling that is unparalleled. The challenge is to continue to try to find ways of keeping it fair and safe ... and banning drugs might not be the only way to do that.
posted by Spitztengle at 12:25 PM on June 30, 2006
"we are now demanding evidence of his innocence" - T-Mobile spokesman on suspension of Ullrich "Ivan must prove with his lawyer that he is innocent" - CSC manager on suspension of Basso To me, that's the problem. If someone even makes an accusation, then the athlete is presumed guilty. They may very well be guilty, but should it be that somebody has to prove they doped or are the athletes required to prove the negative, that they did not. Best way to win an event now, spread a rumor of doping for all your top competition.
posted by graymatters at 12:46 PM on June 30, 2006
This slow-loading article from a few hours ago states that "about 20" riders have been withdrawn as a result of the latest scandal, although it doesn't name them all. This NYT article brings me back to my original comment in this thread:
Schindera declined to describe the materials that the team had reviewed, but he emphasized that they were not definitive proof of doping, but simply of contact with Fuentes. Every rider and official with the team, Schindera said, had signed a statement earlier this month pledging that they had not been in contact with Fuentes. "As we have declarations of the three of them saying that they were never in contact with Fuentes, we saw here a clear problem concerning the trust, and therefore we can't rely on them anymore," said Schindera.So it smells bad, but it's not (yet) proof. And on preview: thanks Spitztengle, and I am glad we are having this discussion here ... maybe it's because this is "only" a cycling thread, but it's nice to be able to have a rational conversation about doping.
posted by Amateur at 12:48 PM on June 30, 2006
The solution is more effective enforcement. While I do not agree with the "let them take whatever they want" group, I think the science of enforcement will always lag behind the science of enhancement. In the not to distant future, gene therapy will allow a competitor to boost his natural hematocrit level, improving the oxygen carrying capacity of his blood. Unlike EPO use, this will be undetectable. How will WADA and UCI monitor this?
posted by BikeNut at 01:07 PM on June 30, 2006
To me, that's the problem. If someone even makes an accusation, then the athlete is presumed guilty. They may very well be guilty, but should it be that somebody has to prove they doped or are the athletes required to prove the negative, that they did not. greymatters, in fact, athletes competing under WADA rules have to do just that: prove the negative, by providing a drug-free sample under WADA test conditions. You can argue about the rightness or wrongness of that standard, but that is the standard, and it's not a surprise to any athlete. A lot of us armchair types, particularly in the USA, believe that there's some kind of "innocent until proven guilty" standard, forgetting that a)this isn't the USA and b)this isn't a court of law.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:12 PM on June 30, 2006
BikeNut, although this is often stated, it is by no means an accepted fact that successful gene doping will be undetectable. WADA is operating on the assumption that detection will be possible. Mancebo has retired
posted by Amateur at 01:21 PM on June 30, 2006
in fact, athletes competing under WADA rules have to do just that: prove the negative, by providing a drug-free sample under WADA test conditions. You can argue about the rightness or wrongness of that standard, but that is the standard, and it's not a surprise to any athlete. Sorry, I missed the story where it said that Basso and Ullrich had tested positive, instead of there just being an allegation and that they had been implicated. What was that link again?
posted by graymatters at 01:26 PM on June 30, 2006
To me, that's the problem. If someone even makes an accusation, then the athlete is presumed guilty. To expand upon what lbb said, in this case WADA has not yet stepped in. This is a case of the pro teams (employers) removing their riders (employees) from a race (job). Presumably there are some legal implications, but I am sure that the riders' contracts with the teams give the team full authority to make these kind of personnel decisions, for whatever reasons they deem necessary. And on preview: as noted in the NYT article above, the T-Mobile spokesman is stating that Ullrich and Sevilla have been withdrawn because they lied about their contact with the dirty doctor, not because of doping per se.
posted by Amateur at 01:29 PM on June 30, 2006
The athletes who had contact with the doctor were screwed even if they didn't do anything wrong. Admit that you had contact with a dirty doctor and get suspended from the team or sign an affidavit that you didn't have any contact, get caught, and still get suspended from the team.
posted by bperk at 01:39 PM on June 30, 2006
Eurosport states that the withdrawn riders cannot be replaced. That would send Astana (and Vinokourov) out of the race by forfeit. I believe Communidad have already been pulled out.
posted by Amateur at 01:47 PM on June 30, 2006
Sorry, I missed the story where it said that Basso and Ullrich had tested positive, instead of there just being an allegation and that they had been implicated. What was that link again? Skip the sarcasm, you'll use up your quota. Your statement -- "should it be that somebody has to prove they doped or are the athletes required to prove the negative, that they did not" -- indicated some general confusion about how things work in the world of athlete drug testing. That was what I was talking about, and not Ullrich et. al. per se. I simply pointed out to you that, in fact, it is the general case that athletes are required to "prove the negative" under WADA rules, so there's nothing about that situation that should shock or amaze a reasonably well-informed sports fan. Furthermore, while there have been AFAIK no positive tests specifically linked to this spew of banning, there is a large gap between a testing organization/team/governing body having to prove that an athlete doped -- as in, directly and deliberately took PEDs -- and an athlete having to prove that he/she did not. There is no way to prove intentional ingestion vs. unintentional ingestion, and there is no way to prove intent ("It was for my male pattern baldness" vs. "It was to make me big and beefy"). Under current technology, the only thing that is provable is the presence of indicators of a PED in an athlete's bodily fluids; therefore, that is the standard of proof, and of necessity, the burden of proof is on the athlete. Again, you can debate "shoulds", and I would be the first one to agree that WADA overreaches (and worse yet, seems to have completely lost sight of its original justification and principles). Unfortunately, unless you're prepared to go completely on the honor system, using current technology, there is no way to enforce regs except by making athletes effectively prove that they are not doping.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:55 PM on June 30, 2006
A negative drug test is not proof that the athlete did not do any PEDS. That's the whole point of this crazy Tour situation, where athletes are implicated while still testing negative. A blood/urine test only proves that at one particular moment the body does not contain any indicators of PEDs. These implicated athletes are being asked to prove the impossible (i.e. that at no time in the recent past have they used any PEDs).
posted by bperk at 02:42 PM on June 30, 2006
What bperk said. By the way, I heard that Connecticut Sun, Seattle Storm, New York Yankees, US ski team, New England Patriots all doped up. Let's ban them all.
posted by graymatters at 03:34 PM on June 30, 2006
Thanks for the replies and two comments: 1) As far as throwing out the rule because everyone breaks it, such as Amateur brings up with offsides: There is a huge difference between throwing out an in-game rule versus and out-of-game rule. Doping deals with the physical stature of an athlete, not how the game is actually played. The offsides rule deals with a completely different aspect of the game and is necessitated upon making the in-game fair and balanced. Of course, you can argue that allowing doping would cause a fairness problem, but if anything, I think it caused more of an inbalance between those who use it (and don't get caught) and those who don't. 2) Ethics of an athlete hurting themselves. What about boxing where a boxer moves up two weight classes taking on an athlete he has no business being in the ring with and getting destroyed. Or a hockey player playing with no knee ligimants further destroying his knees. Or NFL lineman packing on the weight and almost certainly taking years of his lifespan (a practice which is rapidly trickling down to the HS and even younger levels). Or a high school or college wrestler loosing unsafe amounts of body mass (or water) to make weight. As much as an ethical case can be made against doping, I believe one can be made against any number of other training methods athelets undertake.
posted by jmd82 at 03:37 PM on June 30, 2006
As much as an ethical case can be made against doping, I believe one can be made against any number of other training methods atheletes undertake. Amen. Apparently, it's okay if they kill or cripple themselves if they do it the "right" way.
posted by graymatters at 06:44 PM on June 30, 2006
It sickens me that another sport is involved in doping scandals. The best possible solution may be to take a lesson from bodybuilding (and I am not a bodybuilder). They have competitions for OPEN competition and another that is ONLY for clean athletes. The clean athletes compete closely and competitively and the "mutants" are obvious in their contests on what the differences are. Otherwise all your future heroes may turn out to be cheaters.
posted by urall cloolis at 07:58 PM on June 30, 2006
It sickens me that another sport is involved in doping scandals. I don't think there are sports that aren't involved in at least doping. In a lot of other sports it could be that they just don't test as well or the athletes are better at hiding it. They have competitions for OPEN competition and another that is ONLY for clean athletes. So basically whatever sport does this has to go through the pain of creating a whole new league that doesn't give a damn about the rulebook while still having to go to the same expense to keep athletes from doping in the clean league, like they already do?
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 08:31 PM on June 30, 2006
By the way, I heard that Connecticut Sun, Seattle Storm, New York Yankees, US ski team, New England Patriots all doped up. Let's ban them all. Get over it, young'un, and learn not to shoot the messenger. My name is not Dick Pound. Nor am I the Big Boss of the AIGCP, which is relevant because this is something that the AIGCP put in place. Last year, the AIGCP, an organization of the teams taking part in the Tour de France, came up with a code of conduct in which they agreed that they would, in some circumstances, withdraw racers who were merely under investigation. From this: In entering the pact, teams agreed not to participate with riders who were under investigation if the allegations pass a test of credibility. And from this: The UCI noted that while the probe implicated the riders, it had not yet established that they had cheated. Nevertheless, Tour organizers pushed for their exclusion and teams agreed, in keeping with their ethical charter that allows riders to be barred from racing while they are under investigation for doping. I looked around on VeloNews and did some websearching, but I couldn't find details of this code. I am quite sure that it rests on criteria that are not cut and dried, and that someone(s) had to make a judgment call about what constituted credible allegations. Rather than rail about how this tramples on people's First Amendment rights, dammit (or some damn amendment, I forget which), it would probably be more useful to discuss why the AIGCP felt that this was a necessary move (and were they right about that).
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:49 PM on June 30, 2006
As far as throwing out the rule because everyone breaks it, such as Amateur brings up with offsides: There is a huge difference between throwing out an in-game rule versus and out-of-game rule. OK, fair enough. It's more like gambling on the games, then. Let's make it OK to gamble on games you're playing in, because we can't stop everybody. I still don't think that's a sensible approach. As for your point about other risks that athletes take with their health: the point here is that if doping is allowed, then everybody is forced to take risks with their health, just to compete. That doesn't apply to the weight-class example you gave, or most of the others ... that's an individual choice that doesn't influence other athletes. The only one that really is similar is the NFL-linemen example. And let's not be naive: that's related to doping, too. It's not nearly the same magnitude of health problem (statistically speaking) if you take steroids and HGH out of the equation.
posted by Amateur at 09:28 PM on June 30, 2006
These implicated athletes are being asked to prove the impossible (i.e. that at no time in the recent past have they used any PEDs). Not quite, as I read it -- they're going to be asked to prove that the "evidence" in the hands of Spanish investigators doesn't prove their guilt. If they've been in contact with the Spanish doctor, they'll be asked to prove that it wasn't for doping, and why they lied about their association. In other words, "convince us that this circumstantial evidence isn't enough to prove your guilt." That's actually fairly reasonable. And just to reiterate what lbb said, since some people are missing the point -- this was an action taken by the teams, by mutual agreement. This is not a sanction under the WADA Code, not a suspension by the UCI, and not even a disqualification by the Tour organizers. As far as WADA precedent goes, doping punishments do have to follow some positive evidence of doping. We might quibble -- and I do, on occasion -- about whether the standard of evidence is high enough, but bans don't happen from accusations alone.
posted by Amateur at 09:41 PM on June 30, 2006
One last note -- OLN reported tonight that there are "only" nine athletes withdrawn. Basso, Ullrich, Mancebo, Beloki, Sevilla, and four others. Vino's team is currently too small to race, but there seems to be some question about whether they'll be reinstated.
posted by Amateur at 09:42 PM on June 30, 2006
OK, the way I understand it, only athletes who are pure of blood and urine from the beginning should be allowed to participate in a sport. If they test positive, then of course they should be banned. If they used in the past, even if they never tested positive, they should be banned. If they are suspected or under investigation for using or associated with someone involved in using, even if they never tested positive themselves, they should be banned. We want only the cleanest of athletes. Is it time to start taking those babies away from their mothers so they can be raised in a lab, fed only organic foods, and tested daily to be certain that they meet "our" expectations? Amateur, I understand that these cyclists were banned by their own team sponsors. The sponsors foot the bills, and therefore they can decide who they will and will not sponsor. No problem there. However, when "there is no way to enforce regs except by making athletes effectively prove that they are not doping," and the tests themselves cannot disprove past use and sometimes cannot even prove current use, what is the solution? Should we make every athlete disprove past and current use before we allow them to participate?
posted by graymatters at 11:18 PM on June 30, 2006
Should we make every athlete disprove past and current use before we allow them to participate? "We" do. That's what people keep telling you. Look, this is the state of affairs, graymatters. It's not new; it's just apparently new to you. There are only two "firsts" here: a)first enforcement of the AIGCP code of conduct, and b)first time you've learned about some of the details of doping regs in elite sports.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:19 AM on July 01, 2006
Should we make every athlete disprove past and current use before we allow them to participate? "We" do. That's what people keep telling you. My mistake, I thought we were on the same planet. Now, where's the Earth sports blog?
posted by graymatters at 05:54 PM on July 01, 2006
My mistake, I thought we were on the same planet. Now, where's the Earth sports blog? What is with you, graymatters? You seem persistently ignorant of the state of drug regs in sports; when someone tells you how it is, you suggest that the other party is delusional and not "on the same planet". Do you really think that reality conforms to The Way Graymatters Thinks It Spozed To Be? Yes, elite athletes who are regulated by WADA and any number of other cooperative bodies do have to prove their innocence. That's a fact, and it's not news. If you want to continue to believe that this is not the way things are, be my guest. You can call your planet "Earth" all you want, mmmmmkay?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:29 PM on July 01, 2006
Fearless prediction: expect at least one smug, sweeping, and inappropriate statement from Dick Pound this afternoon. Pound says the Tour is "in the toilet."
posted by Spitztengle at 02:12 AM on July 03, 2006
Pound says the Tour is "in the toilet." "That must be the 9:55!"
posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:31 AM on July 03, 2006
Well, a coupla days late. That's some restraint Dick showed there.
posted by Amateur at 09:22 PM on July 03, 2006
Uh oh.