Boonen? The more I'm reading, the more I'm confident that they all dope - was thinking top 50, but probably 100. Garmin - is clean now, but I don't think VdV was riding clean last year. What sucks now is even if its just a 50K ride, guys are going to dope because they know they can, and will use every advantage they have at their disposal. Now the even sad part - that said, I still like watching the races, knowing that they dope and its part of the culture. Makes me sad. But, if there was a way for them all to race clean - I'd still watch that too.
The Boonen announcment is in regards to his positive test for cocaine and whether he'll be allowed to ride the Tour de France, not anything performance enhancing. I would guess he's actually pretty clean, he's been quite outspoken about doping in the past anyway. While there are definitely quite a few dopers still riding in the peleton, I think they're probably grossly outnumbered by those clean ones.
The problem is no one can ever be sure of anyone. The doping practices are relatively easy to hide and the testing/justice sytem is a joke...at best. And by the sound of Kohl, the biological passport actually helped the dopers http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/jun/09/berhard-kohl-cycling-drugs-tour-de-france Now, that is one side of the story, but I would like to hear more from UCI on the the affectiveness of the passport.
Yeah, that was pretty interesting, getting the numbers from other rider's passports as well as their own. WTF?
It's not a discussion worth having, really, but I can't even describe how philosophically disappointing it is that the UCI and sport science in general has to spend this much time, effort, and money on developing tests to catch cheats. From a philosophical perspective it makes me even wonder why I care to watch. And yet, like panic mentioned above, I still do enjoy watching. Ugh.
i posted an interview with Cavendish in the video thread. He has an interesting take on dopers towards the end. i suggest taking a look at it.
And just as weird that I actually believe that HE believes there are more clean riders than non-clean riders. But where I do disagree with him is that cheating occurs in all aspects of life to the degree we see it in cycling. I'm probably being naive, but I don't see that as a true statement in the "normal" world. Perhaps in the outlying elite of various aspects of life it is, but inamongst the mere mortals, I think most people are happy with their small sucesses, and getting by. It's interesting what he mentions about 20% of a rider's winnings going to anti-doping - that's something I wasn't aware of, and something that makes me quite happy to be honest. Anyhow, thanks for posting that interview - definitely enlightening stuff about someone I didn't much care for before, but am now warming up to.
That's why Lance donates the most of any rider - from his TDF winnings. Bingo. I might trust the guys on Garmin who suck. Danielson is probably clean - he's got the profile. Can't finish in the top 100 and when he does, he's forever and a day behind.
I don't know if anyone here is a fan of the NFL, but I wouldn't be surprised if NFL players juice at a higher rate than pro cyclists. And I think it's basically accepted by the American sporting public. Yet the NFL is far and away the biggest sporting league in the U.S. At a certain point there is a philosophical line to cross: what is doping and what isn't. Blood doping is one thing, but what about caffeine?
Well I don't know that it's accepted by the American sporting public. I think it's more of a head-in-the-sand approach. I think people don't want it to be true, so they ignore it. Certainly you're seeing the impact of this in baseball.....more testing, less trust by the public. It's ironic really, and Cavendish hinted at this in the interview. If a sport tests more, they catch more, but does that mean there's more doping? Probably not. Just means they're catching the cheats, unlike previously when the cheats were getting away with it. Your second question is a good one, though I think we could all agree that a substance that naturally occurs in common consumables (coffee, chocolate, etc) is vastly different than pulling out and re-injecting one's own blood, or a manufactured substance to enhance oxygen carrying capacity.
NFL- yeah, I'm pretty sure there is a lot of doping going on, but every season we see 10 or so players get suspended. NBA - yep, figure they do stuff too. MLB - much lower than in the past. I remember when Brady Anderson hit 50 HR's - no doubt about the juice there. Soccer - probably some doping. NHL - guessing they are all the same.
false. i have a family friend who is an owner of several minor league teams and his son is a lower level scout for the Astros. both claim that about 60-70% of the guys are on something and that the recent testing hasn't changed much. it's done for the glory. i do agree with Cavendish that cycling is cleaner than other sports due to the crazy testing policy. they will catch more people and they will have some high profile guys turn up dirty. that is what we want. imagine if they tested baseball players 64 times over the course of the season.
That is much lower, I figured it would be around 100% === How about the Lemond speech? He needs to run the UCI - and see how he can clean it up.
I used to work with a guy - a doctor - who, among other things, consulted with MLB on their drug testing policy. He said that once the steroid testing regime got tightened up, the athletes would look for other chemical advantages. He predicted that suddenly a lot of ball players would be diagnosed with ADD because Ritalin and Adderal were not banned, iirc, and those drugs can enhance performance for baseball players. Not sure if that's what happened, but it would be an interesting project to see if the number of baseball players being treated for ADD spiked after that.
I don't mind Lemond. I think he's just wanting change. The sport will never be completely clean, but the stuff going on now is crazy.
Out of curiosity, what's your beef with LeMond? He seems kind of whiny to me, but I don't have much of a problem with him.
I like Lemond, but I think he goes about things the wrong way. But, as UCI is pretty, I can see why he chooses other avenues. It's too bad that this issue seems to get boggled down into the cult of personality.
LeMond is just bitter and pissed off because he was clean throughout his career and all the riders these days are doping themselves to high hell. In reality, he doesn't whinge anymore than someone like Hinault or Merckx, who are always going on about " the good old days" and how cycling today is tainted. Things haven't been the same for him since he implied that Lance was doper, now Armstrong and his fanboys do their best to make his life a living hell. Imo, Lemond was a far more talented rider than Armstrong, he just had a lot less luck... and far less juice.