another cyclist caught cheating… 2 months ago this guy was crowned the tour de france champ. now they find performance boosters in his body…
cyclists are always getting caught.
just wondering how many pro athletes cheat by taking illegal drugs…
that show bigger stronger faster was great. ben johnson got the shaft but the top world class dr. caught carl lewis many times cheating… how did he still get in the olympics and keep the gold?
look out lance, they are going to get you…
Is it really cheating if everyone else is doing it?
Bigger stronger faster is a quality film.
i’m not watching a sport without superhuman feats of athleticism. that shit sounds boring.
Man, I don’t care what you put into your body to make it better, but the only thing I find fucking pitiful is cheating in a tested show. Steroids are not cheating until you compete in a competition where steroids and other PEDs are banned and you decide to try and get away with using them. You’re a pussy if you do that.
Im going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume he ate a few lab rats that were being tested on with clenbuterol. He probably got hungry. French food is too rich to be eating during a 9043 mile bike race.
The amount of Clenbuterol he had in his system was FOUR HUNDRED times less than the amount necessary for a positive test
[quote]Bambi wrote:
The amount of Clenbuterol he had in his system was FOUR HUNDRED times less than the amount necessary for a positive test[/quote]
Not true at all.
It was 400x less than the minimum standard for dectection at the lab. Meaning the lab only needed to be able to detect a level 400x higher to meet the WADA standard.
Reading comprehension is a good skill.
Logic says that if they discovered less than the amount necessary for a positive test there wouldnt be an issue at all.
That’s 4 spanish cyclists that haved failed drug tests in the past month. The Spanish Cycling Federation has done less to fight doping compared to other federations, and this includes the Spanish government. In Italy for example, they take doping very seriously. So much in fact, they freqently carry out operations or raids on suspected riders homes in the hope of finding PEDs. This is completely unheard of in Spain. Here is a bold statement, but it makes you wonder about the success of other Spanish athletes outside of cycling. They really do seem to have a laid back attitude when it comes to fighting doping. I don’t buy into AC clen theory ( food contimination ), there is German report that says AC may have in fact been blood doping during the TDF rest day.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]Bambi wrote:
The amount of Clenbuterol he had in his system was FOUR HUNDRED times less than the amount necessary for a positive test[/quote]
Not true at all.
It was 400x less than the minimum standard for dectection at the lab. Meaning the lab only needed to be able to detect a level 400x higher to meet the WADA standard.
Reading comprehension is a good skill.
Logic says that if they discovered less than the amount necessary for a positive test there wouldnt be an issue at all. [/quote]
I’m not understanding…how could it be detected if it was 400 times less than the amount used as a standard baseline for detection?
How the hell did they find it?
I have mixed feelings about doping in sports. I’m not really up on cycling, so I won’t weigh in there, but I dislike it in baseball. I just feel like the great players of the 20s, 30s and 40s didn’t need to dope to be phenomenal atheletes and I think the money has a lot to do with it. On the flip side, steroids have brought us some really exciting storylines in sports, like the single season homerun race between McGuire and Sosa.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]Bambi wrote:
The amount of Clenbuterol he had in his system was FOUR HUNDRED times less than the amount necessary for a positive test[/quote]
Not true at all.
It was 400x less than the minimum standard for dectection at the lab. Meaning the lab only needed to be able to detect a level 400x higher to meet the WADA standard.
Reading comprehension is a good skill.
Logic says that if they discovered less than the amount necessary for a positive test there wouldnt be an issue at all. [/quote]
I’m not understanding…how could it be detected if it was 400 times less than the amount used as a standard baseline for detection?
How the hell did they find it?[/quote]
Im assuming their machine or device is more sensitive than the minimum standard requires. I think I worded my explanation awkwardly.
[quote]7thSonofa7thSon wrote:
I have mixed feelings about doping in sports. I’m not really up on cycling, so I won’t weigh in there, but I dislike it in baseball. I just feel like the great players of the 20s, 30s and 40s didn’t need to dope to be phenomenal atheletes and I think the money has a lot to do with it. On the flip side, steroids have brought us some really exciting storylines in sports, like the single season homerun race between McGuire and Sosa.[/quote]
Dude, you’re high right now and you know it.
No one really wants to see people playing at “yesterday’s level” just like no one really wants to see an Olympic game where no one breaks any more world records and reverts back to the scores of 1985.
The entire idea of trying to restrict these players’ development in some strange effort to throw morals into sports is a tad ridiculous…but it does fall in line with the same self righteous mentality that allows a drunk entrepreneur to boast that marijuana should never be legalized.
I tend to be one who thinks the future of sports will be more like the failed XFL and less like the 1920’s.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I tend to be one who thinks the future of sports will be more like the failed XFL and less like the 1920’s.[/quote]
What about the future of sports do you think will be like the XFL? (serious question)
Granted, I don’t know much about the XFL other than that it was only around for a season, and the movie The 6th Day also seemed to think it was the future of sports.
[quote]koleah wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I tend to be one who thinks the future of sports will be more like the failed XFL and less like the 1920’s.[/quote]
What about the future of sports do you think will be like the XFL? (serious question)
.[/quote]
I figure that eventually, the attempt to force morals onto players won’t be the dominant opinion in favor of actually seeing what the limits of human physicality actually are including using “enhancements”.
Personally I think drugs have no place in sports unless they’re not against the rules… basically I hope the rules today don’t change to allow it later. Records will still be broken because a more capable athlete will come about one way or another. Records will always be broken… even without steroids.
I find it funny that Ben Johnson did his 100m in 9.83 I think…on drugs, then later Canada gets Donovan Bailey beating him by a few tenths and apparently he’s not. So they say.
[quote]7thSonofa7thSon wrote:
I have mixed feelings about doping in sports. I’m not really up on cycling, so I won’t weigh in there, but I dislike it in baseball. I just feel like the great players of the 20s, 30s and 40s didn’t need to dope to be phenomenal atheletes and I think the money has a lot to do with it. On the flip side, steroids have brought us some really exciting storylines in sports, like the single season homerun race between McGuire and Sosa.[/quote]
I don’t think that holds any water. Every sport has a golden age where a few of the elite athletes put up mind-boggling numbers, and it’s because the talent pool is so much smaller and also because everyone is overly nostalgic about “the good old days.” But nobody mentions that Babe Ruth never competed against a non-white and Hank Aaron hit a good number of his home runs against pitchers on a lowered mound. Crossing the bridge to other sports, does anybody really believe Wilt Chamberlain in his prime could put up 100 points on today’s players? That’s why it is said that you can’t compare eras, so who cares if they were doping in the past?
[quote]Amiright wrote:
Records will still be broken because a more capable athlete will come about one way or another. Records will always be broken… even without steroids. [/quote]
So you think the 100m will keep getting faster and faster till we have someone running 100m in under 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 seconds? Records will not always be broken.
[quote]Chewwy wrote:
[quote]Amiright wrote:
Records will still be broken because a more capable athlete will come about one way or another. Records will always be broken… even without steroids. [/quote]
So you think the 100m will keep getting faster and faster till we have someone running 100m in under 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 seconds? Records will not always be broken.
[/quote]
Way to take it a little too literally… A world record is meant to stand for more then 2 days. Record will always be broken and when we reach the peak they will be tied(but that is a long long time away). Don’t know what the record for the 100 is off the top of my head but I bet it will be beat by a hundredth(or more) of a second in 10-20 years(maybe sooner) and so on. As far as your life or your children’s lives are concerned… record will always be broken.
[quote]Amiright wrote:
[quote]Chewwy wrote:
[quote]Amiright wrote:
Records will still be broken because a more capable athlete will come about one way or another. Records will always be broken… even without steroids. [/quote]
So you think the 100m will keep getting faster and faster till we have someone running 100m in under 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 seconds? Records will not always be broken.
[/quote]
Way to take it a little too literally… A world record is meant to stand for more then 2 days. Record will always be broken and when we reach the peak they will be tied(but that is a long long time away). Don’t know what the record for the 100 is off the top of my head but I bet it will be beat by a hundredth(or more) of a second in 10-20 years(maybe sooner) and so on. As far as your life or your children’s lives are concerned… record will always be broken. [/quote]
The record is apparently 9.58 set by that Bolt fella. I wonder how much faster its possible for a human to run.