Thick bikers

[John Edgar]

I don't know but it seems to be that people in the biking world are a
bit thick. Time and time again we have a drugging event, everyone
throws up their hands in horror and says " O merde, lets have a clear
out, a new start, and to quote this year's tour director, "a
revolution." Yes, let's do that shall we, and then over the next 12
months we can forget all about it and start all over again. That's
what'll happen, I can guarantee it.

Why don't they forget the whole thing and let them take the drugs.
It's their lives they are going to ruin isn't it?

John

[AustinMN]

On Jul 25, 4:19 am, John Edgar <ejwaddr-gro...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Why don't they forget the whole thing and let them take the drugs.
> It's their lives they are going to ruin isn't it?

In the off chance this isn't a troll...

At least that would make it clear what the competition is really all
about...who's the better doper.

Austin

[Art Harris]

John Edgar wrote:
> Why don't they forget the whole thing and let them take the drugs.
> It's their lives they are going to ruin isn't it?
>

1) Because it's not fair to the riders who don't want to take drugs
and ruin their lives. They might as well drop out of the sport if
drugs are permitted.

2) Because many potential team sponsors and TV advertisers don't want
their products to be associated with a druggy sport.

3) Because the sport is on the verge of dying because of the drug
scandals.

Art Harris

[Michael Warner]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:19:48 -0700, John Edgar wrote:

> I don't know but it seems to be that people in the biking world are a
> bit thick. Time and time again we have a drugging event, everyone
> throws up their hands in horror and says " O merde, lets have a clear
> out, a new start, and to quote this year's tour director, "a
> revolution." Yes, let's do that shall we, and then over the next 12
> months we can forget all about it and start all over again. That's
> what'll happen, I can guarantee it.

You're wrong. This is the first time that the pro teams have really been
put under the thumb of the anti-doping forces. Yes, it's sad to see
great performers kicked out for failing tests and behaving deceitfully,
but in the long run it'll save the sport.

[Roger Zoul]

Art Harris wrote:
:: John Edgar wrote:
::: Why don't they forget the whole thing and let them take the drugs.
::: It's their lives they are going to ruin isn't it?
:::
::
:: 1) Because it's not fair to the riders who don't want to take drugs
:: and ruin their lives. They might as well drop out of the sport if
:: drugs are permitted.
::

But they are at the back now anywho, so what's the difference?

:: 2) Because many potential team sponsors and TV advertisers don't want
:: their products to be associated with a druggy sport.

Well, seems like most sports are anyhow. What's the difference?

::
:: 3) Because the sport is on the verge of dying because of the drug
:: scandals.

Yeah, but this problem goes away if you remove the scandals. The drugs can
remain (not that I really want the drugs, but it seems we are doomed to this
fate).

[Art Harris]

Roger Zoul wrote:
> ::: Why don't they forget the whole thing and let them take the drugs.
> ::: It's their lives they are going to ruin isn't it?
> :::
> ::
> :: 1) Because it's not fair to the riders who don't want to take drugs
> :: and ruin their lives. They might as well drop out of the sport if
> :: drugs are permitted.
> ::
>
> But they are at the back now anywho, so what's the difference?
>
The difference is that if drugs are eliminated, those riders wouldn't
be at the back.

>
> :: 2) Because many potential team sponsors and TV advertisers don't want
> :: their products to be associated with a druggy sport.
>
> Well, seems like most sports are anyhow. What's the difference?
>
The difference is that If pro cycling caves in and legalizes drugs, it
would be the only sport to do so. Most corporate sponsors would take
their money elsewhere.

> ::
> :: 3) Because the sport is on the verge of dying because of the drug
> :: scandals.
>
> Yeah, but this problem goes away if you remove the scandals. The drugs can
> remain (not that I really want the drugs, but it seems we are doomed to this
> fate).

I disagree that it's hopeless. When winners of major events are
stripped of their titles, and are banned for a year or two (as has
happened), it has to significantly discourage drug taking. I think
this year's tour is cleaner than the past few years. I think baseball
is cleaner this year than a few years ago because of the testing.

World class athletes start training in their early teens. Has society
fallen so far that we'd tolerate kids of that age taking drugs just
for the future amusement of sports fans? Would their parents tolerate
it? I hope not.

Art Harris

[Roger Zoul]

Art Harris wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
:::::: Why don't they forget the whole thing and let them take the
:::::: drugs. It's their lives they are going to ruin isn't it?
::::::
:::::
::::: 1) Because it's not fair to the riders who don't want to take
::::: drugs and ruin their lives. They might as well drop out of the
::::: sport if drugs are permitted.
:::::
:::
::: But they are at the back now anywho, so what's the difference?
:::
:: The difference is that if drugs are eliminated, those riders wouldn't
:: be at the back.

You don't know that.

::
:::
::::: 2) Because many potential team sponsors and TV advertisers don't
::::: want their products to be associated with a druggy sport.
:::
::: Well, seems like most sports are anyhow. What's the difference?
:::
:: The difference is that If pro cycling caves in and legalizes drugs,
:: it would be the only sport to do so. Most corporate sponsors would
:: take their money elsewhere.

Or, perhaps, other sports would do the same thing.

::
:::::
::::: 3) Because the sport is on the verge of dying because of the drug
::::: scandals.
:::
::: Yeah, but this problem goes away if you remove the scandals. The
::: drugs can remain (not that I really want the drugs, but it seems we
::: are doomed to this fate).
::
:: I disagree that it's hopeless. When winners of major events are
:: stripped of their titles, and are banned for a year or two (as has
:: happened), it has to significantly discourage drug taking. I think
:: this year's tour is cleaner than the past few years.

Based on what? Seems as dirty as ever to me.

::
:: World class athletes start training in their early teens. Has society
:: fallen so far that we'd tolerate kids of that age taking drugs just
:: for the future amusement of sports fans? Would their parents tolerate
:: it? I hope not.

Well, I agree with you.

[Roger Zoul]

Michael Warner wrote:
:: On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:19:48 -0700, John Edgar wrote:
::
::: I don't know but it seems to be that people in the biking world are
::: a bit thick. Time and time again we have a drugging event, everyone
::: throws up their hands in horror and says " O merde, lets have a
::: clear out, a new start, and to quote this year's tour director, "a
::: revolution." Yes, let's do that shall we, and then over the next 12
::: months we can forget all about it and start all over again. That's
::: what'll happen, I can guarantee it.
::
:: You're wrong. This is the first time that the pro teams have really
:: been put under the thumb of the anti-doping forces. Yes, it's sad to
:: see great performers kicked out for failing tests and behaving
:: deceitfully, but in the long run it'll save the sport.

Well, Rasmussen has been pulled by his own team for lying.

[Michael Warner]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:23:25 -0400, Roger Zoul wrote:

> Well, Rasmussen has been pulled by his own team for lying.

I'm sure the race organizers and their sponsor are responsible for that.

[Roger Zoul]

Michael Warner wrote:
:: On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:23:25 -0400, Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::: Well, Rasmussen has been pulled by his own team for lying.
::
:: I'm sure the race organizers and their sponsor are responsible for
:: that.

No doubt. I read somewhere that it is thought he was visiting some
"yet-to-be-named" doctor.