DOPING DOES NOT LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD

[andydude]

I included a poll to my original post.

[andydude]

Did postal have the biggest budget in '99? Surely there were teams and riders with much more experience and possibly cash wrt doping? By most accounts there were complete amateurs in the beginning

 

Hi JGR. I did some research and it seems they had one of the biggest budgets, if not the biggest.

 

The team budget & Lance

 

CN: What do you say about the figure of $12 million that has been estimated for the team's budget? That would make you the biggest-spending team in the sport, ahead of Telekom and Mapei.

 

MG: That figure is for 2002-4 and it's not far off the mark, so our budget for 2002 is bigger than Telekom's is now. You have to understand that Lance Armstrong commands a substantial salary and that budget includes Lance. I anticipate that Lance's extension of his relationship with the Postal Service and our company will be the largest deal ever for a pro cyclist, and I don't think that's surprising given what he's accomplishing on and off the bike, both competitively and in the value he's bringing for the Postal Service and other sponsors.

 

According to figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the U.S. Postal Service spent nearly $32 million to sponsor Lance Armstrong's cycling team from 2001 to 2004 and $40 million overall from 1994 to 2004.

 

 

Sources:

 

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/interviews/markgorski01.shtml

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Postal_Service_Pro_Cycling_Team

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2013/01/15/Lance-Postal-Team-Money

[rattlesnake]

. In a debate you bring your own proof, but nobody has been able to do that?

 

With all due respect I'm not sure that enough "science" or research has been applied or done to fully assess the impact of all of the various doping products due to the covert nature of doping Andy.

 

The study methodologies have not been wide enough and the sample sizes are all too small and the test subjects subjects arguably may not have been taking part in the same intensity training regime's as the top pro cyclists.

 

Doping has its highest benefits at a very high level of training, as it allows humans to push their bodies far further and longer.

 

Most (all) of the research studies out there test only one control element at a time. While one athlete may respond less to say EPO, the same athlete may benefit to a greater extent from say testosterone.

 

Some scientific evidence, in absence of sufficient and conclusive evidence is not sufficient in itself.

 

What I'm saying is that the way in which team doctors doped individual riders may have varied from case to case, given each riders biological response to the doping method.

 

So perhaps I might argue this:

If all pro riders were given access to doctors of same abilities and access to same products, doping would level the playing fields to a greater extent then the status quo. Note, a perfect world scenario of no doping at all does not and will not exist. Sad but true.

[Patchelicious]

So perhaps I might argue this:

If all pro riders were given access to doctors of same abilities and access to same products, doping would level the playing fields to a greater extent then the status quo. Note, a perfect world scenario of no doping at all does not and will not exist. Sad but true.

At minimum it will be more level than if, half doped and the rest did not at all.... Edited July 14, 2014 by Patchelicious

[andydude]

With all due respect I'm not sure that enough "science" or research has been applied or done to fully assess the impact of all of the various doping products due to the covert nature of doping Andy.

 

The study methodologies have not been wide enough and the sample sizes are all too small and the test subjects subjects arguably may not have been taking part in the same intensity training regime's as the top pro cyclists.

 

Doping has its highest benefits at a very high level of training, as it allows humans to push their bodies far further and longer.

 

Most (all) of the research studies out there test only one control element at a time. While one athlete may respond less to say EPO, the same athlete may benefit to a greater extent from say testosterone.

 

Some scientific evidence, in absence of sufficient and conclusive evidence is not sufficient in itself.

 

What I'm saying is that the way in which team doctors doped individual riders may have varied from case to case, given each riders biological response to the doping method.

 

So perhaps I might argue this:

If all pro riders were given access to doctors of same abilities and access to same products, doping would level the playing fields to a greater extent then the status quo. Note, a perfect world scenario of no doping at all does not and will not exist. Sad but true.

 

Agreed rattle. The problem is you'll never get studies showing something 100% because you can never test 100% of the people and 100% of the variables. You can only get very close.

 

Using your own argument "Some scientific evidence, in absence of sufficient and conclusive evidence is not sufficient in itself." would guide me until further research is done in the sense that I'll trust "some scientific evidence" as done by reputable sport scientists much more than "no scientific evidence" as done by people not even involved in the subject.

 

So for this we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

I think I've said enough, read enough and researched enough to be comfortable in my opinion at the moment, but a mind is nothing if it can't be changed.

[Patchelicious]

I think I've said enough, read enough and researched enough to be comfortable in my opinion at the moment, but a mind is nothing if it can't be changed.

I might have missed this earlier in the thread, but where did you get your medical degree?

[andydude]

I might have missed this earlier in the thread, but where did you get your medical degree?

 

My opinion is based on the work of sport scientists which I and many others rate highly. I've never done any medical or scientific reseach myself and I've never said that.

 

I can understand there's so many sub-topics and questions arising from this and I apologise if I can't answer it all, because my believe is based on someone else's work.

 

I'm not sure what you're actually trying to achieve?

[Blackheart]

But that begs a different question - on the adage not the performance factor. LA aside im sure there were many who doped just to not get dropped - let alone win. Are they a different type of cheater?

 

A cheat is a cheat.

Paul Kimmage (now an anti doping crusader) didn't want to dope but eventually had to just to stop abandoning races, found out he still wasn't good enough, saw out a brief career in bitterness, wrote a whiney book, now 'exposes' drug cheats.

 

HIs hypocrisy is more offensive than his cheating.