SwissVan Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 Ok puzzled then, I would see it as follow. Junior sees dad popping a pill before a race: Junior: "Why are you taking those pills daddy?" Dad: "Ag, just for that extra oomph son" Junior gets dropped on the race and is miffed because daddy does so good. Next race junior recons he should also maybe try daddy's pills to help him and junior wins the race. Two outcomes; junior dies at young age or gets busted for doping at Elite level. ALSO what a lot of people forget, drug testing is not only about trying to catch people who are trying to cheat, it's about (trying to) preventing people taking stuff that could do them harm in the long run. A lot of these fancy weight loss pilletjies are ok if you just a normal person whose only exercise is walking to the garage to get into the car...combine it with real strenuous endurance exercise and it could be harmful.
Andrew Steer Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 ALSO what a lot of people forget, drug testing is not only about trying to catch people who are trying to cheat, it's about (trying to) preventing people taking stuff that could do them harm in the long run. A lot of these fancy weight loss pilletjies are ok if you just a normal person whose only exercise is walking to the garage to get into the car...combine it with real strenuous endurance exercise and it could be harmful.Survival of the fittest
rouxtjie Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 (edited) ALSO what a lot of people forget, drug testing is not only about trying to catch people who are trying to cheat, it's about (trying to) preventing people taking stuff that could do them harm in the long run. A lot of these fancy weight loss pilletjies are ok if you just a normal person whose only exercise is walking to the garage to get into the car...combine it with real strenuous endurance exercise and it could be harmful.I can't see that being their function swiss....they are there to catch the cheaters, not to tell johnny to stop pumping winnie in his veins. They should focus their resources better if this is indeed the case Edited July 17, 2014 by rouxtjie Tromp 1
RocknRolla Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 Different license categories should be implemented. Day license (amateur) - person riding the argust as their only yearly event, not eligible for any prize money. Normally these persons will not be tested, as they are not eligible to win. Testing any of these riders will be futile, as they arew not in contention for prize money. Racing license (pro rider - I use the term pro loosely, as there are numerous eligible racers that is not being paid, or sponsored) - person owning this license has intent to compete for position and prize money, thus they are subject to being tested. This however leaves the door open for amateur riders to work their way up the ranks for a season, and then going off the juice before obtaining a racing license and competing. Perhaps an aspiring rider wishing to obtain a racing license should compete for a year, and be subject to frequent testing to ensure no illegal substances are used. Danger Dassie 1
Pants Boy Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 I can't see that being their function swiss....they are there to catch the cheaters, not to tell johnny to stop pumping winnie in his veins. They should focus their resources better if this is indeed the caseAll the cheaters? Or just 'the guys at the front' that cheats? And, what's the difference? Cheating is cheating, no? SwissVan and gtr1 2
rouxtjie Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 All the cheaters? Or just 'the guys at the front' that cheats? And, what's the difference? Cheating is cheating, no?Sure cheating is cheating but considering the resources and budget where should they focus their efforts...on johnny or on the pro.
SwissVan Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 Ideally I would want anyone who is racing for a prize or national title etc to be tested - it's not fair on clean riders to miss out on their goals because someone else is taking shortcuts. That said, the Pro's have to be priority number one. If they don't have the budget to do the whole lot, then 150 test spread over the top 30 riders would be the better option - like you said, they are making the money, winning the races, getting the contracts. It would be nice to say with some modicum of hope that what we are admiring is actually real! How do we get this message to SAIDS/CSA etc?At a minimum the back marker testing needs to stop, it's an absolute joke! But they are testing the pro's, much more than the fun riders....I've never heard of a fun rider having to account 24/7 for his whereabouts for testing purposes or get tested at home. Problem might just be that the pro's are also pro's at not getting caught. IMO any rider who applies for a racing license should not complain if they get tested at an event, no matter if its benoni champs or cape epic
SwissVan Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 I can't see that being their function swiss....they are there to catch the cheaters, not to tell johnny to stop pumping winnie in his veins. They should focus their resources better if this is indeed the case I dunno...I recall reading somewhere sometime long ago.... that ONE of the purposes of drug testing was to protect and ensure the good health of athletes... the performance enhancing ideal has overshadowed the healthy ideal
Pants Boy Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 Sure cheating is cheating but considering the resources and budget where should they focus their efforts...on johnny or on the pro.Possibly at the point of greatest return? Ie where they are more likely to catch a cheater ... so, it would make sense to test in the pack - or as Dangle once put it "37 year old C-batch riders"
Andrew Steer Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 But they are testing the pro's, much more than the fun riders....I've never heard of a fun rider having to account 24/7 for his whereabouts for testing purposes or get tested at home. Problem might just be that the pro's are also pro's at not getting caught. IMO any rider who applies for a racing license should not complain if they get tested at an event, no matter if its benoni champs or cape epicThe Pro's here are not been tested much... none of the Mtb'ers in this country are even on the bio-passport. They don't have the funds. So all we are saying is rather focus the money we do have where it matters. If someone is doping at the Cape Pioneer to come 365th - I couldn't care less. That is entirely his problem... rouxtjie and Squier 2
SwissVan Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 The Pro's here are not been tested much... none of the Mtb'ers in this country are even on the bio-passport. They don't have the funds. So all we are saying is rather focus the money we do have where it matters. If someone is doping at the Cape Pioneer to come 365th - I couldn't care less. That is entirely his problem... And mine if he beats me... hence the zero tolerance.. I get the point tho
rouxtjie Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 I dunno...I recall reading somewhere sometime long ago.... that ONE of the purposes of drug testing was to protect and ensure the good health of athletes... the performance enhancing ideal has overshadowed the healthy idealIt shouldn't be......the return on investment is really stupid if health risks is ONE of their functions / purposes ....R5000 test(nevermind running costs of the anti-doping show) to tell someone that steroids are bad for them when they knew that upfront....makes no sense. There are greater evils ito health risks for the man on the street. Use all your resources where it matters. Bat and Underachiever 2
rouxtjie Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 Possibly at the point of greatest return? Ie where they are more likely to catch a cheater ... so, it would make sense to test in the pack - or as Dangle once put it "37 year old C-batch riders" Exactly the point....why are they measured by how many positives they find....no matter the candidate. Their KPI should be how frequently they test top contenders / positions at races.
fandacious Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 The Pro's here are not been tested much... none of the Mtb'ers in this country are even on the bio-passport. They don't have the funds. So all we are saying is rather focus the money we do have where it matters. If someone is doping at the Cape Pioneer to come 365th - I couldn't care less. That is entirely his problem... I've heard that andrew neethling is on biopassport. I know kevin evans is on bio passport
Frosty Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 (edited) Why do they only test MTB Vets and not road as well?I can't speak for the other races, as I'm not involved, but SAIDS were at this year's Carnival City Macsteel National Classic. There was a request for 6 cyclists to tested, split over Elite and Vets. There were specific names on the list (Vets), as well as a request for riders based on their finishing placings (Elites) The prize giving was delayed because some of the prize winners were busy with their in-competition testing. Edited July 17, 2014 by geraldm24 fandacious 1
Andrew Steer Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 Exactly the point....why are they measured by how many positives they find....no matter the candidate. Their KPI should be how frequently they test top contenders / positions at races.Eish... just had an insight into this all. Who do SAIDS get their money from? Government! Hey Khalid, you not getting positive's anymore - we going to cut your budget in haaf... the sport is clean!Hip hip hoorah, I can get another Mazedes Bends rouxtjie and Bat 2
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now