Yolande de Villiers sanctioned for anti-doping rule violation

[BarHugger]

With all due respect, this is a typical troll post and I get the feeling you just wanted to argue.

 

It's Friday, so I won't go into more detail, except to say you haven't changed my mind one bit. Can't even say good try.

It's not a troll post.....simply pointing out that your comments towards Kabous were actually unnecessary.....in actual fact your comments towards him could even be read as trolling....so you think it's ok for someone like yourself to sit on here and judge another hubber who is entitled to an opinion....and it gets pointed out that he may have a valid point you just take decide to take the troll road....in actual fact your comments towards him as a medical professional come across as down right disrespectful......and yes it's Friday....but you left the door open.....

Edited June 3, 2016 by BarHugger

[andydude]

Thing is, last time I checked, the anti doping rules apply to joe soaps and pro's alike. Which means its all of our jobs to know whats on the banned substance list when competing in CSA sanctioned events. The rules apply to everyone, regardless of ability or where they finish in the field.

 

I'm just tired of the level of hypocrisy in cycling and amongst cycling commentators / fans. We know there is loads of doping going on in professional cycling (or at least we should), yet we worship superhuman performers..... until they get caught. Then and ONLY then, does the lynch mob come out to play..... This allows the UCI to occasionally hang out a scapegoat to dry and divert the public's attention away from the fact that most of the peleton are doping in one form or another.

 

And on hypocrisy, given that rules are rules - perhaps joe soaps should give some careful consideration to whats floating around in their bloodstreams whilst racing - because back marker or not, competing with a banned substance in your system makes you no better than Yolande, Rourke, Evans etc etc. Glass houses.

 

Very important point, rattlesnake. I've said on numerous times that we've all doped at some stage through medicine and/or supplements.

 

There have been numerous studies showing supplements are contaminated (can't remember exactly the percentage, but something like between 10 and 25%), whereafter I posed the question, would you take supplements if you know there was that chance that it's contaminated?

 

The only difference I can think of between pros and joes, is that pros get paid and win prize money while joes pay for their own entries and don't win anything. And that is a big difference and why they should be held to a higher level.

 

At some level I don't even think they should waste resources on joes and rather concentrate on pros and category riders who ride for money.

[Pure Savage]

Thing is, last time I checked, the anti doping rules apply to joe soaps and pro's alike. Which means its all of our jobs to know whats on the banned substance list when competing in CSA sanctioned events. The rules apply to everyone, regardless of ability or where they finish in the field.

 

I'm just tired of the level of hypocrisy in cycling and amongst cycling commentators / fans. We know there is loads of doping going on in professional cycling (or at least we should), yet we worship superhuman performers..... until they get caught. Then and ONLY then, does the lynch mob come out to play..... This allows the UCI to occasionally hang out a scapegoat to dry and divert the public's attention away from the fact that most of the peleton are doping in one form or another.

 

And on hypocrisy, given that rules are rules - perhaps joe soaps should give some careful consideration to whats floating around in their bloodstreams whilst racing - because back marker or not, competing with a banned substance in your system makes you no better than Yolande, Rourke, Evans etc etc. Glass houses.

Yes, but because some back marker has a little cold and some pills but still wants a vibe with his mates on the weekend we should take pity on a pro athlete that is taking a prohibited substance?

 

I agree that there should be zero tolerance across the board and competed at a few world champs in my younger years and was drug tested multiple times and was clean every time. I was not even a pro and managed to make sure not to take the wrong substances, it's not rocket science.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[andydude]

It's not a troll post.....simply pointing out that your comments towards Kabous were actually unnecessary.....in actual fact it could even be read as trolling....so you think it's ok for someone like yourself to sit on here and judge another hubber who is entitled to an opinion....and it gets pointed out that he may have a valid point you just take decide to take the troll road....in actual fact your comments towards him as a medical professional come across as down right disrespectful......and yes it's Friday....but you left the door open.....

 

I am not sure if you are serious or not, but I will try to answer some of your questions;

 

The whole premise of his post was that he talks from a highly knowledgable level, but then he talks about jellytots and unscientific methods to determine steroid and epo use. Does that make sense?

 

The "medial profession" is so wide that what he practises could have little relevance to the doping in sport topic.

 

I was not judging him, just pointing out a few fallacies in his argument. I neatly listed all the problems I see and my opinions on that.

 

Just because someone is a "medical professional" or a "pastor" or a whatever does not mean they are right, or wrong for that matter. But I give respect when earned, not for position or title.

 

What exactly was his opinion? He himself said the lady doped and got caught. If he wanted less ambiguity he should have explained more. Or perhaps you know more? From the way he wrote it it seemed he is backing a caught doper.

 

I do apologise if I came across as arrogant or patronizing; that was not my intention. But sometimes I just get tired of the excuses and reasons for doping.

[BarHugger]

I am not sure if you are serious or not, but I will try to answer some of your questions;

 

The whole premise of his post was that he talks from a highly knowledgable level, but then he talks about jellytots and unscientific methods to determine steroid and epo use. Does that make sense?

 

The "medial profession" is so wide that what he practises could have little relevance to the doping in sport topic.

 

I was not judging him, just pointing out a few fallacies in his argument. I neatly listed all the problems I see and my opinions on that.

 

Just because someone is a "medical professional" or a "pastor" or a whatever does not mean they are right, or wrong for that matter. But I give respect when earned, not for position or title.

 

What exactly was his opinion? He himself said the lady doped and got caught. If he wanted less ambiguity he should have explained more. Or perhaps you know more? From the way he wrote it it seemed he is backing a caught doper.

 

I do apologise if I came across as arrogant or patronizing; that was not my intention. But sometimes I just get tired of the excuses and reasons for doping.

I am being very serious.......

[raptor-22]

Very important point, rattlesnake. I've said on numerous times that we've all doped at some stage through medicine and/or supplements.

 

There have been numerous studies showing supplements are contaminated (can't remember exactly the percentage, but something like between 10 and 25%), whereafter I posed the question, would you take supplements if you know there was that chance that it's contaminated?

 

The only difference I can think of between pros and joes, is that pros get paid and win prize money while joes pay for their own entries and don't win anything. And that is a big difference and why they should be held to a higher level.

 

At some level I don't even think they should waste resources on joes and rather concentrate on pros and category riders who ride for money.

 

 

Its hypocritical to expect athletes to be held to different standards based on level of  professionalism.

 

in the corporate world the mail boy is held to the same ethical standards as the CEO.

 

 

Why do I always get the impression that cycling lynch mobs are made up of overweight unhappy people who talk a good ride but seldom have one?

[mazambaan]

"competed at a few world champs in my younger years and was drug tested multiple times and was clean every time"

 

now this reminds me of someone; who was it now?  

[Halfdoesyn]

Its hypocritical to expect athletes to be held to different standards based on level of  professionalism.

 

in the corporate world the mail boy Communications Facilitator is held to the same ethical standards as the CEO.

 

 

Why do I always get the impression that cycling lynch mobs are made up of overweight unhappy people who talk a good ride but seldom have one?

Fixed

[raptor-22]

[Patchelicious]

When pros dope and get caught, sponsors pull out of the sport.

When backer marker DL278 dopes, he is either not aware of his trangression, as its not his job to know, or if he is doing it intentionally he is just a really big dwis.

 

Point is, pros doping has a much more profound negative impact on cycling as a sport.

[BDF]

Its hypocritical to expect athletes to be held to different standards based on level of  professionalism.

 

in the corporate world the mail boy is held to the same ethical standards as the CEO.

 

 

Why do I always get the impression that cycling lynch mobs are made up of overweight unhappy people who talk a good ride but seldom have one?

It's also hypocritical to hold cyclists to different ethical standards than for example, drinking and driving, jay-walking, speeding, not completely stopping at a stop sign, tax evasion, spanking your kids, not paying your TV licence, music and DVD pirating, downloading movies without paying, and the list can go on.

 

Just saying...

 

There is hypocrisy all over the place if you look for it. In fact, I think there is a bit of "holier than thou" in all of us if the truth be told.

Edited June 3, 2016 by BDF

[raptor-22]

When pros dope and get caught, sponsors pull out of the sport.

When backer marker DL278 dopes, he is either not aware of his trangression, as its not his job to know, or if he is doing it intentionally he is just a really big dwis.

 

Point is, pros doping has a much more profound negative impact on cycling as a sport.

 

 

Name a sponsor that has left the sport but wasn't already in process of leaving when a rider carrying their name got bust.

[jimmycool]

Its hypocritical to expect athletes to be held to different standards based on level of professionalism.

 

in the corporate world the mail boy is held to the same ethical standards as the CEO.

 

 

Why do I always get the impression that cycling lynch mobs are made up of overweight unhappy people who talk a good ride but seldom have one?

Yes but to some extent the rules are actually different for the pro's compared to the rest of the field in road racing. The pro bunches are policed very strictly to ensure that there is no unfair advantage or cheating in any way but for the joes, you pretty much don't see the race officials once the gun goes off untill you reach the finish line and you can draft and push and pull whomever you please . And this is simply because there is so much more at stake for the pro's and their sponsors and teams and it needs to be done right. For the rest of us it really doesn't make much difference.

Yes, the doping rules are the same but the consequences of a pro doping versus a joe is where the huge difference lies. If a joe is bust for doping he makes an a$$hole of himself but if a pro is bust they make an a$$hole of their whole team and everyone who backs them.

[Patchelicious]

Name a sponsor that has left the sport but wasn't already in process of leaving when a rider carrying their name got bust.

Name a pro who got caught doping that didnt negatively affect the sport.

[raptor-22]

Name a pro who got caught doping that didnt negatively affect the sport.

 

 

the sport still exists

there are still more events than riders to choose from.

 

You need to define what you mean by "negatively affect the sport" as any incident could be construed as having a negative impact.

Long term harm? Only Armstrong but even that has blown over

short term harm? only for the rider caught

[Pure Savage]

the sport still exists

there are still more events than riders to choose from.

 

You need to define what you mean by "negatively affect the sport" as any incident could be construed as having a negative impact.

Long term harm? Only Armstrong but even that has blown over

short term harm? only for the rider caught

 

Where the damage is done is pushing youngsters into the position where the have to dope in order to compete and get a sponsor as those older riders with sponsors have doped and are stronger because of it.