A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
gh wrote:Surely you're not suggesting that the DDR was the only nation doping in that era?!
Or if you're saying they had a better doping system,you're also off the mark. What they had was the world's best talent-ID/coaching/nurturing system, combined with the same drugs that everybody else was taking. (Or, more likely, usually a year or three behind the latest developments that the cunning Westerners were coming up with.)
This ^^
gh wrote:ps--one other thing the DDR did have: an accredited IOC lab (Kreischa?), which allowed them to perform the best tests available on their own athletes, outside of official sampling, and know how to fine-tune to the right tolerances. There weren't many accredited labs in those days, as I recall.
and this ^^
By the 80's the GDR were definitely 'old school' in the drugs they were administering and never got onto giving their athletes HGH, unlike athletes the USA. And we know which western athletes were on that stuff in that decade.
Unfortunately, too many blinkered western fans ignore all the above. Bit like when they were in denial over Armstrong.
On Lance, I thought he revealed more than expected but still not enough. I guess it was appropriate for a TV interview and let us hope he co-operates more with WADA now. But I find him even more distasteful than before.
gh wrote:Surely you're not suggesting that the DDR was the only nation doping in that era?!
Or if you're saying they had a better doping system,you're also off the mark. What they had was the world's best talent-ID/coaching/nurturing system, combined with the same drugs that everybody else was taking. (Or, more likely, usually a year or three behind the latest developments that the cunning Westerners were coming up with.)
ps--one other thing the DDR did have: an accredited IOC lab (Kreischa?), which allowed them to perform the best tests available on their own athletes, outside of official sampling, and know how to fine-tune to the right tolerances. There weren't many accredited labs in those days, as I recall.
Okay, besides the USSR, what other nations do you think could have possibly had a better state-run doping program? Did American athletes have access to a better doping regimen, complete with internal testing? Which nations are you talking about? Was Evelyn Ashford playing on a level playing field in the prime of her career?
jazzcyclist wrote:Okay, besides the USSR, what other nations do you think could have possibly had a better state-run doping program? Did American athletes have access to a better doping regimen, complete with internal testing? Which nations are you talking about? Was Evelyn Ashford playing on a level playing field in the prime of her career?
Since this sort of speculation is not permissible here, I'll just say that the evidence suggests that many while the doping was global and deep-seated (esp. in the 80s and 90s), the 'eastern bloc' nations seemed to have a more 'communistic' (systemic) approach, while the 'western bloc' had a more 'free market' (individual/small group) approach. Both are viable approaches and capable of great sophistication.
Not that I was sympathetic towards him before, but besides Armstrong, one person that I have no sympathy for in this whole saga is Floyd Landis, while Emma O'Reilly is the most sympathetic figure in this story.
Marlow wrote:Since this sort of speculation is not permissible here, I'll just say that the evidence suggests that many while the doping was global and deep-seated (esp. in the 80s and 90s), the 'eastern bloc' nations seemed to have a more 'communistic' (systemic) approach, while the 'western bloc' had a more 'free market' (individual/small group) approach. Both are viable approaches and capable of great sophistication.
Of course individual western athletes made the decision to dope, but do you really believe that individuals can match nation-states in these matters? Nation-states, which have vast resources, have always been able to do things beyond the capability of private companies, such as building the atom bomb and putting man in space, so why to you think that would be any different when it comes to doping?
jazzcyclist wrote:My only problem is that he seems to still be honoring the omerta which meant that he wouldn't talk candidly about other people. I guess I can respect the fact that he doesn't want to rat other people out, but it would have made for a much more compelling interview if he had ratted.
He's about to lose most of his net worth. Ratting out people would invite lawsuits, which would be hard to defend against if he no longer has any evidence against them other than his own words.
jazzcyclist wrote:Of course individual western athletes made the decision to dope, but do you really believe that individuals can match nation-states in these matters?
Yes, in many cases the medical 'advice' was probably top-notch in some western enclaves. The DDR approach seemed 'blunt' in many cases, where More = Better. Figuring out when to give how much was the key and it sure seems like "all the time, a lot" was the primary protocol. I'd guess the Soviet (Russia) science was the best.
jazzcyclist wrote:Okay, besides the USSR, what other nations do you think could have possibly had a better state-run doping program? Did American athletes have access to a better doping regimen, complete with internal testing? Which nations are you talking about? Was Evelyn Ashford playing on a level playing field in the prime of her career?
American athletes had better access to a range of drugs. You couldn't pick and choose what to take in the GDR, you were given it (without your consent). In the USA you could get your hands on HGH,for example, and not even worry about failing a test for it as one didn't exist. You could pump your body full of all sorts of things and tailor it accordingly. And some people did and paid the ultimate price for doing so - death.
Was Ashford playing on a level playing field? No, she was one of the lucky ones with access to whatever she chose, if she so wished, I might add.
jazzcyclist wrote:Of course individual western athletes made the decision to dope, but do you really believe that individuals can match nation-states in these matters? Nation-states, which have vast resources, have always been able to do things beyond the capability of private companies, such as building the atom bomb and putting man in space, so why to you think that would be any different when it comes to doping?
The 'endless pot of money' that communist countries had is a myth. And what you fail to realise is the scope of doping in western nations. This was not a communist systems vs individuals & coaches, This was a communist system vs federations. Federations that covered up drugs tests, federations that asked meet international promoters not to test their athletes at international 'friendly' matches, federations that encouraged athletes to take drugs and provided the means to do so. Do not kid yourself that it wasn't so organised.
1. LA is an overbearing bufoon with little regard for civilized behavior. 2. He won fair and square since he did not do anything that all of his competitors did not. That applies to Le Tour as well as the OG's. 3. Singling out LA as an "example" is a crying shame. IOC in particular. Stripping him of a bronze medal 13 years after the fact while leaving gold and silver medalists, also known dopers intact is a joke.
jazzcyclist wrote:Of course individual western athletes made the decision to dope, but do you really believe that individuals can match nation-states in these matters?
Yes, in many cases the medical 'advice' was probably top-notch in some western enclaves. The DDR approach seemed 'blunt' in many cases, where More = Better. Figuring out when to give how much was the key and it sure seems like "all the time, a lot" was the primary protocol. I'd guess the Soviet (Russia) science was the best.
Are you saying that East Germany was good, but the USSR was better? Maybe you're right, but that's irrelevant to my point which is that the East Germans were good enough not to get caught, and they had more resources able to them than any western individual.
Gabriella wrote:Was Ashford playing on a level playing field? No, she was one of the lucky ones with access to whatever she chose, if she so wished, I might add.
Okey dokey.
Gabriella wrote:The 'endless pot of money' that communist countries had is a myth. And what you fail to realise is the scope of doping in western nations. This was not a communist systems vs individuals & coaches, This was a communist system vs federations. Federations that covered up drugs tests, federations that asked meet international promoters not to test their athletes at international 'friendly' matches, federations that encouraged athletes to take drugs and provided the means to do so. Do not kid yourself that it wasn't so organised.
Unfortunately, considering the other things you've posted on this thread, I can't put much credence in what you're claiming.
jazzcyclist wrote:Are you saying that East Germany was good, but the USSR was better? Maybe you're right, but that's irrelevant to my point which is that the East Germans were good enough not to get caught, and they had more resources able to them than any western individual.
The DDR dominated the 70s before everyone was as organized as they. I 'think' the Soviets ended up better and I think in many cases US athletes were very sophisticated.
Pego wrote:This is my view of the Lance Armstrong situation.
1. LA is an overbearing bufoon with little regard for civilized behavior. 2. He won fair and square since he did not do anything that all of his competitors did not. That applies to Le Tour as well as the OG's. 3. Singling out LA as an "example" is a crying shame. IOC in particular. Stripping him of a bronze medal 13 years after the fact while leaving gold and silver medalists, also known dopers intact is a joke.
I couldn't have said it better myself pego. Rick O'Reilly has been pathetic these last couple of days talking about how much Lance hurt and disappointed him and how he put his reputation on the line to defend him. Any journalist who covered Lance and bought into the myth was like an ostrich with his head buried in the sand. Compare his reaction to that of Sally Jenkins' who is unfazed by the admission since it turns out that Lance is exactly the person who she co-authored two books with and who she always thought he was.
jazzcyclist wrote:.... Are you saying that East Germany was good, but the USSR was better? Maybe you're right, but that's irrelevant to my point which is that the East Germans were good enough not to get caught, and they had more resources able to them than any western individual.
I'll bow out of this conversation by simply saying, jazz, that you couldn't be more wrong. An inconvenient truth of the highest order.
Gabriella wrote:By the 80's the GDR were definitely 'old school' in the drugs they were administering and never got onto giving their athletes HGH, unlike athletes the USA. And we know which western athletes were on that stuff in that decade.
You imply that we know everyone who was using HGH, but that just isn't true. We may know some of who they were, but it seems like some others get lumped in despite being innocent. You seem to have a problem with one particular American woman who shouldn't be included with the rest.
Charlie Francis said that the Soviets knew a little about drugs, the GDR more, and the US were the world leaders. He based his drug protocols for his athletes on what the GDR were doing, and recounted Angella Issajenko telling him one of her US counterparts, a member of a leading training group, had disclosed she was taking ten times the dose Issajenko was. It seems then that at least some US athletes in some events were taking drug dosages far in excess of their GDR equivalents.
As I understand it, the GDR cycled their drug use periodically, but the Soviets took far greater doses over the course of the year, then would maybe take sabbatical years in less important seasons in an effort to avoid saturation.
jazzcyclist wrote:My only problem is that he seems to still be honoring the omerta which meant that he wouldn't talk candidly about other people. I guess I can respect the fact that he doesn't want to rat other people out, but it would have made for a much more compelling interview if he had ratted.
He's about to lose most of his net worth. Ratting out people would invite lawsuits, which would be hard to defend against if he no longer has any evidence against them other than his own words.
He may well have conversations with the likes of USADA. I would think he would want to hold on to some 'chips' for the modest leverage that it might bring him. By comparison, Bonds and Clemens were about as forthcoming as a lump of coal.
For all the condemnations here, Lance, and others in this saga have told more about the whole process than almost anyone involved the top. Of course, the Johnson affair had similar 'big splash' and at a time when it was less well known by the public.
I note that he claims that he did not use PEDs in his comeback, which was likely against a cleaner, if not clean, set of competition. The USADA claims he did but bases that off much thinner evidence that the prior era -- just the biological passport -- and that claim may have been strategic and one they knew that they could just throw out there. While allocuting to many things, the recent usage and the Swiss test are ones that he disputes. He also did not seem to make any admission about usage prior to cancer and it seemed that he said that he did not use PEDs in the late-1997, 1998 period (he was fourth in the Tour of Spain in 1998, I think). [I just saw in one of the summaries (Rojo) that he did say he doped before cancer, and that Oprah used that to cut off his 'defense' about becoming more no-holds-barred.]
I note that he claims that he did not use PEDs in his comeback...
As I said last night, I believe this is a strategic move(is there any other kind with Armstrong?) so Armstrong can potentially deal with USADA to have his 8-year ban made retroactive to his last confirmed/admitted violation, which is 2005, and makes him eligible to return in...
I note that he claims that he did not use PEDs in his comeback...
As I said last night, I believe this is a strategic move(is there any other kind with Armstrong?) so Armstrong can potentially deal with USADA to have his 8-year ban made retroactive to his last confirmed/admitted violation, which is 2005, and makes him eligible to return in...
Yes, but that is very dangerous because he knows if he is caught on that one he is really done for. Maybe he thinks that it is worth it, but it is a pretty big gamble, and he knows what USADA has in those thousand pages and what they might have. He also likely will have meetings with them where that topic will come up and he would have to be able to demonstrate to them why he thinks he can show that they are wrong.
26mi235 wrote:He also did not seem to make any admission about usage prior to cancer and it seemed that he said that he did not use PEDs in the late-1997, 1998 period (he was fourth in the Tour of Spain in 1998, I think). [I just saw in one of the summaries (Rojo) that he did say he doped before cancer, and that Oprah used that to cut off his 'defense' about becoming more no-holds-barred.]
He actually said that he began doping in the "mid-90's", presumably right after he turned pro in 1993.
guru wrote:As I said last night, I believe this is a strategic move(is there any other kind with Armstrong?) so Armstrong can potentially deal with USADA to have his 8-year ban made retroactive to his last confirmed/admitted violation, which is 2005, and makes him eligible to return in...
Yes, but that is very dangerous because he knows if he is caught on that one he is really done for. Maybe he thinks that it is worth it, but it is a pretty big gamble, and he knows what USADA has in those thousand pages and what they might have. He also likely will have meetings with them where that topic will come up and he would have to be able to demonstrate to them why he thinks he can show that they are wrong.
But I'm thinking that if he doped in 2009 and 2010, wouldn't his teammates have known about it and wouldn't they have already testified to the Feds and USADA about it? I think that there's one thing that all of us can probabl;y agree on, and that is if he rode clean in 2009 and 2010, then the peleton would have to have been clean in those years, but if the peleton was still dirty in those years, then he's lying.
On our Facebook page, the commentary is def. running anti-Lance at this point. The first poster in, though, said this
<<I still think highly of him! He almost died from cancer an to come back an win like he did is unbelieveable! God I believe had plans for him or the cancer would have killed him. Now get off his back!!>>
jazzcyclist wrote:Does Track & Field News have a facebook page that I'm unaware of?
apparently you've never noticed the link front and center on the home page.
Twitter too.
I guess I don't do facebook enough to recognize symbols like that.
By the way, here's what Sally Jenkins had to say on the subject of PED use in a Charlie Rose interview from earlier this week:
I’m an outlier on the topic of doping in sports, so what you’re gonna get from me is probably not the prevailing attitude towards it. I think it’s a terrible, terrible moral dilemma and a very complicated question. I think we’ve done a poor job of defining what doping is, what is therapy vs. what is doping, what helps a guy simply get back on the bike to ride another day vs. what gives him a genuine competitive advantage, what substances are truly performance enhancing and which are just on the list. We have things float on and off lists. I don’t have the moral certitude that a lot of people do on the anti-doping question. I think that it’s a matter of personal conscience. I think we’re doing a bad job of persuading athletes that it’s not the best option. I don’t think we’re talking to them honestly about it, and I don’t think we’re listening to them honestly about it. So I have a lot of complicated feelings about this quite apart from Lance Armstrong, and I always have….I think we’re on the wrong track, and I think that quite apart from Lance.
Pego, correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like something you might have said.
And not having read the entire USADA report like Jenkins did, I thought she posed an interesting question about Floyd Landis in her recent column: "The affidavits taken by USADA make it clear that while Lance refused to use HGH, Floyd Landis introduced it to younger riders, so why is the federal government considering giving Landis whistle-blower protection?"
Earlier I mentioned that I knew Armstrong was an asshole after I read his book, so I find it somewhat humorous that Jenkins takes a potshot at the Pollyannas with this paragraph from her column:
"Maybe I’m not angry at Lance because I’ve never believed there was a more innocent sporting past, and I am not one of those people, unlike his prosecutors, who get nervous and angry when great athletes are too far removed from my own image of myself. And 25 years of writing about champions has convinced me that they are indeed, very, very different from you and me, and their qualities are often dark. And because “It’s Not About the Bike” tried to state that quite clearly."
