I can't take it anymore

[MulletMan]

2 words: operation puerto

next time, do a little research so then there's less possibility of looking ignorant.

I'm not going to get into the parsing and arguing that is going on in this thread, however, I can't resist responding to this comment. Especially because it takes the time to directly insult another poster.

If you had any idea about what went on with Operacion Puerto you would know, 1. that a number of the high-profile riders who were originally implicated in the case, including Jan Ullrich, Joseba Bolki, Ivan Basso and the ENTIRE Comunidad Valenciana team have been completely cleared of wrong doing due to the fact that it was a witch hunt; and 2. That the case, as a whole, has actually been thrown out of the Spanish courts for lack of evidence on a technicality. While the investigation will continue under the guidance of WADA and UCI, hopefully determining who, of the remaining accused actually was doping, it is far from a confirmation that ALL cyclists are doping, or that they are the only athletes invovled, as Fuentes' records also included a number of football, baseball and tennis players.

Don't make counter arguements calling someone ignorant and accusing them of not doing research if you do not plan to hold yourself to similar standards.

[hughgs]

2 words: operation puerto

next time, do a little research so then there's less possibility of looking ignorant.

Careful for what you wish for. I have been following Operation Puerto since the very beginning. Since you think Operation Puerto shows that "most" cyclist dope, then point me to an article (not opinion page) that demonstrates how Operation Puerto gives evidence that "most" cyclist dope.

I don't think you have any clue about the world of cycling. There's more to cycling than just pedaling over different terrains. There are strategies involved which would make you wince. Do you even understand what a professional cyclist is? How about the different levels of professional cycling? I'll tell you what, simply explain to me how the UCI ranks their races and I"ll believe that you know a little about cycling. Until then, you should try and avoid make blanket statements about athletes in sports that you know nothing about.

Get back to me when you've found your answers to my questions on Operation Puerto. In fact, I'll point you to a good, unbiased web site:

www.cyclingnews.com

[throatybeard]

Before this becomes a complete thread hijack, could we all agree at least on the assertion, as forumlated so:

Endurance comparisons between freshman basketball players and cyclists are flawed partly because more cyclists participate in blood doping than do freshman basketball players.

[hughgs]

Before this becomes a complete thread hijack, could we all agree at least on the assertion, as forumlated so:

Endurance comparisons between freshman basketball players and cyclists are flawed partly because more cyclists participate in blood doping than freshman basketball players.

Coward !

[throatybeard]

At least this has re-sensitized me to the idea that "Lance doped; no he didn't" ought to be in the Handy Pocket Reference.

[mapei]

Hmmm. I go away from the board for a couple of days, come back to this thread, find it too time-consuming to read in its entirety, and skip to the last page. Imagine my utter surprise to see a mini flame-war going on about my real favorite sport.

My points, in no particular order:

1. Cyclingnews.com is a great web site, one of my favorites. But I don't think it is completely unbiased, since it does play to its English-speaking audience and favors English-speaking riders and teams somewhat.

2. Anyway, it's a VERY thin line between what is/should be legal and what isn't/shouldn't be in cycling, e.g., oxygen-deprivation tents are OK to increase your red-blood-cell levels, but EPO isn't, "nutritional supplements" are OK, asthma medicines aren't (with exceptions), and so on. My personal opinion is that these rules have gotten so convoluted trying to keep up with technology that they have become arbitrary and no more fair than the things they are trying to prevent.

3. While not all cyclists are doping, you can bet that many, including our American heroes, are at least pushing the envelope of legality as far as they can. Sometimes they cross over. And guess what? That's true of every other pro sport.

4. And, if you think that college basketball is somehow inherently more pure, then you had better take a closer look at the academic profiles of our sport's student-athletes. Even Duke has recruited players from prep schools under investigation for being academic shams.

5. Whoever said that there were a lot of non-cyclists on Dr. Fuentes's list is absolutely right.

6. Are you guys crazy? Am I? This has nothing to do with basketball.

7. While I wouldn't say that the peak-training methods employed in endurance sports are completely irrelevant to basketball, which puts very different demands on the body, I don't think they are totally transferable, either.

[tbyers11]

Before this becomes a complete thread hijack, could we all agree at least on the assertion, as forumlated so:

Endurance comparisons between freshman basketball players and cyclists are flawed partly because more cyclists participate in blood doping than do freshman basketball players.

If this is true, ESPN will have to find a new nugget of wisdom to have their sideline reporters repeat ad nasueum next year.

[Zeke]

Basketball is an anaerobic sport -- lots of stopping and starting. FWIW, I think the fatigue a team endures is more the result of practicing hard all week, catching up on studies at a tough university, balancing all that time, etc., than two 40-minute games a week. And I think the fatigue might be mental as much as physical.

Right on Jumbo. You are elequent.

[dukie8]

I'm not going to get into the parsing and arguing that is going on in this thread, however, I can't resist responding to this comment. Especially because it takes the time to directly insult another poster.

If you had any idea about what went on with Operacion Puerto you would know, 1. that a number of the high-profile riders who were originally implicated in the case, including Jan Ullrich, Joseba Bolki, Ivan Basso and the ENTIRE Comunidad Valenciana team have been completely cleared of wrong doing due to the fact that it was a witch hunt; and 2. That the case, as a whole, has actually been thrown out of the Spanish courts for lack of evidence on a technicality. While the investigation will continue under the guidance of WADA and UCI, hopefully determining who, of the remaining accused actually was doping, it is far from a confirmation that ALL cyclists are doping, or that they are the only athletes invovled, as Fuentes' records also included a number of football, baseball and tennis players.

Don't make counter arguements calling someone ignorant and accusing them of not doing research if you do not plan to hold yourself to similar standards.

if you had read the entire thread, you would have realized that the "direct insult" actually was what was verbatim written previously by said poster TO ME.

i don't feel like hijacking this thread and turning it into a cycling discussion and will defer to mapei because most of what he wrote was spot on. however, i will address several of the points made. first, i was NOT the original poster who brought doping up but rather just concurred with what he wrote. with that being said, there is an ENORMOUS difference between saying that ALL of the cyclists are doped and MOST of them are. i'm not a former pro cyclist but i know enough of them to know that, as mapei noted, far too many of them are doping. it's a dirty sport and to compete at that level, help is needed. as mapei noted, it's no different from many other sports (eg, the nfl). i actually do know a thing or 2 about OP and the fact that the case against eufemiano fuentes was tossed out due to a weak case against him is highly irrelevant regarding what actually was found on his premises. you can pontificate all you want about how it was a "witch hunt" (which, by the way doesn't absolve one of wrong doing in a legal matter) but the fact of the matter is that A LOT of blood nicely linked to many top riders along with all the goods to properly administer it were found there. the evidence was enough for the 2 co-favorites to win the tour de france last year, basso and ulrich, to be kicked out of the event right before it started and for t-mobile to fire ulrich. you can believe what you want about this case and whether hamilton is a chimera and whether bonds or marion jones is involved with balco but i have seen enough to know that these are not clean athletes.

then i come across this wippersnapper:

I don't think you have any clue about the world of cycling. There's more to cycling than just pedaling over different terrains. There are strategies involved which would make you wince. Do you even understand what a professional cyclist is? How about the different levels of professional cycling? I'll tell you what, simply explain to me how the UCI ranks their races and I"ll believe that you know a little about cycling. Until then, you should try and avoid make blanket statements about athletes in sports that you know nothing about.

you have no idea what my athletic background is so you might want to hold back your taunts regarding what would make me wince. this is the kind of post that should be in the form of a pm so i won't waste much bandwidth attempting to prove to some anonymous person on dbr that i know the difference between paris-roubaix and the giro d'italia. however, if you ever are in the nyc area and would like to time trial in central park, tete-e-tete, send me a pm and i am game for it (and i won't be doped for it).

[hughgs]

if you had read the entire thread, you would have realized that the "direct insult" actually was what was verbatim written previously by said poster TO ME.

i don't feel like hijacking this thread and turning it into a cycling discussion and will defer to mapei because most of what he wrote was spot on. however, i will address several of the points made. first, i was NOT the original poster who brought doping up but rather just concurred with what he wrote. with that being said, there is an ENORMOUS difference between saying that ALL of the cyclists are doped and MOST of them are. i'm not a former pro cyclist but i know enough of them to know that, as mapei noted, far too many of them are doping. it's a dirty sport and to compete at that level, help is needed. as mapei noted, it's no different from many other sports (eg, the nfl). i actually do know a thing or 2 about OP and the fact that the case against eufemiano fuentes was tossed out due to a weak case against him is highly irrelevant regarding what actually was found on his premises. you can pontificate all you want about how it was a "witch hunt" (which, by the way doesn't absolve one of wrong doing in a legal matter) but the fact of the matter is that A LOT of blood nicely linked to many top riders along with all the goods to properly administer it were found there. the evidence was enough for the 2 co-favorites to win the tour de france last year, basso and ulrich, to be kicked out of the event right before it started and for t-mobile to fire ulrich. you can believe what you want about this case and whether hamilton is a chimera and whether bonds or marion jones is involved with balco but i have seen enough to know that these are not clean athletes.

then i come across this wippersnapper:



you have no idea what my athletic background is so you might want to hold back your taunts regarding what would make me wince. this is the kind of post that should be in the form of a pm so i won't waste much bandwidth attempting to prove to some anonymous person on dbr that i know the difference between paris-roubaix and the giro d'italia. however, if you ever are in the nyc area and would like to time trial in central park, tete-e-tete, send me a pm and i am game for it (and i won't be doped for it).

Actually, the original poster simply said that in his opinion that most riders cheat. And clearly stated that it was his opinion. You then said "most of them are doped". I asked you to prove that claim. You then claim that Operation Puerto is proof that "most" cyclist are doping and I asked you to prove it. You then say that since riders were kicked that they must have been doping. You obviously aren't following the case very closely or you would understand that the "evidence" that was used to support the suspension of the riders had to do with the fact that they were implicated and nothing to do with any evidence of doping. So, once again I ask you to show me how Operation Puerto demonstrates that "most" cyclist are doping.

And, I stand by my declaration that in your previous posts you were showing your ignorance. Ignorance is not an insult but merely a statement that don't have the knowledge of a particular subject, in this case professional cycling. We are all ignorant of many things.

[hughgs]

1. Cyclingnews.com is a great web site, one of my favorites. But I don't think it is completely unbiased, since it does play to its English-speaking audience and favors English-speaking riders and teams somewhat.

I simply meant that Cyclingnews.com, to me, was unbiased with regards to straight new reporting. Yes, their news tends to be Australian, but I think their coverage on Operation Puerto has been unbiased. I should've been more clear about that.

3. While not all cyclists are doping, you can bet that many, including our American heroes, are at least pushing the envelope of legality as far as they can. Sometimes they cross over. And guess what? That's true of every other pro sport.

And just to be clear, that is a far different indictment than saying that "most" cyclists or any particular cyclist is doping.

6. Are you guys crazy? Am I? This has nothing to do with basketball.

Well, that's true, but if you remember, I will always lash out at posters who make blanket statements about cycling and doping. And, besides, it's the off season and Contador just won Paris-Nice (though he has to wear that uninspiring white jersey).

[mapei]

I say let's make it a team time trial and all kick *** in the Park.

[dockfan]

At least this has re-sensitized me to the idea that "Lance doped; no he didn't" ought to be in the Handy Pocket Reference.

Lance Thomas did NOT dope!!!!!

[throatybeard]

Did Armstrong?

[dukie8]

If you had any idea about what went on with Operacion Puerto you would know, 1. that a number of the high-profile riders who were originally implicated in the case, including Jan Ullrich, Joseba Bolki, Ivan Basso and the ENTIRE Comunidad Valenciana team have been completely cleared of wrong doing due to the fact that it was a witch hunt; and 2. That the case, as a whole, has actually been thrown out of the Spanish courts for lack of evidence on a technicality. While the investigation will continue under the guidance of WADA and UCI, hopefully determining who, of the remaining accused actually was doping, it is far from a confirmation that ALL cyclists are doping, or that they are the only athletes invovled, as Fuentes' records also included a number of football, baseball and tennis players.

Don't make counter arguements calling someone ignorant and accusing them of not doing research if you do not plan to hold yourself to similar standards.

really? you seemed so sure that op merely was a witch hunt and that basso was "completely cleared of wrong doing" (whatever that means) and then the bombshell comes out this week that basso fully admitted to doping in op:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...ay07/may08news

[hughgs]

really? you seemed so sure that op merely was a witch hunt and that basso was "completely cleared of wrong doing" (whatever that means) and then the bombshell comes out this week that basso fully admitted to doping in op:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...ay07/may08news

Once again, you misinterpret what happened. Basso has not admitted to doping, merely to giving his blood for the purposes of doping. While the penalty is the same (according to Basso) you cannot equate the two actions. But, don't let the facts get in the way of your opinions.

And, at the time Mulletman responded, Basso was totally cleared of any doping. Mulletman merely reported what had occurred. You're the only one who has an agenda.

[Lord Ash]

Oh lord, it's BIKE RIDING. Who cares?



Back to basketball! Only a few hundred days to go!

[dukie8]

Once again, you misinterpret what happened. Basso has not admitted to doping, merely to giving his blood for the purposes of doping. While the penalty is the same (according to Basso) you cannot equate the two actions. But, don't let the facts get in the way of your opinions.

And, at the time Mulletman responded, Basso was totally cleared of any doping. Mulletman merely reported what had occurred. You're the only one who has an agenda.

i don't have an agenda. i just don't have my head in the sand when it comes to doping and pro sports. basso never was "totally" cleared of any doping and i don't even know what that would involve. moreover, how does op amount to a witch hunt it turns out that the lab actually was involved with illegal sports doping. the fact is that bags of blood with his code name were found in a major international doping operation. now you can go on believing he was just playing around giving blood to the lab but most everyone else know what they were doing there -- the same goes for barry bonds and marion jones with respect to balco.

[throatybeard]

Wow, this is astoundingly relevant in a basketball thread in May.

[SilkyJ]

Just to stay relevant

I HATE UNC

9F 9F 9F!!!!!!!!!