| |
Main
Date: 10 Aug 2007 09:35:54
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Why the old guard may need to go
|
Ultimately, I think it's time for Johan, and the other directors from that
generation, to step aside. Too much history, too much association with
doping. If things are truly going to change, and if the ASO stays so stupid
that it refuses to extend any forgiveness whatsoever to sins of the past,
then the people themselves have to leave. But we're missing a huge
opportunity in doing so. An opportunity that's probably already past, I'm
afraid.
It would have made more sense, I think, if those of yesteryear were allowed
to talk, and become instruments of change, rather than be forced to continue
with their non-secrets still packed away in the closet, leaving the riders
to believe that it's OK if you don't get caught, and that the anti-doping
efforts aren't any more serious now than then.
All because those associated with those past times can't deal with it openly
without fear of being banned from cycling.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
|
|
| |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 04:31:37
From: Mark
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
On Aug 11, 8:44 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> Explain how they could synthesize EPO without recombinant DNA techniques
> which were exceedingly crude until the 1993 discovery of PCR techniques by
> Kerry Mullis. Guess where I was working then.
Doesn't matter where you were working but glad you were employed.
Unfortunately, you are presently confusing the 1993 award of the Nobel
prize in chemistry to Kerry with the actual invention of the technique
in the early 1980s. That alone demonstrates your lack of knowledge and
expertise on this particular topic.
Regardless, PCR is certainly not required to clone genes nor to
express and purify small proteins like EPO. You posit is particularly
amusing in that if PCR was required to make EPO but didn't exist until
1993 (which is wrong) then exactly how did the wizards at Amgen do
clinical trials with rhuEPO in the mid-1980s and get the product
approved in 1989?
OK, you ponder that for a while and I'll go ride my bike for a few
hours.
> Because you THINK that it is likely that people were using hormones that
> weren't even known before you believe they were, doesn't make it so.
Indeed. And if you actually took the time to READ the post to which
you replied in this thread I stated specifically that it was merely
probable and explained why. The key point being that one might expect
that the 30 deaths attributed to EPO use in atheltes was likely an
underestimate.
Tom, take some advice and consider reading for comprehension instead
of simply hitting reply and posting whatever floats into your head.
You'd be a more interesting RBR character for it.
Mark
|
| |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 15:16:45
From: Mark
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
On Aug 11, 4:34 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Mark" <twobowl...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1186850142.470211.169810@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Aug 11, 11:40 am, mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > I'd be surprised if the number wasn't much larger than 30 worldwide.
> > The basic molecule was known for years before the commercialized
> > product was available.
>
> Err - no it wasn't. It was discovered in 1983 and was being manufactured
> with recombinant DNA techniques in 1985.
>
> > It would make sense that individuals were
> > purifying the protein and using it.
>
> It would have required immense amounts of blood so separate a tiny amount of
> EPO. Without recombinant DNA it would have been impossible to explore the
> possibilities of the stuff.
Tom,
In your rush to argument you missed the very point in what you quoted:
"before the commercial product was available".
The product was not approved until 1989 and not available commercially
until then. In 1985 Amgen and others were doing clinical trials and
rhuEPO as an investigatory drug would not have been readily available
to docs outside of their clinical trials.
There are four years between 1985 and 1989. It's also likely that that
rhuEPO had been produced earlier than 1985 since Amgen wasn't the only
group working on this and human clinical trials don't begin
overnight.
So, to beat this to death in proper RBR form, the EPO molecule and
gene sequence were known years before commercialization and since it's
a small protein a motivated person with proper skills could fairly
easily have produced rhuEPO several years before the product was
available.
That doesn't mean anyone actually /did/ purify EPO for use in
athletes, but it's not unreasonable to think that folks had their
hands on EPO for nefarious use in athletes well before 1989.
Regardless of that speculation I would expect that EPO experimentation
did not always end up with positive results for the test subjects and
that bad outcomes were not always reported for obvious reasons. That
leads us back to the suggestion that 30 is a fairly low number given
the potential issues of EPO administration and the apparently
widespread use in athletes.
Mark
|
| | |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 07:53:53
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
Mark wrote:
> On Aug 11, 4:34 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "Mark" <twobowl...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1186850142.470211.169810@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> On Aug 11, 11:40 am, mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:
>>> I'd be surprised if the number wasn't much larger than 30 worldwide.
>>> The basic molecule was known for years before the commercialized
>>> product was available.
>> Err - no it wasn't. It was discovered in 1983 and was being manufactured
>> with recombinant DNA techniques in 1985.
>>
Typing "erythropoetin" into Pubmed gives 3311 articles prior to 1983,
with the earliest going back to the 1950s.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 00:44:19
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
"Mark" <twobowlers@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1186870605.371576.244680@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> There are four years between 1985 and 1989. It's also likely that that
> rhuEPO had been produced earlier than 1985 since Amgen wasn't the only
> group working on this and human clinical trials don't begin
> overnight.
In the phamacological business are you?
> So, to beat this to death in proper RBR form, the EPO molecule and
> gene sequence were known years before commercialization and since it's
> a small protein a motivated person with proper skills could fairly
> easily have produced rhuEPO several years before the product was
> available.
Explain how they could synthesize EPO without recombinant DNA techniques
which were exceedingly crude until the 1993 discovery of PCR techniques by
Kerry Mullis. Guess where I was working then.
> That doesn't mean anyone actually /did/ purify EPO for use in
> athletes, but it's not unreasonable to think that folks had their
> hands on EPO for nefarious use in athletes well before 1989.
The research amounts of EPO made in the late 80's were obtained by a Dutch
and Belgian cycle doping ring and was used. 18 cyclists died from its
effects.
Because you THINK that it is likely that people were using hormones that
weren't even known before you believe they were, doesn't make it so.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 13:15:28
From: Frank Drackman
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote in message
news:DJsvi.13677$rR.4581@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Mark" <twobowlers@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1186870605.371576.244680@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>
> Explain how they could synthesize EPO without recombinant DNA techniques
> which were exceedingly crude until the 1993 discovery of PCR techniques by
> Kerry Mullis. Guess where I was working then.
>
Forrest Kunich rides again
|
| |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 09:35:42
From: Mark
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
On Aug 11, 11:40 am, mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net > wrote:
>Why a 10 year gap from epo arriving to a test for it?
In part, because the scientists that are good at developing tests for
these sorts of molecules are using their resources to make new
discoveries and trying to identify treatments for diseases. In the
field of medical sciences, and in the large scheme of things, drug
abuse in sport is a very, very tiny blip on the radar screen.
> 30 guys died experimenting with EPO
I'd be surprised if the number wasn't much larger than 30 worldwide.
The basic molecule was known for years before the commercialized
product was available. It would make sense that individuals were
purifying the protein and using it. Pure speculation but folks that
want to cheat, and nations that want to win on the world stage,
typically have both resources and motivation.
Mark
|
| | |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 20:34:44
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
"Mark" <twobowlers@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1186850142.470211.169810@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 11, 11:40 am, mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> I'd be surprised if the number wasn't much larger than 30 worldwide.
> The basic molecule was known for years before the commercialized
> product was available.
Err - no it wasn't. It was discovered in 1983 and was being manufactured
with recombinant DNA techniques in 1985.
> It would make sense that individuals were
> purifying the protein and using it.
It would have required immense amounts of blood so separate a tiny amount of
EPO. Without recombinant DNA it would have been impossible to explore the
possibilities of the stuff.
|
| |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 08:40:18
From: mtb Dad
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
On Aug 10, 4:03 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com >
wrote:
> > I agree. Mike has chosen the incorrect old guard to campaign against.
>
> > Also, that's one hell of a sentence about acting like a grown up. Perfe=
ct.
>
> But I wasn't campaigning *against* the old guard. If I'm campaigning agai=
nst
> anything, it's the ASO's ridiculous attitude that encourages people to st=
ay
> in the closet because, if you come out, you'll possibly be banned for life
> from their events.
>
> The intent of my post was to illustrate the absurdity of the present
> situation. Do you think that efforts against doping when it can be assumed
> by his racers that he's telling lies about his past (if he claims not to
> have doped)?
>
> It's not the old-guard's fault they're in this situation. I don't blame t=
hem
> for trying to keep their jobs now, any more than I blame them for what th=
ey
> did in the past. But I think I've presented a good case that progress will
> not be made if the riders see that the past is made up of lies, and that
> coming clean may end your career.
>
> And I would further suggest that coming up with something so bold as to g=
et
> rid of anyone who may have had a past association with doping just might
> wake a few people up and get them to recognize the serious flaws in their
> current obsession with doping. Because eventually you come to recognize t=
hat
> virtually everyone has some connection.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> "Fred Fredburger" <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.Huh> wrote in message
>
> news:lLOdncLNTZqadSHbnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>
>
> > Sandy wrote:
> >> Dans le message denews:903vi.110$vw7.88@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com,
> >> Mike Jacoubowsky <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> a r=E9fl=E9chi, et puis a d=
=E9clar=E9
> >> :
> >>>> Who that has raced for Johan has tested positive for drugs? Floyd,
> >>>> who I believe is innocent. Tyler H., about whom I'm not sure. Who
> >>>> else? I'd like to know Johan's record compared to that of other team
> >>>> directors before lumping him in with the old guard.
>
> >>> It doesn't matter. My point was that they could have set up a
> >>> structure that would have removed doubt, both from the public and
> >>> from the riders themselves. But as things stand, we just don't know.
> >>> And that uncertainty is what is most-assuredly holding back progress.
> >>> Once we know, we can deal with it and move on. If we deal with it
> >>> fairly, the future looks bright. If we deal with it in a draconian
> >>> fashion, people will find better things to do with their lives than
> >>> race bikes.
> >>> Right now, whether guilty or innocent in their past life, their (the
> >>> DS) protestations will be the same, because admission of guilt, no
> >>> matter how far back, appears to be very bad for your future. That
> >>> needs to change. Without that change, the only way we can deal with
> >>> it, in a way that makes sense for the racers, is to sweep clean any
> >>> possible suspects from management, with or without proof.
>
> >>> I cannot believe I'm saying this.
>
> >>> --Mike Jacoubowsky
>
> >> You STILL propose chopping off old heads and replace them with unknown=
s=2E
> >> You mean to say young managers won't cheat? Like young riders? Stop,
> >> please.
>
> >> Better, have all national federations vote to withdraw from Olympics,
> >> forcing UCI to abandon association with WADA. If crimes are committed
> >> (most countries now punish doping conduct), let civil authorities hand=
le
> >> it. Refer all appeals to commercial arbitration, not TAS. You'd be
> >> surprised, perhaps, to learn how formidable it can be to act like a gr=
own
> >> up.
>
> > I agree. Mike has chosen the incorrect old guard to campaign against.
>
> > Also, that's one hell of a sentence about acting like a grown up. Perfe=
ct.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text
I think Mike may be right, but only because the previous regime did so
little to control doping. I don't think pulling out of the Olympics
is the answer. Perhaps rather than blame only the DS's and riders, I
think there should be more questions to VerDRUGgen and his cronies.
Why such limited penalties (10 minutes added to your time in the Tour
for steroids?)? Why no out of comp tests? Lagging banned lists (a la
Delgado). Why a 10 year gap from epo arriving to a test for it?
Governments were concerned in the 60's when riders were dying. Only
the UCI seemed unconcerned. Since we're talking about accountability,
when is the retroactive dirt about McQuaid's predecessors going to
come out and when are they going to step down? 30 guys died
experimenting with EPO, in a sport with an unchecked drug culture,
while they fiddled. Of course the same questions should be asked of
the other pro sports. But shouldn't one clean up ones own mess first?
|
| | |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 23:19:00
From: Morten Reippuert Knudsen
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
mtb Dad <listerfarrar@telus.net > wrote:
> I think Mike may be right, but only because the previous regime did so
> little to control doping. I don't think pulling out of the Olympics
> is the answer. Perhaps rather than blame only the DS's and riders, I
> think there should be more questions to VerDRUGgen and his cronies.
> Why such limited penalties (10 minutes added to your time in the Tour
> for steroids?)? Why no out of comp tests? Lagging banned lists (a la
> Delgado). Why a 10 year gap from epo arriving to a test for it?
> Governments were concerned in the 60's when riders were dying. Only
> the UCI seemed unconcerned. Since we're talking about accountability,
> when is the retroactive dirt about McQuaid's predecessors going to
> come out and when are they going to step down? 30 guys died
> experimenting with EPO, in a sport with an unchecked drug culture,
> while they fiddled. Of course the same questions should be asked of
> the other pro sports. But shouldn't one clean up ones own mess first?
IOC is the real crook here! IOC hired Concioni's Ferara inistitue to
develop an EPO test. It was basicliy like letting the fox guard the
chickens. Today we all know what Concioni and his asociates Ferrari,
Grachi, Ceccini, Sassi etc. really did. They used IOC fundings to
refine the methods to dope with EPO to perfection, while claiming that
the where only a year away from a test - for more than 10 years, they
managed to prevent other scientist from develping a EPO test.
--
Morten Reippuert Knudsen :-) <http://blog.reippuert.dk >
Merlin Works CR-3/2.5 & Campagnolo Chorus 2007.
|
| |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 18:51:24
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:35:54 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<mikej1@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
>I think it's time for Johan, and the other directors from that
>generation, to step aside.
Johan Bruyneel is one of the younger DSs. He was racing at the
highest level ten years ago. There is a generation of guys who were
directing teams when Bruyneel was racing who are still in those
positions. So I guess everyone has to go?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 14:55:23
From: need more sun
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
On Aug 10, 6:35 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
> Ultimately, I think it's time for Johan, and the other directors from that
> generation, to step aside. Too much history, too much association with
> doping. If things are truly going to change, and if the ASO stays so stupid
> that it refuses to extend any forgiveness whatsoever to sins of the past,
> then the people themselves have to leave. But we're missing a huge
> opportunity in doing so. An opportunity that's probably already past, I'm
> afraid.
>
> It would have made more sense, I think, if those of yesteryear were allowed
> to talk, and become instruments of change, rather than be forced to continue
> with their non-secrets still packed away in the closet, leaving the riders
> to believe that it's OK if you don't get caught, and that the anti-doping
> efforts aren't any more serious now than then.
>
> All because those associated with those past times can't deal with it openly
> without fear of being banned from cycling.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Thing is, it's not the sins of the past..it's the sins of the present.
While other teams (T-Mobile, Slipstream, CSC) are going out of their
way to run things in a way to make the sport cleaner, Discovery and
several other teams are, depending on your belief, either a) going
around with their heads in the sand, b) adopting a blinkered eye
philosophy, letting their riders do what they like, or c) actively
doping their riders, as before.
What with the Basso case, the Ferrari history and his general
approach, Johan Bruyneel did nothing to inspire confidence in the
team's cleanliness. Other teams are being far more transparent and
will, as a result, reap the benefits in terms of financial support
from sponsors. Those who don't understand and embrace the necessary
change will be under more and more pressure in the future.
Look, two riders in the top three in the Tour, and yet the team STILL
folds; that shows that there is a real lack of confidence in the
management.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 23:15:12
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
In article
<1186782923.813933.283100@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >,
need more sun <recbikegroup@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
> What with the Basso case, the Ferrari history and his general
> approach, Johan Bruyneel did nothing to inspire confidence in the
> team's cleanliness.
Except test positive 100%. They _must_ have been doping.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 23:19:15
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
In article
<rubrum-9D9ACD.23151210082007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.
net >,
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote:
> In article
> <1186782923.813933.283100@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> need more sun <recbikegroup@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > What with the Basso case, the Ferrari history and his general
> > approach, Johan Bruyneel did nothing to inspire confidence in the
> > team's cleanliness.
>
> Except test positive 100%. They _must_ have been doping.
That was supposed to be negative.
Barkeep, another stingah.
--
Michael Press
|
| | |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 02:12:55
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
"need more sun" <recbikegroup@yahoo.co.uk > wrote in message
news:1186782923.813933.283100@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Thing is, it's not the sins of the past..it's the sins of the present.
> While other teams (T-Mobile, Slipstream, CSC) are going out of their
> way to run things in a way to make the sport cleaner, Discovery and
> several other teams are, depending on your belief, either a) going
> around with their heads in the sand, b) adopting a blinkered eye
> philosophy, letting their riders do what they like, or c) actively
> doping their riders, as before.
I'll try to be polite despite the fact that your attitude pisses me off.
Could it POSSIBLY be that a good DS can try to move a great rider away from
using drugs since unlike most of these idiots here, they know that drugs
don't really enhance performance that much compared to a well trained rider?
Dr. Ferrari was eventually absolved of all charges. What's more his
published papers show that he is a genius at getting the best out of a rider
using standard training techniques developed by Conconi, him and Cechini.
And answer me this - if you're a doctor and a professional cyclist comes to
you and says that he wants to dope to increase his performance what do you
do knowing that he might go to some quack who might well kill him? I can
well imagine that Ferrari prescribed dope to losers who insisted on thinking
that they were winners. But that doesn't describe the underlying reasons
that someone who has taken a Hippocratic oath might actually have an
overriding value for his patients well being and so to advise his patients
in the proper use of what they might otherwise use indiscriminately. You
might recall such actions ending in quite a few dead Dutch cyclists.
> What with the Basso case, the Ferrari history and his general
> approach, Johan Bruyneel did nothing to inspire confidence in the
> team's cleanliness.
Maybe you missed the point that Basso was CLEARED when Discovery hired him.
While it turned out that later Basso admitted trying to dope there was no
proof of it at that point in time.
Maybe you prefer fascist tactics for anyone accused even without proof but
some of us have more respect for the world around us.
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 23:08:55
From: Morten Reippuert Knudsen
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> > What with the Basso case, the Ferrari history and his general
> > approach, Johan Bruyneel did nothing to inspire confidence in the
> > team's cleanliness.
> Maybe you missed the point that Basso was CLEARED when Discovery hired him.
Actually he wasen't cleared, Coni just didn't have any evidence
against him because UCI or WADA had not recived any files from Guarda
Civil.
Everyone knew that they eventually would get the files from Guarda
Civil - Perhaps Brunell assumed that Basso could mysteriously disapear
from the files as it happended with Valverde, Davis, Contador and
Paulinio.
--
Morten Reippuert Knudsen :-) <http://blog.reippuert.dk >
Merlin Works CR-3/2.5 & Campagnolo Chorus 2007.
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 21:51:50
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
"Morten Reippuert Knudsen" <spam@reippuert.dk > wrote in message
news:74l1p4-5o4.ln1@wm.reippuert.dk...
> Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> > What with the Basso case, the Ferrari history and his general
>> > approach, Johan Bruyneel did nothing to inspire confidence in the
>> > team's cleanliness.
>
>> Maybe you missed the point that Basso was CLEARED when Discovery hired
>> him.
>
> Actually he wasen't cleared, Coni just didn't have any evidence
> against him because UCI or WADA had not recived any files from Guarda
> Civil.
Ahem - no evidence is no evidence. The headlines at the time were "Basso
Cleared".
> Everyone knew that they eventually would get the files from Guarda
> Civil - Perhaps Brunell assumed that Basso could mysteriously disapear
> from the files as it happended with Valverde, Davis, Contador and
> Paulinio.
You mean when the Guardia use the initials to ASSUME who was involved and
then tried to back that up by looking up where the riders were when the
treatments were supposedly undertaken?
Did it occur to you that after they assumed that Valverde and Contadore were
the AV and AC were those two and looked at the dates only to find that they
were provably someplace else that they were forced to assume that their
assumptions were incorrect?
Of course with Guardia taking bribes to make comments about ongoing
investigations I note that you don't seem to have any problem at all with
corruption among the watchers.
|
| |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 19:25:12
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com > wrote in message
news:Lt0vi.88$Qd6.86@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Ultimately, I think it's time for Johan, and the other directors from that
> generation, to step aside. Too much history, too much association with
> doping.
Yeah, me too, I think that what we need is an entirely new generation of
DS's that don't have the slightest idea of what is going on with their
riders when they're doped to the gills.
|
| |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 14:27:16
From: Steve Freides
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com > wrote in message
news:Lt0vi.88$Qd6.86@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Ultimately, I think it's time for Johan, and the other directors from
> that generation, to step aside. Too much history, too much association
> with doping. If things are truly going to change, and if the ASO stays
> so stupid that it refuses to extend any forgiveness whatsoever to sins
> of the past, then the people themselves have to leave. But we're
> missing a huge opportunity in doing so. An opportunity that's probably
> already past, I'm afraid.
>
> It would have made more sense, I think, if those of yesteryear were
> allowed to talk, and become instruments of change, rather than be
> forced to continue with their non-secrets still packed away in the
> closet, leaving the riders to believe that it's OK if you don't get
> caught, and that the anti-doping efforts aren't any more serious now
> than then.
>
> All because those associated with those past times can't deal with it
> openly without fear of being banned from cycling.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Who that has raced for Johan has tested positive for drugs? Floyd, who
I believe is innocent. Tyler H., about whom I'm not sure. Who else?
I'd like to know Johan's record compared to that of other team directors
before lumping him in with the old guard.
Just my opinion.
-S-
|
| | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 12:29:07
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
> Who that has raced for Johan has tested positive for drugs? Floyd, who I
> believe is innocent. Tyler H., about whom I'm not sure. Who else? I'd
> like to know Johan's record compared to that of other team directors
> before lumping him in with the old guard.
>
It doesn't matter. My point was that they could have set up a structure that
would have removed doubt, both from the public and from the riders
themselves. But as things stand, we just don't know. And that uncertainty is
what is most-assuredly holding back progress. Once we know, we can deal with
it and move on. If we deal with it fairly, the future looks bright. If we
deal with it in a draconian fashion, people will find better things to do
with their lives than race bikes.
Right now, whether guilty or innocent in their past life, their (the DS)
protestations will be the same, because admission of guilt, no matter how
far back, appears to be very bad for your future. That needs to change.
Without that change, the only way we can deal with it, in a way that makes
sense for the racers, is to sweep clean any possible suspects from
management, with or without proof.
I cannot believe I'm saying this.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 23:00:41
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
In article <903vi.110$vw7.88@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com >,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > wrote:
> > Who that has raced for Johan has tested positive for drugs? Floyd, who I
> > believe is innocent. Tyler H., about whom I'm not sure. Who else? I'd
> > like to know Johan's record compared to that of other team directors
> > before lumping him in with the old guard.
> >
>
> It doesn't matter. My point was that they could have set up a structure that
> would have removed doubt, both from the public and from the riders
> themselves. But as things stand, we just don't know. And that uncertainty is
> what is most-assuredly holding back progress. Once we know, we can deal with
> it and move on. If we deal with it fairly, the future looks bright. If we
> deal with it in a draconian fashion, people will find better things to do
> with their lives than race bikes.
>
> Right now, whether guilty or innocent in their past life, their (the DS)
> protestations will be the same, because admission of guilt, no matter how
> far back, appears to be very bad for your future. That needs to change.
> Without that change, the only way we can deal with it, in a way that makes
> sense for the racers, is to sweep clean any possible suspects from
> management, with or without proof.
>
> I cannot believe I'm saying this.
While we are at it let's get rid of all the old line
cycling fans; what a bunch of cynical, opinionated,
jock sniffers they are. Cycling needs doe eyed,
fresh-faced, believers in a dope free peleton. Only
then will cycling be saved.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 20:52:04
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > wrote in message
news:903vi.110$vw7.88@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> Who that has raced for Johan has tested positive for drugs? Floyd, who I
>> believe is innocent. Tyler H., about whom I'm not sure. Who else? I'd
>> like to know Johan's record compared to that of other team directors
>> before lumping him in with the old guard.
>
> It doesn't matter. My point was that they could have set up a structure
> that would have removed doubt, both from the public and from the riders
> themselves.
And what is that Mike? How is it that all of the testing they presently do
costing millions of dollars reports so few positives? Is it because the
dopers are better than the testers or because there ain't that much doping
going on and what there is has been seriously compromised by all of the
testing?
> But as things stand, we just don't know. And that uncertainty is what is
> most-assuredly holding back progress.
What do you call "progress"? You don't honestly believe that they can get
rid of doping completely do you?
Mike, I think that you're in a negative mood today. Get a good rest tonight
and I think that you'll see things more clearly in the morning.
If you have people snorting cocaine at the tables of major restaurants in
San Francisco just how do you propose to make 100% certain that all riders
are clean?
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 22:02:24
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
Dans le message de news:903vi.110$vw7.88@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com,
Mike Jacoubowsky <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> Who that has raced for Johan has tested positive for drugs? Floyd,
>> who I believe is innocent. Tyler H., about whom I'm not sure. Who
>> else? I'd like to know Johan's record compared to that of other team
>> directors before lumping him in with the old guard.
>>
>
> It doesn't matter. My point was that they could have set up a
> structure that would have removed doubt, both from the public and
> from the riders themselves. But as things stand, we just don't know.
> And that uncertainty is what is most-assuredly holding back progress.
> Once we know, we can deal with it and move on. If we deal with it
> fairly, the future looks bright. If we deal with it in a draconian
> fashion, people will find better things to do with their lives than
> race bikes.
> Right now, whether guilty or innocent in their past life, their (the
> DS) protestations will be the same, because admission of guilt, no
> matter how far back, appears to be very bad for your future. That
> needs to change. Without that change, the only way we can deal with
> it, in a way that makes sense for the racers, is to sweep clean any
> possible suspects from management, with or without proof.
>
> I cannot believe I'm saying this.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
You STILL propose chopping off old heads and replace them with unknowns.
You mean to say young managers won't cheat? Like young riders? Stop,
please.
Better, have all national federations vote to withdraw from Olympics,
forcing UCI to abandon association with WADA. If crimes are committed (most
countries now punish doping conduct), let civil authorities handle it.
Refer all appeals to commercial arbitration, not TAS. You'd be surprised,
perhaps, to learn how formidable it can be to act like a grown up.
BTW, riders ought to consult their own doctors, first, not team doctors.
The veneer of the argument against doping is that riders injure their health
with these things. If you were forced to change your personal physician
each year or two, how happy would that make you?
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
"Le Vin est la plus saine et la plus hygiénique des boissons."
- Louis Pasteur
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 15:34:47
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
Sandy wrote:
> Dans le message de news:903vi.110$vw7.88@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com,
> Mike Jacoubowsky <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>> Who that has raced for Johan has tested positive for drugs? Floyd,
>>> who I believe is innocent. Tyler H., about whom I'm not sure. Who
>>> else? I'd like to know Johan's record compared to that of other team
>>> directors before lumping him in with the old guard.
>>>
>> It doesn't matter. My point was that they could have set up a
>> structure that would have removed doubt, both from the public and
>> from the riders themselves. But as things stand, we just don't know.
>> And that uncertainty is what is most-assuredly holding back progress.
>> Once we know, we can deal with it and move on. If we deal with it
>> fairly, the future looks bright. If we deal with it in a draconian
>> fashion, people will find better things to do with their lives than
>> race bikes.
>> Right now, whether guilty or innocent in their past life, their (the
>> DS) protestations will be the same, because admission of guilt, no
>> matter how far back, appears to be very bad for your future. That
>> needs to change. Without that change, the only way we can deal with
>> it, in a way that makes sense for the racers, is to sweep clean any
>> possible suspects from management, with or without proof.
>>
>> I cannot believe I'm saying this.
>>
>> --Mike Jacoubowsky
>
> You STILL propose chopping off old heads and replace them with unknowns.
> You mean to say young managers won't cheat? Like young riders? Stop,
> please.
>
> Better, have all national federations vote to withdraw from Olympics,
> forcing UCI to abandon association with WADA. If crimes are committed (most
> countries now punish doping conduct), let civil authorities handle it.
> Refer all appeals to commercial arbitration, not TAS. You'd be surprised,
> perhaps, to learn how formidable it can be to act like a grown up.
I agree. Mike has chosen the incorrect old guard to campaign against.
Also, that's one hell of a sentence about acting like a grown up. Perfect.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 16:03:47
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
> I agree. Mike has chosen the incorrect old guard to campaign against.
>
> Also, that's one hell of a sentence about acting like a grown up. Perfect.
But I wasn't campaigning *against* the old guard. If I'm campaigning against
anything, it's the ASO's ridiculous attitude that encourages people to stay
in the closet because, if you come out, you'll possibly be banned for life
from their events.
The intent of my post was to illustrate the absurdity of the present
situation. Do you think that efforts against doping when it can be assumed
by his racers that he's telling lies about his past (if he claims not to
have doped)?
It's not the old-guard's fault they're in this situation. I don't blame them
for trying to keep their jobs now, any more than I blame them for what they
did in the past. But I think I've presented a good case that progress will
not be made if the riders see that the past is made up of lies, and that
coming clean may end your career.
And I would further suggest that coming up with something so bold as to get
rid of anyone who may have had a past association with doping just might
wake a few people up and get them to recognize the serious flaws in their
current obsession with doping. Because eventually you come to recognize that
virtually everyone has some connection.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.Huh > wrote in message
news:lLOdncLNTZqadSHbnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@comcast.com...
> Sandy wrote:
>> Dans le message de news:903vi.110$vw7.88@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com,
>> Mike Jacoubowsky <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré
>> :
>>>> Who that has raced for Johan has tested positive for drugs? Floyd,
>>>> who I believe is innocent. Tyler H., about whom I'm not sure. Who
>>>> else? I'd like to know Johan's record compared to that of other team
>>>> directors before lumping him in with the old guard.
>>>>
>>> It doesn't matter. My point was that they could have set up a
>>> structure that would have removed doubt, both from the public and
>>> from the riders themselves. But as things stand, we just don't know.
>>> And that uncertainty is what is most-assuredly holding back progress.
>>> Once we know, we can deal with it and move on. If we deal with it
>>> fairly, the future looks bright. If we deal with it in a draconian
>>> fashion, people will find better things to do with their lives than
>>> race bikes.
>>> Right now, whether guilty or innocent in their past life, their (the
>>> DS) protestations will be the same, because admission of guilt, no
>>> matter how far back, appears to be very bad for your future. That
>>> needs to change. Without that change, the only way we can deal with
>>> it, in a way that makes sense for the racers, is to sweep clean any
>>> possible suspects from management, with or without proof.
>>>
>>> I cannot believe I'm saying this.
>>>
>>> --Mike Jacoubowsky
>>
>> You STILL propose chopping off old heads and replace them with unknowns.
>> You mean to say young managers won't cheat? Like young riders? Stop,
>> please.
>>
>> Better, have all national federations vote to withdraw from Olympics,
>> forcing UCI to abandon association with WADA. If crimes are committed
>> (most countries now punish doping conduct), let civil authorities handle
>> it. Refer all appeals to commercial arbitration, not TAS. You'd be
>> surprised, perhaps, to learn how formidable it can be to act like a grown
>> up.
>
> I agree. Mike has chosen the incorrect old guard to campaign against.
>
> Also, that's one hell of a sentence about acting like a grown up. Perfect.
|
| |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 19:06:20
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
Dans le message de news:Lt0vi.88$Qd6.86@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com,
Mike Jacoubowsky <mikej1@ix.netcom.com > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Ultimately, I think it's time for Johan, and the other directors from
> that generation, to step aside. Too much history, too much
> association with doping. If things are truly going to change, and if
> the ASO stays so stupid that it refuses to extend any forgiveness
> whatsoever to sins of the past, then the people themselves have to
> leave. But we're missing a huge opportunity in doing so. An
> opportunity that's probably already past, I'm afraid.
>
> It would have made more sense, I think, if those of yesteryear were
> allowed to talk, and become instruments of change, rather than be
> forced to continue with their non-secrets still packed away in the
> closet, leaving the riders to believe that it's OK if you don't get
> caught, and that the anti-doping efforts aren't any more serious now
> than then.
> All because those associated with those past times can't deal with it
> openly without fear of being banned from cycling.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Hey, that's perfect corporate strategy. Can the old guys who may be
experienced, wise, capable of guiding exuberant and headstrong racers, who
have offered the sport the greater part of their careers without bitching,
and of course with some record of success.
Replace them with capable, goofy-smile dopes (not dopers) for 20% of the
cost (and no expense account - they overnight in the team trailer, no bus),
less security, no clout with organizers, UCI, colleagues, just when they
find out they can't handle the speed of the Elite 2 circuit because they
stink.
And sponsors, too. Any company with annual revenues over 50 million is
barred, and if it's a subsidiary, you count the mother ship to calculate.
Then you find only racers who have never competed internationally (or
successfully, like Bouygues) and have a morbid fear of any kind of
innoculation, injection or applied cream. They get corn flakes, sugar and
milk with no limit. No coffee, of course.
Bikes are next. Weight minimum of 10kg. If it was good enough for Coppi,
it's still good today. 6 speed maximum. No carbon.
And support cars? No support cars, offering 80 water bottles to a single
rider in a single race/stage. They want water, they stop at the local
grocer along the way.
Yes, indeed - sounds like the future of pro cycling mapped out to a "T".
Hysteria comes in many forms, including mass hysteria. Anti-doping crusades
are feel-good hypocrisy.
--
Sandy
--
C'est le contraire du vélo, la bicyclette.
Une silhouette profilée mauve fluo dévale
à soixante-dix à l'heure : c'est du vélo.
Deux lycéennes côte à côte traversent
un pont à Bruges : c'est de la bicyclette.
-Delerm, P.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 10:37:12
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
> Hysteria comes in many forms, including mass hysteria. Anti-doping
> crusades are feel-good hypocrisy.
Hey, don't jump on me. I agree with you. But the ASO has forced this issue.
It's the ASO that pretends it's history is as a clean sport and then goes
after anyone who reveals details otherwise (Riis). An
extraordinarily-cynical way of looking at it would be that the new,
dramatically-lower-but-level playing field you predict would make the French
more competitive.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote in message
news:46bc9b0c$0$426$426a74cc@news.free.fr...
> Dans le message de news:Lt0vi.88$Qd6.86@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com,
> Mike Jacoubowsky <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> Ultimately, I think it's time for Johan, and the other directors from
>> that generation, to step aside. Too much history, too much
>> association with doping. If things are truly going to change, and if
>> the ASO stays so stupid that it refuses to extend any forgiveness
>> whatsoever to sins of the past, then the people themselves have to
>> leave. But we're missing a huge opportunity in doing so. An
>> opportunity that's probably already past, I'm afraid.
>>
>> It would have made more sense, I think, if those of yesteryear were
>> allowed to talk, and become instruments of change, rather than be
>> forced to continue with their non-secrets still packed away in the
>> closet, leaving the riders to believe that it's OK if you don't get
>> caught, and that the anti-doping efforts aren't any more serious now
>> than then.
>> All because those associated with those past times can't deal with it
>> openly without fear of being banned from cycling.
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> Hey, that's perfect corporate strategy. Can the old guys who may be
> experienced, wise, capable of guiding exuberant and headstrong racers, who
> have offered the sport the greater part of their careers without bitching,
> and of course with some record of success.
>
> Replace them with capable, goofy-smile dopes (not dopers) for 20% of the
> cost (and no expense account - they overnight in the team trailer, no
> bus), less security, no clout with organizers, UCI, colleagues, just when
> they find out they can't handle the speed of the Elite 2 circuit because
> they stink.
>
> And sponsors, too. Any company with annual revenues over 50 million is
> barred, and if it's a subsidiary, you count the mother ship to calculate.
>
> Then you find only racers who have never competed internationally (or
> successfully, like Bouygues) and have a morbid fear of any kind of
> innoculation, injection or applied cream. They get corn flakes, sugar and
> milk with no limit. No coffee, of course.
>
> Bikes are next. Weight minimum of 10kg. If it was good enough for Coppi,
> it's still good today. 6 speed maximum. No carbon.
>
> And support cars? No support cars, offering 80 water bottles to a single
> rider in a single race/stage. They want water, they stop at the local
> grocer along the way.
>
> Yes, indeed - sounds like the future of pro cycling mapped out to a "T".
>
> Hysteria comes in many forms, including mass hysteria. Anti-doping
> crusades are feel-good hypocrisy.
> --
> Sandy
> --
> C'est le contraire du vélo, la bicyclette.
> Une silhouette profilée mauve fluo dévale
> à soixante-dix à l'heure : c'est du vélo.
> Deux lycéennes côte à côte traversent
> un pont à Bruges : c'est de la bicyclette.
> -Delerm, P.
>
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 21:15:13
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
Dans le message de news:fn1vi.100$vw7.76@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com,
Mike Jacoubowsky <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> Hysteria comes in many forms, including mass hysteria. Anti-doping
>> crusades are feel-good hypocrisy.
>
> Hey, don't jump on me. I agree with you. But the ASO has forced this
> issue. It's the ASO that pretends it's history is as a clean sport
> and then goes after anyone who reveals details otherwise (Riis). An
> extraordinarily-cynical way of looking at it would be that the new,
> dramatically-lower-but-level playing field you predict would make the
> French more competitive.
You'd have to be hard doping to think the French would do better. :-)
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 19:29:24
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote in message
news:46bcb941$0$409$426a74cc@news.free.fr...
> Dans le message de news:fn1vi.100$vw7.76@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com,
> Mike Jacoubowsky <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>> Hysteria comes in many forms, including mass hysteria. Anti-doping
>>> crusades are feel-good hypocrisy.
>>
>> Hey, don't jump on me. I agree with you. But the ASO has forced this
>> issue. It's the ASO that pretends it's history is as a clean sport
>> and then goes after anyone who reveals details otherwise (Riis). An
>> extraordinarily-cynical way of looking at it would be that the new,
>> dramatically-lower-but-level playing field you predict would make the
>> French more competitive.
>
> You'd have to be hard doping to think the French would do better. :-)
Sandy, most of the time you make a lot of sense. Only when you fly off into
one of your uncharacteristic campaigns against doping do we seem to
disagree.
You can't get rid of doping in sports. The best you can do is continually
try to keep up with the new doping methods and test test test.
The older riders who have seen all of it and who have then seen many of
their friends die relatively young from side effects are probably far better
equipped to deal with the drugging in the sport than feckless preachers.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 22:54:34
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
In article
<o03vi.14485$Od7.13772@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote in message
> news:46bcb941$0$409$426a74cc@news.free.fr...
> > Dans le message de news:fn1vi.100$vw7.76@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com,
> > Mike Jacoubowsky <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> >>> Hysteria comes in many forms, including mass hysteria. Anti-doping
> >>> crusades are feel-good hypocrisy.
> >>
> >> Hey, don't jump on me. I agree with you. But the ASO has forced this
> >> issue. It's the ASO that pretends it's history is as a clean sport
> >> and then goes after anyone who reveals details otherwise (Riis). An
> >> extraordinarily-cynical way of looking at it would be that the new,
> >> dramatically-lower-but-level playing field you predict would make the
> >> French more competitive.
> >
> > You'd have to be hard doping to think the French would do better. :-)
>
> Sandy, most of the time you make a lot of sense. Only when you fly off into
> one of your uncharacteristic campaigns against doping do we seem to
> disagree.
Uhhh, Tom, Sandy is not railing against doping.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 13:11:44
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
Michael Press wrote:
> Uhhh, Tom, Sandy is not railing against doping.
Kunich is tuned into a different channel. He's probably
got one of those twilight zone satellite dishes.
|
| |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 09:47:14
From: Carmine Clamenza
Subject: Re: Why the old guard may need to go
|
Bravo! Well said.
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com > wrote in message
news:Lt0vi.88$Qd6.86@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Ultimately, I think it's time for Johan, and the other directors from that
> generation, to step aside. Too much history, too much association with
> doping. If things are truly going to change, and if the ASO stays so
> stupid that it refuses to extend any forgiveness whatsoever to sins of the
> past, then the people themselves have to leave. But we're missing a huge
> opportunity in doing so. An opportunity that's probably already past, I'm
> afraid.
>
> It would have made more sense, I think, if those of yesteryear were
> allowed to talk, and become instruments of change, rather than be forced
> to continue with their non-secrets still packed away in the closet,
> leaving the riders to believe that it's OK if you don't get caught, and
> that the anti-doping efforts aren't any more serious now than then.
>
> All because those associated with those past times can't deal with it
> openly without fear of being banned from cycling.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
|
|
