So who won the tour from 1999 to 2005
1 lurker |
80 watchers
Mar 2018
4:23pm, 15 Mar 2018
4,158 posts
|
larkim
I suppose on supplements I come down to the simple fact that, as the podcast would have it, there is "no such thing as a fish". "Supplements" can mean anything. Fish oil capsules, vitamin tablets, shots of beetroot juice, strong coffee, creatine. Depending on your perspective, some or all of those are supplements, and some or all of those should be allowable or banned. My point of view is that if its banned, its banned. And if its not, its not. I accept that that leads to an arms race potential where private organisations seek to identify products which have similar impacts to banned products, but which are not banned. But that's why WADA and NADOs need good funding to do their best to keep ahead of the game. And they should be encouraged to write the banned list such that all potential variants of banned items are also banned (where that is useful to do so). Sadly, what that means for innocent athletes is that they need to be hyper vigilant about what they consume, whether or not they want to add supplementation to their intakes. |
Mar 2018
5:09pm, 15 Mar 2018
12,370 posts
|
Chrisull
All of which I agree with, which comes back to supporting Tucker's original assertion, about extralegal supplementation. If he meant TUE, why not say TUE? It's got about one tenth the amount of letters to type!
|
|
Mar 2018
5:12pm, 15 Mar 2018
4,159 posts
|
larkim
True, true! It's just I can't square legal supplement use with "Same result, just a more tedious route to get there" and the "Extralegal" word which intimates more. But who knows what Tucker is thinking - it's rarely that rational anyway 
|
Mar 2018
8:17am, 17 Mar 2018
1,479 posts
|
stuart little
Worth a read: independent.ie
|
Mar 2018
9:07am, 17 Mar 2018
25,367 posts
|
Derby Tup
Thanks Stuart. Guilty
|
|
Mar 2018
9:55am, 17 Mar 2018
12,374 posts
|
Chrisull
Stuart, I was going to post that this morning, thanks for saving me the effort. I wish I had another feeling other than despondency,and the fact I can't argue with it. Froome and Leinders, Farah and Aden. Why, why, why.
|
|
Mar 2018
4:52pm, 17 Mar 2018
4,166 posts
|
larkim
Plenty of nonsense in that article. The usual mix of hyperbole, flawed conclusions and inaccuracies as far as I can tell.
|
|
Mar 2018
5:50pm, 17 Mar 2018
25,379 posts
|
Derby Tup
It reminded me so much of the articles written (very bravely) about that Texan bloke. What was his name? Lance something?
|
|
Mar 2018
6:13pm, 17 Mar 2018
4,167 posts
|
larkim
Not to me it doesn't. Not even remotely.
|
|
Mar 2018
6:20pm, 17 Mar 2018
12,386 posts
|
Chrisull
For me it starts and ends here sorry: "Aden was arrested in 2016 in Spain following a lengthy investigation and 24-hour surveillance resulting in a police raid that found EPO in six rooms of his and his team's hotel along with anabolic steroids and 60 syringes. ... when later asked if he knew Aden, Farah denied it. " So we're meant to believe these dirty coaches, have some clients they do it clean for? Did Ferrari do it clean for some of his clients? Or is pretty much EVERYONE he saw/treated discredited or has admitted being a doper? It is the latter. Why isn't it the same for Aden? Or Leinders? |
Related Threads
-
Cheating in amateur sports
Apr 2017
-
Are you doping? Do you know someone who is?
Mar 2017
-
Tour De France
Aug 2020
-
Le Tour 2016
Jul 2016
-
Tour de France 2016
Jun 2016
-
T\'Tour in otley
Apr 2016
-
Le Tour 2015
Aug 2015
-
Le Tour 2014
Jun 2015
-
Tour of Britain
Jan 2015
-
Womens Tour Of Britain
May 2014
