maybe he was cheating on his wife...

happybaboon wrote: Is constantly revealing your location to the governing body a requirement of any other sport?

Seems draconian to me. I can understand why a rider - even one who (shockingly) does not dope - may want to rebel against such treatment.

Its not a case of always letting a governing body know where you always are. Its a matter of not replying to requests for your location so they can perform out of competion testing on you. Its part of being a professional athlete.

Out of competions tests are as if not more important than in competion tests. Many drugs used by athletes, (ie EPO, androgens etc) have more of an affect on your ablity to train and perform in the future than they do taken just prior to races.

If you didn't have out of competion test a dodgy athlete could take as much drugs as they wished in the off season while training then go clean for a few weeks before big races and have all the advantages of drug use without the risk.

By not replying to requests for where he is Rassmussen has been giving himself the opertunity to do this. If it is true it is a serious matter.

If it WAS true, then the UCI would be all over his arse and the frenchies would have him off the tour in no time ('cos they sure won't want another American to win their tour).

The costs of cycling's strict drug test regime have gotten to the point where they far outweigh the benefits. Time to step back a bit, admit that doping in cycling can't be eliminated, and let cycling be a fun thing to watch again.

happybaboon wrote:The costs of cycling's strict drug test regime have gotten to the point where they far outweigh the benefits. Time to step back a bit, admit that doping in cycling can't be eliminated, and let cycling be a fun thing to watch again.

*WTF the cost of drug testing!! Answering your phone and if required peeing in a jar or giving a blood test. Yeah thats really hard esp comparted to the life threatning side effects of some of the drugs and the way they cheat honest athletes out of success.

Cycling can be clean. I honestly believe if they slapped serious penalties on team the sport would rapidly clean itself up. If the team gets reamed over dirty athletes then they will ensure they are clean (insteaded of turning a bling eye or even activly encouraging it)



*I'm assuming your post is a troll Happy Babbon, but I will bite anyway.

schlek1 wrote:

Tugboat wrote:The process of notifying your whereabouts 365 days of the year must be a pain though... why don't the UCI put electronic monitoring bracelets on all the riders like prisoners on home detention?

You dont really need to report your whereabouts 365 days a year.. Just answer your cell phone or reply to the email asking where you are. There is no exuse in a sport where cheating is rampant.

Ahhh yes they do.... Pro cyclists must complete an Athlete Location Form each quarter detailing their daily location, training schedule and contact details for the next three months.

UCI Athlete Location Form Instructions

On the other side of the coin Rassmusen hasn't tested positive for drugs at any of his tests. The Danish cycling federation are deciding to drop him from the National team because he was uncontactable on 2 occasions. The UCI told him 3rd time its classed as positive. The same Danish cycling federation let him race in their national champs the day after he is tested and this was all in June? The Tour has another 194 riders that they would rather let race and then deal with this as a seperate issue. Such as the t-mobile rider. As for the Yank with the blood in his hand luggage why has it taken him 5 years to accuse someone of this. He poured the contents down the sink, so Rassmusen couldn't have used it anyway. Maybe he bought it but chickened out.

robbieracer wrote:What costs? The sport spends millions supporting sporting triumph etc, the sport can and must afford it, otherwise it will be the best drugs that will win. And lots of "healthy" riders will start dying again.Not later, but right when they are the "fittest"..

The chance of seeing someones heart explode would make the sport far more exciting for spectators and can only be good for the sport.

Kyle wrote:

robbieracer wrote:What costs? The sport spends millions supporting sporting triumph etc, the sport can and must afford it, otherwise it will be the best drugs that will win. And lots of "healthy" riders will start dying again.Not later, but right when they are the "fittest"..

The chance of seeing someones heart explode would make the sport far more exciting for spectators and can only be good for the sport.

Kyle wrote:
The chance of seeing someones heart explode would make the sport far more exciting for spectators and can only be good for the sport.

Like Tom Simpson?

I don't get what the big deal is with doping. If all the riders are doing it, then surely no one is disadvantaged?

Make it legal, and then the playing field will be totally legal. Also, drug manufacturers will be able to focus on making drugs that are safe rather than drugs that can't be detected.

robbieracer wrote: That would be a reasonable statement if "Safe" meant fast, and there is no reason at all to make that connection.

OK, to hell with safety, just focus on making drugs that make riders fast. Now are you happy?

How does allowing athletes to take drugs detract from their skill and natural ability? Surely it only enhances them

What will be hellishly expensive? Drug development? Companies don't make and develop new drugs because they are feeling particularly altruistic you know. Screw safety, I want Road Rage but with bicycles instead of motorbikes.