Tyler Hamilton's heavy doping program revealed

You bring up an interesting point. One which I can understand but only to the extent of the elitist stage of big tour cycling where they really only race against other professional teams (who are probably doped too). But it's highly doubtful that everyone in the tour is doped! There is no case when it can be said that there is no harm to other competitors. Think of Suzy Favor Hamilton. Who knows how many thousands of dollars she's been cheated out of and how many other thousands of promising athletes who became discouraged and quit because their PR's were too far behind the world records?

If you still don't think it's a moral issue, why do they still feel the need to lie about it? If it's just to not get suspended, then why don't they all get together and change the rules to allow doping? The drugs would be cheaper then and it would be monitored better which would make it safer too. There is no way they do it with a 100% clear conscience.

He swore on the memory of his dog that he was not a cheater.

On his Dog! I, for one, believe any person that swears on the memory of their dog.

mplatt wrote:

He swore on the memory of his dog that he was not a cheater.

On his Dog! I, for one, believe any person that swears on the memory of their dog.

haha. i remember reading that and thinking what a fag. man to man, just between you and me, swearing on your dog trumps all of them.

Why do people assume SFH is 100% clean?

She dropped off and got pregnant just like Marion during the height of the scandal.

A_Goofy_Runner wrote:

Who do you harm by doping? The only damage you are doing is to yourself ...

The Moroccan "system" and other high intensity "programs" have ruined the career of every clean runner who believes in their horseshit "training" and tries to copy it.

Greg wrote:

Why do people assume SFH is 100% clean?

I've never assumed that. Quite the opposite.

Lance said he's been consistenly good for years, without the abnormal spikes in improvement that people normally associate with drug use.

So ... perhaps he's been doping for 20 years?

Strange and disappointing thing about Operacion Puerto is the absolute silence regarding soccer players and track athletes. When the story broke, they said many sports were involved, but so far only cyclists have been exposed. Spain's next World Cup match is tomorrow. Do you think they're waiting for Spain to be eliminated before they name names?

and yet a clean Armstrong could beat every single doped cyclist

pull the other one, when will people see these cyclists for what they are

Boulderunner wrote:

[quote]TGeldean wrote:

My cycling friends tell me that in Europe its not the "moral issue" that it is in America. Apparently a lot of people view it as part of the sport. This has not been the impression Ive had from European newspapers, but from the friends of mine who have raced in Europe, thats what Ive heard. I think in the culture that they race in (Europe) its marginally accepted and therefore, there isnt a line between "Moral people" and "Unmoral people" when it comes to who is doping and who isn't. It seems to be in direct contrast with American track and field, where it almost seems like you would have to be lacking a conscience to cheat because of the moral standard that is placed on purity in sports.

The [huge, massive, immense, gigantic] advantage, therefore, lies with those athletes who adopt the "European" POV. Alan Webb, for example, could be an Olympic champion and WR holder were he to think like Hamilton...

Kirsner72 wrote:

The [huge, massive, immense, gigantic] advantage, therefore, lies with those athletes who adopt the "European" POV. Alan Webb, for example, could be an Olympic champion and WR holder were he to think like Hamilton...

NAIVE and most likely wrong. a more reasonable assumption is that WEBB had already adopted the "European" POV -- hence his success compare to the rest of american runners. (Premature balding, overly muscular etc. all signs of steriods and HGH)

if anybody see's tyler hamilton walking the streets of boulder please tell him he's a f***ing idiot and a disgrace. i can't believe this dude. if anybody on earth feels like a complete moron right now its gota be this guy. i hope all the people he's suckered into believing him the last couple years now treat him like shit. what a loser. i hope he dies of a blood clot or something shortly from all those damn drugs he took. that is harsh but it would be nice to see.

Would seem to me his potential partner would be the one needing the Viagra.

Tyler Hamilton raced so well in 2004 because he was inspired by his dead pooch, Tugboat. His results had nothing to do with his massive doping regime.

Honestly lets face it we continue to see story after tstory of another cyclist doping. And its not just the avg professional cyclist. You know the average professional cyclist is doing it to just keep up with the best who are doping and are being investigated or are already suspended. The list is unreal: David Millar, Tyler Hamilton, Robert Heras, pssibily Lance Armstrong and Jasn Ullrich. I mean it is EVERYONE. Cycling has been known to be one of the biggest doping sports and these continued stories proves it. You would not have these stories continuously popping up if there wasn't some validity to this. And of course EVERY athlete is going to deny they doped.

Doesn't mean the entire sport isn't cheating. Legalize it all and have it all under doctors supervision. Its already rampant and will continue to be so why not just make it legit and allow doctors to safely and legally monitor it.

xbcha1 wrote: You are cheating to gain a competitive advantage over your peers, and thereby deny them winnings, sponsorship, adulation, etc.

Understood that it's cheating because it's against the rules. But why is it against the rules?

Athletes also train, eat, get physical therapy, spend part of the year at altitude, see sports psychologists, and take legal supplements, all to gain a competitive advantage. Those methods are not against the rules.

The question remains how to decide which methods to allow, and on what basis.

Cheating on a test is different, because the purpose of a test is to demonstrate your mastery of the subject matter, and by cheating you are misrepresenting yourself. A better analogy would be someone who took amphetamines to stay up cramming for the exam, and did better than those who studied less because they needed to sleep.

Please don't drag me into this f**cking mess. All my life I was Tyler's faithful four-legged companion and later his inspiration in death,so who better to swear on?

BTW,I still believe in him and I'd swear on a stack of Milk Bones that Tyler's blood is as clean and pure as Boulder glacier water and not as dirty as the Charles River.

I didn't say I believed my own argument, in fact, I even said doping was wrong, but to say otherwise is not "frustratingly ridiculous." What's your definition of cheating? Taking a substance to gain an advantage? Then what about vitamins? What about Tylenol? Where do we draw the line? Ok, so then let's say "cheating" is taking any substance that is banned. Fair enough, obviously if it's against the rules then taking it is unfair and therefore wrong. Well then what about some new drug that isn't banned because it's new. Is taking that cheating? Or just gaining an advantage through science?

Maybe Tyler Hamilton doesn't think he cheated. I think he did, but maybe his definition of doping differs than ours, and that's why he rails against dopers on one hand, while doping himself on the other.

By the way, cheating on a test does steal money from other people. If I get a B+ on a test without cheating and you get an A because you cheated, and it happens say 2 or 3 times (if not more) in college. As a result, your GPA is 3.4 and mine is 3.36. Also you were able to work a couple hours a week as an intern somewhere because you don't have to study as hard, while I can't work because I'm too busy studying my ass off. Therefore your resume looks better and you get a better job than me thus making more money. And if a professor curbs a test based on everyone's grades then you've screwed me even more. Are the stakes higher in cycling - yes. But it's stil the same idea, which doesn't make it right, but you have to at least admit that the same people declaring doping as "deplorable" are the same people reading sparknotes of Shakespeare when the professor specifically asks you to read the book.

I see one big difference in that PEDs can kill you prematurely. So, let's say I'm an up and coming runner with the potential to be world class, but I don't want to risk my health -- shouldn't I get to compete on a level playing field?I truly understand the argument about improvements in training, therapy, legal supplements, etc. and the idea of using modern science to improve performance, but it seems to me that the line is drawn when science can also be risky to our health.

A little perspective here wrote:

xbcha1 wrote: You are cheating to gain a competitive advantage over your peers, and thereby deny them winnings, sponsorship, adulation, etc.

Understood that it's cheating because it's against the rules. But why is it against the rules?

Athletes also train, eat, get physical therapy, spend part of the year at altitude, see sports psychologists, and take legal supplements, all to gain a competitive advantage. Those methods are not against the rules.

The question remains how to decide which methods to allow, and on what basis.

Cheating on a test is different, because the purpose of a test is to demonstrate your mastery of the subject matter, and by cheating you are misrepresenting yourself. A better analogy would be someone who took amphetamines to stay up cramming for the exam, and did better than those who studied less because they needed to sleep.