Racing clean

Michael Cole

2013-01-16

Thanks OBRA Chat for all the perspectives -- fun to read (in between my bike rides, of course). ;-)

My 2 cents: To have sport you must agree to rules. Otherwise you have spectacle, not sport. Given that, you must compete within the rules or suffer the consequences. Of course the rules are arbitrary. But there is no slippery slope. No ethical dilemma. Only choices that you live and die by.

Lance did not make the same choice I would have made.

Remember Graeme Obree? They banned not one, but TWO of his innovative riding positions, developed within the rules, thereby sending the hour record quest back to the stone age. Bummer.

Graeme's response -- stay within the rules, but change sports.

Thomas Kelly

2013-01-16

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/01/the-small-petty-fraudulent-vendettas-of-lance-armstrong/267184/

From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On Behalf Of Jamie Mikami
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 12:40 PM
To: Obra
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Racing clean

Ok that went out while I was editing stupid email !!! ignore it.

I like Kevin's ? and wonder why many seem to be hating on him.

So while I think it is pretty easy to see where the line is, at the same time it is not black and white and you can push it. Caffene is ok to an extent, vitamins and fluids via IV is ok, certain pain controls are just fine and then there is the whole asthma problem in our sport ... why does cycling have so many more asthmatics?

We have WADA and they have their list and every knows that is off limits, but it does have it's grey areas. Following it to a letter, to me would be not ethical because that means you are trying to maximize your gains via some clearly ethically poor choices ... even though they are legal.

We also seem to all agree that we all eat, train and supplement in different ways and for the most part that defines how well you will do. Work at figuring out the best way to eat and train and you will max out your potential and likely do better than those who have more potential but fail to maximize their efforts. Paying for a coach to help you do all this will make it happen even faster. Keeping notes about every aspect of your life as it relates to performance and you will find new ways to get better that are not "known".

To me the ? is that once you are in the culture of pushing all the limits ethically by following the WADA guidelines and doing things that to me are clearly beyond the normal means of improving yourself ... how hard is it to slip that one last level and do things against the WADA, but that you know that WADA can't catch and are considered "OK' by your peers and team doctors - so they might be and seem more healthy than the spray for Asthma or IV vitamins. To me that is where the interesting area in this whole issue lies - so where would you draw the line ... once you were already there as Tyler and the rest were ... sliding down the slippery slope and over the WADA line.

----- Original Message -----
From: Jamie Mikami
To: Obra
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Racing clean

I like Kevin's ? and wonder why many seem to be hating on him.

So while I think it is pretty easy to see where the line is, at the same time it is not black and white and you can push it. Caffene is ok to an extent, vitamins and fluids via IV is ok, certain pain controls are just fine and then there is the whole asthma problem in our sport ... why does cycling have so many more asthmatics?
We have WADA and they have their list and every knows that is off limits, but it does have it's grey areas. Following it to a letter, to me would be not ethical because that means you are

We also seem to all agree that we all eat, train and supplement in different ways and for the most part that defines how well you will do. Work at figuring out the best way to eat and train and you will max out your potential and likely do better than those who have more potential but fail to maximize their efforts. Paying for a coach to help you do all this will make it happen even faster. Keeping notes about every aspect of your life as it relates to performance and you will find new ways to get better that are not "known".

To me the ? is that once you are in the culture of pushing all the limits ethically by following the WADA guidelines and doing things that to me are clearly

Jamie Mikami

2013-01-16

Ok that went out while I was editing stupid email !!! ignore it.

I like Kevin's ? and wonder why many seem to be hating on him.

So while I think it is pretty easy to see where the line is, at the same time it is not black and white and you can push it. Caffene is ok to an extent, vitamins and fluids via IV is ok, certain pain controls are just fine and then there is the whole asthma problem in our sport ... why does cycling have so many more asthmatics?

We have WADA and they have their list and every knows that is off limits, but it does have it's grey areas. Following it to a letter, to me would be not ethical because that means you are trying to maximize your gains via some clearly ethically poor choices ... even though they are legal.

We also seem to all agree that we all eat, train and supplement in different ways and for the most part that defines how well you will do. Work at figuring out the best way to eat and train and you will max out your potential and likely do better than those who have more potential but fail to maximize their efforts. Paying for a coach to help you do all this will make it happen even faster. Keeping notes about every aspect of your life as it relates to performance and you will find new ways to get better that are not "known".

To me the ? is that once you are in the culture of pushing all the limits ethically by following the WADA guidelines and doing things that to me are clearly beyond the normal means of improving yourself ... how hard is it to slip that one last level and do things against the WADA, but that you know that WADA can't catch and are considered "OK' by your peers and team doctors - so they might be and seem more healthy than the spray for Asthma or IV vitamins. To me that is where the interesting area in this whole issue lies - so where would you draw the line ... once you were already there as Tyler and the rest were ... sliding down the slippery slope and over the WADA line.

----- Original Message -----
From: Jamie Mikami
To: Obra
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Racing clean

I like Kevin's ? and wonder why many seem to be hating on him.

So while I think it is pretty easy to see where the line is, at the same time it is not black and white and you can push it. Caffene is ok to an extent, vitamins and fluids via IV is ok, certain pain controls are just fine and then there is the whole asthma problem in our sport ... why does cycling have so many more asthmatics?
We have WADA and they have their list and every knows that is off limits, but it does have it's grey areas. Following it to a letter, to me would be not ethical because that means you are

We also seem to all agree that we all eat, train and supplement in different ways and for the most part that defines how well you will do. Work at figuring out the best way to eat and train and you will max out your potential and likely do better than those who have more potential but fail to maximize their efforts. Paying for a coach to help you do all this will make it happen even faster. Keeping notes about every aspect of your life as it relates to performance and you will find new ways to get better that are not "known".

To me the ? is that once you are in the culture of pushing all the limits ethically by following the WADA guidelines and doing things that to me are clearly

Jamie Mikami

2013-01-16

I like Kevin's ? and wonder why many seem to be hating on him.

So while I think it is pretty easy to see where the line is, at the same time it is not black and white and you can push it. Caffene is ok to an extent, vitamins and fluids via IV is ok, certain pain controls are just fine and then there is the whole asthma problem in our sport ... why does cycling have so many more asthmatics?
We have WADA and they have their list and every knows that is off limits, but it does have it's grey areas. Following it to a letter, to me would be not ethical because that means you are

We also seem to all agree that we all eat, train and supplement in different ways and for the most part that defines how well you will do. Work at figuring out the best way to eat and train and you will max out your potential and likely do better than those who have more potential but fail to maximize their efforts. Paying for a coach to help you do all this will make it happen even faster. Keeping notes about every aspect of your life as it relates to performance and you will find new ways to get better that are not "known".

To me the ? is that once you are in the culture of pushing all the limits ethically by following the WADA guidelines and doing things that to me are clearly

joec@aracnet.com

2013-01-16

I have used both IPA and Obsidian Stout in oral and IV forms before.
Not sure if I was going and faster, but I was sure flying!

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:57:28 -0800, Sarah Tisdale
wrote:
> Please be careful Roger.  WADA bans both *substances* and
> *methods*.  If you take chocolate chip cookies intravenously, you
> could be in trouble.
>
> ;-)
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Roger Joys (Maillists) wrote:
> I opened the list, did a search for "Chocolate Chip Cookies", found
> nothing  and breathed a sigh of relief
>
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Mike Murray wrote:
>
> > Steve is right. Composing the list is difficult. Following it is
> not.
> > Mike Murray - Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steven Beardsley
> > Sender: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [4]
> > Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:56:05
> > To: Kevin
> > Cc: Obra
> > Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Racing clean
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OBRA mailing list
> > obra@list.obra.org [7]
> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra [8]
> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org [9]
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OBRA mailing list
> > obra@list.obra.org [10]
> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra [11]
> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org [12]
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org [13]
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra [14]
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org [15]
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] mailto:roger.joys.maillists@gmail.com
> [2] mailto:mike.murray@obra.org
> [3] mailto:srbeards@gmail.com
> [4] mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org
> [5] mailto:kevin97116@yahoo.com
> [6] mailto:obra@list.obra.org
> [7] mailto:obra@list.obra.org
> [8] http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> [9] mailto:obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> [10] mailto:obra@list.obra.org
> [11] http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> [12] mailto:obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> [13] mailto:obra@list.obra.org
> [14] http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> [15] mailto:obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Adrian Richardson

2013-01-16

When I race the 1/2 field on my 88' cannondale, everyone who beat me is
cheating.

Sarah Tisdale

2013-01-16

Please be careful Roger. WADA bans both *substances* and *methods*. If
you take chocolate chip cookies intravenously, you could be in trouble.

;-)

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Roger Joys (Maillists) <
roger.joys.maillists@gmail.com> wrote:

> I opened the list, did a search for "Chocolate Chip Cookies", found
> nothing and breathed a sigh of relief
>
>
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Mike Murray wrote:
>
> > Steve is right. Composing the list is difficult. Following it is not.
> > Mike Murray - Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steven Beardsley
> > Sender: obra-bounces@list.obra.org
> > Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:56:05
> > To: Kevin
> > Cc: Obra
> > Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Racing clean
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OBRA mailing list
> > obra@list.obra.org
> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OBRA mailing list
> > obra@list.obra.org
> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>

joec@aracnet.com

2013-01-16

Ethics can be refined to this:
"What you do when no one is looking defines who you are."

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:09:08 -0500 (EST), "jeff@ultrafreaks.net"
wrote:
> Good point, and I do not condone cheating. And would totally agree
> that Lance was unethical and a cheat.
>
> How do you measure ethics though? Best we can do is through testing
> and public scrutiny. And that, to me, is a blurry line at times at the
> level of a pro cyclist. Course cutting - big infraction. But if we're
> talking about whether eating a bad steak can influence a test then it
> feels like we're getting to diminishing returns. Doesn't condone bad
> behavior.. but does raise questions about what we're testing and how.
>
> On January 16, 2013 at 1:41 PM Mike Murray wrote:
>
>> This is basically the "if they don't catch me I'm not cheating"
> argument. It is ethically bereft. It is basically the same as saying
> "If I cut the course and no one sees me than I am not cheating". Just
> like how it is not possible to catch all course cutters it is not
> possible to catch all, or even most, banned substance/practice users.
> The first defense against cheating is the ethics of the individual.
>> Mike Murray - Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "jeff@ultrafreaks.net"
>> Sender: obra-bounces@list.obra.org
>> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:00:00
>> To: Kevin; Obra
>> Reply-To: "jeff@ultrafreaks.net"
>> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Racing clean
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Thom Schoenborn

2013-01-16

Not to put words into Kevin's mouth, but I think what he's asking is, "is it ethical or consistent to draw the line at X PED, when A, B, and C PEDs also provide some advantage?"

Ethics is not a synonym of "consistency," though consistency of ethics is a hotly and frequently debated topic. Ethics are moral principles, guidelines and norms we've accepted on by giving that power to the UCI, WADA, USADA, IOC, etc.

So the answer is that the group of cyclists have given their power to decide what is and is not legal and ethical to a governing body. (Multiple governing bodies, really, which is its own sack of snakes.)

To play the "slippery slope" card is intetllectually dishonest. Food provides fuel, so should all riders be forced to eat the same foods at the same time in the same amount at the same temperature? No, because that is ridiculous — in rule-making, there are multiple sanity checks along the way that are open for interpretation. The people who we've ceded power to figure out what is and is not legal and ethical.

And if people don't like their decision? Participate in those many sanity checks along the way. No one likes talking about "process," but that's exactly why process is there — for reasonable people to debate the rules and the application of the rules.

TS

On Jan 16, 2013, at 11:44 AM, Kevin wrote:

> Actually Joe, my question is not whether it's okay to cheat, most of agree it is not. My question is not what is legal, that's well documented. My question is one of ethics.
>
>
>
>
> From: Joe Zauner
> To: "jeff@ultrafreaks.net"
> Cc: Kevin ; Obra
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Racing clean
>
> Kevin, I don't want to put words in your mouth. And I don't mean to be flip, but it seems the question you're asking is, is it okay to cheat?
>
> Testing aside, not getting caught is not the same as not cheating.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 10:01 AM, "jeff@ultrafreaks.net" wrote:
>
>> If you pass the tests of the sport then you're effectively racing clean. If the tests aren't effective enough to bag cheaters then they aren't rigorous enough or the testers are corrupt, or both .
>>
>> On January 16, 2013 at 11:46 AM Kevin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> The question really is, "where do you draw the line". It is easy to sit here in the comfort of our day job and decry those who use chemicals to enhance their performance that affects their livelihood. We see the unfairness of those who use substances to compete against those who race clean. But what is clean, and is anybody really clean?
>>
>>
>> How about a daily multivitamin?
>>
>> How about that big bowl of spaghetti the night before cross?
>> (or that tequila shot during the cross race!)
>>
>> How about that ibuprofin you take before a long race?
>>
>> How about that caffeinated gel taken during the middle of the night of 24 hour race?
>>
>> Is having a unit of blood withdrawn a few weeks before a race, then reintroducing back into you system unethical? Is it an unfair advantage?
>>
>> Not an advantage? Then why take them?
>>
>> I know, I know, you are thinking, "Kevin, you idiot, of course a multivitamin is okay, and sure, that caffeinated gel is just fine, and that ibuprofin tablet just keeps me moving smoothly". But if that little bit of artificial assistance is fine with us, at which little incremental step does the user of such aids become the scum bag? It is a slippery slope.
>>
>> I don't have the answer, just thought I'd pose the question.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Steven Beardsley

2013-01-16

Ben, what does your list look like?

WADA and USADA put the list together so we don't need to have this
conversation. Water, oxygen, Advil and hard work are in violation of their
list, but they give us a set of rules to ethnically play by so there is no
"slippery slope".

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Benjamin Drucker <
benjamin.t.drucker@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> A substance is on the World Anti-Doping Agency Prohibited List if:
>
> *1) It has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance*
> *2) It represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete*
> *3) It violates the spirit of sport*
>
> So, to consider ibuprofen, it can enhance performance due to masking
> otherwise limiting pain during competition, it is a health risk (
> http://www.drugs.com/pro/ibuprofen.html, see WARNINGS and ADVERSE
> REACTIONS), and it violates the spirit of the sport in that it is a
> chemical additive not found in normal foods that could give an unfair
> advantage over those not taking the substance.
>
> The three WADA rules are bogus in the first place. It is stupid to ban
> things that enhance sport performance. That is why we (strive to) train,
> eat well and get enough sleep. As for risks to health, racing is a risk.
> Training hard is a risk to some people.
>
> And as for "violating the spirit", that is such a wishy-washy statement
> that it has no value. We can all agree that taking a short cut is
> cheating, but this statement does nothing to clarify the wide swath of gray
> area that exists. It is the same as saying: "what is not allowed are those
> substance we deem to be prohibited".
>
> Ben
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Steven Beardsley wrote:
>
>> If only someone out there could put together a list of what's okay to
>> take and what is not.
>>
>> That would sure be helpful.
>>
>> They could call it the Prohibited List
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>

jeff@ultrafreaks.net

2013-01-16

Good point, and I do not condone cheating. And would totally agree that Lance
was unethical and a cheat.
How do you measure ethics though? Best we can do is through testing and public
scrutiny. And that, to me, is a blurry line at times at the level of a pro
cyclist. Course cutting - big infraction. But if we're talking about whether
eating a bad steak can influence a test then it feels like we're getting to
diminishing returns. Doesn't condone bad behavior.. but does raise questions
about what we're testing and how.

On January 16, 2013 at 1:41 PM Mike Murray wrote:

> This is basically the "if they don't catch me I'm not cheating" argument. It
> is ethically bereft. It is basically the same as saying "If I cut the course
> and no one sees me than I am not cheating". Just like how it is not possible
> to catch all course cutters it is not possible to catch all, or even most,
> banned substance/practice users. The first defense against cheating is the
> ethics of the individual.
> Mike Murray - Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "jeff@ultrafreaks.net"
> Sender: obra-bounces@list.obra.org
> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:00:00
> To: Kevin; Obra
> Reply-To: "jeff@ultrafreaks.net"
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Racing clean
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

rondot@spiritone.com

2013-01-16

Lance is just trying to protect as much of what he has (in the material and public world) as possible. He is human. Fear makes people do both good and bad things. If he really was following the rules, he would be “confessing” to USADA and WADA instead of Oprah. Oprah is fine with me, but she is not any more than a vehicle for Lance to get the “message he wants” out to public. He needs to come clean to the two agencies I mentioned and join them in cleaning up the UCI (under cover institution). Just because so many were doping (maybe some still?), does not make it right. The reasons people doped were clear. They wanted to gain in wins and prestige. But that still does not make it the right thing or JUSTIFY doing it.
Maybe I am out of my league (Donnie), but I also race clean. If I was told by my doctor I had to or “could” take drugs that would enhance my performance, I would stop racing against my peers. I could still go out and ride my bike hard, but I would not use that drug enhancement in a competition to gain a 3rd place finish over someone giving it a clean go.
Perhaps (don’t expect much however) the visit with Oprah will help Mr. A. see that going even further with the truth will free not only himself, but many others caught up in this mess. If he were to do that, his standing in my view would be lifted. I think others would respect that as well. He knows where his dark personal and interpersonal secrets are kept. The ones relating to this mess need to be aired to proper agencies.
No matter what happens the soap opera will continue.
ron

From: jeff@ultrafreaks.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:00 AM
To: Kevin ; Obra
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Racing clean

If you pass the tests of the sport then you're effectively racing clean. If the tests aren't effective enough to bag cheaters then they aren't rigorous enough or the testers are corrupt, or both .

On January 16, 2013 at 11:46 AM Kevin wrote:

The question really is, "where do you draw the line". It is easy to sit here in the comfort of our day job and decry those who use chemicals to enhance their performance that affects their livelihood. We see the unfairness of those who use substances to compete against those who race clean. But what is clean, and is anybody really clean?

How about a daily multivitamin?

How about that big bowl of spaghetti the night before cross?
(or that tequila shot during the cross race!)

How about that ibuprofin you take before a long race?

How about that caffeinated gel taken during the middle of the night of 24 hour race?

Is having a unit of blood withdrawn a few weeks before a race, then reintroducing back into you system unethical? Is it an unfair advantage?

Not an advantage? Then why take them?

I know, I know, you are thinking, "Kevin, you idiot, of course a multivitamin is okay, and sure, that caffeinated gel is just fine, and that ibuprofin tablet just keeps me moving smoothly". But if that little bit of artificial assistance is fine with us, at which little incremental step does the user of such aids become the scum bag? It is a slippery slope.

I don't have the answer, just thought I'd pose the question.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Tom Orth

2013-01-16

You distance guys....;)

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Danny Lopez wrote:

> Hey now.... As a D1 Track and Field Athlete (Oregon), Pro (adidas) and 92'
> US Olympian, I can say not all of us were dirty... I was even afraid to
> drink coffee!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 8:58 AM, Tom Orth wrote:
>
> I was a Division III sprinter jumper (track and field) in college back in
> the 80's. Once a year, we sent a couple of athletes to compete at a large
> open invitational. The vast majority of the athletes at that meet were D1,
> pros, Olympians, etc. In 1989, there was a change in the way the did drug
> testing. Rather than test only the top place finishers at year end
> competitions like regionals and nationals, they started testing at random
> meets. But, they announced the testing the week before the meet. That
> year, our meet was chosen (Minnesota Industrial Tool at the UofM). Prior
> to the announcement, there were 8 plus heats of most events (sprints,
> throws, jumping). The day after the announcement, every single athlete who
> was not D3 pulled out of the meet. Every D1 school, every
> pro...every....Olympian, every....single....one.
>
> We ended up having a great Division III meet at a great venue.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Kevin wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The question really is, "where do you draw the line". It is easy to sit
>> here in the comfort of our day job and decry those who use chemicals to
>> enhance their performance that affects their livelihood. We see the
>> unfairness of those who use substances to compete against those who race
>> clean. But what is clean, and is anybody really clean?
>>
>>
>> How about a daily multivitamin?
>>
>> How about that big bowl of spaghetti the night before cross?
>> (or that tequila shot during the cross race!)
>>
>> How about that ibuprofin you take before a long race?
>>
>> How about that caffeinated gel taken during the middle of the night of 24
>> hour race?
>>
>> Is having a unit of blood withdrawn a few weeks before a race, then
>> reintroducing back into you system unethical? Is it an unfair advantage?
>>
>> Not an advantage? Then why take them?
>>
>> I know, I know, you are thinking, "Kevin, you idiot, of course a
>> multivitamin is okay, and sure, that caffeinated gel is just fine, and that
>> ibuprofin tablet just keeps me moving smoothly". But if that little bit of
>> artificial assistance is fine with us, at which little incremental step
>> does the user of such aids become the scum bag? It is a slippery slope.
>>
>> I don't have the answer, just thought I'd pose the question.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>

Kevin

2013-01-16

Nope, I'm asking if you decry those who race dirty, do you feel that "your" use of a caffeine gel okay with your standards? If yes, then where do you draw the line?  Not the legal line, the ethical line.

 

>________________________________
> From: Joe Zauner
>To: kevin97116@yahoo.com; jeff@ultrafreaks.net
>Cc: obra
>Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:51 AM
>Subject: RE: [OBRA Chat] Racing clean
>
>
>
>Again, not to be flip, but are you asking, is cheating ethical? 
>
>
>Joe 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:44:45 -0800
>From: kevin97116@yahoo.com
>Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Racing clean
>To: jzauner33141@hotmail.com; jeff@ultrafreaks.net
>CC: obra@list.obra.org
>
>
>Actually Joe, my question is not whether it's okay to cheat, most of agree it is not. My question is not what is legal, that's well documented.  My question is one of ethics.
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Joe Zauner
>>To: "jeff@ultrafreaks.net"
>>Cc: Kevin ; Obra
>>Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:34 AM
>>Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Racing clean
>>
>>
>>Kevin, I don't want to put words in your mouth. And I don't mean to be flip, but it seems the question you're asking is, is it okay to cheat?
>>
>>
>>Testing aside, not getting caught is not the same as not cheating.
>>
>>Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>On Jan 16, 2013, at 10:01 AM, "jeff@ultrafreaks.net" wrote:
>>
>>
>>If you pass the tests of the sport then you're effectively racing clean.  If the tests aren't effective enough to bag cheaters then they aren't rigorous enough or the testers are corrupt, or both .
>>>
>>>On January 16, 2013 at 11:46 AM Kevin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>> 
The question really is, "where do you draw the line".  It is easy to sit here in the comfort of our day job and decry those who use chemicals to enhance their performance that affects their livelihood.  We see the unfairness of those who use substances to compete against those who race clean.   But what is clean, and is anybody really clean?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How about a daily multivitamin?
>>>>
>>>>How about that big bowl of spaghetti the night before cross?
>>>>(or that tequila shot during the cross race!)
>>>>
>>>>How about that ibuprofin you take before a long race?
>>>>
>>>>How about that caffeinated gel taken during the middle of the night of 24 hour race?
>>>>
>>>>Is having a unit of blood withdrawn a few weeks before a race, then reintroducing back into you system unethical?  Is it an unfair advantage?
>>>>
>>>>Not an advantage?  Then why take them?
>>>>
>>>>I know, I know, you are thinking, "Kevin, you idiot, of course a multivitamin is okay, and sure, that caffeinated gel is just fine, and that ibuprofin tablet just keeps me moving smoothly".  But if that little bit of artificial assistance is fine with us, at which little incremental step does the user of such aids become the scum bag?  It is a slippery slope.
>>>>
>>>>I don't have the answer, just thought I'd pose the question.
>>> 
>>_______________________________________________
>>>OBRA mailing list
>>>obra@list.obra.org
>>>http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>>>Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>OBRA mailing list
>>obra@list.obra.org
>>http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>>Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Melanie Rathe

2013-01-16

Based on what I have seen go on when a certain son of mine is home..... the pros know what they can and can't take. If they don't know they ask, so none of them can play ignorant in today's cycling world...

;o)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin"
To: "Joe Zauner" , jeff@ultrafreaks.net
Cc: "Obra"
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:44:45 AM
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Racing clean

Actually Joe, my question is not whether it's okay to cheat, most of agree it is not. My question is not what is legal, that's well documented.  My question is one of ethics.

 

From: Joe Zauner
To: "jeff@ultrafreaks.net"
Cc: Kevin ; Obra
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Racing clean

Kevin, I don't want to put words in your mouth. And I don't mean to be flip, but it seems the question you're asking is, is it okay to cheat?

Testing aside, not getting caught is not the same as not cheating.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 16, 2013, at 10:01 AM, " jeff@ultrafreaks.net " < jeff@ultrafreaks.net > wrote:

If you pass the tests of the sport then you're effectively racing clean.  If the tests aren't effective enough to bag cheaters then they aren't rigorous enough or the testers are corrupt, or both .

On January 16, 2013 at 11:46 AM Kevin < kevin97116@yahoo.com > wrote:

 
  The question really is, "where do you draw the line".  It is easy to sit here in the comfort of our day job and decry those who use chemicals to enhance their performance that affects their livelihood.  We see the unfairness of those who use substances to compete against those who race clean.   But what is clean, and is anybody really clean?

How about a daily multivitamin?

How about that big bowl of spaghetti the night before cross?
(or that tequila shot during the cross race!)

How about that ibuprofin you take before a long race?

How about that caffeinated gel taken during the middle of the night of 24 hour race?

Is having a unit of blood withdrawn a few weeks before a race, then reintroducing back into you system unethical?  Is it an unfair advantage?

Not an advantage?  Then why take them?

I know, I know, you are thinking, "Kevin, you idiot, of course a multivitamin is okay, and sure, that caffeinated gel is just fine, and that ibuprofin tablet just keeps me moving smoothly".  But if that little bit of artificial assistance is fine with us, at which little incremental step does the user of such aids become the scum bag?  It is a slippery slope.

I don't have the answer, just thought I'd pose the question.

 

_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Joe Zauner

2013-01-16

Again, not to be flip, but are you asking, is cheating ethical?
Joe

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:44:45 -0800
From: kevin97116@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Racing clean
To: jzauner33141@hotmail.com; jeff@ultrafreaks.net
CC: obra@list.obra.org

Actually Joe, my question is not whether it's okay to cheat, most of agree it is not. My question is not what is legal, that's well documented. My question is one of ethics.

From: Joe Zauner

To: "jeff@ultrafreaks.net"
Cc: Kevin ; Obra
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Racing clean

Kevin, I don't want to put words in your mouth. And I don't mean to be flip, but it seems the question you're asking is, is it okay to cheat?
Testing aside, not getting caught is not the same as not cheating.

Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 16, 2013, at 10:01 AM, "jeff@ultrafreaks.net" wrote:





If you pass the tests of the sport then you're effectively racing clean. If the tests aren't effective enough to bag cheaters then they aren't rigorous enough or the testers are corrupt, or both .




On January 16, 2013 at 11:46 AM Kevin wrote:











The question really is, "where do you draw the line". It is easy to sit here in the comfort of our day job and decry those who use chemicals to enhance their performance that affects their livelihood. We see the unfairness of those who use substances to compete against those who race clean. But what is clean, and is anybody really clean?


How about a daily multivitamin?


How about that big bowl of spaghetti the night before cross?

(or that tequila shot during the cross race!)


How about that ibuprofin you take before a long race?


How about that caffeinated gel taken during the middle of the night of 24 hour race?


Is having a unit of blood withdrawn a few weeks before a race, then reintroducing back into you system unethical? Is it an unfair advantage?


Not an advantage? Then why take them?


I know, I know, you are thinking, "Kevin, you idiot, of course a multivitamin is okay, and sure, that caffeinated gel is just fine, and that ibuprofin tablet just keeps me moving smoothly". But if that little bit of artificial assistance is fine with us, at which little incremental step does the user of such aids become the scum bag? It is a slippery slope.


I don't have the answer, just thought I'd pose the question.








_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Kevin

2013-01-16

Actually Joe, my question is not whether it's okay to cheat, most of agree it is not. My question is not what is legal, that's well documented.  My question is one of ethics.

 

>________________________________
> From: Joe Zauner
>To: "jeff@ultrafreaks.net"
>Cc: Kevin ; Obra
>Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:34 AM
>Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Racing clean
>
>
>Kevin, I don't want to put words in your mouth. And I don't mean to be flip, but it seems the question you're asking is, is it okay to cheat?
>
>
>Testing aside, not getting caught is not the same as not cheating.
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Jan 16, 2013, at 10:01 AM, "jeff@ultrafreaks.net" wrote:
>
>
>If you pass the tests of the sport then you're effectively racing clean.  If the tests aren't effective enough to bag cheaters then they aren't rigorous enough or the testers are corrupt, or both .
>>
>>On January 16, 2013 at 11:46 AM Kevin wrote:
>>
>>
>> 
>>> 
The question really is, "where do you draw the line".  It is easy to sit here in the comfort of our day job and decry those who use chemicals to enhance their performance that affects their livelihood.  We see the unfairness of those who use substances to compete against those who race clean.   But what is clean, and is anybody really clean?
>>>
>>>
>>>How about a daily multivitamin?
>>>
>>>How about that big bowl of spaghetti the night before cross?
>>>(or that tequila shot during the cross race!)
>>>
>>>How about that ibuprofin you take before a long race?
>>>
>>>How about that caffeinated gel taken during the middle of the night of 24 hour race?
>>>
>>>Is having a unit of blood withdrawn a few weeks before a race, then reintroducing back into you system unethical?  Is it an unfair advantage?
>>>
>>>Not an advantage?  Then why take them?
>>>
>>>I know, I know, you are thinking, "Kevin, you idiot, of course a multivitamin is okay, and sure, that caffeinated gel is just fine, and that ibuprofin tablet just keeps me moving smoothly".  But if that little bit of artificial assistance is fine with us, at which little incremental step does the user of such aids become the scum bag?  It is a slippery slope.
>>>
>>>I don't have the answer, just thought I'd pose the question.
>> 
>_______________________________________________
>>OBRA mailing list
>>obra@list.obra.org
>>http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>>Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>
>_______________________________________________
>OBRA mailing list
>obra@list.obra.org
>http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>
>

Mike Murray

2013-01-16

This is basically the "if they don't catch me I'm not cheating" argument. It is ethically bereft. It is basically the same as saying "If I cut the course and no one sees me than I am not cheating". Just like how it is not possible to catch all course cutters it is not possible to catch all, or even most, banned substance/practice users. The first defense against cheating is the ethics of the individual.
Mike Murray - Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: "jeff@ultrafreaks.net"
Sender: obra-bounces@list.obra.org
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:00:00
To: Kevin; Obra
Reply-To: "jeff@ultrafreaks.net"
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Racing clean

_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Joe Zauner

2013-01-16

Kevin, I don't want to put words in your mouth. And I don't mean to be flip, but it seems the question you're asking is, is it okay to cheat?

Testing aside, not getting caught is not the same as not cheating.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 16, 2013, at 10:01 AM, "jeff@ultrafreaks.net" wrote:

> If you pass the tests of the sport then you're effectively racing clean. If the tests aren't effective enough to bag cheaters then they aren't rigorous enough or the testers are corrupt, or both .
>
> On January 16, 2013 at 11:46 AM Kevin wrote:
>
>
>
> The question really is, "where do you draw the line". It is easy to sit here in the comfort of our day job and decry those who use chemicals to enhance their performance that affects their livelihood. We see the unfairness of those who use substances to compete against those who race clean. But what is clean, and is anybody really clean?
>
>
> How about a daily multivitamin?
>
> How about that big bowl of spaghetti the night before cross?
> (or that tequila shot during the cross race!)
>
> How about that ibuprofin you take before a long race?
>
> How about that caffeinated gel taken during the middle of the night of 24 hour race?
>
> Is having a unit of blood withdrawn a few weeks before a race, then reintroducing back into you system unethical? Is it an unfair advantage?
>
> Not an advantage? Then why take them?
>
> I know, I know, you are thinking, "Kevin, you idiot, of course a multivitamin is okay, and sure, that caffeinated gel is just fine, and that ibuprofin tablet just keeps me moving smoothly". But if that little bit of artificial assistance is fine with us, at which little incremental step does the user of such aids become the scum bag? It is a slippery slope.
>
> I don't have the answer, just thought I'd pose the question.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Roger Joys (Maillists)

2013-01-16

I opened the list, did a search for "Chocolate Chip Cookies", found nothing and breathed a sigh of relief

On Jan 16, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Mike Murray wrote:

> Steve is right. Composing the list is difficult. Following it is not.
> Mike Murray - Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Beardsley
> Sender: obra-bounces@list.obra.org
> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:56:05
> To: Kevin
> Cc: Obra
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Racing clean
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Mike Murray

2013-01-16

Steve is right. Composing the list is difficult. Following it is not.
Mike Murray - Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Beardsley
Sender: obra-bounces@list.obra.org
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:56:05
To: Kevin
Cc: Obra
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Racing clean

_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Brooke Hoyer

2013-01-16

NSAIDs are *probably* not performance enhancing, BTW. Science is pretty
good that use during endurance activities poses risk. (
http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/medicationanddrugs/a/NSAID_endurance.htm)

Personally, I'd like to see a recommendation of non-use during
endurance activities and a brief (with a more in depth study for those
inclined) stating the actions of NSAIDS on performance and the associated
risks. Outright ban and testing is just stupid.

There are plenty of more important PEDs out there to do testing on.
Reductio ad absurdum just ain't working on this one. Perhaps common sense
can rule the day.

Hugs and kisses,
Brooke Hoyer

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Benjamin Drucker <
benjamin.t.drucker@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> A substance is on the World Anti-Doping Agency Prohibited List if:
>
> *1) It has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance*
> *2) It represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete*
> *3) It violates the spirit of sport*
>
> So, to consider ibuprofen, it can enhance performance due to masking
> otherwise limiting pain during competition, it is a health risk (
> http://www.drugs.com/pro/ibuprofen.html, see WARNINGS and ADVERSE
> REACTIONS), and it violates the spirit of the sport in that it is a
> chemical additive not found in normal foods that could give an unfair
> advantage over those not taking the substance.
>
> The three WADA rules are bogus in the first place. It is stupid to ban
> things that enhance sport performance. That is why we (strive to) train,
> eat well and get enough sleep. As for risks to health, racing is a risk.
> Training hard is a risk to some people.
>
> And as for "violating the spirit", that is such a wishy-washy statement
> that it has no value. We can all agree that taking a short cut is
> cheating, but this statement does nothing to clarify the wide swath of gray
> area that exists. It is the same as saying: "what is not allowed are those
> substance we deem to be prohibited".
>
> Ben
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Steven Beardsley wrote:
>
>> If only someone out there could put together a list of what's okay to
>> take and what is not.
>>
>> That would sure be helpful.
>>
>> They could call it the Prohibited List
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>

joec@aracnet.com

2013-01-16

~sigh~

I have a better idea: What say we just go and ride our damn bikes.

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:26:51 -0800, Benjamin Drucker
wrote:
> A substance is on the World Anti-Doping Agency Prohibited List if:
>
> _1) It has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance_
> _2) It represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete_
> _3) It violates the spirit of sport_
>
> So, to consider ibuprofen, it can enhance performance due to masking
> otherwise limiting pain during competition, it is a health risk
> (http://www.drugs.com/pro/ibuprofen.html [1], see WARNINGS and ADVERSE
> REACTIONS), and it violates the spirit of the sport in that it is a
> chemical additive not found in normal foods that could give an unfair
> advantage over those not taking the substance.
>
> The three WADA rules are bogus in the first place.  It is stupid to
> ban things that enhance sport performance.  That is why we (strive
> to) train, eat well and get enough sleep.  As for risks to health,
> racing is a risk.  Training hard is a risk to some people.
>
> And as for "violating the spirit", that is such a wishy-washy
> statement that it has no value.  We can all agree that taking a short
> cut is cheating, but this statement does nothing to clarify the wide
> swath of gray area that exists.  It is the same as saying: "what is
> not allowed are those substance we deem to be prohibited".
>
> Ben
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Steven Beardsley wrote:
>
> If only someone out there could put together a list of what's okay to
> take and what is not.
>
> That would sure be helpful.
>
> They could call it the Prohibited List [3]
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.drugs.com/pro/ibuprofen.html
> [2] mailto:srbeards@gmail.com
> [3] http://www.usada.org/prohibited-list

jeff@ultrafreaks.net

2013-01-16

If you pass the tests of the sport then you're effectively racing clean. If the
tests aren't effective enough to bag cheaters then they aren't rigorous enough
or the testers are corrupt, or both .

On January 16, 2013 at 11:46 AM Kevin wrote:

>
>
> The question really is, "where do you draw the line". It is easy to sit here
> in the comfort of our day job and decry those who use chemicals to enhance
> their performance that affects their livelihood. We see the unfairness of
> those who use substances to compete against those who race clean. But what
> is clean, and is anybody really clean?
>
>
> How about a daily multivitamin?
>
> How about that big bowl of spaghetti the night before cross?
> (or that tequila shot during the cross race!)
>
> How about that ibuprofin you take before a long race?
>
> How about that caffeinated gel taken during the middle of the night of 24
> hour race?
>
> Is having a unit of blood withdrawn a few weeks before a race, then
> reintroducing back into you system unethical? Is it an unfair advantage?
>
> Not an advantage? Then why take them?
>
> I know, I know, you are thinking, "Kevin, you idiot, of course a multivitamin
> is okay, and sure, that caffeinated gel is just fine, and that ibuprofin
> tablet just keeps me moving smoothly". But if that little bit of artificial
> assistance is fine with us, at which little incremental step does the user of
> such aids become the scum bag? It is a slippery slope.
>
> I don't have the answer, just thought I'd pose the question.
>

Danny Lopez

2013-01-16

Ah yes, thanks for that John.... How could I have left off the Salsa skills. Anyone want to trade lessons for bike riding skills?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 16, 2013, at 9:34 AM, John Bravard wrote:

> Good to hear from you, Danny!
>
> Similarly, not all pro cyclists of that era chose to dope. I say this to preemptively rebut that argument.
>
> Now, you didn't list below that you are also one of the best Salsa dancers around.
>
>
>
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 9:22 AM, Danny Lopez wrote:
>
>> Hey now.... As a D1 Track and Field Athlete (Oregon), Pro (adidas) and 92' US Olympian, I can say not all of us were dirty... I was even afraid to drink coffee!
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jan 16, 2013, at 8:58 AM, Tom Orth wrote:
>>
>>> I was a Division III sprinter jumper (track and field) in college back in the 80's. Once a year, we sent a couple of athletes to compete at a large open invitational. The vast majority of the athletes at that meet were D1, pros, Olympians, etc. In 1989, there was a change in the way the did drug testing. Rather than test only the top place finishers at year end competitions like regionals and nationals, they started testing at random meets. But, they announced the testing the week before the meet. That year, our meet was chosen (Minnesota Industrial Tool at the UofM). Prior to the announcement, there were 8 plus heats of most events (sprints, throws, jumping). The day after the announcement, every single athlete who was not D3 pulled out of the meet. Every D1 school, every pro...every....Olympian, every....single....one.
>>>
>>> We ended up having a great Division III meet at a great venue.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Kevin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The question really is, "where do you draw the line". It is easy to sit here in the comfort of our day job and decry those who use chemicals to enhance their performance that affects their livelihood. We see the unfairness of those who use substances to compete against those who race clean. But what is clean, and is anybody really clean?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How about a daily multivitamin?
>>>>
>>>> How about that big bowl of spaghetti the night before cross?
>>>> (or that tequila shot during the cross race!)
>>>>
>>>> How about that ibuprofin you take before a long race?
>>>>
>>>> How about that caffeinated gel taken during the middle of the night of 24 hour race?
>>>>
>>>> Is having a unit of blood withdrawn a few weeks before a race, then reintroducing back into you system unethical? Is it an unfair advantage?
>>>>
>>>> Not an advantage? Then why take them?
>>>>
>>>> I know, I know, you are thinking, "Kevin, you idiot, of course a multivitamin is okay, and sure, that caffeinated gel is just fine, and that ibuprofin tablet just keeps me moving smoothly". But if that little bit of artificial assistance is fine with us, at which little incremental step does the user of such aids become the scum bag? It is a slippery slope.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have the answer, just thought I'd pose the question.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OBRA mailing list
>>>> obra@list.obra.org
>>>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>>>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OBRA mailing list
>>> obra@list.obra.org
>>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

John Bravard

2013-01-16

Good to hear from you, Danny!

Similarly, not all pro cyclists of that era chose to dope. I say this to preemptively rebut that argument.

Now, you didn't list below that you are also one of the best Salsa dancers around.

On Jan 16, 2013, at 9:22 AM, Danny Lopez wrote:

> Hey now.... As a D1 Track and Field Athlete (Oregon), Pro (adidas) and 92' US Olympian, I can say not all of us were dirty... I was even afraid to drink coffee!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 8:58 AM, Tom Orth wrote:
>
>> I was a Division III sprinter jumper (track and field) in college back in the 80's. Once a year, we sent a couple of athletes to compete at a large open invitational. The vast majority of the athletes at that meet were D1, pros, Olympians, etc. In 1989, there was a change in the way the did drug testing. Rather than test only the top place finishers at year end competitions like regionals and nationals, they started testing at random meets. But, they announced the testing the week before the meet. That year, our meet was chosen (Minnesota Industrial Tool at the UofM). Prior to the announcement, there were 8 plus heats of most events (sprints, throws, jumping). The day after the announcement, every single athlete who was not D3 pulled out of the meet. Every D1 school, every pro...every....Olympian, every....single....one.
>>
>> We ended up having a great Division III meet at a great venue.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Kevin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The question really is, "where do you draw the line". It is easy to sit here in the comfort of our day job and decry those who use chemicals to enhance their performance that affects their livelihood. We see the unfairness of those who use substances to compete against those who race clean. But what is clean, and is anybody really clean?
>>>
>>>
>>> How about a daily multivitamin?
>>>
>>> How about that big bowl of spaghetti the night before cross?
>>> (or that tequila shot during the cross race!)
>>>
>>> How about that ibuprofin you take before a long race?
>>>
>>> How about that caffeinated gel taken during the middle of the night of 24 hour race?
>>>
>>> Is having a unit of blood withdrawn a few weeks before a race, then reintroducing back into you system unethical? Is it an unfair advantage?
>>>
>>> Not an advantage? Then why take them?
>>>
>>> I know, I know, you are thinking, "Kevin, you idiot, of course a multivitamin is okay, and sure, that caffeinated gel is just fine, and that ibuprofin tablet just keeps me moving smoothly". But if that little bit of artificial assistance is fine with us, at which little incremental step does the user of such aids become the scum bag? It is a slippery slope.
>>>
>>> I don't have the answer, just thought I'd pose the question.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OBRA mailing list
>>> obra@list.obra.org
>>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Pat Malach

2013-01-16

"My question was not posed around what was legal, that is obvious. My question revolved more around what is ethical."

Also obvious: It is unethical to take prohibited substances. Not so with substances that are allowed. Why try to make this more difficult than it obviously is.

Benjamin Drucker

2013-01-16

A substance is on the World Anti-Doping Agency Prohibited List if:

*1) It has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance*
*2) It represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete*
*3) It violates the spirit of sport*

So, to consider ibuprofen, it can enhance performance due to masking
otherwise limiting pain during competition, it is a health risk (
http://www.drugs.com/pro/ibuprofen.html, see WARNINGS and ADVERSE
REACTIONS), and it violates the spirit of the sport in that it is a
chemical additive not found in normal foods that could give an unfair
advantage over those not taking the substance.

The three WADA rules are bogus in the first place. It is stupid to ban
things that enhance sport performance. That is why we (strive to) train,
eat well and get enough sleep. As for risks to health, racing is a risk.
Training hard is a risk to some people.

And as for "violating the spirit", that is such a wishy-washy statement
that it has no value. We can all agree that taking a short cut is
cheating, but this statement does nothing to clarify the wide swath of gray
area that exists. It is the same as saying: "what is not allowed are those
substance we deem to be prohibited".

Ben

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Steven Beardsley wrote:

> If only someone out there could put together a list of what's okay to take
> and what is not.
>
> That would sure be helpful.
>
> They could call it the Prohibited List
>
>
>

Thom Schoenborn

2013-01-16

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

A slippery slope is a fallacy. Something to consider both in terms of your point and the broader political news of the day.

On Jan 16, 2013, at 9:46 AM, Kevin wrote:

>
>
> The question really is, "where do you draw the line". It is easy to sit here in the comfort of our day job and decry those who use chemicals to enhance their performance that affects their livelihood. We see the unfairness of those who use substances to compete against those who race clean. But what is clean, and is anybody really clean?
>
>
> How about a daily multivitamin?
>
> How about that big bowl of spaghetti the night before cross?
> (or that tequila shot during the cross race!)
>
> How about that ibuprofin you take before a long race?
>
> How about that caffeinated gel taken during the middle of the night of 24 hour race?
>
> Is having a unit of blood withdrawn a few weeks before a race, then reintroducing back into you system unethical? Is it an unfair advantage?
>
> Not an advantage? Then why take them?
>
> I know, I know, you are thinking, "Kevin, you idiot, of course a multivitamin is okay, and sure, that caffeinated gel is just fine, and that ibuprofin tablet just keeps me moving smoothly". But if that little bit of artificial assistance is fine with us, at which little incremental step does the user of such aids become the scum bag? It is a slippery slope.
>
> I don't have the answer, just thought I'd pose the question.
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Danny Lopez

2013-01-16

Hey now.... As a D1 Track and Field Athlete (Oregon), Pro (adidas) and 92' US Olympian, I can say not all of us were dirty... I was even afraid to drink coffee!

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 16, 2013, at 8:58 AM, Tom Orth wrote:

> I was a Division III sprinter jumper (track and field) in college back in the 80's. Once a year, we sent a couple of athletes to compete at a large open invitational. The vast majority of the athletes at that meet were D1, pros, Olympians, etc. In 1989, there was a change in the way the did drug testing. Rather than test only the top place finishers at year end competitions like regionals and nationals, they started testing at random meets. But, they announced the testing the week before the meet. That year, our meet was chosen (Minnesota Industrial Tool at the UofM). Prior to the announcement, there were 8 plus heats of most events (sprints, throws, jumping). The day after the announcement, every single athlete who was not D3 pulled out of the meet. Every D1 school, every pro...every....Olympian, every....single....one.
>
> We ended up having a great Division III meet at a great venue.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Kevin wrote:
>>
>>
>> The question really is, "where do you draw the line". It is easy to sit here in the comfort of our day job and decry those who use chemicals to enhance their performance that affects their livelihood. We see the unfairness of those who use substances to compete against those who race clean. But what is clean, and is anybody really clean?
>>
>>
>> How about a daily multivitamin?
>>
>> How about that big bowl of spaghetti the night before cross?
>> (or that tequila shot during the cross race!)
>>
>> How about that ibuprofin you take before a long race?
>>
>> How about that caffeinated gel taken during the middle of the night of 24 hour race?
>>
>> Is having a unit of blood withdrawn a few weeks before a race, then reintroducing back into you system unethical? Is it an unfair advantage?
>>
>> Not an advantage? Then why take them?
>>
>> I know, I know, you are thinking, "Kevin, you idiot, of course a multivitamin is okay, and sure, that caffeinated gel is just fine, and that ibuprofin tablet just keeps me moving smoothly". But if that little bit of artificial assistance is fine with us, at which little incremental step does the user of such aids become the scum bag? It is a slippery slope.
>>
>> I don't have the answer, just thought I'd pose the question.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Thomas Kelly

2013-01-16

If Nutella works, and everyone starts using it, and sponsors and organizers turn a blind eye to it, then I am all over it.

From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On Behalf Of Dan Grabski
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 8:51 AM
To: Obra
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Racing clean

I've only ever tested positive for Nutella.

Dan

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Kevin > wrote:

The question really is, "where do you draw the line". It is easy to sit here in the comfort of our day job and decry those who use chemicals to enhance their performance that affects their livelihood. We see the unfairness of those who use substances to compete against those who race clean. But what is clean, and is anybody really clean?

How about a daily multivitamin?

How about that big bowl of spaghetti the night before cross?
(or that tequila shot during the cross race!)

How about that ibuprofin you take before a long race?

How about that caffeinated gel taken during the middle of the night of 24 hour race?

Is having a unit of blood withdrawn a few weeks before a race, then reintroducing back into you system unethical? Is it an unfair advantage?

Not an advantage? Then why take them?

I know, I know, you are thinking, "Kevin, you idiot, of course a multivitamin is okay, and sure, that caffeinated gel is just fine, and that ibuprofin tablet just keeps me moving smoothly". But if that little bit of artificial assistance is fine with us, at which little incremental step does the user of such aids become the scum bag? It is a slippery slope.

I don't have the answer, just thought I'd pose the question.

_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Tom Orth

2013-01-16

I was a Division III sprinter jumper (track and field) in college back in
the 80's. Once a year, we sent a couple of athletes to compete at a large
open invitational. The vast majority of the athletes at that meet were D1,
pros, Olympians, etc. In 1989, there was a change in the way the did drug
testing. Rather than test only the top place finishers at year end
competitions like regionals and nationals, they started testing at random
meets. But, they announced the testing the week before the meet. That
year, our meet was chosen (Minnesota Industrial Tool at the UofM). Prior
to the announcement, there were 8 plus heats of most events (sprints,
throws, jumping). The day after the announcement, every single athlete who
was not D3 pulled out of the meet. Every D1 school, every
pro...every....Olympian, every....single....one.

We ended up having a great Division III meet at a great venue.

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Kevin wrote:

>
>
> The question really is, "where do you draw the line". It is easy to sit
> here in the comfort of our day job and decry those who use chemicals to
> enhance their performance that affects their livelihood. We see the
> unfairness of those who use substances to compete against those who race
> clean. But what is clean, and is anybody really clean?
>
>
> How about a daily multivitamin?
>
> How about that big bowl of spaghetti the night before cross?
> (or that tequila shot during the cross race!)
>
> How about that ibuprofin you take before a long race?
>
> How about that caffeinated gel taken during the middle of the night of 24
> hour race?
>
> Is having a unit of blood withdrawn a few weeks before a race, then
> reintroducing back into you system unethical? Is it an unfair advantage?
>
> Not an advantage? Then why take them?
>
> I know, I know, you are thinking, "Kevin, you idiot, of course a
> multivitamin is okay, and sure, that caffeinated gel is just fine, and that
> ibuprofin tablet just keeps me moving smoothly". But if that little bit of
> artificial assistance is fine with us, at which little incremental step
> does the user of such aids become the scum bag? It is a slippery slope.
>
> I don't have the answer, just thought I'd pose the question.
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>

Steven Beardsley

2013-01-16

If only someone out there could put together a list of what's okay to take
and what is not.

That would sure be helpful.

They could call it the Prohibited List

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Kevin wrote:

>
>
> The question really is, "where do you draw the line". It is easy to sit
> here in the comfort of our day job and decry those who use chemicals to
> enhance their performance that affects their livelihood. We see the
> unfairness of those who use substances to compete against those who race
> clean. But what is clean, and is anybody really clean?
>
>
> How about a daily multivitamin?
>
> How about that big bowl of spaghetti the night before cross?
> (or that tequila shot during the cross race!)
>
> How about that ibuprofin you take before a long race?
>
> How about that caffeinated gel taken during the middle of the night of 24
> hour race?
>
> Is having a unit of blood withdrawn a few weeks before a race, then
> reintroducing back into you system unethical? Is it an unfair advantage?
>
> Not an advantage? Then why take them?
>
> I know, I know, you are thinking, "Kevin, you idiot, of course a
> multivitamin is okay, and sure, that caffeinated gel is just fine, and that
> ibuprofin tablet just keeps me moving smoothly". But if that little bit of
> artificial assistance is fine with us, at which little incremental step
> does the user of such aids become the scum bag? It is a slippery slope.
>
> I don't have the answer, just thought I'd pose the question.
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>

Ken MTBDEMON

2013-01-16

This is not direct to Kevin, but the title "Racing clean" is a bit of a oxy moron to me....
In any type of racing, whether you are racing tricycles as a child, slot cars or in any type of motorsport "if you are cheatin' you aren't racin' " is the old adage while not ethical is the world in which we live...I would never cheat....Unless you caught me : )
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin
To: Obra
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 8:46 AM
Subject: [OBRA Chat] Racing clean

The question really is, "where do you draw the line". It is easy to sit here in the comfort of our day job and decry those who use chemicals to enhance their performance that affects their livelihood. We see the unfairness of those who use substances to compete against those who race clean. But what is clean, and is anybody really clean?

How about a daily multivitamin?

How about that big bowl of spaghetti the night before cross?
(or that tequila shot during the cross race!)

How about that ibuprofin you take before a long race?

How about that caffeinated gel taken during the middle of the night of 24 hour race?

Is having a unit of blood withdrawn a few weeks before a race, then reintroducing back into you system unethical? Is it an unfair advantage?

Not an advantage? Then why take them?

I know, I know, you are thinking, "Kevin, you idiot, of course a multivitamin is okay, and sure, that caffeinated gel is just fine, and that ibuprofin tablet just keeps me moving smoothly". But if that little bit of artificial assistance is fine with us, at which little incremental step does the user of such aids become the scum bag? It is a slippery slope.

I don't have the answer, just thought I'd pose the question.

_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Dan Grabski

2013-01-16

I've only ever tested positive for Nutella.

Dan

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Kevin wrote:

>
>
> The question really is, "where do you draw the line". It is easy to sit
> here in the comfort of our day job and decry those who use chemicals to
> enhance their performance that affects their livelihood. We see the
> unfairness of those who use substances to compete against those who race
> clean. But what is clean, and is anybody really clean?
>
>
> How about a daily multivitamin?
>
> How about that big bowl of spaghetti the night before cross?
> (or that tequila shot during the cross race!)
>
> How about that ibuprofin you take before a long race?
>
> How about that caffeinated gel taken during the middle of the night of 24
> hour race?
>
> Is having a unit of blood withdrawn a few weeks before a race, then
> reintroducing back into you system unethical? Is it an unfair advantage?
>
> Not an advantage? Then why take them?
>
> I know, I know, you are thinking, "Kevin, you idiot, of course a
> multivitamin is okay, and sure, that caffeinated gel is just fine, and that
> ibuprofin tablet just keeps me moving smoothly". But if that little bit of
> artificial assistance is fine with us, at which little incremental step
> does the user of such aids become the scum bag? It is a slippery slope.
>
> I don't have the answer, just thought I'd pose the question.
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>

Kevin

2013-01-16

 The question really is, "where do you draw the line".  It is easy to sit here in the comfort of our day job and decry those who use chemicals to enhance their performance that affects their livelihood.  We see the unfairness of those who use substances to compete against those who race clean.   But what is clean, and is anybody really clean?

How about a daily multivitamin?

How about that big bowl of spaghetti the night before cross?
(or that tequila shot during the cross race!)

How about that ibuprofin you take before a long race?

How about that caffeinated gel taken during the middle of the night of 24 hour race?

Is having a unit of blood withdrawn a few weeks before a race, then
reintroducing back into you system unethical?  Is it an unfair
advantage?

Not an advantage?  Then why take them?

I know, I know, you are thinking, "Kevin, you idiot, of course a multivitamin is okay, and sure, that caffeinated gel is just fine, and that ibuprofin tablet just keeps me moving smoothly".  But if that little bit of artificial assistance is fine with us, at which little incremental step does the user of such aids become the scum bag?  It is a slippery slope.

I don't have the answer, just thought I'd pose the question.

© 2025 Oregon Bicycle Racing Association