The deepening spiral of innuendo

So maybe I should have said, at some previous point, what my qualifications are to rant on doping. I am a scientist with a doctorate, but not in any field remotely related to doping. I do like me the bicycling though. So essentially I have no direct qualifications except for the now hardwired ability to read vast amounts of information, process it and distill it into some condensed form. For me, the nice part about doping in cycling (and in baseball) is that it is so poorly covered in the press, there is tons of room for semicoherent pseudojournalism to fill in the gaps. I feel like I can help My "articles" are not so much journalism as op-eds with lots of background references.

Am I biased? Hell yeah!

Here are some of them:
I do not believe tyler
I do believe that retired riders should get a pass.
I am glad armstrong retired when he did.
I am sceptical but hopeful that landis is not guilty.
I can't wait to see Danielson or Leipheimer or Tyler win the tour next year.
I think the vast majority of the peleton is involved in doping practices.
And has been for the last century.
I think Dick Pound should be fired for massive ethics violations.
I think doping labs should be punished for leaking results to the press.
I think, just for kicks, doping should be criminalized in the US so we all can see how pervasive it is in baseball, football, basketball and hockey and then we can focus on intellegent testing policy instead of witch hunts.
I wish I noticed that Floyd was on leno last night so I could have watched that.

I do have a reasonably open mind though and can be convinced of many things with evidence.

Anyhow, I still am piecing together some links on ethics in testing for a post on that, but in the meantime, you may enjoy the following pages:

Free Floyd Landis someone who is blogging Floyd full time, good science background.
Trust but Verify another one on Floydgate
Dick Pound Profile in the NYT, goes easy on him I think, should have mentioned his complete lack of professionalism during Hamiltons case.
Paul Kimmage weighs in as a rightfully skeptical cycling journalist.
alien boy sporting a free floyd shirt.

More Doping musings:
  • Manzano Speaks
  • Blah blah blah floyd landis... On the initial stages of the Floydtosterone scandal.
  • Tour predictions, immediately pre 2006 tour
  • best tour ever
  • Liberty Seguros Quits cycling
  • dopingpalooza on the beginning of the Saiz/Seguros scandal
  • Tyler, Doping and baseball
  • On the IGF-1
  • Tyler riding in a race
  • Huge post on Tyler getting suspended with lots of doping links
  • Early post on the dealy

    MarkVK said...

    Hey Tariq -- I share much of your pessimistic view about the prevalence of doping. I wonder about how far back you have to go to find an undoped major tour champion. I really want to believe that Andy Hampsten won the Giro unaided, but after that I'm seriously doubting. I'm not saying that past champions were any more moral, I just think that doping has gotten significantly more effective, thus decreasing the likelihood that an undoped rider can win.

    Whatta ya think?

    Jim G said...

    "I am a scientist with a doctorate"

    I guess we gotta start calling you "Dr. Tarik" now, eh? ;)

    Tarik said...


    I would love to think it was Jan in 97, but he is/was the quintessential East German sports machine product, so I am guessing not. I don;t think indurain was clean, riis was mr.60percent hematocrit, pantani was a poster boy for epo as a gateway drug. Lemond either was 100% clean, or is the biggest hypocrite ever. So I would say lemond for the tour de france. I always wonder how much the Fignons and Hinaults were using things like Belgian Pot and the stimulants of their day. I will go back and look at the Vuelta and the Giro winners over the last decade or two and see who may have been clean.

    I would prefer being called " Esteemed Supreme commander professor doctor Tarik" if we must use titles, but I think we can probably dispense with the formalities.

    Thanks for the comments.