• Berne Shaw

    Just pathetic. And what if these people are getting research assistance from say the EPO companies to say these things. And do they also believe global warming is potentially a good thing or does not exist as well? As a research methodologist, I find these so called views a form of denial, rationalization, minimization and obfuscation. The concept is clean athletes sir. Period.

  • H.E. Pennypacker

    I actually agree with the professor from Boulder. The best way to strengthen your position is to have it put through rigorous scrutiny internally (it’s much harder to ignore internal scrutiny than external, which often comes off as just noise). And you’re NEVER going to get that same level of scrutiny from someone internal who agrees with you–ever. People like to talk about “stepping back from the situation” and viewing things with a neutral or open mind, but it’s not the same. You need a true devil’s advocate in the room with you. It’s uncomfortable, unpleasant, and frustrating, but without one it’s nothing more than an echo chamber. And the only thing you’re going to get in an echo chamber is weak and blind.

  • JBS

    Pathetic by US Cycling. The whole point of raising these issues is to start a conversation to see where it leads. Where the conversation goes isn’t set in stone. It can lead to new solutions or even reinforce and strengthen the current rules. US Cycling is refusing to have the conversation and explore options, which amounts to zealotry, not good governance. US Cycling obviously wanted a Yes man, not an advisor.

  • Matt

    Whenever someone raises the idea of allowing doping it quickly becomes apparent that they haven’t really thought it through. If we allow ‘doping within healthy and safe limits’ we now have the problem of how to detect what that is and how to enforce it. With EPO athletes would dose at high level whenever they think there is a low risk of detection and just return to “safe” levels near competition. In which case you haven’t solved any problem, you’ve just shifted the playing field.

    Based on a review of the titles and abstracts of the Dr Dimeo publications I can’t help but notice a bias towards a negative view of anti-doping. I think it’s likely that claims he is making is more a reflection of his personal beliefs. Cycling already has a reputation for doping. No other sport is seriously considering allowing sanctioned doping. To be making statements in a capacity that people could assume is sanctioned by USA Cycling is shows a complete lack of foresight.

    Unfortunately I think the good Doctor has fallen into the logical trap of assuming that because something is difficult to stop, that the logical step is to allow it within limits. Whilst this might work for prostitution and alcohol, sanctioning doping would simply lead to a number of unintended consequences that are far far worse than the current situation. 1) destruction of interest will from much of the fan base, 2) expulsion from the Olympics and other world sporting events, 3) withdrawal by the majority of corporate sponsorship.

  • 7benaroundo7

    So everyone has to do the same safe transfusions with the same safe drugs to be okay. Whaaaat? This guy should be kicked out of any sport. Cheating is robbing clean natural athletes of fame and fortune. It’s wrong in every way. No PEDs allowed, period.

  • 7benaroundo7

    Mediocre athletes with a flawed “the world revolves around me” big egos, dope

  • Larry @CycleItalia

    It’s time we have a rigorous debate on bicycle racing. The natural evolution of the bicycle must be allowed, it’s too difficult to police. Under controlled conditions a Ducati, Harley-Davidson, etc. should be allowed in these races. It’s not 1900 anymore!
    Would that be OK too, Dr. Dimeo? Do you have any clue as to what SPORT is? Is this the guy behind the USAC idea to let Masters racers get TUE’s to jack up their testosterone levels, or was that a late April Fool’s joke I read somewhere?

  • Sean parker

    He had a cogent argument until he mentioned blood transfusions for recovery. They aren’t even safe in hospitals with all the safeguards we have. The man is a lunatic.

  • Derek Maher

    Okay this guy raised a question and the response would have done the Spanish Inquisition proud. Just as well the guy was not of Russian origin or they would want him burnt at the stake. The whole anti doping issue seems to be getting a bit to fanatical when a simple proposal gets a person pilloried.

    • Sean parker

      It’s not a simple proposal. The man is obviously ideologically bent towards a lassaiz faire attitude towards athlete safety in the interests of expediency or economy.
      Controlled, supervised EPO supplementation is one thing. Blood transfusion is a very risky procedure even in tertiary hospitals with very controlled administration and cold chain. There is no way to make this risk reasonable for non- therapeutic gain.
      The fact that he conflates the two as seemingly reasonable proposals tells me that his comments are ill considered to say the least. He must either be ignorant or biased – I doubt if he is stupid.

      Did he ever consider what the athletes want? Has he done this analysis before blithely suggesting very risky clinical procedures on them? They aren’t cattle they are employees and this ought to be examined in light of reasonable occupational health principles.

BACK TO TOP

Pin It on Pinterest

18 NEW ARTICLES
December 10, 2016
December 9, 2016
December 8, 2016
December 7, 2016