Betsema is back...so conflicted.

[72gmc]

Originally Posted by Gummee

You can't hate one without hating them all:

Sure you can! People can parse differences and hold opposing feelings about two or more people with common flaws.

Lots of things we do, they only make sense to us.

I, for instance, have simultaneous opinions on the Betsema affair: I suspect her of doing what it takes to win, and I also think she's a victim of the UCI's capricious administration of the sport.

[Clancy]

Originally Posted by Gummee

Let's think about this some:

UCI is usually pretty strict about the whole 'tainted whatever' excuse and they only suspended her for 6mos and backdated that suspension at that?

That tells me either Betsema has LA money to pay off the UCI or there may really have been tainted stuff. Being a female CX racer, it isn't likely she had LA money...

I wasn't there and I don't know any of the parties involved, but it seems that she may actually be telling the truth.

...and yeah, dopers suck. ...which leads me to the 'worship' of Pantani. Confuses the crap outta me. You either did or did not dope. You can't hate one without hating them all: Pantani, Armstrong, Virenque, Ullrich, et al all come to mind.

I'm curious about Indurain... Having watched him in his Tours, I'm betting he was on the EPO train too, just never got caught.

M

And am I right that Eddy Merckx was caught doping and kicked out of the Giro? And what about Fausto Coppi, Jacques Anquetil and Miguel Indurain? All guilty.

Look at how Eddy Merckx is treated today. Last years tour was a showcase for Merckx with everyone giving praise and not a mention of doping.

My point is the issue of doping is complicated and cannot be summed up with a catchy phrase like “dopers suck”. And few things in life are black and white. What happens when someone who states unequivocally that they hate all dopers when they find out their idol doped?

I have mixed emotions on the entire issue. I believe the sport of cycling is a beautiful sport filled with history and traditions. I love reading about the exploits of riders of years past, of their heroic feats and accomplishments. Ultimately I accept that pro riders are human and all humans are flawed. And if I’m going to love this sport then I need to accept that it also is flawed. I do not believe in the least that any form of doping is ok, but I also accept there is a lot of gray in this world. And I also believe the UCI is flawed although I do firmly believe that the sport is far cleaner today then anytime in its history. Squeaky clean, no of course not, but better.

As far as Betsema, I do believe given the length of suspension and that it appears the UCI agrees with her, that she did not dope intentionally.

[SpaceOdyssey]

I have yet to see any of her past and now future competitors welcome her back or side with her story

Lots of comments with bad feelings about this

[pasadena]

sudden dropped weight and sudden jump to the podium contenders, two seperate races failed tests, weightlifting hubby, and popped for anabolic steroids. No surprise.

not surprised KFC, Nash and other CX'rs are calling b.s. on this.

It's more a failure of the UCI, the inability to do right to protect the integrity of the sport.
People will always cheat, but if the UCI keeps letting them through easy loopholes, nothing will change.

[Lanternrouge]

I always want to believe the athletes, but that's pretty hard to do most of the time based on the history of athletes and doping in general. This seems like one where I really empathize for the frustration the other athletes, particularly her competitors, feel.

[lavi]

I don’t actually mind that they dope. Well, I do. What I mean is that the fact that they dope (as a result of being under the effects of the human condition) doesn’t detract from me enjoying the racing.

Here, I mentioned “dopers suck “ because that used to be the battle cry.

[marciero]

If 72gmc, Clancy, and lavi's remarks are an indication, a number of us are conflicted about doping. I've dont have an opinion on this particular case. But it's hard to read Tyler Hamilton's book, or even Paul Kimmage's book before that, without having some understanding or even empathy for those caught up in circumstances where they felt like they had no choice, whether they were stars like TH or the sad and desperate gregarios in Kimmage's book. I dont follow the sport closely any more but I'd like to retain a little of the romance and tragedy of someone like Pantani or Tom Simpson, or the epic feats of determination and athleticism that are part of cycling lore, many likely with the benefit of PED's. It's never been pane a aqua. There's no question it's a difficult tightrope at times.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by pritchet74

The athlete is responsible for what's in their body - there have been a lot of athletes who had entire careers ruined by "tainted supplements" (Tom Zirbel, the 2nd offense for Danielson are just the ones that come to mind).

The system is definitely broken, but when the "rules" have for quite some time been a 2 year ban for 1st offense & 4 years for 2nd (that's correct, right?) then her getting 6 months really sucks.

Agree..she bought it, she took it, she's responsible..Unfortunate the 'supplement' was tainted but...
Was there a sample of the supplement tested that was tainted? Didn't find that. The tweet from the team said she 'proved' it was bad stuff..how?

[Red Tornado]

Impossible for any of us to know the truth, so her performance in what's left of this season and also next will hopefully indicate if she's as good as appeared to be or if she had a little "help". Not the perfect test, granted, as other dopers have come back to perform well (valv Piti comes to mind), but I don't know of any other way to gauge it besides that and doping controls.

Some on FB have suggested she didn't come "out of nowhere", referencing good MTB results and she is a very good technical rider. Fair enough, technical skills can go a long way in CX. But the little bit of cross that I've done seemed more like a very long sprint vs. MTB which feels more like doing intervals for a couple hours. If juiced, the small decrease in fatigue and increase in form, versus other racers, could let a rider do better in technical sections and provide a little extra energy in the tank. I know from riding dirt the more tired I get, the worse I do in technical parts of the trails (slower reaction time, decreased control/balance). There are definitely similarities, but MTB ain't CX. That's just my limited experience and YMMV.

I hope for her sake she's telling the truth, and she continues to have good race results while not returning any positive tests. It all just seemed to come together for her a little too quickly - and easily. You know the old saying about something appearing too good to be true. Time will tell.

[Black Dog]

Originally Posted by Gummee

Let's think about this some:

UCI is usually pretty strict about the whole 'tainted whatever' excuse and they only suspended her for 6mos and backdated that suspension at that?

That tells me either Betsema has LA money to pay off the UCI or there may really have been tainted stuff. Being a female CX racer, it isn't likely she had LA money...

I wasn't there and I don't know any of the parties involved, but it seems that she may actually be telling the truth.

...and yeah, dopers suck. ...which leads me to the 'worship' of Pantani. Confuses the crap outta me. You either did or did not dope. You can't hate one without hating them all: Pantani, Armstrong, Virenque, Ullrich, et al all come to mind.

I'm curious about Indurain... Having watched him in his Tours, I'm betting he was on the EPO train too, just never got caught.

M

That is a very safe bet.

[Ruimteaapje]

Turns out that evidence that a supplement prepared by her pharmacist was conterminated was found in a package that had not been opened yet. I certainly give her the benefit of the doubt

As for Indurain: he was in the care of EPO pioneer doctor Conconi eversince 1987.

[pdmtong]

Originally Posted by Ruimteaapje

Turns out that evidence that a supplement prepared by her pharmacist was conterminated was found in a package that had not been opened yet. I certainly give her the benefit of the doubt

As for Indurain: he was in the care of EPO pioneer doctor Conconi eversince 1987.

If this is true then this is why "UCI rules allow for bans lower than the minimum of four years in cases of 'unintentional' anti-doping rule violations."

Tainted beef is different?

[72gmc]

I've come to accept doping as part of the romance and tragedy of the sport--I like that wording, marciero. People are involved, flaws are exposed.

Betsema's case, to my eyes, highlights that a statement from the UCI--positive or negative--is usually a net negative for an athlete's image. This has less to do with the athlete than it does with the long-term credibility sinkhole that is the UCI.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by pdmtong

If this is true then this is why "UCI rules allow for bans lower than the minimum of four years in cases of 'unintentional' anti-doping rule violations."

Tainted beef is different?

I presume you are referring to Alberto Contador's ban for clenbuterol? Contador received a 2 year ban*, which was the standard ban duration at the time of his positive test. It was a few years later that the standard ban duration was increased to 4 years.

*It was only because of the UCI that he received a ban at all. Normally, it up to the athlete's own national federation to adjudicate doping sanctions. The RFEC (Spain's antidoping body) originally proposed a 1 year ban, but then accepted Contador's appeal and cleared him of all charges. Then the UCI appealed RFEC's decision to the Court for Arbitration is Sport. CAS decided to uphold UCI's appeal, resulting in Contador receiving the then current standard 2 year ban.

[e-RICHIE]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

I presume you are referring to Alberto Contador's ban for clenbuterol? Contador received a 2 year ban*, which was the standard ban duration at the time of his positive test. It was a few years later that the standard ban duration was increased to 4 years.

*It was only because of the UCI that he received a ban at all. Normally, it up to the athlete's own national federation to adjudicate doping sanctions. The RFEC (Spain's antidoping body) originally proposed a 1 year ban, but then accepted Contador's appeal and cleared him of all charges. Then the UCI appealed RFEC's decision to the Court for Arbitration is Sport. CAS decided to uphold UCI's appeal, resulting in Contador receiving the then current standard 2 year ban.

I had to look refresh my memory on this before commenting, but according to my opinion AC became a poster boy of sorts for clenbuterol and his penalty way out of whack for 1) the infraction and, 2) the actual amount of "help" an athlete can gain from having it in the system. To wit, Mick Rogers tested positive for the same substance and served a token timeout in contrast.

"In December it was announced that he had tested positive for clenbuterol at the latter race. He was suspended from cycling pending further investigation. On 23 April 2014 the UCI announced he would be cleared of any wrongdoing, no further action would be taken and that Rogers would be free to race again. The UCI accepted that there was a significant probability that the clenbuterol came from contaminated meat consumed while Rogers was competing in China, where the drug is often consumed by animals in slaughterhouses to exhibit better performance in farm sporting events."