Boonen and cocaine.... again

Diarmuid

http://www.velonews.com/article/91791

Seems like he's committed to destroying his own cycling career.

Chips Lovell

He'll probably say someone spiked his drink... again.

Raam

Not good for Tom. Pity.

shapez

What an idiot. I actually have alot of respect for him as a rider. And I know what you do in your private life is your own business. But, if cyclists are under the microscope with what exactly they consume on a constant basis, he should have known better. He has the rest of his life after his cycling career to snot or smoke whatever he wants.

bcmf

Ah no.Surely he couldnt be that stupid.Looks like thats an end to his bike days.What a waste.

Zorba

So much talent wasted, you'd think he would have learnt after the last time or even just hang on another few years and he'll be retired then he can go on all the coke binges he wants !

jautukas87

Easy to judge.

niceonetom

jautukas87 wrote: »

Easy to judge.

Fun too.

Funkyzeit

Not only in trouble with cycling authorities but may face a spell locked up. Sad.

Chips Lovell

Time to roll out this one again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqOv65dxQgQ

shapez

You gotta love The Orb. Late 80's early 90's finest!!

Mr. Presentable

el tonto wrote: »

He'll probably say someone spiked his drink... again.

It was Armstrong what done it, right?

Raam

shapez wrote: »

You gotta love The Orb. Late 80's early 90's finest!!

Aye, but that was The Shamen

Hermy

Raam wrote: »

Aye, but that was The Shamen

E's are Good, E's are Good
He's Ebeneezer Goode
E's are Good, E's are Good
He's Ebeneezer Goode
E's are Good, E's are Good
He's Ebeneezer Goode
E's are Good, E's are Good
He's Ebeneezer Goode
He's Ebeneezer Goode

Rather appropriate song...:rolleyes:

Chips Lovell

Hermy wrote: »

Rather appropriate song...:rolleyes:

Exactly

niceonetom

Funkyzeit wrote: »

Not only in trouble with cycling authorities but may face a spell locked up. Sad.

Wait, prison? Really?

Was he caught in possession or something? Testing positive for cocaine isn't illegal anywhere I know of (Saudi maybe?), but I suppose it could be a breach of some legal agreement or condition or something. Is that it?

This is career threatening stupidity, but surely not enough to get locked up for...

What a gobshíte he is.

Caroline_ie

I heard the prison thing as well this afternoon. From reading the Belgian news site, the only thing that is said is that Quickstep have suspended him for now. They admitted he had made a mistake last year, and 'let it go' but a second time is too much. Boonen admitted in an interview today that he has 'drinking problems' and he is not himself after a night out and a few drinks and does silly thigs... what an idiot

It's unlikely that he will be crossing any white line in this year TdF :pac:

Hermy

Caroline_ie wrote: »

It's unlikely that he will be crossing any white line in this year TdF :pac:

White line = funny.:o:p

bcmf

Caroline_ie wrote: »

I heard the prison thing as well this afternoon. From reading the Belgian news site, the only thing that is said is that Quickstep have suspended him for now. They admitted he had made a mistake last year, and 'let it go' but a second time is too much. Boonen admitted in an interview today that he has 'drinking problems' and he is not himself after a night out and a few drinks and does silly thigs... what an idiot

It's unlikely that he will be crossing any white line in this year TdF :pac:

A stint in Rehab is calling,me thinks

TinyExplosions

It's an excuse so he can always say he was a better sprinter than Cav -a self-destructive way to not have to put it properly to the test!

bcmf

TinyExplosions wrote: »

It's an excuse so he can always say he was a better sprinter than Cav -a self-destructive way to not have to put it properly to the test!

<--- Conspiracy Theory Forum that way.:p

RobFowl

Seems he failed a test in 2007 as well so this is his 3rd positive all out of competition (the 2007 has E's as well!!!).
At his last court date was let off on condition he stayed clean. Possession/use of cocaine is an offense so looking at a stretch inside.
It could be up to 5 years (prob much less), career looks on a knife edge though

Hungrycol

BLEEEEDIN EEEEJIT.

After reading the recent interview in Pro C mag this month and "how embarrassing it is for his family esp his father who is in the business" and how much it regretted it to go and won't do it again! Too much drink me ar$e, black out me ar$e. He's supposed to be the new young drug free generation. He's not only hurting himself, this family but bringing the whole sport into further disrepute.

Lifetime ban.

Caroline_ie

Hungrycol wrote: »

BLEEEEDIN EEEEJIT.
Lifetime ban.

I disagree. He is an eedjit: yes. But Lifetime ban over a non banned substance is ridicuous. Would you lifetime ban a cyclist who likes to go to protitutes or who drinks heavily everyqweekend because it's morally wrong? No! You can't ban him for being a fool, you can only be sorry for him.

Let him think about what he's done ( again ), how he's throwing away his career and setting a bad example to kids who see him as a hero, but don't ban him for that.

niceonetom

Hungrycol wrote: »

Lifetime ban.

Have to disagree. No ban at all.

I think it very important to make a big a clear distinction between recreational use of a substance that has no performance enhancing properties and, on the other hand, doping.

You might say, ah sure it's all drugs. But that's missing the point entirely.

Anti-doping provisions are there to ensure that the sport is FAIR, in the sense that no one is cheating by using drugs. Their role is NOT to act as some sort of moral invigilator outside of that and to make private peccadilloes, that our really none of our business, public.

If, say, he had a serious gambling problem would we expect that to earn him a ban? Or if he was photographed coming out of a S&M club in Brussels? What about if he hit someone in a bar fight? Would we fell justified in calling for a ban? If we allow the UCI to be moral guardians, where does it stop? Do we expect all sportsmen to live unblemished lives?

He hasn't broken the rules of the game. He has not cheated.

I'm not saying he isn't a fool who should weigh his career, sponsorship deals and public image against having a wild Saturday night - I'm just trying to point out that he is not in the same category as Basso, Landis et al who were cheats and whose motivations were not to get wasted and party but to deceive us and their competitors, to win undeservedly.

To conflate these to situations is nonsense.

and that's enough out of me...

lukester

I feel a bit sorry for the fella. He went out partying, and was a bit naughty.

So, he f*cked up. He's admitted he needs to get help, i.e. rehab.

The guy needs a break, not a ban.

Junior

niceonetom wrote: »

Have to disagree. No ban at all.

I think it very important to make a big a clear distinction between recreational use of a substance that has no performance enhancing properties and, on the other hand, doping.

You might say, ah sure it's all drugs. But that's missing the point entirely.

Anti-doping provisions are there to ensure that the sport is FAIR, in the sense that no one is cheating by using drugs. Their role is NOT to act as some sort of moral invigilator outside of that and to make private peccadilloes, that our really none of our business, public.

If, say, he had a serious gambling problem would we expect that to earn him a ban? Or if he was photographed coming out of a S&M club in Brussels? What about if he hit someone in a bar fight? Would we fell justified in calling for a ban? If we allow the UCI to be moral guardians, where does it stop? Do we expect all sportsmen to live unblemished lives?

He hasn't broken the rules of the game. He has not cheated.

I'm not saying he isn't a fool who should weigh his career, sponsorship deals and public image against having a wild Saturday night - I'm just trying to point out that he is not in the same category as Basso, Landis et al who were cheats and whose motivations were not to get wasted and party but to deceive us and their competitors, to win undeservedly.

To conflate these to situations is nonsense.

and that's enough out of me...

From when this has come out, I've spent a lot of time reading up on Boonen, and I think he seems to have handled the fame fairly badly. I reckon there's an underlying problem with his personality, I'd nearly go as far as to say I'd bet he's got self image problems.

He as a cyclists that he's going to be tested and yet he still took coke, it's almost like self harming. I'd be worried about the chap like if I was his manager, and it's good to see that the team isn't kicking him out on his arse, however I would like to see him pay the fine to a charity, or something useful rather than to the team itself. At least show some sign of atonement.

Hungrycol

It's no longer about cheating it's much more than that. Drugs and cycling are far too closely associated and Boonen has just given cycling a running kick in the knackers. Drugs are drugs in the eyes of the general public and this is what brings the beautiful sport dragging through the mud. When you're that high profile and looked upon as a hero by children you have a position on responsibility. Sure EOP/Doping is performance enhancing but do you reckon sponsors, cycling affiliates or the general public care about the whether the drugs a high profile pro cyclist takes are "recreational" or not.

@Niceonetom: the examples you describe are all legal activities.

Hungrycol

Junior wrote: »

At least show some sign of atonement.

He did the first time around when he was forgiven. The second time around I'm not so sure I'd be as forgiving if I was his manager.

c0rk3r

lukester wrote: »

The guy needs a break, not a ban.

Wont the ban give him a break

They can always get him on codes of conduct. Maybe a six week ban for bringing the sport into disrepute. To me 2years seems excessive. Its also extraordinary that an elite athlete would use drugs / drink. If anything they are preformance decliners. Reminds me of that time i saw some guy having a cigarette at rathdrum during the wicklow200. Mind boggling

tunney

If Boonen is banned for recreational drug use while Armstrong et al ride without issue I'll be cancelling my subscriptions to all things pure-cycling.

zzzzzzzz

c0rk3r wrote: »

Wont the ban give him a break

They can always get him on codes of conduct. Maybe a six week ban for bringing the sport into disrepute. To me 2years seems excessive. Its also extraordinary that an elite athlete would use drugs / drink. If anything they are preformance decliners. Reminds me of that time i saw some guy having a cigarette at rathdrum during the wicklow200. Mind boggling

A friend of mine was over in Varesse at the worlds last year and was saying that when they were out on the last night they ran in to a load of the pros out on the p1ss. A lot of them were choking down the smokes as it was the end of the season.

I'd agree with niceonetom, caroline_ie and lukester on this though - it's not performance enhancing so shouldn't be considered the same.

niceonetom

Hungrycol wrote: »

It's no longer about cheating it's much more than that. Drugs and cycling are far too closely associated and Boonen has just given cycling a running kick in the knackers. Drugs are drugs in the eyes of the general public and this is what brings the beautiful sport dragging through the mud. When you're that high profile and looked upon as a hero by children you have a position on responsibility. Sure EOP/Doping is performance enhancing but do you reckon sponsors, cycling affiliates or the general public care about the whether the drugs a high profile pro cyclist takes are "recreational" or not.

@Niceonetom: the examples you describe are all legal activities.

I, again, have to disagree.

For me the priority has to be fairness. That comes above perception.

You may think that the public can't see any distinction between partying and cheating - I think they could, very easily. I think the very real difference is not being made obvious by the sport itself - by the governing bodies, the doping controls or the sport's media. Frankly, we shouldn't even know about this. He did not test positive for an in-competition banned substance, and therefore his blood/urine contents are none of our business, any more than his tax status, or browser history are.

I don't think we should start sacrificing the careers of young talented riders at the alter of won't-somebody-think-of-the-children-ism. You cannot childproof the universe. You cannot stop idiots getting hold of the wrong end of the stick. All you can do is make reasonable rules and stick to them. Ad-hoc bans in the name of reputation protection smacks of witch hunt style thinking and hysteria.

'Drugs are drugs' is the kind of idiotic thinking so lacking in nuance or context that it should be ignored. Partying and cheating are not similar, and should not be treated as if they were just to prevent parents from having to have awkward conversations with their kids, or idiots from getting upset over their stella because they just don't get it.

@Hungrycol; If illegality is the crux of this, ok. Hitting someone is very much illegal. How about speeding? Or tax evasion? Would these necessitate a ban?

Lumen

niceonetom wrote: »

Partying and cheating are not similar, and should not be treated as if they were just to prevent parents from having to have awkward conversations with their kids, or idiots from getting upset over their stella because they just don't get it

The conversations with kids need not be awkward. "You can have as much cocaine as you like once you become World Road Race Champion."

petethedrummer

c0rk3r wrote: »

Reminds me of that time i saw some guy having a cigarette at rathdrum during the wicklow200. Mind boggling

RobFowl

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/Tom_Boonen_to_go_into_therapy_article_282289.html

Looks like the team are handling it the right way

ROK ON

Society in general has a very strange attitude toward drugs.
For example, in my employment contract I can be fired for taking drugs (if caught). However, I cannot be fired for drinking heavily. On the contrary, if I was an alcoholic, the company has a support programme that I can enter - where they pay some of the costs.

Recently the Bath and England prop forward was banned for two years for being caught taking cocaine. I dont understand why, other than societies desire to punish "drug users." Meanwhile how many rugby players have trashed bars and got in fights while out of their brains drunk - yet in the eyes of the sport they are legends/characters. Very strange.

People always have and will take stimulents to enjoy/experiment/party/destress/abuse etc. If they are not performance enhancing then they are not cheating, consequently it is irrational to ban these people.

Boonen, messed up again (and then again), but he is like a lot of young men in that regard. He has brought himself, family and team into disrepute, but not cycling IMO.

There is a line that says, what he does in his private life is his business, but maybe we should show a bit more understanding of a young man, who does what a lot of young men do - acting the idiot to the point of destruction.

He needs help and support from his employer and family in my opinion to ascertain can he be redeemed. But also some tough love. Does he want to succeed or does he want to party. He needs to decide. A UCI ban will do nothing in this regard.

I just dont see what banning him from cycling would achieve.

Chips Lovell

niceonetom wrote: »

I'm not saying he isn't a fool who should weigh his career, sponsorship deals and public image against having a wild Saturday night - I'm just trying to point out that he is not in the same category as Basso, Landis et al who were cheats and whose motivations were not to get wasted and party but to deceive us and their competitors, to win undeservedly.

Nail on the head here. What concerns me most is that the sport doesn't have a great track record at supporting guys who go off the rails, whether it be Pantani, Jimenez, VDB or Aitor González. Let's hope the team is sincere about helping him out and that is isn't a PR exercise to maintain sponsorship and race invites.

lukester

el tonto wrote: »

What concerns me most is that the sport doesn't have a great track record at supporting guys who go off the rails, whether it be Pantani, Jimenez, VDB or Aitor González. Let's hope the team is sincere about helping him out and that is isn't a PR exercise to maintain sponsorship and race invites.

Pantani is exactly who came to mind when I heard about this. Boonen needs to sort himself out, and maybe deserves a slap on the wrist, but he shouldn't be made into cycling's arch nemesis for partying a bit.

I really hope there are some sensible heads running that team who have broad enough vision to see what's needed here.

Hungrycol

niceonetom wrote: »

'Drugs are drugs' is the kind of idiotic thinking so lacking in nuance or context that it should be ignored.

I don't agree. (edited...)

He has attained a position of responsibility due to his notoriety. The consequences of Hungrycol going out and getting coked and pissed off my head cannot be compared to Boonen doing the same. I have no sympathy for him so sorry if that does not sit well with others.

niceonetom

Hungrycol wrote: »

I don't agree. This does not make me an idiot, tvm.

I know you're not an idiot, and I'm not trying to insult you or anyting.

aspirin = cocaine? alcohol = paracetamol? THC = prozac? Is there really only one category of things, and one attitude that must be adopted to all it contains? I just don't think that's reasonable.

blorg

niceonetom wrote: »

aspirin = cocaine? alcohol = paracetamol? THC = prozac? Is there really only one category of things, and one attitude that must be adopted to all it contains? I just don't think that's reasonable.

Worth noting here that there are plenty of perfectly legal drugs that are banned in competition as they are performance enhancers; some stuff is banned where there is not even a consensus that it is definitely performance enhancing. Stuff like caffeine was only taken off the list very recently, yes, you could get a ban for drinking too much coffee. Will someone not think of the children!

Prohibited substances in sport have absolutely nothing to do with legality of that substance.

L'Enfer du Nord

I don't see how Boonen can be too into the drugs and still compete at such a high level. He must be tested regularly. His problem is probably that when he's had a few pints he is up for anything, no amount of therepy will cure that, age might. He'll just have to give up drinking, even though he's almost certainly not an alcoholic. I can't see him at an AA meeting - "I hit bottom two weeks after winning the Paris-Roubaix for the third time, I was earning over a million euro a year, I was a national hero, but inside..."

TinyExplosions

I can see where both Hungrycol and niceonetom are coming from, and agree a little with each.

I don't think there should be a UCI ban for Boonen, as the fact of the matter is that he hasn't failed any drugs tests (by UCI standards), and so to ban him is getting into very rocky waters.

However, I do think his team should throw the book at him, because it's not his first time, but his third. There has to be some give or take in the situation, and Quickstep have supported him twice before, so I'd fully understand if they cast him loose.

While I think the guy needs help for his problems, at what point is it no longer the responsibility of the team to provide it... they've given him chances (and I presume supported him in the past), but at what point do you put your hands up and say "we can do no more for you"

The other question it raises for me is why it was made into a legal matter -do the UCI have to pass on results to the authorities if they find Cocaine, or any other illegal drug? What if the Italian authorites found THC in someone's urine -do they have to inform the police?