# The future of Pro Cycling



## JohnnyTooBad (Apr 5, 2004)

Okay, so I honestly think they'll never get all the doping out of cycling, no matter how hard they try. However, I also don't believe all riders dope, although I don't even have an opinion on what percentage may be doping.

That said, should cycling go back to the way of the NFL and MLB, etc? I mean take a look at Tennis... Never any scandal, and the sport is completely healthy. But do any of us actually believe Nadal and Federer are 100% clean (130mph serve:idea: )? Do you think that cycling would be better off from a corporate sponsorship perspective if they would just go to a philosophy of testing riders with 30-60 days notice and only during the racing season?

Then we could watch truly superhuman performances and they could all be competing on an even playing field (especially if the field is currently 90-100 dirty), and the sponsors wouldn't have to worry about all the scandal affecting their brands.

To be honest, knowing what we do about professional atheletes in general, I really don't care if they want to f themselves up by getting drugged up like a two-bit wh0r3. I'm just an occasional spectator who would rather be out spinning the cranks on a lonely road. So either way, it doesn't affect me. But I also wonder if there would be a lot more sponsorship, big money, and races to watch on tv, if the scandal was just swept under the rug.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2007)

JohnnyTooBad said:


> Okay, so I honestly think they'll never get all the doping out of cycling, no matter how hard they try. However, I also don't believe all riders dope, although I don't even have an opinion on what percentage may be doping.
> 
> That said, should cycling go back to the way of the NFL and MLB, etc? I mean take a look at Tennis... Never any scandal, and the sport is completely healthy. But do any of us actually believe Nadal and Federer are 100% clean (130mph serve:idea: )? Do you think that cycling would be better off from a corporate sponsorship perspective if they would just go to a philosophy of testing riders with 30-60 days notice and only during the racing season?
> 
> ...


In a word...no.


----------



## eyebob (Feb 3, 2004)

*Uh, no.*

Testing for drugs in most US sports is a joke. You know that.

Dopers in cycling need to be rooted out, because, quite frankly watching a 200K, 4 Cat 1 climb stage is also a joke. Endurance athletes are only so good. Watching Contador and Rassi duel it out at the top of a last climb looking like they had only been riding an hour is really hard to believe, and at the end of the day, believing what you're seeing is what sports is all about. 

When cycling is cleaned up you'll see more diversity on the podium and shorter/harder races. The future TdF will revert back to slower avg. speeds, and shorter stages to accommodate for the reality that is (or should be) a 3 week stage race.

Trust me. You'll like cycling much more when it's clean.

BT


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

JohnnyTooBad said:


> But do any of us actually believe Nadal and Federer are 100% clean (*130mph serve*:idea: )?


...it's all about the racquet  ... so yeah they're clean... 


*French Open doping samples to be tested in Canada*

<byline>By Chrystel Boulet-Euchin</byline> 
Wednesday, May 16, 2007; 4:27 PM 



<content> </content>PARIS (Reuters) - Doping test samples from this year's French Open will be tested at Montreal's Anti-Doping laboratory following a decision by world governing body the International Tennis Federation.


"For the first time this year, ITF is centralizing doping tests from the ATP, the WTA and the Grand Slam tournaments," French Open chief officer Christophe Proust told Reuters on Wednesday.


Proust said the ITF had commissioned the International Doping and Tests Management for the tests.


"The IDTM have negotiated with the Montreal lab because a test in Chatenay-Malabry costs twice as much," Proust added.


"Thanks to this cut in the costs, we will be able to *make more than 180 tests* in Roland Garros."


Last year some 130 tests were conducted at the French Open.
"There will be no quality difference and no delay following this decision to change laboratory," Proust added.


The French Open, the second Grand Slam of the year, starts on May 27 and ends on June 10.


The Chatenay-Malabry laboratory outside Paris conducted the original tests on American Tour de France winner Floyd Landis's Stage 17 samples that produced positive results for elevated levels of testosterone.


<hr class="line">







Copyright © 2007 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around


----------



## trumpetman (Dec 9, 2001)

*Not Good*

When the top team in any sport finds the overall conditions to be so bad that they voluntary disband while on top it is a sign that they sport is in trouble. Could you imagine if the NE Patriots decided to quit?

I chose to interpret the high profile DQ's in the Tour positively. They ( the UCI et al) seemed to be taking the high road whatever the short term cost. But is apparent that I had on rose colored glasses. The sport as we have known it - in ascendence since 7-Eleven and Motorola and Greg Lemond and then Lance - is in danger of dying - at least in this country... and in the hearts of 50+ year old cyclists who have been riding since we were teenagers.

John


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

If you are going to question someone's performance and assume they are doping because you can't believe a human can do that, then what's the point of watching sports? 

I don't see why a well-trained human using modern equipment can't hit a tennis ball 130 mph. What is the limit supposed to be? You must know, because you say anyone who exceeds it must be doping. What is the limit? 

This is the difficulty and naivety of assuming anyone is doping because they did something you cannot believe. Maybe you grew up on Borg, who probably couldn't hit 130 mph with his old wooden racket, but doesn't mean Nadal or Federer can't do it using new oversize graphite rackets. There has always been a progression of greater human achievement in every sport, and very little of it was done with the help of doping. When Roger Bannister broke the 4-minute mile in 1954, what drugs was he on? After all, it's not possible to run a mile faster than 4 minutes, right? Nevermind that John Landy beat Bannister's time within two months. Nevermind that the current record is well under.


----------



## 514Climber (Oct 19, 2005)

*Federer and Nadal*

are most likely clean in my opinion.

They are simply too consistently brilliant. And don't forget - pro tennis season is quite long. It begins with the Australian Open, then the French, then Wimbledon, then U.S. Open, then the Masters.

And there's also the Davis Cup (players representing their home nations team up).

If either of those guys doped, it would've been uncovered by now.

The technology of the tennis racket has evolved so much that the game has actually changed. Before, a baseliner could patiently play the defensive game and wait for the opponent to make a mistake. Bjorn Borg and Chris Everet were the best examples. 

With the advent of the bigger racket made with graphite and other exotic materials, the game favors the player that can swat the ball closer to the baseline and on the rise. This, in turn, favors the attacking player (Nadal is the only exception - however, he can only dominate on clay, which suits the baseliner).

During the Borg-Connors-McEnroe-Lendl era, it was not uncommon to see serves in the 120s (usually from Lendl and other big servers). The newer rackets, as well as cross training with weights (something that was frowned upon by old-school coaches), means the serves will go faster.

**********************************************

As for pro cycling, they need to test everyone who podiums AND the team members. They also need to randomly test other riders that did not podium. And the media needs to sell the classics to the public. 

I feel that, because the riders can be well-rested coming into a one-day race, these formats give the dopers less advantage and therefore less incentive to cheat.

It nauseates me every time some neophyte sprays on about the best rider in the world being the TdF winner. For my money, races like Paris Roubaix, Flanders, Worlds are every bit as hard. (This has a personal agenda, because I'm a sprinter and I hate it when the pencil-necks get so much glory).


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

eyebob said:


> at the end of the day, believing what you're seeing is what sports is all about.


Quick question: Do you know who Cael Sanderson is? Hulk Hogan? I thought so.


----------



## Tugboat (Jul 17, 2006)

514Climber said:


> are most likely clean in my opinion.
> 
> They are simply too consistently brilliant. And don't forget - pro tennis season is quite long. It begins with the Australian Open, then the French, then Wimbledon, then U.S. Open, then the Masters.


I have heard that one of either Federer or Nadal is named as being involved with Dr Fuentes in the same Operation Puerto dossier that is responsible for much of the recent turmoil in cycling. Just like FIFA, I don't think that the ITF are ready to make the same commitment to uncover and fight doping that the UCI is undertaking.


----------



## JohnnyTooBad (Apr 5, 2004)

I really don't know much about tennis. Maybe it's a bad example. But so what? I do not believe that the VAST, VAST majority of money paying spectators care how believable it is. If they do, why is the NFL so popular? Even here on RBR, there's a thread about how wonderful it is that football season is starting. I bet at least as many players (on a % basis) in the NFL dope as UCI cyclists. So that argument doesn't hold water.

My question is whether it's better for the industry (cycling) in general if they just ignored it and swept it under the rug, to get rid of all the scandal? I surmise that it might be better for the corporate sponsors if their names weren't used in conjunction with the words "doping scandal" on a regular basis.

And Eyebob with this statement, "You'll like cycling much more when it's clean.". That's a HUGE assumption that it will ever be clean.

I'd like to think, yeah, it'll be great when it's clean and there are no more scandals, but realistically, I don't think it'll ever happen. And if cycling tries to continue with a constant atmosphere of doping for the next 10-20 years, one of two things WILL happen; 1) All corporate sponsors will go away, and pro cycling will be reduced to amature sports, or 2) The doping tests will become much more lax to allow the corporate sponsors to save face, and doping will again become rampant.

So which result would be the lesser of 2 evils? Are there other possible outcomes? (I still don't believe it'll ever get cleaned up, and if it does seem to, it's just a sham and the reality is #2 above).

NOTE: I'm not saying I don't want it clean, I'm just saying I don't think it's a realistic outcome. And I'm torn as to whether I'd rather never see a pro cycling event again (if it were actually clean it'd be relegated to the likes of curling and pole vaulting), or if I'd rather see it all the time, but realize they're all hittin the juice.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

JohnnyTooBad said:


> Okay, so I honestly think they'll never get all the doping out of cycling, no matter how hard they try. However, I also don't believe all riders dope, although I don't even have an opinion on what percentage may be doping.
> 
> That said, should cycling go back to the way of the NFL and MLB, etc? I mean take a look at Tennis... Never any scandal, and the sport is completely healthy. But do any of us actually believe Nadal and Federer are 100% clean (130mph serve:idea: )? Do you think that cycling would be better off from a corporate sponsorship perspective if they would just go to a philosophy of testing riders with 30-60 days notice and only during the racing season?
> 
> ...



Personally, and in my opinion.....


The only people that care about doping are the purists of the sport. Those that want there "Hero's" to be clean and superhuman (of which doesn't ever happen).

PED's and sports go hand in hand at any level, amature or pro. It's just part of the sport. At no time will the Pro Peloton ever be 100% clean no matter how hard they try. Anybody think the NFL is clean? Not a chance and I'd be willing to guess almost every player in the NFL is on something whether legal or not. Baseball? Nope....Hockey (like anybody cares anymore)? Not likely. Tennis? I'd be willing to bet there are more PED's going on there than you want to know. How about Golf? Reports are that players are using certain drugs to help them relax and focus while on the course, there are also reports about steroid usage in the pro ranks.

One thing that watching sports has shown me is everybody believes their team/rider is clean and everybody else is using PED's. 

The other thing that watching sports has shown me is people don't give a rats butt about what the athletes are putting in their body as long as they can see superhuman performances and they don't know the athlete is using PED's. Other than they they are happy. Baseball was never more entertaining than when the home run chase was on, pitching was strong and superhuman performances were the norm, same goes with the NFL, cycling or any other sport you want to choose.

If you want to see cycling have a chance at making it, the scandals have to stop, which means relaxing the doping test. However that won't happen and actually it will only get worse. Here is why:

L'equipe or what ever the paper that sponsors the Tour is called has found they sell more papers with controversy. When somebody tests positive their sales go up, when a team gets dropped from the tour they sell more papers, when the top riders get thrown out they sell more papers. In the end it means more money for them, regardless of what it does to the Tour.

Until that changes.....Expect more controversy and less cycling coverage with less sponsors.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

No, it's a good example. It's a good example of a wrong mindset. You don't know much about tennis, but you don't think people can hit balls 130 mph, ergo, anyone who can serve at 130+ mph is a doper. It's easy to apply this to cycling. I don't believe that anyone can climb that mountain that fast, therefore, he must be a doper. You can apply it to any other sport as well. This is the kind of thinking that only applies if you accept the assumption that humans have reached their limits. Personally, I don't buy it. I don't know what the maximum speed of a human tennis serve is. I don't know what the lowest possible time is for climbing Mt. Ventoux. I don't know what the maximum speed a 300 pound linebacker can run the 40 yard dash in. Nobody does. But I can assume that humans will likely get faster and stronger in the future, regardless of doping, because that is what humans have always done. It's not miraculous. It's not extraordinary. It's normal. It's evolution. In short, just because you've seen a great performance doesn't mean it was because of dope.


----------



## ktm882 (Aug 14, 2007)

As a lifelong sportsman, I have wrestled, ran track, played Amercan football, went from novice to Pro BMX as a young man in 1 1/2 years, spent the next 10 figuring out motorcycle motocross and now 1 Amateur championship later and a total knee replacement surgery, I got back to my bicycle roots. Watching the Tour on TV all day had me crying several times, just like when I watch the Olympics. These are THE BEST the Human race has to offer. No amount of drugs can make you or I into one of them, that is a lifetime dedication to one thing, cycling-training-racing. Cycling is without question the most difficult sport I have been involved in. Motocross is tough and uses more upper body but I never suffered on a dirt bike like I did on a recent 40 mile road ride.

I have seen a "professional baseball game." Nearly fell asleep. NONE of them need steroids yet most of them are a big as football players. Football players need the extra bulk to protect from savage hits. Now as a 100 mile a week cyclist, I can truly appreciate men who ride that 100 miles in a day, for a month straight and at an absurd clip compared to me. 
I dont think drugging to gain advantage in competition is cool, but they all need drugs to recover from what they do. There ought to be controlled "medication" to all of those guys who need or request it. God created all menequally but not all men are equal. Given a level playing feel of the physical, then it is the hardened mind that will triumph in the end. 

Of all the Pro sportsmen out there Pro cycling need the science to keep it going. Tennis players on roids...dont make me laught. What next, pool players, golfers, hell, why not the bastion of ESPN sports, Pro Poker players on 'roids..they need it as much a baseball and tennis players do. =;-)

CYCLING RULES!!!! PERIOD!!!!


----------



## Gill-Again (Mar 11, 2004)

Roscoe Tanner was serving in the 130's back when Borg/Conners/McEnroe were playing.

That said, tennis has doping scandals. Just ask Guillermo Cañas.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Yes cycling would be better off to sweep it under the rug. See the 1990's pre Festina. Big money, expanding markets, continual entry of new sponsors.

Performances are not what indicate athletes are dopers. Human nature does. If some supermodel was offering you $1M if your "performance" met her standards you can bet you'd be seeking medical assistance too.

I believe it was Nadal who was in Fuentes' office.


----------



## ktm882 (Aug 14, 2007)

no disrespect to any other sport including the one I dedicated 20+ years of my life to but cycling kicks the crap out of most sports..period!
mj.


----------



## ktm882 (Aug 14, 2007)

Your right,
the prefessional athlete and teh amateur athlete have little in common save for the techniques. They are under pressure we cannot even imagine. I love riding my bike but if I HAD to ride it every day, I'd lose the passion for it. It's better that I WANT to ride it every day and even then I have to motivate myself for the suffering, the meeting with Mr Pain.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2007)

terzo rene said:


> Yes cycling would be better off to sweep it under the rug. See the 1990's pre Festina. Big money, expanding markets, continual entry of new sponsors.


Yes if you think that lying and deceiving the public are good things......appearance is all that matters after all....and the public don't really need to know??!!


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

the_rydster said:


> Yes if you think that lying and deceiving the public are good things......appearance is all that matters after all....and the public don't really need to know??!!


But who was deceived? It takes willful ignorance not to at least suspect a good percentage of humans in any endeavor are cutting corners.

In politics I would agree but there are areas where truth and the need to know don't matter at all. Entertainment and sports are one of them. Why do you need to know if Stallone used steroids or Pantani used EPO? Disregarding the artistic merits both resulted in a more entertaining product, and judging by sponsor interest one that was more in demand than the "honest" version. Appearance really is all that matters in entertainment and, regardless of the emotional investment people make trying to vicariously achieve victory through it, that's all that sport is.


----------



## ktm882 (Aug 14, 2007)

terzo rene

good post. I work for THE telephone company and years back befriended a customer who happened to be a contractor for the UN anti-terrorist commision. Trust me, you DONT want to know how close America has been on numerous occasions to more 9-11 incidents. These are blocked from the news by the government...we the people, while we have a right to know, really shouldnt know everything we think we need to know. 

I find it absurd that arm chair junkies who watch sports more than play it are usually the most vocal ones to whine about Pros who use enhancements to keep performing at a level that would have these ACJs dropping dead from heart failure. If you are not a Pro athlete, you cannot understand the stresses they are under or the pressures to perform or the need to recover from daily brutal training sessions.

Leave these men alone, quit whining and just respect them for the levels they achieve, thats why we watch sports anyway, to see others who give up everything to do well what we only do decently.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

I stopped watching team sports once I got my head around the psychology of the whole thing, namely the low self-esteem based identification with a team and the rather arbitrary establishment of people as adversaries who have done nothing to you personally... I now view it as a sort of government supported mind-control or at least mind distraction, albeit mostly benign.

I sadly now identify EVERY professional cyclist as a likely doper. I do not respect their efforts, even if they never doped, because I can not trust this to be the case. I now concentrate on my own efforts to ride instead. And you know what, perhaps because of this the doping scandals have actually had a positive effect on my life. So go dopers, dope all you want, I'm going to go for a ride instead of watching any professional sports on the boob tube.

As for the future of pro-cycling, I couldn't give a darn anymore.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

DrSmile said:


> I stopped watching team sports once I got my head around the psychology of the whole thing, namely the low self-esteem based identification with a team and the rather arbitrary establishment of people as adversaries who have done nothing to you personally... I now view it as a sort of government supported mind-control or at least mind distraction, albeit mostly benign.
> 
> I sadly now identify EVERY professional cyclist as a likely doper. I do not respect their efforts, even if they never doped, because I can not trust this to be the case. I now concentrate on my own efforts to ride instead. And you know what, perhaps because of this the doping scandals have actually had a positive effect on my life. So go dopers, dope all you want, I'm going to go for a ride instead of watching any professional sports on the boob tube.
> 
> * As for the future of pro-cycling, I couldn't give a darn anymore*.


...many of the advances in cycle technology have occurred because the manufacturers are trying to build faster more competitive bikes and components for the pros..the design advances trickle down thru the product lines...this happens in all other sports too...alpine skiing is another fine example...

...a specific application of this is how today's triathletes [not one of the "team" sports you dislike] benefit greatly from the TT bike R&D of companies like Time, Cervelo, HED and others...

...so unless your riding a 1942 Schwinn cruiser, your benefiting from pro-cycling...


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

You need to distinguish advances in technology from benefits to the individual recreational rider. I can get the same amount of exercise on a 20 year old Schwinn as on my new fangled 15 lb carbon bike. Perhaps my safety is slightly improved by using helmets originally designed for pros and perhaps the extra gears make things more comfortable, but I fail to see the actual physical benefit to myself. I would think that if companies like Cervelo didn't support professional teams, their products might actually be cheaper.


----------



## ktm882 (Aug 14, 2007)

Dr Smile,
I know how you feel and respect greatly your decision to focus on your own riding, I disagree a bit cos I think we do need Pro sports, it gives us mere mortals people to emulate (not worship) and goals to set and try to achieve. Someone in your life caused you to set the goal of a Ph.D and you did it...bully for you. Thats awesome.

By the same token , some little kid from France no one knows of yet who saw Conatdor in person was inspired to be just like "that guy." Right now he doesn't know or care how Contador got to where he is no more than folks care about the hard work and commitment it took for you to become a Doctor, they are just impressed with the fact that you are. 

My first hero was Roger DeCoster _(the Eddy Merckx of motocross) _and while interviewing another Belgian some years ago named Joel Smets, I found out he snuck into an event that turned out to be the last professional race for Roger. He made a vow that day to be like him and many years later, Joel tied DeCoster's World Championship record with five titles. While Roger and Eddie battered the world during the same time period, they each tried the other's sport and were duly impressed with each other. Amateur or eventual Pro, the same person inspired us both.

And like bonkmeister said, the production KTM in my garage cost me 6 grand, but would be equal in performance to the 200K factory specials of a decade or so ago. The truth is that even for Ricky Carmichael's salary I would NOT jump the size obstacles he does with seeming ease. For Lance's salary, I am incapable of riding 120 miles a day for a month straight. If I were on all the drugs in the world and a Pro tour rider were on nothing for a year, I would still get smoked. The drugs dont make them what they are, an iron mind and iron will propels them to their heights.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

JohnnyTooBad said:


> And Eyebob with this statement, "You'll like cycling much more when it's clean.". That's a HUGE assumption that it will ever be clean.


+1
That is the fatal flaw in the mindset of all these people who are in denial about the true situation. *Everybody* would *like* the sport to be clean... even most of the dopers... but it simply isn't possible to make it so. What is needed is an intelligent approach that controls and minimizes the effects of doping without killing the sport in the process.


----------



## ktm882 (Aug 14, 2007)

Exactly rruff,

no Pro sport is going to be totally clean, damage control and allow certain sections of science to evolve the sport as is every other sport. Drag racing motors of forty years ago has been improved through science and technology. The human is the engine in cycling so why not use the improvements available.

I don't condone drugging to cheat but to allow Pros to reach their dizzying heights us mortals cant imagine. The better man is still going to win regardles.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2007)

terzo rene said:


> Appearance really is all that matters in entertainment and, regardless of the emotional investment people make trying to vicariously achieve victory through it, that's all that sport is.


Entertainment implies superficiality and (therefore) no real value. 

Is this how you see the achievements of sporting greats, because it seems you do? 

All value is only entertainment value? Philistine and ignoble mindset.....


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2007)

the_rydster said:


> Entertainment implies superficiality and (therefore) no real value.
> 
> Is this how you see the achievements of sporting greats, because it seems you do?
> 
> All value is only entertainment value? Philistine and ignoble mindset.....


Whoa! A bit extreme I think. Entertainment can be re-creational - which is very valuable.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

the_rydster said:


> Entertainment implies superficiality and (therefore) no real value.


That's one of the most absurd things I've heard in a long time.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

ktm882 said:


> The drugs dont make them what they are, an iron mind and iron will propels them to their heights.


I see this defense of doping all the time. It is fundamentally flawed. If they WERE of an iron mind they would not have doped in the first place, and it is INDEED the drugs that propelled them to their heights. I have NO respect for doper's athletic accomplishments, including sadly Lance's.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

DrSmile said:


> I see this defense of doping all the time. It is fundamentally flawed. If they WERE of an iron mind they would not have doped in the first place.


Oh really? Maybe they just want a chance at winning rather than being pack fodder or worse. It's a simple equation really... a) the dope works b) authorities are incapable of eliminating doping c) many riders can (and will) dope and never get caught d) since most of your competitors are doping, you need to dope to keep up with them.

I suppose you also think it is "unfair" for one rider to have a better bike or more aero equipment... they should all be riding 60s spec bikes... and what about better nutrition, coaching, training methods, recovery, etc...? If they had a real iron mind then the TDF would be the only riding they did all year... that would take some real determination...


----------



## ktm882 (Aug 14, 2007)

You go rruff, I concur.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2007)

mohair_chair said:


> That's one of the most absurd things I've heard in a long time.


So you say...but give no reason why.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

rruff said:


> I suppose you also think it is "unfair" for one rider to have a better bike or more aero equipment... they should all be riding 60s spec bikes... and what about better nutrition, coaching, training methods, recovery, etc...? If they had a real iron mind then the TDF would be the only riding they did all year... that would take some real determination...


Yes it is unfair to have superior equipment. This is the entire reason for UCI regulations. All competitions are based on some basic concept of fair and equal equipment.

There is a clear delineation between training and doping. They are not the same, no matter how much people delude themselves into thinking they are. Training and nutrition doesn't involve shoving caffeine suppositories up your butt or infusing bags of your own blood back into your own body. The insinuation that this is somehow a perfectly normal way of "training" is absurd. People who dope clearly know they are doing something wrong, which is the reason they get so angry when they are discovered.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

DrSmile said:


> There is a clear delineation between training and doping. They are not the same, no matter how much people delude themselves into thinking they are. Training and nutrition doesn't involve shoving caffeine suppositories up your butt or infusing bags of your own blood back into your own body.


No... they just involve taking a bunch of other substances, and using other methods that are at least perceived to enhance performance and recovery... including IV bags of who-knows-what.

The implicit rules in sport are the ones that can be reasonably enforced. You can ban something, but if you can't enforce that ban, then the rule is a joke. The problem we are seeing now is that various PEDs are banned that cannot be easily detected in a test. Instead, some people in the cycling business and journalists... and naive fans... have decided that hearsay, inuendo, hotel and doctors raids, are viable substitutes for for this lack of enforceability. They are "deeply offended" that professional athletes will (and must!) do whatever they can (and can get away with) to enhance their performance. If you do otherwise then you aren't really trying to win. The childish attitude that "it's against the rules so they shouldn't do it" is killing the sport. Lance was always looking for "the **** that will kill them". This was in reference to technology and techniques, but it is silly to think that a winning attitude will stop at undetectable physiological enhancements just because they are against the rules. 

Doping can be "eliminated" only to the extent that there are tests that can reliably detect if dope is being used... even in tiny amounts. Since this isn't the case and likely won't be in the foreseeable future... what then do we do? IMO insteading of banning substances, make reasonable detectable testing limits the "rule". If you are over the limit then you get suspended... for a short time... because your real "crime" was simply screwing up on doses and going over the limit. And then get on with it and forget all this other BS. If a rider doesn't fail a test, then they are "clean" by definition. At the same time I'm all for increased and improved testing so that riders will have little chance of being over the limits on a regular basis without getting caught.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2007)

rruff said:


> The childish attitude that "it's against the rules so they shouldn't do it" is killing the sport.


Well I guess we can blame cycling fans who are against doping for killing this sport....we could even write it as its epitaph?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

the_rydster said:


> So you say...but give no reason why.


You didn't give any reasons for your statement. Why should I?


----------



## ktm882 (Aug 14, 2007)

I concur again rruff.
Pros, and Amatuers, and arm chair quarterbacks have totally different needs. As an amateur racer (mx) I dont have to train if I dont feel like it, I dont have to race if I dont feel like it. I honestly cant imagine having to HAVE to train all day or ride all day. Nope, dont want it..body couldn't handle it without help.
I sympathize with every current pro, I sympathize with our sport too. Something has to be done because perception is 9/10s of the law. the public sees Pro cyclists as all dopers in a bad way and yet dont realize or want to know that most pro athletes in any physically demanding sport are also using science to enable them to keep up that level of performance. When in history have we seen so many pro athletes competing at a top level as we have today that are 30-35 years old and in some cases older? Are you trying to tell me that is all great genetics and human evolution...pull your head out of your arse, that's just not the real world. The terriffic thing about being an amateur or arm chair quarterback is also I dont HAVE to dope if I dont feel like it and that is where most of us need to draw the line. We (cycling) have to clear our own house of this bickering and present a unified front or the public will never accept us like we want to be accepted.
* I am sort of ashamed to admit this but in an article I read last year, an mx factory techinician went on record of anonimity stating there is a lot more rampant steroid use in the pro motocross ranks than one can imagine. I had believed all the "code of the warriors" mx credo and all that but to look at these guys man-handling machines that weigh more than ten times more than our bikes for two 45 minute motos...your mind is telling you that it isnt humanly possible but you believe what you want to believe. That's just the reality of being a pro...


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

the_rydster said:


> Well I guess we can blame cycling fans who are against doping for killing this sport....we could even write it as its epitaph?


We are *all* "against" doping... but some of us realize that it is a fact of life, and the best we can ever hope for is to control and contain it within reasonable levels. It is the self righteous cycling fans who naively think it is possible to "eliminate" something from existance just because they wish it... that is what is killing the sport. Get a clue! *NOBODY* wants doping... not even any of the guys who are doping! But they can't afford to give up a significant competitve edge... so they are stuck.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2007)

rruff said:


> wants doping... not even any of the guys who are doping! But they can't afford to give up a significant competitve edge..


What? So if they give up a competitive edge their families will be dragged out and shot!?

Fact is to dope (and cheat) is a personal choice...we all have free will after all?


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2007)

mohair_chair said:


> You didn't give any reasons for your statement. Why should I?


Entertainment is by definition a diversion, a pleasure, an amusement. 

If you think there is moral worth in dopers pretending not to be dopers.....in other words, putting up facade of authenticity.....then so be it.....maybe you think that is not shallow in the same way as say...WWE is not shallow but rather a profound display of sporting prowess?

How decadent are we?


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

the_rydster said:


> What? So if they give up a competitive edge their families will be dragged out and shot!?


No... if they give up a competitve edge then they are out of the game... at least to win. It's like showing up at an important pro TT with your regular road bike and kit. Even if you were the "best" in the world, what do you think your chances would be?



the_rydster said:


> If you think there is moral worth in dopers pretending not to be dopers.....in other words, putting up facade of authenticity.....then so be it.....maybe you think that is not shallow in the same way as say...WWE is not shallow but rather a profound display of sporting prowess?


I don't think they should pretend not to dope... that's what they've been doing for 100 years to keep people like you from getting upset. And there is nothing inauthentic about doping either... unless you think disk wheels and aero helmets are inauthentic as well. 

I can't believe that any professed fan of cycling would compare it to "pro" wrestling. Those guys don't need *any* athletic ability... it's all just a staged show... compared to cycling where athletic ability is so primary that doping to extract that last 1% is enough to make the difference between winning and finishing down in the field.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2007)

rruff said:


> No... if they give up a competitve edge then they are out of the game... at least to win. It's like showing up at an important pro TT with your regular road bike and kit. Even if you were the "best" in the world, what do you think your chances would be?


You have made your values clear; winning matters only....there is no moral worth in taking part.



rruff said:


> And there is nothing inauthentic about doping either... unless you think disk wheels and aero helmets are inauthentic as well.


I would hardly suggest that the wearing of an aero helmet is quite the same as shooting oneself up with EPO.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

the_rydster said:


> You have made your values clear; winning matters only....there is no moral worth in taking part.


I don't know if it is a moral issue at all... but the reason I don't dope is because I'm just out there to do the best that I can; ie I am competing against myself... winning is really unimportant. Pros do not have that luxury. If they don't win or contribute to wins, then they stop being pros. 



the_rydster said:


> I would hardly suggest that the wearing of an aero helmet is quite the same as shooting oneself up with EPO.


It is similar in the sense that it can give a competitive advantage... and if you are a top pro and you decide not to use it you are screwing yourself. 

I wonder what your take is (was) on Lemond using aerobars to wn the '89 TdF. It certainly gave him an advantage, and he was the only person in the race using them. Is this not cheating? Did it make that race a circus and a fraud? At least the dope is universally used... among the top racers at least.


----------



## ktm882 (Aug 14, 2007)

_"Pros do not have that luxury. If they don't win or contribute to wins, then they stop being pros. "_

Again, rruff, I concur. Our wishes as amatuers and enthusiasts have not a damn thing to do with the reality of being a professional at anything. I have been out sick since April 17, that's when I had total knee replacement and guess what, I got paid for every week I have been out. Pros dont eat if they dont race at a high level or win or at least seem  able to win once in a while. There is always the next young guy nipping at their heels waiting for their turn.Our job as spectators is to enjoy the show not dictate the lives of anyone else. Hell, if thats the case Pros should turn round and tell all of US to start riding 100 miles a day every day wheter we like it or not. 

If all the naysayers in here were given all the drugs and oxygenated blood in the world they wouldnt move from Cat 5 or 4 to Cat 1 all of a sudden. It is the last 1-2% that the science enables. The first 98% is the athlete spending a lifetime doing what he does.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2007)

ktm882 said:


> _"Pros do not have that luxury. If they don't win or contribute to wins, then they stop being pros. "_
> 
> Again, rruff, I concur. Our wishes as amatuers and enthusiasts have not a damn thing to do with the reality of being a professional at anything. I have been out sick since April 17, that's when I had total knee replacement and guess what, I got paid for every week I have been out. Pros dont eat if they dont race at a high level or win or at least seem  able to win once in a while. There is always the next young guy nipping at their heels waiting for their turn.Our job as spectators is to enjoy the show not dictate the lives of anyone else. Hell, if thats the case Pros should turn round and tell all of US to start riding 100 miles a day every day wheter we like it or not.
> 
> If all the naysayers in here were given all the drugs and oxygenated blood in the world they wouldnt move from Cat 5 or 4 to Cat 1 all of a sudden. It is the last 1-2% that the science enables. The first 98% is the athlete spending a lifetime doing what he does.


Seem seem to be saying that (metaphorically) cyclists have a gun pointed at their heads and are told to dope....if they don't then they are out of a job.

Last time I checked we do not like in a caste society...opportunities exists for all in other forms of employment. If your boss ask you to break the law, or to do something unethical or you could lose your job otherwise would you just role over?

You are totally undermining the notion of moral culpability...of responsibility....by pretending that cyclists do not have a choice...of course they have a choice....in doping to retain your pro-team place (like that is the main reason to dope anyway?) you are making a choice...that cheating and doping is an acceptable price for ones career.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

the_rydster said:


> You are totally undermining the notion of moral culpability...of responsibility....by pretending that cyclists do not have a choice...of course they have a choice....in doping to retain your pro-team place (like that is the main reason to dope anyway?) you are making a choice...that cheating and doping is an acceptable price for ones career.


I'm not giving doping cyclists a free pass across the board, I'm trying to show what their perspective is and the difficult dilemmas they face... and also explain why it is so common and will continue to be widespread. 

Please try to understand this point: regardless of whether or not we all agree that the PED using cyclists are morally "wrong", doping will continue to be a widespread practice as long as testing is unable to reliably detect who is or isn't doping. Agreed? So would you rather try to manage the level of doping in a reasonable way, or would rather eliminate the sport completely? 

You seem to think that we can all just decide that cyclists shouldn't dope and then it will somehow happen. Well all of us, and most if not all of the cyclists, wish that doping could be eliminated... and yet it can't. Like many other facts of life, this isn't something we can change.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2007)

rruff said:


> I'm not giving doping cyclists a free pass across the board, I'm trying to show what their perspective is and the difficult dilemmas they face... and also explain why it is so common and will continue to be widespread.


Why should 'managed' doping be anymore enforceable than a zero tolerance policy? The dilemmas you keep talking about will still exist.......more (illegal) doping...(and more dangerous doping) will make riders faster.



rruff said:


> So would you rather try to manage the level of doping in a reasonable way, or would rather eliminate the sport completely?


Nice _false dilemma fallacy_.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

the_rydster said:


> Why should 'managed' doping be anymore enforceable than a zero tolerance policy?


Well sure... "zero tolerance" will be much easier to manage... especially when the sport no longer exists.

Does this make sense to you? These guys are put into an impossible dilemma, that the system is incapable of getting rid of, and your response is zero tolerance?! Just escalate the punishment? That will do nothing but make the sport even more of a circus than it is now... until it's dead.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2007)

rruff said:


> That will do nothing but make the sport even more of a circus than it is now... until it's dead.


If doping becomes legal then the sport is dead to me.....I will want nothing to do with it....and I suspect most cycling fans agree....exceptions (yourself) excluded.


----------



## JohnnyTooBad (Apr 5, 2004)

the_rydster said:


> If doping becomes legal then the sport is dead to me.....I will want nothing to do with it....and I suspect most cycling fans agree....exceptions (yourself) excluded.


You might go away as a fan, but (possibly) 100 or 1000 other people might come in as new fans because they get to watch those superhuman performances without all the scandal.

Cycling will not survive as a pro sport, especially in the US, if these scandals continue or get worse. It's low enough on the radar now. Get some more bad publicity, and all the sponsors will jump ship. We'll continue to ride our ever increasingly expensive bikes in obscurity, have more riders run off the roads, and go the way of the dodo bird. To some, that may be a good thing, to others... not so much.


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2007)

JohnnyTooBad said:


> You might go away as a fan, but (possibly) 100 or 1000 other people might come in as new fans because they get to watch those superhuman performances without all the scandal.


...and they might not.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

the_rydster said:


> If doping becomes legal then the sport is dead to me.....I will want nothing to do with it....and I suspect most cycling fans agree....exceptions (yourself) excluded.


I *never* said anything about making doping legal... just making the enforcement and punishment fit the "crime"... with a little intelligence and understanding regarding the situation. Positive results on doping tests will incur punishment, and I'm all for improved and increased frequency of testing. It's the draconian punishments and self-righteous indignation when a rider screws up and tests positive that needs to end. Lifetime bans... give me a break! That's childish and just silly. If you escalate the punishment then you give the BS press an even bigger story. Riders will still dope, and the doping will be even more effective because more will fear the penalty... but you won't get rid of the doping. You'll just drive it farther underground... the dopers will need to be super careful and secretive, hire the best doctors, etc... but like I said the rewards will be even greater, so it will still be common among the elite. Until the sport is killed that is... 

You apparently won't accept anything but the complete eradication of doping. Since it is absolutely impossible that this will happen without eradicating the sport (and all other sports that require athletic prowess), then you should think again about what you truly wish for.

I'd rather have the sport continue and flourish... I'm sure about that.


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2007)

rruff said:


> I *never* said anything about making doping legal... just making the enforcement and punishment fit the "crime"... with a little intelligence and understanding regarding the situation. Positive results on doping tests will incur punishment, and I'm all for improved and increased frequency of testing. It's the draconian punishments and self-righteous indignation when a rider screws up and tests positive that needs to end. Lifetime bans... give me a break! That's childish and just silly. If you escalate the punishment then you give the BS press an even bigger story. Riders will still dope, and the doping will be even more effective because more will fear the penalty... but you won't get rid of the doping. You'll just drive it farther underground... the dopers will need to be super careful and secretive, hire the best doctors, etc... but like I said the rewards will be even greater, so it will still be common among the elite. Until the sport is killed that is...
> 
> You apparently won't accept anything but the complete eradication of doping. Since it is absolutely impossible that this will happen without eradicating the sport (and all other sports that require athletic prowess), then you should think again about what you truly wish for.
> 
> I'd rather have the sport continue and flourish... I'm sure about that.


You have made yourself clear - that those who are opposed to doping are truly the problem.......that the financial success of the sport is more important than principle and honesty.

I say no thanks to what you propose.


----------



## ktm882 (Aug 14, 2007)

Again,
Professionals are dealing with circumstances waaaaay different than our own. Our own moral guidelines are good for...US, not the next guy. When I got beat at races my anger made me take it out on myself in the gym and then on the guys that beat me the next weekend for making me suffer in the gym. I run in the B or intermediate class. If I were in the A class and my living was at stake to be in the hunt, hell whatever the guys beating me did I would also do cos if I am at my physical max and still getting beat and I find out you are getting help, why shouldnt I level the playing field also? 
I dont race bicycles yet but as non-pro, I dont have to do anything I dont choose to do. Pros in most cases have no choice. EVERY pro football player is on muscle enhancing drugs... too many baseball players are also on the same. None of their fans are wanting to lynch them for doing it. Cut our guys some slack. They'd be superhuman without it compared to us anyway. But they arent racing us, they're racing other enhanced super human men.


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2007)

ktm882 said:


> .......but as non-pro, I dont have to do anything I dont choose to do.


Unless being physically coerced nobody has to 'do anything'?

Your 'no choice' fallacy is ludicrous....maybe you should apply it to common criminals as well....a great defense that would make in court - again _moral culpability_....something you seek to undermine.


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2007)

JohnnyTooBad said:


> You might go away as a fan, but (possibly) 100 or 1000 other people might come in as new fans because they get to watch those superhuman performances without all the scandal.


Yes, we could combine pro-cycling with fight to the death cage matches.....imagine the pay-per-view potential.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

the_rydster said:


> Yes, we could combine pro-cycling with fight to the death cage matches.....imagine the pay-per-view potential.


...I have always thought that the reason that OLN / Versus covers the TdF is for the crashes and antics of the drunken crowds...lot of appeal there for the cage fighting fans...


----------



## ktm882 (Aug 14, 2007)

Ooow,

harsh words my man. Using science to enhance a professinal's recovery is not a crime like child murder or rape. You have a choice, so do all of the pros but not all choices are as clear as black and white, the real world exists in the grey.

I got my first ride of a mini bike at age 8, it took 'till I was 18 to get a job and buy my own dirt bike. I have had 14 since the first one in 1980. I knew where all of my friends bikes were, I chose not to steal any of them. I paid my dues and waited for their generosity to let me get rides on them. Years later I even won an amateur championship. I used every supplement known to man short of 'science.' Trained like a lunatic and now the D.34 records have my name in it as 2001 champion of Walden MX in my division. As an amateur racer I dont HAVE to train and ride 5 gallons of gas out of my bike or ride 100 miles every day on a bicycle. My body (and yours too) couldnt handle doing that much. Pros HAVE to train and ride all day. If I were thrust into that position and a test. patch or gel helped me get to that point, then it's "patch on" for me. You and I are not Pros, we dont have to do a damn thing we dont want to do.
Have you ever swiped that pen from work or the pack of printer paper or stapler or anything that didn't belng to you. That's as much a crime as the ceo who robs millions from a company. I bet you make a distinction between those crimes and yet there are those who see no difference, a theif is a theif is a theif.

Shades of grey Bro. Lets just go ride.


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2007)

ktm882 said:


> Shades of grey Bro.


Not really.

The doping rules are quite defined.


----------



## ktm882 (Aug 14, 2007)

I guess it boils down to chioices rydster. But lets met in the middle. Where do we as a comunity go from here? I'm stumped. Seems a shame that my job at teh phone company pays me ore than guys who are "pros" busting their butts every day. Motocross was like that a decade ago but the spectacle of the X Games and Freestyle mx have brought the racers back to the forefront. 

I'd love to see a bunch of road and MTB pros ride around a national MX track. That woudl totally blow the mids of eh spectators. For the longest time we (mx) have thought of our sport as the most difficult. Honestly, riding moto cannot train you for cycling, cycling can train you for moto. EVERY mc pro trains of a road and MTB bike...what does that tell you?

I picked up a book with a guy named Major Taylor who raced at the turn of the century in races called Six Days and they literally raced six days non stop. thats really extreme..maybe we need to bring back something like that. Cycling needs the "sideshow" aspect to put it back to the forefront of the general public. 
Every mx racer thought the tatooed, wild living freestyle guys were gonna ruin motocross and look what happened. 
I was bicyclist long before I was motorcyclist. I truly love both arenas. I was a former BMX expert/Pro rider before I gave it up for motocross.  
We cant keep bickering about the situation, we needs solutions. I have no doubt tht people who can make a difference are reading these blogs.


----------



## ktm882 (Aug 14, 2007)

I guess it boils down to chioices rydster. But lets meet in the middle. Where do we as a comunity go from here? I'm stumped. Seems a shame that my job at the phone company pays me more than guys who are "pros" busting their butts every day. Motocross was like that a decade ago but the spectacle of the X Games and Freestyle mx have brought the racers back to the forefront. 

I'd love to see a bunch of road and MTB pros ride around a national MX track. That would totally blow the mids of the spectators. For the longest time we (mx) have thought of our sport as the most difficult. Honestly, riding moto cannot train you for cycling, cycling can train you for moto. EVERY mx pro trains of a road and or MTB bike...what does that tell you?

I picked up a book with a guy named Major Taylor who raced at the turn of the century in races called Six Days and they literally raced six days non stop. thats really extreme..maybe we need to bring back something like that. Cycling needs the "sideshow" aspect to put it back to the forefront of the general public. 

Every mx racer thought the tattooed, wild living freestyle guys were gonna ruin motocross and look what happened. 
I was a bicyclist long before I was motorcyclist. I truly love both arenas. I was a former BMX expert/Pro rider before I gave it up for motocross.  

We cant keep bickering about the situation, we needs solutions. I have no doubt tht people who can make a difference are reading these blogs.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

the_rydster said:


> You have made yourself clear - that those who are opposed to doping are truly the problem.......that the financial success of the sport is more important than principle and honesty.


What is it called when you continuously put words in someone elses mouth... ie you invent an opposing side that gives you something to argue against... and meanwhile you pay no attention to the actual arguments presented?

We are *all* opposed to doping. If you think about it a little you may realize that your approach to this issue is lacking in "principal and honesty".


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2007)

rruff said:


> What is it called when you continuously put words in someone elses mouth... ie you invent an opposing side that gives you something to argue against... and meanwhile you pay no attention to the actual arguments presented?
> 
> We are *all* opposed to doping. If you think about it a little you may realize that your approach to this issue is lacking in "principal and honesty".


That you do not understand the moral consequences of what you are saying....and when presented with them...baulk....is not my problem.


----------

