Merckx not welcome in Stuttgart
www.cyclingnews.com are reporting that Eddy Merckx has been told that he isn't welcome as an official ambassador. Apparently the organisers "have to be a role model".
This is lunacy. :roll:
Given the level of doping in the sport in the last ten years I'm amazed they've allowed any riders in.
I would ask the organisers to read about the Salem witch trials.
This is lunacy. :roll:
Given the level of doping in the sport in the last ten years I'm amazed they've allowed any riders in.
I would ask the organisers to read about the Salem witch trials.
0
Posts
I am assuming that Hein Verbruggen isn't going to be there then. Or Pat McQuaid.
Boycott, anyone?
by rights you should be bludgeoned in your bed
Do bear in mind that Merckx did test positive twice, so comparison with the Witch Trials are not really valid. Whether someone should still be accountable for a doping offence over 30 years later is a separate matter.
Unlike a lot of individuals and groups, the organisers ban is at least consistent with their position regarding doping offences. Others seem to take a very schizophrenic view that while current doping is an abhorrence and should be punished by life-time bands, doping in the past is acceptable as a) everyone was at it and b) it avoids us having to ask ourselves some very difficult questions about some of the icons of the sport.
I'm not at all sure that people would be as incensed if it was, say, Tricky Dicky rather than Big Ted.
You're damned right they wouldn't. Merckx might have tested positive twice (I'm sure one of these was disputed) in a completely different moral climate, however Virenque admitted to systematic doping in a team that systematically doped when it wasn't just considered completely unethical but also illegal. It's a bit like comparing someone who broke the speed limit once to a joyrider who steals cars compulsively and drives around town at 90mph. Who is more unpallateable?
by rights you should be bludgeoned in your bed
He's OK, because he is now gobbing off continually against doping.
by rights you should be bludgeoned in your bed
by rights you should be bludgeoned in your bed
a) not German
b) not a cycling icon
c) not won a big race in Germany (yet. :twisted: )
You could say the same thing about, say, 2005.
Manchester Wheelers
Perhaps more disappointing is that yet again a major showpiece cycling event is being drowned in a see of doping scandal. Someone somewhere should be learing the lessons and deciding what to do about it. Lurching from one crisis to another while shooting first and asking questions later, followed by inchoherent policies that aren't really helping while bringing the sport into such disripute as we are currently witnessing......well.....the UCI is unfit to govern isn't it? This isn't to absovle everyone else of any blame of course, they are all in this mess together. The skill (that the UCI is so far failing to display) is getting everyone to agree on what to do about it. Blaming each other isn't helping.
The atmosphere in German has been really weird, during the Tour as well. Tour Magazin even pulled it's Tour de France summary book...
Showcase for cycling? Pile of rubbish is more like it.
Why don't they just decide who wears the rainbow because they like them and skip the cycling part all together.
This really is becoming a case of mass hysteria isn't it?
AGAIN.
sounds like a good plan.
Possibly. Or, perhaps in fact not.
So answer this, what should the organisers do?
Doping has been systemic for how long now? Correct me if im wrong but i was of the understanding that drug use, in particular amphetamine used was banned in 1966 or 1968 (i cant recall which year it was) and the problem has been with us since. So how do we fix it?
Companies are not backing this sport for the love of it. Its a commercial decision based on the fact that it gets your company name on the TV. Simple as that. Sponsors will withdraw from teams when drug stories break, we've all seen this.
Just for a change i'd love to see someone on here propose a solution rather than bemoan the fact that cyclist dope in order to win (or sometimes just survive in the peloton).
Am i going to hide behind my post and not throw up my solution? No im not, so here goes.
The UCI give all cyclists one year from a set date to get clean. There would be no dope tests at any stage during this year, so no one would fail and be able to claim they were weaning off the gear. But in a years time from this pre arranged date, anyone who fails a dope test gets a lifetime ban with no excuses accepted and no appeals process. And the ban would be complete. You would never be allowed race at any level in any discipline again.
Thats my tuppence worth, what you think?
We quite often come up with solutions. People have suggested your plan and here is why it won't work.
- Why would an amnesty make people stop doping?
- The tests barely work now, why would they work after a years worth of free for all?
- If the tests are easy to evade, so there is little chance of being caught, why would a life ban have any effect on you at all?
- No appeals process? The athlete should have the absolute right to challenge a positive. If the positve is postive, it will stand up regardless (see Landis case)
Stronger punishments and amnestys are not going to help.
The testing procedure needs to be look at - It's easy to evade tests.
To give you an overview there is an excellent clip on YouTube which uses subtitles to great effect!
Scheisse! This whole thing is a farce but we've seen it coming. For months there has been trouble due to inconsistency, no one has set out clear roles as to who could or couldn't participate. You'd hope the sports governing body would wade into to mediate and to set clear rules, after all the Worlds are a UCI event award to Germany. But no...
I reckon McQuaid's probably been too busy trying to discuss skateboarding or designing new versions of the ProTour instead of bothering with mere World Championships.
http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=re ... &type=lgns
Lets hope the organisers shut their pie holes now.
Who is? And what proof?
by rights you should be bludgeoned in your bed