I don't get it...

donrhummy

Everyone keeps saying that Beltran has shattered the "clean" image of the tour, that the tour is yet again a dope-fest. I completely disagree. What it shows is that unlike other sports in the world, you CANNOT dope and expect to get away with it in the TDF. It shows they're actually catching dopers. What's not "clean" about that? Sure we'd prefer no one dopes, but I have some bad news for everyone, that doesn't exist in ANY sport! Heck, even GOLF was shown to have dopers. :shock:

(And actually, you all HAVE to watch the documentary "Bigger, Stronger, Faster." Absolutely amazingly well done, even-handed film. What's funny (sad?) is he shows that even orchestra members are doping! Yep, they take beta blockers so they can ace their auditions (and beat the competition) without performance anxiety. Doping's in just about everything with competition. The question is not, "Is no one doping," but, "are they actually testing and catching dopers?"

Van_Heerden

Beltrans positive test doesn't taint the sport further, it helps it. He tried to cheat and got caught. Cycling catches so many drugs cheats because it tests so many. The same with athletics. There are no other sports in the world that test so much. I am sure there will be a positive test or two in the Olympics. People won't say it is tainted, they will say that it is good because it shows people can't cheat and get away with it.

biondino

While I agree with you that it's a good thing so many cheats are caught, people WILL say it's tainted and WILL think it's an unworthy sport because of it. You're naive/wrong if you think otherwise.

(I assume by people you mean the public? Even people who understand cycling often feel the sport is rotten - the public just see the positive tests and assume it's all a dishonest farce)

donrhummy

biondino wrote:

While I agree with you that it's a good thing so many cheats are caught, people WILL say it's tainted and WILL think it's an unworthy sport because of it. You're naive/wrong if you think otherwise.

(I assume by people you mean the public? Even people who understand cycling often feel the sport is rotten - the public just see the positive tests and assume it's all a dishonest farce)

No, I mean the reporters. Almost every article, blog and tv report has been the same: "Tour still dirty!" (Or something to that effect)

simon_e

donrhummy wrote:

I mean the reporters. Almost every article, blog and tv report has been the same: "Tour still dirty!" (Or something to that effect)

Good news never sells. This is why you never see headlines like "Hooded teenagers help pensioners with their shopping", journalists love (or are told to sniff out) bad news.

I had to complain to Radio 4 at the beginning of the week (before Beltran's news) as the only mention of the Tour was with reference to drugs. This came after a tediously long piece about Wimbledon dominated the sports slot, like it's the only thing happening <yawn>. Fair enough report the stories when they happen but don't omit the action.

ms_tree

Simon E wrote:

donrhummy wrote:

I Good news never sells. This is why you never see headlines like "Hooded teenagers help pensioners with their shopping", journalists love (or are told to sniff out) bad news.

I saw a tribute programme last year on the late WF "Bill" Deedes and he said (this is a reporter with something over 50 years of experience)
'Reporters - if they can't find a story they make it up'.
I always keep that in mind when I see a headline.

Peakraider

Hello,
I'm a reporter and I don't make stories up.

And I think anyone who claims Beltran's positive shows that you can't get away with doping in cycling is in cloud cuckoo land.

All it shows is that he buggered up for the first time in his doping career.

RichN95.

Ms Tree wrote:

Simon E wrote:

donrhummy wrote:

I Good news never sells. This is why you never see headlines like "Hooded teenagers help pensioners with their shopping", journalists love (or are told to sniff out) bad news.

I saw a tribute programme last year on the late WF "Bill" Deedes and he said (this is a reporter with something over 50 years of experience)
'Reporters - if they can't find a story they make it up'.
I always keep that in mind when I see a headline.

In a similar vein - I remember when I was younger, my uncle, who was on the board of directors of a well known organisation and occasionally in the media himself, said - Whenever there's a news story that you really know the facts about, it's always wrong. I've since seen this to be very true.

feersumendjinn

Cycling has itself to blame for the way it only hits the mainstream media when there's a positive dope test, It has been obsessed with doping for so long its almost more important than the racing, & a number of individuals make a good living out of keeping the stories going
Look at the way football or tennis deal with doping, by the governing bodies simply stating its not a problem & everybody moves on quite happy, when was the last time you saw a bunch of football fans waving huge hypodermics about or chanting epo, epo,
I don't condone dopers but I'm beginning to think that we're to easily convinced cycling is the bad boy of sport
But maybe its become the fall guy everyone is looking this way instead of at there own sport..

RichN95.

feersumendjinn wrote:

Cycling has itself to blame for the way it only hits the mainstream media when there's a positive dope test, It has been obsessed with doping for so long its almost more important than the racing, & a number of individuals make a good living out of keeping the stories going
Look at the way football or tennis deal with doping, by the governing bodies simply stating its not a problem & everybody moves on quite happy, when was the last time you saw a bunch of football fans waving huge hypodermics about or chanting epo, epo,
I don't condone dopers but I'm beginning to think that we're to easily convinced cycling is the bad boy of sport
But maybe its become the fall guy everyone is looking this way instead of at there own sport..

I agree with you, but cycling has always been the front line in the war on doping, and it's had to be from Tom Simpson's death. In the 90's there were a lot of deaths from EPO abuse. We still don't know the long term effects.

Other sports have seen what has happened to cycling and turned a blind eye (football being the worst). Only three other sports have any interest in catching cheats (athletics, swimming and skiing - maybe weightlifting) but they're still a long way behind cycling.

Operacion Puerto shows this - as soon as Barca and Real are involved it got dropped. In a break during the Wimbledon final my mother (a tennis fan) phoned me and, after condeming the Tour as dopers paradise, was surprised at my linking Nadal to Puerto (which he has been). Some people may have seen the irony of a Spanish footballer called Puerta dropping dead last season.

About a week ago there was a report in the Times about an East German shotputter from the 80s called Heidi. She took what she thoguht were vitamins - now she's a man called Andreas and is a dead ringer for ex England rugby player Brian Moore.

Cycling wants to protect its athletes, other sports want to maintain an image for the sake of money and let good athletes suffer and bad athletes, in the long run, suffer more.

In summary - cycling tries to catch cheats, does so, and therefore gets a bad reputation. But I think it's a better approach than the head in the sand.

Peakraider

There's no question doping is thriving in lots of other sports -- and gets less press in other sports.

Watch for men's tennis pros to bulk up in response to Nadal's victory at Wimbledon and general emergence as the most successful player.

Chelsea's "blood spinning" was acknowledged, then quietly forgotten about. Juventus and other Italian teams got busted... and then everyone went back to business as usual. Everytime I hear a football commentator saying that so-and-so will need to put on some weight over the summer, I roll my eyes.

Rugby? Look at the transformation of body shapes in the last decade. Dellaglio's jaw line transformation, alone, is on Barry Bonds lines.

But it is the scale of the problem in cycling that has kept it in the limelight. Look at Armstrong: almost every single one of his lieutenants or serious opponents has either admitted, been caught, or been implicated, in some way, with doping. Since Festina, one suspects it has been as rampant as ever.

And it is also the fact that scarcely a rider has won in decades without some kind of assumption of his doping -- often with solid, if only circumstantial (eg Armstrong), evidence. Aside from Lemond, does anyone think any of the last 30 winners was clean?

And the nonsense about testing catching up should be ignored. Listen to confessed dopers talking about their techniques for avoiding testing -- and how long they managed it.

Cycling authorities are making an admirable (sometimes) attempt to control it, but the nature of testing is that it will only ever be reactive, not proactive. Tests are only developed after the drug or the way it is used is found.

DaveyL

Peakraider wrote:

Hello,
I'm a reporter and I don't make stories up.

And I think anyone who claims Beltran's positive shows that you can't get away with doping in cycling is in cloud cuckoo land.

All it shows is that he buggered up for the first time in his doping career.

In an ideal world, the first time a rider doped, a little man from the UCI would magically appear 20 min later and the sample would be tested for the drug the rider has just taken, and he'd be huckled out of the sport. Sadly in the real world it doesn't work that way. In terms of the "smartness" of their testing though, it seems the authorities have been on a very shallow learning curve right up until the last couple 12-18 months. Beltran *could* have messed up, but it could also be extremely smart targetting. The fact that he was on their suspcicious list means it's not an unreasonable assumption.

sportzchick

You look at the Baseballers in america - its not until they are busted 6, 7, 8 times before you are giving any real punishment

The other sports just cover it up to keep their image so they wont loose $$$$ - simple

Squaggles

Have they started testing in golf yet ? Is Barry Bonds still playing baseball ? Are they going to have serious testing in football ?

Cycling is one of the few sports that is actually trying to address the problem but of course they receive all the headlines of the wrong type when they actually catch somebody .
I'm not naive enough to think there are no dopers left in the sport , or that we catch everybody who is doping , but for the first time in a few years I can actually see some light at the end of the tunnel .

Beltran is one of the old school riders , I would have been much more depressed if he was a young rider who had entered the pro ranks in the last 2 or 3 years .

feersumendjinn

Peakraider wrote:

But it is the scale of the problem in cycling that has kept it in the limelight. Look at Armstrong: almost every single one of his lieutenants or serious opponents has either admitted, been caught, or been implicated, in some way, with doping. Since Festina, one suspects it has been as rampant as ever.

And it is also the fact that scarcely a rider has won in decades without some kind of assumption of his doping -- often with solid, if only circumstantial (eg Armstrong), evidence. Aside from Lemond, does anyone think any of the last 30 winners was clean?.

circumstantial evidence : evidence inferred by circumstance not sure this means solid

But is this not the problem what other sport assumes its stars are doping when they have never tested positive? Only cycling. Where guilt by association is rife,only cycling.Where rumour & implication is more important than actual proof. only cycling.
Drug use didn't start after Lemonds time but well before so why is Lemond assumed to be clean because he never tested positive yet Armstrong isn't ?

Peakraider

Thanks -- I was a little unsure of what circumstantial meant until now.

thamacdaddy

Did anyone see the bit on the ITV4 highlights where he was about to leave after the stage where he tested positive and hadn't reported for his test as instructed and the testers were chasing him over the field to get him to test.....

I am sure he was complaining "no cameras".

I go with what boardman was saying which is this year for the first time the testers are targetting who they test based on profiles so that it actually is harder to dope once you are suspected. He claimed it makes common sense but for years for some reason neither ASO or UCI etc have done it ths way.

Not sure how true it is but to me if thats the case I would say that would seem to be the better way.

Cumulonimbus

I think there was some targetting last year - the whole 'men in black' thing?

DaveyL

There was targetting last year, not just on the "men in black" thing but I guess also based on non-positive tests which raised suspicon.