Are cycling fans out to destroy cycling?
pottssteve
Posts: 4,069
It's just a rumour I heard.....
Head Hands Heart Lungs Legs
0
Comments
-
It feels like some people on here are the only ones who care for a clean sport.
The UCI's been asleep. Just look at cyclingnews.com and it's weak interview with Leipheimer, one minute miles of the pace in a TT a week before the Vuelta, suddenly he's rocking the Vuelta. No questions from cyclingnews, the media isn't that interested.0 -
Q. Are cycling fans out to destroy cycling?
A. Probably not, but there are plenty of powerfull forces who are !!!!!0 -
Q. Are cycling fans out to destroy cycling?
No, but the riders are.
Unless I seriously misunderstood doping, it's something the riders do, not the fans :?0 -
Quite. I thought we'd got past the head in the sand stage. Until everyone gets their heads out of the sand or their arses we will keep getting scandal.0
-
claudb wrote:Q. Are cycling fans out to destroy cycling?
A. Probably not, but there are plenty of powerfull forces who are !!!!!
Well, come on, just who are these "plenty of powerful forces"(I,m thinking that "plenty"
means at least 10 to 15)? I would also be interested in why these "powerful forces"
are trying to do this.
Dennis Noward0 -
skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:Quite. I thought we'd got past the head in the sand stage. Until everyone gets their heads out of the sand or their arses we will keep getting scandal.
I don't understand. Without "scandal" what would you have to b*tch and complain about?
Aren't so called, dirty little secrets exactly what you want? And the head in the arse?
Well, I'm sure you know all about that from lots of first hand experience.
Dennis Noward0 -
I think I am losing the will to spectate and battle now after 10 years of this s**t.
It is draining.0 -
Dennis, put your US Postal kit on, oil the chain on your Trek, pull up some long socks and go for a ride
0 -
dennisn wrote:claudb wrote:Q. Are cycling fans out to destroy cycling?
A. Probably not, but there are plenty of powerfull forces who are !!!!!
Well, come on, just who are these "plenty of powerful forces"(I,m thinking that "plenty"
means at least 10 to 15)? I would also be interested in why these "powerful forces"
are trying to do this.
Dennis Noward
Just being a bit 'Conspirational' but how about "people who don't like cyclists being on the road and who's interests are undermined by everyone who chooses to ride a bike instead of using a car".0 -
claudb wrote:dennisn wrote:claudb wrote:Q. Are cycling fans out to destroy cycling?
A. Probably not, but there are plenty of powerfull forces who are !!!!!
Well, come on, just who are these "plenty of powerful forces"(I,m thinking that "plenty"
means at least 10 to 15)? I would also be interested in why these "powerful forces"
are trying to do this.
Dennis Noward
Just being a bit 'Conspirational' but how about "people who don't like cyclists being on the road and who's interests are undermined by everyone who chooses to ride a bike instead of using a car".
What "interests are undermined by....."? What are these "interests"? I like riding my bike but don't understand what and whos "interests" I'm undermining by doing this. Are you
seeing a shrink about this paranoia?
Dennis Noward0 -
[quote="dennisn
What "interests are undermined by....."? What are these "interests"? I like riding my bike but don't understand what and whos "interests" I'm undermining by doing this. Are you
seeing a shrink about this paranoia?
Dennis Noward[/quote]
If you don't see it don't worry about it.
I'm off to my shrink now.0 -
Cycling fans have certainly done their bit to encourage the doping which has led the `sport` into the mire, not least because of their willingness to refuse to acknowledge the truth and to continue treat riders as `heroes` when every indication is that they were doped to the gills. Such behaviour simply validates the actions of the dopers themselves. As Armstrong said in that Vanity Fair interview:
you have 10 people throwin’ shit at you, yellin’, ‘Dopé, dopé’? Yeah. But you had 90 goin’, ‘Allez Lance! Allez Lance!’ I can do the math on that. My approval rating is 90 percent. Fuckin’ A. I like that.
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/featu ... ntPage=all0 -
claudb wrote:[quote="dennisn
What "interests are undermined by....."? What are these "interests"? I like riding my bike but don't understand what and whos "interests" I'm undermining by doing this. Are you
seeing a shrink about this paranoia?
Dennis Noward
If you don't see it don't worry about it.
I'm off to my shrink now.[/quote]
Guess I don't see it, you won't or can't explain it, so I won't worry about it.
Good move seeing a shrink.
Dennis Noward0 -
aurelio wrote:Cycling fans have certainly done their bit to encourage the doping which has led the `sport` into the mire, not least because of their willingness to refuse to acknowledge the truth and to continue treat riders as `heroes` when every indication is that they were doped to the gills. Such behaviour simply validates the actions of the dopers themselves. As Armstrong said in that Vanity Fair interview:
you have 10 people throwin’ shit at you, yellin’, ‘Dopé, dopé’? Yeah. But you had 90 goin’, ‘Allez Lance! Allez Lance!’ I can do the math on that. My approval rating is 90 percent. Fuckin’ A. I like that.
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/featu ... ntPage=all
So what are you personally irritated by, Aurelio? The fact that the majority (all of whom have to be complete idiots) still think that Lance is clean? Whether he is guilty or not, we must look at the standards he has set and strive for them. Too many people use doping as an excuse, ie, "you can't go fast up the Alpe D'Huez unless you're using epo, steroids and a few amphetamines to speed the blood up when the altitude kicks in.
Look, drugs enhance your performance, they do that for everyone. As you say, 5%, 5% that everybody can buy from the right doctor and the right program. What about the other 95%? Do you account for the fact that somebody with more ability - lighter body, greater oxygen uptake, naturally higher lactate threshold, better muscle efficiency - is going to be damn hard to beat whether one is doping or not?
Doping is a short cut. Training is a much more valuable tool, we musn't forget that. And understanding that makes us realise that these top athletes, doped or not, work their balls off to reach the standards of performance that they do. I think pressure from sponsors for teams to change their ways will win through eventually. There will always be that opportunity to cheat but the best we can do is to make the majority of the teams clean and the majority of the riders within those teams clean. I still hope that's where we're moving.
I don't see what standing by the roadside, throwing things at a rider and spitting on them is going to achieve. It would make a mountain stage on the Tour pretty interesting for the viewers but it's not the answer. Neither is the attitude that to win you must dope, that just feeds the obsession.0 -
In reality a good doping program can make a lot more difference than 5%. A 10-15% increase in threshold power output is quite feasible. Given that at the top level the natural differences are minute, even a couple of percent advantage from doping can turn an also-ran into a `winner`, so distorting the whole outcome of events. Look at Riis for a proven example.Patrick1.0 wrote:Look, drugs enhance your performance, they do that for everyone. As you say, 5%, 5% that everybody can buy from the right doctor and the right program. What about the other 95%?
Also not all riders benefit equally, so even if everyone were to dope there would be no level playing field, and of course there are still some who try to race clean.
Your use of percentages is also rather dodgy, unless you are using a corpse as the base line for your 95%. My own threshold power output when I was racing was 320w. Until the Epo era over 400w was good enough to be a pro, so I was 20% off the pace set by the pros. With a good doping program I might have benefited to the tune of 50 watts (perhaps more), taking me up to 370W, and so from a second cat to a potential Premier Calendar event winner.
My point is not that I was ever going to be good enough to be a pro, but rather to highlight then fact that the natural differences between a decent amateur (even a donkey like me) and a pro are not as huge as you seem to be trying to suggest. In turn the benefits to be had from modern day doping methods are much more significant than you imply.0 -
aurelio wrote:
In reality a good doping program can make a lot more difference than 5%. A 10-15% increase in threshold power output is quite feasible. Given that at the top level the natural differences are minute, even a couple of percent advantage from doping can turn an also-ran into a `winner`, so distorting the whole outcome of events. Look at Riis for a proven example.Patrick1.0 wrote:Look, drugs enhance your performance, they do that for everyone. As you say, 5%, 5% that everybody can buy from the right doctor and the right program. What about the other 95%?
Also not all riders benefit equally, so even if everyone were to dope there would be no level playing field, and of course there are still some who try to race clean.
Your use of percentages is also rather dodgy, unless you are using a corpse as the base line for your 95%. My own threshold power output when I was racing was 320w. Until the Epo era over 400w was good enough to be a pro, so I was 20% off the pace set by the pros. With a good doping program I might have benefited to the tune of 50 watts (perhaps more), taking me up to 370W, and so from a second cat to a potential Premier Calendar event winner.
My point is not that I was ever going to be good enough to be a pro, but rather to highlight then fact that the natural differences between a decent amateur (even a donkey like me) and a pro are not as huge as you seem to be trying to suggest. In turn the benefits to be had from modern day doping methods are much more significant than you imply.
Really, I wasn't trying to say anything of the sort, just making sure that we understand the priorities.
Gebreselassie ran a 2.03 marathon, that's pretty incredible - close to 13 mph running for 26 miles - and a massive margin ahead of most guys who run. I don't see why winners of the Tour De France should be any less "far ahead".
A lot of riders are commenting on how the peleton is getting cleaner and I don't see any reason why that should be false.0
