Showing your appreciation

DaveyL

aurelio wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

aurelio wrote:

P.s You seem to have overlooked Moreau, who came 4th in 2000 against the likes of Armstrong and Ullrich, despite racing on 'nothing' and having a haemocrit of 39%.

I can never tell if you're being sarcastic or not...

No I'm not, at least here. But I must admit that it is ironic that Moreau was robbed of a Tour win by dopers when he himself was part of the whole Festina scandal. :shock:

---

Cyclevaughters: anyhow, i never can quite figure out why i don't just play along with the lance crowd - i mean shoot it would make my life easier, eh? it's not like i never played with hotsauce, eh?

FDREU: I know, but in the end i don't think it comes back to bite you

FDREU: I play along, my wife does not, and Lance hates us both

FDREU: it's a no win situation, you know how he is. Once you leave the team or do soemthing wrong you forever banned

Cyclevaughters: i suppose - you know he tried to hire me back in 2001... he was nice to me... i just couldn't deal with that whole world

FDREU: I did not know that

FDREU: look at why everyone leaves, it's way to controlling

Cyclevaughters: once I went to CA and saw that now all the teams got 25 injections every day

Cyclevaughters: hell, CA was ZERO

FDREU: you mean all the riders

Cyclevaughters: Credit Agricole

FDREU: it's crazy

Cyclevaughters: So, I realized lance was full of shit when he'd say everyone was doing it

FDREU: You may read stuff that i say to radio or press, praising the Tour and lance but it's just playing the game

Cyclevaughters: believe me, as carzy as it sounds - Moreau was on nothing. Hct of 39%

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis ... ssage.html

Well, KKSpeeder has said that that IM convseration was rubbish (probably because it implies a pro rider might have been clean). Though he did then say the bit about Floyd's blood bags is "probably true".

aurelio_-_banned

Timoid. wrote:

if the French don't care what nationality the winner is what the fork happened to Merckx in 75?

Interesting that you should see fit to judge the attitudes of a whole nation over the last 40 years by the actions of a single rogue spectator on one day in 1975 :roll:

aurelio_-_banned

leguape wrote:

They were quite happy to sustain a doped sport until it became about improving performance rather than masking the pain.

Or to put it another way, doping was not seen to be much of an issue until it became so effective that it made a mockery of the whole result. The result is that today no one can assume that the winner was the most naturally gifted, most dedicated and / or most canny rider in the event. What is more likely is that the 'winner' was simply more doped up than anyone else or happens to have a physiology that adapts to doping better than everyone else in the race.

leguape wrote:

it’s not doping itself that is the issue but the type. It's a moral equivalence not an absolute.

All doping is morally questionable, to put it mildly. But as I have said before the real issue these days is not one of morality. Rather it is about the way modern-day doping robs the 'sport' of any real meaning, making the results themselves meaningless and turning the 'sport' into empty 'sports entertainment' akin to WWF wrestling.

moray_gub

aurelio wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

this is my sport staying away or switching off is the last thing id ever consider

Well, if you want to give your tacit approval to the dopers by turning up to their little circus, cheering them on and making the road-side crowds look just a little more impressive for the TV cameras, that's your choice. I can't help feeling though, that as long as the 'fans' continue to give such support regardless of all the doping scandals, the sponsors and others involved will be unlikely to see a need to clean up the racing and to give us something that we can really believe in once more.

Of all the nonsense youve posted then this is up there with the worst of them. Me or any one else going to cycling isnt giving tacit approval to any dopers and i am going becuase its something i like to do not too make any crowds look bigger for TV. As i said this is the sport i take part in and watch and to think about not going because there is a a doping problem doesnt do the sport any favours at all. Would you be happy if all sponsors pulled the plug and the sport died ?


MG

moray_gub

terongi wrote:

teagar wrote:

I was at the TDF 2007 prologue in London and was told off by various people around me after I was booing the discovery riders. Apparantly, it wasn't "british" or something like that.

Then at stage one of the Tour of Britain I naturally booed and jeered the rock racing lot. Nothing too rude, just lots of "lay off the jungle juice" "where's your twin?" to Hamilton etc. - I got an awful lot of bad looks! Didn't go down well with others nearby.

I was dissapointed to be honest. I thought if there was one thing that'd get a crowd here going is having a load of ex dopers in the race!

I agree with the people who gave you dirty looks. One of the reasons I like to follow pro cycling as a sport in the UK is becauise it does not have the thug/hooligan mentality of football.

I don't want to attend a sporting event (with or without my kids) where people are hurling verbal obscenities (or worse) at the sportsmen.

Every UK pro cycling event I have been to (TdF in London, Tour of Britain, Premier Calendar etc) has been good natured with a great festival atmosphere. I would not want to lose that to booing and jeering and swearing.

Of course there is a doping problem and of course it's deplorable and needs to be sorted out. But booing and swearing at people won't solve it. The riders who are not doping (I know there are some conspiracy paranoiacs on this forum who think that a non-doping pro doesn't exist) deserve better.

I know that the French and Belgian and Iltalian and Dutch fans have been booing at riders and each other for years, but I am happy that (for the moment) it is not "British" to do that. The euro-booing has had very little to do with doping (Bartali-Coppi - Anquetil-Poulidor). Those riders may have doped but they weren't booed for that.

Do you really think Tyler Hamilton or Floyd Landis are going to pack up and go home because someone booed at them? Are their DSs going to sack them for that? Are their sponsors going to withdraw funding? Are the TV stations going to switch to celebrity underwater darts instead?

Get real.

Leave your conspiracies at home and have a nice day out. You might even enjoy it.

Good post very well put.

MG

moray_gub

aurelio wrote:

[Rather it is about the way modern-day doping robs the 'sport' of any real meaning, making the results themselves meaningless and turning the 'sport' into empty 'sports entertainment' akin to WWF wrestling.

If you feel that way why do you bother ? i mean most if not all of your posts bemoan how bad the sport, how much a sham etc etc Lance said this Frankie said that Betsy said that Greg said this, Americans say this and think this Americans say that and think that bla de blah blah.


MG

camerone

All doping is morally questionable, to put it mildly. But as I have said before the real issue these days is not one of morality. Rather it is about the way modern-day doping robs the 'sport' of any real meaning, making the results themselves meaningless and turning the 'sport' into empty 'sports entertainment' akin to WWF wrestling.[/quote]

jut to clarify, are you saying you would happily still go and watch races if the dope was less effective than it is. is it not possible that in the pre- frankensein days amphetamines or pot belge had a better effect on one rider than another therefore creating a meaningless result. I know when I alledgedly tried smoking dope in college all it did was make me sleepy whilst a friend found it made hi excited and giggly. just a thought

moray_gub

[quote="aurelio" if the French don't care what nationality the winner is what the fork happened to Merckx in 75?[/quote]
Interesting that you should see fit to judge the attitudes of a whole nation over the last 40 years by the actions of a single rogue spectator on one day in 1975 :roll:[/quote]

Ironic that someone who sees fit to judge the attitudes of a whole nation by the actions of a few cycling fans should make that post.

MG

DaveyL

I posted this ages ago, but this is a good thread to do so again. It's a quote from Michael Ashenden (the anti-doping expert who developed the homologous blood transfusion test amongst others) from his interview on Competitor Radio, when he was asked how the sport could be ultimately cleaned up:

“I truly believe that it now comes down to the public and the media. And I guess I’d explain that by saying, in my view, what’s got to change in sport is the federations need to really get serious about getting rid of the problem. I think they’ve got enough tools within their reach to make a start in that direction. The lack of motivation that they’ve displayed in the past, I think stems from the fact that no-one does really care. And the reason no-one cares is because the media aren’t telling the public what’s really going on. And so, to sort of turn that on its head, what I would like to see is for the media to really tell the people what’s going on, to show them the dark underbelly of sport. The people would then – I hope – walk away from the sport and say, “I’m not going to go and watch this any more”. If the people walk away, then the sponsors are going to leave with them. And when the sponsors leave the sport, then you will see that sport start taking the problem seriously. So, in a lot of ways, the viewing public, the spectators, should feel empowered that they’re actually the ones now that can do something. As a scientist, I can see what’s on the horizon, I can understand what we can and can’t do, and we can certainly improve things, but as far as giant steps forward, I think the giant steps will come when the federations are motivated to implement everything they possibly can to get rid of drugs.”

http://www.competitorradio.com/details.php?show=68

It's about 45 min in.

aurelio_-_banned

DaveyL wrote:

the reason no-one cares is because the media aren’t telling the public what’s really going on. And so, to sort of turn that on its head, what I would like to see is for the media to really tell the people what’s going on, to show them the dark underbelly of sport. The people would then – I hope – walk away from the sport and say, “I’m not going to go and watch this any more”. If the people walk away, then the sponsors are going to leave with them. And when the sponsors leave the sport, then you will see that sport start taking the problem seriously.

In essence, this is exactly what I have been arguing. However, it seems that the problem probably runs much deeper than Ashenden thinks. For example, in general posters on her are already aware of how prevalent doping is and the effect it has on the 'sport', and it seems that some of them are still determined to show their support come what may. Then again perhaps these people know deep down how showing support for a corrupt sport inevitably helps that corruption to persist and their attacks on those who highlight the issue of doping are simply one way in which they attempt to reduce the dissonance this awareness creates.

aurelio_-_banned

Moray Gub wrote:

aurelio wrote:

if the French don't care what nationality the winner is what the fork happened to Merckx in 75?

Interesting that you should see fit to judge the attitudes of a whole nation over the last 40 years by the actions of a single rogue spectator on one day in 1975 :roll:

Ironic that someone who sees fit to judge the attitudes of a whole nation by the actions of a few cycling fans should make that post.

The two situations are hardly comparable! I was not judging the attitudes of a whole nation over a 40 year period on the basis of the actions of one person 34 years ago. Rather I was judging the attitudes of a particular group of cycling fans on the basis of what something like 50% of posters on cycling forums had to say about 'The French' and so on in relation to the doping of the likes of Armstrong and even more so Landis.

For example, the search terms 'Floyd Landis French conspiracy' brings up almost 6,500 hits on Google. True many of those hits link to pages that dismiss the idea, but that such an idea should be mentioned so many times well illustrates how 'current' such attitudes are.

aurelio_-_banned

camerone wrote:

are you saying you would happily still go and watch races if the dope was less effective than it is. is it not possible that in the pre- frankensein days amphetamines or pot belge had a better effect on one rider than another therefore creating a meaningless result.

They used to say that doping could never turn a donkey into a racehorse. That is no longer true. True enough all doping, even 'old school' doping, benefited different riders to different degrees, but the advantages ‘old school’ doping gave were not so huge that a clean rider had no hope of being competitive, as is the case now.

Similarly, 'old school’ stimulants didn’t give a rider a 5 -10% boost in their aerobic threshold, and given the example of Tom Simpson, a likely outcome of stimulant abuse in a stage race was simply premature exhaustion and potentially much worse.

camerone

aurelio wrote:

camerone wrote:

are you saying you would happily still go and watch races if the dope was less effective than it is. is it not possible that in the pre- frankensein days amphetamines or pot belge had a better effect on one rider than another therefore creating a meaningless result.

They used to say that doping could never turn a donkey into a racehorse. That is no longer true. True enough all doping, even 'old school' doping, benefited different riders to different degrees, but the advantages ‘old school’ doping gave were not so huge that a clean rider had no hope of being competitive, as is the case now.

Similarly, 'old school’ stimulants didn’t give a rider a 5 -10% boost in their aerobic threshold, and given the example of Tom Simpson, a likely outcome of stimulant abuse in a stage race was simply premature exhaustion and potentially much worse.

So is it morally less acceptable to take drugs that enhance performance as opposed to taking drugs to disguise or mask pain?

dennisn

Here's a sort of strange question. Everyone is talking about the effect drugs have on cycling. O.K. I'll bite. What are these effects? Lets see the TDU had it's biggest ever turnout this year. Same for the TOC. Seems I recall reading that last years TDF and
Giro did pretty much the same thing. Races here in the States are mostly well attended,
even at the lowly "club" level. Seems to be plenty of sponsors to go around and new
races are popping up all over the world. I will readily admit that drugs are not "good" for racing but give the average fan a little credit for seeing that it's being worked on and not, as some of you would say, uncaring and uninformed. Most fans understand(and I say most - some present company not included) that these things don't get done in a day.
Add to that the fact that most fans(key word most - some present company.....) are
believers in "innocent until proven....". So basically what some of you guys are doing here is preaching to the choir, so to speak. Lots of fans really like their racing and I do believe that some of the posters on this site are in a very small minority of people
who will never be happy with bike racing. Too bad. I still enjoy it and I'm sure a whole bunch more do also.

Dennis Noward

DaveyL

Well, Den, I guess it all boils down to whether or not you think there is a dopng problem in professional cycling.

rockmount

Please .... what is the point of these endless posts, we hear ya .. ok !! If you don't like it why do you feel you have to talk about it so much ?? Do you spend your entire life thinking how to say the same thing again, and again, and again ?? STOP !!! it just ain't healthy.

Boring us all to death on a daily basis won't change anyone's attitude let alone professional cycling..

teagar

Hey c'mon guys! I don't think you quite understood!

I certainly wasn't swearing - just showing my depreciation. I'm sure you guys would take your children to a pantomine right? It's no different! It was hardly "Oi! C*nt!".


As for whoever accused me of drunkeness or something of that nature - I don't drink!

Interesting to see how your name gets dragged through when you leave the forum for a day!

I just like a bit of passion in the crowd! I'm not particularly for throwing pints of p*ss, coining, or hurling general expletives, but I think booing the riders you don't like and cheering those you do is all part of the fun of it no? Everyone likes a villan.

As for one boo putting a rider off coming back to cycling - if enough do it....

Cheers for making some pretty unreasonable assumptions guys...

aurelio_-_banned

camerone wrote:

is it morally less acceptable to take drugs that enhance performance as opposed to taking drugs to disguise or mask pain?

Whilst it would be interesting to debate the concept of morality in relation to doping, there is really no need to do so because, as I have already said a number of times, the issue of 'morality' is entirely secondary to the primary issue of 'authenticity'.

teagar

dennisn wrote:

Sounds to me like "teagar" is only out there to raise a little hell. You know, get drunk, maybe get in a fight, shout obsenities, things like that. Do you really think he cares about the racing and or doping or any rider in particular. He's just out there to be a rowdy more than likely.

Dennis Noward

It's taking me some effort not to be a bit offended by that comment.

I'm as passionate about pro-cycling as anyone is here, I don't drink, and I don't like it rowdy.

I'm tempted to shout obsenities at you, but that's personal

I certainly don't swear at the pro-cyclists - I like to leave that up to their DS. I just show my depreciation.

Shame you make so many assumptions on so little evidence!

dennisn

DaveyL wrote:

Well, Den, I guess it all boils down to whether or not you think there is a dopng problem in professional cycling.

I think we can both agree on a drug problem in cycling and more than a few other sports.
For me, i would say that I'm just a bit mellower about it than you. I can't see getting all worked up about it. What can happen will and I have other problems to worry about. Job, family, finding enough time to ride, getting enough sleep, trying to stay on some diet my doctor gave me(and I really want to get out there and eat that mexican food and drink those margaritas). That kind of stuff. Love watching the races and helping with the local race club and if there is a doper out there I hope he gets his due. Just can't work up a whole bunch of enthusiasm for worrying about pro cycling. It's got a problem, it's working on it. End of story for me.

dennis noward

Kléber

Yet, whilst you can't be bothered about things beyond your family and daily life, you still find time to come and berate, misinterpret or wind up forum users here

blazing_saddles

dennisn wrote:

Here's a sort of strange question. Everyone is talking about the effect drugs have on cycling. O.K. I'll bite. What are these effects? Lets see the TDU had it's biggest ever turnout this year. Same for the TOC. Seems I recall reading that last years TDF and
Giro did pretty much the same thing. Races here in the States are mostly well attended,
even at the lowly "club" level.

Tell me Dennis. Do you think the number of Germany fans attending the Tour of Germany will be on the increase, this year?

dennisn wrote:

Seems to be plenty of sponsors to go around and new
races are popping up all over the world.

I think we've been down this road before. Remember the Tour DuPont?
A half a dozen Spanish races have gone down the toilet in the past month alone. Admittedly, this is mostly due to lack of sponsors, not drugs.
However, it is the inbred doping culture that has decimated the German racing scene, this season-no question.

dennisn wrote:

I will readily admit that drugs are not "good" for racing but give the average fan a little credit for seeing that it's being worked on and not, as some of you would say, uncaring and uninformed. Most fans understand(and I say most - some present company not included) that these things don't get done in a day.
Add to that the fact that most fans(key word most - some present company.....) are
believers in "innocent until proven....". So basically what some of you guys are doing here is preaching to the choir, so to speak. Lots of fans really like their racing and I do believe that some of the posters on this site are in a very small minority of people
who will never be happy with bike racing. Too bad. I still enjoy it and I'm sure a whole bunch more do also.
Dennis Noward

All posters here enjoy bike racing. Most do not see it as not mutually exclusive with doping. It is you who exist amongst a tiny minority. The winds of change always seem to blow in the opposite direction.
Times have changed in Europe. It is no longer acceptable to turn a blind eye to cheating. Sentiments expressed and actions taking, show this.
There is something productive, beyond the win at all costs mentality.
This philosophy has already reached elements of the peloton.
Question is: When is the penny going to drop for you?

timoid.

aurelio wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

if the French don't care what nationality the winner is what the fork happened to Merckx in 75?

Interesting that you should see fit to judge the attitudes of a whole nation over the last 40 years by the actions of a single rogue spectator on one day in 1975 :roll:

I'm sorry but you're the most judgemental person on here. I was not "judging a whole nation", I was pointing out an incident that occurred after outright French hostility to Merckx boiled over.

Look at the press after the victories of Thevenet, Hinault and Fignon and compare that to those of Indurain or worse still Armstrong. The French want to see their own win, just like any other nation.

leguape

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Do you think the number of Germany fans attending the Tour of Germany will be on the increase, this year?

I'd say Germany's a bit of an exceptional case though, comparative to the other cycling heartland states.

Italy, Spain, Belgium and France had all reached a saturation point by the 1990s when Germany was just discovering the new possibilities of the former DDR in terms of audience and market opportunity. The arrival of the volume of Eastern Bloc athletes in the pro ranks effectively created a bit of a cycling bubble and they at last had a reasonable list of genuine contenders for honours.

German cycling prowess was largely seen through the Telekom team internationally and that dragged others along in its wake. Their discrediting and the failure of Milram to fill that void have a role to play in the current decline of German cycling.

That's without mentioning that particularly German puritanism mixing with their historical need to be seen not to repeat their involvement with officially-sanctioned doping.

flattythehurdler

IMO, amateur bike racing is flourishing as western society slowly emerges from it's infatuation with the car, and will hopefully continue to do so.
People don't necessarily go to see a pro cycling event to "support" cycling. They go to enjoy a day out. Being next to someone heckling a drug cheat would probably be entertaining as long as they didn't overstep the mark. Having said that I wouldn't necessarily want my son to hear and see it. I would be uncomfortable at calling anyone a scab anywhere under any circumstances, though Iain has a very dry wit and this is part of it.
I believe that pro cycling is almost meaningless as a sport, but would still go for the spectacle. Is that supporting doping? I don't really know. I do know that one of the best days out I ever had was at the world track in Manc last year, though we had a bunch of lads, and cycled to the pub for the break etc.
I would still go to see the Tour purely for the spectacle.

aurelio_-_banned

Timoid. wrote:

Look at the press after the victories of Thevenet, Hinault and Fignon and compare that to those of Indurain or worse still Armstrong. The French want to see their own win, just like any other nation.

I don't doubt that the French would much prefer to see a Frenchman win the race, but the 'meaning' of the Tour for the French has, in the past at least, gone far beyond seeing a French winner on the podium. Consequently the Tour still has ‘meaning’ for the French irrespective of the nationality of the winner. In contrast, for the followers of people like Armstrong, the whole point of the Tour is to see ‘their’ man 'kick ass', and beyond that the race means little. So there are important differences.

As that Independent article I linked to noted, the French would probably prefer to see a winner with 'character', and who won with 'panache', irrespective of their nationality, than a French clone of Armstrong. Similarly, just look how cool the French were to French winners like Anquetil who they felt didn't embody the qualities they felt a true Tour 'champion' should have. In short to the French winning is not the most important thing, nor who wins, it is how you win that really counts.

Even Armstrong has acknowledged that the coolness the French feel towards him was in part due to the way he failed to embody what they want to see in a true Tour champion, rather than having anything to do with his nationality. (Although I guess Armstrong’s open disdain for the French, the way he never misses an opportunity to ‘Piss off the French’ and so on can’t help either!). As he put it in his interview with Bike Radar:

So what does he believe is behind the French anti-Armstrong mentality? "I think the way that I raced the Tour; the methodical robotic approach to racing; not showing emotion; not showing pain, suffering or ease. It's not a popular style of racing in France. To them, panache is the guy who suffers swinging all over his bike looking like he is about to fall off. I never found that to be an effective way to try and win.”

Also, it seem that the French do regard sport in general in a somewhat different way to the 'Anglo-Saxon' nations. For one even French football fans don't tend to associate themselves with the team as British and American followers of Team sports do. In France they say 'They played well'. In Britain it is 'We played well'!

As an article in The Guardian put it a while back:

As Michel Platini once remarked to an English journalist: "You have fans. We have supporters."

Even that isn't strictly true. French supporters are only prepared to rise above the role of mere spectators when their side is playing à la française , producing du beau jeu - which is to say playing with style, wit, talent and imagination.

"The French are too cold; they don't get behind their teams," says Patrick Mignon, an academic and author of La Passion du Football. "They are more ironic spectators than supporters. If they're playing well, they'll cheer them. If not, it's scorn and derision if you're lucky - and if you're not, complete indifference."

... Tellingly, French football supporters talk about their national or even their home-side using the third person plural. It is always "They were wonderful" or "They were pathetic", never "We".

Similar observations have been made in relation to other fields like mountaineering. The American John Krakauer in his book '`Eiger Dreams' wrote:

'The French, when it comes right down to it, look at risky sports - and sports in general- in a fundamentally different way than Americans do. We go in for team sports...The French, in marked contrast, are notorious individualists with a fondness for the sensation deed, the stylish twist, the dramatic solitary act.'

To see the love the French have for riders capable of ‘the sensation deed, the stylish twist, the dramatic solitary act, irrespective of their nationality just look how they loved Pantani. I well remember an interview of French people at the Tour a few years back where everyone was rooting for Pantani, rather than a Frenchman, including Virenque.

In short, in Britain and the US sport is much more about tribalism, ‘being a part of the team’ and so on than in France, where individualism is valued more highly. This may well be one reason why the French went in such a big way for cycle racing in the first place, whilst the British were still mired in the traditions of 'team sports' which were regarded as a good way to train people in the values needed to maintain the Empire.

So yes, the French would like to see a Frenchman win the Tour. However, they don't tend to view winning as being the only thing that matters, as 'Anglo-Saxons' tend to. Nor do they tend to personally associate themselves with sporting figures. In turn they have less of a tendency to regard sporting victories as being an expression of the superiority of their nation than some cultures do, or have done.

dennisn

Blazing Saddles wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Here's a sort of strange question. Everyone is talking about the effect drugs have on cycling. O.K. I'll bite. What are these effects? Lets see the TDU had it's biggest ever turnout this year. Same for the TOC. Seems I recall reading that last years TDF and
Giro did pretty much the same thing. Races here in the States are mostly well attended,
even at the lowly "club" level.

Tell me Dennis. Do you think the number of Germany fans attending the Tour of Germany will be on the increase, this year?

dennisn wrote:

Seems to be plenty of sponsors to go around and new
races are popping up all over the world.

I think we've been down this road before. Remember the Tour DuPont?
A half a dozen Spanish races have gone down the toilet in the past month alone. Admittedly, this is mostly due to lack of sponsors, not drugs.
However, it is the inbred doping culture that has decimated the German racing scene, this season-no question.

dennisn wrote:

I will readily admit that drugs are not "good" for racing but give the average fan a little credit for seeing that it's being worked on and not, as some of you would say, uncaring and uninformed. Most fans understand(and I say most - some present company not included) that these things don't get done in a day.
Add to that the fact that most fans(key word most - some present company.....) are
believers in "innocent until proven....". So basically what some of you guys are doing here is preaching to the choir, so to speak. Lots of fans really like their racing and I do believe that some of the posters on this site are in a very small minority of people
who will never be happy with bike racing. Too bad. I still enjoy it and I'm sure a whole bunch more do also.
Dennis Noward

All posters here enjoy bike racing. Most do not see it as not mutually exclusive with doping. It is you who exist amongst a tiny minority. The winds of change always seem to blow in the opposite direction.
Times have changed in Europe. It is no longer acceptable to turn a blind eye to cheating. Sentiments expressed and actions taking, show this.
There is something productive, beyond the win at all costs mentality.
This philosophy has already reached elements of the peloton.
Question is: When is the penny going to drop for you?

Alright, enough is enough, let's talk racing, and I mean racing. Not the bitching and whining ABOUT racing but actual racing. Something constructive.
How often have you-
- not raced, yet stood at the start-finish line or some remote corner of the course?
Have you done it, say, 10 times a year for the last 20 years?
- gotten to the race course an hour or so early to help man the brooms and sweep
gravel and debris off the corners? How many times per year?
- not raced, at a club TT, so you could help set up tables, start the grills, get the hot dogs
and burgers cooking, for the clubs annual TT and family cookout?
-driven a couple of hundred miles to officiate at a U.S.C.F. race?
-stayed after the race, any race, to help figure out finish orders, sprint winners, help
pack up the race gear(lap cards, highway cones, and the like)?
-served as an officer in your local club? How many years?
-spent a perfectly good Saturday painting a 60 mile race course with arrows?
-spent a season or two not racing because you were the race director of the local club?
-been an official at any race and had to stand around and listen to some of the most inane
or insane complaints from the riders all of whom thought they should have been in
10th place instead of 11th?

I could go on and on and on but I won't.

Now, I will agree that this was not about actual racing but these things are just as important as the racing and a whole lot more constructive than sitting around bitching
and whining about PRO racing. Get out and do something useful for a change. Promote
cycling instead of knocking it.

Dennis Noward

Kléber

Thanks Dennis, I've done all that. Except for the hotdogs - it's a cup of tea and a scone here - and the USCF thing, because I'm in a different continent.

In many ways, your world of small club races and BBQs is great but it's miles removed from the system of chilled blood and endless "I've never doped even though there's a pile of evidence" stories. So your cycling is more real than what other people see at times, it's pure sport and fun. This doesn't stop me from wanting people in pro cycling to reform and to take a few simple steps to reduce the prevalence and the culture of doping.

So feel free to post "cook out" recipes on here but let people discuss doping, there's nothing wrong if people want to get to the truth behind the likes of Armstrong, Valverde or Schumacher.

dennisn

Kléber wrote:

Thanks Dennis, I've done all that. Except for the hotdogs - it's a cup of tea and a scone here - and the USCF thing, because I'm in a different continent.

In many ways, your world of small club races and BBQs is great but it's miles removed from the system of chilled blood and endless "I've never doped even though there's a pile of evidence" stories. So your cycling is more real than what other people see at times, it's pure sport and fun. This doesn't stop me from wanting people in pro cycling to reform and to take a few simple steps to reduce the prevalence and the culture of doping.

So feel free to post "cook out" recipes on here but let people discuss doping, there's nothing wrong if people want to get to the truth behind the likes of Armstrong, Valverde or Schumacher.

If you have "done all that" then get out and "do" some more. All this of this bitching is doing
no one any good. Not you, not me, not them(whomever "them" is).
Yes, our local club cycling is "miles" from "chilled blood" but I'm betting your local scene
is much the same. You and I aren't involved in doping. I'm not a Pro and neither are you. So do what you can to promote "grass roots" cycling and leave the Pro tour to figure out it's
own problems. Your local club racing scene needs you more than the Pro's do.

Dennis Noward

Kléber

Thanks for telling me what to do and what I should talk about