Wouldn't it just be easier...

finchy

pottssteve - let's imagine that the UCI did indeed say "right, let's have a free-for-all. Take what you want, even if it kills you! It's your choice as adults!"

How long, exactly, do you think that it would take for cycling to die, as parents refuse to let their offspring anywhere near the sport?



Before you come back with the logical argument of "well, it's been going on for years now, and people have still come into cycling", let me point out that it's only really in the past 10 years that the public has really become aware of the extent of doping in the peloton.

pottssteve

John,
Fair point, and as I say, I'm only playing Devil's advocate...

But correct me if I'm wrong but aren't many of the pro riders guys who've had what you might call for want of a better word, "tough" upbringings? I know there are a few exceptions (Kreutziger, Millar etc.), but for many of them it's a way up and out. Many parents let their kids go into boxing, or skiing, or F1, or the army - aren't these more dangerous than your average occupations? As for the sponsors, some of them who have stuck by the sport must have their fingers crossed that it's not one of their guys who gets nicked next under the current system. I mean, there are alcohol and tobacco companies sponsoring sports all over the place - how many scruples do they have?

Jez mon

Let's say your job suddenly required you to smoke a packet of ciggies a day! (I know it's not a perfect example but hopefully it's close enough)

What are you going to do, even if you make the decision not to leave your job, would you allow your children to follow in your footsteps?

pottssteve

Jez,
Personally, I wouldn't do the job, but I wouldn't stop anyone else doing it.

(I also have the dubious benefit of having had chemo, so I know what the side effects of smoking can do)

I wouldn't want to drive an F1 car either, but again, I wouldn't want to stop anyone else having a go.

Ramanujan

I would like to see any rider caught doping or serving a suspension for doping to be banned for life from the sport and criminal charges brought against them..
Why is this so hard to do?
ATM, the tour in my eyes has no value . Most people think Contador is juiced.
We've got the farce of Operation Pureto hanging over the sport still, with riders that are still racing . Plus Rasmusen, Vino etc coming back.
I think it's a bit of a joke really.

RedJohn

johnfinch wrote:

Before you come back with the logical argument of "well, it's been going on for years now, and people have still come into cycling", let me point out that it's only really in the past 10 years that the public has really become aware of the extent of doping in the peloton.

True, a chap I know in his mid-40s was a successful amateur racer in his late teens, considered turning professional but decided not to as doping was endemic even then and he wasn't prepared to do it - so that was 25+ years ago.

And, thinking about it, a mature decision from a teenager - a lot of the people who are criticised so much now would have been pressured into it when they were not mature enough to know what to do.

pottssteve

Ramanujan wrote:

I would like to see any rider caught doping or serving a suspension for doping to be banned for life from the sport and criminal charges brought against them..
Why is this so hard to do?
ATM, the tour in my eyes has no value . Most people think Contador is juiced.
We've got the farce of Operation Pureto hanging over the sport still, with riders that are still racing . Plus Rasmusen, Vino etc coming back.
I think it's a bit of a joke really.

Which was really my original point. Until there is a 100% sure fire way of knowing who is doped and who isn't, any decent performance will be questioned.

dennisn

Coriander wrote:

I guess the only argument against would be that doping would then become an arms race with young men taking more and more potentially toxic substances and doing serious damage to their health.

Nobody ever said young men were smart. All kinds of people take all kinds of ACTUAL
toxic substances, so, in a way, what's the big deal? I can't get overly concerned about
other people recklessly trashing their health. It's theirs to wreck if they wish. Sort of like not wearing a helmet. It's your choice, not mine.

pottssteve

dennisn wrote:

Coriander wrote:

I guess the only argument against would be that doping would then become an arms race with young men taking more and more potentially toxic substances and doing serious damage to their health.

Nobody ever said young men were smart. All kinds of people take all kinds of ACTUAL
toxic substances, so, in a way, what's the big deal? I can't get overly concerned about
other people recklessly trashing their health. It's theirs to wreck if they wish. Sort of like not wearing a helmet. It's your choice, not mine.

Indeed, Dennis,

And isn't it currently an arms race anyway - one form of chemical is developed, then a test for it develops, then another form etc... In fact, some of the very people who have been arguing with me here have been quite open about suggesting that some of the most successful cyclists of the past 10 years have consistently doped, but just not been caught - that would suggest that they are winning the arms race, would it not?

connackers

They should allow the riders to volunteer sign-up to a 'drug-free code' or to continue as they are.

Those signed up to the 'drug-free code' publish their drug tests, bio passports etc. in a similar way to Garmin or Columbia. If they get caught taking drugs they get banned for life.

Those not signed up get treated in the same lax way as now but always ride with suspicion over them.

After a couple of years anyone not signed up would naturally be treated with so much suspicion that they would be unemployable anyway.

pottssteve

connackers,

Agreed - I hinted at something like this above.

SunWuKong

It will be unteresting what comes of this http://www.aipsmedia.com/index.php?page=news&cod=3739&tp=n

As an aside, one fo my exercise physiology lecturers at uni gave up working with cyclists in Belgium, he did do the usual performance related tests and helping with training prgorammes, etc but saw lots of doping especially autologous transfusions. After several very young pro's (not ones he was working with) died from heart attacks in one summer he decided to come back to the UK and is so cycnical with regard to pro sport and doping.

iainf72

connackers wrote:

Those signed up to the 'drug-free code' publish their drug tests, bio passports etc. in a similar way to Garmin or Columbia. If they get caught taking drugs they get banned for life.

Garmin and Columbia have never published anything.

Aside from good marketing information that is.

As close as it's come is the press getting to analyse some Garmin data from last year.

Kléber

dennisn wrote:

Nobody ever said young men were smart. All kinds of people take all kinds of ACTUAL toxic substances, so, in a way, what's the big deal? I can't get overly concerned about other people recklessly trashing their health. It's theirs to wreck if they wish. Sort of like not wearing a helmet. It's your choice, not mine.

If you want to go to a nightclub and take a pill, that's your choice. You can still dance, here the music, talk to the girls and have fun without the chemicals. In sport, the riders who aren't doping are at a real disadvantage, to the point where - this was more so in the late 1990s - if you're not on something, you're not dancing.

The riders are doing a professional job in an internationally recognised sport with some big name sponsors backing the teams. This isn't some Mexican sweatshop where the workers take amphetamines to get them through double-shifts and occasionally lose a hand inside the metal press because they fell asleep, this is a proper sport. Or at least it should be!

dennisn

connackers wrote:

They should allow the riders to volunteer sign-up to a 'drug-free code' or to continue as they are.

Those signed up to the 'drug-free code' publish their drug tests, bio passports etc. in a similar way to Garmin or Columbia. If they get caught taking drugs they get banned for life.

Those not signed up get treated in the same lax way as now but always ride with suspicion over them.

After a couple of years anyone not signed up would naturally be treated with so much suspicion that they would be unemployable anyway.

Or you could end up with just the opposite and have no one signed up.

connackers

iainf72 wrote:

connackers wrote:

Those signed up to the 'drug-free code' publish their drug tests, bio passports etc. in a similar way to Garmin or Columbia. If they get caught taking drugs they get banned for life.

Garmin and Columbia have never published anything.

Aside from good marketing information that is.

As close as it's come is the press getting to analyse some Garmin data from last year.

Very good marketing information - they seem to have a lot of people convinced! What then establishes their credentials as drug-free teams?

It seems that riders are reluctant to post bio information for fear that other teams could take advantage and know when they're good to attack etc.

Is there a way to have transparency without this? Is it just a smoke-screen - surely this info is available anyway to rival teams as soon as a rider moves on?

pottssteve

Poll time!

dennisn

Kléber wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Nobody ever said young men were smart. All kinds of people take all kinds of ACTUAL toxic substances, so, in a way, what's the big deal? I can't get overly concerned about other people recklessly trashing their health. It's theirs to wreck if they wish. Sort of like not wearing a helmet. It's your choice, not mine.

If you want to go to a nightclub and take a pill, that's your choice. You can still dance, here the music, talk to the girls and have fun without the chemicals. In sport, the riders who aren't doping are at a real disadvantage, to the point where - this was more so in the late 1990s - if you're not on something, you're not dancing.

The riders are doing a professional job in an internationally recognised sport with some big name sponsors backing the teams. This isn't some Mexican sweatshop where the workers take amphetamines to get them through double-shifts and occasionally lose a hand inside the metal press because they fell asleep, this is a proper sport. Or at least it should be!

I agree. Whoa, did I say that out loud?
Just trying to bring up the point that this is not a perfect world. There are no perfect people(well, there was one, but you know what they did to him). Not to mention sports not being perfect.

iainf72

Kléber wrote:

if you're not on something, you're not dancing.

Fantastic!

coulcher

I can't remember if it was in Jeremy Whittle's book or a Lemond quote but the children arguement is the most compelling against doping.

If it was allowed then it would be natural for every child racing to dope to gain an advantage. As someone else said, how many parents would let their kids near a bike race in those circumstances.

shinyhelmut

There are no perfect people (well, there was one, but you know what they did to him).

oh do keep up. He's out of retirement and currently 4th in the tour

Gotte

I'd be inclined to agree so long as the stuff wasn;t harmful. The trouble is, you'd still get illicit doping with the harmful stuff. To allow cyclist to take performance enhancers that were harmful, especially those that would be harmful in later life, would be grossly negligent. In effect you would be forcing riders who wanted a chance at winning to take something which could harm them.

finchy

pottssteve wrote:

John,
Fair point, and as I say, I'm only playing Devil's advocate...

But correct me if I'm wrong but aren't many of the pro riders guys who've had what you might call for want of a better word, "tough" upbringings? I know there are a few exceptions (Kreutziger, Millar etc.), but for many of them it's a way up and out. Many parents let their kids go into boxing, or skiing, or F1, or the army - aren't these more dangerous than your average occupations? As for the sponsors, some of them who have stuck by the sport must have their fingers crossed that it's not one of their guys who gets nicked next under the current system. I mean, there are alcohol and tobacco companies sponsoring sports all over the place - how many scruples do they have?

Fair point about parents letting their children go into other dangerous professions. But with the traditional European base of the sport becoming wealthier - let's face it, how many people in Belgium, France or Italy know the poverty of the past? - and other routes to making something of your life -ie education - becoming easier to access, I would say that this situation may have been true Indurain, but not so much for the current teenage population of Spain who will be the next generation of cyclists.

I also think that most parents would be very unhappy about letting their children stick something harmful in their body. Now obviously we see parents letting their children smoke, drink and in some cases take drugs, but these are all substances that parents (think) they understand. EPO on the other hand would be an exotic danger for most people, and new and exotic dangers (swine flu, ecstasy back in the '90s) are always the ones that scare people the most.

pottssteve

It's interesting to see the results of the poll. Only a small sample and most people in favour of the "No doping - ever" option. However, nobody has ticked the "The current system is catching the cheats" option.

I reiterate, until the sport can be 100% guaranteed clean, every result will be under question.

Personally, would hate to see doping allowed in any form. I wouldn't want my son to go into cycling knowing that he would have to dope in order to compete. Ideally, every team should be obliged to publish all data for their riders no later than, for example, 2 weeks after the end of a race, and ideally before that. I think that we are, at the moment, in a transition period where there are still a significant number of the "old guard" left who have experience of doping for it to remain a problem. I also don't see why there couldn't be a life ban imposed, for example after a second offence.