Tired of being tired of doping

neilo23

At the risk of being hated.... Please don't understand this as a pro-doping thread. I understand why doping should be banned and would love it to be the case that all cyclists were clean, but should we let bygones be bygones? I think about all of the pleasure that watching great races have given me, starting with probable doper Pedro Delgado's TDF win until now, plus reading about or seeing old footage of epic battles 50 years ago ("Do you think we do this on bread and water?"). Some people would like to have old samples retested for substances which were previously undetectable, but how far back would you go? Would these people really like to know for sure that Anquetil, Coppi, Merckx, Poulidor etc had done something not strictly legal? For me, the whole great and colourful history of the sport would be wiped out.
I love reading about the old tours where riders raided cafés for brandy, took the train to near the finish, got fined for getting help welding their forks.
And when most people will agree that most of the modern peloton was on something, doesn't that mean that Tyler's stage win with a broken collarbone or Landis' dramatic stage win are just as epic as when nobody had taken anything?
I may not have the strongest argument, and I am not condoning doping, but am I alone in not really caring that much what they take?

takethehighroad

Personally, Landis' ride in 2006 made me feel physically sick, because it was so blatant that what he was doing wasn't entirely under his own steam.

Conversely, when I found out that a ride that looked genuine (Kohl) turned out to be too good to be true, I felt a similar emotion.

It's just sad to see genuinely talented riders missing out on opportunities by riding clean.

DaveyL

TakeTheHighRoad wrote:

Personally, Landis' ride in 2006 made me feel physically sick, because it was so blatant that what he was doing wasn't entirely under his own steam.

So blatant? He got busted for testosterone, which, quoting Don Catlin, is the bare minimum a rider would do in terms of doping. How come we don't see performances like that every day then, if it was due to the 'roids? Or even the blood-doping.

Landis was also positive for synthetic testosterone on several other stages in 2006 (once they went back and checked the other samples by IRMS) so how come we didn't see him destroying the field on those days as well?

Landis's ride that day was the result of many variables - tactics probably being the major one.

iainf72

Indeed Davey. Even Greg Lemond says the ride that day wasn't really out there in terms of performance.

neilo23

That's the problem nowadays. People can't accept that exceptional sporting achievements are clean (my opinion on Landis is still open). How would it change the world now if we knew that Jesse Owens had put a little something in his tea at the 1936 Olympics or that Roger Bannister had used "military" training methods to run the 1st under 4 minute mile? They were and are great achievements. I'm worried that we're all becoming too cynical.
Also, what are people's views on substances which were illegal in sport but now aren't? Wasn't caffeine use limited until a few years ago? And creatine? Where do supplements and medications stop and doping start? The known "clean" athletes probably take every legal supplement on the list to achieve their results. Does that really make them clean?

iainf72

The issue is that blood doping skews the results so much it's not funny. You can beat a guy on testosterone, you won't beat someone on EPO or transfusions.

prawny

iainf72 wrote:

The issue is that blood doping skews the results so much it's not funny. You can beat a guy on testosterone, you won't beat someone on EPO or transfusions.

This is my problem with 'modern' doping, amphetamines or painkillers don't make you super human, the whole messing with blood though, thats a bit far for me.

DaveyL

Well, your health is also seriously at risk from stuff like amphetamines (cf Tom Simpson) but for some reason the whole blood doping thing seems a lot more "grisly" for want of a better word. Reading the Sinkewitz account of a blood transfusion that almost went horribly wrong made me feel sick.

And Michael Ashenden remarked on the alleged doping regime of Tyler Hamilton (from the Puerto files), that he wouldn't like to speculate on the long-term health effects such a regime would have.

takethehighroad

I never knew that about what Lemond said, and I guess there were variables, I just know that I wasn't happy with what I was watching that day, and didn't believe it one bit.

drenkrom

In my opinion, doping is as much part of cycling history as the legends of the old Tours. I actually expect that when I'm old, in my rocking chair, memories of the riders of my youth will bring a chuckle along the lines of "oh, them and their EPO". I imagine the train-hopping wasn't nearly as funny a hundred years ago as it is now. Back then, it was serious stuff that impacted the fairness of the sport. In a hundred years, the blood-booster period may have the same quaint feeling as the brandy-chugging days have for us now.

Also, contrary to many many cycling fans, I don't take the doping personally. I don't feel it's a personal offense towards the fans for a rider to dope. The watching public doesn't factor into the decision to dope or not. It is the rider taking a very selfish decision which will, in all truth, only impact himself. He will reap the benefits, he will shoulder the risks of getting caught or sick and he will take the fall if caught. It all has no true impact on the fans riding his coattails. Any personal offense felt by a fan is a result of that fan's devotion. Me, I don't believe in devotion towards other humans. Admiration and respect I have in spades, but those are easily withdrawn. Devotion is not.

I still watch races with my head and applaud cheats being caught, but what I admire in a rider is more his style and panache than results. For example, no matter the revelations, I would never lose my admiration of Jens Voigt, because doping does not give the spirit I like in him. I don't like physiological characteristics, I like character, and doping does not give you that. Who cares now what Coppi and Bartali could've done against the rules, they were huge characters battling it out with panache. I think the same will be thought of Landis' ride and other examples in 50 years or so. Because no matter what made the muscles go round on that fateful day, it's Floyd Landis' mind that said "this ain't over" and went ahead. For that, I can never completely lose respect for Landis, or any other offender who also managed to inspire. A non-doper in a group of dopers may not be able to follow attacks, but he gets all my respect if he really really tries to. More so than the guy who flies ahead effortlessly.

Well, that's me anyways. Doping is not trivial, it still is a huge part of pro cycling in our time and merits the attention it gets in the news, but it is not what makes riders greats or tossers in my opinion.

moray_gub

iainf72 wrote:

The issue is that blood doping skews the results so much it's not funny. You can beat a guy on testosterone, you won't beat someone on EPO or transfusions.

for every Sella there are Beltrans that disprove that theory.

neilo23

@drenkrom,

What I was trying to say but more eloquently expressed.

jonginge

TakeTheHighRoad wrote:

I never knew that about what Lemond said, and I guess there were variables, I just know that I wasn't happy with what I was watching that day, and didn't believe it one bit.

Interesting couple of interviews with Allen Lim:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 322625.ece
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... rmins-guru

stagehopper

I've read the Allen Lim interview with Kimmage before and always wondered why Lim hasn't followed up on his "thermal regulation" theory.

Kléber

neilo23 wrote:

I am not condoning doping, but am I alone in not really caring that much what they take?

I can see where you are coming from but your stance is viewing pro cycling as a form of TV entertainment. You want the epic rides and don't care what risks the riders take with their health, you want the showbiz and don't care what happens backstage.

But as long as serious, organised doping persists, the sport will never be healthy. Riders will come close to death, the public will be put off by what amounts to a pharmacological clinical trial and sponsors will stay away.

neilo23

Don't we all love the spectacle of the sport? Believe me, I would much prefer it if all of the riders stuck to the rules and played fair. I was disappointed that Di Luca doped as he was my man of the Giro (and provided the most "spectacle"). And of course, I don't wish the riders to risk their lives any more than they already do.
I also believe that the new rules and controls are for the best and will, hopefully, root out the dopers, regain the public's trust and make the sport safer for the next generations of riders. However, I still get goosepimples when I see THAT Alpe D'Huez attack from Lance, leaving Ulrich trailing (who we now "know" was doped). What good would it do us now to find out that anyone else on that day was doped? Armstrong would have beaten a cheetah on speed on that day.

moray_gub

iainf72 wrote:

Indeed Davey. Even Greg Lemond says the ride that day wasn't really out there in terms of performance.

Has Greg Lemond beome some sort of doping sage ? Some of the things he says are strongly contradicted by others yet he is still help up an expert in all things doping.

RichN95.

Moray Gub wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Indeed Davey. Even Greg Lemond says the ride that day wasn't really out there in terms of performance.

Has Greg Lemond beome some sort of doping sage ? Some of the things he says are strongly contradicted by others yet he is still help up an expert in all things doping.

He's usually pretty quick to point the finger at any performance he finds dodgy (i.e. anything better than he would have done), without much evidence a lot of the time.

So if he said that performance was OK looking it probably was.