Would you pay to watch cycling if 100% went to anti-doping?

donrhummy
donrhummy Posts: 2,329
edited October 2009 in Pro race
Hearing about the new tests for the Giro from a year and a half ago (that are only happening because a prosecutor made it happen) made me think about why the UCI didn't do those back-tests themselves - money. It costs too much. So...

Currently it's free to watch cycling on the side of the road and on TV (unless you have to pay to get a cable channel of course), and on the web. Would you be willing to pay money (and how much) if 100% of that money went to increasing anti-doping tests, research and other measures?

Please specify what you'd pay to:

1. Watch online
2. Watch in person (say at key points, like on mountain tops, at sprint places, etc)
3. Watch on TV

(And the payment could even be a "donation")

Comments

  • takethehighroad
    takethehighroad Posts: 6,649
    Surely it's the job of the UCI to go about getting the money to do it with? They're not a charity, and cycling (well, the Tour at least) was set up to flog stuff in the first place, so the money is definately out there for them.
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    Wouldn't pay to watch crappy internet coverage, TV is paid for by adverts, so out of our pockets anyway, and probably wouldn't pay to watch in person except maybe a mountain stage, when they're all going past over about half an hour.
  • northernneil
    northernneil Posts: 1,549
    all sport TV rights are going to plummet within the next 5 years as internet streams get better and more popular - I watch any game of football I want at 3pm on saturday at the moment, thats footy let alone a 'minority' sport like cycling.

    its a moot point
  • Vino
    Vino Posts: 184
    honestly zee sport would be less without best endeavour. is means best training, best diet, best euqipment, is best support staff and planning and yes best preparation. Is most important to leave no stone unturned in quest for glorious victory.

    I am loving the doping and all things high achieve, win without mercy and compromise then enjoy. Rules are for man losing winning is everything. Win without caught is obvious better.

    Ave pumped Claves
  • prawny
    prawny Posts: 5,439
    I only haven't gone for freesat because I'd lose eurosport. So I do my bit 8)
    Saracen Tenet 3 - 2015 - Dead - Replaced with a Hack Frame
    Voodoo Bizango - 2014 - Dead - Hit by a car
    Vitus Sentier VRS - 2017
  • ride_whenever
    ride_whenever Posts: 13,279
    Throwing money at it wont stop doping. The dopers will always be one step ahead.


    Instead the most barbaric penalties would actually work better. Who would risk doping if they'd get their knees broken if it turned up they doped from retroactive testing.
    Neeermad
    Carbon 456
    456 lefty
    Pompino
    White Inbred
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,158
    I'll say no because of the following reasons.

    1) Any pay per view is out of the question for cycling. It's kept afloat by sponsors who want maximum exposure.

    2) Money, unless it's in obscene amounts, doesn't make science go any quicker. No test, no point.

    3) More tests may do something, but more focused tests based on intelligence from busted dopers is better.

    More smarts rather than more money is needed.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • afx237vi
    afx237vi Posts: 12,630
    prawny wrote:
    I only haven't gone for freesat because I'd lose eurosport. So I do my bit 8)

    Me too. It's so annoying.

Categories