Sneaky Cyclists

orangepip

What with all the stories about doping blood and mechanical it leads me to ask why are cyclists seemingly more sneaky than other sportsmen?

I appreciate that there are large sums of money involved which will always lead people to behave differently to how they would have behaved if it was "just for fun"

But it does seem that it is much more common in this sport than others - or are other sports more aware that there viewers and therefore profits are related to the sport not being riddled with drug cheats and are therefore keeping thorough investigations at arms length

afx237vi

orangepip wrote:

What with all the stories about doping blood and mechanical it leads me to ask why are cyclists seemingly more sneaky than other sportsmen?

I appreciate that there are large sums of money involved which will always lead people to behave differently to how they would have behaved if it was "just for fun"

But it does seem that it is much more common in this sport than others - or are other sports more aware that there viewers and therefore profits are related to the sport not being riddled with drug cheats and are therefore keeping thorough investigations at arms length

Athletics? Weightlifting? Tennis? Both codes of rugby? Then you have diving in football, match fixing in darts and snooker, race fixing and doping in horse racing... name any sport and there will be stories of widespread cheating.

e2a:

The fact that there are so many doping stories in cycling shows that thorough investigations are not being kept at arms length. Surely you should be questioning the sports where there are no doping investigations?

luckao

There simply isn't enough interest in other sports riddled with cheats to produce debate and cynicism like cycling does.

With regards to higher profile sports (football, basketball, etc), if they were half as tough as cycling, they'd have as many problems.

Cycling strikes a fine balance between popularity and level of difficulty like no other sport.

clanton

Add cricket to the list - probably the most corrupt.

Limburger

There's a lot of advantage to be gained doping in cycling when compared to other mainstream sports.

Taking EPO with definitely make you ride better than not taking it.
Taking anabolic steroids wont make you a better rugby player. Stronger perhaps, but not necessarily 'better'.

Problem is there's not so much skill in cycling. Success is mostly down to aerobic fitness and power to weight ratio. These can be manipulated chemically to gain an advantage and people do. Some get caught, some get away with it for years, some over-do it and die.

fast as fupp

Limburger wrote:

There's a lot of advantage to be gained doping in cycling when compared to other mainstream sports.

Taking EPO with definitely make you ride better than not taking it.
Taking anabolic steroids wont make you a better rugby player. Stronger perhaps, but not necessarily 'better'.

Problem is there's not so much skill in cycling. Success is mostly down to aerobic fitness and power to weight ratio. These can be manipulated chemically to gain an advantage and people do. Some get caught, some get away with it for years, some over-do it and die.

you are kidding about rugby players and steroids- look at the number of rugbyists that develop 'roid head- wern rooneh has also got typical roid head symptoms

and how did andy murray turn into mr muscles overnight?

dont be so naive- where theres money involved there will be cheating

Limburger

fast as fupp wrote:

Limburger wrote:

There's a lot of advantage to be gained doping in cycling when compared to other mainstream sports.

Taking EPO with definitely make you ride better than not taking it.
Taking anabolic steroids wont make you a better rugby player. Stronger perhaps, but not necessarily 'better'.

Problem is there's not so much skill in cycling. Success is mostly down to aerobic fitness and power to weight ratio. These can be manipulated chemically to gain an advantage and people do. Some get caught, some get away with it for years, some over-do it and die.

you are kidding about rugby players and steroids- look at the number of rugbyists that develop 'roid head- wern rooneh has also got typical roid head symptoms

and how did andy murray turn into mr muscles overnight?

dont be so naive- where theres money involved there will be cheating

Your having a giraffe aren't you?

Yes plenty of stupid and miss informed rugby players take steroids but do they make them better at rugby? It is debatable. Rugby is a team game also so it's a bit like comparing apple and oranges - both types of fruit but not really the same.

Wayne Rooney is just plain ugly. there no amount of drugs that are going to change that.

As for Andy Murray - in the words of John Macenroe - YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS.
You think Andy Murray is juiced up? Really? You mean the tennis player? From Scotland?
If you think he has been breaking out the GABA, dianabol and clenbuterol to get those 'muscles' then you must be highly underdeveloped in comparison.
If you have never lifter a weight in your life and suddenly start your body responds by growing muscle rapidly even without proper fuelling (Protein BCAAs etc.).
Body builders - they take steroids - and they are allowed to (In untested comps) because the competition is not a strength exercise but an aesthetic one.

finchy

Limburger wrote:

Yes plenty of stupid and miss informed rugby players take steroids but do they make them better at rugby? It is debatable.

No it isn't. If you get bigger through steroids, you aren't going to lose tactical awareness, passing and receiving ability, etc. and you will have an advantage in scrums, rucks, tackles.

Anonymous

Cyclists are sneaky because they have to be.

The only way I can smuggle bike swag into my garage without the wife seeing is through cunning and guile.

Limburger

johnfinch wrote:

Limburger wrote:

Yes plenty of stupid and miss informed rugby players take steroids but do they make them better at rugby? It is debatable.

No it isn't. If you get bigger through steroids, you aren't going to lose tactical awareness, passing and receiving ability, etc. and you will have an advantage in scrums, rucks, tackles.

You will generally be heavier and slower - not very good for a winger, heavier is certainly an advantage for a prop but how many tackles will you miss because you are now slower. Its not so clear-cut.

Edit: Scrum? Ha! It's bee a long time since I saw a truly competitive scrum due to the angled put-ins and deliberate collapsing to gain penalties - strength is only a very minor part of the scrum nowadays.

Monty Dog

Watch a rugby game from 20 years ago in comparison to today's -you're telling me that these guys got 'bigger' from full-time training? Drug abuse is pretty well endemic is all professional sport, it's just that some governing bodies have different means of addressing it - mainly to ensure that they want to protect the interests of their sponsors.

finchy

Limburger wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Limburger wrote:

Yes plenty of stupid and miss informed rugby players take steroids but do they make them better at rugby? It is debatable.

No it isn't. If you get bigger through steroids, you aren't going to lose tactical awareness, passing and receiving ability, etc. and you will have an advantage in scrums, rucks, tackles.

You will generally be heavier and slower - not very good for a winger, heavier is certainly an advantage for a prop but how many tackles will you miss because you are now slower. Its not so clear-cut.

Edit: Scrum? Ha! It's bee a long time since I saw a truly competitive scrum due to the angled put-ins and deliberate collapsing to gain penalties - strength is only a very minor part of the scrum nowadays.

OK, well I didn't mean that every single position would benefit from bulking up on steroids - which is why I deliberately chose tackling, scrummaging and rucking as areas in which a rugby player may get an advantage from doping.

And if being bigger and heavier weren't an advantage, why have so many players gone down that path (legally or illegally)?

Limburger

johnfinch I think alot of it is to do with the perceived advantage that people get rather than any measurable advantage.

There is also an arms race element to it in the coaching whereby players are constantly trying to be bigger and stronger than their adversaries on opposing teams to gain any advantage - perceived or otherwise.

Could explain alot of the hulking teams, cough England cough, who are tactically a bit crap and are hardly stella with the ball in hand. Not that Martin Johnson is useless or anything. The Scotland team are alot smaller physically by comparison then again they aren't as successful so this was a poor comparison. Ooops.

finchy

I think you could be right about that - but we'll have to see if somebody does come along in the next few years and take advantage by using lighter, faster players to take advantage of the relative lack of mobility now prevalent in rugby.

No_Ta_Doctor

While I don't think there are any totally clean sports out there I can't really think of any others where drug taking is almost romanticised, we look back almost with nostalgia at the pre EPO days, where a cheeky bit of amphetamine helped on the climb. It seems almost innocent in comparison to the systematic doping of entire teams since then. We don't tend to see Tom Simpson as a cheat who met a nasty end, but as a victim of amateurish and ill informed doping. Cycling has a seriously long history of drug abuse, and of that abuse being either acceptable or only slightly disreputable. This culture of doping is what allows omerta, is what allows the appeal to "everyone else is doing it" and allows the claim that "it's always been this way".