Is cycling beyond redemption?

rick_chasey

Go on, someone's bound to ask it

donrhummy

NO. The problem, as it has been for years now is simple:

Cycling is the only sport that actually tries to catch dopers.

It's as simple as that.

dougzz

donrhummy wrote:

NO. The problem, as it has been for years now is simple:

Cycling is the only sport that actually tries to catch dopers.

It's as simple as that.

+1

Other sports are quite keen to not publicise bad news. Many of us would like cycling to try harder, but there's no doubt they make a big effort. Certainly not beyond redemption. I'll still watch and I'll still ride my own bike. For every t**t that thought they could take a pop at me today over Bertie I've just said yes, it was fantastic that Britain took Gold and Silver in the TTs at the World's.

donrhummy

Yep. Every doper they catch is another example they're actually trying. Look at football or even American football. How is it that maybe 3 or so guys a year seem to test positive in those sports? And baseball? While some test positive, Manny Ramirez tried to show how often he'd been tested as proof that he'd never doped before: 5 times in the last 6 years! Most pro cyclists get tested 5 times in a month (if they're racing).

iainf72

It's like asking if Lindsay Lohan is beyond redemption. She'll keep doing what she does, but you'll carry on looking wishing you could have a go.

Or something like that anyway.

turboslave

It is now becoming a real joke, lets face it why bother going to all the trouble to catch these culprits, then allowing them back in, they will never clean up thier act until a lifetime ban is instigated.

Contador may get off on this one, but there are plenty of others riding the tour who have been prviously caught.

A sad day for cycling

ratsbeyfus

iainf72 wrote:

It's like asking if Lindsay Lohan is beyond redemption. She'll keep doing what she does, but you'll carry on looking wishing you could have a go.

Or something like that anyway.

No_Ta_Doctor

turboslave wrote:

It is now becoming a real joke, lets face it why bother going to all the trouble to catch these culprits, then allowing them back in, they will never clean up thier act until a lifetime ban is instigated.

Contador may get off on this one, but there are plenty of others riding the tour who have been prviously caught.

A sad day for cycling

A lifetime ban would remove the possibility of redemption. I'd like to think there could be more Millars out there....

dave milne

it's far less of a joke than before. now more people get caught but come on, things are far better than the 90s and early 2000s.

If they aren't then I am a sad deluded fool

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

It's like asking if Lindsay Lohan is beyond redemption. She'll keep doing what she does, but you'll carry on looking wishing you could have a go.

Or something like that anyway.

She's an odd one is Lindsay. She was certainly better ginger than blonde. I could give her good advice about partying and yet keeping it all together (at least until she's in her 30's when it all falls apart). As long as I could have a 'go' of course

jerry3571

A saying I have about cycling and doping " the more you look, the more you will find".

I think the anti doping regime for cycling is a lot tougher than other sports.
I think the anti-doping drive is a health issue these days with EPO etc.
Riders dropping dead at night with heart failure was the main force of change for the increase in testing.

The sad thing is that there are no constant top riders who you get to know over the years. You know whether they can Time Trial or do ok in the high mountains or they can win a sprint. New riders come through, stay a short while and then get caught. A bit of a sorry state.

David Miller getting silver today is a bit of a strange result as he has returned to the form of previous times prior to his doping suspension. Bit suss maybe.

Cheers Jerry

sonny73

I got asked a similar question by my old man today post all the latest goings on and my answer would remain the same: No, it is the most beautiful sport in the world and no one person or group of people could ultimately tarnish that.

And as for Lindsay Lohan, now that's where you are talking a lost cause.

RichN95.

jerry3571 wrote:

David Miller getting silver today is a bit of a strange result as he has returned to the form of previous times prior to his doping suspension. Bit suss maybe.

But, if cycling gets cleaner, as I assume you wish, won't a natural product of this be that talented clean cyclists rise back to the top?

An example I would cite is Marco Pinotti - after years as a resolutely clean journeyman rider (Italian time trials aside) - he has started to become a stage racer of note.
Some see this a sign that he has finally succumbed to doping at the age of 34, others see it as a sign that cycling is cleaning up. The choice is yours.

jerry3571

Pinotti's rise from "nowhere-dom" is another tricky one. A profound anti doper suddenly finds he can climb at the age of near retirement.
I could say that he's getting near the end of his career and has earned his cash and now fancies a bit of the glory.
I always say that when the speeds decrease then this will be a sign of proper doping controls.
Cycling is like a big meat grinder; sending up a rider for thier time in the sun before getting banned and then once again sending another new rider up for more of the same.
I always am amazed at how riders will endanger thier health and lives for a bit of money and some glory.

-Jerry

RichN95.

jerry3571 wrote:

I always say that when the speeds decrease then this will be a sign of proper doping controls.

The rise of average speeds in GTs haven't really dropped, but their rise in the first place was due to more than doping (TV coverage and globalization, for example). It's not as though the likes of LeMond, Armstrong and Contador were on the front of the peloton, driving it along.

At key points, though, the speed has dropped. Compare, for example Alpe d'Huez times recently compared with LA & Pantani.

(At this point you will highlight Contador's VAM to Arcalis in 2009 as a counter point, ignoring the fact that it was a 20 minute climb compared to a 40+ minute climb)

If you want a clean sport, then you can't go accusing successful riders of doping when the sport gets cleaner. If everyone is clean, someone still wins. Is he a doper?

Or maybe your one of those cycling fans who gets more excited by the doping and looks everywhere for it? (They do exist - look at CN forum)

jerry3571

RichN95 wrote:

jerry3571 wrote:

I always say that when the speeds decrease then this will be a sign of proper doping controls.

The rise of average speeds in GTs haven't really dropped, but their rise in the first place was due to more than doping (TV coverage and globalization, for example). It's not as though the likes of LeMond, Armstrong and Contador were on the front of the peloton, driving it along.

At key points, though, the speed has dropped. Compare, for example Alpe d'Huez times recently compared with LA & Pantani.

(At this point you will highlight Contador's VAM to Arcalis in 2009 as a counter point, ignoring the fact that it was a 20 minute climb compared to a 40+ minute climb)

If you want a clean sport, then you can't go accusing successful riders of doping when the sport gets cleaner. If everyone is clean, someone still wins. Is he a doper?

Or maybe your one of those cycling fans who gets more excited by the doping and looks everywhere for it? (They do exist - look at CN forum)

The average speed of the Tour increased during the Indurain years long after the start of the Tv coverage. I remember watching Roche winning the Tour so Tv has been around for a lot longer and has nothing to do with the Tv coverage.

How it works-
If you can output 300 watts doing 160 beats per minute and then take EPO and you can then output 350 watts at 160 beats per minute then your bike will go faster with the same effort. I'm sure you know this.

The only reason the Alpe D'Huez climb record has not been surpassed is due to the Haemocrit levels being at 50%. Pantani and Riis were said to have levels at over 60% hence the faster speeds. Now they have a limit and the times/speeds have slowed slightly. Also, the deaths from Heart attacks have seemed to have slowed ( as far as I know); which is the big thing.

-Jerry

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

At key points, though, the speed has dropped. Compare, for example Alpe d'Huez times recently compared with LA & Pantani.

(At this point you will highlight Contador's VAM to Arcalis in 2009 as a counter point, ignoring the fact that it was a 20 minute climb compared to a 40+ minute climb)

Have you not seen what's going on? Contador is a juicer too. :roll:

FJS

jerry3571 wrote:

The average speed of the Tour increased during the Indurain years long after the start of the Tv coverage. I remember watching Roche winning the Tour so Tv has been around for a lot longer and has nothing to do with the Tv coverage.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Rich means there's more and longer TV coverage - in the 70s and 80s the peloton didn't come alive until an hour or so before the finish, when the TV coverage started - since the 90s there is several hours of live coverage, and increasingly full stages from start to finish, with the opportunities for exposure that come with it. Those kind of changes have an impact on average speeds (though not necessarily the outcome of the race).

Gazzaputt

I like that cycling weeds the cheats out. In this day and age you'd be a fool to dope you would think.

I think the Contador positive will really make some riders look in there medicine cabinets and wonder if it's worth it.

sherer

I think cycling is one of the few sports that makes an effort to do something about doping. The problem is the UCI is corrupt and so lets loads of people have protection and ignores some riders and targets others.

We know in football they couldn't be bothered to look into the Puerto links, Blatter said testing for some PEDs was too expensive and they just ignore the issue. If you don't look for something you won't find it.

What we need to do is have a clear out of the old guard of DSs as they are the ones brought up in the doping culture who pass it on. I'd also suggest working with some sports scientists to see what exactly the body can take over three weeks and if the current GTs are too hard then look to reduce the mountains to something the body can do without PEDs

sheepworryingbhoy

Cleaning up cycling wont happen overnight. However I would support lifetime bans for all athetes over the age of 25. Apart from the very few this is normally the stage of thier careers that the big bucks are made & may make them more fearful of being caught. Under 25 say 2-3 year ban with a programme of rehabilation. Not only should we be going after the athetes who dope but those who supply are no better than the drug dealers on our streets.

jerry3571

FJS wrote:

jerry3571 wrote:

The average speed of the Tour increased during the Indurain years long after the start of the Tv coverage. I remember watching Roche winning the Tour so Tv has been around for a lot longer and has nothing to do with the Tv coverage.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Rich means there's more and longer TV coverage - in the 70s and 80s the peloton didn't come alive until an hour or so before the finish, when the TV coverage started - since the 90s there is several hours of live coverage, and increasingly full stages from start to finish, with the opportunities for exposure that come with it. Those kind of changes have an impact on average speeds (though not necessarily the outcome of the race).

Ok ok-
I looked up the stats and made a lovely gaph of the average Tour de France speeds from 1980 to 2010 and there is not a big increase in speed in the early-mid 90's as I have mentioned.
I AM WRONG!!! Sorry folks.
Even with Haemocrit tests the avaerage speed just keep on going up??? :?
He values on the left side of the graph are the average kph.

-Jerry

saunaboy

could the increase in speeds be explained by carbon bikes & better equipment & aerodynamic knowledge?

iainf72

saunaboy wrote:

could the increase in speeds be explained by carbon bikes & better equipment & aerodynamic knowledge?

Partially yes.

There are many factors - Better road surfaces, different style of racing, equipment etc. But the biggest reason is blood doping.

Gingerflash

Non-cyclists who talk to me about it seem to be of the opinion that doping is inevitable, because the sport is so hard.

If anything, they seem surprised that anyone can ride a Grand Tour without doping.

jerry3571

"You can't ride the Tour de France on mineral water." -Monsieur Chrono; didn't know his nickname??


I just wonder how many more bike riders are caught for doping before people get it. I find it ,as the french would say, "Incroyable!"
I believe there may be space aliens, the Lock Ness montser, Ghosts, even flying pigs but a clean top pro rider; na! Not possible.
Father Christmas does exist, to any kid reading this ok. Also Elvis does.

I did read that even Juniors have been caught doping (not dodgy fags ok)- see below; a bit of a sad case.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2007/09/ ... ping_13360

-Jerry

donrhummy

jerry3571 wrote:

Ok ok-
I looked up the stats and made a lovely gaph of the average Tour de France speeds from 1980 to 2010 and there is not a big increase in speed in the early-mid 90's as I have mentioned.
I AM WRONG!!! Sorry folks.
Even with Haemocrit tests the avaerage speed just keep on going up??? :?
He values on the left side of the graph are the average kph.

-Jerry

Speed by itself means nothing. Make your graph have two more things (put one as a blue line and one as a red line):

1. The total distance of each year's TDF
2. The total amount of climbing in each year's TDF

jerry3571

I think it works as an average. One year a tour will be shorter than the average and another year it could be longer as with the terrain; hence the yearly discrepencies.
You get the picture.
Also there's nothing stopping yourself from doing a graph which would answer your queries; enjoy!!

-Jerry

Mettan

As ever, its's good that they're clamping down, creating a more level playing field for the riders - cycling seems to be doing more to adress the issues than most other sports.

timturpinfleck

sheepworryingbhoy wrote:

Cleaning up cycling wont happen overnight. However I would support lifetime bans for all athetes over the age of 25. Apart from the very few this is normally the stage of thier careers that the big bucks are made & may make them more fearful of being caught. Under 25 say 2-3 year ban with a programme of rehabilation. Not only should we be going after the athetes who dope but those who supply are no better than the drug dealers on our streets.

I feel lifetime bans are perhaps a bit harsh and I would suggest longer bans for younger cyclists like Ricco. Bans should start from the announcement date to prevent the likes of Valverde racing within 2 years of their bans. No pro team should support a cyclist throughout the period they are banned and they should not be allowed to cycle for a Pro Tour team in the year following their suspension.

Cycling is cleaning up its' act and doing a better job than any other sport as like so many other have mentions it is the only sport taking doping seriously and yet ours is the sport that gets all the flack.

rick_chasey

Can't say I agree with the notion that the only reason is that cycling is the only sport trying hard to catch people doping.

As far as I am concered, cycling has one of the worst cultures of doping and is trying harder, though not as hard as it could be, to sort it out. Sure other sports do less, but they don't need to do as much.

I do also think that the issue doping matters more in cycling because it has a bigger impact on the outcome.

The improvements drugs make to cycling performances are bigger than say, in a skilled sport, such as football.

Don't get me wrong, the drugs would certainly help a footballer, but they wouldn't turn a slightly below average defender a bottom half premier league team into one of the country's best (assuming no-one else was doing it, obviously)

Doping would appear to be able to do that to cyclists though.

That and sports where individuals win, (even if as part of a team), are always impacted more heavily by doping.