Is cycling beyond redemption?

Woolfie

Don't agree.
At least when I watch cycling I know there is a chance (however slim) that someone might be caught.
When I watch other sports I know have the horrible feeling there isn't a chance that someone is going to be caught - Fuentes told us that most of his clients weren't cyclists - they included footballers and tennis players. Recently a certain nation has been doing tremendously well at sport - coincidence? Can't watch Tennis anymore without lingering doubts. As for football well the game has become much more athletic and the rewards for success are much greater than cycling. With the power, money and access to medical facilities that top level football clubs have, I think to believe that systematic doping might not be happening is naive.

sherer

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

The main difference between cycling and other sports is money. Football was linked to Puerto and a there have been links in Italy too. The Marseille team that won the European Cup was doping too. The difference is there is so much money involved in football they can buy off the press and cover these things up.

Footballers now need to play 60 plus games a season so yes doping can help otherwise why would they be linked to Puerto. messi was given HGH when he was younger otherwise he wouldn't even be playing the game.

Football tests for less and so finds less, if you don't look for the problem then you won't find it

RichN95.

sherer wrote:

messi was given HGH when he was younger otherwise he wouldn't even be playing the game.

Messi took HGH for the legitimate medical reason the stuff was designed for in the first place. He was diagnosed with a problem before he joined any club. Barcelona were just the ones who were willing to pay for the treatment, which he couldn't afford himself. Boca Juniors, at least, had turned him down previously.

You might as well say that a kid who has survived leukaemia shouldn't be allowed to play sport, as without PEDs, he'd be dead. I bet you took something banned as a kid, but I bet the ten year old you didn't get a TUE for it.

rick_chasey

Look, don't get me wrong - I'm not saying other sports have problems.

But in Puerto, which invovled MANY sports, over a quarter were just cyclists!!

Cycling obviously has a massive problem. Why would cycling single itself out if they all had the same problems?

Surely there are sports which are easier to monitor than cycling? Sports where such a problem would be figured out more quickly?

Why did cycling have to get to the stage whereby it's better for cycling's cash long term to tackle doping than to leave it under the carpet?

It's singled out because it actually does have bigger problems than the rest. It has had to tackle the problem more thoroughly because it has had a problem so extreme it threatened its existence as a popular sport.

sherer

Rick Chasey wrote:

Look, don't get me wrong - I'm not saying other sports have problems.

But in Puerto, which invovled MANY sports, over a quarter were just cyclists!!

Cycling obviously has a massive problem. Why would cycling single itself out if they all had the same problems?

Surely there are sports which are easier to monitor than cycling? Sports where such a problem would be figured out more quickly?

Why did cycling have to get to the stage whereby it's better for cycling's cash long term to tackle doping than to leave it under the carpet?

It's singled out because it actually does have bigger problems than the rest. It has had to tackle the problem more thoroughly because it has had a problem so extreme it threatened its existence as a popular sport.

The only names from Puerto are from cycling, ok that may be a quarter but that means there could be 50% from football and another quarter from AN other. We don't know.

Journalists have had death threats for trying to publish names linking football to Puerto and they have the money to cover these things up. The more money you have the more you can bury these sorts of things and if you don't bother looking you won't find anything. Football has very few out of competition tests if any and doesn't even look for many PEDs either hence the low number of cases.

Wenger has said some of his players haven't been tested for 5 years and David James said he only had a few tests a season if that. Not hard to dodge a test that way.

Athletics tried to bring in the whereabouts rule and they all went mental over it claiming they didn't want it brought in, why would that be ?

FJS

I tend to agree with Rick - cycling has an extensive anti-doping infrastructure, but that is partly because doping is more endemic in the sport than in many other sports. I would guess that that would be result of a combination of factors: it's an endurance sport where doping can make a significant impact on race results; it is a professional sport with money involved and considerable amounts of media attention; it has historically had a culture of masseurs, preparatore, village quacks, and other pseudo-medic personal support circling around riders that some other endurance sports did not have so much.

mrushton

US athletics has tried to deny for years there was is a culture of doping within athletics. Same with the NBA/NFA etc. French riders have complained about '2 speeds' for a while and there is a harsh penalty in France forgetting caught - bank accounts frozen,house confiscated etc. Cycling is doing something but it's a slow process and there is too much money at stake. I'd like to think that teams like Garmin are genuinely pushing ahead with a clean programme.

Gingerflash

On the subject of average speeds, I'm amazed at the speeds of the past, considering the bikes and equipment they had 30 years ago. It makes me realise, if anything, how much cleaner the sport is now, as the increase in speed over the years isn't as great as I'd expect.

rick_chasey

Gingerflash wrote:

On the subject of average speeds, I'm amazed at the speeds of the past, considering the bikes and equipment they had 30 years ago. It makes me realise, if anything, how much cleaner the sport is now, as the increase in speed over the years isn't as great as I'd expect.

Either that or it shows how little difference the gear makes.

No_Ta_Doctor

Rick Chasey wrote:

Gingerflash wrote:

On the subject of average speeds, I'm amazed at the speeds of the past, considering the bikes and equipment they had 30 years ago. It makes me realise, if anything, how much cleaner the sport is now, as the increase in speed over the years isn't as great as I'd expect.

Either that or it shows how little difference the gear makes.

That sentence works very well using either understanding of the word gear..... Though I think at least one type of gear works very well indeed....

No_Ta_Doctor

Though speaking of bike improvements, all tour bikes now are considerably underweight, and have to have weight added to them. Does anyone know when the current weight limit was set? Have carbon fibre frames actually changed that much for tour riders?

Many of the other improvements are dubious, to say the least. What are the "marginal gains" of electric gear shifts?

In short, how much has the gear improved in 20-30 years?

jimmythecuckoo

No tA Doctor wrote:

In short, how much has the gear improved in 20-30 years?

ummm, define 'gear' for me

No_Ta_Doctor

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

In short, how much has the gear improved in 20-30 years?

ummm, define 'gear' for me

HTC is an anagram of THC, the active component of cannabis. Maybe Cav really IS flying....

Incidentally, here's something I've been saying for years being put forward by the Footballers and Cricketers player unions: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/oct/04/wada-drugs-in-sport

jerry3571

jerry3571 wrote:

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

Bernard Kohl comes up with the same conclusions about average speeds
and Doping at the Tour de France.

Berard Kohl-
"Floyd Landis won the Tour de France and his average speed was 40 kph," Kohl said. "This year it was Contador and it was also about 40. It was nearly the same average speed. Landis was doped. Maybe in 10 or 15 years, you can win (without drugs) if we work with the anti-doping movement."

-Jerry

smithy21

I dont agree that cycling is doing more than other sports. I think it is clear that certain sports lend themselves to doping more than others and unfortunately cycling is one of those. The frustrating thing is that the dopers always seem to be one step ahead of the testers although it is interesting that Contador's positive is at a level that probably no-one knew they could detect.

I suggest that the penalties for doping should be amended to reflect a guilty plea. If you fess up you get a one year ban, if you go down the deny deny deny route and then are still found guilty you get four years.

inkyfingers

smithy21 wrote:

I suggest that the penalties for doping should be amended to reflect a guilty plea. If you fess up you get a one year ban, if you go down the deny deny deny route and then are still found guilty you get four years.

I think that would be a mistake as guilty riders would simply admit their guilt and get a shorter penalty than they do now. I think the only solution is to keep the testing as often as possible and maybe even go as far as a 3 or 4 year ban for first offence. The problem is that some riders will still take the risk, whatever the penalty.

smithy21

inkyfingers wrote:

smithy21 wrote:

I suggest that the penalties for doping should be amended to reflect a guilty plea. If you fess up you get a one year ban, if you go down the deny deny deny route and then are still found guilty you get four years.

I think that would be a mistake as guilty riders would simply admit their guilt and get a shorter penalty than they do now. I think the only solution is to keep the testing as often as possible and maybe even go as far as a 3 or 4 year ban for first offence. The problem is that some riders will still take the risk, whatever the penalty.

I wouldnt have an issue with that as they would have to come out and confess to the crime and we could therefore avoid all the pathetic denials and dog ate my homework style excuses.

Their reputation is then tainted- although I accept in this area some of them wont give a monkeys (Vino, Ricco) and some will (Millar).

No_Ta_Doctor

smithy21 wrote:

inkyfingers wrote:

smithy21 wrote:

I suggest that the penalties for doping should be amended to reflect a guilty plea. If you fess up you get a one year ban, if you go down the deny deny deny route and then are still found guilty you get four years.

I think that would be a mistake as guilty riders would simply admit their guilt and get a shorter penalty than they do now. I think the only solution is to keep the testing as often as possible and maybe even go as far as a 3 or 4 year ban for first offence. The problem is that some riders will still take the risk, whatever the penalty.

I wouldnt have an issue with that as they would have to come out and confess to the crime and we could therefore avoid all the pathetic denials and dog ate my homework style excuses.

Their reputation is then tainted- although I accept in this area some of them wont give a monkeys (Vino, Ricco) and some will (Millar).

I agree. 4 years as basic ban, take off one for fessing up, take off one or two for naming names - especially doctors and team managers. Couple that with a massively increased testing regime for riders that have had a positive - which they can pay for themselves. That would at least provide an incentive to break the omerta and to clean up your act.

Actually, I might support a life ban for riders that refused to fess up and name names.

jerry3571

I don't think any penalty would change anything. The days of when the Haemocrit levels were at 60%+ there was the Death Penalty by not waking up in the morning and still they doped. I find this commitment a bit crazy; well, it's borderline nuts to be honest.

-Jerry

PS- Mad T-shirt not totally unrelated to this subject.

http://www.zazzle.co.uk/velomerta_never ... 5369423928

itisaboutthebike

Yes..................................but I'm not !

Wokie

I have just finished 'The Death of Pantini" which is a dispassionate account of Pantinis life, cycling history and the events leading upto his death. And also Roule Britannia: A History of Britons in the Tour de France.

Patini was THE best climber in his prime and when on form, he couldn't understand how Lance kept up and was able to pass him.

Greg Le Mond said from one year the speed suddenly changed. On one stage, the tour picked up speed so much, even by his standards. He couldn't match the average speed, it made him ill.

dave milne

No tA Doctor wrote:

Though speaking of bike improvements, all tour bikes now are considerably underweight, and have to have weight added to them. Does anyone know when the current weight limit was set? Have carbon fibre frames actually changed that much for tour riders?

Many of the other improvements are dubious, to say the least. What are the "marginal gains" of electric gear shifts?

In short, how much has the gear improved in 20-30 years?

They did a little study on this in either pro cycling or cyclesport and bikes have improved loads since the 80s. Stiffer frames etc. that is one of the reasons for the increase in speeds.

itisaboutthebike

Patini was THE best climber in his prime and when on form, he couldn't understand how Lance kept up and was able to pass him.

Greg Le Mond said from one year the speed suddenly changed. On one stage, the tour picked up speed so much, even by his standards. He couldn't match the average speed, it made him ill.

Yes Pantani was a gifted climber but he was busted several times for high heamatocrit (EPO ?) - others were only able to follow him 'cos they were likewise juiced up.

Lemond - I suspect the real reason he gave up was because he didn't want to indulge in EPO. I think it was '91 when he said there was a step change in speed and couldn't understand how Indurain had beaten him by so much in a TT in the TDF.

jerry3571

dave milne wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Though speaking of bike improvements, all tour bikes now are considerably underweight, and have to have weight added to them. Does anyone know when the current weight limit was set? Have carbon fibre frames actually changed that much for tour riders?

Many of the other improvements are dubious, to say the least. What are the "marginal gains" of electric gear shifts?

In short, how much has the gear improved in 20-30 years?

They did a little study on this in either pro cycling or cyclesport and bikes have improved loads since the 80s. Stiffer frames etc. that is one of the reasons for the increase in speeds.

Ah, that's why riders doped?? For fun!!! What a bunch of happy go lucky dope heads. Mr Ullrich spending £35,000 a year for a laugh!! He's a card!!

itisaboutthebike

They did a little study on this in either pro cycling or cyclesport and bikes have improved loads since the 80s

Yep they have 10 (or 11 gears) nowadaze and even two wheels.

Motors in the seat tube (or possibly hidden up the riders jacksy) are rumoured as state of the art deveopments for 2011.