Why do you watch professional cycling?

No_Ta_Doctor

I gave up watching after Festina, when it became apparent that doping wasn't merely a few chancers on amphetamines, but totally endemic and institutionalised. Just started watching again this year, but with a fair amount of suspicion....

I enjoyed explaining the tactics to my kids, didn't enjoy explaining about the doping, and will kill Cav if he ever gets caught as the love him.

jimmythecuckoo

liversedge wrote:

I watch pro cycling because;

1. it inspires me
2. it entertains me
3. it motivates me to ride
4. it sure beats the rest of the crap that's on tv

Do I really care who wins? Nope. Does doping impact any of this? Nope.

that is an interesting standpoint and one that I think I would like to try and run from now on.

SunWuKong

liversedge wrote:

I watch pro cycling because;

1. it inspires me
2. it entertains me
3. it motivates me to ride
4. it sure beats the rest of the crap that's on tv

Do I really care who wins? Nope. Does doping impact any of this? Nope.

That's me too. I don't really support one rider or one team. There are riders I like and ones I don't but that's more to do with how they ride in terms of attacking, going for the win instead of riding for a podium spot, etc. Where their from means nothing to me TBH. I genuinely hope the sport does clean up on doping, but then I wish footballers wouldn't pull shirts at corners and try to con ref's.

timoid.

+1 for the guy love to the monkey. Top post.

afx237vi

People, the bromance is making me go :oops:

(I should aim for incoherence as a default from now on.)

eh

Well there's loads to watch in terms of scenery etc. but the one thing I really like is the aggression. Just watch the 2003 tour on the Alp d'heuz stage, with USPS driving it into the bottom of the climb and then bang it goes crazy, you don't see that type of thing happening in a marathon or triathlon for instance.

But you could ask the same of other sports, for instance I still enjoy the 100m in athletics, but most of them have been busted for dope as well. Heaven help us if Bolt ever gets caught at it.

Bronzie

Walsh's comments are pretty much spot on:

David Walsh wrote:

Walsh has commented on the biggest doping cases within the sport in the last 20 years but according to the Irishman the latest revelation is not the most damaging. He says fans of the sport have already taken their positions on doping and no matter how many riders are caught, will always hold the same beliefs.

"The sport is already seriously damaged. Opinions are now so polarised that there are very few people who believe in this sport and who are capable of being turned off by the next big positive.

"All those that were going to turn away have long since done so because there's just been so many doping cases in those post-Armstrong years. There was obviously loads of suspicion about Armstrong, and then there were the likes of Rasmussen and Vino.

"People have been turning away for a long time and the people that support this sport have made a decision that they don't care how many positive tests there are they're going to continue to support this sport because they love it. Some of those people would say they hope it gets cleaner but if it's not cleaner that doesn't mean they'll turn away."

tailwindhome

*bump*

Neale1978

I don't as a rule, as it is incredibly dull.

It only becomes interesting for me when there are all the big names there, and even then it is only the monster hills, and the last bit that are remotely worth watching.

As a tv spectator sport it sucks. Unless there is a Brit with a chance, or the TDF

Seems its yourself thats incredibly dull and disrespectful. You must be a blast to be around

Crankbrother

Apparently we're all watching scientists develop a cure for 'being a lazy bastard' ...

mike6

I watch pro cycle racing because I am a cyclist. I appreciate how hard the sport is and how much talent and training is needed to get to the level they are at.
Premiership footballers call themselves athletes, but whinge if they have to play more than one 90 min game per week. In a GT the riders race over the highest roads in Europe for 5 to 6 hours, then,the next day? do the same again, for three weeks. That is an endurance athlete.

It is the history, the epic scale of cycling, and the almost cruel suffering involved that grips me with every race.

Bo Duke

Because it's exciting. Like a golf championship or a 5 day test, the longer a GT goes on, the more crucial each stage becomes.

wallace_and_gromit

mike6 wrote:

Premiership footballers call themselves athletes, but whinge if they have to play more than one 90 min game per week.

There are some very talented athletes in the top football leagues. If you've got sporting ability as a kid, you have numerous career options and why wouldn't there be a large number of such talented yungsters who choose a sport where you can get incredibly rich very quickly without actually being very successful?

Most pros are happy to play two games a week, though as a 90 minute game involves over 10k of running including a lot of sprints, I wouldn't underestimate how hard such a game actually is, and that's without the impact of getting kicked a lot! The pros tend to whinge more when they get dropped or if fixture congenstion puts them at a competitive disadvantage against their rivals.

I'm no great fan of football btw, as there are undoubtedly some highly immature prima-donnas in their ranks, but such views can't obscure the reality of the athletic ability that prevails.

mike6

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

mike6 wrote:

Premiership footballers call themselves athletes, but whinge if they have to play more than one 90 min game per week.

There are some very talented athletes in the top football leagues. If you've got sporting ability as a kid, you have numerous career options and why wouldn't there be a large number of such talented yungsters who choose a sport where you can get incredibly rich very quickly without actually being very successful?

Most pros are happy to play two games a week, though as a 90 minute game involves over 10k of running including a lot of sprints, I wouldn't underestimate how hard such a game actually is, and that's without the impact of getting kicked a lot! The pros tend to whinge more when they get dropped or if fixture congenstion puts them at a competitive disadvantage against their rivals.

I'm no great fan of football btw, as there are undoubtedly some highly immature prima-donnas in their ranks, but such views can't obscure the reality of the athletic ability that prevails.

I have no argument with what you say W and G, just stating a fact. Players and managers complain, on a regular basis, about playing too much football.
Footballing ability is a "born with" skill. You cant turn an average player, like me,say, into a good footballer with coaching. You can only hone an already skilled player.
Endurance athletes, especially cyclists, have to train for long hours every day to reach there potential. Rides of 5 to 8 hours are the norm. Footballers do a couple of hours, 4 or 5 days a week, in the morning, then its off to the pub or the golf course.
Good luck to them I say, but don't try and compare them with Pro cyclists when it comes to hard work.

RichN95.

mike6 wrote:

I have no argument with what you say W and G, just stating a fact. Players and managers complain, on a regular basis, about playing too much football.
Footballing ability is a "born with" skill. You cant turn an average player, like me,say, into a good footballer with coaching. You can only hone an already skilled player.
Endurance athletes, especially cyclists, have to train for long hours every day to reach there potential. Rides of 5 to 8 hours are the norm. Footballers do a couple of hours, 4 or 5 days a week, in the morning, then its off to the pub or the golf course.
Good luck to them I say, but don't try and compare them with Pro cyclists when it comes to hard work.

It's not the fact that they have to play two games in a week that is the problem. It is playing two games a week for ten or eleven months that is the problem. Unlike cycling there is little off season and they can't take a month or two off competition mid-season like Nibali did this year for example.

meagain

mike6 wrote:

I watch pro cycle racing because I am a cyclist. I appreciate how hard the sport is and how much talent and training is needed to get to the level they are at.
.......It is the history, the epic scale of cycling, and the almost cruel suffering involved that grips me with every race.

Puts it well enough. It's the only sport that I watch - I do occasionally watch motorcycle racing but I don't really count that as a sport, altho' I well appreciate the high fitness levels required.

above_the_cows

I watch pro-cycling because I've been doing so for a long time, since I was a wee thing and I would watch the Channel 4 evening coverage with my dad. It is therefore something that I grew up doing and in part explains my love for cycling as am adult.

I watch cycling because I am a cyclist and so I like to watch a sport I myself engage in.

I also watch cycling (for that old French housewife of a reason) because I enjoy watching the scenery change. I do. I find it fascinating. I think it is why I find most sports played in a static place (apart from track cycling funnily enough) boring to watch. Because cycling was the first sport I consciously watched on the TV I think it shaped my tastes. I'm a geography nerd so that might also explain why I love watching the scenery.

TheBigBean

mike6 wrote:

I have no argument with what you say W and G, just stating a fact. Players and managers complain, on a regular basis, about playing too much football.

They are not complaining because they are collapsing with exhaustion - they are complaining because they can't perform to the peak of their ability if they play twice a week for a long time. This is the same as most cyclists only competing in one GT a year, or at the other extreme, Usain Bolt not running 100m every half-hour.

greeny12

TheBigBean wrote:

mike6 wrote:

I have no argument with what you say W and G, just stating a fact. Players and managers complain, on a regular basis, about playing too much football.

They are not complaining because they are collapsing with exhaustion - they are complaining because they can't perform to the peak of their ability if they play twice a week for a long time. This is the same as most cyclists only competing in one GT a year, or at the other extreme, Usain Bolt not running 100m every half-hour.

This. I wonder how many people who moan about 'soft' footballers have actually played the game at any level? I have never played an 11-a-side match without picking up some sort of injury, from a simple cut/bruise through to a broken ankle. And that was not even at Sunday league level - only Tuesday evening 'friendlies' plus a bit of 5-a-side for my work!!!

Football is a contact sport - it's harder than it looks...

gpreeves

Above The Cows wrote:

I also watch cycling (for that old French housewife of a reason) because I enjoy watching the scenery change. I do. I find it fascinating. I think it is why I find most sports played in a static place (apart from track cycling funnily enough) boring to watch. .

This is a big part of it for me. Whilst I enjoy and follow a number of other sports, nothing grips me quite as much as cycling. I love the freedom to explore the countryside that cycling brings, watching a race on TV is the best substitute when stuck in the office/library.

When you go to watch a cycling race, you can ride (part of) the route the race will follow before the race comes through, and then choose where you sit to watch the action. Very few sports offer that level of participation and freedom of choice when you go to watch them. I love that the "stadium" is little more than a road up a mountain, which for one day becomes a focal point for fans.

wallace_and_gromit

mike6 wrote:

Good luck to them I say, but don't try and compare them with Pro cyclists when it comes to hard work.

I wasn't. I was just saying that there are some top quality athletes amongst the ranks of elite footy players, the players don't generally moan about playing 2 games a week and that a 90 minute game was actually quite physically demanding.

dougzz

mike6 wrote:

Good luck to them I say, but don't try and compare them with Pro cyclists when it comes to hard work.

Absolutely, it's not like you can play football sitting down is it......

Daz555

mike6 wrote:

Premiership footballers call themselves athletes, but whinge if they have to play more than one 90 min game per week. In a GT the riders race over the highest roads in Europe for 5 to 6 hours, then,the next day? do the same again, for three weeks.

I am treading carefully here for fear of defending footballers but the sports are not comparable.

All of the sports (football is one of a hundred) where they have to compete once or twice a week at their top level place different demands on the body than sports where athletes get to train in a controlled environment for a particular event and once that event is complete they return back to the controlled environment. Even if they go on to compete elsewhere (in minor events) they no longer (and are not expected to) maintain the same level.

Compare Chris Froome on the Ventoux to Chris Froome 4 weeks later? Very different to say someone like Lionel Messi who maintains a less extreme level of fitness for a much longer length of time.

Not that I care. footballers are disgustingly rich so I just prefer to hate them.

mike6

TheBigBean wrote:

mike6 wrote:

I have no argument with what you say W and G, just stating a fact. Players and managers complain, on a regular basis, about playing too much football.

They are not complaining because they are collapsing with exhaustion - they are complaining because they can't perform to the peak of their ability if they play twice a week for a long time. This is the same as most cyclists only competing in one GT a year, or at the other extreme, Usain Bolt not running 100m every half-hour.

Read David Millars book and be put right on that score. Most riders have little choice regarding the races they do, or convincing managers they are deeply fatigued. Football is a contact sport, but not nearly as tough as pro Rugby, but you rarely hear those guys whinging.

Also, when was the last time you saw a Pro cyclist rolling on the ground as If shot and trying to get another cyclist kicked out of a race. Footballers frequently sit at home, injured, still raking in £100+K per week, or sitting on the bench, or not included in the first team squad, still picking up the cash.
Injured riders first thought is to get back on the bike and hope the pain is only road rash, when frequently they finish races with broken bones and lacerations that would have footballers off to there Harley St doctors.

dougzz

These comparisons are pointless and stupid. Some footballers are very rich, a few are stupidly rich, but an awful lot outside the top tiers have far from the wealth associated with Gareth Bale's contract. Some footballers play with pain others don't, for every cyclist that rides with a broken collar bone or whatever, there are lots that (sensibly) don't, I believe Sir Brad quit the Giro because of a runny nose. Football is much much more popular than cycling and therefore there's a lot of money slopping around, get over it. Yes footballers roll around with pretend injuries, its a form of cheating, giving you're on a cycling forum I'll assume you're familiar with the concept of cheating to gain an advantage.
It's possible to like both and not need to diminish one to enjoy the other.

RichN95.

mike6 wrote:

Injured riders first thought is to get back on the bike and hope the pain is only road rash, when frequently they finish races with broken bones and lacerations that would have footballers off to there Harley St doctors.

When cyclists become worth 10s of millions of quid in the transfer market, they will stop doing that.
And when cycling allows substitutions they will stop doing that.

mike6

RichN95 wrote:

mike6 wrote:

Injured riders first thought is to get back on the bike and hope the pain is only road rash, when frequently they finish races with broken bones and lacerations that would have footballers off to there Harley St doctors.

When cyclists become worth 10s of millions of quid in the transfer market, they will stop doing that.
And when cycling allows substitutions they will stop doing that.

But they arent, and they dont.

mike6

dougzz wrote:

These comparisons are pointless and stupid. Some footballers are very rich, a few are stupidly rich, but an awful lot outside the top tiers have far from the wealth associated with Gareth Bale's contract. Some footballers play with pain others don't, for every cyclist that rides with a broken collar bone or whatever, there are lots that (sensibly) don't, I believe Sir Brad quit the Giro because of a runny nose. Football is much much more popular than cycling and therefore there's a lot of money slopping around, get over it. Yes footballers roll around with pretend injuries, its a form of cheating, giving you're on a cycling forum I'll assume you're familiar with the concept of cheating to gain an advantage.
It's possible to like both and not need to diminish one to enjoy the other.

Pardon me sir for being "pointless and stupid" but I am not diminishing any sport, merely pointing out how hard pro cycling is and how much training one has to do to get to that level. Also, in relation to some sports, how small the financial rewards are. One of the reasons I like to watch it, and, after all, that was the title of the thread.

afx237vi

Cor, I must've been really bored three years ago.

RichN95.

mike6 wrote:

Pardon me sir for being "pointless and stupid" but I am not diminishing any sport, merely pointing out how hard pro cycling is and how much training one has to do to get to that level. Also, in relation to some sports, how small the financial rewards are. One of the reasons I like to watch it, and, after all, that was the title of the thread.

Cyclists are pretty well paid. The minimum wage for the 500 World Tour riders is about E36K. Aside from football and the big four US sports you would struggle to find many sports where the 500th best in the world is getting that sort of money (if any).