Do people here care about doping?

Doug Taylor said:

gds said:

Interest remains the same. I've believe that all/most top racer dope
and have done so for at least 60 years. I understand that it is
cheating but all societies have formal (laws) and informal (behavior)
norms. In the case of doping and sports I think that whatever the law
that the behavioral norm is to dope.
I also have a hard time drawing the line on the continuum of varios
perhformance enhancing aids. So, is having a coach moral? What about
using drinks such as Gatorad? What about energy gels? So there is
clealry a lot of "performance enhancing" things that are both ok by
the formal and informal norms. But where should the line be drawn? And
how does it change over time? For example EPO. If one used EPO 30
years ago it would have been legal. Now its not. Why? Probably because
they can now test for it.
My preference is to bring all the performance enhancing aids into the
open. By doing so we could take them out of the closet and hopefully
make the situation safer.

My interest remains the same as well, but I disagree with your take. I
won't venture to draw the line between "food" and "drugs," but it is
not impossible to do so. If the sponsors of teams had the incentive,
drugs could be eradicated simply by enforcing a "one and done" rule.
The problem is that to do so would be antithetical to sponsorship:
only winners make money for the sponsor, and winners can't compete on
a level playing field without doping. So it is a vicious circle.

You suggest that bringing dope into the open might "make the
situation safer." But who defines what's "safe"? How many years of
testing and waiting will determine whether or not there are long term
side effects? Who will be the human guinea pigs? And stretching your
argument to its extreme, when we will reach the point of the now
science fiction but maybe soon to be fact, genetically altered human?

I might be naive, but I'm thinking that what is a better choice is a
world where "organic" athletes compete on "food" (however defined),
and where technology testing for "non-food" dope gets as sophisticated
as software firewallers catching hackers. Where the majority of
dopers, rather than a tiny minority, get caught, and where if you get
caught, one strike and you're out for good.

But that will happen just about the same time as a cure for cancer,
global warming reversal, honest politicians, peace on earth, etc.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't disagree with your sentiments-- I just don't think it will
happen. I've competed at a high level in two sports other than cycling
and while the drugs were a bit different I can tell you that the use
of performance enhancing drugs was endemic in those sports as well.
The reality is that even without the money that top cometitors are
drivento win. That is a big part of what makes them top competitors.
So, by their very nature they are receptive to whatever canhelp them
win. And in a (sub) culture where "everyone is doing it" is hard to
convince them that they are cheating. Actually I think the oposite
holds. Since (they believe) all thier competiton is doing it they feel
they would be chating themselves to not take advantage. Call it
ratiionalization, perhaps it is, but it is very real.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Just curious whether it matters to the general public that professional
cycling is having more than its share of doping scandals lately.

Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed the
same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?

Also, are there people here who took up cycling because of the coverage on
TV/radio/newspapers of Lance Armstrong (just an example), and do the current
scandals give you pause, perhaps making you less-likely to try and get
others invovled in cycling?

I got into cycling as a kid, and it had nothing to do with racing.
Much later, I got interested in the careers of Merckx, then Lemond,
and then Armstrong. But because of all the scandals, I now have little
interest in pro racing, or who wins the TdF.

I suppose Armstrong's success did a lot to get Americans riding road
bikes (which is a good thing). But the emphasis on racing has had some
negative effects on recreational riding in terms of equipment and
attitudes.

Art Harris

Art Harris said:

I got into cycling as a kid, and it had nothing to do with racing.
Much later, I got interested in the careers of Merckx, then Lemond,
and then Armstrong. But because of all the scandals, I now have little
interest in pro racing, or who wins the TdF.

I suppose Armstrong's success did a lot to get Americans riding road
bikes (which is a good thing). But the emphasis on racing has had some
negative effects on recreational riding in terms of equipment and
attitudes.

Art Harris

My history in cycling is similar to yours. And while I have raced my
results are so poor that no one would accuse me of being a racer.
However, I'm interested in your comments on the negative effects of
racing on equipment and attitude. My own view is that today's
equipment, driven by racing I agree, is great. It is lightweight and
sturdy- albeit expensive. But I love my modern "racing" bike and find
it more comfortable and better performing than any of my previous
rides. I've felt that way about each successive bike over the years.
As to attitude; I must say I'm not sure what it is to which you are
referring. I don't find the attitudes/behaviors of cyclists much
different from the ppopulation in general.

gds said:

However, I'm interested in your comments on the negative effects of
racing on equipment and attitude. My own view is that today's
equipment, driven by racing I agree, is great. It is lightweight and
sturdy- albeit expensive. But I love my modern "racing" bike and find
it more comfortable and better performing than any of my previous
rides. I've felt that way about each successive bike over the years.
As to attitude; I must say I'm not sure what it is to which you are
referring. I don't find the attitudes/behaviors of cyclists much
different from the ppopulation in general.

All groups have pecking orders, customs, unwritten rules, and the
like.

To be high on the food chain, walking the walk trumps all, but don't
pretend that talking the talk isn't a huge factor.

Case in point: in our community there used to be an informal road
"race" held once a week after work, where all the local roadie studs
and studdettes - up to 40 riders, depending - would show up and do a
quick 40 +/- miler, terrain varying each week from flat, rolling, and
hilly. The "points" winner each season was awarded a rainbow jersey,
which was an old white jersey colored with tacky magic marker. Sort
of an "anti-cool" but very cool reward for kicking everyone else's
butt. Very intimidating to be a newbie in that crowd.

So one season, a local Expert Class mountain bikers shows up to try
his stuff on the road. He's got the only hairy legs in the field, and
while he wasn't wearing baggy pants, and did have a visor on his
helmet and WAS wearing a camelbak! No shortage of looks askance,
knowing smiles, a few "what's in your back pack" remarks.

First race, he finishes with the lead pack, around 5th in a field
sprint of what Paul Sherman would call "the heads of state." He
repeated that type performance pretty much every week, and while he
didn't get win the rainbow, he was elevated to the elite class of
"heads of state."

My point: Even though his stature rose among his peers due to his
performance, he nevertheless found it necessary adjust his appearance
to fit in with the subculture. By the end of the summer he had shaved
legs, no water bottles, and lost the visor.

I downhill ski, cross country ski, speed skate, road bike, and
mountain bike, and I know how to talk the talk in all of them even if
I don't necessarily walk with the heads of state :-)

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So...

Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed the
same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?

I used to work (in high tech communications marketing) with George Mount.
He would tell us stories at lunch about racing in Europe. He would tell us
breath taking tales of exciting races, and some mundane stories of well,
being offered stuff you didn't know what it was because heck, it was
supposed to make you faster. (I don't think he partook in any of these
unknown substances, just mentioned it was around.) I took away from these
stories the idea that those who wanted it more would take more risks, both
on the bike, and when it came to trying out unknown substances.

It's not like if all possible doping were caught and wiped out that only
those that really, really wanted it would win. If those tiny high school
basket ball players that play with their heart on their sleeve would make it
to the NBA. Yes, champions have more desire than others. But they also won
the genetic lottery. Pros are already doing incredibly stupid things to
their body for their sport. And we applaud when the gymnast runs down the
runway and flys off the pommel horse doing flips where she knows she won't
see the landing, and has a chance of breaking her neck. We watch in awe at
the dangerous events they call the X Games. The team player that gets shot
up with pain killer and runs back into the game with a torn ligament gets a
warm fuzzy write up in Sports Illustrated. So if they are going all out for
their sport with some other type of drug, it's hard for me to see the line.

Quoted message said:

Also, are there people here who took up cycling because of the coverage on
TV/radio/newspapers of Lance Armstrong (just an example), and do the
current scandals give you pause, perhaps making you less-likely to try and
get others invovled in cycling?

The only bike race I watch is the tour de france. But I'm a bit of an
addict about it. At a tennis camp a few years ago my husband and I would
get up early to watch the tour, then rush through breakfast to make the
first court time. Others in the camp would sleep in, and thought it silly
after a full day and late night we would be up at the crack of dawn to watch
a bike race, but we did. I love seeing the peleton. But, I'm not sure I'm
going to watch it next year. Not because of the alledged doping, but
because the way the organization handled it. My feeling is if you want to
toss someone out of a 21 day race you can test them and do so. But once
they hit Paris, just let it go. That's your victor. You had the chance to
test before, the last day isn't really racing anyway, you could have dq'd
them before the final stage. But once that final stage starts, that's your
field. Since they don't test everyone how sure are they the next guy in
line didn't dope? That's why you can't just pass the final yellow jersey on
down the line. If you need the front guy clean, you need everybody clean.

I don't race myself. I started road biking to be with my husband, on a
tandem, to take a bike tour of France. Before that I was a transportation
bicyclist, and advocated for kids walking and biking to school. Now I have
my own road bike, and will ride without him occasionally, though I still
prefer the tandem. Sometimes I try and talk friends into picking up cycling
for exercise reasons. It's easy on your joints. I still push for kids to
have safe routes to school, and to learn to bike to get themselves places.
And I still like watching peletons. I like watching the Wednesday night A
ride take off down Portola. But the tour de france really has nothing to do
with any of that.

gds said:

My own view is that today's
equipment, driven by racing I agree, is great. It is lightweight and
sturdy- albeit expensive.

I agree that there have been some improvements, particularly in smooth
shifting drivetrains. But there are other areas where recreational
riders have fewer choices. Try to find a bike with durable wheels,
reasonable tire clearance, and a robust frame, and your choices are
mostly limited to all-out touring bikes.

Quoted message said:

As to attitude; I must say I'm not sure what it is to which you are
referring. I don't find the attitudes/behaviors of cyclists much
different from the ppopulation in general.

I was referring to the whole "serious" recreational rider syndrome:
Those groups of slightly overweight, middle-aged, weekend riders with
$6,000 bikes, heart rate monitors, and team jerseys, who seem to be
more interested in making each other suffer than enjoying a bike ride.

Art Harris

Art Harris said:

Quoted message said:

As to attitude; I must say I'm not sure what it is to which you are
referring. I don't find the attitudes/behaviors of cyclists much
different from the ppopulation in general.

I was referring to the whole "serious" recreational rider syndrome:
Those groups of slightly overweight, middle-aged, weekend riders with
$6,000 bikes, heart rate monitors, and team jerseys, who seem to be
more interested in making each other suffer than enjoying a bike ride.

Art Harris

Well I see that too. But I also see the same with tennis players with
a bag full of high tech rackets (and no stroke to speak of) and
golfers with incredibly expensive clubs shooting 105 and so on. I
don't see any harm in any of this. If folks have some extra $ and this
makes them happy I think it harmless.
For full disclosre: I actually use a watt meter. Crazy cost but great
fun. It gives me the data I need to prove that I have no talent.

Art Harris said:

Those groups of slightly overweight, middle-aged, weekend riders with
$6,000 bikes, heart rate monitors, and team jerseys, who seem to be
more interested in making each other suffer than enjoying a bike ride.

Who says "making each other suffer" isn't enjoyable? Not that I would
prefer that EVERY ride, but there is plenty of fun, enjoyment, and
fulfillment to be had in a fast paced, heart pumping, leg cramping,
nose running, hammerfest.

Gooserider said:

Nope. I don't care about doping. I don't care about drug use in any sport.
As a matter of fact, I think drug use should be considered just another
facet of training, and should be legal AND monitored. I don't think anybody
does the TdF without using something. Steroids are used at all levels of
sports, and the ones who don't get caught are the athletes who are
successful and important enough to avoid the tests. Let them all use under
doctor's supervision.

The problem with allowing drugs is that riders who DON"T take drugs
put themselves at a competitive disadvantage. They have to choose
between losing races or potentially ruining their health with steroids
or other drugs.

Art Harris

Art Harris said:

The problem with allowing drugs is that riders who DON"T take drugs
put themselves at a competitive disadvantage. They have to choose
between losing races or potentially ruining their health with steroids
or other drugs.

Art Harris

That is true! However, as a cynic I'd say there aren't any top riders
who don't take drugs. So, let them do it openly and get good medical
supervison. I don't want to start a religous war but I liken this to
abortion before Roe v. Wade. There were still plenty of abortions but
sadly many of them were performed by butchers without skill and
without sanitary conditions. the cynic in me belives that will never
change the underlying behavior so our best bet is to essentially make
it as safe as possible.

Back to competitive advantage or disadvantage. That will always be the
case. If you could take drugs out of the equation you would still have
such "unfair" differences as for example:
1) having the $ to hire a coach
2) having the $ to hire a nutritionist
3) having the $ to have better equipment
4) etc
So, in this case in order to make it fair you would need to make sure
that riders didn't have unequal amounts of money. Silly, yes but also
the differences in resources do create advantages and disadvantges.

gds said:

Quoted message said:

The problem with allowing drugs is that riders who DON"T take drugs
put themselves at a competitive disadvantage. They have to choose
between losing races or potentially ruining their health with steroids
or other drugs.
Art Harris

That is true! However, as a cynic I'd say there aren't any top riders
who don't take drugs. So, let them do it openly and get good medical
supervison.

What makes you think they're going to follow the doctor's supervision
and not take take a liitle more than prescribed? Or that one doctor
won't be more lenient than another?

Quoted message said:

I don't want to start a religous war but I liken this to
abortion before Roe v. Wade. There were still plenty of abortions but
sadly many of them were performed by butchers without skill and
without sanitary conditions. the cynic in me belives that will never
change the underlying behavior so our best bet is to essentially make
it as safe as possible.

That's a completely different situation. We're talking about sports.
By legalizing drugs, you essentially force ALL athlete's to take them.
If you think that is good for either the athletes, the fans, or sports
in general, I think you're way off base.

Look at the state cycling is in right now. Do you think it would
improve if everyone were openly taking drugs? What sponsor would want
to have his company associated with such a sport?

Art Harris

"Art Harris" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Gooserider said:

Nope. I don't care about doping. I don't care about drug use in any
sport.
As a matter of fact, I think drug use should be considered just another
facet of training, and should be legal AND monitored. I don't think
anybody
does the TdF without using something. Steroids are used at all levels of
sports, and the ones who don't get caught are the athletes who are
successful and important enough to avoid the tests. Let them all use
under
doctor's supervision.

The problem with allowing drugs is that riders who DON"T take drugs
put themselves at a competitive disadvantage. They have to choose
between losing races or potentially ruining their health with steroids
or other drugs.

Art Harris

I think it should be considered the cost of doing business. If you look at
the professional bodybuilders in the 1970s(when steroids were prescribed)
versus those of today you see that today's bodybuilders are much less
healthy and tend to die very young. I think that there is a medically safe
way to use performance enhancing substances.

Quoted message said:

gds said:

That is true! However, as a cynic I'd say there aren't any top riders
who don't take drugs. So, let them do it openly and get good medical
supervison.

Such as having their blood so thickened by EPO that they must be
woken regularly during the night to avoid dying? I guess that's fine,
as long as there's a doctor on call.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

Art Harris said:

Look at the state cycling is in right now. Do you think it would
improve if everyone were openly taking drugs? What sponsor would want
to have his company associated with such a sport?

Sponsors want to be associated with winners i.e. they want their
athletes to dope in order to win, if that's what it takes, but not get
caught. "We don't want to be associated with a sport full of dopers"
means "Now that they've been caught, we're going to dump them and
take the moral high ground."

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

Gooserider said:

I think it should be considered the cost of doing business. If you look at
the professional bodybuilders in the 1970s(when steroids were prescribed)
versus those of today you see that today's bodybuilders are much less
healthy and tend to die very young. I think that there is a medically safe
way to use performance enhancing substances.

But if everyone does it in a "medically safe" way, it gives no-one a
competitive advantage. As someone else pointed out, it's inevitable that
athletes will damage their health to get a temporary edge, if necessary.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My own view is that today's
equipment, driven by racing I agree, is great. It is lightweight and
sturdy- albeit expensive.

I agree that there have been some improvements, particularly in smooth
shifting drivetrains. But there are other areas where recreational
riders have fewer choices. Try to find a bike with durable wheels,
reasonable tire clearance, and a robust frame, and your choices are
mostly limited to all-out touring bikes.

They don't sell 'cross bikes where you live? Pretty sure they fit your
description perfectly.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As to attitude; I must say I'm not sure what it is to which you are
referring. I don't find the attitudes/behaviors of cyclists much
different from the ppopulation in general.

I was referring to the whole "serious" recreational rider syndrome:
Those groups of slightly overweight, middle-aged, weekend riders with
$6,000 bikes, heart rate monitors, and team jerseys, who seem to be
more interested in making each other suffer than enjoying a bike ride.

I thought you were describing me... kinda hurts to see it put so accurately
in talking about "slightly-overweight, middle-aged" but then you lost me on
the team jersey part. Coming from a has-been/never-was racing background, I
still have trouble wearing a team jersey. Back in the day you'd see all
manner of "recreational" cyclists running around in Molteni jerseys. As a
racer, that was just something you could not do. It would be like you were
pretending to be something you're not, and that was a far greater sin if you
actually did race, than if you were simply a zealous fan (we didn't call
them "posers" back then).

But the $6000 bike thing? Consider that, for $6000, you can own something
that's arguably the best there is, at least in terms of performance. Almost
affordable for a great many people, if that's where their priorities lay.
What would it cost to own the very best car?

If you think bike people are out of hand, what about photographers? Do you
think everyone who spends $3k on a high-end digital body, and then another
$6k on an assortment of glass (lenses) is on the same level as Ansel Adams
on his very worst day? And yet they'll spend more and more and more, some of
them believing that, if they just had the right camera, the right lens, they
would have nailed that shot.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just curious whether it matters to the general public that professional
cycling is having more than its share of doping scandals lately.

I could ask this question in RBR (rec.bicycles.racing), but that's not a
good cross-section of typical cyclists. Not that there isn't a lot of
pre-selection in the sample here, either, but better than RBR, where
everything takes on the emotion of a helmet war.

So...

Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed the
same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?

Also, are there people here who took up cycling because of the coverage on
TV/radio/newspapers of Lance Armstrong (just an example), and do the
current scandals give you pause, perhaps making you less-likely to try and
get others invovled in cycling?

Just curious-

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Since I am a nihilistic IT guy, I view this debate in terms of the ongoing
battle with computer virus writers / spammers. There is no way for IT
administrators to win. It will always be thrust and parry with the hackers.

So I say, allow any and all drugs, since there is no realistic way to
prevent it. All pro athletes are adults, so they understand the long-term
risks. Let the games begin! ...just like ancient Rome with the lions...J.

Jay - BFri Commuter said:

So I say, allow any and all drugs, since there is no realistic way to
prevent it. All pro athletes are adults, so they understand the long-term
risks. Let the games begin! ...just like ancient Rome with the lions...J.

Perhaps they do understand the long-term risks, although I think that's
always arguable in the case of newer doping techniques. But race organizers
are understandably piqued when riders fall off their bikes and die
mid-race, so it's hard to blame them for wanting clean, healthy riders.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Just curious whether it matters to the general public that professional
cycling is having more than its share of doping scandals lately.

I could ask this question in RBR (rec.bicycles.racing), but that's not a
good cross-section of typical cyclists. Not that there isn't a lot of
pre-selection in the sample here, either, but better than RBR, where
everything takes on the emotion of a helmet war.

So...

Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed the
same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?

Also, are there people here who took up cycling because of the coverage on
TV/radio/newspapers of Lance Armstrong (just an example), and do the current
scandals give you pause, perhaps making you less-likely to try and get
others invovled in cycling?

Just curious-

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

I believe people should have sovereignty over their own bodies. That
said, I also believe that people who compete in sports should comply
to the rules of competition given in their particular sport.

"Michael Warner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Gooserider said:

I think it should be considered the cost of doing business. If you look
at
the professional bodybuilders in the 1970s(when steroids were prescribed)
versus those of today you see that today's bodybuilders are much less
healthy and tend to die very young. I think that there is a medically
safe
way to use performance enhancing substances.

But if everyone does it in a "medically safe" way, it gives no-one a
competitive advantage. As someone else pointed out, it's inevitable that
athletes will damage their health to get a temporary edge, if necessary.

Then I consider it the cost of doing business. The athletes are adults and
are capable of making their own decisions.