Massive doping. Should we care?



tcklyde

New Member
Dec 17, 2003
1,437
0
0
46
Helmut threw this out there and it's a good question. There is clearly massive and pervasive doping throughout the entire peloton. Should we care?

helmutRoole2 said:
I'll throw this out there, and I've said it before. What difference does it make? Just enjoy the sport part and the race part and leave the personalities out of it. Check out the pedal mechanics, the thrill of the race, the one guy who beats the charging peloton... all the stuff.

Doping shouldn't change a thing.

I've more or less checked out from following the races. The doping, to me, is too disgusting to ignore. Here's a few reasons why it does matter.

1. Doping is cheating, period. I'm not big on being self-righteous; we all have moral failings, but come on: doping is breaking the rules. Sport is supposed to be about talent, hard work, and luck. Doping is about having enough money, the right doctor, flexible morals, and a care-free attitude about your long-term health. We're not supposed to give out medals for being morally flexible. When we ignore doping, we end up rewarding the wrong values.

Bjarne Riis was apparently willing to jack his hemaocrit up to 64% during the Tour. Fortunately for him, he lived through the night -- and won. But we shouldn't reward him for being stupid enough to make his blood thicker than molasses.

2. It's not just the cheating, it's the lying. It's one thing to cheat these days; they all do it, right? But the lying after getting caught is revolting. Is there anyone on the planet more despicable than Tyler Hamilton? Raising money from the poor dupes who believe his lies? And now Floyd, doing the same thing? Lance lies, Roberto, Jan, Ivan, etc. Doesn't anyone have the integrity to blow the whistle on this? Answer: for the most part, no.

3. It's not just the cheating and lying, it's criminal. Injecting 30 different kinds of steroid, hormone, narcotic, and other pharmaceutical into your ass without medical reason isn't just dangerous and unethical, in most countries, it's illegal. Carrying all this across borders is illegal. Doctors rounding this stuff up is illegal. Ignoring doping will make illegal conduct a necessary part of the sport. Not good for keeping sponsors, not good for the general ethical stature of our heroes.

4. The doctors are scumbags. Most doctors I admire like to help the sick and injured, not establish international drug rings dedicated to injecting morally vacuous athletes with extremely potent pharmaceuticals in contravention of various laws and sporting ethics guidelines. Just an observation.

5. Doping penalizes the riders who are too ethical or too concerned about about their health to dope. The people who get to the top of the Pro Peloton are the people who make the moral and health choice to cheat. I don't know, but I'm going to guess that there are more than a few 18 year-old amateurs who don't want to go pro in a sport that will require playing a game of Russian roulette with their long term health.

6. Dope can kill. And it has.

7. The amateurs and under-funded teams start doing it, without medical supervision. If you have to dope to win, eventually you have to dope to compete. Most teams don't have $15 million budgets, but many almost anyone can read an internet forum and lots of people can place internet orders for EPO.

8. It will destroy the sport. Maybe. How long will the sponsors put up with it? For the time being, despite several sponsors dropping last year, there seems to be enough money to go around. But will this last forever? And will the fans keep putting up with this ****? I won't.

9. It makes for crappy racing. Hard to say exactly what the effect has been, but it seems likely that doping reduces the number of bad days and rewards the teams (e.g., Discovery) that engage is systematic doping. Need to win an early season race? Dope up! Need to climb Mt. Ventoux without breaking a sweat? No problem. I'd actually like to see these guys suffer.

Anyhow, that's my take.
 
I guess I understand why the guys do dope and though it IS wrong it does not really bother me. Get rid of the dopers and I think you will loose an even larger fan base that just leaving it alone. Let's be honest, would there be anything exciting about watching cycling with out the 'freaks' of the peleton? Maybe, maybe not. Baseball left it alone for so many years because fans like home runs, U.S. football leaves it alone because we like to see 6'6" 260lbs dudes running the 40 at crazy speeds destroying the quarterback.

Back in the Lee Haney days of Bodybuilding the IFBB decided to drug test the Mr. Olympia. Most of the guys came in looking like **** and it caused a huge uproar. Fans complained, sponsers complained and Needlesstosay the next year they didn't drug test. Any and all athletes from high school to the Pros look for an advantage over their rivals-ALL of them. Unfortunately drugs are readily available even in high school and with the help of Dr's pro's can get them like candy. It seems we are pretty much stuck with them and I don't want to quit watching cycling and or riding. I'm a 37 year old cat 5 racer who has a great time training and racing regardless of my winning or loosing.
 
In response to your question - we should care that sport (cycling) is riddled with what is cheating.
To syphon off blood, to consume EPO, to use PED's : this is cheating plain and simple.
And it is a moral choice for the riders/teams/UCI.

From what I have read riders constantly try to rationalise their cheating, when they're caught.
These riders throw out the usual defence "the tests were rigged" or "it's not doping cause everyone's at it" or "I might have cheated but the rest are cheating - but they just haven't been caught yet".

Their fans run to their defence with all sorts of conspiracy theories as to why "their rider" didn't dope.
They offer up all manner of excuses as to why "their rider" is a "victim of a conspiracy" or such like.

If the sport - and I include fans/UCI/Team managers/Team owners/Team staff
- adopted a zero tolerance attitude to doping, that might be a start.

I think fans/riders/managers/staff should be concerned - they should be very concerned because the industry of cycling is slowly being destroyed.
Livelihoods are being lost.
Not to mention the fact that doping has caused the untimely death of far too many young men, especially in recent years.

So we should care.
If we hold dear to what sport should be about - the striving to compete honestly - then we should all be clamouring to have cycling as a clean sport.

Unfortunately it seems to me that fans/riders/managers/staff are only concerned with winning - and doing so by any means.
 
I will go with what Lim has previously expressed about this issue. While I don't think of doping in cycling as cheating as it is so pervasive, it stops being sport when the winner is determined by how much junk he can afford and the quality of his medical advisor. It severs any connection between me and the pros.
 
Yes we should care.

This whole "just believe your heroes are clean" thing is all part of the dumbing down of the population thanks to the media barons and their friends in governments and big business.

If we all just believe, they can make more money showing us races and selling us merchandise.
If we all just believe, they can convince us that the war in Iraq is about combating (as opposed to creating) terrorism.
If we all just believe, they can have us all living in fear of the Arab under our bed and then have us accept laws that reduce our freedoms.

A stupid population will follow the black/white view of the world where everything/everyone is good or evil, and with us or against us.

Just my little rant.
 
As long as its against the rules it is cheating and until the governing bodies address and solve it, it will continue.

I have been reading a lot on this board about the doping issue, never chimed as I am not qualifed to say who has or has not, but it would seem that every rider in the past 20-30 years has been doping (tour guys) every one since Lemond it seems from what I have read. Just one question.....how about M.Indurain? Thats one name I have never heard talked about when ever doping has been talked about and he was as dominating a rider as anyone for several years.

Just wondering............
 
Indurain's victories were at the beginning of EPO era. He only has a decent average power in 90, but had 30-40 W more in 1995 !
 
Bro Deal said:
I will go with what Lim has previously expressed about this issue. While I don't think of doping in cycling as cheating as it is so pervasive, it stops being sport when the winner is determined by how much junk he can afford and the quality of his medical advisor. It severs any connection between me and the pros.
That's it just there Bro, and I and others have said it here numerous times before. Us as amateur cyclists have no connection to the doped pros - they are in a different sport.

I also detest such blatant dishonesty, pricks like Tyler Hamilton whining about their innocence, lying through his midget teeth about never having doped. If he were honest, if any of the caught riders had the balls to own up. I actually cannot stand the sight of Basso, the lying *****. Basso won last year's Giro because Fuentes gave him the edge. I know that some of his competitors were more than likely on some or other performance enhancer, and I know that Basso is a very talented, very dedicated cyclist, but the truth is plain and simple - Fuentes gave him the winning edge. Grow some balls, be honest, be a man Ivan. To the Ulle fans who still protest too much: he told the world he had no connection with Fuentes - he lied to you! Yes he was a great cyclist, yes he was a very talented amateur, yes he is a liar and a cheat too.
 
Farmguy said:
I have been reading a lot on this board about the doping issue, never chimed as I am not qualifed to say who has or has not, but it would seem that every rider in the past 20-30 years has been doping (tour guys) every one since Lemond it seems from what I have read. Just one question.....how about M.Indurain? Thats one name I have never heard talked about when ever doping has been talked about and he was as dominating a rider as anyone for several years.
Indurain retired before EPO use became an issue. In fact he conveniently retired at the very time the UCI was discussing the 50% hematocrit limit; the rule was formally accepted a few weeks after Indurain announced his retirement. He was a "student" of Dr. Conconi and probably one of the first, along with Bugno and Chiappucci, to find success by using EPO.
 
It does tend to disconnect the pros from the rest of us. When I hit a particularly difficult hill, I'd like to have a vision of Armstrong vs Ullrich on l'Alpe d'Huez, or Pantani on Ventoux, as extra motivation.

I'd like to think that I could climb like that if I had the dedication and the talent. Not if I had the doctors, and the willingness to play hopscotch with my vital functions. Doping really kills my interest in pro cycling, because I feel no connection with what it takes to rise to the top.
 
I think cycling isn't treated adequately. For instance, I hate football pop-stars with their doping programs and I hope they will end their careers in similar fashion like Jan. Football World Cup is the real doping parade. When team sports stars will be punished because cyclists aren’t worse than they.
 
tcklyde said:
1. Doping is cheating, period.
2. It's not just the cheating, it's the lying.
3. It's not just the cheating and lying, it's criminal.
4. The doctors are scumbags. .
5. Doping penalizes the riders who are too ethical or too concerned about about their health to dope.
6. Dope can kill. And it has.
7. The amateurs and under-funded teams start doing it, without medical supervision.
8. It will destroy the sport.
9. It makes for crappy racing.
Anyhow, that's my take.
All good points. But my biggest one is:

- It sends out the wrong message to younger generations. It says "You have to dope to win....and it's not such a bad thing after all. The ends justify the means". Whether we like it or not, so many people -specially young people- look up to sport heroes. They are role models. Kids want to be like them. In every single way. And that will include the doping as well.

There can't be the slightest shade of doubt in this: DOPING IS CHEATING. DOPING IS WRONG. It must be condemned by everyone, including riders, sponsors, media and fans alike.
 
If we cleared cycling of doping, we would see a dramatic decrease in the popularity of the TDF. This could be good, this could be bad. Part of the popularity of the TDF is seeing efforts by riders that are not human. And the average fan could care less about doping. When it is pointed out that the riders are doped, the fans scream "It's outrageous." But then they run to their TV and watch it. Everyone on this forum had to know most of these riders are doped. And have been years before you became fans. And yet we hear the anti-doping screams. But here you are...... You have been fans of dopers, and you knew it. If you wanted to see riders that you could possibly believe that are dope free, then you would be watching local racing in your area.
My version is always been this........ If they are all doping, then the field is leveled out. I love following the sport, but to idolize a man who rides a bicycle is rather lame.
To the parents who want to save the children from doping cyclists. They say it sends the wrong message. It's fine that you believe that. Just don't play your rock and roll records and tell your children how great Jerry Garcia, John Lennon, and Mick Jagger are.
 
Doping is wrong. It's cheating, but pro sports are entertainment and for the athletes a career choice. The type of discussion we're having right now doesn't take place on NFL forums. NBA, FIFA, NHL forums either.

That's because those sports' governing bodies don't address doping as an issue. It would be nice if the UCI could get back to that, but I think the genie is out of the bottle. WADA was the worse idea. Look at the heart burn that organization has caused. I think at this point, it's hopeless. The sport will always be regarded as dirty, probably the dirtiest. The shame of it is, it's probably one of the cleanest professional sports.

When I watch pro cycling, I'm interested mostly in four things: Pedal mechanics, tactics, determination and an exciting finish. What goes on behind the scenes doesn't matter to me so long as it stays behind the scenes. The UCI hasn't done a very good job at doing that.

Look, these things settle themselves. Equilibriums are established through social and cultural pressures within the peloton, the teams, the governing body that keep things fair despite the drug use. But if you go in there and start dicking around with it, you get what we currently have.

When I was kid, me and my best friend went to a house party where we knew the older kids would be drinking. We told my older brother we didn't want to drink, but guess what happened by the end of the night? Yep, drunk off our asses.

Look, people get pressured to use drugs. It's a fact. PEDs aren't any different. And there's more to gain from PEDs than rec drugs. Please, don't be surprised that it happens and don't think for a second that it's ever going to stop.

The real chore for the UCI, if they want to keep cycling as a professional sport, is stuffing the damn genie back in the bottle.
 
I am in complete agreement that doping is destructive to cycling and all sports. I believe that today all must dope to one degree or another to be competitive. But certainly there is doping of lesser teams and doping of top tier teams and riders. The latter being more cutting edge, controlled, and therefore more effective. I have hope that anti-doping will improve to a point where there will at least be limitations. But preventing use of doping in training and buildup to events will always be difficult. I am afraid as spectators we have to live with the myth of equality of doping among competitors or else do not watch at all. Which of course as addicts we cannot do.



tcklyde said:
Helmut threw this out there and it's a good question. There is clearly massive and pervasive doping throughout the entire peloton. Should we care?



I've more or less checked out from following the races. The doping, to me, is too disgusting to ignore. Here's a few reasons why it does matter.

1. Doping is cheating, period. I'm not big on being self-righteous; we all have moral failings, but come on: doping is breaking the rules. Sport is supposed to be about talent, hard work, and luck. Doping is about having enough money, the right doctor, flexible morals, and a care-free attitude about your long-term health. We're not supposed to give out medals for being morally flexible. When we ignore doping, we end up rewarding the wrong values.

Bjarne Riis was apparently willing to jack his hemaocrit up to 64% during the Tour. Fortunately for him, he lived through the night -- and won. But we shouldn't reward him for being stupid enough to make his blood thicker than molasses.

2. It's not just the cheating, it's the lying. It's one thing to cheat these days; they all do it, right? But the lying after getting caught is revolting. Is there anyone on the planet more despicable than Tyler Hamilton? Raising money from the poor dupes who believe his lies? And now Floyd, doing the same thing? Lance lies, Roberto, Jan, Ivan, etc. Doesn't anyone have the integrity to blow the whistle on this? Answer: for the most part, no.

3. It's not just the cheating and lying, it's criminal. Injecting 30 different kinds of steroid, hormone, narcotic, and other pharmaceutical into your ass without medical reason isn't just dangerous and unethical, in most countries, it's illegal. Carrying all this across borders is illegal. Doctors rounding this stuff up is illegal. Ignoring doping will make illegal conduct a necessary part of the sport. Not good for keeping sponsors, not good for the general ethical stature of our heroes.

4. The doctors are scumbags. Most doctors I admire like to help the sick and injured, not establish international drug rings dedicated to injecting morally vacuous athletes with extremely potent pharmaceuticals in contravention of various laws and sporting ethics guidelines. Just an observation.

5. Doping penalizes the riders who are too ethical or too concerned about about their health to dope. The people who get to the top of the Pro Peloton are the people who make the moral and health choice to cheat. I don't know, but I'm going to guess that there are more than a few 18 year-old amateurs who don't want to go pro in a sport that will require playing a game of Russian roulette with their long term health.

6. Dope can kill. And it has.

7. The amateurs and under-funded teams start doing it, without medical supervision. If you have to dope to win, eventually you have to dope to compete. Most teams don't have $15 million budgets, but many almost anyone can read an internet forum and lots of people can place internet orders for EPO.

8. It will destroy the sport. Maybe. How long will the sponsors put up with it? For the time being, despite several sponsors dropping last year, there seems to be enough money to go around. But will this last forever? And will the fans keep putting up with this ****? I won't.

9. It makes for crappy racing. Hard to say exactly what the effect has been, but it seems likely that doping reduces the number of bad days and rewards the teams (e.g., Discovery) that engage is systematic doping. Need to win an early season race? Dope up! Need to climb Mt. Ventoux without breaking a sweat? No problem. I'd actually like to see these guys suffer.

Anyhow, that's my take.
 
wolfix said:
To the parents who want to save the children from doping cyclists...
To those parents, this is an opportunity to for you to sit down with your children and have that discussion. Pro cyclists aren't put on the earth to raise your damn children.
 
helmutRoole2 said:
Doping is wrong. It's cheating, but pro sports are entertainment and for the athletes a career choice. The type of discussion we're having right now doesn't take place on NFL forums. NBA, FIFA, NHL forums either.

That's because those sports' governing bodies don't address doping as an issue. It would be nice if the UCI could get back to that, but I think the genie is out of the bottle. WADA was the worse idea. Look at the heart burn that organization has caused. I think at this point, it's hopeless. The sport will always be regarded as dirty, probably the dirtiest. The shame of it is, it's probably one of the cleanest professional sports.

When I watch pro cycling, I'm interested mostly in four things: Pedal mechanics, tactics, determination and an exciting finish. What goes on behind the scenes doesn't matter to me so long as it stays behind the scenes. The UCI hasn't done a very good job at doing that.

Look, these things settle themselves. Equilibriums are established through social and cultural pressures within the peloton, the teams, the governing body that keep things fair despite the drug use. But if you go in there and start dicking around with it, you get what we currently have.

When I was kid, me and my best friend went to a house party where we knew the older kids would be drinking. We told my older brother we didn't want to drink, but guess what happened by the end of the night? Yep, drunk off our asses.

Look, people get pressured to use drugs. It's a fact. PEDs aren't any different. And there's more to gain from PEDs than rec drugs. Please, don't be surprised that it happens and don't think for a second that it's ever going to stop.

The real chore for the UCI, if they want to keep cycling as a professional sport, is stuffing the damn genie back in the bottle.
I've thought a lot about doping in different sports and why doping in cycling bothers me, but I could care less about doping in the NFL, NBA, FIFA, etc...

1. I competed in cycling and it bothers me that people who I competed against dope(d) and won because of their gear. Why did I compete if I was doomed from the start? Why should I encourage others to start racing when the sport is plagued with cheaters? I think all of us who competed at least had thoughts of a pro career and now we know what you must do to have that career, and that is an unfair expectation. I never was competitive in football or basketball nor dreamt of becoming a pro, so I don't feel the same connection even though I like playing and watching those sports.

2. I think doping has much less impact in team and skill sports. If Michael Jordan or Joe Montana doped, would it really make much of a difference? Their talent stems from coordination, vision, experience, quickness, etc... Sure, dope would make some differences, but they were destined to be great regardless. Also, they are just one element in the team. Even though Sean Merriman dopes, it doesn't mean the Chargers will win the Super Bowl. Doping in endurance sports like cycling, triathalons, athletics, CC skiing, is THE difference between winning and losing.

On a similar note I think the classics are still interesting because they incorporate tactics, bike handling skills, sprinting, breakaways, etc. things that can't be enhanced by dope. Even if Hincapie was twice as strong as the others, he'd still be in the wrong break or crash. It is still possible (I think) for a non-doper to win. That's why they are the only races I care about any more. The GT's are a farce and haven't been the least bit interesting for the last 10-15 years.

BTW, I agree...compared to other professional sports, I think cycling is relatively clean.
 

Similar threads

S
Replies
0
Views
315
S