Our sport has no credibility



Status
Not open for further replies.

wolfix

New Member
Mar 11, 2005
2,756
0
0
It was reported on the Pez website and at Procycling that the overwhelming majority of fans think the sport of cycling is dirty. At least in Europe. And the "doping reports" seem to dominate the cycling news way too often. As fans, are there any solutions and do you think "doping" is ingrained so deep in our sport it may not ever be eliminated on a large scale ??? I would like your opinions and let's concentrate on more then the "Armstrong saga."
 
wolfix said:
It was reported on the Pez website and at Procycling that the overwhelming majority of fans think the sport of cycling is dirty. At least in Europe. And the "doping reports" seem to dominate the cycling news way too often. As fans, are there any solutions and do you think "doping" is ingrained so deep in our sport it may not ever be eliminated on a large scale ??? I would like your opinions and let's concentrate on more then the "Armstrong saga."
As you know I've posted my thoughts on what we can do as fans elsewhere, but the sport is clearly in a period of transition and next year's Tour will be crucial - rather as it was in 1999 and even more so now because of the whole Armstrong debacle.

My solution would be to play up the divisions in the sport and create 2 leagues - one where anything - technologically & in doping terms - goes, so the bikes, kit etc can be as light as you like, the use of radio and TV monitoring is rampant and riders can take what they want when they want. The other would issue all teams with standard bikes and kit, no radio or TV monitoring and extremely strict doping controls and punishments. Then we might develop a clearer picture of what attracts fans to the sport.

Speaking personally, as a rider I enjoy the bike **** but as a fan I enjoy epic performances done in the old style when team leaders briefed the team over breakfast and what unfolded on the road wasn't tactically planned within an inch of total boredom and we didn't have the spectacle of panicked riders fiddling with their radios wondering what the hell to do.

Would this give credibility back to the sport? I don't suppose so for a moment. But it would give fans of the sport the opportunity to vote with their feet/cable subscriptions for the future of the sport. And if the 'anything goes' option wins out - well, at least it would be transparent. Imagine the commentary 'and there goes X - I understand he's on a cocktail of Aranesp and goat's ***** for this key mountain stage'...
 
Like you .... I would love to see a tour with the captains making the decisions on the raod and over breakfast. But then I ride a 531 steel frame w/NR Campagnolo and have a grand selection of woolen jerseys.
The radio in the ear thing is ridiculous. If the riders had a lack of communications on the road we would see racing by the leaders and not so much "protecting my lead" stategy "until the TT." Then we would see epic rides and legendary attacks.
We would need to implement strong drug controls though. I get the impression that the riders are dirtier then what we want to admit, but the testing is also suspect and politically controlled. And that inspires the lack of credibility.
I realize that the cycling equipment people are a source of sponsorship. But we have put too much emphasize on technology. And one of the attractive things about cycling was the 'Simplicity" of the athlete against other athletes. But when it costs so much to get involved at the grass roots level I am afraid we are eliminating future riders. I think the current popularity of fixed gear riding is happening because the modern "techno" bicycle is just too complex.
I thought at one time we should shorten the Tours.... But after careful thought the mystique of "riders riding a hundred miles" would be lost and so would the appeal of the Grand Tours.. If all riders were clean , even though the speeds would be down , we still would have finishers. And a race.
Also..... Maybe if some of the emphasize would be taken away fro the Pro level , maybe then the grass roots system would flourish. Maybe we need to spend more of national cycling organizations funds that are now diverted towards the national teams and could be spent on +local races. I would like to see races that the average rider could relate to ..... Both in equipment and training.
I suggest reading John Wilcockson's articles on the Velo-news website ..... It is a series that goes in some detail about LeMonds Worlds..... Who it is about is not important but what I find interesting is about the battles on the road.

The Pro-Tour has many valid ideas. But I hope we do not lose the historical importance of certain races as we attempt to make the sport more appealing to the "mainstream." We may end up with a product that does not differ from week to week.
I am a fan of cycling and have been for over 30 years. I am an American and a "Lance" fan. I hope that someday we will know the truth, but I also realize that the odds of that is slim.
Even though I long for the days when we had riders against riders I also realize that those guys were doped too....

 
wolfix said:
It was reported on the Pez website and at Procycling that the overwhelming majority of fans think the sport of cycling is dirty. At least in Europe. And the "doping reports" seem to dominate the cycling news way too often. As fans, are there any solutions and do you think "doping" is ingrained so deep in our sport it may not ever be eliminated on a large scale ??? I would like your opinions and let's concentrate on more then the "Armstrong saga."
In short I think that the problem is not just cycling. Ok the survey you read focused on cycling but I bet that if the same sample of people were asked about other sports their answers would show the same opinion trends (give or take a small percentage).
I don't think that the percentage of cyclists that dope (no matter how high) is significantly different than any other sport that involves big prizes. The problem with cycling is that it's big enough to cause a stir every time there is a dope bust but at the same time not big enough to cover up the scandal (despite the best efforts of UCI). For example I firmly believe that most professional footballers dope with the blessings/pressure of their teams but I would never expect anyone to dare and accuse Milan (for example) of doping their players. And even if someone did the cover up would be immediate and extremely effective. It is one of the privileges of being owned by the Prime Minister of Italy. Another example is this of the USA basketball team. I don't know whether this known in the States but in order for the professionals to participate in the Barcelona Olympics the NBA came in agreement with the IOC that the team wouldnot be tested. As far as I know no subsequent version of the Dream Team has ever been tested. Yet, very few people know this.
Conclusions? For me two...
1) Cycling is no better or worse than any other high profile sport
2) The responsibility rests entirely with the fans. The information is out there. Either we must accept that is humanly impossible for a basketball player to play 100+ NBA games in 8 months, for a cyclist to tour France in 86 hours, for a footballer to play 60something games in a football season, and adapt to "clean" sport and its consequences or we can keep applauding our heroes knowing that their heroic feats (not sure about spelling) were, to no small measure, chemically helped... What we can't and mustnot do, however, is go on living our lives in ignorant bliss...


PS: For those Americans that might feel offended about the Dream Team anecdote. I just brought it up as an example, I don't want to belittle the team or the players, I grew up with MJ's poster on the wall and still think that he was the greatest player ever to walk the earth/air... :D:D
 
First, let's get priorities in order. Doping is not illegal simply because it is cheating. It's also damned dangerous. In the EPO heyday of the 1990's, a lot of up and coming cyclists were dropping dead of heart attacks, as their low resting heart rate just couldn't push the over thickened blood while they were asleep or otherwise sedentary. The dangers of anabolic steroids are well recorded, from sterility to personality changes to cancer. And let's not forget doping's most infamous kill - Tommy Simpson.

I don't place a great deal of faith in the opinion poll, it was conducted by L'Equipe, who has already demonstrated questionable ethics in the pursuit of a profitable story. Polls can be angled any way the pollster wants by simply rephrasing the questions, and you may note that the original story published didn't show the full poll and all of the questions asked.

But there's no question that a sport like cycling is particularly vulnerable to doping, as it is so dependent upon stamina. The influx of big money ever since Greg LeMond has only accelerated the doping, as it provides a financial incentive to risk one's health.

How do you stop it? I don't know - better testing regimens, I would surmise. The trick is to stop the doping without turning cycling or any other sport into a virtual prison. Can it be done? I (rather naively) thought that it was more or less being done by out of competition testing, until the Museeuw affair came out. Now... I just don't know.

And the recent L'Equipe/Armstrong/LNDD/WADA/UCI mess isnt' helping matters any, by demonstrating that career damaging accusations can be made in the absence of due process. Maybe you'll get away with it, or maybe you'll get crucified without any hard evidence, even if you aren't doping. Not a pretty picture, is it?

That's an interesting story about the US basketball team. Any references to back it up? Basketball is more a game of skill than stamina, the games don't run long enough to seriously deplete one's reserves, and the additional muscle mass from steriods is undesirable in basketball. Doping isn't going to make that much difference.
 
JohnO said:
That's an interesting story about the US basketball team. Any references to back it up? Basketball is more a game of skill than stamina, the games don't run long enough to seriously deplete one's reserves, and the additional muscle mass from steriods is undesirable in basketball. Doping isn't going to make that much difference.
It was printed in two Greek newspapers during the Olympic games (the two biggest). It was a reprint and I think the original came from Marca (spanish sports paper).

Basketball is an extremely demanding game from a physical point of view as it demands both stamina and power/explosiveness. As for not needing muscle... Have you seen Shaq??:D :D
However, it is a common misconception that people take steroids when they want to put on muscle. Steroids' main function is to help recovery and the muscle thing is more of a "side effect" that can be avoided by regulating food intake and doses. Another way to see it is ask yourself why cyclists have been taking steroids for decades...

Let's not divert from the topic any more... :)
 
The topic is credibility.

Lets see, no credibility in cycling?
As opposed to what?

Lets see, sportswise?
Cycling vs baseball? I'll take cycling as a cleaner sport anyday.
Cycling vs. football? cycling wins.
Cycling vs. nordic skiing vs. marathon runners vs triathlon--a draw.

Cycling vs. George Busn and **** Cheney? Cycling wins easy.
Cycling vs. the Vatican and child sexual abuse? cycling wins
Cycling vs the engineers on the space shuttle?
Cycling vs FEMA management?
Cycling vs
well, need I go on...

cycling is fun to do and to watch.
lets enjoy it and not be so cenorious about who is the cleanest.
something about the guy without sin casting the first stone etc...







































http://www.cyclingforums.com/t467644.html
 
JohnO said:
That's an interesting story about the US basketball team. Any references to back it up? Basketball is more a game of skill than stamina, the games don't run long enough to seriously deplete one's reserves, and the additional muscle mass from steriods is undesirable in basketball. Doping isn't going to make that much difference.
Strength and stamina are huge advantages in basketball. I would rank the game more in line with ice hockey, than, say tennis, which is largely a skill sport. The hulking forwards of the NBA are testimonial to this fact.
 
Depends on what the definition of credibility is.

There is no doubt that cycling has a fair proportion of cheating riders (maybe they all cheat ????????).
Part of me wants to be believe that perhaps what I see on my TV is genuine and is done on the back of talent, hardwork and dedication.
But part of me knows that a large part of what we see also includes doping too.

I think the UCI has sacrificed itself on the altar of "faster, stronger, higher" "at any costs" ideal.
It sees the sport of cycling purely in commercial terms and if that means cyclists having to dope to keep the fans watching, they'll turn a blind eye.

The UCI misses the point.
If you've got guys winning the TDF or Giro and they're barely out of breath then how much further can the limit be taken ?
Instead if all the riders were clean - and I mean really clean - the TDF/Giro etc would be back to the original concept of man overcoming himself and nature and would make exciting viewing for the fan.

It's like the 4minute mile. Roger Bannister ran the first 4 minute mile, 50 years
ago.
These days if Bannister was running he'd be lapped.
But would he be lapped by clean athletes ?
Secondly, even if he was lapped by clean athletes, you try running a 4min mile - you'd appreciate just how good a runner Bannister was.
Try running a 4 min mile and see how far behind Bannister you'd be !
That's my view of cycling too.

I shake my head when I see riders finish stages and they're barely out of breath, after 7-8 hours in the saddle.
The turning point to me was 1996 : stage in the TDF in to Pamplona.
They were out for 7 hours on a boiling day : Riis and Ullrich were contesting the finish, Indurain finished in the pack.
45 minutes later Chris Boardman of Britain, finished.
Boardman was regarded as clean and he was a man prepared to suffer.
The interview he gave afterward in Pamplona tells it's own tale
CB "That was just a day I want to forget ?"
Gary Imlach "Chris, it's obviosuly been a very very tough day, can you make it to the end of the TDF ?"
CB "Right now, I can't say that I will make it because what i experienced today, I never want to experience again, It was just horrible"
Gary Imlach "The heat and the pace today took it's toll of a lot of riders, and the fact is that you can be proud that you came in within the time limit"
CB "it's a miracle that I did manage to do it because at times I didn't know where I was out there. I tried and tried to stay in the bunch but every pedal stroke was torture out there today. I can't event ell you who was in the lead. I was only trying to concentrate and to get to the time limit. I fell like retiring here and now, to be perfectly honest".
Gary Imach "thanks Chris, and best of luck for the rest of the TDF".
Boardman walked away looking like a haunted man.
 
I bet the reason for the non-testing of the "Dream Team" was probably an issue of the players union. And I wonder if the Olympic testing procedure covers doping as far as weed, cocaine and other recreational drugs?
 
Want to know why cycling has a credibility problem - because of the one rule for some another rule for the rest mentality - the one that says 'why pursue Armstrong/insert name of favourite rider here? - this sort of thing does the sport no good'. Why? And why is the work of a journalist exposing a cheat in a sports paper any less noble than the work of a journalist exposing cheating in, oh, the Whitehouse say?

Whilever the sport makes no credible attempt to properly investigate such allegations and to be open and transparent about its aims concerning the eradication of doping then cycling has zero chance of overcoming its credibility problem. Because, like it or loathe it, it's not just the readership of Equipe that has the perception that cycling is riddled with doping and doping scandals - the good old Daily Telegraph (or Torygraph as it's sometimes known) has recently printed a series of letters from people who clearly know nothing about cycling except the doping problems.

And, until the UCI stop protecting and forewarning the perpetrators and make real, open and transparent moves to sort out the problem, that perception will never change.
 
micron said:
Want to know why cycling has a credibility problem - because of the one rule for some another rule for the rest mentality - the one that says 'why pursue Armstrong/insert name of favourite rider here? - this sort of thing does the sport no good'. Why? And why is the work of a journalist exposing a cheat in a sports paper any less noble than the work of a journalist exposing cheating in, oh, the Whitehouse say?

Whilever the sport makes no credible attempt to properly investigate such allegations and to be open and transparent about its aims concerning the eradication of doping then cycling has zero chance of overcoming its credibility problem. Because, like it or loathe it, it's not just the readership of Equipe that has the perception that cycling is riddled with doping and doping scandals - the good old Daily Telegraph (or Torygraph as it's sometimes known) has recently printed a series of letters from people who clearly know nothing about cycling except the doping problems.

And, until the UCI stop protecting and forewarning the perpetrators and make real, open and transparent moves to sort out the problem, that perception will never change.


Agreed.

Our own Stephen Roche's answer to the drug's problem illustrates the point that you make.
When commentating on ES back in 1998 as the Festina scandal was breaking he made the point that cycling was cleaner than other sports !
In other words because Voet had been not (not by the UCI mind !), this proved that we were putting our house in order and that the drug issues in other sports had overlapped in to cycling !

That is half the problem - the refusal of cyclists to tackle doping in our sportand instead pointing the finger at what is or isn't being done in other sports.
 
wolfix said:
It was reported on the Pez website and at Procycling that the overwhelming majority of fans think the sport of cycling is dirty. At least in Europe. And the "doping reports" seem to dominate the cycling news way too often. As fans, are there any solutions and do you think "doping" is ingrained so deep in our sport it may not ever be eliminated on a large scale ??? I would like your opinions and let's concentrate on more then the "Armstrong saga."
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
 
wolfix said:
It was reported on the Pez website and at Procycling that the overwhelming majority of fans think the sport of cycling is dirty. At least in Europe. And the "doping reports" seem to dominate the cycling news way too often. As fans, are there any solutions and do you think "doping" is ingrained so deep in our sport it may not ever be eliminated on a large scale ??? I would like your opinions and let's concentrate on more then the "Armstrong saga."
eeeeeeee
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
Replies
1
Views
1K
C