Reputation of cycling
- Thread starter L_I_R
- Start date
L_I_R said:
The sports reputation is in the toilet right now and has been in the total for the past decade since Festina 1998 (Tour de France 1998).
Rumours of abuse of drugs was widely reported for decades and some notable cases were brought to light.
However for me 1998 TDF - the showcase event of the sport - was the time to take really affirmative action to stamp out doping once and for all.
It is hard to convey the actual sense of just how much the sport was in trouble during July/August 1998.
It seemed that the Festina scandal was going to be the catalyst for real change in the game.
Unfortunately the authorities refused to bite the bullet despite the high profile nature of the Festina riders caught doping (Alex Zulle, laurent Brochard, Richard Virenque, Pascal Herve etc).
We hard a lot of talk about Festina being the "line in the sand" by the UCI, the riders union, team managers etc.
However since Festina, the sport has lurched from one doping scandal to another (US Postal/Discovery, Cofidis, Liberty Seguoros, Phonak........).
The traffic in terms of sponsors joining/leaving the sport has increased as each controversy has been reported.
The sport is reduced to sourcing sponsors which few other sports would consider to be honest.
Websites following the sport have reported less traffic from advertisers and from contributors.
The cycling auhtorities claim that the exposure of the doping scandals proves that detection/prevention are working.
However it is more probably the case, that because no real draconisn action at Festina, teams/riders are still prepared to run the risk of doping.
Just my view.
limerickman said:
How 'bout the PDM Intralipid, *cough* EPO *cough* debacle... in 91.
Even back in the 60s, 70s and 80s, due to a greater number of tests cycling was always the sport where people 'cheated' the most...
Fair point, Do you not think however that cycling is world leader in sports for its hi-tech doping tests? There are so many other sports writhe in doping but due to the lack of testing there are very few scandals.
Now I understand that cycling is one of the toughest most physically demanding sports, and that in previous years the doping scandals have been numerous, but it seems to be turning a new corner. Do you not feel that as new methods for fitness training and nutrition have been developed that cyclists will feel less need to dope as they become more competitive? the Tour de france survived its first few in a while without any doping scandals
L_I_R
Now I understand that cycling is one of the toughest most physically demanding sports, and that in previous years the doping scandals have been numerous, but it seems to be turning a new corner. Do you not feel that as new methods for fitness training and nutrition have been developed that cyclists will feel less need to dope as they become more competitive? the Tour de france survived its first few in a while without any doping scandals
L_I_R
swampy1970 said:
Good lad.
You have the uncanny ability to miss the point - well done.
Obviously you didn't read my post stating "Rumours of abuse of drugs was widely reported for decades and some notable cases were brought to light".
The question L.I.R asked "I was wondering if you guys could give me your views on cycling and how you see it as a sport after all the latest doping scandals in recent years"
The media barely picked up on scandals pre Festina, with the honourable exception of the British rider Tommy Simpson dying on Ventoux.
Festina however received worldwide coverage.
It should have been the turning point for the authorities to take affirmative action.
Cycling's reputation took a big hit or two over the last 10-11 years, but it is improving, actually. What doesn't improve are all of the fantasy doping experts and their proclamations about who must be guilty of doping and who isn't. Actually I think they're doing more harm to cycling's reptutation than cycling right now. Really though, cycling is plagued with a bunch of rumor mongering idiots.
limerickman said:
If you want to be that pedantic - he said recent and you jumped back a decade...
A few notable cases? Riviere, Post, Thevenet, Legeay, Zoetemelk, Maertins, Pollentier, Merckx, Anqutil, Demeyer, Rooks, Arroyo, Moser, Van der Poel...
... and I haven't even got to the mid 80's.
That just about covers most of the classic and grand Tour winners through the late 60's and 70's.
You've been jaded too much by the hacks on here harping on about The Disco boys. That was never a 'scandal' more a rumour mill, stirred up by a gossiping bunch of wannabe old ladies...
swampy1970 said:
eh?
Re-read, again, the first line of my reply
The sports reputation is in the toilet right now and has been in the total for the past decade since Festina 1998 (Tour de France 1998).
swampy1970 said:
These cases barely registered on the sports pages, never mind the broader media pages.
In terms of reputational impact on the sport - the cases you cite don't register with the general public.
swampy1970 said:You've been jaded too much by the hacks on here harping on about The Disco boys. That was never a 'scandal' more a rumour mill, stirred up by a gossiping bunch of wannabe old ladies...
Thats a matter of opinion.
limerickman said:
It's only in the toilet for rumor wives such as yourself. If you paid any attention at all and didn't look at cycling like a child midst tantrum, you'd see that the image is improving. Reality. Try it.
Yes, and yours is opinion only. You have zero facts to back up any of your claims or the limp pawed imaginings in your sig. Really, grow up, fella. It really is the whinings and rumor mongering of your ilk--and by ilk I mean the sort of people that can't conjure an ounce of objectivity or find a fact in their ass, even though their heads are firmly planted there--that is hobbling cycling.
You whine.....and you whine. You employ zero mental effort to view things in anything other than your fantasy vision, and that, sir, is a damning sign of a lack of critical thought. In all of your doping bleatings, you have exercised zero critical thought. That makes just about anything you say, on any matter, immediately suspect.
You prance about and put yourself on as some died in the wool cycling fan, but really you come off as nothing more than some sad sod unable to manage life in the real world, instead choosing to live it under mom's protective wing. What sad little man you are.
alienator said:
I disagree.
The sports reputation is in the toilet because competitors insist on taking products which are prohibited.
This is called cheating.
alienator said:
I disagree.
The facts are that there have been numerous cases in recent years of riders having been found positive for taking prohibited substances.
Is it your argument that there weren't numerous cases of doping found?
How about the number of riders who have died ?
Maybe that is imagined too?
alienator said:
I disagree.
I have deliberately avoided commenting about the sport and doping in recent months.
And I would suggest that your uncritical thought is at issue.
alienator said:
You're entitled to your opinion of course.
I would beg to differ with you.
I do live in the real world.
Work for a living too.
Did a bit of racing in my day, at national level as well.
Whatever spare time I do have now is involved with local coaching and organisational work at national federation level.
And your palmares is what, exactly?
limerickman said:
You've gone on at various intervals about doping as if you had some intimate knowledge, which of course, you don't. You just guess and go on, pissing rumor everywhere. You pull a book off a shelf, and you quote and use quips from it as if it were fact, when you couldn't identify a fact if it was hanging from your trousers.
I like best what a friend overseas said: doping rumor mongers "are just insecure circle jerks." I believe that's likely the case. You mongers are desperate to feel important about something. Who's doping to you is likely who you don't like at a given time.
Again, you have ZERO facts in your pocket. Your sig is laughable. Only an idiot would want rumor spray as their signature.
That doping goes on, doesn't mean that things are worse. There are always people, in all sports, that cheat. I'm sure you've been guilty of cheating on something at some point in your life.
That you engage in the rumor mongering...and display it in your sig....is absolute evidence that you don 't engage in or aren't capable of using critical thought. If you were, you'd think more about your comments on the subject.
I don't really care what your "palmares" are. That means absolutely nothing. When someone references their "palmares" or asks someone what "their palmares" are, it just painfully displays how self important that person is. In this case, that person is you. After all, you could be one of those doping encouraging coaches. After all, there has been a doper or too that admitted they doped after first lying and saying they didn't. All of your protestations....well it is the intenet isn't, Limmerick? You can say anything, and some poor sod will believe it.
People have died doping. Sure. What the hell does that have to do with anything? Are there currently masses of cyclists dying? Was that in the paper somewhere? Christ, you can't even present a cogent argument.
alienator said:
The fact of the matter is that I haven't commented about doping in more recent times because the facts speak for themselves.
The list of riders found to have cheated is huge.
That isn't a rumour - it is a fact.
Whether you choose to accept this as fact is irrelevant.
A fact is a fact.
alienator said:
Feel important about something?
what's that all about, eh?
Many followers of the sport are free to discuss doping.
Including those members on this site.
You seem a tad confused.
alienator said:
Zero facts?
I'm not going to have to repost the name of every cyclist convicted of doping in the past am I?
Incidentally, my signature is a verbatim quotation.
alienator said:
I am well aware that people in all walks of life cheat.
However it is the case that in this sport, there seems to a significantly higher precentage of participants who cheat relative to other sports.
Futhermore and more importantly, by doping riders endanger their own health.
Doping is ethically wrong.
Doping is playing medical-roulette with a riders health both in the short term and the long term
If you insist on burying your head on this issue - so be it.
alienator said:
Once again, my signature is a direct quotation.
And as for critical thought, your uncritical thought is certainly an issue.
alienator said:
self important?
I asked you what your palmares was - how does that make me self-important?
I asked you a question, that's all.
Why the defensiveness?
Do you have a palmares?
have you ever raced?
At what level have you raced?
Legitimate questions, nator.
And I find your suggestion that I would ever ask a rider, under my charge to dope, pathetic.
I know people who went down the doping route and have seen their problems as a result.
Doping is playing roulette with your health.
Period.
I would never encourage/condone/tolerate any rider under my charge doping.
If I found any of them with illegal substances, I'd report them to the civil authorities in fact.
alienator said:
The percentage of early deaths among cyclists/former cyclists, at the professional level, is higher in relative terms than participants in other sports/professions.
Any other sport which has the casualty rate of this sport, would take the remedial action required.
Whether you accept that the sport has problems or not, is of no consequence.
The facts speak for themselves.
However, people on this site are free to discuss or not discuss doping as they see fit.
Understood?
Oh, how your lame argument persists, oh Master of the Palmares.
Golly. No kidding? You state the obvious. That is not the point discussed here, between me and you of the oh so decorated palmares that are so apparently so important............to you.
Not in the slightest, oh Master. Rumor mongering, though, isn't discussion. Rumor mongering is what weak minds do at the gossip fence.
No, you need to be exact. Your sig isn't entirely a quote. Nope. The end "...morelike hypocrisy" comes from you. It's not in quotation marks as the rest is. It is the hallmark of your idiocy
Seems? Based on what: the lack of facts at hand? Do you have some facts that account for cheating in other sports, or have you just had too much of the kool aid that yellow journalism has given you? Pray tell, list for me the facts you have re: cheating in other sports. Please give numbers and verifiable, factual statistics so that an objective comparison can be made between cycling and those other chaste sports. Oh, don't forget to account for undetected cheating, unreported violations, and the like.
And please, leave off with the danger to the cyclists health. Are you truly concerned with the health of the rider in your sig? My, aren't you the saint.
You give arguments that aren't even arguments. No ****. Doping is dangerous? Really? Golly? How on earth did you ever divine that little morsel?
You assume that I've buried my head. However, I choose only to discuss fact and solutions. Gossiping about suspicions is a waste of time and of mental effort. I must say, however, that despite your celebrated palmares, you display a surprising lack of mental effort .
Uhm, again, no it's not. You forget your little witch hunt interjection, master coach.
I'm not defensive. I'm just not so stupid as to engage in internet penis length measurments. I'm not the one wearing the azzhat. You are.
Oh, golly. Does what I've done have bearing on this? Pray tell, glorious guardian of the palmares, exactly how that bears on the matter of doping? Hmmm? Do you think you have some grand insight? Sorry. None of that follows logic. The questions are pointless, although I'm sure they serve well to prop up your ego.
But by the logic of you rumor mongers, protests of innocence are damming statements of guilt. Uhm, thou dost protest too much.
Oh how easy it is to make claims on the internet. You protest so much that you must clearly be guilty of encouraging young riders to dope. Moreoever, since you've got "palmares", you've obviously doped. Guilty you are.
Besides deaths that have been scientifically confirmed to have been the result of doping, where do you get your facts? Do you a study in hand? Hmmmm? If you're going to use trends, as such, you better have a few studies, done in the best tradition of the Scientific Method, in hand. There could be other reasons for the "trends" you cite, or have you empirically ruled the others out? Hmm?
Facts always do; however, you're suppositions are not supported entirely by facts. That is a fact.
I never said they weren't you pedantic fop. I did name you a rumor monger, a gluttonous ankle biter at the table of innuendo.
You'd never condone doping. What a laugh. You have no proof otherwise. "Hypocrisy morelike" can easily be made to fit you, given the standards that you and your ilk apply.
limerickman said:
Golly. No kidding? You state the obvious. That is not the point discussed here, between me and you of the oh so decorated palmares that are so apparently so important............to you.
Not in the slightest, oh Master. Rumor mongering, though, isn't discussion. Rumor mongering is what weak minds do at the gossip fence.
No, you need to be exact. Your sig isn't entirely a quote. Nope. The end "...morelike hypocrisy" comes from you. It's not in quotation marks as the rest is. It is the hallmark of your idiocy
Seems? Based on what: the lack of facts at hand? Do you have some facts that account for cheating in other sports, or have you just had too much of the kool aid that yellow journalism has given you? Pray tell, list for me the facts you have re: cheating in other sports. Please give numbers and verifiable, factual statistics so that an objective comparison can be made between cycling and those other chaste sports. Oh, don't forget to account for undetected cheating, unreported violations, and the like.
And please, leave off with the danger to the cyclists health. Are you truly concerned with the health of the rider in your sig? My, aren't you the saint.
You give arguments that aren't even arguments. No ****. Doping is dangerous? Really? Golly? How on earth did you ever divine that little morsel?
You assume that I've buried my head. However, I choose only to discuss fact and solutions. Gossiping about suspicions is a waste of time and of mental effort. I must say, however, that despite your celebrated palmares, you display a surprising lack of mental effort .
Uhm, again, no it's not. You forget your little witch hunt interjection, master coach.
I'm not defensive. I'm just not so stupid as to engage in internet penis length measurments. I'm not the one wearing the azzhat. You are.
Oh, golly. Does what I've done have bearing on this? Pray tell, glorious guardian of the palmares, exactly how that bears on the matter of doping? Hmmm? Do you think you have some grand insight? Sorry. None of that follows logic. The questions are pointless, although I'm sure they serve well to prop up your ego.
But by the logic of you rumor mongers, protests of innocence are damming statements of guilt. Uhm, thou dost protest too much.
Oh how easy it is to make claims on the internet. You protest so much that you must clearly be guilty of encouraging young riders to dope. Moreoever, since you've got "palmares", you've obviously doped. Guilty you are.
Besides deaths that have been scientifically confirmed to have been the result of doping, where do you get your facts? Do you a study in hand? Hmmmm? If you're going to use trends, as such, you better have a few studies, done in the best tradition of the Scientific Method, in hand. There could be other reasons for the "trends" you cite, or have you empirically ruled the others out? Hmm?
Facts always do; however, you're suppositions are not supported entirely by facts. That is a fact.
I never said they weren't you pedantic fop. I did name you a rumor monger, a gluttonous ankle biter at the table of innuendo.
You'd never condone doping. What a laugh. You have no proof otherwise. "Hypocrisy morelike" can easily be made to fit you, given the standards that you and your ilk apply.
alienator said:
Yep pal.
Palmares.
care to enlighten the forum with yours?
alienator said:
It is the point under discussion here, amigo.
alienator said:
Rumour is the correct spelling.
In addition, rumour mongering would suggest that statements have been made which were not based upon facts.
This is not the case.
alienator said:
You do know what syntax, is?
"................" denotes a quotation.
alienator said:
I can compile a list of cyclists who have died either during their career or immediately after they have retired from their careers.
Do other sports have the same frequency of participants dying during their career or or immediately after they have retired from their careers ?
The asnwer is no.
Are these deaths directly linked to doping?
My view would be that there is a correlation between doping and early/premature death.
And as for undetected cheating - what may or may not go on regarding dope detection in other sports has no bearing on this subject.
Lets confine the discussion to cycling.
alienator said:
I am concerned with doping and the effect on the sport and it's participants.
alienator said:
The casualty rate within our sport is a fact.
As I suggested to you earlier whether you choose to accept this is immaterial.
Discussing the widerange abuse of PED's in our sport is not rumour mongering.
Quite the contrary in the fact - it is a factual discussion about the extent and range of doping.
alienator said:
Ah, but you are defensive amigo.
Why the reticence?
Embarrassment?
If you've raced, you've raced.
If you haven't, you haven't.
Any chance of an answer?
alienator said:
Well you claim that the discussions about doping are rumour mongering.
Whats that claim based on? Your race career? if so, what race career did you have?
Or if your claim isn't based on a racing career what is it based on?
Are you imvolved in the sport at organisational level? If so at what level? Amateur? Professional?
Do you coach in the sport? At what level ? Amateur? Professional?
Or maybe you're in the cycling media?
You see in order to test the veracity of your claim that there is wide spread rumour mongering, how can you be the final arbiter of what is fact/fiction?
Your arbitration is based upon what? Your cycling career which you can't tell us about or what, exactly?
alienator said:
pathetic response.
alienator said:
That the problem with the attitude that your kind hold.
Clean riders win, they get tarred with the same brush as the dopers.
Relativism sets in.
It's another reason to clean up the range and extent of doping.
alienator said:
Scientific method?
Bit rich coming from the person who asserted that because I won a few races, I must have doped!
How scientific is that?
How do you explain the list of riders who died prematurely during or immediately after their careers?
How do you explain the premature deaths of young professional cyclists from pulmonary conditions?
Which is worse - perception or the reality?
Just like everything else, with the advent of the 'interweb' we get even last detail about every single thing that's going on. Give it a couple of more years and we'll be reading about what the guy who finally beat Contador in a Grand Tour eats for breakfast and techniques used to push out that last bit of poo for extra weight savings.
Here's a little 'factoid' to think of and a bit of a comparison. The Festina Affair seemed shocking but go back pre-Festina Affair and look at how many Tours have been won by people who have 'failed' a drugs test. I only went back to 1957 because info is a little harder to get and well, I can't be bothered putting that much 'effort' into it....
So... from 1957 to 1998 of the 41 Tours ridden, 21 have been won by people failing dope tests (or in a couple of case implicated beyond doubt) during their career. Over half. Doesn't that seem a little more shocking? Technically you could say it should be 18, as Delgado was tested positive for probinicid which was still a few weeks away from making the UCI list, despite being known for years as being a great masking agent and Gaul was 'only' implicated because a bunch of pills with his name on them were found and Roche was later found to be be using, rather than caught in the act... Still 18 isn't great is it?
That doesn't take into account the 'belief' that Indurain was on EPO or blood doping and your running 26 out of 41, pre Festina Affair. Looks rather sh1t doesn't it. If you add "Mr miracle recovery 1989" Lemond add another 3 to that. 29 out of 41.
You could run a similar trail of destruction through pretty much any aspect of cyclings greatest events - Tours, hour record, The Classics....
Now, which is worse - the perception or the reality? Personally, given the choice about 'what people believe' since the Festina Affair and the reality of what has gone on in the past, I'd rather Joe Public go on believe that cycling only turned to sh1t since Festina...
If you go post Festina Affair tack on the 'belief' that Armstrong and Contador were 'doing something' not within the spirit of the rules and add Landis that's another 10 to add.
Looks an effing lovely sport to send your child into doesn't it. LOL
Just like everything else, with the advent of the 'interweb' we get even last detail about every single thing that's going on. Give it a couple of more years and we'll be reading about what the guy who finally beat Contador in a Grand Tour eats for breakfast and techniques used to push out that last bit of poo for extra weight savings.
Here's a little 'factoid' to think of and a bit of a comparison. The Festina Affair seemed shocking but go back pre-Festina Affair and look at how many Tours have been won by people who have 'failed' a drugs test. I only went back to 1957 because info is a little harder to get and well, I can't be bothered putting that much 'effort' into it....
So... from 1957 to 1998 of the 41 Tours ridden, 21 have been won by people failing dope tests (or in a couple of case implicated beyond doubt) during their career. Over half. Doesn't that seem a little more shocking? Technically you could say it should be 18, as Delgado was tested positive for probinicid which was still a few weeks away from making the UCI list, despite being known for years as being a great masking agent and Gaul was 'only' implicated because a bunch of pills with his name on them were found and Roche was later found to be be using, rather than caught in the act... Still 18 isn't great is it?
That doesn't take into account the 'belief' that Indurain was on EPO or blood doping and your running 26 out of 41, pre Festina Affair. Looks rather sh1t doesn't it. If you add "Mr miracle recovery 1989" Lemond add another 3 to that. 29 out of 41.
You could run a similar trail of destruction through pretty much any aspect of cyclings greatest events - Tours, hour record, The Classics....
Now, which is worse - the perception or the reality? Personally, given the choice about 'what people believe' since the Festina Affair and the reality of what has gone on in the past, I'd rather Joe Public go on believe that cycling only turned to sh1t since Festina...
If you go post Festina Affair tack on the 'belief' that Armstrong and Contador were 'doing something' not within the spirit of the rules and add Landis that's another 10 to add.
Looks an effing lovely sport to send your child into doesn't it. LOL
limerickman said:
swampy1970 said:
Points well made, swampy.
I answered the initial post on the basis that the poster was asking the question about the sports current reputation.
It is my view that Festina would have brought the doping aspect in to the general publics consciousness.
That was the only point that I was attempting to make.
Doping or what went on in the sport would not have impacted to the extent that festina did, in terms of the general public.
In making the Festina point, I wasn't for a moment trying to suggest that pre 1998 was clean and wonderful.
limerickman said:
Depends on which side of the pond you're from...
Rumor Definition | Definition of Rumor at Dictionary.com
limerickman said:
Fair enough...
... but imagine what the perception of the sport would be if 'all that' info was general knowledge to the public.
It does seem that out of most sporting activities the organization itself seems to be the most canabalistic to itself than any other sporting activity. If that makes sense.
Sure it is talked about in other activities amongst those organizers, but it seems to be done more discretely rather than taking a premature media attack against certain athletes before there is definite evidence. It seems like the exposure and the glee the cycling organization has for finding out their "villian" is cheating and making it world wide news is what damages the sport the most.
Just an opinion that handling a lot of this behind closed door as discretely as possible would be a better way (not saying it is the best solution) to manage the sport and the participants. That is if you are really concerned about the sport and the athletes.
But if the guy(s) from your nation are not winning than perhaps blasting it out on world wide media very quickly seems like a rational decision. As if that would really happen.
By the way I am unfortunately a former long time user and dealer of PED's in a sport where the athlete is highly rewarded being a user. Poor results do not yield good revenue for the exploiters....ummm....I mean organizers. If one is truly concerned about impacting the lives of those competing it is better to have some counseling for the athlete along with a penalty if that is necessary, but it can be done discretely. Like sheep the audience will come back and not consider drug use if there is less talk about it because it is being handled kind of hush hush by the leaders in the sport. I personally enjoy watching cycling even if in the back of my mind I am suspect of the athlete. Unless I see the needle in the skin with my own eyes the person is innocent.
Sure it is talked about in other activities amongst those organizers, but it seems to be done more discretely rather than taking a premature media attack against certain athletes before there is definite evidence. It seems like the exposure and the glee the cycling organization has for finding out their "villian" is cheating and making it world wide news is what damages the sport the most.
Just an opinion that handling a lot of this behind closed door as discretely as possible would be a better way (not saying it is the best solution) to manage the sport and the participants. That is if you are really concerned about the sport and the athletes.
But if the guy(s) from your nation are not winning than perhaps blasting it out on world wide media very quickly seems like a rational decision. As if that would really happen.
By the way I am unfortunately a former long time user and dealer of PED's in a sport where the athlete is highly rewarded being a user. Poor results do not yield good revenue for the exploiters....ummm....I mean organizers. If one is truly concerned about impacting the lives of those competing it is better to have some counseling for the athlete along with a penalty if that is necessary, but it can be done discretely. Like sheep the audience will come back and not consider drug use if there is less talk about it because it is being handled kind of hush hush by the leaders in the sport. I personally enjoy watching cycling even if in the back of my mind I am suspect of the athlete. Unless I see the needle in the skin with my own eyes the person is innocent.
Similar threads
