Are Crashes a Bigger Danger Than Doping?

[punyhuman]

Looking at the Tour of Flanders today, it looks like there were plenty of serious crashes in the peleton (broken bones, broken helmets, ambulances, hospitalizations, etc...) and even to an elderly woman spectator who now has brain damage.

So the question I propose to you is: Are crashes a bigger danger than doping?

My personal take on this question is that yes, crashes are a bigger danger than doping. Where as doping can be measured and guided by a doctor to minimize complications, crashes are numerous and cause traumatic injuries that affect both the short and long term health of the athletes. I think that there is a greater health benefit to making required use of body protection armour rather than performing doping tests.

 

[Jspear]

Yes, doping is a reality, but why do you seem to have such an obsession with it?

Yes, I think crashes are more dangerous.

 

[punyhuman]

Yes, doping is a reality, but why do you seem to have such an obsession with it?

Yes, I think crashes are more dangerous.

I'm obsessed with it because you guys are obsessed with it. If you guys weren't so obsessed with it, I wouldn't need to be obsessed with it. And it is also a question of what things are actually important.

 

[ebandit]

like

like comparing guns with disease...............guns grab the headlines

but........................

Mark L

 

[BigMac]

Is getting hit by a thunder more dangerous than jumping of a building?

 

[punyhuman]

like comparing guns with disease...............guns grab the headlines

but........................

Mark L

I don't think that is an apt comparison. Diseases certainly do grab the headlines. Remember H1N1?

Is getting hit by a thunder more dangerous than jumping of a building?

Also not an apt comparison. Neither of those are performance enhancing or of a benefit.

 

[RedheadDane]

Of course to the individual crashing is more dangerous than doping. However, to the sport doping is the most dangerous.
You see; last time I checked crashing didn't give you an unfair advantage over your rivals.

 

[The Hitch]

Well some riders take risks with crashing as much as they do with doping. Canc for example has had a few bad ones, but it gives him an advantage at times.

Others - Basso, Frank Schleck, Andy Schleck, Froome, Wiggins, seem to rely a lot more on the doping and take the descents like cyclotourists, or even complain when the descents are included in the race- espcially Col de Manse - which 2 of the above have complained about.

 

[IndianCyclist]

2 different things like road accidents and plane accidents. Doesn't means both can't be remedied in parallel. Comparison merely is a stat.

 

[doperhopper]

So the question I propose to you is: Are crashes a bigger danger than doping?

Absolutely!

And they should have been banned long time ago. With harsh penalties - 4 years first offence, lifetime ban for second. Also regular crash tests, pre, during and post racing, out of competition, out if sight and out if mind. Crashological passport is a must.

 

[Red Rick]

Definitely ban every rider who crashes for at least 2 years

 

[punyhuman]

Of course to the individual crashing is more dangerous than doping. However, to the sport doping is the most dangerous.
You see; last time I checked crashing didn't give you an unfair advantage over your rivals.

But the well being of the individual is more important than the sport.

The riders are forced to ride in dangerous packs and at high speeds if they want to be in contention for the race, which is what leads to many of the crashes. If you don't conform to taking these risks, then you are at a disadvantage. The riders have no choice short of just giving up.

 

[hrotha]

Go ask for a crashes subforum if you want.

 

[HSNHSN]

There are several factors that make this question particularly hard. One of those being that the current drug use is rumoured to be one of the main reasons for the increased amount of crashes.

Of course, crashes have always been part of cycling, have always been dangerous and always will be. However, during major races in the past few years the number of crashes seems to have increased. It also seems rather clear from looking at the past few years that some change in doping substances is taking place. It might well be the case that, for instance, these new substances alter one's sense of judgement, allowing for taking more risks. Only today, I read that even dutch journalists (!) had picked up on a story that a painkiller might be responsible, a thought riders (of course) dismissed during interviews after RVV. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there's some truth in the rumour and that some drug and/or doping product plays a role here. Where there's smoke, there's a fire, after all.

 

[punyhuman]

There are several factors that make this question particularly hard. One of those being that the current drug use is rumoured to be one of the main reasons for the increased amount of crashes.

Of course, crashes have always been part of cycling, have always been dangerous and always will be. However, during major races in the past few years the number of crashes seems to have increased. It also seems rather clear from looking at the past few years that some change in doping substances is taking place. It might well be the case that, for instance, these new substances alter one's sense of judgement, allowing for taking more risks. Only today, I read that even dutch journalists (!) had picked up on a story that a painkiller might be responsible, a thought riders (of course) dismissed during interviews after RVV. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there's some truth in the rumour and that some drug and/or doping product plays a role here. Where there's smoke, there's a fire, after all.

Got a link for those interviews? Seems like something that would help Wiggin's descending skills.

But I don't agree that crashes in cycling need always be dangerous. For example, riders could be forced to wear body armour like downhill riders do and wear full face helmets. That could greatly reduce the extent of any injuries in a crash.

 

[Jspear]

Got a link for those interviews? Seems like something that would help Wiggin's descending skills.

But I don't agree that crashes in cycling need always be dangerous. For example, riders could be forced to wear body armour like downhill riders do and wear full face helmets. That could greatly reduce the extent of any injuries in a crash.

That would be ridiculous in road racing. Completely non practical in my opinion. It would be heavy, hot, not as areo dynamic....I sure wouldn't want that as a pro cyclist.

 

[punyhuman]

That would be ridiculous in road racing. Completely non practical in my opinion. It would be heavy, hot, not as areo dynamic....I sure wouldn't want that as a pro cyclist.

Is it any more ridiculous than grown men wearing skin tight spandex and starring at each others behind for 6 hours while risking traumatic injuries at 50 km/h? It only seems unnatural because we never see much safety equipment in road cycling compared to other sports.

And it wouldn't matter that it is heavier and less aero if everyone else wears the same safety equipment. And of course you would have ventilation vents to help keep you cool.

 

[Jspear]

Is it any more ridiculous than grown men wearing skin tight spandex and starring at each others behind for 6 hours while risking traumatic injuries at 50 km/h? It only seems unnatural because we never see much safety equipment in road cycling compared to other sports.

And it wouldn't matter that it is heavier and less aero if everyone else wears the same safety equipment. And of course you would have ventilation vents to help keep you cool.

Come on....there is nothing more in style than grown men in spandex. I don't think they're starring at each others behinds. I'd be paying attention to the wheel in front of me, or if I was a sky rider I'd be looking at my power meter.

 

[punyhuman]

Come on....there is nothing more in style than grown men in spandex. I don't think they're starring at each others behinds. I'd be paying attention to the wheel in front of me, or if I was a sky rider I'd be looking at my power meter.

Speaking of which, I'm surprised with all the money that Sky has and their "marginal gains" trope that they don't give Froome sunglasses with a heads up display.

 

[Arnout]

Is it any more ridiculous than grown men wearing skin tight spandex and starring at each others behind for 6 hours while risking traumatic injuries at 50 km/h? It only seems unnatural because we never see much safety equipment in road cycling compared to other sports.

And it wouldn't matter that it is heavier and less aero if everyone else wears the same safety equipment. And of course you would have ventilation vents to help keep you cool.

If you start wearing that, you will be going so slowly that you don't crash. Anyway, trust me that would be very uncomfortable to the point where it takes away the joy of the sport (freedom, speed et al).

There's also the fact that everyone who cycles knows he's taking a risk. It doesn't go wrong that often, but it can go wrong, that's a fact of the sport (and holds for most jobs and sports). Doping on the other hand is expressly forbidden and as such should be discouraged.

 

[ebandit]

I don't think that is an apt comparison. Diseases certainly do grab the headlines. Remember H1N1?

Also not an apt comparison. Neither of those are performance enhancing or of a benefit.

not apt?.........................yet you create this thread comparing doping with crashing

when were april 1st..............did i miss it?

Mark L

 

[Jspear]

Speaking of which, I'm surprised with all the money that Sky has and their "marginal gains" trope that they don't give Froome sunglasses with a heads up display.

Hey you should design something like that....Sky will pay lots for that!

 

[SeriousSam]

Good thread. Those that trot out the "doping is wrong because it's unhealthy and forces riders to take a health risk just to compete!" argument while simultaneously laughing at the Wiggins who don't want to take a lot of risk descending are probably hypocrites.

 

[hrotha]

Good thread. Those that trot out the "doping is wrong because it's unhealthy and forces riders to take a health risk just to compete!" argument while simultaneously laughing at the Wiggins who don't want to take a lot of risk descending are probably hypocrites.

No. Crashes are an inherent part of the sport. You can't eliminate the risk of crashes without fundamentally altering the sport. Doping is completely different. It's not an inherent part of the sport ("But it's been around forever!!!11" - that's irrelevant).

The sport is already inherently dangerous enough to keep adding superfluous dangers on top of it, like doping or, say, racing on open roads.

 

[The Hitch]

Definitely ban every rider who crashes for at least 2 years

Maybe that's what menchov actually got