• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

being on the record...manifesto baby

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Something more:

I think going around claiming that everyone is doped does not but aiding the dopers, or more specifically the people who tries to make others dope.
Claiming that everyone is doped only makes it easier for those buttholes to convince others that they have to dope in order to get a chance.
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
I have no heroes. It's decidedly liberating.

I find it difficult to read posts where people lavish praise on professional cyclists who manage to finally finish a race in the top 10 despite having been pretty ordinary since smashing the professional peloton in multi-stage races for 6 months straight not all that long ago. Hero worship. I do not understand it.

Analysing performances and words / interviews of people involved in professional cycling is a hobby of mine.

And I feel sorry for the posters who are so sensitive to any discussion or criticism of their heroes, countrymen or otherwise, that they label it, "abuse", or "hate". This too, I do not understand.
 
Jun 16, 2010
1,036
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
I have no heroes. It's decidedly liberating.

I find it difficult to read posts where people lavish praise on professional cyclists who manage to finally finish a race in the top 10 despite having been pretty ordinary since smashing the professional peloton in multi-stage races for 6 months straight not all that long ago. Hero worship. I do not understand it.

Analysing performances and words / interviews of people involved in professional cycling is a hobby of mine.

And I feel sorry for the posters who are so sensitive to any discussion or criticism of their heroes, countrymen or otherwise, that they label it, "abuse", or "hate". This too, I do not understand.
There is a great line in Enemy at the Gates where Kruschev asks the political officers if they know of any heroes around here (Stalingrad under attack) and Commisar Danilov says "I know one"

Well I know one - Clara Hughes, Canadian cyclist and speed-skater, who is a spokesperson for mental health in Canada. See clara-hughes.com

She is the only female athlete in the world to medal in both the summer (cycling) and winter games (speed-skating). I don't hero worship Clara, but I hero respect her a ton.
 
RobbieCanuck said:
There is a great line in Enemy at the Gates where Kruschev asks the political officers if they know of any heroes around here (Stalingrad under attack) and Commisar Danilov says "I know one"

Well I know one - Clara Hughes, Canadian cyclist and speed-skater, who is a spokesperson for mental health in Canada. See clara-hughes.com

She is the only female athlete in the world to medal in both the summer (cycling) and winter games (speed-skating). I don't hero worship Clara, but I hero respect her a ton.
Quick hint. Canada /= World.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
RedheadDane said:
Something more:

I think going around claiming that everyone is doped does not but aiding the dopers, or more specifically the people who tries to make others dope.
Claiming that everyone is doped only makes it easier for those buttholes to convince others that they have to dope in order to get a chance.
This is a fair and insightful comment. You're right, it does help the dopers hide.
 
May 19, 2010
48
0
0
Sky are as dirty as any other team - they might not be taking banned substances, but are more than likely taking performance enhancing substances which are not yet on the banned list. They've already had to sack 6 or 7 staff members due to their past or present, which somewhat contradicts their 100% clean, no doping policy. Their decision to hire Leinders is fairly incriminating.

In particular I think Froome is doping - he showed absolutely no promise up to 2011, holding onto cars to get up mountains, and then over night transforms into pretty much the best climber and TTer on the planet, destroying known dopers. We haven't had a clean athlete beating dopers that convincingly since Armstrong, and we all know how that turned out.

I got loads of sh*t from people for suggesting Armstrong was dirty back in 1999, and get the same sh*t from people for saying the same about Sky.. without intending to sound like a smug tw*t, I'm fairly confident that I'll be proved right again.
 
May 24, 2010
749
0
0
I’m daft enough to go on record…

1. After nearly 40 years watching cycling nothing surprises me any more.
2.I gave up on clean a long time ago, thought festina was the back breaker till Armstrong took the **** on Sestriere the following year.
3. I’m no doping apologist, it is the biggest blight there is in cycling (other than Liggett Sherwin and Carlton kirby)
4. Despite point 3, I refuse not to watch or get excitied by certain riders, Hinault, Kelly, Lemond, Robert Miller (though Dave’s okay too), Ullrich, Pantani among others in the past…just now it happens to be Contador: as I commented the other day “Is Bertie clean? I hope so, does it stop him being my favourite rider?? not a chance! Was Pantani clean?? not a chance; did it stop me being mesmerised by his every pedal stroke?? No way.”
5. There are some insanely talented riders out there whether doped or not, doping has turned donkeys into thoroughbreds but made the thoroughbreds even better.
6. I watch SKY with the same sensations I watched USPDISCOTANA, there’s something not right there and when it’s not right it’s dirty, GEWISS-BALLAN, Festina, USPDISCOTANA, the evidence is all there. Froome and Wiggins is just wrong!
7. The depth of doping within the sport is such that teams would cease to exist if every individual who has been part of it in the last 40 years was kicked out.
8. Nothing will change in the sport until the UCI and WADA agree on an armistice/mauritorium on doping. Allow everyone time to come clean then from a specific date anyone returning a positive is banned for life. Make a binding strict set of rules and stick to it. Any appeals to be dealt with rapidly.
9. We have a serious choice to make; watch cycling with all it's flaws or don't, that simple.
10. Lastly….nothing beats the buzz of getting out on two wheels
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
I am not sure why Froome looks unappealing on the bike when he's riding. Morphological perhaps? MV posted a pic of 2 TTers - Froome and another, and there was no difference in how they looked. His TT position and style looks perfectly fine, and yes, when he's on the roadie he looks ungainly.

But the constant harping about his lack of style borders on the ridiculous, and IMO has nothing to do with whether he should be able to ride fast or not.

I really do not understand the attention it receives.
 
Jan 18, 2010
2,958
0
0
Standing by the side of the road as against watching on TV is better, you get the buzz, the atmosphere and you respect everybody as against being an armchair fan in front of the TV/online and cursing teams and riders as is the usual.
 
Apr 22, 2014
611
0
0
Bike racing is sport. Sport is entertainment. Doping at sport is cheating.

Cheating at entertainment.

It really is no biggie.

Certainly not something I can get very worked up about, and the more I read here, the more I think perhaps people ought to consider the real issues in the world and devote their time them. Or maybe go out and ride a bike.

Cheating at entertainment is so far down on the scale it barely registers.
 
just an example of the last few months about what we, users, say and know about the riders:

Froome in Oman or Romandie
Gerro and Cance and OPQS this spring
Cadel and Dr. Ferrari having a great Giro
Rogers yesterday
Bertie and his bid for the Tour
Piti at Fleche
Kittel
Wiggo California dream man

and I could add other (Roche signing for Tinkoff last year, Pozzovivo Vuelta TT, well Horner, Nibali at Giro) and so on.

if EVERY performance is dirty (and it looks like it is) how can we follow the sport day after day after day?

I guess because it entertains

(just think about last year's echelon Tour stage, Rogers starting the party, followed by dirty Bertie, distancing dirty Froomey)

we were all on the edge of our seats.

or maybe, we, forums and twitter followers, are just a minimal part of the public. who's not so deeply informed or does not care at all.
 
Ferminal said:
ure, large shifts in form from one season to the next are very indicative of doping

Having very similar form from one season to the next is also due to maintaining the same level of doping if other signs suggest that person is a doper. There are plenty of clean riders who are consistent throughout their career. Just like there are excellent dopers who are. It's not the consistency, it's the level (does not apply to inconsistency which in itself is an indicator).

Very rarely are there riders who have wild shifts in ability over their careers whose highs aren't the results of doping, unless there are other obvious reasons to explain things.

It's not that hard, but you knew that.
10. characters.
 
Jan 20, 2013
173
0
0
Siriuscat said:
I’m daft enough to go on record…

1. After nearly 40 years watching cycling nothing surprises me any more.
2.I gave up on clean a long time ago, thought festina was the back breaker till Armstrong took the **** on Sestriere the following year.
3. I’m no doping apologist, it is the biggest blight there is in cycling (other than Liggett Sherwin and Carlton kirby)
4. Despite point 3, I refuse not to watch or get excitied by certain riders, Hinault, Kelly, Lemond, Robert Miller (though Dave’s okay too), Ullrich, Pantani among others in the past…just now it happens to be Contador: as I commented the other day “Is Bertie clean? I hope so, does it stop him being my favourite rider?? not a chance! Was Pantani clean?? not a chance; did it stop me being mesmerised by his every pedal stroke?? No way.”
5. There are some insanely talented riders out there whether doped or not, doping has turned donkeys into thoroughbreds but made the thoroughbreds even better.
6. I watch SKY with the same sensations I watched USPDISCOTANA, there’s something not right there and when it’s not right it’s dirty, GEWISS-BALLAN, Festina, USPDISCOTANA, the evidence is all there. Froome and Wiggins is just wrong!
7. The depth of doping within the sport is such that teams would cease to exist if every individual who has been part of it in the last 40 years was kicked out.
8. Nothing will change in the sport until the UCI and WADA agree on an armistice/mauritorium on doping. Allow everyone time to come clean then from a specific date anyone returning a positive is banned for life. Make a binding strict set of rules and stick to it. Any appeals to be dealt with rapidly.
9. We have a serious choice to make; watch cycling with all it's flaws or don't, that simple.
10. Lastly….nothing beats the buzz of getting out on two wheels
I have slowly learned to live with the fact that the sport is dirty. Previously it was more okay to cheer those not caught but now I fully realise that the large majority of riders are getting help. With regard to point 8 I must say that it is impossible. It is absolutely not possible because it is and will continue to be, easy to take a substance and get away with it. Very few will put their trust in other riders to also be clean and IF they do they will be left behind. Unfair - yes, but that is part of the win-at-all-costs mentality that makes professionals tick.

I really got into cycling in 1993 and it was well known among fans and commentators alike that they were using epo but we chose to view them as innocent as long as they weren't caught. Now "we" are taking part in a reboot of the emperor's clothes called the clean era. As you pointed out, the same routine happened after Festina and many people really were kidding themselves as some are today (Skybots and the likes).

Now I just enjoy cycling, warts and all. I am less prone to condemning the few caught in the trap because it is as dirty as ever. So be it. This isn't a perfect world.
 
from the Talansky thread http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=20127&page=13
jens_attacks praising the fighting spirit of Talansky yesterday, making a comparison with Lance.

jens_attacks said:
never liked him and probably never will.

tough as nails rider though, reminds me of the fighter spirit of lance armstrong
jens_attacks said:
lance had the most fighting spirit i ever saw in an athlete, look at that triathlon when he doesn't even look at his daughter because he lost. when he was competing, he was all in. nothing else mattered. that's why even being an absolute mobster, jerc, aszhole and all the names, he is one of the greatest champions of the whole sport history's
here the reply from Fight.The.Power who seems completely outraged

Fight.The.Power said:
I am not prepared to discuss the above as I think any qualities LA may have had or even still retains are now completely irrelevant and he deserves no accolades whatsoever.

The man brought our sport into disrepute on an unimaginable scale which has and will take years to repair. I do not join the clinic discussions because it sickens me so much.:(

Lance, his memory and everything about him should be absolutely condemned and thrown on a pyre.
Fight.The.Power said:
I went on this thread because I had an interest in sharing the recent success of Talanksy today and find myself commenting on a subject abhorable to me.

I respect the veteren that Jens Attacks is but think not only are his opinions misplaced but also question his judgement in where and when to write such an inflammatory post.

He blackens the purity of Talansky's victory today IMO no matter how tenuous or unintentional those comparisons to LA may be. Perhaps JA should turn his brain on and think next time where he posts such ill-conceived views!!!! :mad:

Grrrrrr.
isn't Fight.The.Power reply a bit too much? did he not remember Talansky defended Lance. has he seen this tweet retweeted by digger, oufeh, and many others?
Levi Leipheimer @LeviLeipheimer 21h
So proud of @andrewtalansky He's a great example of work ethic and self belief. Way to represent NorCal buddy


The purity of the victory?
there's no purity in sports.
there is panache, strenght, courage, defi. that's what I'll praise in Talansky's ride.
 
I'd like to start by stating that cycling, especially road cycling, is an utterly amazing and beautiful sport.

I believe that there are riders who are clean and riders who are not. I think the higher the level of racing is, the higher the percentages of riders is who use doping. So riders get more suspicious to me as they race at a higher leve. I also admit that at the level of Grand Tour winners, there's not a single rider I believe to be clean.

Doping testing is a method that tries to falsify the assumption that a rider is clean. If a test comes back negative, the assumption that a rider is clean isn't proven to be true (according to the theory of refutability). We can never know for certain that a rider is clean, until he tests positive, then we know for certain he is not.

Also, I don't think one positive test means a rider is always dirty, it just meant that he had a banned substance in his body at the very moment of testing. It's possible to have been clean before or after that. We know that riders usually dope for a long time untill they get busted, and often continue even after that. I've said before that Contador and Froome have had the same amount of positive tests since Froome first went alien mode in the 2011 Vuelta.

I also think that the way riders get accused is pretty actually pretty different from normal criminal law. In criminal law, they have to prove you had the gun in your hand and pulled the trigger. In 'doping law' they just have to prove you had the gun in your hand. This might be a bad example though. I admit, it's never actually possible to prove a rider actually put the substance in his own body. I still think theres a lot of **** people get busted for because of this, cause you can't exactly know whats in your food. I think this is flawed, but we really have no other choice if we want to bust those who willingly dope.

It's impossible to know for certain if a rider is clean and I think most of the top guns are likely doped. I wish the sport was clean (I do think it's slowly getting a little bit better), but I've sort of accepted the fact that riders use it (I still don't aprove it). Therefor, I'm not supporting riders because they're likely to be clean. Instead I support riders who I believe are talented, have heart and other qualities.

Cause can't know who is clean, we also can't know how far a clean rider can get. If I was a rider I'd have a better idea of this, and if I believed the same thing even as a rider, I think I would likely start doping myself. This is all hypothetical and I think in reality it's even more complicated.

Great thread btw, and I love the fact that theres some really good discussion going on here;)
 
Jul 29, 2009
419
0
0
OK, I'll go on the record.

Cycling is a special case when it comes to doping (although not the only one)
The likelihood of doping ion cycling is more likely than many other sports for a number of reasons and therefore is much harder to reduce/remove.

Unlike many other sports doping has been been part of cycling since records began. Cycling has always been about seeing how far/fast someone could go and getting some publicity along there way. Doping has always helped and was always accepted. "Doctors" who could get hold of stuff or administer it have been part of cycling teams for decades and therefore so have supply networks etc. Trying to find an expro without some doping history is very difficult and so they almost all have something to hide which helps keep people quiet and Omertà is very well established.
Many ex pros still rely on cycling to make a living when they retire and so there is a financial disincentive to saying anything.
These two things combined mean that coaches, DSs organisers, journalists etc etc are invariably expros or similar with a dirty past.

Finally doping works in cycling and will make the difference between winning and losing more than any other factor.

When it comes to other sports these things are not the case. In rugby and football for example (and indeed my sport of hockey). There is no historical reliance on doping- unless you include smoking and drinking. This means that those currently coaching, commentating, administrating etc will not have dirty pasts etc. It has never been part of the culture.

This extends to the enablers such as doctors and trainers. If I started a new cycling team then setting up the doping program would be easy. It would be harder to find cycling doctors and soingners(?) who didn't have history.

Not so easy elsewhere.

If I was trying to run a doping program at a premier league football club undetected for a number of years I would be very worried about the tell all books from very rich, disgruntled ex footballers who fell out spectacularly with the manager because after a few years there's going to be several potential whistleblowers. Either that or I've lost my job after 6 months and a new regime is in place anyway.

Lots of risks of being exposed and although doping could have advantages the biggest factors affecting performance have nothing to do with it.

I'm surprised that no one has suggested that the reason Man U were rubbish last season was because Ferguson's doping regime was more effective than Moyes's
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
SirLes said:
When it comes to other sports these things are not the case. In rugby and football for example (and indeed my sport of hockey). There is no historical reliance on doping- unless you include smoking and drinking. This means that those currently coaching, commentating, administrating etc will not have dirty pasts etc. It has never been part of the culture.
Sorry but this is so terribly wrong as to be painful to read.

Weightlifters were the most likely to be doping back in 1996, IMO, based on a Hct study conducted by AIS at the time, and rugby is now one of the most dirty sports around.

From an Aussie POV, this list is a contradiction of your claim: http://asada.gov.au/rules_and_violations/sanctions.html
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts