• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Black or white - who is guilty?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 18, 2009
91
0
0
Visit site
runninboy said:
Runners have always set amazing marks without dope and i get sick of them being lumped in with dopers based on level of performance.

You could make the same argument about cycling. You can't say some top people in either sport haven't been "popped" on doping even though they seemed clean at the time (e.g., Marian Jones). It has become somewhat "normal" to question top performers who are exceeding beyond what others at the same time are doing. You can't blame people for questioning results. There are too many cases where smoke turned out to be fire.

That said, I have no opinion on Bolt as I haven't seen him race and don't follow T&F that closely.
 
May 9, 2009
638
0
0
Visit site
Cobber said:
As a scientist...

A scientist of WHAT?


Cobber said:
And since this thread is about performance-enhancing drugs...

No, no it's not. The thread topic is actually "Black or white - who is guilty?" -- a swipe at race and racism playing a part in which athletes are deemed to be "clean" or "doped" by public opinion.

As a "scientist", I would say you don't pay very close attention to detail.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,086
1
0
Visit site
Steel4Ever said:
A scientist of WHAT?

No, no it's not. The thread topic is actually "Black or white - who is guilty?" -- a swipe at race and racism playing a part in which athletes are deemed to be "clean" or "doped" by public opinion.

As a "scientist", I would say you don't pay very close attention to detail.

I am a virologist. And what are these athletes deemed to be either clean of or doped on?
 
Mar 18, 2009
324
0
0
Visit site
sgreene said:
If all the top pro cyclists are doping, why does anyone on this forum still follow pro cycling? I would have thought you would have given up in disgust long ago.
Personally I enjoy the doping aspect of the sport. It makes it more interesting. Call it intangibles.

I wouldn't watch cycling if there weren't doping raids, investigations, cover ups, conspiracies, bribes, six positives from 1999 and, of course, fan boys with inflatable Lance dolls lubed and ready for the Tour.
 
May 9, 2009
638
0
0
Visit site
Cobber said:
And what are these athletes deemed to be either clean of or doped on?

The type of drug is of no consequence. What THIS thread is attempting to bring to light is wether the race of an athlete plays a part in the public at large judging said athlete "guilty" or "not guilty" in terms of doping.

I have no idea. But everyone handles the proven offenses differently. Two races, two governing bodies -- you decide which is a determining factor:

Darryl Strawberry gets suspended for 60 days by MLB after he tests positive for cocaine in violation of the provisions of his drug aftercare program. The US courts do nothing.

Tom Boonen gets a 1000 Euro fine from the Belgium courts for the same infraction. The UCI does nothing.

Here's the sample, do your own research.

I say race is a complete minimal influence. A far greater influence would be that of the actual sport in which the athlete is competing. How many of us assume, accuse, or even care what PGA member is doping? Or even lesser, what LPGA member is doping?

Whatever.
 
I think that the problem of comparison that we run into here goes to accountability. The UCI is the world governing body for cycling and consists of all national governing bodies which it is responsible to. They set the rules but must answer to and regulate all the national organizations. Some of the big pro sports that we keep bringing up like Major League Baseball, National Football League,NBA, NHL and so on are privately run organizations that ultimatly answer to nobody. The IOC begs them to let their athletes have 2 weeks off to come represent their countries in the Olympics and they (the leagues) set the rules when they go.
Track, swimming, and cycling are probably the 3 biggest sports that have strong international associations that are to various degrees under the IOC's control.
The "big 3" baseball, American football, and NBA are the richest sports leagues in the world (at this point anyway) and they answer to nobody but themselves. Any wonder they hardly ever have athletes test positive or that when they do they get 2 month suspensions?
On further thought I guess I would have to include international football as an "untouchable" based on how they fared in the whole Puerto fiasco. Even though they have a strong international organization it seems to be able to run things like the private sports leagues.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Visit site
Dude17 said:
You could make the same argument about cycling. You can't say some top people in either sport haven't been "popped" on doping even though they seemed clean at the time (e.g., Marian Jones). It has become somewhat "normal" to question top performers who are exceeding beyond what others at the same time are doing. You can't blame people for questioning results. There are too many cases where smoke turned out to be fire.

My concern about doping in track and field is that Tim Montgomery and Marion Jones were discredited on the admissions of known liars. I'm not saying they didn't dope but in Jones case look at the factors. Victor Conte was offloading dirt for years because the authorities went after his company Balco labs. Jones denied, denied, denied. How was she busted? Simply the cheque fraud scheme. US authorities had evidence for this, but not doping. I have always thought it was feasible she admitted doping, perhaps even lied concerning the 'clear' and other Balco supplements because that was her only option. Continue with the denials (which may be a lie) and spend years in jail for cheque fraud and deny her young children their mother, or admit doping (which may be a lie) and face the shame, loss of medal, prizes and only do 6 months in jail. What would you do? She was going to jail regardless, where option one had a 20 year sentence. Its a no brainer. Admit to doping regardless of whether it is true or not. The authorites had all these allegations and no smoking gun. Its a perfect PR weapon to use the cheque fraud to make Jones choose her own fate. Personally I think the feds needed to go back and test her old samples. They didn't, so I find in her case, and hers alone, because she really was that good, that its still not clear she cheated. Not that it matters in todays sports.