• 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. Thanks!

BURN IT DOWN! Is the end of pro cycling near?

May 14, 2010
5,303
4
0
Visit site
I was going to post this long group of responses on another thread, but it's an interesting discussion that seemed to be getting lost in several pages of "paunch" jokes that most people probably won't want to wade through, so I'm starting a new thread.

Basically, this discussion concerns the call recently heard around here to "burn it down!," as regards pro cycling. What does it mean to "burn down" pro cycling and, assuming that could happen, what would take its place?

ilillillli said:
The problem is that while "burn it down" is really fun to say... it doesn't really mean much. How, exactly would "burning it down" go with pro-cycling/UCI/ASO/etc.?

"Burn it down" implies that professional cycling is corrupt from top to bottom. And not only professional cycling, but the whole structure that feeds it, specifically the national associations and their domestic competitions (not excluding, necessarily, those at the amateur level); basically, all competitive cycling organized or overseen at both the national and international levels. That is what "burn it down" means; let it be destroyed root and branch.

This would occur through a comprehensive clearing of the air: transparent, independent audits of the concerned organizations, criminal investigations and so on. The inevitable result would be a mass exodus of commercial sponsorship from the sport and thus the end of all or most traditional races, the disbanding of teams, the collapse of oversight bodies, and the likely expulsion of cycle sport from the Olympics (due to lack of interest, the public having turned its back on racing). To think otherwise - i.e., that revelation of corrupt practices and criminal activity throughout the sport would be seen as a sign of health, thus drawing or retaining commercial interest and public faith - is naive in the extreme (as the phrase "burn it down" acknowledges).

marinoni said:
I don't see "burn it down" ever happening. Then again it might not need to. Maybe a slow steady smouldering. There are far fewer races these days. Sponsorship deals seem to be increasingly short-term. There are how many teams looking for new sponsors next season? For those people who are worried that the mainstream sports media is losing respect for cycling, you may as well stop worrying, that ship has sailed. Fairly or not, pro cycling is a laughing-stock in the mainstream sports media.

So what I see as increasingly likely in 10yrs is a sport with even fewer races. I also expect to see fewer, smaller teams with much smaller budgets and salaries.
This of course is assuming continued relatively prosperous times. If the economic collapse in Greece spreads to other Euro nations as expected then all bets are off. I wish I had reason to be more optimistic but this sport has been digging it's own grave for years now, it deserves everything it gets.

So in this case we may see, instead of an abrupt and profound rupture in the sport, rather a slower death, wherein the oxygen is season by season sucked out of the room and the various people and things and money and fan interest fall away bit by bit. No less dead by the end of it, and even less likely to be revived.

ilillillli said:
can someone please explain to me what "burn it down" actually means? and how it would be "built back up" in a way that's any better than it's current form.

This in my view is the crux of the problem: building it back up. I don't for a minute think cycle sport is any more corrupt than, say, American football, soccer, Formula 1, or what have you. It's all corrupt.

Let's say we, the fans and riders, encourage the destruction of pro cycling, do all we can to hasten its death, and throw lime after it into the grave. What happens then? Eventually, local races among amateurs will become new traditions and gain sponsorship and the whole thing will come full circle. Would any point or progress have been made then?

BikeCentric said:
The point of "burn it down" is eliminate the UCI. Cut off the head to kill the beast.

Dr. Maserati said:
Here is your road map....
Yes, you will always need an authority to agree rule's,and have 'uniformity' from within its members.

What is not necessary is that the same authority is also in charge of upholding those rules, having a bizarre system to elect officials and one that decides which rules it will or will not enforce.

Alpe d'Huez said:
As far as "burn it down" goes, while that sounds good, what really needs to happen is that both Hein and Pat need to leave cycling, and all of sports. There then needs to be a complete outside audit of the UCI with a full report with full transparency.

Once Pat is gone, a completely new, no-nonsense Eliot Ness type person needs to become the new head of the UCI.

There also needs to be a near completely re-write of the UCI's anti-doping procedures. This new book needs to contain guidelines on working with whistleblowers, and providing amnesty to riders who dope, but help provide factual evidence that catches other cheats - especially suppliers, doctors and such.

The UCI also needs to work with scientists like Ashenden and others to implement CO tests to detect autologous blood doping, as well as working with manufacturers in order to in the future detect gene therapy drugs, such as Repoxygen and stem-cell gene doping.

Exactly, to this last point. Rather than wanton destruction of all that is cycling, address the greatest problems more or less one at a time. First, investigate and reform - or, rather, replace - the UCI. Do this and most other problems get resolved. Second, and on the heels of the UCI, root out corruption in WADA and in the national organizations.

In order for any of this to happen, the EU and US government bodies must coordinate their investigative, legislative, and oversight efforts. Anything less and cycle sport becomes roller derby. (And this, probably, is the far more likely outcome anyway.)
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
yeah and while you are at it clean up pro football. I am going to support NASCAR a true American sport. no cheating there....
 
May 14, 2010
5,303
4
0
Visit site
Michielveedeebee said:
It should be cleansed, not burned down. It is imho the most beautiful sport in the world and destroying it would not be good.


I notice you're from Belgium . . . .

I agree that it's the most beautiful sport in the world. And I imagine Belgium is the one country where cycle sport can never be destroyed. I doubt that's true in the rest of the world. It's pretty obvious that the teams and sponsors and governing bodies need to quickly agree on some sort of radical moves to get the cycling house in order, otherwise . . . .
 
Mar 12, 2009
349
0
0
Visit site
Yeah, but...

These are all interesting points but I just don't see it happening. "Burn it Down" however it's described suggests a process that's engineered by someone. I don't believe there will ever be anyone with the power and the will to do so. My point in my other posting is that it's slowly happening and will continue whether anyone likes it or not. It's beyond anyone's control.
 
Mar 12, 2009
349
0
0
Visit site
One other thing. I've been debating whether to say this on the forum because I'm pretty sure I'll get trashed for it but here goes. If you want to see cycling radically reformed and cleaned-up you can stop watching. I made the decision to do so a few months ago. Now before the cries of "pompous *ss start flying, let me say I realise that the sponsors and broadcasters dont give a toss what some schmo in Victoria, BC has to say. It's just my way of saying I can't support a corrupt sport any longer. IMHO there is no middle ground: if you watch it you're supporting it. Versus or Eurosport or whatever don't care that you hate the doping and corruption. You are being exposed to the tv commercials, banners and logos on jerseys, you are being counted as a viewer. It's like American Idol(stay with me here). How many of you watch it just to laugh and heap ridicule on it? Do you think Fox cares? When they tell a potential advertiser that 80 million people watch it every week, the client isn't going to say "yeah, but 40 million are watching ironically so they don't count."
So yeah, no more races on tv, no more cycle sport mag, no posting on the pro cycling forum. Frankly I'm not missing much. As at least a few of you old enough to at least remember the 80's knows, the quality of the racing(with a couple exceptions) these days stinks. So no more getting up at 4 in the morning to watch a 190km training ride with a 10k race tacked on to the end. Selah.
 
Mar 19, 2009
571
0
0
Visit site
To make an even more unpopular statement ...... we're all corrupt . . . every last human on earth. A sure sign of this is anyone who puts up a defense.

So, to think there will ever be some noble form of competition . . . . is pure fantasy. If we cannot live a non-corrupt world within ourselves, we sure can't live it outside of ourselves.
 
Jun 30, 2009
367
0
0
Visit site
lostintime said:
So, to think there will ever be some noble form of competition . . . . is pure fantasy.

couldn't say it any better. as long as there is competition, there will be competitors looking for an advantage. undetectable doping, unfortunately, is an advantage.

it's not as sexy as "burn it down" or the "cut off the head" clarification that others have suggested, but i think this just means more testing, more uniform rule enforcement, and more team facility/equipment inspection and auditing. if personnel needs to change then it needs to change, but i'm not sure if this quite qualifies as "burning it down."
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Visit site
ilillillli said:
couldn't say it any better. as long as there is competition, there will be competitors looking for an advantage. undetectable doping, unfortunately, is an advantage.

it's not as sexy as "burn it down" or the "cut off the head" clarification that others have suggested, but i think this just means more testing, more uniform rule enforcement, and more team facility/equipment inspection and auditing. if personnel needs to change then it needs to change, but i'm not sure if this quite qualifies as "burning it down."

That's a total red herring, though--as is the oft repeated cry about other sports being corrupt.

There's always going to be cheating in cycling, and there's always going to be corruption.

However, as far as cheating goes I think you'll find there are going to be people who will always cheat, those who will never cheat, and those would will cheat if it's easy/convenient/accepted. I imagine it's a bell-shaped distribution towards the middle.

Right now, the distribution is heavily skewed so that there's rampant cheating, and in my opinion it's hurting the integrity of the sport.

As far as corruption with the governing bodies, where there's money and power there's corruption. That doesn't mean that you throw your hands in the air and just say 'oh well'. There are a lot of well-intentioned people out there who care deeply about the sport. Replacing McQuaid with Sylvia Shenk would be a good start.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-Issues/2008/0714/p20s01-wogi.html
 
Jun 30, 2009
367
0
0
Visit site
131313 said:
That's a total red herring, though--as is the oft repeated cry about other sports being corrupt.

There's always going to be cheating in cycling, and there's always going to be corruption.

However, as far as cheating goes I think you'll find there are going to be people who will always cheat, those who will never cheat, and those would will cheat if it's easy/convenient/accepted. I imagine it's a bell-shaped distribution towards the middle.

Right now, the distribution is heavily skewed so that there's rampant cheating, and in my opinion it's hurting the integrity of the sport.

As far as corruption with the governing bodies, where there's money and power there's corruption. That doesn't mean that you throw your hands in the air and just say 'oh well'. There are a lot of well-intentioned people out there who care deeply about the sport. Replacing McQuaid with Sylvia Shenk would be a good start.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-Issues/2008/0714/p20s01-wogi.html

you get my vote for best post on this topic. i basically agree with everything you wrote. great post.
 
Yes lets burn it all down. Wipe out all the palmares in history because no one can be truly called clean. We know the testing doesn't work. We know doping is widespread. Oh and we definitely can't forget about the guys in the early 1900s snortin ether. Get rid of them all. Awesome plan, focusing on the past really helps the future. :rolleyes:
 
Maxiton said:
This in my view is the crux of the problem: building it back up. I don't for a minute think cycle sport is any more corrupt than, say, American football, soccer, Formula 1, or what have you. It's all corrupt.

Let's say we, the fans and riders, encourage the destruction of pro cycling, do all we can to hasten its death, and throw lime after it into the grave. What happens then? Eventually, local races among amateurs will become new traditions and gain sponsorship and the whole thing will come full circle. Would any point or progress have been made then?...

Exactly, to this last point. Rather than wanton destruction of all that is cycling, address the greatest problems more or less one at a time. First, investigate and reform - or, rather, replace - the UCI. Do this and most other problems get resolved. Second, and on the heels of the UCI, root out corruption in WADA and in the national organizations.

In order for any of this to happen, the EU and US government bodies must coordinate their investigative, legislative, and oversight efforts. Anything less and cycle sport becomes roller derby. (And this, probably, is the far more likely outcome anyway.)

While I appreciate your's and Alpe's assessments, at the same time I feel your zelousness regarding a good cause is merely wishful thinking. That's because the crux of the problem, as I see it, isn't building back up that which you have so justifiably burnt down: but actually burning it down. This to me seems to be the more difficult task, for the same reason it would be impossible to burn down the corporate system, or indeed the political structure: namely that the financial interests in pro sport, like those of the corporate and political institutions, which are at the basis of the corruption as money is ultimately with all forms of corruption, means that there are too many powerful people involved with too much wealth at stake to allow this conflagration to actually take place.

A proof of my claims are to be found in why we will really never know the whole truth about Operacion Puerto, which has been the biggest doping scandal in the history of sport, though only a few cyclists of the over 200 involved from a wide range of sports have ever been implicated. The Spanish court has litterally covered up for its athletes, to protect the billions of financial interests generated by all the pro sports and their athletes involved with OP. This because the economic and political considerations in Spain were too massive for the evidence, and hence the scandal, not to have been brushed under the carpet. This demonstrates how sport, the corporate entities and the political-judicial class are all involved in one huge, gargantuan state of corruption that afflicts our world. And this makes it extremely hard, if not impossible, to see justice served by ending the corruption. Plus if cycling burns down then there would always by the "risk" that other sports would be dragged down with it, like soccer, though the colossal interests in maintaining the equally corrupt state of the latter disciplne actually works toward protecting the "lesser" sports like cycling.

In conclusion, one also has to consider the real opinion on the matter in the minds of most sport fans. In Europe in any case, where an absolute morality doesn't exist the way it is percieved in the American ethos, I don't believe that in order to clean the mess up the di-hard cycling community here would like to see the cycling order, in its present form, "burn down;" just as I would find it very unlikely that most American football fans would prefer to see the NFL destroyed to end the charade and so re-create a cleaner sport. Most prefer to live with the corruption in compensation for being entertained, while they may even kid themselves into believing that the corruption isn't as bad as it in reality is to clear a guilty conscience.

So these are the major reasons why it is more logical to think that a complete annihilation is most unlikely, and probably isn't even desired (and not only by those causing the corruption if we aren't to be hypocritical).
 
May 29, 2010
54
0
0
Visit site
I see this a symtomatic of our whole "civilization" at the moment. We have reached a point of complexity that has abstracted the human experience to the such a degree that absurdity now rules in all spheres. Thankfully much is also being revealed for those who care to notice. From the political, economic on through media spin machines it's apparent that we've lost our way, or rather have been misdirected, into an unsustainable dead-end. Rules overlapping rules overlapping rules only lead to more rules, is this what the human experience is about? When things get this top heavy a collapse (or revolution) seems inevitable. I only hope that we can get back, or rather move forward, to a place where simple shared values rule the human experience. I suspect the circumstance will get alot worse until people say ENOUGH! and put things back in their proper place - think coporations serving humanity not humanity serving corporations, money serving humanity not humanity serving money etc.
One of the stranger situations to have occured this year was when Vino. won L-B-L and got booed by Belgian cycling fans. These aren't a naive crowd and have largely remained silent with respect to doping in cycling so that was unexpected. A sign of things to come? An initial cry that turns into a roar? We'll see, interesting times and all that.
 
marinoni said:
One other thing. I've been debating whether to say this on the forum because I'm pretty sure I'll get trashed for it but here goes. If you want to see cycling radically reformed and cleaned-up you can stop watching. I made the decision to do so a few months ago. Now before the cries of "pompous *ss start flying, let me say I realise that the sponsors and broadcasters dont give a toss what some schmo in Victoria, BC has to say. It's just my way of saying I can't support a corrupt sport any longer. IMHO there is no middle ground: if you watch it you're supporting it. Versus or Eurosport or whatever don't care that you hate the doping and corruption. You are being exposed to the tv commercials, banners and logos on jerseys, you are being counted as a viewer. It's like American Idol(stay with me here). How many of you watch it just to laugh and heap ridicule on it? Do you think Fox cares? When they tell a potential advertiser that 80 million people watch it every week, the client isn't going to say "yeah, but 40 million are watching ironically so they don't count."
So yeah, no more races on tv, no more cycle sport mag, no posting on the pro cycling forum. Frankly I'm not missing much. As at least a few of you old enough to at least remember the 80's knows, the quality of the racing(with a couple exceptions) these days stinks. So no more getting up at 4 in the morning to watch a 190km training ride with a 10k race tacked on to the end. Selah.

not sure why you'd get trashed. i too have been watching less televised racing lately. i've become quite dissinterested for the same reasons you mentioned. protour races in a nutshell: heavily doped riders controlling smaller overmatched teams with radios. no suprises, no creativity. this year's giro was interesting for awhile but along comes liquigas... game over.

not watching and speaking out in forums is the only leverage the average fan has.
 
Reform vs Revolution

a really bright man, actually considered a math prodigy in his youth, once suggested that the only way to change a very corrupt system was thru revolution. reform was too gradual, too easy to derail, too easy to compromise, and the average attention span of those involved was too short to result in significant change. he said that even tho an upheaval could be painful and violent it was what was necessary and that ruining lives was sometimes a worthwhile cost.

that man's name was Theodore Kaczynski. most know him as the unabomber.

"burn it down" is naive and symplistic except as a mental exercise. we can think about how to rebuild it, then apply pressure to make the current system look like the one we've imagined.

it's quite easy to kill cancer cells but it takes great skill and patience to do so without killing the patient.

reform is the correct and very difficult path, not revolution.

off topic edit: godwin's law pertain's to hitler but does anyone know of a similar pattern pertaining to the unabomber?
 
May 29, 2010
54
0
0
Visit site
lean said:
.
reform is the correct and very difficult path, not revolution.

In other news; there wouldn't be a country called the United States of America without a revolution. Revolution is a means of reform that can express itself many ways. Gandhi also led what was tantamount to a revolution.
Just some perspective
 
lean said:
a really bright man, actually considered a math prodigy in his youth, once suggested that the only way to change a very corrupt system was thru revolution. reform was too gradual, too easy to derail, too easy to compromise, and the average attention span of those involved was too short to result in significant change. he said that even tho an upheaval could be painful and violent it was what was necessary and that ruining lives was sometimes a worthwhile cost.

that man's name was Theodore Kaczynski. most know him as the unabomber.

"burn it down" is naive and symplistic except as a mental exercise. we can think about how to rebuild it, then apply pressure to make the current system look like the one we've imagined.

it's quite easy to kill cancer cells but it takes great skill and patience to do so without killing the patient.

reform is the correct and very difficult path, not revolution.

off topic edit: godwin's law pertain's to hitler but does anyone know of a similar pattern pertaining to the unabomber?

Simply because something valid was said by a psychopath, doesn't detract from the validity of what was said. Revolutions can have many forms. Not all are concieved in the unibober's way.

No a revolution is the only thing that would cause the necessary changes, though probably won't happen for all the reasons I mentioned above. Reform is merely a politcal catch-phrase for convincing the masses that change is at hand when everything basically remains the same. This is because the rich and powerful only pretend to give up just enough to lull the people into disillusioned complacency by actually believing that their crys have not gone unaddressed. Then, when everyone realizes that they have been merley been hoodwinked, defrauded and been lied to, they realize that only a revolution is the solution. Often this comes with its dramatic and often undesirable consequences, though the results, for better or worse (and often the latter unfortunately), were achieved only through such a revolution.

One could also site the burning of the Bastille as a historical moment when only a revolution was capable of bringing down an bitterly repressive and corrupt ancien regime. And that even was not without its unpleasant consequences, having begot Robespierre and then Napoleon, before lasting democratic change finally became realized. However tearing down a sport, is a far less serious matter (or should be), than the destruction of an entire society and the State. So I wouldn't fear a unibomber phenomenon here.
 
May 29, 2010
54
0
0
Visit site
lean said:
off topic edit: godwin's law pertain's to hitler but does anyone know of a similar pattern pertaining to the unabomber?

I believe you just succeeded:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Corollaries and usage
There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle itself is frequently referred to as Godwin's law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized corollary that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful (this is sometimes referred to as "Quirk's Exception").[6]

Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions. The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering genocide, propaganda, early 20th century eugenics (racial superiority) or other mainstays of the Nazi Germany, nor, more debatably, to discussion of other totalitarian regimes, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances is appropriate. Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, since this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.

However, Godwin's law itself can be abused, as a distraction, diversion or even censorship, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons.[7]
 
lightandlongshadows said:
In other news; there wouldn't be a country called the United States of America without a revolution. Revolution is a means of reform that can express itself many ways. Gandhi also led what was tantamount to a revolution.
Just some perspective

yes, thru-out the course of human history revolutions have occurred :rolleyes:
 
rhubroma said:
Simply because something valid was said by a psychopath, doesn't detract from the validity of what was said. Revolutions can have many forms. Not all are concieved in the unibober's way.

No a revolution is the only thing that would cause the necessary changes, though probably won't happen for all the reasons I mentioned above. Reform is merely a politcal catch-phrase for convincing the masses that change is at hand when everything basically remains the same. This is because the rich and powerful only pretend to give up just enough to lull the people into disillusioned complacency by actually believing that their crys have not gone unaddressed.

i mostly agree that a psychopath can make a valid point. the unabomber's manifesto is quite lucid and an interesting read if you have the time. the problem is the JUSTIFICATION OF VIOLENCE AND MURDER. there are victims, (clean riders, support staff uninvolved with doping) of a revolution in cycling. they're victims of sorts now but at least they're able to make a living. destroy the sport and not just the cheats suffer. dedicated professionals and everyone who makes an honest living in cycling suffers because the best solution we could think of was "burn it down". ridiculous.
 
lean said:
i mostly agree that a psychopath can make a valid point. the unabomber's manifesto is quite lucid and an interesting read if you have the time. the problem is the JUSTIFICATION OF VIOLENCE AND MURDER. there are victims, (clean riders, support staff uninvolved with doping) of a revolution in cycling. they're victims of sorts now but at least they're able to make a living. destroy the sport and not just the cheats suffer. dedicated professionals and everyone who makes an honest living in cycling suffers because the best solution we could think of was "burn it down". ridiculous.

I would never justify violence and murder. However it simply must be recognized that to clean cycling the omertà must be broken and only a revolution would cause such a break.

The injustice to a (very scant) few, would be serving a greater justice in bringing all the (many) culprits to task for their currupt ways. It is the burden to bear of the innocent yes, though nobody said a just revolution wasn't nontheless a messy business. Nor is justice ever flawless or universal.
 
May 29, 2010
54
0
0
Visit site
lean said:
i mostly agree that a psychopath can make a valid point. the unabomber's manifesto is quite lucid and an interesting read if you have the time. the problem is the JUSTIFICATION OF VIOLENCE AND MURDER. there are victims, (clean riders, support staff uninvolved with doping) of a revolution in cycling. they're victims of sorts now but at least they're able to make a living. destroy the sport and not just the cheats suffer. dedicated professionals and everyone who makes an honest living in cycling suffers because the best solution we could think of was "burn it down". ridiculous.

Who's justifying violence and murder? I would also suggest that there are very few clean riders making a living in such an enviroment. What about all the people who've walked away from the sport in disgust? How about all the people who have actually died or become ill as a result of the dope they've taken? There's a huge amount of carnage left in the wake of the status quo.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Maxiton said:
I was going to post this long group of responses on another thread, but it's an interesting discussion that seemed to be getting lost in several pages of "paunch" jokes that most people probably won't want to wade through, so I'm starting a new thread.

Basically, this discussion concerns the call recently heard around here to "burn it down!," as regards pro cycling. What does it mean to "burn down" pro cycling and, assuming that could happen, what would take its place?

<snipped for brevity>
Ok, before we get a bit too deep....
Where the call came to "burn Pro Cycling down" was a piece from this blog which was reposted in this thread.

It is a very good read and explains Floyd's possible motivations - I have only posted the last few paragraphs, but believe they show how the author came to make their comments.


Pretty Boy Floyd
Submitted by Adam Myerson on Thu, 05/20/2010 - 13:59.
Landis' defense wasn't about whether he was guilty or not. Of course he was guilty of doping. He knew it, and he knew you knew it. His defense was against being the scapegoat, being the one who took the fall. His defense was an attack on the hypocrisy of the system. So why finally come out with it now, during the TOC and Giro? Why the **** not now? If you're Landis, and you know that despite serving your suspension and being free to race, you'll never be allowed back in at the top level, why not burn the whole ****ing thing down? Why should Lance get to be an international star and hero to the world, when he's guilty of all the same crimes as Landis? Landis clearly loves bike racing and just wants to race his bike. If he can't play, then who can blame him for calling bull**** on the whole thing?

So burn down Babylon. Burn pro cycling down. There will still be racing, there will still be races. Burn it down, so we can build it up again new. I condemn Landis' original decision to participate in a corrupt, immoral system. But I'll stand in front of the flames with him and watch it burn.

I'll shake his smokey hand the next time I see him.
 
Jun 30, 2009
367
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Ok, before we get a bit too deep....
Where the call came to "burn Pro Cycling down" was a piece from this blog which was reposted in this thread.

It is a very good read and explains Floyd's possible motivations - I have only posted the last few paragraphs, but believe they show how the author came to make their comments.


Pretty Boy Floyd
Submitted by Adam Myerson on Thu, 05/20/2010 - 13:59.

OK, but that just sort of passes the buck. I read that piece and I'm not sure it offers any more of an explanation of what "burning it [Babylon in this case] down" actually entails. I'm just saying, before people advocate something, it should probably be a little bit more robust of an idea than "burn it down," "cut off it's head," or "kill the beast". Because those are slogans, not plans.