Can we schedule 1km of the 2010 TdF through Italy?

[DavidVilla7]

Quite. I'll never understand the mentality. I get yelled at (not asked. yelled at.) why do I watch cycling if I'm quite sure the majority of top riders are on drugs.

Most self intitled "cycling fans" simply can't comprehend the notion that someone can love the sport. To them everyone MUST have someone they root for, and if those riders aren't present, there's nothing interesting to even consider thinking about, much less watch.

I have to admit that you're right.
I ussually don't watch cyling when there's no contador or valverde.
Or any other favourite. Or any sort of drama.

But that's normal, cuz you also don't watch all tennis matches do you?
You only watch the matches your favourites play.

I think that most cycling fans here, care only about the sport itself.
I think that the charaters make the sport what it is.
And that's what makes it interresting to watch.

Oh and about valverde, I doesn't matter me if he used doping or not.
I like him, that's all. There's is doping in every sport, but only cycling fans are crying about it the whole time. Forget it.
I mean once there was a man who stole the tour seven times.

But to say that all topcyclist use is almost ridiculous

 

[issoisso]

I have to admit that you're right.
I ussually don't watch cyling when there's no contador or valverde.
Or any other favourite. Or any sort of drama.

The fact that you're implying any drama is nonexistent without certain riders being present shows how delusional you actually are

But that's normal, cuz you also don't watch all tennis matches do you?
You only watch the matches your favourites play.

Wrong. I don't watch any tennis at all. Because I don't like the sport. I watch cycling, because I like the sport.

If Maria Sharapova was racing the Tour of Switzerland, I'd still watch it. If Valverde was playing at Roland Garros I wouldn't watch a second of it.

I think that most cycling fans here, care only about the sport itself.
I think that the charaters make the sport what it is.
And that's what makes it interresting to watch.

So, when Valverde and Contador are retired, the sport will be dead? No, it won't. Just as it didn't die when dozens of stars were busted for doping. Because the riders don't make the sport. The sport will exist regardless of whether those people are a part of it.

In that, it's quite indifferent

 

[skidmark]

The fact that you're implying any drama is nonexistent without certain riders being present shows how delusional you actually are



Wrong. I don't watch any tennis at all. Because I don't like the sport. I watch cycling, because I like the sport.

If Maria Sharapova was racing the Tour of Switzerland, I'd still watch it. If Valverde was playing at Roland Garros I wouldn't watch a second of it.

I know your response was to another poster, but since there have been a couple of critical responses to my original post, I want to be clear that I certainly wasn't implying that drama is nonexistent without certain riders. Also, I definitely don't feel like I need a 'hero' to cheer for, to whoever implied that. Issoisso, you've summarized my feelings on cycling completely with the above-quoted description. I love the sport, I cheer when something exciting happens in the sport. Rebellin was one of my favourite riders, because he always animated every race he was in, even though he didn't win most of the races he was in, he always would attack and finish fourth or something. That, to me, is the spirit of competition, and it's exciting, and I'd like to cheer for riders who embody that spirit. This isn't hero worship, it's just appreciation for making the sport I love more exciting. But of course Rebellin doped. Does that mean I have to be less excited about his exploits? How about stage 17 of the 2006 Tour? Boy that was an exciting stage, but boy Landis sure doped. My point is that, to me, it's not less exciting because somebody cheated. It's disappointing, yes, but it pales in comparison with my excitement at watching the spectacle of the sport.

Anyway, my point is that I don't see why people feel it necessary to freak out that someone who probably doped is able to compete, and to let that obscure their appreciation for the races. I guess my counter question would be: why do people who are old enough and intelligent enough to type several sentences need someone to vilify?

 

[Angliru]

What if you do accept the truth? Then who do you cheer for? As far as guilt goes, Valverde's blood was matched with that in Fuentes' clinic, a bag from several years ago which had EPO in it. Is that right? It's been awhile since I looked over the details. Regardless, it's a smoking gun, perhaps one level below being caught red-handed (Ricco, Sella, Schumacher, Rebellin, etc). It's about on the same level as Armstrong's positives from 1999, I would say. And it's only slightly more incriminating than all of the associations with various doctors that haunt a good number of riders in the peloton. So, given all that, as an anti-doping advocate, who do you cheer for? I have a few educated guesses about who might be clean in the peloton, but I really don't know much, even as a fan who tries to keep myself educated.

Anyway, all that is to say that it's hard for me to let suspicions of doping enter into the question of who to cheer for, when I suspect most riders of doping. For sure I'll cheer a bit harder if someone who I think is totally clean wins something, but I don't see why I shouldn't cheer for an exciting rider. Although I don't admire Vino's complete lack of remorse, or Valverde's evasive technical legal defence, I do admire both men's racing styles, so I'll continue to be excited to see them in a race when they are permitted to compete.

I'm aware there is a line of thought that is simply 'doping=bad', but I'm just saying I feel the problem is more sophisticated than that.

Thoughts?

I'm in full agreement. I'm not certain as to why Valverde is the current whipping boy when it is common practice for all that have doped to deny, deny, deny and then deny some more with very few actually admitting to their transgressions. He was allowed to continue racing and he went about
his business.

With top riders being exposed every year for having used PED's at some point
its almost impossible to not root for someone that may eventually be exposed as a cheat. How can you continue to have a passion for the big events of the sport and those that participate if your primary thought while watching is that "he's juiced or was juiced in the past"? While I acknowledge that doping has a long history in the sport I don't let it effect my enjoyment in watching the events and its participants.

I'll admit that I'm partial to particular riders: Valverde, Contador, Sammy Sanchez, Philippe Gilbert, Jen Voigt, Cancellara, Joaquim Rodriguez, Gilberto Simoni, Iban Mayo, etc...and will continue to follow their careers regardless of what transpires. Their particular style of riding appeals to me along with other certain aspects of their public personna.

 

[DavidVilla7]

The fact that you're implying any drama is nonexistent without certain riders being present shows how delusional you actually are That's what you think of it. Most people who watch have the same reason as me. I have my sports.
You are actually delusional cuz you watch cycling while you think everyone is doped.


Wrong. I don't watch any tennis at all. Because I don't like the sport. I watch cycling, because I like the sport. Cycling is the only sport you like.

So, when Valverde and Contador are retired, the sport will be dead? No, it won't. Just as it didn't die when dozens of stars were busted for doping. Because the riders don't make the sport. The sport will exist regardless of whether those people are a part of it.
So, when Valverde and Contador are retired, the sport will be dead? omg,
did I said that? No than there will be enough other riders to cheer for.

 

[craig1985]

I know your response was to another poster, but since there have been a couple of critical responses to my original post, I want to be clear that I certainly wasn't implying that drama is nonexistent without certain riders. Also, I definitely don't feel like I need a 'hero' to cheer for, to whoever implied that. Issoisso, you've summarized my feelings on cycling completely with the above-quoted description. I love the sport, I cheer when something exciting happens in the sport. Rebellin was one of my favourite riders, because he always animated every race he was in, even though he didn't win most of the races he was in, he always would attack and finish fourth or something. That, to me, is the spirit of competition, and it's exciting, and I'd like to cheer for riders who embody that spirit. This isn't hero worship, it's just appreciation for making the sport I love more exciting. But of course Rebellin doped. Does that mean I have to be less excited about his exploits? How about stage 17 of the 2006 Tour? Boy that was an exciting stage, but boy Landis sure doped. My point is that, to me, it's not less exciting because somebody cheated. It's disappointing, yes, but it pales in comparison with my excitement at watching the spectacle of the sport.

Anyway, my point is that I don't see why people feel it necessary to freak out that someone who probably doped is able to compete, and to let that obscure their appreciation for the races. I guess my counter question would be: why do people who are old enough and intelligent enough to type several sentences need someone to vilify?

I just watched the 2003 TdF stage to Alpe d'Huez, where Mayo won. You know the score now, and what everybody is on, but it still was exciting to watch. Mayo, Beloki, Vino, Hamilton, were all riding like a cat on a hot tin roof. Same way when I watch old youtube clips of Pantani in the Giro and the Tour in 1998, you and I both know he was doped to the gills, but it is still great to watch.

 

[Cloxxki]

So, we're now going to cheer for the rider with the best combination of talent, effort and doping?
"Yeah, I'm a huge fan of X, he seems to have brought his doping to the level of his talent since moving to his new team. I hope he was involved in that new blood scandal, that would really serve him well towards getting a GC top-10 this year."
I have competed against, and won against, suspect pro riders when they challenged me on my turf. At my own level, I suspected very few riders. In part because because I saw them training harder than myself. In part because, who cares?
If Pro sports are impossible to keep fair, why cheers for pro's, if there are more amateur races locally? What good did big money bring to cycling?

 

[bicing]

Brilliant! Here, have a cookie

Damn, I just ate lunch, but that cookie made me hungry again... Anyway, after being busted by CONI I always thought Valverde's 2 year doping ban was inevitable. I see there are delays to the case, but surely when it does commence a ban will result. Is this not so, am I missing something here??

 

[tifosa]

Mercy! Two threads have made me laugh out loud in the same day, on the same forum.

I smell a conspiracy at work...

Some very funny stuff here.

 

[iliveonnitro]

If the starting gate ramp for the prologue is owned and leased by Italy, does that count as riding on Italian soil?

 

[Cloxxki]

I live 3km away from the starting ramp, may be able to fix something.
A booing wave along the course, especially entering corners, may only give the object of our hate larger pointy wings, but at least it would make a statement who aren't his fans.

 

[Ripper]

I'd like to take it a step further.

If the Italian government could be so kind to declare one truck trailer Italian territory (multi-ambassy vehicle), it could be brought to all the big races over Europe, and have them be run through Italy. An International level bike race deserves to be ran through more than one country anyway, and which better than Italy?
Or make it a motorhome, driven and inhabited by a mobile ambassador. 2 ramps, 2 signs (welcome in...and see you soon again in...) and a good espresso machine, and we're in business!

I like it!