Do all of the top riders do drugs or dope?

[BikeCentric]

I like your answer. I also value your opinions a lot. Thanks.

The problem that I have with cycling is that I am very nationalistic. That is the way I was raised from the cycling point of view. The climbers from Colombia emerged from the early eighties as unique light climbers that bred from the Andes of South America. We seemed to have some advantage at some point. That became like a myth in my country in the eighties. They were called "Los Escarabajos".

All that was lost at the beginning of the nineties. The high hematocrit levels along with the Light weight advantage were completely lost. We were already worthless on the flats, so we were completely disposed from racing. Until few renegades like Botero and others started to learn what the rules of the game were.

Because of these unique advantages I became very patriotic when watching the races. That hope that we will be better climbers as a group still holds in me. But as you can see, unless we play the same game we will never have hope again. Besides, who needs small climbers anymore when you can have big riders who can climb just as or better than the Colombians?

I just need to start enjoying cycling regardless of the Country they come from.

I hope my writing is understandable.

Hey we all have issues like this as cycling fans. I am an American and was inspired to start bike racing myself at age 22 by Armstrong's inspiring story in 1999. I looked up to my countrymen Armstrong, Hamilton, and Landis, who turned out to be three of the biggest dopers in the history of the sport LOL! When that all came out I was very disillusioned for a time but with time it all just became another lesson for me on the way the world works.

 

[carl spackler]

Your implication that by watching them without a presumption of guilt corrupts the viewer, I call foul. Nothing could be further. I do not "judge" them, I accept them.

Assuming you meant presumption of innocence? Pretty sure you watch with a presumption of guilt.

If you dont judge them, then why the desire for change? It is what it is right? No need to judge. Or maybe the riders are merely innocents in the sponsors game, and its the sponsors and organizers who need to change. Either way watching makes you part of the game.

I would contend that you too probably have hope that some are clean. Otherwise I'd put you squarely in the b. category, but carrying a lot of guilt for being part of a corrupt sport that you just can't help but support. Come to think of it I bet there are a lot of people on this forum in that category. It explains a lot.

 

[Ferminal]

Assuming you meant presumption of innocence? Pretty sure you watch with a presumption of guilt.

If you dont judge them, then why the desire for change? It is what it is right? No need to judge. Or maybe the riders are merely innocents in the sponsors game, and its the sponsors and organizers who need to change. Either way watching makes you part of the game.

I would contend that you too probably have hope that some are clean. Otherwise I'd put you squarely in the b. category, but carrying a lot of guilt for being part of a corrupt sport that you just can't help but support. Come to think of it I bet there are a lot of people on this forum in that category. It explains a lot.

So personal judgements are the only reasons to "fight" doping?

Rider health, financial costs, a "talent" rather than "program" based playing field.

I fail to see the link.

With regards to "b." - people discuss things because they enjoy it and find the exchange of opinion/information interesting. I definitely enjoy the "gossiping" and that's what fora are about.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Assuming you meant presumption of innocence? Pretty sure you watch with a presumption of guilt.

If you dont judge them, then why the desire for change? It is what it is right? No need to judge. Or maybe the riders are merely innocents in the sponsors game, and its the sponsors and organizers who need to change. Either way watching makes you part of the game.

I would contend that you too probably have hope that some are clean. Otherwise I'd put you squarely in the b. category, but carrying a lot of guilt for being part of a corrupt sport that you just can't help but support. Come to think of it I bet there are a lot of people on this forum in that category. It explains a lot.

Yes, my error, sorry.

I don't watch with any feeling of innocence or guilt towards riders. If they break the rules and are caught, then they are sanctioned. It is what it is. Judging them just brings a person distress. Why waste your emotional energy on something so insignificant?

I feel absolutely ZERO guilt for anything related to cycling. Not one iota. Well, except maybe not making enough time to have done it in the course of my life.

What explains a lot is how irrationally personal cycling fans take doping stories and emotionally *** so many cycling fans truly can be.

If you want change, resist with your dollars. It is the only thing they want.

The moral high ground and judgement of workers doing what they "need" to do to survive, or win, brings a cycling fan nothing.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

 

[Ferminal]

Yes, my error, sorry.

I don't watch with any feeling of innocence or guilt towards riders. If they break the rules and are caught, then they are sanctioned. It is what it is. Judging them just brings a person distress. Why waste your emotional energy on something so insignificant?

I feel absolutely ZERO guilt for anything related to cycling. Not one iota. Well, except maybe not making enough time to have done it in the course of my life.

What explains a lot is how irrationally personal cycling fans take doping stories and emotionally *** so many cycling fans truly can be.

If you want change, resist with your dollars. It is the only thing they want.

The moral high ground and judgement of workers doing what they "need" to do to survive, or win, brings a cycling fan nothing.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

You can switch the TV off, never visit cycling websites, never ride your bike again, never purchase goods or services from a sponsor involved in cycling. How far do you want to take your moral stand against doping in cycling? (I assume this is the point trying to be made about "b.")

But remember that the biggest victims as a result of your actions will be the individuals - not the establishment.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

You can switch the TV off, never visit cycling websites, never ride your bike again, never purchase goods or services from a sponsor involved in cycling. How far do you want to take your moral stand against doping in cycling? (I assume this is the point trying to be made about "b.")

But remember that the biggest victims as a result of your actions will be the individuals - not the establishment.

Then do get involved in mentoring young athletes (doesn't have to be cycling, per se) and give them guidance. So few athletes really have the potential to be elite, the prospect of them being faced with a real dilemma over doping is remote. The best thing I think that can be done is on a grass-roots level to inform and expand the minds of athletes who need it.

If you take your moral stand to the level of activism, lobbying and politicizing the issue, unless you are a billionaire, you are wasting your time. As an enterprise, cycle racing is too far gone to be "saved" top down. The lip service of the Vaughters, Stapletons, Gerdemanns is vapor/marketing.

Heck, start a new cycling union. New rules, new game, compete for the fans that the "corrupt" cycling world now has. If you are right, you should easily put them under.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes, my error, sorry.

I don't watch with any feeling of innocence or guilt towards riders. If they break the rules and are caught, then they are sanctioned. It is what it is. Judging them just brings a person distress. Why waste your emotional energy on something so insignificant?

I feel absolutely ZERO guilt for anything related to cycling. Not one iota. Well, except maybe not making enough time to have done it in the course of my life.

What explains a lot is how irrationally personal cycling fans take doping stories and emotionally *** so many cycling fans truly can be.

If you want change, resist with your dollars. It is the only thing they want.

The moral high ground and judgement of workers doing what they "need" to do to survive, or win, brings a cycling fan nothing.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

"Workers doing what they need to survive"..... Many of those 'workers' are dead, others are sick and many more have little idea of what substances they were given.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

"Workers doing what they need to survive"..... Many of those 'workers' are dead, others are sick and many more have little idea of what substances they were given.

Save it.

Try working in a mill, or a mine, or any other manual labor field. Relying on your physical ability to make a living takes on hazards and risks. If those are uncomfortable with that, study harder, get better grades, learn a safer trade, etc. If you are fine with the risks, and learn a few ways to improve your stature, increase your pay, become a bigger value to your employer, even though you might break some rules (and full well knowing that ALL your peers do the same), you do it and no one not in that field should be your judge, or so to speak. There is your Omerta.

You make them out to be these doe-eyed "victims". Cycling, as a profession, is not populated with doe-eyed victims. Sure, some are far too dim to completely "get it" but they know they are not taking vitamins. Hence my position that is starts with grass-root effort to inform and modulate the expectations of your aspiring athletes.

Ridding of the sport of the snakes who entrap the few doe-eyed, naive French and Spanish country boys who ca turn a big gear and finish their vegetables can be your quest. Tell us all how it goes.

When the world stops wanting Diamonds, mined at great human expense out the the earth, will be about the time we see three week GT's go the way of the dodo.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Save it.

Try working in a mill, or a mine, or any other manual labor field. Relying on your physical ability to make a living takes on hazards and risks. If those are uncomfortable with that, study harder, get better grades, learn a safer trade, etc. If you are fine with the risks, and learn a few ways to improve your stature, increase your pay, become a bigger value to your employer, even though you might break some rules (and full well knowing that ALL your peers do the same), you do it and no one not in that field should be your judge, or so to speak.

You make them out to be these doe-eyed "victims". Cycling, as a profession, is not populated with doe-eyed victims. Sure, some are far too dim to completely "get it" but they know they are not taking vitamins. Hence my position that is starts with grass-root effort to inform and modulate the expectations of your aspiring athletes.

Ridding of the sport of the snakes who entrap the few doe-eyed, naive French and Spanish country boys who ca turn a big gear and finish their vegetables can be your quest. Tell us all how it goes.

Why would I want to work in a mill? Or a mine?

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Why would I want to work in a mill? Or a mine?

Intentionally obtuse? That is not your style.

Try again.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Intentionally obtuse? That is not your style.

Try again.

Well my point was going to be - that I don't work in a mill or a mine,I dont need to. I think you will find that many who do are desperate and destitute and have little choice in the matter.
They are forced to accept often abysmal safety standards.

Actually I work in an industry that is viewed as dangerous and full of risk - however there are numerous systems and checks in place to ensure our safety and continuous training throughout the industry.

And this is the flaw in your argument - Cycling is 'marketed' as a clean healthy sport. PMcQ says in this video shot in January that it is a great sport to get kids involved in.

By your vote in the poll - you have already accepted that a majority of the top riders dope, so unless you believe doping is a healthy practice then you accept that those who do not know the sport are being sold a lie.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Well my point was going to be - that I don't work in a mill or a mine,I dont need to. I think you will find that many who do are desperate and destitute and have little choice in the matter.
They are forced to accept often abysmal safety standards.

My point is that the mine/mill option is often the next step down for a cyclist who does not make it.

Actually I work in an industry that is viewed as dangerous and full of risk - however there are numerous systems and checks in place to ensure our safety and continuous training throughout the industry.

Sounds pleasant. Sounds well governed. Sounds nothing like the life of a cyclist.

And this is the flaw in your argument - Cycling is 'marketed' as a clean healthy sport. PMcQ says in this video shot in January that it is a great sport to get kids involved in.

I make no claim that cycling is truth, I defend nothing about the UCI or Paddy. It is what it is, discovery what it is not, is not difficult.

On its face, cycling is a clean healthy sport. Professional Pro Tour cycle racing is not a clean healthy sport. McQuaid as candyman? Wow, the ultimate villain.

"Hey kids, just ride a little. Here take this bike for a spin. First ride is free..."

By your vote in the poll - you have already accepted that a majority of the top riders dope, so unless you believe doping is a healthy practice then you accept that those who do not know the sport are being sold a lie.

Not true. I accept that it is the duty of one's own mind and decision to figure out what cycling is or is not. I know what it is, and will share my opinion but I won't force my view, or preach about the righteous and judge the transgressors.

I'll leave you with two quotes.

One an Aquinas quote to mull over:

Because of the diverse conditions of humans, it happens that some acts are virtuous to some people, as appropriate and suitable to them, while the same acts are immoral for others, as inappropriate to them.

The other, a Spinoza quote:

I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.

Apply as you see fit.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

My point is that the mine/mill option is often the next step down for a cyclist who does not make it.



Sounds pleasant. Sounds well governed. Sounds nothing like the life of a cyclist.



I make no claim that cycling is truth, I defend nothing about the UCI or Paddy. It is what it is, discovery what it is not, is not difficult.

On its face, cycling is a clean healthy sport. Professional Pro Tour cycle racing is not a clean healthy sport. McQuaid as candyman? Wow, the ultimate villain.

"Hey kids, just ride a little. Here take this bike for a spin. First ride is free..."



Not true. I accept that it is the duty of one's own mind and decision to figure out what cycling is or is not. I know what it is, and will share my opinion but I won't force my view, or preach about the righteous and judge the transgressors.

I'll leave you with two quotes.

One an Aquinas quote to mull over:

Because of the diverse conditions of humans, it happens that some acts are virtuous to some people, as appropriate and suitable to them, while the same acts are immoral for others, as inappropriate to them.

The other, a Spinoza quote:

I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.

Apply as you see fit.

You said - "I won't force my view, or preach about the righteous and judge the transgressors".......and 2 posts up you asked me to "save it" and now offer me 2 quotes to pick from?

You said "it is what it is", which is an obvious point - however, there is little reason for PED abuse in the sport, it is not necessary to its survival or enjoyment.

If the distances are beyond human limits then reduce them, if the Tours are too long add in extra rest dates.

'It is what it is' does not mean it always has to be.

 

[Oldman]

You said - "I won't force my view, or preach about the righteous and judge the transgressors".......and 2 posts up you asked me to "save it" and now offer me 2 quotes to pick from?

You said "it is what it is", which is an obvious point - however, there is little reason for PED abuse in the sport, it is not necessary to its survival or enjoyment.

If the distances are beyond human limits then reduce them, if the Tours are too long add in extra rest dates.

'It is what it is' does not mean it always has to be.

The key to cleaning it up. That and limiting the number of days a contracted Pro rider is allowed to race.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

You said - "I won't force my view, or preach about the righteous and judge the transgressors".......and 2 posts up you asked me to "save it" and now offer me 2 quotes to pick from?

You tossed emotional hyperbole on a fact. I thought that my reply was not out of place. Did you read the quotes yet? Which one do you most closely agree with?

You said "it is what it is", which is an obvious point - however, there is little reason for PED abuse in the sport, it is not necessary to its survival or enjoyment.

I agree. The issue is how to fix it.

If the distances are beyond human limits then reduce them, if the Tours are too long add in extra rest dates.

'It is what it is' does not mean it always has to be.

Not bad ideas, and would not impact the drama or quality of the race.

 

[BroDeal]

[/color]

The key to cleaning it up. That and limiting the number of days a contracted Pro rider is allowed to race.

Shortening the season would not hurt. The January to October schedule must be killing.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You tossed emotional hyperbole on a fact. I thought that my reply was not out of place. Did you read the quotes yet? Which one do you most closely agree with?

I agree. The issue is how to fix it.



Not bad ideas, and would not impact the drama or quality of the race.

You see this is the point!!

First is the obvious question - is it fixable? My opinion is yes.

Ultimately, the riders are little more than pawns in the grand scheme - if they don't charge up they may not perform and get replaced, or they get caught and are replaced.
But the systems that looks the other way, the UCI, DS's, other stakeholders always remain.

All anti-doping needs to be taken away from the UCI & indeed the teams.

Of course the UCI will not voluntarily do this as they say the sport is cleaner than it ever has been- and this is the rub, with laws in many countries in Europe it is only a matter of time before there is another Puerto or Festina (or indeed a case like PDM or Kelme with more dire consequences).

So the more PMcQ talks up 'clean cycling' the bigger the repercussions for those that were charged with protecting the welfare and safety in the sport.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Read thread. Some interesting comments. personally I think not but I have taught myself to not be surprised when a rider is found guilty.
Personally i find it hard to watch and follow a sport which is completely fraudulent and is not at all "pure".

Can people answer me (if they have answered "yes") how do you follow the sport of cycling if it is fraudulent?

Yes, you may like the sport but it's full of cheats. The logic in that always evades me.

Also, when reading the thread, I found interesting that people were talking about who they thought was "clean" not who they thought was "dirty". Unfortunately that is the change of attitude of people in this forum and general cycling followers.

 

[timmers]

Can people answer me (if they have answered "yes") how do you follow the sport of cycling if it is fraudulent?

Yes, you may like the sport but it's full of cheats. The logic in that always evades me.

Well I have just seen Ricky Ponting and his mates play cricket. They cheat all the time by appealing when they know the batsman is not out and by not walking when they are out!
Unfortunately all sports have cheats BUT if you believe in a sport, AND are a member i.e. hold a UCI licence if cycling is your spor,t then you will try and get rid of cheats.

 

[craig1985]

CBF reading all the read, and I voted that I wasn't sure. I'm convinced somebody like Moncoutie is clean, but who knows though.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Well I have just seen Ricky Ponting and his mates play cricket. They cheat all the time by appealing when they know the batsman is not out and by not walking when they are out!
Unfortunately all sports have cheats BUT if you believe in a sport, AND are a member i.e. hold a UCI licence if cycling is your spor,t then you will try and get rid of cheats.

Appealing and not walking is NOT cheating. The umpire makes the descision. Not the batsman or bowler.

 

[Ferminal]

Well I have just seen Ricky Ponting and his mates play cricket. They cheat all the time by appealing when they know the batsman is not out and by not walking when they are out!

Was great to see Ricky on the other side of that situation, last week.

 

[Cerberus]

Ambrose Bierce eh? Let me reference Dr. Johnson. A cynic is a "philosopher of the snarling or currish sort."

Meh, I prefer Bierce.

It's not fair to judge the whole by the actions of a few. Maybe I am naive, but there are several guys that I have never once thought are doping until people make the assertions in these forums. It's no secret doping is a major part of the sport, but I have a very hard time assuming all riders dope especially if there isn't a smoking gun. Once I do see smoke, I become suspicious, but I try not to make assumptions.

It's not about judging the whole by the actions a few (mind you I counted and 50% the spots on the Tour Podium in the last 15 years have been occupied by people convicted of or having confessed to doping Scandals (counting Ulrich), and another 35% having been implicated in doping scandals. That is a rather novel definition of the word “few”). The point is that the advantage gained by doping might very well be so large that anyone who is clean just won't be able to compete. Studies have indicated that doping to 50% can boost performance by 10-15% (I can find some for you if you want).

Outside of laboratories and into the ranks of professional cyclists we have Bjarne Riis for a case. Pre-doping he finished number 100. Post doping he finished 5th, 13th, 3rd and 1st. If those gains are typical that mean that in order for the winner to be clean, none perhaps 50 or 100 or even larger number of the best cyclists have to succumb to the temptation. Hardly realistic. Of cause Riis won back when there was no limits to how much Epo you could take. Lance made a similar transformation though after the 50% limit had been instated and he maintained his dominance after the EPO test came out. Landis also made that transformation and he officially tested positive.

Kohl also made a huge performance jump once he started using blood doping and that was post- bio-passport. Of cause he did get caught, but perhaps he could have gotten the same results just with Transfusions. To me the logic is simple. If the gains of doping are large enough then the strongest riders have to be doping, or they wouldn't be the strongest. The evidence is overwhelming that the gains were that large (and larger) at least a few years ago, and frankly I'm far from convinced that things have changed. No one would think it was possible to achieve top results on a bicycle with internal gears. The power loss is just too great, but the power loss from staying clean might very well be greater than that.

Cynical? I'll coop to that, but wrong?

 

[595RED]

Gastro problems

What is with the reasonable number of high profile riders dropping out or DNS ing races due to gastro problems. Bad batch?

 

[blackcat]

Meh, I prefer Bierce.




It's not about judging the whole by the actions a few (mind you I counted and 50% the spots on the Tour Podium in the last 15 years have been occupied by people convicted of or having confessed to doping Scandals (counting Ulrich), and another 35% having been implicated in doping scandals. That is a rather novel definition of the word “few”). The point is that the advantage gained by doping might very well be so large that anyone who is clean just won't be able to compete. Studies have indicated that doping to 50% can boost performance by 10-15% (I can find some for you if you want).

Outside of laboratories and into the ranks of professional cyclists we have Bjarne Riis for a case. Pre-doping he finished number 100. Post doping he finished 5th, 13th, 3rd and 1st. If those gains are typical that mean that in order for the winner to be clean, none perhaps 50 or 100 or even larger number of the best cyclists have to succumb to the temptation. Hardly realistic. Of cause Riis won back when there was no limits to how much Epo you could take. Lance made a similar transformation though after the 50% limit had been instated and he maintained his dominance after the EPO test came out. Landis also made that transformation and he officially tested positive.

Kohl also made a huge performance jump once he started using blood doping and that was post- bio-passport. Of cause he did get caught, but perhaps he could have gotten the same results just with Transfusions. To me the logic is simple. If the gains of doping are large enough then the strongest riders have to be doping, or they wouldn't be the strongest. The evidence is overwhelming that the gains were that large (and larger) at least a few years ago, and frankly I'm far from convinced that things have changed. No one would think it was possible to achieve top results on a bicycle with internal gears. The power loss is just too great, but the power loss from staying clean might very well be greater than that.

Cynical? I'll coop to that, but wrong?

flaw in your theory that Riis was pre doping. That defies belief. He just got on a different program, and pushed the limits.