If you believe all top competitive cyclists dope. Will you still watch the Tour?

Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
If so why?

You are here presumably here because you are a fan of cycling. If you take the position, as many here do, that all top contenders now and in the past were dopers and moreoever anyone who wins in 2009 must surely also be a doper . . . why would you even watch the Tour or any other major race for that matter?

If your position is "ahhh they (top cyclists) are all a bunch of dopers . . . period". Then why are you at "cyclingnews" as opposed to just riding your bike for your own enjoyment? Your here seeking "news" on a topic, competitiv cycling, in which you are convinced is all based on lies, deceit, and only cheaters win.

I'm just trying to understand the logic in the many so called "cycling fanatics/fans/experts/former pros" etc which come here as putative fans of competitive cyclying yet a) believe all top cyclists dope and b) someone winning clean is just not possible.

Seriously, why are you "seasoned cyclists" who are convinced top riders dope even here? Why are you going to even watch the Tour if that's what you believe. If your not going to watch the Tour, aguably the premier event in competitive cycling, why are you frequenting a blog ("cyclingnews") about a topic which you believe is rife with fraud and you are boycotting watching the premier event because its all a fraud???

Just trying to figure out some of the seemingly irrational hatred/spite you sense among many. I don't get it. Seems very illogical . . . here as a fan of competitive cycling yet you believe all top competitive cyclists and their accomplishments are bogus . . . .
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
byu123 said:
If so why?

You are here presumably here because you are a fan of cycling. If you take the position, as many here do, that all top contenders now and in the past were dopers and moreoever anyone who wins in 2009 must surely also be a doper . . . why would you even watch the Tour or any other major race for that matter?

If your position is "ahhh they (top cyclists) are all a bunch of dopers . . . period". Then why are you at "cyclingnews" as opposed to just riding your bike for your own enjoyment? Your here seeking "news" on a topic, competitiv cycling, in which you are convinced is all based on lies, deceit, and only cheaters win.

I'm just trying to understand the logic in the many so called "cycling fanatics/fans/experts/former pros" etc which come here as putative fans of competitive cyclying yet a) believe all top cyclists dope and b) someone winning clean is just not possible.

Seriously, why are you "seasoned cyclists" who are convinced top riders dope even here? Why are you going to even watch the Tour if that's what you believe. If your not going to watch the Tour, aguably the premier event in competitive cycling, why are you frequenting a blog ("cyclingnews") about a topic which you believe is rife with fraud and you are boycotting watching the premier event because its all a fraud???

Just trying to figure out some of the seemingly irrational hatred/spite you sense among many. I don't get it. Seems very illogical . . . here as a fan of competitive cycling yet you believe all top competitive cyclists and their accomplishments are bogus . . . .
You are on a fanboy cliche post-o-rama. Seriously, you don't ride a bike and obviously have not frequented a cycling forum before. Just quit.
 
Apr 9, 2009
1,916
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
You are on a fanboy cliche post-o-rama. Seriously, you don't ride a bike and obviously have not frequented a cycling forum before. Just quit.
He's probably a Cat 5 noob who has just discovered cycling. He'll quit after he gets dropped a few times no doubt.
 
BikeCentric said:
He's probably a Cat 5 noob who has just discovered cycling. He'll quit after he gets dropped a few times no doubt.
Nope. He does not ride at all, has no knowledge of competitive cycling, and his sole reason for being here is that he admires Armstrong. That has not stopped him from telling the rest of us whether or not riders are doping and how common it is in the pro peloton.

Ignorance combined with arrogance is not a good combination. It is truly scary to think that this dude, if you believe him, is an FBI agent. Can you imagine being investigated by this guy, who makes conclusion without knowing anything about the facts. No wonder the prisons are full of the wrongly convicted.

Even Jack shows some ambition to learn.
 
byu123 said:
If so why?

You are here presumably here because you are a fan of cycling. If you take the position, as many here do, that all top contenders now and in the past were dopers and moreoever anyone who wins in 2009 must surely also be a doper . . . why would you even watch the Tour or any other major race for that matter?

If your position is "ahhh they (top cyclists) are all a bunch of dopers . . . period". Then why are you at "cyclingnews" as opposed to just riding your bike for your own enjoyment? Your here seeking "news" on a topic, competitiv cycling, in which you are convinced is all based on lies, deceit, and only cheaters win.

I'm just trying to understand the logic in the many so called "cycling fanatics/fans/experts/former pros" etc which come here as putative fans of competitive cyclying yet a) believe all top cyclists dope and b) someone winning clean is just not possible.

Seriously, why are you "seasoned cyclists" who are convinced top riders dope even here? Why are you going to even watch the Tour if that's what you believe. If your not going to watch the Tour, aguably the premier event in competitive cycling, why are you frequenting a blog ("cyclingnews") about a topic which you believe is rife with fraud and you are boycotting watching the premier event because its all a fraud???

Just trying to figure out some of the seemingly irrational hatred/spite you sense among many. I don't get it. Seems very illogical . . . here as a fan of competitive cycling yet you believe all top competitive cyclists and their accomplishments are bogus . . . .
Well, I think this is a good and fair question.

I can't speak for others, but in my transition from believing that only a few doped (and certainly not Lance!) to believing that almost all of them dope (even LeMond), there was a period when I lost interest. I still will probably never be as thrilled as the day Floyd took off the way he did and won that stage - I was so naive drugs did not occur to me and I was literally jumping up and down with excitement. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt I'll ever get so thrilled about cycling again.

That said, I've decided to be at peace with whatever is going on, just as the pro cyclists apparently are. After all, the main purpose here is entertainment. Doping for these guys is like costumes, makeup and dry ice for actors, rock stars and magicians. It's part of the show, that's all.

It's kind of like the disappointment I went through when I went to Universal Studios as a kid and learned about how much of what I see on the screen is fake. I got over it, and learned to enjoy it anyway. Same with cycling.
 
Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
Ninety5rpm said:
Well, I think this is a good and fair question.

I can't speak for others, but in my transition from believing that only a few doped (and certainly not Lance!) to believing that almost all of them dope (even LeMond), there was a period when I lost interest. I still will probably never be as thrilled as the day Floyd took off the way he did and won that stage - I was so naive drugs did not occur to me and I was literally jumping up and down with excitement. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt I'll ever get so thrilled about cycling again.

That said, I've decided to be at peace with whatever is going on, just as the pro cyclists apparently are. After all, the main purpose here is entertainment. Doping for these guys is like costumes, makeup and dry ice for actors, rock stars and magicians. It's part of the show, that's all.

It's kind of like the disappointment I went through when I went to Universal Studios as a kid and learned about how much of what I see on the screen is fake. I got over it, and learned to enjoy it anyway. Same with cycling.
That makes sense. Do you believe it is possible, in 2009, for a person to be totally clean and win the TDF? I'm curious . . . why do you think LeMond doped?
 
Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
Love Armstrong or hate him if you are a fan of cycling this is one funny vid . . . saw in on Leipheimer's twitter page. ROFLMAO! http://tiny.cc/0KFhX "Didn't he lose his testicles? WTF! . . ." Can't stop laughing . . . .
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
i am not sure why some of the people here are making a big deal of this question.

i am reasonably sure everybody dopes, but my continued appreciation of professional cycling is because if everybody is taking illegal substances, then in my opinion the riders are competing against each other on equal terms. alternatively, if only a few people are doping then it is unfair to suspect the whole peloton. therefore, one should give the benefit of the doubt to the riders who do not test positive.
 
byu123 said:
That makes sense. Do you believe it is possible, in 2009, for a person to be totally clean and win the TDF? I'm curious . . . why do you think LeMond doped?
No, I don't think someone totally clean can win the TDF, because he would have to beat a bunch of guys who are inhumanly fast due to drugs.

The reason I think LeMond doped is because I have come to realize that doping has been part of the bicycle racing culture since the earliest days. Maybe he didn't do EPO and blood doping, and decided to draw the line there when EPO hit the scene, but I believe he must have doped with something. Again, how could he beat a bunch of guys who had the advantage of doping if he was clean (e.g., Fignon admitted to doping - "if all the cyclists who doped would later have cancer, then everyone would have cancer …")?

The thing I keep coming back to is how close these guys are to each other. I don't know if you ride, but my performance fluctuates within a few weeks relative to myself, much less relative to other guys that I ride with, a hell of a lot more than the difference between the fastest and slowest guys in the peloton. What that means is that having a rabbit's foot in one's possession, and really believing that it gives you more power, could make a significant difference for these guys. The guy who wins has to be doing everything right. He has to have the best equipment, the best coaching, the best training and the best PEDs. That applied to Merckx, Hinault, LeMond, Indurain, Ullrich, Armstrong, Landis and anyone else who won the Tour, and to probably almost everyone, if not everyone, who merely rode in the Tour. I just don't believe that one guy could be so much better than the rest to not only beat them every time, but beat them clean while they are all doping.

Now, I'm not 100% convinced about any of this, because I don't have any firsthand evidence of it. I'm just telling you what I would say if someone who knew the truth put a gun to my head and told me to guess, knowing they would pull the trigger if I guessed wrong.

I don't know if you've looked at this list, but please do. It's very sobering. And remember, every single one of those guys passed countless numbers of tests, and claimed innocence, some to and past the bitter end (Floyd, Tyler, Jan, etc.). The only reasonable conclusion is that a careful doper can get away with it for a very long time, an entire career, without getting caught.

I will also add that a part of me desperately wants to believe that Lance Armstrong is some kind of exception to all this. That he really is clean, and has always been clean. But his words and actions simply are not consistent with that theory. From the '99 allegations, to the guilt of so many of his past teammates (Andreu, Heras, Beltran, Hamliton, Landis); from his association with Ferrari to his strict adherence to the code of silence, and outrage with those who violate it, it all adds up to d.o.p.e.r. Sadly.
 
Jun 13, 2009
180
0
0
I'll still watch the interesting/important stages. Not staying up all night to watch a bunch sprint.

I used to believe that they were all clean. Then reality and commonsense caught up to me. Where there is incentive, people will cheat. And where they think they can get away with it, they will certainly cheat.

Add to that cycling's long culture of drugs and its hard to believe they're not all (well the vast majority) on something. See Op Puerto. Sure things aren't as blatant as the late 90's, but they're still doing things to gain an edge.

I'll watch it and enjoy it because I love the spectacle, and I want to barrack for my favorites (and against a certain few) . I'll just take it all with a large grain of salt. Plus, even jacked off my brain, I couldn't do what these guys are capable of.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
byu123 said:
Love Armstrong or hate him if you are a fan of cycling this is one funny vid . . . saw in on Leipheimer's twitter page. ROFLMAO! http://tiny.cc/0KFhX "Didn't he lose his testicles? WTF! . . ." Can't stop laughing . . . .
that is amusing..

what is more interesting is we now seem to know who the complete twit is who nearly knocked over riders on several days during the giro wearing a bullhorn and waving a ruddy great texas flag.. plonker if it is him..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
i shall still watch every stage live on tv or on sky+, watch the friday stage from the hotel room, the ventoux stage from a parisien bar, and the final day from the comfort of a chair on champs elysees...

doping, not doping, etc etc. its still the greatest sporting event in the world..
 
Apr 8, 2009
272
0
0
Ninety5rpm said:
Well, I think this is a good and fair question.

I can't speak for others, but in my transition from believing that only a few doped (and certainly not Lance!) to believing that almost all of them dope (even LeMond), there was a period when I lost interest. I still will probably never be as thrilled as the day Floyd took off the way he did and won that stage - I was so naive drugs did not occur to me and I was literally jumping up and down with excitement. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt I'll ever get so thrilled about cycling again.

That said, I've decided to be at peace with whatever is going on, just as the pro cyclists apparently are. After all, the main purpose here is entertainment. Doping for these guys is like costumes, makeup and dry ice for actors, rock stars and magicians. It's part of the show, that's all.

It's kind of like the disappointment I went through when I went to Universal Studios as a kid and learned about how much of what I see on the screen is fake. I got over it, and learned to enjoy it anyway. Same with cycling.
Yes it is a fair question, but sadly Thoughtforfood, BikeCentric and Brodeal got so excited about trying to doubleguess byu123's pysche that they forgot to answer the question. Nevermind, he only has 72 posts, so can't possibly have an opinion as relevant as their hundreds of posts (mostly about the same topic) that you three have.

So how about it, why don't you answer his question, or are you afraid that it might incriminate your views.

I will wait for you to bait me and put it down to inexperience, but can't say I really give a ***.

So my answer is yes, because I still enjoy it. When they are attacking and hurting (yes it still hurts them), I know what it is like because I race and it hurts me too. I have stood on the side of the road and watched the Tour and all its grandness, I know how hard it is to TT for an hour, or to race up a mountain. Yes it is a different level but that doesn't matter. Oh and I like the scenery too.

So are you going to answer the question or just make up some opinion about me too?
 
BroDeal said:
Even Jack shows some ambition to learn.
When I think of Jack I picture Walt in Gran Torino. Cranky, talks first and doesn't care if others don't like it, but been around a while, can be polite, and there's an open mind in there somewhere that comes out.

byu123 said:
That makes sense. Do you believe it is possible, in 2009, for a person to be totally clean and win the TDF? I'm curious . . . why do you think LeMond doped?
First, let me say something. We often talk and think about the sport as black and white. Riders are "clean" or "doped", but anyone who's been deep enough in the sport knows that there is a perceived gray area. In this gray area are things like drugs not listed on anti-doping lists (remember the 1988 Tour?); drugs once listed, but removed; hyperbaric chambers, TUE's, etc.

Win the Tour completely clean? Not possible at this time, IMO. I've been around too long, the numbers are way too high, and I've been acquainted with some that were close enough to share some pretty valid stories. But unlike BigBoat and a few others I often agree with, I do think there are riders in the Tour who are quite possibly clean (white side of gray). They just don't finish very high up. And I also think the sport is cleaner than it was a few years ago.

As to Lemond, he rode in an era when the pendulum of the sport had swung to the fairly clean side, and doping didn't give the huge gains they did in recent times, so I do believe he was possibly clean his entire career. But it also wouldn't shock me if he was given corticosteroid shots, or even ephedrine based medicine, whether he knew what they were or not, most likely during the early of his career.

I watch because I love the sport. I'm not naive though, and it hurts me whenever yet another scandal, or superhuman performance happens.
 
Apr 8, 2009
272
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I watch because I love the sport. I'm not naive though, and it hurts me whenever yet another scandal, or superhuman performance happens.
+1 Summed up perfectly
 
May 6, 2009
8,522
1
0
Ninety5rpm said:
No, I don't think someone totally clean can win the TDF, because he would have to beat a bunch of guys who are inhumanly fast due to drugs.

The reason I think LeMond doped is because I have come to realize that doping has been part of the bicycle racing culture since the earliest days. Maybe he didn't do EPO and blood doping, and decided to draw the line there when EPO hit the scene, but I believe he must have doped with something. Again, how could he beat a bunch of guys who had the advantage of doping if he was clean (e.g., Fignon admitted to doping - "if all the cyclists who doped would later have cancer, then everyone would have cancer …")?

The thing I keep coming back to is how close these guys are to each other. I don't know if you ride, but my performance fluctuates within a few weeks relative to myself, much less relative to other guys that I ride with, a hell of a lot more than the difference between the fastest and slowest guys in the peloton. What that means is that having a rabbit's foot in one's possession, and really believing that it gives you more power, could make a significant difference for these guys. The guy who wins has to be doing everything right. He has to have the best equipment, the best coaching, the best training and the best PEDs. That applied to Merckx, Hinault, LeMond, Indurain, Ullrich, Armstrong, Landis and anyone else who won the Tour, and to probably almost everyone, if not everyone, who merely rode in the Tour. I just don't believe that one guy could be so much better than the rest to not only beat them every time, but beat them clean while they are all doping.

Now, I'm not 100% convinced about any of this, because I don't have any firsthand evidence of it. I'm just telling you what I would say if someone who knew the truth put a gun to my head and told me to guess, knowing they would pull the trigger if I guessed wrong.

I don't know if you've looked at this list, but please do. It's very sobering. And remember, every single one of those guys passed countless numbers of tests, and claimed innocence, some to and past the bitter end (Floyd, Tyler, Jan, etc.). The only reasonable conclusion is that a careful doper can get away with it for a very long time, an entire career, without getting caught.

I will also add that a part of me desperately wants to believe that Lance Armstrong is some kind of exception to all this. That he really is clean, and has always been clean. But his words and actions simply are not consistent with that theory. From the '99 allegations, to the guilt of so many of his past teammates (Andreu, Heras, Beltran, Hamliton, Landis); from his association with Ferrari to his strict adherence to the code of silence, and outrage with those who violate it, it all adds up to d.o.p.e.r. Sadly.
Best post. I'm a fan of Lance, but I'm not blinded enough to see that chasing down a guy who spoke out against doping is not right, unconvincing denials ("Never tested postive", is like saying I have never been caught speeding, even though you always drive over the limit) etc. In saying that you still have to do the work, and if he was cheating, then he wasn't the only one.

Slight OT, but those who watched cycling in the 80's and saw Fignon race, do you think less of Fignon now for admitting to taking drugs when he raced? If not, why?
 
This is a common forum question, to which, there isn't a "one size fits all" answer.
For a start, the question of doping isn't the property of the supposedly "obssessive". The Apologists seem equally keen to set up endless, often pointless threads on the topic, then have the gall to complain about all the talk!

Fact is, there are many levels of racing, below the Tour, so for some of us, it's just another race. Bigger than the rest, maybe, but just another race.

I follow the sport through it's trials, tribulations and excitement 365 days of the year, not just for three weeks every July.

I've seen a lot of ardent fans, come and go, unable to deal with the regular deflation of discovering that favourite riders/teams have been doping. The hurt has overwhelmed them.

These are the people, who were deluded, yet wise enough to accept the reality of the true situation at the top of our sport when the evidence started to pile up.
What they could not accept, was that cheating is somehow acceptable, providing you can do it and remain undetected.
They won't be watching the Tour.


For those of us who watch, but continue to take a high moral stance against cheating, it is because we constantly strive to improve the future, while being tough enough to accept the bitter truth.
Similar, in fact, to the new young riders within the peloton, who now speak out, with the same voice.

We cannot eradicate doping, but we can change the climate that condones it's practice, hopefully enlightening a few apologists along the way.
 
Mar 18, 2009
981
0
0
I don't know if they all dope,they all haven't been caught yet! lol
But I won't stop watching, unless they stop riding the TDF. :D
 
Mar 11, 2009
74
0
0
msjett said:
I don't know if they all dope,they all haven't been caught yet! lol
But I won't stop watching, unless they stop riding the TDF. :D
Amen to that.
davidg said:
Yes it is a fair question, but sadly Thoughtforfood, BikeCentric and Brodeal got so excited about trying to doubleguess byu123's pysche that they forgot to answer the question. Nevermind, he only has 72 posts, so can't possibly have an opinion as relevant as their hundreds of posts (mostly about the same topic) that you three have.

So how about it, why don't you answer his question, or are you afraid that it might incriminate your views.

I will wait for you to bait me and put it down to inexperience, but can't say I really give a ***.

So my answer is yes, because I still enjoy it. When they are attacking and hurting (yes it still hurts them), I know what it is like because I race and it hurts me too. I have stood on the side of the road and watched the Tour and all its grandness, I know how hard it is to TT for an hour, or to race up a mountain. Yes it is a different level but that doesn't matter. Oh and I like the scenery too.

So are you going to answer the question or just make up some opinion about me too?
Amen to that.
Alpe d'Huez said:
When I think of Jack I picture Walt in Gran Torino. Cranky, talks first and doesn't care if others don't like it, but been around a while, can be polite, and there's an open mind in there somewhere that comes out.

First, let me say something. We often talk and think about the sport as black and white. Riders are "clean" or "doped", but anyone who's been deep enough in the sport knows that there is a perceived gray area. In this gray area are things like drugs not listed on anti-doping lists (remember the 1988 Tour?); drugs once listed, but removed; hyperbaric chambers, TUE's, etc.

Win the Tour completely clean? Not possible at this time, IMO. I've been around too long, the numbers are way too high, and I've been acquainted with some that were close enough to share some pretty valid stories. But unlike BigBoat and a few others I often agree with, I do think there are riders in the Tour who are quite possibly clean (white side of gray). They just don't finish very high up. And I also think the sport is cleaner than it was a few years ago.

As to Lemond, he rode in an era when the pendulum of the sport had swung to the fairly clean side, and doping didn't give the huge gains they did in recent times, so I do believe he was possibly clean his entire career. But it also wouldn't shock me if he was given corticosteroid shots, or even ephedrine based medicine, whether he knew what they were or not, most likely during the early of his career.

I watch because I love the sport. I'm not naive though, and it hurts me whenever yet another scandal, or superhuman performance happens.
Amen to that - except for the Lemond bit (I don't know enough about his racing career etc. etc.).
 
Well, what I'm saying on Greg is just opinion. He may have been 100% clean his entire career, or done more than letting on (like Fignon). But he's such a lightning rod for the subject, everything ends up "IMO".

craig1985 said:
Slight OT, but those who watched cycling in the 80's and saw Fignon race, do you think less of Fignon now for admitting to taking drugs when he raced? If not, why?
That's a very good question Craig. For me it does, a little. I'm not shocked, and imagine most riders during the 70's to 80's had cortisone shots, or took various kinds of amphetamines, or steroids. Though during that time steroids were often considered for muscle building, so usually only used lightly, and in off season. But it's still sad to hear.

A similar question for me, is that it's a little hard for me to swallow the extreme likelyhood that Laurent Jalabert doped. He stayed out of trouble his entire career and isn't tied to any scandals, and rode his heart out in dramatic fashion in many races. But he also raced during the era of heavy EPO use, and for ONCE for several years.
 
I echo the sentiments of Aldp D'Huez, Mello Velo & Ninety5rpm, great comments.

To add my own, I also enjoy other sports like soccer, rugby, athletics and have an interest in American football, Aussie Rules, tennis, baseball. Which of these sports could I believe in 100% either, I enjoy the entertainment but I am not naive enough to believe they are whiter than white.

I love watching cycling and take it as it comes until somebody is busted or is obviously cheating. I also believe it was possible to win clean in the 80s. Infamous drug mule Willy Voet gave Charly Mottet a clean bill and he was a top guy in the 80s.
 
May 6, 2009
8,522
1
0
Was Andrea Tafi the real deal like he claimed himself to be (this is in the 1998 Giro and riding for Mapei, Tafi spoke out against doping and felt the force of omarta and he nearly abandoned, only for his DS to tell him to keep on going. This was in Pantani's biography, pages 136-137 The Death of Marco Pantani)?
 
May 1, 2009
149
0
0
dimspace said:
doping, not doping, etc etc. its still the greatest sporting event in the world..
exactly. i will watch every single stage. why? because its amazing. whether they dope or not these athletes are still incredible. there is no other sporting event in the world that is such a display of extreme athletics (imagine running the boston marathon every day for 3 weeks?!). Add in to that the huge amount of tactical skill, and politics.

i wonder sometimes if the people who say that doping ruins the enjoyment of the sport for them really understand the sport.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY