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

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

    Thanks!

Is anyone else getting tired

Jun 28, 2009
568
0
0
Visit site
Of accusing riders of doping purely based on a performance in a race? Here you have these athletes going out and busting their balls to win races and then people point their fingers at them just because they win. These guys are tested more then athletes in any other sport around the world. When they are not found guilty of doping we blame the testers or say the rider is on something that cannot be detected. When does this all stop. This is the most l βitchy forum I have ever been a part of.
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
Visit site
Yeah. The Clinic exists for a reason, and if I venture there I accept that I'll have my love of the sport dragged down a bit. I try to stay away unless I'm there to share about the fight against doping.

But it's all over the regular threads as well, so you can't have a normal conversation without having it shoved down your throat. Threads about riders, races...there really isn't a safe place to go and not hear about "programs" and all the other garbage. It's a shame.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Clemson Cycling said:
Of accusing riders of doping purely based on a performance in a race? Here you have these athletes going out and busting their balls to win races and then people point their fingers at them just because they win. These guys are tested more then athletes in any other sport around the world. When they are not found guilty of doping we blame the testers or say the rider is on something that cannot be detected. When does this all stop. This is the most l βitchy forum I have ever been a part of.

Who is being accused only based on performance?
 
Jun 13, 2009
180
0
0
Visit site
Dopers also have to train and race their guts out to win.

I don't mind the speculation over who's charged and who's not. It’s all part of the theatre that is pro cycling.

Of course, I'd love it if cycling got cleaned up, but the history of the sport suggests that it isn't clean now and won't be for a long time to come.

When they invented bike racing, they invented doping.
 
PACONi said:
Dopers also have to train and race their guts out to win.

I don't mind the speculation over who's charged and who's not. It’s all part of the theatre that is pro cycling.

Of course, I'd love it if cycling got cleaned up, but the history of the sport suggests that it isn't clean now and won't be for a long time to come.

When they invented bike racing, they invented doping.

My thoughts exactly.
 
Not really. History has proven than insanely good performances often have an origin in something not quite legal. The pessimism can sometimes get out of hand, but given the history, it is understandable.

Got a particular case that's bugging you?
 
Clemson Cycling said:
Of accusing riders of doping purely based on a performance in a race? Here you have these athletes going out and busting their balls to win races and then people point their fingers at them just because they win. These guys are tested more then athletes in any other sport around the world. When they are not found guilty of doping we blame the testers or say the rider is on something that cannot be detected. When does this all stop. This is the most l βitchy forum I have ever been a part of.

I get more tired of people who spew Pat McQuaid's talking points. When people use crap like "tested more then athletes in any other sport around the world" as an excuse for why we should believe top pros are clean it makes me fear for the future of the human race. Here are the top five of the 2005 Tour de France.

1. Lance Armstrong
2. Ivan Basso
3. Jan Ullrich
4. Francisco Mancebo
5. Alexander Vinokourov

That list is a farce. Every one of them is a doper. Only one was caught by an official test (ignoring Ullrich caught for using ecstasy when partying while recovering from a knee injury). The one rider who was caught, Vinokourov, appears to have only been caught because he or his advisor did not know that before the 2007 TdF the AFLD had acquired the equipment to test for homologous blood transfusions. That is a 20% "hit rate" for catching dopers. Each of the five had passed scores and scores of tests. In some cases they passed tests that numbered in the low hundreds. That right there tells us that the tests are near worthless.

The current Italian investigation found plasma expanders. At last year's Tour seven of the eight remaining Astana riders used infusion equipment. That tells us that riders are still using techniques to get their hematocrits down. It would also explain why the performance of the top riders does not appear to have decreased.

While there are some signs that the doping has become more difficult and, perhaps, less prevalent for the lower level riders, I do not see that there is any reason for us to believe that anything has changed at the top.
 
BroDeal said:
I get more tired of people who spew Pat McQuaid's talking points. When people use crap like "tested more then athletes in any other sport around the world" as an excuse for why we should believe top pros are clean it makes me fear for the future of the human race. Here are the top five of the 2005 Tour de France.

1. Lance Armstrong
2. Ivan Basso
3. Jan Ullrich
4. Francisco Mancebo
5. Alexander Vinokourov

That list is a farce. Every one of them is a doper. Only one was caught by an official test (ignoring Ullrich caught for using ecstasy when partying while recovering from a knee injury). The one rider who was caught, Vinokourov, appears to have only been caught because he or his advisor did not know that before the 2007 TdF the AFLD had acquired the equipment to test for homologous blood transfusions. That is a 20% "hit rate" for catching dopers. Each of the five had passed scores and scores of tests. In some cases they passed tests that numbered in the low hundreds. That right there tells us that the tests are near worthless.

The current Italian investigation found plasma expanders. At last year's Tour seven of the eight remaining Astana riders used infusion equipment. That tells us that riders are still using techniques to get their hematocrits down. It would also explain why the performance of the top riders does not appear to have decreased.

While there are some signs that the doping has become more difficult and, perhaps, less prevalent for the lower level riders, I do not see that there is any reason for us to believe that anything has changed at the top.

You pretty much nailed it.
 
Mar 19, 2009
832
0
0
Visit site
PACONi said:
Dopers also have to train and race their guts out to win.

I don't mind the speculation over who's charged and who's not. It’s all part of the theatre that is pro cycling.

Of course, I'd love it if cycling got cleaned up, but the history of the sport suggests that it isn't clean now and won't be for a long time to come.

When they invented bike racing, they invented doping.

I totally agree with you also.

I remember being at a friend's house in 2001 and turning on his TV one morning to watch the Tour. My friend knew nothing at all about cycling or doping but when he saw Armstrong flying up Alpe D'Huez he couldn't believe it. He kept saying, "that's impossible, how can somebody do that?". It was like watching an exaggerated cartoon.

Seriously Clemson read up on the history of cycling and doping.
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
Visit site
I appreciate that anyone who has been around the sport, especially for a long time, has been through a heck of a lot of doping stories just in mainstream media. People who have done research, read the books and articles, etc. have seen tons. Some people really enjoy talking about doping, and bringing up stories from years past.

But the Forum does have rules, and the Clinic exists for a reason. If talking about it gives people pleasure, and people want to rush here before the race is even over like some did Sunday, that's fine. It's your room. But there's so damned much of it that is blatantly bandied about outside the Clinic. If I like to discuss races, and performances and training, I don't need to hear about hematocrit levels and programs from this doctor or this team or director.

If you searched the general forum for the word Ferrari, how many times do you think it would turn up? Believe it or not, there are a number of us who like to look at cycling without thinking about doping. I can stay away from the Clinic voluntarily for ages at a time. But if people with no self control, or who think they're above the rules, insist on ruining other threads with it as well, there's not much we can do. I don't hesitate to add people to my ignore list, but other people just quote them in replies.

I honestly don't care if there's a Clinic thread made for every rider and every race. Just please respect the rights of the rest of us, and the rules, and keep the doping talk there.
 
Jul 13, 2009
425
0
0
Visit site
Clemson Cycling said:
Of accusing riders of doping purely based on a performance in a race?

No. Because not all doping can be detected, the public needs to resort to other ways to find out who has been doing it. Naturally they start speculating and in some cases such speculations are confirmed (like when Heras won a TT in the Vuelta).
 
Mar 12, 2009
2,521
0
0
Visit site
Jonathan said:
No. Because not all doping can be detected, the public needs to resort to other ways to find out who has been doing it. Naturally they start speculating and in some cases such speculations are confirmed (like when Heras won a TT in the Vuelta).

+1
or like Sella, Schumi, Kohl.
 
Aug 4, 2009
1,056
1
0
Visit site
I been trying for 50 years to find something to make it easy to win but nothing is any good it dont work.

Its all rubbish so leave it alone and ride hard life is short.

You can buy a faster bike on what you spend on dope.
 

ianfra

BANNED
Mar 10, 2009
313
0
0
Visit site
I certainly won't accuse riders of doping without evidence. I think the peeps on here who do so are cynics to the nth degree. Not peeps I'd like to go out riding with. I've had enough of their stupidity and nonsense.
 
ianfra said:
I certainly won't accuse riders of doping without evidence. I think the peeps on here who do so are cynics to the nth degree. Not peeps I'd like to go out riding with. I've had enough of their stupidity and nonsense.

It is always good for his Holiness to stop by The Clinic and tell the unworthy how good he is. Your riding buddies must be getting a double effect from training. Not only do they have to deal with the rigors of the kilometers, they build up their mental toughness by enduring the presence of an insufferable pr!ck such as yourself.
 
ianfra said:
I certainly won't accuse riders of doping without evidence. I think the peeps on here who do so are cynics to the nth degree. Not peeps I'd like to go out riding with. I've had enough of their stupidity and nonsense.

I tend to agree somewhat...

While it's understandable that people react that way considering the history of the sport, I'm not jumping that wagon myself. This way of thinking is not only in cycling of course; at the moment it's also quite popular to say all bankers are cheats (and that you have always known that something was wrong and that the markets would crash and blah-de-blah).

Personally I love to dive in to the topic of doping in an investigative way and read all the stuff I can get my hands on, but am careful not make conclusions based purely on who knew who and so on.

Also I'm quite keen to allow people quite some benefit of the doubt, not because I'm naive (although I probably am), but more because it's always easier to accuse than to defend in these cases.

Somebody has to win, that's the nature of the sport. Even if they all rode one giant tandem (or multi-dem?) one of the riders would still cross the line first. Sometimes the winner is a doped, definitely in the nineties and for a good portion of the noughties, but sometimes he's not. Simply stating that someone is doped because he won or saying he's performance was inhuman when it's clear everybody else gave up and didn't chase him is not cutting it for me and never will.
 
Jul 29, 2009
441
0
0
Visit site
The problem I have is with flawed logic.

Cancellara is the one most recently to have been "convicted" on the basis of his performances.

Now if Cancellara is the only one in the peloton who's doping or is able to dope to a far greater extent then it would make sense but I find that a very difficult hypothesis to accept.

Personally I think the only times when doping has been the main contributory factor to an individual's success was in the early 90s when epo usage started but the benefits and best way to use it was not known to all and in the subsequent years before the 50% limit was imposed as it depended on a rider's desire essentially risk death how far they would push it.

I am not suggesting the peloton is clean or that drugs are not necessary for success. (insufficient evidence for the current situation)


I don't believe the deciding reason that Cancellara won was because he either had better or more drugs than his main rivals. Talent, hard work and tactics were the biggest factors by far.

(Sorry I forgot mental factors- as soon as FC went I think the rest were beaten mentally more than anything)

If I didn't think that , I would stop watching.
 
Jun 29, 2009
111
0
0
Visit site
Some of you guys need to seriously lay off the waccy baccy. After everything that's gone down over the years you still believe in this crap? It's completely legit to question incredible performances, and with good reason. Seeing a guy blow away the opposition twice in a week, and breathing easy while doing it, should set alarm bells off for everyone who has the slightest understanding of physiology. Unreal performances are just that. Unreal.
 
Feb 1, 2010
58
0
0
Visit site
I think more riders have to start taking the bullet and start policing themselves. Don't dope. Start calling out people who they know are or call out folks (Doctors, DSs or Managers) who approach them about it. They can even in some cases do it anonymously, if they see a bunch of infusion equipment in a guys room. Leave the room and make a call to the authorities. I don't see another way.

It's a tough tough way to go because that group probably would be thrown out of the sport and never get a contract again. Faced with that who's going to step up? And this goes for all sports not just cycling because all sports have their skeletons and demons that need to be exposed. For folks in the U.S., Jose Canseco comes to mind but his motivation was/is murky.

I'm not suggsting a witch hunt by any stretch.
 
Jul 29, 2009
441
0
0
Visit site
red_explosions said:
Some of you guys need to seriously lay off the waccy baccy. After everything that's gone down over the years you still believe in this crap? It's completely legit to question incredible performances, and with good reason. Seeing a guy blow away the opposition twice in a week, and breathing easy while doing it, should set alarm bells off for everyone who has the slightest understanding of physiology. Unreal performances are just that. Unreal.

Of course he may be on PEDs but that doesn't explain his superiority unless all the other riders were clean.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
red_explosions said:
Some of you guys need to seriously lay off the waccy baccy. After everything that's gone down over the years you still believe in this crap? It's completely legit to question incredible performances, and with good reason. Seeing a guy blow away the opposition twice in a week, and breathing easy while doing it, should set alarm bells off for everyone who has the slightest understanding of physiology. Unreal performances are just that. Unreal.

Question, yes. But many posters go way beyond questioning. They state as a FACT! that all top cyclists dope, irrespective of whether there's actually any evidence of it. To top it off, if anyone disagrees they are called a "fanboy", or replied in other patronising, condescending ways that don't actually deal with the point other than "he won so he's on drugs. Fact." Yawn.

I don't care if many of you are bitter cynics, that's why I stay out of the clinic most of the time now and only pop in when there's an actual doping event to discuss. But it's got to such ridiculous levels that the rest of us can't even enjoy a classic without people invading the race threads with drug talk.

I've asked Brodeal this before but didn't get an answer - if you all think every top cyclist dopes (FACT!) and get wound up by it so much you feel the need to spend half your time on the forum discussing it, and professing how they're all drugged-up scum, why do you bother watching it?
 
Jul 13, 2009
425
0
0
Visit site
SirLes said:
Cancellara is the one most recently to have been "convicted" on the basis of his performances.

No, he hasn't. You may have read some amateuristic analyses that made Cancellara look suspect, but he has not been convicted, not in a real sense and not in quotation marks. People just think he doped on the basis of inconclusive but suggestive observations.

To be convicted, evidence must be clear. For what you and I think however, we can set our own standards and explain these. That's what's happening here. You can weigh in with your own ideas, but don't dispute that others can say what they think is true.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
SirLes said:
The problem I have is with flawed logic.

Cancellara is the one most recently to have been "convicted" on the basis of his performances.

It would be flawed logic to pretend that the suspicion of Cancellera is based only on his performance.

He has a long history of working with doping doctors, teams, and DS'.
 

TRENDING THREADS