Is cycling a sport

[ray j willings]

Re: Re:

@tonton: i always enjoy reading your contributions to this forum. (shout out!) you are thoughtful and funny. that said, i don't see how epo is any different than amphetamines or steroids or jumping on trains or whatever. there were no glory days in cycling. the whole purpose was to gain an advantage and beat your opponent so you can win money and prestige. i'm not suggesting a free for all in terms of doping, but i am suggesting that maybe riders and team owners should get together and decide collectively what is acceptable. this is what happens in north american sports where the players have a legal right to collectively bargain.

I truly enjoy your takes as well . Bolded: very important, and also debated in the "changing the business model" thread. IMO, for changes in cycling to take place, the riders must be part of the solution. They are the ones who ultimately decide to take or not to take PEDs. I'm convinced that a majority of riders wants cycling to be clean. They need to have the collective power to say "no", to confront LA-like bullies, or to tell Oleg to STFU. Right now, the CPA is a joke, it is not a union. And that's what riders need: a union, with a system of pension, and I suggest the possibility to forfeit that pension if testing positive. And generalize retro-active testing.

To your point, cheating has always been part of...every sport. I will argue that once upon a time, doping wasn't as big a difference maker. Eddy Merckx himself needed luck to win the '71 TdF, some luck also against the Dr. Mabuse experiment Cyrille Guimard in '72, and he did lose in '75. There was no shortage of Tour avorites in the '80s. No such stories since the beginning of the EPO-era. One team acting like a big steam roller, with domestiques beating true climbers on MTF: not credible, not really sport. And not even good entertainment.

This is very much a standout for me. As an example, look at the last say, 10 TDF's. How often have we been able to look at the start list whittle down the contenders - the true contenders - to about 3-4 riders at most? The same with true Green Jersey contenders and the most dominant sprinter.

Before the race even starts most of us here could have provided a list of the likely stage winners and been 75% correct. You know that a break expert like LLS/Voeckler is almost certainly going to get a stage. You know that first McEwen, then Cav and now Kittel are going to win 2 or more stages. You know that Zabel, then McEwen, now Sagan are almost untouchable for green. You know which of the secondary sprinters are almost guaranteed a stage at some point (Hushovd and now Greipel come to mind here.) You know that one of the 5-6 secondary GC contenders will be allowed to attack and get a stage.

Each year there is very rarely more than 2 or 3 stages going to riders you wouldn't expect. As for surprising GC contenders, you have to look back to Voeckler in 2011, Wigans in 2009 and arguably Contador in 2007. The spectacle, the glorious uncertainty, is becoming all too rare and the sport is suffering for it IMO.

I don't know why you bother watching

 

[Tricycle Rider]

Re: Re:

If you don't mind me asking, what is your sport? And what are your conclusions?

My very first sport was gymnastics, it was enjoyable on a purely recreational level. (If you consider perfectionism to be enjoyable.) Once I got into my teens I realized I sucked, wish somebody would have told me I was too tall and too heavy to succeed on any kind of higher level.

I'm not bitter or anything, but, I don't follow gymnastics much at all these days, the sport has changed so much since I partook. I think there's hardly anything artistic about "artistic gymnastics" anymore (it's more athletic than artistic), and while the elite girls you see on TV aren't necessarily getting any thinner they do seem to be getting shorter and shorter. (It's easier to do all those crazy tricks when you're tiny, young and flexible.)

Anyhoo, not sure if I answered your question... on a recreational level gymnastics is fun, but on the elite level there's a whole bunch of pressures, demands and qualifiers that only a few can meet. That's probably true for any sport.

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

@tonton: i always enjoy reading your contributions to this forum. (shout out!) you are thoughtful and funny. that said, i don't see how epo is any different than amphetamines or steroids or jumping on trains or whatever. there were no glory days in cycling. the whole purpose was to gain an advantage and beat your opponent so you can win money and prestige. i'm not suggesting a free for all in terms of doping, but i am suggesting that maybe riders and team owners should get together and decide collectively what is acceptable. this is what happens in north american sports where the players have a legal right to collectively bargain.

I truly enjoy your takes as well . Bolded: very important, and also debated in the "changing the business model" thread. IMO, for changes in cycling to take place, the riders must be part of the solution. They are the ones who ultimately decide to take or not to take PEDs. I'm convinced that a majority of riders wants cycling to be clean. They need to have the collective power to say "no", to confront LA-like bullies, or to tell Oleg to STFU. Right now, the CPA is a joke, it is not a union. And that's what riders need: a union, with a system of pension, and I suggest the possibility to forfeit that pension if testing positive. And generalize retro-active testing.

To your point, cheating has always been part of...every sport. I will argue that once upon a time, doping wasn't as big a difference maker. Eddy Merckx himself needed luck to win the '71 TdF, some luck also against the Dr. Mabuse experiment Cyrille Guimard in '72, and he did lose in '75. There was no shortage of Tour avorites in the '80s. No such stories since the beginning of the EPO-era. One team acting like a big steam roller, with domestiques beating true climbers on MTF: not credible, not really sport. And not even good entertainment.

This is very much a standout for me. As an example, look at the last say, 10 TDF's. How often have we been able to look at the start list whittle down the contenders - the true contenders - to about 3-4 riders at most? The same with true Green Jersey contenders and the most dominant sprinter.

Before the race even starts most of us here could have provided a list of the likely stage winners and been 75% correct. You know that a break expert like LLS/Voeckler is almost certainly going to get a stage. You know that first McEwen, then Cav and now Kittel are going to win 2 or more stages. You know that Zabel, then McEwen, now Sagan are almost untouchable for green. You know which of the secondary sprinters are almost guaranteed a stage at some point (Hushovd and now Greipel come to mind here.) You know that one of the 5-6 secondary GC contenders will be allowed to attack and get a stage.

Each year there is very rarely more than 2 or 3 stages going to riders you wouldn't expect. As for surprising GC contenders, you have to look back to Voeckler in 2011, Wigans in 2009 and arguably Contador in 2007. The spectacle, the glorious uncertainty, is becoming all too rare and the sport is suffering for it IMO.

I don't know why you bother watching

I rarely do watch the Tour, outside of the highlights (although time zones don't help either). I just put the 1 hour highlights on in the evening while doing stuff around the house. I did watch the Giro religiously this year though, there was some cracking racing, even though the GC was a bit of a non event and the classics are a given

 

[buckle]

Left field but I was intrigued by the mysterious eighteen month "transformation" of Natalie Portman into a World class ballerina (not to be confused with bilharzia), in a role for which she won an oscar. The actual double used makes the point in this and other interviews that this transformation is not possible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbeDf1ioW8Y. In a way, Sarah Lane pulls a Landis but her motives seem pure in so much as the Hollywood machine demonstrated a total lack of respect towards her profession and art form. A situation made worse by Portman's own inane acceptance speech for her award. She thanked everyone from her hair stylist to her dog but not the brilliant Sarah Lane. Yet key to the Portman victory was the narrative that she had danced the sequences herself i.e. there was no or little external assistance. Where have we heard that one before? I know nothing about ballet but perhaps these ballerinas really are the greatest athletes on the planet and should be celebrated as such.

 

[Red Rick]

Cycling is the scapegoat. All other sports can just say, we're not cycling, so we're cleanzz.

Antidoping is crap in every sport,

 

[Red Rick]

Re:

If doping controls were relaxed, I'm sure cyclists could trust people like Manolo Saiz and Johan Bruyneel with their health.

Who cares about health. Why ban something because it's unhealthy? Humans came into existence due to the process of evolution and natural selection, and now we're trying to undo that by trying so hard to make the unfit survive. I'm fully for decriminalisation of all drugs.

 

[movingtarget]

But what if it is entertainment. Big business and money coming together to put on a show and attract sponsors.

Then they're doing a terrible job because the "train model" that has predominated in dominant forces for the last 25 years, whether it be GC riders (Banesto for Indurain, USPS for Armstrong, Sky for Wiggins and Froome) or sprinters (Saeco for Cipollini, Fassa Bortolo for Ale-Jet, HTC for Cavendish), has sucked an awful lot of the entertainment out, leaving us with a less attractive show.

So since becoming more artificial (the level of result skewing due to doping is much higher in the EPO era and beyond than before), the racing has actually become less entertaining, not more.

Yes you are right as far as I remember the leader of the first ever Tour De France was caught getting off an actual train but of course back then the stages were very long and they were drinking beer during the race and whatever. So it seems the train prototype was updated and the teams became the train and then the train became a dope carrier. Where will it all end ? I think the roadrunners and the officials will start doping as well. Some of the drivers are obviously doping.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

But what if it is entertainment. Big business and money coming together to put on a show and attract sponsors.

Then they're doing a terrible job because the "train model" that has predominated in dominant forces for the last 25 years, whether it be GC riders (Banesto for Indurain, USPS for Armstrong, Sky for Wiggins and Froome) or sprinters (Saeco for Cipollini, Fassa Bortolo for Ale-Jet, HTC for Cavendish), has sucked an awful lot of the entertainment out, leaving us with a less attractive show.

So since becoming more artificial (the level of result skewing due to doping is much higher in the EPO era and beyond than before), the racing has actually become less entertaining, not more.

You nailed it!

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Re: Re:

@tonton: i always enjoy reading your contributions to this forum. (shout out!) you are thoughtful and funny. that said, i don't see how epo is any different than amphetamines or steroids or jumping on trains or whatever. there were no glory days in cycling. the whole purpose was to gain an advantage and beat your opponent so you can win money and prestige. i'm not suggesting a free for all in terms of doping, but i am suggesting that maybe riders and team owners should get together and decide collectively what is acceptable. this is what happens in north american sports where the players have a legal right to collectively bargain.

I truly enjoy your takes as well . Bolded: very important, and also debated in the "changing the business model" thread. IMO, for changes in cycling to take place, the riders must be part of the solution. They are the ones who ultimately decide to take or not to take PEDs. I'm convinced that a majority of riders wants cycling to be clean. They need to have the collective power to say "no", to confront LA-like bullies, or to tell Oleg to STFU. Right now, the CPA is a joke, it is not a union. And that's what riders need: a union, with a system of pension, and I suggest the possibility to forfeit that pension if testing positive. And generalize retro-active testing.

To your point, cheating has always been part of...every sport. I will argue that once upon a time, doping wasn't as big a difference maker. Eddy Merckx himself needed luck to win the '71 TdF, some luck also against the Dr. Mabuse experiment Cyrille Guimard in '72, and he did lose in '75. There was no shortage of Tour avorites in the '80s. No such stories since the beginning of the EPO-era. One team acting like a big steam roller, with domestiques beating true climbers on MTF: not credible, not really sport. And not even good entertainment.

This is very much a standout for me. As an example, look at the last say, 10 TDF's. How often have we been able to look at the start list whittle down the contenders - the true contenders - to about 3-4 riders at most? The same with true Green Jersey contenders and the most dominant sprinter.

Before the race even starts most of us here could have provided a list of the likely stage winners and been 75% correct. You know that a break expert like LLS/Voeckler is almost certainly going to get a stage. You know that first McEwen, then Cav and now Kittel are going to win 2 or more stages. You know that Zabel, then McEwen, now Sagan are almost untouchable for green. You know which of the secondary sprinters are almost guaranteed a stage at some point (Hushovd and now Greipel come to mind here.) You know that one of the 5-6 secondary GC contenders will be allowed to attack and get a stage.

Each year there is very rarely more than 2 or 3 stages going to riders you wouldn't expect. As for surprising GC contenders, you have to look back to Voeckler in 2011, Wigans in 2009 and arguably Contador in 2007. The spectacle, the glorious uncertainty, is becoming all too rare and the sport is suffering for it IMO.

I don't know why you bother watching

A lot of people who post on here don't. Twenty five years ago I could hardly wait for the TDF. Today I could care less. Doping has torpedoed the sport. I only watch the occasional highlights or an occasional YouTube highlight (e.g. Alpe d'Huiz) more out of curiosity than anything else. There is no logical connection between criticizing a dirty sport and questioning why or why not someone watches it! Analyzing the nuances of a stage of the TDF (other than maybe a lead out for a sprint, or the psychology of the timing of a break) or caring who wins is a waste of time due to drugs. Who cares or more to the point - why care?