• 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 it good or bad for professional cycling to expose doping?

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
Who can think of a rider who has spoken in support of people like Manzano, Kohl, or Jaksche?? I cannot think of anyone.

Actually there were two riders who backed up Manzanos confessions when they were made in March 2004.

Dario Gadeo and Pedro Díaz Lobato.

Ever heard of them? Of course not - Gadeo retired in 2003 at age 28.

Pedro Díaz Lobato retired in 2004 - even though he was a stage winner in the Vuelta the previous year. He claimed he was fired from a team because he would not 'work with the Doctor".
 
Jun 27, 2009
284
0
0
Visit site
Is it necessary to abuse Stephens for stating his opinion?

He says he doesn't care about doping---let the professional cycling peloton decide how they want to regulate it. At least he's being honest.

I've said it before and I'll say it again....knee-jerk anti-doping attitudes and omerta go hand in hand---they feed off of each other. If the public can't even discuss toleration/legalization without hysterics, then cyclists will carry on with omerta because they have no other option.
 
ludwig said:
Is it necessary to abuse Stephens for stating his opinion?

He says he doesn't care about doping---let the professional cycling peloton decide how they want to regulate it. At least he's being honest.

I've said it before and I'll say it again....knee-jerk anti-doping attitudes and omerta go hand in hand---they feed off of each other. If the public can't even discuss toleration/legalization without hysterics, then cyclists will carry on with omerta because they have no other option.
Agree with you. But I also honestly stated my opinion.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Actually there were two riders who backed up Manzanos confessions when they were made in March 2004.

Dario Gadeo and Pedro Díaz Lobato.

Ever heard of them? Of course not - Gadeo retired in 2003 at age 28.

Pedro Díaz Lobato retired in 2004 - even though he was a stage winner in the Vuelta the previous year. He claimed he was fired from a team because he would not 'work with the Doctor".
Excellent information.

Thanks.
 
ludwig said:
Is it necessary to abuse Stephens for stating his opinion?

He says he doesn't care about doping---let the professional cycling peloton decide how they want to regulate it. At least he's being honest.

I've said it before and I'll say it again....knee-jerk anti-doping attitudes and omerta go hand in hand---they feed off of each other. If the public can't even discuss toleration/legalization without hysterics, then cyclists will carry on with omerta because they have no other option.

100% correct. There is no reason to call someone an idiot or stupid because of a disagreement with their opinion. It doesn´t help the debate. This is an amazingly polarizing issue, especially when certain racers names are involved. It´s best to keep our tongues as civil as possible, stay on topic and away from personal attacks. This is the best forum in around. Let´s keep it that way.
 
stephens said:
Of course this is technically true, that riders have "agreed" to follow certain rules and if they aren't, then they are technically cheating. But we humans break laws and rules every day. And once the rules are so ignored by so many participants, continuing to try to force the rule on the group who has so clearly expressed they aren't interested in that rule is a crazy thing to do. The UCI and all the other organizations and interests are just necessary evils. The riders do not exist because of the UCI: the UCI exists on the backs of the riders. For this reason, I must side with the riders first and foremost.

Your position that riders decide is actually the de facto practice and the "rules" are there to apply as necessary, politically or otherwise. The elements that are missing are transparancy, integrity and honesty. I have no problem if pro cycling becomes a joke like "pro" wrestling; it's almost there. But what is well known is "pro" wrestlers take steroids and other PEDs and then go into the rink with steel chairs and rile up the white trash. Maybe, once we know that every pro cyclist is doping somehow, we can add some farcical elements to the spectacle, like the time when the mountain biker jumped over the peleton, and we can even add "unknown" elements to the course like tag teaming "pro" wrestlers jumping up out of the bushes and attacking the peleton with steel folding chairs. I am joking, of course, and advocate that there remain some regulating forces.
 
ludwig said:
Is it necessary to abuse Stephens for stating his opinion?

He says he doesn't care about doping---let the professional cycling peloton decide how they want to regulate it. At least he's being honest.

I've said it before and I'll say it again....knee-jerk anti-doping attitudes and omerta go hand in hand---they feed off of each other. If the public can't even discuss toleration/legalization without hysterics, then cyclists will carry on with omerta because they have no other option.

I was only stating my opinion as well, I appologize for using the word stupid. Once again Alpe is the voice of reason, insane is a much more accurate discription.
 
Good post Shawn, I think you pretty much nailed it.
ludwig said:
Is it necessary to abuse Stephens for stating his opinion?
He was being honest. But I didn't think I was abusing him. I just think when someone says the cyclists should be in charge of who can dope or not is tantamount to stating that cheating should be allowed in sports, as long as the cheating dopers with most control can exert that power over the others, forcing them to tolerate it, or potentially damage their bodies as well. If it sounded like I was insulting him directly as a person, I apologize. But his suggestion to me was a completely mad proposition.

Frank Vandenbroucke, Marco Pantani, Jose Maria Jiminez, Valentino Fois, Jobie Dajka, Luca Gelfi, Thierry Claveyrolat, Vincente Lopez-Carril, Marc de Meyer, Bert Oosterbosch, Joachim Halopczok, Paul Haghedooren, Connie Meije, and several more I can't remember off the top of my head all died at a young age when in theory at the peak of their life. All of them raced during the last two decades or so, dominated by doping in our sport. Granted, not all of these people directly died due to doping, but common reasoning would lend one to deduce this would be a primary reason for their tragic fate.

At the very least Greg LeMond, Christoph Bassons, Gilles Delion, Andy Hampsten, Graeme Obree, and a slew of other riders had potential glory, and fortune taken away from them because they refused to damage their body by doping, and they refused to cheat, instead relying on their God given talent, and determination. By stating that because the system in use to catch dopers failed, and the cheaters were allowed to police themselves it's somehow acceptable that these honest riders were cheated out of their careers is in my opinion, complete madness.

We had this discussion before in this thread.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
Good post Shawn, I think you pretty much nailed it.

He was being honest. But I didn't think I was abusing him. I just think when someone says the cyclists should be in charge of who can dope or not is tantamount to stating that cheating should be allowed in sports, as long as the cheating dopers with most control can exert that power over the others, forcing them to tolerate it, or potentially damage their bodies as well. If it sounded like I was insulting him directly as a person, I apologize. But his suggestion to me was a completely mad proposition.

Frank Vandenbroucke, Marco Pantani, Jose Maria Jiminez, Valentino Fois, Jobie Dajka, Luca Gelfi, Thierry Claveyrolat, Vincente Lopez-Carril, Marc de Meyer, Bert Oosterbosch, Joachim Halopczok, Paul Haghedooren, Connie Meije, and several more I can't remember off the top of my head all died at a young age when in theory at the peak of their life. All of them raced during the last two decades or so, dominated by doping in our sport. Granted, not all of these people directly died due to doping, but common reasoning would lend one to deduce this would be a primary reason for their tragic fate.

At the very least Greg LeMond, Christoph Bassons, Gilles Delion, Andy Hampsten, Graeme Obree, and a slew of other riders had potential glory, and fortune taken away from them because they refused to damage their body by doping, and they refused to cheat, instead relying on their God given talent, and determination. By stating that because the system in use to catch dopers failed, and the cheaters were allowed to police themselves it's somehow acceptable that these honest riders were cheated out of their careers is in my opinion, complete madness.

We had this discussion before in this thread.

Again, you said it better than I, and you said it right.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
shawnrohrbach said:
Your position that riders decide is actually the de facto practice and the "rules" are there to apply as necessary, politically or otherwise. The elements that are missing are transparancy, integrity and honesty. I have no problem if pro cycling becomes a joke like "pro" wrestling; it's almost there. But what is well known is "pro" wrestlers take steroids and other PEDs and then go into the rink with steel chairs and rile up the white trash. Maybe, once we know that every pro cyclist is doping somehow, we can add some farcical elements to the spectacle, like the time when the mountain biker jumped over the peleton, and we can even add "unknown" elements to the course like tag teaming "pro" wrestlers jumping up out of the bushes and attacking the peleton with steel folding chairs. I am joking, of course, and advocate that there remain some regulating forces.

You may be joking, but that sounds pretty awesome to me...
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Alpe d'Huez said:
Good post Shawn, I think you pretty much nailed it.

He was being honest. But I didn't think I was abusing him. I just think when someone says the cyclists should be in charge of who can dope or not is tantamount to stating that cheating should be allowed in sports, as long as the cheating dopers with most control can exert that power over the others, forcing them to tolerate it, or potentially damage their bodies as well. If it sounded like I was insulting him directly as a person, I apologize. But his suggestion to me was a completely mad proposition.

Frank Vandenbroucke, Marco Pantani, Jose Maria Jiminez, Valentino Fois, Jobie Dajka, Luca Gelfi, Thierry Claveyrolat, Vincente Lopez-Carril, Marc de Meyer, Bert Oosterbosch, Joachim Halopczok, Paul Haghedooren, Connie Meije, and several more I can't remember off the top of my head all died at a young age when in theory at the peak of their life. All of them raced during the last two decades or so, dominated by doping in our sport. Granted, not all of these people directly died due to doping, but common reasoning would lend one to deduce this would be a primary reason for their tragic fate.

At the very least Greg LeMond, Christoph Bassons, Gilles Delion, Andy Hampsten, Graeme Obree, and a slew of other riders had potential glory, and fortune taken away from them because they refused to damage their body by doping, and they refused to cheat, instead relying on their God given talent, and determination. By stating that because the system in use to catch dopers failed, and the cheaters were allowed to police themselves it's somehow acceptable that these honest riders were cheated out of their careers is in my opinion, complete madness.

We had this discussion before in this thread.
+ Nolf and Salonson
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
Good post Shawn, I think you pretty much nailed it.

He was being honest. But I didn't think I was abusing him. I just think when someone says the cyclists should be in charge of who can dope or not is tantamount to stating that cheating should be allowed in sports, as long as the cheating dopers with most control can exert that power over the others, forcing them to tolerate it, or potentially damage their bodies as well. If it sounded like I was insulting him directly as a person, I apologize. But his suggestion to me was a completely mad proposition.

Frank Vandenbroucke, Marco Pantani, Jose Maria Jiminez, Valentino Fois, Jobie Dajka, Luca Gelfi, Thierry Claveyrolat, Vincente Lopez-Carril, Marc de Meyer, Bert Oosterbosch, Joachim Halopczok, Paul Haghedooren, Connie Meije, and several more I can't remember off the top of my head all died at a young age when in theory at the peak of their life. All of them raced during the last two decades or so, dominated by doping in our sport. Granted, not all of these people directly died due to doping, but common reasoning would lend one to deduce this would be a primary reason for their tragic fate.

At the very least Greg LeMond, Christoph Bassons, Gilles Delion, Andy Hampsten, Graeme Obree, and a slew of other riders had potential glory, and fortune taken away from them because they refused to damage their body by doping, and they refused to cheat, instead relying on their God given talent, and determination. By stating that because the system in use to catch dopers failed, and the cheaters were allowed to police themselves it's somehow acceptable that these honest riders were cheated out of their careers is in my opinion, complete madness.

We had this discussion before in this thread.

Kimmage used this line from The Eagles' song very appropriately to describe the doping situation.

"Last thing I remember I was running for the door
I had to find the passage back to the place I was before.
Relax said the night man, We are programmed to receive.
You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave."
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
Digger said:
Kimmage used this line from The Eagles' song very appropriately to describe the doping situation.

"Last thing I remember I was running for the door
I had to find the passage back to the place I was before.
Relax said the night man, We are programmed to receive.
You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave."

How about the Grateful Dead:

"Sittin' and starin' out of the hotel window.
Got a tip they're gonna kick the door in again
I'd like to get some sleep before I travel,
But if you got a warrant, I guess you're gonna come in.
.
.
Set up, like a bowling pin.
Knocked down, it gets to wearin' thin.
They just wont let you be, oh no."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truckin'
 
Dec 4, 2009
11
0
0
Visit site
I can not see any good from this. This desire to 'rid' the sport of 'cheaters' is in itself killing the sport.

Riders such as VDB, The Killer, Lion of Flanders, and Der Kaiser is what makes our sport great. It is these riders that attract the sponsors and fans. So many riders, management and UCI have ridden on there coat tails and as soon as there is positive, they throw them under the bus. How sad. I for one will always claim them as my heroes.

From a sponsor point of view, there is no predictability. Let's say you want to showcase your rider but you can't because months or even years later, an investigation can open up. Or let's say you want to attract a new sponsor. You know the conversation quickly turns to doping. How many sponsors would we have if we were just more reasonable.

Lastly, these athletes push themselves beyond limits that are mind boggling. Honestly, if you were 12 days deep into the tour and 4 mountain stages ahead of you, what would you do? My honest answer and to dismay of many is that no option would be taken off the table as all I want to do is put on a good show.
 
Jul 24, 2009
239
0
0
Visit site
Libera said:
Riders such as VDB, The Killer, Lion of Flanders, and Der Kaiser is what makes our sport great.
But their careers are/were built on lies.
It is these riders that attract the sponsors and fans. So many riders, management and UCI have ridden on there coat tails and as soon as there is positive, they throw them under the bus.
Look how many dopers there are who have been suspended and made comebacks. In recent years there has been Millar, Vinokourov, Bubnenkova, Sella, Basso, Scarponi, shortly we will have Riccò etc, to name but a few. That's hardly being thrown under the bus. It's just being told to get off the bus for a couple of years.
Or let's say you want to attract a new sponsor. You know the conversation quickly turns to doping. How many sponsors would we have if we were just more reasonable.
That depends on your definition of reasonable. Mine is, "not cheating." We'd have many more sponsors were that the case.
Honestly, if you were 12 days deep into the tour and 4 mountain stages ahead of you, what would you do?
I'd do the best I could clean. If I couldn't hack it I'd drop out.
 
Libera said:
I can not see any good from this. This desire to 'rid' the sport of 'cheaters' is in itself killing the sport.

Riders such as VDB, The Killer, Lion of Flanders, and Der Kaiser is what makes our sport great. It is these riders that attract the sponsors and fans. So many riders, management and UCI have ridden on there coat tails and as soon as there is positive, they throw them under the bus. How sad. I for one will always claim them as my heroes.

From a sponsor point of view, there is no predictability. Let's say you want to showcase your rider but you can't because months or even years later, an investigation can open up. Or let's say you want to attract a new sponsor. You know the conversation quickly turns to doping. How many sponsors would we have if we were just more reasonable.

Lastly, these athletes push themselves beyond limits that are mind boggling. Honestly, if you were 12 days deep into the tour and 4 mountain stages ahead of you, what would you do? My honest answer and to dismay of many is that no option would be taken off the table as all I want to do is put on a good show.

VDB, sadly, is dead.

The major dope busts that have come about in the sport have been from police action, not doping controls. So there is no predictability in the sport anyway, as long as it's rife with dope.

Cleaning up the sport will help attract sponsors. Faking cleaning up the sport, the UCI's stated path, will only fix it in the short term 'till the next bombshell.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I certainly understand the reaction to "stephens" opinion, but he has a point which I interpreted as the fundamentals of free choice without authority. Certainly, it is a very 'out-there' radical kind of view, but i don't solely disagree with it.

All people have choices in their life, and if they choose to take dope and risk their lives (and potentially die from it as Alpe alluded to) then that is their right and their choice to do so.

Nobody is forcing them to dope. They choose that path. They may feel pressure to dope, but nothing is stopping an athlete from walking away from the sport. Nothing is stopping the athlete from choosing to speak out about the sport. Certainly there is pressure to dope and keep your mouth shut, but you have a choice either way. Choose to dope and keep quiet, or choose not to dope and speak out.

It is certainly a sad state of the sport if up and comers feel that they are 'forced' to dope, but that is their inability to deal with the peer pressure if they feel bullied into putting a substance into their body.

When an athlete who is busted comes out and says something along the lines of "I had no choice" then i shake my head and just think, well, yes you did have a choice, and you chose the wrong option.

All that said, I still believe that the sport is worse off for doping. In this post, I was just trying to rationalise the view of stephens that doping is a choice and that as humans we have a right to put in our body whatever we want (or at least I interpreted his/her view that way, and feel free to correct me if i'm wrong, stephens)
 
Mountain Goat said:
I certainly understand the reaction to "stephens" opinion, but he has a point which I interpreted as the fundamentals of free choice without authority. Certainly, it is a very 'out-there' radical kind of view, but i don't solely disagree with it.

All people have choices in their life, and if they choose to take dope and risk their lives (and potentially die from it as Alpe alluded to) then that is their right and their choice to do so.


Nobody is forcing them to dope. They choose that path. They may feel pressure to dope, but nothing is stopping an athlete from walking away from the sport. Nothing is stopping the athlete from choosing to speak out about the sport. Certainly there is pressure to dope and keep your mouth shut, but you have a choice either way. Choose to dope and keep quiet, or choose not to dope and speak out.

It is certainly a sad state of the sport if up and comers feel that they are 'forced' to dope, but that is their inability to deal with the peer pressure if they feel bullied into putting a substance into their body.

When an athlete who is busted comes out and says something along the lines of "I had no choice" then i shake my head and just think, well, yes you did have a choice, and you chose the wrong option.

All that said, I still believe that the sport is worse off for doping. In this post, I was just trying to rationalise the view of stephens that doping is a choice and that as humans we have a right to put in our body whatever we want (or at least I interpreted his/her view that way, and feel free to correct me if i'm wrong, stephens)

Then there is no choice. It's not a choice if the options are "be a pro cyclist" or "don't touch PEDs". These people are simply trying to live out their dreams so it's not a fair choice to say to them "take this or walk from the sport".

The individual cyclists are the last people in the chain of cleaning the sport up. The choices on whether or not the sport is clean are made by the administrators, the teams, and finally the cyclists.
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Visit site
This is a popular belief: that cyclists don't have a choice because if they don't dope, they won't succeed.

I don't know. Maybe. But there are lots of things that the riders simply must do if they wish to succeed as bike racers. And overall I'm not convinced yet that modern, properly administrated "doping," is necessarily any more harmful to the riders than all those other legal things they "must" do if they are to succeed.

After all, the athlete who receives the most criticism here as a doper has somehow managed to fight off cancer and manages to be healthy enough to compete at 40 or whatever the hell he is and has even managed to father a child with his previously infertile equipment. So I'm not convinced that whatever he has done as far as doping is concerned has been unhealthy.

So all we're left with is the "fairness" argument which states that even if it's not dangerous, it's not fair that a guy born with less talent can catapult himself into the lead because he responds better to drugs than others might. I'm simply not bothered by this since it seems no more unfair to me than one rider becoming a pro because he was born with better genes or the ability to respond better to training or nutrition or heal broken bones faster or any number of things than the others around him.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
Hugh Januss said:
That is the stupidest thing I have ever read on this forum. You have far eclipsed the best efforts of BPC and Deadwrong.
Let's keep all the non corrupt politicians from running for office if they are not willing to play by the same rules as those who are in office now.
I really hope you are just trolling and you don't really believe this crap, because it would be tragic if anyone was really this stupid.



Amen, I think you just about nailed it.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
stephens said:
After all, the athlete who receives the most criticism here as a doper has somehow managed to fight off cancer and manages to be healthy enough to compete at 40 or whatever the hell he is and has even managed to father a child with his previously infertile equipment. So I'm not convinced that whatever he has done as far as doping is concerned has been unhealthy.

You should ask Lance's U23 National team teammates if they think doping is bad for you.

Coached by Chris Charmichael they were doped with Cortisone. It should be no surprise that 5 of the riders came down with very similar illnesses that are all enhanced by immunosuprsent drugs like Cortisone. Ernie Lachuga even developed the same form of cancer as Lance. USA cycling lost a court case and had to pay $500,000 to the riders. Chris Charmichael settled out of court for $250,000.

There are plenty more riders who would disagree with you. Fignon, Anquetil, Johannes Draaijer, Tom Simpson.....The list goes on but I am sure you have never heard of them.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Mountain Goat said:
I certainly understand the reaction to "stephens" opinion, but he has a point which I interpreted as the fundamentals of free choice without authority. Certainly, it is a very 'out-there' radical kind of view, but i don't solely disagree with it.

All people have choices in their life, and if they choose to take dope and risk their lives (and potentially die from it as Alpe alluded to) then that is their right and their choice to do so.

Nobody is forcing them to dope. They choose that path. They may feel pressure to dope, but nothing is stopping an athlete from walking away from the sport. Nothing is stopping the athlete from choosing to speak out about the sport. Certainly there is pressure to dope and keep your mouth shut, but you have a choice either way. Choose to dope and keep quiet, or choose not to dope and speak out.

It is certainly a sad state of the sport if up and comers feel that they are 'forced' to dope, but that is their inability to deal with the peer pressure if they feel bullied into putting a substance into their body.

When an athlete who is busted comes out and says something along the lines of "I had no choice" then i shake my head and just think, well, yes you did have a choice, and you chose the wrong option.

All that said, I still believe that the sport is worse off for doping. In this post, I was just trying to rationalise the view of stephens that doping is a choice and that as humans we have a right to put in our body whatever we want (or at least I interpreted his/her view that way, and feel free to correct me if i'm wrong, stephens)

Interesting justification. What if you were not able to do your job because you were unwilling to break the law?
 

TRENDING THREADS