• 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 now a good time to cut days raced & severity of grand tours?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Visit site
Rui Quinta said:
It is.

Nobody dope to can climb the mountain. They dope to climb the mountain fastest.
good point.

Froome, of all people, actually said it best.

asked "does a more mountainous course encourage doping?"

answered "well, no. the logic is, everybody just goes a bit slower"

hypocrit or not, that actually puts it pretty well - and fit cyclist can do most of the climbs - see all the etape guys - just nowhere near as fast.
 
Simply put, no. Athletes dope to win. In all sports. Whether it is to get bigger, stronger, faster, it is to beat the other guy. There is doping in fencing and table tennis for god sakes.
It becomes a moral decision. The difficulty of the course has nothing to do with doping. If nobody doped they would just go a bit slower. Would be just as exciting.
 
El Chingon is correct--one need only look at the history of the Tour to understand why competitors dope.
The Tour was created by a sadist who thought the winner would literally be the last man standing. In his mind, everyone else would drop out of the race.
Combine our competitive instincts with an impossible race and you have a recipe for cheating.
The entire concept begged for it.
Aside from technological advances and rule changes (eg. drafting), not much has changed.
To compare 100 m races with the Tour is missing an essential point--i.e. anyone can run 100 metres.
 
Jun 16, 2012
210
0
0
Visit site
Sure they need more rest days - so far it looks like that's been the prime time to "top up". See for example Brad McGee's recent article where he says he rode even with USPS until the first rest day....
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
reginagold said:
Sure they need more rest days - so far it looks like that's been the prime time to "top up". See for example Brad McGee's recent article where he says he rode even with USPS until the first rest day....

I am curious why they topped up on rest days - why not another day instead? It doesn't take that long and could be done mid-massage or just before lights out.

I realise rest days are when it did happen, but any rationale as to why?
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Visit site
Dear Wiggo said:
I am curious why they topped up on rest days - why not another day instead? It doesn't take that long and could be done mid-massage or just before lights out.

I realise rest days are when it did happen, but any rationale as to why?
because there is no post-race doping control on a day with no racing? do it in the am, longer to get out of glowzone?
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
Dear Wiggo said:
I am curious why they topped up on rest days - why not another day instead? It doesn't take that long and could be done mid-massage or just before lights out.

I realise rest days are when it did happen, but any rationale as to why?

Testing for one reason but Tyler Hamilton noted some sluggishness related to the excess blood at first. Given another day to assimilate the volume along with a controlled training ride would seem to make the results more predictable for the rider. Micro dosing of blood and EPO would seem to lessen that effect but adding the volume of a whole blood unit is huge.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
Visit site
B_Ugli said:
With all the talk of cleaning up the sport recently would it be a good time to discuss:

1. The severity of some 3 weeks tour routes (vuelta 2012) springs to mind and;
2. The number of days the average pro is racing per season (in recent years the season seems to be jan to November with a 1 month off season for some guys)

Surely if everyone is demanding a clean sport organisers have to consider whether they can justifiably treat riders as performing monkeys in the way they have done in recent years.
You can't have been watching the sport for long. Riders like the Schlecks, Contador & that American guy race less in the whole season than riders used to race in 6 months.

A rider racing on the 6 Day circuit these days is a rarity, as is one who races cyclocross. The actual season is not longer now, it's shorter. Riders don't race a full season as they did in the pre EPO era, they pick and choose their races.

As for the severity of the Grand Tours, do me a favour! Look up the 1978 Tour stage to Valence d'Agen. The race finished a few metres short of the line in protest at the split stages that year in the race. Five years later the organisers had a 300km stage followed by a gentle 257km stage in a race with 22 stages and no rest day. Contrast that with today's races, with bikes that are 5kg lighter on roads that are better surfaced and riders who have every convenience laid on. It's not harder now, if anything it's easier.

Doping is caused by one thing and one thing only, human nature to look for an advantage. We all have it, just some will always go that little bit further looking for an edge.

The answer is to make it so not worth it to cheat. Punitive bans for doping riders, permanent bans for "doctors" & DS's may have an effect.
 
the delgados said:
To compare 100 m races with the Tour is missing an essential point--i.e. anyone can run 100 metres.
If you think we're comparing cycling with 100m you completely misunderstood.
The 100m example was to show that doping is not related with the supposedly toughness of endurance sports. If there's an EASY sport that's it.

And btw, anyone (with a little training) can ride a GT. He cannot do it at the professional average speed, but he can get to the line no doubt.
 
B_Ugli said:
With all the talk of cleaning up the sport recently would it be a good time to discuss:

1. The severity of some 3 weeks tour routes (vuelta 2012) springs to mind and;
2. The number of days the average pro is racing per season (in recent years the season seems to be jan to November with a 1 month off season for some guys)

Surely if everyone is demanding a clean sport organisers have to consider whether they can justifiably treat riders as performing monkeys in the way they have done in recent years.

No. It's all possible without dope.
They just ride slower. So what?
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,639
0
0
Visit site
Anyone who thinks that easier races will lead to less doping should read Laurent Fignon's thoughts on the matter.

Stages were far shorter during the EPO era than in Fignon's time, yet as we all know the doping was worse. There simply is not a correlation. The riders dope to beat each other, not to finish the course. Finishing the course is, again, only difficult because everyone else is doing it so damn fast.
 
ElChingon said:
So you guys (that don't want more rest days/shorter stages/less HC climbs) think that adding an extra day of racing in a GT or adding an extra HC climb in a GT will reduce doping?

Who said this? Nobody did.

The common opinion here is that it doesn't matter how tough or easy a race is. They will dope anyway.
It's like the Hitch allready pointed out, people dope for a 100m sprint. It will not change if they make the race less tough.

I mean they kept on reducing the length of the races and doping has only increased. I've heard plenty of riders say it's possible to ride GT's without doping.