Is pro cycling too difficult?

[SlantParallelogram]

Is pro cycling too difficult?

Yes. Absolutely.

That might be one of the reasons why there is so much use of performance enhancing drugs. I have no idea why race organizers choose such difficult race routes, or why the races need to be so long.

I know this is the way things have always been, but in the age of live television coverage, do 6 to 8 hour races or stages really make sense? If you are going to end a stage on a mountain top, do you really need to ride for 6 hours before that? Just start the stage at the bottom of the climb and have a half hour shoot-out up the climb.

I personally would rather see a half hour race that was an absolute full throttle shoot out, than an 8 hour race. The other thing about the half hour race is that there would probably be way more people with the potential to win, instead of only a handful of riders.

 

[Cerberus]

Is pro cycling too difficult?

Yes. Absolutely.

That might be one of the reasons why there is so much use of performance enhancing drugs. I have no idea why race organizers choose such difficult race routes, or why the races need to be so long.

I know this is the way things have always been, but in the age of live television coverage, do 6 to 8 hour races or stages really make sense? If you are going to end a stage on a mountain top, do you really need to ride for 6 hours before that? Just start the stage at the bottom of the climb and have a half hour shoot-out up the climb.

I personally would rather see a half hour race that was an absolute full throttle shoot out, than an 8 hour race. The other thing about the half hour race is that there would probably be way more people with the potential to win, instead of only a handful of riders.

I don't know whether shorter races would make for more exciting racing, but it wouldn't make it any cleaner. Whatever the distance you need to cross it faster than the other guys, or at least as fast. Unless it's a 500 meter dead sprint with no build up blood boosters help you do that.

 

[Martin318is]

and if it IS a 500m deaed sprint then 'roids and grow hormone etc help with that...

 

[R.0.t.O]

The answer is yes, not just in terms of race distances but also the overall calendar and the travelling demands between races. I've said before that these were the conditions that historically caused doping to be so mainstream within cycling. If this had been addressed in the 60s or 70s then maybe we would have had a few years when not everyone was off their tits on amphetamines.

But cycling would have caught up just like loads of sports did in the 80s and 90s to the commercial benefits of doping. Shortening the races now would have no impact on doping habits because people are doping to win and get contracts not to survive. Fewer, shorter races would probably increase the overall doping level because it means more competition for the available publicity.

 

[Ferminal]

Weren't races harder before blood doping became the norm?

 

[pmcg76]

Isnt this the same argument as to the most juiced up athletics event historically, the 100m sprint, the shortest and easiest of athletic events. 9-12secs, over but they sure do take a lot of stuff.

 

[mercycle]

Weren't races harder before blood doping became the norm?

What, you mean the original Tour deFrance over dirt and gravel roads on fixed gear 30lb bicycles, when the riders had to carry their own spares and had to fix their own bikes and food? Or the Giros that did the same?

Harder? You betcha but the riders were more manly then and just got down to business (of course the probability that different "recovery and performance aids" were used is pretty high, think Jacques Anquetil).

 

[Escarabajo]

The only thing that shorter races would do is alleviate the "A$$" and back pain of the riders. Other than that it would be the same story if the culture of cycling is not changed.

Remember what Greg Lemond said? Even in the average of racing is X km/hr slower, someone has to get to finish line anyway.

 

[forty four]

competitive athletes at the highest level often cheat never gonna change although in cycling with the sometimes brutal race regimen it promotes ped use even more. shortening races might lower ped use a bit but it will always be there at the elite level in more or less any sport.

 

[forty four]

oh and the early tour riders were doped to the gills as well actually in some ways it was worse. look up guys like arthur linton and other cyclists of that era and some of the races like paris/bordeoux crazy. arthur linton never recovered from winning paris/bordeoux and died a month or so later they believed it was from the peds he took during the race. they used things like opiates strychnine(really) amphetamines alcohol and anything else available at the time.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Is pro cycling too difficult?

Yes. Absolutely.

That might be one of the reasons why there is so much use of performance enhancing drugs. I have no idea why race organizers choose such difficult race routes, or why the races need to be so long.

I know this is the way things have always been, but in the age of live television coverage, do 6 to 8 hour races or stages really make sense? If you are going to end a stage on a mountain top, do you really need to ride for 6 hours before that? Just start the stage at the bottom of the climb and have a half hour shoot-out up the climb.

I personally would rather see a half hour race that was an absolute full throttle shoot out, than an 8 hour race. The other thing about the half hour race is that there would probably be way more people with the potential to win, instead of only a handful of riders.

Is the sun too bright?

Is love too powerful?

Is war too dangerous?

Are there too many flavors of ice cream?

I am baffled by posts like this... To what end does this question bring us? Shortened races. Less climbing. To say there should be a standardized, compartmentalized racing "route", like the chalk on the pitch or grass of Wimbeldon? How about if there were an imposed "half-time", or an adjustable distance for "crash stoppages"?

The joy of racing, and spectating, is the varied terrain, the often unknown quality or difficulty of route, and how that changes as the km's roll on. To sanitize the openness of how road racing is run would be to impose a set of parameters and structures on sculptors or painters. Imagine if Renoir was told he had a brush stroke limit, or limit on the number of the colors used? How about if Gehry was governed by a strict, "right angles only" policy? Or if Frank Loyd Wright was told the opposite?

Come now. Pro Cycling is not "too difficult". It is Pro Cycling, therefore it is exactly difficult. Its difficulty is its quality and rareness.

If the kitchen hotness is too much to bear, perhaps the cooks can apply elsewhere?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Weren't the Vuelta stages shortened some years ago? And (IIRC) the only thing that happened was it made the racing much quicker.

 

[alberto.legstrong]

Is the sun too bright? Sometimes

Is love too powerful? Yes.

Is war too dangerous? No.

Are there too many flavors of ice cream? Ok Dude, wtf.....?

 

[BikeCentric]

Pro cycling started as an ultra-endurance sport and the races and stages of races were much longer back around the turn of the Century. Look at the history of the early Tour de France; the route was almost twice as long as it is now! Of course therefore they went much slower.

Anyone who has ever raced an American criterium knows that the shorter a bike race is then the faster the race will be. So in that regard simply shortening the races would make no difference. And I do not think the one-day races are too long at all; I think they are just perfect the way they are.

Now all that being said I do think the Grand Tours are a bit nuts and probably too long on the overall as well as having the individual stages too long especially in the context of a 3-week race. I think the Grand Tour and/or one-week stage race is probably what did the most to create the doping culture because that is guys doping to recover and maintain their strength for day after day of racing. I think the solution here is simply to add more rest days to the Grand Tours.

Finally I do not think that the overall length of the pro season and the huge number of races is a problem either. It would certainly be a problem if an individual rider tried to race them all but they don't, and have more races and a longer calendar just gives more riders an opportunity to get a contract and represent teams in races.

 

[JPM London]

... people are doping to win and get contracts not to survive. Fewer, shorter races would probably increase the overall doping level because it means more competition for the available publicity.

To me doping to get contracts and to survive is the same thing.

Anyway, totally agree about the available publicity point you're making. And not just for the individual riders. there would be less publicity for sponsors if there weren't any two hour rides up in front which would mean less money for the sport in general.

Personally as well I enjoy the day-long progression of a race. It's a patient, developing game. The only downside is when the race finishes. When I sometimes convince my girlfriend to actually see a bit of a race her reaction at then end is always: "Was that it?" and I must admit, sometimes it feels like you've had a 5 hour build-up and just end it with "oh, that guy won...".

Totally agree with all the comments that it wouldn't change doping. Only proper testing will... It's not golf.

 

[Awolpe]

What, you mean the original Tour deFrance over dirt and gravel roads on fixed gear 30lb bicycles, when the riders had to carry their own spares and had to fix their own bikes and food? Or the Giros that did the same?

Harder? You betcha but the riders were more manly then and just got down to business (of course the probability that different "recovery and performance aids" were used is pretty high, think Jacques Anquetil).

but dont forget the avg speed these days is about 5kms faster than it was then!!

 

[luckyboy]

Whatever the difficulty is, people will still dope. People dope to win crits ffs.

 

[ChrisE]

What is up with these stupid threads? Weak Horner, teabag creatine, now this.

 

[SlantParallelogram]

What is up with these stupid threads?

Well you are posting in it. So what does that say about you?

 

[SlantParallelogram]

I am baffled by posts like this... To what end does this question bring us? Shortened races. Less climbing. To say there should be a standardized, compartmentalized racing "route", like the chalk on the pitch or grass of Wimbeldon? How about if there were an imposed "half-time", or an adjustable distance for "crash stoppages"?

Where did you get the idea that shorter races would equal generic standardized race routes? Anyway, don't we have this already? The only difference is that the route takes 6 to 8 hours to complete.

There wouldn't be less climbing either. I said, "if you are going to end the race on a mountain top then why waste 6 hours racing before that?" Just start the race at the bottom of the climb.

If the previous 6 hours included other climbs then have separate stages that start at the bottom of each of those climbs and race to the top. If you want to see how many riders can be badly injured on dangerous descents, then have a separate stage for that. Or limit the stage to two climbs with a descent in between.

Watching a breakaway dangle off the front for hours, only to be caught by the field with 5 minutes left doesn't seem that exciting to me anymore.

Like many others have said, shorter races equal faster races. Faster races are so much better to watch on television.

 

[ChrisE]

Well you are posting in it. So what does that say about you?

It means I'm in awe somebody could be so ignorant as to why people dope or cheat, in any endeavor, to start a thread like this.

I just can't help piling on such a person thus my post. I mean no offense; we all have our faults and picking on stupidity is mine. I will talk about this with my shrink soon and try to exorcize this demon vice out of my mind.

I have some suggestions for some new threads you could start:

1) Is Sex Too Hard? A case against Viagra.
2) Capitalism: It's just too hard...let's kill it before another Enron happens.
3) The Damn Sun! It makes me wear sunglasses!

Take care.

 

[ingsve]

Is pro cycling too difficult?

Yes. Absolutely.

That might be one of the reasons why there is so much use of performance enhancing drugs. I have no idea why race organizers choose such difficult race routes, or why the races need to be so long.

I know this is the way things have always been, but in the age of live television coverage, do 6 to 8 hour races or stages really make sense? If you are going to end a stage on a mountain top, do you really need to ride for 6 hours before that? Just start the stage at the bottom of the climb and have a half hour shoot-out up the climb.

I personally would rather see a half hour race that was an absolute full throttle shoot out, than an 8 hour race. The other thing about the half hour race is that there would probably be way more people with the potential to win, instead of only a handful of riders.

Even a flat 100 meter run has doping so no matter how the course is there will still be benefits to doping.

 

[peloton]

Even a flat 100 meter run has doping so no matter how the course is there will still be benefits to doping.

also a flat 400 meter run
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/22042010/58/olympic-champ-merritt-fails-drugs-test.html

 

[SlantParallelogram]

I will talk about this with my shrink soon and try to exorcize this demon vice out of my mind.

 

[SlantParallelogram]

Pro cycling is the perfect example of what happens when a sport and its governing body is controlled by a bunch of corrupt promoters with no care or concern for the welfare of the athletes. That is why the events are so insanely long and difficult.

There are people who will cheat in almost any sport, and almost any event. However pro cycling is the only sport I know of where it is a necessity to dope simply to keep your job.