• 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 the age of innocence over for good?

Is the age of innocence over for good?

  • No, sometime down the road, we will again mosty trust in the integrity of cycling.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Oversimplified question about cycling (and perhaps sports generally) for you all:
.
A. Is the age of innocence over for good, with "unfair" enhancements perpetually steps ahead of detection? And the aftermath of an always as much about the speculation of cheating as about the events "on the field".

OR

B. Will we ever get to a point where cycling is generally, more often then not, trusted as s porting endeavor?

(Of course we know there was never much innocence. But we thought there was, and enjoyed sport in ignorant bliss)
.
(EDIT: DAMMIT, I PUT THIS IN THE WRONG FORUM. SHOULD BE CLINIC. MODS, PLEASE MOVE IT. THANK YOU.)
 
Jul 10, 2013
277
0
0
Visit site
Conventional wisdom was that there was some sort of leveled playing field among the peloton (doping-wise), but as we all saw with the Armstrong affair, the system is there for the taking. If you can pay people to provide you information about tests, methods and ways to avoid detection then people will pay for that. Humans will always seek an advantage.

Today's stage signaled the beginning of a new doping scheme as far as I'm concerned.

Siutsou, Kennaugh and Porte dropped Valverde, Evans, Schlek, Purito, Geesink, Mollema and eventually served Contador on a silver platter.

It's such a farce in such a massive scale it's not even funny.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,654
2
0
Visit site
Yes it is. I came to that conclusion after Ax-3-Domaines. I do believe cycling makes a larger effort than other sports to get rid of doping, but it is far from what is needed.
 
Jan 23, 2013
239
0
0
Visit site
I am curious as to when the "age of innocence" in cycling ever existed?

There has always been doping in the peloton. And, there will probably always will be.

The doping has grown more and more sophisticated, expensive, and effective through the decades, but it has always been present.

Highly competiitive people all racing for a single prize with enormous financial backing and access to unscrupulous doctors who also provide a way for the rider to minimize risks of being caught in a culture that widely turns a blind eye is a situation that almost guarantees that some (or most) will cheat for an advantage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

The cleanest years seem to be from the early 1930's to the late 1940's, but the world was distracted by an enormous war during several of those years.

To be a fan of bike racing, in my opinion, means accepting that there is doping and probably always will be. A person can choose to accept that and enjoy the racing, or choose to not accept that and become upset or disappointed frequently.
 
Disclaimer: I was already warned for posting "clinic related" opinions in this segment- but to respond properly to the OP's question, I felt I have to provide a background related to that topic,without intentionally make it entirely "clinic post"-- so Mods, feel free to either erase it or leave it under your discretion:)


TheBean said:
]I am curious as to when the "age of innocence" in cycling ever existed?

There has always been doping in the peloton. And, there will probably always will be.
[/B]
The doping has grown more and more sophisticated, expensive, and effective through the decades, but it has always been present.

Highly competiitive people all racing for a single prize with enormous financial backing and access to unscrupulous doctors who also provide a way for the rider to minimize risks of being caught in a culture that widely turns a blind eye is a situation that almost guarantees that some (or most) will cheat for an advantage.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

The cleanest years seem to be from the early 1930's to the late 1940's, but the world was distracted by an enormous war during several of those years.

To be a fan of bike racing, in my opinion, means accepting that there is doping and probably always will be. A person can choose to accept that and enjoy the racing, or choose to not accept that and become upset or disappointed frequently.

I've been following cycling since the early 80's and back then we knew they took PEDs (amphetamines,stimulants, some steroids, testosterone & rarely Blood doping due to the fear of blood decease contamination, hepatitis, etc.) -yet the performances seemed somewhat "not supernatural"-I even dare to state they felt at some point "achievable by clean sport men under the right circumstances"-So dope was seen more as a "supplements" to make the cyclists deal with the arduous journeys they had to endure throughout the year's racing calender.......So to me Innocence somewhat existed back then..

After the incorporation of O2 vector enhancers (EPO, CERA, BB's etc) the entire sport changed its entire core, because is no longer about taking dope to mitigate fatigue- now the game was transformed into "modifying the athletes physiology entirely" to make it a freak show............. "that's to me when the Innocence of the sport was entirely lost for good"
 
Sep 29, 2012
422
0
0
Visit site
auscyclefan94 said:
Yes it is. I came to that conclusion after Ax-3-Domaines. I do believe cycling makes a larger effort than other sports to get rid of doping, but it is far from what is needed.

Cycling does not make a larger effort. The people in cycling talk about making the effort more than in other sports, all the while turning a blind eye.

The noise in cycling is greater, the effort, not so much.
 
Oct 8, 2009
79
0
0
Visit site
First we had the era of the stimulants (i.e. amphetamines).

Then we had the steroids.

Then we had EPO (in combination with steroids).

Then we had blood transfusions (in combination with smaller dosages of EPO and steroids).

Now we are in the era of microdosing and probably some more unknown drugs such as AICAR, Telmisartan and GW#### whatever.

For me the sport lost all 'innocence'. The 2012 Tour was the first one I really didnt enjoy anymore because I could just see something was wrong with Wiggins and even more so Froome.

But I still really hope cycling can get some of that innocence back in the future. Well, here's to hoping...
 
OP I think meant 'innocence of the fans' rather than innocence of the riders/teams/sport, ie the willingness to suspend disbelief. The answer probably depends which fans you're talking about; there are plenty of casual followers of cycling that seem quite happy to go along with what Froome is doing now just like loads of people got behind the American guy in 1999 despite that being so soon after Festina. But people who seriously follow the sport and look into all this stuff:
images
 
Yes,

While I have way more to say its just a general rant which I wont go too much in, but no longer can you look at any sports without second guessing their performances.

blah blah blah they get paid WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much for it not to be worthwhile.

Maybe they could only pay a small portion of the wages which is only released to the sportsman in 10 years after all of their samples have been retrospectively analysed.

I know it wont happen but something has to be done to remove the carrot.

Anyway bring on the classics. Im bored of people going full genius.
 
Jul 13, 2012
76
0
0
Visit site
The_Juan said:
Siutsou, Kennaugh and Porte dropped Valverde, Evans, Schlek, Purito, Geesink, Mollema and eventually served Contador on a silver platter.

I know that sounds funny, but the fact that the Team Sky domestiques can drop or put pressure on Valverde (previous doper), Evans (lack of form / age), Schlek (likely Fuentes connection and not in form for a while), Gesink, and even Contador (previous doper) or Rodriquez does not necessarily mean that they are dirty.

They have different ambitions (Kennaugh lost 12 minutes, Siutsou lost 19 minutes, and even Porte lost 2:49, over a minute on Contador, Mollema and Purito). Riders like Rodriguez, Mollema and even Valverde and Contador (although he tried for a while) simply know that it would be suicidal to go with the pace, which the Sky domestiques don't have to sustain to the finnish.

It could, of course, also mean that Contador and some of the others were very good "responders" to a particular method that they can no longer use.

In fact, most of the sky domestiques deliver relatively believable performances this year; great on one climb or part of a climb, but then having to pay for it. The one stand-out performer is Froome - had he not waited for Quintana and spent what felt like minutes in conversation with his DS, with one hand off the handlebar(!), he could have quite conceivably put another minute on everyone else.

Richie Porte, btw, is no big surprise at this year's tour - he was best young rider at the Giro in 2010, won Paris-Nice this year, and was second in the Dauphine.
 
enCYCLOpedia said:
Richie Porte, btw, is no big surprise at this year's tour - he was best young rider at the Giro in 2010, won Paris-Nice this year, and was second in the Dauphine.

What you are saying is that if you want to make a doped rider less suspicious you make sure they do so at smaller races first, before they jump out at the Tour?
 
Jul 10, 2013
277
0
0
Visit site
enCYCLOpedia said:
I know that sounds funny, but the fact that the Team Sky domestiques can drop or put pressure on Valverde (previous doper), Evans (lack of form / age), Schlek (likely Fuentes connection and not in form for a while), Gesink, and even Contador (previous doper) or Rodriquez does not necessarily mean that they are dirty.

They have different ambitions (Kennaugh lost 12 minutes, Siutsou lost 19 minutes, and even Porte lost 2:49, over a minute on Contador, Mollema and Purito). Riders like Rodriguez, Mollema and even Valverde and Contador (although he tried for a while) simply know that it would be suicidal to go with the pace, which the Sky domestiques don't have to sustain to the finnish.

It could, of course, also mean that Contador and some of the others were very good "responders" to a particular method that they can no longer use.

In fact, most of the sky domestiques deliver relatively believable performances this year; great on one climb or part of a climb, but then having to pay for it. The one stand-out performer is Froome - had he not waited for Quintana and spent what felt like minutes in conversation with his DS, with one hand off the handlebar(!), he could have quite conceivably put another minute on everyone else.

Richie Porte, btw, is no big surprise at this year's tour - he was best young rider at the Giro in 2010, won Paris-Nice this year, and was second in the Dauphine.

It's not that it sounds funny, it's a visual representation of doping. What Sky is doing nowadays is exactly what US Postal used to do in the last decade: Strong team, ALL doped to the gills, seemlessly being able to impose a cadence over mountains that even the best of the other teams couldn't keep up with, et cetera.

The only difference is that US Postal made it a point to sort of hide the fact that 95% of their team were so juiced up they were able to beat 95% of the people in the other teams, while Sky opened up the floodgates and expect us all to believe what they say based on... what? That they're Brits?
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
purcell said:
Cycling does not make a larger effort. The people in cycling talk about making the effort more than in other sports, all the while turning a blind eye.

The noise in cycling is greater, the effort, not so much.

This ^^^ and there never really was an age of innocence, in the begining they were cheating with transport then came the drugs.

Until the professional side of the sport fully accepts that PEDs are wrong it will never be clean and cleanER is not acceptable.
 
VO2 Max said:
OP I think meant 'innocence of the fans' rather than innocence of the riders/teams/sport, ie the willingness to suspend disbelief......
Pretty much.

I wonder if "pure performance" sports can survive at all with any credibility. Cycling. Track. Nordic skiing. Etc. They are doomed, as I see it. Perhaps along with football (both kinds), and others. The rewards for cheating are too great, and the methods are always a few years ahead of detection. AND the public is catching on.

I'm trying to get excited about darts.
 
Oct 21, 2012
1,106
0
0
twitter.com
Earlier than that, surely? I would say Festina. A question to older fans: was Festina the first time you recognised something was seriously wrong?
 
Jul 10, 2009
69
0
0
Visit site
dgodave said:
Pretty much.

I wonder if "pure performance" sports can survive at all with any credibility. Cycling. Track. Nordic skiing. Etc. They are doomed, as I see it. Perhaps along with football (both kinds), and others. The rewards for cheating are too great, and the methods are always a few years ahead of detection. AND the public is catching on.

I'm trying to get excited about darts.

What age of innocence? This is a sport that has ALWAYS welcomed substance use (and abuse).

I honestly think that we're all naval-gazing and being foolish. What monument on Mt. Ventoux is considered sacrosanct? Could it be Simpson's monument? Isn't that monument an honor to someone who died on the slopes, directly as a result of using substances?!

I'm not pro-doping, but I think it's both self-righteous and self-deceptive to think that we did not know that doping was prevalent in this sport ALWAYS. The Cannibal was sanctioned for doping, for goodness sake...

Oh, and before someone tears into the integrity of cycling, remember that substance use has frequently, or always, been used in professional sports (and amateur feeder programs). Heck, the US even has a perfect-game winner in baseball who admitted to using LSD the day of the event?!

There will be cheats always...and we should root them out to the best of our abilities...let's not presume that this is new...and even if it's more organized, perhaps that's not all bad...having doctors involved will limit future Tommy Simpsons, right?
 
Alphabet said:
Earlier than that, surely? I would say Festina. A question to older fans: was Festina the first time you recognised something was seriously wrong?

Well I read 'A Rough Ride' at a young age so was not innocent about doping but ironically, the impression I got from the book was that doping seemed less likely at the major events as they had better testing and riders were less willing to risk it, that is very clear in the book. As a result I believed the best riders were indeed the best etc.

Even with all the freaky things in the 90s, I was probably still too young to really comprehend things but Festina definitely took the blinkers off.
 

TRENDING THREADS