Let's admit it. The doping angle of cycling makes it great.

[Hugh Januss]

You seem to have a recurring theme to your threads:

Let's admit it. The doping angle of cycling makes it great.

The Middle Path: make cycling easier or allow some doping

Good looks and doping. Who would you 'let go' for being good looking?

The Good that Lance has done.

How will we survive without Lance?

So what happens to Lance's wins?

So Trolling is the recurring theme?

 

[Sanitiser]

Anybody who thinks differently to the know-it-alls of the forum is a troll. Great group-think.

 

[Maxiton]

You seem to have a recurring theme to your threads:

Let's admit it. The doping angle of cycling makes it great.

The Middle Path: make cycling easier or allow some doping

Good looks and doping. Who would you 'let go' for being good looking?

The Good that Lance has done.

How will we survive without Lance?

So what happens to Lance's wins?

So Trolling is the recurring theme?

Anybody who thinks differently to the know-it-alls of the forum is a troll. Great group-think.

Your point - your recurring point - seems to be: Lance has grown cycling and the excitement around it; Lance in particular and doping and corruption in general just make cycling more dramatic and interesting for you; so why don't you just accept that, lean back, and enjoy it? What seems to be the problem? Oh yeah, and Lance, Lance, Lance.

Would you say that's a fair representation of your themes? By taking cycling to an unwholesome level of commercialization, by driving doping to an unhealthy level of intensity, by dominating the sport to an increasing extent and running it as a private fiefdom, wherein he and they won't stop short of even diminishing the sport and one of its greatest races in order to get his/their way; corruption in general and Lance and his corrupt cohorts in particular have taken a simple, enjoyable, and relatively innocent sport and further ruined it, leaving us with something less enjoyable to watch and a number of ruined lives or early deaths in the bargain. Other than that, though, no problem at all.

EDIT: Obviously my position regarding Armstrong is changing. Previously I saw him merely as a hyper-competitive jerk, dominating a field of lesser lights and reprobates in a sport (European cycling) that pretty much requires its patron to be a jerk of one sort or another. With this recent discussion of his likely hand in damaging cycling and its greatest race and certain of its champions, I'm beginning to see Armstrong and his role, and those of his cohorts, as being much more pernicious.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Anybody who thinks differently to the know-it-alls of the forum is a troll. Great group-think.

No, anybody who keeps opening threads designed specifically to get a rise out of the vast majority of posters simply by taking positions that he knows will produce that result whether he really believes it or not, is a Troll. Look it up. On the other hand if he really believes in these positions he is taking, well he might be something else.

 

[Ferminal]

I think he was referring to my post, listing the topics of a number of his threads.

What he failed to appreciate was my inferred suggestion that all of his threads are not only doping-related, but are decidedly pro-doping...

That's what happens when you lose a battle... next time you come back with a different approach.

 

[BikeCentric]

Anybody who thinks differently to the know-it-alls of the forum is a troll. Great group-think.

Well if you're going to come on here and advocate criminality you should expect to be treated like the social deviant you are.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

The investigations. The denials. The comebacks. The tales of redemption. The enemies. The heroes. The corruption. The Elisa Bassos...
They add an extra layer to this sport. Do you really want it to just be about the bikes? Or can you admit that you like the 'cops and robbers' aspect of the sport probably more than the racing itself.

No.

When I watch a bike race I want to watch a bike race - I don't want to have the result a year later and wait for an appeal process.

Well, I will admit it gives us something else to talk about during the offseason. But I agree with Dr.Maserati that when a race is over, it should REALLY be over and not carrying on for months.

 

[RGScales]

Let me make it really simple for you:

EPO/HGH/Autologous blood transfusions/Corticosteroids/Clenbuterol/AICAR

are a lot more powerful than:

Amphetamines

Got it?

wait...these things are more powerful in what regard? there are not many ways that I see corticosteroids or clenbuterol being more powerful than amphetamines...and regardless if you weren't able to climb vontoux without this things your not going to be able to climb it with them...I dont believe it is quite that black and white.

 

[Sanitiser]

No, anybody who keeps opening threads designed specifically to get a rise out of the vast majority of posters simply by taking positions that he knows will produce that result whether he really believes it or not, is a Troll. Look it up. On the other hand if he really believes in these positions he is taking, well he might be something else.

What is it, genius?

 

[Sanitiser]

Well if you're going to come on here and advocate criminality you should expect to be treated like the social deviant you are.

The middle path was about making doping in partly legal. So yeah you're wrong.

 

[Hugh Januss]

What is it, genius?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwGRJA28lY:D

 

[HelmutRoole]

The investigations. The denials. The comebacks. The tales of redemption. The enemies. The heroes. The corruption. The Elisa Bassos. The coke. The strippers.

..(doesn't this make it more interesting than just the sport alone?)

Of course it does. I'd make this statement over at cyclingforums and people'd get so ****ed off over there. Man, they did not like having the rug pulled out from under them. What's going on behind the curtains is always more interesting.

Vaughters had a couple more years of racing left in his legs but instead departed for the more fiscally fertile and safer grounds behind the scenes. Hell, Livingston, if memory serves me, jumped the small cesspool that is pro cycling and went straight to Wall Street.

Don't get too attached to your idols. They aren't genuine. Armstrong got lucky. Good genes, a good connect and he responded well to the drugs of his generation. Raas, Kuiper, Merckx... the same. Drugs dictated and continue to dictate everything.

What's happening in cycling happens in every sport. There was a guy over at cyclingforums -- I've forgotten his handle but BroDeal likely remembers -- he used to state over and over that cycling is a dirty sport. Not just the doping but everything about it.

He was right. Embrace it. Embrace it or find another sport where the muckety mucks haven't tried to clean it up yet. Some say cleaning up the sport has ruined it, but I'm with Sanitiser on this one. It's only made it mroe interesting.

 

[movingtarget]

No, the doping angle does not make it great. It makes it tiresome and pathetic. Why would anyone think that drug taking makes the sport more interesting or dramatic let alone great. And that goes for any sport.

 

[ultimobici]

the answer is obviously yes.

one thing that i dont understand, is why so many guys here are talking like if there was one or two great champions in history with diferents wins (TT Climbs sprint) that werent doping. they all doped one way or another. contador isnt worse than coppi in this aspect. in fact i believe that, unlike ricco and others (epo abusers), he is much better, since that in merckx era (and even before and after (until recently)) the guy that doped the most won the most. now its different. now matter how much dope lance used, he would never beat bonnen in the cobles or petachi in the sprints. merckx however, in that era of amateurs but tough guys, was able to do that.

so stop talking about those eras when everyone knows that they took lighter drugs (if you consider horse's steroid as something light and some extra "milkshakes") but the diference (in number of wins) was bigger. so the guys that had the most wins because of doping are now with more than 45 years or are using something new and very restrict.

As Coppi was not subject to anti doping regulations this is a complete fallacy.

 

[Boeing]

as soon as we have hard evidence about coke, x and ho's it will be great. in fact these guys will be my hero's again once the ho's start taking

I mean have you ever been to a night club in spain for example? As a pro peloton rider?

damn the life

 

[skidmark]

For me, the doping 'angle' doesn't 'make' it great. While it is fascinating, I kind of feel like the drama around people getting caught, suspended, suspected, etc, gives me an entirely different fascination than does the racing.

I like watching bike races. Knowing more about doping contextualizes my knowledge of bike races, just like knowing how training works, who's friends with who, etc. The theatre of extra-sport speculation and intrigue is almost an entirely different interest for me. It doesn't make racing more exciting for me at all, or vice versa.

 

[forty four]

Let me make it really simple for you:

EPO/HGH/Autologous blood transfusions/Corticosteroids/Clenbuterol/AICAR

are a lot more powerful than:

Amphetamines

Got it?

clenbuterol more effective than amphetamines umm no maybe look into those two substances clen is like caffeine vs amphetamines. hgh is not something that directly makes you faster more of a recovery product and might help sprints so not a good comparison same with corticosteroids. blood doping epo yes those produce more direct gains than anything else.
none the less amphetamines are quite effective in some ways. they were of course first used by soldiers.

 

[mewmewmew13]

You seem to have a recurring theme to your threads:

Let's admit it. The doping angle of cycling makes it great.

The Middle Path: make cycling easier or allow some doping

Good looks and doping. Who would you 'let go' for being good looking?

The Good that Lance has done.

How will we survive without Lance?

So what happens to Lance's wins?

Macroadie...when I saw this thread by 'Sanitiser' I thought exactly this same thing....
except the "hookers, strippers," etc mantra is also something that is usually added along this vein.

Sanitser, what is your point here...engaging intelligent conversation??

 

[blaxland]

The investigations. The denials. The comebacks. The tales of redemption. The enemies. The heroes. The corruption. The Elisa Bassos. The coke. The strippers.

They add an extra layer to this sport. Do you really want it to just be about the bikes? Or can you admit that you like the 'cops and robbers' aspect of the sport probably more than the racing itself.

No,No and No......but as always i will watch the sport for what it is a specticle....
Question:Can we go back to the earlier Tours and race per country/nation?

 

[Maxiton]

No,No and No......but as always i will watch the sport for what it is a specticle....
Question:Can we go back to the earlier Tours and race per country/nation?

I would love this. Get rid of the stupid company names and have state / city sponsored racing.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

I would love this. Get rid of the stupid company names and have state / city sponsored racing.

It's not like that would have any impact on the cheating.

Doping in the TdF was entirely unregulated until 1966, and there's little evidence it has abated since being banned.

Its being erroneously reported that Contador is the second TdF winner ever DQ'd, which is incorrect. The second to be DQ'd for doping, yes. Maurice Garin, winner of the inaugural TdF also initially had won the 1904 edition but was DQ'd for accepting assistance from planes, trains and automobiles.

Was there doping -- unreported or undetected -- in those earliest tours? Who in his right mind would show up for a race slated to cover 2400 km in six days on 50-lb fixed gear bicycle and not bring a pocket full of bennies?

Truth is it's a sport steeped in all manner of cheating; drugs are just one facet of it. Would removing the corporate element change that? The USSR weight lifters, the GDR women's swim team and the 100m sprinters of every nationality tell me otherwise.

 

[Maxiton]

It's not like that would have any impact on the cheating.

Doping in the TdF was entirely unregulated until 1966, and there's little evidence it has abated since being banned.

Its being erroneously reported that Contador is the second TdF winner ever DQ'd, which is incorrect. The second to be DQ'd for doping, yes. Maurice Garin, winner of the inaugural TdF also initially had won the 1904 edition but was DQ'd for accepting assistance from planes, trains and automobiles.

Was there doping -- unreported or undetected -- in those earliest tours? Who in his right mind would show up for a race slated to cover 2400 km in six days on 50-lb fixed gear bicycle and not bring a pocket full of bennies?

Truth is it's a sport steeped in all manner of cheating; drugs are just one facet of it. Would removing the corporate element change that? The USSR weight lifters, the GDR women's swim team and the 100m sprinters of every nationality tell me otherwise.

You presume too much. I know this is the Clinic, but I never thought for a moment that this would reduce doping. I just think it's a cool idea.

 

[SpeedWay]

The doping angle of cycling makes this forum great. It's the National Enquirer of the cycling world. Where prodigious dreamers talk in their sleep about a time that never existed only to be awaken by reality's brutalities. Some accept and move on while others act out like angry children that don't get their way. Long live cycling and the characters of this clinic!!

 

[robertocarlos]

the answer is obviously yes.

one thing that i dont understand, is why so many guys here are talking like if there was one or two great champions in history with diferents wins (TT Climbs sprint) that werent doping. they all doped one way or another. contador isnt worse than coppi in this aspect. in fact i believe that, unlike ricco and others (epo abusers), he is much better, since that in merckx era (and even before and after (until recently)) the guy that doped the most won the most. now its different. now matter how much dope lance used, he would never beat bonnen in the cobles or petachi in the sprints. merckx however, in that era of amateurs but tough guys, was able to do that.

so stop talking about those eras when everyone knows that they took lighter drugs (if you consider horse's steroid as something light and some extra "milkshakes") but the diference (in number of wins) was bigger. so the guys that had the most wins because of doping are now with more than 45 years or are using something new and very restrict.

it is difficult to argue against that. of the great cyclist many of them were either suspended becouse of doping, or brag about doping, or have been linked to doping. is this a clean sport, no. then again name a professional sport that is clean.

 

[robertocarlos]

You left out the part about the participants who have ended up dead.

a list would be nice. considering the scale of cycling only protour cases.