Looking forward -The proactive change of cyclings culture thread

[Tonton]

FTFY. Thanks for the contribution.

Thanks for the edits. Yet, the bottom line is 'what does the public want'? If they want WWF, well, nothing will change.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Thanks for the edits. Yet, the bottom line is 'what does the public want'? If they want WWF, well, nothing will change.

Really quickly, and I don't mean to insult and write the following without prejudice, but

I don't care what the public wants.

If I project my own desire onto the sport of cycling, and empathise with the single most important aspect of the sport, which is the riders, then I believe riders wish to compete clean.

I do not believe a new cyclist who shows some ability is looking forward to being old enough to purchase EPO and cortisone and AICAR so he or she can inject that cocktail to beat the other riders.

It's a beautiful sport in its own right, and the self entitled attitude of Hein and anyone else saying the riders have to do XYZ to make it a spectacle can jam itself where the sun don't shine.

 

[MarkvW]

Really quickly, and I don't mean to insult and write the following without prejudice, but

I don't care what the public wants.

If I project my own desire onto the sport of cycling, and empathise with the single most important aspect of the sport, which is the riders, then I believe riders wish to compete clean.

I do not believe a new cyclist who shows some ability is looking forward to being old enough to purchase EPO and cortisone and AICAR so he or she can inject that cocktail to beat the other riders.

It's a beautiful sport in its own right, and the self entitled attitude of Hein and anyone else saying the riders have to do XYZ to make it a spectacle can jam itself where the sun don't shine.

Most of the peloton are not paid very well, then they're discarded. Dope, like low pay, is just another bad working condition they have to endure. If the riders had half a brain they'd form a union (A cyclist's union! What an idea!!) and they'd either extract better working conditions or form their own show.

Everything bad about pro cycling stems from how crappy the riders are treated. Unless that is improved nothing will get better (and I'm sure it will never get better). Vive le filthy circus!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Some very interesting thoughts here:


http://www.moorhead-law.com/#!Passi...rd/c1bno/C4A8F7F0-763A-4520-BF52-10244541A416

 

[hfer07]

*UCI MUST go through a dramatic transformation AND CLEANSING
*Anti doping testing MUST be branched independently.
*Change towards clean sport MUST begin at the bottom with the youngsters
* Get rid of the Old DS crew
* BP & Testing to be made for public record.
* Allow the equipment to be developed further.
* Serious Doping sanctions to start at 4 year ban

 

[ralphbert]

I like cycling the way it is, stop meddling with it

 

[mrhender]

Inevitably UCI and the head of same seems to be the cardinal point..

The UCI should be strictly limited to sporting and commercial activities...
We probably agree that anti-doping affairs should be kept far away from influence of former mentioned organazation, so maybe the first step is to work on how a new and "close to" independent branch can be established..

A branch which only objective is to prevent cheating, doping and any other wrong-doings... As suggested here Bassons seems to be useful to the task at hand.. But maybe he should not be involved with all the sporting and commercial duties the UCI president endures? All these duties could interfere with his work and maybe he isn't cut out to be a figurehead as to other than anti-doping issues?

Now several issues remains if a new anti-doping branch is to be established...
Funding and terms of election/hiring of staff the most obvious ones..?

Maybe an introductuary template could be useful...?

The key thing could be how to make these matters interesting for UCI to let go of?

 

[Tonton]

Really quickly, and I don't mean to insult and write the following without prejudice, but

I don't care what the public wants.

If I project my own desire onto the sport of cycling, and empathise with the single most important aspect of the sport, which is the riders, then I believe riders wish to compete clean.

I do not believe a new cyclist who shows some ability is looking forward to being old enough to purchase EPO and cortisone and AICAR so he or she can inject that cocktail to beat the other riders.

It's a beautiful sport in its own right, and the self entitled attitude of Hein and anyone else saying the riders have to do XYZ to make it a spectacle can jam itself where the sun don't shine.

You are not insulting me a bit. But you are obviously missing the point: the 'powers that be' may not give a rat 's *** what you or me think. They bet on the masses. Give them a good story, cater to their nationalism, and who cares what Wiggo, Tonton, and the Benottis of the world think. Not the sport you love and I love. I have busted my chops on a bike, raced, and I know how it goes. I left competitive cycling because of that: in juniors I smoked the field and the next year guys come back with bodybuilder's legs. I went from contender to spectator. I had to make a choice, and I did. No dope. Adios. That's my background.

Back to the point I'm making: without strong public support, the sport will become (and it's already becoming) a circus. Predictable. Safe investment. It would take someone really credible with the masses to initiate a change. Bassons? Who in the masses knows him? Hinault and Eddy don't want to touch this, so IMO Greg is the answer.

You good hearted fool.

Educating the masses...big mountain to climb.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

There are a number of steps to coming up with a solution to a problem, starting with brain storming:

Step 1: gather ideas. no idea is stupid, no idea is dumb, no idea is too outrageous to add to the list

Step 2: go through the ideas and do the reality check.

My guess is this thread was started with step 1 in mind. I whole heartedly concur with this intent, and am contributing with that in mind.

There are countless stories down through the years of people saying, "hey why don't we ---------" and getting shouted down or told it can't be done yadda yadda BORING.

It's so easy to pick flaws in things. Simple. So much easier to tear something down. Much more difficult to create something, to grow something. To innovate. See beyond the obvious.

In this thread, I really don't care for or about the, "that won't work because" responses. It's not helpful, or useful. Pretty sure OP is saying the same thing. If you can't see something, then great. But if the possibility is not even allowed to be entertained, due to constant negativity, there's no avenue for discussion at all.

The FTP passport thread was similar.

As for Merckx or Hinault doing anything - they were dopers themselves.
Greg? Not known as a doper, no, but not very switched on either, IMO. Froome is A-OK according to Greg.

 

[blackcat]

1. accept doping.
2. minimise the levels.

throw every cent at the winners. in terms of testing. pre, out of competition, some in competition, but money only spent on the winners.

let the domestiques dope to highheaven.

the working theory is, invert this arms race. If the arms race is inverted, even domestiques would be less inclined to dope because of the workload necessary.

accept doping. minimise doping. target only the winners who profit off doping. This is not an even, free market, everyone is equal. No, the winners profit. So minimise doping from the winners. Then you may mitigate the doping a little.

Doping will always be a few steps ahead, because the economics are in their favour. anti-doping will never have the prescriptive revenue to compete with Big Pharma.

Before all you folks in the Clinic get real, you cannot even understand the problem. P'raps, just p'raps, pro cycling and the UCI is not sport, its entertainment. And the ideals and preconceptions you have over sport, has no relation to pro cycling

 

[Tonton]

Before all you folks in the Clinic get real, you cannot even understand the problem. P'raps, just p'raps, pro cycling and the UCI is not sport, its entertainment. And the ideals and preconceptions you have over sport, has no relation to pro cycling

We agree. Examples abound of sports turned entertainment in the name of the almighty $: baseball is one. Juiced players hit more home runs, and the masses love it. $ comes in. We live in the age of big business. The values of sport, its integrity, the health of the players, who cares? Sad but true. The average Joe wants entertainment. And the reality is that our entire society is doped: painkillers, Prozac-like products, Viagra (PED isn't it ... How can cycling not evolve that way, when it entails more pain and suffering, injuries, than just about any activity known to mankind?

Yet, I believe that clean cycling is possible. Big changes need to occur:

1. Have a former clean big champion as the UCI Prez. Best option: Greg Le Fearless. His role would be that of a NFL type commissioner: the Boss. With the power to levy huge fines, coerce...
2. Standardize hiring in pro-teams like normal businesses do: if you have been convicted of bank robbery, you can't get a job in a bank. Have a standard employee handbook with a list of terminable offenses etc. Accountability.
3. Create a structure that promotes rehabilitation for suspended riders, cooperation with investigations (even if it means a toll-free hotline, like Police does -TIPS). And a system of pensions like in the NFL, but pensions could be forfeited in case of doping discovered years later by retesting samples.

That's a start.

 

[mrhender]

It's so easy to pick flaws in things. Simple. So much easier to tear something down. Much more difficult to create something, to grow something. To innovate. See beyond the obvious.

In this thread, I really don't care for or about the, "that won't work because" responses. It's not helpful, or useful. Pretty sure OP is saying the same thing. If you can't see something, then great. But if the possibility is not even allowed to be entertained, due to constant negativity, there's no avenue for discussion at all.

Exactly this.....................


And for what it's worth, thank you for contrubuting...

 

[doperhopper]

Main problem: so easy, so cheap, and only the stupiders screw it (Ricco) - says the scientific insider from earlier thread.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=22752

How can you beat this? High rewards, low risks, UCI collaboraing/organizing the bussiness.

Hard to believe there's a gradual way, most probably one has to hope for some kind of revolution (but hey, even the worst possible nuclear catastrophe - Uniballer - was not enough)... looks like the communist empire, needs external force (e.g. olympic, government-justice, extraterrestrials) to induce internal (in-cycling) turmoil. And this still needs enough dissatisfied citizens, cyclizens.

 

[mrhender]

Before all you folks in the Clinic get real, you cannot even understand the problem. P'raps, just p'raps, pro cycling and the UCI is not sport, its entertainment. And the ideals and preconceptions you have over sport, has no relation to pro cycling

For me all sports has always been entertainment..
Labelling cycling and UCI as entertainment doesn't change much regarding the task at hand.. If I should entertain the idea of cycling beeing "just" entertainment I would say that pro-cycling is under-performing at best..
You know why..? The answer is doping..

Remove doping as much as possible and the SPORT will flourish and reach new hights...

Even Field Hockey has more wiewers than cycling.... I don't by the notion of doping increasing revenues on the long term.......

 

[mrhender]

A study

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211266913000273

Abstract
Aim
This study aims to examine the circumstances which athletes say affect their (hypothetical) considerations of whether to dope or not and explore the differences between athletes of different gender, age and sport type.

Methods
645 elite athletes (mean age: 22.12; response rate: 43%) representing 40 sports completed a web-based questionnaire. Participants were asked to imagine themselves in a situation in which they had to decide whether to dope or not to dope and then evaluate how different circumstances would affect their decisions.

Results
Multiple circumstances had an effect on athletes’ hypothetical decisions. The most effective deterrents were related to legal and social sanctions, side-effects and moral considerations. Female athletes and younger athletes evaluated more reasons as deterrents than older, male athletes. When confronted with incentives to dope, the type of sport was often a more decisive factor. Top incentives were related to qualified medical assistance, improved health or faster recovery from injury, the low risk of being caught and the threat posed to an elite career.

Conclusions
Our results reveal that numerous circumstances affect athletes’ thoughts on doping and athletes of different gender, age and sport type reacted differently to a variety of circumstances that may potentially deter or trigger doping. Particularly notable findings were the potential role of doctors in athletes’ doping and that the current punitive anti-doping approach seems to deter athletes, although the fear of social sanctions was almost as great a deterrent.

Implications
Anti-doping prevention strategies should be diversified to target specific groups of athletes.

It's a purchase article, so for now only the abstract... Worth a buy?

 

[Tonton]

For me all sports has always been entertainment..
Labelling cycling and UCI as entertainment doesn't change much regarding the task at hand.. If I should entertain the idea of cycling beeing "just" entertainment I would say that pro-cycling is under-performing at best..
You know why..? The answer is doping..

Remove doping as much as possible and the SPORT will flourish and reach new hights...

Even Field Hockey has more wiewers than cycling.... I don't by the notion of doping increasing revenues on the long term.......

I couldn't disagree with you more. One example: Pantani. It is doping who made him such an entertainer, who helped him destroy the clock on the Alpe d'Huez, who made him a legend. Had he gone slower than, say, Hinault, he wouldn't be that huge. He still is. Other example: how many people would tune their TV to watch Bolt run a 100m in 10 seconds and change? By pushing the limits of performance, doping has created entertainment through the WOW factor. The freak show. The circus. The biggest year for baseball recently? When the doped McGuire and Sosa were going after the HR record. And when doped Bonds broke it.

Doping brings revenue: that's why american sports don't fight it. Who would want to watch 6ft, 200 lbs linemen or guys hit 250ft fly balls? Yet, considering the structure of power in the NFL, if the Commissioner made anti-doping a priority, he would kill it (it would have to be part of the bargaining agreement). The guy has pretty much absolute power. Anyone who runs his mouth gets a big big fine. He is a despot. That's what the UCI Prez needs to be.

 

[SeriousSam]

It's a purchase article, so for now only the abstract... Worth a buy?

No. Based on the abstract they didn't find anything surprising and the elicitation of beliefs and preferences with hypothetical scenarios is unreliable at any rate.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211266913000273



It's a purchase article, so for now only the abstract... Worth a buy?

Agreeing with SeriousSam, it sounds like a bit of a DUH article.

Check this out instead: http://www.newcyclingpathway.com/research

It's old(ish), but I am guessing you have not seen it?

 

[mrhender]

Thanks Wiggo and Sam... Sound advice....
And no, I have not seen it DW.. Thanks again..

 

[zebedee]

A four year doping ban backed up by heavy financial penalties would probably clear up most of the problem at a stroke.

 

[alcedo]

1. First non-negative test: The rider is sanctioned with a lifetime ban.
2. A non-negative test: The riders team (all other riders and ALL team employees) are sanctioned with 6 months ban from races and all other activities in cycling.
3. All employees of the teams must have a personal license to work with cycling.
4. All tests to be conducted by an organization independent of UCI.
5. All teams and their employees must sign a legal binding document that states, that they have no past involvement in doping or doping related activities.
6. Sanction if it is proven without doubt, that their statement was false: Lifetime ban and a fine of one year salary.
7. No past (or present) doped rider or people related to doping in any way allowed to work in cycling (managers, riders, soigneurs, cleaners, mechanics, chefs etc.)

I believe this will change the "culture" in cycling.

 

[zebedee]

And doctor-enablers ought to be struck off for a presumed breach of their hippocratic oath by covert doping.

 

[the sceptic]

1. First non-negative test: The rider is sanctioned with a lifetime ban.
2. A non-negative test: The riders team (all other riders and ALL team employees) are sanctioned with 6 months ban from races and all other activities in cycling.
3. All employees of the teams must have a personal license to work with cycling.
4. All tests to be conducted by an organization independent of UCI.
5. All teams and their employees must sign a legal binding document that states, that they have no past involvement in doping or doping related activities.
6. Sanction if it is proven without doubt, that their statement was false: Lifetime ban and a fine of one year salary.
7. No past (or present) doped rider or people related to doping in any way allowed to work in cycling (managers, riders, soigneurs, cleaners, mechanics, chefs etc.)

I believe this will change the "culture" in cycling.

I think 2 is too harsh. You cant sanction people that might have had no knowledge or involvement in the doping.

I think the most important issue is to get the anti-doping 100% indepentent of the UCI, so we can acutally trust that they are doing what they are supposed to do. Right now with Cookson and his fake independence, its impossible to have any faith in whats going on. If someone tests positive or gets busted for the bio passport, it might as well be some political game that we know nothing about.

 

[sniper]

I think 2 is too harsh. You cant sanction people that might have had no knowledge or involvement in the doping.

if you consider cycling a team sport, you could perhaps retrospectively strip all results obtained by the team in races in which the positive rider participated.
i agree it'd be rather extreme though.
there must be better ways.

 

[alcedo]

I think 2 is too harsh. You cant sanction people that might have had no knowledge or involvement in the doping.

Why not? This will ensure that everyone will be extremely careful in who they work with and work for. This will ensure that there will be an extremely high degree of self-discipline among the riders on the team. If a rider suspect that a colleague is cheating, he will try to put a stop to it immediately because it is in his personal interest.

It's about changing the culture.