• 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!

Needles, Pills And Potions: Can Cycling's Culture Of Chemical Assistance Ever Be Overcome?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Do you mean the fine line between over the counter and prescription? Or the fine line between legal and "doping"?

Interesting that you say it's the amount of racing and training that drives it. Do you think that, for example, if riders were able to make a living out of just racing the TdF and only training/riding in a few smaller events more as an "appearance" (turning up rather than performing, like the post GT crits), that training loads would be significantly impacted? That area isn't really my wheelhouse, and I know it's a contentious point, but we could argue that the cancellation of lots of racers allowed riders to train better and that's why we've seen some very good performances over the last year or so. Dogmatically it's always been thought that you needed the racing schedule to perform at the Tour, but I've never really believed that. Would a cap on number of days racing per year, possibly even within a certain time period, help? And lets ignore whether the financials are in a state where this would be feasible for the moment.
I think we're all just trying to figure why the sport is so messed up as far as doping goes. We're all fans here, but as much as we don't want to admit it, the reality is that no other sport has our history as far as doping goes. I don't know the answer, whether it's the sport is too hard, whether the "culture" or history of taking stuff is too long or what it is that keeps the sport so tied to the doping, whether legal or non prescription stuff or the the prescription stuff.

I just know my own history with the sport and what other guys have told me and it is all pretty much the same thing......start off with vitamins and it goes from there...some stay on the train others go whoa and get off.

It's not my life anymore, I'm just a fan at this point, so the vested interest is not there. I think any answers have to come from those with a vested interest........but then you've got no riders union, but 1,000 individual guys just trying to survive to the next contract. Teams wondering if they'll have sponsors at the end of the year and then ASO who just wants a fat bottom line.

I still think it's going to take a riders union to change things....someone like Sagan or Pogacar to stand up and say enough is enough and revamp the entire system from WADA to the team medical staffs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noob and jmdirt
I think we're all just trying to figure why the sport is so messed up as far as doping goes. We're all fans here, but as much as we don't want to admit it, the reality is that no other sport has our history as far as doping goes. I don't know the answer, whether it's the sport is too hard, whether the "culture" or history of taking stuff is too long or what it is that keeps the sport so tied to the doping, whether legal or non prescription stuff or the the prescription stuff.

All the other sports have doping, it's just not that obvious. They're also sports with much more money involved, so there is more protection of the athletes. Also, not every sport has the level of anti-doping control that cycling does.

Look at tennis players, for instance. It's that not a really hard sport? I t requires endurance, explosiveness, strength... It's as hard as cycling, but you don't hear anything about doping. You have the same guys at the top for years and they are always at the same level or better.

The only other sport that suffers from bad reputation is olympic weightlifting, because it becames obvious with how they look and weight and how much they can lift.

Cyling is just the scape goat for the other sports.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noob and jmdirt
All the other sports have doping, it's just not that obvious. They're also sports with much more money involved, so there is more protection of the athletes. Also, not every sport has the level of anti-doping control that cycling does.

Look at tennis players, for instance. It's that not a really hard sport? I t requires endurance, explosiveness, strength... It's as hard as cycling, but you don't hear anything about doping. You have the same guys at the top for years and they are always at the same level or better.

The only other sport that suffers from bad reputation is olympic weightlifting, because it becames obvious with how they look and weight and how much they can lift.

Cyling is just the scape goat for the other sports.

That's a bit much I think, I'm sure there are differences in how prevalent doping is in different sports, and, at least historically, cycling is on the side of the sports where doping has been not only common, but systematic, and it has often been on the forefront of sports medicine and doctors trying to find new, enhancing ways, legal and illegal.
It is quite legendary how backwoodsy training methods in football for instance have long been in comparison to other sports, although there has been so much money behind it for quite some time, so, although there is definitely a high degree of doping (compare the anonymous questionaire-study of championsleage players), it has not only been pushed under the carpet by authorities, but there also was a lingering feeling that you could still do a lot of legal things to improve the performances.

Weightlifting as rightfully earned its reputation. What is or has been going on there is incredible.

Tennis is most likely a sport where doping is also very common, while there isn't nearly as much talk about it, in that I agree. But there are sports, mostly the extremely technical ones, where I'm pretty sure that, although doping exists, it is a lesser problem.
That is, in my eyes, the most important factor: how much does doping improve your performance in comparison to the other things you can do to reach that goal. And cycling belongs to the sports where, after you have reached something I would call your "full physiological potential" by training up to the newest methods and improving some little things, like maybe your descending skills, there isn't much you can do anymore to get better. While in table tennis or figure skating for instance you will lose certain qualities when you age (faster in skating), but on the other hand usually be able to improve and learn things just by training, that you haven't been able to do before, that part is quite neglectable in athletics and real endurance sports. Yes, you get more experienced and so on, but that just happens, only to a small degree is it something you can influence. But pretty much every athlete is not content with what they have - they want to get better. Don't misunderstand me, there is doping in figure skating, and it helps a lot to improve the performances. But for somebody who is extremely ambitious, yet scrupulous when it comes to doping, there are many legal possibilities to work on what you can do.
That also doesn't mean I want to excuse doping cyclists, in case it comes across like that...


The big money, the "toughness" of the sport and the economic pressure are likely to only play a more minuscule role.
Take the 100m sprint - is that a sport that is extremely hard in comparison? Do they have to run from event to event, hardly able to catch their breath? Is it a sport that goes into the extremes, takes out everything of your body? I don't want to diminish 100m sprinters, but no. Yet pretty much every (100m) sprinter in a big final has turned out to be doped in the last decades (at least among the men, but among the women there are also many cases). Is there extreme money to be made from it, or, on the other hand, extreme economic pressure? Apart from a few cases no, I'd say in terms of these factors it's a rather average sport.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noob and jmdirt
Yes, cycling has a systematic doping problem, but are we really sure the other sports don't? For instance, soccer has much less anti-doping controls and there is a lot of money to be won. Why wouldn't they take advantage of that? They would have to be stupid not to, because the risk of getting caugh is very low.

If in sports with a proper anti-doping policy and very few money the athletes are taking the risk, why wouldn't the "big sports" do the same with lower risk?

Some smaller sports, like table tennis etc, yeah, maybe those don't really have a problem or it's just a few bad apples, but I really don't think cycling is much different from any other sport with anti-doping rules. We just hear more about it and, to be fair, cycling also takes doping controls more seriously then most sports.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmdirt

TRENDING THREADS