Pais Vasco and the Agony of Cycling Fandom

[ludwig]

Your first question begs another question: Doping or not, you will have riders you like and dislike. Simply don't intermingle the doping aspect with your personal preference. To do so, means that you will most likely be disappointed when you come to realize that the riders you are drawn to utilize medicines and techniques that allow them to maintain their jobs and stay in their profession.

This is excellent practical advice...I'd pass it on to any cycling fan.

But why is it so difficult to follow these adminitions in practice? I guess when it comes time for that Tour-deciding up-hill climb, I'd like to root for the guy who I felt was a tad more heroic than the next guy. And I'd hate to be rooting for the most doped up rider when there's a less doped rider right on his wheel.

Maybe if I could trust the regulatory authorities in cycling it would be easier to just root for my subjective preference...but as I mentioned above, I suppose that if one investigates any sport deeply enough one will find enough corruption at the regulatory level to upset one's stomach....

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Thanks to Colm.Murphy, Vedofidelis, BikeCentric and everyone else for the thoughtful replies. It's great to have access to a community of passionate fans with which to discuss this sport.



I can agree with you that the fan who accepts the reality of doping and loves the sport anyway (ie rationalizes that cyclists will do their best to regulate the problem) is far preferable to the fan who buys into the hype of teams like Garmin or who insists that their favorite rider is clean while everyone else dopes etc. I certainly consider myself closer to the former category and am easily annoyed by the latter category.

However, the problem is a little more complex. There isn't a level playing field re. doping.... Indeed there is good reason to believe some teams are favored by the UCI authorities and get special treatment of a sort. Worse, all medical programs are not equal...some teams have better doctoring than others, some teams try harder to meet the written regulations on doping than others. With omerta, there's hardly any way to regulate doping without relying on testing...and if the UCI is carrying out the testing, it can hardly be trusted....

All I'm saying is there are differences and there are different attitudes toward doping within the sport, and these differences have a non-negligible impact on performance.

This is what makes it hard to be a fan of cycling in any way that goes beyond enjoying the spectacle and picking horses etc. Ie that most of us agree doping is morally questionable at best, but the race winners are consistently those who push the envelope re. doping, regardless of how dedicated they are in all other aspects of training.

I guess these contradictions are likely present in just about any professional sport if one examines it closely enough. And there is a certain "survival of the fittest" argument to be made for accepting this inequality of doping programs and corrupt authorities is part of a competitive pro sports environment. However, this line of thinking doesn't stand up to scrutiny, as sport by definition is regulated competition. If there is no regulation, all we have left is spectacle, and the athletes are as Vino so memorably put it "actors".

Maybe the answer is...'don't be a fan of pro sports beyond the enjoying the spectacle; save the moralism and regulatory zeal for amateur sport'. Ok, fair enough, but it would be a shame if because of this we stopped desiring a fairer and healthier sporting environment, and to really cultivate that desire and help make it happen as fans, it seems necessary to sustain more than a passing interest.

The world is an unfair place. It sounds like you are searching for absolutes in an eminently contrary world. This, too, must be moved past.

Predictably, the contradictions are not just present in sport but in all of life. If you choose to pursue professional cycling as your crucible of fairness and the duality of performance vs ethics, there is no other end but disappointment. It is certain.

Cycle racing is not faith or spirituality. Those who search for some level of salvation in it, apart from their own journey, have nothing but broken hope. Ride your bike, pedal circles, cleanse your systems but don't transfer this experience into the aspirational identification with the professional level of racing unless you are willing to go blindly or are willing to accept the fact that in doing so, you will strip away the faith-based system that gets you out on your bike. These must be separate, kind of a church-and-state proximity.

 

[VeloFidelis]

This is excellent practical advice...I'd pass it on to any cycling fan.

But why is it so difficult to follow these adminitions in practice? I guess when it comes time for that Tour-deciding up-hill climb, I'd like to root for the guy who I felt was a tad more heroic than the next guy. And I'd hate to be rooting for the most doped up rider when there's a less doped rider right on his wheel.

Maybe if I could trust the regulatory authorities in cycling it would be easier to just root for my subjective preference...but as I mentioned above, I suppose that if one investigates any sport deeply enough one will find enough corruption at the regulatory level to upset one's stomach....

It is an interesting exercise to attempt to rationalize irrational behavior. The term Fan is derived from the word fanatic, which is defined as: 'marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion'. There is nothing rational regarding our fanaticism about cycling, or any other sport for that matter. We like teams and individuals for reasons that we do not even fully comprehend, and spend time attempting to justify, and even argue over the validity of those opinions.

Despising one rider as a doper and glorifying another as not, when we all admit that we have no command what so ever of the actual facts, is about as irrational as it gets. We take the moral high ground that cheating is despicable, but is it really cheating if it is ubiquitous in cycling culture? Cycling is one of the most physically demanding sports there is. Our participation as cyclists is what gives us the smallest inkling into what the demands on, and the abilities of, the Pros are. They can all do what we can only marvel at, and they have earned our admiration for that.

In the rarified atmosphere of that incredible gene pool, choices are made to remain, or become more competitive. Darwin would say this is natural selection at it's best, and it goes well beyond simple human nature. This is survival instinct, and it is primal in nature. It is also the reason that we tune in to watch. Witnessing the survival of the fittest is basic human curiosity ingrained in our DNA.

The problem we have is the moral issue of fairness, or the attempt at fairness as a concept, that no other form of life on this planet seems to share. We impose rules and testing to attain that end, and yet we still fanaticize our opinions on them. For me it is more simple. If you are caught doping you are guilty, otherwise you are not. It's not really fair, but neither is life, and if it is the best we can do, then it needs to be enough. We can speculate all we want, but there is only one standard for guilt.

One of the great ironies in cycling is that the fan base is so obsessed with doping that they are driving the sport out of business. Moral outrage and more vigilant testing has netted more high profile offenders than other sports that have equal to, or worse doping participation, and yet even the most casual cycling fan identifies the sport as "riddled with drug abuse". It is a P.R. nightmare that the U.C.I. is forced to deal with,and all I can say is, good luck with that.

Is a more casual disposition on doping the worst thing for the sport? Let's examine the NFL. Doping is rampant. The fans don't seem to care. The sport is enjoying record growth and moving into Europe and Asia. It's like the days of the Gladiator, people are lining up to watch men do battle. No one seems to care about their long term health and well being, which is an argument that cycling fans love to make about testing in that sport.

The average life-span... (that's LIFE-SPAN!) of a former NFL player is 55 years, (52 years for linemen). Post career substance abuse, alcoholism, spousal abuse, assault & battery, and violent crime statistics for this group are off the charts. These players are destroying their bodies, minds, and lives on a weekly basis in front of millions of fans and yet there is no discernible moral outrage.

I am not defending Football. But when I can see all the former TDF winners (with the exception of two suicides), going back 45 years to Felice Giomondi, all looking fit and healthy, and standing on stage at the TDF presentation, I have to question whether the argument about long term health of the athlete is really a valid reason for the Draconian controls that have been imposed on a professional cyclist's life. They give up a lot to suffer as a Pro. I am more inclined to suspend judgement, assume parity in the peloton is self regulating, and enjoy the spectacle of athleticism that is far beyond my capabilities... drugs or not.

 

[eleven]

The average life-span... (that's LIFE-SPAN!) of a former NFL player is 55 years, (52 years for linemen).

I know it's a bit off topic, but that really caught my attention. Is that true

Or am I reading it wrong? The average LIFE span of a retired NFL player is 55? In other words, they die (on average) at 55 years of age? That's really....sad.

 

[luckyboy]

I know it's a bit off topic, but that really caught my attention. Is that true

Or am I reading it wrong? The average LIFE span of a retired NFL player is 55? In other words, they die (on average) at 55 years of age? That's really....sad.

Meh, drug abuse ≠ long life.

Reminds me of the Goldman Dilemma..

 

[eleven]

Reminds me of the Goldman Dilemma..

Very good point. I forget that I'm one of the 248 of 250 "normal people" while the athletes are...not.

 

[VeloFidelis]

I know it's a bit off topic, but that really caught my attention. Is that true

Or am I reading it wrong? The average LIFE span of a retired NFL player is 55? In other words, they die (on average) at 55 years of age? That's really....sad.

Yes, I am sorry to say it is true. You can Google it for yourself. Kind of shocking isn't it? A positive test for steroids in the NFL will get you a two game suspension... but you can still play in the Pro Bowl. A positive test in cycling for an over the counter supplement like DHEA, which I happen to take every day, will get you a two year suspension.

I'm not in favor of doping, but I recognize it as a fact of life in cycling just like NFL fans do in football. But the argument about the riders current and post career health seems a bit moot when Horner, Voigt, and Armstrong are all pushing 40 and still riding at the front, and Merckx and Hinault still look healthy enough to hang with the pack. At least the UCI is not stacking the corpses of retired riders like chord wood as they seem to be in the NFL.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

It is an interesting exercise to attempt to rationalize irrational behavior. The term Fan is derived from the word fanatic, which is defined as: 'marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion'. There is nothing rational regarding our fanaticism about cycling, or any other sport for that matter. We like teams and individuals for reasons that we do not even fully comprehend, and spend time attempting to justify, and even argue over the validity of those opinions.

Despising one rider as a doper and glorifying another as not, when we all admit that we have no command what so ever of the actual facts, is about as irrational as it gets. We take the moral high ground that cheating is despicable, but is it really cheating if it is ubiquitous in cycling culture? Cycling is one of the most physically demanding sports there is. Our participation as cyclists is what gives us the smallest inkling into what the demands on, and the abilities of, the Pros are. They can all do what we can only marvel at, and they have earned our admiration for that.

In the rarified atmosphere of that incredible gene pool, choices are made to remain, or become more competitive. Darwin would say this is natural selection at it's best, and it goes well beyond simple human nature. This is survival instinct, and it is primal in nature. It is also the reason that we tune in to watch. Witnessing the survival of the fittest is basic human curiosity ingrained in our DNA.

The problem we have is the moral issue of fairness, or the attempt at fairness as a concept, that no other form of life on this planet seems to share. We impose rules and testing to attain that end, and yet we still fanaticize our opinions on them. For me it is more simple. If you are caught doping you are guilty, otherwise you are not. It's not really fair, but neither is life, and if it is the best we can do, then it needs to be enough. We can speculate all we want, but there is only one standard for guilt.

One of the great ironies in cycling is that the fan base is so obsessed with doping that they are driving the sport out of business. Moral outrage and more vigilant testing has netted more high profile offenders than other sports that have equal to, or worse doping participation, and yet even the most casual cycling fan identifies the sport as "riddled with drug abuse". It is a P.R. nightmare that the U.C.I. is forced to deal with,and all I can say is, good luck with that.

Is a more casual disposition on doping the worst thing for the sport? Let's examine the NFL. Doping is rampant. The fans don't seem to care. The sport is enjoying record growth and moving into Europe and Asia. It's like the days of the Gladiator, people are lining up to watch men do battle. No one seems to care about their long term health and well being, which is an argument that cycling fans love to make about testing in that sport.

The average life-span... (that's LIFE-SPAN!) of a former NFL player is 55 years, (52 years for linemen). Post career substance abuse, alcoholism, spousal abuse, assault & battery, and violent crime statistics for this group are off the charts. These players are destroying their bodies, minds, and lives on a weekly basis in front of millions of fans and yet there is no discernible moral outrage.

I am not defending Football. But when I can see all the former TDF winners (with the exception of two suicides), going back 45 years to Felice Giomondi, all looking fit and healthy, and standing on stage at the TDF presentation, I have to question whether the argument about long term health of the athlete is really a valid reason for the Draconian controls that have been imposed on a professional cyclist's life. They give up a lot to suffer as a Pro. I am more inclined to suspend judgement, assume parity in the peloton is self regulating, and enjoy the spectacle of athleticism that is far beyond my capabilities... drugs or not.

Another excellent, thoughtful post.

 

[ludwig]

Great stuff. I was kinda hoping this thread would take a philosophical turn but the depth and intelligence of these posts definitely exceeded my hopes!

Velo I'd like to respond but in 2 parts, as I think there are 2 related issues at hand here...the moral-philosophical question of regulating sport, and the practical question of how the anti-doping movement threatens cycling and what caused it....

In the rarified atmosphere of that incredible gene pool, choices are made to remain, or become more competitive. Darwin would say this is natural selection at it's best, and it goes well beyond simple human nature. This is survival instinct, and it is primal in nature. It is also the reason that we tune in to watch. Witnessing the survival of the fittest is basic human curiosity ingrained in our DNA.

The problem we have is the moral issue of fairness, or the attempt at fairness as a concept, that no other form of life on this planet seems to share. We impose rules and testing to attain that end, and yet we still fanaticize our opinions on them. For me it is more simple. If you are caught doping you are guilty, otherwise you are not. It's not really fair, but neither is life, and if it is the best we can do, then it needs to be enough. We can speculate all we want, but there is only one standard for guilt

I think these are great points, but I think it's a bit dangerous to leave them at that. When we talk about fairness, we are also talking about justice and the basic artificial constraints we place on humanity in order to achieve civilization. Sport, at its best, is a microcosim of life, and here in the civilized world we want civilzed sports....out of this comes the fanaticism for fairness and the regulation of performance enhancement. So...there's always a compromise that needs to be made between sport as a primal struggle and sport as a sort of training ground for civilized life---sport is a kind of play that (ideally) ought to mirror the play we would like to see in the real world...hence the necessity of cultivating good sportsmanship.

I have little patience for "life isn't fair" justifications for injustice...wherever these arguments are applied. And it's unfortunate when Social Darwinist arguments are provided for the maintenance of whatever pre-existing injustice...it's not just that history has proven this kind of thinking can be wrong-headed and short-sighted, it's also that it seems ethically unrigourous and frankly nihlistic.

Of course, I realize you are just saying that fairness is an abstract thing that we cannot actually attain, and that we have to be modest about what can be achieved, otherwise we end up destroying ourselves pursuing this vain artificial end (fairness, justice etc.). I'll agree that being uncompromising about justice can be an extraordinarily unattractive and self-destructive human characteristic. Just like social darwinism, there is plenty of human history to instruct us on the excesses of fanaticism re. justice and fairness.

So moving on to the concrete issue of cycling fandom etc... let me try to start with a few basic premises about fanatic anti-doping fans and how healthy they are for the sport, etc.

I'd start of with the observation that insofar as irrational fanaticism re. anti-doping exists, pro cyclists and cycling authorities have done nothing to discourage it. They repeatedly state that doping is cheating and they force pro cyclists to sign a pledge to that effect. They do nothing to discourage the notion that cycling ought to abide by classical notions of good sportmanship and regulated competition. Consequently it isn't surprising that the vast majority of fans here and elsewhere have a hard time believing that doping is widespread and prefer always to think it's a couple bad apples. It isn't difficult to see how this attitude (cultivated by the latest version omerta which favors outright lies and deception) actually feeds into the anti-doping paranoia. Fans believe in certain riders, and when rivals are busted and/or omerta on doping is obvious, they feel their man is being cheated, and become justifiably upset and demand reforms.

What I'm saying is that insofar as anti-doping attitudes among fans are irrational and destructive, it's also true that they are a direct consequence of the contradictory and deceptive actions of cycling organizations and authorities. Now, according to the logic of omerta (and I don't just mean the code of silence, I mean the new active sort of omerta) fans are a kind of economic fodder....a certain amount of believers are required to keep the sport credible and profitable (hence all the lies) but this sort of naive fan deserves no respect per se, given that their devotion is uncritical and superficial.

I think the characterization of fandom as an essentially irrational phenomenon (not untrue btw) is part of this picture. Consequently I would conclude that cycling was better off with pure omerta (ie silence w/o active lying), but this model became unviable in the age of digital media and the wake of Puerto, so more extreme measures needed to be taken.

Pro cycling didn't have great choices in the wake of Operation Puerto... Cycling seems to have reacted in contradictory ways....on the one hand it put up a new front of intolerance towards doping and created "anti-doping" teams backed up by scientific testing etc., on the other hand there was a new round of testing during the races. Finally, there was the round of public confessions and apologies in 07. It's hard to judge all this now without the benefit of hindsight, but it appears that cycling decided these efforts backfired dramatically and are now shifting back towards the old omerta model. Ultimately, trying to regulate or act like they were regulating led to increased public awareness of the doping problem and lessened interest in the sport.

Ok, I want to post something more personal and subjective on this problem later on today, but I wanted to get those preliminary comments out of the way. Gotta get some work done...then another post hopefully.

 

[ludwig]

The world is an unfair place. It sounds like you are searching for absolutes in an eminently contrary world. This, too, must be moved past.

Predictably, the contradictions are not just present in sport but in all of life. If you choose to pursue professional cycling as your crucible of fairness and the duality of performance vs ethics, there is no other end but disappointment. It is certain.

Cycle racing is not faith or spirituality. Those who search for some level of salvation in it, apart from their own journey, have nothing but broken hope. Ride your bike, pedal circles, cleanse your systems but don't transfer this experience into the aspirational identification with the professional level of racing unless you are willing to go blindly or are willing to accept the fact that in doing so, you will strip away the faith-based system that gets you out on your bike. These must be separate, kind of a church-and-state proximity.

Again, you give out excellent advice and you express it very well.

On the question of fairness/unfairnes...I guess see my above post. Re. absolutes, while I don't think I personally seek salvation in following bike racing, I will admit that for various reasons I take it alot more seriously than other sports like boxing. For example, however much I admire the guy, I don't think I would be surprised or dissapointed to learn Evander Holyfield was doped his entire career.... But invariably I am somewhat dissapointed when whichever cyclist gets busted in spite of being aware of the score well before-hand.

I'll agree that individuals are likely better off without indenification with sports figures (unless of course, they derive an inspiration from said sports figure that plays an overwelmingly positive role) but I don't believe cycling would be the sport it is without it. Personally no amount of doping in sport is going to keep me off my bike, so I'm lucky in that regard.

 

[ludwig]

Your first question begs another question: Why does it matter to you? Doping or not, you will have riders you like and dislike. Simply don't intermingle the doping aspect with your personal preference. To do so, means that you will most likely be disappointed when you come to realize that the riders you are drawn to utilize medicines and techniques that allow them to maintain their jobs and stay in their profession.

Now, an issue can occur if you "believe" that the rider for whom you support achieves results absent prohibited medicines and/or techniques. At that point, you are either uninformed or purposefully ignorant of the greater scope of doping in professional sports. Getting over that can be painful but no more so than overcoming Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, and similar myths.

Rocky Road and the Agony of Ice Cream.

I'd like to clarify something in relation to this post, as this thread has helped me organize my thoughts a bit better....

I started this thread based on Horner's glorious Vasco win, and my mental confusion over being unable to feel any genuine excitement about it despite my former admiration for Horner.

Polish expressed concisely some of the reasons we like and identify with Horner. Winning personality, expresses himself well and freely, splendid and exciting riding style.

But the bottom line for me is I cannot see all dopers as equal. Nor can I follow Velofidelis' advice and trust the authorities. Nor can I (fully) bracket out the riders I like from speculation re what sort of dope they are using.

The reason I feel this way is
1) Not all doping programs are equal
2) The regulation and authorities of cycling are not trustworthy

I don't think it's possible to seriously dispute either of these points. Thus, when Horner joins Shack and arrives at the best form of his career, I can't rule out the possibility that the man who really deserves congratulations is his team doctor, even though it may be the case that Horner has turned a corner in terms of training and style.

So I guess I've come to the point where I'm no longer a fan in terms of being emotionally invested in the sport. If you guys are right, this is probably a healthy thing, but I wonder if it was inevitable.