re: "The Giro is so hard it will encourage doping"

[ferryman]

Yes. End of story.

No no no. There are many many reasons a rider feels he has to dope other than winning. LIke keeping a job Is one example, there are many more we could all reel off if we put our mind to it.

 

[Ferminal]

The bottom of the field doping seems to be a bit of a flow on effect. Those on the border of winning need to dope to try and win. Those on the border of the top 10 need to try and dope to get top10 etc etc. Until you end up at the bottom of the field with people who just want to finish the GT. So just maybe there will be a few whose contract is uncertain, who struggle to finish a GT and have nothing else going for them. If people stopped doping completely and we began to have higher attrition in GTs, then maybe we could make them a bit "easier". Something tells me we will never get to that point though.

 

[auscyclefan94]

The discussion directly relates to those that say there will be an outbreak of doping at the Giro in 2011 because of how "hard" it is.

I wasn't the one making the statement.

Hence why I said "that statement".

 

[Mellow Velo]

So what chance the Tour, where the course is still hard, the racing speeds slightly higher and the rewards for success far greater?
The fact that Le GB has had more positives in recent editions suggest that in picking the Giro, you select the wrong target for this debate and therefore the wrong common denominator.

Doping likelihood certainly isn't solely related to the toughness of a set of parcours.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Doping is directly related to the 'toughness' of the sport, not the 'toughness' of a certain course.

Whether you're getting blown off a wheel while climbing the Dolomites, or getting blown off a wheel at 60km/h on the flats, you're still getting blown off.

If winning was the primary motivation for doping, there would be far fewer dopers out there as only the riders vying for wins would be jacked. We know that's not the case.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Doping is directly related to the 'toughness' of the sport, not the 'toughness' of a certain course.

Whether you're getting blown off a wheel while climbing the Dolomites, or getting blown off a wheel at 60km/h on the flats, you're still getting blown off.

If winning was the primary motivation for doping, there would be far fewer dopers out there as only the riders vying for wins would be jacked. We know that's not the case.

Spot on in respect of cycling. It`s also true that as cycling is a largely cardiavasculer sport it "benifits" from doping more than those sports that are largely skill based.

 

[step23]

I am not sure whether it is Giro that is encouraging doping. I guess they are GTs in general that give major percentage of "dope" incentives to riders (most of whom are GC contenders and their lieutenants). Climbers want to get advantage over the TTers at flat stages and vice versa. And all of the GC contenders need good recuperation abilities to fight on the top level for 3 weeks in a raw. Doctors say that different people have different abilities. Nature always seeks balance.
Of course there are one-day races at stake as well (Rebelix and the Olimpics), where the "win" argument is more applicable. Again it depends on the race status. IMHO

 

[ultimobici]

Doping is directly related to the 'toughness' of the sport, not the 'toughness' of a certain course.

Whether you're getting blown off a wheel while climbing the Dolomites, or getting blown off a wheel at 60km/h on the flats, you're still getting blown off.

If winning was the primary motivation for doping, there would be far fewer dopers out there as only the riders vying for wins would be jacked. We know that's not the case.

While I agree with what you have posted, I think we may be ovelooking one other factor that skews things somewhat. Every stage has an elimination time that riders at the back must beat. If the stage winners & GC contenders are juiced then the stage winning time comes down and as a consequence the cut off time does too. Remember Cavendish's comments about Ricco's stage wins in 2007 and the effect on the Autobus? If the winner's average speed goes up by 1% then the guys at the back have to raise their speed by the same amount to make the cut. That's why we see basic domestiques using gear despite not having a chance to win in a GT mountain stage.

i used to work with a guy who raced professionally in Belgium & Holland. He vividly remembers riding Het Volk one year where he happened to see Museeuw cruising up the windward side of the bunch on the tops, while he was grovelling in the gutter at the very limit. Imagine how disheartening that must be!

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Agreed. I'm filing that under the 'Toughness of the Sport' department...

 

[Darryl Webster]

While I agree with what you have posted, I think we may be ovelooking one other factor that skews things somewhat. Every stage has an elimination time that riders at the back must beat. If the stage winners & GC contenders are juiced then the stage winning time comes down and as a consequence the cut off time does too. Remember Cavendish's comments about Ricco's stage wins in 2007 and the effect on the Autobus? If the winner's average speed goes up by 1% then the guys at the back have to raise their speed by the same amount to make the cut. That's why we see basic domestiques using gear despite not having a chance to win in a GT mountain stage.

i used to work with a guy who raced professionally in Belgium & Holland. He vividly remembers riding Het Volk one year where he happened to see Museeuw cruising up the windward side of the bunch on the tops, while he was grovelling in the gutter at the very limit. Imagine how disheartening that must be!

This is a VERY important point that is the likly reason drug use in the 90`s to date has become so widespread many believe it`s not possible to ride the GT`s entirely clean let alone win.
Average speed rises in this period have been the bigest in the sports history, though it seems they may be slowing a tad now. Aquipment alone dos not explain the speed rise.
The importance of this in the debate is to understand that it`s NOT the stage disdance`s that make doping "necersery" for lesser lights, it`s the increased wattage required to keep up. It`s an expedential increase to overcome resistance not a linear one.
This is why EPO had such a dramatic effect and unlike any previous generations drug use it made the sport a pharmacutical battle more than an athletes .
Best examble of this? Bjan Riis...donkey to race horse ...and still feeding at the trough.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Whomever believes the mantra that "the (race) is so hard it will encourage doping" mantra needs a history lesson.

Some GTs were quite brutal in the 70's and 80's. I believe '76 and '86 specifically. Then there's the 1988 Giro. While there were riders doped then, mostly with products like amphetamines, caffeine, or morphine as a pain killer, not with the super doping products of today. Thus queen stages lasted 7 hours instead of 6. No one died. It actually made for better racing.

But if we go further back, pre WWII and beyond, there were many stages in GTs that were brutally long and difficult. Often over 300km. A few over 400km. Many of the roads were pavé, and most of the mountain passes were dirt. Plus riders had to make many of their own repairs on heavy bikes made of steel. The drugs of choice then were things like alcohol, strychnine.

The only reason why tough courses today "make" riders dope is to keep up with the other dopers (as in the 70 percentile or so).

 

[Christian]

Spanish secretary of Sports Jaime Lissavetzky raises the question about Grand Tours being too long:

Lissavetzky est le représentant des gouvernements européens devant l'AMA et milite en faveur d'un accord sur le cyclisme au niveau mondial, où on discuterait notamment la durée et la difficulté des grands Tours, ainsi que les relations entre ceux-ci : "Chacun a fait, avec sa meilleure volonté, la guerre pour son compte. Il y a eu des affrontements entre l'UCI Pro Tour et les Grands Tours. Le cyclisme a des exigences énormes du point de vue physique. Nous devons ouvrir une réflexion sur la durée des Grands Tours".

Lissavetzky is the representative of the european governments to the AMA and fights for a global agreement on cycling, where one would discuss the duration and the difficulty of the Grand Tours, as well as the relation between the three: "Everyone has, to the best of their abilities, fought for their sake. There have been confrontations between the UCI and the Grand Tours. Cycling has enormous requirements from a physical point of view. We need to start reflecting on the duration of the Grand Tours".

Source: http://www.cyclismactu.net/news-aff_contador_des_grands_tours_trop_durs-10458.html

 

[The Devil]

All bike races on the pro tour are difficult. Cyclist's use PEDS regardless of the difficulty of the event. There will be doping at the giro next Year to some degree. There may be 8 mountain top finishes and about 40 categorized climbs. If that were halved to 4 mountain top finishes and 20 categorized climbs there still would be doping.