Rider safety

[Magnus]

From 'The Crostis Descent' thread:

"Is it too dangerous? I think that's for the riders to decide and act on."

"They are all grown up men and can decide themselves how fast they want to go there."

I've seen other comments with basically this content regarding rider safety, that it is up to the riders to decide if the route is safe or not, and to which extent they will use a dangerous route to attack, and thus basically letting the rider who is willing to take the biggest risks win.

Why is it ok that races are determined by who is willing to risk their health on, say, a gravel descent but not ok that races are determined by who is willing to risk their health using drugs?

 

[hrotha]

Well, for a start, if you don't crash there's no negative health consequences whatsoever, contrary to doping. Did you see how Nibali went away in that descent? He wasn't taking risks, he's just that good. He wasn't damaging his own body by descending like that.

More importantly, there's also the tiny detail that bike-handling is an intrinsic components of road cycling (it's like, part of its essence), which cannot really be said of putting your own EPO-boosted blood right into your veins months after you had it removed.

Also, I'd venture to say doping has killed far more pro riders than crashes in the last 20 years.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

From 'The Crostis Descent' thread:

"Is it too dangerous? I think that's for the riders to decide and act on."

"They are all grown up men and can decide themselves how fast they want to go there."

I've seen other comments with basically this content regarding rider safety, that it is up to the riders to decide if the route is safe or not, and to which extent they will use a dangerous route to attack, and thus basically letting the rider who is willing to take the biggest risks win.

Why is it ok that races are determined by who is willing to risk their health on, say, a gravel descent but not ok that races are determined by who is willing to risk their health using drugs?

We had this chat a couple of weeks ago.

All descents are dangerous (so is getting on a bike) but what makes this one moreso is because it has some exposed drops, which I believe the organizers have recognized and are putting up nets.

Most Pros are pretty skilled in descending - if someone does not want to go with a kamikaze descender then they can dab on the brakes as you will lose little time.

With PEDs you have no idea what people are taking and what sort or long term implications there are.

 

[Magnus]

Maybe I was unclear:

I realize there are differences between doping and dangerous routes. I just don't understand the "it's up to the riders" attitude:
Clearly the danger is inherent in cycling, but I still think there exists routes/conditions that are to dangerous. It may be difficult to draw the line, but that doesn't mean it's not there. I think it's up to the organizers to draw this line, not the riders. Just like it's up to WADA/UCI/whatever to decide that epo is not ok but caffeine is.

 

[Magnus]

Most Pros are pretty skilled in descending - if someone does not want to go with a kamikaze descender then they can dab on the brakes as you will lose little time.

Couldn't the same thing be said about EPO (ab)use in the 90'ies?

 

[Magnus]

Well, for a start, if you don't crash there's no negative health consequences whatsoever, contrary to doping. Did you see how Nibali went away in that descent? He wasn't taking risks, he's just that good. He wasn't damaging his own body by descending like that.

Unfortunately i missed today's stage. However, it could be argued (as it's often seen when regarding doping) that he may have forced others to take risks trying to follow him.

 

[Granville57]

Why is it ok that races are determined by who is willing to risk their health on, say, a gravel descent but not ok that races are determined by who is willing to risk their health using drugs?

Several issues come to mind.

Putting morals and ethics aside for a moment...

1) On any given descent, every rider faces the exact same challenges. So to draw an analogy to doping, you'd have to expose all the riders to the exact same amount and type of PEDs or methods, and then let them decide how much, if any, they would indulge in--much like allowing a rider to self-determine how fast they descend, or whether or not they simply pull out of the race.

But it would be impossible to know just exactly how much each rider indulged in the PEDs. On a descent, the whole world can see just how aggressively or passively any given rider is attacking the course.

2) Once the descent is over, all the risk and danger of that descent is then, quite literally, behind them.
The same can not be said for PEDs.

3) In many ways racing isn't fair, nor is it meant to be. Some riders can climb, some can descend, some can sprint, some can time trial--very, very few can do all those things well. PEDs attempt to alter the natural variation in athletes. It is those natural variations that makes competitive sport interesting.

4) The morals and ethics can't be put aside. I can't make a better argument for this than what was presented here previously.

http://m.prnewswire.com/news-releas...e-drug-spokesman-robert-weiner-120568759.html

I highly suggest downloading the full transcript from the link at the bottom of the article.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Couldn't the same thing be said about EPO (ab)use in the 90'ies?

How?

If you mean can people decide - yes, and many did.
But again you are trying to compare a drug that (in the 90's) gave a massive boost in performance (in all areas).
You cannot compare it to loosing a few meters or seconds on a descent.

 

[Magnus]

How?

If you mean can people decide - yes, and many did.
But again you are trying to compare a drug that (in the 90's) gave a massive boost in performance (in all areas).
You cannot compare it to loosing a few meters or seconds on a descent.

Well... it's seen more than once that a single descent has determined the outcome of a GT.

 

[Benotti69]

I dont know how someone can compare the parcours with PEDS.

Should colombians have weights in their saddles? Should Cancellara ride a steel non TT aerodynamic bike in the TTs?

If you want to see riders race a course that does not effect the outcome, track racing.

Wouter Weylandt crashed, sadly due to his looking behind while travelling down a descent at 80km/h. His pedal clipped a wall and he crashed, badly, so badly it took his life. No other rider to my knowledge came off on that descent. The riders in the first group didn't decide to put their arms up and slow everyone down to due to the danger.

So i dont understand why the sudden outcry about descents. Today a rider crashed getting a bottle from a mechanic on a flat road, ban that?

Lets not get carried away. Lets listen to what the riders are saying. If they feel it is too dangerous to race, they can slow down and neutralise sections of races, they have done it in the past and no doubt will do it in the future. THey have to have the courage to do it. They did it last year in the TdF and lots on here got upset. But if someone died would people have been upset?

 

[Granville57]

If you want to see riders race a course that does not effect the outcome, track racing.

And even there, we STILL see horrific crashes.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well... it's seen more than once that a single descent has determined the outcome of a GT.

When? Stages perhaps but I cannot think of a GT where a single descent decided the outcome.

And even if there were the difference there is in the minutes, EPO boosts performance right across the line so its effect is much larger.

 

[Benotti69]

And even there, we STILL see horrific crashes.

for sure, but lets end it all The riders know the risks and accept them on ALL Parcours.

I am still surprised that people want to race high powered motorcycles on closed roads, but they do and they love it, some work 3 jobs to get the money together to go race in the Isle of man TT for 3 weeks.

Pro cycling is not that dangerous in the grand scheme of things. They are all excellent (except a basque team maybe) bike handlers as they prove race after race.

It is a non argument really without the riders calling for safer GTs!

 

[fatandfast]

why is this thread called rider safety? From my own experience as a racer and official. Everything I thought I knew is out the window. If you put in some hairpins, 180 deg turns ,skinny sections and dirt surface in most low level races it makes the race way safer.
Anything that causes speeds to go down and the selection process faster.

At the pro level anything can happen because they are always on the bubble. Routine turns at pro speeds are possibly deadly. The helmets and garments worn by bike racers offer no protection. As was we all observed with no head and neck protection crashes that involve direct impact to the head have horrible outcomes. Crashes, bad ones happen in Qatar, no turns, hills, nothing but superior athletes trying to go as fast as possible. The only way to make bike racing significantly safer is to neutralize the race in obviously dangerous sections.No chance of that happening.

 

[Magnus]

The only way to make bike racing significantly safer is to neutralize the race in obviously dangerous sections.No chance of that happening.

It happened before.

 

[Magnus]

I dont know how someone can compare the parcours with PEDS.

If you read what i wrote I'm wondering about the differences in who should administer the danger that extreme conditions and drugs can pose.

What has track racing, non-aero steel bikes and Wouter Weylandt (may he rest in peace) got to do with whether race organizers or riders should decide when conditions are to dangerous?

 

[Magnus]

And even if there were the difference there is in the minutes, EPO boosts performance right across the line so its effect is much larger.

Sure it is. But in both cases winning/loosing may depend on the willingness to risk your life.

 

[Benotti69]

If you read what i wrote I'm wondering about the differences in who should administer the danger that extreme conditions and drugs can pose.

What has track racing, non-aero steel bikes and Wouter Weylandt (may he rest in peace) got to do with whether race organizers or riders should decide when conditions are to dangerous?

where do you draw the line? PEDs cannot be equal ever, because everyones bodies and metabolisms are different and react differently, some would get more benefit from PEDs than others therefore it never being equal.

As the the parcour, it will always be down to the riders. They did it last year in the Giro in Milan. Di Luca spoke out today about the strade bianche, saying the giro is a road race not a cyclo cross or mountain bike race. He was *****ing because his saddle broke of the stem. Change the seat, handle bar stem and handle bars for a stage like today. Simple.

I dont see any argument for the Giro being dangerous until those that ride it speak out.

 

[Merckx index]

I think the OP has a good (though not original) point. There are two main arguments against doping: 1) it prevents a level playing field; 2) it's dangerous.

The first argument is defused to a large degree if all or most competitors are doping. Hence we see claims (interesting but unproven IMO) that LA had a superior program, or that there exist high responders, athletes whose physiology allows them to get better PE with the same program. Claims like these are needed, because without them, it's unclear how much the outcome of races is actually affected by doping.

Thus anti-doping advocates go to the second point, that it's dangerous. Many of these claims are overblown, but there are risks. Riders did die from EPO, and we don't know the long-term effects of many other substances, particularly steroids and growth factors. But the fact remains that much of the most common doping is of unproven danger at best, not obviously greater than the risks that riders take routinely in races.

Someone here suggested more riders have died from PES than crashes. I doubt this--more pros died from EPO in the late 80s and early 90s from crashes, I'm quite sure--but in any case, serious if non-fatal crashes are far more common than documented health effects of PEDs. For every Weylandt who gives his life, how many Raisins are out there who can never race again? Ricco is probably the best current example of the dangers of doping, but if he can find a team and avoid a ban, he's perfectly capable of racing again. We all understand that blood doping is widespread in the peloton, but rarely does a case like Ricco emerge.

Someone else suggested that riders can decide for themselves whether a risk is warranted. I find this a ludicrous thing to say in the Clinic. The evidence is overwhelming that athletes will always ignore risks in the desire to win (think of that poll where I think 80% of the athletes said they would risk dying in five years to win a gold medal). Athletes are the absolutely worst people to judge a risk. The only question in a real competitor's mind is, will it significantly improve my chances of winning? if yes, decision made.

I do agree with Dr. Mas that descents do not determine GTs. That in fact may be the best argument for allowing dangerous downhills in these races. Racers know that the risk/benefit ratio of a kamikaze descent is really not in their favor, and for that reason are likely to be willing to ease off a little on them.

 

[Midnightfright]

Well it certainly an intresting outlook on it TS but cant say i agree. Like others have said that descending is a vital part of the sport Doping certainly isnt.

 

[Midnightfright]

for sure, but lets end it all The riders know the risks and accept them on ALL Parcours.

I am still surprised that people want to race high powered motorcycles on closed roads, but they do and they love it, some work 3 jobs to get the money together to go race in the Isle of man TT for 3 weeks.

Pro cycling is not that dangerous in the grand scheme of things. They are all excellent (except a basque team maybe) bike handlers as they prove race after race.

It is a non argument really without the riders calling for safer GTs!

Great point. I love almost all sports and you will find this is the case for most. Safety implications are usually brought about by the participants look at cricket for example the extra padding , protections and batting helmets were implemented by the players. I will add though that cycling seems to have a very high percentage of serious injuries.

 

[hrotha]

Another thing worth mentioning is that doping has mostly a deferred risk, and we humans are pretty bad at judging long-term risks and acting in accordance to them. The risks you take in a descent have more to do with your short-term self-preservation instincts, which are completely different.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If you read what i wrote I'm wondering about the differences in who should administer the danger that extreme conditions and drugs can pose.

What has track racing, non-aero steel bikes and Wouter Weylandt (may he rest in peace) got to do with whether race organizers or riders should decide when conditions are to dangerous?

On descents - it is the riders, by judging the speed that go down a hill at without falling over. (Because if you fall over you will probably lose).
There is a limit to what one can do on a descent.

With PEDs no-one knows the short term let alone the long term dangers.

 

[usedtobefast]

When? Stages perhaps but I cannot think of a GT where a single descent decided the outcome.

And even if there were the difference there is in the minutes, EPO boosts performance right across the line so its effect is much larger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseba_Beloki
Beloki's crash took him out of the race, while in second place.

 

[Merckx index]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseba_Beloki
Beloki's crash took him out of the race, while in second place.

Good point. In fact, most of LA's major rivals crashed in that Tour, including Levi, who was gone around the third stage; Tyler, who rode most of the way with a broken collarbone; and Jan, whose crash in the ITT might have decided the yellow. A crash also played a major role in LA's first Tour victory. Granted, these were not descents, but the point is they were major deciding factors.

The best example, though, might have been in the 1971 TDF. Merckx won it when his major rival Ocana crashed. Someone with a better knowledge of cycling history than I could probably come up with more.

Safety implications are usually brought about by the participants

Not in the NFL they aren't, where there has been tremendous resistance by some players to new rules not allowing helmet-first hits. And before that, to rules protecting quarterbacks (hard as this is to believe, there was a time when QBs could be chased around the field and sacked AFTER they through the ball).

I don't believe it was MLB players who pushed for rules on protective headgear.

Nor cyclists who pushed for a rule on wearing helmets.

Nor hockey players who have demanded greater penalties for roughness.

As I said before, athletes are the last people to look for regarding judgment on safety. Most safety rules in most sports have been made in spite of, not because of, the wishes of the athletes.