Rider safety

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

I agree with a lot of the points you raised but there are way more than "2 main points".

Descending is part of the sport of bike racing - you go up a hill, you come down a hill.
It is a skill like any other - one you can train and attempt to perfect.

Doping transforms racers - therefore it adds nothing but an artificial and chemical advantage.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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

........ on the 9th stage of the Tour.

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

 

[function]

.

Descending is part of the sport of bike racing - you go up a hill, you come down a hill.
It is a skill like any other - one you can train and attempt to perfect.

Doping transforms racers - therefore it adds nothing but an artificial and chemical advantage.

Devil's advocate here, but training and preparation (medically assisted and otherwise) for a specific race is a key part of cycling (and athletics in general). The condition you come into at the starting line is as important as the race itself.

 

[Magnus]

........ on the 9th stage of the Tour.

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

It certainly determined the outcome of Beloki's TdF

 

[Benotti69]

It certainly determined the outcome of Beloki's TdF

Beloki's accident was caused due to his tubular coming off his wheel on a not the descent itself.

 

[Benotti69]

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.

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.

not necessarily athletes, but MotoGP riders have demanded changes to several tracks since the death of fellow rider Daijiro Kato in 2003 MotoGP season at Suzuka Japan. They have refused to race at the track since 2003 due to safety demands not being implemented. They have demanded changes at other tracks, Laguna Sega, California which were implemented. They take it seriously and formed a riders safety commission. Without riders, no racing.

Why not pro cyclists? They initially refused the helmet rule, which seems ridiculous now, but then these guys take stuff they know nothing about the long term effects off.

I will finish on this thread by saying, that if the riders want safer courses, it is their hands as a collective. If they decide they want change the course must change.

 

[usedtobefast]

........ on the 9th stage of the Tour.

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

and he was only 40 seconds down, so things could have changed had he not
gone down. he had got 2 overall the previous year. of course this is all
speculation, and Lance made an amazing adjustment to Belokis crash.