So what are we going to do?

[ElChingon]

I'm thinking of running next to the peloton dressed as a giant hypodermic needle.

Better effect would be to drive along in a Porsche in a Fuentes mask.

 

[Master50]

When I started working in the sport in the mid 1980s, federations were doping their athletes. East Germany and Russia were calling their riders amateurs but it was clear their military service was spent racing and riding their bikes. Almost any serious anti doping was mostly used to monitor the amateurs. Anti doping in the pro peloton was restricted to urine tests and the doping products were testosterone, pain meds, diuretics and stimulants to aid in weight loss. The peloton was split between amateurs and pros. Most talk about doping was related to the amateurs with an Olympic Gold medal being the pinnacle reward for an amateur.
The sport was governed by 2 international organizations under the UCI. FICP watched over pro racing and FIAC was looking after the Amateurs and the Olympics.
This was in my mind the most corrupt time in cycling and in amateur sport in general.
All IOC members were about as arrogant and full of self importance and corrupt. Pro cycling was relatively clean or at least free of the politics and the riders were treated a lot like cattle
We the non Euro fans were lucky to get any news of the racing world except in niche magazines like Velonews and Winning. Saturday Sports might have a bit of Tour coverage on Wide World of Sports. When we talked of inequities we mostly argued about the difference between East block countries rider's being defacto pros.
Against that landscape we have a lot to be happy about. Now I get that a lot of the change has been put on the governing bodies and they have reluctantly reacted. Cycling has become a leader in anti doping efforts and while I constantly read it is not enough it is still more than any other sport. Blood testing, The passport, police investigations.
That anti doping efforts have been less than effective they have at least caused the effect to be diminished via these mechanisms. Targeted testing has been a modern tool and almost all the analytical testing that has caught the higher profile athletes was in out of competition testing another cycling driven anti doping tool.
In the later 90s I started working in Pro cycling as much as 30 days a year so I have been paying very close attention to the sport for more than 27 years. I have been to the UCI headquarters and even sat in Verbruggen's chair. He was not in that day I saw the election of the first English Speaking President which seemed a miracle and probably only happened because Pros could race the Olympics and the power shifted away from the mostly professional oriented governing structure. Against all of this I am very optimistic about cycling especially when I consider how many sports are still where we were in 1980s.
So when I visit this thread and talk about protest I am very concerned there is a lack of history and perspective. I get that the governing body is not perceived to be moving the fight along at a pace expected by the regulars here.
In the context of my personal experience I am very optimistic that our sport is going the right direction and compared to what I see in other sports I think we should have our heads a lot higher than might be felt in the CLINIC.
I certainly am not suggesting we have won but I am confident that the change is happening and a lot faster than this group sees.
That this conversation is not being had in many of the other sports is evidence that Cycling fans are an anomaly in that they are demanding even more and believing less.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

When I started working in the sport in the mid 1980s, federations were doping their athletes. East Germany and Russia were calling their riders amateurs but it was clear their military service was spent racing and riding their bikes. Almost any serious anti doping was mostly used to monitor the amateurs. Anti doping in the pro peloton was restricted to urine tests and the doping products were testosterone, pain meds, diuretics and stimulants to aid in weight loss. The peloton was split between amateurs and pros. Most talk about doping was related to the amateurs with an Olympic Gold medal being the pinnacle reward for an amateur.
The sport was governed by 2 international organizations under the UCI. FICP watched over pro racing and FIAC was looking after the Amateurs and the Olympics.
This was in my mind the most corrupt time in cycling and in amateur sport in general.
All IOC members were about as arrogant and full of self importance and corrupt. Pro cycling was relatively clean or at least free of the politics and the riders were treated a lot like cattle
We the non Euro fans were lucky to get any news of the racing world except in niche magazines like Velonews and Winning. Saturday Sports might have a bit of Tour coverage on Wide World of Sports. When we talked of inequities we mostly argued about the difference between East block countries rider's being defacto pros.
Against that landscape we have a lot to be happy about. Now I get that a lot of the change has been put on the governing bodies and they have reluctantly reacted. Cycling has become a leader in anti doping efforts and while I constantly read it is not enough it is still more than any other sport. Blood testing, The passport, police investigations.
That anti doping efforts have been less than effective they have at least caused the effect to be diminished via these mechanisms. Targeted testing has been a modern tool and almost all the analytical testing that has caught the higher profile athletes was in out of competition testing another cycling driven anti doping tool.
In the later 90s I started working in Pro cycling as much as 30 days a year so I have been paying very close attention to the sport for more than 27 years. I have been to the UCI headquarters and even sat in Verbruggen's chair. He was not in that day I saw the election of the first English Speaking President which seemed a miracle and probably only happened because Pros could race the Olympics and the power shifted away from the mostly professional oriented governing structure. Against all of this I am very optimistic about cycling especially when I consider how many sports are still where we were in 1980s.
So when I visit this thread and talk about protest I am very concerned there is a lack of history and perspective. I get that the governing body is not perceived to be moving the fight along at a pace expected by the regulars here.
In the context of my personal experience I am very optimistic that our sport is going the right direction and compared to what I see in other sports I think we should have our heads a lot higher than might be felt in the CLINIC.

Such a long post that explains nothing.

I asked earlier what has changed in cycling - hidden in there is "blood tests, the passport" and then incredibly the police.
You do realize that it is the police and outside agencies that have exposed things like "blood tests and the passport" as little more than PR?

I certainly am not suggesting we have won but I am confident that the change is happening and a lot faster than this group sees.

That this conversation is not being had in many of the other sports is evidence that Cycling fans are an anomaly in that they are demanding even more and believing less.

Any change has solely been from outside of the UCI.
Indeed the UCI have attempted to bury and derail anti-doping cases, the most recent the letters to USADA blatantly lying about jurisdiction.

Doping is doping - it is nonsense to discuss other sports to suggest it is 'evidence' that cycling fans are an anomaly.
Cycling fans are not ignorant on doping issues like other sports, because their sport has been embroiled in constant doping scandals for the last 15 years.