State of Cycling

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 20, 2013
102
0
0
Papa Kel said:
.. what would make you finally say enough is enough and give up on the sport? That is, not watching or caring at all about professional cycling?
Sometime before it is injuring cyclists at the rate accidents do, or those playing other sports. As you said doping is part of sports. I see it as cheating - also part of sports.
OR
When regulations and punishments are worse than the cheating.


Right now - feels like they catch few. I'd change the rules then until any rule that is made can be enforced. It is not fair to athletes to expect them to enforce the rules themselves.
 
Zorotheslacker said:
Sometime before it is injuring cyclists at the rate accidents do, or those playing other sports. As you said doping is part of sports. I see it as cheating - also part of sports.
OR
When regulations and punishments are worse than the cheating.


Right now - feels like they catch few. I'd change the rules then until any rule that is made can be enforced. It is not fair to athletes to expect them to enforce the rules themselves.
It is fair to expected that athletes to abide by the rules themselves though.
 
Jul 17, 2009
4,317
1
0
One reason it my never go away is that Doping works. And because it works the incentive to cheat is far greater that it is to catch a cheat. Set aside all questions and concerns about the moral ramifications of a drug taker, a drug maker or a drug tester's decision to or not to enter the dope game.

It becomes a question of incentive. The incentive to dope is to win the game and win the cash or the fame. The incentive create the drugs are much the same; medical fame, continued grant money to fund research with results etc. The risk reward theory is real here.

What exactly is the incentive to test or stop doping? Is there reward to keep researchers up to date and in line with the curve if not ahead of it? Is there incentive governing bodies of the sport?

a lazy example here but: A loins incentive to catch the antelope is he gets to eat. The antelopes incentive to avoid the catch is he gets to live. Its an equal evolution incentive.

Right now the incentive to stop doping is nothing more than a moral line in the sand led by the odd prophet and they are largely out gunned by the other side.

One incentive might be amnesty to all current and former athletes who come forward. Right now the system gives them no reason to get involved and use their experience to help fight against drug use. start with incentives that allow more people to get involved with out fear of ramifications or sanctions before a certain date. say 2009 as a start
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Boeing said:
One reason it my never go away is that Doping works. And because it works the incentive to cheat is far greater that it is to catch a cheat. Set aside all questions and concerns about the moral ramifications of a drug taker, a drug maker or a drug tester's decision to or not to enter the dope game.
Firstly - doping will never fully go away, as you rightly point out, because it works.
For the athlete its simply risk vs reward.
The rewards will always be there - so it becomes a question of how likely they are to be caught.

Boeing said:
It becomes a question of incentive. The incentive to dope is to win the game and win the cash or the fame. The incentive create the drugs are much the same; medical fame, continued grant money to fund research with results etc. The risk reward theory is real here.

What exactly is the incentive to test or stop doping? Is there reward to keep researchers up to date and in line with the curve if not ahead of it? Is there incentive governing bodies of the sport?

a lazy example here but: A loins incentive to catch the antelope is he gets to eat. The antelopes incentive to avoid the catch is he gets to live. Its an equal evolution incentive.

Right now the incentive to stop doping is nothing more than a moral line in the sand led by the odd prophet and they are largely out gunned by the other side.

One incentive might be amnesty to all current and former athletes who come forward. Right now the system gives them no reason to get involved and use their experience to help fight against drug use. start with incentives that allow more people to get involved with out fear of ramifications or sanctions before a certain date. say 2009 as a start
As you point out the weak link here is the sporting authorities - they are caught in the conflict of attempting to catch people while promoting the sport.

The actual testers who work for the agencies (USADA/AFLD etc) are usually enthusiastic anti-doping officers - the DCOs at races can be a little prone to apathy or laziness. The labs do derive income from testing and the protocols are implemented by WADA.

If you remember the McQuaid press conference where he said "Armstrong has no place in cycling"? He looked like a long string of misery.
If he was 'anti-doping' he should have been high fiving the front row and punching the air and beaming as he said "we got him".
 
Jul 11, 2013
291
0
0
ljpoyz said:
I also separate clinic and racing issues. Until I watched Horner breezing away from Nibali and J-Rod, that made me feel sick to the core :mad:
Wait, so watching Froomestrong at the TdF didn't move the needle, but Horner does? Haha, it's still about who is the more or less LIKED cheater, more so than the actual cheating.
 
Aug 20, 2013
102
0
0
del1962 said:
It is fair to expected that athletes to abide by the rules themselves though.
Not at all.

In friendly park sports with no money and no officials - yes.

Part of the sport (I'm a soccer official) is to have the spectators watch, the players play and the officials decide.

The rules/laws are up to the officials, not the riders.

Cyclists (and other athletes) should do whatever they can to win. That is the simplest fairest way.
 
Aug 20, 2013
102
0
0
go crazy said:
Wait, so watching Froomestrong at the TdF didn't move the needle, but Horner does? Haha, it's still about who is the more or less LIKED cheater, more so than the actual cheating.
Anyone not being caught for cheating while winning should be congratulated.

What standard would you have?
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
The state of pro cycling is, in comparison to sports like NFL or soccer very good.
You can watch it for free, the athletes are not overpaid, game fixing/betting is rather rare compared to the multi billion dollar gambling in the above mentioned other sports. There is still competition man vs . man, compared to circus like soccer where players pretend to be injured all the time, or NFL where socialism rules (yo either win or lose, but you still get your millions).

And if i compare cycling to politics or business it´s looking even better. At least cyclists get controlled while other businesses are "wild west".

Finally Järmann once said: "Without doping controls there would be deaths in cycling". As long that don´t happen it´s still enjoyable.
I only get upset when i see wayyy over top cheating like i saw/see of Horner or Santambrogio this year...

So that pipo don´t get me wrong, cycling still has major problems.

From 1 (best) to 10 (worst), i rate cycling a 6, Pro-Soccer/Major-US-Sports a 9, politics/business a 10...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY