Is it the UCI (McQuid and Verbruggen) or is it the dopers Armstrong, Contador?
Personally I believe its the UCI
Personally I believe its the UCI
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Tell me who are the real bad guys?
- Thread starter MellowJohnny
- Start date
I'd say the order of the bad guys goes, with the worst listed first:
1) Hein Verbruggen - Fat cat bureaucrat knew little of sports or cycling, has a background in marketing and is out to make himself as much money as possible.
2) Pat Mcquaid- Similar to Hein nowadays but from much more of a cycling background.
3) lance actually out there busting his *** with a lot of mis-applied hardwork, did some nasty things to support the myth he was clean.
1) Hein Verbruggen - Fat cat bureaucrat knew little of sports or cycling, has a background in marketing and is out to make himself as much money as possible.
2) Pat Mcquaid- Similar to Hein nowadays but from much more of a cycling background.
3) lance actually out there busting his *** with a lot of mis-applied hardwork, did some nasty things to support the myth he was clean.
Hard to say. The UCI was complicit and looked the other way but it still comes down to the fact that it was the riders - and especially the Armstrong's of the peloton - and the teams who initiated the doping culture in the first place.MellowJohnny said:
It's human nature that is to blame. With popular sports comes drama and heroics, the more popular it gets the more people start watching. The more people watch the more advertisers are willing to pay. More money in the sport makes people greedy and willing to go the extra mile...
people to blame?
sponsers, teams, docters, riders, organisers (tougher courses -> more drama -> more viewers), tv, the public and of course official bodies like ioc / uci
people to blame?
sponsers, teams, docters, riders, organisers (tougher courses -> more drama -> more viewers), tv, the public and of course official bodies like ioc / uci
But could it be said that the UCI set the race calender, events etc, also the lack of doping controls, they want a fast paced exciting race right?
Any doped rider is of course to blame also, but I can't now help feeling that the UCI has and will lose a lot more credibility in the near future
Any doped rider is of course to blame also, but I can't now help feeling that the UCI has and will lose a lot more credibility in the near future
UCI > Enforcers (think Bruyneel, Saiz) > Rock-Star Enablers (Ferrari) > Dopers > Enablers (regular team doctors) > Complicit Journalists > Complicit Fans
it's simple, there is too much money to be made in pro cycling, which makes it attractive to dope. why should someone like Rasmussen make 700k a year? what kind of message does that send to the juniors? stay clean, maybe ride as a domestique and earn a decent living or dope yourself to max and make hundreds of k's a year...
there is a reason why there is less of a dopeing mess with the ladies...
there is a reason why there is less of a dopeing mess with the ladies...
hrotha said:
You forgot to mention Phil Liggett he has a significant impact on how new fans see riders.
hrotha said:
Pretty much but all of them want you to believe that this was all in the past and none of them will ever take responsibility.
You also left out the national feds and local media who are all too willing to wrap themselves in the flag when it comes to dealing with doping.
I believe that Liggett has some form of 'business connections' with LA away from cycling
In terms of money in the sport - I still believe its a fairly modest existence, compared with a lot of other sports
In terms of money in the sport - I still believe its a fairly modest existence, compared with a lot of other sports
hrotha said:
That's basically the answer.
Would Armstrong be in the enforcer category, or dopers?
Were pretty much all to blame in one way or another but for cycling in particular the culture of using drugs began right at the start when the TDF and some stupidly long single day races were simply in humane and riders were treated like convicts.
In the modern day first and foremost its the Team Directors. No rider of note dopes without there knowledge and complicity.
In the modern day first and foremost its the Team Directors. No rider of note dopes without there knowledge and complicity.
I'm just thinking what the critical variable is in all of this and I'm thinking UCI
if he wasn't LA it would have been someone else, Contador, Schelck, Ullrich, Basso, Landis, Virenque, etc - I wonder if future tour winners will be clean
if he wasn't LA it would have been someone else, Contador, Schelck, Ullrich, Basso, Landis, Virenque, etc - I wonder if future tour winners will be clean
true, but the differences between the top and the helpers are quite big. lets face it... it's hard to afford a quality doping program when your earning 30k or less like most of the ladies. And lets not forget that the prizemoney and sponsorships are also a lot lower with the ladies.
With mass attention and mass sponsorships you make the sport attractive for people with dubious intentions at best.
With mass attention and mass sponsorships you make the sport attractive for people with dubious intentions at best.
I left him out on purpose to avoid a thread derailment, but I know where I'd put him.H2OUUP2 said:
MellowJohnny said:
I don't think there was *one* critical variable. Numerous variables had to be in place. The Ruthless Armstrong, the facilitating Bruyneel, the Medical knowledge of Ferrari, and the compliance of the UCI all had to fall into place.
It is the same problem with banking crash. Who was to blame? The bankers? Journalists for not raising enough questions? Regulators asleep on the job?
All of them , but mainly the last because regulators are our last line of defence.
In cycling we have one more problem - structural - that the sport promoters and regulators UCI are the same organisation, leading inexorablly to willingness to sweep bad news under the carpet,and that has given a hopeless conflict of interests. If nothing else, that must change.
But in the game of angels and devils, I think we are scapegoating a few, and putting a halo wrongfully on others. The only difference between Hincapie and Landis, is one was unlucky to get caught, and the other was not good enough to win. The first reaction of all dopers is too lie, and try to prove innocence, so would Hincapie have lied if caught? On balance of probability, history of other riders says yes.
Our sport is really screwed up if it gives Bassons a year ban for missing a control, and hincapie only six months because hincapie had some dirt to dish, for the simple reason he had had a decade of doping, and Bassons can get no remission at all because he cannot grass anyone up, having refused to get involved in doping!
We should remind ourselves that the crime is doping, not winning, or getting caught. Almost all the peloton were guilty of that. Other tour champions still have their titles, yet their times on such as the alpe huez, say they were either superhuman or they had rocket fuel too. Hincapie was fortunate to be protected by a more reliable form of cheating controls than Landis. in short he was better at cheating. Should he be rewarded for that, by being allowed to ride his last tour?
How many other managers essentially had the role of Bruyneel, and did what he did, but because they were less successful, they have not been hounded out of the sport?
It seems to me that witchunt and scapegoats are words that apply here.
The crime that really singles LA out is not doping but intimidation on industrial scale, which deserves special treatment, but otherwise they are all much the same.
All of them , but mainly the last because regulators are our last line of defence.
In cycling we have one more problem - structural - that the sport promoters and regulators UCI are the same organisation, leading inexorablly to willingness to sweep bad news under the carpet,and that has given a hopeless conflict of interests. If nothing else, that must change.
But in the game of angels and devils, I think we are scapegoating a few, and putting a halo wrongfully on others. The only difference between Hincapie and Landis, is one was unlucky to get caught, and the other was not good enough to win. The first reaction of all dopers is too lie, and try to prove innocence, so would Hincapie have lied if caught? On balance of probability, history of other riders says yes.
Our sport is really screwed up if it gives Bassons a year ban for missing a control, and hincapie only six months because hincapie had some dirt to dish, for the simple reason he had had a decade of doping, and Bassons can get no remission at all because he cannot grass anyone up, having refused to get involved in doping!
We should remind ourselves that the crime is doping, not winning, or getting caught. Almost all the peloton were guilty of that. Other tour champions still have their titles, yet their times on such as the alpe huez, say they were either superhuman or they had rocket fuel too. Hincapie was fortunate to be protected by a more reliable form of cheating controls than Landis. in short he was better at cheating. Should he be rewarded for that, by being allowed to ride his last tour?
How many other managers essentially had the role of Bruyneel, and did what he did, but because they were less successful, they have not been hounded out of the sport?
It seems to me that witchunt and scapegoats are words that apply here.
The crime that really singles LA out is not doping but intimidation on industrial scale, which deserves special treatment, but otherwise they are all much the same.
mountainrman said:
You are correct.
The last part of your post though You really need to get over it. Whether it was a witch hunt or not, whether he was a scapegoat or not, he cheated, and lied.
H2OUUP2 said:
Too hard to tell. Its like a school yard fight. Do you blame the two fighting. Maybe the circle of observers who chant "fight fight". What about the teachers who avoid that part of the playground because stuff happens there. The parents who tell their kids to hit anyone who puts **** on them. Easy answer. They are all to blame.
hrotha said:
You left off ASO. Their money drives all of pro cycling. If they wanted clean cycling, they have the money to force the issue.
hrotha said:
Could you help me out and tell me where the Government of Spain / Nation of Spain fits into your theorem? They could be enablers, but they seem like enablers on a much bigger scale than even rock star enablers.
After all, Lance's move from Nice to Girona was due to, as Tyler says in his book, the Spanish po-po turning a blind eye.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
Tour of the Alps 2024 (April 15 - 19)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 359
-
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
Latest posts
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Latest: Logic-is-your-friend
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram