The sale of that (overpriced for effect) bike would barely cover the cost of one cycle of EPO for the one rider to have actually won, and certainly not for those who did not. It can't be the primary incentive for such riders.
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!
Alex Simmons/RST said:The sale of that (overpriced for effect) bike would barely cover the cost of one cycle of EPO for the one rider to have actually won, and certainly not for those who did not. It can't be the primary incentive for such riders.
Alex Simmons/RST said:Thanks Hog for the link. I've no idea how legitimate or reliable such a supplier is. Still not exactly cheap for a training cycle.
And the prize is a bicycle you might be able to offload for maybe half the claimed value if you're lucky. In an event where the entry fee and the travel and accommodation likely costs a bomb.
It's definitely not racing for money, so thanks for making my point for me. The motivation for such people to dope is clearly something other than money.
has attracted large sums of prize money and made the events a lucrative sideline for ex-pros.
Alex Simmons/RST said:And many grandfondos offer no prize money.
Hog, you really think that the prize money, if any exists, in these low level events is the primary reason people dope?
Can you provide evidence this is the case?
I asked about the strength of the correlation. You are babbling on about granfondos as if they are somehow evidence to support this notion. But you completely ignore events with no prize money, which cost people a lot of money to participate in, yet we have doping there too. Indeed we are seeing more and more doping sanctions in this low/no pay arena. Go figure.
I completely agree with you here. Money is not always a motivating factor. At the pro level I would say yes, it is. At the amateur level it is ego. Those guys egos are huge. And they often have money to but what they want. Bikes or dope.Alex Simmons/RST said:When did Chris Froome say that? Can you link to the quote and source?thehog said:Alex Simmons/RST said:Are doping and making money strongly correlated? It doesn't explain the level of doping in amateur ranks of sport.Bolder said:Interesting that this thread has turned into "how will pro cycling make more money?" Won't more money just bring more temptation to create more sophisticated cheating methods, be they pharmacological or mechanical? If cycling has to retract a bit, wouldn't that in theory make for a cleaner sport? (as a corollary, do we think that mountain biking is cleaner now that it's essentially a second- or third-tier sport, especially in North America?)
Chris Froome says yes money and doping correlated. Amateur ranks carries prize money. Grand Fondos in Italy pay very well if you are winning them and there are several races throughout her entire year to make a good living.
Why don’t you do any research when responding?
Can you do some research as well before responding? All you mention are anecdotes which are pretty meaningless.
Doping exists at all levels of the sport, and money is often not the driving force behind an athlete's choice to dope. We get plenty of dopers at events with no prize money, indeed at events which cost far more to participate in than one could ever hope to earn in return.
We can all guess there is some correlation, but I was asking about the strength of the correlation. Is there any actual data or research?
Err, there's a whole thread in the clinic on masters dopers for one.thehog said:Alex Simmons/RST said:And many grandfondos offer no prize money.
Hog, you really think that the prize money, if any exists, in these low level events is the primary reason people dope?
Can you provide evidence this is the case?
I asked about the strength of the correlation. You are babbling on about granfondos as if they are somehow evidence to support this notion. But you completely ignore events with no prize money, which cost people a lot of money to participate in, yet we have doping there too. Indeed we are seeing more and more doping sanctions in this low/no pay arena. Go figure.
I’m sure you’ll be forthcoming with a list of those caught doping at non-prize money events?
Italy had to change its Fondo rules to ban former pro dopers. Whilst I provide links and fact you provide.... well nothing really.
Alex Simmons/RST said:Err, there's a whole thread in the clinic on masters dopers for one.thehog said:Alex Simmons/RST said:And many grandfondos offer no prize money.
Hog, you really think that the prize money, if any exists, in these low level events is the primary reason people dope?
Can you provide evidence this is the case?
I asked about the strength of the correlation. You are babbling on about granfondos as if they are somehow evidence to support this notion. But you completely ignore events with no prize money, which cost people a lot of money to participate in, yet we have doping there too. Indeed we are seeing more and more doping sanctions in this low/no pay arena. Go figure.
I’m sure you’ll be forthcoming with a list of those caught doping at non-prize money events?
Italy had to change its Fondo rules to ban former pro dopers. Whilst I provide links and fact you provide.... well nothing really.
I looked at the current rider sanctions in Australia, and none of them would be making money.
Looking at the USADA sanctions list for 2016-current, there are 25 sanctions for masters cyclists alone out of the 35 sanction notifications for cyclists in that period. Of the other 10, one notice was a change in sanction status for someone not competing, and perhaps 4 or 5 of them actually were paid to race. In low level teams.
So nearly three-quarters of all sanctions in the USA over the past 2.5 years have been for amateur cyclists. All of the current one's in Australia have been for amateur cyclists. Are pros doping and not being picked up? Of course - but this was to demonstrate that suggesting it's only about money is nonsense.
I haven't looked at other ADA's lists but I suspect we'll see a similar pattern.
Need I go on? I've no idea what links and facts you've provided. You've made a few comments which are no more than anecdotal.
Alex Simmons/RST said:Err, there's a whole thread in the clinic on masters dopers for one.thehog said:Alex Simmons/RST said:And many grandfondos offer no prize money.
Hog, you really think that the prize money, if any exists, in these low level events is the primary reason people dope?
Can you provide evidence this is the case?
I asked about the strength of the correlation. You are babbling on about granfondos as if they are somehow evidence to support this notion. But you completely ignore events with no prize money, which cost people a lot of money to participate in, yet we have doping there too. Indeed we are seeing more and more doping sanctions in this low/no pay arena. Go figure.
I’m sure you’ll be forthcoming with a list of those caught doping at non-prize money events?
Italy had to change its Fondo rules to ban former pro dopers. Whilst I provide links and fact you provide.... well nothing really.
I looked at the current rider sanctions in Australia, and none of them would be making money.
Looking at the USADA sanctions list for 2016-current, there are 25 sanctions for masters cyclists alone out of the 35 sanction notifications for cyclists in that period. Of the other 10, one notice was a change in sanction status for someone not competing, and perhaps 4 or 5 of them actually were paid to race. In low level teams.
So nearly three-quarters of all sanctions in the USA over the past 2.5 years have been for amateur cyclists. All of the current one's in Australia have been for amateur cyclists. Are pros doping and not being picked up? Of course - but this was to demonstrate that suggesting it's only about money is nonsense.
I haven't looked at other ADA's lists but I suspect we'll see a similar pattern.
Need I go on? I've no idea what links and facts you've provided. You've made a few comments which are no more than anecdotal.
This seems to be the case in Triathlon in particular - amongst the "Kona or die" crowd, not the weekend warriors.veganrob said:I completely agree with you here. Money is not always a motivating factor. At the pro level I would say yes, it is. At the amateur level it is ego. Those guys egos are huge. And they often have money to buy what they want. Bikes or dope.Alex Simmons/RST said:When did Chris Froome say that? Can you link to the quote and source?thehog said:Alex Simmons/RST said:Are doping and making money strongly correlated? It doesn't explain the level of doping in amateur ranks of sport.Bolder said:Interesting that this thread has turned into "how will pro cycling make more money?" Won't more money just bring more temptation to create more sophisticated cheating methods, be they pharmacological or mechanical? If cycling has to retract a bit, wouldn't that in theory make for a cleaner sport? (as a corollary, do we think that mountain biking is cleaner now that it's essentially a second- or third-tier sport, especially in North America?)
Chris Froome says yes money and doping correlated. Amateur ranks carries prize money. Grand Fondos in Italy pay very well if you are winning them and there are several races throughout her entire year to make a good living.
Why don’t you do any research when responding?
Can you do some research as well before responding? All you mention are anecdotes which are pretty meaningless.
Doping exists at all levels of the sport, and money is often not the driving force behind an athlete's choice to dope. We get plenty of dopers at events with no prize money, indeed at events which cost far more to participate in than one could ever hope to earn in return.
We can all guess there is some correlation, but I was asking about the strength of the correlation. Is there any actual data or research?
It's funny how this discussion was pivioted far, far, far away from the question that was originally asked. To jog some memories, here it is, again:Alex Simmons/RST said:Doping exists at all levels of the sport, and money is often not the driving force behind an athlete's choice to dope. We get plenty of dopers at events with no prize money, indeed at events which cost far more to participate in than one could ever hope to earn in return.
We can all guess there is some correlation, but I was asking about the strength of the correlation. Is there any actual data or research?
It's not 'does money cause doping?' it's 'does more money bring more sopisticated doping?'.Bolder said:Won't more money just bring more temptation to create more sophisticated cheating methods, be they pharmacological or mechanical?
DeetsThe golf stream is a reminder that today the internet is not quite ready to deliver at sufficient scale and reliability. That could impact upcoming rights renewals for major sports.
This is reality..people dope for recognition mostly..not money.Alex Simmons/RST said:Pros racing masters category races. Must be HUGE prize money on offer on the masters circuit... not.
These guys are not doping for the prize money, and you know it.
King Boonen said:Just as you can't compare my performances with a pros, I don't you can compare amateur doper motivations with pro doper motivations either.
"A powerful opportunity for attracting broader audiences is to make professional cycling more trustworthy by improving its public perception and reputation."