The overarching question for anti-doping

[DirtyWorks]

Very good reasoning, this is the sort of answer I'm really looking for.

42x16ss is right, but it's bigger than just cycling. IOC is okay with doping, just don't affect their sponsor revenue. That's the core of all the doping stories in IOC sport.

Cycling isn't even the first of the worst. The Hoberman link provided really breaks it all down beautifully.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...explores-cultural-phenomenon-of-doping_265230

 

[blackcat]

Its a good question, one Ive thought about before and which has been addressed on some level here but never directly I guess.

From what ive seen people generally look for satisfying answers. That's because the media generally gives sports fans very simple narratives. eg x is a good guy and wins. Y is a bad guy and loses. Z trains really hard and wins. w watched some tape and changed his technique and won. o got injured and lost. Etc.

So people do try to often satisfying easy to fit answers for this too. A stupid but popular media narritive is that cycling is the only sport where doping really works. The people who actually profit from cycling (cyclists, journos, managers and UCI) say its because cycling is the only sport that combats doping. Equally stupid imo though it has some merits.
People in the clinic might give some similar all encompassing answers. Like that it was down to individuals (ive heard it said on here many times, both with Armstrong and Sky that if they (Armstrong in 1999, Sky in 2012) didn't start doping, doping would have disapeared. I think that's equally stupid.

More logical would be to blame another short term factor- the Festina Affair. If those bags weren't discovered that day, cycling doping history would probably be different. I think much of the suspicion that has been neccesary to bring down cyclists comes from that day. Its been on the back foot ever since, and while the UCI has totally failed at fighting the suspicion, I don't think any body would fair any better.

My answers though would be to look more at the structure of cycling.

1 Its the world's biggest endurance sport, and for that matter the world's biggest sport that relies almost entirely on physiological ability. This makes cyclists the biggest targets for those who want to push the narrative that doping only exists in physiological sports.

2 The lack of money in cycling compared to bigger sports creates a greater doping imbalance, with some teams able to afford better doping programmes, or have the contacts for better doctors. Imbalance creates parties who are losing out due to doping, who therefore have a greater interest in anti doping.

3 cycling's weird team structure makes it far easier than pretty much any other sport for information to flow throughout the sport, allowing secrets to become widely known. Firstly there's no base for teams like in other sports since they don't represent a location but a firm, and they spend much of their time in the exact same location (be it Tenerife or the race itself) as loads of other teams. So Cyclists are constantly in contact with eachother accross teams.
They also switch from teams to other teams all the time, decreasing the loyalty and expanding the networks.
Finally there is not much competition between many teams and historically hardly any rivalry between them at all. Which means there is little stopping 2 riders from seperate teams discussing issues like doping.
All this results in 2 riders from seperate teams having the means, the acquaintance and the lack of consequences to discuss doping with eachother.

The relationships in other team sports are closed circuit. The relationship in individual sports are too weak to allow talk like that.
But loose lips sink ships and in cycling the boys talk amongst eachother.

4 The extremely unique non top heavy nature to cycling greatly increases the probability of a scandal. I don't know of any other sports that have 1000 pros but the top guy only earns £5 million.
As a result a) there are a lot of people that can test positive in cycling and b) they do a lot of race days.
Take say 100m where there are about 10 people with a wikipedia page doing 20 races a year, vs 400 world tour cyclists doing 60-80 race days. If you assume both sports dope equally and you were to test each athlete equally on a race day per test basis you would get significantly more scandals in cycling.

The other sports which have similar numbers of athletes and days are all powerful enough to avoid testing. Which brings me to

5) Cycling is powerful enough to have loads of athletes but not powerful enough to fight the media on doping. Like Football and tennis who manage to only test their top guys a handful of times a year can. They also don't have blood passports etc. In short cycling is weak enough to fall under pressure of anti doping.

6) Lack of loyalty to the teams. The teams, being commercial means they can't rely on fan groups ready to defend them. Individual riders can but its not enough.
Perhaps no surprise that the 2 major exceptions to this rule, teams that have been able to fight doping accusations by relying on a fanbase, have been national teams.

you missed the major one imo.

Cycling was the first sport with the Tour, to be known as dope riddled. Going back half a century, it was the first. So it managed to entrench the apocryphal (only physiological sports get benefit from dope).

When the pro team sports and the other individual hand-eye fine neuro muscular cooridination sports started to ramp up their dopin in the 80s, the horse had bolted, and cycling served as protection for them. "look, there goes a pro cyclist, they all dope". misdirection

 

[blackcat]

JV is an important component in the myth building that doping is done by a minority.

The more this myth is dispelled the better. JV cant get slammed enough IMO.

i agree, but you see where our thesis has a flaw, McQuaid and Verbruggen came after him. Ok, this mighta been when Knaggs Stapleton Wiesel and Armstrong wanted to buy the Tour and JV thru his chips on the table, I assume with DEllis.

then he piqued Aigle.

JV phonetic #FAIL. Argyle=/=Aigle.

 

[RiccoDinko]

Let's face it, fans enjoy the doping stories, and drama. Doping related news generates the attention, especially if Lance or Pantani is involved. Doping articles have 100s of comments at the bottom of the page, other stories just a few.

 

[blackcat]

Changing a narrative is very hard once it's established…'Cyclists don't dope!' is hardly a shocking exclusive from the point of view of selling newspapers.

good post

man bites dog

 

[ray j willings]

JV is an important component in the myth building that doping is done by a minority.

The more this myth is dispelled the better. JV cant get slammed enough IMO.

JV the man who told the New York times that he doped but forgot to mention his name ,,,,,,He's a ball-less salesman.

 

[Granville57]

You have somehow managed to overlook swimming and athletics. Both are long notorious. Moreover, please consider the 'sport' of body building. Where would it be without steroids?

I understand your perspective, Dave, but I believe the OP is referring more to the perception of the general public.

Yes, those sports have long and illustrious doping histories, but (with the possible exception of weightlifting) they also have the counterweight of non-doping, mainstream media coverage.

For most North Americans (and others as well, I'm sure), the ONLY time that cycling appears in the news is because of doping. That's the only side of the narrative that most people are ever exposed to. At least with weightlifting, it occasionally gets some uncontaminated coverage during the Olympics at least.

On more than one occasion, I've been in the company of people who will make snide remarks about drugs and cycling. These same people are avid fans of mainstream sports like basketball and the NFL, but they know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about cycling. It's not that they deny doping within their own sport of choice, but in those cases, they are exposed to far more coverage of their sport that has NOTHING to do with doping. But when it comes to cycling, the ONLY thing they ever hear are the doping stories. So their limited perspective is not entirely surprising.

Cycling is a sport that most people just don't care about. It's stupid and silly to them. Let's be honest: a pro cyclist, for the most part, casts a pretty silly image, especially to the initiated. In the eyes of most people, they look ridiculous when compared with an NFL or NBA star. This makes it an easy sport to mock. Throw in a healthy mix of cultural and language differences amongst the athletes themselves, and the whole thing becomes even easier to dismiss to an ignorant Anglo audience (which I presume is what we are referring to on this English-speaking forum).

The other thing to consider, from an American perspective perhaps, is the power wielded by team owners. Take the NBA, NFL and MLB. The owners of these teams are rich, powerful and influential. If they weren't they never would've found themselves in the possession of such a team to begin with.

Contrast that with pro cycling. Imagine if every team were owned by the equivalent of an Oleg Tinkoff, and that those same owners had been in place for many years. Every team. How much influence would such people then have over the entire sport? Under such a scenario, I can't possibly imagine any major doping scandals seeing the light of day.

But that's not the situation that cycling finds itself in. Hence...

Its a good question...

And that was a great response, Hitch.

Some very valid points being made.

 

[Archibald]

see most Athletics World Champs from a decade ago and backwards, always found hypodermics in the rooms when the maids were cleaning them out

although you don't really hear about that in the media...
Ben Johnson's bust was massive, but later when it came out about Flo Jo, Linford Christie and Carl Lewis there was barely a ripple or an article that was within 10 pages of the front sports page.

 

[D-Queued]

although you don't really hear about that in the media...
Ben Johnson's bust was massive, but later when it came out about Flo Jo, Linford Christie and Carl Lewis there was barely a ripple or an article that was within 10 pages of the front sports page.

It wasn't news.

Dave.

 

[ray j willings]

although you don't really hear about that in the media...
Ben Johnson's bust was massive, but later when it came out about Flo Jo, Linford Christie and Carl Lewis there was barely a ripple or an article that was within 10 pages of the front sports page.

Flo Jo's death did not seem to have made that much of an impact.
I think other athletes look at her and think she just went to far.
It was a chance for the sporting bodies to get their teeth into the dangers of PED's and get the media to ram it home, yet her story just faded away as if there was some sort of conspiracy or cover going on from the powers that be.

 

[blackcat]

did not Flo-Jo's family refuse an autopsy?

 

[oldcrank]

I understand your perspective, Dave, but I believe the OP is referring more to the perception of the general public.

Yes, those sports have long and illustrious doping histories, but (with the possible exception of weightlifting) they also have the counterweight of non-doping, mainstream media coverage.

For most North Americans (and others as well, I'm sure), the ONLY time that cycling appears in the news is because of doping. That's the only side of the narrative that most people are ever exposed to. At least with weightlifting, it occasionally gets some uncontaminated coverage during the Olympics at least.

On more than one occasion, I've been in the company of people who will make snide remarks about drugs and cycling. These same people are avid fans of mainstream sports like basketball and the NFL, but they know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about cycling. It's not that they deny doping within their own sport of choice, but in those cases, they are exposed to far more coverage of their sport that has NOTHING to do with doping. But when it comes to cycling, the ONLY thing they ever hear are the doping stories. So their limited perspective is not entirely surprising.

Cycling is a sport that most people just don't care about. It's stupid and silly to them. Let's be honest: a pro cyclist, for the most part, casts a pretty silly image, especially to the initiated. In the eyes of most people, they look ridiculous when compared with an NFL or NBA star. This makes it an easy sport to mock. Throw in a healthy mix of cultural and language differences amongst the athletes themselves, and the whole thing becomes even easier to dismiss to an ignorant Anglo audience (which I presume is what we are referring to on this English-speaking forum).

The other thing to consider, from an American perspective perhaps, is the power wielded by team owners. Take the NBA, NFL and MLB. The owners of these teams are rich, powerful and influential. If they weren't they never would've found themselves in the possession of such a team to begin with.

Contrast that with pro cycling. Imagine if every team were owned by the equivalent of an Oleg Tinkoff, and that those same owners had been in place for many years. Every team. How much influence would such people then have over the entire sport? Under such a scenario, I can't possibly imagine any major doping scandals seeing the light of day.

But that's not the situation that cycling finds itself in. Hence...



And that was a great response, Hitch.

Some very valid points being made.

I don't want to alarm you, my friend,
but I think one of those people may
have hacked into your account and
made posts with snide remarks about
drugs and cycling on a large number
of occasions!

 

[D-Queued]

I understand your perspective, Dave, but I believe the OP is referring more to the perception of the general public.

...

For most North Americans (and others as well, I'm sure), the ONLY time that cycling appears in the news is because of doping. That's the only side of the narrative that most people are ever exposed to. ...

Cycling is a sport that most people just don't care about. It's stupid and silly to them. Let's be honest: a pro cyclist, for the most part, casts a pretty silly image, especially to the initiated. In the eyes of most people, they look ridiculous when compared with an NFL or NBA star. This makes it an easy sport to mock. Throw in a healthy mix of cultural and language differences amongst the athletes themselves, and the whole thing becomes even easier to dismiss to an ignorant Anglo audience (which I presume is what we are referring to on this English-speaking forum).

...

Ok, just to continue a healthy dialog, allow me to debate this.

In a current North American context, your points are well taken.

But, here come the buts...

- the Tour is still the #1 annual sporting event in the world
- Cyclists are heroes in many other parts of the world
- you can probably still spot some fading "Lance dopé" graffiti on various Tour routes
- Cycling hasn't always been obscure in North America, and we may be witnessing more of a temporal situation than something that makes cyclists appear inherently stupid

With respect to the latter, I have been reading 'Boys in the Boat'. Of all the things in that book, the most incongruous insight was that rowing - at the college level no less - used to be a huge spectator sport, followed avidly in person, in the newspaper and on radio. Even a sole regatta (no race series nor regular weekly matches), featuring just three races, in Seattle would draw more live fans than can currently attend a Husky football game (and Husky stadium is one big stadium).

Like cyclists, rowers sit on their butts. Unlike cyclists, rowers do that while going backwards in silly little craft that are often far, far away from any spectators. If you are there for the start, you won't be able to see the finish. If you are at the finish, you only get a decent view of the last 20-30 seconds of the race, if that.

To your points, it is arguable (and I have argued elsewhere) that American football has been designed for the TV viewing audience like no other sport, but aside from its bizarre Canadian interpretation and a funny league in Italy, there is scant comparable interest in the ROW.

In summary, then, I challenge your assertions about cycling's obscurity and silliness even where I might agree with you.

Lance demonstrated that cycling can be popular again in North America. He also demonstrated that you cannot blame doping on low compensation. Quite the reverse. Nor does his example support any hypothesis on lack of control over the athlete's own destiny.

Other than the doping, obviously, similar things can be said about LeMond ten years earlier. He made the sport more popular here and abroad and he certainly got paid well at the time - without having to dope - and leveraged his fame even further.

We can be cautiously optimistic that the North American audience will become more enamored with cycling, particularly as there is more access and as as more events are held here. The Tour of California appears to be doing just fine. Moreover, we should be thankful for climate change where it leads to cycling participation as a positive catalyst for interest in the sport.

Every cloud, as they say, has a silver lining.

Dave.

 

[ray j willings]

did not Flo-Jo's family refuse an autopsy?

The coroner’s could only do test's for her death they could not test her
body for steroids/ PED's after her death

 

[mrhender]

Why does cycling make itself look like the only sport where athletes are doping?

Perhaps, just perhaps the waters are shifting...

Who wouldn't want to be UCI president in a time where the public is really learning of other sport's problems.

Cookson and the cyclists, may get juuust a little less heat in the time to come.

Might also help secure Cookson re-election.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re:

Because the athletes have admitted doping is part of the sport.

Then how did cycling break omerta down when other sports haven't able to?

?? The wheels are finally coming off the IAAF right now. FIFA is clearly identified as corrupt.

It seems to me, if the federation goes too far, the athletes get sick of it and turn on the federation.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Because the athletes have admitted doping is part of the sport.

Then how did cycling break omerta down when other sports haven't able to?

?? The wheels are finally coming off the IAAF right now. FIFA is clearly identified as corrupt.

It seems to me, if the federation goes too far, the athletes get sick of it and turn on the federation.

Just as well the transparent UCI are here to save the day...

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Because the athletes have admitted doping is part of the sport.

Then how did cycling break omerta down when other sports haven't able to?

?? The wheels are finally coming off the IAAF right now. FIFA is clearly identified as corrupt.

It seems to me, if the federation goes too far, the athletes get sick of it and turn on the federation.

cycling were forced, their hand was forced. like in game theory, Aigle had to tweek their policy. Doping for grand tours is much more difficult because of the logistics demands, than doping in athletics.

which raises the question, doping in the final days of tennis grand slams. well, at the end of the two weeks, there are usually just a few regular players!

 

[blackcat]

Why does cycling make itself look like the only sport where athletes are doping?

Perhaps, just perhaps the waters are shifting...

Who wouldn't want to be UCI president in a time where the public is really learning of other sport's problems.

Cookson and the cyclists, may get juuust a little less heat in the time to come.

Might also help secure Cookson re-election.

disagree

cycling will always be the village idjit and used as the scapegoat.

the olympic sports (yes I know cycling is one) and N America pro sports, the team sports, and the association football/soccer, and tennis... these other sports will always be protected. And cycling exploited for its special status as the druggie sport. It serves a purpose to give cover to the other sports.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Speaking of Cycling making itself look like the only sport where athletes are doping, heres a new article regarding the IAAF:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/11/news/seven-things-track-and-field-can-learn-from-cycling_388899

I'll say the 7 lessons are good. They are a good starting point for a fan who feels alienated by the sport, who doesn't carry any biases or favoritism to an individual/team/nationality.

But they don't come from cycling, given that the mainstream cycling culture hasn't embraced them, and is mostly biased.

 

[nayr497]

This is one of the better threads I've read in The Clinic. Some very interesting arguments/ideas/theories. Thanks to all those who've contributed.

 

[nayr497]

Wow, I totally forgot that Flo Jo died.

 

[buckle]

Cycling is now the model for all other sports: find an Armstrong, ping him and then declare your sport clean. That will be the objective of Lord Coe over the coming weeks. At the moment they are stuck with going after a country rather than a person.