• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

This Sport is Corrupt from Top to Bottom

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
here is your original post again
hrotha said:
I think the sport is cleaning up, not in the amount of dopers but in the amount of dope they can get away with. From a logical point of view, if the threshold keeps being reduced we'll reach a point where doping isn't worth the risk of getting caught for the benefit it brings. That's the theory anyway. It stands to reason that, as that threshold diminishes, less riders will dope, even if the top GC contenders will keep at it for as long as possible.
the first sentence is perfectly valid and perhaps true. then you go into a 'threshold' word that could be interpreted as you are pointing to reductions in substance detection thresholds can lead to reduced doping. this is not the case at all, opposite, it can lead to increased number of doping cases - as amply illustrated by the contador, ovcharov etc cases. clenbuterol is an example of a substance that has ultimately reduced threshold - zero - but the result is more cases.

the case where the reduced detection threshold theory may have been effective, as you imlied, unlike the previous example, is the testosterone/epitestosterone (t/e) ratio reduction - from 6 to 4 since 2005. dopers now can manipulate it to a tighter limit.

so again, clearing terminology can avoid a lot of confusion. but i guess it's the clinic, so my efforts are definitely futile.
 
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
i was not on any horse, i only showed how you created confusion because you misused the word threshold. and you still appear confused - reduced dozes are not reduced detection threashols.
 
Aug 4, 2009
1,041
0
0
Realy dose any one know any sport that is not corrupt why pick on cycling why not have a go at horse racing instead.
 
python said:
i was not on any horse, i only showed how you created confusion because you misused the word threshold. and you still appear confused - reduced dozes are not reduced detection threashols.
so again, clearing terminology can avoid a lot of confusion. but i guess it's the clinic, so my efforts are definitely futile.
Come on, this is one veritable thoroughbred horse you're on. Again, I didn't misuse the word nor create any confusion for anyone who takes some time to read and not jump to conclusions.
 
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
hrotha said:
Come on, this is one veritable thoroughbred horse you're on. Again, I didn't misuse the word nor create any confusion for anyone who takes some time to read and not jump to conclusions.
you did. big confusion as i explained above. if people read it carefully, they may get several interpretations. i pointed to them.

in anti-doping context, 'threshold' is a very specific word. general-purpose terminology may lead to confusion. and you did lead to it. again, reduced doping dozes have little to do with reduced detection thresholds.

a generally accepted word when discussing the amount of doping is 'doze'. unless, you clear up your usage, you may remain confused and produce more confusion. you should not take this so personally because at no time i attempted to put you down but just explained your misuse.
 
Mar 13, 2009
672
0
0
There's no need to be so emotionally invested in cycling. Enjoy the spectacle, don't get too attached to riders or be overly patriotic and you've got nothing to lose.
 
Apr 26, 2010
324
0
0
Sergey® said:
I've honestly had my fill with this sport.

Whether it be the authorities - the cyclists - doctors - A/B samples - Armstrong/Landis

I'm flummoxed by the mere mind-boggling changes in the attitude of everything involved.
If you were a real fan, someone who has actual passion for this beautiful sport, you would never give up on it.
I will never have my fill with cycling, as it makes me happy every single day of my life, whether the authorities, Landis, Ricco, doctors, or whatever else, I will stand by my sport forever.
I am sorry to have lost you.
 
Merckx index said:
I never understand the notion that the sport is getting cleaner. It might be, but how would anyone on the outside know? If the number of positives declines, that could be because riders are getting better at beating the tests. If the number of positives increases, that could be because the tests are getting better at catching dopers.
I'm not saying that doping is going to stop. Or even that fewer people are doing it. But people are being caught for doing a lot less now. The amount of dope that can be got away with is decreasing, even if doping to that level is still easy enough to get away with. As a result, this doesn't exactly level the playing field, but it does mean that the % difference between the top dopers and the top clean cyclists decreases (assuming a relatively uniform distribution bell curve of talent amongst cyclists before dope, a hypothetical supernaturally talented clean cyclist who was able to match the most doped-up riders could then beat them today as they are often micro-dosing rather than going to Bjarne Riis on Hautacam level tar-for-blood doses).

Cleaner is a comparative measure. We're a long, long way from being clean. We'll never actually make it there. As long as there is competition in any walk of life, there will be those who are willing cheat to better themselves at it.
 
Jul 29, 2010
429
0
0
happychappy said:
Silly boy, it's no different to any other sport.
Try competing in sport yourself, it stops you caring so much about what football team beats who or what cyclist dopes.
I honestly feel sorry for people who get so into watching other people play sports while sitting on their butts all day/evening.
Sorry, but I gotta call this post out. HappyChappy, nothing against you personally, as many MANY ppl on this forum have voiced this same argument. Which is essentially:

"Oh, you are so naive, they all dope. Who cares? If you were intelligent you would have known that by now! I still enjoy the sport -- perhaps you are upset b/c you're just a loser??"

Okay, basically those of you who make this argument are TOO CLEVER BY HALF. The Landis-Kimmage interview is proof of this... Floyd was riding for Mercury-Viatel (essentially a ProTour or Pro Continental team at the time), AND HAD NEVER DOPED. He won the Tour d'Avenir, NEVER DOPED. Was signed under contract to Postal, NEVER DOPED. Got halfway through the season w/ Postal before DOPING.

So perhaps you'll parrot the Armstrong line, "Floyd has no credibility", but sorry I'm gonna take his word versus those of you who really ARE just armchair fanboys. There is an element of the sport that IS NOT DOPING. And those folks are getting screwed and cheated.

So yeah, yeah, yeah, you're so frigging smart. Please. You jokers were on the edge of your seats during Yellow 1-7. You were the ones saying Jan just couldn't win b/c of "his weight", his "love of pastries", etc. You are the ones who thought Museeuw was just a frickin' ANIMAL, that's why he was just a Classics King.

Yeah yeah yeah. You're all brilliant, and the only true cycling 'aficionados'. The rest of us?, we're just losers. Yep.
SUCK IT!

(Hell, half you ppl were probably "Carmichael Training Systems" customers during the heyday. Platinum memberships, no doubt.)
 
Floyd didn't win the Tour de l'Avenir, and another way to look at it is that he lasted a grand total of six months at the top level before he gave in to dope (and that's without even considering he expressed his willingness to dope as soon as he signed to US Postal and only started when Bruyneel thought it was appropriate).
 
Where is the evidence that the sport is cleaning itself up ? There is little evidence of that when so many high profile riders are getting caught or winning appeals. The problem is that people still refer to it as a sport. It's a business and like most business', it's all about fame and money. People don't dope to win the trophy, they dope for the extras. The original idea of sport has not existed for years. May the best man win ? It's not about winning ? How laughable. They should go the way of wrestling and just have the competitors act out their roles each week. A lot of them are obviously already doing it, including the managers who claim total ignorance of any wrongdoing. I am having visions of a possible Spanish soap opera...........Wheels of Glory. Garcia-Bernal playing the young innocent corrupted by the harsh reality of sport ? In the 21st century.
 
Jul 29, 2010
429
0
0
hrotha said:
Floyd didn't win the Tour de l'Avenir, and another way to look at it is that he lasted a grand total of six months at the top level before he gave in to dope (and that's without even considering he expressed his willingness to dope as soon as he signed to US Postal and only started when Bruyneel thought it was appropriate).
OK, correction, Floyd got 3rd overall at 'Avenir w/o doping. I'd disagree about the "6mos" -- it was more like 1yr 6mos, b/c Mercury-Viatel was top division, they had the budget, the riders, and were sure they were going to the TdF until a last-minute snub.

Anyhoo, yes Floyd committed to doping after being personally told by a TdF winner that Hein Verbruggen was the 10th teammate. That's fine, but what if Floyd had gone to a more scrupulous team? The outcome might have been different. Who knows.

Again, I re-state my point that "they all do it, you're just naive and a loser" is a lame argument made by people who used to have CTS customer support on their speed dial. :eek:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts