To support or to not support dopers?

[gooner]

Lets move this to its own thread.

I think there is a clear inconsistency on this forum by some regarding their differing stances on certain riders.

My feelings are well known with some of the Contador fans and to a lesser degree with Horner on a differing occasion.

I stand by this from the other thread in relation:

This is a guy who plays the victim card while a positive was hanging over him, tells Kimmage in a press conference he has consistently spoken up for clean cycling during his career, puts up 7 fingers to signal himself as a 7 time GT winner after the final stage of the Vuelta in Madrid, and tells the media he has always been surrounded with people in his teams that are against doping.

There is no positive spin that can be done with the above. If Froome said these "lies and fabrications", the same Contador fans who decry everything that Froome says and that have no problem with these previous comments from Contador, would be on top of this like a ton of bricks with their huge outcry.

If you're a Contador fan who has no problem with him smashing it during his successes while doping, I don't think you're in a credible position to open your mouth calling out Froome.

I'll say it again, the Contador's fans aren't against doping or even interested in discussing it constructively, their only agenda is that they guy and team they're speaking out against, has stopped their boy from winning.

No doubt about it next month, if Froome hammers it, watch the outcry from them about how ridiculous it is, and then if Contador does similar it's something to go off into the sunset and celebrate.

I think if you're going to call out guys like Froome, Wiggins, Porte, Talansky, Quintana etc, you should come from a position of strength yourself with who you support. Otherwise you're not credible and it's done entirely on a selective basis with an agenda attached to it.

I also find it absurd anyone with the mindset "doping isn't the problem, it's the hypocrisy". It's like saying that's "it's not too serious that Froome is doping because at the end of the day he's not a hypocrite" and we would go easier on him as a result. I can't get my head around that thinking.

 

[Bronstein]

Horner is a doper?

 

[Gonzo424]

I think that's a really good question (the thread's topic question) for which you'll get varying answers. I became a cycling fan around 2003, when Lance Armstrong was going for his 5th TDF win. His story was really miraculous, on the face of it. That year, and the following two years, I followed the Tour with great interest and began to read up more on the history of cycling, and I began watching other cycling events when possible. At the same time, the accusations against Armstrong continued and seemed substantial. Before his first retirement in 2005, I too began to wonder whether what he had achieved was really possible without pharmaceutical intervention. I mean, the way he totally dominated the Tour . . . every time. He never seemed to have to pay the price for going really hard in a stage -- his recovery capacity seemed, well, not human. He never had a bad day. Then, after the revelations that came out with Floyd Landis's coming clean and the USADA case, and finally the Oprah interview that confirmed what was common knowledge, I gradually began to lose hold of my fandom. Why had it taken so long? I think a lot of it has to do with what we want to believe in. Even if there are just pieces left of what used to be believable, sometimes we'll take what we can get. I remember disliking Contador for a couple years because he had dethroned my Lance in 2009 at the Tour (LOL) and, like Armstrong, seemed to be invincible. I was convinced Contador was doping. He started as a very good climber, then all of a sudden he's beating Cancellara in time trials, too. It didn't seem fair. It seemed like he was getting an edge no one else was getting, even the other top world tour riders. Why hadn't I reacted as strongly to the same set of characteristics that applied to LA? Too late, I suppose -- I was already a fan when the obvious should have become clear to me. Ironically, beginning in 2011 when Contador began to look more human, and especially with his daring 2012 Vuelta performance, I began to become a Contador fan. Crazy, right? It seemed to me like maybe the 2011 Tour was the cleanest in a long time -- though I have no evidence to support that, other than the fact that the performances seemed more human. But I think that was maybe a fleeting state of affairs. The last two tours have been disappointing. Still a fan, I nonetheless would not be surprised if the vast majority of top-tier professional riders are doping in some capacity. That hurts. I would rather the sport be clean. If not clean, however, I would rather the field be level in regard to whatever enhancements riders are including in their preparations. It seems that during the last two years, there's been an imbalance in that regard. And now, as a skeptical fan, I have no way of knowing if any rider is clean. I believe that most are not. But I still love the sport and am awed by the journey that riders must endure to finish a grand tour. So how can I be a fan of any rider at all? I'm not sure, but I am still a fan of the sport. So I take each event as it comes, and I have my own short list of guys I support based on what I think about their ability, their work, and yes, their character. I really, really, really don't like it when circumstances suggest that a rider is benefitting from doping in a way that creates a non-level field. And yet I have no sure way of knowing when and to what degree that is happening among riders whose history and performances don't raise a red flag. So I like to see a good race and, in my imagination, I hope for a winner to be someone who has courage and guts and gives of himself to the sport. I realize I probably can't defend it, but I still love the sport and there are times, like the final stage of this year's Dauphine, when being a fan is fun again.

 

[D-Queued]

Carriage return?

Dave.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Some people have reasons besides doping to like or dislike riders. Crazy, right?

 

[GJB123]

Lets move this to its own thread.

I think there is a clear inconsistency on this forum by some regarding their differing stances on certain riders.

My feelings are well known with some of the Contador fans and to a lesser degree with Horner on a differing occasion.

I stand by this from the other thread in relation:





I think if you're going to call out guys like Froome, Wiggins, Porte, Talansky, Quintana etc, you should come from a position of strength yourself with who you support. Otherwise you're not credible and it's done entirely on a selective basis with an agenda attached to it.

I also find it absurd anyone with the mindset "doping isn't the problem, it's the hypocrisy". It's like saying that's "it's not too serious that Froome is doping because at the end of the day he's not a hypocrite" and we would go easier on him as a result. I can't get my head around that thinking.

Right back at you. You claim everybody needs to be critical of Contador, Valverde, Horner but yet you haven't uttered one syllable of doubt regarding Froome, Porte and Sky in general. Why must others be critical of Horner and yet you defy logic by not being critical of Froome, since both haven't tested positive (yet). You accuse people of certain behavior yet fail to recognize that you do exactly the same!!!

I say read up: Matthew 7:14.

 

[SundayRider]

Some people have reasons besides doping to like or dislike riders. Crazy, right?

I'm not a fan of any particular rider, however I do like some riders more than others. Mostly due to the way they come across in the media, riding style etc. I'm not in the camp of 'X relies on dope more than Y' either, so no I don't support dopers but I do still watch teh sport.

 

[RedheadDane]

The only riders I won't support are those who've had a (or several) doping ban(s), and doesn't even pretend to regret it.

If a rider has never actually been proved to have doped, well, then in my world at least, he hasn't doped. Simple as that.

If someone returns from a ban and - in words and actions - show to have regretted his actions, I don't see any reason to not support him.

---

This is a guy who plays the victim card while a positive was hanging over him, tells Kimmage in a press conference he has consistently spoken up for clean cycling during his career, puts up 7 fingers to signal himself as a 7 time GT winner after the final stage of the Vuelta in Madrid, and tells the media he has always been surrounded with people in his teams that are against doping.

Uhm, this is about Horner, right? Where did he get the 7 time GT winner from?

 

[LaFlorecita]

The only riders I won't support are those who've had a (or several) doping ban(s), and doesn't even pretend to regret it.

If a rider has never actually been proved to have doped, well, then in my world at least, he hasn't doped. Simple as that.

If someone returns from a ban and - in words and actions - show to have regretted his actions, I don't see any reason to not support him.

---



Uhm, this is about Horner, right? Where did he get the 7 time GT winner from?

No, it is about Contador

 

[RedheadDane]

No, it is about Contador

Now that makes a lot more sense.

 

[TANK91]

Their is defo a divide on the forum in this case, i many times thought it was hypocritical but their is both side's argument and no matter what you cant change someone's opinion. Imo though it is wrong to be in clinic wanting Froome caught, yet all the time and openly want a Convicted doper(yes i no it was small) to beat Froome. I also get what you mean La Flo but this forum is like football sometimes it is *****y and yes i have been a cause of that too.

 

[42x16ss]

I think if you're going to call out guys like Froome, Wiggins, Porte, Talansky, Quintana etc, you should come from a position of strength yourself with who you support. Otherwise you're not credible and it's done entirely on a selective basis with an agenda attached to it.

That's cool and everything, but with cycling's track record who should we be cheering for? Some neo-pros in the gruppetto who haven't accepted what needs to be done to be truly successful yet? Some random domestique who's happy lugging around bottles? Just about every prominent rider on every prominent team has something that you can pin to them, without really stretching things.

Say Sky. I dare you. I double dare you.

 

[ebandit]

doggone

Horner is a doper?

da dwag is a doper................alberto is a doper?

there are always differing points of view

generally my cheering on riders is independant from commenting about an athletes cheating

and once ban is served good luck! in further competition

Mark L

 

[TANK91]

That's cool and everything, but with cycling's track record who should we be cheering for? Some neo-pros in the gruppetto who haven't accepted what needs to be done to be truly successful yet? Some random domestique who's happy lugging around bottles?

Say Sky. I dare you. I double dare you.

He is not saying cheer for a certain guy, he has a point if Froome wins the TDF will the clinc be going nuts? If Contador wins what will happen? That is why most who spend time in clinic wishing Froome's downfall are Contador fans, so it is a tiny bit hypocritcal, not saying Froome is clean.

 

[ralphbert]

The only riders I won't support are those who've had a (or several) doping ban(s), and doesn't even pretend to regret it.

The history of the sport has taught me it is far likely that all the GC riders are doped to some degree rather than cleans.

Once you take that position you tend to respect those that don't faine regret when caught and don't make up some bs about only did it once, wriggle on the hook, blah blah blah injustice, blah blah blah poor me etc etc. It's better to say nothing than lie and treat the public as idiots.

Hence my general revulsion at all things millar.

And you tend to judge riders for how they ride rather than the appearance of cleanliness

 

[armchairclimber]

Interesting thread. I'm not sure that I have seen anyone on here with a consistent ethical or moral stance other than maybe Benotti, who just seems to think that the entire peloton dopes (though I'm not sure whether he privately roots for any rider above another).

I've followed the sport since the Lemond Fignon years and it was on my radar (watching highlights etc) from Hinault's reign. It took the view that pretty much all cyclists doped (and that competing in the TDF was impossible without) pretty much up until just after Landis was popped.

Throughout that time I guess I enjoyed watching many riders who doped: Pantani, Chiapucci, Delgado and, in particular, Indurain.....who was my sporting hero. I actually, naively, believed him to be cleaner than the rest....buying the line that he was physically built for the sport.

I don't really feel that I had blood on my hands.

More recently, I have taken the view that cycling IS cleaner (in that doping with EPO is more difficult/subtle etc), though I have no illusions about it being clean. I like to think that my favourite rider, Tommy Voeckler, is clean. I have no basis for that faith though, other than believing that his successes on the bike are born of opportunism, a willingness to have a go and some talent. To me, he is inconsistent, as an athlete riding like that should be. He has days where he pays for his previous day's efforts etc. It also strikes me that a cyclist who doesn't train properly (in any structured way) is unlikely to be a doper.

I felt the same about Oscar Pereiro.

I'm not sure that I take a hugely moral view but it's definitely there. I used to love Rasmussen but would hate to see him back in the peloton now. I still enjoy the way Contador rides but I can't support him (although I would like him to beat Froome this year). To me, Froome has already shown himself to have an "at all costs" mindset and, TUE or no TUE, he is a proven doper. The fact that his "dope" has been "legitimized" is of little concern to me. I also don't believe his "progression" to be explicable. I think that he stumbled upon Bilharzia and asthma meds that worked to get his power up dramatically and to improve his breathing sufficiently to make him a winner. I won't support him, neither do I like him.

 

[42x16ss]

He is not saying cheer for a certain guy, he has a point if Froome wins the TDF will the clinc be going nuts? If Contador wins what will happen? That is why most who spend time in clinic wishing Froome's downfall are Contador fans, so it is a tiny bit hypocritcal, not saying Froome is clean.

If Contador wins, many in the clinic will be disappointed that cycling has reached such a sad state of affairs that (one of) their preferred riders is a convicted doper. However, at least the TdF will not have been won by a seemingly teflon coated, arrogant, self-glorified gruppetto climber who couldn't even climb in a straight line until he started working with Leinders and has been thrown out of a GT for holding on to a motorbike in the mountains.

At least Contador had the decency to be an excellent climber in juniors and U23's, sponsors local clubs and a development squad, is working to attract big name sponsors to the sport (Alonso) and above all treats his fellow teammates and competitors with respect and humility.

Until the UCI, WADA and National organisations clean house and get the sport to where we all want it to be, many of us are happy to side with what is almost certainly the lesser evil.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Yes, i agree fans of die hard Contador calling out froome on doping gives the clinic a bad name...but they rationalise it by saying it is because of the riding style or whatever, well if it is don't call out froome and if you are, call out Contador too. And yes ALberto Contador have played the " i am clean" card too..a lot of times which is just as bad and revolting unlike basso who has not played it like others IIRC

from
a fan of a convicted doper Ivan Basso(who only intended to dope )...who i believe is very cleanish now.

 

[GJB123]

Yes, i agree fans of die hard Contador calling out froome on doping gives the clinic a bad name...but they rationalise it by saying it is because of the riding style or whatever, well if it is don't call out froome and if you are, call out Contador too. And yes ALberto Contador have played the " i am clean" card too..a lot of times which is just as bad and revolting unlike basso who has not played it like others IIRC

from
a fan of a convicted doper Ivan Basso(who only intended to dope )...who i believe is very cleanish now.

Matthew 7:14. I don't see any indignation from you when Froome fans call out AC but fail to acknowledge there is plenty of evidence that Froome is as bad or even worse (in donkey to race horse terms).

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Do you know the difference between a person and their actions?

Have you heard the saying, "Love the sinner, hate the sin?"

Do you think LaFlo likes that Alberto dopes? Or does she just like Alberto, and how he comes across, his racing style and his racing attitude?

Because that's what it boils down to. I am pretty sure LaFlo would love it if Alberto did not dope, but is still going to like the person, despite what he may or may not be doing.

Same with Froome or Sky or Wiggins. I do not hate any of them. I don't necessarily like what they do or say, however, and that may come across in my posts as dislike for them personally, but you could not be further from the truth.

For the most part, this is, I believe, the prevailing attitude in the forum: I like rider XYZ (for what ever non-doping reasons) and I despise rider ABC (for what ever non-doping reasons), but universally dislike doping. Yes, Blackcat, I know you have a different mindset, but I'm talking about your common garden variety poster.

For me, it's because I want new riders to be able to compete and achieve what their dedication and hard work and commitment and natural ability allows them to achieve, without having to resort to methods employed by a vast majority of other riders in the peloton.

It annoys the quivering snot out of me when someone claims ridiculous performance gains are down to pillows and tactics and fricken pineapple juice and a bunch of other things that anyone has access to anywhere in the world.

So the question is not "support or not support dopers". That's completely way off-base, IMO.

People support riders, and some of those riders dope, some have been caught doped, and some ride clean. The doping or not has little to no bearing on whether a poster "supports" a rider.

 

[blackcat]

Ricco support

support Ricco


i support

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Break the taboo, guys?

Pro-cycling exists as entertainment.
Supported substantially by TV ads.

I desire to be entertained by non-dopers.
Where shall I go?
It's not truly available on TV today.
Should I switch off and give up?

This is a moral question that I can't properly solve alone.

The taboo over discussing suspected doping on live races contributes greatly
to the problem.
Sure, commentators can't risk getting taken to court for false accusation.
But this taboo falsifies our preferred visible historical record: the stage video.

The TV directors ever prioritize live camera time to those up-front
on the stage or the GC.
The advertisers are happy with this status quo.

But the highest placed non-doper often gets little or no camera time.
If the TV directors were somehow offically informed about the likelihood of who is doping then they could better equalise out the camera time.
Years later there would then be footage of the non-dopers and vindication of their moral stance. Someone might even overdub the commentary to
help us ignore the convicted dopers.

How to break the taboo ?

1) Give the peloton a regularly secret vote on whom they suspect to be doping. (details how need to be filled in, I know)

2) Make the overall results publicly available.

3) Require the TV directors/commentator to use the results responsibly
when deciding camera time and when commentating.
Thus justifying to advertiser why the don't always show the leaders.

4) Audit the process regularly to make sure it is not being cheated.

 

[msjett]

My anti-Froome attitude has nothing for my like of Contador. It simply comes from my gut. I have had the same feeling about Armstrong, McQuaid (whom I had an over-whelming urge to spit on as he walked past me at the worlds in Geelong, of course I didn't but that is the reaction I felt.), Wiggins gives me the same feeling, so does Valverde, Rogers and Porte, thats just naming a couple there are more. I don't just believe them, the feeling I get is they are not being truthful. I can't prove it but I come here and discuss it with others who may or may not feel the same way.

 

[hrotha]

As long as doping is so widespread and there isn't any proper pressure from the authorities to stop it, doping will be a very poor tool to judge a rider, in my opinion. Guilt is diluted when everybody does something.

Therefore, outside of the Clinic it's not so much about doping or not doping. Inasmuch as doping plays a role in whether or not I like a rider, it's about that rider's public stance towards doping and my perception of how hypocritical he is and/or how over the top his performance is.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Matthew 7:14. I don't see any indignation from you when Froome fans call out AC but fail to acknowledge there is plenty of evidence that Froome is as bad or even worse (in donkey to race horse terms).

I have though i should have added that it was ridiculous as well but in their defense froome has not been suspended for doping. Zam 6:66