UCI Spitting their dummy.

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 19, 2010
1,499
0
0
D-Queued said:
You proposed we sweep it under the carpet.

That only makes for a dusty carpet.

If you want to get rid of the dust, get rid of the carpets.

Same theory/practice refined over decades in manufacturing. Expose the problems by getting rid of the buffers.

Boiled frog: heat up the water slowly results in a boiled frog. Throw the frog in boiling water, and it jumps.

We need to bring the water to a boil. These German media organizations are helping. If you want to get rid of doping, give them some fuel for their fire.

Dave.
No, I didn't propose we sweep it under the carpet.
I said I would be happy to sweep it under the carpet as long as every other sport is doing so.

Boil the water all you like, but the frogs will just keep breeding.

All we can do is control the problem and hope the positive aspects of the sport outweigh the negative.

Until testing becomes foolproof, doping will remain a part of professional sport.
Concentrating too heavily on preventing doping is ultimately futile, a fact that the governing bodies of most professional sports are all too aware.

Cycling has been at the forefront of media publicised doping stories since Festina. 15 odd years should have been long enough for a fundamental change to have been made as a result of that negative publicity.
Have those frogs been killed off yet? I think not.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Good questions - To preface, you appear to be talking about ARD solely discussing doping (as opposed to them stopping coverage of the sport).


If all the media went this route it would start to have an effect on sponsors coming in to the sport, so the first to react would be the teams.


If the UCI were 'serious', they would hand over anti-doping to a separate party - I cannot envisage them ever doing that voluntarily, so the answer is no.

However could force IOC/WADA to step in and remove the UCI's power.


All good questions but I have highlighted the point they all revolve around.

The only way is outside independent anti-doping that is pro-active.
Cyclings problem is that it talks a good game - but then inevitably a big scandal surfaces that exposes the lie.

To the blue- much the same, just slower and at the end of a 3 week race just a handful of riders not on their hands and knees.

I don't like associating cycling with 'death' - its only a sport.
But to answer your point - the sport will never die.
The Pro part would struggle but I actually think it is not far away from that anyway in the public perception.


Remember there are media that rely on the sport - so in reality it is not that it is going to stop having coverage - but for the sport to thrive it needs the MSM involvement, networks to show the sport etc which is almost where the sport is at now.



To summarize - Cycling is an activity used for transport.
So it is something that almost everyone has done and as man is competitive - everyone will have tried beating their friends to school etc - it is a sport that should be easy for people to follow and understand.
Yet the sport has little traction outside mainland Europe even when cycling as a leisure activity and a mode of city transport is on the rise.

The sole reason for the Pro side (which trickles down to grassroots) being stagnant is the sporting authorities (the UCI) sitting on their hands and not tackling its doping problem.
Doc, thank you the reasoned answers and I agree with a lot of what you say. For me, removing anti-doping from the hands of the UCI is the big one. But even if an independent body takes over, will it ever eradicate doping completely. Will WADA be that more effective that it can stamp out doping completely?

The coverage of doping pretty much finished the sport in Germany but the sport is not burned into the psyche the way it is in Belgium, France, Italy etc and imo it would take more than increased doping coverage to scare of sponsors in those countries.
 
Oct 1, 2010
24
0
0
D-Queued said:
These German media organizations are helping. If you want to get rid of doping, give them some fuel for their fire.

Dave.
They may be helping, but only inadvertently -- and only in the extreme short term.
Perhaps that's good enough for some, but it should be said fairly that the Germans are only doing it surface-level, for spectacle, not because they are trying in any real way to effect change, strategically.

Their fire is already burning itself out: The articles linked at the outset of this very thread stated that they will no longer be allowed to buy and broadcast footage of UCI events. So if it were a strategy, it's not a good one, as it's over already, and thus had an exceedingly limited effect on anti-doping.

(Incidentally the UCI's decision not to deal with the German broadcasters in question is in and of itself fair, and cannot be compared to censorship as it was: The UCI is a private organization -- a governing entity, yes, but not governmental -- it only exists for profit by and protection of the status quo of the sport. They have a right to not sell their footage to those disparaging the sport -- even if those disparagements are fully accurate.)


Carrying that concept forward, it's obvious that the UCI would deny broadcast rights to anyone they deem disparaging their sport.


If some countries' broadcasters felt that the real story truly needed to be heard during their coverage, they may see the example of the Germans (now), and know that they risk being denied further coverage rights. They may risk it, and get burned as the Germans have. At a certain point, you would have swaths of areas cut off from coverage -- likely those that had marginal audiences to begin with.

BUT: you would conversely have swaths of areas whose broadcasters decided to 'play ball' with the UCI's messaging on things -- which would be those that have large audiences, from whom the relevant broadcasters are themselves profiting right now, regardless of all the doping.

In other words, at no point would ALL broadcasters switch to coverage that was pointed, anti-doping, and off UCI message. If they did, they would be cut off. And some markets are too big and profitable as-is, or there is too much risk of competing coverage from less high-minded broadcasters nearby and also accessible, to risk cutting themselves off from those profits.

So even if all the broadcasters wanted to put out a doping-critical message, they could never trust each other to stick with that message -- you have a Prisoner's Dilemma for the broadcasting world. That's not going to ever go away.

The only way it could would be if viewership for anti-doping coverage of the sport exceeded viewership of the UCI messaging of the sport. And there's no way UCI will let that happen -- they've already laid down the law with the Germans.

So, money talks; principles walk. And the issue of the media being complicit in it is the same as it ever was.


I don't in any way support this state of affairs. I'm just outlining why some people are instantly stating that the German direction in this is a failed strategy for going forward and generating clean sport.

As people are asking for pragmatic solutions to combat doping (as they should), this one doesn't seem terribly pragmatic...to me anyway.

...rewarding though it would be to see omerta get stuffed, in the short term.


Short version: The frogs are in charge of the temperature. And have paid off the Chef, and the local paper and its restaurant reviewer.

You're not going to get any frogs' legs here that you like.

But a well-placed call to the Board of Health (i.e., FDA, IRS, and now FBI), may actually get us a satisfying plateful.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
pmcg76 said:
Doc, thank you the reasoned answers and I agree with a lot of what you say. For me, removing anti-doping from the hands of the UCI is the big one. But even if an independent body takes over, will it ever eradicate doping completely. Will WADA be that more effective that it can stamp out doping completely?
Simple answer to the highlighted (IMO) is no.

I think thats the point - most people accept that doping cannot ever be eradicated but it certainly can be curbed and made difficult to do, or alter the ratio of risk v reward.

The general public perception (either true of not) is Cycling is drug fueled sport that the authorities cannot get on top of - when the reality is that the UCI has 'talked' about anti-doping, while never actually tackling it.

pmcg76 said:
The coverage of doping pretty much finished the sport in Germany but the sport is not burned into the psyche the way it is in Belgium, France, Italy etc and imo it would take more than increased doping coverage to scare of sponsors in those countries.
France? (and even Italy)
The sport is nowhere near as popular as it once was there.

All these counties have done is accept the 'reality' - the sport will retain core support in these countries but it will not grow.
More importantly cycling is a worldwide activity - relying on a handful of nations shows how far the sport has fallen as a global sport.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
ARD's stance is the only right one, at least if you want to fight doping.

Of course, as a stand-alone, they aren't gonna change much.

But imagine the RAI or RTV would follow it up.
Alarmbells would start ringing in Sponsorland.
Suddenly anti-doping would have a voice.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
by the way, according to Hajo Seppelt, the ARD's exposure of Aldirto's positive, and of Pat's attempted cover-up, is the main reason for UCI's current position.

Pat simply has an axe to grind.

Für den ARD-Dopingexperte Hajo Seppelt begann der UCI-Boykott jedoch nicht erst mit der Ankündigung die Tour de France nicht mehr übertragen zu wollen, sondern mit dem Fall Alberto Contador. Der dreifache Tour-Sieger war nach der Frankreichrundfahrt im vergangenen Jahr positiv auf ein muskelbildendes Mittel getestet, gesperrt und später freigesprochen worden.

Seppelt erklärte gegenüber der Agentur, dass der Verband bereits nach der "Berichterstattung über den positiven Test von Alberto Contador und das Verhalten der UCI" angefangen habe. "Wir haben die Rolle der UCI bei Doping im Radsport wiederholt hinterfragt und zudem gezeigt, dass der Präsident der UCI im Fall Contador einen positiven Dopingtest geleugnet hat", sagte Seppelt und fügte an, dass der Verband seitdem "sämtliche Anfragen" zum Thema Doping abgelehnt habe.
http://www.digitalfernsehen.de/Doping-Falle-UCI-boykottiert-Interviews-mit-ARD-und-ZDF.58540.0.html
 
May 3, 2010
2,239
0
0
sniper said:
ARD's stance is the only right one, at least if you want to fight doping.

Of course, as a stand-alone, they aren't gonna change much.

But imagine the RAI or RTV would follow it up.
Alarmbells would start ringing in Sponsorland.
Suddenly anti-doping would have a voice.
Exactly. The banned of ARD is simply a move by the UCI to bully anyone thinking of being critical into silence.

So don't expect anything critical of Dertie, Frodo, Riis, Hog from CN, ES etc
 
Let me be quite frank that I think the actions by the UCI are at best stupid PR and they should rather embrace ARD/ZDF than alienate them. But I would personally have a lot more respect for the ARD/ZDF-anti-doping- position if they applied that equally across the board for all sports. Currently going by what I have seen personally, doping gets no mention whatsoever when covering for example athletics and cross-country skiing. So perhaps we should stop short of singing all out praise for ARD/ZDF and handing them anti-doping sainthood just yet.

Regards
GJ
 
GJB123 said:
Let me be quite frank that I think the actions by the UCI are at best stupid PR and they should rather embrace ARD/ZDF than alienate them. But I would personally have a lot more respect for the ARD/ZDF-anti-doping- position if they applied that equally across the board for all sports. Currently going by what I have seen personally, doping gets no mention whatsoever when covering for example athletics and cross-country skiing. So perhaps we should stop short of singing all out praise for ARD/ZDF and handing them anti-doping sainthood just yet.

Regards
GJ
This is part of the overall question even if the German approach was applied across all media forms and it worked, i.e cycling cleaned up.

Would people then believe in cycling over other sports. Would all those people who have been convinced cycling is just one big pharmaceutical circus suddenly come flooding back to the sport. If they have started following other sport's in the meantime, for example athletics, will they say "oh lets watch cycling again as it is more credible than athletics now", I dont think so.

Even if cycling is a clean sport, how can cycling be more credible than athletics if they dont have any doping scandals in athletics or nobody highlights them. I am not talking about the hardcore fans like us who can see the difference, I am talking about the people on the street like a lot of the Germans who followed cycling, whose knowledge of anti-doping procedures is minimal and whose opinions are influenced by the media.

If cycling cleans up, will the media then focus on hounding the other sports or just carry on regardless like is currently happening. If cycling does clean up its act, we the real cycling fans will feel better about our sport and see it is as more credible than most. However I dont see how the average man of the street would view cycling as more credible than other sports if those other sports have no drug scandal/busts or media coverage.

Would clean cycling be viewed more positively by the general public than cycling pre Festina when nobody knew anything of what was happening in regards to doping.

I am all for doing what is necessary to rid doping from cycling and everyone is shouting that we should ignore what is happening to other sports but it has to be asked. Are the German TV channels anti-doping or anti-cycling?
 
May 3, 2010
2,239
0
0
GJB123 said:
Let me be quite frank that I think the actions by the UCI are at best stupid PR and they should rather embrace ARD/ZDF than alienate them. But I would personally have a lot more respect for the ARD/ZDF-anti-doping- position if they applied that equally across the board for all sports. Currently going by what I have seen personally, doping gets no mention whatsoever when covering for example athletics and cross-country skiing. So perhaps we should stop short of singing all out praise for ARD/ZDF and handing them anti-doping sainthood just yet.

Regards
GJ
I understand that position but I don't think accusing ARD of being anti-cycling because they are critical of doping in cycling is very helpful (as others are doing). That kind of whiny childish behaviour just makes cycling fans look like brilliant crybabies in denial.

If cycling were a clean sport with only a small amount of isolated doping incidents, and with a clear, democratic and transparent administration then I could understand frustration. But it isn't. It is a sport riven with corruption , rampant institutionalised doping and a culture of silence. It is a sport that actively resists efforts to clean up the sport and protects the dirty while trying to silence the critics.

Doping in cycling is cycling's problem. It is mildly annoying that other sports are not treated to the same level of criticism, but that doesn't make the criticism of cycling invalid.

If cycling is being held by ARD to a higher level of scrutiny than other sports then that is a good thing. I'd rather have critical coverage than hagiography and things being swept under the carpet.
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
andy1234 said:
No, I didn't propose we sweep it under the carpet.
I said I would be happy to sweep it under the carpet as long as every other sport is doing so.

Boil the water all you like, but the frogs will just keep breeding.

All we can do is control the problem and hope the positive aspects of the sport outweigh the negative.

Until testing becomes foolproof, doping will remain a part of professional sport.
Concentrating too heavily on preventing doping is ultimately futile, a fact that the governing bodies of most professional sports are all too aware.

Cycling has been at the forefront of media publicised doping stories since Festina. 15 odd years should have been long enough for a fundamental change to have been made as a result of that negative publicity.
Have those frogs been killed off yet? I think not
.
The 2 biggest toads in the sport remain in control Verbruggen and McQuaid. Till they are they their coterie of little toads, Bruyneel, Riis, Och etc are sung out it wont change, but fans trying to downplay the doping wont help either;)

I agree with bringing the water to boil analogy and a good place to start the fire is with fans;)
 
Mrs John Murphy said:
I understand that position but I don't think accusing ARD of being anti-cycling because they are critical of doping in cycling is very helpful (as others are doing). That kind of whiny childish behaviour just makes cycling fans look like brilliant crybabies in denial.

If cycling were a clean sport with only a small amount of isolated doping incidents, and with a clear, democratic and transparent administration then I could understand frustration. But it isn't. It is a sport riven with corruption , rampant institutionalised doping and a culture of silence. It is a sport that actively resists efforts to clean up the sport and protects the dirty while trying to silence the critics.

Doping in cycling is cycling's problem. It is mildly annoying that other sports are not treated to the same level of criticism, but that doesn't make the criticism of cycling invalid.

If cycling is being held by ARD to a higher level of scrutiny than other sports then that is a good thing. I'd rather have critical coverage than hagiography and things being swept under the carpet.
But how do we know any other sport is any different to cycling in regards to the things I highlighted. Before Festina, we didnt know how bad things were, its only since cycling has become the punch bag for media talking about doping that things have got bad.

Cycling has been bringing cases based on the Bio Passport, other sports are only starting to use the Bio-passport or dont even use it. Dekker, Pellizotti, Valjavec etc all busted becasue of the Bio-Passport. Other sports have now had three years to figure out the Bio-passport.

The biggest drug scandal of the last 10 years, Operation Purto featured all types of sports yet cycling was the only sport to have riders named, reputations sullied and people banned. Why?

If cycling had been treated the same as the other sports, the likes of Valverde, Basso, Scarponi, Jaksche, Ullrich etc, etc would still be racing without any black marks beside their names and there wouldnt have been as many revelations. We would not have had their cases drag on for years further dragging the name of cycling down. Would the Germans then have kicked up such a fuss about anti-doping.

If you take all the riders out that have been busted thanks to Puerto or Bio-passport, then cycling would not appear any more dirtier than a lot of other sports.

People only know what they are told. In that sense the media have done a great job of potraying cycling as the only sport with doping problems. Maybe that is what you believe as well, I dont know. Again, we are not talking about those who are tuned in to all things doping, we are talking about the people on the street who wouldnt know the difference between EPO and a steroid, the type of people who still believe Lance done it clean whilst the rest of the sport was dirty.

I am definitely not for burying stuff under the carpet, its good that cycling is being held to account. I just dont like this idea of cycling being singled out and thrashed whilst other sports get a free pass.
 
May 3, 2010
2,239
0
0
Sorry but I don't see what your point is. Just a lot of whining about how hard done by cycling is.

Cycling has a massive doping problem. That is the fault of those who have enabled it to take place, including the fans who are in denial and who claim that the sport is being hard done by.

Cycling's doping problem and the negative coverage that stems from it is entirely the fault of the UCI, the teams, the riders and the fans. If fans can't accept criticism because they are too emotionally brilliant then the sport deserves to be pilloried.

Cycling's problem is cycling's problem. When cycling has properly cleaned up then we can start to throw stones at other sports.

I really don't give a **** about other sports. When Nadal's heart explodes I will laugh and say 'I told you so' but Nadal is tennis' problem not cycling's. Tennis coverage not being critical is Tennis' problem not cycling's. Wayne Rooney ****ing grannies and taking HGH is football's problem not cycling's.

What is cycling's problem is: the UCI attempting to cover up Dertie's positive, the fraud that is the biopassport, rampant doping at all levels of the sport (**** me how many more 'doping at masters level racing' stories do we need to confirm that?), a corrupt administration and a sycophantic toothless press and that giggles like a schoolgirl at a Justin Bieber concert whenever a rider speaks, and an infantile fanbase that cries foul when there is critical coverage.

We need more ARD style coverage and much less CN style coverage if the sport is ever going to reform.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,010
0
0
Cycling gets singled out because of the nature of the sport - it's more of a tough-man contest than a skilled game.

Doping inherently changes the performance and outcome of a race because cycling is not dependent on skill, it's dependent on being able to ride fast.

Do I care if a footballer, handballer, hockey player, or figure skater dopes? Sure, but I can't imagine doping destroying the integrity of those sports because doping in and of itself won't magically give an individual the skill required to excel in those sports.

Not so in regards to cycling.

There are still a lot of donkeys riding like racehorses.
 
Mrs John Murphy said:
Sorry but I don't see what your point is. Just a lot of whining about how hard done by cycling is.

Cycling has a massive doping problem. That is the fault of those who have enabled it to take place, including the fans who are in denial and who claim that the sport is being hard done by.

Cycling's doping problem and the negative coverage that stems from it is entirely the fault of the UCI, the teams, the riders and the fans. If fans can't accept criticism because they are too emotionally brilliant then the sport deserves to be pilloried.

Cycling's problem is cycling's problem. When cycling has properly cleaned up then we can start to throw stones at other sports.

I really don't give a **** about other sports. When Nadal's heart explodes I will laugh and say 'I told you so' but Nadal is tennis' problem not cycling's. Tennis coverage not being critical is Tennis' problem not cycling's. Wayne Rooney ****ing grannies and taking HGH is football's problem not cycling's.

What is cycling's problem is: the UCI attempting to cover up Dertie's positive, the fraud that is the biopassport, rampant doping at all levels of the sport (**** me how many more 'doping at masters level racing' stories do we need to confirm that?), a corrupt administration and a sycophantic toothless press and that giggles like a schoolgirl at a Justin Bieber concert whenever a rider speaks, and an infantile fanbase that cries foul when there is critical coverage.

We need more ARD style coverage and much less CN style coverage if the sport is ever going to reform.
Who the **** is going to throw stones at other sports, that is my point which I listed in a previous post which obvioulsy you missed.

Cycling cleans up thanks to the media but how will cycling be perceived as being cleaner than other sports if those other sports are not scrutinised. Will the media start scrutinising other sports the way they have with cycling. If the answer is yes, they why are they not doing it now?

In the general publics view, what is the difference between a clean sport and what we had pre Festina when no doping was ever reported.
 
Jun 22, 2009
765
0
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
Cycling gets singled out because of the nature of the sport - it's more of a tough-man contest than a skilled game.

Doping inherently changes the performance and outcome of a race because cycling is not dependent on skill, it's dependent on being able to ride fast.

Do I care if a footballer, handballer, hockey player, or figure skater dopes? Sure, but I can't imagine doping destroying the integrity of those sports because doping in and of itself won't magically give an individual the skill required to excel in those sports.

Not so in regards to cycling.

There are still a lot of donkeys riding like racehorses.
it's a distinction that's been made quite a few times. you're correct that cycling is less skill-dependent but traditional team sports like those you've mentioned or even figure skating aren't uninfluenced by fatigue either. in fact, they're quite fitness-dependent.

the short version. skill deteriorates very predictably with the onset of fatigue. more fatigue = a less skillful performance. success in football, basketball, hockey, etc very often results from critical successes in the tired late stages of a game or match. the message to the casual fans needs to be that for this reason doping has profound effects on ALL sporting results. the very same PEDs/methods used in cycling are of equal benefit to most athletes and most if not all sports will have their own credibility crisis to deal with if they don't learn from cycling's mistakes. the only lesson governing bodies in other sports seem to have taken away from cycling is to deny and minimize the realities of PED use. that short sighted approach will only makes things worse from them later on, there's no better cautionary tale for that than cycling at present.
 
I have been looking at this whole debate in a rather long term view, I will try and project things happening in the future if the route which people are suggesting is followed. Disagree where you think I have gone wrong.

If cycling is subjected to trial by media, the fans will lose interest in the sport and turn to other sports they think they can believe in.

As a result sponsors start to leave, thus forcing major changes in pro cycling.

UCI hand total control for anti-doping to WADA, riders are give life bans on first offences, team managers/DS are not allowed to be in charge of a team if they have prior doping connections. Add any other measures felt necessary.

How long will this process take? 1, 5, 10 years

In the meantime other sports which are not subject to scrutiny by media continue to gain fans who lose interest in cycling.

Sometime in the future, cycling is declared as a clean sport by.....?

No positive tests, no scandals, no dodgy managers, doctors etc.

Meanwhile other sports are not having poistive tests or big scandals like cycling in the 21st century as they never come under the level of scrutiny afforded to cycling during the trial by media period. They see no decrease in popularity during this period.

Why would fans then start following cycling if the sport they are currently following has no credibility problems. What would mark cycling out as being more credible to the man on the street? Would he care?

Would the media then actually choose to focus on those other sports if they have not done so in the intermediate period.

What happens when a cyclist tests positive during this new era of new clean cycling, will it be a case of one bad egg or will the media and public fall back into the cycling is the dirty sport routine and give it a miss.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
Sorry but I don't see what your point is. Just a lot of whining about how hard done by cycling is.

Cycling has a massive doping problem. That is the fault of those who have enabled it to take place, including the fans who are in denial and who claim that the sport is being hard done by.

Cycling's doping problem and the negative coverage that stems from it is entirely the fault of the UCI, the teams, the riders and the fans. If fans can't accept criticism because they are too emotionally brilliant then the sport deserves to be pilloried.

Cycling's problem is cycling's problem. When cycling has properly cleaned up then we can start to throw stones at other sports.

I really don't give a **** about other sports. When Nadal's heart explodes I will laugh and say 'I told you so' but Nadal is tennis' problem not cycling's. Tennis coverage not being critical is Tennis' problem not cycling's. Wayne Rooney ****ing grannies and taking HGH is football's problem not cycling's.


What is cycling's problem is: the UCI attempting to cover up Dertie's positive, the fraud that is the biopassport, rampant doping at all levels of the sport (**** me how many more 'doping at masters level racing' stories do we need to confirm that?), a corrupt administration and a sycophantic toothless press and that giggles like a schoolgirl at a Justin Bieber concert whenever a rider speaks, and an infantile fanbase that cries foul when there is critical coverage.

We need more ARD style coverage and much less CN style coverage if the sport is ever going to reform.
good stuff right here.

that part in bold needed to be said so desperately.
thanks. cuz i'm tired of the apologists (including the verdruggen/mcquaid tandem) whining about how cycling always gets singled out.
 
Mar 18, 2010
291
0
0
pmcg76 said:
I have been looking at this whole debate in a rather long term view, I will try and project things happening in the future if the route which people are suggesting is followed. Disagree where you think I have gone wrong.

If cycling is subjected to trial by media, the fans will lose interest in the sport and turn to other sports they think they can believe in.

As a result sponsors start to leave, thus forcing major changes in pro cycling.

UCI hand total control for anti-doping to WADA, riders are give life bans on first offences, team managers/DS are not allowed to be in charge of a team if they have prior doping connections. Add any other measures felt necessary.

How long will this process take? 1, 5, 10 years

In the meantime other sports which are not subject to scrutiny by media continue to gain fans who lose interest in cycling.

Sometime in the future, cycling is declared as a clean sport by.....?

No positive tests, no scandals, no dodgy managers, doctors etc.

Meanwhile other sports are not having poistive tests or big scandals like cycling in the 21st century as they never come under the level of scrutiny afforded to cycling during the trial by media period. They see no decrease in popularity during this period.

Why would fans then start following cycling if the sport they are currently following has no credibility problems. What would mark cycling out as being more credible to the man on the street? Would he care?

Would the media then actually choose to focus on those other sports if they have not done so in the intermediate period.

What happens when a cyclist tests positive during this new era of new clean cycling, will it be a case of one bad egg or will the media and public fall back into the cycling is the dirty sport routine and give it a miss.
You're not wrong, you just have different priorities. You prioritize the popularity of the sport. I care less about popularity and more about content i.e. reasonable control of the sporting environment from a doping perspective. A smaller sport is just fine with me if that's a consequence.

Bigger sponsor dollars and higher salaries really don't have any value for me as an enthusiast of the sport. I want to see clean riders giving it their best shot. That is all. If they have to go a bit slower in the process, that's fine with me, as the competitive environment is all on a relative basis to the other riders.

Quality over quantity (e.g. money) for me.
 
Apr 19, 2010
1,499
0
0
Weapons of @ss Destruction said:
You're not wrong, you just have different priorities. You prioritize the popularity of the sport. I care less about popularity and more about content i.e. reasonable control of the sporting environment from a doping perspective. A smaller sport is just fine with me if that's a consequence.

Bigger sponsor dollars and higher salaries really don't have any value for me as an enthusiast of the sport. I want to see clean riders giving it their best shot. That is all. If they have to go a bit slower in the process, that's fine with me, as the competitive environment is all on a relative basis to the other riders.

Quality over quantity (e.g. money) for me.
In that case why watch professional sports at all?

There are plenty of grass roots sports you could follow instead.

Professional sport is all about commercialism, the clue is in the title.
 
Dec 30, 2010
653
0
0
They are just trying to change the subject.

When someone believes the charges against their favorite athlete, they will try to change the subject. I see these same tactics used by fans in other sports as well.


- Other sports do it too.
- Other athletes do it too.
- Other countries do it too.
- You can't prove it in a court of law.
- There is a technicality that should get them off.
- It's more fun to watch juiced up athletes, because their accomplishments are greater.
- You accusers are just jealous.
- You accusers are stupid.
- You accusers are crazy.
- You accusers don't understand the sport,...

Using these types of excuses, is a tacit admission that their favorite is a likely doper. They are just here to defend them IN SPITE of their suspicions.
 
Mar 18, 2010
291
0
0
andy1234 said:
In that case why watch professional sports at all?

There are plenty of grass roots sports you could follow instead.

Professional sport is all about commercialism, the clue is in the title.
Commercialism and ethics do not have to be mutually independent. I will place a higher level of my personal interest and support toward sports that I feel offer more ethical value, since this is at the core of what I consider sport. If enough like-minded individuals express similar values, then eventually the larger commercial opportunity for those in the profession is to play to that market.

The rest looking purely for entertainment spectacle are welcome to watch professional wrestling instead.
 
Apr 19, 2010
1,499
0
0
Andynonomous said:
When someone believes the charges against their favorite athlete, they will try to change the subject. I see these same tactics used by fans in other sports as well.


- Other sports do it too.
- Other athletes do it too.
- Other countries do it too.
- You can't prove it in a court of law.
- There is a technicality that should get them off.
- It's more fun to watch juiced up athletes, because their accomplishments are greater.
- You accusers are just jealous.
- You accusers are stupid.
- You accusers are crazy.
- You accusers don't understand the sport,...

Using these types of excuses, is a tacit admission that their favorite is a likely doper. They are just here to defend them IN SPITE of their suspicions.
It might be worth actually reading the post next time you respond.
 
Weapons of @ss Destruction said:
You're not wrong, you just have different priorities. You prioritize the popularity of the sport. I care less about popularity and more about content i.e. reasonable control of the sporting environment from a doping perspective. A smaller sport is just fine with me if that's a consequence.

Bigger sponsor dollars and higher salaries really don't have any value for me as an enthusiast of the sport. I want to see clean riders giving it their best shot. That is all. If they have to go a bit slower in the process, that's fine with me, as the competitive environment is all on a relative basis to the other riders.

Quality over quantity (e.g. money) for me.
Well I actually agree as I dont care if the Germans walk away from the sport, they can believe in whatever sport they want. Will it affect me following cycling? No. I dont agree with what the UCI are doing but likewise I dont care if the sport dies a death in Germany or the US for that matter.

I have already mentioned a few pages back that I dont ever see the core countries (Belgium, Italy etc)turning their back on cycling and as long as they still follow cycling, there will always be sponsors willing to come forward.

People are suggesting a hypothetical situation whereby coverage of doping in cycling becomes so overwhelming that even the sponsors from those core countires will lose interest.

So I am just extending that hypothesis to a point where that actually happens and trying to predict what the future would hold. If this did happen, cycling would be reduced to the level of cyclo-cross or soemthing and dont get me wrong because I love cyclo-cross. If people are ok with that, fine by me I would still follow the sport.

I just dont see that happening as I think the sponsors will always be there and as long as there is money to be had, well I think you know what follows.
People are screaming that we should not be worrying about other sports but if they stand to gain from cycling's loss whilst having the exact same problems I dont see how people cannot get a bit ****ed about it. I just am curious as to what actual difference a clean sport will make to anyone other than the hardcore fans if it ever actually happens.

I witness the increase/ decrease in popularity of different sports here in Ireland myself, granted that is more to do with following the success trail than any doping but it is very obvious and sad to see people jump on the latest bandwagon. Despite all the doping problems, cycling is probably at an all time high here since the days of Roche/Kelly.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts