What advantage does the UCI have to actually care about doping?

Apr 1, 2013
6
0
0
Doping obviously hurts the sport financially. Why would the UCI ever implicate another top rider after the whole bert/la fiasco? They would seem to benefit greatly from miracle stories and such.

As I understand it, the UCI has the system set up be the only entity who could implicate a rider with doping.

Am I off base here for is this really the way the sport is setup?
 
cycling1776 said:
Doping obviously hurts the sport financially. Why would the UCI ever implicate another top rider after the whole bert/la fiasco? They would seem to benefit greatly from miracle stories and such.

As I understand it, the UCI has the system set up be the only entity who could implicate a rider with doping.

Am I off base here for is this really the way the sport is setup?

This for me is the million dollar issue, always has been. Sport governing bodies can only lose from catching their riders doping. That's why FIFA doesn't want blood doping. That's why the itf covered up agassi. That's why uci covered up lance. If you don't catch the dopers you get buts in seats and sell merchandise. If you do you lose out in every single way + see hypocrites say that your sport is the dirty one.

does anyone really think if you went and told a sport body president they need to catch dopers that they would do anything other than laugh at you? If your important it might turn out like that scene between mayor Royce and carcetti in the wire. A handshake a, a promise to look into it and then they wonder who the **** you think you are afterwards.

The war on drugs in sport is like the war on recreational drugs. There are too many rewards for those who take part and in this case, often a lot at risk for those who don't.

If it ever is to be won, it's gonna take a lot more than what has been done so far.
 
cycling1776 said:
Doping obviously hurts the sport financially. Why would the UCI ever implicate another top rider after the whole bert/la fiasco? They would seem to benefit greatly from miracle stories and such.

As I understand it, the UCI has the system set up be the only entity who could implicate a rider with doping.

Am I off base here for is this really the way the sport is setup?

If your premise is correct--that doping 'obviously' hurts the sport financially--then it would be equally obvious that the UCI (not just McBruggen) is knowingly limiting the growth of the sport.
 
Apr 1, 2013
6
0
0
MarkvW said:
If your premise is correct--that doping 'obviously' hurts the sport financially--then it would be equally obvious that the UCI (not just McBruggen) is knowingly limiting the growth of the sport.
How could catching dopers help the sport financially? Look at other sports like tennis. The very very few that are caught are absolute nobodies. To the public, tennis doesn't have a problem vs cycling.
 
cycling1776 said:
How could catching dopers help the sport financially? Look at other sports like tennis. The very very few that are caught are absolute nobodies. To the public, tennis doesn't have a problem vs cycling.
Cut the doping and you'd cut the need for paying for the dope--and probably for paying for the team doctors.

Heath and fitness-oriented companies would be more likely to sponsor teams if they didn't fear the near-inevitable doping scandal.
 
Aug 18, 2012
1,171
0
0
Look at all the negative publicity Vince McMahon gets for having presided over a company (the WWE/WWF) where the vast majority of "talent" have died young.

Of course pro wrestling is inherently more unhealthy than cycling, tennis or football/soccer but if the testing allows you to use Testosterone, HGH, EPO, thyroid hormones and various stimulants then your going to be in serious problems.

Money isn't everything.
 
I dint think a majority of wrestlers die young. A few notable examples, usually in their 40's, but wrestlers usually keep going until 50.and often even further.

Also pro wrestling is possibly the most injury conducive sporting option out there and one in which athletes are expected to perform through injuries and see storylines out before operations etc. So outside of peds there has also been heavy frequent reliance on painkillers, and recreational pick up drugs. Add to that a very high risk of head injuries, at least for some performers, which are believed to have been the cause of pro wrestlings most notorious young death.
 
Aug 18, 2012
1,171
0
0
The Hitch said:
I dint think a majority of wrestlers die young. A few notable examples, usually in their 40's, but wrestlers usually keep going until 50.and often even further.

Also pro wrestling is possibly the most injury conducive sporting option out there and one in which athletes are expected to perform through injuries and see storylines out before operations etc. So outside of peds there has also been heavy frequent reliance on painkillers, and recreational pick up drugs. Add to that a very high risk of head injuries, at least for some performers, which are believed to have been the cause of pro wrestlings most notorious young death.
I agree completely with the second paragraph but the vast majority of pro wrestlers do die young.

I am extremely embarrassed to admit that I watched it obsessively from the ages of 9-13 so looking back now 10 years later I can see most of the guys I watched are dead.

It's some of the most successful guys like Brett Hart and Hulk Hogan who are still alive but most of the other top guys are not alive.

I'd say its about the equivalent of 80% of cyclists finishing between 5th-15th in the Tour De France between 93-2003 not living to their 50th birthday dying sometime between 30 and 50.
 
Dec 14, 2012
99
0
0
cycling1776 said:
Doping obviously hurts the sport financially. Why would the UCI ever implicate another top rider after the whole bert/la fiasco? They would seem to benefit greatly from miracle stories and such.

As I understand it, the UCI has the system set up be the only entity who could implicate a rider with doping.

Am I off base here for is this really the way the sport is setup?
They have to deter certain riders (e.g. Hamilton) to let the highest bidders (e.g. Armstrong) win the races.
 
Briant_Gumble said:
I agree completely with the second paragraph but the vast majority of pro wrestlers do die young.

I am extremely embarrassed to admit that I watched it obsessively from the ages of 9-13 so looking back now 10 years later I can see most of the guys I watched are dead.

It's some of the most successful guys like Brett Hart and Hulk Hogan who are still alive but most of the other top guys are not alive.

I'd say its about the equivalent of 80% of cyclists finishing between 5th-15th in the Tour De France between 93-2003 not living to their 50th birthday dying sometime between 30 and 50.
I also watched it at that age 10 years ago, and looking back at the stars from then

Rock, Lesnar, Hogan, Stone cold, Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Taker, Angle, Y2J none of them are dead even though some are in their 50's and 60's and some are still performing.

In fact most wrestlers are quite old before they even start because they tend to come from other sports, - NFL, amateur wrestling, and then need 3 or 4 years before they can even start to make their way up, so they are usually in their 30s before they even start.

the ones who died to my knowledge are Eddy Guerrero, who was apparently a result of heavy steroid and recreational drug use in his youth.
Chris Benoit killed his family but apparently his descent to madness was a result of sever brain damage from repeated concussions.
I also heard one of the Rocks cousins who performed various rolls in wwe died. Who else?
 
cycling1776 said:
Doping obviously hurts the sport financially. Why would the UCI ever implicate another top rider after the whole bert/la fiasco? They would seem to benefit greatly from miracle stories and such.

As I understand it, the UCI has the system set up be the only entity who could implicate a rider with doping.

Am I off base here for is this really the way the sport is setup?
You are right, only it's how the IOC wants anti-doping set up. This is how all Olympic sports using the bio-passport are run.

But, it's even worse than that though. Often times the national sports federation, the rules-enforcing authority for an athlete, is as invested in the rider never testing positive as anyone. And since the UCI is, barely, a collective of all national cycling federations, there's no higher authority.

It's how self-policing really works.
 
What is the solution?

The Hitch said:
This for me is the million dollar issue, always has been. Sport governing bodies can only lose from catching their riders doping. That's why FIFA doesn't want blood doping. That's why the itf covered up agassi. That's why uci covered up lance. If you don't catch the dopers you get buts in seats and sell merchandise. If you do you lose out in every single way + see hypocrites say that your sport is the dirty one.

does anyone really think if you went and told a sport body president they need to catch dopers that they would do anything other than laugh at you? If your important it might turn out like that scene between mayor Royce and carcetti in the wire. A handshake a, a promise to look into it and then they wonder who the **** you think you are afterwards.

The war on drugs in sport is like the war on recreational drugs. There are too many rewards for those who take part and in this case, often a lot at risk for those who don't.

If it ever is to be won, it's gonna take a lot more than what has been done so far.
What you are saying is there is no incentive for any national or internationl sporting organization to expose doping in their sport, because it make the sport look bad, hurts "ticket" sales and hurts the flogging of merchandise. It means that national and international sporting organizations will lose money and credibility. I believe you are bang on.

So what is the next step? National governments could withdraw financial support for these organizations assuming they get funding to begin with from their governments. Australia has made this fairly clear in the case of cycling. National governments could withdraw funding for Olympic training and expenses. I suspect Canada would be prepared to do this.

A further push to have independent ADAs given carte blanche to go after athletes might help. Or give WADA the right to license athletes in any sport. If you want to participate in pro cycling then you have to prove to WADA your bona fides and get a release or you don't race.

Obviously the ultimate extension of this would be - if you want to play football for Man U, before we can sign you to a contract English law requires you to provide us a release from WADA. This of course sets up an organization like WADA up to be the ultimate God of sport. Is that what it is going to take?

You have been around for a while. I am curious as to what you think might work when you say, "If it ever is to be won, it's gonna take a lot more than what has been done so far" Thanks :D
 
RobbieCanuck said:
You have been around for a while. I am curious as to what you think might work when you say, "If it ever is to be won, it's gonna take a lot more than what has been done so far" Thanks :D
That was just a diplomatic way of putting it in case anyone was going to call me defeatist or sensationalist. Personally I don't know of any solutions. Your one of giving Wada far more power is better than anything I can think off. To challenge corruption it would probably be best as a dictatorship with a man of honour like **** Pound, at the head.

But of course for the same reasons why governing bodies don't do anything about doping now, they are unlikely to accept such changes.

The think about national governments is they deal with far worse stuff than doping on a day to day basis. So doping is itself a very light crime compared to other things they have to deal with and far easier to justify. So if national sporting success raises national moral and gets kids doing activities, gets them away from gangs, who are they to say no. Last week there was some story about how the French government made deals with FIFA and the IOC about not testing.

I guess the best we can expect from governments is to make anti doping a bigger deal in the youth teams, because what success they acheive or fail to achieve will come under someone elses term.
 
RobbieCanuck said:
What you are saying is there is no incentive for any national or internationl sporting organization to expose doping in their sport, because it make the sport look bad, hurts "ticket" sales and hurts the flogging of merchandise. It means that national and international sporting organizations will lose money and credibility. I believe you are bang on.

So what is the next step? National governments could withdraw financial support for these organizations assuming they get funding to begin with from their governments. Australia has made this fairly clear in the case of cycling. National governments could withdraw funding for Olympic training and expenses. I suspect Canada would be prepared to do this.

A further push to have independent ADAs given carte blanche to go after athletes might help. Or give WADA the right to license athletes in any sport. If you want to participate in pro cycling then you have to prove to WADA your bona fides and get a release or you don't race.

Obviously the ultimate extension of this would be - if you want to play football for Man U, before we can sign you to a contract English law requires you to provide us a release from WADA. This of course sets up an organization like WADA up to be the ultimate God of sport. Is that what it is going to take?

You have been around for a while. I am curious as to what you think might work when you say, "If it ever is to be won, it's gonna take a lot more than what has been done so far" Thanks :D
Awhile back, LeMond suggested that people should quit their UCI membership in protest. In my opinion, that was a brilliant idea. But a poster on this forum strongly objected to this, because race promoters would be hurt and riders had to race. I think a lot of people shared that poster's point of view. LeMond's idea didn't go anywhere.

Look at the antidoping talkers on this forum. On the one hand, they talk serious antidoping talk (always stuff that somebody else needs to do), but on the other hand, they themselves don't take any significant antidoping action--they're still following the races, discussing them online (i.e., promoting them), and buying all the high priced racing stuff sported by the (doping) pros.

Nobody really cares about antidoping to the point where they are going to stand up and do anything about it--from the pros, to the elite racers, to the amateurs, to the fans. Why should the UCI bother to change anything? They're just weathering the storm right now, like they've weathered the storm time and time again.

Pro cycling is a joke, from top to bottom. Nothing is going to change. The only thing to do is enjoy the joke--and pity the guinea pigs as the years of hormonal abuse take their toll.
 
cycling1776 said:
How could catching dopers help the sport financially? Look at other sports like tennis. The very very few that are caught are absolute nobodies. To the public, tennis doesn't have a problem vs cycling.
Well, ideally, the testing is so thorough that people don't even risk to dope and thus nobody gets caught because nobody does anything wrong.

How realistic that is, is a different question of course.
 
May 26, 2009
460
0
0
MarkW in #14 is saying much of what i have been criticised for , in recent times .

Until more people are visible , the authorities that CAN ACT , will not have the grounds needed to ACT !

So there are people doing things behind the scenes ? Great to hear , BUT it is ONLY Visibility , that gets significant results !

Secret ballots do not get the same results as a show of Hands . Being PointMan on an issue such as this is RISKY , but LeMond has far more credibility than such as myself .
 
Aug 18, 2012
1,171
0
0
The Hitch said:
Rock, Lesnar, Stone cold, Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Taker, Angle, Y2J
None of those guys are in their 50's and 60's, Hogan was the only guy on your list who is older and he was never the biggest/most toned guy, partly just a tall and charismatic guy.

Of those guys Lesnar almost died from diverticulitis, I believe related to poor diet and anabolic steroid use. Triple H has had a dramatic body transformation and now looks like a doughball so I wonder if his doctor found something dodgy with his bloodwork and told him to cycle off or if the "wellness programme" made him be cautious with his use.

Wrestlers who I watched who died young:

Andrew "Test" Martin 33
Crash Holly 33
Umaga 36
Eddie Guerrero 38
Rick rude 40
Chris Benoit 40
British bull dog davey boy smith 40
Big boss man 40
Curt Hennig 43
Yokozuna 43

This list is good, I think it includes some people's real name who I would only know by their ring name:

http://prowrestling.about.com/od/whatsrealwhatsfake/a/wrestlersdeaths.htm
 
MarkvW said:
Awhile back, LeMond suggested that people should quit their UCI membership in protest. In my opinion, that was a brilliant idea. But a poster on this forum strongly objected to this, because race promoters would be hurt and riders had to race. I think a lot of people shared that poster's point of view. LeMond's idea didn't go anywhere.
In principal, it is a good idea. The only thing the promoter does is get their event insurance elsewhere. But, Lemond's suggestion misses the point.

USA Cycling Development Foundation is an undefeatable zombie monster.
-It has a legally blessed monopoly on competitive bike racing. Examine the end of Colorado's independent federation as an example of how they abuse their monopoly.
-It is funded by the USOC and USAC member revenue.
-Thom Wiesel is the only entity "in charge."
-Not subject to IOC, WADA or USA Cycling rules. Anything goes! Just don't get caught.

I don't think Lemond even understands that this IS the current model for athlete development and how effective it is at enabling doping.

In other countries, there is a more direct taxpayer support of the sport so they can't pass funds straight through like they do at USA Cycling, but still the same monopoly and there's a good deal of effort going into replicating the SKY/BC, USPS/USACDF model within their laws.
 
cycling1776 said:
Doping obviously hurts the sport financially. Why would the UCI ever implicate another top rider after the whole bert/la fiasco? They would seem to benefit greatly from miracle stories and such.

As I understand it, the UCI has the system set up be the only entity who could implicate a rider with doping.

Am I off base here for is this really the way the sport is setup?

UCI currently profits both ways:
1-) Bribes to allow their "selected" riders to "train harder & obtain marginal gains"
2-) if they do get caught-they must pay up penalties.

Add the fact that every PRO Team "must" pay Anti-doping fees for testing.


there you have it;)
 
Briant_Gumble said:
None of those guys are in their 50's and 60's, Hogan was the only guy on your list who is older and he was never the biggest/most toned guy, partly just a tall and charismatic guy.

Of those guys Lesnar almost died from diverticulitis, I believe related to poor diet and anabolic steroid use. Triple H has had a dramatic body transformation and now looks like a doughball so I wonder if his doctor found something dodgy with his bloodwork and told him to cycle off or if the "wellness programme" made him be cautious with his use.

Wrestlers who I watched who died young:

Andrew "Test" Martin 33
Crash Holly 33
Umaga 36
Eddie Guerrero 38
Rick rude 40
Chris Benoit 40
British bull dog davey boy smith 40
Big boss man 40
Curt Hennig 43
Yokozuna 43

This list is good, I think it includes some people's real name who I would only know by their ring name:

http://prowrestling.about.com/od/whatsrealwhatsfake/a/wrestlersdeaths.htm

MAybe doping killed them, but maybe wrestling itself did damage to the body.

Getting smacked around in a ring is hardly conjucive to good health.
 
Aug 18, 2012
1,171
0
0
del1962 said:
MAybe doping killed them, but maybe wrestling itself did damage to the body.

Getting smacked around in a ring is hardly conjucive to good health.
That's true to an extent but I wasn't aware of a similar list of pro boxers who had 300 amateur fights and 40 professional fights but died early. Same with Muay Thai fighters, kick boxers, amateur wrestlers etc.
 
Briant_Gumble said:
That's true to an extent but I wasn't aware of a similar list of pro boxers who had 300 amateur fights and 40 professional fights but died early. Same with Muay Thai fighters, kick boxers, amateur wrestlers etc.
More importantly, large men wearing tights while faking it is a much better analogy for cycling.

Dave.
 
Aug 18, 2012
1,171
0
0
D-Queued said:
More importantly, large men wearing tights while faking it is a much better analogy for cycling.

Dave.
Yeah it's getting a bit off topic, there are two ways its relevant:

Synthetic testosterone has been shown to cause atherosclerosis which brought about the heart attacks for many of these guys, cyclists use it but in much smaller doses so its loosely relevant.

The idea if PEDs as a gateway drug and a reliance on drugs as an answer to life's problems as many of these guys died in a similar way to Marco Pantani.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS