What caused anti doping zeal?

[scribe]

Athletes dying turned the tide. Prior to that, an athlete's use of substances was seen as another layer of preparation and scientific progress.

 

[Oldman]

Ah good old Speedway, 247 posts too many.
The fact is it is the huge increase in the effectiveness of doping protocols within about the past 30 years that have made a backlash against doping both inevitable and nescessary.

+several. In the earlier days the enhancements were primitive and if you overused the consequences probably diminished your career. Tom Simpson's death highlighted that overuse and the motivation to pursue the win. Prior to that most performance "aids" were probably more voodoo than helpful.
Fast forward to current times where medical intervention can actually render an above average athlete into a champion on a scale never experienced. "Champions" could then be complete frauds and that bothered many fans and purists.
For me it was much more personal. Starting late in life and knowing something about comforts and a reasonable income I never lusted for the pro's existence. At best it is painful and for domestiques it is a torturous progression of bad hotels, crooked promoters and DS's and races you'd never want to do. To break out of the dometique's role was tough and openned the door for PED's wider. Seeing young teammates put in the work and show real talent was gratifying. Seeing those same riders manipulated and used by USA Cycling was irritating. Seeing young, willful riders in that program suddenly experience questionable performance gains and being embraced by the Federation, while legit riders were told they needed to "take care of themselves" to achieve similar results was totally disheartening. That some of those Federation program riders became wealthy self-promoting franchises while claiming a pristine pedigree became unacceptable. It started a long time ago and the issue is finally being faced. I don't hate anyone but do feel for the careers that might have been.

 

[BikeCentric]

Recombinant DNA technology is what changed the sport. As soon as science developed synthetic drugs and hormones that could be injected and were so powerfull that they obviously changed both the nature of racing and the outcome of the races the anti-doping zeal was ignited in a lot of fans and racers. I don't think we can put the genie back in the bottle. The best we can hope for is an independant drug-testing body and really that would be fine for me as the corruption, double-standards, and organized crime surrounding the sport needs to go away just as much the drugs do.

 

[michaeld]

Antidoping Zeal: The desire to give clean riders a fair chance.

 

[Polish]

Athletes dying turned the tide. Prior to that, an athlete's use of substances was seen as another layer of preparation and scientific progress.

But the anti-doping zeal really kicked into high gear long after many of the deaths.

Many of the zealots have become more vocal just in the last 10 years or so.

21st Century.

Mr Pound, Mr Bordry, Mr LeMond, Walsh, Kimmage, Mrs Andreau.
Sure, they talk about the deaths, but is that the REAL source of their zealousness?

 

[shawnrohrbach]

Somthing thats puzzled me for a while is the change in attitudes to doping over the last 30 years +.
Back in the late 70`s when I began the attitude of many club riders to the pro scene was an acceptance of doping as in there " profesional".
Possitive tests were seen as profesional "fouls" and dealt with as such, short suspensions and fines.
After 17 years way from the sport the change in attitude is quite amazing, now dopers are seen as lower than pond life!.
What caused this change?
This has puzzled me for a while and today it finaly struck me that the change seems to coincide with the arrival of EPO and the inclusion of pro`s in the Olympics and ending of Amatuer as an elite catogory.
Epo changed the "believability". As understanding of the massive boost in performance Epo gave no longer could fans compare riders from differant eras. Everything that went before was being crushed. That "trashing" of the history has , I think created a fury amongst long standing fans.
The ending of the Elite Amatuer catogory and inclusion Olympics going pro meant pro the only Elite racing a fan could follow was pro..pre that change it was easy to ignore pro racing if ya felt it was all down to doping, and many clubmen did.
I never agreed with the ending of amatuer elites, the lines may have seamed blurry but there was a differance, money.
Its kinda ironic that the pro`s desision ( I dont recall the amatuers being consulted?) to make all elite racing pro and end Amatuer Elite seems to be proving there undoing.
Thoughts peeps?

The problem is the "sport" was sold and continues to be sold as a healthy, clean (drug free) and fun thing for young people to aspire to. Pro cycliong was able to filter the news much more easily in the past, and thereby hide the doping. Only those "in the know" (wink wink) knew the extent to which pros were doping. In the more modern era, what gripes people is the lying for the money. "Never doped" "The most tested rider ever and no signs of doping". Crap like that. If doping is not a problem, just talk about it like we talk about whether we eat steak before a race or pee while riding. Just make it common knowledge and be transparent about it. I think you know the answer already; people would walk away from the "sport" and then you are left with the same crowd of fifty or so people from the 60's in the US who would even care what the results are. Or maybe the pro-wrestling crowd would get interested and watch. At least with them when I do tune in I know it's all staged and when some kid plops down fifty bucks to see them live, it is just nothing more than clown entertainment. Go in with a buzz and yell like a mad man and walk away thoroughly entertained knowing everyone is jacked up on roids. Fun things to do on a sunny day.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

How about EPO use being linked to 18+ deaths of young pro cyclists in their prime? That's enough for me.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/19/u...linked-to-athletes-deaths.html?pagewanted=all

Exactly! It's partially about safety of the riders and others affected by what's allowed at the pro level. What's allowed at the pro level, no matter which sport, filters down to the amateur, collegiate, and high school levels.

 

[rhubroma]

Somthing thats puzzled me for a while is the change in attitudes to doping over the last 30 years +.
Back in the late 70`s when I began the attitude of many club riders to the pro scene was an acceptance of doping as in there " profesional".
Possitive tests were seen as profesional "fouls" and dealt with as such, short suspensions and fines.
After 17 years way from the sport the change in attitude is quite amazing, now dopers are seen as lower than pond life!.
What caused this change?
This has puzzled me for a while and today it finaly struck me that the change seems to coincide with the arrival of EPO and the inclusion of pro`s in the Olympics and ending of Amatuer as an elite catogory.
Epo changed the "believability". As understanding of the massive boost in performance Epo gave no longer could fans compare riders from differant eras. Everything that went before was being crushed. That "trashing" of the history has , I think created a fury amongst long standing fans.
The ending of the Elite Amatuer catogory and inclusion Olympics going pro meant pro the only Elite racing a fan could follow was pro..pre that change it was easy to ignore pro racing if ya felt it was all down to doping, and many clubmen did.
I never agreed with the ending of amatuer elites, the lines may have seamed blurry but there was a differance, money.
Its kinda ironic that the pro`s desision ( I dont recall the amatuers being consulted?) to make all elite racing pro and end Amatuer Elite seems to be proving there undoing.
Thoughts peeps?

Ever since Lemond brought into the sport that "American Ethic," was doping inadvertantly made into a topic of serious discussion. The internationalization of cycling, into the US domain (with the record of Simpson's death as a point of contact in the Anglo-American partnership), had brought with it a new scrutiny in regards to "fair play" and health issues rather absent in the Latin-Belgo sporting sub-cultures at the time. Call it the zeitgeist of a cold war belief in purity as embelmatic of Western virtue, even if this myth was entirely artificial. The intrigues of a Continental sport entered a new market. A new scenario was created at the dawn of even more advanced forms of doping. Now everybody is envolved.

 

[Darryl Webster]

My thoughts (while also agreeing with interesting points made above):

Your original point about the death of amateurism can be made about most sports. In the 60's-70's there were pros and amateurs (some sports of course having no pro outlet). By the late 60's-early 70's the Olympic movement was turning a blind eye to so-called under-the-table payments by federations and manufacturers. In the 70's they made those payments official. In the 80's the Olympics "went pro" by inviting major pro sports such as basketball, hockey, tennis. This was an effort on the part of the IOC to monopolize sport and become the world's premier elite sporting brand. It was also a complete sell-out of the Olympic ideal and principles.

The dominos tumbled quickly after that. Pro level national programs, $million medal incentives, state doping programs, the death of amateurism. The modern Olympic movement lasted about 80 years and devoured its young.

Cycling was swept up in the same trend. But cycling had a unique history as perhaps the world's only professional extreme endurance sport. Apocryphal tales of doping were always a part of its lore. When doping swept the world of sport in the 70's, cycling's unique sporting requirements of both power and endurance = fertile ground for PED's of all kinds. Etc etc.

The corruption of the IOC (and the UCI) leads to the corruption of sport as it becomes a manipulated gladiatorial spectacle. Having gorged on this spectacle and manipulation, the public becomes ill, and opinion about PED's is also a reflection of that.

Lovers of cycling hate all this bullshyte, but they set it all aside and love it anyway as they know the feeling of the sporting ideal that inspired them in their youth, and know that it continues to inspire their favorite riders as they follow their dreams in an imperfect world that is not of their own making.

Great post! ...a lot of interesting comments peeps..most of which I`d say have played there part.
Essentialy the "zeel" is a perspective..the internet and accese to information has given a platform previously not available to those with simialer perspective..a voice to loud to ignore when media mainstreem media picks it up.
Sponsors, no matter how big they are "know" doping is part of every major sport...they know there stuck with the conudrum..." we want the bigest, fastest etc.... that sells ...but at the same time have to publicly distance themselves from possitive tests of the very stuff that makes that possible.
A hungry media always wanting a new superlative to grab a headline..finishing first isnt enough...records must.. fall plays a major part in creating that climate...the sports themselves , hungry for the sponsorship money that tv in particuler brings in drive a "win at all costs mentality..2nd is for , well "losers".
The naive fan and casual supporter laps it up...its"proof" that man is still geting " better"...theres a certain "feel good" to that thought...thats atractive...that sells.
Broblem is is there ARE natural limits...how close we are to them is not 100% known but its clear some performances have supased em.
Those who accept those limits are angered by this domination of the "Superman" concept outlined by Friedrich Nietzsche in our culture.
We understand that Superman is a work of fiction and folly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche

 

[usedtobefast]

when one guy won 7 TDF's in a row, and then allegations came out about
"preparation" and such it really changed here in the US. BALCO did a lot
as well. as was stated, the Olympic movement became a joke that was all
about money, and sport was the means to get the money.
money changes everything. if you are a person trying to earn a living in sport at
a minor level or you are a big star or you are a staff person or team manager, it is your job to do well and also provide for your family. a place i once worked for
had a motto, "whatever it takes". and that was trying to get people to buy stuff.
as the the people that worked there were on commission, cheating and underhanded deal making was always there as well. it had nothing to do with
any drug, just earning a living. take a look at the world we live in.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

But the anti-doping zeal really kicked into high gear long after many of the deaths.

Many of the zealots have become more vocal just in the last 10 years or so.

21st Century.

Mr Pound, Mr Bordry, Mr LeMond, Walsh, Kimmage, Mrs Andreau.
Sure, they talk about the deaths, but is that the REAL source of their zealousness?

Kimmage published "Rough Ride" in 1990.

It's interesting though that the general reaction was that he was a guy who couldn't cut it making nasty excuses for his failure. McQuaid, long before he was head of the UCI, was prominent in criticising Kimmage at the time.

In retrospect, of course, Kimmage could change his name to Paul "I ****ing told you so " Kimmage and nobody could reasonably object.

 

[TexPat]

In an age of fake plastic everything, it would be nice to see a truly authentic display of what humanity is capable of. No smoke and mirrors. No signatures rendered to contracts without true intentions. No nice-guy-in-public but charlatan in private. No wolves in sheeps clothing.
This is what is at the core of sport, I beleive. This is the ethos that drives public interest in sports like cycling, for the most part. We want to believe that the guy down the street accomplished a truly amazing feat.
For the majority of those who play by the rules even when it often doesn't suit us, when we feel that with a bit of rule bending we ourselves may be capable of noteworthy accomplishment, it would be deeply satisfying to know that the guy who wins has played by the same rules, and not because he had more money, or a better doctor, or undue influence with those who are entrusted with establishing and enforcing those rules.
It's a matter of respect.
It's why queue jumpers are so worthy of derision.
It's why social Darwinism, however unjustly appropriated, should be forever disallowed.
When the war of attrition that is an alpine stage of a grand tour leaves only one competitor remaining, it should be because that individual has earned it through will, planning, tactics, good genes and good fortune. For me, that is the truest and most valid display of the human endeavour.
For cycling to slip further into the realm of seediness like boxing or wrestling is very troubling to me.
I have been accused of being far too idealistic, however.

 

[L'arriviste]

+1 to the death of amateurism and capability of humanity, as per posts above.

When our leaders serve themselves, when our jobs are given to poorly educated, poorly paid kids on another Continent just to profit shareholders, when our media are controlling and hopelessly biased, when our personal information is duplicated, multiplied, sold and lost, when ordinary, decent, hard-working people are taken for cretins, maybe we just want something to be uncomplicated and pure.

Cycling as mere spectacle will always be like that. A beautiful, photogenic thing. But if you develop a greater interest in the people and the history, then it's just another surface and maybe you feel you're being cheated out of one of the few things you really care about.

 

[Paco_P]

One possible difference: maybe the pills that folks took in the 60s really didn't do as much for the riders as they thought - or to put it another way maybe what changed was how good and how available the doping technology is - maybe pills cost a little, and did a little, but what goes on now costs a lot and does a lot - it's a bit like Sylvester Stallone on steroids vs Sylvester Stallone on growth hormone - one looks silly - the other looks grotesque.

Another thought: perhaps Armstrong's domination of the TdF does have something to do with it - Armstrong is a polarizing figure - as many hate him as love him - and many hate him first for his arrogant personality - and for those who hate him, seeing him win repeatedly was galling - and embracing an aggressive anti-doping posture serves as a way of discrediting Armstrong, even if, by the way, it discredits everyone else too. Perhaps Armstrong and his ilk also made doping appear uglier than it had before - silencing the dissenting voices and the like.

Another thing occurred - cycling is of course not the only sport in which doping is rampant. In the US there was increased awareness (and corresponding disillusionment among the general public) of widespread doping in track and field (of course this also was nothing new) and in professional sports, baseball in particular. And yet, among all these dope-ridden sports, there was none in which so many were caught as cycling - so cycling looks the worst - even if US football (for example) is surely comparable on any level - and this lead to a reaction among cyclists and cycling fans - no one wants to be the dirtiest.

 

[marioni]

Doping - its bad for business.

But it's great for racing.

 

[hrotha]

But it's great for racing.

Is it? I hear everyone complaining about how boring cycling became in the 90s and 00s compared to the 80s because of EPO raising everyone's level so much it became easy to control races and because recovery doping meant you only bonked if you screwed up your program.

 

[alpine_chav]

How about EPO use being linked to 18+ deaths of young pro cyclists in their prime? That's enough for me.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/19/u...linked-to-athletes-deaths.html?pagewanted=all

That was a long time ago. Things have improved since then. Try getting into your 1991 car and see how good it is compared to the latest version... same rules apply for drugs