What REALLY bothers you?

[Red Rick]

Doping barely bothers me. It's the corruption in the sport that comes with it.

 

[del1962]

Remove the lying about the doping, there just wouldn't be much doping. That is my view on things

Remove the doping and there would be no lying about it.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Doping is a problem.
Donkey to racehorse is a problem.
Corrupt regulators taking advantage is a problem.

Lie and telling stories seems trivial.

 

[Benotti69]

Doping per se does not bother me much. The riders gotta do what they gotta do. There are two things I take issue with. The first is corruption, of which the lying is a byproduct, and the second is the distortion of results.

When the powers that be decided to pretend to fight doping rather than ignore it like most rational sports management, they chose a path of corruption that has infected everything. They made lying a necessity for everyone remotely connected to pro cycling. It is hard not to think that those who deceive the public about doping would not put their thumbs on the scale in other ways. There is zero faith in the integrity of competition. It has exhibited itself in outrageous ways, like "Luigi" Cancellara telling the press the Puerto outcasts should not be at the Tour of Cali.

The situation today looks worse than ever. Instead of riders being able to take whatever they are comfortable taking, doping is reserved for those on big teams that can beat the bio passport. This is true cycling at two speeds--three if we include Froome.

The most galling thing about the situation is the way the sport denies the obvious, that doping has been rampant and pretty much everyone is culpable. It was bad enough when it was the UCI was using a scapegoating policy to pretend the problem was only a few bad guys, but now there is an entire industry dedicated to protecting the sport by blaming Armstrong for everything. Who needs McQuaid when you have Race Radio. Some of the stories being peddled (pedaled?) are ludicrous; people are actually buying these self-serving excuses of being forced to dope.

As to the second point, I do not trust any of the results. There are riders like Froome who I doubt could even get a pro contract in a clean version of cycling. The large impact of the dope has rendered the results meaningless. Without meaningful results, there is not much of a sport.

Does the doping not distort the results?

The 3 speeds is due to doping. Without dope, the less natural athletes but great responders or protected riders wouldn't be there....so it comes back to doping.

Riders gotta do what they gotta do? Is that not what Froome is doing?

Did Armstrong not do what he felt he had to do?

Was Merckx doing an Armstrong and had a cosy relationship with Adriano Rodoni/UCI back in his time?

If you allow the doping there will be distortion.

Ignoring doping is what allowed the 90s to become an EPO fest which was a total distortion of the sport. It was more about guys who responded and took huge health risks and if i want that ***, i'll watch car derbies or pro wrestling.

Now we see athletes so skinny with such strength that the distortion is still there.

I say it again, doping distorts. Riders doing what they gotta do is unpolicable and therefore leads to distortion.

 

[Justico]

i'm bothered by the hypocrisis of many posters here

dopers fanboys throwing dirt when their dopers were denied the wins for a few years.

 

[VeloFidelis]

The doping?

Or the lying about doping?

None of it bothers me, because it has always been this way. The scale has changed dramatically, but the basic motivations of riders, promoters, team managers, and sponsors has not... and likely never will.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Obviously, neither option is a very admirable trait, but I feel that doping is the worse 'sin' because it tears at the fabric of sport itself. The teams that take a stridently anti-doping stance while supporting doping in their ranks are hypocrites of the first order, but without the doping, there would be no need for this kind of Kabuki theater.

 

[Afrank]

"It's all about the game, and how you play it"

I am aware of "the game" and i know those who want to succeed in professional sports, have to play it. I loved it if that wasn't the truth, but it is and there is nothing i can real do about it. There is too much money and fame involved for people to say no to shortcuts.

So i just take it for what it is. However i don't like to see my intelligence insulted so when riders go on PR crusades on how they are winning clean because they work harder than others and stuff like that, it really gets on my nerves.

I hope every doper gets caught, even the ones i like, but i am under no illusion that the sport will ever be clean.

Exactly this, couldn't agree more.

 

[mrhender]

"It's all about the game, and how you play it"

I am aware of "the game" and i know those who want to succeed in professional sports, have to play it. I loved it if that wasn't the truth, but it is and there is nothing i can real do about it. There is too much money and fame involved for people to say no to shortcuts.

So i just take it for what it is. However i don't like to see my intelligence insulted so when riders go on PR crusades on how they are winning clean because they work harder than others and stuff like that, it really gets on my nerves.

I hope every doper gets caught, even the ones i like, but i am under no illusion that the sport will ever be clean.

Agree..

But what is clean actually?
Like totally clean, no one doping(abusing the rules) at all...?
Or clean like in other major sports (which are clean?, and how much clean?)
Problem is, we actually don't know so much about the cleanliness/level of lies in other sports, so hard to compare -for me at least..

The bolded

This gives me inner controversity..
I have a feeling that many cycling fans as myself have no illussions as to the sport beeing clean.. The thing that really trickers people is if their favorite rider gets caught but all the other dopers ride on..
This problem is not undermined by the fact of a dubious leadership in the organasations running things, hence the accumulation of anger when unjustice is done (unjustice beeing both positives/negatives)

I support cycling as a whole, and I actually don't blame individual riders for things going out of control, someone had to let go af that control in the first place.. And that is the ones who made/makes money.. Funny thing

 

[cycladianpirate]

I know it's only a straw poll, but the ratio of 2:1 against the lying doesn't surprise me in the least.

It's a vicious circle. Once someone starts, the rest have little choice but to follow. But, as has been amply stated above, it's the hypocrisy that sticks in the throat. Dope away gentlemen, but please, please don't lie to me that you aren't.

Saying nothing might be "lying by omission", but at least it doesn't insult my intelligence.

 

[del1962]

I know it's only a straw poll, but the ratio of 2:1 against the lying doesn't surprise me in the least.

It's a vicious circle. Once someone starts, the rest have little choice but to follow. But, as has been amply stated above, it's the hypocrisy that sticks in the throat. Dope away gentlemen, but please, please don't lie to me that you aren't.

Saying nothing might be "lying by omission", but at least it doesn't insult my intelligence.

So which rider when asked if they are doping says nothing?

 

[cycladianpirate]

So which rider when asked if they are doping says nothing?

You miss my point. A simple 'no' is acceptable. Going on an on about "this is a new era" is not.

 

[rhubroma]

Doping per se does not bother me much. The riders gotta do what they gotta do. There are two things I take issue with. The first is corruption, of which the lying is a byproduct, and the second is the distortion of results.

When the powers that be decided to pretend to fight doping rather than ignore it like most rational sports management, they chose a path of corruption that has infected everything. They made lying a necessity for everyone remotely connected to pro cycling. It is hard not to think that those who deceive the public about doping would not put their thumbs on the scale in other ways. There is zero faith in the integrity of competition. It has exhibited itself in outrageous ways, like "Luigi" Cancellara telling the press the Puerto outcasts should not be at the Tour of Cali.

The situation today looks worse than ever. Instead of riders being able to take whatever they are comfortable taking, doping is reserved for those on big teams that can beat the bio passport. This is true cycling at two speeds--three if we include Froome.

The most galling thing about the situation is the way the sport denies the obvious, that doping has been rampant and pretty much everyone is culpable. It was bad enough when it was the UCI was using a scapegoating policy to pretend the problem was only a few bad guys, but now there is an entire industry dedicated to protecting the sport by blaming Armstrong for everything. Who needs McQuaid when you have Race Radio. Some of the stories being peddled (pedaled?) are ludicrous; people are actually buying these self-serving excuses of being forced to dope.

As to the second point, I do not trust any of the results. There are riders like Froome who I doubt could even get a pro contract in a clean version of cycling. The large impact of the dope has rendered the results meaningless. Without meaningful results, there is not much of a sport.

This is no reason to find the Texan's character fault in becoming Al Capone any less repulsive.

 

[del1962]

You miss my point. A simple 'no' is acceptable. Going on an on about "this is a new era" is not.

I call bs on that, no journalist excepts a simple no, there are always follow up questions

Anyway better to not dope rather than the hypocracy of even a simple no.

 

[cycladianpirate]

I call bs on that, no journalist excepts a simple no, there are always follow up questions

Anyway better to not dope rather than the hypocracy of even a simple no.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. And I agree with you on the "better not to dope". Fact is, that many do and what annoys me (and others apparently) is the lies they tell.

Chacun a son gout, I suppose.

 

[Netserk]

I call bs on that, no journalist excepts a simple no, there are always follow up questions

Anyway better to not dope rather than the hypocracy of even a simple no.

When was the last time a no wasn't enough for Valverde?

 

[deValtos]

Lol @ the results of this poll ...

Obviously the doping is worse. Lying about doping is a byproduct of doing the act itself ... non dopers don't have lies to tell (about themselves). You'd be the worst doper in history if you didn't lie, "so, do you do take performancing enhancing substances ? ", "yup" ...

The whole animosity against "lying" seems to have come from (mostly) two sources, LA's brazen attitude in the past & the current sky so called "shove it down your thoat" tactics. People seem to be of the opinion that "it's disgraceful they're insulting our intelligence with these lies" (seen this line a lot in the clinic), "how dare they commit to these lies by spouting them at every chance they get, outrageous !" If you think your intelligence is actually being insulted by SKY PR or equivalent then I guarantee that it is most deserved. There is no moral or ethical difference between Valverde's "my conscience is clear" and Froome's "I don't take drugs", if you want to pretend their is so you can get "extra offended" then more power to you diverting discussion away from actual issues ... damn, if anything at least Sky's policies keeps the doping topic relevant and people asking questions ...

It's not hard to see why cycling isn't getting cleaned up when even a large majority of it's hardcore supporters (i.e cycling forum members) are doping apologists ...

 

[BYOP88]

Lol @ the results of this poll ...

Obviously the doping is worse. Lying about doping is a byproduct of doing the act itself ... non dopers don't have lies to tell (about themselves). You'd be the worst doper in history if you didn't lie, "so, do you do take performancing enhancing substances ? ", "yup" ...

The whole animosity against "lying" seems to have come from (mostly) two sources, LA's brazen attitude in the past & the current sky so called "shove it down your thoat" tactics. People seem to be of the opinion that "it's disgraceful they're insulting our intelligence with these lies" (seen this line a lot in the clinic), "how dare they commit to these lies by spouting them at every chance they get, outrageous !" If you think your intelligence is actually being insulted by SKY PR or equivalent then I guarantee that it is most deserved. There is no moral or ethical difference between Valverde's "my conscience is clear" and Froome's "I don't take drugs", if you want to pretend their is so you can get "extra offended" then more power to you diverting discussion away from actual issues ... damn, if anything at least Sky's policies keeps the doping topic relevant and people asking questions ...

It's not hard to see why cycling isn't getting cleaned up when even a large majority of it's hardcore supporters (i.e cycling forum members) are doping apologists ...

Seconded.



.....

 

[VeloFidelis]

If you allow the doping there will be distortion.

Ignoring doping is what allowed the 90s to become an EPO fest which was a total distortion of the sport. It was more about guys who responded and took huge health risks and if i want that ***, i'll watch car derbies or pro wrestling.

I say it again, doping distorts. Riders doing what they gotta do is unpolicable and therefore leads to distortion.

Doping is NOT allowed and there is still "distortion". Allowing or not allowing doping is not the issue. Doping is one of many calculated risks that every athlete, in every sport, evaluates as part of a strategy. As long as the perceived reward out weighs the perceived risk, it will continue to be here. To believe otherwise is to refute human nature, and the motivations of sport.

 

[djpbaltimore]

When was the last time a no wasn't enough for Valverde?

With all the different languages and media from all around the world, I couldn't even begin to answer that question. But I feel that the degree of outspokenness is almost directly related to the degree of scrutiny. Valverde may have more leeway to give a passive 'no' when he is on the fringes of podium contention. I think that changes drastically if he is winning the TDF. For the last 2 years, Sky have been on top in the race that gets the most attention from fans and media alike. Their dominance has merited a grilling from the media about doping, almost demanding more and more vociferous denials on their part.

If Contador battles back to take the jersey, I think the scrutiny will definitely be on him and I imagine he will go much farther than a simple 'no'.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Voted B...

But what really really really bothers me is that Horner is still in the race. This biggest ever cheat doesn´t belong there...

 

[MBotero]

Lol @ the results of this poll ...

Obviously the doping is worse. Lying about doping is a byproduct of doing the act itself ... non dopers don't have lies to tell (about themselves). You'd be the worst doper in history if you didn't lie, "so, do you do take performancing enhancing substances ? ", "yup" ...

The whole animosity against "lying" seems to have come from (mostly) two sources, LA's brazen attitude in the past & the current sky so called "shove it down your thoat" tactics. People seem to be of the opinion that "it's disgraceful they're insulting our intelligence with these lies" (seen this line a lot in the clinic), "how dare they commit to these lies by spouting them at every chance they get, outrageous !" If you think your intelligence is actually being insulted by SKY PR or equivalent then I guarantee that it is most deserved. There is no moral or ethical difference between Valverde's "my conscience is clear" and Froome's "I don't take drugs", if you want to pretend their is so you can get "extra offended" then more power to you diverting discussion away from actual issues ... damn, if anything at least Sky's policies keeps the doping topic relevant and people asking questions ...

It's not hard to see why cycling isn't getting cleaned up when even a large majority of it's hardcore supporters (i.e cycling forum members) are doping apologists ...

+1
Pretty much this,great post.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

....

What´s worse in life;
That evil things are done, or that (powerful) people lie about it?
That they lie about it. Talking the truth about the things would start clean up things...

I feel comfotable with my vote B, and being still no doping apologist. I just live in reality.

Your post sounds great and intelligent, but doesn´t hit the nail...

 

[del1962]

Lol @ the results of this poll ...

Obviously the doping is worse. Lying about doping is a byproduct of doing the act itself ... non dopers don't have lies to tell (about themselves). You'd be the worst doper in history if you didn't lie, "so, do you do take performancing enhancing substances ? ", "yup" ...

The whole animosity against "lying" seems to have come from (mostly) two sources, LA's brazen attitude in the past & the current sky so called "shove it down your thoat" tactics. People seem to be of the opinion that "it's disgraceful they're insulting our intelligence with these lies" (seen this line a lot in the clinic), "how dare they commit to these lies by spouting them at every chance they get, outrageous !" If you think your intelligence is actually being insulted by SKY PR or equivalent then I guarantee that it is most deserved. There is no moral or ethical difference between Valverde's "my conscience is clear" and Froome's "I don't take drugs", if you want to pretend their is so you can get "extra offended" then more power to you diverting discussion away from actual issues ... damn, if anything at least Sky's policies keeps the doping topic relevant and people asking questions ...

It's not hard to see why cycling isn't getting cleaned up when even a large majority of it's hardcore supporters (i.e cycling forum members) are doping apologists ...

Good post sir

 

[hrotha]

Hold on a second, that's not a great post, that's one gigantic strawman. No one who said they're mostly bothered by the hypocrisy is a "doping apologist". There's a huge difference.

In my case, I voted it's the lies and the hypocrisy. That's not because I'm OK with the doping, but because I acknowledge that doping has not historically been an ethics issue within the peloton and therefore I can't realistically expect any changes in that regard without a profound cultural shift in the peloton. The lying and the hypocrisy, however, is different, because it's something that's definitely changed the last 10-15 years, and which applies to society as a whole outside of cycling. I can't tell why I'd do if confronted with the possibility to dope as a pro rider so I'm in no position to judge, but I'm exposed to hypocrisy and lies in my daily life.