What would be worse for cycling?

[Big Doopie]

Thought this could interesting. Would it be worse for cycling to crown an unrepentant doper or what many think is a new one (just not caught yet)?

 

[ElChingon]

Why couldn't I pick both?

 

[Jason_Mercier]

Of course would be worse if Froome wins it. With him would be winning the "modern cycling" the perfect set up, the science, the control... this is what is killing our sport.

If the science and the controlled efforts beat the talent and the classic riding cycling will be in decline.


For the bussiness at the moment is better the Froome's victory... but for cycling, what we all of us call Cycling, the Froome's victory would be a very bad news.

 

[alitogata]

I think that Cycling as a sport is damaged anyway, because most, don't say all, of the riders are doped. So it doesn't matter who is going to win as in people's minds Cycling has become a sport of and for dopers, that can't inspire people any more, because nobody is able to identify a part of his or herself in its athletes.

(The other day my 82 y.o father, retired now, but amateur cyclist for all his life, didn't even bother to stay tuned on the channel that transmitted Giro d' Italia. He just watch it for a couple of seconds and then changed channel and said: Pffff dopers. If a person of that age, and this past, says something like this, then it is easy to see what is the damage that doping has done on Cycling.)

So Wiggins or Froome???.. Who cares...

 

[S2Sturges]

I still say that Sky has done almost as much damage to cycling as Armstrong and his silly business.. Are they clean..? What's clean anymore, marginal gains may been micro dosing EPO, maybe it's sitting at altitude, injecting various peptides,or training to the power meter.. As many have said, the panache has long since disappeared from pro cycling, we're lucky we get a lion hearted breakaway or dramatic mountain top finish much anymore.. As we have seen from virtually every race Sky was entered in, they just seize control and stifle any initiatives.. If that's exciting racing, you're heart rate will go up looking at double entry accounting..
This is where Armstrong has caused the most damage, as we know.. any striking performance, any panache, causes the eyebrows to raise and the first thought many have is "what is he on?" In the case of Sky you have to ask the whole team what are they on, apparently nothing but hard work and marginal gains.. but why doesn't anyone believe them? And when they get popped in a year or two when there are tests sophisticated enough to catch them, what then? Damage has long been done, podium girls kissed and flowers tossed.. And the cycle will repeat itself with someone else

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

That is like asking 'Would you rather have horrible illness A or horrible illness B'

(I would suggest some illnesses, but given how sensitve the teenagers are to any criticism of their heroes, the post would only be reported with 'wah wah wah, someone compared Contador winning the TDF to having cancer' and blah blah blah).

I'll go for Dertie Cont - simply because his fanboys are more infantile and emotionally *** than the Skybots, plus they wheel out 'but he's so naturally talented line'. While no one can claim that about Froome and keep a straight face.

Froome - the British Rumsas. (Till he gets popped and then he'll become Kenyan Froome)

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Both are equals in the current circus.

Will it be a somewhat funny and entertaining circus, thats the question for me.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Froome because sky's the new US Postal and I don't like Froome

 

[Miburo]

Froome obviously, cause the general public will really start believing in clean cycling then cause froome beat a clean Contador. While the 2 of them are most likely still doping.

If Contador wins many will think it's cause of the dope he start taking again cause of the poor results, not many illusions will be made then while if froome wins there will be. And when he gets caught the damage will be way bigger than with contador.

Also it would be nice to see that the sky train gets destroyed but that's clinic aside.

 

[Lanark]

Doesn't matter. Both are ridiculous cheats, both should be caught and banned as soon as possible.

 

[the asian]

A Froome win at the Tour along with a Cookson victory at the UCI elections will be the worst.

 

[ebandit]

sport

don't lose heart our sport is always bigger than any rider............times are

changing ( slowly ) for the better

i choose not to vote.................however a possibly clean winner in froomey

would be good IF he is clean

alberto has served his time.........ditto if he is riding clean now

Mark L

 

[hrotha]

I think that, after Contador's positive leaked and the UCI realized they couldn't save him, he became "damaged goods", PR-wise. Around that time, the UCI started to talk up Andy, but he didn't have what it takes. Therefore, I believe Contador is a regular rider right now, without any special protection or official sanction, unlike Froome, and thus Froome's victory would be worse.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

You should have allowed multiple voting.

 

[spalco]

I think that, after Contador's positive leaked and the UCI realized they couldn't save him, he became "damaged goods", PR-wise. Around that time, the UCI started to talk up Andy, but he didn't have what it takes. Therefore, I believe Contador is a regular rider right now, without any special protection or official sanction, unlike Froome, and thus Froome's victory would be worse.

I'm really doubtful of this "protected rider" theory. Back in the dark days, yes, but not now.

I can believe that some riders might have superior access to knowledge about testing procedures and could thus be able to better manage their risk of getting caught, but I don't think the UCI can protect anyone at the moment.

 

[Netserk]

I'm really doubtful of this "protected rider" theory. Back in the dark days, yes, but not now.

I can believe that some riders might have superior access to knowledge about testing procedures and could thus be able to better manage their risk of getting caught, but I don't think the UCI can protect anyone at the moment.

What changed at UCI from 2005 to 2012?

 

[Lanark]

What changed at UCI from 2005 to 2012?

Now they are heavily scrutinized because of their corrupt behavior in the past.

 

[hrotha]

What changed at UCI from 2005 to 2012?

The stability and security of the head poncho's position, I'd wager. And of his minions.

Not that I necessarily agree with spalco, mind.

 

[Netserk]

In 2012 before the RD, Pat seemed pretty secure to me.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

In the short term, Contador because a known doper is winning when the sport is trying to rebuild its public image in the wake of Armstrong's being exposed.

In the long term, Froome because it's better the devil you know. Contador is at least a known quantity; he tested positive for a minuscule amount of an obscure substance, and he will be easier to airbrush out of history if he tested positive at the 2013 Tour than a new winner. There is no way the sport can possibly attempt to hitch its wagon on a Contador win as a new start and a new era of clean cycling, which means that if he tested positive again it would be "well, there you go". It seems with the new wave of Anglophone winners has come a second "new era of clean cycling!" media charge, so if they jump on that bandwagon and Froome turns out to be the runaway freight train many believe, then it destroys a lot of work done to rehab the image of the sport.

 

[brilleaben]

Anyone who has lost a GT by seconds to Cobo (!) deserves to win.

 

[Ferminal]

I think that regardless of who wins, provided the other is good competition, it will be a great contest and that cycling will be the winner.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

That is like asking 'Would you rather have horrible illness A or horrible illness B'

Froome - the British Rumsas/Riis. (Till he gets popped and then he'll become Kenyan Froome)

Thats my take on it too.

Both have/had an illness though, just like the fool from Texxas. Sad stories sell well in cycling Nirvana.

I am not touching this poll.

 

[hiero2]

I think that regardless of who wins, provided the other is good competition, it will be a great contest and that cycling will be the winner.

Thats my take on it too.

Both have/had an illness though, just like the fool from Texxas. Sad stories sell well in cycling Nirvana.

I am not touching this poll.

Nor will I vote in it. 1 - there is no Vino option. 2 - while I may be convinced Contador doped, I am not convinced he engaged in it as seriously as the 2006 quitter club. And I am most definitely not convinced that Froome is guilty as charged by the clinic. I need to see a lot more evidence, and not just hearsay and coincidence first.

By voting at all, I will have defacto claimed I believe them guilty. Neh.

 

[happychappy]

I think that, after Contador's positive leaked and the UCI realized they couldn't save him, he became "damaged goods", PR-wise. Around that time, the UCI started to talk up Andy, but he didn't have what it takes. Therefore, I believe Contador is a regular rider right now, without any special protection or official sanction, unlike Froome, and thus Froome's victory would be worse.

You rationalised that perfectly! WOW!!!!!!!