• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

What would it take?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
Chuffy said:
What, seriously? I'm confused - I don't see how my OP came remotely close to that and it certainly wasn't my intention to attack anyone or anything.

I don't mind being asked to clarify what I mean (the OP was amended when Barrus asked me to do just that) but there are times when Dr M's forensic approach goes beyond seeking clarification and into head spinning pedantry.
I think it could be this line here that is causing you to be seen as something of a doping appologist by some.
I guess my point is that if people have reached a point where they don't believe anything they're told and have settled on nihilistic cynicism as a default position, is it possible that they can reclaim a degree of faith?
Are you talking about the "nihilistic cynicism" of not believing the load of crap that Fatty McQuack shovels at us? Didn't he say just last year that there would be no more doping scandals in the TDF for " a long time"?
Or are you talking about the "not believing anything you are told" that is needed to ignore the piles of evidence which suggest that the same McQuack is in fact shoveling said crap?
 
Aug 9, 2010
444
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
I think it could be this line here that is causing you to be seen as something of a doping appologist by some.
If anyone really does think that then they can go stick their head in a blender and call me a fanboy while they're at it. :mad:

Are you talking about the "nihilistic cynicism" of not believing the load of crap that Fatty McQuack shovels at us? Didn't he say just last year that there would be no more doping scandals in the TDF for " a long time"?
Or are you talking about the "not believing anything you are told" that is needed to ignore the piles of evidence which suggest that the same McQuack is in fact shoveling said crap?
Ah, this is the old strawman thing that Doc M was referring to! Have I tried to defend McQuaid or suggest that people should trust him? No, I haven't. To save an argument I'll assume you were just using that as an example.

My point was that if you have reached a place where you assume that everything McQuaid says is a lie, that every protestation from a rider is a lie, that any attempt at transparency is merely spin and misdirection, that anyone arguing that not all riders dope is a fool, that every utterance or silence is proof of complicity and Omerta - where can you go from there? What do you want to happen and what will be the point at which you are prepared to have a little faith again? I'm not aiming this at you per se, more a conflation of people, posts and attitudes that I've observed since I've been here. Andy1234 in Post 7 on this thread has grasped what I'm getting at. There has to be some light at the end of the tunnel...
 
Jan 27, 2011
14
0
0
forty four said:
what it will take is people having a realistic attitude towards top level sports particularly endurance there will always be drugs and cheaters and it will always ebb and flow based on new drugs and methods vs testing this will not change. no sport will ever be %100 clean and free of cheating ever this is reality.
+1

To answer the OP, nothing will ever convince me of a truly clean sport, since there will always be new methods, new workarounds and those willing to try them, along with those who feel they must just to keep up with the many contenders who do. Do all cyclists and athletes dope? No, of course not. Many do though, in some fashion or another.
 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
Disagree

forty four said:
what it will take is people having a realistic attitude towards top level sports particularly endurance there will always be drugs and cheaters and it will always ebb and flow based on new drugs and methods vs testing this will not change. no sport will ever be %100 clean and free of cheating ever this is reality. if this is unacceptable serious sport is not for you. the naivety on here abounds.
The fundamental failure of this opinion is the finality which the reasons are presented. Using strong conviction is a kind of emphatic cover for the failure of the argument. This kind of reasoning enables doping. In particular, it enables doping children and under-23 athletes.

How about WADA retesting winners samples going back 8 years when new PED testing protocols are used? The only people left doping at any given time will be the dumbest ones because there's an excellent probability WADA will catch up to them. As long as the UCI is not involved, this kind of strategy gets sport as close to 100% dope-free as possible.
 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
Chuffy said:
There has to be some light at the end of the tunnel...
No, there isn't. That's the nature of human behavior. Someone somewhere will apply all their resources to creatively violate the rules of any interaction (games, business, politics, sports, public opinion) to alter the outcome in their favor.

Specific to cycling, If the UCI got out of doping enforcement altogether, that would be a great improvement. But Pat and Hein know the economic harm that would follow. If they got out of doping enforcement anyway, they would just focus even more on vigorously defending favored riders. Do you see how it never ends?

It's clear you are frustrated. Please understand even though you categorize some content as pedantic, for others it isn't, nor is the pedantic content a personal attack.
 
May 14, 2010
4,833
2
0
Chuffy said:
My actual question was more like "the sky should be blue, but it is currently green. If we can shift the colour of the sky, at what point is it blue enough to satisfy you?"

The 'what ifs?' were just some suggestions to get the ball rolling, they weren't intended as anything more.

To be honest I'm beginning to wish I hadn't asked....
Lol. Right, because now you have to define "sky" and establish just where it begins and ends. You also need to define "blue" and "green" and whether the sky really is those colors, or is that all in the eye of the beholder.

Shouldn't be a problem. :D
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
Chuffy said:
If anyone really does think that then they can go stick their head in a blender and call me a fanboy while they're at it. :mad:


Ah, this is the old strawman thing that Doc M was referring to! Have I tried to defend McQuaid or suggest that people should trust him? No, I haven't. To save an argument I'll assume you were just using that as an example.

My point was that if you have reached a place where you assume that everything McQuaid says is a lie, that every protestation from a rider is a lie, that any attempt at transparency is merely spin and misdirection, that anyone arguing that not all riders dope is a fool, that every utterance or silence is proof of complicity and Omerta - where can you go from there? What do you want to happen and what will be the point at which you are prepared to have a little faith again? I'm not aiming this at you per se, more a conflation of people, posts and attitudes that I've observed since I've been here. Andy1234 in Post 7 on this thread has grasped what I'm getting at. There has to be some light at the end of the tunnel...
My head doesn't fit in a blender, fanboy.:D
But seriously, I didn't say you are, I just said that that statement could make someone perceive that you are. A doping apologist, not a fanboy, not sure how you made that leap.
What it would take at a minimum would be for the UCI to completely be removed from the drug testing aspect, for zero tolerance of teams run by anyone with a history of doping connection if they have a new problem, failed test, arrested rider, anything to do with drugs. And no more "team doctors", in the modern definition.
I can see this causing a period of chaos with riders being caught, teams losing licenses, and sponsors walking away. Tough, but real fans can just blame Armstrong.;) We need to get to a point where doping just doesn't seem worth the risk anymore, I don't think we are there yet. We might be moving in that direction, but just because you are 1/2 way to your destination, doesn't mean that is a good time to take your foot off the gas pedal and say "ah, we're there".
We will have arrived when with tough and unbiased testing we can go an entire season with less than 2or3 total drug busts. Not too much to wish for I don't think.
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
Maxiton said:
Lol. Right, because now you have to define "sky" and establish just where it begins and ends. You also need to define "blue" and "green" and whether the sky really is those colors, or is that all in the eye of the beholder.

Shouldn't be a problem. :D
First you have to define "define".
 
Jan 20, 2011
7
0
0
A return to the Stone age- no wait they had knowledge of herbs and other "natural" remedies. I may be cynical but I believe drug enhanced performance is here to stay. We can develop test methods for what is in use now, but someone will pioneer a new method ahead of the regulators. If it gives you any comfort, this applies to all sports, not just cycling.
 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
bartender said:
A return to the Stone age- no wait they had knowledge of herbs and other "natural" remedies. I may be cynical but I believe drug enhanced performance is here to stay. We can develop test methods for what is in use now, but someone will pioneer a new method ahead of the regulators. If it gives you any comfort, this applies to all sports, not just cycling.
That attitude just enables the doping. Worst of all, it permits doping children.

What will discourage doping is retroactive testing. As WADA makes improvements, test former winners going back the 8 years of samples they already have. UCI would have to have no control over testing in order for this to work.

Would there be a minority of dopers? Yes, but time is working very, very strongly against them.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,370
0
0
I don't think we can even end doping in any sport.

The best we can hope for is to get a system where we can believe that the testing is catching a good number of dopers, and that there is no duplicity or corruption in how the testing and suspensions are being handed out.

I'd also feel better if appeals for "accidental positives" were removed. If you get tested with a banned substance and you accept the test was correct... then you serve the prescribed ban. Even if you ate tainted meat or your suplement contained something it shouldn't.
 
Feb 8, 2011
4
0
0
i prefer the perception war on doping rather than the reality one ... it makes so many people feel warm and comfortable inside
 
Jun 13, 2010
260
0
0
Chuffy said:
Burning it down is an extreme position, but it's one I have heard on here - I'm not necessarily setting up an argument in opposition, I'm just quoting it. As for the 'war on....' thing, well if there isn't a war on doping, why are we here? Sure, it's not a great phrase and has unfortunate associations with the wildly successful 'war on terror/drugs' but nevertheless I don't think you can deny it exists.


That's not quite what I'm getting at. If I was it would have been a darn sight easier to phrase the OP. :)


Ok, say WADA had full control over dope testing all three GTs. They fry one minor fish because he's overdone the asthma inhaler. Would you be happy to sign those GTs off as clean?
Well, if not burning it down completely to ashes, than at least a nice three alarm fire, where the fire department is a bit sloooooooow to respond, and we take it down, say, just to its foundation, and expose all of its studs for the world to see.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,351
0
0
luckyboy said:
Cycling will never be clean. At least not at the top, which is kinda where it matters most.

Same as any sport.
I don't know. The stakes of getting netted in effective controls are very high these days. Ask Contador about what he stands to lose.
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
scribe said:
He'll be back in another thread claiming that doping in junior ranks is rampant.
You many not want to twist my words. I have written about how IN THE PAST that some countries U23 teams were dirtier then the Pro's. Anyone who was in Italy in the late 90's and early 00's would confirm this. These days it is a much different story, especially in countries like France where many riders have bio profiles going back to when they were U17's.

Sorry if that does not fit your pre-conceived narrative that the clinic is filled with haters who think everyone dopes.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,165
0
0
What form would the sport take if we started over? I suspect we would find that we recreate it in a form much like it is. I mean the actual hierarchy and structure would need to address the same things. From National federations right to the top. Since the late 1800's to today the sport evolved to it's present form in a reaction to the influences.
Who would play in the "NEW" sport? The same people. Where are you going to find NEW cyclists and managers and sponsors etc.
Anti doping is moving to a third party (WADA) but we don't test the upcoming leagues very much. Maybe if we tested the juniors and U23 as vigorously as pros we might see the new pros come up more honestly. We won't ever get a perfect sport until all humanity stops lying and cheating. I wonder what we expect of people in a sport behaving just like people in life. An honest man is a degree of honesty. I mean there are not many people that have never taken something that was not theirs. Ever find a $20 dollar bill and tried to find the owner?
To have a utopian model of cycling we would need utopian people and I doubt that any one of us, regardless of our desire for it could actually withstand all the temptations against taking a shortcut.
There is nothing wrong with seeking that utopian model but how close do we have to be before we start seeing the glass as half full? Just the simple idea that %90 is dirty makes it almost impossible to accept that it is less. If over the next 3 years no one was caught for a doping offence we would just assume the drugs and cheats were better than the testers. We too have to be prepared to believe the corner is turned.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS