Which is the worst form of cheating?

[Maxiton]

Let me take these forms of cheating one at a time.

1) Paying off administrators

Administrators are paid off or rewarded, when they are, for lots of things: looking the other way while you dope; issuing retroactive TUEs; covering up positives on your team; popping your rivals.

This has been going on for some time now, since at least the Armstrong era. And, yes, it is bad, and reprehensible. But there is no test for it, so the only solution is to demand honesty and transparency in administration of the sport.

In any event, even when admins are paid off, there's only so much they can do to help you. You still have to pedal your bike, and get over the finish line in front of everyone else.

So, bad as it is, paying off administrators still allows for some competition and therefore can't be the worst form of cheating.

2) Paying off other riders.

Paying off other riders is as old as cyclesport itself. It's just part and parcel of the sport.

Pro cyclists need two things: money and a good result. If cyclists were well paid enough to be comfortable, their need for a good result would always outweigh their desire for quick cash under the table.

But in any event, even though these payoffs have been going on since the beginning, competition and drama on the road haven't appreciably diminished because of it. And even when someone does pay off his rivals, he still has to ride at the front of the race. So payoffs to the riders can't be the worst form of cheating.

3) Doping.

Doping, as most of us will admit, has been with us from the beginning, as well.

Some fans are purists: paniagua only. For these fans a proper rider will observe not only the letter of the law, but also its spirit. Therefore riders must avoid putting anything in their bodies, or following any procedure, that might be performance enhancing. For such fans anything less is cheating.

Other fans are less strict: if riders can find a way to enhance performance without taking things or doing things that are banned, these fans are a-ok with it.

Still other fans are even less strict: if it doesn't show up on a test, these fans reason, you are cleans.

No matter which kind of fan you are, though, the bottom line is that doped riders, no matter how doped, still have to get from beginning to end under their own power. So, yes, doped cyclesport is messed up, terribly compromised, and diminishes the sport - but even in diminished form it's still arguably sport. And so this too can't be the worst form of cheating, even though it's regrettable.

4) Motors.

With motors in bikes, we are no longer watching cycling, we're watching motorsport.

We don't know for sure that's what we're watching, because the motor is hidden, but that is in fact what we're seeing. We are told we're watching cycling, though, so we the fans are totally cheated out of what we want to see: cycling. Furthermore, those competitors who don't have a motor are also cheated. How can a human being, no matter how talented, no matter how doped, possibly hope to keep up with a motor?

Motors in the bikes are, by far, the biggest cheat of all time. There simply can't be any question about it.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

You must have to have an incredibly black and white view of the world - or be deliberately disingenuous - to believe that some forms of cheating are not more acceptable than others.

If you cheat to win a race, it doesn't matter whether you did it with a motor in your bike, EPO in your veins or a sticky bottle on your team car because, guess what, the end result is exactly the same.

Experience tells me that people who try to establish a "cheating scale" are often fans of a rider who got caught doping who want to rationalise their hero's cheating by telling themselves mechanical doping or whatever is worse.

Cheating is cheating. Larceny is genocide.

Wrong comparison. What you're claiming is akin to saying beating up someone with a crowbar is not as bad as beating them with a baseball bat or a steel pipe.

 

[tantocomo]

Re:

Let me take these forms of cheating one at a time.

Excellent thread, and excellent post from Maxiton

 

[ice&fire]

Where is the list is being towed by your team car?

 

[Dazed and Confused]

4) making deals with the authorities to let you win.......

Is by far the worst. No so much because of an actual deal, but because the consequence is a corrupt authority/regulator and that will just make all the other issues worse. Who gets to dope how much? What bike brand is targeted for avoiding mech doping? Who gets investigated and punished for tanking a possible win? Corruptness is like cancer, spreads everywhere. Hello UCI.

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

4) making deals with the authorities to let you win.......

Is by far the worst. No so much because of an actual deal, but because the consequence is a corrupt authority/regulator and that will just make all the other issues worse. Who gets to dope how much? What bike brand is targeted for avoiding mech doping? Who gets investigated and punished for tanking a possible win? Corruptness is like cancer, spreads everywhere. Hello UCI.

So deals with administrators is the worst form of cheating because they might lead to . . . corruption of administrators?

Yeah, we have to protect those pure, pristine administrators against the corrupting influence of cyclists.

Howzabout we take the corruption of administrators as a given, based on history, and talk about motorsport?

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Re: Re:

4) making deals with the authorities to let you win.......

Is by far the worst. No so much because of an actual deal, but because the consequence is a corrupt authority/regulator and that will just make all the other issues worse. Who gets to dope how much? What bike brand is targeted for avoiding mech doping? Who gets investigated and punished for tanking a possible win? Corruptness is like cancer, spreads everywhere. Hello UCI.

So deals with administrators is the worst form of cheating because they might lead to . . . corruption of administrators?

Yeah, we have to protect those pure, pristine administrators against the corrupting influence of cyclists.

Howzabout we take the corruption of administrators as a given, based on history, and talk about motorsport?

My i-name seems to confuse you.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

4) making deals with the authorities to let you win.......

Is by far the worst. No so much because of an actual deal, but because the consequence is a corrupt authority/regulator and that will just make all the other issues worse. Who gets to dope how much? What bike brand is targeted for avoiding mech doping? Who gets investigated and punished for tanking a possible win? Corruptness is like cancer, spreads everywhere. Hello UCI.

So deals with administrators is the worst form of cheating because they might lead to . . . corruption of administrators?

Yeah, we have to protect those pure, pristine administrators against the corrupting influence of cyclists.

Howzabout we take the corruption of administrators as a given, based on history, and talk about motorsport?

My i-name seems to confuse you.

The only thing that confuses me is your assertion that making deals with authorities is the worst form of cheating.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Re: Re:

4) making deals with the authorities to let you win.......

Is by far the worst. No so much because of an actual deal, but because the consequence is a corrupt authority/regulator and that will just make all the other issues worse. Who gets to dope how much? What bike brand is targeted for avoiding mech doping? Who gets investigated and punished for tanking a possible win? Corruptness is like cancer, spreads everywhere. Hello UCI.

So deals with administrators is the worst form of cheating because they might lead to . . . corruption of administrators?

Yeah, we have to protect those pure, pristine administrators against the corrupting influence of cyclists.

Howzabout we take the corruption of administrators as a given, based on history, and talk about motorsport?

My i-name seems to confuse you.

The only thing that confuses me is your assertion that making deals with authorities is the worst form of cheating.

Imo, you assessment carries too much history....
I like to remove most of that for this discussion whether you disagree or not.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

4) making deals with the authorities to let you win.......

Is by far the worst. No so much because of an actual deal, but because the consequence is a corrupt authority/regulator and that will just make all the other issues worse. Who gets to dope how much? What bike brand is targeted for avoiding mech doping? Who gets investigated and punished for tanking a possible win? Corruptness is like cancer, spreads everywhere. Hello UCI.

So deals with administrators is the worst form of cheating because they might lead to . . . corruption of administrators?

Yeah, we have to protect those pure, pristine administrators against the corrupting influence of cyclists.

Howzabout we take the corruption of administrators as a given, based on history, and talk about motorsport?

My i-name seems to confuse you.

The only thing that confuses me is your assertion that making deals with authorities is the worst form of cheating.

Imo, you assessment carries too much history....
I like to remove most of that for this discussion whether you disagree or not.

Why? Without history what are you left with? No context and an uninformed opinion.

That you, Cookson?

 

[Tonton]

Is there a Vino option ?

Motor doping is the only one he hasn't done, or rather been busted for. Merck Index is baiting us: when it's all said and done, anyone committing either form of cheating is a cheat. On the other hand, if you don't dope or use motors, you don't have to bribe officials. So I see two tiers, in some way: dope-motors>bribe officials. Paying fellow riders is as old as the sport, as old as any sport/game...despicable, but not at the same level of cheating as the other choices IMO. After all, ride for me and I'll let you have the stage (i.e. Leblanc-Miguelon '94 Hautacam) is not considered as cheating. Money being involved makes it dirty, but the principle is very much the same.

When you combine two, three, or all of the above, you're a big f***ing cheat. Nominees for the award include Lance (sure winner) and Vino (of course), and so many more...

 

[IndianCyclist]

Its like choosing between one murder, double murder, serial killer and genocide. The sentence is only death penalty for all however.

 

[42x16ss]

This thread needs a poll

 

[proffate]

Cheating is cheating.

I've heard people say thing like this a lot - including the ridiculous Brailsford. But there are clearly different shades of cheating. Is riding on the sidewalk to avoid some cobbles, or taking a sticky bottle, or giving a team mate a small push on a long climb the same as riding with a motor? Of course not. But they are still all cheating in terms of being against the rules.

You must have to have an incredibly black and white view of the world - or be deliberately disingenuous - to believe that some forms of cheating are not more acceptable than others.

perhaps "cheating is cheating" is a shorthand way of saying "Any time you break the rules and undermine the spirit of competition while gaining a significant competitive advantage is equally bad, no matter how it was accomplished". Jumping onto the sidewalk doesn't give an advantage anywhere near EPO but if it did, it would be just as bad.

 

[Spawn of e]

Re:

This is a trick question. One of these things is not like the others.

If cycling fans can't determine from the above list which form of cheating is worst, all hope is lost.

I feel making deals with authorities to let you win is above the others, followed closely by motors.

 

[doperhopper]

the posts here remind me of The IT Crowd famous antipiracy ad

so we should have

You wouldn't steal a victory from another rider. Doing EPO. And bloodbags. And motors. And HGH, roids, and pot belge. And then having affair with his wife. And then becoming the UCI boss. And have an affair with his second wife again...

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

This is a trick question. One of these things is not like the others.

If cycling fans can't determine from the above list which form of cheating is worst, all hope is lost.

I feel making deals with authorities to let you win is above the others, followed closely by motors.

sometimes the authorities make deals with you.
sometimes you don't need to make any kind of deal and you'll still get favorable treatment from the authoroties.

 

[Spawn of e]

Re: Re:

This is a trick question. One of these things is not like the others.

If cycling fans can't determine from the above list which form of cheating is worst, all hope is lost.

I feel making deals with authorities to let you win is above the others, followed closely by motors.

sometimes the authorities make deals with you.
sometimes you don't need to make any kind of deal and you'll still get favorable treatment from the authoroties.

With the other 3 there is still an element of getting caught and DQ'd/sanctioned.

 

[Tonton]

Re: Re:

This is a trick question. One of these things is not like the others.

If cycling fans can't determine from the above list which form of cheating is worst, all hope is lost.

I feel making deals with authorities to let you win is above the others, followed closely by motors.

sometimes the authorities make deals with you.
sometimes you don't need to make any kind of deal and you'll still get favorable treatment from the authoroties.

+1. These types of advantages take many forms, from getting the best hotel and your opponent stays in a dump with no heat or A/C, to the helicopter blowing in your back during an ITT, or a course designed for a particular rider or type of riders. Whether there's a deal or just authorities/organizations having an agenda, there's a lot of that. The idea of an even playing field often is just that...an idea. Small favors and big cheating go hand in hand: once the system is not based on values such as integrity, anything goes.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

It depends on the person's position relative to the cheating, surely.

For a rider, a motor is more antithetical to the sport than doping; once motors are involved it's no longer cycling as we know it, whereas doping is cheating but the basic premise of the sport of cycling remains intact. And some doping will be perceived as worse than others, too. Two particular examples spring to mind:
- taking a corner-cutting "means to an end" product such as Duval or Bastianelli taking appetite suppressants I see as more "indirect" performance enhancement than guzzling EPO. It's still doping, nevertheless.
- doping in the name of clean cycling I see as being especially fraudulent and hypocritical, which reflects more badly on somebody than just cheating. Take Davide Rebellin calling his Olympic silver medal in Beijing "a victory for clean cycling". It doesn't make him any more of a cheat than anybody else who doped, but it makes him harder to have sympathy for when he does get popped.

But for people other than riders, things surely differ. For the authorities, their being corrupt is the absolute dirt worst thing; they can't help if people cheat them, unless they are complicit in it. If people are cheating, the authorities can be incompetent in how they go about tackling that, that's one thing, but being in on it is far worse. And for team doctors, team managers etc., it differs again. The days of full team programs would seem to be passing in favour of smaller pockets and groups. Managers will often go for the "I will ask no questions, you will tell me no lies" approach, but for them a motor is worse because it's harder to spin that as a single rider going rogue, and it implicates the whole team. Who is in on the ruse affects which is worse as well. Doctors obviously have to be corrupt to be assisting in the doping practices in the first place, so for them a motor is not as bad as doping because they have plausible deniability in a motor case (and wouldn't need to be in on it). And at least a motor doesn't endanger a rider's health of course - we know of cases where doctors have been surreptitiously administering doping products as well as what was known about (take the "heated massage pads" of Liberty Seguros), which to me is worse than simply running a doping program.

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

It depends on the person's position relative to the cheating, surely.

For a rider, a motor is more antithetical to the sport than doping; once motors are involved it's no longer cycling as we know it, whereas doping is cheating but the basic premise of the sport of cycling remains intact. And some doping will be perceived as worse than others, too. Two particular examples spring to mind:
- taking a corner-cutting "means to an end" product such as Duval or Bastianelli taking appetite suppressants I see as more "indirect" performance enhancement than guzzling EPO. It's still doping, nevertheless.
- doping in the name of clean cycling I see as being especially fraudulent and hypocritical, which reflects more badly on somebody than just cheating. Take Davide Rebellin calling his Olympic silver medal in Beijing "a victory for clean cycling". It doesn't make him any more of a cheat than anybody else who doped, but it makes him harder to have sympathy for when he does get popped.

But for people other than riders, things surely differ. For the authorities, their being corrupt is the absolute dirt worst thing; they can't help if people cheat them, unless they are complicit in it. If people are cheating, the authorities can be incompetent in how they go about tackling that, that's one thing, but being in on it is far worse. And for team doctors, team managers etc., it differs again. The days of full team programs would seem to be passing in favour of smaller pockets and groups. Managers will often go for the "I will ask no questions, you will tell me no lies" approach, but for them a motor is worse because it's harder to spin that as a single rider going rogue, and it implicates the whole team. Who is in on the ruse affects which is worse as well. Doctors obviously have to be corrupt to be assisting in the doping practices in the first place, so for them a motor is not as bad as doping because they have plausible deniability in a motor case (and wouldn't need to be in on it). And at least a motor doesn't endanger a rider's health of course - we know of cases where doctors have been surreptitiously administering doping products as well as what was known about (take the "heated massage pads" of Liberty Seguros), which to me is worse than simply running a doping program.

This multi-faceted, multiple viewpoint take on cheating is interesting, nuanced, and, I think, for what it's worth, valid. But not all positions (and concomitant viewpoints) in sport carry equal weight. The owner, the administrator, and the doctor are important; but what is intrinsic to the sport is the athlete, without whom there is no sport; and, arguably, the viewer, or fan, without whom there would be no one to watch and appreciate, and also no commercial validity.

The form of cheating that's worst may differ, as you point out, according to one's position in or around the sport; but for the rider, as you also point out, "a motor is more antithetical to the sport than doping; once motors are involved it's no longer cycling as we know it, whereas doping is cheating but the basic premise of the sport of cycling remains intact". And so it is for the fan, who, after all, is a fan of cycling and, as such, wants to see cycling, not something that only pretends to be cycling.

If the rider and the viewer/fan are the essential elements in the professional sport of cycling, and if for both of them motors are the ultimate cheat, then I submit that motors do indeed qualify as the worst form of cheating, the viewpoints of ancillary positions notwithstanding.

 

[MarkvW]

The UCI doesn't represent the riders. That is the worst cheat of all.

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

The UCI doesn't represent the riders. That is the worst cheat of all.

True. UCI doesn't even represent team owners. I say we bring back the old European tradition of burning at the stake. I'd hate to see Cookson and Verdruggem going up in flames, but I'd be happy to watch it on TV. I'm sure I'd feel bad, but I'd get over it by day's end. Could do a lot of good, and be the start of something big.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

It depends on the person's position relative to the cheating, surely.

For a rider, a motor is more antithetical to the sport than doping; once motors are involved it's no longer cycling as we know it, whereas doping is cheating but the basic premise of the sport of cycling remains intact. And some doping will be perceived as worse than others, too. Two particular examples spring to mind:
- taking a corner-cutting "means to an end" product such as Duval or Bastianelli taking appetite suppressants I see as more "indirect" performance enhancement than guzzling EPO. It's still doping, nevertheless.
- doping in the name of clean cycling I see as being especially fraudulent and hypocritical, which reflects more badly on somebody than just cheating. Take Davide Rebellin calling his Olympic silver medal in Beijing "a victory for clean cycling". It doesn't make him any more of a cheat than anybody else who doped, but it makes him harder to have sympathy for when he does get popped.

But for people other than riders, things surely differ. For the authorities, their being corrupt is the absolute dirt worst thing; they can't help if people cheat them, unless they are complicit in it. If people are cheating, the authorities can be incompetent in how they go about tackling that, that's one thing, but being in on it is far worse. And for team doctors, team managers etc., it differs again. The days of full team programs would seem to be passing in favour of smaller pockets and groups. Managers will often go for the "I will ask no questions, you will tell me no lies" approach, but for them a motor is worse because it's harder to spin that as a single rider going rogue, and it implicates the whole team. Who is in on the ruse affects which is worse as well. Doctors obviously have to be corrupt to be assisting in the doping practices in the first place, so for them a motor is not as bad as doping because they have plausible deniability in a motor case (and wouldn't need to be in on it). And at least a motor doesn't endanger a rider's health of course - we know of cases where doctors have been surreptitiously administering doping products as well as what was known about (take the "heated massage pads" of Liberty Seguros), which to me is worse than simply running a doping program.

This multi-faceted, multiple viewpoint take on cheating is interesting, nuanced, and, I think, for what it's worth, valid. But not all positions (and concomitant viewpoints) in sport carry equal weight. The owner, the administrator, and the doctor are important; but what is intrinsic to the sport is the athlete, without whom there is no sport; and, arguably, the viewer, or fan, without whom there would be no one to watch and appreciate, and also no commercial validity.

The form of cheating that's worst may differ, as you point out, according to one's position in or around the sport; but for the rider, as you also point out, "a motor is more antithetical to the sport than doping; once motors are involved it's no longer cycling as we know it, whereas doping is cheating but the basic premise of the sport of cycling remains intact". And so it is for the fan, who, after all, is a fan of cycling and, as such, wants to see cycling, not something that only pretends to be cycling.

If the rider and the viewer/fan are the essential elements in the professional sport of cycling, and if for both of them motors are the ultimate cheat, then I submit that motors do indeed qualify as the worst form of cheating, the viewpoints of ancillary positions notwithstanding.

mebbe the worst form of doping, needs a meta definition, it is not the product, the application, or the preparatore... it is actually not the dope you tested positive for, the dope the female tennis players won Grand Slams then silently retired, the final dope Stuey M8 took on his last TdF and retirement sunset and the crepescular ceremony...

none of this things...

just p'raps, I am gonna put this out there, just p'raps, just p'raps it is the FIRST time the 15 yo Genevieve Jeanson takes dope. The first time Femke dopes. The first time Femke's brother dopes. The first time Lance takes dope in triathlon as a 14yo.

It is the first time. Be it caffeine and coffee. It is the FIRST. It is the FIRST TIME. Because then the sport is redefined as an instrument for victory. A means to an end. The sport is now invalidated for its own virtue and inherent value.

this is the most insidious dope, and temporal application, sport is delegitimised for sports own sake.

 

[aphronesis]

Maybe, but that "first time" still continues to hold within it all the previous potential of the just prior valid and legitimate sport. So where, historically, would the line be across sport(s) and/or individuals between various "first times" and "each time"?