Which is the worst form of cheating?

[Merckx index]

Well, we have:

1) doping
2) hidden motors
3) paying off competitors to let you win
4) making deals with the authorities to let you win

Have I left out any? Others please add to this list as you see fit.

I don't know how others feel, but I'm beginning to think that good old-fashioned doping doesn't look so bad compared to the alternatives. At least the strongest (strength defined mentally as well as physically) rider wins, albeit strength is no longer the product of just genetics and training.

 

[stephens]

Well, we have:

1) doping
2) hidden motors
3) paying off competitors to let you win
4) making deals with the authorities to let you win

Worst to least: motors, deals with authorities, doping, paying off competitors

 

[IndianCyclist]

Worst to least: deals with authorities, doping,motors, paying off competitors

 

[sniper]

in cycling making deals with the authorities (4) seems to cover both doping (1) and hidden motors (2).
i have no opinion on which is the worst.
the hypocricy that accompanies the cheating imo has different levels and invokes different levels of irritation.
which means for instance that, even in the hypothetical case that Sky and Tinkoff dope equally and are equally protected, Sky are more annoying because of the whole discourse around it, Walsh selling himself out, Brian's son working for Sky, etc.

 

[jens_attacks]

Motors and making deals with authorities( even if thr home turf advantage is part of the game)

The rest is legal.

 

[DFA123]

Well, we have:

1) doping
2) hidden motors
3) paying off competitors to let you win
4) making deals with the authorities to let you win

Have I left out any? Others please add to this list as you see fit.

I don't know how others feel, but I'm beginning to think that good old-fashioned doping doesn't look so bad compared to the alternatives. At least the strongest (strength defined mentally as well as physically) rider wins, albeit strength is no longer the product of just genetics and training.

I agree, that old fashioned doping is not as bad as the others. At least riders doing old-fashioned doping still have to put in a lot of hard training (probably more hard training than non-doped riders), and they still have to win the race on the road against other doped riders and against unforseen circumstances.

The other three are just complete corruption. Most decent amateur racers could win a monument if they had a 200w motor, or had made deals with authorities/competitors to let them win. It completely destroys any semblance of competition.

Also, regarding old fashioned doping, I think there are differences. A guy doing a bit of test, maybe some HGH and occasionally microdosing EPO just for better recovery, is certainly not as culpable as a guy taking AICAR and doing transfusions in the hotel.

 

[StryderHells]

To me they all sit equal

 

[Maxiton]

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.

 

[BigMac]

They're equally disgraceful.

 

[Farcanal]

Since starting as a junior over 40 years ago, I've always thought training is the worst form of cheating. It gives a totally unfair advantage to those with too much time on their hands, either because they're rich, are paid to ride their bikes or just live off the state. It creates an unfair disadvantage for those who have to earn a living, look after their families etc.

Winning should be totally on natural ability with training time restricted to the absolute minimum required to maintain a healthy lifestyle, say 2 - 3 hours per week. After all, many physiological studies have shown extreme or elite training can cause health problems long term so it is probably no more ethical than any PED.

 

[Echoes]

Re:

They're equally disgraceful.

Normally I should agree.

However, I think we have to define which substances are encompassed by the signifiant "doping" (EPO is more disgraceful than caffeine, whatever some might think) and with regards to paying a competitor, well that was a common practice in the past decades. Not that I approve of it, of course, but in those days, riders earned a lot less money and in the end, in order to pay a competitor, you have to be in front already, so you already have to be one of the best in the race. After all it can be a way to make sure that the opponent is taking his turn in the breakaway. There's an anecdote about this. When Van der Poel won the Tour of Flanders, he openly said in a post race interview that he had to pay his breakaway mates. Lol, he wasn't really smart. Everybody thought that he had cheated. The deal was, the winner whoever he be had to pay the breakaway mates in order to make sure that everybody shared the workload.

So it's not always easy to judge.

 

[vedrafjord]

Re:

Since starting as a junior over 40 years ago, I've always thought training is the worst form of cheating. It gives a totally unfair advantage to those with too much time on their hands, either because they're rich, are paid to ride their bikes or just live off the state. It creates an unfair disadvantage for those who have to earn a living, look after their families etc.

Yes I was roped into doing a few 10k runs with my friends and maintained a strict "training is cheating" policy, mostly because running is so goddamn boring.

 

[Maxiton]

This is from the (now closed) LeMond thread:

We start with amphetamines and opiates, and we still have competition between athletes and drama on the road. We then add various steroids. This too doesn't lessen the struggle of the riders: it still hurts, they just go faster.

Then we add VO2 vector doping and things get complicated. The competition has been compromised now because they hurt less and thus the drama is lessened, and with it the achievement of the riders and our enjoyment as informed spectators. Not only that, but this new doping makes it pretty much impossible to discern athletic ability versus drug-induced capability.

So here we have a real problem: there is still competition but the sport is compromised and diminished.

That's bad enough, but then we introduce something truly transformative: hidden motors. Motors represent a qualitative break with the sport because, drugs notwithstanding, the sport consists entirely of motive force created by a human body and applied to an apparatus consisting of frame, gears, and two wheels.

When we replace or supplement this human motive force with a motor, we have removed the essential thing that makes it cycling. Perhaps we could bring motors out in the open and create a new sport, motorbiking. It seems to me that this new sport, in order to be of interest, would require new rules, new courses, and new types of stages, better suited to use of a motor.

In the meantime, though, hidden motors in bicycles completely removes any element of cycling competition and destroys whatever remains of the sport. Just because some of us accept doping doesn't mean we have to accept or tolerate motors. For fans of cycling, motors are a non-starter.

 

[SeriousSam]

In terms of how it affects the contest for me, the viewer, from least to worst:

1) doping
2) hidden motors
3) paying off competitors to let you win
4) making deals with the authorities to let you win

Doping is by far the mildest offense. I'm much more interested watching a contest between doped athletes than I am watching a contest between motor assisted athletes. Or no contest at all, because they've paid off competitors/authorities and ceased to be a sport.

 

[doperhopper]

and let's not forget the worst offense: car lift, Nibsy style

 

[Brullnux]

and let's not forget the worst offense: car lift, Nibsy style

That's just entertaining.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

You failed to define (or establish a context for) "worst."

Which is the worst form of cheating?

The one that doesn't win.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

For me, while all cheating is bad, the four are distinguished by how much respect for his competitors, or a more combative integrity the cheater shows. I know I need to explain that more, so bear with me...

Paying off the officials is worse than paying off competitors. Cheat bad, yada yada, but it shows that the cheater isn't man enough to do anything himself not even face the guys he's cheating.

Those are both worse than doping or mechanical doping because their intent is to avoid work. Same reason mechanical doping is worse than medicinal. At least with medicinal doping, at the end of the day, it is still a physical contest. (Doped up competitors is not a physical contest I'm interested in, but it is more engaging than Moto GP). Even watching races from the, well any race from any era, my skepticism takes a back seat to the will power being forced through pedals. I was in awe of Cancellara's Kappelmuur and PR attack, even when I attributed it to drugs. I was let down by the discussion after that it could be a motor.

 

[TheGreenMonkey]

They are all done with the same motive, secure a win, so they are just means to the same aim, so they are all equally as bad as each other.

 

[Archibald]

Well, we have:

1) doping
2) hidden motors
3) paying off competitors to let you win
4) making deals with the authorities to let you win

Have I left out any? Others please add to this list as you see fit.

I don't know how others feel, but I'm beginning to think that good old-fashioned doping doesn't look so bad compared to the alternatives. At least the strongest (strength defined mentally as well as physically) rider wins, albeit strength is no longer the product of just genetics and training.

ratting out your fellow doper to get them popped?

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Well, we have:

1) doping
2) hidden motors
3) paying off competitors to let you win
4) making deals with the authorities to let you win

Have I left out any? Others please add to this list as you see fit.

I don't know how others feel, but I'm beginning to think that good old-fashioned doping doesn't look so bad compared to the alternatives. At least the strongest (strength defined mentally as well as physically) rider wins, albeit strength is no longer the product of just genetics and training.

Cheating is cheating.

 

[DFA123]

Well, we have:

1) doping
2) hidden motors
3) paying off competitors to let you win
4) making deals with the authorities to let you win

Have I left out any? Others please add to this list as you see fit.

I don't know how others feel, but I'm beginning to think that good old-fashioned doping doesn't look so bad compared to the alternatives. At least the strongest (strength defined mentally as well as physically) rider wins, albeit strength is no longer the product of just genetics and training.

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.

 

[hrotha]

Cheating is cheating. Larceny is genocide.

For me:
Deals with authorities > Motors > Doping > Paying off competitors

 

[danielovichdk2]

When you start lying to me about what the obvious states, I get extremely pissed.

Not because you dope, but because you take me for a fool.

Whether that being stealing candy or popping HGH is not of relevance, but lying about is. I cannot stand the lying.

 

[Rob27172]

Depends on what you think is the social accepted norm and what the period is that you are discussing
Look at the legends of the sport and talking about PEDs and openly admitting to it and talking about it was de riguer.
Now it is a smokescreen for the money men to hide behind while they manipulate the sport to make bigger and bigger profits.

is genetic doping as bad as chemical doping - even though it may not be against the rules when it first happens (most sport doping occurs before any rules are in place to prevent it) so why is it so bad after it is prevented as opposed to those winning with it before it is written into the rule books

Before the rules it is simply attempting to gain an edge
once we as society (or a few men with pens and a rulebook) determine it is unfair we demonise it and make it illegal.
First mover advantage always wins in sport
Hence why the teams and riders are always pushing the boundaries to find something that is not currently banned - before it gets banned.

So for me it is a bit of a circular argument
what is worst the doping and cheating we know of now
or the doping and cheating we will know of in the future (which is probably already happening now but you just dont realise it yet.