Who is a clean rider

[The Hitch]

What I find negative, is fans needing to believe their favourite rider is clean to be able to cheer him on. They will end up closing their eyes (See Armstrong fans). For doping to be battled, riders and fans need to open their eyes and admit that there is a problem. A huge one.

That much is true.

 

[Afrank]

Taylor Phinney trains regularly in Denver with Allan Lim.

Simon Gerrans defended Armstrong in 2012, IIRC.

Hansen rides for Lotto a team Charly Wegelius doped with and Wegelius was pure domestique, never mind that they hired Ibauguren for Gilberts stunning 2011 year.

Why do you want to know who is clean, you will only be disappointed when they turn out to have doped, even if it was only once and had no effect but they did some amazing performances and always signed autographs and were nice........?

Enjoy the bike racing but dont get emotional about riders, you will only be shat on.

As shown by Benotti here, even the riders you think could be clean if you look back on their histories suddenly don't appear as clean as you originally thought. It's impossible to truly tell for sure if a rider is clean.

I would agree with Netserk. And if your going to look for only clean riders to support and cheer for, you'll run into a number of problems. And you will never be able to truly know if the rider is clean. Myself, I just cheer for the riders that I like the style of most, regardless of whether I think they dope or not (as you can tell by my avatar, I cheer for Nibali because I like his attacking style, but I'm pretty sure he dopes like everyone else).

To be honest, if your not going to cheer for the riders you like the style of because you think they might be doping, I don't see the point of even following the sport.

 

[deValtos]

So IF all riders dope, no one should cheer for anyone? That would be the best for cycling? If no one followed the sport?

Clearly it wouldn't be good for the sport if no one followed it. The UCI (and 90% of other sport organisations) have been struggling to balance interest in their sport (by ignoring and not addressing doping as that's a real turn off for the public ...) while still somehow trying to make doping not an issue.

Clearly they and other sports haven't got the right balance (you're evidently aware of the long doping history of cycling) ... or well have they ? A lot of people don't care ... maybe in terms of promoting the sport they've oddly enough not done such a bad job (e.g the Lance boost, also I'm from the UK and cycling has really gotten a lot more popular for obvious reasons).

If all riders did dope I don't think I would care about cycling and consequently don't care who you cheer for, what's good for the 'sport' etc

I don't understand why you need an answer for this question. Logically to me it seems your point is that we should cheer for doped riders because if we didn't and it turned out they were all doping then no one will cheer for anyone and the sport is ****ed. Well imo sorry but that's a terrible reason to cheer for doped riders.

Yes, I do think my attitude is a positive for the sport. I do think attitudes of fans matter.

I think condemning riders for doping is a positive attitude.

I don't think supporting doped riders is positive (in any way). Can you give me reasons why you think it's a good thing (or acceptable to do)? The UCI thought it was a good thing ... and like I said heck maybe they were right in terms of promoting the sport, it's not the sport I want though. Are you of similar opinion to them ? Or alternatively since that question was a bit loaded, do you have reasons that you think it's not a bad thing to support doped riders ?

What I find negative, is fans needing to believe their favourite rider is clean to be able to cheer him on. They will end up closing their eyes (See Armstrong fans). For doping to be battled, riders and fans need to open their eyes and admit that there is a problem. A huge one.

I agree that people need to open their eyes and admit that there is a problem and that it's bad if they don't.

 

[Netserk]

Why don't sport organisations want to combat doping? Because it will expose how dirty the sport is. Why is that a problem? Because many fans will then turn off the TV and watch something else. What if all fans were like me? Would there be anything negative for UCI then to expose doping and deal with it? Nope.

I blame the German TV channels (not solely). They were happy to show cycling when it was doped up, but when something was done to deal with it, they stopped showing it. It should be a great thing when riders test positive. It hardly means that the sport got dirtier, the opposite in fact, yet many fans react in a way that encourage federations not to catch dopers.

IF fans really wanted the sport to be clean and continued to watch (even more) after every doping scandal, then UCI would have a great incentive to do their best to expose the dopers and sanction them.

That is why I think my attitude is a positive for the sport, and yours negative.

 

[deValtos]

Why don't sport organisations want to combat doping? Because it will expose how dirty the sport is. Why is that a problem? Because many fans will then turn off the TV and watch something else. What if all fans were like me? Would there be anything negative for UCI then to expose doping and deal with it? Nope.

I blame the German TV channels (not solely). They were happy to show cycling when it was doped up, but when something was done to deal with it, they stopped showing it. It should be a great thing when riders test positive. It hardly means that the sport got dirtier, the opposite in fact, yet many fans react in a way that encourage federations not to catch dopers.

IF fans really wanted the sport to be clean and continued to watch (even more) after every doping scandal, then UCI would have a great incentive to do their best to expose the dopers and sanction them.

That is why I think my attitude is a positive for the sport, and yours negative.

If all fans were like you every rider would be doping in the first place ...

So my attitude is negative because I would rather dopers be caught and sanctioned rather than cheering them up a climb ?!?

Supporting dopers encourages doping, there's no getting around that. I don't see how you can continually justify supporting them.

 

[Benotti69]

Why don't sport organisations want to combat doping? Because it will expose how dirty the sport is. Why is that a problem? Because many fans will then turn off the TV and watch something else. What if all fans were like me? Would there be anything negative for UCI then to expose doping and deal with it? Nope.

I blame the German TV channels (not solely). They were happy to show cycling when it was doped up, but when something was done to deal with it, they stopped showing it. It should be a great thing when riders test positive. It hardly means that the sport got dirtier, the opposite in fact, yet many fans react in a way that encourage federations not to catch dopers.

IF fans really wanted the sport to be clean and continued to watch (even more) after every doping scandal, then UCI would have a great incentive to do their best to expose the dopers and sanction them.

That is why I think my attitude is a positive for the sport, and yours negative.

Sporting federations can control the sport better if doping goes on. The federation can use doping and to expose an athletes doping to threaten anyone who threatens their hold on the sport.

 

[BigMac]

Rui Costa anyone?

 

[Pentacycle]

Rui Costa anyone?

You are reminding me of Iznogouds habits

 

[The Hitch]

If all fans were like you every rider would be doping in the first place ...

So my attitude is negative because I would rather dopers be caught and sanctioned rather than cheering them up a climb ?!?

Supporting dopers encourages doping, there's no getting around that. I don't see how you can continually justify supporting them.

People allegedly cared about doping in the 90's and everyon dopes.
People allegedly care about doping in football and everyone dopes.

People dope to make money and win, not to appease fans

Most fans are stupid and hypocrits. They only hate dopers if they get caught. They love them and defend them ferociously so long as they can bribe their way out. They do not help the doping situation whatsoever

 

[pmcg76]

If all fans were like you every rider would be doping in the first place ...

So my attitude is negative because I would rather dopers be caught and sanctioned rather than cheering them up a climb ?!?

Supporting dopers encourages doping, there's no getting around that. I don't see how you can continually justify supporting them.

I don't understand this notion at all.

You are saying a person should not support the likes of Contador or Valverde but it's ok to support Froome or Sagan for example. What if somewhere down the line, it turn's out those riders Froome/Sagan have been doping all the time, then what is the difference betweem then and the likes of Contador/Froome? A person will have been cheering a doper for years but just didn't know they were.

I tend to hold of on castigating riders who have been caught as I am aware of the possibility that the only difference between them and others who might not have been caught is the unluckiness to fail a test. There has been one exception to that rule and that was Armstrong and I always made clear that was more to do with the way he used the 'cancer shield' rather than his actual doping.

On the flip side I am not for denigrating riders who have zero evidence against them unless their performances are ET or whom have amazing transformations. Then there is room for suspicion.

This also applies to who can and cannot be a team-manager/DS etc.

 

[deValtos]

I don't understand this notion at all.

You are saying a person should not support the likes of Contador or Valverde but it's ok to support Froome or Sagan for example. What if somewhere down the line, it turn's out those riders Froome/Sagan have been doping all the time, then what is the difference betweem then and the likes of Contador/Froome? A person will have been cheering a doper for years but just didn't know they were.

I tend to hold of on castigating riders who have been caught as I am aware of the possibility that the only difference between them and others who might not have been caught is the unluckiness to fail a test. There has been one exception to that rule and that was Armstrong and I always made clear that was more to do with the way he used the 'cancer shield' rather than his actual doping.

On the flip side I am not for denigrating riders who have zero evidence against them unless their performances are ET or whom have amazing transformations. Then there is room for suspicion.

This also applies to who can and cannot be a team-manager/DS etc.

Really what's so hard to understand about the notion that supporting dopers encourages doping ? I'm absolutely perplexed everyone here seems to disagree.

All I'm seeing are excuses that people are using to somehow 'allow' them to support their favorite riders but still be against doping. If that makes you feel good then great but you're part of the problem and not helping.

 

[deValtos]

People allegedly cared about doping in the 90's and everyon dopes.
People allegedly care about doping in football and everyone dopes.

Yea, in the same way they do now ... oh I hate them dopers except when it's a rider I like ... and football, really ? You've got be joking me if you think even 1% of fans care at all.

People dope to make money and win, not to appease fans

Most fans are stupid and hypocrits. They only hate dopers if they get caught. They love them and defend them ferociously so long as they can bribe their way out. They do not help the doping situation whatsoever

My point was the attitude of fans still influences the riders (through creating a positive/negative atmosphere, see my other posts) regardless of whether they do it to win.

Fans are more stupid than they are hypocrites. I think its more often the case that when people defend doped riders they do so because they mistakenly think they are clean and not because they are hypocrites.

 

[pmcg76]

Really what's so hard to understand about the notion that supporting dopers encourages doping ? I'm absolutely perplexed everyone here seems to disagree.

All I'm seeing are excuses that people are using to somehow 'allow' them to support their favorite riders but still be against doping. If that makes you feel good then great but you're part of the problem and not helping.

You do understand that many of the people who support dopers simply believe that everyone dopes so to them there is no difference. To them it's hypocritical to cheer on Froome but castigate Contador as they believe both are doped. The people who backed Armstrong for so long were wrong but in your scenario they were completely correct in cheering for Armstrong but not cheering for Pantani for example, in the long run what is the difference?

The only guranteed way to not cheer for dopers is to cheer for nobody, not for Froome nor for Contador. I don't cheer for dopers. I remain ambivalent towards returning dopers, would prefer to see them out of the sport but then how many are still in the sport that have not been caught. There is a thin line at times.

In your mind, who should people cheer for?

 

[Netserk]

You do understand that many of the people who support dopers simply believe that everyone dopes so to them there is no difference. To them it's hypocritical to cheer on Froome but castigate Contador as they believe both are doped. The people who backed Armstrong for so long were wrong but in your scenario they were completely correct in cheering for Armstrong but not cheering for Pantani for example, in the long run what is the difference?

The only guranteed way to not cheer for dopers is to cheer for nobody, not for Froome nor for Contador. I don't cheer for dopers. I remain ambivalent towards returning dopers, would prefer to see them out of the sport but then how many are still in the sport that have not been caught. There is a thin line at times.

In your mind, who should people cheer for?

Huh? I don't think (m)any think everyone dopes. Yes I cheer for both Boonen and Contador, and yes I think both dope, but that doesn't mean I think everyone dopes. In fact I think there are many clean pros (perhaps not the majority, but many nonetheless).

But whether I think a rider dopes or not, just doesn't influence whether or not I like them and cheer for them. Aesthetic =/= Ethic.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Fans are more stupid than they are hypocrites. I think its more often the case that when people defend doped riders they do so because they mistakenly think they are clean and not because they are hypocrites.

Nope.

Viewers *are not* stupid. If they feel to be made as if they are stupid, like legions of Armstrong faithful, they do not take that lightly.

An example that is become more appropriate for cycling every year is entertainment wrestling. Are those fans stupid? Nope. They know it's a show and they love the show. They don't want to know how the show is made and they even know who is going to "win." They just like the show.

 

[Cookster15]

In your mind, who should people cheer for?

You cheer for who's style of riding appeals to you, who you believe in and often nationality. If they turn out to be dopers you find someone else. If you end up cheering for 20 different riders so be it. If enough fans took this attitude I believe eventually the message will sink in to those who are on the inside of the sport - and the rest of the 'fans'.

I don't cheer for riders with an attractive style of racing if I think they are doping. But I'll cheer for others until the evidence changes my mind. Otherwise what is the difference between Pro cycling and WWE wrestling? If it looks good, who cares if its real.

Cycling is a big money business and doping is a symptom of that. It is the fans and global cycling community that make professional road cycling a big money business.

Fans attitude to doping is crucial to its use being contolled / reduced.

As for fans who say it does not matter as they all dope - isn't that what Armstrong says too. Sorry but too many riders became lesser riders when they left Armstrong's teams for me to ever believe that one.

I cheered for Armstrong once too. But I didn't need to wait for USADA's reasoned decision to change my mind on him. I look at the evidence and each rider and make up my own mind. Isn't that is what the clinic is for after all?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Clearly it wouldn't be good for the sport if no one followed it.

It would? Who would be harmed?

Makarov, Rihs, the OPQS guy and so on would still fund their hobby. ASO would probably still run races. IOC would still fund sports federations for their insanely profitable every fourth year show.<shrug>

 

[DirtyWorks]

You cheer for who's style of riding appeals to you, who you believe in and often nationality. If they turn out to be dopers you find someone else. If you end up cheering for 20 different riders so be it. If enough fans took this attitude I believe eventually the message will sink in to those who are on the inside of the sport - and the rest of the 'fans'.

But, you'd still be tuning in. The sport would have no incentive to change a thing because their content still attracts viewers.

Please remember, the sport reports to no one. You as a consumer MUST affect revenue for any kind of change to take place at the federation level. It's the only way.

 

[Cookster15]

But, you'd still be tuning in. The sport would have no incentive to change a thing because their content still attracts viewers.

Please remember, the sport reports to no one. You as a consumer MUST affect revenue for any kind of change to take place at the federation level. It's the only way.

Revenue will be affected - and it has. Have sponsors not left the sport over doping?

 

[86TDFWinner]

Does such a thing exist currently?

 

[Night Rider]

Taylor Phinney, Simon Gerrans. Maybe Adam Hansen.

I'm going to do a hog and quote myself here because I need to make a clarification and correction. When I first posted all I saw was "Who is a clean rider" so I went straight to post my comment without looking at any other posts, this morning on looking at the OP's first post I then discover "to support now?" Therefore I will remove all three, I support none of them, well maybe Phinney is ok. Like Netserk, the riders I support would unfortunately never make it to a clean list. That's cycling.

To other posters who questioned their cleanliness anyway, noted.

 

[The Hitch]

Revenue will be affected - and it has. Have sponsors not left the sport over doping?

There are two problems with that.

First of all there is a significant amount of fans who just don't give a **** - see Basso, or especially Contador. Contador is more popular now than he was before his ban.

Secondly, of those who do give a ****, a majority will only care if an athlete fails a drugs test.

Which means - as pcmg pointed, out, that people like Lance, who are obviously doping, bring money into the sport rather than cost it money. And all cycling had to do was look the other way.

Which meant that the most important way to not lose revenue, is not to not dope, but to not get caught.

And there is a massive difference

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I might be in the minority here. I (would) cheer for clean riders, or those who I think are clean. When the majority dopes (and thus the clean ones are hard to spot), I cheer for those who are the most believable (thus at max micro doping). This being said, I give a major phuck of rider style (that doesn´t mean that I don´t like some riders style over others; it´s just no criteria for me if I like a rider as a whole or not) or whatever. This prevents me from becoming one of those clinic hypocrites who condemn one group of allegedly dopers (the ones that are written about hateful posts 24/7), but hail other obvious dopers. Because this makes them no better than the group of old LA fanboys whose stance was "my doper is better than yours"...

Those who knowingly cheer for dopers are way worse than those naive who think the riders they cheer for are clean. Why? The ones who support cheaters keep the cheating business going (not only in cycling). They basically are spineless, while the naive will run away if "his" rider is caught and thus hurt the cheating business...

Riders I believe in/cheer for now: DeGreef, Gerdemann, Pinot, Roche, Taaramae, Kittel, Degenkolb, LeMevel, and then some

 

[The Hitch]

They basically are spineless, while the naive will run away if "his" rider is caught and thus hurt the cheating business...

Well that, or the rider will claim his body produced the extra testosterone and they will contribute thousands of dollars to a defence fund to get him off.

 

[BigMac]

You are reminding me of Iznogouds habits

Haha, not by a chance. It was an honest suggestion.