Who is the most to blame?

From these options, who is most to blame for the current state of doping in cycling?

  • The 'Doctors'

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Nov 19, 2010
228
0
0
Come on, you're suggesting only one of these is the right answer? This thread died before you made it.
 
Oct 25, 2009
344
0
0
Sanitiser said:
Most of us agree that doping occurs because of the 'system' but in the end who is the most to blame?
I am, you are, we all are as we make individual decisions to dope or to follow/support/fund professional sports which provide incentive to dope with varying levels of tolerance of and activism against cheating, as the case may be. We can choose to boycott a la the German media and the races and hence doping will have to stop. Blaming the system is a cop out - we are the system.
 
This is of course a complex issue but since we can only choose one then I have to say the rider since they are ultimately responsible for their own actions no matter what the pressure on them is.

Team management and DSs are of course a driving force behind a lot of doping. It's perhaps not always direct but the pressure that they put on riders to perform is part of the reason why riders are driven to drope.

I think anyother major factor is the suppliers that want to make money on doping. This might be doctors or other people with access to drugs etc. As long as there is money to be made in supplying drugs then there will be peope pressuring teams and riders to dope.
 
on3m@n@rmy said:
I think he means doping in cycling.
p.s.- i didn't vote for the same reason as mombus
I think that's what he means too.

But there's no one to blame for cheating in professional sports, it's just what happens and will happen forever.

The more important question is who is to blame for cycling being in the state it is in, but like you say, it's far too complex to answer with one vote in a stupid poll.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Ferminal said:
I think that's what he means too.

But there's no one to blame for cheating in professional sports, it's just what happens and will happen forever.

The more important question is who is to blame for cycling being in the state it is in, but like you say, it's far too complex to answer with one vote in a stupid poll.
clearly, an individual rider can't change d1cksh1t. Nor can one Team, one Teamdoctor, one Sponsor, let alone one fan, etc.
The UCI, on the other hand, would have the power to bring about change, by means of serious testing, and serious banning.
So no change = UCI to blame principally (not exclusively).
 
I'd like to have voted for a few of those.

But, ultimately, it is down to the rider. He does not have to charge up, and where he feels like he is coerced into it, then he should speak out.
 
Aug 4, 2009
1,056
0
0
Cycling at top is very short so there is a need to preform Peer presure is one thing but money $$$$$$$ to be made is also a major part .

There will always be donkeys who want to be race horses but at the top it is a matter of winning the big races the glory and acceptance
You thought you could just get away with a little bit of dope and then more and more then bang untill "ooops" you get cought out,

The need to win before you retire so then along come WADA and UCI and end it all too early.
 
Jan 20, 2011
352
0
0
I said 'mostly'. Obviously everybody has their part to blame but the blame can't be dished out equally can it?
 
Nov 23, 2009
649
0
0
Eddy Merckx - he set the bar too high!

Seriously it has to be GREED. For money, as said Michielveedeebee. For success, coming from the riders. For market share, coming from the UCI/ASO.

I don't know how doctors, sponsors or fans would have anything to do with it. I think they're secondary reasons.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
The UCI is the longest serving "constant" in all of this.

They can get rid of bad rider. They can get rid of a bad DS. They can get rid of a bad sponsor.

Instead, they've created an underground culture to allow it to perpetuate.
 
Nov 19, 2010
228
0
0
The problem is that you can't compete in the sport anymore without f'ing with your blood. It's as simple as that... unless you're Jens Voigt :D

In all seriousness, I am not opposed to doping. I am opposed to eating horse steroids and heavy testosterone and that kind of thing because of the proven negative long term effects. But the EPO stuf doesn't bother me. If it is made available to anyone who wants/needs it to compete, then it's fine. The issue is availability and balance of fairness. As far as enhancing the human body and performance, if it can be done in a safe manner and everyone is given a choice, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. Let the conservatives flood on in.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The UCI because they are at the top. They have to take responsibility.
 
Jan 20, 2011
7
0
0
The Money. Its the difference in struggling to feed, house, and dress yourself and having a viable career where you can buy a home, a car, contribute to a marriage, and support children. Your pay is based on results not your good intentions. Is doping more dangerous than working in a coal mine, commercial fishing or logging?
 
Oct 20, 2010
87
0
0
It comes down on the governing body of the sport...so the UCI solely. Everything runs wild if there is not some sort of pressure from the guys supposedly in charge. If there isn't then you can see everything else unravel.

An example is how people who work office jobs can use the internet when they should be working for the company. Even if the job says no internet at work...If there is no pressure on them to stop then they'll be online all day. That is why there needs to be monitoring of the workers computer and work. Same goes for doping..why should they be afraid to be caught if there is a slim chance of being caught?

Must be why everyone where I work has a iphone/ipod touch with wifi :D
 
Sep 2, 2009
589
0
0
Sanitiser said:
Most of us agree that doping occurs because of the 'system' but in the end who is the most to blame?
I was very much in doubt. I leaned towards the UCI but ended up voting for the DS. UCI is probably most responsible, but I was going with the thought, ex dopers needs to be kicked out of the sport in order to clean up properly
 
sniper said:
clearly, an individual rider can't change d1cksh1t. Nor can one Team, one Teamdoctor, one Sponsor, let alone one fan, etc.
The UCI, on the other hand, would have the power to bring about change, by means of serious testing, and serious banning.
So no change = UCI to blame principally (not exclusively).
LOL. D1cksh1t on docks, or anywhere for that matter, is a fine thing to want to change... dang slippery. If d1cksh1t could be changed, sandpaper would be better but I'd feel sorry for the ducks. :D

Seriously though, that's a fine piece of logic Mr. Spock. I think you convinced me. And I especially agree with the part about serious banning.
 
Sep 2, 2009
589
0
0
I don't think the role of the UCI is that simple. They deal with conflicting interests.

Protect the market value of the sport we all love, protect the riders health, ensure a level playing field (or simply anti doping enforcement), protect the image of the sport.. just to name a few.

Biological passport along with the ongoing strict anti doping system, is propably the reason why the number of collapsing riders has declined, And at the same time it will help sell cycling as a clean sport, regardless of what happens in reality.

By no means would I assert that the UCI isn't deeply corrupt, but this corruption is actually very convenient, when you have to combine all of these conflicting objectives, it makes an organisation like the UCI run more smoothly.

Leading back to the original topic, I will simply ask the question. are the UCI escaping their responsibility in the fight against doping? or is it fair to say that they are just trying to keep the fight within reasonable limits, allowing the sport to avoid strangulation?

The answer probably lies in between these two poles.
 
May 20, 2010
718
0
0
UCI set the tone. And that tone right now is fingers scratching a blackboard!

As mentioned above and many times elsewhere, UCI has conflicting/competing responsibilities. Those conflicting responsibilities, where they relate to PED/ergogenic aids/sportsmanship should be handed over to an autonomous body...yess drifting OT.

All stakeholders are responsible for a healthy organisational culture. However the senior officers of any organisation hold greater power and therefore greater responsibility in creating/maintaining that healthy culture.

Yes cyclists can refuse to dope/ can dob in/can encourage others not to dope, but how about creating an environment where they don't face invidious choices.

Doctors and scientists enable, to a large degree, the less than ideal options selected by the cyclists. They are involved in the design: of the product, of the schedule, of the amounts, of the variety. Then they assist in the administration of the PED, deal with the side effects and avoidance of detection...

The list goes on ad nauseum...HOWEVER the UCI sets the tone!:mad::mad:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts