Why people keep doping

[jamesmasters]

Suppose you're a mediocre rider in the peloton. You look at Armstrong. Net worth of what, £100m+? Look at Contador on a fat contract.

Armstrong might be a public enemy right now but arguably his life is still a whole lot better than it would have been without dope.

In 2011, Froome was 26 and going nowhere. If offered the opportunity to dope at that point, what reason did he have to decline it, other than his own sense of morality? Faced with a choice between a mediocre career and a multi-million dollar, Tour-winning career (with a risk of being caught) - what would you choose?

Perhaps things have gone far enough now and life bans are needed to put an end to things once and for all. Make an example of the dopers. So once Contador pushed 7 w/kg up Verbier and then tested positive, that should have been the end of him for good. Out. Ditto Froome if and when he gets caught.

 

[Almeisan]

Elite athletes are in it to win. Most of them don't care about anything else than being the best. Half of all athletes would take a pill that makes them win but kills them in the 4 years to come.

Also, dopers don't get caught, generally. And when they do, they get off easy or are protected, if they play their cards right.

As for the advantages, hard to say without knowing what doping regimes they are using now. But the advantages used to be big. They might be more 'marginal' now to prevent tripping wires. Hard to say. But even a small edge can make one win.

As for the money, that's pretty clear as well.

 

[brilleaben]

Because they are dedicated.

 

[Benotti69]

Pro cycling is full of past riders who doped, soigneurs who helped riders dope, doctors who doped riders, directeur sportifs who are themselves ex dopers.

Where ever you turn in the sport there are people who doped.

It is believed to be a fundamental part of the sport and when someone from the sport speaks out about it they are 'spitting in the soup'.

 

[bewildered]

It's probably the case that even the mediocre riders in the peleton are doping to some extent just to make a career out of it. If they didn't, another mediocre rider would dope and take their place.

Also the issue of getting what are short-term contracts as sports go, renewed

 

[SpeedWay]

"Perhaps things have gone far enough now and life bans are needed to put an end to things once and for all."

Don Quixote to Sancho after being knocked to his *** after yet another round with a windmill.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Perhaps things have gone far enough now and life bans are needed to put an end to things once and for all. Make an example of the dopers.

The UCI do not know how to "grow the sport" without picking winners. The IOC likes the doping too. How do you think they manage world records every four years?

So once Contador pushed 7 w/kg up Verbier and then tested positive, that should have been the end of him for good. Out. Ditto Froome if and when he gets caught.

The problem with lifetime bans is the tests are complicated and have some chances of false positives. It's a legitimate concern. I would suggest doubling the 2 year ban for injected drugs, since most of PED's that work are injected.

 

[sniper]

Suppose you're a mediocre rider in the peloton. You look at Armstrong. Net worth of what, £100m+? Look at Contador on a fat contract.

Armstrong might be a public enemy right now but arguably his life is still a whole lot better than it would have been without dope.

In 2011, Froome was 26 and going nowhere. If offered the opportunity to dope at that point, what reason did he have to decline it, other than his own sense of morality? Faced with a choice between a mediocre career and a multi-million dollar, Tour-winning career (with a risk of being caught) - what would you choose?

Perhaps things have gone far enough now and life bans are needed to put an end to things once and for all. Make an example of the dopers. So once Contador pushed 7 w/kg up Verbier and then tested positive, that should have been the end of him for good. Out. Ditto Froome if and when he gets caught.

good post, stating a plain fact. Indeed, the question isn't "why would they dope?" but "why would they not dope?"

That's why ARD/ZDF's decision to stop broadcasting was the only way forward, imo. If you wanna fight doping, hit the dopers where it hurts most: in their pockets.

 

[iejeecee]

That's why ARD/ZDF's decision to stop broadcasting was the only way forward, imo. If you wanna fight doping, hit the dopers where it hurts most: in their pockets.

It's also a massively hypocritical decision. If they don't want to broadcast cycling because of the cheating, they might as-well stop broadcasting professional sports all-together.

But they would never do that because it would hurt themselves far more financially then anything they hope to gain from it.

It's easy to drop some fringe sport and make yourself look all though and full of principals, but when it comes down to it they are all too happy to fill their own pockets with more popular sports that are just as bad or even worse.

 

[sniper]

It's also a massively hypocritical decision. If they don't want to broadcast cycling because of the cheating, they might as-well stop broadcasting professional sports all-together.

But they would never do that because it would hurt themselves far more financially then anything they hope to gain from it.

It's easy to drop some fringe sport and make yourself look all though and full of principals, but when it comes down to it they are all too happy to fill their own pockets with more popular sports that are just as bad or even worse.

with specific regard to cycling, the ZDF decision could have been a start. if other tv-stations would have followed the example (explicitly stating doping as the reason), more and more sponsors would subsequently stay away, and the incentive to fight doping would perhaps grow.

but at large, of course i see the hypocricy and the circularity of the problem, like you do.
to be honest, I don't see a genuine solution as long as free market capitalism is the measure of all things.