Why watch pro-cycling?

[Merckx index]

I'd enjoy it more if the efforts and outcomes were more realistic; if the riders suffered more, and were seen to try harder. Pro cycling would be enhanced, in other words, if the riders weren't doped to the gills.

I agree with many of the sentiments expressed in this thread, even ones that seem to be contradictory to other viewpoints that I also agree with. But I've never understood this "doping means they don't suffer as much" notion. If all or most of the peloton is doping, then obviously you can't just cruise along, not really putting out, and expect to win. If doping means riders aren't suffering as much, it can only be because a very select handful are doping--or on some program much better than the rest. Putting aside arguments about LA, which are on another thread,I don't buy this.

E.g., I'm willing to accept that Bert and Andy have doped in the past, and they may have been doping during that queen stage in the past Tour,when they finished together on that final climb. Does that mean they weren't suffering? At least one of them must have been, because if he wasn't, he could have put some significant time on the other by upping the pace. Or do you think they had an agreement before the stage?

Andy: Bert, I know that even if I go all out on the final climb, I can't gap you enough to win the overall. So if you promise not to try to drop me, I'll promise not to try to drop you.

Bert: Ok, but we do have to try hard enough to drop Menchov, don't forget.

Andy: Oh, of course, I forgot. What are we going to do about him? If we don't go all out, he could challenge me for second?

Bert: So we'll go just enough to gap Denis, then ease off, maintain the gap, and finish together.

Andy: Agreed. Thanks, lover boy.

 

[Maxiton]

I agree with many of the sentiments expressed in this thread, even ones that seem to be contradictory to other viewpoints that I also agree with. But I've never understood this "doping means they don't suffer as much" notion. If all or most of the peloton is doping, then obviously you can't just cruise along, not really putting out, and expect to win. If doping means riders aren't suffering as much, it can only be because a very select handful are doping--or on some program much better than the rest. Putting aside arguments about LA, which are on another thread,I don't buy this.

E.g., I'm willing to accept that Bert and Andy have doped in the past, and they may have been doping during that queen stage in the past Tour,when they finished together on that final climb. Does that mean they weren't suffering? At least one of them must have been, because if he wasn't, he could have put some significant time on the other by upping the pace. Or do you think they had an agreement before the stage?

Andy: Bert, I know that even if I go all out on the final climb, I can't gap you enough to win the overall. So if you promise not to try to drop me, I'll promise not to try to drop you.

Bert: Ok, but we do have to try hard enough to drop Menchov, don't forget.

Andy: Oh, of course, I forgot. What are we going to do about him? If we don't go all out, he could challenge me for second?

Bert: So we'll go just enough to gap Denis, then ease off, maintain the gap, and finish together.

Andy: Agreed. Thanks, lover boy.

Obviously, spinning up Alpe d'Huez, for example, so fast that you have to apply brakes around corners is going to involve effort, and suffering, no question about it. But do you remember watching Piepoli and Cobo taking Stage 10 of the 2008 Tour? Do you recall how unnatural it looked? How much farther they were ahead of everyone else, and how they showed no visible signs of distress? Why do you think that was? Maybe they are just good poker players?

Do you remember the Tours of the 2000s, when the whole GC was like Piepoli and Cobo, and how boring much of the racing was?

When blood values are evened out, or optimized for effort, and when other drugs are making the body super-efficient at getting oxygen to the muscles, the rider seldom reaches that state of performance in extremis where he must recruit forces he basically doesn't have and go beyond himself. If he starts out the day with fresh blood and a full compliment of hormones and other things he shouldn't have in his body, the character of his effort will be different, as will the nature of his suffering, which will also be less. And the end result will be something that looks unnatural and less exciting.

 

[Benotti69]

Obviously, spinning up Alpe d'Huez, for example, so fast that you have to apply brakes around corners is going to involve effort, and suffering, no question about it. But do you remember watching Piepoli and Cobo taking Stage 10 of the 2008 Tour? Do you recall how unnatural it looked? How much farther they were ahead of everyone else, and how they showed no visible signs of distress? Why do you think that was? Maybe they are just good poker players?

Do you remember the Tours of the 2000s, when the whole GC was like Piepoli and Cobo, and how boring much of the racing was?

When blood values are evened out, or optimized for effort, and when other drugs are making the body super-efficient at getting oxygen to the muscles, the rider seldom reaches that state of performance in extremis where he must recruit forces he basically doesn't have and go beyond himself. If he starts out the day with fresh blood and a full compliment of hormones and other things he shouldn't have in his body, the character of his effort will be different, as will the nature of his suffering, which will also be less. And the end result will be something that looks unnatural and less exciting.

i remember how boring it got watching a blue train that looked like it had motors get smaller and smaller till near the end the guy in yellow yet again crossed the line ahead of nearly everyone else, same tour different year...yawn

 

[Benotti69]

"Why watch pro-cycling?"

I feel that watching other people race their bikes is a little like watching other people have sex. I'd much rather be doing it myself. I'd gladly miss the final day of the Tour, for a 45 minute Crit.

which one of your arms is bigger and do the blisters heal quickly on your palm....

 

[ak-zaaf]

Well, obviously Dekker was doped to the gills -- so by your response you are saying there is 0% "chance" that Cadel doped in that year's Giro.

I would suggest your command of English syntax is pretty weak. Either that or even after 2,667 posts, you "really can't figure" things out. Won't even comment on the sadness of that

I'm very very sorry I typed something out wrongly. It's not my native language you see. How many languages are you fluent in?
If you couldn't figure out what I meant from what I typed I'm not the only one who needs help with English.

Also, if you measure ones experience with doping/cycling by the number of posts made on a forum that's only a couple of years old, you really can't figure things out. Won't even comment on the sadness of that

 

[NashbarShorts]

I'm very very sorry I typed something out wrongly. It's not my native language you see. How many languages are you fluent in?
If you couldn't figure out what I meant from what I typed I'm not the only one who needs help with English.

Also, if you measure ones experience with doping/cycling by the number of posts made on a forum that's only a couple of years old, you really can't figure things out. Won't even comment on the sadness of that

'Glass houses and throwing stones'. Google it. You come on here and claim my frustration with the sh*tshow that IS professional cycling is b/c I don't understand the sport and shouldn't be watching it?? I accept your apology.

 

[ak-zaaf]

'Glass houses and throwing stones'. Google it. You come on here and claim my frustration with the sh*tshow that IS professional cycling is b/c I don't understand the sport and shouldn't be watching it?? I accept your apology.

Opinions. Google it.

I don't think cycling is a "sh*tshow". Main reason for that is that it's not.
If I did feel that way I probably wouldn't be watching it.

 

[NashbarShorts]

'Sh*tshow', or simply a soap opera w/ bad actors who love needles. We're arguing over semantics at this point

 

[Darryl Webster]

I watch pro cycling in the hope of seeing great athletes pit themselves against other great athletes. That many dont play it straight fecks me off cus It taints them all and robs honest people of a living but on the other hand if I view it for the business it is its kinda like a microcosm of "real" life and the way the differant ego`s and interlects play out is a fascination of mine.
If I wanna see sport in its purest sence then I look at sub elite amatuer time trialing and road racing. The standards might not be so great but I can be largely confident most of its clean and healthily motivated.

 

[marinoni]

I've been struggling with the why for a while now. I've tried following the lead of others on this forum who accept that all the top riders are doped and just enjoy the sport for what it is, but I just can't quite get there. I'm embarrassed that I watched the sport for so many years without questioning anything and now I can't stop questioning everything.
I guess the one thing that keeps me going is that cycling is, on some level, trying to do something about doping. The vast majority of sports out there have doping policies that are an insult to people's intelligence.

 

[compete_clean]

Why Watch?

Why watch - good question. I have barely seen much coverage of the tour. I don't find it very exciting anymore ... radios, everyone doped so that no one can make a difference. Does anyone have a bad day anymore?

When I was a kid and started racing I would wait until the end of the tour for my penpal in France to send me clippings from the paper, for each day of the tour. Damn, that was nice of her. When it arrived, I spent hours reading every word printed about each stage. Now, sadly, I don't really care.

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

I wrestled with this question a couple of years back. Ultimately, I don't need to punish myself (by not watching) for the sins of someone else (doping).

 

[ak-zaaf]

'Sh*tshow', or simply a soap opera w/ bad actors who love needles. We're arguing over semantics at this point

I like movies like 'Swamp Zombies'.
Maybe that's the problem ;p

 

[kurtinsc]

I like watching racing sports (human powered that is). I enjoy speed skating, swimming, track running, track cycling, distance running, cross country skiing, triathlons... and road cycling.

I find something enjoyable about watching a group all striving to be the first to cross a finish line, regardless of the mode of transport.

Road cycling has some elements that aren't there in many of the other racing sports... the team tactics and the need to be able to handle very different stage profiles in longer stage races separate it and push it ahead to another level. It's like a cross between a traditional racing event (say the marathon), a multi-sport event requiring different skills (say the triathlon or decathalon) and a team sport (say basketball or soccer). I don't know of another professional sport quite like it.

 

[Merckx index]

When blood values are evened out, or optimized for effort, and when other drugs are making the body super-efficient at getting oxygen to the muscles, the rider seldom reaches that state of performance in extremis where he must recruit forces he basically doesn't have and go beyond himself. If he starts out the day with fresh blood and a full compliment of hormones and other things he shouldn't have in his body, the character of his effort will be different, as will the nature of his suffering, which will also be less. And the end result will be something that looks unnatural and less exciting.

I just don't buy this. It doesn't matter if you're doped to the gills, it is still possible to put out efforts in extremis. If you aren't doing that, and are still winning, it has to be because you are much better than the competition, either naturally, from better tactics, from a better doping program, or some combination of those and maybe other factors.

One of the purposes of doping is to allow greater efforts to be made in training, because you recover faster. Does that mean that doped riders don't suffer as much in training? I don't think so. And the same in a race.

As for Piepoli and co., you can ride at a very high level and not appear to be suffering if you stay below the red zone. It seems possible to me that riders today are just smarter about how to maximize their performance right up to the red zone without crossing the line.

 

[NashbarShorts]

I wrestled with this question a couple of years back. Ultimately, I don't need to punish myself (by not watching) for the sins of someone else (doping).

True, there's no need to punish oneself if it's only a "few bad apples". But increasingly in today's cycling it's painfully obvious it's damn near everybody (at least at the top of the sport). As such, how do you justify sitting down to spend a good 3-5hrs of a Sat or Sun watching these charlatans?

Many times in recent years I'll get sucked in to watching until stage finish, only to think "what a waste of time that was" and embarrassingly click off the tube. The advent of race radio surely hasn't made things any more viewable. Personally I think I've reached my breaking point and would rather be outdoors than waste more time or emotional capital on any of these punters.

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

True, there's no need to punish oneself if it's only a "few bad apples". But increasingly in today's cycling it's painfully obvious it's damn near everybody (at least at the top of the sport). As such, how do you justify sitting down to spend a good 3-5hrs of a Sat or Sun watching these charlatans?

Many times in recent years I'll get sucked in to watching until stage finish, only to think "what a waste of time that was" and embarrassingly click off the tube. The advent of race radio surely hasn't made things any more viewable. Personally I think I've reached my breaking point and would rather be outdoors than waste more time or emotional capital on any of these punters.

Good questions.

I don't think it's just a few, and I don't think the concentration level is exclusive to cycling or sports.

By no means am I suggesting my philosophy perfect, however, a couple of years back, I stopped watching, but I soon realized that I missed it. I also realized that my friends and family were going to keep on asking me about the sport - and if I stopped watching cycling because of rampant cheating, I'd probably have to turn my back on a lot of other things too.

 

[HelmutRoole]

'Jackie Robinson comes to mind'

I think that it is a beautiful tactical dance involving skill, genetics and motivation.
The downside is that it is a doping sport and it is hard to tell if your hero has won it through skill,genetics and motivation.

Here's the problem. If you regard professional athletes as heroes, then doped sporting events are for you. Doping produces unreal athleticism replete with rippling lean muscle mass.

Think about it.

There are some athletes worthy of hero status, but it's not because of anything or things they did on the race course, court or playing field. It's because of something or things they did off the race course, court or playing field. Jackie Robinson comes to mind.

Pro athletes by and large aren't heroes and when they call what they do a "job" it's only because they've never had one. These guys are about as heroic as a bunch of little kids running around on the playground. So what if they can swing from the monkey bars? There's no sacrifice involved. It's entertaining to a degree, but heroic?

Getting paid to do something you'd be doing anyway doesn't make you hero it makes you lucky. I know plenty of competitive cyclists: pros, masters, cat 1-thru-5. If any one of them won the lottery tomorrow, they'd quit their "job" and race full time.

Look, just watch the race. Enjoy the tactics and scenery. Admire the smooth pedal strokes since that's something doping can't enhance. But don't try to find a hero in the field. They're just a bunch of silly kids playing... and we enjoy watching. Don't over think it. You're tripping over rat turds if you do.

 

[Escarabajo]

I think that it is a beautiful tactical dance involving skill, genetics and motivation.
The downside is that it is a doping sport and it is hard to tell if your hero has won it through skill,genetics and motivation.
I look through rainbow colored glasses and accept the varying shades of gray.

Is that you Flicker??

 

[Maxiton]

I just don't buy this. It doesn't matter if you're doped to the gills, it is still possible to put out efforts in extremis. If you aren't doing that, and are still winning, it has to be because you are much better than the competition, either naturally, from better tactics, from a better doping program, or some combination of those and maybe other factors.

One of the purposes of doping is to allow greater efforts to be made in training, because you recover faster. Does that mean that doped riders don't suffer as much in training? I don't think so. And the same in a race.

As for Piepoli and co., you can ride at a very high level and not appear to be suffering if you stay below the red zone. It seems possible to me that riders today are just smarter about how to maximize their performance right up to the red zone without crossing the line.

And I don't buy that. I don't think riders are that much smarter today. (If you said they were dumber, that I might believe.) I think the dope is better. Period. EPO-type drugs, HGH, and so on, beat amphetamines and opiates any day, when it comes to endurance sports.

 

[NashbarShorts]

Here's the problem. If you regard professional athletes as heroes...

Nah, I think it's simpler than that. Spectator sports isn't about hero-worship for me. I think a lot of us watch b/c we like to cheer for athletes or teams we feel a connection with, and b/c sports events are inspiring.

It's hard to be inspired by something you know is fake. For example if you knew Cancellara really had a bottom-bracket drive, that's not inspiring at all. Likewise, it's hard to connect w/ and cheer on someone you know is cheating. Although this board is full of cynics who say "just enjoy the spectacle", I think most sports fans can't really get behind the idea of a guy riding an electric bicycle.

 

[Maxiton]

Nah, I think it's simpler than that. Spectator sports isn't about hero-worship for me. I think a lot of us watch b/c we like to cheer for athletes or teams we feel a connection with, and b/c sports events are inspiring.

It's hard to be inspired by something you know is fake. For example if you knew Cancellara really had a bottom-bracket drive, that's not inspiring at all. Likewise, it's hard to connect w/ and cheer on someone you know is cheating. Although this board is full of cynics who say "just enjoy the spectacle", I think most sports fans can't really get behind the idea of a guy riding an electric bicycle.

Yes, but in fairness to cheating D), wouldn't you agree there are different degrees of it? I mean, at least when you dope your body it's still your body putting out the effort; with a doped bike, you don't have even that consolation.

There is arguably still a case for watching doped athletes. But athletes riding on hidden-motor bikes? I can't see any point at all in watching that.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Why Watch?



Cycling I love.

Watching cycle racing I can barely tolerate. The exceptions are mountains and team time trials. The average 5 hour road race is booooriiiing. There are maybe two or three great tactical moves in those 5 hrs and two or three at the finish, but in between it is like watching paint dry.

I do not take away from the athletic skill, the endurance (probably doping enhanced), speed and tactics. But to suggest one likes cycle racing because of the "genetics" or the "motivation" seems to me rather silly reasoning.

To watch cycle racing through rainbow coloured glasses suggests that one knows the field is rampant with dopers but so what!

This is why in part, professional cycling has the tawdry image it does. Fans must demand a much higher level of professionalism from the sport. A laissez-faire, comme si - comme sa attitude towards tainted performances will not improve the quality of cycling.

 

[andy1234]

I just don't buy this. It doesn't matter if you're doped to the gills, it is still possible to put out efforts in extremis. If you aren't doing that, and are still winning, it has to be because you are much better than the competition, either naturally, from better tactics, from a better doping program, or some combination of those and maybe other factors.

One of the purposes of doping is to allow greater efforts to be made in training, because you recover faster. Does that mean that doped riders don't suffer as much in training? I don't think so. And the same in a race.

As for Piepoli and co., you can ride at a very high level and not appear to be suffering if you stay below the red zone. It seems possible to me that riders today are just smarter about how to maximize their performance right up to the red zone without crossing the line.

Riding at a sustained level just below "the red zone" is often where it hurts the most. It does seem that modern doping does remove a large element of discomfort for some riders at this level. Riding in control is one thing, looking like your out for a Sunday ride is another.

 

[Descender]

Because even though you know they're on something, most of the time you don't know how good everyone's **** is, so you can just enjoy the present and forget about the future, cause there will be another present then and you had your fun already.