Worst things in Pro Cycling

[Psalmon]

Where does the TV rights money go? Surely the UCI TV rights are somewhere in the 000s of millions per year. Are teams not getting a big enough slice of the pie? The ASO rights would be worth a bit as well...

Are teams not looked after well enough? It seems like they just have to fight on their own and if their sponsors drop out, they bust. Does cycling need to take the FIA approach of introduce regulations and budget caps to make it easier for teams to stay in the game.

I assume everyone sells the rights to their own events, ASO, RCS, Unipublic, UCI (Worlds), and that the teams are on their own, but I'm not sure. It's hard enough to find team budgets.

Maybe we could get some journo's to work on this in the off season instead of reports covering these insipid "training camps." I'd be really interested to read and expose on how the economics work in this sport for all the parties.

CN care to step up?

 

[Ripper]

That for all its efforts to become more clean and transparent, it receives more negative publicity than other sports that are doing (wait for it)

...

Nothing

Like most/all major NA sports - Nothing.

Football (Soccer) - Nothing

Swimming - 'almost' nothing

 

[BikeCentric]

As an aside, I have come to observe that those who are termed “haters” seem to be the ones who love this sport, as opposed to a super-star within it, more than anyone else. They are so-named by those who cling to an admittedly inspiring story created by the P.R. machine. It’s like calling someone who hates drunk driving a “hater”.

Thanks for this post. I am one who has been labeled a "hater" by many an ignorant fan-boy on this site and yet here I am, still training hard through the winter after office work after all these years so I can continue to enjoy racing as a pure amateur for nothing other than love of the sport.

But I question the myth and refuse to view the world through rose-tinted glasses and so I am a "hater." Whatever.

I am revising my original post: the worst thing in this sport is not the drug problem, it is the ignorant and ill-informed fan base which is fortunately mainly confined to a small subset of fat American slobs who need the false myth of a hero in their pathetic lives. The hate for them is strong in me and will fuel my winter rain riding.

Good luck to all racers this spring both Pro and Amateur.

 

[Rex Hunter]

I am revising my original post: the worst thing in this sport is not the drug problem, it is the ignorant and ill-informed fan base which is fortunately mainly confined to a small subset of fat American slobs who need the false myth of a hero in their pathetic lives.

Someone obviously didn't see the Giro then.

Good luck to all racers this spring both Pro and Amateur.

Cheers, mate.

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

As an aside, I have come to observe that those who are termed “haters” seem to be the ones who love this sport, as opposed to a super-star within it, more than anyone else. They are so-named by those who cling to an admittedly inspiring story created by the P.R. machine. It’s like calling someone who hates drunk driving a “hater”.

Thanks for this post. I am one who has been labeled a "hater" by many an ignorant fan-boy on this site and yet here I am, still training hard through the winter after office work after all these years so I can continue to enjoy racing as a pure amateur for nothing other than love of the sport.

But I question the myth and refuse to view the world through rose-tinted glasses and so I am a "hater." Whatever.

I am revising my original post: the worst thing in this sport is not the drug problem, it is the ignorant and ill-informed fan base which is fortunately mainly confined to a small subset of fat American slobs who need the false myth of a hero in their pathetic lives. The hate for them is strong in me and will fuel my winter rain riding.

Good luck to all racers this spring both Pro and Amateur.

On the flip side, those that defend this super-star from exaggerated and unjustified attacks are subject to the same labeling from those that supposedly love the sport. They are called "fanboys" and "homers" simply because they get excited about the sport's biggest star. I admit to being a fan of this star, but my love for this sport far surpasses my admiration of this person. In fact, I would not be the fan I am today if I hadn't tuned in to the 99 TdF just to see how this cancer survivor from Austin TX performed. Does the fact that my passion for cycling stemmed from an interest in Lance Armstrong make me a fanboy? If so, I really couldn't give sh!t. I train, I race, I watched anxiously as Boonen won Roubaix, I held my breath as Menchov's as$ hit the deck in Rome, I smiled when Armstrong rolled off the ramp in Monaco, and sat in amazement as Contador crushed the field on Verbier. I yelled at the TV when Evans couldn't get a proper wheel change, and nearly teared up when he won the Worlds. I love the sport just as much as anybody else in these forums. I just wish we could all stop with the childish and arbitrary labels. It would make these forums much more conducive to proper discussion about a sport we all cherish.

Indeed, Good luck to all racers.

 

[Anonymous]

2 for me;

Doppage

Crybabies

Not a Cadel fan eh? (that was for the Aussies in the house!)

 

[Anonymous]

Those who don't believe in courage, hope and miracles.

...and unicorns

 

[Anonymous]

The three things that BUG me are:

1) Whiners

2) Dopers

3) Finger-Bang Glitter Shirts

However, I do allow a rider to have one "fault" and still be ok in MY book.
For example, Eddy is a Doper but not a whiner or a finger-bang shirt wearer.
So he is OK.

Alberto wears a finger-bang glitter shirt, but he is not a whiner or doper.
So he is OK too.

And whiners are ok ONLY if they do not dope or wear that hideous shirt!

finger-bang glitter shirt photo courtesy of Jacobus

Why nobody commented on the words "finger bang" is beyond me...seriously.

 

[BikeCentric]

Why nobody commented on the words "finger bang" is beyond me...seriously.

Because it's just weird TFF - please let us never speak of it again.

 

[Deagol]

On the flip side, those that defend this super-star from exaggerated and unjustified attacks are subject to the same labeling from those that supposedly love the sport. .......

Good and fair questions


I think the point of contention is what you specify as “exaggerated and unjustified“ attacks. It all comes down to that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with everything else. If anyone had a bias to be a “fanboy” it would be me. I have a brother with stage-4 cancer who wears the livestrong stuff. Years ago, when I started racing in college, our coach actually used to train LA way back even before he won the world championships in Norway (before he worked with us). We (our small start-up college team) were all “fanboys” at one time. This was in the early to mid 1990’s well before the seven-tour streak. But I was also in college for an education in science. I remained a bike rider, racer and fan. It was only since the comeback when I was pointed to examine some very thorough material written by another scientist (Ashenden). This guy actually specialized in the very things these “exaggerated and unjustified“ attacks” were based on. My science background wasn’t even in biology, but all science teaches you to look at a given situation without bias or emotion. Up until reading that, I, too, believed that the French spiked LA’s samples in the 99 Tour (Landis, too). But a very important part of being open-minded and true to the facts is also in accepting those facts that contradict a long-held belief that you may have about something. For me, the Ashendnen article was the proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back” but there have been so many other straws both before and since then that the camel is now laying in pieces on the ground.

I would try to answer your question “Does the fact that my passion for cycling stemmed from an interest in Lance Armstrong make me a fanboy?” with an answer of absolutely not. What would put that label on anyone is when presented with a mountain of evidence showing that your hero did, in fact, commit the many and various things that have been alleged here and elsewhere, are they (the fan) able to acknowledge it, or do they let their emotions get in the way and become defensive and/or willfully ignorant of these things? To phrase this another way, do you re-examine your “hero” or do you lash-out at the many messengers?

 

[auscyclefan94]

Not a Cadel fan eh? (that was for the Aussies in the house!)

Don't start!

 

[Anonymous]

Don't start!

I wasn't, I just am in a chain jerking mood today. See my Beatles thread for further confirmation.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

2 for me;

Doppage

Crybabies

For me its the doping.

What does doping do for the sport?

The victor in cycling - at all levels - is rarely the fastest or 'best', it is often the smartest and most astute - someone who knows how to measure their efforts.

Doping only makes the racing quicker (as in average times) and in GT's the likelyhood of a rider having an off day less likely - this for me ruins the enjoyment of what the sport is about.

Doping allows riders to recover from their efforts and put in amazing performances day after day.
When I first watched the Tour back in the mid 80's every Tour winner was the most consistent - even when they had a 'jour sans' they battle was to lose little time. 86 Hinault gains time on one stage loses loads the next. 87 Roche loses time to Delgado on Alpe D'Huez. 88 Delagado has to use the mountains to gain back time in the TT's. 89 Fignon and Lemond swap places until Fignon rides away from Lemond in what seems the race winning move to Villards de Lans.

After that - black socks and black handlebar tape should incur a 2 year ban!

 

[auscyclefan94]

For me its the doping.

What does doping do for the sport?

The victor in cycling - at all levels - is rarely the fastest or 'best', it is often the smartest and most astute - someone who knows how to measure their efforts.

Doping only makes the racing quicker (as in average times) and in GT's the likelyhood of a rider having an off day less likely - this for me ruins the enjoyment of what the sport is about.

Doping allows riders to recover from their efforts and put in amazing performances day after day.
When I first watched the Tour back in the mid 80's every Tour winner was the most consistent - even when they had a 'jour sans' they battle was to lose little time. 86 Hinault gains time on one stage loses loads the next. 87 Roche loses time to Delgado on Alpe D'Huez. 88 Delagado has to use the mountains to gain back time in the TT's. 89 Fignon and Lemond swap places until Fignon rides away from Lemond in what seems the race winning move to Villards de Lans.

After that - black socks and black handlebar tape should incur a 2 year ban!

I disagree, I think 60 to 70% of the time the strongest rider wins the race as they can ride away or cahse down any move. A rider being tatically acute is not a major factor as radios control majority of the riders tatics though some tatical descisions are impulsive.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I disagree, I think 60 to 70% of the time the strongest rider wins the race as they can ride away or cahse down any move. A rider being tatically acute is not a major factor as radios control majority of the riders tatics though some tatical descisions are impulsive.

Aha, my friend - firstly I said "at all levels".... and what I meant by that is the true nature of the sport, not just Pro level.

Also I was not talking tactics, more physical ability - I was highlighting that often riders who should win certain races don't.

As a quick example - and this is not flaming because you are an Oz and your toilets flush the opposite to mine

The reason I was sooooo impressed with Cadels win at the WC was because he rode smart. For me Kolobnev followed by Canellara were the 'strongest' with the Spanish having the tactical advantage. But Cadel followed the move of the Spanish and did enough to hold off the the stronger riders when he went for glory.
This is why I love this sport - it is not the fastest across the line - it is the smartest.

 

[yetanothergreenworld]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3vgUdUkQVQ

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

Good and fair questions


I think the point of contention is what you specify as “exaggerated and unjustified“ attacks. It all comes down to that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with everything else. If anyone had a bias to be a “fanboy” it would be me. I have a brother with stage-4 cancer who wears the livestrong stuff. Years ago, when I started racing in college, our coach actually used to train LA way back even before he won the world championships in Norway (before he worked with us). We (our small start-up college team) were all “fanboys” at one time. This was in the early to mid 1990’s well before the seven-tour streak. But I was also in college for an education in science. I remained a bike rider, racer and fan. It was only since the comeback when I was pointed to examine some very thorough material written by another scientist (Ashenden). This guy actually specialized in the very things these “exaggerated and unjustified“ attacks” were based on. My science background wasn’t even in biology, but all science teaches you to look at a given situation without bias or emotion. Up until reading that, I, too, believed that the French spiked LA’s samples in the 99 Tour (Landis, too). But a very important part of being open-minded and true to the facts is also in accepting those facts that contradict a long-held belief that you may have about something. For me, the Ashendnen article was the proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back” but there have been so many other straws both before and since then that the camel is now laying in pieces on the ground.

I would try to answer your question “Does the fact that my passion for cycling stemmed from an interest in Lance Armstrong make me a fanboy?” with an answer of absolutely not. What would put that label on anyone is when presented with a mountain of evidence showing that your hero did, in fact, commit the many and various things that have been alleged here and elsewhere, are they (the fan) able to acknowledge it, or do they let their emotions get in the way and become defensive and/or willfully ignorant of these things? To phrase this another way, do you re-examine your “hero” or do you lash-out at the many messengers?

I am familiar with the Michael Ashenden claims and the numerous claims of many others. Admittedly, I'm no scientist and do not pretend to understand the science of doping. My background is in literature and rhetoric, and I now work in the legal field. I know fallacious claims when I see them, and most of the claims directed toward Lance are exactly that (some hiding beneath the shroud of science). I understand the frustration behind the notion that he transcends the sport and that he is above reproach (I've never felt that way myself). To answer your question, I do re-examine my "hero," though I wouldn't use that word in regards to my feelings toward Lance. I think the difference is I haven't found the straw.

I don't want to debate whether he is saint or sinner. My point is that it's bad for cycling, this divide. The debate is everywhere in the cycling world: message boards, shops, magazines, races, group rides, and organized non-race events. I've never seen such a divisive and polarizing figure in any sport, and unfortunately, it distracts cyclists from a much greater objective.

Best wishes to your brother.

 

[Anonymous]

I am familiar with the Michael Ashenden claims and the numerous claims of many others. Admittedly, I'm no scientist and do not pretend to understand the science of doping. My background is in literature and rhetoric, and I now work in the legal field. I know fallacious claims when I see them, and most of the claims directed toward Lance are exactly that (some hiding beneath the shroud of science). I understand the frustration behind the notion that he transcends the sport and that he is above reproach (I've never felt that way myself). To answer your question, I do re-examine my "hero," though I wouldn't use that word in regards to my feelings toward Lance. I think the difference is I haven't found the straw.

I don't want to debate whether he is saint or sinner. My point is that it's bad for cycling, this divide. The debate is everywhere in the cycling world: message boards, shops, magazines, races, group rides, and organized non-race events. I've never seen such a divisive and polarizing figure in any sport, and unfortunately, it distracts cyclists from a much greater objective.

Best wishes to your brother.

Have you READ Lance's press releases ever? Your skills for detection for fallacious claims need sharpening if you can't pick up on the dishonesty dripping from them.

 

[blackcat]

I think Immaculate spelt it incorrectly. He meant phallutious claims.

 

[Deagol]

I am familiar with the Michael Ashenden claims and the numerous claims of many others. Admittedly, I'm no scientist and do not pretend to understand the science of doping. My background is in literature and rhetoric, and I now work in the legal field. I know fallacious claims when I see them, and most of the claims directed toward Lance are exactly that (some hiding beneath the shroud of science). I understand the frustration behind the notion that he transcends the sport and that he is above reproach (I've never felt that way myself). To answer your question, I do re-examine my "hero," though I wouldn't use that word in regards to my feelings toward Lance. I think the difference is I haven't found the straw.

I don't want to debate whether he is saint or sinner. My point is that it's bad for cycling, this divide. The debate is everywhere in the cycling world: message boards, shops, magazines, races, group rides, and organized non-race events. I've never seen such a divisive and polarizing figure in any sport, and unfortunately, it distracts cyclists from a much greater objective.

Best wishes to your brother.

Thanks for your wishes. He is actually doing quite well at the moment.
But I would question the statement “……. most of the claims directed toward Lance are exactly that (some hiding beneath the shroud of science).”
The great thing about science, is it is not a “shroud” at all, but in fact the very opposite. The scientific method was designed to rely on observable, empirical, & measurable evidence with methodologies that are re-creatable so as to be scrutinized by others (as opposed to, things such as subjective feelings, for example). There is no shroud there….
None of this, in my case at least, arose as a result of any frustration with the persona of LA. One of my first posts on this forum ever was saying that Lance should be “cut a little slack” for being a jerk because of the fact that even racing at my low level, there are plenty of jerks. I didn’t begrudge him of that, not then.
I also totally get the “not having found the straw yet” thing. I found “the straw” for me, way latter than many others have on this forum or elsewhere. Some people might never get to that point, others might get there relatively quickly.
I also think you are quite correct that this whole “divide’ is bad for cycling. As an aside, a parallel exists in mountain biking where trail-use conflicts emerge with hikers. There are the “downhillers” and “cross-country riders” who may argue back & forth about who is causing trail access to be threatened by their associated group’s behavior. The hikers lump us all in as “mountain-bikers” and the fact that we are divided does us a lot of harm.

I guess there is the PERCEPTION outside the cycling world of both the “pro Lance (fanboy)” and “anti Lance (hater)” groups. But if the rest of the world was really really paying attention, I think they would more likely see them as the “pro hero-figure/marketability” and “anti-doping/corruption/bullying” groups instead.

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

Thanks for your wishes. He is actually doing quite well at the moment.
But I would question the statement “……. most of the claims directed toward Lance are exactly that (some hiding beneath the shroud of science).”
The great thing about science, is it is not a “shroud” at all, but in fact the very opposite. The scientific method was designed to rely on observable, empirical, & measurable evidence with methodologies that are re-creatable so as to be scrutinized by others (as opposed to, things such as subjective feelings, for example). There is no shroud there….
None of this, in my case at least, arose as a result of any frustration with the persona of LA. One of my first posts on this forum ever was saying that Lance should be “cut a little slack” for being a jerk because of the fact that even racing at my low level, there are plenty of jerks. I didn’t begrudge him of that, not then.
I also totally get the “not having found the straw yet” thing. I found “the straw” for me, way latter than many others have on this forum or elsewhere. Some people might never get to that point, others might get there relatively quickly.
I also think you are quite correct that this whole “divide’ is bad for cycling. As an aside, a parallel exists in mountain biking where trail-use conflicts emerge with hikers. There are the “downhillers” and “cross-country riders” who may argue back & forth about who is causing trail access to be threatened by their associated group’s behavior. The hikers lump us all in as “mountain-bikers” and the fact that we are divided does us a lot of harm.

I guess there is the PERCEPTION outside the cycling world of both the “pro Lance (fanboy)” and “anti Lance (hater)” groups. But if the rest of the world was really really paying attention, I think they would more likely see them as the “pro hero-figure/marketability” and “anti-doping/corruption/bullying” groups instead.

I agree with your statements about the scientific method. What I meant by "shroud of science" is that many people, especially for the sake of argument, refer to science in a fallacious way, and because it's science, people fail to realize the logical fallacy within the argument. Science itself and its method are not a "shroud" but often used as such, if that makes sense.

As for your MTB parallel, I agree. I've often seen that dichotomy wherever I have ridden, and I'm starting to see the LA dichotomy develop more with his return. For example, I rode a large metric for charity (cycling advocacy groups and the LAF); it actually took place half way through the TdF. You would expect, considering this was partly for the LAF, that people would show up with Livestrong kits. One of the larger teams in the area showed up, basically creating a bunch of havoc, and marked those in the Livestrong kits. Either they aimed to drop them off the peloton or made some antagonistic comments toward them. In a charity ride, I just thought behavior like that was despicable. It's one thing if we seek out the debate (like in an internet forum), but it has no place in a charity ride.

Glad to hear your brother is doing well.

 

[Anonymous]

The lack of good TV coverage of cycling in the US.

Comcast and DirecTV not being able to work out a deal regarding the Versus network. (I miss both cycling and MMA coverage)

 

[Escarabajo]

The lack of good TV coverage of cycling in the US.

Comcast and DirecTV not being able to work out a deal regarding the Versus network. (I miss both cycling and MMA coverage)

+1.
Basically this.

1- Lack of Cycling coverage in the US
2- 10 days of flats before the mountains in the Tour.
3- >40 kms of flats after the last major categorized climb before the finish.
4- Rampant doping.
5- "Expensive" Doping. Only the wealthy having access to it.
6- Becuase of the above you have pros specializing or targeting only 2-3 races a year.
7- The UCI.
8- Not having the blood info public for everybody.
9- Not having the wattage data public for every rider.
10- Not having a Colombian rider fighting for the GC of the Tour de France.

Well That's it.
Thanks.

 

[yetanothergreenworld]

+1.

10- Not having a Colombian rider fighting for the GC of the Tour de France.

Yeah -- why do you suppose that is? The declines in Dutch and French cycling since the '80s have attracted a lot of commentary, but the comparable dropoff in Columbian performances since that first great generation of Herrera and Parra is just as big of a mystery to me. A couple of years ago, when Soler won his TDF stage, a friend of mine who'd just started following the Tour because of Armstrong asked me, "wow, is this the first ever Columbian stage win?" I was like, damn, believe it or not, twenty years ago the Tour had two different Columbian teams in it . . .

 

[pmcg76]

Yeah -- why do you suppose that is? The declines in Dutch and French cycling since the '80s have attracted a lot of commentary, but the comparable dropoff in Columbian performances since that first great generation of Herrera and Parra is just as big of a mystery to me. A couple of years ago, when Soler won his TDF stage, a friend of mine who'd just started following the Tour because of Armstrong asked me, "wow, is this the first ever Columbian stage win?" I was like, damn, believe it or not, twenty years ago the Tour had two different Columbian teams in it . . .

We have discussed this before but outside of the core cycling countries(Belgium, Italy, France, Spain, Netherlands) the sport has always been cyclical and even in some of the core contries, who remembers 4 top level Dutch pro teams in the 80s/90s. Panansonic/Raas teams/PDM/ TVM. There has only been Rabobank the last decade.

Initially the Colombians had a novelty value like any cyclist from a non cycling nation. They were something different and because they had talent and were unpredictable, people really loved them. Guys like Herrera and Parra were top riders and were national heros. They jostled with the stars of the 80s for victories.

Cycling was huge in Colombia in the 80s with the cyclists as national heros but then the national soccer took over the as the national heros at the start of the 90s, guys like Valderrama, Higuita were big characters so attracted a lot of attention, at the same time Herrera and Parra were finishing their careers. There have been decent Colombians since then, Rincon, Mejia, Buenahora, Chepe Gonzalez and now Soler but the novelty calue has gone and they didnt attract the same attention, especially as they rode on European teams.

Many countries like Germany, USA, Switzerland, Australia, UK and my own country Ireland have gone through the same cycle. Ireland is comparable with Colombia in regards cycling popularity. Cycling was huge in Ireland during the 80s with the success of Kelly, Roche, Earley, Kimmage, then the national soccer team took over as Kelly, Roche went into decline. Then Gaelic games became incredibly popular in the mid-late 90s and now rugby has become incredibly popular the last decade. Between 94 when Kelly retired and the mid 00s, there wasnt a single top level pro from Ireland, now we are in a situation again where we might have 3 guys at this years Tour(even if one is not technically Irish) We may be getting another cycling boom here in the next few years.

Outside of the core countries, cycling will always be like this, it just so happens that the US and Australia are currently going through a boom phase which is why there is so many peope from those countries on here. Imagine if the internet had existed in the 80s, there would have been relatively few from those countries in relation to Irish cycling fans.