Lance wins

[clarion]

I am astounded that anybody is surprised about the majority of top level bike racers (and runners and tennis players and soccer players and...) doping. Enough evidence has been visible for plenty long enough.

Quite.  And I'm glad you mention the other sports, as a great many of the 'sportspersons' involved in what Operation Puerto uncovered were indeed from tennis and soccerball.  But the focus of all the media attention is always on cycling for drugs.  The man on the Clapham omnibus associates uor sport way above all others with drugtaking. 

Every time I see a certain tennis player, I think it is screamingly obvious that he uses steroids - all the signs are there - yet nothing is ever said.  Amazing.

[Peter]

All professional racing cyclists 'dope'.

They'll take anti-inflammatories. Painkillers. Vitamins. Malto-dextrose. Tuarine.

*Some* of them will take substances that are banned. Some will take substances that are legal - but will be banned in a few years.

I'm not surprised or upset. We expect the near impossible. We expect high speed racing, mountain climbing at lunatic levels of effort. We expect them to pile into barbwire fences, get back on their bikes and continue riding.

Then, when they push the rules, they take something to make it easier, to help them keep going, we shun them. How ridiculous.

The hypocrites are us, not them.

I don't think so, charly.  We know they dope.  They know but deny it.  They are the hypocrites.

[mrcharly-YHT]

No, I still think it is us. We expect superhuman performances. If they said they took illegal drugs, their career is over.

The US olympic track team used blood doping, their own blood, one year and cleaned up the medals. They were open about it, I read about it in a magazine before the event.

That wasn't illegal then. Were they cheating?

[spesh]

Look at it like this, if cycling fans world over really, honestly, actually gave a damn about doping in sport, then they wouldn't bother to watch, whether on television or in person. A few sponsors have pulled out, and German TV decided to take a stand and stop covering the Tour, but apart from a few CDCs and syringes daubed on the mountain passes, a few placards maybe, that's as far as it goes...

Despite the Festina scandal, Operation Puerto,  Pantani being thrown off the Giro, Landis and Contador, Bjarne "60%" Riis, Simeoni and Bassons being hounded out of the sport, and all the other shit that's gone down in recent years, we still lap it up, and Alpe d'Huez is a three day party before the riders even haul their juiced arses up the mountain.

Are you not entertained? Isn't that why you are here? 

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/FsqJFIJ5lLs&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/FsqJFIJ5lLs&rel=1</a>

[mrcharly-YHT]

You've nailed it.

[Peter]

charly and roadrunner:

I understand what you are both saying.  But I don't expect superhuman performances.  I'd like human performances.  The winners and "greats" would be no less remarkable for not taking drugs, rather the opposite might be the case.  The problem is how to put the genie back into the bottle.

And yes, I do think the US track team were cheating, whether it was illegal or not.  My thoughts are probably worth nothing in a court of law but I think them anyway.  Lasse Viren, the multi-medalled Finnish runner admitted doing the same thing, which tarnished his victories for me, although the shame is that he would have won anyway without the chicanery, I expect.

It is not the spectators who are demanding in the way you suggest but the sponsors and to a certain extent the athletes themselves, out to build or sustain a career.  For the spectator a race is a race and will throw up the heroes we "require" without the need for drugs. 

[mattc]

It is not the spectators who are demanding in the way you suggest but the sponsors and to a certain extent the athletes themselves, out to build or sustain a career.  For the spectator a race is a race and will throw up the heroes we "require" without the need for drugs.

If the sponsors (and teams) require certain things from the riders, the riders get feck-all say in the matter. (I don't think it's unreasonable to aspire to a career.)

In one sense, the spectators don't care how fast the riders are; the problem is they do persist in this obsession with results. 

[Karla]

I made sure to take a gel and a cup of tea half an hour before my '25 at the weekend.  Does that count as doping?

[Peter]

It is not the spectators who are demanding in the way you suggest but the sponsors and to a certain extent the athletes themselves, out to build or sustain a career.  For the spectator a race is a race and will throw up the heroes we "require" without the need for drugs.

If the sponsors (and teams) require certain things from the riders, the riders get feck-all say in the matter. (I don't think it's unreasonable to aspire to a career.)

In one sense, the spectators don't care how fast the riders are; the problem is they do persist in this obsession with results. 

Neither do I!  But if there was no doping cyclists would still have careers,

@ Bunbury

I couldn't eat a gel even if it guaranteed me all the podiums in the world - one has standards!  But it's because I drink tea that I have never bothered to qualify for the Olympics in any sport.  The rest of the world might be fooled but I would know I had an unfair advantage!

[spesh]

I made sure to take a gel and a cup of tea half an hour before my '25 at the weekend.  Does that count as doping?

For the full-fat reductio ad absurdam experience, it could be argued that actually training for your chosen sport should be banned, as by doing so, you are seeking to enhance your performance.   

<Victorian public school amateur sportsman>

Hang it all, Carruthers, it was a sad day for the Empire when we let the lower orders take part! All these filthy cads, taking this cycling lark seriously... Dashed unsporting, don't you know?   

</Victorian public school amateur sportsman>

[pcolbeck]

Training at altitude alters your blood chemistry too. Should be banned ....

[Efrogwr]

I made sure to take a gel and a cup of tea half an hour before my '25 at the weekend.  Does that count as doping?

For the full-fat reductio ad absurdam experience, it could be argued that actually training for your chosen sport should be banned, as by doing so, you are seeking to enhance your performance.   

<Victorian public school amateur sportsman>

Hang it all, Carruthers, it was a sad day for the Empire when we let the lower orders take part! All these filthy cads, taking this cycling lark seriously... Dashed unsporting, don't you know?   

</Victorian public school amateur sportsman>

I think that you were joking in this post, but there were some who were of  this opinion in the early days of Sport As We Know It.

[Jaded]

I don't want superhuman performances. I just want to see a winner, not a cheat.

[mattc]

It is not the spectators who are demanding in the way you suggest but the sponsors and to a certain extent the athletes themselves, out to build or sustain a career.  For the spectator a race is a race and will throw up the heroes we "require" without the need for drugs.

If the sponsors (and teams) require certain things from the riders, the riders get feck-all say in the matter. (I don't think it's unreasonable to aspire to a career.)

In one sense, the spectators don't care how fast the riders are; the problem is they do persist in this obsession with results. 

Neither do I!  But if there was no doping cyclists would still have careers,

The problem is that 1 rider (or even team) cannot fix this on their own. They'd just lose, then be out of a job. Or would you (and the Campagn Against Rotten Cheats) pay their wages?

[spesh]

^
Which is why USADA gunning for Bruyneel and the doctors is actually more important than their going after Armstrong.

Dope testing only catches the unlucky and incompetent, and only addresses the symptom, not the disease. Elsewhere, there is talk about the implications of this latest development with regard to the allegations concerning a cover-up of Armstrong returning a positive test result in the 2001 Tour of Switzerland. Throw in the retrospective TUE issued by the UCI for the use of a corticosteroid cream in the 1998 TdF, plus the circumstances surrounding Armstrong's comeback, and it could be said that the rot goes right to the top of the sport. In other words, Armstrong coming back from near death to win Le Tour was a golden goose for the UCI, a feel-good story to counteract the sordid revelations of the Festina scandal, and it was not in the UCI's commercial interest for Armstrong to be found to have feet of clay.

Allegedly.

[jogler]

, plus the circumstances surrounding Armstrong's comeback, and it could be said that the rot goes right to the top of the sport. In other words, Armstrong coming back from near death to win Le Tour was a golden goose for the UCI, a feel-good story to counteract the sordid revelations of the Festina scandal, and it was not in the UCI's commercial interest for Armstrong to be found to have feet of clay.

Allegedly.

Such is my faith in human nature that I'm saddened to say that I find that to be an entirely credible possibility.

[rafletcher]

Eaxctly my thoughts too. How come Millar and Armstrong (and others) weren't caught by out-of-competition random tests - unless they (or their teams) knew when the "random" tests wold be? In Millars case we know he was doping during training.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I made sure to take a gel and a cup of tea half an hour before my '25 at the weekend.  Does that count as doping?

For the full-fat reductio ad absurdam experience, it could be argued that actually training for your chosen sport should be banned, as by doing so, you are seeking to enhance your performance.   

<Victorian public school amateur sportsman>

Hang it all, Carruthers, it was a sad day for the Empire when we let the lower orders take part! All these filthy cads, taking this cycling lark seriously... Dashed unsporting, don't you know?   

</Victorian public school amateur sportsman>

I think that you were joking in this post, but there were some who were of  this opinion in the early days of Sport As We Know It.

Barbarians and Corinthians 

[Rainmaker]

This is a conundrum that has bothered me for years:
The UCI establish a rule that the haemocrit level of a cyclists blood must be below 50%.
Rider A is an established star who focus's on one major race a year, he spends months training at altitude to bring his level upto the maximum allowed.
Rider B is a hard working domestique who is not able to train at altitude and therefore takes drugs to raise his haemocrit level to the maximum allowed.
Rider A is a superstar, rider B is a "cheat".

[Peter]

It is not the spectators who are demanding in the way you suggest but the sponsors and to a certain extent the athletes themselves, out to build or sustain a career.  For the spectator a race is a race and will throw up the heroes we "require" without the need for drugs.

If the sponsors (and teams) require certain things from the riders, the riders get feck-all say in the matter. (I don't think it's unreasonable to aspire to a career.)

In one sense, the spectators don't care how fast the riders are; the problem is they do persist in this obsession with results. 

Neither do I!  But if there was no doping cyclists would still have careers,

The problem is that 1 rider (or even team) cannot fix this on their own. They'd just lose, then be out of a job. Or would you (and the Campagn Against Rotten Cheats) pay their wages?

Matt, I'm not quite sure why you seem to want to quarrel with everything I say.  Of course it only works if no-one cheats and I've never suggested anything else.  I've also said, like Jaded, that I don't expect superhuman performances, just honest ones.  I think all these sportsmen, druggies included are incredible anyway, I just wish sport was clean and I object when people suggest that sportsmen take drugs because I, the spectator, want them to.  Believe me, I was never consulted!

[Jaded]

From today's Times:

The swirl of cycling is inescapable. The army of fans spellbound by the peloton are once again confronting the Lance Armstrong question: “So is that how he got so good?” And it stands to reason that the same questions may soon be asked of Bradley Wiggins.
Why? Because there have been question marks in the eyebrows raised at his success this year. And he has not even got to the Tour de France. It is an unfortunate fact of life that, because of cycling’s tainted past, anyone who is successful on a bike tends to get asked, in loaded tones: “How?”

After Wiggins’s imperious victory in the recent Critérium du Dauphiné, Jonathan Vaughters, the directeur sportif of Garmin, one of Team Sky’s rivals, got dragged into it. “I don’t think Sky are doping,” he said. “Just think they bought a lot of good and expensive talent.”

“Not sure why people are surprised by Sky,” he said. “A few €800k guys pulling a €900k guy, who then pulls for a €1.3m guy, who helps a €2m guy. They aren’t doping, they are buying up all the talent! Sky has a big budget AND they are executing very well. That’s why they are winning.”

but most tellingly:

study the time. Compared to the worst years of doping, Team Sky were slow. Richie Porte, the Australian who led the ascent of the Joux Plane, completed the climb in 35min 36sec, 2½ minutes slower than Marco Pantani, one of cycling’s greats whose career was troubled by doping allegations , managed 15 years ago. If you are looking for signs that cycling may be cleaner than in the past, the speed of the peloton on the climbs is one.

And a thought - in the years when so many people were doping, (if Armstrong gets found to have been doping) should they just expunge the results from the TdF completely instead of passing the baton to the next person down the line. Thus saying 'when there was endemic doping, there was no TdF'.

[Cudzoziemiec]

No, I don't think they should. Because it wouldn't be fair to the ones who weren't doping, even if that was the domestique for a minor team who finished 199th. And because if they did that for the TdF, then they'd have to do the same for the Giro, Vuelta, all the classics and lesser tours, until nothing was counted except amateur races.

[Karla]

Carruthers would be pleased, what what!

[Exit Stage Left]

Nice to see that the Times has caught up with us from Wednesday.
http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=60346.15

From today's Times:

After Wiggins’s imperious victory in the recent Critérium du Dauphiné, Jonathan Vaughters, the directeur sportif of Garmin, one of Team Sky’s rivals, got dragged into it. “I don’t think Sky are doping,” he said. “Just think they bought a lot of good and expensive talent.”

“Not sure why people are surprised by Sky,” he said. “A few €800k guys pulling a €900k guy, who then pulls for a €1.3m guy, who helps a €2m guy. They aren’t doping, they are buying up all the talent! Sky has a big budget AND they are executing very well. That’s why they are winning.”

Sky certainly reflect the realities of British economic performance.

Quote
In response to the Team Sky questioning, Team Garmin-Barracuda manager Jonathan Vaughters took to Twitter and commented, "not sure why ppl are surprised by sky:a few €800k guys pulling a €900k guy, who then pulls for a €1.3m guy,who helps a €2m guy."

For all the sly comments regarding Wiggins becoming a real grand tour threat you first need to look at the mechanism behind the man. Team Sky has one of the richest budgets in professional cycling. And to quote Vaughters again, "they aren't doping, they are buying up talent."

http://www.roadcycling.com/articles/Tour-de-Drama_004932.shtml

One of the sponsors are IG Markets.
http://www.igmarkets.co.uk/cfd/cycling.html

Quote
IG Markets is the leading provider of Contracts for Difference (CFDs) to retail clients around the globe.

What is CFD trading?

CFD trading enables you to take a position on thousands of different financial markets, without physically needing to own the underlying asset. This means you can trade on the value of a share (without owning the stock), or on the price of gold or oil (without purchasing the commodity itself).

I'm intensely relaxed about speculative globalised capitalism paying the going rate to secure the talent needed to ensure success. I'm not averse to a bit of jingoism on top of that. Underneath all that we are still talking about people, and I like Bradley's style, and I'd like to see him win the Tour.

[rogerzilla]

I stopped watching the TdF after about 2003,when it became increasingly obvious that the podium riders would inevitably be found to have doped.   It's become a hopeless sham of a sport.  The problem is that the team doctors and the testers have reached a kind of stalemate; the testers are getting false positives and false negatives because the doctors are able to dope up to, but not normally over, the natural tolerances for things like testosterone and haemocrit, and there are ready-made excuses for things like clenbuterol.

If you imagine yourself riding 120 miles a day at race pace for three whole weeks, you probably couldn;t do it even with years of training.  You either have to be a freak of nature or a doper.  Eddy Merckx was probably both; certainly the former, but he's hinted that everyone was taking something or other in the 1970s.