Apologies to Greg LeMond

boomtown rascals wrote:

And is the sport of cycling more 'broken' than a different professional sport where drugs are part of it, like football?

And then further, obviously, like professional bodybuilding? I phrase these questions to bring out thoughts and views on whether drugs are viewed more detestable in one sport over another? Whether there is a false sense of bravado (and cover) in a particular sport's 'cleanliness'?

Drugs are prevalent. Now, the doping agencies tied up with big business can manipulatively, politically control the presentation of the sport to the public, using drug control as one tool.[quote]boomtown rascals wrote:

boomtown rascals wrote:

All of this is nonsense wrote:

Which makes the sport broken.

What do you feel makes the sport broken? That there are drugs in the sport of cycling, or that the fans are not universal in how they treat drugs in the sport of cycling? And is the sport of cycling more 'broken' than a different professional sport where drugs are part of it, like football?

I think the sport has a lot of positives. I think that there are a lot of good people trying to make the sport work. It's a classic sport that is very spectator friendly. The tour going through UK this year was huge. The fan turnout was amazing from what I hear. There are the classic USA races that still get's huge crowds with lot's of sponsorship money.

The fact that there isn't a universal direction, along with the fans and their views is what hurts the sport. The past dopers running pro teams. The US clean guys being mentored by past dopers. The fans and clean riders going to Hincapie's gran fondo. Etc. I do believe in the sport. And think that it can turn around. I love it.

With that said, I think a lot of other sports are also broken. The UNC scandal, we all know that happens everywhere. The NFL scandals, etc. etc. If there's money and a chance to cheat, people will take the opportunity. That will always be the case. Cycling is under a microscope because of what happened in the past. Running has had scandals, but I don't think it's been exposed nearly the amount of cheating that really takes place.

I don't want to come off as cynical. Like I said, I love to ride and race my bike. The friendships are great, and it's an amazing way to see the country and world. I just know that there is a lot of work to be done. I'm not going to be one of those guys that says- all is great, everyone's clean. The sport is perfect. All I know is that I will be clean, and the thrill I get from racing my bike and competing is something I hope to one day tell my future kids about, knowing I did it the right way. Even if I never get the opportunity to race in the Tour.

"sponsorship money"

One could make a case that if 'sport is broken', then "sponsorship money" is a fundamental reason why.

Go for a ride, or run. Have fun. You don't have to do it in their 'sponsorshiped' races. Altruism is typically not their first motivation. They are trying to sell you something, like 'a new bike', 'new shoes', or dare I say 'drugs'.

Of course they are. And as a professional it's my job to push the products on my family and friends, along with fans. I understand your point.

But if the pros/coaches/governing bodies were fundamentally more just then things would be different. I think some sponsors would be corrupt while others are in it for the right reasons.

Sponsors clearly want publicity, while providing the monetary value, in hopes for a return via it advertisement or sales. And I would want the same thing as a sponsor.

I don't think the route off all problems goes back to the sponsor. Do you really think the Discovery Channel, and USPS wanted to be tied up in all that? Sure the money in the sport causes the corruption. I understand your point, but regardless-competition is in everything- people love competition and seeing people be passionate about something.

There are lot's of positives in professional sports. I just wish there was a fix for some of the negative aspects.

I do not think Paula Radcliffe doped. Not for a second. I do not believe doping makes people faster, only faster to get to their peak.

Happy to be proved wrong.

?

So in your view, using drugs that are not banned, regardless of whether they are indeed performance enhancing, is not 'doping'. Getting into 'the grey area', as deep as that rabbit hole goes, is not 'doping'? Unless, possibly they failed to declare, for whatever reason, through a TUE? Then that would be 'doping'?

Hopespringseternal wrote:

I do not believe doping makes people faster, only faster to get to their peak.

Happy to be proved wrong.

Your fuzzy 'feel good' view doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Let's look at the boundaries to better understand the premise. Take bodybuilding, for example. Packing on muscle is an objective. Do you really think those guys would be able to 'peak' out with the amount of muscle they display if they stay clean? That it would just take them longer to do so if they remained clean?

Sorry, but your statement is a 'fail'. Drugs in sport, for the purposes of enhancing gene expression to supersede what can be done without them, work.

The extreme aid to women cannot be denied. Teststorone moves them closer to the chemistry (and resultant effects) of a male, and males in general are bigger, stronger, and faster than females.

Good points.

Doping never used to exist as their were no rules. If I park my car outside my house on the rd that is fine. If my rd rules change and make it illegal to park on my rd then what was once legal is now illegal. It is the same with doping. To a degree!

The spirit of banning doping is to protect health and to 'have a level playing field' I would say any sportsperson should have that as their guide and aim to be the best they can be. Issues will arise. That's life.

Should someone have a drip to recover from a training session or race?

What pain relief and when to use. Issues.

As for performance enhancing we need a guide. Training is performance enhancing. So are foods.

Medicines designed for health reasons should not be used to enhance performance. Others disagree obviously. Grey is everywhere. Supplements? Food is better.

Drugs ? That are legal ? Depends why when for what purpose.

Body builders who take steroids have bodies that do not match their heads is a crazy aim. But people aim for that.

I was taking about real sports not modelling.

You reap what you sow. People convince themselves that it is ok. That's upto them. I suppose it comes down to what is important. To the person. Those cyclists in the early days of EPO died to get better. They died in their sleep. Winning is everything!! Really?? So the vast majority of life and people are nothing to do with winning. So how can winning be everything. Taking hormones is crazy for sport. It happens. But not all do so. Not all winners do so.

I remember Paula Radcliffe at a major event with a placard against drugs cheats before she was a world beater.

The no needle policy applies to IV's. Unless it's medically justified. Therefore, no IV's can be legally used to recover.

Hopespringseternal wrote:

I remember Paula Radcliffe at a major event with a placard against drugs cheats before she was a world beater.

Meanwhile, she's getting shot up with the derivatives of animal blood. "But it's not banned, though it was at one time. "But some guy in WADA says it can't provide any performance enhancement", while numerous athletes actually using it beg to defer.

Politics. Control. Money.

To the above posters point about cycling hypocrites:

I believe Greg Lemond doped. I believe EPO was either something he missed or a bridge too far but Lemond used other PEDs. Cycling was rampant with doping when Lemond raced, just not EPO. Hinault used amphetamines, Fignon used EPO and amphetamines. Lemond beat them both. People used the argument against Armstrong "clean athletes do not beat dirty athletes". I believe the same applies here.

I don't care for Armstrong, I don't care for Lemond, this isn't a character judgement of either one of them. I just think even in saying "Greg was the only clean American to win..." is throwing PED value judgements out.

Knower of Knowledge wrote:

I just think even in saying "Greg was the only clean American to win..." is throwing PED value judgements out.

"PED value judgements"

This should probably be the topic of its own thread, with some of the PED posts on this thread (apart from the topic of Lemond) included in it.

Question

Why is if the same suspects. In cycling it is Astana and saxo tinkoff getting caught with the same drugs. Sky Garmin and Argos Shimano are not being caught. Just examples but maybe telling.

Hopespringseternal wrote:

Question

Why is if the same suspects. In cycling it is Astana and saxo tinkoff getting caught with the same drugs. Sky Garmin and Argos Shimano are not being caught. Just examples but maybe telling.

What? Can you repeat your question...in standard English?

Sky no cheats caught ( anybody you mention are pre-Sky or post).

No British Cycling team caught doping.

Garmin none caught doping while at Garmin

Argos Shimano no doping test fails.

Tinkoff saxo bank. Clenbuterol. More than once both very small amounts.

Astana three people caught this year all part of the TDF win. Contador and Armstrong cycled for Astana.

My question

Why

Is

It

Always

The same

Teams

Caught

And

NOT

Caught.

Jonathan Tiernan-Locke represented Britain at the world championships in 2012 which was the year he returned the adverse analytical findings. He then went on to SKY (I believe this is what you are referencing)

Froome produced a TUE AFTER he was popped reminiscent to the Armstrong corticoid affair.

Your point stands in some regards though.

Seems doubtful that someone who doped would turn down EPO when he was used to being number one. In interviews he states he did not know about EPO not that he rejected it. If he never doped it would be known in the peleton and no one would have bothered him with it.

Your point assumes no one can win without doping. I cannot just accept that.

Seb Coe broke world records in running because he was talented determined and his dad saw the training plans for his son as a joke. He took over his son's training and reinvented middle distance training. His ideas are no mainstream. Not all improvements are drugs