Doping: Attitude and bias...

[GetAGrip]

I don't believe that. I think it is well within human endurance to do a race like the tour nourished by ordinary food stuffs. This propaganda about it can only be done if the pros are on something is just that - propaganda.

After all if you cycle commute or do a century ride or whatever, are there not plenty of people who will hold their hands up in horror and say 'How could you do that?' 'You must be really fit' when we all know it isn't a big deal at all!

Trust me, my first century will be a humungous deal.......to me anyhow

 

[Hotblack Desiato]

Trust me, my first century will be a humungous deal.......to me anyhow

Yeah but once you've done it you won't be able to stop! Go for it!

 

[Hont]

At the Olympics in the US an interviewer asked fans and 'minor' competitors if they would take a drug that would guarantee them a medal but they would die the next day. A large (surprising) number said "Yes".

It's not actually the next day but after 5 years. It's known as the Goldman dilemma. Elite athletes typically responded at greater than 50% yes (!), whereas a survey of the general population in Australia resulted in only 2 out of 250 saying yes...

http://bjsportmed.com/content/43/11/871.abstract

 

[Hont]

The interesting point he made was that in the 60's and 70's, there was the theme of drugs as harmless facilitators of new experiences and human improvement. But perhaps more influential within sport would be the legions of GI's returning from wars in south east asia having been fed amphetamine to sustain their combativity.

Exactly. After all the government gave the armed forces amphetamines in the war so people got on that treadmill with no qualms. Like all the pop and rock stars of the 60s starting on uppers and ending up on heroin, if cyclists had not started on the slippery slope with "harmless pills" would they have dived straight into the world of blood transfusions and intravenous injections?

Fignon suggests in his book that he viewed what he did and taking EPO as worlds apart, although it's clear that not everyone thought the same (see Ferrari's orange juice comment) and considered it just one more step down the road.

 

[snailracer]

ISTM that what the public considers acceptable in sport changes dramatically. Not so long ago, any professional sport was considered quite unsavoury. In the age of amateurs, "shamateur" was a perjorative term and, for a long time, even training outside of actual competitions was considered underhand. Racism in football used to be quite commonplace while "simulation" was unacceptable - today, the converse is true.

Ethical standards in sport change. Lance Armstrong's downfall was mainly because he was so good, for so long, that the ethics of sport changed in his time. In pro cycling, there are many riders who had a good run in times past - I'm pretty sure they didn't achieve what they did on "orange juice" and yet there is no particular clamour for them to be exposed.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Modern professional sport is entertainment. Mass entertainment. Theatre, in other words. I find it simply more enjoyable to watch if one puts a pair of "They are (probably) all dopers" spectacles on and switch of the scruples and watch for the fun.

There are many good arguments to be advanced against my "Drugs are just a form of technology, technology gives competitors advantages, why not just let them all dope" view. RichP has advanced a few of them, but all have the flaw that the cheats will always beat the tests so the cheats will always win and drag the sport so many of you love so much through the mire again, and again, and again...

...and you'll never be certain that the current poster boy, whoever it is, isn't dirty or, at least, wasn't dirty on the way up.

Surely it is a good thing, a very good thing, a thing that should be trumpeted from the rooftops that cycling outs its cheats, where as soccer and tennis, to name but two, still bury their heads in the sand.

 

[Hotblack Desiato]

...

Ethical standards in sport change. Lance Armstrong's downfall was mainly because he was so good, for so long, that the ethics of sport changed in his time. In pro cycling, there are many riders who had a good run in times past - I'm pretty sure they didn't achieve what they did on "orange juice" and yet there is no particular clamour for them to be exposed.

That's not my perception at all. I do not think that standards changed during Lance Armstrong's time they were already there.

Like so many, I thought when he first won that at last a cyclist who was considered clean had done so. And I went on believing his claim never to have tested positive, blah, blah.

The fact is that the Lance Armstrong 'industry' had got it sewn up; everyone who mattered was either brought on board or silenced. Sceptics were dismissed as anti-american or bad losers, particularly since the French had not won for so many years (1985 Bernard Hinault) and they were very sceptical. Nevertheless, Sarkozy was a supporter and allegedly even forced the head of French anti-doping to resign at Lance Armstrong's request:
French ex-anti doping chief says President Sarkozy forced him out of job at Lance Armstrong's request

.. Armstrong had powerful allies who had a vested interest in maintaining that he had won those seven Tour de France titles clean, starting with Sarkozy who saw him as an invaluable ambassador for tourism, down to race organisers ASO, keen to protect the image of what the article describes as its “cash cow,” as well as governing body the UCI.

..his fate [is] said to have been sealed at a dinner attended by Armstrong at the Elysée Palace in July 2010, hosted by Sarkozy who had made little secret of his admiration for the cyclist.
“Armstrong told me about it himself,” Bordry explained to the Nouvel Observateur, saying “he boasted in front of me of having called for my head from the President. I asked for a denial from the Elysée, even a private one, but never received a reply. I was shocked.”

Ethics had nothing to do with the matter, vested interests and money had everything to do with it. That is why Lance Armstrong still has apologists some of whom are ill-advised but many others are simply self-interested and dishonest.

 

[thom]

Surely it is a good thing, a very good thing, a thing that should be trumpeted from the rooftops that cycling outs its cheats, where as soccer and tennis, to name but two, still bury their heads in the sand.

Agreed - it is good for the sport of cycling, which we care for. As a conversation, it should be able to exist on it's own without reference to sports that do not offer something better to learn from. I don't understand the point of view that complains that other sports are getting off much easier than cycling, that it should be given a break, as if some stones are ok to be left unturned. It really annoys me, like raising a white flag in surrender.

You are right that we shall never be sure that competitors have not found some way to beat the testers. I think that is the reality for the future and that there will always be people that fail tests.
But I disagree that there is merit to a free for all doping environment, however to discuss that and to offer arguments needs a different thread, perhaps not even in this part of the forum.

 

[oldroadman]

Agreed - it is good for the sport of cycling, which we care for. As a conversation, it should be able to exist on it's own without reference to sports that do not offer something better to learn from. I don't understand the point of view that complains that other sports are getting off much easier than cycling, that it should be given a break, as if some stones are ok to be left unturned. It really annoys me, like raising a white flag in surrender.

You are right that we shall never be sure that competitors have not found some way to beat the testers. I think that is the reality for the future and that there will always be people that fail tests.
But I disagree that there is merit to a free for all doping environment, however to discuss that and to offer arguments needs a different thread, perhaps not even in this part of the forum.

Absolutely right, there is zero merit in chemically enhanced monsters, for example a certain baseball player who used to hit massive home runs, dominating any sport.
The fight must carry on, although the odd battle may be lost, the war continues.
We can never give in to dopers.

 

[snailracer]

That's not my perception at all. I do not think that standards changed during Lance Armstrong's time they were already there...

I disagree - the UCI-WADA turf war started around the end of Armstrong's era. UCI signed up to WADA in 2004, but only agreed to implement their protocols in full in 2010. Armstrong was still competing during this period - had he retired before 2004, he would never have been sanctioned and would still be holding 6 TdF titles.

...Like so many, I thought when he first won that at last a cyclist who was considered clean had done so. And I went on believing his claim never to have tested positive, blah, blah.
t.

He has never tested positive, and that's official

The fact is that the Lance Armstrong 'industry' had got it sewn up; everyone who mattered was either brought on board or silenced. Sceptics were dismissed as anti-american or bad losers, particularly since the French had not won for so many years (1985 Bernard Hinault) and they were very sceptical...

Well, you thought he was clean at the time, did he somehow "silence" you or were you already "on board"?

...Ethics had nothing to do with the matter, vested interests and money had everything to do with it. ..

The ethical acceptability of professionalism in sport has been a matter for active discussion for well over a hundred years. For example, Rugby Union only became professional in the 1990's - previously it was considered unacceptable and was against the rules. To assert that money is somehow separate from sporting ethics shows complete ignorance of the topic.

...That is why Lance Armstrong still has apologists some of whom are ill-advised but many others are simply self-interested and dishonest.

I don't fit into any of those categories, do you think I'm an Armstrong apologist?

 

[Hotblack Desiato]

I
I don't fit into any of those categories, do you think I'm an Armstrong apologist?

Yes I do; I have put you down as an ill-advised one. End of.

 

[david k]

When I played rugby in the early 90's there was quite an indifference towards drugs, they were just seen as modern supplements. I suspect this was how they crept into most sports

However when people (Lance/others) put the same level of effort into their drug taking and doping as they did training obviously things had got way way too far.

I've some sympathy (as opposed to trying to justify, agree with or accept) for sportspeople who take these 'supplements' as the culture contributes, obviously all the shamed cyclists weren't drug takers before they took up the sport. But I've no sympathy for the levels it got to, Lance apparently upped the anti and then to turn bandit on those around him with such aggressive arrogance is despicable. Like they say, careful who you upset on the way up because they have long memories, he is simply reaping what he sowed.

Hopefully this is a new beginning, I'm certainly looking forward to this years TdF.

With all that has gone on, do we still feel 2 years for dopers is the right punishment? I think it should be longer for sure

 

[totallyfixed]

Back in 2000 I was riding with a big club in Cambridge and I remember vividly the arguments I used to have with just about everyone over LA. I thought he was dirty and all those in his team, I was very much a lone voice and I am looking forward to going back next month to do some reliability rides with them and say,
"I told you so". Very childish I know but I really was angry with the fan boys at the time.
The thing that concerns me now above all else is that if I knew / strongly suspected he was doping then virtually everyone involved in pro cycling must also have known and yet silence reigned. The fashionable term is "omerta" and is frequently applied to the peleton, giving it an aura of mystery.
In modern times my "hero" has for many years been Jens Voigt, but listening to him a couple of days ago defending LA, one of my last bubbles has well and truly been burst. I didn't want him to be dirty, I wanted to believe. As a self confessed cynic I was playing the ostrich rather well, sigh.
It doesn't get any better either after listening to Andy Schleck on LA and doping [and I was never convinced by the Schlecks] it would seem the show goes on. I look back at the 2009 Tour podium and I don't believe, but then in 4th place is Wiggins with known dopers behind him - F Schleck, Kloden, Nibali. What am I to think? There are three possible answers, 1. Everyone was clean, 2. Wiggins was clean, most were doping, 3. Wiggins was doping along with everyone else. I don't believe the first scenario, the second is the one I want to believe but logically can'y be right, the last option I don't want to believe.
Can pro cycling not get it through their thick heads that they are losing viewers and sponsors? Few trust the UCI anymore and yet I think now is the best opportunity there has ever been to start anew. If you are caught doping and do not name names, life ban, if you come clean and tell all, 3 years with no second chance.
Just to finish by saying that unfortunately it has even penetrated the amateur ranks and we are gutted. Apologies for such a long post, much more that could have been said but I fear it will be a small audience.

 

[david k]

Back in 2000 I was riding with a big club in Cambridge and I remember vividly the arguments I used to have with just about everyone over LA. I thought he was dirty and all those in his team, I was very much a lone voice and I am looking forward to going back next month to do some reliability rides with them and say,
"I told you so". Very childish I know but I really was angry with the fan boys at the time.
The thing that concerns me now above all else is that if I knew / strongly suspected he was doping then virtually everyone involved in pro cycling must also have known and yet silence reigned. The fashionable term is "omerta" and is frequently applied to the peleton, giving it an aura of mystery.
.

It was obvious, he was beating everyone else and they had been caught for doping, did anyone seriously think he could beat all these professional drug taking machines when clean?

 

[oldroadman]

Back in 2000 I was riding with a big club in Cambridge and I remember vividly the arguments I used to have with just about everyone over LA. I thought he was dirty and all those in his team, I was very much a lone voice and I am looking forward to going back next month to do some reliability rides with them and say,
"I told you so". Very childish I know but I really was angry with the fan boys at the time.
The thing that concerns me now above all else is that if I knew / strongly suspected he was doping then virtually everyone involved in pro cycling must also have known and yet silence reigned. The fashionable term is "omerta" and is frequently applied to the peleton, giving it an aura of mystery.
In modern times my "hero" has for many years been Jens Voigt, but listening to him a couple of days ago defending LA, one of my last bubbles has well and truly been burst. I didn't want him to be dirty, I wanted to believe. As a self confessed cynic I was playing the ostrich rather well, sigh.
It doesn't get any better either after listening to Andy Schleck on LA and doping [and I was never convinced by the Schlecks] it would seem the show goes on. I look back at the 2009 Tour podium and I don't believe, but then in 4th place is Wiggins with known dopers behind him - F Schleck, Kloden, Nibali. What am I to think? There are three possible answers, 1. Everyone was clean, 2. Wiggins was clean, most were doping, 3. Wiggins was doping along with everyone else. I don't believe the first scenario, the second is the one I want to believe but logically can'y be right, the last option I don't want to believe.
Can pro cycling not get it through their thick heads that they are losing viewers and sponsors? Few trust the UCI anymore and yet I think now is the best opportunity there has ever been to start anew. If you are caught doping and do not name names, life ban, if you come clean and tell all, 3 years with no second chance.
Just to finish by saying that unfortunately it has even penetrated the amateur ranks and we are gutted. Apologies for such a long post, much more that could have been said but I fear it will be a small audience.

It has not. It has always been there, at varying levels, with a small number of very stupid people, who believe, for example, it may help them to a pro career. At which point if they do succeed in getting a contract, they have to up the ante. If you ain't got it, you get found out, and no amount of chemicals will fix that.
Others have probably "charged" to try to win specific races - there have been some odd results when I was racing at that level, and you look at people and wonder how they managed to do what they did when every other race they were chewing the handlebars!