ITV4's review of doping issues, broadcast on the TdF rest day

[Cycling Dan]

The underlying issue - dope or no dope - is fairly black and white. However, the blurry bits come when you try to eradicate doping. There's the idealistic, almost black and white, approach of Sky which can reinforce the omerta. And there's the more pragmatic approach of truth and reconciliation chez Millar/Garmin, designed to bring things out in the open. The end is the same, the means are very different.

Even to use or not is grey for me. Not so much visable in the TDF teams but for other sides of cycling some teams have vastly larger amounts of funding. So they have a unfair advantage as they can spend more on bikes and support there team better through training and real life support to further the training. Doping could then be considered fair in order to give the team of lesser funding to ability to become competitive again. Also there are types of doping which is legal in the sport. Its possible for a team to go into the mountains for a few months to increase there red blood cell count naturally. This is very expensive and a less off team may not be able to do this. So they use blood doping which is taking blood out to increase red blood cell out and then placing it back. Is this fair that one team can do this and another cant? Is it right for one team to dope to become just as competitive as its rival? Bare in mind the first example of the mountains is legal but the second is not. Both of which do the same thing.

Its all grey.

 

[lukesdad]

Even to use or not is grey for me. Not so much visable in the TDF teams but for other sides of cycling some teams have vastly larger amounts of funding. So they have a unfair advantage as they can spend more on bikes and support there team better through training and real life support to further the training. Doping could then be considered fair in order to give the team of lesser funding to ability to become competitive again. Also there are types of doping which is legal in the sport. Its possible for a team to go into the mountains for a few months to increase there red blood cell count naturally. This is very expensive and a less off team may not be able to do this. So they use blood doping which is taking blood out to increase red blood cell out and then placing it back. Is this fair that one team can do this and another cant? Is it right for one team to dope to become just as competitive as its rival? Bare in mind the first example of the mountains is legal but the second is not. Both of which do the same thing.

Its all grey.

I couldn't of said it better myself Bravo! As ive said many times before drugs are the symptom Money is the disease. Riders will risk a lot including their health to be successful the greater the rewards the greater risks they will be prepared to take. In this era of 'clean competition' the success of one team stands out like a Beacon. If they planned it such they probably could have one this years tour with anyone of 4 riders from the squad, simply because they have the resources other teams don't. You may or may not agree but if the other teams fall further behind there will only be one result, that being the cancer we all like to be rid of.

 

[SWSteve]

re: black/white with doping. I don't think it's as simple as it's made out to be. Doping is black and white, but cheating wasn't. I have to say I can see how ex-cyclists/dopers can say how they didn't cheat. If everyone, and it seems almost everyone, was doping - then how can it be cheating?

I don't think doping is right in any modern sport, there should be appropriate punishments. Everyone seems to have forgotten Rio Ferdinand forgetting to visit doping at the Man U training ground and then getting a ban.

Cycling's view of "Oh he cheated years ago, but it's fine now so we'll let him race again - but as a reminder we've stripped him of his titles" isn't fair. These guys take places in teams which could be used by those who haven't ever doped and want to take their dream to the next level - and chances are they could make a good run of it.

Make it difficult for teams to bring ex-dopers to meeting and it'll soon stop, it should be as much their fault as the racers. I've said before how I like Sky's policy on doping - If you've seen it happen with the team you raced for/managed, you're off - and frankly they're doing alright without it.

Doping is too often spoken about as something that used to happen, this obviously isn't the case. Shouldn't more be done about it

 

[Crackle]

There's no grey area when it comes to doping or cheating, which is doing something outside the rules.Often, that means risking your health and by association, example and influence, letting others think it's OK to do the same.

Having a competitive advantage due to having more resources is a different matter, an interesting debate possibly but it's not cheating, even if it may encourage others to do so, they're still cheating. Someone will always gain an advantage somehow (see F1) but cheating to keep up is not the answer and if I'm honest it's not really that grey to work it out either.

Chris Boardman used to train at altitude in his spare bedroom.

 

[rich p]

Sky may have put money into the sport and upped the ante in terms of rider support, innovative specific training, medical support and equipment but most of those pathways have been available to all teams for years. Cycling teams and DS's chose to take a get-on-with-it philosophy as long as you turn up fit for the race. It was a revolution waiting to happen and modern methods were the driver, not money.
In terms of money spent on riders, it's not as if they went out and bought the best. Apart from Wiggins, who nobody even gave a prayer of winning the TdF when it happened, they haven't spent shedloads. Froome would have been as cheap as chips as he was a virtual unknown, Porte was drifting at Saxo and was available to anyone etc. Stannard, Knees, Pate, Eisel, Siutsou, Dowsett, Swift, JTL, etc weren't expensive buys. It is hardly the Man City of pro cycling.

 

[smutchin]

Garmin have been the main drivers of change in philosophy regarding team ethics and practices.

And you only have to look at the differing fortunes of Garmin and AG2R in recent times to see the benefits of that philosophy.

See also Belkin, who might never have lost the lucrative Rabobank sponsorship if the team had been run more along Garmin lines. (And it's coming to something when a bank can take the moral high ground.)

You can't just blame lack of resources.

 

[lukesdad]

I think Alex Dowsett s face said eveything about resources on commenting on Froomes TT bars 12 K that would have probably covered europcars entire hotel bill for the 1st week of the tour!

Modern methods by the way cost money,lots of money.

 

[Noodley]

Such a shame that ITV did not get either Liggett or Sherwen to contribute their views...that would have been fun

 

[lukesdad]

Noods !!!!!!!!!!

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Noods !!!!!!!!!!

He's broken the *sterix machine!

 

[smutchin]

Modern methods by the way cost money,lots of money.

True. But money isn't the whole story. If it were, BMC and Katusha would win everything.

 

[SWSteve]

True. But money isn't the whole story. If it were, BMC would win everything.

If they've got so much money why have they got the worst kit going? It's terrible

 

[lukesdad]

True. But money isn't the whole story. If it were, BMC and Katusha would win everything.

Are you forgetting Sky s links to the British track programme Smutchers.

 

[rich p]

I think Alex Dowsett s face said eveything about resources on commenting on Froomes TT bars 12 K that would have probably covered europcars entire hotel bill for the 1st week of the tour!

Modern methods by the way cost money,lots of money.

Any pro teams budget is huge, even Europcar's, but the real reason that Sky is winning this TdF, so far, with Froome is that they invested wisely on his potential, not that he has pricey TT bars!

 

[SWSteve]

i wish I had a pair of bars that cost £12,000, then I could flog them to get a beautiful Bianchi and not feel bad about going n+1 after 5 months