too harsh or are other sports lenient?

[fozzy]

I realise it's a difficult and very subjective subject but are we as cyclists and cycling fans, along with the UCI and other governing bodies too harsh on dopers; or are other sports [athletics aside] guilty of being too easy on testing dopers, enforcing the laws/rules against doping or simply ignoring a problem exsists?

We all must [in my opinion] admit that for a massive period of pro bike racing history performance enhancers were used, wether it be too much red wine, steriods or EPO. yes; not everyone abused and it would be wrong to say everyone did it, but they seem to have always been around. i however feel that due to some tragic events and increased awareness of all people to the negative long term effects of abusing drugs the cycling world has actually been better than most sports at holding its collective hand up and trying to tackle the problem. there seems to be more testing than pretty much any invasion game [rugby, cricket, football etc], harsher sentances than racket sports and a general willingness to make progress in catching cheats that seems to be lacking in other sports.

so, is cycling destroying itself by being amongst the best at catching cheats, when other sports seem to brush a lot under the table?

[ please don't misunderstand me, cheats should always be punished, and i realise you may not be interested in other sports, just wanted some relative opinions]. cheers

 

[lukesdad]

Hang em all. Full stop.

 

[martint235]

Hang em all. Full stop.

Come on Mark, you've been told before about sitting on the fence on these issues....

 

[John the Monkey]

so, is cycling destroying itself by being amongst the best at catching cheats, when other sports seem to brush a lot under the table?

I think the innuendo, and assurance that everyone was at it with the connivance of the authorities was far more damaging, tbh.

Can't really comment on other sports, as I only really follow cricket & cycling.

 

[fozzy]

sorry john the monkey, but do you mean it was worse in the past when drugs were just ignored? (if so, i agree] also, quite a forthright view there lukesdad, does that mean you don't think cycling is hard enough? or no sport is hard enough? p.s sorry about some spelling or gramma, english is not my first language.

 

[John the Monkey]

... but do you mean it was worse in the past when drugs were just ignored? (if so, i agree]

Yes - I think the fan's certainty that cheating is ongoing, and that the authorities are doing nothing, is more damaging than pursuing the cheats vigorously and punishing them. The situation we have at present is imperfect, but hopefully moving in the right direction.

 

[dellzeqq]

Baseball has had difficulties with steroid use, and players are now tested and penalised, although the penalties are moderate at best.

For a cogent argument against testing and penalties go to http://steroids-and-baseball.com/

 

[Paulus]

Some years ago I knew a Rugby Referee, and he was asking about doping in cycling and the random testing regime. At that time in Rugby, the clubs knew in advance that the testers were coming and only had to put forward a certain number of players for testing. These were not normally first team players, and normally the same players each time to keep the numbers up for the records. It may of changed now of course.

 

[montage]

If the drug testing of cycling was introduced to American football, or basketball or real football, then the sports would crumple overnight

 

[dellzeqq]

If the drug testing of cycling was introduced to American football, or basketball or real football, then the sports would crumple overnight

as far as American football is concerned you couldn't have picked a better word. I can see the players shrinking inside their ridiculous suits.

I'm not sure about real football, though. The Juventus scandal of the late eighties and early nineties had an effect, and a certain manager who introduced creatine in to the diets of his players some fifteen years ago now speaks out against its use.

Rugby mystifies me. A certain England forward seems to have grown a bigger jawbone over the last fifteen years. Like some of those Juventus players. But, who can say?

 

[ohnovino]

The fallout from Puerto and the allegations around non-cyclists summed up how most other sports view doping. IIRC, FIFA's response was to say that nobody had failed a drugs test, therefore there's nothing for them to investigate.

Given the lax nature of testing and the sums of money involved, I'd be amazed if some form of doping wasn't wipespread in football.

It's also worth remembering that Contador's "positive" test for clenbuterol was 400 times below WADA limits - i.e. if he was in another sport, he could have had 399 times the amount in his blood and that would have been perfectly legal.

 

[MartinC]

It's also worth remembering that Contador's "positive" test for clenbuterol was 400 times below WADA limits - i.e. if he was in another sport, he could have had 399 times the amount in his blood and that would have been perfectly legal.

This is the crux of the matter. It seems to me that many other sports are more lax about drug testing. The UCI have now put themselves in an invidious position. It's like dogs chasing cars - what are they planning to do if they catch one.

They are now testing for minute concentrations of substances that people are likely to be in daily contact with. You can argue about prevalence but Clenbuterol is defintely in the food chain. Everybody is ingesting food that plastic has leached into - it's claimed that this can't get it into your bloodstream but no-one can prove a negative.

So the UCI are facilitating tests that produce results which show no effect on athletic performance and don't prove that there was any deliberate contravention of the doping rules. This is a sure fire way to generate hard cases where the application of the rules looks arbitrary, unfair and open to challenge. You can also bet that future research will cast doubt on these marginal results. They're open to future research showing them to be based on false premises. Thalidomide anybody?

The other thing it does is to up the ante on spiking your competitors rather than doping yourself. The minute trace amounts they're testing for now will be ludicrously easy to administer maliciously. Lying second in the Tour? Just slip the leader's soigneur a wedge of cash to contaminate their musette contents with Clenbuterol. Job done.

 

[mangaman]

Some years ago I knew a Rugby Referee, and he was asking about doping in cycling and the random testing regime. At that time in Rugby, the clubs knew in advance that the testers were coming and only had to put forward a certain number of players for testing. These were not normally first team players, and normally the same players each time to keep the numbers up for the records. It may of changed now of course.

I realise this is one of those "a mate once met someone..." stories but I believed it at the time.

He (my mate) was at Uni with me (so we're talking late 1980s) and he was a county standard long distance runner.

One day he met a famous Rugby League player training at his home track, who he had been at school with and was amazed by the size of his muscles as he'd always been scrawny

"Yeah, it's all them steroids we're on" the guy replied.

Strangely, as soon as Union went professional, the players changed shape completely. The backs are so big and strong now, they would have been forwards before.
A lot of league coaches - including the fellow in my story - are now big in Union.

In answer to your question - I think cycling is ahead of other sports, with biological passports / out of competition tests and the sheer sophistication of those tests.

I think that is good - there is no harm in opting for the higher ground.

Still no news, of course, of the footballers and tennis players Fuentes himself said he was treating during Operation Puerto.

 

[mangaman]

This is the crux of the matter. It seems to me that many other sports are more lax about drug testing. The UCI have now put themselves in an invidious position. It's like dogs chasing cars - what are they planning to do if they catch one.

They are now testing for minute concentrations of substances that people are likely to be in daily contact with. You can argue about prevalence but Clenbuterol is defintely in the food chain. Everybody is ingesting food that plastic has leached into - it's claimed that this can't get it into your bloodstream but no-one can prove a negative.

So the UCI are facilitating tests that produce results which show no effect on athletic performance and don't prove that there was any deliberate contravention of the doping rules. This is a sure fire way to generate hard cases where the application of the rules looks arbitrary, unfair and open to challenge. You can also bet that future research will cast doubt on these marginal results. They're open to future research showing them to be based on false premises. Thalidomide anybody?

The other thing it does is to up the ante on spiking your competitors rather than doping yourself. The minute trace amounts they're testing for now will be ludicrously easy to administer maliciously. Lying second in the Tour? Just slip the leader's soigneur a wedge of cash to contaminate their musette contents with Clenbuterol. Job done.

I can see the point with clenbuterol, but I don't really buy the spiking problem - certainly not as an argument for less rigorous testing

You could do that with any sport - how easy would it be to stick something illegal into one of those drinks the tennis players have prepared? You could apply that argument for any sport.

 

[MartinC]

Mangaman, It's not an argument for less rigorous testing. Testing has to be directly related to what you're trying to stop. The levels of Clenbuterol now being tested for are irrelevant to athletic performance so they're only circumstantial evidence of cheating at best. They open the way for postives that arise for many other reasons.

The easier it is to spike other athletes then the more likely it is to happen. Asking why and if people would do it is the same as asking why and if people would dope. Why do you think they wouldn't?