I'm confused

[David Kirk]

I've been reading on the webbernet about ways to cut down on doping in the pro peloton. While I've seens some ideas that seem good to me the idea of making races easier is a joke imo.

Over the last 70 years the Tour has gotten shorter and easier. In the bad ol' days 200 mile stages with lots of it on dirt weren't unheard of. The reason it's gotten harder is that the riders choose to go harder. There is nothing that says they need to average 28mph, nothing that says they need to attack day after day, nothing that says they need to sit at the front all day.....day after day.

In the old days someone who attacked hard one one day paid for it the next and sat in the field to recover. Long solo efforts were paid for in a big way and riders needed to meter thier efforts so as to not use too much of thier reserves.

My weakly made point is that the riders have a choice of how much effort they put out. Take away the dope and they will go slower and attack less often....sorta like this year started to look.


Dave

[Samster]

If you take the "easier route" logic to its end, then no-one doing a 100 meter sprint (on legs or on wheels) should have an incentive to "enhance."

Patently false, imo.

[Onno]

I agree with this. Shortening the race will diminish its glory and tradition. Someone on this forum said a while ago that a lot of could probably ride the race, at about half speed (or less!), and I think that's probably true. Making the race shorter probably won't lessen pressures to dope, since it doesn't lessen pressures to win, or to grab the spotlight. If they are going to combat doping, they have to keep up the pressure with testing and with loss of funding, career, etc. And, of course, it needs pro riders to step up and take up the cause. That simply has not happened yet.

[David Kirk]

I'll add that it seems to me that the ONLY way to cut back on doping is to remove the motivation to dope. That means taking away the money.

I think most of us would have a hard time making the choice to dope or not if there were millions of dollars on the line. As long as the money is big folks will do "whatever it takes" to get it.

This is of course next to impossible. You can't put the genie back in the bottle or some poop like that. I can only see this happening in the long run if the sponsors no longer want to be associated with dopers and cheats and they take thier money out. This will all be interesting with the wisdom of time.

Dave

[Onno]

What about the idea (which I think WADA is talking about) of preserving all samples for several years, and testing them all again, say two years after an event, with whatever effective new tests have been devised in the meantime? Then, of course, you need retroactive punishment (loss of title, return of prize money, end of career). The idea is that the dopers and their doctors are always a step ahead of the testers. This allows the testers to work retroactively. It's very big brother, of course, but it may take something this draconian to work.

[Skrawny]

We could infect all of the pro racers with bio-genetic nanites that seek out and destroy all performance enhancers including, but not limited to stimulants, EPO, caffene, chocolate and general feelings of happiness....

No, wait, I have been watching too much Sci Fi channel lately...

The way of things is that the dopers have always been one step ahead of the testers. Maybe the idea Onno mentions is a good idea. Maybe it will scare cyclists from trying something new. I fear it may just make a mess of things as all of the guys who years after test positive and then say "who me?!"

-s

[David Kirk]

I'm still thinking that while being better able to catch the dopers is good taking away thier motivation to dope would be better.

pipe dreams abound.

Dave

[Cary Ford]

I'll add that it seems to me that the ONLY way to cut back on doping is to remove the motivation to dope. That means taking away the money.

I think most of us would have a hard time making the choice to dope or not if there were millions of dollars on the line. As long as the money is big folks will do "whatever it takes" to get it.

This is of course next to impossible. You can't put the genie back in the bottle or some poop like that. I can only see this happening in the long run if the sponsors no longer want to be associated with dopers and cheats and they take thier money out. This will all be interesting with the wisdom of time.

Dave

The "big money" didn't really come to pro cycling until the late 80's, almost solely due to LeMond's impact on the Tour. Riders have been "doping" one way or another since the race began, way back when the money was small to 'nil.

"Competition" is the underlying motivation for doping. "Glory" is another, very strong one. So is "Winning." You gonna try to take those away, too?

[atmo]

I'll add that it seems to me that the ONLY way to cut back on doping is to remove the motivation to dope. That means taking away the money.

it's a profession, and as enron-esque as any other
profession that is part entertainment and part sports.

I think most of us would have a hard time making the choice to dope or not if there were millions of dollars on the line. As long as the money is big folks will do "whatever it takes" to get it.
chicago black sox?

This is of course next to impossible. You can't put the genie back in the bottle or some poop like that. I can only see this happening in the long run if the sponsors no longer want to be associated with dopers and cheats and they take thier money out. This will all be interesting with the wisdom of time.
i agree with you but -
the sponsors are there because the consumers buy their goods atmo.

[fiamme red]

chicago black sox?Do you know who banned Shoeless Joe Jackson and the others for life? The irony -- it was Landis!

[marle]

Shoeless Joe and company chose to lose -- not win -- for the money.

[Samster]

about 4 weeks ago, one of my students said to me (in effect) "cycling is addled with drugs because of the lack of stadiums and ticket revenues to offset the need for sponsorship."

my reply was: Barry Bonds... Mark McGuire... Ben Johnson...

so i don't agree fully with that statement.

i think people cheat because:

a) they can, and
b) they're "people."

sure. the money helps, but i don't think that's the core reason. but money is a great measure of just how "effective" your cheating was...

imo, taking away the motivation to cheat requires taking away some element of "humanity."

[Kevan]

that the grand tours add yet another jersey to the others racers are already vying for. It would be called the "Clean" jersey, but likely would assume other names such as "Loser" or "Last Place" jersey. I figure for the rider to qualify.. to be awarded this shirt they would have to consume only water, no sports drink, and tunafish sandwiches would be acceptable since any mercury found in their system can only inhibit their performance. I suppose we could accept the consumption of pasteurized milk and Cheerios too. Even the hint of consuming an aspirin and the guy loses his shirt.

I'm thinking the jersey would be printed with a Snow White theme. What do you think?

[harlond]

What about the idea (which I think WADA is talking about) of preserving all samples for several years, and testing them all again, say two years after an event, with whatever effective new tests have been devised in the meantime? Then, of course, you need retroactive punishment (loss of title, return of prize money, end of career). The idea is that the dopers and their doctors are always a step ahead of the testers. This allows the testers to work retroactively. It's very big brother, of course, but it may take something this draconian to work.Seems like a fabulous recipe for unending scandal, which is what we already have way too much of.

[Tom]

I think people will cheat whether there's money involved or not. The motivations can be totally meaningless and the availability is surprising. Look at the anecdotal evidence of people cheating in local races. I used to be acquainted with weight lifter types that juiced just because it made them bigger then the other guys at the gym. They told me if I wanted to become a good runner they could easily get me anything I needed. I don't think cheating is confined to the highest levels of the sport. Like somebody said, orthodontist A wants bragging rights over orthodontist B in the local crit.