Cycling: The Dirtiest Sport Of Them All

[OrangeOne]

Originally Posted by West Coast Ace

We can agree to disagree...

Let's start here. At least in the US - you don't list your location - they say '7 time Tour Winner, Lance Armstrong.' They don't name his team as having won 7 times, then list him as the captain. So you may know it's a team - but a lot of people don't.

As I posted later, should we apologise and cater for every member of the public that wants the crib-note version of life? I don't think so. Of course Lance wins the tour - as I explained in a subsequent post - the truly amazing efforts are that of the individual, and the individual in crowned the winner. But team positions are also acknowledged (and can differ from the individual ratings unless I'm remembering incorrectly), and efforts of the team are acknowledged.

It'd somewhat surprise me that the teams of the riders are never mentioned in the US, as the major sponsor of Lance's team for much of his career was US Postal, a group who'd likely sponsor in return for the exposure they receive back home.

And I won't even bring up the fact that the last stage is mostly ceremonial - they ride into Paris drinking champagne.

Yes, it's actually a large problem for the tour. They drink so much that they have to fit training wheels on the bikes, and France often runs out of Champagne, what with 200 riders drinking Champagne instead of water for the day. Did you see the year that 7 of the riders actually had to stop and have a bit of a spew?

Or in actuality:

a. It's a PR shot, it's a sip of champagne, and it's only something the leader(s) of the winning team(s) do, after the result is beyond doubt. It's like the final 5 mins of a football / basketball / soccer game with one team leading by a simply impossible margin, you see a few things you wouldn't normally. It's one of the great things about the untimed nature of tennis, players are forced to compete until the final point.

b. It happens after 20 days of cycling THOUSANDS of miles.

c. Even though the race leader is usually known, the green jersey (a very prestigious award) - the sprint jersey - is often not decided until the finish line. Those guys aren't sipping anything on the final stage, it's the biggest moment of their year / career.

Bad analogy. A better one would be a broken string - and those points count. It's considered bad luck. Just like in racing - F1 doesn't slow down if someone has trouble getting their tire lugs fastened properly.

Actually, I thought about the broken string analogy. The problem is - under most circumstances (for a Pro, with unlimited access to restringing), a broken string is user-error. As is your tire-lug (wheel nut??) example. User error. Whereas a flat tire in cycling - in the circumstances we're discussing here - is almost universally simply bad luck. Hence my analogy.

I'm sorry you think we're disparaging your 'sport' - but it's very flawed. At least compared to tennis. Again, we can agree to disagree.

Why do you need to make it 'my sport'? I've cycled for about a decade, and played tennis for almost 3 times that length of time.

In my opinion, it's your opinions that are flawed, and some people are just not willing to understand the sport. Of course, we can agree to disagree.

[Cindysphinx]

My husband is a big fan of the Tour. He makes the arguments that Orange One makes about doping.

What makes me think Armstrong is doping? Well, it is an endurance sport. When I think about endurance sports (say, marathons), it is rare for someone to dominate year after year. Has anyone ever won a marathon seven years in a row?

Does anyone really believe Armstrong could beat opponents who were doping if he didn't also dope?

[raiden031]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

My husband is a big fan of the Tour. He makes the arguments that Orange One makes about doping.

What makes me think Armstrong is doping? Well, it is an endurance sport. When I think about endurance sports (say, marathons), it is rare for someone to dominate year after year. Has anyone ever won a marathon seven years in a row?

Does anyone really believe Armstrong could beat opponents who were doping if he didn't also dope?

Considering he tested positive in samples from '99 for EPO, along with countless eye-witness accounts of his PED usage, I'd say there's at least a 90% chance he was dirty. Even though the case was thrown out, I still think its probably legitimate.

[hollywood9826]

Originally Posted by raiden031

Considering he tested positive in samples from '99 for EPO, along with countless eye-witness accounts of his PED usage, I'd say there's at least a 90% chance he was dirty. Even though the case was thrown out, I still think its probably legitimate.

There is just as much evidence of him doping as there is with any other athelete. Basically articles would come out in Europe he would get all mad and sue the people. Then when everyone back in the US was saying "He couldnt have done it or he wouldnt fight it this hard" the lawsuit would get dropped before it went to trial.

So Ill take your 90% and raise it to 100%. You dont win that race 1 time in this day and age without doing that stuff.

[TheJRK]

What??? A doping thread when the TdF is on TV? This has never happened before.

Until Lance has been caught, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Being an avid cyclist myself though, I wouldn't blame the guys on tour for taking something... that race is brutal.

Just get on an exercise bike and ride for 1 hour (if you can) and see what your watts/hr is... then watch the TdF and see what the pro's output is. Get back on your exercise bike and try to duplicate those results, even for 5 minutes.

YOU WILL DIE.

[raiden031]

Originally Posted by TheJRK

What??? A doping thread when the TdF is on TV? This has never happened before.

Until Lance has been caught, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Being an avid cyclist myself though, I wouldn't blame the guys on tour for taking something... that race is brutal.

Just get on an exercise bike and ride for 1 hour (if you can) and see what your watts/hr is... then watch the TdF and see what the pro's output is. Get back on your exercise bike and try to duplicate those results, even for 5 minutes.

YOU WILL DIE.

Lance has been caught.

[albino smurf]

Landis needs to shut his mouth. He got busted so he wants to drag everyone down with him. Unfortunately for him, he is the only one found guilty. Sour grapes on his part.

[813wilson]

Armstrong did not test positive in '99.

Cindy, comparing the TDF to marathons is a flawed analogy. Numerous runners have won marathons more than once - agreed, not seven in a row, though.

But consider: one can win the Tour w/out ever winning an individual stage of the race. Armstrong's best performance year was one where he one five of the 22(?) stages.

The times and "bonuses" are compiled throughout the race and the way it is measured is not always the exact difference between the 1st place finish and the last.

His lung capacity and VO2 Max are among the highest in the sport. Combine that with his heart rates - mid 30s at rest and 200 max and size and he is about perfect for cycling.

I'm not saying the sport is clean - but he's tested more than the others; so until he is "caught" I give him the benefit of the doubt.

[TheJRK]

Originally Posted by 813wilson

Cindy, comparing the TDF to marathons is a flawed analogy. Numerous runners have won marathons more than once - agreed, not seven in a row, though.

Cycling is a team sport, Lance had a great team (and domestiques) all those years he won. In a marathon, it's just you vs. 1000 other people.

In cycling, the winner will give the prize money to the rest of his team since he'll make more money off of endorsements anyway.

[ollinger]

C-sphinx
Why ban something if it can't be detected? Because the governing body of cycling is not a court of law and can disqualify riders if there is enough reasonable evidence, such as a doctor and teammmate who report the doping. They don't need evidence that is utterly irrefutable. And they SHOULD disqualify them. A practice that is known to be seriously dangerous can't be condoned by the governing organization.

[raiden031]

Originally Posted by 813wilson

Armstrong did not test positive in '99.

In 2005, Armstrong's sample from '99 tested positive. Maybe it was mishandled, maybe it was irrelevant, but I'd say it most likely was a legitimate test that just happened to be thrown out. That coupled with all the witness accounts, and the nature of the sport, I'd say its pretty likely he was just as dirty as the rest.

[r2473]

I'm anxiously awaiting the results of this provocative discussion as to whether Armstrong might have taken performance enhancers and if other athletes might possibly take performance enhancers.

This is a real nail biter.

If you get a minute, can you also answer these questions for me please? I have been asked these with some frequency lately and have no idea. Thanks.

1) Is the Pope Catholic?

2) Does a bear ***** in the woods?

[albino smurf]

I'd like to know where the pope poops

[813wilson]

Originally Posted by raiden031

In 2005, Armstrong's sample from '99 tested positive. Maybe it was mishandled, maybe it was irrelevant, but I'd say it most likely was a legitimate test that just happened to be thrown out. That coupled with all the witness accounts, and the nature of the sport, I'd say its pretty likely he was just as dirty as the rest.

It was not a legitimate test - which is why there was no additional action. A little more detail about "testing positive" .....

In '05, 12 samples from the 1999 race(120 + racers) were deemed to be positive. Of those, six were attributed to Armstrong. Interestingly, the other six samples(riders) were never identified.
The reason for the test, in the first place, was to perform additonal testing/dvelopment to prevent false positive reports. Because there was no secondary sample available - it can't be considered "positive".
L'Equipe's editor in chief Michel Dalloni has been out for Armstrong for years. He even wrote a novel - The Last Tour that completely parallels Armtrong and his team/support/ownership.

[raiden031]

Originally Posted by 813wilson

It was not a legitimate test - which is why there was no additional action. A little more detail about "testing positive" .....

In '05, 12 samples from the 1999 race(120 + racers) were deemed to be positive. Of those, six were attributed to Armstrong. Interestingly, the other six samples(riders) were never identified.
The reason for the test, in the first place, was to perform additonal testing/dvelopment to prevent false positive reports. Because there was no secondary sample available - it can't be considered "positive".
L'Equipe's editor in chief Michel Dalloni has been out for Armstrong for years. He even wrote a novel - The Last Tour that completely parallels Armtrong and his team/support/ownership.

I don't have a problem with the result being thrown out, but I still think his urine sample did fail the test because he is a cheater. So yeah I believe in innocence til proven guilty, but that doesn't mean I actually believe they are innocent.

[hollywood9826]

Originally Posted by 813wilson

It was not a legitimate test - which is why there was no additional action. A little more detail about "testing positive" .....

In '05, 12 samples from the 1999 race(120 + racers) were deemed to be positive. Of those, six were attributed to Armstrong. Interestingly, the other six samples(riders) were never identified.
The reason for the test, in the first place, was to perform additonal testing/dvelopment to prevent false positive reports. Because there was no secondary sample available - it can't be considered "positive".
L'Equipe's editor in chief Michel Dalloni has been out for Armstrong for years. He even wrote a novel - The Last Tour that completely parallels Armtrong and his team/support/ownership.

That sounds alot like Barry Bonds. He had grand jury testimony illegaly leaked claiming he didnt know what he was taking. And these guys wrote a book on nothing but heresay (Game of Shadows) about how he knowingly did the roids.

Yet Barry is thrown out of the game and made an example of and the public eye finds him guilty. Lance is still hearlded a hero and such a great human being.

Tehre is no doubt in my mind that both of them did stuff. Yet they are treated completly different.

There are three reasons I can think of why I think this happened.

1. Barry doesnt hide the fact that hes an A-hole and doesnt like the media. While Lance plays into thier hands and they think hes great, but behind the scenes hes an A-Hole. Advantge Lance

2. One of them had cancer and surviced and milked it for all it was worth. Advantage Lance

3. One of them was black. Advantage Lance.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by TheJRK

What??? A doping thread when the TdF is on TV? This has never happened before.

Until Lance has been caught, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Being an avid cyclist myself though, I wouldn't blame the guys on tour for taking something... that race is brutal.

Just get on an exercise bike and ride for 1 hour (if you can) and see what your watts/hr is... then watch the TdF and see what the pro's output is. Get back on your exercise bike and try to duplicate those results, even for 5 minutes.

YOU WILL DIE.

Exactly.

Which is why I think every last one of them is doping.

[r2473]

Originally Posted by hollywood9826

That sounds alot like Barry Bonds.

Wait a second. Now you are suggesting that Barry Bonds took PED's?

OK. Slow down for a second and let me catch up here. This is groundbreaking stuff.

[jswinf]

Originally Posted by hollywood9826

Yet Barry is thrown out of the game and made an example of and the public eye finds him guilty. Lance is still hearlded a hero and such a great human being.

.

You know, of course, that Barry wasn't officially thrown out of the game, just that all those major league teams independently decided not to offer him a contract (I'm sure there was no collusion going on, that would be illegal.) Maybe everybody doesn't know, though.

You make some good points. I've always been inclined to give Lance the benefit of the doubt, partially because I don't much give a hang about cycling. If he really has been a steady user of performance-enhancing substances, he's been darn good at it, lucky, and good at public relations. Maybe he's just a great athlete? Of course Pete Rose swore he never bet on baseball, Floyd Landis swore he didn't dope...

[OrangeOne]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Exactly.

Which is why I think every last one of them is doping.

Because something is hard - everyone must be doping?

I know some pro / ex-pro riders (not TDF level, but some close, and some that level in other variants of the sport). Of course there are stories of the drugs, and the dirty riders that would take them. There are also stories of people with ethics and morals, and people who want to live a long, healthy life after cycling, people who were clean.

I fail to see why out of a sample of 200 - you claim 100% doping. 100%?

Remember the media - and there are hundreds / thousands of people covering the tour - are desperate for a scoop. If you think 200 people are doping - how exactly does only 1 or 2 get caught? Any media outlet that can get a photo of a drug, an empty syringe, a doctor acting inappropriately - is going to be in heaven during the tour. It'll give them a month or a year's worth of hits in a day. They'll get a whole team kicked out of the tour.

It's not just the (many, many) doping controls that police the riders, it's also the media, and even the fans.

To say that every TDF rider is doping is lunacy (possibly as much lunacy as to say that none are, but the number is closer to none than all).