|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Hecklers starting to joust with the Dope King
--D-y wrote:
Or, the powers that be could formulate practical rules that could be practically enforced, on the day. IOW, no "test interpretations" that require political/professional status from interpreters in order to hold force, no retro-testing, no pie-in-the-sky promises to "clean up Sport" for the advertisers, who are, aside from a minority of unrealistic fans, the only ones who "care", and that only because sponsoring "cheaters" makes them look bad. Sometimes you write in code that I don't understand, but I think I agree with some of this. Absolutely no room for politics in testing, and the procedures must be impeccable. And definitely no empty promises from governing bodies for sake of sponsors/advertisers. But why would you be against retroactive testing? Seems to me that's one of the bigger deterents available. That's not apologizing. That's trying to get real about a complicated situation that has no easy "solutions". We agree that the anti-doping efforts to date have been largely ineffective and that there are no easy solutions. It's my opinion that the sport should invest more in the effort. I'm not sure how you feel about that, but I get the sense that you think there's no hope. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Hecklers starting to joust with the Dope King
Mark, I agree with much of what you say and about the consequences of
doping to the rest of the sport. I personally have a hard time justifying the benefit of making a large investment to close the gap between testing and doping, as I think such an investement (from a money, time, talent, and science perspective) would be better applied elsewhere. I'm also not convinced that the goal is achievable, and I expect over the next couple of decades, we'll begin to see various forms of genetic cheating. How sport deals with that is a new challenge. Brad Anders |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Hecklers starting to joust with the Dope King
On 6/8/2010 11:13 AM, marco wrote:
Obviously, rbr'ers are not representative of cycling fans. The majority of people here will follow the sport no matter what happens with the doping fight. My impression of the more casual fan base is that they are drawn to the drama and suffer factor. Once it becomes widely accepted that most all pro riders are doped, I believe that the casual fans will lose interest. I composed all sorts of replies in my head, but I'll stick to one point that I think is central. Is the scenario that you present above what happened to American football when steroids came on the scene? Baseball players have been doped since the invention of dope. Has your scenario played out there? How about tennis? When the sport of tennis embraced the syringe, what happened to it's popularity and fan base? I respect your opinions but I think you are bringing too much emotion to your perception of reality. Even guys that are racing at the Pro Tour level are better off going to college. Very few rise above that. So while I sympathize with people that are trying to do it clean, if someone doesn't get to dump time and effort down a dead end of a career and instead has to pursue something that pays better for less crap, I guess that for me the violins are playing pretty softly. I also think that if you cost out the needed effort to clean up what is really a hobby for all but a very few, you really can't justify it unless you also make an huge emotional investment into elevating your hobby. Fred Flintstein |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Hecklers starting to joust with the Dope King
"marco" wrote in message ... I do agree with you that there will always be doping in cycling, but perhaps we disagree about how much effort should be put into catching and exposing the cheaters. snip Dumbass - It's not just cycling and it's not just endurance sports. It's *all* sports and it's because we live in a society that dopes. Most people dope almost daily to some degree. Caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, THC, birth control hormones, anti-depressives, anti-ADHD (methamphetamines), Viagra and its brethren (true performance enhancers which are also recreational), Xanax, aspririn, ibuprofen, valium, sleeping pills, etc. etc. etc. thanks, Fred. presented by Gringioni. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Hecklers starting to joust with the Dope King
On 6/8/2010 12:15 PM, F. Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
"marco" wrote in message ... I do agree with you that there will always be doping in cycling, but perhaps we disagree about how much effort should be put into catching and exposing the cheaters. snip Dumbass - It's not just cycling and it's not just endurance sports. It's *all* sports and it's because we live in a society that dopes. Most people dope almost daily to some degree. Caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, THC, birth control hormones, anti-depressives, anti-ADHD (methamphetamines), Viagra and its brethren (true performance enhancers which are also recreational), Xanax, aspririn, ibuprofen, valium, sleeping pills, etc. etc. etc. thanks, Fred. presented by Gringioni. While I drive, my assumption is that I am sharing the road with people that are doping. When I go to work, I assume that people at my workplace are doping. I make those assumptions because the odds are really one-sided. It was over twenty years ago that I first heard about people taking steroids to look good at the beach. Dope has only gotten cheaper and more accessible since then. If we are going to throw money and time into anti-doping campaigns, bike racing seems to offer exceptionally poor returns on that investment. I think you would get better results by convincing people to not take their hobbies so ****ing seriously. Fred Flintstein |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Hecklers starting to joust with the Dope King
In article ,
"marco" wrote: --D-y wrote: Or, the powers that be could formulate practical rules that could be practically enforced, on the day. IOW, no "test interpretations" that require political/professional status from interpreters in order to hold force, no retro-testing, no pie-in-the-sky promises to "clean up Sport" for the advertisers, who are, aside from a minority of unrealistic fans, the only ones who "care", and that only because sponsoring "cheaters" makes them look bad. Sometimes you write in code that I don't understand, but I think I agree with some of this. Absolutely no room for politics in testing, and the procedures must be impeccable. And definitely no empty promises from governing bodies for sake of sponsors/advertisers. But why would you be against retroactive testing? Seems to me that's one of the bigger deterents available. It is not a deterrent (sp). It is well known that harsh sanctions occasionally meted are not a deterrent. Knowing there is a high probability of being caught is a deterrent. -- Old Fritz |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Hecklers starting to joust with the Dope King
In article ,
"marco" wrote: Brad Anders wrote: I have struggled with my views on doping in cycling for a long time, and I've advocated harsh sanctions against dopers in this n.g. as long ago as '94 or possibly earler. My current view is that effective, undetectable doping methods have existed for years, and while great progress has been made in detection, such methods will continue to exist and develop. Cycling will never be rid of doping, and neither will other endurance sports. So, what do you do as a fan? For me, my choices are to quit following the sport or to assume that what I'm watching is a reasonably level playing field, where the top guys I'm watching are doing essentially the same things as their competitors. Those that go too far to gain an unfair advantage pay the price. Those that are too careless pay the price. Those that burn everyone on the way pay the price. There is plenty of evidence that these eventualities are exactly what is happening. Who knows, it may happen to Lance. Time will tell. What is the impact on me as a cyclist, and as a parent? As a cyclist, I don't care if pros are doping. I don't race any more, so I don't care about master's fatties doping themselves to the gills to win the COVETED STARS AND STRIPES JERSEY. As a parent, I would never advocate a pro sports career to my kids in the first place, especially cycling, no matter what talent level they show. In cycling, it's pretty clear that for the ultra-elite, when they reach a certain level (and maybe, way before then), they're confronted with a very ugly reality, which is that effective, undetectable doping strategies exist that make the difference at the 0.05% level that separates the winners from the also- rans. Given the gigantic investment in time and effort that a cyclist at this level has put into the sport at that point, it's not surprising that some decide to drink the Kool-Aide and do what they need to. Some don't, and that takes a lot of guts to do. As for my kids, I'd rather see them pursue a career that has more potential for lifelong accomplishment, and treat athletics as a requirement for a healthy life and fun. Well said, and I share some of your viewpoints above, particularly the part about keeping your kids away from this particular sport. Not because of doping but rather because the training commitment is too time consuming and, in my opinion, becoming too dangerous on public roads. I am happy that my own kids have stuck to more traditional sports. I do agree with you that there will always be doping in cycling, but perhaps we disagree about how much effort should be put into catching and exposing the cheaters. You're right that doping techniques will stay ahead of testing, but with more investment the gap can be narrowed. If the sport is serious about cleaning itself up, then it will make the investment. With enough effort, I believe doping could become the exception rather than the norm. Why make the effort? Several reasons. First, the fallacy in the "they're-all-doing-it-so-who-cares" argument is that not everyone benefits to the same extent when doped, even if they were all on the same program. It does not maintain a level playing field. Second, they're not all doing it. As long as doping is against the rules, there will be riders who have the moral fortitude to say "No" and I think they deserve a substantial amount of anti-doping effort on their behalf. Fighting for the underdog and all that righteous stuff. I have friends who raced clean at various pro levels, including one who spent a couple years on Pro Tour teams, and it breaks my heart to see and hear what they're up against. Third, it seems to me that cycling is at a crossroad in its anti-doping "fight"... either it really steps up to the challenge, or it turns a blind eye like many other sports have done. If the latter path is taken, I have no doubt that doping will spread like a cancer into lower and lower levels. Several notable busts have shown that it's already metastasizing. Twenty years ago, the typical local/regional race in the US would have a clean P/1/2 field. In the last 5-10 years or so, it's changed...typically you'd have a handful of riders on a program, and that's probably the case with some masters fields now also. It will reach the situation where everyone who pins on a number expects to be racing against dopers. I think that would ruin bike racing as a participation sport. Unlike some rec-league softball goon on steroids or a bowler on beta-blockers, a masters fatty or a young cat 2 using epo and hgh that he/she bought in mexico will crush his/her clean competitors. It will be a paradigm shift (to use an over-used phrase) that impacts tens of thousands of people and it will drive people out of the sport. That has to be bad. Obviously, rbr'ers are not representative of cycling fans. The majority of people here will follow the sport no matter what happens with the doping fight. My impression of the more casual fan base is that they are drawn to the drama and suffer factor. Once it becomes widely accepted that most all pro riders are doped, I believe that the casual fans will lose interest. Anyway, I know my opinions don't reflect the majority here, and I'm ok with that. Do you regularly take drugs? -- Michael Press |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Hecklers starting to joust with the Dope King
On Jun 7, 3:52*pm, Anton Berlin wrote:
Probably a publicity stunt paid for by Lance. *(and yes I saw it when it came out) Question this ---Why does John Elway pull one car out of the snowy ditch every winter and there just happens to be a tv station and news photographer there when he does it? To keep "The Drive" alive? Geddit? Geddit? UD |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Hecklers starting to joust with the Dope King
On Jun 8, 11:34*am, "marco" wrote:
--D-y wrote: Or, the powers that be could formulate practical rules that could be practically enforced, on the day. IOW, no "test interpretations" that require political/professional status from interpreters in order to hold force, no retro-testing, no pie-in-the-sky promises to "clean up Sport" for the advertisers, who are, aside from a minority of unrealistic fans, the only ones who "care", and that only because sponsoring "cheaters" makes them look bad. Sometimes you write in code that I don't understand, but I think I agree with some of this. Absolutely no room for politics in testing, and the procedures must be impeccable. And definitely no empty promises from governing bodies for sake of sponsors/advertisers. But why would you be against retroactive testing? Seems to me that's one of the bigger deterents available. That's not apologizing. That's trying to get real about a complicated situation that has no easy "solutions". We agree that the anti-doping efforts to date have been largely ineffective and that there are no easy solutions. It's my opinion that the sport should invest more in the effort. I'm not sure how you feel about that, but I get the sense that you think there's no hope. My hope is for pre-event testing with simple, sure tests that are carried out including evaluation and sanction, if any, "on the day" and not 4:00 a.m., either g. Accepting the fact that the tests and testers are imperfect, disallowing "retro testing" except for true scientific inquiry, not witch hunts and retroactive penalties are other "hopes". Others have suggested test results being posted publicly, with no sanctions imposed (except IMHO for the "bad stuff" listed above). That has appeal here. I trust the people administering and using the tests a whole lot less than the tests themselves, and frankly, I don't trust the tests much at all. --D-y |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Hecklers starting to joust with the Dope King
marco wrote:
Why make the effort? Several reasons. First, the fallacy in the "they're-all-doing-it-so-who-cares" argument is that not everyone benefits to the same extent when doped, even if they were all on the same program. It does not maintain a level playing field. Second, they're not all doing it. As long as doping is against the rules, there will be riders who have the moral fortitude to say "No" and I think they deserve a substantial amount of anti-doping effort on their behalf. Fighting for the underdog and all that righteous stuff. I have friends who raced clean at various pro levels, including one who spent a couple years on Pro Tour teams, and it breaks my heart to see and hear what they're up against. Third, it seems to me that cycling is at a crossroad in its anti-doping "fight"... either it really steps up to the challenge, or it turns a blind eye like many other sports have done. If the latter path is taken, I have no doubt that doping will spread like a cancer into lower and lower levels. [...] My main reason to be against doping is related to your third point, namely that mandating it to whatever extent means that juniors will eventually also feel pressured to dope or not get a contract later on. They should not have to face that decision. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why I defend Hecklers | Kurgan Gringioni | Racing | 30 | December 29th 08 08:01 PM |
hecklers that piss me off | verb | Australia | 34 | February 9th 07 12:22 AM |
Uni Joust in Portland | freshyfresh | Unicycling | 1 | June 23rd 06 04:10 AM |
Uni Joust Shields and Poles | Ducttape | Unicycling | 8 | May 14th 06 10:32 PM |
Q on '04 Hecklers | GWood | Mountain Biking | 1 | November 4th 05 03:02 PM |