When can we stop being surprised and angry about doping?

by 72andSunny on May 15, 2007 8:22 PM EDT Comment 10 comments

[editor's note, by chris] OK, one last doping post, since it's well done, before we switch the focus back to the road.

I'll come clean and confess that Ivan Basso is one of my favorite cyclists. I love to watch him turn over those pedals, especially when the road goes up.

So is it time we finally gave up?

Gave up being angry and surprised, that is.

In light of the fact that Basso's finally copped to the Puerto blood bags, Valverde ain't looking so hot, the CSC doc is watching two riders' bloodwork very closely, and Honchar's sketched out, I wonder if it's time we can stop being angry and surprised.

I mean, given what the sport's 100-plus-year history, which is utterly riddled with doping, how is anger even relevant?

I'm not saying we need to lose the sense of outrage, or the desire to continue trying to make it harder to dope, but isn't it time we got rid of the histrionics?

Shouldn't that have stopped with Coppi? Anquetil? Tommy Simpson? Eddie Merckx? Thevenet? Delgado? Kelly? Pantani? Ullrich? Riis? Millar? Heras? Hamilton? Basso? Landis? Ad infinitum.

I remember reading in Coyle's book that the sense of surprised anger and hurt about learning that one's favorite cyclist had doped was a very American response, and I wonder if that holds true.

If the top 20 finishers in last year's TdeF are on the Puerto list, which seems to be more and more plausible as time goes on, who is there left to be angry at?

Hell, if there are 100 names on the Puerto list, that's like 55% of any starting line-up ... and that's on the list from just ONE doctor, never mind the other ones running doping rings out there or the guys just doing it themselves.

If they're all doing it, is it even cheating?

I just say all this because I am not angry or surprised that I won't get to watch Basso versus Vino at this year's TdeF. I'm just sad.

0 recs | Comment 10 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Good Post

that sums it up pretty well... For years my main training partner has been ... "There all doped. We need to just let them go at it."

Maybe that's the answer... let them race an open, fully doped to the gills peloton for a few years and see who keels over... Tom Simpson will no longer be an anomaly...

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Gandhi

by ELVISGOAT on May 15, 2007 8:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Safety

Part of the anti-doping is to keep the riders safe. Too much EPO kills you, which is why they did the hematocrit test.

Of course, there's also the issue of money. The domestiques and new riders can't get the cash for the dope, so they're at a disadvantage. Sports are more interesting to watch when people aren't superhuman dope machines.

by BDBrian on May 15, 2007 9:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Without a doubt...

it's dangerous... hence my Tom Simpson snark... I don't think they should do it, but it sure looks like they do...

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Gandhi

by ELVISGOAT on May 15, 2007 9:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, please,

let's dispense with the histrionics and the "zero tolerance" policies. You can't impose such draconian rules on a culture steeped in doping for so many years and expect to get anywhere. It takes patience and wisdom to change deeply ingrained habits, neither of which are evident at WADA, UCI, etc.

As for us fans, why are we so uptight? Is our enjoyment of the races really diminished by these practices? Or are we simply reacting to the media's overreactions? Or is this the latest incarnation of Puritanism? I don't know the answers -- I just can't figure why anyone is personally outraged when someone gets caught (or worse, simply accused of) doping. These guys work their bodies to the breaking point. Why is it surprising that they want to relieve them? And how does it affect any of us personally?

That said, they ought to be encouraged to use natural methods for their own sakes, but criminy, let's keep it behind the scenes for the most part. We really don't need to know about it the second someone is suspected. Make the punishments more flexible and reasonable and I think we'll see more cooperation from the riders, instead of suspicion and "omerta."

My 2 pennies.

by ghisallo on May 15, 2007 11:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

My final two cents?

I don't know about specific anti-doping techniques, but I think we can all agree on one thing: it's time to stop thinking of doping as a problem to be solved. That perspective is useless.

Anti-doping is a process, one that needs to constantly evolve and constanty be evaluated.

Second, I'm gonna express an unpopular opinion, but what the heck: if a guy wants to re-inject his own blood in order to climb Mt. Zoncolan in the fifth hour of a race, on the third week of a Grand Tour, that blood isn't making that climb any easier. That blood is helping that rider suffer longer.

by 72andSunny on May 15, 2007 11:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

T-mobile and CSC

The blood profiling approach that CSC and T-mobile are using could possibly catch blood dopers.

I think it's important to root doping of all kinds out of the sport. It looks like the GC contenders for the past several years were juiced. If there really were guys riding clean--maybe Evans was, for example--they were robbed. Also, it's hard to believe that all the blood doping practitioners are going to do a good job of storing blood, transporting it, etc... The riders who employ it are crazy, in my opinion.

I agree, with the previous posts, though. The current law enforcement approach to doping probably won't work, and probably makes the doping biz profitable. Floyd's trial is a perfect example of this messy process; guilty or not, it is a total waste of time and money.

-K-

by KevinK on May 16, 2007 8:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fry them!

Hey. My Kids can cheat on tests. I can shoplift, a little. I can cut some corners when preparing a patient for surgery.

It's not about doping, it's about having a sense of what's right. Can you look your kids in the eye and be proud of stage 12 if you were taking an injection before breakfast?

I'll continue to follow the Protour since, unlike football, basketball and baseball - all of which I abandoned when greed became more important then the SPORT itself - cycling is something I love to do myself, and always will. Cycling is bigger then the mistakes and bad decisions of a few "pros".

That said, cheating can't be tolerated less it becomes an accepted practice. If this continues, then I'll have to follow cricket - ahhhhhgggg - where the fans get more exercise then the players!

by paolo on May 16, 2007 1:09 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It's been an accepted practice

since the beginning of the sport as we know it. Thus, it will take a fundamental change in cycling's culture to reduce it's occurance (eliminating cheating entirely is an impossible goal). Bone-headed rules, police actions and character assassinations won't do it. That only drives good athletes (and fans) away from the sport.

by ghisallo on May 17, 2007 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I also cannot agree with your

assumption, repsectfully. I cannot agree that "it's time to stop thinking of doping as a problem to be solved." To me, it goes against the true meaning of Honor in Sport, so to speak. This is a work in progress, and I'm determined to stay tuned...

Well, I'm old school. So my motivation isn't just to win, but to be good. -Jens Voigt, Philosopher

by Ruthann on May 16, 2007 8:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs