Doping Thread

Questions about bike hire abroad and everything light bike related. No off-topic chat please

Moderator: Moderator Team

User avatar
Posts: 787
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 1:56 am

by mrgray

I'm sure there are doping threads but for ages pro-cycling thread has been that and it appears it cannot any longer be that.

I'm fascinated by the topic. There was comment on twitter the other day to the effect that ex doped riders with gasoline and matches might be the best thing pro cycling has going for it these days. I don’t 100% agree with that (i'm very much enjoying watching the racing) but I do appreciate the point.

At the heart of the doping question is surely a paradox. On the one hand we want to believe in the extraordinary effort, the will overcoming other limitations to achieve something extraordinary. We want to be massively entertained (see a world record set in running whilst we eat corn chips on the couch). On the other hand we don’t like to be gullible or a sub-set of people want to be in touch with the “real deal” (hence the sale of these insider memoirs which cycling really outperforms in).

Anyway I thought I would start this thread with what will most likely be shown up to be a very incomplete rambling framework for our suspicions re: doping in cycling.

It starts with the fact I suppose that people passing doping tests are not necessarily taken as evidence of a clean athlete because it is presumed that doping activities aren’t necessarily always caught by testing (unless testing occurs during specific periods).

So with no specific evidence we then suspect on what basis?

As I see it we currently seem to use numerous arguments to imply doping, and the following list is not exhaustive:
1. Person achieves extraordinary result (new record, etc.) and since previous records were set by dopers person must be doping
2. “person who won is working with X who is a known doper” (usually based on a memoir from a pro bike rider)
3. “person who won used to be pretty average but now is unbeatable”.

However isn’t there an overarching argument which goes along the lines of the following:
• When the stakes are high people will use what advantage they can and doping works in cycling (and numerous other far more lucrative sports) so people are doping (or at least some proportion of contestants are doping) (and as per 1 above since doping works one might presume that in most cases the winner is doping)

And further then isn’t is just that part of us that wants to believe that then chooses dopers and non-dopers from the field. Because isn’t it just more likely that they all dope (if they win). But instead people who like, for example, Contador (and I do) won’t necessarily presume he dopes, but people who dislike Sky will say they do.

I thought a good example of this (and this relates to those tours I’ve watched relatively closely) would be the giro 2015 where there was an air of “this is bullshit” from even journalists I thought re: Astana. Yet for tour de france everyone’s pretty cool with Sky murdering people day in and day out. (clearly these are my impressions and perhaps people have the entirely opposite take on this)

And more recently, Greg VA wins gold at an event which featured a lot of climbing and which was described by pundits as likely to be won by a serious climber. Isn’t that like a middle distance runner winning the marathon? Yet he’s popular so we’re cool with it?
Bobo S&S Steel Bike - 7.5 kg
Oltre XR2- 6.6 kg
Look 585 - 6.8 kg
Look 695 SR :D

Posts: 2234
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 4:57 am

by Nefarious86

So GB Doped to a new WR?
Using Tapatalk

User avatar
Frankie - B
Posts: 6612
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 8:17 am
Location: Drenthe, Holland

by Frankie - B

Locked by me. Although it might be interesting to talk about, it will spark a debate that isn't needed. my rider vs your rider. We have been here before and it wasn't that much fun.
'Tape was made to wrap your GF's gifts, NOT hold a freakin tire on.'

  • Similar Topics
    Last post