Do people here care about doping?

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 07 May 2007 13:28:36
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Do people here care about doping?

Just curious whether it matters to the general public that professional
cycling is having more than its share of doping scandals lately.

I could ask this question in RBR (rec.bicycles.racing), but that's not a
good cross-section of typical cyclists. Not that there isn't a lot of
pre-selection in the sample here, either, but better than RBR, where
everything takes on the emotion of a helmet war.

So...

Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed the
same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?

Also, are there people here who took up cycling because of the coverage on
TV/radio/newspapers of Lance Armstrong (just an example), and do the current
scandals give you pause, perhaps making you less-likely to try and get
others invovled in cycling?

Just curious-

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Date: 09 May 2007 09:02:52
From: gds
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

On May 8, 4:09 pm, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au > wrote:
> On 8 May 2007 13:28:38 -0700, gds wrote:
>

>
> Such as having their blood so thickened by EPO that they must be
> woken regularly during the night to avoid dying? I guess that's fine,
> as long as there's a doctor on call.
>
I would argue that if it was all in the open and that "legitimate"
medical supervision were available then the chances of bad events
would go down not up. As long as it is in the back room and supervised
by "outlaw" medcial and non professionals I think the situation has
inherent unnecessary risks.
The situation you describe would only be allowed by an outlaw. If you
had sereious professionals supervising the regimen then athletes would
not be in that situation.

Date: 09 May 2007 00:08:36
From: Kenny
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

Date: 08 May 2007 20:05:26
From: Jay - BFri Commuter
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > wrote in message
news:TZL%h.1818$zj3.1147@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> Just curious whether it matters to the general public that professional
> cycling is having more than its share of doping scandals lately.
>
> I could ask this question in RBR (rec.bicycles.racing), but that's not a
> good cross-section of typical cyclists. Not that there isn't a lot of
> pre-selection in the sample here, either, but better than RBR, where
> everything takes on the emotion of a helmet war.
>
> So...
>
> Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed the
> same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?
>
> Also, are there people here who took up cycling because of the coverage on
> TV/radio/newspapers of Lance Armstrong (just an example), and do the
> current scandals give you pause, perhaps making you less-likely to try and
> get others invovled in cycling?
>
> Just curious-
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Since I am a nihilistic IT guy, I view this debate in terms of the ongoing
battle with computer virus writers / spammers. There is no way for IT
administrators to win. It will always be thrust and parry with the hackers.

So I say, allow any and all drugs, since there is no realistic way to
prevent it. All pro athletes are adults, so they understand the long-term
risks. Let the games begin! ...just like ancient Rome with the lions...J.

Date: 09 May 2007 15:04:55
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

On Tue, 8 May 2007 20:05:26 -0500, Jay - BFri Commuter wrote:

> So I say, allow any and all drugs, since there is no realistic way to
> prevent it. All pro athletes are adults, so they understand the long-term
> risks. Let the games begin! ...just like ancient Rome with the lions...J.

Perhaps they do understand the long-term risks, although I think that's
always arguable in the case of newer doping techniques. But race organizers
are understandably piqued when riders fall off their bikes and die
mid-race, so it's hard to blame them for wanting clean, healthy riders.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

Date: 08 May 2007 14:24:30
From: gds
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

On May 8, 2:01 pm, Art Harris <n...@hotmail.com > wrote:
>> > > Art Harris
>
> > That is true! However, as a cynic I'd say there aren't any top riders
> > who don't take drugs. So, let them do it openly and get good medical
> > supervison.
>
> What makes you think they're going to follow the doctor's supervision
> and not take take a liitle more than prescribed? Or that one doctor
> won't be more lenient than another?

There will always be problems and outlaws. But by being open you allow
many to take advanatge of medical science in a safer situation

>
> > I don't want to start a religous war but I liken this to
> > abortion before Roe v. Wade. There were still plenty of abortions but
> > sadly many of them were performed by butchers without skill and
> > without sanitary conditions. the cynic in me belives that will never
> > change the underlying behavior so our best bet is to essentially make
> > it as safe as possible.
>
> That's a completely different situation. We're talking about sports.
> By legalizing drugs, you essentially force ALL athlete's to take them.
> If you think that is good for either the athletes, the fans, or sports
> in general, I think you're way off base.

You may not like my analogy. OK forget that. But your idea that such a
positon would force all athletes to take drugs ignores what Ithink is
the current reality- namely that all the top athletes are already
taking drugs.

>
> Look at the state cycling is in right now. Do you think it would
> improve if everyone were openly taking drugs? What sponsor would want
> to have his company associated with such a sport?
>
> Art Harris

Yes! If doing what they are all doing wouldn't criminalized it would
make it easier to get sponsorship. Like it or not most of the public
really doesn't care if Barry Bonds takes juice or not. Look at pro and
top college football. Does anyone really think that there are that
many folks who are naturally 320 lbs. and can bench press 375 lbs.?

And youcan even forget drugs. Look at female gymnasts. 15 year old
girls that look 12 as a result of their diet and training regimens.
The entire world of athletics has athletes sacrificing their long term
health to gain a competitive advantage. This cuts accross all cultures
and sports. We have Chinese female gymnasts doing it. We have Iranian
wrestlers doing it. We have Bulgarian weight lifters doing it. I guess
my cynical view is can you tell me who isn't doing it.

Date: 08 May 2007 14:01:23
From: Art Harris
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

gds wrote:
> > The problem with allowing drugs is that riders who DON"T take drugs
> > put themselves at a competitive disadvantage. They have to choose
> > between losing races or potentially ruining their health with steroids
> > or other drugs.
> > Art Harris
>
> That is true! However, as a cynic I'd say there aren't any top riders
> who don't take drugs. So, let them do it openly and get good medical
> supervison.
>

What makes you think they're going to follow the doctor's supervision
and not take take a liitle more than prescribed? Or that one doctor
won't be more lenient than another?

> I don't want to start a religous war but I liken this to
> abortion before Roe v. Wade. There were still plenty of abortions but
> sadly many of them were performed by butchers without skill and
> without sanitary conditions. the cynic in me belives that will never
> change the underlying behavior so our best bet is to essentially make
> it as safe as possible.

That's a completely different situation. We're talking about sports.
By legalizing drugs, you essentially force ALL athlete's to take them.
If you think that is good for either the athletes, the fans, or sports
in general, I think you're way off base.

Look at the state cycling is in right now. Do you think it would
improve if everyone were openly taking drugs? What sponsor would want
to have his company associated with such a sport?

Art Harris

Date: 09 May 2007 08:44:01
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

On 8 May 2007 14:01:23 -0700, Art Harris wrote:

> Look at the state cycling is in right now. Do you think it would
> improve if everyone were openly taking drugs? What sponsor would want
> to have his company associated with such a sport?

Sponsors want to be associated with winners i.e. they want their
athletes to dope in order to win, if that's what it takes, but not get
caught. "We don't want to be associated with a sport full of dopers"
means "Now that they've been caught, we're going to dump them and
take the moral high ground."

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

Date: 08 May 2007 13:28:38
From: gds
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

On May 8, 1:10 pm, Art Harris <n...@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
> The problem with allowing drugs is that riders who DON"T take drugs
> put themselves at a competitive disadvantage. They have to choose
> between losing races or potentially ruining their health with steroids
> or other drugs.
>
> Art Harris

That is true! However, as a cynic I'd say there aren't any top riders
who don't take drugs. So, let them do it openly and get good medical
supervison. I don't want to start a religous war but I liken this to
abortion before Roe v. Wade. There were still plenty of abortions but
sadly many of them were performed by butchers without skill and
without sanitary conditions. the cynic in me belives that will never
change the underlying behavior so our best bet is to essentially make
it as safe as possible.

Back to competitive advantage or disadvantage. That will always be the
case. If you could take drugs out of the equation you would still have
such "unfair" differences as for example:
1) having the $ to hire a coach
2) having the $ to hire a nutritionist
3) having the $ to have better equipment
4) etc
So, in this case in order to make it fair you would need to make sure
that riders didn't have unequal amounts of money. Silly, yes but also
the differences in resources do create advantages and disadvantges.

Date: 09 May 2007 08:39:00
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

On 8 May 2007 13:28:38 -0700, gds wrote:

> That is true! However, as a cynic I'd say there aren't any top riders
> who don't take drugs. So, let them do it openly and get good medical
> supervison.

Such as having their blood so thickened by EPO that they must be
woken regularly during the night to avoid dying? I guess that's fine,
as long as there's a doctor on call.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

Date: 08 May 2007 13:10:15
From: Art Harris
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

"Gooserider" wrote:
> Nope. I don't care about doping. I don't care about drug use in any sport.
> As a matter of fact, I think drug use should be considered just another
> facet of training, and should be legal AND monitored. I don't think anybody
> does the TdF without using something. Steroids are used at all levels of
> sports, and the ones who don't get caught are the athletes who are
> successful and important enough to avoid the tests. Let them all use under
> doctor's supervision.

The problem with allowing drugs is that riders who DON"T take drugs
put themselves at a competitive disadvantage. They have to choose
between losing races or potentially ruining their health with steroids
or other drugs.

Art Harris

Date: 08 May 2007 17:38:23
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

"Art Harris" <n2ah@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1178655015.243571.220280@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> "Gooserider" wrote:
>> Nope. I don't care about doping. I don't care about drug use in any
>> sport.
>> As a matter of fact, I think drug use should be considered just another
>> facet of training, and should be legal AND monitored. I don't think
>> anybody
>> does the TdF without using something. Steroids are used at all levels of
>> sports, and the ones who don't get caught are the athletes who are
>> successful and important enough to avoid the tests. Let them all use
>> under
>> doctor's supervision.
>
> The problem with allowing drugs is that riders who DON"T take drugs
> put themselves at a competitive disadvantage. They have to choose
> between losing races or potentially ruining their health with steroids
> or other drugs.
>
> Art Harris
>
>
I think it should be considered the cost of doing business. If you look at
the professional bodybuilders in the 1970s(when steroids were prescribed)
versus those of today you see that today's bodybuilders are much less
healthy and tend to die very young. I think that there is a medically safe
way to use performance enhancing substances.
>

Date: 09 May 2007 08:45:24
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

On Tue, 8 May 2007 17:38:23 -0400, Gooserider wrote:

> I think it should be considered the cost of doing business. If you look at
> the professional bodybuilders in the 1970s(when steroids were prescribed)
> versus those of today you see that today's bodybuilders are much less
> healthy and tend to die very young. I think that there is a medically safe
> way to use performance enhancing substances.

But if everyone does it in a "medically safe" way, it gives no-one a
competitive advantage. As someone else pointed out, it's inevitable that
athletes will damage their health to get a temporary edge, if necessary.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

Date: 09 May 2007 06:23:54
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

"Michael Warner" <mvw@westnet.com.au > wrote in message
news:1fuunoutwh5db.qkhnjojweooj.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 8 May 2007 17:38:23 -0400, Gooserider wrote:
>
>> I think it should be considered the cost of doing business. If you look
>> at
>> the professional bodybuilders in the 1970s(when steroids were prescribed)
>> versus those of today you see that today's bodybuilders are much less
>> healthy and tend to die very young. I think that there is a medically
>> safe
>> way to use performance enhancing substances.
>
> But if everyone does it in a "medically safe" way, it gives no-one a
> competitive advantage. As someone else pointed out, it's inevitable that
> athletes will damage their health to get a temporary edge, if necessary.
>

Then I consider it the cost of doing business. The athletes are adults and
are capable of making their own decisions.

Date: 09 May 2007 22:37:10
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

On Wed, 9 May 2007 06:23:54 -0400, Gooserider wrote:

> Then I consider it the cost of doing business.

That business being to put the sponsor's name in front of people like
us lounging on the couch watching the TdF. It's definitely worth the
human sacrifice, don't you think?

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

Date: 09 May 2007 17:35:24
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

"Michael Warner" <mvw@westnet.com.au > wrote in message
news:1scmelpghaduk.1aq2mrbqevj3h$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 9 May 2007 06:23:54 -0400, Gooserider wrote:
>
>> Then I consider it the cost of doing business.
>
> That business being to put the sponsor's name in front of people like
> us lounging on the couch watching the TdF. It's definitely worth the
> human sacrifice, don't you think?
>
Their business is to make money while racing their bicycles. There are
plenty of occupations which are unsafe and lead to physical complications
and health problems. Baseball pitchers routinely blow out rotator cuffs,
coal miners get black lung, lifeguards get skin cancer, etc.

Date: 08 May 2007 10:42:13
From: gds
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

On May 8, 10:31 am, Art Harris <n...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> > As to attitude; I must say I'm not sure what it is to which you are
> > referring. I don't find the attitudes/behaviors of cyclists much
> > different from the ppopulation in general.
>
> I was referring to the whole "serious" recreational rider syndrome:
> Those groups of slightly overweight, middle-aged, weekend riders with
> $6,000 bikes, heart rate monitors, and team jerseys, who seem to be
> more interested in making each other suffer than enjoying a bike ride.
>
> Art Harris

Well I see that too. But I also see the same with tennis players with
a bag full of high tech rackets (and no stroke to speak of) and
golfers with incredibly expensive clubs shooting 105 and so on. I
don't see any harm in any of this. If folks have some extra $ and this
makes them happy I think it harmless.
For full disclosre: I actually use a watt meter. Crazy cost but great
fun. It gives me the data I need to prove that I have no talent.

Date: 08 May 2007 10:31:47
From: Art Harris
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

gds wrote:
> My own view is that today's
> equipment, driven by racing I agree, is great. It is lightweight and
> sturdy- albeit expensive.

I agree that there have been some improvements, particularly in smooth
shifting drivetrains. But there are other areas where recreational
riders have fewer choices. Try to find a bike with durable wheels,
reasonable tire clearance, and a robust frame, and your choices are
mostly limited to all-out touring bikes.

> As to attitude; I must say I'm not sure what it is to which you are
> referring. I don't find the attitudes/behaviors of cyclists much
> different from the ppopulation in general.

I was referring to the whole "serious" recreational rider syndrome:
Those groups of slightly overweight, middle-aged, weekend riders with
$6,000 bikes, heart rate monitors, and team jerseys, who seem to be
more interested in making each other suffer than enjoying a bike ride.

Art Harris

Date: 09 May 2007 00:42:34
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

>> My own view is that today's
>> equipment, driven by racing I agree, is great. It is lightweight and
>> sturdy- albeit expensive.
>
> I agree that there have been some improvements, particularly in smooth
> shifting drivetrains. But there are other areas where recreational
> riders have fewer choices. Try to find a bike with durable wheels,
> reasonable tire clearance, and a robust frame, and your choices are
> mostly limited to all-out touring bikes.

They don't sell 'cross bikes where you live? Pretty sure they fit your
description perfectly.

>> As to attitude; I must say I'm not sure what it is to which you are
>> referring. I don't find the attitudes/behaviors of cyclists much
>> different from the ppopulation in general.
>
> I was referring to the whole "serious" recreational rider syndrome:
> Those groups of slightly overweight, middle-aged, weekend riders with
> $6,000 bikes, heart rate monitors, and team jerseys, who seem to be
> more interested in making each other suffer than enjoying a bike ride.

I thought you were describing me... kinda hurts to see it put so accurately
in talking about "slightly-overweight, middle-aged" but then you lost me on
the team jersey part. Coming from a has-been/never-was racing background, I
still have trouble wearing a team jersey. Back in the day you'd see all
manner of "recreational" cyclists running around in Molteni jerseys. As a
racer, that was just something you could not do. It would be like you were
pretending to be something you're not, and that was a far greater sin if you
actually did race, than if you were simply a zealous fan (we didn't call
them "posers" back then).

But the $6000 bike thing? Consider that, for $6000, you can own something
that's arguably the best there is, at least in terms of performance. Almost
affordable for a great many people, if that's where their priorities lay.
What would it cost to own the very best car?

If you think bike people are out of hand, what about photographers? Do you
think everyone who spends $3k on a high-end digital body, and then another
$6k on an assortment of glass (lenses) is on the same level as Ansel Adams
on his very worst day? And yet they'll spend more and more and more, some of
them believing that, if they just had the right camera, the right lens, they
would have nailed that shot.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Date: 08 May 2007 13:54:09
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

On 8 May 2007 10:31:47 -0700, Art Harris <n2ah@hotmail.com > wrote:

>Those groups of slightly overweight, middle-aged, weekend riders with
>$6,000 bikes, heart rate monitors, and team jerseys, who seem to be
>more interested in making each other suffer than enjoying a bike ride.

Who says "making each other suffer" isn't enjoyable? Not that I would
prefer that EVERY ride, but there is plenty of fun, enjoyment, and
fulfillment to be had in a fast paced, heart pumping, leg cramping,
nose running, hammerfest.

Date: 08 May 2007 10:25:15
From: Cathy Kearns
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > wrote in message
news:TZL%h.1818$zj3.1147@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> So...
>
> Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed the
> same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?

I used to work (in high tech communications marketing) with George Mount.
He would tell us stories at lunch about racing in Europe. He would tell us
breath taking tales of exciting races, and some mundane stories of well,
being offered stuff you didn't know what it was because heck, it was
supposed to make you faster. (I don't think he partook in any of these
unknown substances, just mentioned it was around.) I took away from these
stories the idea that those who wanted it more would take more risks, both
on the bike, and when it came to trying out unknown substances.

It's not like if all possible doping were caught and wiped out that only
those that really, really wanted it would win. If those tiny high school
basket ball players that play with their heart on their sleeve would make it
to the NBA. Yes, champions have more desire than others. But they also won
the genetic lottery. Pros are already doing incredibly stupid things to
their body for their sport. And we applaud when the gymnast runs down the
runway and flys off the pommel horse doing flips where she knows she won't
see the landing, and has a chance of breaking her neck. We watch in awe at
the dangerous events they call the X Games. The team player that gets shot
up with pain killer and runs back into the game with a torn ligament gets a
warm fuzzy write up in Sports Illustrated. So if they are going all out for
their sport with some other type of drug, it's hard for me to see the line.

>
> Also, are there people here who took up cycling because of the coverage on
> TV/radio/newspapers of Lance Armstrong (just an example), and do the
> current scandals give you pause, perhaps making you less-likely to try and
> get others invovled in cycling?

The only bike race I watch is the tour de france. But I'm a bit of an
addict about it. At a tennis camp a few years ago my husband and I would
get up early to watch the tour, then rush through breakfast to make the
first court time. Others in the camp would sleep in, and thought it silly
after a full day and late night we would be up at the crack of dawn to watch
a bike race, but we did. I love seeing the peleton. But, I'm not sure I'm
going to watch it next year. Not because of the alledged doping, but
because the way the organization handled it. My feeling is if you want to
toss someone out of a 21 day race you can test them and do so. But once
they hit Paris, just let it go. That's your victor. You had the chance to
test before, the last day isn't really racing anyway, you could have dq'd
them before the final stage. But once that final stage starts, that's your
field. Since they don't test everyone how sure are they the next guy in
line didn't dope? That's why you can't just pass the final yellow jersey on
down the line. If you need the front guy clean, you need everybody clean.

I don't race myself. I started road biking to be with my husband, on a
tandem, to take a bike tour of France. Before that I was a transportation
bicyclist, and advocated for kids walking and biking to school. Now I have
my own road bike, and will ride without him occasionally, though I still
prefer the tandem. Sometimes I try and talk friends into picking up cycling
for exercise reasons. It's easy on your joints. I still push for kids to
have safe routes to school, and to learn to bike to get themselves places.
And I still like watching peletons. I like watching the Wednesday night A
ride take off down Portola. But the tour de france really has nothing to do
with any of that.

Date: 09 May 2007 18:11:20
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

In article <4o20i.850$UU.134@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net >,
"Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com > wrote:

> The only bike race I watch is the tour de france. But I'm a bit of an
> addict about it. At a tennis camp a few years ago my husband and I would
> get up early to watch the tour, then rush through breakfast to make the
> first court time. Others in the camp would sleep in, and thought it silly
> after a full day and late night we would be up at the crack of dawn to watch
> a bike race, but we did. I love seeing the peleton. But, I'm not sure I'm
^^^^^^^
peloton

> going to watch it next year. Not because of the alledged doping, but
> because the way the organization handled it. My feeling is if you want to
> toss someone out of a 21 day race you can test them and do so. But once
> they hit Paris, just let it go. That's your victor. You had the chance to
> test before, the last day isn't really racing anyway, you could have dq'd
> them before the final stage. But once that final stage starts, that's your
> field. Since they don't test everyone how sure are they the next guy in
> line didn't dope? That's why you can't just pass the final yellow jersey on
> down the line. If you need the front guy clean, you need everybody clean.

I agree that the winner is the first to cross the finish line.
Some sports test and suspend, but they do not rewrite the results.

--
Michael Press

Date: 10 May 2007 09:17:46
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

On Wed, 09 May 2007 18:11:20 -0700, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net >
wrote:

>I agree that the winner is the first to cross the finish line.
>Some sports test and suspend, but they do not rewrite the results.

Sure. Therefore, e.g., Ben Johnson (1988 Summer Olympics) and Johann
Muelleg (2002 Winter Olympics) get their Gold Medals back.

Dude, you're smoking a banned (albeit non-performance enhancing)
substance. See Ross Rebagliatti, 1998 Winter Olympics.

Date: 08 May 2007 08:54:07
From: gds
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

On May 8, 8:39 am, Art Harris <n...@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
> I got into cycling as a kid, and it had nothing to do with racing.
> Much later, I got interested in the careers of Merckx, then Lemond,
> and then Armstrong. But because of all the scandals, I now have little
> interest in pro racing, or who wins the TdF.
>
> I suppose Armstrong's success did a lot to get Americans riding road
> bikes (which is a good thing). But the emphasis on racing has had some
> negative effects on recreational riding in terms of equipment and
> attitudes.
>
> Art Harris

My history in cycling is similar to yours. And while I have raced my
results are so poor that no one would accuse me of being a racer.
However, I'm interested in your comments on the negative effects of
racing on equipment and attitude. My own view is that today's
equipment, driven by racing I agree, is great. It is lightweight and
sturdy- albeit expensive. But I love my modern "racing" bike and find
it more comfortable and better performing than any of my previous
rides. I've felt that way about each successive bike over the years.
As to attitude; I must say I'm not sure what it is to which you are
referring. I don't find the attitudes/behaviors of cyclists much
different from the ppopulation in general.

Date: 08 May 2007 13:13:29
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

On 8 May 2007 08:54:07 -0700, gds <gary_jill@msn.com > wrote:

>However, I'm interested in your comments on the negative effects of
>racing on equipment and attitude. My own view is that today's
>equipment, driven by racing I agree, is great. It is lightweight and
>sturdy- albeit expensive. But I love my modern "racing" bike and find
>it more comfortable and better performing than any of my previous
>rides. I've felt that way about each successive bike over the years.
>As to attitude; I must say I'm not sure what it is to which you are
>referring. I don't find the attitudes/behaviors of cyclists much
>different from the ppopulation in general.

All groups have pecking orders, customs, unwritten rules, and the
like.

To be high on the food chain, walking the walk trumps all, but don't
pretend that talking the talk isn't a huge factor.

Case in point: in our community there used to be an informal road
"race" held once a week after work, where all the local roadie studs
and studdettes - up to 40 riders, depending - would show up and do a
quick 40 +/- miler, terrain varying each week from flat, rolling, and
hilly. The "points" winner each season was awarded a rainbow jersey,
which was an old white jersey colored with tacky magic marker. Sort
of an "anti-cool" but very cool reward for kicking everyone else's
butt. Very intimidating to be a newbie in that crowd.

So one season, a local Expert Class mountain bikers shows up to try
his stuff on the road. He's got the only hairy legs in the field, and
while he wasn't wearing baggy pants, and did have a visor on his
helmet and WAS wearing a camelbak! No shortage of looks askance,
knowing smiles, a few "what's in your back pack" remarks.

First race, he finishes with the lead pack, around 5th in a field
sprint of what Paul Sherman would call "the heads of state." He
repeated that type performance pretty much every week, and while he
didn't get win the rainbow, he was elevated to the elite class of
"heads of state."

My point: Even though his stature rose among his peers due to his
performance, he nevertheless found it necessary adjust his appearance
to fit in with the subculture. By the end of the summer he had shaved
legs, no water bottles, and lost the visor.

I downhill ski, cross country ski, speed skate, road bike, and
mountain bike, and I know how to talk the talk in all of them even if
I don't necessarily walk with the heads of state :-)

Date: 08 May 2007 08:39:34
From: Art Harris
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> Just curious whether it matters to the general public that professional
> cycling is having more than its share of doping scandals lately.
>
> Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed the
> same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?
>
> Also, are there people here who took up cycling because of the coverage on
> TV/radio/newspapers of Lance Armstrong (just an example), and do the current
> scandals give you pause, perhaps making you less-likely to try and get
> others invovled in cycling?
>

I got into cycling as a kid, and it had nothing to do with racing.
Much later, I got interested in the careers of Merckx, then Lemond,
and then Armstrong. But because of all the scandals, I now have little
interest in pro racing, or who wins the TdF.

I suppose Armstrong's success did a lot to get Americans riding road
bikes (which is a good thing). But the emphasis on racing has had some
negative effects on recreational riding in terms of equipment and
attitudes.

Art Harris

Date: 08 May 2007 08:19:06
From: gds
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

On May 7, 6:37 pm, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote:
> On 7 May 2007 15:14:31 -0700, gds <gary_j...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Interest remains the same. I've believe that all/most top racer dope
> >and have done so for at least 60 years. I understand that it is
> >cheating but all societies have formal (laws) and informal (behavior)
> >norms. In the case of doping and sports I think that whatever the law
> >that the behavioral norm is to dope.
> >I also have a hard time drawing the line on the continuum of varios
> >perhformance enhancing aids. So, is having a coach moral? What about
> >using drinks such as Gatorad? What about energy gels? So there is
> >clealry a lot of "performance enhancing" things that are both ok by
> >the formal and informal norms. But where should the line be drawn? And
> >how does it change over time? For example EPO. If one used EPO 30
> >years ago it would have been legal. Now its not. Why? Probably because
> >they can now test for it.
> >My preference is to bring all the performance enhancing aids into the
> >open. By doing so we could take them out of the closet and hopefully
> >make the situation safer.
>
> My interest remains the same as well, but I disagree with your take. I
> won't venture to draw the line between "food" and "drugs," but it is
> not impossible to do so. If the sponsors of teams had the incentive,
> drugs could be eradicated simply by enforcing a "one and done" rule.
> The problem is that to do so would be antithetical to sponsorship:
> only winners make money for the sponsor, and winners can't compete on
> a level playing field without doping. So it is a vicious circle.
>
> You suggest that bringing dope into the open might "make the
> situation safer." But who defines what's "safe"? How many years of
> testing and waiting will determine whether or not there are long term
> side effects? Who will be the human guinea pigs? And stretching your
> argument to its extreme, when we will reach the point of the now
> science fiction but maybe soon to be fact, genetically altered human?
>
> I might be naive, but I'm thinking that what is a better choice is a
> world where "organic" athletes compete on "food" (however defined),
> and where technology testing for "non-food" dope gets as sophisticated
> as software firewallers catching hackers. Where the majority of
> dopers, rather than a tiny minority, get caught, and where if you get
> caught, one strike and you're out for good.
>
> But that will happen just about the same time as a cure for cancer,
> global warming reversal, honest politicians, peace on earth, etc.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't disagree with your sentiments-- I just don't think it will
happen. I've competed at a high level in two sports other than cycling
and while the drugs were a bit different I can tell you that the use
of performance enhancing drugs was endemic in those sports as well.
The reality is that even without the money that top cometitors are
drivento win. That is a big part of what makes them top competitors.
So, by their very nature they are receptive to whatever canhelp them
win. And in a (sub) culture where "everyone is doing it" is hard to
convince them that they are cheating. Actually I think the oposite
holds. Since (they believe) all thier competiton is doing it they feel
they would be chating themselves to not take advantage. Call it
ratiionalization, perhaps it is, but it is very real.

Date: 08 May 2007 09:32:04
From: dgk
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

On Mon, 7 May 2007 13:28:36 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > wrote:

>Just curious whether it matters to the general public that professional
>cycling is having more than its share of doping scandals lately.
>
>I could ask this question in RBR (rec.bicycles.racing), but that's not a
>good cross-section of typical cyclists. Not that there isn't a lot of
>pre-selection in the sample here, either, but better than RBR, where
>everything takes on the emotion of a helmet war.
>
>So...
>
>Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed the
>same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?
>
>Also, are there people here who took up cycling because of the coverage on
>TV/radio/newspapers of Lance Armstrong (just an example), and do the current
>scandals give you pause, perhaps making you less-likely to try and get
>others invovled in cycling?
>
>Just curious-
>
>--Mike Jacoubowsky
>Chain Reaction Bicycles
>www.ChainReaction.com
>Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>

If it weren't for this group I would have assumed FL was guilty; now
I'm not at all sure. Still, I have nothing but admiration for the guys
doing these races even if some of them are doped somehow. As I
struggle up the 59th Street Bridge on my commute, I can't even begin
to imagine how someone can climb mountains, and do it day after day.
Lance Armstrong is just something otherworldly.

I live near a Velodrome, and the Kissena Cycling Club has races there
from now through Labor Day, and I sometimes stop by on the way home
from work to watch (http://kissena.info/track/). I'm pretty much in
awe of those guys, and they aren't even climbing mountains.

One night a week they had messenger races, for guys who are messengers
in Manhattan. I contend that, to make it more realistic, they should
have folks walking across the track during the races, but my
suggestion was ignored.

Date: 08 May 2007 00:02:24
From: marian.rosenberg@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

On May 8, 4:28 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <M...@ChainReaction.com > wrote:
> Just curious whether it matters to the general public that professional
> cycling is having more than its share of doping scandals lately.
>
> I could ask this question in RBR (rec.bicycles.racing), but that's not a
> good cross-section of typical cyclists. Not that there isn't a lot of
> pre-selection in the sample here, either, but better than RBR, where
> everything takes on the emotion of a helmet war.
>
> So...
>
> Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed the
> same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?

When I first began to follow racing it was only the local racers and
only those that I also rode with socially and only in comparison to my
own results (as a way of seeing just how crap I was because I hadn't
wanted to race and was only doing it to please the bike shop owner).

I became actively interested in racing when I discovered that the "man
with the Colnago pedals" who was giving the local racers free lessons
last June wasn't just "some older guy who had once been in a few real
races" but had actually represented China at the 1984 Olympics and
been an all-Asia champion rider and oh yeah was also a real cycling
coach who was involved with the current national team on occasions
when he wasn't in Hainan.

I watched bits and pieces of the 2006 TdF in the bike shop in Chinese
because I was watching it with my friends. With the exception of the
fact that we were eating sunflower seeds instead of popcorn it could
have been a superbowl party.

I started following racing because a pro race was going to happen in
Hainan and even if I had clearly made a very bad impression of myself
at the dinner with the UCI Comissaire from the Chinese Cycling
Association and wasn't going to get to work at it and probably wasn't
even going to volunteer at it I figured I ought to know at least
enough to be able to understand what was going on.

I started studying racing when I got asked incredulously by a member
of the organizing committee "you mean you _want_ to volunteer?" at the
same time as I said "you mean you'll _let_ me volunteer?" He thought
what with me being a student that I would consider my studies more
important than ten 14 hour work days in a row.

I started cramming racing rules and regulations and anything else I
could get my hands in a pre-exam fervor when I found out that they
were going to _pay_ me for my work.

Then, the weekend before The Race happened I had a race of my own and
it didn't involve much climbing and it was on a not very good bike and
I was (how'd that happen?) the fastest woman in the province. This
not only made racing much more important and interesting it also made
me that much more aware of how awesomely difficult and utterly cool
the pro racer boys' achievements were.

Especially when I _met_ the pro racer boys. They were doing these
awesomely difficult things and were still Real People. People made of
flesh and blood who got sick, who fainted, who crashed, who broke
bones, who sat down and ate meals with me, who looked starry eyed when
talking about ProTour contracts that were going to start in just a few
months, or who did things like cry because it was the first race
they'd ever not finished and who were going to have to go home and
tell their _mom_ that they hadn't finished. Let them be genetic
freaks or those willing to "eat bitter and drink dry" (Coach's
description of a professional training regimen) or even on drugs they
were still Real People.

I couldn't give a damn about doping scandals. No one I know and no
one I've met is involved. I believe in the personal integrity of the
people I ride with and with the exception of the the very top levels
(Moscow Omnibike Dynamo, Japan National, China National, Marco Polo
Cycling, Polygon Sweet Nice, and the team from Australia) of those I
saw at "my" race and the United Arab Emirates national team (which
wasn't particularly exceptional but unsurprisingly had a lot of very
very expensive equipment) I don't think they or their teams had the
money to be blowing on the pharmaceutical route when maybe (at least
in the case of Qinghai, Ningxia, Beijing, the PLA, and the Mongolian
National teams) shaving another five or six pounds off of the
domestiques' bikes might be a better and more lasting way to spend
that money (after all you can always use the same good bike on the
next good rider).

(Wish I could remember which team had the spare bike that was steel.)

> Also, are there people here who took up cycling because of the coverage on
> TV/radio/newspapers of Lance Armstrong (just an example), and do the current
> scandals give you pause, perhaps making you less-likely to try and get
> others invovled in cycling?

No and no.

-M

Date: 07 May 2007 19:50:53
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

I fall in the first group, those who follow bike racing, albeit more
casually than say most American football fans follow their chosen
sport and I have to say that my interest level has dropped due to the
doping scandals but not for the usual reason. I'm no forensic
scientist but I do deal with forensic scientists on a regular basis
and IMO the more recent doping accusations (post-Festina) are
scandalous not because of any allegedly positive test results but
because of the totally unprofessional attitudes of the testers. If the
forensic scientists I deal with leaked test results to the press,
refused to provide split samples for outside testing, and tried to
cover up violations by them of basic lab procedures they would not
only be committing professional suicide but they would draw court
sanctions, a fancy term meaning a judge would throw their butts in
jail. WADA seems to just thumb their nose at anyone that challenges
them like Floyd Landis has. Until WADA cleans up its own act -or some
other agency takes over the testing- there's no way we'll ever watch a
race and *know* the results are a measure of the riders and not their
pharmacists.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Date: 07 May 2007 21:03:28
From: fred
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

Great question, Mike.

I don't really care about watching sports. I'd rather be doing sports.
The only time I really enjoy watching sports is when I see
relatively ordinary shlubs like me, or someone who's battled deep odds
(i.e. Lance) giving something their all and succeeding (i.e. the
amateurs in an Ironman Triathlon). That inspires me to try harder to do
better.

I don't really care about pros using drugs. Make it legal and monitor
it. Some of the rules make no sense to me. For example, taking a
transfusion of your own red blood cells shortly before a race is
illegal. For heaven's sake - it's part of their own body. Or, another
example, a TdF rider gets stung by a bee and has to drop out because the
drugs used to treat his life-threatening reaction to the sting is
banned. Yeah, like anyone is really going to put his life on the line
to get a minimal chemical advantage.

Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.

Jeff

Date: 07 May 2007 17:57:28
From: DougC
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> Just curious whether it matters to the general public that professional
> cycling is having more than its share of doping scandals lately.
> ...

I don't care, really.
With most US sports at least--half the game seems to be using drugs and
dodging the drug tests. Other sports have drug scandals too (US
basevall-Barry Bonds?) maybe you just didn't notice....

I never had much interest in watching pro road cycling, or really any
other type. If I could *go* to the I.H.P.V.A. trials I would, but even I
don't think it's interesting enough for broadcast TV.

--------

"Competitive sports" is going to become an antiquated pastime.
Eventually everyone will just show up for genetic testing, and the UCI
will declare whoever has the best stamina genes the winner.
~

Date: 07 May 2007 16:55:15
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

>> Just curious whether it matters to the general public that professional
>> cycling is having more than its share of doping scandals lately.
>> ...
>
> I don't care, really.
> With most US sports at least--half the game seems to be using drugs and
> dodging the drug tests. Other sports have drug scandals too (US
> basevall-Barry Bonds?) maybe you just didn't notice....

Track & Field, Soccer, "American" Football, Baseball... all have big
problems with doping. The difference between them and cycling is that their
federations have a lot more power and essentially have told WADA and USADA
to go stuff it; they'll handle things temselves. Soccer, from what I
understand, is a near-joke in terms of actually trying to get rid of doping.

As for Barry Bonds, in my humble opinion, if the guy has class, he'd hit
homer #754, one shy of the record, lay down his bat and retire. I can't see
that happening, but wouldn't it be a great way to go out, given all the
controversy?

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Date: 07 May 2007 15:37:24
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

Mike Jacoubowsky <MikeJ@chainreaction.com > wrote:
> Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed the
> same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?

I only follow racing in the vaguest "it's neat to see bikes going fast"
sense. I have trouble generating more than an apathetic 'meh' about
doping in cycling.

On the other hand, I do think the French lab testing procedure was
pathetic. Was he guilty, wasn't he? Probably not IMO, but irregardless
the whole proceedings should be thrown out based on how flawed it is.

As to reasons to cycle, sports figures never entered into my personal
reasons list.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
Clones are people two.

Date: 07 May 2007 18:26:14
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

Date: 07 May 2007 15:14:31
From: gds
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

On May 7, 1:28 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <M...@ChainReaction.com > wrote:
> Just curious whether it matters to the general public that professional
> cycling is having more than its share of doping scandals lately.
>
> I could ask this question in RBR (rec.bicycles.racing), but that's not a
> good cross-section of typical cyclists. Not that there isn't a lot of
> pre-selection in the sample here, either, but better than RBR, where
> everything takes on the emotion of a helmet war.
>
> So...
>
> Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed the
> same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?
>
> Also, are there people here who took up cycling because of the coverage on
> TV/radio/newspapers of Lance Armstrong (just an example), and do the current
> scandals give you pause, perhaps making you less-likely to try and get
> others invovled in cycling?
>
> Just curious-
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Interest remains the same. I've believe that all/most top racer dope
and have done so for at least 60 years. I understand that it is
cheating but all societies have formal (laws) and informal (behavior)
norms. In the case of doping and sports I think that whatever the law
that the behavioral norm is to dope.
I also have a hard time drawing the line on the continuum of varios
perhformance enhancing aids. So, is having a coach moral? What about
using drinks such as Gatorad? What about energy gels? So there is
clealry a lot of "performance enhancing" things that are both ok by
the formal and informal norms. But where should the line be drawn? And
how does it change over time? For example EPO. If one used EPO 30
years ago it would have been legal. Now its not. Why? Probably because
they can now test for it.
My preference is to bring all the performance enhancing aids into the
open. By doing so we could take them out of the closet and hopefully
make the situation safer.

Date: 07 May 2007 21:37:47
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

On 7 May 2007 15:14:31 -0700, gds <gary_jill@msn.com > wrote:

>
>Interest remains the same. I've believe that all/most top racer dope
>and have done so for at least 60 years. I understand that it is
>cheating but all societies have formal (laws) and informal (behavior)
>norms. In the case of doping and sports I think that whatever the law
>that the behavioral norm is to dope.
>I also have a hard time drawing the line on the continuum of varios
>perhformance enhancing aids. So, is having a coach moral? What about
>using drinks such as Gatorad? What about energy gels? So there is
>clealry a lot of "performance enhancing" things that are both ok by
>the formal and informal norms. But where should the line be drawn? And
>how does it change over time? For example EPO. If one used EPO 30
>years ago it would have been legal. Now its not. Why? Probably because
>they can now test for it.
>My preference is to bring all the performance enhancing aids into the
>open. By doing so we could take them out of the closet and hopefully
>make the situation safer.

My interest remains the same as well, but I disagree with your take. I
won't venture to draw the line between "food" and "drugs," but it is
not impossible to do so. If the sponsors of teams had the incentive,
drugs could be eradicated simply by enforcing a "one and done" rule.
The problem is that to do so would be antithetical to sponsorship:
only winners make money for the sponsor, and winners can't compete on
a level playing field without doping. So it is a vicious circle.

You suggest that bringing dope into the open might "make the
situation safer." But who defines what's "safe"? How many years of
testing and waiting will determine whether or not there are long term
side effects? Who will be the human guinea pigs? And stretching your
argument to its extreme, when we will reach the point of the now
science fiction but maybe soon to be fact, genetically altered human?

I might be naive, but I'm thinking that what is a better choice is a
world where "organic" athletes compete on "food" (however defined),
and where technology testing for "non-food" dope gets as sophisticated
as software firewallers catching hackers. Where the majority of
dopers, rather than a tiny minority, get caught, and where if you get
caught, one strike and you're out for good.

But that will happen just about the same time as a cure for cancer,
global warming reversal, honest politicians, peace on earth, etc.

Date: 07 May 2007 22:02:17
From: T. Ling Yu
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > wrote in
news:TZL%h.1818$zj3.1147@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:

> Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed
> the same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?

Diminished somewhat, as far as top level racing goes.
Widespread scandals have diminished my interest in
other sports.

> Also, are there people here who took up cycling because of the
> coverage on TV/radio/newspapers of Lance Armstrong (just an example),
That's not among my list of reasons to ride. I started out
riding recreationally. When gas prices passed $2, I started
commuting by bike.

> and do the current scandals give you pause, perhaps making you
> less-likely to try and get others invovled in cycling?
No. People who ask me about cycling are interested
health benefits, gas savings, and traffic concerns.

Date: 07 May 2007 16:25:44
From: DI
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > wrote in message
news:TZL%h.1818$zj3.1147@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> Just curious whether it matters to the general public that professional
> cycling is having more than its share of doping scandals lately.
>
> I could ask this question in RBR (rec.bicycles.racing), but that's not a
> good cross-section of typical cyclists. Not that there isn't a lot of
> pre-selection in the sample here, either, but better than RBR, where
> everything takes on the emotion of a helmet war.
>
> So...
>
> Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed the
> same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?
>
> Also, are there people here who took up cycling because of the coverage on
> TV/radio/newspapers of Lance Armstrong (just an example), and do the
> current scandals give you pause, perhaps making you less-likely to try and
> get others invovled in cycling?
>
> Just curious-
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
I don't really care, I ride for health and recreation which is not affected
by their desire to win at any cost. They're pro's, same as the baseball &
football players who use steroids, until we take these jerks off their
pedestals and start getting some real role models, nothing will change.
They'll continue to do anything for the money. The TDF sure smells of
politics to me.

Date: 07 May 2007 17:13:56
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
:: Just curious whether it matters to the general public that
:: professional cycling is having more than its share of doping
:: scandals lately.
::

I say let them all eat dope and let it be known and get on with it. Then, I
won't need to worry about my lousy 12 mph average speed.

Date: 07 May 2007 16:05:32
From: Patrick Lamb
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> Just curious whether it matters to the general public that professional
> cycling is having more than its share of doping scandals lately.
>
...
>
> Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed the
> same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?

It's gone down, for me, largely because of Operation Puerto and the
fallout. The TdF is the one race I get a chance to watch a fair bit
without major preplanning, because of its length and because OLN (now
VS) had it every night for most of July. After OP taking out the
leading contenders, last years Tour was mostly notable for the feeling
that it was amateur hour. There were no leaders.

And I'd really like to know if Floyd's charge was possible because he
doped, or because the rest of the teams were incompetent, or because of
the constant cold water showers his support vehicle provided. You can
label me as one of those who now thinks the French lab is incompetent
and/or corrupt, so I don't think I'll ever get the answer to that
question. But if random top riders are going to be kicked out because
they've been accused and convicted by the press before any evidence is
presented, I think I'll pass on watching UCI races until they can get
their house, and WADA's, in order.

Except if the Tour de Georgia still goes by my folks' house next year,
and I can get off, I think I'll go watch those guys climbing the insane
grades of Lookout Mountain.

Pat

Date: 07 May 2007 15:23:41
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

>> Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed
>> the
>> same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?
>
> It's gone down, for me, largely because of Operation Puerto and the
> fallout. The TdF is the one race I get a chance to watch a fair bit
> without major preplanning, because of its length and because OLN (now
> VS) had it every night for most of July. After OP taking out the
> leading contenders, last years Tour was mostly notable for the feeling
> that it was amateur hour. There were no leaders.

I was at the TdF last year, and know what you mean. Until Floyd took charge,
things seem to be floundering. You really need someone to focus on, someone
to use as a reference point. We just didn't have that last year until
Floyd's incredible comeback.

> And I'd really like to know if Floyd's charge was possible because he
> doped, or because the rest of the teams were incompetent, or because of
> the constant cold water showers his support vehicle provided. You can
> label me as one of those who now thinks the French lab is incompetent
> and/or corrupt, so I don't think I'll ever get the answer to that
> question. But if random top riders are going to be kicked out because
> they've been accused and convicted by the press before any evidence is
> presented, I think I'll pass on watching UCI races until they can get
> their house, and WADA's, in order.

You sound like you've either spent some time on Floyd's website or attended
one of his fund raising events. Floyd definitely had a huge advantage on
that VERY hot & humid day, by having his own car with an infinite supply of
water available to him. And tactically, he had nothing to lose and
everything to gain by taking off so early in the race that others would
either consider it suicidal or just an attempt to break things up a bit in
order to maybe get 3rd place on the podium, but certainly not go it alone.

Re-watching the coverage, you can see just how badly the other teams screwed
up. Floyed didn't just win from a heroic effort; he won just as much because
the other teams didn't want to bother expending the energy to chase him
down. By the time they took him seriously, it was too late.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Date: 07 May 2007 13:59:49
From: Ted
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

On May 7, 4:28 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <M...@ChainReaction.com > wrote:
> Just curious whether it matters to the general public that professional
> cycling is having more than its share of doping scandals lately.
>
> I could ask this question in RBR (rec.bicycles.racing), but that's not a
> good cross-section of typical cyclists. Not that there isn't a lot of
> pre-selection in the sample here, either, but better than RBR, where
> everything takes on the emotion of a helmet war.
>
> So...
>
> Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed the
> same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?
>
> Also, are there people here who took up cycling because of the coverage on
> TV/radio/newspapers of Lance Armstrong (just an example), and do the current
> scandals give you pause, perhaps making you less-likely to try and get
> others invovled in cycling?
>
> Just curious-
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

I never really followed racing until last year. The scandals
have not changed my interest in the sport; it is irritating that there
appear to be a lot of cheaters. I firmly believe that there is at
least one pro accused of cheating who did not. Unfortunately, those
who are advantaged by cheating are able to keep the non-cheaters out
of the race nearly forcing all to cheat, except for the Clark Kents of
the world.
I am not sure why I started riding again two years ago. I am not
sure it had anything to do with the media, although it didn't hurt. I
think Floyd's problem with no published TDF winner now is causing
fewer people to join in following the sport.
I try to encourage others to ride.

Ted.

Date: 07 May 2007 15:13:09
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

> I never really followed racing until last year. The scandals
> have not changed my interest in the sport; it is irritating that there
> appear to be a lot of cheaters. I firmly believe that there is at
> least one pro accused of cheating who did not. Unfortunately, those
> who are advantaged by cheating are able to keep the non-cheaters out
> of the race nearly forcing all to cheat, except for the Clark Kents of
> the world.

One commonly-held belief in the past was the the super-duper guys didn't
need to cheat; most of the doping happened at the domestique (the guys who
help the leader) level, where they lacked the extraordinary drive to excel
of the team leader, and perhaps the freakish genetics that allowed for
increased V02 capabilities as well.

But Basso admitting guilt kinda blows that theory out of the water.

> I am not sure why I started riding again two years ago. I am not
> sure it had anything to do with the media, although it didn't hurt. I
> think Floyd's problem with no published TDF winner now is causing
> fewer people to join in following the sport.

That, of course, is what I am concerned about. There are so many great
things about riding a bike; as I said in a piece on our website, "Life
happens at just the right speed when you're out on your bike." But some
people like to feel that they're a part of something much bigger than
themselves, and seeing coverage on TV helps them rationalize what they enjoy
doing, both to themselves and others.

> I try to encourage others to ride.

As do I!!! (Of course, not entirely for altruistic reasons, although anyone
who knows me realizes that the only time I'm really at ease with myself is
when I'm out riding).

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Date: 07 May 2007 20:55:57
From: mrbubl
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> Just curious whether it matters to the general public that professional
> cycling is having more than its share of doping scandals lately.
>
> I could ask this question in RBR (rec.bicycles.racing), but that's not a
> good cross-section of typical cyclists. Not that there isn't a lot of
> pre-selection in the sample here, either, but better than RBR, where
> everything takes on the emotion of a helmet war.
>
> So...
>
> Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed the
> same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?
>
> Also, are there people here who took up cycling because of the coverage on
> TV/radio/newspapers of Lance Armstrong (just an example), and do the current
> scandals give you pause, perhaps making you less-likely to try and get
> others invovled in cycling?
>
> Just curious-
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
>
I care about what is true and real. Unfortunately reporting and news
are not consistent with that same value system. If LA and FL were able
to win a tour(s) without the benefit of illegal pharmaceuticals they are
the true champions that should rightfully be respected for the
accomplishment, as were all other "clean" TDF champions.

OTOH is they were products of how far an elite human can be pushed with
the right combination of drugs, my interest declines. I will enjoy
cycling all the same for my own pleasure but the associated bullshit
with association with the sport follows from the less informed.

SHould gasoline continue to rise in price and alternate means of
transportation continue to rise in popularity more people will take
advantage of the sport and perhaps increase their own knowledge and
recognize the value of a Tour or even local race win.

Date: 07 May 2007 13:35:48
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: Do people here care about doping?

On May 7, 4:28 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <M...@ChainReaction.com > wrote:
> Just curious whether it matters to the general public that professional
> cycling is having more than its share of doping scandals lately.
>
> I could ask this question in RBR (rec.bicycles.racing), but that's not a
> good cross-section of typical cyclists. Not that there isn't a lot of
> pre-selection in the sample here, either, but better than RBR, where
> everything takes on the emotion of a helmet war.
>
> So...
>
> Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed the
> same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?
>
> Also, are there people here who took up cycling because of the coverage on
> TV/radio/newspapers of Lance Armstrong (just an example), and do the current
> scandals give you pause, perhaps making you less-likely to try and get
> others invovled in cycling?
>
> Just curious-
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

I don't follow racing so the various controversies are basically
irrelevant. I encourage people to cycle but as utility cyclists.
Until, reminded, I forget there is such thing as bicycle racing.