"The 33"-Road Bike Racing - Will this INCREASE doping?
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.
02-14-03, 04:22 PM
I was working on my database of riders for my site and felt that I was deleting a lot more riders than I was adding as a result of the transfer season.
We all know that sponsorship is shrinking and, thus, team budgets are as well. Naturally rosters are shrinking in turn. This goes well beyond the Mapei pull-out.
Some Sponsors, Mapei most noteably, have said that being involved in cycling is too big a risk because of the doping issues.
We would love for the riders to see this trend and clean up their act but it seems more likely to me that the reduction of roster sizes will cause greater doping problems. I figure that as the spots on pro teams become fewer, the actions taken to procure them will become more extreme. In essence, if a roster spot is seen as an increasingly scarce resource, it will increase in perceived value and people will do more extreme things to get and keep it.
02-14-03, 05:12 PM
I think it will remain constant, as it probably has over the last several years.
I would hope that the answer is that doping goes
However I'm thinking that there is now more pressure
for a rider to do exceptionally well, to earn a spot on
a division I or II team, so I'm afraid it will lead to more.
There will always be some type of performance enhancer
that is just one step ahead of the testing, and I believe
riders (some, not all) feel the risk is worth it.
02-16-03, 10:33 AM
a while back a friend of mine and I
were discussing doping in the pro tours
and, he made the statement "you know
many of these guys have the same
mentality of pro football players here
in the US, they want to win and love to
party." I think that some of these guys
who race, are really just naturally talanted
(and do not train enough to be physically the
best.) Doping to compete with others who
train much more intensely seems the only option
for them, yet if they were to train better than
other riders they would have no need for it,
besides.... who in their right mind would say
"I have to cheat to win" ? :rolleyes:
02-22-03, 11:14 AM
the actions taken to procure them will become more extreme. ......and people will do more extreme things to get and keep it.
Your logic has not only escaped me, but it also flunked out "critical-thinking class 101". Thanks for the laughs.
02-22-03, 05:03 PM
Care to explain why you find this laughable?
It follows supply and demand reasoning. As roster spots decrease and the number of people that want them remains constant, or increases, the spots will have increased value. As such, people will pay a greater price to be awarded a contract. They have a choice, work harder or work harder and use dope. If they believe that everyone else is doping, they may feel that there is little choice if they want to race in the highest ranks.
I'm sorry that the logic escaped you. If you think that shrinking rosters will, in fact, decrease doping I would love to hear why and we can engage in a meaningful discourse on the topic. However, if you feel that childish personal attacks are in order, you can save it.
02-22-03, 10:13 PM
we can engage in a meaningful discourse on the topic. However, if you feel that childish personal attacks are in order, you can save it.
Because you have made irrational and unprovable insinuations about the personal nature and actions on many professional cyclists. I found your posting to be such a poor example of reasoning that it amused me.
I would assume you believe that all the officials working at strengnthening doping controls believe they are increasing doping among elite riders too!! Chuckle, chuckle. You're killin' me....
02-23-03, 10:50 AM
I posed a question and invited others to theorize. I didn't insinuate anything. I flat-out said that I believe reduced rosters will lead to increased doping. I will also respect other opinions on the matter. This is a perfectly rational theory based on the current status of the sport.
No, I do not believe that attempts to strengthen doping controls increases doping. Your assumption is incorrect. Doping controls simply force riders to stay a step ahead of the tests, which the good ones certainly do. Raimondas Rumsas passed his doping controls in the Tour last year.
You see, there are a number of fundamental changes going on in the sport that people theorize will decrease doping. The reduction of sponsorship money is one. Decreasing the length of stages in the Vuelta to decrease the need for doping is another well publicized change. However, this too has led to the theory that the exact opposite will, in fact, occur. To whit, some people theorize that shorter stages actually make the races hyper-aggressive and, as such, more difficult. To compete in these more aggressive stages riders will dope as much or more than before.
Richard, please recognize that at this point I am not writing to you, per se. You are simply providing a nice foil for me to prompt others to consider the myriad ramifications of the current trends in our sport.
If you can articulate a basis for the theory that decreased roster sizes will decrease, or not effect, doping I invite you to share it.
I will refrain, as is my general policy, from engaging in the name calling and insulting behavior. I wish that you would as well.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.