I know the topic title is long. But the topic title is part of a point said by Bob Rolls on Versus. He said this about Michael Rasmussens forced withdraw of the Tour De France because he was not at the right place at the right time. He said that this was a part of todays cycling. How it was a part of the high suspiction of todays cycling. And how in todays cycling if you were to lie about where you trained, you could be a suspect of a doping incident.
But think about this from another stand point. Think now for a moment about how many cyclists that have trained for years to race that can no longer race anymore because they are suspects of doping. That are suspects being investigated. They haven't even been proven guilty, yet they suffer the repoructions of a guilty cyclists. Now the director of the Tour De France, Christain Prudhomme, asked cycling fans to please stay optimistic about how the ASO and UCI handle doping.

And now I ask for your opinions...

I know cycling is spelled wrong. I cant fix it though.

It's unfortunate, but it's the only way to operate because proving someone is doping is difficult/expensive/impossible. If you accept that, and you are interested in a relatively drug-free peloton, then suspicious behaviour must be treated very seriously.

You are so naive! The members of this board do not recognize ANY test that can prove you aren't a cheater.

Are you doping? Prove it!

You are so naive! The members of this board do not recognize ANY test that can prove you aren't a cheater.

Are you doping?
Instead of posting all this senseless comments, why don't you educate yourself about doping?

Instead of posting all this senseless comments, why don't you educate yourself about doping?

Why are they senseless?

Someone with a syringe as their avatar already exposes their bias. Go ahead and check all my posts tonight. Find a flaw that ISN'T explained by your "everyone's guilty without proof" theory. You make outrageous claims about people making less than $50,000 per year as "pro" cyclists. Your accusations are unproven, yet you think we should all accept them as fact (again, when there is NO PROOF). You tell me who is being senseless!

Again, why didn't Astana hire you since you have endless knowledge about doping and how to get around it?

Point out a test (or battery of tests) everyone on this board will view as proof positive of non-doping, expert!

Not a lot different than the jobs many people have. If you live in an "at will" state, and your employer wants to fire you for no apparent reason, you get fired. S'posin I worked at McD's and ate lunch at Wendy's while wearing my McHat and McNametag. I would be de-employed McImmediately.

In a show business such as pro sports, the performer (or athlete) represents the sponsor. If the sponsor doesn't like the performer - or what the performer does... good bye.

Some employees are protected by unions, which changes things somewhat. And the laws in France are probably different. Any way you cut it, the guy publicly embarrassed his paycheck.

Why are they senseless?

Someone with a syringe as their avatar already exposes their bias. Go ahead and check all my posts tonight. Find a flaw that ISN'T explained by your "everyone's guilty without proof" theory. You make outrageous claims about people making less than $50,000 per year as "pro" cyclists. Your accusations are unproven, yet you think we should all accept them as fact (again, when there is NO PROOF). You tell me who is being senseless!

You are. An earlier gem you authored: "Testing has caught up with doping technology."

Why do you say that? Because they have a test for EPO over a decade after the peloton started using it?

Yes it has (for the most part, you exclude my premise there are technologies outside the price range of cyclist/teams). Lets face it, doping has been going on forever as exemplified by the tragedy of Tom Simpson in the 60's. In the 90's EPO became a very cheap way to boost performance and was undetectable (although, ironically, it killed a bunch of talented Dutch and Danish riders). Cycling federations were still in their infancy in drug testing because they didn't realize how prevalent cheating was (or maybe even chose to ignore it). They came to their senses and have implemented the best testing protocols in all of professional sports to eliminate most of the cheaters. Cheating is a money based effort. I totally believe there are technologies outside of current testing protocol that cannot be detected. But who can afford that now? DNA, blood profiles, hemocrit levels, etc.? We are catching our top riders doing things that have been 10 years out of the loop (Vino, homologous blood doping). That's cheap and detectable. The fact that someone like Tom Boonen, a second tier sprinter a few years ago, has caught up with the first tier sprinters should be viewed as proof positive that some people have been scared out of doping (isn't that the point of testing?). If cheating was still so rampant, Astana would have paid for an undetectable way for Vino to dope. Discovery has less money than Astana and because they depend on the elusive American sponsorship are less likely to do anything illegal. $50,000 per year domestiques can't afford to dope, the returns are negative/negligible.

So where are the tests that will prove people innocent in your eyes, Mr. Syringe. :rolleyes:

Sorry again guys for the typo. If anyone can help me fix it, I would be most appreciative.

Any other opinions about what I wrote...

Sorry again guys for the typo. If anyone can help me fix it, I would be most appreciative.

Any other opinions about what I wrote...

I will say it again...NO there is no way to prove anyone innocent because of the attitudes of people like Mr. Syringe. No test(s) will satisfy them.

*Go back to your post and hit edit.*

Sorry again guys for the typo. If anyone can help me fix it, I would be most appreciative.

Any other opinions about what I wrote...

My opinion is what you wrote exemplifies the viewpoint that a number of people have. A viewpoint caused by believing all of the bull**** lies that cyclists have repeated in order to "protect their innocence"... meaning they think they should be able to get away with doping as long as they don't make a very stupid mistake. The way the tests are, it's too easy not to get caught, and if we only rely on "definitive proof" to fight cheating, we won't get anywhere. This is cycling, not criminal law. Some of these metaphors people say on this forum are ridiculous -- "burned at the stake", "guilty until proven innocent", "hanged without trial"... as if when a doper gets caught they get executed. The way things have been for basically all of cycling history, it takes more evidence to punish a cheater than it does to convict a murderer. And the punishments were so light, that it made no sense to NOT dope. A rider could have five positive EPO tests, and his fans will still believe he is innocent :rolleyes:

Yes it has (for the most part, you exclude my premise there are technologies outside the price range of cyclist/teams). Lets face it, doping has been going on forever as exemplified by the tragedy of Tom Simpson in the 60's. In the 90's EPO became a very cheap way to boost performance and was undetectable (although, ironically, it killed a bunch of talented Dutch and Danish riders). Cycling federations were still in their infancy in drug testing because they didn't realize how prevalent cheating was (or maybe even chose to ignore it). They came to their senses and have implemented the best testing protocols in all of professional sports to eliminate most of the cheaters. Cheating is a money based effort. I totally believe there are technologies outside of current testing protocol that cannot be detected. But who can afford that now? DNA, blood profiles, hemocrit levels, etc.? We are catching our top riders doing things that have been 10 years out of the loop (Vino, homologous blood doping). That's cheap and detectable. The fact that someone like Tom Boonen, a second tier sprinter a few years ago, has caught up with the first tier sprinters should be viewed as proof positive that some people have been scared out of doping (isn't that the point of testing?). If cheating was still so rampant, Astana would have paid for an undetectable way for Vino to dope. Discovery has less money than Astana and because they depend on the elusive American sponsorship are less likely to do anything illegal. $50,000 per year domestiques can't afford to dope, the returns are negative/negligible.

So where are the tests that will prove people innocent in your eyes, Mr. Syringe. :rolleyes:
1. I agree that doping has been going on for decades in the Tour.
2. Cycling agencies were aware decades ago, but chose to ignore it.
3. I agree that cycling has the best testing in professional sports.
4. Even CAT racers in the US are doping with EPO, HGH, etc., and carrying around zipocrits, etc. Drugs are cheap in Mexico. High school kids are buying PEDs; I'm pretty sure pros can find a way to get the stuff.
5. As you just pointed out, there are drugs/technologies that aren't being tested for, therefore there is no test that will prove people innocent. You're asking me to prove a negative, which I cannot do.

This isn't the American Judicial system, it's a private (or maybe public) organization. They can set whatever rules they want. The fact of the matter is, it's the court of public opinion that drives the $$, and companies/organizations follow the $$. The public is now against doping, so the sponsors want it out.

5. As you just pointed out, there are drugs/technologies that aren't being tested for, therefore there is no test that will prove people innocent. You're asking me to prove a negative, which I cannot do.

So tell us how "expert". My neck of the woods has produced some of the top riders in the country (U.S.) over the last 10+ years (road, mtb, track). None of them doped (albeit we had one person that rode three Tours and quit when his Dutch team told him he had to dope). So you are telling me club riders have been doping trying to beat our local faves?? Spill the beans. Tell us who they are. You seem to be the expert. Let's out the cheaters here. How do they afford it at a "club level". You are so full of it, i feel the need to put my boots on.

BTW, WHERE'S THE TEST I HAVE BEEN ASKING YOU ABOUT TO PROVE SOMEONE INNOCENT? Your lame excuse isn't worthy of calling everyone else in the peleton guilty.

Sorry, double posted! My bad. Really i am not doping!!!! Unless you count Summit Extra Pale Ale as a performance enhancer.

But I can't prove it!

This isn't the American Judicial system, it's a private (or maybe public) organization. They can set whatever rules they want. The fact of the matter is, it's the court of public opinion that drives the $$, and companies/organizations follow the $$. The public is now against doping, so the sponsors want it out.

Thank you. People keep getting confused - sporting organisations don't have to prove a case 'beyond reasonable doubt' to hand down sanctions. They aren't judicial courts.

The public is now against doping, so the sponsors want it out.

Some of them don't want out (Rabobank) they just want compliance to said rules. Cheers to them. i actually e-mailed Rabobank and thanked them for their decision to boot Ras, at the same time I begged them not to pull the team. Michael Boogerd and Thomas Dekker deserve the chance to finish.

It's actually an interesting question because the current leader was kept out of the tour last year. They pronounced him guilty before proven innocent and jumped all over him just as they did all the others. Now they say he's clean and without any suspect ties. And they don't feel bad at all that he didn't get a chance to compete last year, that they almost ruined the career of a man who they now believe to be innocent.

I think Serpico7, or Mr. Syringe, is just saying that cycling organizations might have to crack down on any speculation of doping. Because for one, sponsors are discontinuing funding of ProTour races and ProTour teams. And the fans who also fund the sport (i.e. purchasing fan gear and equipment from race and team sponsors) are getting feed up with the doping involved in the sport. And I think, even with the low salaries of ProTour riders, the organizers might have crack down on any speculation of doping in order to fix the problem that took ten years to be recognized.
I think R.O.P. has a point that if you become to suspicious that you will view anyone and everyone as a suspect. I think cycling really has to avoid that paranoia. And I am a strong believer of strong believer of people being innocent until proven guilty with convincing evidence.

Here is my opinion:
I think cycling is one of the greatest sports to exist. It allows people to compete on their highest level of athleticism and only on a riders highest level do they actually begin to win. I believe that it is a sport where you most be at your highest level and if you are not, you will retire or become a domestique (from being a leader). This is why so many ProTour riders use EPO and other blood doping drugs. Because this high level of athleticism only lasts for so long and with new young riders coming in every year, it is very hard to stay at that level. These drugs, that allow riders to recieve more oxygen than they would normally, allow older riders to compete at the level of a younger rider. It is a 'miracle' drug that was invented in the early 1990's. And with its 'miracle' works and low risk of getting detected, more riders that have went over their peak started using these drugs. It become a new line of fashion for cycling. Race results were and still are questionable as to if the winner(s) were dopers. And by the late 1990's, cycling was hit hard with the number of blood doping riders. Even today, there are still a number out there. And that is what ProTour organizations have to have such high standard rules for doping. Because they need to end this fashion trend. I do believe that there is more to this Rasmussen case then meets the ear. I believe it wasn't just Rasmussen training somewhere else than where he said he was going to train. But I do think that race organizers do need to crack down on dopers just to give a scare to those that are considering doping. I would like to add that I believe we are in the dark age of doping and there will be some light soon to come at the end of the tunnel.

So Mr. Syringe abandon this thread without fully supporting his position? That's sad for such an expert.

I think Serpico7, or Mr. Syringe, is just saying that cycling organizations might have to crack down on any speculation of doping.

Actually, if you read his other posts on this board, cycling isn't worth saving. I kind of think Mr. Syringe was planted here by the NFL.

Actually, if you read his other posts on this board, cycling isn't worth saving. I kind if think Mr. Syringe was planted here by the NFL.

:lol:

My opinion is what you wrote exemplifies the viewpoint that a number of people have. A viewpoint caused by believing all of the bull**** lies that cyclists have repeated in order to "protect their innocence"... meaning they think they should be able to get away with doping as long as they don't make a very stupid mistake. The way the tests are, it's too easy not to get caught, and if we only rely on "definitive proof" to fight cheating, we won't get anywhere. This is cycling, not criminal law. Some of these metaphors people say on this forum are ridiculous -- "burned at the stake", "guilty until proven innocent", "hanged without trial"... as if when a doper gets caught they get executed. The way things have been for basically all of cycling history, it takes more evidence to punish a cheater than it does to convict a murderer. And the punishments were so light, that it made no sense to NOT dope. A rider could have five positive EPO tests, and his fans will still believe he is innocent :rolleyes:

This is complete bull**** (what I highlighted sentence prior to the highlighted one). This is cyclism. There are thousands of cyclists that look up to these top level athletes. That's why it means so much to us when they cheat us out of our very own sport. And it actually takes financial power and time to punish a criminal than an athlete. For example, criminals appeal over and over until it is heard or dismissed by the supreme court costing the citizens a million dollars in taxes per criminal. Meanwhile, Floyd Landis has probably only spent $100,000 at most defending his case to the final decision.

Meanwhile, Floyd Landis has probably only spent $100,000 at most defending his case to the final decision.

AND Floyd's proof of broken chains of custody, irregularities in the testing process, etc., would have given him a not guilty verdict in a court of law. Not so under WADA/USDA/ASO. Implication seems to be weighed more than truth.

Well,

if you take the innocent until proven guilty without a shadow of a doubt (i.e. - Vino would be one such case), you can kiss doping controls goodbye.

After reviewing all these problems, cycling has two options:

(a) Either become super aggressive in terms of doping controls, monitoring of athletes, punitive actions to the point where once in a while, a good egg gets thrown out with the bad, or

(b) Stop testing.

Otherwise, we will continually have this circus where they go just far enough to catch guys, but not far enough to clean up the peleton. If you take option A, it has to be so extreme, that it largely eliminates the opportunity and provides such a punishment to the rider, that the risk of getting caught does not outweight the reward.

Well,

if you take the innocent until proven guilty without a shadow of a doubt (i.e. - Vino would be one such case), you can kiss doping controls goodbye.

After reviewing all these problems, cycling has two options:

(a) Either become super aggressive in terms of doping controls, monitoring of athletes, punitive actions to the point where once in a while, a good egg gets thrown out with the bad, or

(b) Stop testing.

Otherwise, we will continually have this circus where they go just far enough to catch guys, but not far enough to clean up the peleton. If you take option A, it has to be so extreme, that it largely eliminates the opportunity and provides such a punishment to the rider, that the risk of getting caught does not outweight the reward.

Nice try, but Mr.Syringe and others know that everyone from a club level racer up is doping. You can't fight their ignorance...er...logic. Get real.

I know the topic title is long. But the topic title is part of a point said by Bob Rolls on Versus. He said this about Michael Rasmussens forced withdraw of the Tour De France because he was not at the right place at the right time. He said that this was a part of todays cycling. How it was a part of the high suspiction of todays cycling. And how in todays cycling if you were to lie about where you trained, you could be a suspect of a doping incident.
But think about this from another stand point. Think now for a moment about how many cyclists that have trained for years to race that can no longer race anymore because they are suspects of doping. That are suspects being investigated. They haven't even been proven guilty, yet they suffer the repoructions of a guilty cyclists. Now the director of the Tour De France, Christain Prudhomme, asked cycling fans to please stay optimistic about how the ASO and UCI handle doping.

And now I ask for your opinions...
1) As other have noted this is not a court of law, the comparisons don't apply.

2) These guys agree in advance to adhere to certain rules, and accept certain consequences if they don't follow those rules. Ras was guilty of not following a rule that he agreed to follow, and the result is him suffering the consequences that he had accepted in advance as part of his contract and license to race. What's unjust about that? He is not assumed to be guilty. He is flat-out guilty of not reporting where he was, and lying about it, period. Now, the reason those rules are in place is to allow for an effective system for monitoring and controlling doping, but that's beside the point. The rules are the rules, he agreed to follow them, then didn't. The assumptions of guilt about his doping are irrelevant to the justification of the treatment that he received.

1) As other have noted this is not a court of law, the comparisons don't apply.

2) These guys agree in advance to adhere to certain rules, and accept certain consequences if they don't follow those rules. Ras was guilty of not following a rule that he agreed to follow, and the result is him suffering the consequences that he had accepted in advance as part of his contract and license to race. What's unjust about that? He is not assumed to be guilty. He is flat-out guilty of not reporting where he was, and lying about it, period. Now, the reason those rules are in place is to allow for an effective system for monitoring and controlling doping, but that's beside the point. The rules are the rules, he agreed to follow them, then didn't. The assumptions of guilt about his doping are irrelevant to the justification of the treatment that he received.

Exactly. These guys enter into a contract with their employers. That contract limits their rights. When they violate the contract they (nor you) can't then fall back to the innocent until proven guilty argument. If they don't like the terms of the contract they are free to look elsewhere for employment. If you want so see a REALLY SEVERLY restricted employment contract, look at the military. I have been retired for over 13 years and I am STILL subject to the the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Guess what? It was my CHOICE, just like it is the choice of these guys to ride at this level of competition with its constraints (and its rewards). The person entering into the contract voluntarily can't have it both ways.

p.s. I was subject not only to random drug testing but also lie detector tests. If you want to have a really interesting experience, try a lie detector test (which I always passed btw).

Exactly. These guys enter into a contract with their employers. That contract limits their rights. When they violate the contract they (nor you) can't then fall back to the innocent until proven guilty argument. If they don't like the terms of the contract they are free to look elsewhere for employment. If you want so see a REALLY SEVERLY restricted employment contract, look at the military. I have been retired for over 13 years and I am STILL subject to the the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Guess what? It was my CHOICE, just like it is the choice of these guys to ride at this level of competition with its constraints (and its rewards). The person entering into the contract voluntarily can't have it both ways.
Exactly back at ya.

:beer:

Nice try, but Mr.Syringe and others know that everyone from a club level racer up is doping. You can't fight their ignorance...er...logic. Get real.

You might be surprised to know that I support option (a).

I think that the most logical solution is that once a rider signs with a squad, he is allowed 2-weeks a year vacation. Otherwise, he must be near or living around a Team sponsored training center for the remainder of the 50-weeks he is with the team. The 2-weeks vacation cannot be 2 months prior to racing, to ensure that there is appropriate monitoring of the athlete prior to their racing.

In addition, all team centers would be required to have 1 -2 UCI officials, who have the opportunity to randomly test the athletes as well as search the facility or their houses without warning.

Also - one positive test and you are out for 5 years from any UCI racing. In addition, you must give up 1 years worth of salary as well as pay a $100,000 fine to the UCI to fund further doping controls.

All doctors must be approved and monitored by the UCI. Anyone not using a UCI approved doctor, would receive a 2 year-bad from the sport.

You might be surprised to know that I support option (a).

And this should surprise me how? Cycling already has the toughest penalties on the planet, your additions don't do anything to make things better, only more punitive.

AND Floyd's proof of broken chains of custody, irregularities in the testing process, etc., would have given him a not guilty verdict in a court of law. Not so under WADA/USDA/ASO. Implication seems to be weighed more than truth.

I disagree. If Floyd was in the court of law, he would have one clear defense and all other evidence not aiding his defense would be considered irrelevant and inadmissable

Actually, Floyd has not proven 'broken chain of custody', he has just paid some lawyers to say that. he's just a fish flapping for breath on the bank of the stream, a fish with exogenous testosterone in his urine.

and we all know that in the American legal system, "proof" is just a load of technicalities and hogwash... look at OJ.

Exactly. These guys enter into a contract with their employers. That contract limits their rights. When they violate the contract they (nor you) can't then fall back to the innocent until proven guilty argument. If they don't like the terms of the contract they are free to look elsewhere for employment. If you want so see a REALLY SEVERLY restricted employment contract, look at the military. I have been retired for over 13 years and I am STILL subject to the the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Guess what? It was my CHOICE, just like it is the choice of these guys to ride at this level of competition with its constraints (and its rewards). The person entering into the contract voluntarily can't have it both ways.

p.s. I was subject not only to random drug testing but also lie detector tests. If you want to have a really interesting experience, try a lie detector test (which I always passed btw).
AMEN Brother!!!!!!!!!+1

R.O.P.,
You are either a troll or incapable of having a reasonable discussion, so this is more of a response to the other members so I can correct your mischaracterizations of my statements.

How do they afford it at a "club level".
As I said earlier, if high school kids can buy PEDs, it should come as no surprise that CAT racers can buy them. Ever been to Mexico?

Actually, if you read his other posts on this board, cycling isn't worth saving.
Never said anything like that.

Nice try, but Mr.Syringe and others know that everyone from a club level racer up is doping. You can't fight their ignorance...er...logic. Get real.
Never said that either. The fact that I think some CAT racers are doping hardly means that I think every CAT racer is doping.

BTW, WHERE'S THE TEST I HAVE BEEN ASKING YOU ABOUT TO PROVE SOMEONE INNOCENT?
I explained this already. By your own acknowledgment, there are drugs/techniques that are not detected by current tests, so obviously there can be no test to prove someone isn't cheating.

The sport has become a joke, most of the top riders are or were doping, and I really don't feel bad that people are being tossed out of cycling right and left...

Asw far as Rasmussen, the OP said he thinks theres more going on than just the absence.

Two things,

1. He lied about his whereabouts to avoid drug testing, which is reason enough to kick him out of the tour and off the team

2. http://velonews.com/tour2007/news/articles/12851.0.html

Cycling doesn't need selfish low lifes like Rasmussen and Landis...cycling needs to purge them from the sport...

In Texas, employers can fire an employee "at will". No reason needs to be given. One local attorney is famous for coming in cranky on Monday and firing everybody. By Tuesday, he hires most of his staff back.

The Tour de France is run by a private organization. They can choose who they invite to participate in the race, and they can chose who they tell to leave the race.

Pro cycling is at a cross-road. If it continues down the road of drug abuse, cheating, lying, and all of the law violations involved with smuggling drugs and blood from country to country, all of the corporate sponsors are gonna leave.

Or, the teams can insist that any rider who MIGHT be using drugs leave the team. And, race sponsors can insist that any team that MIGHT be using drugs leave the race.

But, don't hold your breath waiting for Pepsi, or McDonalds to sponsor a team at the Tour. As the U.S. Post Office discovered, being the sponsor of a team in an sport famous for criminal activity is not exactly a way to build a positive image for the sponsor.

Bananabike, it's a pity you, and presumably the Mod, spotted that 'cycling' was misspelt, but missed the other glaring spelling mistake.

In Texas, employers can fire an employee "at will". No reason needs to be given. One local attorney is famous for coming in cranky on Monday and firing everybody. By Tuesday, he hires most of his staff back.

The Tour de France is run by a private organization. They can choose who they invite to participate in the race, and they can chose who they tell to leave the race.

Pro cycling is at a cross-road. If it continues down the road of drug abuse, cheating, lying, and all of the law violations involved with smuggling drugs and blood from country to country, all of the corporate sponsors are gonna leave.

Or, the teams can insist that any rider who MIGHT be using drugs leave the team. And, race sponsors can insist that any team that MIGHT be using drugs leave the race.

But, don't hold your breath waiting for Pepsi, or McDonalds to sponsor a team at the Tour. As the U.S. Post Office discovered, being the sponsor of a team in an sport famous for criminal activity is not exactly a way to build a positive image for the sponsor.


We are so on the same page. I'm royally tired of hearing about "poor Rasmussen, poor Floyd, stupid Lemond". These attitudes are killing the momentum of the sport here in North America and elsewhere. Right now, sponsors who were thinking of getting into the sport are no doubt having serious second thoughts, less sponsors = less money = less teams = less races which trickles down to us, the club racers.

To add to that, right now some fat North American (notice how I make sure to include Canadians) is thinking its probably healthier to just let his kid eat a bucket of KFC and play Halo rather than get him out on his bike with the hope that he could be a decent cyclist one day. Okay this analogy may be over the top, but you're an idiot if you think that these scandals aren't causing Joe Blow sports guy to dismiss cycling as a viable sport for his kid, because he thinks they're all cheats anyway. There may come a time when this affects baseball, football etc., but as Barry Bonds has proved, reality is nothing and image is everything.

So quit coming up with conspiracies and blaming organizations. The riders are to blame. No one should be going to Dr. Ferrari (or any other Dr. not willing to forward everything to the UCI), no one should be missing tests, no one should be testing positive. This may sound black and white, but cycling has a serious image problem right now and blaming the system or pointing out that other sports do it to, won't change that.

I am getting all spelling errors corrected asap.

Actually I doubt Joe blow pays much attention to cycling and I doubt they are very worked up over the TdF. Sure the papers will put a small blurb in about someone getting caught and ESPN may do 30 seconds on it but Joe Blow is use to hearing about Balco and all of the track, baseball athletes, football players getting caught with guns, shooting people and fighting dogs. Those are the sports they follow so even if they hear about the TdF issues I doubt it registers much.

I think this definitely affects Floyd's case. If they were afraid that public opinion was on Floyd's side (which from what I've seen it had) they no longer have to worry. After this TDF, the average person will believe all cyclists dope. They won't have the same outrage if Floyd's found guilty.

'I don't like the drugs but the drugs like me' -Marilyn Manson :rolleyes:

Well, I can tell you that in my office alone, every year more people were watching/following the tour (right now I can count 10 who aren't cyclists). To a tee, all of them are disgusted and have stopped watching. So I know this is having some effect.

It's terrible it has to happen as the world seems to be taking an interest. It's also over shadowing some damned good racin'. I was gettin' tired of watchin Lance

We are so on the same page. I'm royally tired of hearing about "poor Rasmussen, poor Floyd, stupid Lemond". These attitudes are killing the momentum of the sport here in North America and elsewhere. Right now, sponsors who were thinking of getting into the sport are no doubt having serious second thoughts, less sponsors = less money = less teams = less races which trickles down to us, the club racers.

To add to that, right now some fat North American (notice how I make sure to include Canadians) is thinking its probably healthier to just let his kid eat a bucket of KFC and play Halo rather than get him out on his bike with the hope that he could be a decent cyclist one day. Okay this analogy may be over the top, but you're an idiot if you think that these scandals aren't causing Joe Blow sports guy to dismiss cycling as a viable sport for his kid, because he thinks they're all cheats anyway. There may come a time when this affects baseball, football etc., but as Barry Bonds has proved, reality is nothing and image is everything.

So quit coming up with conspiracies and blaming organizations. The riders are to blame. No one should be going to Dr. Ferrari (or any other Dr. not willing to forward everything to the UCI), no one should be missing tests, no one should be testing positive. This may sound black and white, but cycling has a serious image problem right now and blaming the system or pointing out that other sports do it to, won't change that.

I like some of the points you made. I do think we, humans, have a tendency to realize the bad in something rather than the good. One of the things you brought up is how North American parents discourage bike riding amongst children and young adults. And I would like to add that there are parents that encourage laziness and unhealthy hobbies for their children. But there are parents that encourage junior bike riders to go out and participate in the sport. You don't realize it, but there are tons of junior road bike riders out there in North America training to be another Lance Armstrong. I mean sure there are the "fat and lazy" children, but there are also the children (and young adults) that are dedicated to cycling. The rest of your points I like.

Pro cycling is at a cross-road. If it continues down the road of drug abuse, cheating, lying, and all of the law violations involved with smuggling drugs and blood from country to country, all of the corporate sponsors are gonna leave.

How can pro cycling be at a cross roads??? Doping and cheating has been going on for over 100 years. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/jul/03/1)

This same discussion has been going on for that long as well. Every few years there is a crisis and everytime people say..."this time things will really have to change" and it never does change and the sponsors never do leave [some may leave, but another just comes along and joins the circus] and we all still watch the races and buy the bikes.

We'll be talking about doping at next year's TdeF and the year after and the year after. If we are REALLY lucky there might a quiet 2-3 years were dopers get smart and don't get caught in large numbers, but inevitably the testing will catch up and we'll be back into it again.

How can pro cycling be at a cross roads??? Doping and cheating has been going on for over 100 years. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/jul/03/1)

This same discussion has been going on for that long as well. Every few years there is a crisis and every people say..."this time things will really have to change" and it never does change and the sponsors never do leave [some may leave, but another just comes along and joins the circus] and we all still watch the races and buy the bikes.

We'll be talking about doping at next years TdeF and the year after and the year after. If we are REALLY lucky there might a quiet 2-3 years were dopers get smart and don't get caught a lot, but inevitably the testing will catch up and we'll be back into it again.

Well cheating and doping have been going on for a chronic length of time in different sports. But it wasn't until the 1980's and 1990's that cycling was hit hard by the effects of doping. I think cycling has and will change to catch cheaters. But one of the cool things about these doping incidents, is that cycling is leading the way to a new age of drug-free sports. No other sport can regulate doping since drug companies come out with new undetectable drugs. I believe that in a sense cycling is leading the way to drug-free sports and that's why all these incidents happen in cycling (i.e. Rasmussen getting kicked out of the TDF). Because the organizers are actually taking steps to stop doping that other sport organizations should have started taking 100 years ago.

I want to change the subject a little bit to talk about a quote and how this quote appeals to what we are talking about.

Here is the quote:

"You are damned if you do and you are damned if you don't."