Professional Cycling For the Fans - A Modest Proposal

It seems to me that the problem with to the doping problem in pro cycling is that they spent too much effort trying to stamp it out entirely.

What they need to do is simply test and punish enough that the people who dope only do it in such small amounts that they aren't caught, and then pretend like doping doesn't happening, which means there is less bad influence on kids and upcoming athletes (which is IMO the primary reason for preventing doping to begin with), which leads to less doping.

You save a lot of money, make the sport look better, and eventually reduce doping to a point where it simply isn't a major issue any more.

I don't think you're right that doping would get reduced that way, but yes, that's a strategy many other sports are using and is probably what the UCI wants and has tried to do too. I mean, before they were able to test for EPO the way they determined whether you're ok to ride was the hematocrit level, which meant that everyone could dope to that point. Same with testosterone.
But I just don't know if cycling still has that option available to the sport after everything that's happened from Festina to Landis and Puerto and Contador... It won't go away quietly imo.

The OP is in favour of fooling all of the people all of the time. But as the saying goes this only works some of the time.

So what does pro cycling do the rest of the time?

It seems to me that the problem with to the doping problem in pro cycling is that they spent too much effort trying to stamp it out entirely.

What they need to do is simply test and punish enough that the people who dope only do it in such small amounts that they aren't caught, and then pretend like doping doesn't happening, which means there is less bad influence on kids and upcoming athletes (which is IMO the primary reason for preventing doping to begin with), which leads to less doping.


You save a lot of money, make the sport look better, and eventually reduce doping to a point where it simply isn't a major issue any more.

I am confused by this. Even if this were your aim (versus trying to stamp it out entirely), you still:

A) Need to test
B) Need to punish the riders who fail the tests.


What exactly would they do differently in terms of protocols etc... The reason cycling gets more attention than football or other team sports is the impact on performance and outcomes doping has in cycling. Same reason why baseball gets more publicity than football...in baseball, individual records and performance is both more noticeable and impacts records, which are far more important than football. Cycling suffers from this as well, because the impact of doping is significant to performance itself, and top riders who are winning the grand tours are getting caught. No one cares about the middling Pro-Conti level domestique caught for doping, in the same way no one cares when a free-safety in the NFL gets caught, as is too indirect to the outcome of the events for the public to be outraged.

And the problem with trying to raise levels sufficient to reduce the number of positive tests, is that once you set the limits, the athletes will merely just try to match those new targets, and you are doing nothing more than just lowering the bar so-to-speak.

So to summarize - whether you set the bar for 0% doping or a little doping, the publicity issues will continue to remain. So then the question is why they do not make it so prohibitive, that the benefits do not outweight the risks to one's career.

I'm disappointed. I was coming here hoping to learn about the performance enhancing effects of eating Irish babies.

I'm disappointed. I was coming here hoping to learn about the performance enhancing effects of eating Irish babies.

Sorry.

Wrong place for Swiftian satire.

It seems to me that the problem with to the doping problem in pro cycling is that they spent too much effort trying to stamp it out entirely.

What they need to do is simply test and punish enough that the people who dope only do it in such small amounts that they aren't caught, and then pretend like doping doesn't happening, which means there is less bad influence on kids and upcoming athletes (which is IMO the primary reason for preventing doping to begin with), which leads to less doping.

You save a lot of money, make the sport look better, and eventually reduce doping to a point where it simply isn't a major issue any more.

The way I see it there are two main problems. The testing is behind the science of finding new drugs that work. And the testing is not frequent enough. In grand tours every rider in the top 100 should be tested right before the race and right after on every day. Same for all other major UCI races. Between races all riders should have one weekly random drug test which are stored. If the passport shows abnormal values the labs should test the riders weekly random samples over a period of a few months to look for irregularities. And not notify the rider right when the positive tests are found so that any possible patterns can be established.

The problem is that this costs a lot of money to implement and still does not fix the internal corruption problem. A wealthy rider with no scruples can often bribe UCI officials to ignore positive tests.

The way I see it there are two main problems. The testing is behind the science of finding new drugs that work. And the testing is not frequent enough. I'd like to see some government money directed at increasing testing. Either that or money from manufacturers.

But I'd also like to stop seeing guilty until proven innocent. That's a tool of dictatorships, not of democracies.

I mean they should test but they should make less of a big deal about positives outside of taking away victories for clear positives.

Basically if you pretend like something isn't a big deal, it won't be. At least not in the eyes of the public.

I mean they should test but they should make less of a big deal about positives outside of taking away victories for clear positives.

Basically if you pretend like something isn't a big deal, it won't be. At least not in the eyes of the public.

That sounds plausible but it would be like suggesting we make less of a deal about the presidents inability to walk, it might have worked with the media that existed in the 30s, but not now.

Basically if you pretend like something isn't a big deal, it won't be. At least not in the eyes of the public.

To pull it off you'd have to create an overwhelming commercial interest such as getting the chinese crazy about pro cycling. Maybe there's a chinese Lance Armstrong out there somewhere.

I'd like to see some government money directed at increasing testing. Either that or money from manufacturers.

But I'd also like to stop seeing guilty until proven innocent. That's a tool of dictatorships, not of democracies.

So your saying we need more people who don't have a clue what they are doing in terms of money OR cycling (the government) and to have more control over it? Interesting concept. I can't POSSIBLY see people getting paid off in that endeavor. Worse yet, they would intsantly have more reason to cry for more money from guess who, us...