Road Bike Racing - Why so much dope?

:confused: Lately, I've been troubled when reading about the pro racers. For every epic victory, two more are in trouble for drugs. These guys are in the races because they are a near-perfect combo of legs, brains, and cardio-vascular system, right? They are here to prove to the world that they are not just great but excellent at what they do. So why use drugs? I know about the pressures to achieve more and more, but cycling should not be about how one man's dope is better than the other's.

If I was about to go off to lose the Giro, I'd just take it as a "learning experience," and find just what I need to work on during the off-season to have a better shot next time. Besides, doesn't it sound good enough to even be IN the Giro. That's why guys who shine all year do so- they are honest, hard working folks who see where they fall short, and iron that out in training. They deserve all the press coverege and trophies they can get- not those who just win a stage because they've been doping.

I do hope one of those doping pros reads this post, and that it makes him feel small. Very small.

The truth is that I doubt doping is any more prevalent in cycling than in any other professional sport. The difference is that the officials are much more vigilant in cycling than in soccer, American football or baseball. Part of the reason for this is that cycling got very bady burned back in 1998, when Wily Voet was busted with a whole lot of dope for the Festina team. The ensuing media frenzy gave cycling a serious image proble.

Consequently, there have been some very intense efforts to clean up the sport, with much more stringent doping controls and regulations than in almost any other sport. Last year, for example, Jonathan Vaughters had to drop out of the Tour de France because the corticosteroid prepartion required to treat a nasty wasp sting was banned by the UCI.

Admittedly, doping has been a problem is cycling since the very beginning. Henri Pelissier admitted [though sem-seriously] to using cocaine in 1921, and Tom Simpson died of a heart-attack induced by amphetamines on Mont Ventoux in 1967. Doping is believed to have been quite prevalent in the 1980s and 1990s, and there have been a number of sensational tell-all books on the subject [notably Voet's].

Having said that, I seriously doubt that cycling was ever any dirtier than other professional sports in the past, and I think it's probably considerably cleaner now. The difference is that you only find doping when you look for it and, outside of the Olympic games, cycling is the only sport where the officials actively and systematically look for doping. The drug testing procedures are extremely rigourous and cycling officials are usually willing to err on the side of caution [vis. the Garzelli and Simoni over-reactions]

Ask yourself if you have ever heard of a professional soccer team being raided by Italian drugs police, or if Mark McGwire was kicked out of baseball for admitting to steroid use? HGH and steroid use is believed to be endemic in American football, both at the pro and NCAA levels, but these athletes simply aren't ever tested.

Frankly, I think the drug busts are a godd sign -- that cycling is serious enough about cycling to be super vigilant -- as well as a bad thing. I do think that the UCI is carrying the Festina affair around on its back and is prone to over-reactions. In my opinion, what happened to Garzelli and Simoni [and earlier, to Fabio Sacchi] are manifestations of that.

It's easy to be cynical about doping in cycling but I think the sport is actually much cleaner than it has been in decades.

Ok, one last post, albeit not too serious.
Dario Frigo who was ejected from the Giro last
year for admiting to buying drugs over the internet
was actually ejected for buying saline solution.
yeah he was looking for something else, but
what he bought (for a lot of money) after analysis
came back as saline solution. . . :lol:
So do you eject him for intent?
its a slippery slope, no? he admits to cheating,
but if he was tested he would have come up
negative, a conundrum if I do say so.

Marty

I think to preserve good sportsmanship and competition in sports, measures should be taken to prevent or punish althetes for using performance enhancing drugs.
BUT, if a guy wants to go out and party with coke, pot, booze, whatever, let him be.
Sure these are guys that are physical specimens in their sport and have the mental ability to compete at a very high level, but they still are living just like anyone else.

When it comes to the sport, keep it fair, but stay out of their personal lives, I say.

Dave

Originally posted by velocipedio
Ask yourself if you have ever heard of a professional soccer team being raided by Italian drugs police, or if Mark McGwire was kicked out of baseball for admitting to steroid use? HGH and steroid use is believed to be endemic in American football, both at the pro and NCAA levels, but these athletes simply aren't ever tested.

I think I'm trying to get at the doping problem with all sports, but since I care most about cycling, I tend to be more focused on cycling. That said, I think that Dwagenheim is a bit right- let them fry their own brains on their own time. My problem is with those who are juicing themselves up for a race. It's like these guys/gals are not man/woman enough to improve themselves through hard work and dedication. Instead, they go and juice up on something to give them a boost.

It's like cheating- they give themselves an unfair advantage, and those who work hard and take pride in what they do get screwed.

I do agree also with velocipedio, as the UCI needs to find a decent balance. But, if nothing else, hopefully they've shown the world what can happen when a sport decides to go clean. With a few tweaks here and there (like letting participants stung by bees use meds to help the bite), I'd like to see similar things happen to more sports.

I may rant about this, but this is a topic that strikes a nerve in me, one that's rather deep.

The problem with Performance Enhancing Drugs is... they work. There are lots of reasons to take them... to level the playing field ("all the other riders use them"), to lengthen a career for someone who doesn't have another marketable skill, pressure on a domestique from a captain, those who really know won't say. I think that huge progress has been made, and it's commendable. In any sport or event where use of PEDs are taken seriously, there are horrible debacles, you only have to look back to the '02 winter olympics. Testing and enforcement have to improve, and it will.

Cycling's gettng a black eye (where's a black eye smiley?) because of the bad publicity that follows enforcement, but it's probably the cleanest sport out there.

And the problem with drugs is that so many great winners in cycling use(d) them that virtually every great achievement was made by drugged cyclists.

"Mister 60" was Bjarne Riis nickname. Guess why...

cycling, unlike football or baseball, tests and kicks out and humiliates(?) its stars - not just the last guy on the team/bench. there are so many good legal supplements and training methods that i wonder why so many would unnecessarily risk their health,life, livelyhood all in the name of glory. answer? $$$$$$$

cycling struggles for headlines in the USA, but unfortunately the only press it gets is when there is a non negative drug test on a rider (besides when Lance races and wins the Tour)

in all sports, they should have two divisions. one for the dopers and one for the naturals (like bodybuilding).

but if a substance is banned - you should abide by it.

The way I see it - When you have money (no matter how small or large) on the line you're bound to have doping. With so many athletes and so few pro teams, guys/gals will do everything they can to get there and then they need to worry about staying on and pleasing sponsors. So, of course that's going to lead to performance enhancing issues.

It happens in all sports. Cycling by far, has to be one of the cleanest sports in the world due to the actions (testing) the UCI has taken. Other sporting organizations don't even bother.

I know I might get blasted for what I am going to say but here goes. Being an ex-football player, I have seen alot of abuse of steroids and HGH. I can also see reasons for them. Yes, if some one decides not to use the drugs they would be at a disadvantage when compeating aginst some one who is using. They give you strength, endurance and an agressive edge but they also help your body recover faster from injury or a strenuous work out allowing you to train harder and longer. The biggest problem is the fact that alot of athletes who use do so with limited knowlage about the drugs. If used under a Dr.'s supervision and in the right amounts the side effects are minimal but the gains are tremendous.Don't get me wrong, the athletes should be tested and monitored but (although it will not happen) if they could have a catagory for athletes on drugs and those that are not it would make it easier to control and those althlete not using would not have to wonder why they can not keep up with the others.
Since they will not create a catagory for "Perfomance Enhancing Drugs", we will need to keep training at a high(not to high though) level and get plenty of rest and eat healthy.
Cheers
:beer: :beer:

Hey Timo!!

Stay off Bjarne Riis!!!