Okay, I just gotta get some feedback on this subject. The more I become a fan of road racing, the more I read about doping. Doping seems to take up as much of the headlines as actual racing! This is odd for me as an American as it's just not an issue here. I don't mean that athletes aren't using drugs - to the contrary - it just seems that we don't care one way or the other.

This thought came to me as I read of Mapei's plan to quit sponsoring one of the best cycling teams of our time. Moreover, the press statement cited that the primary reason for this pullout is "the problems in cycling and sport in general". This statement is obviously referring to doping. I thought to myself that an American sponsor would never pull out due to doping - heck, we don't even test for dope in most sports! It seems that all we (USA) care about is the coin – not the sport, or its tradition.

I was also surprised to learn that in Italy (and I'm sure other European countries), these drugs will not only get you tossed from a race, but also you may end up in jail, as it's also a criminal offense. Even if you don't end up doing time, your reputation gets stomped on, and your career may get the same treatment.

What do you think contributes to the differing opinions regarding doping in the USA vs. Western Europe? Is it all about the dollar? Is there something I’m missing? :confused:

Bac...

There is doping in all sports. It is endemic in soccer, American football, hockey and baseball. Cycling is the only professional sport that tests all athletes constantly, requires spot checks, requires atheletes to carry a log of every medical and pharmaceutical treatment, its justification and the physician responsible; it is the only professional sport that suspends offenders for even suspected infractions. More cyclists get caught doping than athletes in any other sport because the governing bodies of the sport are so zealous -- sometimes overzealous -- in enforcing anti-doping rules. If anything, cycling is probably the cleanest of all professional sports.

Does doping bother me? Yes it does. Should cheaters be severely disciplined? Yes they should. Is it possible to wipe doping out of pro cycling? I doubt it, but the sport is probably cleaner now than it has been in a century.

So, you see this attitude toward doping as more of a "biking vs. other sports" issue as opposed to a USA vs. Europe attitude?? If so, why then cycling and not soccer, baseball, etc? Why are the governing bodies of bike racing so different?

ThanX!

The culture of cycling is different than any other sport. It is the only professional sport that takes place outside of a controlled environment like a stadium of an arena, right on roads that pass people's houses. It's out there unlike football or hockey, and has long been seen as much as a public spectacle -- and part of people's everyday lives -- as a competition. Consequently, it is very difficult to keep things under wraps.

In efect, it's a lot easier to keep your secrets when athletes get injections in the locker room than when they get them from a team car in the middle of France.

The other part of it is that most professional sports teams are entities unto themselves. Sure, they carry sponsor logos on their jerseys, but no one calls the Manchester United Football Club Team Vodafone. However, cycling teams are sponsored by companies and exist, to a large extent, as marketing tools. Much of the impetus to clean up the sport over the last 25 years has come from the sponsors.

The bottom line, however, is that cycling is ironically seen less as a business or an entertainment than other sports, probably because its out there in the world and not in a sports theatre. If Michael Tyson shoots 'roids, who cares? It's just boxing... But cycling is different...

Here in the gold old US of A the NFL, NBA and NHL test for a variety of drugs, albeit with an emphasis on "lifestyle drugs" like cocaine and marijuana. The NFL recently announced a ban on ephedrine, commonly found in most nasal decongestants. Steroids are also prohibited in most sports in the US, even at the college level. However, Major League Baseball seems to have a players union that is more concerned about privacy that the health of their players and has fought tooth-and-nail against drug testing.

Also, the doping that concerns cycling is for endurance purposes, for which most ball-and-bat sports don't qualify. A baseball shortstop would probably receive no benefit from EPO. Juice him up with steriods, though, and he's stronger and hitting the ball farther.

While we don't hear much about doping in the US, it is an issue on different fronts. For example, in 1987 NY Giants lineback Lawrence Taylor played many games with a good cocaine buzz. Now the NFL tests like crazy for coke and marijuana.

Also, keep in mind that the lowest paid NFL, MLB and NBA players would be the highest paid riders on many cycling teams. Only a few pro cyclists make the "big money" so there is more temptation to cheat (IMO). If you're making $20,000 per year as a 2nd-tier domestique, what have you got to lose? You can make that waving a flag on the highway.

Finally, cycling sport sponsorships are much closer to a team than, say, Budweiser advertising on the Super Bowl. It's impossible to compare the two. Ball-and-bat support comes from paid admissions and television broadcast rights. Advertising supports sports indirectly through TV, and a lesser extent, radio. Paid admissions are also a large source of revenues, hence the current emphasis on new stadiums and arenas that generate more concession and parking revenue.

Pro cycling is much closer to motor sports where a single company sponsors a team. If a major sponsor found out that their team routinely cheated, or were known to cheat, they would pull out immediately.

That's my opinion. If there were as much big money, and as big a fan base, tied up in cycling as their is in US football, soccer, etc., the doping stories would take up less space in the newspapers than Giro d'Italia stage results. And the only cyclists charged would be those who fell out of favor with the public or their managers.

Good point! I guess it's just more complicated than I had thought. However, doping or no doping, I'd rather watch a bike race than a MLB game. I am, of course, in a severe minority regarding that choice.

Yup, and that's where I disagree with both the testing in the States and in Europe. These drugs are not going (certainly in the long run, they will hurt) help in terms of athletic performance, so why test for them? Sure, they are illegal, but so is stealing cable, and you don't see raids on athlete's houses for that? It seems to be more of a moral judgment, and when we start down that path, well ... we're going to have differences and problems as we all subscribe to our own moral standards that vary greatly between individuals.

Sorry, I got off the topic a bit!

Very good point that I hadn't thought about! The issue of doping in cycling is apparently a much more complex dilemma that I have given credit.

I cringe as I type this, but cheating is part of sports. Maybe it's a baseball player corking his bat, an offensive lineman chop-blocking, an auto racer using illegal technology or your best buddy hiding cards during your Friday night poker game. Then again, maybe it's a cyclist, long-distance swimmer or cross-country skier doping.

In motor sports the winner's engines are "torn down" to make sure they fall within specs. In ball-and-bat sports there are referees and umpires. Sometimes the cheaters win, but eventually they get caught.

I don't condone doping, of course, but don't point the cheating finger at cycling only. As cyclists we're more sensitive to the issue of doping, but all sports deal with cheaters every season, even every sporting event. MLB is struggling with the steroid issue right now. There's even been mention that many records are falling because of steroid use. Imagine that!!

Cycling will go on in spite of doping, not because of it. Ultimately, the sport will be mostly clean, but probably never completely. I believe it's mostly clean now at the highest levels.

I think it's worth noting a few things:

1. In 1904, 29 riders were disqualified ffrom the Tour de France -- after the Tour -- for cheating by taking a train on the stage into Bordeaux. Among those DQed were the maillot jaune and winer of the first Tour in 1903, Maurice Garin.

2. In 1924, Henri Pelissier was quoted in the epochal "Forcats de la route" article admitting to doping and saying that it was endemic in the peloton. The writer reported that he opened a bag and said: "Ça, c'est de la cocaïne pour les yeux, ça c'est du chloroforme pour les gencives... Et des pilules? Voulez-vous voir des pilules? Tenez, voilà des pilules." ["Here, that's cocaine for the eyes and chloroform for our gums... And pills? Do you want to see pills? Look, here are pills..."]

3. In 1967, following the death of Tom Simpson on Mont Ventoux, Rik van Steenbergen [one of the decade's greats] wrote in an article that, with the demands on a pro cyclist, driving all night to start a race early in the morning and then starting another one in the afternoon [such was the lot of a pro in those days], doping was not only inevitable, but necessary. "The top riders had to be fresh every time and they couldn't do that without drugs. Nobody could or ever will be able to do that because there are no supermen. Doping is necessary in cycling."

I don't mean any of this to be an excuse for doping or cheating, but it's important to put it in perspective. Doping and cheating have been going on since the early days of the sport. In fact, they've been going on since the earliest days of all sport [I'd be happy to discuss cheating in Ancient Greece sometime]. The diference is that, today, the UCI hunts out cheats, and does a pretty good job of it. Some racers will try to cheat the system, but I think most of those who do get caught. The sport is cleaner now than it was in 1904, 1924 or 1967.