Poll: How many Pro Cyclist do you think are Doping?
 

What percentage of pro-cyclist do you think are doping?

I refuse to answer because I have no frigging clue.

Are you saying that you do not think? The question is how many do you think are doping, not how many actually are doping -- which you'd understandably have no frigging clue about.

The follow up question to this poll is: How do you feel about it?

Some claim that drugs are always wrong in any sport, for any reason.

Others claim that the rules are the rules, and if you can get an edge by any means within the rules, that's OK.

Yet others claim that drugs are just an extension of other performance enhancers such as a special diet or exercise regimen, and that there is nothing wrong with maximizing performance.

My opinion is closer to the first of these, but then again - I'm not a professional bike racer. Thoughts?

I choose not to speculate upon the prevalence of doping- not in the privacy of my own head nor in a public forum like this. Speculating upon this subject without a figging clue is irresponsible at best.

I would say that the number of positive tests (A and B samples) and investigations in the cycling world amount to rather more than a "figging" (sic) clue.:D
Certainly, with the public evidence at hand it is appropriate to speculate; those who vehemently refuse to do so usually have either a pro-doping agenda or think (american) cyclists are being framed by (foreign) laboratories. Coincidence?

I disagree that is appropriate to extrapolate from the actions of a limited number of riders the trend of the rest of the peloton when so much of the data is unreliable and the actions of the governing body so unethical. The control methods are problematic and any speculation based on it is pointless. I know enough about statistics and logic to avoid pondering such an unknown issue.

Furthermore I question what "public evidence" is at hand? I am not educated enough (few are) to read the raw urinalysis reports and medical theory behind the tests to understand what it all means- that would be evidence at least. Additionally, the full results of the Spanish affair are not yet released and are therefor not evidence yet.

Basically I don't like the court of public opinion and think less of people who participate in group judgment rather than assessing individual culpability. Your poll is a measure of guilt by association and is therefore meaningless- had you caveated that at least the poll would have been entertaining.

My poll is a measure of people's thought, of those who answered. Asking what people think, not what they know is enough of a caveat --to the careful reader.

So don't extrapolate and vote with an answer that matches the number of Pro Cyclists who have actually been busted for doping; then you don't even have to speculate.

The court of public opinion is meaningless. It doesn't determine actual guilt or innocence, it only expresses opinion (at best). If you were a member of WADA or USADA it might be a different story, but I'm pretty sure you're not (if you are, what the hell are you doing here?).

If I remember correctly Alessandro Donati, in his mid-90's report, speculated 70-90% of riders doped. I can't remember if it was all riders or riders at any one time. It may have been the latter.

I disagree, the court of public opinion is very important to advertisers and sponsors- and thus the sport.

It may be meaningless with respect to a poll question, but more meaningful to assess the frame of mind of the interested community, but to make a sweeping statement that the court of public opinion is meaningless in general is just a foolish comment.

I disagree, foolish as it may be.

The court of public opinion is meaningless, because it by definition can never come to any final or meaningful judgment. Even in this thread we can see that people have differing opinions. So what? What would it change about anything if we refrained from expressing those opinions? Nothing, nothing at all. The same that it changes anything if we do express our opinions.

Don't overestimate whatever power you think the interested community has. No one is really listening (opened a sports page in a U.S. newspaper lately?).

Maybe it doesn't determine ACTUAL guilt, but the way the media takes a story and runs with it before ALL of the facts are in, the public has someone "guilty or innocent" before it becomes official. My biggest, most recent example is Floyd Landis. I personally am not stating his guilt or innocence, but immediately after the results of the first "A" sample are released, practically everyone has him guilty. By the time the results of the "B" sample was released, he had been pretty much fried in the press and in most opinion polls.

The old saying used to be "innocent until proven guilty." I'm afraid the modern version of that is the opposite: "guilty until proven innocent."

And in many cases these days, if proof comes out that someone is indeed found innocent, many then think "they got away with it."

because the usually did. Look at the after the fact prescriptions or all the people a certain dr fuentes got off by certifying they had extreme hormonal imbalances. All of them were guilty as sin yet still avoided punishment.

Exactly. +1, etc...

This reminds me of the inordinate amount of Triathletes who report having asthma! During races I sometimes see riders on their bikes inhaling their medicine dispenser, but no they wern't doping, oh no :rolleyes: --they just had doctors who were willing to diagnose them with an imaginary condition so that they could prescribe them drugs so that the riders could greatly improve their performance. Drug test passed with flying colors with a doctor's note, dirty -- but clean.:(
Voila! Le tour est joue! (Pun intented) :)

Trevor, just curious if you feel this way about sports doping only, or others areas too.

Specifically, are you okay with estimating the number of ******* out there (and, thus, the percentage of males in general) from counting the number of unique DNA samples in sperm taken from **** kits? Or would that be speculation that would be problematic and pointless?

How about speculating on the number of illegal heroin users based on the amount of heroin uncovered by law enforcement?

How about speculating on the percentage of bank robbers in our society based on the number of bank robberies done by robbers with unique distinguishing characteristics?

What if it turns out that Ullrich, Basso and Mancebo are all found guilty and given lifetime bans (or did Mancebo avoid all that by retiring)? That would be 75% of the top 4 in 2005 that are proven to have been doping.

Doesn't the fact that a "natural" like Ullrich have to resort to an incredible doping regimen tell you something about the likelihood of the prevalence of the activity in the pro peloton being very high? Or do you enjoy keeping your index fingers firmly implanted in your ears, eyes closed, and repeating, loudly, "MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmMMMMMmmmmmmmmm.."?

Zero tolerance...

First Offence:-
Lifetime bans from all professional sports, so no switching sports eg Cycling to Triathletes etc...

Also have the sports governing body provide all the teams medical staff and if the tour takes six weeks instead of three so be it.

It depends on who is doing the statistical speculation: statisticians with access to the full data set or us, the semi-informed masses. It is ironic that your analogies have more relative data than what the UCI/WADA present about doping as you included some specific caveats (unique distinguishing characteristics). We are not privy to all the details of doping and thus are making too many baseless assumptions off gut feelings.

There is a vast difference between what I feel and what I am confident enough about to assert in public. I try not to let my simple feelings overwhelm my sense of logic and reasoning. I also keep my private and unsubstantiated feelings or beliefs private. That was the essence of my original post.

Additionally, interpretations for someone else's behaviors are problematic as multiple valid interpretations are possible depending on the person doing the interpretation. Projecting how you would react is a poor standard as people react differently depending on their own experience and history.

We assign culpability based on individual guilt for the most part, group guilt always has major problems. If Ullrich, Basso and the others are given lifetime bans then I will question the why cycling is adhering to their own rules regarding 2 year bans (with the exception of Ullrich who has already been given a second chance). I would not infer from their individual guilt the guilt of specific others nor am I comfortable assuming that they weren't always doping (or that they always were). The anti-doping system needs to be vastly improved before we use its data to speculate.

+2

Stupid.

Most pro cyclists are working class kids from Europe. They don't have any opportunity or inclination to go into other sports professionally if they get banned. The integrity of this idea is tested by the number of banned cyclists who currently switch sports - NONE.

Correct me if i'm wrong wasn't Lance a semi pro or pro triathlete before he became a cyclist, so i was just covering any options available...

Back to the OP and follow up question. I think (in my uninformed and apparently therefore totally worthless opinion) that the majority of riders dope in one way or another. Three years ago I held the opposite "just a few bad eggs" opinion. You can't ignore the fact that three out of the top four finishers in 2005 and the 2006 winner have been implicated in doping. In Landis' case I would say it goes beyond implication. I think that makes a pretty clear argument for a culture of doping in the sport, or at least among leaders in the sport. As far as the follow-up question, I'm pretty offended by doping. If everyone one is doing it I suppose you could make some sort of argument that the sport is still an equal playing field, albeit a freakish and unnatural one. I think its a shame that a clean an honest rider probably doesn't have any shot in the sport anymore. I think its equally offensive that most riders treat us fans like idiots when they have been caught and offer up bizarre excuses for their behavior.

+ 1

I agree to a point, but before imposing a lifetime ban I would think you would need foolproof tests, or at least tests that are more accurate than current tests. Current tests have parameters based on the "normal" population. Pro cyclists (other atheletes too probably) aren't normal. I don't want to try to propose ways around this problem, but as the testing exists today, I would be very nervous about completely destroying someone's livelihood.