The Pro Cycling News Thread

R

Ricardodaforce

Self requested ban
Suspended / Banned
Messages
18,340
Edit My Images
No
Today the report on the 1998 TdeF was released. Held over from last week so as not to cast a shadow over the centenary Tour. According to this, Pantani and Ullrich used EPO during 1998 Tour. No great surprise there. But I do find it sad because 5 of my all time faves are on that list, Erik Zabel, Laurent Jalabert, Mario Cipollini, Marco Pantani & Jan Ullrich. I used to love watching them.

You can read about it on Eurosport.
 
Last edited:
The sooner the past is left in the past the better.

Drugs testing in cycling is now a decade ahead of most sports but it's still tarnished by the image of being the dirtiest sport around.

Where there's huge gains there will always be those willing to break the rules and take the risks (both professional and to their health) to get the upper hand on their rivals. Hopefully a new generation is beginning where the testing is at a level that makes it as hard as possible to get away with these things.

If it was up to me everyone who has ever been proven to intentionally dope would be banned from participation in sport in any capacity. Everyone. Past, present and future.
 
I felt a bit guilty when watching Contador drop and end up off the podium....but then I thought 'Nah.hes a drug cheat and shouldnt have been allowed to start in the first place'
Why do teams still pick up riders returning from drug suspensions? Surely thats the place for the federations to apply pressure when cleaning the sport's image up?
 
Laudrup said:
Why can't they just legalise these PEDs?
Click to expand...

1. Many PEDs aren't safe.
2. Would you encourage your kids to participate in a sport that requires them to dope themselves up to the eyeballs - even at junior level - to be remotely competitive?

I've seen people suggest that PEDs should be allowed...but only the safe ones, and only taken in safe quantities. If there's an additional advantage to be had by taking a slightly higher dose then people will flaunt any restrictions regardless of the risks to themselves. That leaves the only option of completely unregulated doping to "level the playing field", which would be a disaster for any sport.
 
I'd see it as their body, their choice. Amateur level doesn't come into it either, this is professional level we are talking.
 
Laudrup said:
I'd see it as their body, their choice. Amateur level doesn't come into it either, this is professional level we are talking.
Click to expand...

So how would someone make the step up to pro level? How would you prevent amateur/junior doping when it was considered the norm for the pros?

I understand the thought process behind it, but its completely unworkable and will inevitably carry fatal consequences.
 
whatdoesthisbutt said:
I felt a bit guilty when watching Contador drop and end up off the podium....but then I thought 'Nah.hes a drug cheat and shouldnt have been allowed to start in the first place'
Click to expand...

Does the same apply to David Millar? I was a bit surprised a level of hatred displayed in the TdeF thread towards Contador. He has only been convicted of one case of doping, and the quantity of the banned substance in his body certainly was not enough to be performance enhancing.

I'm all for a 2 strikes and you're out policy. 1st offence - 2 year ban. 2nd offence - ban for life with no appeal.
 
How do they prevent amateur and junior doping just now? If you go professional you're in a different league entirely and using PEDs at the top level shouldn't be illegal. Making them illegal just means any winner of a 'dirty' sport like cycling or men's 100m sprinting is already under suspicion. Even passing multiple tests proves nothing as we saw with Lance Armstrong.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
I'm all for a 2 strikes and you're out policy. 1st offence - 2 year ban. 2nd offence - ban for life with no appeal.
Click to expand...

why not just one strike and a ban for life - they knew it was wrong before they did it the first time so why give them a second chance ?
 
Last edited:
Ricardodaforce said:
Does the same apply to David Millar? I was a bit surprised a level of hatred displayed in the TdeF thread towards Contador. He has only been convicted of one case of doping, and the quantity of the banned substance in his body certainly was not enough to be performance enhancing.

I'm all for a 2 strikes and you're out policy. 1st offence - 2 year ban. 2nd offence - ban for life with no appeal.
Click to expand...

First of all, apologies for my post in the other thread - I was completely out of order.
I totally agree with your post here, because there is a lot of double standards applied to "our dopers" and "Johnny Foreigner dopers"
I think the two year first ban (from the time of the decision - not the offence) is correct (and I would have all the results annulled), and I would back the lifetime ban for a second offence, and add that the person should not have any connection with the sport at all in the future - no more Bjarne Riis characters in the sport for instance.
 
Laudrup said:
How do they prevent amateur and junior doping just now? If you go professional you're in a different league entirely and using PEDs at the top level shouldn't be illegal. Making them illegal just means any winner of a 'dirty' sport like cycling or men's 100m sprinting is already under suspicion. Even passing multiple tests proves nothing as we saw with Lance Armstrong.
Click to expand...

Cycling is not a "dirty sport", it is just that the media have chosen to largely ignore doping in other sports. I consider the following sports to have big problems with doping - football, tennis, athletics, cricket, wrestling, weightlifting, swimming - but it is not in the interests of the media to report them, or if they do, then the article is tucked away from the front page.
 
andy700 said:
First of all, apologies for my post in the other thread - I was completely out of order.
I totally agree with your post here, because there is a lot of double standards applied to "our dopers" and "Johnny Foreigner dopers"
I think the two year first ban (from the time of the decision - not the offence) is correct (and I would have all the results annulled), and I would back the lifetime ban for a second offence, and add that the person should not have any connection with the sport at all in the future - no more Bjarne Riis characters in the sport for instance.
Click to expand...

Apology accepted and we've already moved on from there. Agree 100% with what you say. I personally find it sickening to see that Riis still has such a prominent role in the sport.
The reason I don't believe in an automatic lifetime ban for first offence is that people can dope without knowing. How many times over the years have you seen a rider take a bottle from the crowd when climbing Alpe d'Huez or Le Galibier etc? This year one of the Dutch riders swigged a beer that was offered to him! Who's to say that it's not contaminated, maybe not even with something that's performance enhancing, but that is on the banned list? Would seem very harsh to be banned for life for something like that.
 
andy700 said:
Cycling is not a "dirty sport", it is just that the media have chosen to largely ignore doping in other sports. I consider the following sports to have big problems with doping - football, tennis, athletics, cricket, wrestling, weightlifting, swimming - but it is not in the interests of the media to report them, or if they do, then the article is tucked away from the front page.
Click to expand...

100% correct. There were tennis players and footballers implicated in Operation Puerto.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Apology accepted and we've already moved on from there. Agree 100% with what you say. I personally find it sickening to see that Riis still has such a prominent role in the sport.
The reason I don't believe in an automatic lifetime ban for first offence is that people can dope without knowing. How many times over the years have you seen a rider take a bottle from the crowd when climbing Alpe d'Huez or Le Galibier etc? This year one of the Dutch riders swigged a beer that was offered to him! Who's to say that it's not contaminated, maybe not even with something that's performance enhancing, but that is on the banned list? Would seem very harsh to be banned for life for something like that.
Click to expand...

The "spiked drink from the crowd" defence would make it too easy to abuse - a stooge unconnected with the rider or team could give the rider a doped bottle and be impossible to trace. A positive test results - "Oh, it must have been that unsolicited bottle I was given..." (Or of course, a rival rider could be targeted and deliberately "fed" a doped bottle.) A rider was penalised this year for accepting a drink from a team-mate - the same sanction should be applied to those who take drinks from bystanders.

Ultimately, is even a life ban enough of a sanction? A certain American (and probably many others) have made fortunes from being drug cheats - how many have paid back ALL the money they made from their cheating? Would they have made any money from their books had they not been cheating to get their results?
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Does the same apply to David Millar? I was a bit surprised a level of hatred displayed in the TdeF thread towards Contador. He has only been convicted of one case of doping, and the quantity of the banned substance in his body certainly was not enough to be performance enhancing.

I'm all for a 2 strikes and you're out policy. 1st offence - 2 year ban. 2nd offence - ban for life with no appeal.
Click to expand...

andy700 said:
First of all, apologies for my post in the other thread - I was completely out of order.
I totally agree with your post here, because there is a lot of double standards applied to "our dopers" and "Johnny Foreigner dopers"
I think the two year first ban (from the time of the decision - not the offence) is correct (and I would have all the results annulled), and I would back the lifetime ban for a second offence, and add that the person should not have any connection with the sport at all in the future - no more Bjarne Riis characters in the sport for instance.
Click to expand...

Personaly I was glad Millar did not get anywhere, I would hold british dopers in even more contempt as we like to think of ourselves as 'above all that cheating malarkey' (even though we are all too often proved wrong!)
For the life of me I cannot understand why any 'sport' would endorse enhancement of atheletes performance by drugs?
I repeat my question of why teams have no shame in picking up riders returning from doping bans. If public glare put pressure on the teams, then sponsors would start to think twice about the negatives of sponsoring that team....and as we all realise its all about the money!!

I took heart that I didnt hear Armstrongs name at all during the coverage. Thats the reaction I would like from the fedarations, a ban on competing/all former accolades wiped out/ shunned from all future reporting on the sport.
 
andy700 said:
Cycling is not a "dirty sport", it is just that the media have chosen to largely ignore doping in other sports. I consider the following sports to have big problems with doping - football, tennis, athletics, cricket, wrestling, weightlifting, swimming - but it is not in the interests of the media to report them, or if they do, then the article is tucked away from the front page.
Click to expand...

Are we to believe the gutter press are going to ignore a massive scoop on doping in major sports? They are in the business to sell papers, a story like that would be major news for them. Like it or not cycling is perceived as a dirty sport.
 
Laudrup said:
Are we to believe the gutter press are going to ignore a massive scoop on doping in major sports? They are in the business to sell papers, a story like that would be major news for them. Like it or not cycling is perceived as a dirty sport.
Click to expand...

There was hardly anything in our papers about the fastest bowler in cricket, when he was found guilty of steroid abuse, initially banned for two years, and then had the ban completely lifted by the Pakistan Board.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/infocus/content/story/infocus.html?subject=28

Real Madrid, Barcelona, other Spanish clubs

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2006/dec/08/newsstory.realmadrid

Of course we will probably never know, because although Dr Fuentes has said that he worked with these clubs, the Judge at the head of the Puerto investigation ordered that only the names of cyclists were to be made public - why? - threats, money?

Then we have tennis

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/te...new-drug-inquiry-links-Biogenesis-clinic.html

HGH (human growth hormone) very popular with some "bent" sportsmen(women) for helping recovery from injury and hard training.

Greg Rusedski - cleared - claimed it was a mistake:naughty:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/3547917.stm

How about British boxing?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...-to-test-positive-for-a-banned-substance.html

Kenyan runners - and we thought they were just naturally fast;)

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/...an-runners-blood-doping-performance-enhancers


I actually regard other sports as more corrupt/dirty than cycling because they refuse to acknowledge the problem of doping/deliberately cover it up/let people off with ridiculous excuses.
 
I partly agree with Andy, but I don't think it's the press ignoring the stories so much as the officiating bodies doing very little to ensure a lot of sports are competed in cleanly.

The press would pounce on any story like the vultures they are. Without adequate doping tests to identify those using PEDs or individuals with inside knowledge making allegations (similar to the Armstrong case) in any sport the media don't have any scraps to feed off.

That's not a defence of cycling. It has a prolific history of doping that it has to face up to. It's a criticism of the perception that somehow cycling is worse than the others. It's done more to face up to its doping problems than any other sport.
 
Lance Armstrong basically destroyed the credibility. Passing tens if not hundreds of tests, using cream for 'saddle sores' as an excuse or just simply hiding from the testers in remote locations makes the sport open to massive suspicion.

This list is incomplete and makes for grim reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling#1990

Make PEDs legal and they can all be on the same level.
 
The bodies who run the sports affected by this are in a very difficult position: on the one hand they want their sport to be as marketable as possible by playing down the problem and retaining as many of their "heroes" as possible, whilst on the other hand, they have to be seen to be doing enough to combat the problem.

Unfortunately for them, more and more people are waking up to the reality of high level sport who are less willing to believe the fairy tales.
 
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
Lance Armstrong basically destroyed the credibility. Passing tens if not hundreds of tests, using cream for 'saddle sores' as an excuse or just simply hiding from the testers in remote locations makes the sport open to massive suspicion.

This list is incomplete and makes for grim reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling#1990

Make PEDs legal and they can all be on the same level.
Click to expand...

This list is even longer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_athletics

If you make PED's legal, then you will see many drug related deaths each year as a result.
 
But nobody would argue that athletics and particularly sprinting isn't a dirty sport. It's up there with cycling as being riddled with well documented cheating. As for deaths, if it was in the open it could be managed much more effectively and monitored. The system we have just now means that whoever wins a race the first thought isn't congratulations, it's test his urine and blood and even protestations of 'I'd never dope' then there are still question marks. We've heard it all before.
 
I don't think PED's will be allowed in sport for a long time yet, if at all. I'd like to think the reason is because it wouldn't be fair on the clean competitors but sadly I think the reasons are probably purely commercial - the public aren't ready to accept such practices and that would impact the commercial aspects of sport too much (it would certainly give Nike's "Just do it" marketing tagline a different spin! :D).

Meanwhile, the governing bodies will keep telling us how they've doing their utmost to combat it with new testing procedures which are far, far better than the old ones. Again.
 
Last edited:
I find the whole 'legalise PED's' argument utterly ridiculous. This would result in an arms race, putting health and lives in danger. It would stifle genuine talent and give amateur/ youth competitors no reason to aspire or work hard.

I am as open minded as anyone but still trust winners (and losers!) to be clean. I have to, it's the only way.

I think the main problem with a large number of high profile sports is the prize money involved now. The individuals that have the single motivation of money are more than likely going to have the moral shortfalls to cheat. That's the way it is, it's the same in everyday life.

Having the mechanisms to catch cheats is the only way. Not only that but effective bans and subsequent 'parole' procedures. I used to be of the zero tolerance mind, but having read David Millar's book changed my opinion.

The only way to beat the cheats is to engage with the more repentant ones. Find out how the system worked, who supplied what and where. Get the inside line and try and get ahead of the cheats, both in the sport and behind the scenes.

Once cheats realise that it really does not PAY to cheat then they won't do it.
 
It can't be anymore ridiculous than the TDF having no winner from 1999-2005 or Lance Armstrong passing multiple drug tests and then telling us how much he hates drug cheats. How many people trusted him? Clever and corrupt people will always find a way around these tests no matter how apparently stringent. Makes more sense to level the playing field rather than have someone win it, test positive and nullify the whole competition.
 
MG TF 135 said:
...I think the main problem with a large number of high profile sports is the prize money involved now. The individuals that have the single motivation of money are more than likely going to have the moral shortfalls to cheat. That's the way it is, it's the same in everyday life...
Click to expand...

I totally agree. The rewards for winning are far too great, both for the individual and, perhaps more crucially, their sponsors.

"Whatever it takes."
 
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
It can't be anymore ridiculous than the TDF having no winner from 1999-2005 or Lance Armstrong passing multiple drug tests and then telling us how much he hates drug cheats. How many people trusted him? Clever and corrupt people will always find a way around these tests no matter how apparently stringent. Makes more sense to level the playing field rather than have someone win it, test positive and nullify the whole competition.
Click to expand...

During that period of time there was either no effective test to catch the cheats or testing processes/ procedures were inefficient. The cheats saw an opportunity and exploited it. Clever and corrupt people exploit situations everyday, that's life. It does not mean that everything these people do should be legal.

The UCI (cycling governing body) decided to leave 1999-2005 TdF vacant for a number of reasons. Mainly as they could not be sure the promoted rider was clean, emphasising their inept testing processes at that time. Also to make a statement, a footnote as it were to that period of cycling.

As you have probably guessed I am involved in cycling and see first hand the efforts of local clubs and governing bodies to keep the sport clean. Even as an amateur we have to sign up to an anti doping ethos and can be subjected to testing at any time. How many Sunday league footballers have to do that? How many local tennis players have to sign a declaration to say they are 'clean'?

Your opinion that PED's should be legal is valid, everyone is entitled to their view.

Thankfully the majority of people prefer hard work, commitment and talent to rise to the top. Albeit sometimes only after someone without some, or all of these attributes has been caught taking shortcuts.
 
A doper is always a step ahead of the testers. The powers that be are keeping samples for 8 years now, which means in 7 years with the progress of science we'll see how clean London 2012 was. By then it's far too late though, all that does is what is happening to cycling right now and tarnishes the reputation of the event.

Technology in equipment, training, coaching, diets and supplements have moved on. If there were PEDs available to help you score from 30 yards or win 6-0 at tennis or lower your golf handicap then they would be highly popular at amateur level.
 
Laudrup, from your comments it is obvious you have concrete views and are sticking by them. Fair enough.

I also have pretty solid views that most sports are clean and cycling, at this time, is one of the cleanest sports.

I'll say again that I believe hard work, commitment and talent will ALWAYS rise to the top and in no circumstances should PED's be legalised.

It's probably right that we draw a line here, shake hands and let others discuss.
 
MG TF 135 said:
Laudrup, from your comments it is obvious you have concrete views and are sticking by them. Fair enough.

I also have pretty solid views that most sports are clean and cycling, at this time, is one of the cleanest sports.

I'll say again that I believe hard work, commitment and talent will ALWAYS rise to the top and in no circumstances should PED's be legalised.

It's probably right that we draw a line here, shake hands and let others discuss.
Click to expand...

Great post Martyn.
I think that it is only competing at a sport over a number of years, looking at other competitors, and judging how you are improving yourself, really gives an insight as to what is possible.
Someone once asked me if I was taking something, just because I was cycling 35 miles each way to work three times a week. I told them about the late great Beryl Burton who could beat most men at time trials and road racing (track racing as well), and actually held a national record which was in excess of the men's record at the time. The reaction was all too predictable - "she must have been on drugs":(
I have to say that the ordinary person in the street has no idea of what is possible in sport, or what they are capable of themselves, because they never try.
I am not really that startled by the performances in this year's TdF, because there are constant advances in training and technology (bikes costing £10K).
Back in the seventies, a UK rider called Alf Engers broke the 25 mile time trial record at a speed of over 30MPH. He was riding a steel framed bike, without any aerodynamics, no skinsuit, no tribars or disc wheels - he was not on drugs, yet if you had put him in a modern TdF time trial in a major tour, then he would beat most of the field. Put him on a modern bike, and he would be challenging for a podium.
 
I see Wiggins has confirmed he won't do La Vuelta this year. He also said he didn't watch Le Tour de France.
 
The UCI have announced that there were no positive tests at this year's Tour.
 
andy700 said:
Unfortunately, the UCI seems to be as corrupt as FIFA, so expect McQuaid to be as arrogant and bloody minded as Sepp Blatter:(
Click to expand...

Oh I do. In fact you can already see it happening. "I don't have the nomination from Ireland or Switzerland? That's fine I'll just change the rules to allow someone else to nominate me"

Poor. :(
 
I'm not a massive cycling fan, but the whole Armstrong case and the wider implications of doping during the 90s has changed my view on the sport I used to watch on Channel 4 after finishing college - Abdoujaparov & Indurain were particular faves, but I can't see how they competed and beat their peers without 'enhancing' their bodies.

When Indurain was lined up with the other Tour 'legends' at the end of this years tour, I had a feeling he shouldn't be there, in the same way that Armstrong wasn't top of the invite list.....
 
candlestick said:
I'm not a massive cycling fan, but the whole Armstrong case and the wider implications of doping during the 90s has changed my view on the sport I used to watch on Channel 4 after finishing college - Abdoujaparov & Indurain were particular faves, but I can't see how they competed and beat their peers without 'enhancing' their bodies.

When Indurain was lined up with the other Tour 'legends' at the end of this years tour, I had a feeling he shouldn't be there, in the same way that Armstrong wasn't top of the invite list.....
Click to expand...

Big Mig tested positive for Salbutamol at the 1994 Tour de L'Oise. He was let off as they reckoned it was from an inhaler prescribed to treat asthma.
As someone who competed at a lot of sports (up to county level), it has always surprised me how many elite sportsmen/women use inhalers for asthma, yet I never saw anyone using them when I competed.
Maybe I should have gone to the doctor, saying that my lungs hurt and I found it particularly hard to breathe at the end of a 25 mile time trial or a 2.5K Concept 2 ordeal.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top