Bikeradar - The world is for riding

GTGilbert wrote:

"...it doesn't really help to re-write the past, what's done is done, and we are where we are. There's nothing that can change that. It's much more productive to look forward and try to change things so that the future is better".

As I argued earlier, the problem is that those intent on (or being paid to) uphold 'The Armstrong myth' often do so by trying to discredit those who are genuinely concerned about doping, by creating fatuous 'conspiracy' theories, by doing everything possible to marginalise 'whistle blowers' and those riders who have taken a strong anti-doping stance and by attacking the testing labs, the test procedures and WADA. Inevitably these tactics play straight into the hands of those doping today and help to ensure that the problem will persist. In turn it is inevitable that in defending themselves those fighting doping will end up challenging the self-serving and unjustified claims made against them by the Armstrong camp.

The Armstrong camp know that one of the best ways to try to protect the 'Armstrong myth' is to side with the dopers wherever possible, especially when doing so provides an opportunity to 'put the boot' into those who have played a role in the debunking of the Armstrong myth, such as the LNDD. For example, just look at the way the Armstrong camp came to the defence of Landis!

It's also a bit of a joke to talk about forgetting the past when so many of the 'old guard' are still involved in the 'sport' managing teams and so on.

NorwegienBlue wrote: "The crusade against drug taking in pro cycling means that there is less doping in cycling than in many other sports. There is also progressively less doping in cycling"

Ha ha ha! Good one! Now remind me how many doping-related scandals were there in last years Tour, and the one before that, and the one before that!

What's more the number of tests done and the number of positives produced tells us little about the actual prevalence of doping. The methods which have been used to avoid a positive test are legion, ranging from masking agents to catheterising the rider with 'clean' urine. Many products are used because they have not yet been placed on the banned list, perhaps because they have not even been approved for use and are still being tested! Many others can freely be used because their profiles have not yet been established so as to allow a test match to be done. Given the limitations due to the cost of testing, time constraints and the size of the sample available only a handful of tests are likely to be done on any sample, so leaving the possibility open that the rider might well 'get lucky'. Perhaps most of all the currently favoured method of doping - autologous blood doping is extremely hard to detect, with no test yet being available that can be used to 'prove' doping to the required standard. Also, much doping is done in the build up to events, with the timing being such that the rider can benefit from the doping but at the same time be confident that the products have been eliminated from their system by the time the first sample is taken.

That a rider has 'never being found positive' is in no way proof that the rider never doped. Just look at all those riders who never failed a test and later admitted to doping!

NorwegianBlue wrote: "it seems that we are expected to believe that cyclists from the previous forty years are beyond reproach."

I question that! Of course doping has been rife through the history of cycling, everyone knows that. However, the 'old school' use of amphetamines and so on couldn't turn a donkey into a race horse as modern doping methods such as Epo, blood doping can.

Sure Coppi used stimulants, but I would wager he would have won just about as many events without them as he did. As testing for amphetamines was introduced after the death of Simpson they continued to be widely used in the 6 Day and after-Tour criterium circuits but this was as much a consequence of the harsh realities of earning even a living wage in the sport in those days. Most of a riders income came from the after-Tour criteriums and other minor events and a rider could race almost every day for weeks on end, plus they usually drove themselves between each event, plus the criterium manger would expect the riders top put a good 'show' on for his money. It was perhaps no wonder that so many people argued that cyclists had to dope simply in order to 'do their job', but on the other hand that amphetamine- fuelled cycling circus where riders raced 200 days per year no longer exists.

History lesson over, the reason why modern "800 ml of packed cells" and Epo doping is in a whole different league to the 'old school' use of stimulants has little to do with any moral question and a lot more to do with it's effectiveness! This very effectiveness means no one can really be sure that the person on the top of the podium won because he had more grit, guile, dedication or natural talent than the rest. It might just be that he pushed the doping envelope just a little further than everyone else or happened to have a physical makeup which responded more readily to the 'state of the art' doping methods than everyone else. This means that the results of events are effectively meaningless, with 'sport' having being replaced with empty 'sports entertainment'. On top of this the effectiveness of modern doping 'programs' means that those who wish to race clean are consigned to the ranks of the also-rans, certainly in the major stage races. THIS is why it is so important that something is done to eradicate modern doping practices!

Pro cycling is doing more about doping than almost any other sport. Unfortunately this means that more drug cheats are caught in cycling than in any other sport. This leads lazy journalists and observers to conclude that doping is more widespread in cycling than any other sport and is getting worse.

However almost the oposite is true. The crusade against drug taking in pro cycling means that there is less doping in cycling than in many other sports. There is also progressively less doping in cycling. From which we can conclude that there is less doping now than when Armstrong won his first Tour, and that there was less doping then than when Lemond won his Tours. Go back to the sixties and doping was even more common.

Due to efforts to stamp out doping in cycling and the publicity that is generated as a result any successful cyclist of the last ten years is under suspiscion. However it seems that we are expected to believe that cyclists from the previous forty years are beyond reproach.

Of course there are no samples available from Tour winners of the dim and distant past, but it's a great shame. I'd love to see them all tested again. This would surely silence a lot of the old guard who criticize modern cycling.

I think the big issue is not that lemond was outspoken against doping, it was the way that he came across while doing it. He came across as a bitter 'has-been' with an ax to grind. Everytime he was asked what he thought about Armstrong, he would say something like "If Lance is clean this is the greatest comeback in the history of sport, but if he's a doper, it's the biggest fraud". Why even bring doping into that question? Sure there are all sorts of rumors, which might be true, but to continue to bring that up with no real facts causes Armstrong's name, which is very closely tied to trek, to be seen in a potentially negative light. After hearing lemond time and time again go down this path with no facts, I actually vowed to never, ever purchase anything with his name on it or even near it and any time I had the opportunity to advise someone about bikes I would steer them away from that brand.

The real shame is that Lemond could have been a positive force for change in cycling. He had a great reputation and a lot of name recognition. Had he been constructive in his approach, he might have been able to change the system that was allowing doping to occur to actually catch the cheaters and then we'd be dealing with facts. Instead he just chose to be destructive in his approach and accuse (with nothing more than rumors and innuendo) people whose careers and livelihoods were at sake. What he never seemed to understand is that it doesn't really help to re-write the past, what's done is done, and we are where we are. There's nothing that can change that. It's much more productive to look forward and try to change things so that the future is better