Giro D'Italia - where can I watch it?

you can watch it on the internet.

I haven't had a TV for sixteen years and have only recently taken to watching some bike racing on the Internet again--my usual diet is a couple of TdF stages per year.

you can watch it on the internet.

where?

I'm pretty mellow about doping, there's no way it can be as overt now as it once was.(leipheimer claims umpteen piss tests so far this giro.)

Revel in the scenery and the suffering is what I say. Good balls out break from pellizotti today, sastre was really disappointing.

Big Denis has it to lose as long as he doesn't wilt in the heat around the sorrentine peninsula (i've been around there and it's feckin hot.)

Dope is technology. Sport and technology are inseparable.

Obviously a rider's well-being should be paramount, but dope isn't necessarily any riskier in this regard than carbon wheels that fold up at the sniff of a dog :S

Having a Lemondesque VO2Max doesn't really make for a level playing field, does it, unless the non-über-über-mortals get a little help from EPO. But then he's got his tribars too.

I'm not knocking Lemond, BTW. He's a fucking vélo-icon.

[/more boring debate]

I've enjoyed the odd snatches I've seen on the internet. Er, the cycling's been pretty entertaining too.

^^^@Superprecise - first page of thread covers it I think.

actually i wasn't believe it or not, what an idiot i am.

EDIT: ...although having said that it's not exactly clear which is best...?

@sp - use www.cyclingfans.com as a starting place then see which feed is providing the best coverage.

How can anybody be enjoying this fucking farce? Look at the names in the top ten - let alone the top three - nothing has changed. Read Bernhard Kohl's account on Cyclingnews of how he beat dope tests for years right up until he finally used CERA. The blood passport is discredited before the first results have even been revealed. Menchov? DiLuca? Pellizotti? Garzelli? You'd trust any of these fuckers? What pleasure can you gain from watching people make fools of you? With the exception of BMMF who doesn't mind if riders dope. I'm so bloody glad I gave my TV away.

But seriously wtf do you know about these riders that the anti-doping agency doesn't? Do you have proof they are doping?

I suspect the answer is no you don't.

I love it how people on an internet message board seem to think they have proof that a pro rider is doping.

Even if a rider does dope they still have to train ridiculously hard to keep a professional level of performance up. It is like saying pro-body builders (which we know take whatever drugs to get more muscle) can just take steroids and sit down the pub drinking beer and get massive ... doesn't work like that.

I basically agree with you, Will, but unless the big football stars start to be paraded in the spotlight, I'm not too interested in always putting cycling in the stocks.

Whether or not other sports are clean or filthy is irrelevant; if you're only going to watch one sport then it's bizarre that you'd tangle yourself in knots to avoid accepting that the one sport you are watching is a charade. Kohl was one of those young riders in whom hope was supposed to lie, one of a new generation that had made the break; it was all bullshit. Cycling may be changing but is hasn't changed yet and it is pitiful that anyone who is anti-doping would find any pleasure in this Giro which is being dominated by a gang of discredited and utterly shameless liars rather than taking it as further depressing evidence of how far the sport has to go. Kohl clearly states that he got his contract with that old con artist Lefevre not because he was clean but because he had managed to manipulate his blood profile well enough to *appear *clean. Cycling is in the stocks because it deserves to be there and to have it's fans trying to suggest that that is not the case, or that it's somehow unfair because other sports are just as bad, is even more dispiriting than seeing a hulking great bruiser like Menchov climbing as he has been.

I'm pretty mellow about doping, there's no way it can be as overt now as it once was.(leipheimer claims umpteen piss tests so far this giro.)

You are kidding right? Since when has urine tests caught any of the main contenders?

The humanplasma doping scandal is gathering pace and the current maglia rosa is heavily implicated in it. All the top contenders are blood doping as there is no recognised test to catch them. The lesser lights are probably cleaner these days as EPO can be detected and blood doping is expensive to operate, but anyone in the top ten to fifteen riders will on assisted in some way.

But seriously wtf do you know about these riders that the anti-doping agency doesn't? Do you have proof they are doping?

you need to read that interview with Kohl; it describes exactly what goes on that the doping agencies don't know about. There was no 'proof' in the mid nineties that riders were on EPO; then came the Festina affair, then came the EPO test...

^

You are still presuming someone is guilty of doping with no evidence ... and you can't do that ... you need evidence to be able to make the claim.

You are doing the "guilty until proven innocent" and we all know that doesn't work well.

^

You are still presuming someone is guilty of doping with no evidence ... and you can't do that ... you need evidence to be able to make the claim.

You're right. Just glad I didn't make any presumptions about, for example, Schumacher when he was achieving so far beyond his abilities. What a fool I would have felt having defended his honour when the obviously doped-to-the-eyeballs bastard turned out to be, er, doped to the eyeballs. And I still believe that Richard Virenque never failed a dope test because he had never taken dope.

I don't want Menchov to win. I don't give a fuck about him being 'assisted', but I think 'assisted' riders owe it to the fans to at least be combative.

In this respect, I get the impression that 'assistance' has little bearing on a rider's heroicism.

Di Luca over Menchov any day.

You are kidding right? Since when has urine tests caught any of the main contenders?

The humanplasma doping scandal is gathering pace and the current maglia rosa is heavily implicated in it. All the top contenders are blood doping as there is no recognised test to catch them. The lesser lights are probably cleaner these days as EPO can be detected and blood doping is expensive to operate, but anyone in the top ten to fifteen riders will on assisted in some way.

More like I assume that anyone competetive is getting away with what ever they can....ergo a level, if raised playing field. This whole doping scandal has been going on for so long that it's duller speculating about that than the cycling.

A great ride is a great ride.

More like I assume that anyone competetive is getting away with what ever they can....ergo a level, if raised playing field. This whole doping scandal has been going on for so long that it's duller speculating about that than the cycling.

A great ride is a great ride.

That level playing field argument is an utter fallacy.

Some of the teams don't have the money or the will to run a complex doping program. Some riders respond better to drugs. Some riders have access to drugs that aren't widely available. Some riders will take more risks with their health.

@lucas - most riders caught doping in the past ten years haven't been incriminated by tests but rather through the investigative work of the criminal justice system. What they are doing, dealing in black market drugs, is illegal in most countries. The UCI have, up until very recently, turned a blind eye to what was going on. It's farcical to suggest that evidence isn't there. It is, but no-one within the sport has the will or the stomach to prosecute.

The doping & cheating debate goes right to the heart of what you want the essence and value of sport to be.

Real life is shit. It's not fair. The playing field isn't level. Privileged c*nts get a massive headstart in life and then pass that unfair advantage on to their kids and onto their kids who are all c*nts. Why do good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people? That's life.

We want sport to be something different to real life, to have a different value system, or at least to be a bit more like how we'd like real life to be. We want it to be completely fair. We want the winners win purely on their own talent, endeavour and hard work with no outside assistance. We want our champions to be nice, decent and honourable people. We don't want them to be c*nts. We don't want it to be like real life.

Unfortunately all sports mirror real life. They always did; Charly Gaul only climbed well when the weather was shitty. Hot weather meant his body couldn't cope with all the speed he was popping; Anquetil thought anyone who didn't dope during the Tour de France was a moron; Merckx failed a number of drug tests, usually pulling a tearful 'Virenque' when he was caught. Coppi refused a drug test after he broke the hour record. No need to guess why.

Does this diminish what they achieved? Morally or ethically speaking, without a doubt. In terms of entertainment value or in pushing the boundaries of what can physically be achieved by a bloke on a bike when he's eyeballs out, perhaps not. It depends on your perspective.

I was stood on the roadside on the final climb to Madonna di San Luca in Bologna on Saturday. It was 114 degrees and the road was fucking steep, far steeper than the route book suggested. Regardless of whether there was CERA or not in their blood stream, you look in the eyes of every single rider that came past and they were all hurting. I respected each and every one of them for getting to the top.

The sporting utopia will never exist, and has never existed. Its professional sport. Enjoy the entertainment.

^+∞

Succinctly put.

The doping & cheating debate goes right to the heart of what you want the essence and value of sport to be.

Real life is shit. It's not fair. The playing field isn't level. Privileged c*nts get a massive headstart in life and then pass that unfair advantage on to their kids and onto their kids who are all c*nts. Why do good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people? That's life.

We want sport to be something different to real life, to have a different value system, or at least to be a bit more like how we'd like real life to be. We want it to be completely fair. We want the winners win purely on their own talent, endeavour and hard work with no outside assistance. We want our champions to be nice, decent and honourable people. We don't want them to be c*nts. We don't want it to be like real life.

Unfortunately all sports mirror real life. They always did; Charly Gaul only climbed well when the weather was shitty. Hot weather meant his body couldn't cope with all the speed he was popping; Anquetil thought anyone who didn't dope during the Tour de France was a moron; Merckx failed a number of drug tests, usually pulling a tearful 'Virenque' when he was caught. Coppi refused a drug test after he broke the hour record. No need to guess why.

Does this diminish what they achieved? Morally or ethically speaking, without a doubt. In terms of entertainment value or in pushing the boundaries of what can physically be achieved by a bloke on a bike when he's eyeballs out, perhaps not. It depends on your perspective.

I was stood on the roadside on the final climb to Madonna di San Luca in Bologna on Saturday. It was 114 degrees and the road was fucking steep, far steeper than the route book suggested. Regardless of whether there was CERA or not in their blood stream, you look in the eyes of every single rider that came past and they were all hurting. I respected each and every one of them for getting to the top.

The sporting utopia will never exist, and has never existed. Its professional sport. Enjoy the entertainment.

plus another one. I like cycling, drugs and all.

You're right. Just glad I didn't make any presumptions about, for example, Schumacher when he was achieving so far beyond his abilities. What a fool I would have felt having defended his honour when the obviously doped-to-the-eyeballs bastard turned out to be, er, doped to the eyeballs. And I still believe that Richard Virenque never failed a dope test because he had never taken dope.

It too late at night for me to have a fully working sarcasm filter, so I assuming you are being sarcastic, and this would be my answer ....

Suspicion and proof are two very different things.

It is understandable to investigate someone if there is suspicion, but not to label them guilty without any proof. If there is proof someone has cheated throw the book at them, that is fair enough but not before.

Don't really see why you may disagree with this.

It too late at night for me to have a fully working sarcasm filter, so I assuming you are being sarcastic, and this would be my answer ....

Suspicion and proof are two very different things.

It is understandable to investigate someone if there is suspicion, but not to label them guilty without any proof. If there is proof someone has cheated throw the book at them, that is fair enough but not before.

Don't really see why you may disagree with this.

but in the recent past nothing was done about it, a few scapegoats like pantani but still it went on, cover-ups long winded legal processes, different countries laws, pressure from sponsors, the weakness of the UCI all contributed to a situation for doping to continue. which is why there are riders competing today who are dopers but were only 99% caught so got away with it. armstrong being a good example.

The doping & cheating debate goes right to the heart of what you want the essence and value of sport to be.

Real life is shit. It's not fair. The playing field isn't level. Privileged c*nts get a massive headstart in life and then pass that unfair advantage on to their kids and onto their kids who are all c*nts. Why do good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people? That's life.

We want sport to be something different to real life, to have a different value system, or at least to be a bit more like how we'd like real life to be. We want it to be completely fair. We want the winners win purely on their own talent, endeavour and hard work with no outside assistance. We want our champions to be nice, decent and honourable people. We don't want them to be c*nts. We don't want it to be like real life.

Unfortunately all sports mirror real life. They always did; Charly Gaul only climbed well when the weather was shitty. Hot weather meant his body couldn't cope with all the speed he was popping; Anquetil thought anyone who didn't dope during the Tour de France was a moron; Merckx failed a number of drug tests, usually pulling a tearful 'Virenque' when he was caught. Coppi refused a drug test after he broke the hour record. No need to guess why.

Does this diminish what they achieved? Morally or ethically speaking, without a doubt. In terms of entertainment value or in pushing the boundaries of what can physically be achieved by a bloke on a bike when he's eyeballs out, perhaps not. It depends on your perspective.

I was stood on the roadside on the final climb to Madonna di San Luca in Bologna on Saturday. It was 114 degrees and the road was fucking steep, far steeper than the route book suggested. Regardless of whether there was CERA or not in their blood stream, you look in the eyes of every single rider that came past and they were all hurting. I respected each and every one of them for getting to the top.

The sporting utopia will never exist, and has never existed. Its professional sport. Enjoy the entertainment.

Very nicely put and, on the whole, I agree with what you say.

My main objection is to compare the drug taking in the era of Coppi, Anquetil and Merckx with the drug taking of the past 20 years. EPO and other blood doping techniques mean that the cream no longer rises to the top, instead you have average riders, such as Riis or Landis, winning the biggest events, mainly because they've taken the most risk in terms of drug dosage rather than talent and effort.

A sport only has credibility if any contest is perceived to be fair, i.e. that the strongest or smartest participant wins. The sport of professional cycling is losing that credibility and runs the risk of becoming pure entertainment, like the WWF. I don't want that to happen as it is a unique and beautiful sport.

wiganwill: Do you have a link to Kohl's interview? CN's search is being FAIL.

Drug taking has always rewarded the risk takers regardless of the era or drug. The palmares of our own Tom "If it takes 10 to kill you, take 9" Simpson shows that. Compare it with that of Vin Denson who rode on bread and water. The perception is that Simpson was the 'cream' compared to Vin, and to be fair Vin would probably say so himself, but you just can't know for sure.

I've never quite understood the perception that the playing field in the sixties was somehow more level because the effect of speed is different to that of EPO. One rider might have taken no pills, one rider three, another five, another 9. Some riders may have bought the best speed money can buy (as did Simpson according to contemporary reports) others cheap and poor quality.

Cheating is cheating and its difficult to make distinctions because of the era. Who know's what talent fell by the wayside back in the day because they didn't want to get involved or couldn't afford to get involved with the drug taking. We can't be sure that the cream rose to the top back then, in the same way that we can't be sure it hasn't during the EPO era.

For me Riis and Landis occupy the same space as a Roger Pingeon or Lucien Aimar from the sixties. Every era has its 'average' champions. They occupy the space between great champions and its always been that way. Whatever you say about Riis and Landis, both had an immense capability and appetite for hard work and suffering, even when they were domestiques.

Cycling has never been fair or clean and it never will. It can be 'cleaner' or the 'cleanest' sport but it will never be clean.

I know what you mean about WWE, but unfortunately cycling is not alone and all sport is heading that way - its the sad fact of selling out to the cash and in real life its inevitable. Last night's Champions League final is case in point; one team built on massive debt, financial cheating if you want, the other team initially heavily implicated in Operacion Puerto. All forgotten in the corporate and media spectacle.