Doping

Better to be realistic than optimistic this point.

We can be both - realistic that the peloton still contains plenty of people with undisclosed dark pasts, optimistic that in a decade's time there will be a very small number who are, or have ever been, doped.

realistically optimistic?

cautiously optimistic? :)

as I said upthread:

The best that you can really hope for is that the sport will be clean in 5-10 years.

I don't keep up with these threads much anymore, but... Wait, did people really think Ryder was squeaky clean? Do you think the peloton did? Omerta? Wtf are you guys on about?

Even I, a reluctant fanboy, was questioning his past in 2010 (I even asked Andy about it, and he was pretty clear that he felt he was clean then, but wouldn't be willing to take a stance regarding his US Postal days). If a knowledgeable gentleman like AndyP, and a total idiot like me, were both skeptical, wtf were you guys doing? Is it simply because he didn't stand up in 2008 (or earlier) and take a punch in the face before anyone else was? When many were (and it would seem, still are) doping? Or should he have done it once he started performing well (presumably) clean? Because that's what we as fans want - riders who are winning great races, or even performing well, while clean, to say: "Fuck it, I did dope everyone - take this away."

Well we're lucky to have you about.

It's less the fact he doped and more the manner of it coming out, and Vaughters' subsequent duck-and-run reaction to it. I've listened to Vaughters a lot, I had a lot of respect for him and quite frankly what I'm seeing now is spin, is a PR exercise and suddenly I'm questioning the solidity of his team's anti-doping stance, considering Ryder's extensive doping and his win in the Giro last year. Did he do it clean? I seriously doubt it.

And the anecdote I cited, which Dan sneered at, was Vaughters riding for Credit Agricole. His team manager told him not to dope, even refused to let him to feign a knee injury to get a TUE so hge could have a cortisone injection for a wasp sting, instead let him retire from the TdF. And after, despite having a contract for the next year, despite the manager not wanting him to dope, because of the 'beads of sweat' on his manager's brow, he doped. Again. Read the interview I linked to, read the spin Vaughters puts on his doping at Credit Agricole and then think about the situation of Ryder at Garmin. Why should we assume that Ryder is clean now, that he stopped doping in 2003, that he only did it briefly?

Just like every rider who gets busted only tries it once.

So fuck it, yes Ryder should have fessed up, Vaughters should have been open about it, Ryder should have served a ban when he did, rather than getting fingered by Rasmussen and then all this spin to try to lessen the impact of the revelations.

Basically its made me doubt the whole philosophy of Garmin, which was a team I liked and respected. And the knock on from that is it makes me doubt the new era of clean cycling we're supposed to swallow.

So maybe that explains the hand-wringing, sorry it bothers you so much Dan. Maybe you should engage in a debate rather than taking your usual patronising potshots from the sidelines. It's not the first time is it, in this thread or others. For the record it's not pre-planned but a genuine and personal, subjective reaction to the situation. Opinions so they say, are like arseholes: I have one and have given it, at the moment you're just being one.

Well we're lucky to have you about.

It's less the fact he doped and more the manner of it coming out, and Vaughters' subsequent duck-and-run reaction to it. I've listened to Vaughters a lot, I had a lot of respect for him and quite frankly what I'm seeing now is spin, is a PR exercise and suddenly I'm questioning the solidity of his team's anti-doping stance, considering Ryder's extensive doping and his win in the Giro last year. Did he do it clean? I seriously doubt it.

And the anecdote I cited, which Dan sneered at, was Vaughters riding for Credit Agricole. His team manager told him not to dope, even refused to let him to feign a knee injury to get a TUE so hge could have a cortisone injection for a wasp sting, instead let him retire from the TdF. And after, despite having a contract for the next year, despite the manager not wanting him to dope, because of the 'beads of sweat' on his manager's brow, he doped. Again. Read the interview I linked to, read the spin Vaughters puts on his doping at Credit Agricole and then think about the situation of Ryder at Garmin. Why should we assume that Ryder is clean now, that he stopped doping in 2003, that he only did it briefly?

Just like every rider who gets busted only tries it once.

So fuck it, yes Ryder should have fessed up, Vaughters should have been open about it, Ryder should have served a ban when he did, rather than getting fingered by Rasmussen and then all this spin to try to lessen the impact of the revelations.

Basically its made me doubt the whole philosophy of Garmin, which was a team I liked and respected. And the knock on from that is it makes me doubt the new era of clean cycling we're supposed to swallow.

So maybe that explains the hand-wringing, sorry it bothers you so much Dan. Maybe you should engage in a debate rather than taking your usual patronising potshots from the sidelines. It's not the first time is it, in this thread or others. For the record it's not pre-planned but a genuine and personal, subjective reaction to the situation. Opinions so they say, are like arseholes: I have one and have given it, at the moment you're just being one.

We're lucky we have you here.

Your position is that those who were caught and come back are fine. You realize that they probably would never have said anything had they not been caught? The entire anti-doping stance taken by those like Millar is premised on the actions of others. It was not a decision he made - it was a reality he had to live. But nonetheless, because he was caught, his results in the last few years are not questionable? It doesn't make sense to me.

We're lucky we have you here.

Your position is that those who were caught and come back are fine. You realize that they probably would never have said anything had they not been caught? The entire anti-doping stance taken by those like Millar is premised on the actions of others. It was not a decision he made - it was a reality he had to live. But nonetheless, because he was caught, his results in the last few years are not questionable? It doesn't make sense to me.

Wow you just said back to me what I said to you. Solid work.

Solid work also with that strawman misrepresentation of what I actually said, I haven't even mentioned Millar.

But sticking with the simple theme of your intepretation, my position is that cheats should be punished. If they cheat again then punish them again. Weird position to take I suppose.

Wow you just said back to me what I said to you. Solid work.

What Robert Talisse would call the incredulous restatement of the interlocutors statement. I was trying to point out how knobbish it sounded.

Solid work also with that strawman misrepresentation of what I actually said, I haven't even mentioned Millar.

No strawmen, my friend:

This. I was a believer in Vaughters and the Garmin ethic, but Ryder's case strikes me as a continuation of omerta. I don't mind censured riders like Millar coming back into the peloton and (hopefully) riding clean but I don't like riders that management and even ADAs know has doped continuing to ride, earn a living and win races despite having cheated massively in the past and gotten away with it. A team with Garmin's stated aims should have admitted his doping long before and done some sort of penance for it, like a voluntary break from the sport.

But sticking with the simple theme of your intepretation, my position is that cheats should be punished. If they cheat again then punish them again. Weird position to take I suppose.

No one disagrees with you that cheats should be punished. But your position seems to be those that cheated in the past, but were not punished because they were not caught, should be given something more severe (I believe you mentioned something along the lines of cock-punching).

What Robert Talisse would call the incredulous restatement of the interlocutors statement. I was trying to point out how knobbish it sounded.

No strawmen, my friend:

No one disagrees with you that cheats should be punished. But your position seems to be those that cheated in the past, but were not punished because they were not caught, should be given something more severe (I believe you mentioned something along the lines of cock-punching).

Oh ok I didn't realise you would take the cock punching literally. My bad, I'll be careful not to exaggerate anything for comedy or other reasons in the future.

Sorry but you do present a strawman. That's a highly selective intepretation of what I am saying. While I did mention Millar in a previous post (not in the one you quoted mind) it doesn't mean I think dopers are fine once they return from a ban. In fact There are very few I have any time for even after they return from a personal point of view. I don't object to them being part of the sport though.

And the actual punishment I suggested for Ryder was taking a voluntary year out of the sport, that would be some sort of penance for the advantage he has gained, the career he has built and monies he has earnt on the back of cheating. I never called for him to be hounded out of the sport, and the cock punching and spending an evening at Hippy's was a joke. No-one would suggest the latter seriously, nobody deserves that, no matter they've done.

So basically what you want Jimmy, is Hesjedal's head on a plate? That he should admit to doping which is inside the statute of limitations so he can be punished, irrespective of whether he doped in this period or not? (He has obviously said he hasn't, hence why the anti-doping authorities in Canada haven't sanctioned him).

And because Vaughters doped, we shouldn't believe him now? Even though you did before this minor affair?

Balls - I just wrote an epic post and my stupid phone deleted it. Oh well.

I want someone who cheated to win to face some sort of censure, it fairly simple. 'Head on a plate' is an overstatement, I would like someone who doped to win face some sort of punishment for it. I didn't realise that was such a controversial position.

As for Vaughters, I feel a personal letdown by the way he has reacted to this, makes me look closer at his words and see them in a different way.

Basically you want the WADA code to remove the statute of limitations.

Basically you want the WADA code to remove the statute of limitations.

Aagain that's a simplification and a bit of a strawman. I'm not saying that really. What I am saying is I feel a team like Garmin should either be hiring dopers who have been censured or riders that are clean. If a rider has doped and got away with it, and Garmin know about it, they should be open about it and the revelations shouldn't come out in a warts-and-all book. If that meant Ryder was exposed to censure at an earlier date (he joined in 2008 didn't he?) and has to serve a ban then good, he has cheated and then been punished. Then he can put the past to rest and carry on racing clean. His admission now puts him conveniently outside the SoL so nothing can be done. As I said earlier, that sticks in the craw.

By knowing about Ryder's past doping and covering it up until they were forced to by Rasmussen's admissions, they have shaken my faith in the words coming from them and their stated anti-doping policy.

Short version:

Jimmy, there is no debate - not that we are part of anyway. Spilling your guts on a bike forum is not debating, it's venting.

The sad fact is, within the realms of professional sport - cycling has the weakest connection to and relationship with it's fans that I can think of - which I suppose explains why I think your dramatics are a bit pointless.
To illustrate my point: while top flight football clubs stopped caring about their fans decades ago - they still maintain a tokenistic relationship with them because a large portion of their income is still derived from ticket and shirt sales. Cycling teams have neither of these, all their funding comes directly from corporate sponsorship.

Sponsors are interested in exposure and tv time (and in a few cases alignment - but that is a separate issue). It's a well documented fact that the key demographics for European (which remains cycling's biggest marketplace) cycling coverage are house wives and the retired/elderly people. These people don't follow cycling for the riders, the technology or the gossip - they watch it for the scenery, spectacle and entertainment. They have no idea about the statute of limitations or who Ryder or JV are.

So in short, cycling has had no real reason to change - because the money comes from sources that only care about bad PR or brand association when something really bad goes down in the middle of a race (eg: Festina). Something that the UCI et al have been careful to avoid enabling.

It is possible to see a shift in the fan base of cycling to people who are more engaged in these issues in growing markets, but it's hard to see how that direct line of dialogue between fans and teams will turn into something solid because although some teams have anti-doping stances, there is minimal need for transparency (see Sky and Garmin). Plus, fans are still going to fork out for bikes, di2 and whatever fancy shit the bike industry is plugging that year, irrespective of any of this.

Doping has been inherent in professional cycling since it's inception, sport is a dirty business and it's going to take a long, long time for things to clean up. Though I do believe that will happen in my lifetime, I am also aware that a lot of fans who are older than I am have been hoping that same thing for the past 20 years - so I chose to be cautious with my optimism.

Obviously I am oversimplifying some of the above to illustrate my point - unfortunately I don't have all day to write my magnum opus, outlining every single sub-point.
However, I will set my stall out and say: I do not condone cheating, I still enjoy watching cycling, I think it is sensible to be pragmatic and accept the sport warts and all in it's current state.

Jimmy - for the record, I am absolutely not trying to troll you. Seriously.

(could that sound any more like I am? Oh dear)

Jimmy's word of the week: Censure

Whatever happened to "the jimmy"? I liked that guy.

The Jimmy - YouTube

^^^^^dan Repped!

So what you are saying Dan, if I read your post correctly, is that the audience for Tim Henman and cycling is identical?

I'm not sure I said that. I need to think about this.

There you go Dan, you get rep for reposting someone else's gag (unless you posted it originally in the pro race thread, in which case I apologise).

Well that was a good post, in the most part, and not just a snark at my posting style, which is a pleasant change. One thing I'd ask in the light of all that is why the selective pragmatism? They threw the book at Lance, ignored the SoL to get him, gave the people who helped him do it paltry bans for rolling over on him. Now I don't like Lance at all, but I do think his punishment is disproportionate. Everyone was doping at the time, he was just the most American about it. He's the tethered goat, the object of hate that everyone pours their bile into while the people that enabled it whistle while they sidle away and carry on as before.

Is that the pragmatism you're after? If pragmatism means simply drawing a line under the past, saying well it was bad then but it's better now, Vaughters and Brailsford said so, plus look, we got Lance, then I'm not sure I can sign up. I'll be interested to see which way Cookson runs with whole T&R process. I was also very interested to hear Cav's opinion on it: that even promised amnesty riders aren't going to be open about what they did to stop them damaging their legacy.

Your point about the demographics is interesting I was in France during the Tour and was surprised by the general apathy towards it. I'm not sure if you could say the same about the British market for example. But there are commercial pressures still even with the disconnect from fans you illustrated well. You are seeing the legacy of doping scandals in the shrinking of the women's calender and the disappearance of many of the smaller races in the mens, and the death of teams like Vaconsoleil and Euskatel. It's harder and harder to attract sponsorhsip money and when it is forthcoming I bet its well down on what it's used to be. Economic crisis perhaps, but also in large part to the continuing problems too. I think Michelle Cook's broadside at the men's sport and Hamilton was a very eloquent expression of how damaging doping is to the sport. Worth re-reading to get some perspective on things:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/jan/14/nicole-cooke-retirement-statement

Jeanson states, like all the others, she is "repentant" and all that is behind her. All these "born again" champions of a clean sport. They could be more accurately described as criminals who stole other's livelihoods who are only ever genuinely sorry about one thing — they are very sorry they were caught.

I think that was what I was getting at with Ryder. It may not be pragmatic but it's what my gut tells me.

And just for Piftko....censure

Will posted it in the PC thread. I don't think I got rep for that - check the ^^^^'s

Jimmy's word of the week: Censure

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/German_-_Censer_-_Walters_57699_-_View_A.jpg/505px-German_-_Censer_-_Walters_57699_-_View_A.jpg

Will posted it in the PC thread. I don't think I got rep for that - check the ^^^^'s

You're right, my bad, apologies

Jimmy, for someone who constantly complains about "Strawman" treatment - you really picked that up and ran with it!

I don't have time to write another long-ish post (take from that what you want - I've got work that needs doing) —*but I will say this: I didn't say anything about Armstrong. When I talk about pragmatism, I am not talking about from a sports administration POV, I mean pragmatism as a fan. I don't have an answer for making things better in the sport, but I do have one for allowing me to continue to enjoy watching it. A coping mechanism if you like (you can be sure as shit that all this venting on forums will not change cycling one jot).

The best way I can explain it in brief, is through analogy:
You start dating a girl (or guy) who is a known serial cheater, you love her and believe she can change (she tells you she can, she wants to) but she cheats on you.
Every time she cheats on you it breaks your heart, but you take her back and she says she won't do it again- it gets worse and worse each time and sometimes you find out that she's lied in the past about cheating too. You still love her, but it's breaking your heart and slowly changing you as a person.
In this instance, is it not better to cut your losses and chose to become friends with this girl? You can still enjoy her company and keep some of the relationship, but you can watch her indiscretions from afar, without being hurt by them.
In the future, she may change and you could be together - but until that time you aren't going to be hurt.